Conversational Explicature: Its Recognition and Production by University Students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31185/lark.Vol2.Iss50.3152Keywords:
Key Words: Conversational explicature, recognition, production.Abstract
Conversational explicature is considered as one of the essential ways of communication. It refers to the way in which everything is made explicit and obvious in the speech and nothing is left to the imagination. However, the purpose of this study is to determine how conversational explicature is recognised and produced by university students. The data is collected using two different forms of multiple-choice discourse completion tasks, and the results are analysed using a method of quantitative analysis. 100 male and female students from Wasit University's English department at College of Education for Humanities made up the study's sample. The test has been carried out on March 30, 2022. It has been found that university students are able to recognise and produce conversational explicature so the study's objectives are accomplished. University students exhibit a discernible aptitude for recognising and creating conversational explicature, according to the study's findings.
References
Braine, G. (1999). Non-native educators in English language teaching.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.
Braine, G. (2010). Non-native speaker English teacher. research, pedagogy,
and professional growth. Routledge: Madison Avenue, New York.
Brown, H. (2004). Language assessment principles and classroom practices.
London: Pearson Edition Print.
Burns, A and Joyce, H. (1997). Focus on speaking. Sydney: National centre for
English Language Teaching and Research.
Bussmann, H. (Ed.). (2006). Routledge dictionary of language and linguistics,
(G. Trauth and K. Kazzazi, Trans). London & New York: Routledge.
Cameron,L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge
Language Teaching Library. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: the pragmatics of explicit
communication. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Carston, R. (2010). Explicit communication and free pragmatic enrichment. In:
B. Soria and E. Romero (Eds.), Explicit communication: Robyn Carston’s
pragmatics (pp. 217- 287). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Crystal, D. (2008). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Oxford: Wiley.
Blackwell Publication.
Fromkin, V. (1971). Non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Language
, 47, 27-52.
Gaskell, M. and Marslen-Wilson, W. (1997). Integrating form and meaning: a
Distributed model of speech perception. Language and Cognitive
Processesm1997, 12, 613-656.
Gaskell, M. and Marslen-Wilson, W. (1998). Mechanisms of phonological
inference in speech perception. Journal of experimental psychology: Human
Perception Performance 1998, 24, 380-396.
Grice, p. (1975). Logic and conversation. Syntax and semantics. New York:
Academic.
Harley, A. (2014). The psychology of language: from data to theory. London.
Taylor and Francis. Psychology Press. Press.
Jianda, L. (2006). Assessing EFL learners’ interlanguage pragmatic knowledge:
Implication for testers and teachers. Reflections on English Language
Teaching 2006, 5, 1-22.
Katz, J. (1977). Propositional structure and illocutionary force: a study of the
Contribution of sentence meaning to speech act. Hassocks, Sussex:
Harvester Press.
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking. From intention to articulation. Cambridge: M.I.T.
Press.
Marslen-Wilson, W. and Gaskell, M. (2002). Leading up the lexical garden-
path: Segmentation and ambiguity in spoken word recognition. Journal of
experimental psychology: Human Perception Performance 2002, 28, 218–
Medgyes, P. (2001). When the teacher is a non-native speaker. in M. Celce-
Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 429–
. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Norris, D. (1994). Shortlist: a connectionist model of continuous speech
recognition. Cognition 1994, 52, 189-234.
Searle, J. (1978). Literal meaning. Erkenntnis 1978, 13, 207-224.
Searle, J. (1980).The background of meaning.in Searle, J. Kiefer, F. and M.
Bierwisch, (Eds.). Speech act theory and pragmatics (p. 233-246).
Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel Publishing Company.
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance communication and cognition.
Oxford. Blackwell.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (2002). Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading.
Mind and Language 2002, (1/2), 3–23.
Sperber, D and Wilson, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In Horn and Ward (Ed.),
The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607-632). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Traxler, M. and Gernsbacher, M. (2006). Handbook of psycholinguistics
Burlington, MA: Academic Press.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Asst. Prof. Faris Kadhim AL-Attabi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
