عبدالرضا لونی

The question of whether, and to what extent, different measures of pragmatic knowledge mirror students' capabilities as represented in their authentic application of language has been an important consideration in the vicinity of interlanguage pragmatics. To examine the production of politeness markers, as defined by House and Kasper's (1981) seminal work, this study compared and contrasted language learners' performance across four different measures of pragmatic competence: Written Discourse Completion Test, Oral Discourse Completion Test, Role-play, and Natural Methodology in an EFL setting. Furthermore, the requests made by 27 learners in natural situations and by means of WDCT, ODCT, and Role-play with similar characteristics were analyzed. The results revealed that hesitators enjoyed high prevalence in Natural Methodology and consultative devices and scope-stators were more popular in the WDCT, ODCT, and Role-play suggesting, regardless of some minor similarities, significant disparities between the three conventional data-gathering techniques and Natural methodology. The investigation exhibits that Natural Methodology might not necessarily be the ideal pragmatic measure to truly represent all politeness markers. WDCT, ODCT, and Role-Play could be more appropriate to draw on learners' explicit/declarative knowledge, though Natural methodology might be more advantageous to capitalize on learners' automated/procedural knowledge.

The field of Interlanguage pragmatics has always reflected on its methodology, and the validity of the collected data through various data collection methods and whether they approximate the authentic data have always been serious concerns in the field. Drawing upon Schauer’s (2009) taxonomy of request speech act and its internal and external modification devices, the present study was an attempt to investigate the effects of enhancing DCTs. To this end, the requests of 30 EFL students produced by non-modified and modified DCTs were compared with their authentic requests recorded in the classroom institutional context. The findings revealed that modified WDCT and ODCT approximated Natural methodology in terms of request head act and internal modification devices but not external modifiers. To investigate the deeper layers of respondents' thoughts toward DCTs, unstructured interviews were also conducted. Although artificiality of the DCTs and their test-like nature in general were regarded as the weak points of the DCTs by the interviewees, they asserted that the modified DCTs improved their self-confidence and understanding of the scenarios. The findings cautiously suggest that modified version of DCTs enjoy the positive features of both non-modified DCTs, tapping pragmalinguistic and metapragmatic knowledge of respondents, and partly Natural methodology, eliciting the respondents’ sociopragmatic knowledge.