A Functional Analysis of Verbal Communicative Expressions in Kurdish and English
##semicolon##
https://doi.org/10.25212/lfu.qzj.3.4.27##semicolon##
Language and communication, set expressions, verbal communicative expressions, pragmatic functions.پوختە
In the quest to fill the gap in the research studies on set expressions, we started this research paper to show in particular that forms and functions of idiomatic expressions are not necessarily related. We want to know if our advanced students have the dynamic equivalent of their idioms or proverbs stored in their mental lexicon. Often, the students just translated the idioms even when they understand the meaning and function of the idiom. Accordingly, their knowledge of form and function in the set expressions is limited and they have to be largely exposed to these expressions in different contexts. This paper provides a detailed analysis of some of the most frequent verbal expressions in Kurdish and English from a pragmatic perspective into more complex patterns of interaction between the two. Furthermore, several expressions may also interact in the communicative processes that underlie the understanding of verbal expressions, making it necessary to approach many of our examples function in language use. We will explore the ways in which necessity and transparency may vary in the use of the expressions that arise from the same situation where the pragmatic function is the ultimate aim which learners are not aware of. Therefore, we put forward Kurdish verbal expressions with their equivalent English highlighting their functions in different contexts. This is done through distributing (20) Kurdish set expressions to (20) MA students in the Department of English/ College of Languages/ Salahaddin University- Hawler, to provide their equivalents in English. At the end of the procedure and the analysis of the results, it was conclude that in order to communicate effectively in the target language, learners of English need to develop pragmatic competence, which can be accomplished through pragmatic instruction in the classroom, particularly in the oral English class. With the raise of pragmatic awareness, it is expected that learners will acquire the competence and their target language performance will improve. Besides the teachers who are to explore and enhance materials form the textbook, material developers and curriculum designers should also include examples about pragmatic awareness in the books and curricula.
##plugins.generic.usageStats.downloads##
سەرچاوەکان
Bachman, L.F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: OUP.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. and Hartford, B. S. 1990. ‘Congruence in native and nonnative conversations: Status balance in the academic advising session’. 40, 4 (1990), 467–501.
Boers, F. and Demecheleer, M. (2001). ‘Measuring the input of cross- cultural differences on learners’ comprehension of Imagable idioms’. ELT Journal, 55 (3), 255- 262.
Belz, J. A. 2007. ‘The role of computer mediation in the instruction and development of L2 pragmatic competence’. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 27 (2007), 45.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (eds.), Language and Communication (pp. 2-25) London: Longman.
Conklin, K. and Schmitt, N. (2008). ‘Formulaic Sequences: Are they processed more quickly than non- formulaic language by native and non- native speakers’.Applied Linguistics, 29 (1), 72- 89.
Crystal, D. 2011. Dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Vol. 30. John Wiley & Sons.
Fernando, Ch. (1996). Idioms and Idiomaticity.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kasper, G. 1997. ‘Can pragmatic competence be taught’. NetWork 6 (1997), 105–119.
Kay, P. / Fillmore, C.J. (1999).‘Construction Grammar and Linguistic Generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y? Construction’. Language 75: 1-33.
Lewis, M. (1993). ‘The lexical approach: The state of ELT and away forward’. HoveLTP.
Li, H. Z. 1999. ‘Grounding and information communication in intercultural and intracultural dyadic discourse’. Discourse Processes 28, 3 (1999), 195–215.
Moon, R. (1992). ‘Textual Aspects of Fixed Expressions in Learners’ Dictionary’. In Arnold, P. J. L. and H. Bejoint (eds.) Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics. London: Macmillian.
Rose, K. R., & Kasper G. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Savignon, S. J. (1972). Communicative Competence: An Experiment in ForeignLanguage Teaching. Philadelphia: The Centre for Curriculum Development, Inc. ……………….. (1983). Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. Texts and Contexts in Second Language Learning. Reading, Massachusetts at all: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Schauer, G., 2006. ‘Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: contrast and development’. Language Learning 56(2), 269–317.
Stern, H. H. (1986). Fundamental Concepts of Lanugage Teaching. Oxford: OUP.
Taylor, D.S. (1988). ‘The meaning and use of the term competence in linguistics and applied linguistics’. Applied Linguistics, 9, 148-169.
Verstraven, L. (1992). ‘Fixed Phrases in Monolingual Learners’ Dictionary’. . In
Arnold, P. J. L. and H. Bejoint (eds.) Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics. London: Macmillian.
Widdowson, H. G. (1983). Learning Purpose and Language Use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
##submission.downloads##
بڵاو کرایەوە
چۆنییەتی بەکارهێنانی سەرچاوە
ژمارە
بەش
##submission.license##
##submission.copyrightStatement##
##submission.license.cc.by-nc-sa4.footer##Qalaai Zanist Journal allows the author to retain the copyright in their articles. Articles are instead made available under a Creative Commons license to allow others to freely access, copy and use research provided the author is correctly attributed.
Creative Commons is a licensing scheme that allows authors to license their work so that others may re-use it without having to contact them for permission
