DECLARACION Y PAGO DEL IMPUESTO A LA RENTA

It is not always possible to collect naturalistic data on a particular speech act because it is time-consuming. In addition, a very large dataset would be required in order to obtain sufficient data on a particular speech act as there is no instruction or direction that guides what the participants say (Kasper 2000). Consequently, researchers such as Hassall (1997, in Hassall 2001), Tateyama (2001) and Trosborg (1995) have used oral tasks or role-plays to collect spoken data in L2 developmental pragmatic studies. The advantage of role-plays is that they are capable of producing a wide array of interactional conducts through the role specifications and can simulate authentic situations. The respondents are free to control the conversation if given an opportunity to interact with the interlocutor freely (Sasaki 1998).

Open role-plays can provide more naturalistic data and capture features similar to naturally occurring conversations such as turn-taking, sequencing and hesitations. The other advantage is that role-plays are easy to administer, allow for comparisons across dyads, and make it possible to control extra-linguistic variables such as power, status and gender (Golato 2003). Some researchers (e.g., Duan & Wannaruk 2008; Rintell & Mitchell 1989; Morrison & Holmes 2006) have compared the responses of closed oral (DCT) role-plays and written

Methodology

71

DCTs and examined the validity of role-plays in ILP. These researchers have found that speakers’ responses from open role-plays display similar features to natural conversations. For instance, Edmondson and House (1991) found that NNSs produced longer and more verbose utterances than NSs on DCTs but not in role-plays in general. Eisenstein and Bodman’s (1993) study compared the role of DCTs, open role-plays, and field notes of how NNSs and NSs expressed gratitude. They found all three types elicited the same words and expressions but differed in length and complexity. The authentic data provided the longest and most complex responses, followed by the role-plays data and the DCT data led to the shortest and least complex responses.

Similar to Sasaki (1998), Tsai (2007) compared the use of request devices and modality markers from apology speech act data collected from the two most popular speech act elicitation tasks, DCTs and role-plays. Twenty-four Chinese NSs and 40 Chinese AHLs participated in Tsai’s study where results showed that all tended to use direct expressions of apology, acknowledge responsibility, and offer repairs as their main devices in apology situations both on DCTs and role-plays. However, the frequencies and distributions of apology devices and modalities differed. Role-plays elicited overall more apology devices and modalities than DCTs. The learners employed a narrower range of devices and modalities on DCT. Because of the feeling of insecurity in face-to-face encounters (Rintell & Mitchell 1989), AHLs exhibited more ‘play it safe’ devices than NSs (Færch & Kasper 1989; Trosborg 1987) by giving more direct apologies across four situations.

In this study, participants were asked to take part in open role-plays so the data could indicate not only how participants use request devices, but also how they lead up to and follow a request. Therefore, to ensure a good basis for comparison between the data obtained from the DCTs and the role-plays, the role-plays used in this study were closely related to situations participants were likely to encounter in their daily life. Like the oral EDCTs, participants were given three situations of maximum (unequal status) and middle distance (status equal friends). One of the maximum social distance interactions (unequal status) involved a situation where participants were of high status (Professor requesting for work earlier than scheduled) and lower status than the interlocutor (participant as a junior at school telling a senior student to return money s/he had borrowed). The middle distance group involved a situation where one of the participants had to borrow his/her only umbrella when it was raining outside (see Appendix VII for the role-plays used in this study).

Methodology

72

The situations used in this study required participants to negotiate the borrowing or lending of money, notes, books, assignments or a car. To reduce practice effects in the post-tests, social distance between the roles remained the same but names and scenarios were changed slightly. Here is an example of a role-play scenario with the instructions presented to the students. This scenario is about raining outside and aims to enable learners to elicit a request with her friend.

You just paid for your friends’ coffee. It’s raining very heavily outside.

All of your friends have umbrellas except for you.

No one has offered to lend you an umbrella. Will you ask one of your friends to lend you an umbrella?

Most participants only used their preparation time to work out the theme and what they were likely to say and then rehearsed instead of writing down the whole dialogue. They began the role-play when they felt comfortable to start. The participants enjoyed performing in the relo- play. All role-plays were audio-recorded and video-taped.

The AHLs performed in a role-play during class time in the first week of the course. Both the SALs and NSs had pre-arranged a time to meet to perform in a role-play. Each group had three or four people who were given a situation which they were asked to solve in a conversation between all participants. They were given as much time as they required to work through the scenario, assign a role to each group member and work out the general theme, not necessarily the exact wording of the dialogue.

4.4.2.4 Interviews

Each interview began with an informal interaction to find out the students’ well-being, followed by a list of questions focusing on the participants’ experiences and attitudes towards learning English (Appendix VIII). Interviews ended with the oral EDCTs. Each interview lasted about 30 minutes. Again, the participants were asked to answer the questions to the best of their knowledge as there were no right or wrong answers. All questionnaires were collected during the interview.

Methodology

73

At the beginning of the interviews, the researcher’s personal experiences of living and studying in Hong Kong and Australia were shared with learners. Items in the LCP, especially ratings on self-rated proficiency and confidence on reading, writing, speaking, listening, communicating, vocabulary (academic and social needs), and cultural knowledge were then discussed. Learners were asked to reflect on what they were good and not so good at in English and what they planned to do to improve on their weaknesses while they were in Australia. The reasons learners improved or did not improve on certain items were discussed along with what they could do in the post-tests that they could not do previously. Learners were also given feedback on their oral English, mostly focusing on fluency, pronunciation and grammar.