ABSTRACT
A Contrastive Study of Elicitation
Questions in English and
Persian Modern Plays
By
Janin Jafari
Questioning is one of the important skills in language learning. Moreover, understanding the discourse function of questions will help learners master the uses of questions. The purpose of the present study was to verify the applicability of Tsui’s (1995) model of conversational analysis, specifically to the different subclasses of ‘Elicitation questions’ (i.e., inform, agree, commit, repeat and clarify) in English and Persian. This study also intended to contrast the subcategories of ‘Elicitation questions’ in English and Persian modern plays. To achieve the objectives, three modern English plays and three modern Persian plays were selected. In order to determine the frequency of each subcategory of ‘Elicitation questions’ of each language 361 instances from the English plays and 337 instances from the Persian plays were analyzed and compared. A Chi-square test was used to determine whether the difference was statistically significant.
The results indicated that Tsui’s characterization of the elicitation regardless of its syntactic form is feasible. Furthermore, Tsui’s classification of ‘Elicitation questions’ into five subcategories in terms of discourse functions of the utterances is applicable. The findings also showed that first, both English and Persian texts used more Elicit: Inform and Elicit: Clarify; second, English and Persian texts used less Elicit:
Commit and Elicit: Repeat respectively; third, Persian texts used Elicit:
Agree twice more than those of English texts. The stated differences were shown to be statistically significant.
Table of Contents
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Preliminaries
1.2. Objectives of the Study
1.3. Significance of the Study
1.4. Scope of the Study
1.5. Outline of the Study
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction
2.2. Pragmatics
2.2.1. Definition
2.2.2. Speech Acts
2.2.3. Speech Events
2.3. Description of Conversation
2.3.1. Approaches to the Description of Conversation
2.3.1. Discourse Analysis
2.3.2.1. Characterization of Discourse
2.3.2.2. Text
2.3.2.3. Context
2.3.3. Conversational Analysis
2.3.3.1. Conversational Descriptive Units
2.3.3.1.1. Turn, Pair, Sequence
2.3.3.1.2. Act, Move, Exchange
2.3.3.2. Conversational Structure
2.3.3.2.1 Adjacency Pair
2.3.3.2.2. Three-part Exchange
2.3.3.2.3. Move Structure
2.3.3.3. Conversational Functions
2.3.3.3.1. Structural Location
2.3.3.3.2. Prospective Classification
2.3.3.3.3. Retrospective Classification
2.3.3.3.4. Conversational Process
2.4. Question
2.4.1. Quirk, et al.’s Classification of Questions
2.4.2. Questions as Illocutionary Acts
2.4.3. Questions as Requests
2.4.4. Tsui’s Classification of Questions
2.4.4.1. Responses to Elicitations
2.4.4.2. Follow-up Acts
2.5. Some Related Studies
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Definition of Key Terms
3.3. The Corpus
3.4. Analysis of the Data
3.5. Processing and Presentation of the Results
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Introduction
4.2. Results
4.3. Discussion
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
5.1. Introduction
5.2. Summary
5.3. Conclusions
5.4. Theoretical and Pedagogical Implications
5.5. Suggestions for Further Research
Research Objectives and Key Topics
This thesis investigates the discourse functions of elicitation questions by verifying the applicability of Tsui's (1995) model within modern English and Persian plays. The study aims to contrast how different subcategories of elicitation questions are utilized and distributed in both languages to understand their role in conversational interaction.
- Contrastive analysis of elicitation question subcategories (inform, agree, commit, repeat, clarify).
- Application of Tsui's (1995) conversational analysis model to modern plays.
- Frequency and distribution analysis of questions in English and Persian literary texts.
- Investigation of the pedagogical and theoretical implications of question usage in discourse.
- Statistical significance testing (Chi-square) of question types across languages.
Excerpt from the Book
2.3.3.3.3. Retrospective Classification
Conversation is the result of the cooperation of at least two participants. One produces an initiating utterance in order to solicit a specific response from the other, while the other one may wittingly or unwittingly give an unexpected response. Due to this fact, the discourse value of the initiating utterance may differ from what the speaker has actually intended. Considering the following example, Tsui (1995: 18) demonstrates:
A: Would you mind taking the dust rag and dust around?
B: No. (does not move)
Although A’s utterance intends to make a request which expects B to perform a non-verbal action, i.e. dusting the room, B deliberately reclassifies A’s utterance as an elicitation which demands only a verbal response. This type of reclassification, which is retrospective in nature, is either used as a conversational strategy or intended to turn out conversational implicature.
Summary of Chapters
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION: This chapter introduces the importance of questioning in language learning and provides the background for the research on conversational discourse and elicitation.
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW: This chapter surveys theories on pragmatics, speech acts, conversational structure, and the classification of questions according to various researchers.
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY: This section defines the key terms, describes the corpus of modern English and Persian plays, and details the data analysis and processing procedures.
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: This chapter presents the statistical results of the question frequency analysis in English and Persian and discusses the findings.
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: This final chapter summarizes the study, draws conclusions based on the findings, and provides pedagogical implications for language instruction.
Key Words
Elicitation questions, Discourse analysis, Conversational analysis, Pragmatics, Tsui’s model, Modern plays, English, Persian, Contrastive study, Speech acts, Frequency analysis, Pedagogy, Interactional discourse, Communicative competence, Language learning.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this thesis?
The thesis focuses on a contrastive study of 'Elicitation questions' in modern English and Persian plays, analyzing how these questions function within discourse based on Tsui's (1995) model.
What are the central thematic fields covered in this work?
The work covers pragmatics, conversational analysis, the classification of questions as illocutionary acts, and the structural organization of dialogue in literary genres.
What is the main research question of this study?
The study primarily seeks to verify the applicability and universality of Tsui's (1995) model of conversational structure to both English and Persian, while determining the frequency of different elicitation subcategories in both languages.
Which scientific methods were applied?
The research uses a contrastive corpus-based approach, analyzing 361 English and 337 Persian instances of elicitation. Statistical analysis includes Chi-square tests to determine the significance of differences between question types.
What does the main body of the work treat?
The main body examines literature on discourse analysis, defines key terms like 'elicit: inform' or 'elicit: commit', and provides a detailed analysis of the gathered data from specific modern plays.
Which keywords characterize the research?
Key terms include Elicitation questions, Discourse analysis, Pragmatics, Conversational structure, and Contrastive study.
Why are modern plays used as the primary corpus for this study?
The author chose modern plays because the language used in them is spontaneous and closely mirrors natural, everyday conversations, making them ideal for conversational analysis.
How do 'Elicit: Inform' and 'Elicit: Clarify' compare across languages in this study?
The study found that both English and Persian texts used these two subcategories most frequently, with 'Elicit: Inform' being the highest in both, though there were statistically significant variations in the frequency of other types like 'Elicit: Agree' and 'Elicit: Repeat'.
What conclusion does the author draw regarding follow-up acts?
The author concludes that follow-up moves are often absent in written texts or scenarios where participants know each other very well, and that such acts may also be realized non-verbally.
What pedagogical suggestion does the author make?
The author suggests that teachers and curriculum designers should incorporate function-based models of elicitation into language courses to help learners move beyond using simple requestive forms and improve their communicative competence.
- Citar trabajo
- Janin Jafari (Autor), 2013, A Contrastive Study of Elicitation Questions in English and Persian Modern Plays, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/233519
