Investigating Iranian Language Learners’ Use of Circumlocution for Culture-Specific Referents

Document Type: Research Article

Authors

1 Sama Technical and Vocational Training College, Islamic Azad University, Mahshahr Branch

2 Islamic Azad University, Khuzestan Science and Research Branch, Ahvaz

Abstract

This study investigated Iranian English language learners’ use of circumlocution for culture-specific referents. A discourse completion test (DCT) was designed in English and Persian, consisting of items dealing with Iranian culture-specific notions and distributed among 3 groups. The Persian language group received the Persian version, whereas the English language learners, divided into high and low, received the English version of the DCT. Data were analyzed according to Salazar’s (2006) categorization of circumlocution, namely description, function, superordination, location, and combination. Results revealed that the high group had a stronger tendency to use circumlocution, in general, and in terms of its categories of description, function, and combination, in particular, as compared to the low group. Furthermore, cross-linguistic analysis suggested signs of linguistic transfer with regard to circumlocution. Our findings revealed that it is not so much the familiarity of learners with cultural concepts as it is their knowledge of linguistic and communicative strategies that enables them to overcome communicative problems. Finally, this study points to the facilitative role of compensatory strategies, particularly circumlocution, as a tool to cope with communication breakdowns in an L2.

Keywords


Aliakbari, M., & KarimiAllvar, N. (2009). Communication strategies in written medium: The effect of language proficiency. Linguistik Online, 40, 1-13.

Asuncion, Z. S. (2010). Filipino college freshman students’ oral compensatory strategies. Philippine ESL Journal, 5, 2-21.

Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of second language use. USA: Blackwell Publishers.

Binahayeearong, T. (2009).Communication strategies: A study of students with high and low-proficiency in the M.3 English program at Attarkiah Islamiah School. Unpublishedmaster’s thesis, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai.

Bu, J. (2012). A study of relationships between L1 pragmatic transfer and L2 proficiency. English Language Teaching, 5(1), 15-27.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language learning and testing. Linguistics, 1, 1-47.

Chen, Y. F. (2006). Foreign language learning strategy training on circumlocution. JCLTA, 41(3), 1-18.

Ellis, R. (1987). Second language acquisition in context. London: Prentice Hall.

Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). Strategies in interlanguage communication. London: Longman.

Fernandez, L. (2008). Teaching culture: Is it possible to avoid pragmatic failure? Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 21, 11-24.

Karimnia, A., & Salehizadeh, Sh. (2007). Communication strategies: English language departments in Iran. Iranian Journal of Language Studies, 1(4), 287-300.

Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Studies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Liskin-Gasparro, J. E. (1996). Circumlocution, circumlocution strategies, and the ACTFL proficiency guidelines: An analysis of student discourse. Foreign Language Annals, 29, 30-317.

Llach, M. P. (2010). Lexical gap-filling mechanisms in foreign language writing. System, 38(4), 529- 538.

Lucas, T., & Katz, A. (1994).Reforming the debate: The roles of native language in English-only programs for language minority students. TESOL Quarterly, 28(3), 538-561.

Mei, A. (2009). Use of communication strategies by Chinese EFL learners. Foreign Language Annals, 30(2), 47-63.

Nakatani, Y. (2006). Developing an oral communication strategy inventory. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 151-168.

Nelson, G. L., Carson, J., Al-Batal, M., & El-Bakari, W. (2002). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Strategy use in Egyptian Arabic and American English refusals. Applied Linguistics, 23, 163-189.

Paribakht, T. (1985). Strategic competence and language proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 6, 46-132.

Poulisse, N. (1990). The use of compensatory strategies by Dutch learners of English. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris.

Robinson, P. (1989). Procedural vocabulary and language learning. Journal of Pragmatics, 13, 523-546.

Rose, K. (1992). Speech acts and questionnaires: The effect of hearer response. Journal of Pragmatics, 17, 49-62.

Rose, K. (1994). On the validity of discourse-completion tests in non-Western contexts. Applied Linguistics, 15, 1-14.

Salamone, A. M., & Marshal, F. (1997). How to avoid language breakdown? Circumlocution! Foreign Language Annals, 30(4), 473-484.

Salazar, P. (2006). The use of circumlocution in the foreign language context. PortaLingarum, 5, 7-15.

Savignon, S. J. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice: Texts and contexts in second language learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Schawer, S. (2009).The influence of curriculum diversification and ethnic culture on student cognitive functioning. Philosophical Papers and Reviews, 1(5), 74-83.

Tajeddin, Z., & Alemi, M. (2010). Less proficient vs. more proficient L2 learners' preferences for compensation strategies: L1-based, L2-based, and nonlinguistic. Linguistic and Literary Broad Research and Innovation, 1(2), 48-55.

Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreign talks, and repair in interlanguage. Language Learning, 30, 417-431.

Ting, S. H., & Phan, G. Y. L. (2008).Adjusting communication strategies to language proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 23(1), 55-74.

TOEFL actual tests administered in the past by ETC for structure and written expression. (2005). Shiraz: Hadaf.

Widdowson, H. G. (2002). Defining issues in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wongsawang, P. (2001). Culture-specific notions in L2 communication strategies. Second Langrage Studies, 19(2), 111-135.