Abstract:

The goal of this paper is to discuss several methods of data collection for research in interlanguage pragmatics. The paper was motivated by the process of data collection for the project “The role of explicit instruction in developing pragmatic competence in learning English and German as foreign languages” carried out at Goce Delcev University, Stip, Republic of Macedonia. In the initial stage of the project students’ pragmatic competence was measured on the basis of their realization of the speech acts of requesting, apologizing and complaining in the language they were learning (English or German). The aim was to pinpoint learners’ failures in the speech act realization so that their performance could be improved. Data were collected by Discourse completion tests (DCTs) and role plays, supplemented by verbal reports. DCTs and role plays are considered the most common means for data collection in interlanguage pragmatics. The advantages of these instruments are that different variables can be controlled and that a considerable amount of data can be easily collected. However, their validity and reliability have often been investigated, evaluated and compared to naturalistic data (Bataller & Shively, 2011; Beebe & Cummings, 1995; Bou Franch & Lorenzo-Dus, 2008; Cohen, 2013; Félix-Brasdefer, 2010; Geluykens & Kraft, 2008; Kasper, 2008; Kasper, 1991; Rose, 1994; Yuan, 2001).

In this paper we examine the similarities and differences between the data collected through DCTs and role palys. In particular, we focus on the speech act of complaining and compare the speech act realization with respect to the use of speech act strategies, speech act modification and amount of talk elicited by DCTs and role plays. The research questions that we pose are as follows:
1. How is the speech act production in DCT responses different from the speech act production in role plays?
2. What are the differences due to?
3. How can we collect naturalistic data for interlanguage pragmatics?

In our paper we first review some studies on data collection instruments in interlanguage pragmatics. Then we describe our instruments, compare the results obtained by them and discuss the benefits of each instrument. In the end we explore some possibilities for collecting naturalistic data, such as use of language corpora and technology, naturalistic observation, inclusion of native speakers, and so on. In the course of the project described above, we became fully aware that “Independent of the research goals of any project, it is important that the researcher make constant attempts to refine the instrument and to consider the possibility of examining speech act data in naturalistic settings.” (Félix-Brasdefer, 2010)

Keywords:

Interlanguage pragmatics, complaints, DCT, role play, naturalistic data.