Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
http://cercll.arizona.edu
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 49 Verse 13 of the Quran reads: People, We created you all from a single man and a
single woman, and made you into races and tribes so that you should get to know one
another People have been in contact with each other throughout history, but globalization
has resulted in increased contact among people from different cultures today. It is the
globalization in the 20th century that led scholars to coin terms such as global citizen, global
competence and intercultural competence. Fantini (2009) defines intercultural competence as
"complex abilities that are required to perform effectively and appropriately when interacting with
others who are linguistically and culturally different from oneself" (p. 458). In an attempt to
clarify the multitude of conceptions and definitions of intercultural competence, Deardorff (2004,
2006) conducted a study with participating scholars and administrators at universities, which
she refers to as "the first study to document consensus" (Deardorff, 2011, p. 66). She found in
her study that intercultural scholars agree on a definition similar to Fantini's definition. The
definition in her study is "the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately in intercultural
situations based on ones intercultural knowledge, skills, and attitudes" (Deardorff, 2006, p. 2478).
In a highly cited model, Byram (1997) proposes that intercultural (communicative) competence
comprises linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse and intercultural components. Byram (1997)
states that he bases his model on Van Ek's (1986) model of communicative competence.
Byram's model is different from that of Van Ek's, which is based on native speaker competence.
Unlike Van Eks model, Byrams model is based on intercultural speaker competence.
According to Byram, there are two major reasons for criticizing models like Van Ek's. The first
reason is that by using native speaker competence as a model they set an unrealistic goal for
learners. The second reason is that such a competence is a wrong kind of competence, leading
to abandonment of one's native competence to attain the competence of other native speakers
(Byram, 1997, p. 11). In Van Eks model, learners are expected to rely only on the unattainable
Copyright 2012
85
Mehmet Kanik
competence of native speakers, however, in Byrams model an intercultural speaker would rely
on their competence in two or more languages to function well in an intercultural setting.
There are opposing opinions about the definitions of intercultural communicative competence.
While Deardorff (2009, p. 248) thinks that definitions of intercultural competence mainly focus
on communication, Fantini (2009, p. 456) believes that target language competence is ignored.
In his own model, Fantini (2009) asserts that communicative competence in the native language
and communicative competence of the interlocutor together constitute intercultural competence.
When it comes to the assessment of intercultural competence, scholars agree that intercultural
competence is a complex phenomenon and the assessment should be achieved by employing a
variety of measures (Fantini, 2009; Deardorff, 2011). They agree that one tool cannot measure
intercultural competence. Deardorff (2011) asserts "given how daunting intercultural
competence assessment can seem, it is important to start with manageable portions (p. 74).
Fantini (2009) outlines measures addressing different aspects of intercultural competence and
says that most of the measures lack a language component. Even so, he lists a few that have a
component for language proficiency including MAXSA Instruments, which comprise three
instruments, one of which is speech act measures. An example for speech act measures from
MAXSA instruments is below:
1) During dinner with a friends family in the host community you accidentally spill
your glass of red wine on the table cloth.
You:
Friends mother: Oh, dear!
You:
Friends mother: No, no. Dont worry about it. You dont have to do that. The stain
will
probably come out in the wash.
You:
(Cohen, Paige, Shively, Emery, & Hoff, 2005, p. 346)
This construct is known as a discourse completion task/test (DCT) or discourse completion
questionnaire (DCQ) and has been used in the field of pragmatics. Fraser (1980) developed the
earliest form of a DCT for collecting speech act data for research purposes (as cited in Cohen
2004: 303). The DCT provides sociocultural context and asks learners to provide utterances
that would be appropriate for that situation. The DCT was adapted by various scholars after
Frasers (1980) study for collecting speech act data. For example, Cohen, and Olshtain (1981)
used one of the earliest forms of discourse completion tasks for assessing adult L2 apology
performance in English and Hebrew (p. 133). In another earlier study, Blum-Kulka (1982)
assessed Hebrew learners use of directives with a discourse completion task. She compared
Hebrew learners to native speakers in speech act performance. In a follow-up study using a
modified version of the task used in Blum-Kulka (1982), Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984) ran A
Cross-Cultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP). In this project, they
collected data in Hebrew, Australian English, American English, British English, Canadian
French, Danish, German and Russian. The DCT they used in their study required test takers to
complete incomplete discourse sequences with the most appropriate speech act set of requests
and apologies. The items included information about setting, social distance and relative status
of interlocutors (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984, p. 198). Social distance, relative power of
speakers and the ranking of imposition are considered to be the three defining sociopragmatic
factors in the use of speech acts (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Hudson, Detmer & Brown, 1995).
86
Mehmet Kanik
The focus of assessing pragmatic competence has usually been on the use of strategies to
produce an appropriate speech act for a given situation. Comparing language learners speech
act strategy use to that of native speakers in a given language has also been commonly used in
interlanguage pragmatics research. The major reason for the use of elicitation tasks is that
collecting data with elicitation tasks such as DCT brings ease while naturally occurring data is
hard to gather. Standardization also becomes an issue in naturally occurring data whereas
control of variables and settings in DCT is easier. Collecting natural data from the same users
for research purposes is also quite challenging (Cohen, 2004). As a result, elicitation tasks
such as DCTs have been commonly used. However, since such tasks do not bring natural
data, they have brought with them questions regarding their validity and thus such elicitation
tasks have been evaluated by some scholars. Some compared DCT to naturally occurring data
and other elicitation tasks (e.g., Golato, 2003; Hinkel, 1997; Rose, 1994; Rose & Ono, 1995;
Yuan, 2000). Other researchers evaluated the construct of DCTs. These efforts or suggestions
included investigating the effect of adding more descriptions to the DCT situation (Varghese &
Billmyer, 1996), giving the situation in video format (Zuskin, 1993), adding rejoinders to the DCT
(Roever, 2006; Rose, 1992), adding multiple rejoinders (Cohen & Shively, 2002), investigating
the effect of the type of rejoinder (Johnston, Kasper, & Ross, 1998) and the difference between
oral and written DCTs (Sasaki, 1998).
Such test types and modifications listed above are efforts to make the measures of pragmatics
more valid and reliable. However, Cohen (2004) says, while any enhancement may make the
task more authentic, we must remember it is still a task attempting to simulate reality (p. 317).
Considered in this way, DCT does not prove that a learner can perform speech acts
appropriately in a natural situation, but it shows the potential and the linguistic formulas a
person has and some opinions about his/her sociopragmatic awareness. So whereas the
purpose of the test is to assess learners offline knowledge or repertoire of semantic formulas,
DCTs are an appropriate instrument (McNamara & Roever, 2006, p. 67). This gives the
researchers or testers an indirect opinion about test takers competence. Conclusions about
test takers sociopragmatic knowledge are to be drawn from the pragmalinguistic items in their
responses. Leech (1983) draws a distinction between sociopragmatics and pragmalinguisitcs (p.
11). He refers the level of pragmatics in which politeness, appropriacy, power relations,
distance between speakers, and imposition of speech acts are interpreted as sociopragmatics.
Leech defines this level as the sociological interface of pragmatics. By pragmalinguistics, on
the other hand, he refers to the particular resources which a given language provides for
conveying particular illocutions. For example, knowing the form would you like entails
pragmalinguistic competence whereas knowing when to use it requires sociopragmatic
competence.
From this perspective, I believe that reversing the DCT will give a more direct idea of the
sociopragmatic knowledge of test takers. In a reverse discourse completion test (R-DCT), test
takers are provided with speech acts and asked to write a situation in which that given speech
act could be uttered. Given this facet of R-DCT, I propose that it can be a test of intercultural
competence as well as pragmatic competence. If we go back to Byrams model of intercultural
communicative competence, we see that it is similar to the communicative competence model
of Canale and Swain (1980), which includes grammatical, sociolinguistic, strategic and
discourse competences (Canale, 1983). Bachman (1990) came out with a model of
communicative language ability, which has overlapping components with Byrams and Canale
and Swains model. Bachmans model is outlined below:
87
Mehmet Kanik
Mehmet Kanik
89
Mehmet Kanik
satisfactory responses would be those that are relevant and that would represent the
sociopragmatic variables of the situations for which the utterances were used in Kanik (2011).
Table 1. Situations
Speaker
Hearer
Request
Situation 1
A human resources
manager
An applicant
Situation 2
A manager in a factory
A worker
Work overtime
Situation 3
An employee in a
restaurant
A customer
Situation 4
A college student
A professor
The four requests retrieved from the earlier data were given to 12 learners of Turkish as a
foreign language at a university in Istanbul, Turkey. These students came from six different
countries. Seven of them were male and five of them were female. The mean age of the
participants was 25. At the time of data collection, they were aiming to study in Turkey and thus
they were learning Turkish at the language center of a university. These students took the
questionnaire within the last month of their first academic year in Istanbul. Tables 2 and 3 show
participants profiles.
Table 2. Participants countries of origin
Countries of Origin
Afghanistan
Bosnia-Herzegovina
China
Kazakhstan
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
Number
1
1
6
2
1
1
Mean
23.2
24.2
23.8
N
5
7
12
Median
24
22
23.5
Minimum
20
21
20
Maximum
25
33
33
Range
5
12
13
After the data was gathered, the situations written about by the participants were analyzed for
role relationship and the requests asked in the situations. Based on the role relationship and
requests imposed, the ranking of power relationship, distance and the imposition of requests
were defined. Initially, there were data from more than 12 participants, however, some of the
data did not reveal role relationships, and thus they were excluded from the data since this
study depended on role relationships in situations written about by the participants. Based on
the role relationships and the relevance of the situation with the utterance, the situations were
scored satisfactory or unsatisfactory. The instrument below (figure 1) was used while assessing
the responses.
90
Mehmet Kanik
RESULTS
Scoring based on the sociopragmatic factors and the relevance of the situations revealed the
following scores.
Table 4. R-DCT scores
Participant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Mean
Score/40
20
40
30
30
30
40
40
20
30
30
30
30
30.83
According to table 4, three participants wrote about situations that are relevant and would be
appropriate for the given utterances in all four scenarios. Seven of them were able to write
relevant and appropriate situations in three of the four scenarios. Two of them were able to
provide situations for the given utterances satisfactorily in only two scenarios. Below is the
descriptive statistics representing results for each scenario.
91
Mehmet Kanik
N
12
12
12
12
12
Minimum
.00
.00
.00
.00
20.00
Maximum
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
40.00
Mean
7.5000
6.6667
7.5000
9.1667
30.8333
Std. Deviation
4.52267
4.92366
4.52267
2.88675
6.68558
Table 5 reveals that scenario 2 resulted in the lowest mean score while scenario 4 resulted in
the highest mean score. It could be concluded that students had the most difficulty in
designating roles for scenario 2 and the least difficulty to do so in scenario 4. The next four
sections summarize the role relationships created by the participants for each scenario.
Samples from the data are also given.
Scenario 1
The utterance was used for a situation in which a human resources manager asks an applicant
who is from another city to come again next week for a second interview. The sociopragmatic
variables in this situation were originally rated by educated native speakers of Turkish and their
ratings reflect the power of the speaker, in this case the human resources manager, the
distance and the imposition as high. The chosen utterance that reflects the most commonly
used strategies for the given situation is Biliyorum baka bir ehirden geldiniz ama sizinle ilgili
kararm netletirebilmem iin haftaya tekrar sizinle grmek istiyorum [I know that you came
from another city but to clarify my decision about you I need to see you again next week]. The
table below summarizes the role relationship and the ranking of sociopragmatic factors.
Table 6. Role relationships in the data in scenario 1
Speaker
Employer
Doctor
Police (Immigration
officer)
Student
Business representative
Hearer
Applicant
Patient
Foreign resident
Student
Business
representative
Notes: (+) = high; (-) = low; (=) = neutral
# (%)
8 (66.6)
1 (8.3)
1 (8.3)
Power
+
+
Distance
+
+
+
Imposition
+
+
+
1 (8.3)
1 (8.3)
=
=
As could be seen from the table, eight of the twelve respondents designated situations with an
employer as a speaker and an applicant as a hearer, resulting in a high ranking of power and
distance. Another participant chose the roles of a police (immigration) officer and a foreign
resident to reflect high ranking of power and distance. All nine participants included a request
for a second appointment to an applicant from another city, creating high imposition. In the
assessment of intercultural competence or pragmatic competence, those test takers who write
about a situation in which the utterance would be appropriate would be considered satisfactory.
A sample situation from the data is below.
Bir irketin mdrsnz. Bir elemanla i grmesi yapmanz iin [sic.] haftaya tekrar
gelmesini rica ediyorsunuz [You are the director in a company. You are requesting an
employee [applicant] to come again next week to have a job interview.] Participant #6,
Male, 24, China
92
Mehmet Kanik
Scenario 2
The request was used for a situation in which a manager asks an employee to work overtime.
In the previous study, the power of the speaker and the imposition were ranked high while
distance was ranked low by native speakers of Turkish. The utterance that was chosen for this
study is Yarn tefti var. Bugn temizlik iin mesaiye kalabilir misin? [There is inspection
tomorrow. Could you work overtime today for cleaning?] Table 7 summarizes the role
relationship and the ranking of sociopragmatic factors in situation 2.
Table 7. Role relationships in the data in scenario 2
Speaker
Hearer
Boss
Employee
Secretary
Coworker
Security guard
Cleaner
Administrator
Teacher
Principal
Student
Notes: (+) = high; (-) = low; (=) = neutral
# (%)
8 (66.6)
1 (8.3)
1 (8.3)
1 (8.3)
1 (8.3)
Power
+
=
=
+
+
Distance
+
Imposition
+
+
+
+
+
Table 7 indicates that nine participants created situations in line with the situation the original
utterance was used for. That is, a speaker with higher power than the hearer, low distance
between the speaker and the hearer and high imposition. While doing so, eight of them used a
boss and an employee while one participant used an administrator and a teacher as roles.
However, the administrator-teacher situation would be unusual, as cleaning is not typically
conducted by teachers at schools. Of the remaining three situations, two include neutral power
relations. One participant preferred the roles of a secretary and a coworker and another that of
a security guard and a cleaner. Again, it would be unusual for a secretary or a security guard to
ask a coworker or a cleaner to work overtime. The last situation entails an interaction between
a principal and a student. This situation is also unusual as students do not do cleaning and it is
irrelevant, as the utterance conveys working overtime clearly and does not apply to this
scenario. Thus, these three responses that are not in line with the sociopragmatic factors of the
situation the utterance was used for cannot be considered satisfactory responses. A sample
situation from the data is below:
Bir fabrikada ef olarak alyorsunuz. Bugn fabrikada bitmesi gereken temizlik var.
Bunu [sic.] bir alannzdan mesaiye kalmasn istiyorsunuz [You work as a manager at
a factory. There is cleaning left to be finished today at the factory. You are asking one of
your staff to work overtime.] Participant #2, Female, 20, Afghanistan
Scenario 3
The utterance used in this scenario was used for a situation in which an employee in a
restaurant asks a first-time customer who reserved a table for a special night to move to another
table. The sociopragmatic factors were ranked as low power on the part of the speaker and
high distance as the employee does not know the customer and high imposition as the
employee is intruding on customers special night and asking them to move away from the table
they specifically reserved for the night. The utterance used for this situation is Efendim, ok
zr dilerim. Burada teknik ekibin acilen almas gerekiyor. Sizi baka bir masaya alabilir
miyiz? [Sir/madam, I deeply apologize. The technical team needs to work here immediately.
93
Mehmet Kanik
Could we move you to another table?] Table 8 summarizes the role relationships in the
situation created by the participants for this utterance.
Table 8. Role relationships in the data in scenario 3
Speaker
Hearer
Waiter
Customer
Waiter
Customer
Teacher
Student
Worker
Worker
Chair of a meeting
Participants
Secretary
Customer
Customer representative
Customer
Construction worker
Customer
Notes: (+) = high; (-) = low; (=) = neutral
# (%)
2 (16.6)
4 (33.2)
1 (8.3)
1 (8.3)
1 (8.3)
1 (8.3)
1 (8.3)
1 (8.3)
Power
+
=
=
-
Distance
+
+
+
+
+
Imposition
+
+
As could be seen from the table, there is more variability in this situation. Six participants
created situations with waiter and customer roles. Two of these situations do not convey high
impositions and overall only five of the situations include high imposition requests. Four of
these involve an interaction between a waiter and a customer and one of them between a
construction worker and a customer. The setting is a restaurant. The reason for low imposition
scenarios (i.e. ones having no indication of special circumstances making the situation more
difficult) could be that the utterance does not refer to special night or special reservation of the
table. If the utterance had a disarmer (e.g. I know that you are celebrating a special day, but),
more participants might have created situations with high imposition requests. However, the
mean of the number of strategies and the most commonly used strategies based on the mean
of strategies did not include a disarmer in the previous study. Thus, situations that do not reveal
high imposition are considered to be acceptable for the given utterance. Other role
relationships used include worker-worker, chair of a meeting-participants, teacher-student,
customer representative-customer and secretary-customer. The first two have neutral power
relationship and the last two convey low power, high distance but low imposition. One of the
situations, teacher-student, is not an appropriate situation for the given utterance. The
utterance could not be directed to a student by a teacher as the utterance (Sir/Madam, I deeply
apologize) would be a strong request and would not reflect a typical utterance by a teacher
addressed to a student. A sample situation from the data is below.
Bir lokantada garson olarak alyorsunuz. Mteriye teknik ekibin acilen almas
gerektiini sylyorsunuz ve onlar baka masaya alacanz sylyorsunuz [You work
as a waiter in a restaurant. You tell your customer that the technical team needs to work
immediately and tell them you will move them to another table.] Participant #7, Female,
25, Kazakhstan (Russian)
Scenario 4
The utterance in this scenario came from the situation in which a college student asks a
professor to extend deadline for a project. The original ratings of sociopragmatic factors
revealed a speaker with low power, low distance between speaker and hearer and high
imposition as the deadline for submitting grades for the professor is approaching. The utterance
reads Biliyorum proje teslimi iin son gn geldi ama ben yetitiremedim. Bana iki gn daha
msaade edebilir misiniz? [I know that today is the deadline for project submission, but I could
not finish it. Could you excuse me two more days?] Table 9 outlines the role relationships that
emerged in participants responses.
94
Mehmet Kanik
# (%)
6 (50)
5 (41.6)
Power
-
Distance
-
Imposition
+
+
1 (8.3)
In this scenario, 11 participants designated situations that were in line with the situation the
utterance was originally used for in terms of the sociopragmatic design, that is, a speaker with
low power, low distance between the speaker and hearer, and high ranking of imposition. Of
these 11 situations, six revealed a student-professor scenario while five revealed employeeboss scenario. Only one participant preferred a neutral power relationship between two bosses.
Below is a sample situation from data.
Siz bir rencisiniz. Mezun olmak iin bir proje hazrlamalsnz. Teslim gn geldii
zaman proje hazr deildi. Bu sebeple retmene iki gn daha msaadeyi [sic.]
soruyorsunuz [You are a student. You must prepare a project to graduate. The project
is not ready on submission day. For this reason, you are asking your teacher for two
more days.] Participant #8, Female, 23, Ukraine
DISCUSSION
Traditional discourse completion tasks ask respondents to write (even say or act out) a speech
act for a given situation. With this characteristic, we may gain insight into the pragmalinguistic
repertoire of the respondent (illocutionary competence in Bachmans (1990) model of
communicative competence) and make inferences about his or her sociopragmatic
interpretation of a situation (sociolinguistic competence in Bachmans (1990) model. Reverse
discourse completion task reverses the situation and allows the researcher or tester to better
understand how the respondent interprets the utterance and the sociopragmatic aspects or
forces it carries. It gives a better picture of sociolinguistic awareness of the participant rather
than illocutionary items the respondents have at their disposal. R-DCTs will make it easier to
assess intercultural communicative competence or pragmatic competence. Those participants
who could create relevant situations with socipragmatic characteristics similar to situations in
which the given utterances were used will be considered satisfactory. Those that create
situations that carry sociopragmatic factors different from the original situations will have
problems. This is also confirmed by the data. Data revealed that situations that carry the
sociopragmatic characteristics of the original situation would be those in which the given
utterance would be appropriate. Those that differ from the original situation in terms of
socipragmatic factors turned out to be the ones in which the utterance would not be appropriate.
Another finding is even if respondents created situations with roles different from the original
situations, the given utterance could potentially be appropriate as long as the sociopragmatic
factors do not contradict with the original situations. This shows that an approach to
assessment using sociopragmatic factors could be useful in assessing intercultural or pragmatic
competence.
Another advantage of reverse discourse completion tasks is that they could help diminish the
need for comparing learner data with native speaker data. Assessing competences with native
speaker criteria has been criticized in the field of intercultural competence (Byram, 1997).
CERCLL ICC Proceedings
95
Mehmet Kanik
Although the utterances used in this study came from data collected from native speakers of
Turkish, statistical comparison with native speakers would not be necessary. A better way of
utilizing utterances for reverse discourse completion task would be getting them from spoken
corpora. However, the corpora should be clear about the role relationships in the situation in
which the speech sample is used. In this way, a natural and appropriate utterance, regardless
of whether it comes from a native speaker or not, could be used as the prompt in an R-DCT.
Thus, successful interchanges from a corpus, be it among native speakers or not, could be used
as prompts in R-DCTs.
In addition, in a traditional discourse completion task, second language learners/speakers
failure to provide an utterance that is similar to a native speakers may be due to several factors.
It may be, for instance, because (1) the participant did not understand the text in the DCT
prompt, (2) he or she did not understand the situation described in the prompt, (3) he or she
used conventions in his or her first language and they did not transfer well, or (4) they
understood everything but did not have the pragmalinguistic forms in their repertoire. There
may even be more factors. Such complexity makes traditional discourse completion tasks weak
candidates for assessing intercultural or pragmatic competence because it is not clear what to
attribute non-native speakers failure to provide native speaker utterances to. There is also the
question whether it is even desirable to compare their utterance to native speakers utterances
as discussed by Byram (1997). In this regard, R-DCT helps eliminate such complexities and
allows us to make better judgments about respondents intercultural or pragmatic competence.
We could tell whether a respondent is likely to be engaged in misinterpretations or
misunderstandings based on how he or she interprets the given utterances.
In evaluating the prototypical task I created, I encountered a problem. I collected data from
more than 12 participants. However, the task did not require participants to explicitly identify
roles (see appendix). Therefore, some responses did not make any indication about the roles of
the speakers and hearers in the situations they created and thus their responses could not be
used for the purpose of this study. Therefore, this study has its limitations. However, this led to
the second version of the prototype as could be seen from the sample item given in the second
part above. A reverse discourse completion task created with items that ask respondents to
explicitly identify roles will address this limitation. In brief, this study proposes a new measure,
which I have proposed to name reverse discourse completion task for assessing intercultural
(communicative) competence as well as pragmatic competence.
REFERENCES
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language teaching. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
96
Mehmet Kanik
Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A study
of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language.
Applied Linguistics 3, 29-59.
Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtein, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of
speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5, 196-213.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use.
Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In
Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. W. (Eds.), Language and Communication (pp. 2-27).
London: Longman.
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second
Language Teaching and Testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Cohen, A. (2004). Assessing speech acts in a second language. In D. Boxer & A. Cohen (Eds.),
Studying Speaking to Inform Second Language Learning (pp. 302-327). Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Cohen, A. D. & Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of socio-cultural
competence: The case of apology. Language Learning, 31(1), 113-134.
Cohen, A. D., Paige, R. M., Shively, R. L., Emery, H., & Hoff, J. (2005). Maximizing
Study abroad through language and culture strategies: Research on students,
study abroad program professionals, and language instructors. Final Report to
the International Research and Studies Program, Office of International
Education, DOE. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language
Acquisition, University of Minnesota. Retrieved from
www.carla.umn.edu/maxsa/documents/MAXSAResearchReport.pdf
Cohen, A. & Shively, R. L. (2002). Measuring speech acts with multiple rejoinder DCTs.
Language Testing Update, 32, 39-42.
Fantini, A. (2009). Assessing intercultural competence. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The
SAGE Handbook of Intercultural Competence (pp. 456-476). Los Angeles, CA:
Sage.
Deardorff, D. K. (2004). The identification and assessment of intercultural competence
as a student outcome of internationalization at institutions of higher education in
the United States (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). North Carolina State
University, Raleigh.
Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a
student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 10, 241-266. doi:10.1177/1028315306287002
97
Mehmet Kanik
Mehmet Kanik
APPENDIX A
Items in the reverse discourse completion task:
1.
Biliyorum baka bir ehirden geldiniz ama sizinle ilgili kararm netletirebilmem iin
haftaya tekrar sizinle grmek istiyorum. [I know that you came from another city but to
clarify my decision about you I need to see you again next week].
Durum: [situation]
____________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
2.
Yarn tefti var. Bugn temizlik iin mesaiye kalabilir misin? [There is inspection
tomorrow. Could you work overtime today for cleaning?]
Durum: [situation]
____________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
3.
Efendim, ok zr dilerim. Burada teknik ekibin acilen almas gerekiyor. Sizi baka
bir masaya alabilir miyiz? ? [Sir/madam, I deeply apologize. The technical team needs
to work here immediately. Could we move you to another table?]
Durum: [situation]
____________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
4.
Biliyorum proje teslimi iin son gn geldi ama ben yetitiremedim. Bana iki gn daha
msaade edebilir misiniz? [I know that today is the deadline for project submission, but I
could not finish it. Could you excuse me two more days?]
Durum: [situation]
____________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
99