Teaching pragmatics: An evaluative study of English ... · integrated-skills textbooks do not...
Transcript of Teaching pragmatics: An evaluative study of English ... · integrated-skills textbooks do not...
Teaching pragmatics:
An evaluative study of English language textbooks in China
Wang Kelu
A dissertation submitted to the
National Institute of Education
Nanyang Technological University
in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of
Master of Arts
2013
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
T
EA
CH
ING
PR
AG
MA
TIC
S:
W
AN
G K
EL
U
2013
AN
EV
AL
UA
TIV
E S
TU
DY
OF
EN
GL
ISH
LA
NG
UA
GE
TE
XT
BO
OK
S IN
CH
INA
TEACHING PRAGMATICS:
AN EVALUATIVE STUDY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEXTBOOKS
IN CHINA
WANG KELU
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION
NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
2013
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
i
Acknowledgements
Upon the completion of this dissertation, I would like to express my sincere
gratitude to all the people who have helped me with the project.
First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge my indebtedness to my
supervisor, Dr. Hu Guangwei, for his consistent encouragement and valuable guidance
during the past two years. His thought-provoking suggestions and patient support have
benefited me greatly for this project.
My grateful thanks are also due to the professors whose inspiring lectures piqued
my intellectual curiosity during my study in the PGDELT and MA programs and will
remain an everlasting influence on my future research. They are Dr. Anneliese
Kramer-Dahl, Dr. Ramona Tang, Dr. Xiao Lan Curdt-Christiansen, Dr. Nguyen Thi
Thuy Minh, Dr. David Caldwell, Dr. Antonia Chandrasegaran, Dr. Lawrence Jun Zhang,
and Dr. Guo Libo.
My special thanks are extended to my friends Ding Ning, Gui Yi, Hou Dan, who
helped me code part of the data for this dissertation. My special thanks also go to my
intimate friend Zhou Haitang, with whose companion I have gone through the tough
days writing the dissertation in the libraries. I would also thank Cao Feng, Zhang Min,
Lei Jun, and Wang Guihua – a group of friends who have encouraged me throughout the
project.
I am deeply indebted to my parents and parents-in- law for their support in the past
two years when I was in Singapore. My warmest thanks are given to my beloved
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
i i
husband. Without his unconditional understanding and love, I would not have
completed this dissertation.
Last but not least, my thanks are due to Singapore’s Ministry of Education and the
Chinese Scholarship Council for awarding me scholarships to study at the National
Institute of Education, which is a beneficial and valuable experience for my life and for
my career.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
i i i
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ i
Table of Contents.......................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables.................................................................................................................. v
List of Figures ............................................................................................................... vi
Abstract………............................................................................................................ vii
Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Communicative competence as the goal of English language instruction .... 1
1.2. Pragmatic aspects of communicative competence ........................................ 4
1.3. The teaching of pragmatics: Focus on textbooks .......................................... 6
1.4. Significance of the present study................................................................... 9
1.5. An overview of the dissertation................................................................... 10
Chapter 2 Literature review ....................................................................................... 12
2.1. Communicative competence ....................................................................... 12 2.1.1. The pragmatic component in models of communicative competence
………………………………………………………………………………………………............. ………12
2.1.2. Pragmatic norms in the teaching of pragmatics .................................15
2.2. English language textbooks in developing communicative competence .... 19
2.2.1. Inauthentic pragmalinguistic input.....................................................19
2.2.2. Skimpy sociopragmatic input and metapragmatic information .........22
2.3. Research questions ...................................................................................... 25
2.4. Analytical framework .................................................................................. 27
2.5. Chapter summary......................................................................................... 29
Chapter 3 Methodology............................................................................................... 30
3.1. Textbook selection ....................................................................................... 30
3.1.1. Criteria for textbook selection............................................................30
3.1.2. Procedure of textbook selection .........................................................32
3.2. Data analysis……………………………………..……………………………………………… ……33
3.2.1. The method of data analysis ...............................................................34
3.2.2. The procedure of data analysis ...........................................................35
3.3. Coding scheme ............................................................................................ 36
3.3.1. Request...............................................................................................37
3.3.2. Apology..............................................................................................45
3.3.3. Suggestion ..........................................................................................50
3.3.4. Refusal ...............................................................................................56
3.3.5. Disagreement .....................................................................................61
3.4. Chapter summary......................................................................................... 65
Chapter 4 Findings ...................................................................................................... 66
4.1. Distribution of speech acts .......................................................................... 66 4.2. Pragmalinguistic input ................................................................................. 67
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
i v
4.2.1. Request...............................................................................................67
4.2.2. Apology..............................................................................................71
4.2.3. Suggestion ..........................................................................................74
4.2.4. Refusal ...............................................................................................77
4.2.5. Disagreement .....................................................................................81
4.3. Sociopragmatic input ................................................................................... 84 4.3.1. Contextual and metapragmatic information.......................................85
4.3.2. Sociocultural norms for speech act performance ...............................89
4.4. Pragmatic tasks ............................................................................................ 91
4.4.1. Matching tasks ...................................................................................91
4.4.2. Discussion tasks .................................................................................93
4.4.3. Role-plays ..........................................................................................95
4.5. Chapter summary....................................................................................... 100
Chapter 5 Discussion ................................................................................................. 101
5.1. Pragmalinguistic input ............................................................................... 101
5.1.1. Request............................................................................................. 101
5.1.2. Apology............................................................................................ 104
5.1.3. Suggestion ........................................................................................ 105
5.1.4. Refusal ............................................................................................. 107
5.1.5. Disagreement ................................................................................... 108
5.2. Sociopragmatic input ................................................................................. 109
5.3. Pragmatic tasks .......................................................................................... 112
5.4. The textbooks’ potential in developing learners’ pragmatic competence .. 115
5.5. Textbook similarities and differences in teaching pragmatics ................... 117
5.6. Chapter summary....................................................................................... 119
Chapter 6 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 121
6.1. Summary of the main findings .................................................................. 121
6.2. Implications for textbook development and classroom teaching .............. 122
6.3. Limitations of the present study and recommendations for future research
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………124
References . ………………………………………………………………………….126 Appendix………. ....................................................................................................... 144
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
v
List of Tables
Table 3.1 General information about the textbooks ............................................... 33
Table 3.2 Request strategies ................................................................................... 39
Table 3.3 Request modification devices ................................................................ 41
Table 3.4 Apology strategies .................................................................................. 47
Table 3.5 Apology modification devices ................................................................ 49
Table 3.6 Suggestion strategies .............................................................................. 52
Table 3.7 Suggestion modification devices ............................................................ 55
Table 3.8 Refusal strategies ................................................................................... 58
Table 3.9 Refusal modification devices ................................................................. 61
Table 3.10 Disagreement strategies ....................................................................... 63
Table 3.11 Disagreement modification devices ..................................................... 65
Table 4.1 The distribution of speech acts ............................................................... 66
Table 4.2 The distribution of request strategies ..................................................... 68
Table 4.3 The distribution of request modification devices ................................... 69 Table 4.4 The distribution of apology strategies .................................................... 71
Table 4.5 The distribution of apology modification devices .................................. 73
Table 4.6 The distribution of suggestions strategies .............................................. 75
Table 4.7 The distribution of suggestion modification devices ............................. 76
Table 4.8 The distribution of refusal strategies ...................................................... 78 Table 4.9 The distribution of refusal modification devices .................................... 80
Table 4.10 The distribution of disagreement strategies ......................................... 82
Table 4.11 The distribution of disagreement modification devices ....................... 84
Table 4.12 The distribution of conversations with contextual information ........... 86
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
vi
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Analytical framework…………………………………………………27
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
vi i
Abstract
China’s modernization and sustained economic development have made increasing demands
on English language education to produce English learners who can function adequately in all
sectors of cross-cultural communication. English major students who are immersed in
intensive English programs in institutions of higher education are nurtured to meet this need.
English language textbooks, as the main source of language input for
English-as-a-foreign- language (EFL) learners in China, play a critical role in developing
leaners’ communicative competence. Therefore, it is significant to examine to what extent the
textbooks currently used by English major students facilitate their acquisition of
communicative competence.
To evaluate pragmatic teaching in the textbooks, this study focuses on five speech acts
and surveys the relevant pragmatic input and pragmatic tasks available for these speech acts
in four sets of textbooks that are widely used by English majors in China. Both oral-English
textbooks and integrated-skills textbooks have been selected to explore if there are
skill-based differences in pragmatic teaching. Content analysis has been employed to
scrutinize pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic input as well as pragmatic tasks provided in
the focal textbooks.
The quantitative and qualitative results show that the textbooks do not provide sufficient
conditions for the development of communicative competence. The analysis of
pragmalinguistic input, which focuses on the speech act strategies and modification devices
included in the textbooks, reveals that the distribution and presentation of these strategies and
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
vi i i
devices do not reflect naturally occurring speech. As for sociopragmatic input, the textbooks
present inadequate contextual information and give little attention to sociocultural norms for
speech act performance. Three main types of pragmatic task are examined in the present
study: matching tasks, discussion tasks and role-play tasks. These pragmatic tasks targeting at
pragmalingustic or sociopragmatic features have the potential to enhance learners’ pragmatic
awareness and facilitate their pragmatic production. However, there exist problems with these
pragmatic tasks. The target pragmalinguistic features in the matching tasks are not made
salient to learners, and the role-play tasks tend to be presented in a decontextualized manner
and with little variation of contextual factors. Hence, the pragmatic tasks are not facilitative
enough for the acquisition of pragmatic competence. Finally, the oral-English textbooks and
integrated-skills textbooks do not differ systematically in their treatment of pragmatics in
terms of pragmalinguistic input, sociopragmatic input, and pragmatic tasks.
The findings of the present study not only provide useful information for further
textbook development but also have important implications for textbook use in the classroom.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
This chapter first situates the present study against the background of developing
learners’ communicative competence in English language education in China. Then it
outlines the pragmatic aspects of commutative competence and discusses the critical
role that textbooks can play in teaching pragmatic knowledge and developing
communicative competence. Finally, it explicates the significance of the present study
and provides an overview of the dissertation.
1.1. Communicative competence as the goal of English language instruction
The past 30 years or so has seen a tremendous growth in English language
education in China. Great importance has been accorded to English language learning
because of the perceived benefits of English proficiency for the country and
individuals (Adamson & Morris, 1997; Cortazzi & Jin, 1996; Jin & Cortazzi, 2002; Hu,
2003; Ross, 1992). On the national level, the promotion of English language education
has stemmed from the perceived demands on English competence for China’s
modernization and sustained economic development. On the individual level, a good
command of the English language confers individuals advantages in academic and
professional careers. Against this background, the emphasis on English language
learning in the formal education system is reflected in two ways. On the one hand,
English education has been expanded from secondary and tertiary education to primary
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
2
schooling in the whole nation since 2001 (Ministry of Education, 2001). On the other
hand, persistent efforts have been made to improve the quality of English instruction.
Curriculum reform, syllabus improvement, pedagogical innovation, textbook
development and teacher training programs have been the main strategies for
improvement in all stages of English education in China (Hu, 2002, 2005). However,
English education in China is still unable to keep up with the needs arising from the
country’s rapid development in economy, science and technology (Wu, 2001), as most
university graduates cannot function adequately in English at work (Wu, 2001). To
produce personnel with strong English competence, English major students are
educated in intensive English programs to become interpreters, translators, teachers,
managers, and researchers in sectors of foreign affairs, education, business and trade,
culture, science and technology, and the army (The English Division of Tertiary
Foreign language Instruction Steering Committee, 2000). They are expected to have
very high linguistic proficiency, profound language and cultural knowledge, and strong
communicative competence (The English Division, 2000). Communicative
competence is explicitly made one of the top goals of English language teaching (ELT)
for English major students in China.
Communicative competence refers to “the competence as to when to speak, when
not, and as to what to talk about with whom, when, where, in what manner” (Hymes,
1972, p. 277). Pragmatic competence is an essential component of a language user ’s
communicative competence (Bachman, 1990; Canale, 1983; Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei, &
Thurrell, 1995). It refers to the ability to use and interpret language appropriately in a
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
3
wide range of social contexts (Thomas, 1983). Pragmatic competence consists of the
knowledge of linguistic forms and the socio-cultural constraints on the use of these
forms (Bachman, 1990; Félix-Brasdefer, 2003; Murphy & Neu, 1995).
In order to communicate successfully in a target language, second language (L2)
learners’ pragmatic competence must be reasonably developed (Kasper, 1997). This
necessity of developing learners’ pragmatic competence is backed up by three reasons:
First of all, unlike grammatical errors, pragmatic failures in real-world communication
can easily lead to “misconstruals of speaker intentions” (Vàsquez & Sharpless, 2009, p.
6) and cause negative judgment of the speaker as arrogant, impatient, or rude (Boxer &
Pickering, 1995; Thomas, 1983; Wolfson, 1981). Second, pragmatic competence does
not usually develop at the same pace as grammatical competence (Bardovi-Harlig,
2001). Language learners who have mastered grammar and vocabulary may fail to
communicate effectively and appropriately in a given situation (Blum-Kulka, 1982;
Eisenstein & Bodman, 1986; House, 1982; Takahashi & Beebe, 1987; Thomas, 1983;
Wolfson, 1981). For example, advanced learners who are grammatically competent
may not have a comparable control of pragmatic use of the target language
(Bardovi-Harlig & Dörnyei, 1998). Last but not least, the development of pragmatic
competence takes an extended period if no formal instruction is provided. Non-native
speakers (NNSs) living in English-speaking communities may need 4.5 years to
become proficient in interpreting implicatures (Bouton, 1994), or even as many as 10
years to acquire native- like performance in speech acts (Olshtain & Blum-Kulka,
1985). Therefore, mere exposure to the target language is insufficient for the
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
4
acquisition of L2 pragmatic competence (Vàsquez & Sharpless, 2009), and
pedagogical intervention is needed (Kasper, 1997). English language textbooks take a
central position in pedagogical instruction, as they can provide pragmatic input and
create opportunities for producing pragmatic output. Thus, it would be meaningful to
evaluate textbooks’ potential in developing learners’ pragmatic competence.
1.2. Pragmatic aspects of communicative competence
Pragmatics studies the negotiation of meaning between interlocutors as
determined by the context and social constraints (Crystal, 1997; Levinson, 1983; Mey,
2001; Thomas, 1995). It consists of two aspects: pragmalinguistics and
sociopragmatics. Pragmalinguistics refers to the “the particular resources which a
given language provides for conveying particular illocutions” (Leech, 1983, p. 11). In
other words, it refers to the linguistic resources that speakers of a language can choose
from to perform language functions and achieve communicative purposes. Such
resources include pragmatic strategies, routines, and modification devices for
intensifying or softening communicative acts (Kasper, 1997; Thomas, 1983). While
pragmalinguistics is the “linguistic end of pragmatics” (Leech, 1983, p. 11),
sociopragmatics is the “sociological interface of pragmatics” (Leech, 1983, p. 10).
Sociopragmatics refers to the language user ’s assessment of the context and social
constraints in which linguistic resources are implemented (Leech, 1983). Specifically,
it includes language users’ perceptions of the power relations in communicative
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
5
encounters, social distance, their rights and obligations, and the degree of imposition.
These perceptions shape their linguistic choices in social interaction (Kasper, 1997;
Thomas, 1983). Pragmatic competence is predicated on the acquisition of both
pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge, and the development of effective
control of the knowledge in real-time communication (Bialystok, 1993; Taguchi, 2011).
Put it simply, pragmatically competent language users are able to “understand and
produce sociopragmatic meanings with pragmalinguistic conventions” (Kasper &
Roever, 2005, p. 318).
Competent language users of all communities share a rich fund of universal
pragmatic knowledge and abilities (Blum-Kulka, 1991). These include basic speech
acts (e.g., request, suggestion, invitation, offer, refusal, apology, complaint,
compliment, and expressing gratitude) (Ochs, 1996, p. 425f.), major strategies for
realizing speech acts (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984), a sensitivity to contextual
variables (Brown & Levinson, 1987) and the ability to vary linguistic realizations
accordingly (Blum-Kulka, 1991), and the ability to interpret conversational implicature
and make inference of the indirectly conveyed meanings (Gibbs, 1994; Grice, 1975,
Searle, 1975). Universal pragmatic knowledge facilitates learners’ acquisition of L2
pragmatic competence (Kasper & Rose, 2002). However, learners do not always
transfer available pragmatic knowledge and strategies to an L2. For example, English
learners of Hebrew were found to apologize considerably less often when they spoke
Hebrew than when they spoke English (Olshtain, 1983). Thus Kasper (1997) suggests
pedagogic intervention as a way to raise L2 learners’ awareness of their universal first
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
6
language (L1) pragmatic knowledge and to encourage learners to use it in L2 contexts.
There are aspects of pragmatics that differ across cultures and languages. These
include the pragmalinguistic conventions used to convey sociopragmatic meanings.
For example, a compliment can be understood as a request in Samoan culture but not
in most European countries (Holmes & Brown, 1987). A misunderstanding of the
intended illocutionary force of an utterance or an inappropriate transfer of speech act
strategies from L1 to L2 may lead to pragmalinguistic failure (Thomas, 1983). In
addition, speech communities differ in their assessment of contextual variables. For
instance, social status is valued more by Japanese than Americans (Takahashi & Beebe,
1993). Cross-cultural mismatches in the evaluation of contextual factors or disregard
for the social constraints on language use tend to cause sociopragmatic failure
(Thomas, 1983). A lack of L2-specific pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic
knowledge is likely to cause communication breakdowns. Thus, there is a clear role for
pragmatic instruction in helping L2 learners acquire the ability to interpret others ’
message as originally intended in the target language, and to use linguistic strategies to
accomplish a particular communicative goal in a specific social situation (Ishihara &
Cohen, 2010a).
1.3. The teaching of pragmatics: Focus on textbooks
Most aspects of pragmatics are amenable to instruction (Rose, 2005), such as
pragmatic routines (Tateyama, 2001; Tateyama, Kasper, Mui, Tay, & Thananart, 1997),
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
7
speech acts (Alcón, 2005, 2007; Koike & Pearson, 2005; Martínez-Flor & Fukya,
2005; Olshtain & Cohen, 1990; Rose & Ng, 2001; Safont Jordà, 2005) and pragmatic
comprehension of conversational implicatures (Bouton, 1994; Kubota, 1995).
Furthermore, studies have shown that pragmatic instruction has a positive effect on the
acquisition of L2 pragmatic competence (Jeon & Kaya, 2006; Takahashi, 2010). Hence,
Judd suggests that “instruction in pragmatic skills and speech acts” be “carried out
formally, as part of the regular content in second language curricula” (1999, p. 154).
The central issue of pragmatic instruction is “the availability of relevant
pragmatic input in academic encounters and in textbooks” (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001, p.
24). Since L2 classrooms have a bad reputation for developing pragmatic ability
(Kasper & Rose, 2002, p. 208), textbooks are expected to play a key role in developing
this ability. However, previous evaluations on ESL and EFL textbooks used in different
countries and for learners of different proficiency levels demonstrated that “textbooks
cannot be counted as a reliable source of pragmatic input for classroom language
learners” (Barlig-Harlig, 2001, p. 25). The deficiency of textbooks in assisting the
development of pragmatic competence is mainly reflected in the inauthenticity of
language samples, a rather limited range of speech realization strategies and
modification devices, insufficient provision of contextual information, and a dearth of
metapragmatic information (Boxer & Pickering, 1995; Campillo, 2007; Chang, 2003;
Crandall & Basturkmen, 2004; Grant & Starks, 2001; Jiang, 2006; Konakahara, 2011;
Nguyen, 2011; Usó-Juan, 2007; Vellenga, 2004) that explains “when, where, and to
whom it is appropriate to perform a particular speech act and what expression would or
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
8
would not be appropriate in a particular context of culture and context of situation”
(Nguyen, 2011, p. 22). These limitations of textbooks with respect to pragmatic input
may hinder L2 learners from becoming proficient in communicating in the target
language (Koike, 1989).
Although previous research has offered some insights into the potentials and
limitations that textbooks have in teaching L2 pragmatics, there are some issues that
need further investigation. First of all, the pragmalinguistic input available or absent in
textbooks needs to be systematically examined. What realization strategies and
modification devices are employed in textbooks? Do their distributions reflect their use
in naturally occurring speech by competent English speakers? An examination of
specific strategies is likely to show whether or not textbooks provide learners adequate
linguistic resources that are typical of authentic language use. It helps evaluate
textbooks’ potential in developing learners’ pragmalinguistic competence. Secondly,
details of sociopragmatic input in textbooks should be scrutinized to assess the
adequacy of contextual information and knowledge of sociocultural norms presented
therein. This would tell to what extent textbooks facilitate the development of
sociopragmatic competence. Thirdly, pragmatic tasks that provide pragmatic output
opportunities have rarely been discussed. An examination of pragmatic tasks, in
addition to pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic input, allows a more comprehensive
evaluation of textbooks and offers better opportunity to understand textbooks’ potential
for developing L2 communicative competence. Finally, similarities and differences in
the above three aspects between different types of textbooks are not clear. Previous
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
9
research has compared ESL and EFL textbooks (Vellenga, 2004), or textbooks
published in different historical periods (Jiang, 2006), but had little to say about the
potential differences between different types of textbooks, for instance,
integrated-skills-oriented textbooks and speaking-skill- targeted textbooks. A
comparison of different types of textbooks would reveal their advantages and
disadvantages in developing communicative competence, thus providing information
that can help textbook-users make informed choices.
1.4. Significance of the present study
English learners’ communicative competence can contribute to national economic
development and modernization, and it is also the ultimate goal of English language
instruction. Since China has invested heavily in textbook development to improve the
quality of English instruction (see Hu, 2002), it is important to examine the currently
used textbooks to assess their capacity for promoting communicative competence in
general and pragmatic competence in particular. In view of the fact that textbooks are
the primary source of pragmatic input in EFL contexts (Richards, 2005; Vellenga, 2004)
and the basis of pragmatic instruction, it is necessary to have a close examination of
the pragmatic input and pragmatic tasks provided in textbooks for main speech acts.
The present study aims at a detailed examination of several widely used textbooks
for English major students in China to assess their potential for developing learners’
communicative competence. To achieve this aim, this study conducts quantitative and
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
10
qualitative analyses of the pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic input and pragmatic
tasks centered on five commonly-occurring but difficult-to-learn speech acts (i.e.,
request, apology, suggestion, refusal, and disagreement) in four sets of textbooks. The
analyses focus specifically on speech act realization strategies and modification
devices, contextual information, knowledge of sociocultural constraints, as well as
different types of pragmatic tasks included in the textbooks. The results of the analyses
will allow an evaluation of the extent to which textbooks promote learners’
pragmalinguistic competence and sociopragmatic competence, which are tak en
together as pragmatic competence. This study is expected to inform textbook
developers and draw their attention to critical issues in the teaching of pragmatics in
their future textbook projects. The findings can also help teachers choose the best
textbooks available for their specific contexts, and make necessary adaptions when
using the textbooks to teach pragmatics. Finally, an investigation of English textbooks
used in China will enrich current research on pragmatic teaching by textbooks and
point out directions for further research.
1.5. An overview of the dissertation
This dissertation consists of six chapters. Chapter 1 delineates the background,
purpose, and significance of the present research. Chapter 2 reviews the major models
of communicative competence and relevant research on the effect of textbooks on
developing communicative competence, following which five research questions are
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
11
proposed. Chapter 3 describes the selection of textbooks, the method and procedure of
data analysis, as well as the coding scheme used to identify target pragmatic features.
Chapter 4 reports the results of the analyses conducted on the pragmalinguistic input,
sociopragmatic input and pragmatic tasks in the textbooks used to identify target
pragmatic features. Chapter 5 discusses the findings in relation to the research
questions. Chapter 6 wraps up the whole dissertation by highlighting the important
findings, discussing implications, acknowledging limitations, and offering suggestions
for further research.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
12
Chapter 2 Literature review
This chapter begins by outlining major models of communicative competence in order
to justify research endeavors to evaluate textbooks’ potential for developing
communicative competence through an examination of pragmatic features in textbooks.
It then reviews relevant research on English language textbooks with a focus on
pragmalinguistic input, sociopragmatic input, and pragmatic tasks in textbooks. The
review of relevant research enables us to discern the strengths and weaknesses of
previous studies and point out the research gaps that this study can fill. Based on the
relevant literature and the research gaps identified, the research questions for this study
are put forward. At the end of this chapter, an analytic framework is presented that
informs the focus of this study.
2.1. Communicative competence
This section provides a definition of communicative competence, an elaboration
on the components of communicative competence and a discussion of the norms of
communicative competence to lay the ground for an investigation into the role of
textbooks in developing L2 communicative competence.
2.1.1. The pragmatic component in models of communicative competence
The concept of communicative competence was first introduced by Hymes (1967,
1972) as a reaction against Chomsky’s (1965) notion of competence which focuses on
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
13
the generative capacity of language systems but excludes the social factors of language
use. Hymes expanded the scope of competence to include knowledge of sociocultural
rules of appropriate language use and the ability to use this underlying knowledge in
actual speech. Ever since Hymes put forward the notion of communicative competence,
it has become the goal of L2 instruction and stimulated a large body of research on
optimal instructional materials for pragmatic development in formal classroom
settings.
Pragmatic competence has been widely acknowledged as an essential component
of all major models of communicative competence (Bachman, 1990; Canale, 1983;
Canale & Swain, 1980; Celce-Murcia, 2007; Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei, & Thurrell,
1995), and interpretation and production of speech acts in communication is seen as an
indicator of language learners’ pragmatic competence. Canale and Swain (1980)
proposed a four-component framework of communicative competence that consists of
grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and
strategic competence. In this model, pragmatic competence is represented as
sociolinguistic competence, which refers to the appropriate use and understanding of
language in different sociolinguistic contexts. In other words, pragmatic competence
includes the ability to interpret the intended meanings and use appropriate linguistic
forms in different social contexts.
In Bachman’s (1990) model of communicative competence, pragmatic
competence is conceptualized as constituting, along with organizational competence,
the core of communicative competence. Pragmatic competence is further divided into
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
14
illocutionary competence and sociolinguistic competence. The former is conceived as
“the knowledge of pragmatic conventions for performing acceptable language
functions” (Bachman, 1990, p. 90) and includes knowledge of speech acts and
language functions. The latter is defined as “the knowledge of the sociolinguistic
conventions for performing language functions appropriately in a given context”
(Bachman, 1990, p. 90), as reflected in sensitivity to the contextual appropriateness of
linguistic forms. The distinction between illocutionary competence and sociolinguistic
competence is reminiscent of Leech’s (1983) division of pragmatics into
pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics.
Celce-Murcia’s (2007) model, as a modified version of the one proposed in
Celce-Muria et al. (1995), comprises six components: sociocultural competence,
discourse competence, linguistic competence, formulaic competence, interactional
competence, and strategic competence. For Celce-Murcia (2007), interactional
competence involves “knowledge of how to perform common speech acts and speech
act sets in the target language” (Celce-Murcia, 2007, p. 48); sociocultural competence
refers to “the speaker ’s pragmatic knowledge, i.e. how to express messages
appropriately within the overall social and cultural context of communication”
(Celce-Murcia, 2007, p. 46). Language users with sociocultural competence are aware
of social contextual factors (e.g., interlocutors’ age, gender, status, social distance, and
their relations to each other), stylistic appropriateness (e.g., politeness strategies), and
cultural factors (e.g., background knowledge of the target language community, and
cross-cultural awareness). The distinction between interactional competence and
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
15
sociocultural competence is similar to that of Bachman’s (1990) illocutionary
competence and sociolinguistic competence.
It is clear from these models that pragmatic competence is a central component of
communicative competence. Effective communication needs a knowledge of the social
values of the target language, an adequate assessment of the contextual variables of the
interactional situation, and the ability to understand and produce appropriate speech
acts (Felíx-Brasdefer, 2003). Consequently, the teaching of pragmatics deserves
attention both in the classroom and in teaching materials.
2.1.2. Pragmatic norms in the teaching of pragmatics
One controversial issue in cross-cultural communication is the norms against
which L2 learners’ pragmatic behaviors can be judged. In the early days of
cross-cultural pragmatics, pragmatic appropriateness was frequently based on the
assumption that the goal of L2 learning is to achieve native- like competence. Cohen
(1996), for example, believed that native speakers’ (NSs) speech act behaviors
revealed by studies like the Cross-cultural Speech Act Realization Project
(Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984) could be the baseline of L2 instruction. Taguchi,
however, questioned “the expressions like socially appropriate language use and
language functions appropriate to situations” (2011, p. 303) proposed in
communicative competence models, and asked that “by whose criteria is
appropriateness determined in a given language, and to what extent are these criteria
valid” (2011, p. 303). She argued that these communicative competence models were
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
16
based on the NS norms. McKay (2003) also pointed out that there were a variety of
problems in applying the NS yardstick to the development of pragmatic competence in
English language teaching.
The reliance on NS pragmatic norms is challenged for its ignorance of L2 learners’
subjectivity in language use. Subjectivity refers to an individual’s self-concept
constructed in dynamic relation to the world (Weedon, 1997). It includes self- identity,
values, beliefs, morals, feelings, and personal principles. L2 learners’ pragmatic
decisions are guided by their beliefs in their L1, their sense of identity when using L2,
and are also intertwined with their L2 experiences in various encounters (Ishihara &
Tarone, 2009; Kasper, 1997; Taguchi, 2011). Some learners may want to converge to
the NS pragmatic norms, while others have been observed to diverge from them (Davis,
2007; Kasper & Zhang, 1995; Kubota, 1996; LoCastro, 1998; Siegal, 1996). Learners’
divergence from NS norms may be explained by their intention to maintain their L1
identity, or it can be understood as a strategy for avoiding being viewed negatively by
some NSs. Kasper (1997) noted that NSs of a language might perceive L2 users’ total
convergence to L2 pragmatics as intrusive and inconsistent with their role as outsider s
to the target community. Thus, it is unwarranted to assume that L2 learners necessarily
want to follow NS norms.
NS norms may not be applicable in all communication venues and to all English
users. According to Taguchi (2011), English NSs take up only about 7% of the world
population, which means that the vast majority of interaction involving English takes
place in the absence of NSs. Speakers of English as a lingual franca might bring their
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
17
native pragmatic norms and negotiate different norms in communicative encounters
(House, 2010). In these encounters, “monolingual norms do not exist, nor are they
relevant to evaluation of pragmatic competence” (Taguchi, 2011, p. 303). What is more
appropriate is to put aside NS norms for English and redefine pragmatic competence
by taking into account of the dynamic nature of communication (Kasper, 2006).
Pragmatic competence is not simply acquiring native- like pragmatic behaviors, but
developing the capacity to be aware of and negotiate differences in pragmatic norms
on the basis of “pragmatic and sociolinguistic decisions which are consistent with
participants’ subjectivities and social claims” (Kasper, 1997).
Language learners’ needs for English should be taken into consideration when
pragmatic norms are under discussion (Judd, 1999). L2 learners study English for
different purposes, and the opportunities for them to interact with NSs vary. In EFL
situations, learners who learn English in order to get access to scientific and
technological information or facilitate their travel abroad have few opportunities to
interact with native speakers, and therefore pragmatic competence normed on NS
usage seems unnecessary. For those who use English at work and have frequent
contacts with both NSs and NNSs in their L1 contexts, “local sociolinguistic and
pragmatic rules of the native language override the use of English” (Judd, 1999, p.
161). For others who communicate with English NSs on a regular basis, both L2 users
and NSs need to develop their knowledge of each other’s norms and negotiate norms
appropriate to their communicative needs. However, no norms should dominate or be
used as benchmark in cross-cultural communication.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
18
Since NS norms are not necessarily appropriate in all cross-cultural
communications, native- like pragmatic competence may not be the aim of ELT. It has
been widely acknowledged that instruction should raise learners’ awareness of L2
pragmatic norms, but not impose those norms on learners (Ishihara & Tarone, 2009;
Judd, 1999; Kasper & Rose, 2002). Ishihara and Cohen, thus, suggest “culturally
sensitive instructional strategies” (2010b, p. 87) that expose learners to pragmatic
variability but respect their pragmatic production. Textbooks can facilitate culturally
sensitive instruction by providing learners with a deep understanding of the
sociocultural norms of the target language and typical NS language use, raising their
awareness of cross-cultural communicative differences between L1 and L2, and
helping them understand the manner in which these differences serve to indicate
membership in a particular speech community. “Knowing the cultural reasoning
behind the language use can provide leaners with an insider view of the culture”
(Ishihara, 2010, p. 218) and help them decide whether to emulate the L2 norms or to
resist them. In addition, textbooks can present cases of misunderstandings caused by
different sociocultural norms in order to inform learners of the culturally-based
interpretation and the consequences of particular pragmatic behaviors. In the
meanwhile, textbooks should encourage learners to reflect on their L1 pragmatic
norms and the target pragmatic norms, and leave them free to make their own decision
regarding whether or not to accommodate to the NS pragmatic norms (Bardovi-Harlig,
2001).
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
19
2.2. English language textbooks in developing communicative competence
An increasing interest in communicative competence has given rise to growing
research attention to the adequacy of textbooks to teach communicative competence.
“Because pragmatics entails linguistic resources for both performing communicative
acts and discerning social perceptions of these acts” (Taguchi, 2011, p. 296), textbooks
inevitably involve pragmatic input and activities concerning these two aspects, or in
Leech’s (1983) words, pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics. However, previous
research has demonstrated that the presentation of speech acts in textbooks is
problematic in these aspects.
2.2.1. Inauthentic pragmalinguistic input
Studies have reported that pragmalinguistic input in textbooks does not reflect
how speech acts are realized in naturally occurring speech. Vellenga (2004) found that
seven out of the eight ELT textbooks for university-aged adult learners examined in
her study presented no more than 10 speech acts, with a minimum of 3 speech acts in
one textbook. In addition to the limited range of speech acts, the frequency of
individual speech act does not accord with that in natural language use. For instance,
the speech act of apology, which happens quite frequently in naturally occurring
language, was mentioned only once across all the textbooks examined by Vellenga
(2004), whereas the speech act of threat that is rarely used in daily interaction was
mentioned in two textbooks. The frequently used speech acts should have recurred
throughout the textbooks so as to enlarge learners’ pragmalinguistic repertoire of these
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
20
speech acts and increase the chance for internalizing them.
Nguyen’s (2011) evaluation of upper-secondary school textbooks in Vietnam also
shows that the the textbook presentation of speech acts d id not match speech act use in
naturalistic or clinically elicited discourse. For example, the textbooks presented “bald”
disagreements like No. That’s not a good idea, That’s wrong, and abrupt refusals like
No. I don’t like the Quiz, which are hardly observed in authentic discourse. Nguyen
commented that these nonrepresentative pragmatic models accompanied by inadequate
explanation might mislead learners or even hamper them from acquiring necessary
social skills to maintain solidarity in real life interaction.
With regard to the presentation of specific speech acts, Boxer and Pickering (1995)
focused on the speech act of complaint in four American ELT textbooks and three
British ELT textbooks that were popular for teaching language functions. The majority
of the surveyed textbooks dealt with direct rather than indirect complaints, despite the
fact that indirect complaints are ubiquitous in ordinary conversations while direct
complaints are rare. In addition, speech act realizations in the textbooks differed
greatly from the way naturalistic speech patterns out. Boxer and Pickering attributed
the discrepancies between spontaneous speech and textbooks to textbook writers ’
unreliable intuition about how speech acts are linguistically expressed.
Similar problems were also documented in Jiang’s (2006) assessment of the
linguistic forms used to make suggestions in ESL textbooks as compared with natural
language use in authentic settings. The naturally occurring data were taken from
professor-student office hours and student-student study groups of the TOEFL 2000
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
21
Spoken and Written Academic Language Corpus. Let’s as the most frequently used
structure for making suggestions in the corpus data was not presented in one of the
three recently published textbook series. All textbooks emphasized the use of should in
making suggestions; however, have to and need to are used much more often than
should in natural speech. Additionally, the conventionalized Wh-questions are
overemphasized by textbooks as a way to make suggestions.
The mismatch between authentic speech and textbooks is also reflected in speech
act modification devices. Usó-Juan (2007) examined the realization strategies and
modification devices for the speech act of request in five tourism textbooks used in
Spain. A total of 21 request realization strategies were found in the textbooks, among
which 20 were conventional indirect requests. Conventional indirect strategies are used
when the speaker makes reference to contextual preconditions necessary for
performing the speech act of request, which is conventionalized in a given language.
As for the modification devices, findings indicated a preference for internal modifiers
over external ones, and an exclusive and frequent use of the politeness marker please.
Internal modification operates within the main part of a request, while external
modification affects the context in which the main part is embedded, indirectly
modifying the illocutionary force (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984). Usó-Juan (2007)
pointed out that the textbooks she investigated neglected the important role that
external modification has in getting the hearer to comply to the request in authentic
language use (Mart í nez-Flor, 2010). Similarly, Konakahara’s (2011) study of
requesting in English textbooks for Japanese secondary school found a considerably
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
22
narrow range of modification devices. A conventional indirect strategy modified by a
modality and a politeness marker like Would you please …? was a recurrent form of
making polite requests in the textbooks.
Other studies also reported that the realization strategies adopted by textbooks
were very limited compared with those found in real- life conversations. These studies
include Chang’s (2003) investigation of four speech acts (thanking, apology, request,
and offer) in textbooks for Korean middle school students, and Delen and Tavil’s (2010)
evaluation of textbooks used by Turkish university students that focused on the speech
acts of request, refusal, and complaint.
2.2.2. Skimpy sociopragmatic input and metapragmatic information
The deficiency of textbooks in fostering communicative competence is not only
caused by the inauthentic pragmalinguistic input, but also by the paucity of
sociopragmatic input and metapragmatic information. According to Vellenga (2004),
most speech acts in her study were presented without contextual references to the
relationship between the interlocutors, or other contextual information that might help
to judge the imposition of the speech acts. Though terms such as formal and informal,
polite and impolite were used throughout all eight textbooks, metapragmatic
information on politeness or appropriateness was rarely included. This absence of
metapragmatic explanation of linguistic realizations related to context may lead to
negative transfer or the use of inappropriate linguistic forms. Vellenga suggested that
textbooks include a variety of linguistic choices for accomplishing a certain speech act,
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
23
explicit metapragmatic explanation, contextually rich opportunities for students to
practice those linguistic forms, and activities to raise students’ pragmatic awareness.
Boxer and Pickering (1995) pointed out that textbooks in their study d id not pay
enough attention to developing learners’ communicative competence. This was evident
in the textbooks’ focus on lexical mitigators that can make complaints less
confrontational, but the textbooks lacked contextual information that is necessary for
teaching sociolinguistic competence. Usó-Juan (2007) also reported that the textbooks
examined concentrated almost exclusively on the acquisition of linguistic competence.
Situational and contextual variables regarding interlocutors’ social status, degree of
intimacy, and the degree of imposition of requests were neither mentioned explicitly
nor incorporated implicitly for learners.
In Jiang’s (2006) study, the new generation textbooks published in the 1990s
presented an extended repertoire of structures for suggestions that were absent from
the old ones published in the 1980s, but both generations shared the limitation of
presenting linguistic structures in a decontextualized manner. Jiang pointed out that the
lack of socio-contextual information for appropriate use or discussion about register
differences could mislead language learners in the development of their pragmatic
competence. Hence, it is necessary to contextualize making suggestions in ways that
are register appropriate, and to develop learners’ awareness of the differences between
various realizations of the same speech act.
Speech acts in textbooks for non-English major students in China (Ji, 2007) and
textbooks in Vietnam (Nguyen, 2011) were found to contain very little explicit
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
24
metapragmatic information. The researchers argued that availability of multiple
linguistic choices for the same speech act would not be enough to guarantee successful
communication, and it is necessary to include metapragmatic information that gives
“direct explanation of target pragmatic features” (Taguchi, 2011, p. 291) in textbooks
so as to help learners acquire the ability to use language appropriately in different
contexts.
2.2.3. Decontextualized pragmatic tasks
In addition to providing learners with pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic input
and metapragmatic explanation, English language textbooks are expected to offer
learners opportunities for pragmatic practice and reflection (Usó-Juan, 2007).
Textbook pragmatic tasks that learners can carry out to practice speech acts are less
documented in the literature. The tasks for the speech act of request in Usó-Juan’s
(2007) study engaged learners in role-plays after they were given a range of formulaic
expressions, or required them to complete a discourse completion task after listening to
conversations on tape. These tasks concentrated on the acquisition of linguistic
competence, as they required learners to drill, either individually or in pairs, a list of
useful expressions for making requests. Tasks were presented with little or no
information on contextual variables in which the requests were embedded except for
some information on the setting where the requests were supposed to take place. Nor
did the textbooks provide any metapragmatic explanation as prompts for learners to
better carry out the tasks.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
25
2.3. Research questions
Pragmatic competence comprises a repertoire of linguistic resources, sensitivity to
the contextual variables involved in an interactional situation, an understanding of
sociocultural constraints on language use, and the ability to interpret and perform
appropriate speech acts. The literature review in the preceding section suggests that
English language textbooks, as the primary source of language input, generally do not
provide conditions necessary for fostering learners’ pragmatic competence. The
limitations of textbooks are mainly reflected in three aspects: Firstly, textbooks are
found to be not based on naturally occurring speech with regard to the distribution of
speech acts or the presentation of speech act realization strategies and modification
devices. Secondly, textbooks present speech acts without adequate contextual
information or metapragmatic information that contributes to establishing a connection
between linguistic realizations and interactional contexts. Thirdly, pragmatic tasks are
typically presented out of context, which does not help learners to acquire the ability to
use language appropriately in a given social context.
Yet, some aspects of textbooks have not been thoroughly investigated. First of
all, with the exception of request (Campillo, 2007; Konakahara, 2011; Usó-Juan, 2007),
pragmalinguistic input for other speech acts needs closer examination. The variety and
distribution of speech act realization strategies and modification devices provided in
textbooks need to be analyzed. Second, not much is known about sociopragmatic input
in textbooks, for example, the richness of contextual information and knowledge of
sociocultural norms for speech act performance. Moreover, research so far has paid
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
26
more attention to pragmatic input than pragmatic tasks; hence, there is need for further
research to examine the types of pragmatic tasks included in textbooks. A combined
consideration of pragmatic input and pragmatic tasks included in textbooks is
necessary to access to what extent a specific textbook facilitates the acquisition of
communicative competence. Such a consideration also takes into account the extent to
which the textbook requires learners to adopt NS pragmatic norms or offer them
opportunities to reflect on their own L2 pragmatic production without imposing NS
norms on them. Finally, there is little research on how textbooks written for different
language skills may differ in their treatment of pragmatics.
The gaps in the previous research necessitate a comparative study that examines
both the pragmatic input and pragmatic tasks included in textbooks targeting at
different language skills. The present study assumes that how textbooks prepare
learners to comprehend and produce speech acts indexes their potential in developing
learners’ pragmatic competence. It takes as its data four representative sets of
textbooks used by English major students in China, and examines the pragmatic input
and pragmatic tasks centered on five speech acts, namely, request, apology, suggestion,
refusal, and disagreement. These speech acts have been selected for two reasons. On
the one hand, these speech acts are commonly involved in daily communication, so the
ability to interpret and perform them determines whether or not such communication
can go smoothly. On the other hand, all of these speech acts are regarded as
face-threating acts in Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory. A mastery of
relevant strategies and modification devices enables learners to navigate
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
27
face-threatening communicative encounters smoothly. The following specific research
questions were formulated to guide the study:
1. What pragmalinguistic input is provided in the textbooks?
2. What sociopragmatic input is included in the textbooks?
3. What pragmatic tasks are employed by the textbooks?
4. To what extent do the pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic input and the
pragmatic tasks facilitate learners’ acquisition of pragmatic competence?
5. What are the similarities and differences in pragmatic teaching between the
textbooks targeting at different language skills?
2.4. Analytical framework
Based on the research gaps noted above, an analytical framework (Figure 2.1)
was developed to guide the quantitative and qualitative analyses of the textbooks by
focusing on three dimensions of textbooks: input, tasks, and goals.
Figure 2.1 Analytical framework
Textbook
Pragmatic
input Goals
Pragmalinguistic
Sociopragmatic
Assimilative
vs. reflective
Communicative
competence
Metapragmatic
Pragmatic
tasks
Matching tasks
Discussion tasks
Role-play tasks
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
28
Textbook pragmatic input is a prerequisite for acquiring communicative
competence, providing resources for language use in real- life interaction. Based on
Leech’s (1983) classification of pragmatics into pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics,
textbook pragmatic input can be subdivided into pragmalinguistic input,
sociopragmatic input, and metapragmatic information. Pragmalinguistic input concerns
speech act realization strategies and modification devices; sociopragmatic input
involves contextual information analyzed in terms of participants’ social status,
distance, and the degree of imposition, and sociocultural constraints on the
performance of speech acts; metapragmatic information links pragmalinguistic
knowledge and sociopragmatic knowledge, giving “direct explanation of target
pragmatic features” (Taguchi, 2011, p. 291).
Matching tasks, discussion tasks and role-play tasks are typical pragmatic tasks
employed in the examined textbooks to raise learners’ awareness of pragmatic
variation and create output and interaction opportunities for acquiring L2
communicative competence. In terms of their awareness-raising effect, all the tasks
may help make salient target pragmatic features, either the linguistic formulae to
realize a certain speech act or the culture reasoning behind L2 pragmatic behaviors.
Besides, such tasks can also enhance learners’ understanding and interpretation of
pragmatic components (pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge). Role-play
tasks, which are interactive in nature, are expected to engage learners in experimenting
with the pragmatic components in production, enable them to notice the gap in their
pragmatic repertoire, and push them to attend to more comprehensible pragmatic input.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
29
Pragmatic input and pragmatic tasks included in the textbooks are driven by, and
at the same time, serve to achieve the goal of developing communicative competence.
Textbooks’ attempt to develop learners’ pragmatic competence entails the crucial
question of whether textbooks assimilate learners to NS pragmatic norms by imposing
NS pragmatic norms on them or give them opportunities to reflect on their own
pragmatic behaviors to understand the different pragmatic norms between L1 and L2.
2.5. Chapter summary
This chapter started with an introduction of the major models of communicative
competence, showing that pragmatic knowledge and ability constitutes the core of
communicative competence. Then it reviewed the relevant research on textbooks,
identifying the research gaps that this study can fill. Based on the research gaps, five
specific research questions were proposed. They respectively focus on the
pragmalinguistic input, sociopragmatic input and pragmatic tasks in the textbooks, the
extent to which the textbooks help acquire pragmatic competence in particular and
communicative competence in general, as well as the similarities and differences
between oral-English textbooks and integrated-skills textbooks in teaching pragmatics.
Finally, an analytical framework was presented to organize the analyses to be reported
in the next chapter.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
30
Chapter 3 Methodology
This chapter describes the methodology adopted in the present study. It first describes
the criteria used to select textbooks for the study and provides some background
information on the selected textbooks. It then presents the method and procedure of
data analysis. Finally, an analytic scheme that was used to examine five speech acts is
presented.
3.1. Textbook selection
The four sets of textbooks analyzed in this study include: Challenge to Speak
(Book 1 and Book 2), Learn to Talk and Say it Right (Book 1 and Book 2 of the same
textbook series), Integrated Skills of English (Book 1 and Book 2), and A New English
Course (Book 1 and Book 2) (see the Appendix). For ease of reference, these
textbooks are referred to as Challenge, Talk/Say, Integrated Skills, and New Course
respectively.
3.1.1. Criteria for textbook selection
The first selection criterion is that the textbooks selected must be widely used
among English major students in institutions of higher education, so that the findings
can have wide applicability. The candidate textbooks are published by the top three
publishers in China that specialize in publishing foreign language teaching and
learning materials: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Shanghai Foreign
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
31
Language Education Press, and Higher Education Express. Textbooks published by
these publishers enjoy great reputation among language teachers and learners.
Second, in order to make a comparison between textbooks targeting at different
language skills, textbooks for oral-English courses and those for integrated-skills
courses were chosen. Oral-English courses mainly aim at fostering learners’ speaking
skills and communication ability; integrated-skills courses aim to promote learners’
all-round development of the four language skills — listening, speaking, reading, and
writing. The exclusion of other types of textbooks, for instance, textbooks for reading
and listening, was based on the fact that these courses barely offer opportunities for
verbal communication that involves the interpretation and production of speech acts.
Though language knowledge and abilities developed by the other courses can be
beneficial for communicative competence development, they are not the most relevant
courses that target at learners’ communicative competence.
Third, to maximize comparability, the selected textbooks should be written for
learners at similar language proficiency levels. Moreover, textbooks that present
pragmatic input in some identical ways and contain similar pragmatic tasks are optimal
for a comparative study. Oral-English textbooks and integrated-skills textbooks used at
the foundation stage for learners at the lower-medium English proficiency level were
selected for this study because they presented pragmatic input in conversations and
lists of linguistic formulae, and provide communicative activities involving the five
speech acts.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
32
3.1.2. Procedure of textbook selection
Following the criteria outlined above, two steps were taken to select textbooks. In
the initial stage, I screened the lists of oral-English textbooks and integrated-skills
textbooks on the official websites of the three publishers, and included seven sets of
textbooks as candidates. The candidate oral English textbooks included New Inside
Out, Challenge to Speak, Learn to Talk, and Say it Right; the candidate
integrated-skills textbooks included Contemporary College English, Expressing
English: Integrated Coursebook , Integrated Skills of English, and A New English
Course.
In the second stage, I conducted a preliminary examination of these textbooks,
excluding three sets of textbooks that did not contain any conversations, functional
patterns, or communicative activities related to speech acts. Contemporary College
English and Expressing English: Integrated Coursebook were abandoned because they
only provided two reading texts and reading-related activities in each unit. New Inside
Out was excluded as this set of textbooks centered on phonology, grammar and
vocabulary that are needed for developing speaking skills, giving little attention to
communicative functions.
In accordance with the National English Syllabus for English Majors in
Institutions of Higher Learning (The English Division, 2000), all four sets of textbooks
placed a great emphasis on learners’ communicative competence. With the exception
of Integrated Skills, they explicitly announced the aim of developing learners’
communicative competence in the preface. In every unit, two speech acts were taught
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
33
and practiced through model conversations, functional patterns, and varied pragmatic
activities. That is to say, besides the condensed treatment of particular speech acts in a
certain unit, conversations in other units usually involved these speech acts.
As shown in Table 3.1, the four sets of textbooks were comparable in terms of the
number of units. Except Integrated Skills, which contained a total of 30 units, each of
the other three sets of textbooks had 36 units. There were more pages in the
integrated-skills textbooks than in the oral-English textbooks even when the word lists
of the integrated-skills textbooks were excluded, and this is related to the inclusion of
reading texts and relevant linguistic exercises in the integrated-skills textbooks. When
only the speaking sections of the integrated-skills textbooks were counted, there were
fewer pages in the integrated-skills textbooks than in the oral-English textbooks
dealing with communicative functions.
Table 3.1 General information about the textbooks
Textbooks Challenge Talk/Say New Course Integrated Skills
Book
1
Book
2
Book
1
Book
2
Book 1 Book 2 Book
1
Book
2
Total units 18 18 18 18 18 18 15 15
Total
pages
142 148 212 188 216 220 253 224
3.2. Data analysis
To answer the first three research questions, content analysis was employed to
examine the pragmalinguistic input, sociopragmatic input, and pragmatic tasks
included in the textbooks.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
34
3.2.1. The method of data analysis
Content analysis is “a research technique for making replicable and valid
inferences from texts (or other meaningful matter) to the contexts of their use ”
(Krippendorff, 2004, p. 18). It can be either quantitative or qualitative. Quantitatively
examining texts “involves the counting of instances of words, phrases, or grammatical
structures that fall into specific categories” (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 245). Thus, quantitative
analysis enables researchers to make inferences based on the frequency of the key
categories. Though it started as a quantitative analytical method, content analysis has
now been closely associated with qualitative research (Dörnyei, 2007). Qualitative
analysis aims to interpret and explain texts with categories that are not predetermined
but derived inductively from the text analyzed. It helps make sense of highly complex
situations (Dörnyei, 2007).
Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted in this study to answer
the research questions. For the first research question concerning pragmalinguistic
input, quantitative analysis was utilized to explore the variety and frequency of
realization strategies and modification devices, so that the distribution pattern of these
strategies and modification devices in the textbooks can be compared with that in real
language use. In the meanwhile, typical examples were used to illustrate strategy use
in certain situations. For the second and third research questions, qualitative analysis
was used to explore what kind of sociopragmatic input and pragmatic tasks were
included and how the tasks engaged learners in learning pragmatics. Findings of the
first three research questions will give answers to the last two research questions
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
35
regarding the textbooks’ potential for developing learners’ communicative competence
and textbooks’ similarities and differences in teaching pragmatics
3.2.2. The procedure of data analysis
The first step was to identify the source of data. Since speech acts are produced
during verbal communication, conversations, lists of linguistic formulae, and texts that
contained dialogues in the textbooks were selected as data to be analyzed.
Reading-aloud and topic discussion in the oral-English textbooks were not counted;
listening activity and reading texts in the integrated skills textbooks were excluded.
The second step was to identify coding units. In content analysis, a coding unit is
“an identifiable message or message component” on which variables are measured
(Neuendorf, 2002, p. 71). For the quantitative analysis of speech act strategies and
modification devices in the present study, the coding unit was a segment of text that
employed a certain strategy to express the illocutionary force. For example, Can you
do me a favor? is an independent unit that expresses the requestive force.
The third step was to develop a coding scheme. With a coding scheme, the
identified coding units with similar characteristics can be grouped into meaningful
categories that are “exhausted and mutually exclusive and an appropriate level of
measurement” (Neuendorf, 2002, p.118). In this study, the development of the coding
scheme drew on the relevant literature in two aspects: The coding scheme incorporated
the universal pragmatic strategies of direct and indirect types (Kasper & Schmidt, 1996)
and politeness theory (Brown & Levinson, 1987); the specific realization strategies for
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
36
a particular speech act were identified on the basis of pragmalinguistic formulae that
have been found in previous studies on that particular speech act.
The last step was to code the data. A second coder who had some experience in
coding speech act strategies in a small-scale project was invited to assist the whole
process of data coding. The coding process was conducted at three stages: At first, the
two coders independently coded five units from two sets of textbooks. Since the
selected five units mainly taught the five speech acts, they provided abundant samples
embedded with various strategies for analysis. The coded data was discussed to
achieve agreement on the coding categories and to consider any changes necessary to
the coding scheme. Then, two units from each set of the textbooks (11.6% of the total
units) were coded independently by the two raters based on the revised coding scheme.
The coded data was checked for any discrepancies, and discrepancies were resolved
through discussion between the two raters until consensus was reached. Any category
that was not included in the coding scheme but was encountered in the coding process
was discussed and added to the coding scheme. At the end of this stage, the interrater
reliability estimated with Krippendorff’s (2004) alpha coefficient was .93. Finally, I
independently coded the rest of the data.
3.3. Coding scheme
The coding scheme of each speech act first gave a definition of the speech act,
and then presented the categories of speech act strategies and modification devices.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
37
For the strategies adopted by the examined textbooks, examples from the textbooks
were given; for those not presented in the textbooks, examples from previous empirical
research were provided. Key words in the example sentences that illustrate the specific
strategy use were italicized. The coding scheme is based on previous empirical studies,
many of which are contrastive studies involving both native and non-native speakers.
The inclusion of strategies used by native speakers is not to encourage native-speaker
norms as the yardstick for textbook development, but to show that the textbooks that
show the tendency to follow native-speaker norms even could not provide sufficient
strategies and modification devices used by native speakers.
3.3.1. Request
Request refers to “an illocutionary act whereby a speaker (requester) conveys to a
hearer (requestee) that he/she wants the requestee to perform an act which is for the
benefit of the speaker” (Trosborg, 1995, p. 187). The request may be made for an
object, an action or a particular service, or it may be a request for information
(Trosborg, 1995). In this study, asking for direction was not counted as a request
because it was taught as a specific speech act distinguished from request in the
textbooks. Request is regarded as a face-threatening act as it intrinsically threatens the
hearer’s negative face, that is, the freedom of action and the freedom from imposition
(Brown & Levinson, 1987). To minimize the imposition, indirect strategies rather than
direct strategies can be employed, or modification devices can be adopted.
It is generally agreed that the request strategies can be divided into three major
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
38
categories with a decreasing order on the scale of directness: direct strategies,
conventional indirect strategies, and non-conventional indirect strategies (Blum-Kulka
& Olshtain, 1984; Trosborg, 1995). Direct strategies are employed if the requester
makes explicit the illocutionary point of his/her utterance. As has been mentioned,
conventional indirect strategies refer to such preconditions necessary for requesting as
the hearer’s ability or willingness. Nonconventional indirect strategies, also called
hints, are strategies that realize the request by either partial reference to an object or an
element needed for the implementation of the act or by reliance on contextual clues.
Within each category, specific strategies are used to formulate requests (see Table 3.2).
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
39
Table 3.2 Request strategies
Request strategies Description Examples
Direct
Mood derivables
The grammatical mood of the verb in the utterance signals the
illocutionary force.
Please write to me. This is my address.
(Integrated Skills of English, Book 1, p.
3)
Explicit
performatives
The illocutionary force of the utterance is explicitly named. I’m asking you to clean up the kitchen.
(Ishihara & Cohen, 2010a)
Hedged
performatives
The illocutionary force of the utterance is named, but it is
modified by hedging expressions.
I must ask you to refrain from smoking.
(Trosborg, 1995)
Locution derivables The illocutionary force is derivable from the semantic meaning of
the locution.
You have to take an injection before you
leave… (Say it Right, p. 34)
Want statements The utterance expresses the speaker’s intention, desire or feeling
that the hearer do X.
Sue, I’m in an awkward spot. I need you
to help me. (Learn to talk , p. 54)
Conventional
indirect
Reference to
preparatory
conditions
Utterance contains reference to the preparatory conditions (e.g.
ability, willingness, possibility) of a request.
Could you lend me your dictionary for
an hour or so? (Challenge to Speak, p.
18)
Language-specific
suggestory formula
Utterance contains a suggestion to do X. How about cleaning my microwave.
(Learn to Talk , p. 55)
Non-conventional
indirect
Strong hints
Utterance contains partial reference to objects or elements needed
for the implementation of the act.
Have you got Alan’s phone number, by
any chance? (Integrated Skills of
English, Book 1, p. 193)
Mild hints
Utterance makes no reference to objects or elements needed for
the implementation of the act, and the hearer needs to interpret the
illocutionary force through the context.
I’m a nun. (in response to the persistent
boy) (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984)
(Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984; Trosborg, 1995)
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
40
The request modification devices can be divided into two groups: internal and
external modification devices (see Table 3.3). The speaker might mitigate the
imposition of a request by using syntactic mitigation devices like interrogative or
including lexical or phrasal mitigation devices such as politeness markers, downtoners,
understatements, and hedges. Moreover, the speaker may use grounders to support the
request and make it plausible and justifiable, or employ disarmers and flattering
statements referred to as sweeteners to increase the chance that the hearer complies to
the request.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
41
Table 3.3 Request modification devices
Type Sub-type Description Examples
Internal
Syntactic
Interrogatives Interrogatives are more polite than statements
when making a request.
Would you bring us some cakes? (Say it Right, p.
44)
Negations
Negations are used to downtone the expectations
to the fulfillment of the request.
Look, excuse me, I wonder if you wouldn’t mind
dropping me home? (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain,
1984)
Past tense Past tense is used to downtone the expectations to
the fulfillment of the request.
I wanted to ask for a postponement. ((Blum-Kulka
& Olshtain, 1984)
Conditional clauses
The speaker uses conditional clauses to distance
the request from reality, so that the face-threat
could be decreased if the request is refused.
I would appreciate it if you’d tell me what’ll be
covered in the English exam. (A New English
Course, Book 1, p. 123)
Embedding
Tentative
The speaker prefaces his/her utterance with a
clause in which the request is embedded and
expresses his/her tentativeness in making the
request.
I wonder if you could go to the post office for me.
(A New English Course, Book 2, p. 6)
Appreciative
The speaker prefaces his/her request with a clause
in which the request is embedded with expressions
of hope, delight, thanks, etc.
I’d appreciate it very much if you could lend me
your book. (Integrated Skills of English, Book 1,
p. 193)
Subjectivizer The request is presented as the speaker’s personal
opinion, belief, etc.
I’m afraid you’ll have to leave now. (Trosborg,
1995)
Tag questions A tag question is added to a direct request. Stop running around, will you? (A New English
Course, Book 2, p. 152)
Ing-forms
The speaker uses continuous aspect instead of the
simple present tense to emphasize the meaning
expressed by the tentative embedding clause.
I was wondering if you could help me carry these
boxes upstairs. (Integrated Skills of English, Book
1, p. 193)
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
42
Lexical and
phrasal
Consultative devices Elements chosen to involve the hearer and bid for
his/her cooperation.
Do you think I could borrow your lecture notes
from yesterday? (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984)
Understaters Elements that minimize some aspects of the
request.
I was wondering if I might ask you a small favor.
(A New English Course, Book 2, p. 2)
Hedges
Elements by which the speaker avoids giving
precise details of the request.
Could you accompany me to the department store
some time this week? (Challenge to Speak, Book
1, p. 18)
Downtoners
Elements that moderate the force of the request by
signaling the possibility of non-compliance.
Could you possibly ask her to bring along that
book as well? (An Integrated Skills of English,
Book 1, p. 191)
Politeness markers Elements of deference. Would you bring my washing in please? (A New
English Course, Book 2, p. 12)
Interpersonal markers Elements that establish and maintain a good and
amiable interpersonal relationship.
But, please, try and telephone me next time, all
right? (A New English Course, Book 1, p. 186)
External
Checking on availability
The speaker prefaces the request with an utterance
that checks if the precondition necessary for
compliance holds true.
Excuse me. Is this book available? I need it badly.
(Challenge to Speak, Book 1, p. 32)
Getting a precommitment
The speaker precedes the request with an utterance
that attempts to obtain a precommital.
Do me a favor and get me some stamps and
envelops, please. (Challenge to Speak, Book 1, p.
17)
Grounders
The speaker offers reasons for the request. Yeah, but I just found out that I didn’t bring any
cash. Can you lend me $20? ( Learn to Talk , p.
55)
Sweeteners
The speaker expresses appreciation of the hearer’s
ability to comply with the request.
You have the most beautiful handwriting I’ve ever
seen! Would it be possible to borrow your notes
for a few days? (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984)
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
43
Disarmers
The speaker indicates his/her awareness of a
potential offense.
I hate to say this, Larry, but do you mind not
making so much noise? (Integrated Skills of
English, Book 1, p. 240)
Cost minimizers
The speaker indicates consideration of the cost to
the hearer involved in compliance with the request.
Can I borrow your car tonight? I’ll have it back in
time for you to drive to work tomorrow.
(Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984)
Promise of a reward
The speaker offers a reward in order to make the
request more attractive and increase the possibility
of compliance.
Will you do me a favor? I’ll give you each a
dollar if you’ll promise to come around every day
and do your thing. (Say it Right, p. 26)
(Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984; Trosborg, 1995)
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
44
The request modification devices in the coding scheme were based on and
adapted from Blum-Kulka and Olshtain’s (1984) categorization and Trosborg’s (1995)
taxonomy. The two systems share most of the modification devices, including the
above mentioned ones, though there are some slight differences between the two
systems. The present study follows Trosborg’s system that clarifies conditional clause
and embedding as two independent devices rather than combine them to be embedding
“if” clause as in Blum-Kulka and Olshtain’s system. Trosborg further divides
embedding into tentative (e.g. I wonder if…) and appreciative (e.g. I’d appreciate it if
you…), and explains that embedding often occurs with a conditional clause. Ing-forms,
tag questions, and promise of a reward, as modification devices, are suggested in
Trosborg’s system but absent from Blum-Kulka’s system. Adding Ing-forms into the
request modification devices allows us to explain the difference in the illocutionary
force between I was wondering if you would give me a hand and I wonder if you can
give me a hand, as the former sounds a bit more polite. Similarly, using a tag question
after a direct request softens the impact of request imposition on the hearer (Trosborg,
1995). For instance, Hand me the paper, will you? appeals to the hearer ’s consent,
whereas Hand me the paper sounds more like an imperative. Promise of a reward, no
matter whether it is specified or vaguely mentioned, may make the request more
attractive to the hearer and thus increase the possibility of compliance (Trosborg,
1995).
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
45
3.3.2. Apology
Apology is a compensatory action to an offense that violates social norms or
harms another person (Bergman & Kasper, 1993; Olshtain & Cohen, 1983). It is a
crucial speech act to “reduce friction in personal interaction” (Lakoff, 1975, p. 64) and
reestablish social harmony (Goffman, 1972). Making an apology is a face-threatening
act for the apologizer as it suggests that he/she admits taking responsibility for the
offense; on the other hand, by performing the speech act of apologizing, the apologizer
attempts to restore the face of the hearer (Brown & Levinson, 1987).
The person who has caused the offence may not be aware of his/her violation of
the social norms, may not feel the need to apologize, or may choose to deny the
responsibility. When the speaker recognizes the necessity to apologize, he/she has
multiple choices. Following Trosborg (1995), there are four major types of apology
strategies: evasive strategies, direct apologies, indirect apologies, and remedial support.
Evasive strategies are used when the speaker fails to take on responsibility, either by
totally denying the responsibility or attempting to minimize the offense. A direct
strategy is “an explicit illocutionary force indicating device” (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain,
1984) that utilizes routinized expressions of regret such as apologize, be sorry, regret,
etc. Indirect apologies are utterances that contain reference to the cause of the offence
or the speaker ’s awareness of his/her responsibility for the offence. In situations where
a verbal apology is insufficient to placate the offended person, remedial support may
be offered in the form of a remedy for the offence or a promise to avoid similar
offences in the future.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
46
Accordingly, specific apology realization strategies proposed by previous research
(Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984; Cohen, Olshtain & Rosenstein, 1986; Trosborg, 1995)
were grouped into the four categories (Table 3.4). Cohen et al. (1986) classified denial
of fault, blaming hearer, minimizing responsibility and minimizing offense as
modifiers of apology possibly for the reason that these strategies may serve to lessen
the blame on the speaker and mitigate the circumstances under which an offense was
committed. But these strategies also demonstrate the speaker’s evasive responses to
his/her infraction, and do not contribute to harmony restoration. Hence, the coding
scheme used in the present study classified the above strategies into the category of
evasive strategies as suggested by Trosborg (1995). With regard to the strategies in the
other three categories, there is not much dispute among different systems except for
those categorized as remedial support. Expressing concern for the hearer is regarded as
mitigation in Blum-Kulka and Olshtain’s (1984) classificatory scheme and Cohen et al.’
(1986) system, but it is characterized as remedial support in Trosborg’s (1995)
classification. As a matter of fact, the two different classifications are not in conflict
with each other since remedial support is usually external of the main utterance of
apology and gives additional value to maximizing the apology, which functions like a
modification. In order to keep the coding scheme consistent, this study categorized
expressing concern as remedial support.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
47
Table 3.4 Apology strategies
Apology strategies Sub-strategies Description Examples
Evasive
Minimizing responsibility
The speaker attempts to minimize his/her
responsibility by attributing it to external
factors.
Didn’t I tell you I don’t know the bus stop so
well? (Cohen, et al., 1986)
Denial of
responsibility
Denial of fault
The speaker explicitly denies that an offense
has occurred or that he/she is in any way
responsible for it.
I’m ever so sorry, but it wasn’t really my fault!
(A New English Course, Book 1, p. 185)
Blaming hearer
The speaker evades responsibility by
blaming the hearer.
Oh, don’t be silly, Jane. You see, many people
are smoking. (Integrated Skills of English, Book
1, p. 242)
Minimizing offense
The speaker minimizes the degree of
offense by arguing that the supposed offense
is of minor importance.
Oh what does that matter, that’s nothing.
(Trosborg, 1995)
Direct
An expression of an
apology
An expression of
regret
Expressions involving the word sorry. I’m sorry, Jenny. (Challenge to Speak, Book 1,
p. 97)
An offer of apology The speaker uses the expression I apologize
or the noun apology.
Please accept my apology. (Learn to talk, p. 95)
A request for
forgiveness
The routine formulae excuse me, forgive me,
and pardon me.
Can you ever forgive me? (Challenge to Speak,
Book 1, p. 25)
An explanation or account of the situation
The speaker tries to mitigate his/her guilt by
giving an explanation or account of the
situation.
I’m sorry to be late for our tutorial. Someone
stopped to talk to me downstairs. (Challenge to
Speak, Book 1, p. 25)
Expression of trait of
self-deficiency
The speaker acknowledges his/her
responsibility for the offense by positioning
himself/herself in a humble position
I’m sorry I am so slow at learning the four tones.
(Challenge to Speak, Book 1, p. 25)
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
48
Indirect
An
acknowledgment of
responsibility
Expression of
self-blame
The speaker explicitly acknowledges that it
is his/her own fault.
This is all my fault. (A New English Course,
Book 1, p. 209)
Expression of explicit
acknowledgement
The speaker takes on responsibility by
admitting that he/she is the party who has
resulted in the infraction.
Well, I was cleaning behind the table it was on
and I accidentally knocked it over and it broke.
(Learn to Talk , p. 96)
Expression of implicit
acknowledgement
The speaker takes on responsibility by
showing regret that he/she should or should
not have done something.
Yes, I should have phoned you last night, but
Jane, I can’t say very much here in the office. I’ll
ring you back, OK? (An Integrated Skills of
English, Book 2, p. 92)
Expression of lack of
intent
The speaker accepts responsibility but
mentioning that the offense was not
intended.
I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to offend you.
(Challenge to Speak, Book 2, p. 68)
Expression of
embarrassment
The speaker expresses his/her bad feelings
about causing the offense to the hearer.
I really feel bad about it. (Learn to talk, p. 95)
Remedial
support
An offer of repair
The speaker offers to “repair” the damage
resulted from his/her infraction by providing
compensatory action.
I can buy you a new one. (Learn to talk, p. 96)
A promise of forbearance
The speaker promises either never to
perform the offence in question again, or to
improve his/her behavior in a number of
ways.
Sorry, it won’t happen again. I promise.
(Challenge to speak, Book 1, p. 98)
Concern for the Hearer
In order to pacify the hearer, the speaker
expresses concern for his/her well-being or
condition.
Oh, I’m terribly sorry! Are you all right? (Learn
to talk , p. 95)
(Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984; Cohen et al., 1986; Trosborg, 1995)
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
49
Two apology modification devices were included in the coding scheme based on
Cohen et al.’s (1986) and Trosborg’s (1995) research: intensifiers and emotions (Table
3.5). Intensifiers include the commonly used adverbials such as really, very, so,
terribly, awfully, truly, etc., and embedded exclamatory sentences like You cannot
believe how sorry I am. Emotions refer to interjections and invocations like Oh dear,
Oh my God that can strengthen the apologetic force.
Table 3.5 Apology modification devices
Types Description Examples
Intensifiers Adverbials and other sentence patterns used
to intensify the apology.
I am terribly sorry. (Learn to Talk,
p. 95)
Emotions Interjection and invocation used to
maximize the force of apology.
Oh, dear! I’m so sorry. Thank you
for reminding me.
(Cohen et al., 1986; Trosborg, 1995)
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
50
3.3.3. Suggestion
Suggestion is the act that “the speaker asks the hearer to take some action which
the speaker believes will benefit the hearer, even one that the speaker should desire”
(Rintell, 1979, p. 99). In line with previous research (Jiang, 2006; Martínez-Flor, 2005;
Tsui, 1994), the concept of suggestion in this study was construed as encompassing
both suggestion and advice because the linguistic formulae used to realize them are
quite similar. Though it is non- impositive and for the benefit of the hearer, suggestion
is regarded a face-threatening act (Brown & Levinson, 1987) since the speaker is in
some way intruding into the hearer’s decision regarding what he/she should do. Hence
the speaker who makes a suggestion might try to soften or mitigate the illocutionary
force of suggestion in order to minimize the chance of offending the hearer.
Martínez-Flor (2005) classifies suggestion realization strategies into three main
types: direct, conventionalized, and indirect strategies. Direct strategies are performed
when the speaker clearly states his/her suggestion by means of performative verbs,
nouns of suggestion, imperatives, or negative performatives. Conventionalized
strategies refer to utterances in which the speaker’s intention is not explicitly stated but
the illocutionary force is indicated. Indirect strategies refer to utterances whose
illocutionary force is not indicated, and the hearer has to infer it from the context in
which the utterance occurs. Martínez-Flor ’s (2005) taxonomy of suggestion strategies
is, in essence, similar to Blum-Kulka and Olshtain’s (1984) classification of request
strategies on the level of the main types. In order to make the terms consistent in this
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
51
research, the coding scheme basically followed Martínez-Flor’s (2005) taxonomy but
changes the three main strategy types to direct, conventional indirect, and
conventional- indirect strategies (Table 3.6). Within the conventional indirect group,
there are specific strategies such as interrogatives, modals, conditional clauses,
inclusive We, expressions of likes and dislike; non-conventional indirect strategies
include impersonal, hints, and suggesting without any structure.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
52
Table 3.6 Suggestion strategies
Suggestion strategies Description Examples
Direct
Performatives
The illocutionary force of the utterance is explicitly
named by performative verbs such as suggest, advice,
recommend, etc.
I suggest you take advantage of living in China and go to
lectures, movies, and plays “8,888 times”, and dip
yourself in the language environment as much as possible.
(A New English Course, Book 1, p. 52)
Nouns of
suggestion
The illocutionary force of the utterance is explicitly
expressed by nouns like suggestion, advice, etc.
Well, Tom, my advice to you is to limit TV-watching to
only once or twice in a week, and jog for an hour every
day. (Integrated Skills of English, Book 1, p. 135)
Imperatives The speaker uses imperatives to make a suggestion
about what the hearer should do.
Also, eat good healthy food, and take this medicine.
(Challenge to Speak, Book 1, p. 63)
Negative
imperatives
The speaker uses negative imperatives to make a
suggestion about what the hearer should not do.
But don’t each too much from now on… (Say it Right, p.
35)
Subjunctive mood The speaker expresses the illocutionary force of
suggestion by means of subjunctive mood.
It’s time that we collected our reports. (Integrated Skills of
English, Book 1, p. 88)
Conventional
indirect
Interrogatives The illocutionary force is implicitly expressed
through interrogative forms.
How about going window shopping? (Challenge to Speak,
Book 1, p. 33)
Modals
The speaker uses modal verbs to indicate the
possibility and obligation of the hearer to do
something.
Maybe, but I think you should go to the doctor to find out
what is causing your constant headaches. (Challenge to
Speak, Book 1, p. 63)
Conditional
clauses
The speaker uses conditional clauses to distance the
suggestion from reality, so that the face-threat could
be decreased if the suggestion is declined.
If I were you, I would buy this dictionary. (Integrated
Skills of English, Book 1, p. 87)
Inclusive We The speaker makes himself/herself as part of the
subject.
Let’s go for a walk in the gardens. (Challenge to speak,
Book 1, p. 39)
Expressions of The speaker tries to influence the hearer’s decision I should think you’ll like this good-looking one. (Say it
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
53
likes and dislikes about what to do by showing his/her own preference. Right, p. 55)
Non-conventional
indirect
Impersonal
The interpersonal statements allow the speaker to be
invisible so that his/her responsibility for the
suggestion is reduced, and his/her face can be
protected if the suggestion is declined.
It might be a good idea to read some simplified readers
first. (Challenge to Speak, Book 1, p. 33)
Hints Utterances whose illocutionary force can only be
inferred from the context in which they appear.
I’ve heard that the course is really difficult. (Martí
nez-Flor, 2005)
Suggesting
without any
structure
The speaker gives suggestion without using any
structure.
-But what shall I get for her?
-A set of book ends, an alarm clock… (Challenge to
Speak, Book 2, p. 97)
(Guerra & Martínez-Flor, 2006; Martínez-Flor, 2005)
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
54
The coding scheme refined Martínez-Flor’s (2005) taxonomy with three changes
as follows: First, inclusive We and expressions of likes and dislikes were added to the
category of conventional indirect strategies since they are frequently used by language
learners when making suggestions (Martínez-Flor, 2005). Second, the use of should,
ought to and need proposed by Martínez-Flor (2005) and must and have to added by
Guerra and Martínez-Flor (2006) were combined and labeled the strategy of modals.
Finally, subjunctive mood, which is found in the textbooks examined in the present
study, was added to the coding scheme under the category of direct strategies as the
suggestive force is explicitly manifested.
Following Guerra and Mart í nez-Flor (2006) and Mart í nez-Flor (2010),
suggestion modification devices were divided into internal and external modification
(Table 3.7). Within the internal modification category, subjectivizers referred to
linguistic expressions that show personal opinion such as I think, in my opinion, I’m
afraid, etc. Downtoners included softening devices like perhaps, maybe, and probably.
In addition to subjectivizers and downtoners, internal modification included tentative
embedding I wonder. External modification included grounders that help justify the
reasonability of the suggestion and disarmers which is used to show the speaker’s
awareness of the potential offense caused by his or her act.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
55
Table 3.7 Suggestion modification devices
Types Description Examples
Internal
Subjectivizers Elements which express a speaker’s subjective opinion with
regard to the situation referred to in the proposition.
I think you should exercise daily and switch to more salad and
fruit. (Challenge to Speak, Book 1, p. 33)
Downtoners Elements that moderate the force of the suggestion by
signaling the possibility of the suggestion being rejected.
Maybe we should have another meeting. (Learn to Talk , p. 33)
Tentative
embedding
The speaker prefaces his/her utterance with a clause in
which the suggestion is embedded and expresses his/her
tentativeness in making the suggestion.
I was wondering if you’d ever thought of starting a business.
(Integrated Skill of English, Book 1, p. 158)
External
Grounders The speaker justifies his/her suggestion by offering an
explanation or account of the situation.
I would take it if I were you. It’ll be a great help for you to find a
job after graduation. (Challenge to Speak, Book 2, p. 29)
Disarmers
The speaker indicates his/her awareness of a potential
offense.
You know… Perhaps it’s none of my business… but you really
shouldn’t have raised your voice at him when you discussed your
plan. (Challenge to Speak, Book 2, p. 119)
(Guerra & Martínez-Flor, 2006; Martínez-Flor, 2010)
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
56
3.3.4. Refusal
Refusal is “a responding act in which the speaker denies to engage in an action
proposed by the interlocutor” (Chen, Ye, & Zhang, 1995, p. 121). Refusals are often
made in response to requests, invitations, offers, and suggestions. In making a refusal,
the speaker is “typically communicating a potentially undesirable message as far as the
hearer is concerned” (Ishihara & Cohen, 2010a, p. 60). Due to its inherent risk of
offending the hearer, refusal requires long sequenced negotiation, which involves the
use of a set of strategies appropriate to the situation.
The coding scheme (Table 3.8), based on Beebe, Takahashi and Uliss-Weltz’s
(1990) classification of refusals, included direct and indirect strategies, and adjuncts to
refusals. Direct strategies deny compliance without reservation, using either
performatives or non-performatives to show the speaker ’s unwillingness or inability or
preference not to comply. There were eleven indirect refusal strategies, including
providing reasons, offering alternative solutions, letting the hearer off the hook,
postponement, etc. Adjuncts cannot be used by themselves but go together with refusal
strategies. For example, a speaker may express a positive feeling or gratitude before he
or she gives an excuse. Without the excuse, the positive feeling or gratitude would be
taken as an acceptance. It should be noted that the strategy of speaker preference,
proposed by Barron (2003), was added to Beebe et al.’s (1990) system under the direct
category in the coding scheme. The speaker may decline an offer by showing a
preference for what the hearer can do (e.g. I’d rather you didn’t, if you don’t mind), or
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
57
refuse a suggestion by showing the speaker’s own preference to what he/she would
like to do (e.g., I’d rather go to see a movie.)
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
58
Table 3.8 Refusal strategies
Refusal strategies Sub-strategies Description Examples
Direct
Performatives The speaker directly denies compliance
using the word refuse.
I refuse. (Beebe et al., 1990)
Non-performatives
Direct “no” Direct use of a denying word “no”. No. I dare say she already has such things. (Challenge to
Speak, Book 2, p. 97)
Negative
willingness/ability
Utterances showing unwillingness or
inability to comply.
I’d love to, Jim, really, but I can’t. (Challenge to Speak,
Book 1, p. 10)
Insistence The speaker insists on his/her original plan
of action.
I still want to go abroad. (Nelson et al., 2002)
Speaker preference
The speaker states his/her preference as a
means of refusal.
Well, you see, I’m not keen on plays. I’d rather go to
see a movie. (Integrated Skills of English, Book 1, p.
100)
Statements of regret Utterances expressing regret with the word
sorry.
I’m sorry, there is no package for you here. (Challenge
to Speak, Book 1, p. 112)
Wish
The speaker expresses his/her wish to
comply, which, however, indicates an
impossibility to comply due to some
unknown reason.
I wish I could go. (Beebe et al., 1990)
Reasons, excuses, explanations
The speaker offers a reason or an
explanation to his/her noncompliance.
Sorry, I’m not free. I have to study for an import exam.
Perhaps we can go shopping some other time.
(Challenge to Speak, Book 1, p. 26)
Statements of alternative The speaker suggests an alternative course
of action to avoid direct confrontation.
Sorry, I’m not free then. What about 4:00 p.m.? Is that
convenient for you? (Challenge to Speak, Book 1, p. 26)
Set condition for future or past
acceptance
The speaker sets condition for a
compliance in the future.
If I have the energy, we’ll come by your home.
(Félix-Brasdefer, 2003)
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
59
Indirect Promises of future acceptance The speaker promise of future compliance. I’ll do it next time. (Beebe et al., 1990)
Statements of principle The speaker states principle that conflicts
with compliance.
I never do business with friends. (Beebe et al., 1990)
Statements of philosophy The speaker states the philosophy that
he/she holds and explains the
noncompliance.
Things break away. (Beebe et al., 1990)
Attempt to
dissuade
interlocutor
Let the hearer off the
hook
The speaker attempts to persuade the
hearer by letting him/her off the hook.
Oh, don’t bother! We’ve got everything ready.
(Integrated Skills of English, Book 1, p. 172)
Criticize the
request/requester
The speaker criticizes the
request/requester.
Mind your own business! (Integrated Skills of English,
Book 1, p. 193)
Threat or statement of
negative consequences
The speaker states the negative
consequences that will occur if he/she
complies.
I really can’t. You know, I’ve got a chemistry exam on
Monday and a book report due on Tuesday on American
literature. That really drives nuts. I don’t think I’d enjoy
it much. But thanks a lot for asking me. (Integrated
Skills of English, Book 1, p. 66)
Guilty trip The speaker points out things the hearer
failed to do in the past.
Last time I tried to borrow your tape, why didn’t you
lend it to me? (Barron, 2003).
Self-defense The speaker defenses for his/her own
non-compliance.
I’m doing all I can do. (Beebe et al., 1990)
Avoidance
Topic switch The speaker shifts the topic under
discussion.
-Can you lend me your notes?
-The new foreign teacher is really humorous.
Jokes The speaker makes jokes in order to avoid
direct refusal.
-Can you help me fix my printer?
-I’m a superman.
Hedges The speaker gives indefinite reply that
does not explicitly show non-compliance.
Gee, I don’t know. (Beebe et al., 1990)
The speaker avoids direct response to -Can you give me some more effective medicine?
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
60
Postponement proposed course of action by delays giving
a definite answer.
-It depends. Do you eat your three meals on time each
day? (Integrated Skills of English, Book 1, p. 157)
Repetition of part of the
request
The speaker repeats part of the request as a
refusal.
Dancing party? Oh, no. We don’t want to get so many
gatecrashers again. (Integrated Skills of English, Book
1, p. 87)
Adjuncts
Statements of positive opinion/feelings or
agreement
The speaker prefaces the utterance with an
expression of positive opinion.
Well, I’d love to, but actually I can’t make it. I’ve got a
lot of homework to do. (Integrated Skills of English,
Book 1, p. 66)
Statements of empathy The speaker shows his/her concern for the
position of the hearer.
I realize you are in a difficult situation. (Beebe et al.,
1990)
Gratitude/appreciation
The speaker shows gratitude or
appreciation of the hearer’s good intention
preceding the refusal.
Thanks for the offer, but I think I can manage.
(Challenge to Speak, Book 1, p. 19)
(Barron, 2003; Beebe et al., 1990)
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
61
Refusals are not so much modified: Internal modification subjectivizers
downgrade the illocutionary force by emphasizing that the proposition is the speaker’s
own opinion, and external modification intensifiers upgrade the force of refusal (see
Table 3.9).
Table 3.9 Refusal modification devices
Types Sub-types Description Examples
Internal
Subjectivizers
Elements which express
a speaker’s subjective
opinion.
But I’m afraid I can’t lend it to you
right now because I’m using it myself.
(Integrated Skills of English, Book 1, p.
192)
External
Intensifiers
Elements which increase
the illocutionary force of
refusal.
No way, not in a million year!
(Integrated Skills of English, Book 1, p.
173)
3.3.5. Disagreement
Disagreement is a reactive speech act in which the speaker expresses “an opinion
or belief contrary to the view expressed by another speaker” (Edstrom, 2004, p. 1899).
Since disagreement may involve “defending one’s opinion, attacking another’s
position, or quietly withholding approval” (Edstrom, 2004, p. 1899), it is likely to
offend the hearer and jeopardize the solidarity between the interlocutors. In this sense,
disagreement is considered a face-threatening act (Brown & Levinson, 1987). For the
act of disagreement to occur in a way that reduces the potential face-threat, the speaker
can resort to a number of politeness strategies that “minimize disagreement” and
“maximize agreement” (Leech, 1983, p. 132) between the interlocutors.
The coding scheme (Table 3.10) incorporated the disagreement strategies noted
by Beebe and Takahashi (1989), Rees-Miller (2000), and Locher (2004) into two major
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
62
groups: direct and indirect strategies. The speaker may make explicit his/her
illocutionary point by using direct strategies such as performatives, the negative word
“no”, contradictory statements, and judgmental vocabulary. The speaker may choose
indirect strategies and implicitly convey the contradictory message by showing
uncertainty about the prior speaker’s position, or raising questions to doubt the position.
Indirect strategies also include suggestions as a substitution of disagreement, making
reference to a third party whose proposition contradicts the hearer ’s, and token
agreement, which means prefacing one’s utterance with an agreement with the prior
speaker’s position before voicing disagreement.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
63
Table 3.10 Disagreement strategies
Disagreement
strategies
Sub-strategies Description Examples
Direct
Performatives The illocutionary force of the utterance is explicitly
named.
I don’t agree. (Challenge to Speak, Book 1, p. 107)
Direct “no” Direct use of a denying word “no”. No. You’ve got it all wrong. (Learn to Talk, p. 45)
Contradictory
statements
The contrasting view is directly expressed. But you have to get a basic education first. (Integrated
Skills of English, Book 2, p. 120)
Judgmental
vocabulary
The speaker uses judgmental vocabulary to deny
the prior proposition.
You’re dead wrong. (Learn to Talk, p. 45)
Indirect
Verbs of uncertainty
Verbs of uncertainty such as seems and may
-Don’t you agree, Sue?
-Well, I’m not sure. (A New English Course, Book 1, p.
198)
Questions
The speaker expresses an objection as a question.
Oh, could they? … by taking so many exams, doing
homework day and night, being criticized around the clock?
(Integrated Skills of English, Book 2, p. 46)
Rhetorical questions The speaker uses rhetorical questions to challenge
the hearer to accept the content of the utterance.
But don’t you think it’s too late for me now? (Integrated
Skills of English, Book 2, p. 120)
Requesting
clarification
The speaker requests clarification of what the other
party just said.
You mean the best place in the world? (Malamed, 2010)
Repetition
The speaker repeats part of the prior utterance in
the form of a question to challenge the hearer’s
assessment.
-Children at least have a fresh start, and everything is new
and unspoilt.
-A fresh start? It could be a bad start. (Integrated Skills of
English, Book 2, p. 46)
Suggestions
The speaker makes a suggestion as a compromise
that is in line with both the speaker’s opinion and
-No, but I couldn’t help it, there was very little I could do
about it…
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
64
the hearer’s interest. -You could have telephoned me and canceled the lesson. (A
New English course, Book 1, p. 186)
Giving emotional or
personal reasons
Personal statements based on feelings allow the
speaker to avoid taking complete responsibility for
a contrasting view.
I don’t know why, but cities just upset me. (Malamed, 2010)
Joking
The speaker makes jokes to avoid a clear statement
of disagreement, but the illocutionary force could
be understood.
Sure, if you enjoy crowds and street gangs. (Malamed,
2010)
Shifting
responsibility
The speaker attributes the contrasting view to
others by using the pronouns they/people rather
than I.
Some people say when we need him most, he is nowhere to
be found. (Integrated Skills of Rnglish, Book 2, p. 2)
Token agreement
The speaker prefaces the utterance with positive
comments or partial agreement, and then uses but
to start the contrasting view.
That’s true. But you also have also see lots of middle-aged
people at disco clubs in the evening. (Challenge to Speak,
Book 2, p. 14)
(Beebe & Takahashi, 1989; Locher, 2004; Rees-Miller, 2000)
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
65
The disagreement modification devices were classified into internal and external
modifications, serving to mitigate or strengthen the illocutionary force. Subjectivizers
and downtoners, as internal modification devices, help minimize the potential offense
to the hearer. By contrast, if the speaker wants to intensify the force of disagreement,
he/she can adopt external modification intensifiers and emotions (see Table 3.11).
Table 3.11 Disagreement modification devices
Type Sub-type Description Examples
Internal
Subjectivizers
Elements which express a
speaker’s subjective
opinion with regard to
the proposition.
I’m afraid this is not practical with
bikes in China. (Integrated Skills of
English, Book 2, p. 183)
External
Intensifiers
Elements that boost the
force of disagreement.
I’m afraid I don’t agree with you at
all! (A New English Course, Book 1, p.
125)
Emotions
Interjections and
invocations that
strengthen the
illocutionary force.
Oh, come on! Teachers used to be
rather poorly paid, but things have
improved a lot now and I’m… I’m
pretty sure it’ll become better.
(Integrated Skills of English, Book 1,
p. 102)
3.4. Chapter summary
Following the criteria of representativeness and comparability, the dataset for
this study consisted of four carefully selected sets of textbooks used by English major
students in China. Two sets were oral-English textbooks and two were integrated-skills
textbooks. Content analysis was adopted to analyze the pragmalinguistic and
sociopragmatic input provided in the textbooks, as well as the pragmatic tasks included
in them. To analyze pragmalinguistic input, a coding scheme was developed based on
previous taxonomies of speech act strategies and modification devices.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
66
Chapter 4 Findings
This chapter presents the quantitative and qualitative results regarding the
pragmalinguistic input, sociopragmatic input, and pragmatic tasks found in the
textbooks. It first provides an overview of the distribution of the five speech acts in the
textbooks. This is followed by findings about the pragmalinguistic input of each
speech act’s realization strategies and modification devices. The chapter then reports
results about the sociopragmatic input, that is, the contextual information and
sociocultural norms included in the textbooks. Finally, it presents the results of the
analysis conducted on the matching tasks, discussion tasks, and role-play tasks found
in the textbooks.
4.1. Distribution of speech acts
Table 4.1 shows the total incidence of the five speech acts (request, apology,
suggestion, refusal, disagreement) in the four sets of textbooks, and the number of the
units which contained these speech acts.
Table 4.1 The distribution of speech acts
Textbooks
Speech acts
Challenge Talk /Say New Course Integrated Skills
Incidence Units Incidence Unit Incidence Unit Incidence Unit
Request 53 22 62 23 47 15 57 16
Apology 34 10 26 6 17 6 17 6
Suggestion 80 25 51 15 74 20 59 14
Refusal 31 15 20 11 29 6 36 9
Disagreement 20 10 17 5 63 18 56 16
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
67
Request and suggestion were the most commonly presented speech acts. The
number of requests and suggestions was comparatively large. Their occurrences were
almost twice of those for apology and refusal. Furthermore, requests and suggestions
were widely distributed in the textbooks. That is to say, they were repeatedly presented
and practiced in multiple units of the textbooks. Disagreement was treated very
differently in these textbooks. The integrated-skills textbooks presented twice as many
disagreements in more units as the oral-English textbooks did. Generally speaking,
apology and refusal received less attention in the selected textbooks. In the
oral-English textbooks, the frequency of apologies was slightly higher than that of
refusals, but the former appeared in fewer units than the latter. By contrast, in the
integrated-skills textbooks, the number of apologies was only half of that of refusals,
and apologies appeared in only 6 units of each book series.
4.2. Pragmalinguistic input
4.2.1. Request
4.2.1.1. Request strategies
As shown in Table 4.2, the four sets of textbooks displayed similar distribution
patterns with regard to request realization strategies. Generally speaking, the textbooks
presented slightly more conventional indirect strategies than direct strategies.
Specifically speaking, reference to preparatory conditions ranked first among all the
strategy types used in the textbooks, fulfilled in formulae such as Can you, Could you,
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
68
Would you mind, and Would you. Want statements and mood derivables were the top
two most frequently used direct strategy types. Unlike reference to preparatory
conditions, which does not take compliance for granted, want statements and mood
derivables are used when compliance is expected. Locution derivables, suggestory
formulae, and strong hints were occasionally used in the textbooks. The low frequency
of suggestory formulae and strong hints in daily conversations and the textbooks is
possibly because there is no assumption on the part of the speaker that the requested
act should be carried out. Moreover, explicit performatives and hedged performatives
were absent from the textbooks probably because of their high level of directness that
might result in confrontation.
Table 4.2 The distribution of request strategies
Request strategies Challenge Talk/Say New Course Integrated Skills
Direct
Mood derivables 10 19 8 16
Explicit performatives
Hedged performatives
Locution derivables 2 1 1 2
Want statements 12 13 6 9
Conventional
indirect
Preparatory conditions 27 25 32 29
Suggestory formula 1
Non-conventional
indirect
Strong hints 2 2 1 2
Mild hints
4.2.1.2. Request modification devices
The degree of politeness of a request is determined not only by the selection of
direct or indirect strategies, but also by the inclusion of appropriate modification
devices (Trosborg, 1995). As shown in Table 4.3, requests in the selected textbooks
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
69
tended to be internally modified rather than externally modified. However, both the
internal and external modifications fell in a restricted range of modification devices.
Table 4.3 The distribution of request modification devices
Type Sub-type Challenge Talk/Say New
Course
Integrated
Skills
Internal
Syntactic
Interrogatives 25 22 23 25
Negations
Past tense
Conditional clauses 3 1 5 4
Embedding
Tentative 1 1 5 2
Appreciative 1 5 2
Subjectivizer
Tag questions 1 1
Ing-forms 2 1 1
Lexical
and
phrasal
Consultative devices
Understaters 1 1
Hedges 2
Downtoners 1 2 1
Politeness markers 8 10 5 8
Interpersonal markers 1 1
External
Checking on availability 1 1
Getting a precommitment 1 2
Grounders 5 7 4 7
Sweeteners
Disarmers 2 2
Cost minimizers
Promise of a reward 1
Interrogatives were the most frequently used among the various internal
modification devices in all the textbooks. The frequent use of interrogatives was
related to the high frequency of references to preparatory conditions. The next most
frequently used internal modification device was politeness markers, in particular
please. Following politeness markers, conditional clauses and embedding were often
used jointly in moderately to extremely polite situations to tone down coerciveness. A
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
70
closer examination of linguistic formulae involving conditional clauses and embedding
in the textbooks showed that requests were often realized in I was wondering if, I
would be grateful if, It would be nice if, or I hope that, but not in Would it be possible if
you, or I don’t think you could. When it comes to external modifications, grounders
were most frequently used to elaborate and justify requests, with at least 4 occurrences
in the one textbook series.
A majority of the modification devices, including tag questions, Ing-forms,
understaters, hedges, downtoners, interpersonal markers, checking on availability,
getting a precommitment, disarmers, and promise of a reward, were used only once or
twice across the four sets of textbooks. Six types of modification devices, (i.e.,
negations, past tense, subjectivizers, consultative devices, sweeteners, and cost
minimizers) did not appear in the textbooks. The absence of these modification devices
in the textbooks might explain why Chinese learners underused them in elicited
discourse (Yang, 2006).
The textbooks offered more examples of conventional indirect strategies and
internal modification devices, and references to preparatory condition and
interrogatives were respectively the most frequently used strategy type and
modification device. However, the textbooks prioritized only a few frequently used
strategies and modification devices but neglected those less frequently used ones,
presenting one or two examples in one textbook series or not presenting any examples
at all.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
71
4.2.2. Apology
4.2.2.1. Apology strategies
It is generally acknowledged that whenever an offensive act has been committed,
remedial verbal actions may be performed for the sake of harmony restoration
(Bergman & Kasper, 1993; Mir, 1992; Olshtain, 1983). This need to apologize was
generally recognized by the four sets of textbooks since all of them, except New
Course, did not provide learners with any strategies to evade the responsibility for
apologizing (see Table 4.4).
Table 4.4 The distribution of apology strategies
Apology strategies Sub-strategies Challenge Talk/Say New
Course
Integrated
Skills
Evasive
Minimizing responsibility
Denial of
responsibility
Denial of fault 10
Blaming hearer
Minimizing offense
Direct
An expression of
apology
Expression of
regret
24 16 21 16
Offer of apology 3 3 3
Request for
forgiveness
3 2 2
Indirect
An explanation of the situation 12 4 10 4
An
acknowledgment
of responsibility
Self-deficiency 1
Self-blame 1 2
Explicit
acknowledgement
1 1
Implicit
acknowledgement
1 1 1 1
Lack of intent 2
Embarrassment 1 1
Remedi
al
support
An offer of repair 5 1 6
A promise of forbearance 3 1 1 2
Concern for the hearer 1 2
All the textbooks gave priority to expression of apology as a strategy, in particular
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
72
expression of regret. The number of expressions of regret was almost the total number
of the remaining apology strategies. On average, an explanation or account of the
situation was the second frequently used strategy type in the textbooks, followed by an
offer of repair and promise of forbearance. Then, strategies such as concern for the
hearer, expression of self-deficiency, expression of self-blame, acknowledgment of
responsibility, lack of intent, and expression of embarrassment were used minimally in
the four sets of textbooks.
The example conversation below (Example 1) shows that when the severity of
infraction goes beyond a certain degree, promise of forbearance or an offer of repair, in
addition to the expression of apology and an explanation, is expected.
Example 1
A: I’d like to apologize for breaking your reading glasses while tidying up your
desk, sir.
B: So it was you! You must be more careful!
A: I’m seldom so clumsy. I’m really sorry.
B: Well, in that case, don’t worry about it any more.
A: I’ll pay for it and try to be more careful in the future.
B: There’s no need to pay, but be sure you’d be careful from now on.
(Challenge, Book 1, p. 84)
In Example 1, the apologizer A first makes an offer of apology I’d like to apologize for
breaking the reading glasses. When being criticized for not being careful enough, A
gives a brief explanation I’m seldom so clumsy in addition to the expression of regret
I’m really sorry to play down the guilt that can be attached to himself/herself. Again,
realizing the damage caused to B, A offers to pay and promises to be careful in the
future. B’s response indicates that although repair is unnecessary, promise of
forbearance is actually expected. In this example, a combination of strategies is
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
73
utilized to achieve an elevated level of politeness, which is a typical way to increase
the apologetic force (Cohen et al., 1986).
4.2.2.2. Apology modification devices
Intensifiers were commonly used modification devices to upgrade the apologetic
force in the textbooks. Within each set of textbooks, at least 5 apologies were modified
with intensifiers such as really, terribly, awfully, truly, so, etc. Moreover, embedded
exclamatory sentences like You cannot believe how sorry I am as shown in Example 2
may also function as intensifiers.
Table 4.5 The distribution of apology modification devices
Types Challenge Talk/Say New Course Integrated Skills
Intensifiers 6 5 8 7
Example 2 illustrates the repeated use of various intensifiers to upgrade the
apologetic force. In this example, the first use of intensifier is when A intensifies
his/her regret by the adverb terribly. Later, A expresses regret again, but with even
stronger apologetic force conveyed by the embedded exclamatory sentence how sorry I
am. When A proposes to pay for B’s loss, this substantial remedial action actually
intensifies the apology in an implicit way. By minimizing the interest of this repair for
B with the word least, A intensifies the apologetic force and shows his/her attempt to
restore solidarity with B.
Example 2
(A hits B with his bicycle)
A: Oh, I’m terribly sorry! Are you all right?
B: Yeah, I’m fine.
A: Please accept my apology.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
74
B: Really it’s no problem.
A: You can’t believe how sorry I am.
B: Relax, it’s okay.
A: That least I can do is pay for your bike.
B: Now that you mention it, I think that the damage is so bad that I may need a
new one.
(Talk, p. 95)
4.2.3. Suggestion
4.2.3.1. Suggestion strategies
As can be seen in Table 4.6, the textbooks had an extremely unbalanced treatment
of direct strategies. Challenge and New Course included as many as 7 suggestions
realized by performatives, whereas Talk and Integrated Skills each offered only one
instance. The small number of performatives in the latter two sets of textbooks might
have been caused by their use of nouns of suggestion, while the former two sets of
textbooks did not include nouns of suggestions. Imperatives, the most direct and
impolite forms for making a suggestion (Hinkel, 1997), were used twice more
frequently in Challenge and Talk/Say than in New Course and Integrated Skills. In
Talk/Say, imperatives, with an occurrence of 11, were the second frequently used
strategy type, next to interrogatives. Moreover, negative imperatives were also used in
the textbooks, albeit infrequently.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
75
Table 4.6 The distribution of suggestions strategies
Suggestion strategies Challenge Talk/Say New
Course
Integrated
Skills
Direct
Performatives 7 1 7 1
Nouns of suggestion 5 4
Imperatives 8 11 3 4
Negative imperatives 2 2 4 3
Subjunctive mood 1
Conventional
indirect
Interrogatives 24 21 10 20
Modals 18 5 23 8
Conditional clauses 2 3 6 2
Inclusive We 16 6 7 2
Expressions of likes
and dislikes
1
Non-
conventional
indirect
Impersonal 1 2 5 7
Hints
Suggesting without
any structure
2 7 2
Conventional indirect strategies were more frequently used than direct strategies
and non-conventional strategies in the textbooks. Being typical of suggestions (Koike,
1994), formulaic interrogatives such as Why don’t you, What/How about were the most
popular choices for three sets of textbooks, the exception being New Course. Modals
were the second frequently used conventional- indirect strategy type in these three sets
of textbooks, and the most frequently one in New Course. A closer examination of
specific modals showed that should was most frequently used, and must, which
indicates a strong sense of obligation, was only used twice in all the textbooks. Other
modals such as ought to, have to, need to, had better, could, and might were less
frequent than should in the textbooks. Inclusive We was used in all the textbooks,
however, its frequency of use varied across the textbooks, ranging from 16 in
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
76
Challenge to 6 in Talk/Say to 7 in New Course and to 2 in Integrated Skills.
Conditionals were much more frequently used in New Course than in the other
textbooks: 6 times in New Course and 2 or 3 times in the other textbooks.
Non-conventional indirect strategies were least presented in the textbooks, and
strategy types within this category also spread unevenly across the four sets of
textbooks. While there was only 1 suggestion using the strategy of impersonal in
Challenge (i.e., It might be a good idea to read some simplified readers first), there
were 7 suggestions in Integrated Skills using this strategy. Similarly, there were more
suggestions made without any structure in New Course than in other three textbooks.
4.2.3.2. Suggestion modification devices
Modification devices help alleviate the disruptive impact of suggestions and are
an important learning focus when suggestions are taught. The textbooks seemed to
have different preferences for suggestion modification devices. As shown in Table 4.7,
New Course focused almost exclusively on subjectivizers, employing them in 12
suggestions. Subjectivizers, downtoners, and grounders were more frequently used in
all the textbooks. Tentative embedding and disarmers were covered only once in
Integrated Skills and Challenge respectively.
Table 4.7 The distribution of suggestion modification devices
Types Challenge Talk/Say New Course Integrated Skills
Internal
Subjectivizers 4 2 12 4
Downtoners 5 2 1 3
Tentative embedding 1
External Grounders 4 6 6
Disarmers 1
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
77
Almost all types of suggestion strategy were featured in the textbooks, but different
textbooks had different preferences or emphasized different strategy types. It is hard to
infer from the textbooks which strategy type is more important and should be
recyclically taught so as to facilitate mastery of them.
4.2.4. Refusal
4.2.4.1. Refusal strategies
Due to the inherent risk of offending the hearer when making a refusal, some
degree of indirectness usually exists in naturally occurring speech (Beebe, Takahashi,
& Uliss-Weltz, 1990; Félix-Brasdefer, 2003; Nelson, Carson, Batal, & Bakary, 2002).
Although more indirect strategies than direct strategies were employed for refusals in
the textbooks (see Table 4.8), the number of direct strategies was fairly large.
Furthermore, the occurrences of the frequently used strategies var ied greatly across the
four sets of textbooks. For example, negative willingness/ability occurred 18 times in
New Course, ranking the top strategy in this textbook series; however, it was used only
4 times in Learn/Say, being the second most frequently used direct strategy type.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
78
Table 4.8 The distribution of refusal strategies
Refusal strategies Sub-strategies Challenge Learn/
Say
New
Course
Integrated
Skills
Direct
Performatives
Non-
performatives
Direct “no” 3 8 8 7
Negative willingness/ability 7 4 18 8
Insistence
Speaker preference 1 2 4
Indirect
Statements of regret 8 2 3
Wish
Reasons, excuses, explanations 21 10 15 11
Statements of alternative 9 2 7 3
Set condition for future or past acceptance
Promises of future acceptance
Statements of principle
Statements of philosophy
Attempt to
dissuade the
hearer
Let the hearer off the hook 4 1 3 4
Criticize the
request/requester
1
Threat or statement of
negative consequences
1 1
Guilty trip
Self-defense
Avoidance
Topic switch
Jokes
Hedges
Postponement 1 1
Repetition of part of the
request
1 1
Adjuncts
Statements of positive opinion or feeling 8 3 5 1
Statements of empathy
Gratitude/appreciation 3 2 9 4
Within the category of direct strategies, direct willingness/ability was most
frequently used, especially in New Course, appearing in 18 suggestions. Direct “no”
followed negative willingness/ability to be the next frequently used strategy, with more
than 3 occurrences in each books series. In addition, speaker preference was used by
three sets of textbooks, with an occurrence ranging from 1 to 4. Without any mitigation
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
79
or when used in combination with indirect strategy types, direct refusals may carry
very strong illocutionary force. For instance, Not a chance as a rejection to the request
How about cleaning my microwave explicitly communicates non-compliance;
consequently, it threatens the hearer’s face and potentially ruins the relationship
between the interlocutors.
When it comes to the indirect strategies, only a restricted range of strategy types
were used in the textbooks. Providing reasons was the most frequently used strategy in
three textbook series, ranging from 21 occurrences in Challenge to 10 occurrences in
Talk/Say and to 11 occurrences in Integrated Skills. Even as the second frequently used
strategy type in New Course, it occurred 15 times. As a common practice in interaction,
providing reasons gives the impression that the refusal is due to inevitable
circumstances beyond the speaker ’s control rather than due to the speaker’s deliberate
preference for non-compliance (Beebe et al., 1990; Chen et al., 1995; Hayashi, 1996).
Statements of regret and alternatives followed providing reasons to be the next
frequently used strategy types. While regrets implicitly indicate the speaker ’s intention
of non-compliance, alternatives leave the door open to future compliance. The strategy
of “let the hearer off the hook” was used a couple of times in the textbooks, indicating
the speaker’s intention of not accepting the offer. Some indirect strategies, such as
speaker preference, postponement, statement of negative consequence, and repetition
of part of the request were occasionally used in the textbooks. Other strategies such as
wish, topic shift, jokes, and promises of future acceptance that are found in
spontaneous speech (Guerra & Martínez-Flor, 2006; Martínez-Flor, 2005) did not
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
80
occur in the examined textbooks.
An adjunct expressing a positive opinion or feeling is typically used to start a
refusal, and the four sets of textbooks all introduced this strategy. Challenge seemed to
give more emphasis on this strategy by providing 8 refusals starting with positive
opinion or feeling, whereas Integrated Skills valued it less. Similarly, adjuncts
expressing gratitude or appreciation, as an effective means of maintaining the harmony
between the interlocutors, occurred unevenly across the four sets of textbooks.
4.2.4.2. Refusal modification devices
Table 4.9 summarizes the modification devices found in the four sets of textbooks.
It is noteworthy that none of the refusals in Talk/Say were mitigated by any
modification devices. Subjectivizers were commonly used to buffer the force of
non-compliance. Refusals were rarely intensified, but there was one case in Integrated
Skills: No way, not in a million year! No way as a direct refusal shows a strong
illocutionary force, and not in a million year further intensifies the force.
Table 4.9 The distribution of refusal modification devices
Types Sub-types Challenge Talk/Say New Course Integrated Skills
Internal Subjectivizers 6 13 7
External Intensifiers 1
There are two noticeable points concerning the pragmalinguistic input of refusal.
First of all, the number of direct refusals was relatively large, and some of the direct
refusals were not mitigated. Second, a dozen of indirect strategies that are used in
nature speech, though not frequently used, were not presented in the textbooks. In a
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
81
word, the textbooks presented only a limited range of refusal strategies, among which
the proportion of direct strategies was not small.
4.2.5. Disagreement
4.2.5.1. Disagreement strategies
As shown in Table 4.10, direct strategies outnumbered indirect strategies in the
textbooks. However, a great proportion of the direct strategies were realized by
contradictory statements. A contradictory statement is the main part of a disagreement,
carrying the content of the speaker’s opposite opinion. It may or may not be used with
modification devices, or in combination with other disagreement strategies. Example 3
sequentially presents blunt contradictory statements, contradictory statements with
simple modification devices, and contradictory statements used together with other
strategy types.
Example 3
…
B: Well, I guess, pets… especially dogs… they keep you company, don’t they?
They are like your friends.
A: Come on, Peter, they are animals after all, and I’d prefer to spend time
with human friends.
B: No, no, no. Pets are no ordinary animals because they communicate with
you, just like your human friends.
A: I don’t believe a word of it. Animals are animals. You expect them to
understand you? Never!
(Integrated Skills, Book 2, p. 151)
In this conversation about pets, A and B put forward their different views in turn. In the
second turn, A’s contradictory statement they are animals after all is modified by the
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
82
emotional expression come on. In the following turn, B expresses disagreement with
intensified exclamations no, and then adds a contradictory statement pets are no
ordinary animals. In the last turn, disagreement is realized by a combination of the
performative I don’t believe and the contradictory statement Animals are animals. A
comparison of the four sets of textbooks showed that New Course contained much
more contradictory statements than the other three textbooks. The especially large
number of contradictory statements seemed to have arisen from the use of long
topic-based conversations in this textbook series.
Table 4.10 The distribution of disagreement strategies
Disagreement
strategies
Sub-strategies Challenge Talk/Say New
Course
Integrated
Skills
Direct
Performatives 3 1 6 5
Direct “no” 4 2 5 5
Contradictory
statements
11 4 27 13
Judgmental vocabulary 1 5 4 3
Indirect
Verbs of uncertainty 2 5
Questions 2 1 8 9
Rhetorical questions 1 1 2 1
Requesting
clarification
Repetition 2 1 11 5
Suggestions 1 1
Giving emotional or
personal reasons
Joking
Shifting responsibility 1 1 3
Token agreement 2 1 3 16
Although the need for indirectness has long been recognized due to the
face-threatening nature of disagreement (Malamed, 2010), direct strategies in the form
of performatives, direct “no”, and judgmental vocabulary were commonly used in the
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
83
textbooks. The textbooks contained few disagreements with performatives I disagree
or I don’t agree, however, there were other linguistic variants such as I don’t accept
that (Challenge, Book 1, p. 108), I don’t believe a word of it (Integrated Skills, Book 2,
p. 151), and I don’t see the point (Integrated Skills, Book 2, p. 166). Typical
judgmental vocabulary used in the textbooks to express disagreement included good
and wrong, as in I don’t think that’s a good idea (Integrated Skills, Book 1, p. 87) and
You’re totally wrong (Talk, p. 106).
In the textbooks, indirect strategies mainly focused on the use of questions,
repetition, and token agreement, and these strategy types were used more frequently in
the integrated-skills textbooks than in the oral-English textbooks. Disagreements in the
form of question or repetition mitigate the face-threatening aspect of a disagreement as
the objection is formulated less directly. Token agreement refers to a disagreement that
starts by admitting part of the previous speaker’s opinion or giving a positive appraisal
of the previous speaker’s assessment. It was especially favored by Integrated Skills,
occurring 16 times, but used much less often in the other three sets of textbooks.
Indirect strategies such as verbs of uncertainty, rhetorical questions, and shifting
responsibility were used in some of the textbooks, and other strategies like giving
emotional or personal reason and joking were not found in any of the textbooks.
4.2.5.2. Disagreement modification devices
The most frequent modification devices used in the textbooks were subjectivizers,
which help buffer the illocutionary force of disagreement. Subjectivizers were used up
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
84
to 8 times in Integrated Skills, but only twice in New Course. Intensifiers and emotions
are employed to upgrade the illocutionary force. For example, really in I’m not so sure
really (New Course, Book 2, p. 163) elevates the force of disagreement when
disagreement is conveyed in an implicit way. Again, in German? Good heavens, no!
(Challenge, Book 2, p. 18), when the speaker thinks that mere repetition A German is
not enough to show his/her disagreement, direct no intensified by the emotional
expression Good heavens is adopted to upgrade the force of disagreement.
Table 4.11 The distribution of disagreement modification devices
Type Sub-type Challenge Talk /Say New Course Integrated Skills
Internal Subjectivizers 7 3 2 8
External
Intensifiers 3 3
Emotions 2 1 2 3
The textbooks generally showed the tendency to overpresent direct disagreements
and underpresent indirect disagreements.
4.3. Sociopragmatic input
The tendency to use a particular configuration of speech act strategies depends on
context and sociocultural norms. As has been discussed earlier in Chapter 2, language
users’ perceptions of contextual factors vary cross-culturally, and such differences in
perceptions affect the strategy choices made by language use rs. For this reason, it is
necessary that textbooks provide sufficient contextual information, raise learners ’
awareness of L2 sociocultural norms, and if possible, explain why certain linguistic
realizations are used in a given situation.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
85
4.3.1. Contextual and metapragmatic information
According to Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory, the performance of
speech acts is mainly impacted by three contextual factors: social distance, relative
power, and degree of imposition/severity as perceived by the interlocutors. Social
distance concerns whether the interlocutors know each other very well or even
intimately or they have only a slight acquaintance with each other. Relative power has
to do with the interlocutors’ social status. Degree of imposition/severity relates to how
serious or important the issue is. The presence of these contextual variables allows
learners to make judgment and choose appropriate linguistic strategies accordingly.
In the present study, contextual information is broadly defined as any information
related to the interlocutors or the settings and/or the incident. Contextual information
might be as simple as mention of the place where the conversation takes place, like “at
the lending section” (Challenge, Book 1, p. 32). Setting is counted as contextual
information because it may indicate the relationship between the interlocutors. For
example, a conversation that happens “at the lending section” is highly likely to occur
between a librarian and a student who are socially distant with each other. Contextual
information can also be more detailed, as in “Xiao Lu, a Chinese student, had arranged
to have an English lesson with her English teacher, Frank, at 6 p.m., but Xiao Lu did
not show up. Next day, they meet at the university” (New Course, Book 1, p. 185).
The four sets of textbooks in the present study generally did not present sufficient
contextual information along with the conversations. There are three major findings
related to the presentation of contextual information: (1) most model conversations in
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
86
the textbooks were presented out of context; (2) if contextual information was
provided, it tended to be simplified; and (3) textbooks differed in the amount of
contextual information provided. Table 4.12 shows the proportion of model
conversations that involved contextual information. For example, 15/72 means that
there were 72 model conversations in Challenge, out of which 15 conversations were
presented with contextual information. Quantitatively, less than half of the model
conversations were accompanied with contextual information in Challenge, Talk/Say,
and New Course. Only Integrated Skills provided contextual information in most of its
model conversations. It is necessary to point out that all the long topic-based
conversations in New Course were not given any contextual information, possibly
because contextual factors were considered trivial in these conversations targeted at
teaching language structures rather than pragmatic functions.
Table 4.12 The distribution of conversations with contextual information
Challenge to Speak Talk /Say New Course Integrated Skills
15 / 72 29 / 74 29 / 72 54 / 68
Qualitatively, the four sets of textbooks differed in the richness of contextual
information provided. In Challenge, contextual information was reduced to a phrase or
a simple sentence. For instance, the conversation about making an appointment to see
the doctor was given a brief introduction “secretary on the phone” (Challenge, Book 1,
p. 24). Similarly, Speak/Say tended to simplify contextual information. For example, a
conversation on suggestions for better study habits was introduced with “a friend gives
suggestions for better study habits” (Speak, p. 69). In Integrated Skills, the contextual
information, though limited in amount, tended to make a brief introduction to the
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
87
interlocutors. For instance, in a conversation inquiring about fixing television, the
contextual information was provided as “A: An old gentleman, customer B: A young
clerk in a service shop)” (Integrated Skills, Book 1, p. 118). New Course was better in
this regard, as the contextual information, if provided, was more specific. For example,
the relationship between the interlocutors, the severity of the incident, and the setting
were all explicit from the contextual information: “Elizabeth meets her interpreter in
the hotel lobby for breakfast. They have been in Beijing for two days and are returning
to Shanghai in two hours” (New Course, Book 1, p. 41).
Relative power and social distance are decisive factors when making an
evaluation on the appropriateness of interlocutors’ pragmalinguistic choice. Example 4
displays a conversation without any contextual information.
Example 4
A: Do you agree that someone needs to buy some ice cream for dessert?
B: Yes, absolutely.
A: OK then, why don’t you go out and get some while I clean up dinner.
B: No! That’s out of the question. If you stay here you’ll be able to watch the
beginning of the football game and I’ll miss it. Since I’m a bigger football fan than
you are and I cooked dinner, I think the best compromise is that you go out and get
the ice cream. How about it?
A: I hear what you’re saying. Do you want me to pay for the ice cream and miss
out on the biggest game of the year? No way!
B: All right, how about this? I’ll pay for the ice cream if you go out and buy it.
A: You got yourself a deal.
(Speak, p. 45)
In this conversation, the three disagreements (in italics) are direct and strong in force.
Without knowing who the interlocutors are, it is hard to conclude whether or not blunt
disagreements such as no, that’s out of the question, and no way are appropriate. If this
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
88
is a conversation between intimate friends or couples, the use of direct disagreements
is unproblematic. Wolfson’s (1989) Bulge hypothesis points out that low-distance
interlocutors are prone to use more direct strategies, as they are certain about their
relationships and do not need to negotiate a great deal. However, if this is a father-son
conversation, these direct disagreements are unlikely to be appropriate
pragmalinguistic choice for Chinese learners. In Chinese culture, parents are of a
higher status than children, and it is perceived impolite or even rude to speak to people
of a higher status in such a direct and confrontational manner.
A list of linguistic formulae was also adopted as a typical way to teach speech
acts in Challenge, Talk and New Course, as shown in Example 5. In Example 5, the
linguistic formulae You’ve got it all wrong and You’re dead wrong express
disagreement with the judgmental vocabulary wrong. Although judgmental vocabulary
is explicit enough to pronounce the illocutionary force, all and dead are respectively
adopted to upgrade the force. Again I couldn’t disagree with you more shows an
extremely strong force of disagreement due to its syntactic structure.
Example 5
How to show disagreement
I hear you, but I just don’t know.
I hear what you are saying but I’m not sure if you are right or not.
I see what you are saying.
I see you point. (On the other hand…/There’s another way of looking at
this./Have you considered…)
Don’t you think that you are going a little too far when you say…? (You’re
exaggerating the situation.)
I don’t think so/see it that way.
No. You’ve got it all wrong.
You’re dead wrong.
You are way off!
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
89
I couldn’t disagree with you more.
That’s out of the question.
(Talk, p. 45)
4.3.2. Sociocultural norms for speech act performance
Sociocultural norms are the collective values acknowledged by speech
communities as appropriate, relevant, and convincing in various situations
(Bardovi-Harlig & Griffin, 2005). They have a great impact on the performance of
speech acts in terms of their appropriateness. The oral-English textbooks provided
knowledge about the social constraints and cultural background of language use, for
example, the need to make an appointment and avoid discussing personal topics like
earnings too early in a relationship in Western cultures. Example 6 exemplifies how
learners were taught the sociocultural norms of not inquiring old adults’ age after
learners were exposed to a model conversation where the interlocutor accidentally
broke this rule and offended the other party.
Example 6
Model conversation:
A: Excuse me, I don’t mean to be nosy, but I wonder if you can tell me how old
you are?
B: I beg your pardon?
A: I was wondering about your age.
B: Well, I’m sorry, but that is none of your business.
A: I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to offend you.
B: Oh, don’t take it personally. I never tell anyone my age.
(Challenge, Book 2, p. 68)
Relevant sociocultural norms:
It is true that foreigners often do not want to reveal their ages, although
children and college-age students often don’t mind at all. Furthermore, you should
not ask a foreigner how much money he makes. While in China you can ask the
age of an old person by inquiring very politely this way: ‘请问老先生高寿?’
(Challenge, Book 2, p. 73)
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
90
In the model conversation, A’s request for B’s age was rejected. The relevant
sociocultural norms provided in the textbooks were presented in a comparative manner,
introducing the L2 and the L1 norms at the same time. This kind of comparison helps
to raise learners’ awareness of the differences between L1 and L2 norms, and
understand why B refused to tell anyone his/her age. The explanation of the
sociocultural norms in Example 6 is not accurate, because it is usually old Western
adults who do not want to reveal their ages instead of the generally defined
“foreigners”. For Chinese students, foreigners refer to a wide range of language
speakers other than Chinese that include Japanese, Americans, Greeks, etc.
Specific knowledge of the sociocultural constraints on performing speech acts
was extremely limited. Both oral-English textbooks made only some preliminary
attempts. Challenge introduced a piece of information concerning the speech act of
disagreeing: “In the Western countries, you should have a good relationship with
someone before you express strong disapproval of choices or tastes” (Book 1, p. 75).
Although this explanation is extremely brief and does not make clear how to “have a
good relationship with someone” through language, it, at least, reminds learners not to
abruptly show one’s contradictory statements or negate the other party’s opinion. It
would have been better if solidarity-seeking strategies like token agreement had
explicitly been provided to learners here. Say introduced the information about how to
refuse politely (see Example 7).
Example 7
American hospitality at meals is often much less formal than Chinese hospitality.
An American host or hostess will usually offer food or drink only once. If you
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
91
want something to eat or drink, accept it the first time it is offered. Do not refuse it
expecting that the host or hostess will make a second offer or insist on serving the
food or drink. If you are served something you are unfamiliar with, ask for just a
little. It is not polite to refuse it altogether. (Say, p. 44)
In this except, “Do not refuse it expecting that the host or hostess will make a second
offer or insist on serving the food or drink” reminds learners to avoid ritual refusal,
which means refusing before accepting as a conventional social practice in Chinese
culture to show politeness (Chen et al., 1995).
4.4. Pragmatic tasks
Exposing learners to pragmatics-rich input is a prerequisite for acquiring
pragmatic knowledge and ability. However, it does not ensure that learners will be able
to produce expected speech act appropriately in a given situation. Pragmatic tasks can
facilitate learners’ comprehension of pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic input, and
provide them opportunities to practice producing sociopragmatic meanings in
accordance with pragmalinguistic conventions.
4.4.1. Matching tasks
Integrated Skills provided tasks that emphasized the pragmalinguistic aspects of
speech acts more than the other textbooks. The tasks presented lists of linguistic
formulae under the category of Actual Words Spoken and required learners to match
these formulae with their communicative functions listed under the category of
Functions. Explanations of the functions of speech acts included words concerning the
formality or politeness of the formulae. Example 8 demonstrates a matching exercise
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
92
that aims at teaching how to make a request and respond to a request.
Example 8
The following are more ways of making a request and responding to it. Read them
and match the function with the actual words spoken.
Actual Words Spoken
a. I’d appreciate it very much if you could lend me your book.
b. No problem.
c. I was wondering if you could help me carry these boxes upstairs.
d. I’d be glad to.
e. Would you mind opening the window? It’s hot in here.
f. Can you pass me that pen?
g. No. — I’m afraid I can’t.
Functions
1. You make a request asking someone to pass you the pen.
2. You try very politely to get someone to lend you a book.
3. You reject somebody’s request directly but politely.
4. You make a tentative request because the task seems quite difficult.
5. You’re glad to help and respond to someone’s request positively and
explicitly.
6. You tentatively request that someone open the window.
(Integrated Skills, Book 1, p. 193)
To a certain extent, this activity is useful in enhancing learners’ awareness that
different pragmalinguistic choices are associated with different levels of politeness.
For example, learners may notice that the linguistic formula Can you is not as polite as
I’d appreciate it if when they match them respectively with function 2 You try very
politely and function 1 You make a request. However, the usefulness seems to be
limited as learners can manage to match the utterances with their functions according
to the semantic content, neglecting the different levels of politeness expressed by those
linguistic formulae.
Another type of matching exercises asked learners to classify a list of linguistic
formulae into predetermined categories, like the degree of formality or the appropriate
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
93
context in which the formulae are used. One example is the matching exercise on
making suggestions (Example 9), in which learners were asked which of the linguistic
formulae can be used with status-equal interlocutors, and which can be used with
low-status interlocutors. Activities like this would develop learners’ sensitivity to
contextual variables and teach them to select pragmalinguistic resources that are
relevant for the context in view of the power and distance of the interlocutors.
Example 9
In the above exercise, we learnt and practiced ways of asking for and giving
advice in different situations. In this part, additional expressions are listed. Do you
know when and where they can be properly used? Read the sentences below and
do the matching exercise that follows.
1. What would do if you were in my shoes?
2. Why not go by bike?
3. Listen! It would be great if we go camping next week.
4. Hey! I’ve got this amazing idea.
5. John, I’d like your opinion.
6. Young man, my advice is to do what you believe to be in your best interest.
7. Take my advice, do more reading.
8. Do you think it will work this way?
Matching exercise
Which of the above sentences could be used
a. among friends or people of similar positions? __________________________
b. to someone who is much younger or has a lower position? ________________
c. Which of the above sentence is most tentative? _________________________
(Integrated Skills, Book 1, p. 158)
4.4.2. Discussion tasks
Say employed input-based tasks targeted at the sociopragmatic aspects of speech
acts, in which learners were usually first exposed to different pragmatic behaviors in
cross-cultural communication, and then they engaged in discussing the sociocultural
difference behind the pragmatic behaviors.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
94
The intended illocutionary force of an utterance might be interpreted in different
ways by the interlocutors from different cultural backgrounds, and this kind of
misunderstanding is likely to lead to breakdowns in communication. For example,
Holmes and Brown (1987) reported that compliments in Samoan culture could be
understood as requests. An example of this kind is presented in Example 10, in which
the compliment It looks very nice was misunderstood by the Chinese student Yang as a
request. Questions 2 and 3 purposefully guide learners to think about the intended
meaning and the misunderstanding of the same speech act; then question 4 has learners
probe into the sociocultural reasoning behind the given situation. Tasks like this can
help to raise learners’ awareness of pragmatic variation and enable a dual
understanding of both L1 and L2 pragmatic behaviors.
Example 10
Analyze the dialogue between American student Kyle and Chinese student Yang.
Kyle: Hi,Yang. You have a beautiful watch.
Yang: Thank you. My friend bought it for me in Beijing. Do you like it?
Kyle: Oh, yes. It looks very nice.
Yang: Well, if you like it, I will ask my friend to buy the same watch for you too.
Kyle: …
Questions:
1 How would Kyle feel at the end of the conversation?
2 What did Kyle really mean by saying “You have a beautiful watch”?
3 How did Yang understand Kyle’s compliment?
4 What are the reasons that lead to the misunderstanding between Kyle and Yang?
(Say, p. 56)
Another example focusing on sociopragmatic knowledge is demonstrated in
Example 11, where learners assumed themselves to be in a situation where their
request of borrowing a DVD player is declined by a foreign teacher. This task was set
within a comparative framework, requiring learners to explore the difference between
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
95
American culture and Chinese culture in terms of request and refusal.
Awareness-raising tasks like this can promote a deep understanding of the different
sociocultural norms behind surface speech act performance and teach learners to take
an insider’s perspective in understanding pragmatic variation.
Example 11
Analyze the following situation
At your college you have made friends with an American teacher who
sometimes invites you to come over to his apartment to have a pleasant chat and to
watch movies on his DVD player. One day you got an interesting DVD that you
wanted to watch. Though you had easy access to a TV set in your dorm, you had
no DVD player, so you asked your foreign friend if you could borrow his DVD
player for one night. He said, “I’d really like to help, but I don’t lend out my DVD
player.”
Questions:
1 How would you feel about his refusal?
2 Why did the American teacher refuse?
3 How should you make a proper response?
4 In China, what could one reasonably ask to borrow from a friend? How about in
Western countries?
5 In your opinion, does friendship entail an obligation to satisfy a friend’s request?
6 Suppose the owner of the DVD player was a Chinese teacher, how would he
respond to the student’s request? If his response was different from that of the
American teacher, what possibly would it reveal?
(Say, p. 4-5)
4.4.3. Role-plays
Role-plays were employed in all the textbooks to enhance learners’ production of
appropriate speech acts after they were exposed to relevant pragmatic input. On
role-play tasks, learners assume specific roles in hypothetical scenarios and interact
with peers what they would say in that situation (e.g. Pearson, 2006). If contextual
factors are given, learners are required to assess the contextual factors and select
appropriate linguistic realizations from a wide array of possible solutions. In this sense,
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
96
role-plays call for a combination of pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge.
Role-play tasks centered on the speech act of apology are taken as examples to show
the discrepancies between the textbooks in terms of their potential in promoting
learners’ speech act performance.
As shown in Example 12, there were not any clues about relationships between
interlocutors in the role-play tasks in Challenge. Without any knowledge of the power
and distance of the assumed roles, it would be hard for learners to select appropriate
apology strategies accordingly. For example, in situation (2) “losing his book”, if this
“his” refers to a professor rather than a peer of the apologizer, the apology may
necessarily be more deferential by adopting remedial support and intensification
devices.
Example 12
Speak with a partner: express your apologies for the following:
(1) breaking a window
(2) losing his book
(3) damaging his bicycle
(4) telling a secret you should not have told
(5) bumping into him in a dark hallway
(Challenge, Book 1, p. 27)
Similarly, the role-play tasks in New Course (see Example 13) were presented in a
decontextualized way. The only difference was that learners were required to give
reasons when apologizing. There are at least two problems with this task. On the one
hand, the simple description of the situations prevents learners from assessing the
severity of offense. For instance, not posting a letter in situation 2 is no big deal in a
normal condition. However, if the letter must be posted before the day to meet a
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
97
deadline, it turns to be a severe offense for B. On the other hand, the emphasis on the
strategy of giving an explanation may result in learners’ overuse of it while neglecting
other strategy types that are necessary in particular contexts.
Example 13
Work in pairs and take it in turns to apologize for something and give a reply. A
apologizes for something he/she has done or failed to do. A gives a reason and B 1)
shows anger and gives a reason for his/her anger, then 2) accepts the apology.
1. A lost the theatre tickets B asked him/her to look after.
2. A didn’t post the letter B gave him/her to post.
3. A broke B’s watch.
4. A knocked B’s expensive china vase off the table.
5. A forgot to visit B one evening.
6. A didn’t turn up for his/her class at 8:00 a.m..
7. A borrowed B’s bicycle and then got involved in an accident.
8. A spilled a bottle of ink over his/her friend.
9. A burnt a hole in B’s new expensive jacket.
10. A promised to telephone B, but he/she didn’t.
(New Course, Book 1, p. 186)
Comparatively, New Course and Talk did a better job than the other two sets of
textbooks in presenting the role-play tasks, as the contextual variables were not only
available to learners but also displayed variation. As shown in Example 14, learners
play the role of roommates or best friends in section A, and then they take the roles of
classmates who do not get along at all in section B of the task. On the one hand, the
two sections vary with respect to social distance; on the other hand, the situations
within the same section vary with respect to severity of offenses. For example, losing a
laptop (situation 3 in section A) is considered much more serious than accidentally
waking up someone (situation 1 in section A). While an expression of regret is enough
for situation 1, intensified expression of regret, repair of the hearer ’s financial loss, and
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
98
a promise of not using the hearer’s possession without permission are highly expected
in situation 3.
Example 14
A In the below situations you and your partner are roommates or best friends.
Read the following situations with your partner, and practice apologizing and
forgiving.
1. Roommate A comes home very late one night and accidentally wakes B.
2. A accidentally breaks a MP3 player that he/she borrowed from B.
3. A brings B’s laptop computer to the park, without asking, and it is stolen.
4. A brings home a date to meet B, not realizing that B dated this person in the
past.
B In the below situations you and your partner are only classmates, and you don’t
get along at all. In fact, you don’t like each other. Practice apologizing and
forgiving.
1. The two of you are in the student dining hall. B accidentally spills all his/her
food and drink into A’s lap.
2. Upon B’s repeated request, A lends RMB 300 yuan to B. However, B comes
back and complaints that one of the notes is fake.
3. A accidentally drops his/her books from his/her hand after leaving class.
Unfortunately B is riding his/her bike behind A and runs over all his/her
schoolwork.
4. A has just finished typing his/her term paper on a computer, twenty-five pages
total. B accidentally unplags the computer and A loses his/her file.
(Talk, p. 97)
The role-play tasks in Integrated Skills were arranged side by side with the model
conversations. In the role-play task shown in Example 15, learners were first asked to
read the model conversation involving apologizing to complaints in the left column,
based on which they were asked to make a conversation with the cues in the right
column. To teach how to apologize, the model conversation presented examples of
apology that were realized by strategies of intensified expression of regret I’m awfully
sorry and I’m really sorry, explanation of the situation I left my book at the school, and
promise of forbearance I promise it won’t happen again. The model conversation and
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
99
the conversation that learners were asked to make differed in the parameter of relative
power: the former happened between interlocutors (a teacher and a student) of unequal
status, while the latter was between interlocutors (classmates) of equal status. With
regard to the parameter of social distance, the role-play task did not give detailed
explanation to how well the interlocutors knew each other, as classmates may just
know each other or have an intimate relationship. This variation in the contextual
variables required learners to produce apologies appropriate in the given context
instead of blindly utilizing the pragmalinguistic forms presented in the model
conversation.
Example 15
Read the following dialogues and make your own with your partner(s):
(Pair Work) In class (A: A teacher B: A student)
Conversation
A Good morning, Richard. Oh, I didn’t find
your homework book. Did you turn it in
yesterday?
B Well, I’m awfully sorry, Mrs. Bentley.
Yesterday, well… ah, … let me see what
I did yesterday… You see, I left my book
at the school. …
A Yes. And the math teacher said you didn’t
do her homework either. You said you
had lost your test book on the bus.
Maybe I should discuss the matter with
your parents.
B I’m really sorry. I promise it won’t
happen again. Please give me another
chance.
A Well, I hope you remember the saying “a
promise is a promise”. If you go back on
your word again, you’ll have to face your
parents then.
Your dialogue
Suppose one of your classmates often
talks very loud in class when others
are trying to concentrate. Go and talk
to him/her. You may start like this:
Excuse me, Lily, I hate to say this,
but…
(Integrated Skills, Book 1, p. 241)
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
100
4.5. Chapter summary
This chapter reported the findings obtained from a close examination of the
pragmalinguistic input, sociopragmatic input, and pragmatic tasks in the textbooks for
English major students in China. The quantitative and qualitative results regarding the
realization strategies and modification devices for the speech acts of request, apology,
suggestion, refusal and disagreement indicated a mismatch between pragmalinguistic
input in the textbooks and the naturally occurring speech. As for the sociopragmatic
input, this chapter first reported findings on the contextual information presented along
with model conversations in the textbooks. The quantitative data showed that most
model conversations in the textbooks did not contain any contextual information, and
the qualitative data illustrated the richness of available contextual information in
different textbook series. The knowledge of sociocultural constraints as an essential
component of sociopragmatic input was found to be included only in the oral-English
textbooks, and examples of such knowledge were presented in the chapter. This
chapter also described the main types of pragmatic tasks utilized in the textbook s,
namely, matching tasks, discussion tasks and role-play tasks. These findings on the
pragmatic input and pragmatic tasks will be discussed in the following chapter.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
101
Chapter 5 Discussion
This chapter discusses the findings presented in Chapter 4 in relation to the research
questions set forth in Chapter 2. It first discusses the merits and deficiencies of the
presentation of pragmalinguistic input, sociopragmatic input, and pragmatic tasks found in
the examined textbooks. Then it relates the textbooks’ merits and deficiencies to their
potential for developing learners’ communicative competence in general and pragmatic
competence in particular. This chapter ends with a discussion on the similarities and
differences between the oral-English textbooks and integrated-skills textbooks in teaching
pragmatics with regard to their presentation of pragmalinguistic input, sociopragmatic input
and pragmatic tasks.
5.1. Pragmalinguistic input
The analyses of pragmalinguistic input in the textbooks revealed that the speech act
strategies and modification devices were not representative of their use in competent English
language users’ naturally occurring speech.
5.1.1. Request
The distribution of request realization strategies and modification devices was basically
in accordance with their frequency of use revealed by empirical cross-cultural research
(Billmyer & Varghese, 2000; Hassall, 2003; Trosborg, 1995; Wang, 2011; Woodfield, 2008;
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
102
Yang, 2006). Adopting conventional indirect strategies is an acceptable and widely practiced
form of polite requestive behavior for speech communities of different L1 backgrounds
(Billmyer & Varghese, 2000; Hassall, 2003; Trosborg, 1995; Woodfield, 2008; Yang, 2006).
Chinese learners of English also have the tendency to use conventional indirect strategies,
which took up more than 60% of the used strategies as compared to 30% direct strategies and
less than 2% non-conventional indirect strategies according to Wang’s (2011) investigation.
In line with spontaneous speech, textbooks presented learners more conventional indirect
strategies than direct strategies.
As to the distribution of specific request strategies, the dominance of reference to
preparatory conditions as a request strategy is because it is heavily routinized in the English
language (House & Kasper, 1987). By implementing this strategy type, the requester
explicitly mentions the desired act and, at the same time, allows the hearer the chance to opt
out. Consistent with the previous research (Trosborg, 1995; Wang, 2011), conversations
involving want statements in the textbooks generally took place in service counters. For
example, I’d like to return this jacket (Challenge, Book 1, p. 104) was used at the department
store, I came to pick up my package (Challenge, Book 1, p. 112) was employed toward the
post office clerk, and Excuse me. Is this book available? I need it badly (Challenge, Book 1,
p. 33) was produced at the lending counter of the library. With regard to the low frequencies
of locution derivables in the textbooks, since they explicitly mention the hearer’s obligations
in relation to the request, they are more often used by people in positions of authority. If it is
used with an interlocutor at a higher rank, a locution derivable may be thought to be an
impolite behavior. Hence, this strategy type was seldom used by competent language users in
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
103
empirical studies (Hassall, 2003; Trosborg, 1995), nor was it presented frequently in the
textbooks. The textbooks tended to frequently present a small range of request strategies and
modification devices. Previous research suggests that learners’ preference for strategy use is
related to textbooks’ presentation of strategies and modification. The textbooks’ tendency to
frequently use politeness marker please (Usó-Juan, 2007) might be an additional factor which,
together with the explicit, transparent and unambiguous nature of politeness markers,
contributes to learners’ overuse of this strategy type, as reported in some studies (Faerch &
Kasper, 1989; House & Kasper, 1987; Woodfield, 2008). For example, the narrow range of
modification devices, especially the recurrent use of politeness markers, included in the
textbooks for Japanese secondary schools (Konakahara, 2011) might be a potential reason
why Japanese EFL learners in Sasaki’s (1998) study used a restricted range of internal
modifications such as interrogatives and politeness markers instead of past tense and
Ing-forms. Again, though grounders are commonly used by proficient language users
(Trosborg, 1995; Yang, 2006), textbooks should be careful not to overpresent grounders
because this may lead to learners’ overuse of this modification device (House & Kasper, 1987;
Wang, 2008).
Some strategy types were only featured once or twice in the textbooks; others were
completely absent from the textbooks. Since the examined textbooks are the most widely
used ones in China, the absence of Would it be possible if you and I don’t think you could
from these textbooks might explain why Chinese learners of English were found not to use
them in Wang’s (2008) study. Woodfield (2008) attributed the absence of past tense in her
learner data to learners’ underdeveloped pragmalinguistic repertoires and related the absence
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
104
of interpersonal markers to restricted pragmatic input in the classroom. In order to increase
learners’ pragmalinguistic repertoire, textbooks should provide a greater variety of strategies
and modification devices rather than focus on only a few of them. Arguably, the key issue in
developing pragmalinguistic repertoires and improving classroom pragmatic input lies in the
pragmalinguistic knowledge provided in the textbooks. Moreover, modification devices, in
particular syntactic modifiers, should be emphasized because syntactically based
modification devices takes time to master (Faerch & Kasper, 1989; Kasper & Rose, 2002).
Specifically speaking, the syntactically complex biclausal forms like Would it possible if you
should receive more attention in textbooks because learners may be aware of them but use
instead monoclausal forms like Would you mind where biclausal forms are more appropriate
(Takahashi, 1996).
5.1.2. Apology
Speakers from different speech communities have different perceptions of the need to
apologize for the same offensive act. Despite such differences, it is still questionable that New
Course provided as many as 10 instances of apologizing that taught learners to deny their
fault. Textbooks may teach learners how to evade responsibility by minimizing the
responsibility or offense, but the number of evasive strategies should be controlled within a
certain limit, because learners have been observed to fail to take on responsibility in
situations where proficient language users tend to acknowledge responsibility (Cohen &
Olshtain, 1981; Cohen, Olshtain, & Rosenstein, 1986; Trosborg, 1987). Using evasive
strategies in conditions where an apology is cross-culturally expected will cause learners to
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
105
be perceived as impolite or even rude.
Typical remedial verbal actions have been found to involve explicit expression of
apology (e.g., I’m sorry) and a statement of responsibility, whereas other apology strategies
such as explanations, offer of repair, and promise of forbearance are context-dependent
(Cohen & Olshtain, 1981; Olshtain, 1983). In other words, when a routine formula is
insufficient to make amends for the offense, explanations and offer of repair are called for
(Trosborg, 1995). Largely consistent with natural speech, the textbooks emphasized the use
of expression of regret and explanation of the situation, and presented more examples of offer
of repair and promise of forbearance than examples of other strategies. It is helpful that the
textbooks give some prominence to the strategy of explanation, offering examples of how to
justify one’s offensive act with linguistic resources, because “the ability to account for an
offensive act is likely to require linguistic strength” (Trosborg, 1987, p. 159) and learners
have been found to provide fewer explanations than competent English speakers (Trosborg,
1987). Furthermore, the textbooks’ presentation of model conversations with combined use of
apology strategies, like offer of repair and promise of forbearance in Example 1, would be
beneficial for learners, since research indicates that what distinguishes learner performance
from competent language users’ performance of apologizing is the orchestration of strategies
(Trosborg, 1987).
5.1.3. Suggestion
The dominance of conventional indirect strategies in the textbooks is basically consistent
with their distribution in spontaneous speech; however, direct strategies were somewhat
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
106
overrepresented in the textbooks. Guerra and Martínez-Flor (2006) found that in spontaneous
speech, 30% of suggestions were realized in conventional indirect strategies, while less than
20% were realized in direct strategies and less than 1% in non-conventional indirect
strategies. The overuse of direct strategies in the textbooks may mislead learners to opt for
explicit and unambiguous means when making suggestions, which, however, is not helpful
for producing cooperative and non-conflictive discourse. Hence, it might be better for the
textbooks not to present too many suggestions realized by performatives or negative
performatives, considering that suggestions in naturally occurring speech are seldom realized
in performatives (Koester, 2002; Koike, 1994; McCarthy, 1998; Tsui, 1994).
When it comes to the use of specific conventional indirect strategies, there seemed a
tendency for the textbooks examined in this study to overemphasize interrogatives as a way
to make suggestions, like the textbooks in Jiang’s (2006) study. This was evident in the
dominantly high number of interrogatives compared with other strategy types. While the
textbooks relied heavily on interrogatives to make suggestions, the importance of inclusive
We is not fully recognized. Formulae like We can and Let’s propose a joint action by speaker
and hearer, camouflaging the authoritative speech act of suggestion as a collaborative one
(Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, & Finegan, 1999). Let’s as the most frequently used
structure in the TOFEL 2000 Spoken and Written Academic Language Corpus (which is
thought to represent authentic language use in real life in Jiang’s [2006) study) was
underrepresented in Integrated Skills, with only two occurrences. While Jiang (2006)
reported no co-occurrence of such downtoners as perhaps, probably, and maybe together with
modals in his investigation, they co-occurred in the textbooks examined in this study.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
107
Downtoners can effectively reduce the force of suggestion by emphasizing the uncertainty of
the given suggestion already manifested by modals.
Different textbooks have different preferences for or emphasize different suggestion
strategy types. As a result, learners using one textbook series may end up with knowledge of
strategies that are different from those learned by using another textbook series, and miss
opportunities to learn those strategy types that are underrepresented in their textbook series.
5.1.4. Refusal
The examined textbooks presented a sizeable number of unmitigated (or even upgraded)
refusals. While it was fine for the textbooks to present these unmitigated refusals, care should
be exercised by locating them in appropriate contexts or giving clear explanations of when
they can be used and when they should be avoided, in case learners may misuse these refusals
in contexts where more indirect refusals are more appropriate.
It is also necessary for the textbooks to include more types of indirect strategies in order
to help enlarge learners’ pragmalinguistic repertoire. Strategies like repetition, topic shift and
jokes are effective to avoid confrontation that may be caused by direct strategies ; thus they
should be introduced to learners so that learners can have more pragmalinguistic choices
when the need to refuse arises in communication. Moreover, it is suggested that English
language textbooks for Chinese learners offer more examples of refusals starting with
adjuncts that express the speaker’s positive opinion or feelings of gratitude or appreciation.
This is not for the purpose of imposing this strategy on learners but for the purpose of raising
their awareness of the differences in the use of this strategy type between the English
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
108
language and the Chinese language. Adjuncts are a typical refusal strategy commonly used by
competent English speakers (Beebe et al., 1990; Nelson et al., 2002); nevertheless, this
strategy type is rarely used in Chinese (Chen et al., 1995), because Chinese people, who are
“collectively oriented” (Liao & Bresnahan, 1996, p. 704), are afraid if they express positive
opinions first before they refuse, they are forced to comply to the request (Liao & Bresnahan,
1996).
5.1.5. Disagreement
In order to maintain solidarity between interlocutors, disagreements should be expressed
in “a way that shows respect for others’ views and keeps the line of communication open”
(Malamed, 2010, p. 200). The textbooks presented a fairly large number of direct
disagreements in the form of performatives, direct “no”, contradictory statements, judgmental
vocabulary, or a combination of these strategies. This widely observed textbook tendency to
present “bald” disagreement, also reported by Nguyen (2011), may be one reason why
learners have been observed to produce unmitigated disagreements with performatives I
disagree (García, 1989), abrupt no and blunt statements of the opposite (Bell, 1998),
strategies which make them sound direct, harsh, or even rude in certain circumstances.
Empirical research has shown that performative I disagree is rarely used in friendly
conversations not aimed at dispute (Beebe & Takahashi, 1989; Person, 1986). Therefore,
when such “bald” disagreements are presented to learners, it is optimal to present them in
context or provide metapragmatic explanation.
To help learners disagree agreeably, a greater variety of indirect strategies supported by
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
109
authentic examples should be presented in the textbooks, in view of the prevalent use of
indirect disagreements in real- life interaction. For example, textbooks might consider
presenting more token agreements, such strategies are not only typically used by competent
English speakers (Kothoff, 1993; Locher, 2004; Pomerantz, 1984) but also present in Chinese
disagreement (Du, 1995). With sufficient pragmalinguistic input, a positive transfer from
learners’ L1 to L2 is likely to happen in this case. Moreover, textbooks that give little
attention to the use of verbs of uncertainty and shifting responsibility as disagreement
strategies need to present more disagreements realized through these indirect strategies. Verbs
of uncertainty contain a great deal of vagueness and ambiguity, and consequently are less
likely to offend the hearer; by attributing the contradictory opinion to someone else, the
speaker subtly softens the effect of confrontation. Hence, the use of these strategies helps
avoid confrontation between interlocutors and bring the disagreeing situation to a
compromising end.
5.2. Sociopragmatic input
In line with previous research (Boxer & Pickering, 1995; Jiang, 2006; Usó-Juan, 2007;
Vellenga, 2004), close examination of the sociopragmatic input has revealed that the
textbooks did not provide sufficient contextual information and sociocultural norms, and that
metapragmatic information was rarely provided in the textbooks. The decontextualized
presentation of speech acts in the form of a list of linguistic formulae, also adopted by other
textbooks in the previous research (Crandall & Basturkmen, 2004; Jiang, 2006; Nguyen,
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
110
2011), obscured the fact that appropriate use of pragmalinguistic resources is
context-dependent (Koester, 2002). Moreover, since no metapragmatic information was
provided with regard to when, where, and to whom it is appropriate to use these linguistic
forms, the decontextualized provision of linguistic forms may mislead learners because not
all linguistic formulae are appropriate in every situation. It is risky to expose learners to these
linguistic formulae without offering any metapragmatic cues about where and to whom these
blunt disagreements can be used. Misuse of these linguistic formulae in cross-cultural
communication will not only make learners seem harsh and rude but also jeopardize the
interlocutors’ relationship.
Textbooks should endeavor to provide learners with adequate contextual information in
order to facilitate their assessment of the contextual variables and help them choose
appropriate linguistic formulae. Contextual information regarding interlocutors’ relative
power, social distance, and the degree of severity/imposition should be made available to
learners. What is more important, contextualized speech acts should be appropriate ly
contextualized so that learners can gradually develop a sensitivity to contextual factors by
relating them to relevant speech act realization strategies. The decontextualized presentation
of linguistic formulae, especially those direct speech act strategies, should be remedied by
providing metapragmatic explanation about their use in order to prevent learners from
misusing these linguistic formulae in inappropriate contexts.
Attention should also be given to sociocultural constraints on language use, which can
help learners to avoid unintentional offense in cross-cultural communication. Since
sociopragmatic knowledge is difficult to acquire through implicit or less explicit
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
111
interventions (Fukuya & Clark, 2001; Rose & Ng, 2001), it might be better that textbooks
explicitly provide information on sociocultural norms for pragmatic behaviors. Explicit
teaching of sociopragmatic knowledge means direct explanation of the target sociopragmatic
features (Taguchi, 2011), informing learners whether or not particular pragmatic behaviors
are acceptable in certain social contexts. Moreover, although the textbooks presented some
information on sociocultural norms for general language use, more attention should be given
to specific information related to speech act performance. For example, while giving
suggestions is viewed as a rapport-building activity in Chinese culture, it is regarded as
intrusive for Americans (Ye, 1988). In this case, learners need to be reminded that employing
L1 solidarity speech acts in L2 might result in L2 pragmatic failure.
There are two critical issues in making cross-cultural comparison of sociocultural norms
of speech act performance, as shown in Examples 6 and 7. Firstly, the pragmatic norms that
textbooks present should be carefully considered. It seems that the oral-English textbooks
relied on NS norms, as Challenge tended to present Western sociocultural norms and Say
almost exclusively focused on American sociocultural norms. These textbooks did not pay
enough attention to the diversity of the sociocultural norms that they introduced to learners,
doing little to foster English major students’ pragmatic competence to accommodate to a
wide variety of communicative contexts. In view of English as a lingual franca, it might be
helpful that textbooks expand the range and variety of cultural materials to include both
norms from the “inner circle” (Kachru, 1985) such as norms of British, Australian and
Canadian English, and norms beyond the “inner circle”, especially those Asian English
varieties (Nguyen, 2011). Additionally, textbooks should avoid presenting the sociocultural
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
112
norms stereotypically. In other words, textbooks need to point out that typical pragmatic
behaviors in one speech community are not applicable in all cross-cultural interchanges, and
that different sociocultural norms can be negotiated through by language users in
communication.
5.3. Pragmatic tasks
Pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic input included in textbooks can provide learners
with linguistic resources and knowledge of social and situational constraints on speech act
performance in cross-cultural communication. However, mere exposure to pragmatic input is
unlikely to lead to the acquisition of these pragmatic features, because some pragmatic
features (e.g., pragmatic functions and relevant contextual factors) are nonsalient to certain
L2 learners due to sociocultural differences (Bouton, 1994; Olshtain & Blum-Kulka, 1985).
Therefore, learners’ attention needs to be directed to the target pragmatic features in the input
for subsequent acquisition to occur. The pragmatic tasks employed in the examined
textbooks— matching tasks, discussions, and role-plays all had the potential to raise learners’
pragmatic awareness (Takahashi, 2010), facilitate their processing of the target pragmatic
features, and increase the chances for internalizing the features (Bardovi-Harlig & Griffin,
2005; Kondo, 2008; Takahashi, 2001; Tateyama, 2009). The role-play tasks additionally
could provide learners opportunities to notice the linguistic forms that they are lacking when
they are communicating their intended meaning, and then push them to turn to input for
resources that allow them to achieve their communicative purpose in an appropriate manner
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
113
(Swain, 1985).
The matching tasks in Integrated Skills first exposed learners to pragmatic input and had
them process this input by evaluating the formality of the target pragmalinguistic forms or by
grouping the forms into appropriate contexts. To a certain extent, the matching tasks could
raise learners’ awareness of the relationship between pragmalinguistic forms and their
different levels of formality or politeness. However, learners may fail to notice this
relationship if they depend on semantic content alone. Hence, a possible solution for the
problem with the matching tasks in Integrated Skills is that textbooks make salient the target
pragmalinguistic forms and the key words related to their functions. Schmidt’s Noticing
Hypothesis (1993, 1995) states that learners do not automatically attend to input in general as
attention is limited and selective, and subject to voluntary control only to some extent;
instead, their attention is “determined by perceptual salience, frequency, the continuity of
elements of the input” (Schmidt, 2001, p. 6). Bold type as an implicit typographical
input-enhancement technique has been found to be effective in teaching some
pragmalinguistic features (Martínez-Flor & Fukuya, 2005). In light of this empirical finding,
textbooks may present an utterance and its related function like this: I’d appreciate it very
much if you could lend me your book. You try very politely to get someone to lend you a book.
The modification device I’d appreciate it very much if and reference to politeness very
politely are highlighted in bold type to help learners become aware of the target
pragmalinguistic form, function, and appropriate usage depending on various situations.
The discussion tasks in Say tapped learners’ perception of speech act performance by
others and could deepen their understanding of language functions in interactions. It is
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
114
laudable that these input-based discussion tasks prompted learners to reflect on the
differences between the target sociocultural norms and their native sociocultural norms
without directly imposing the NS norms on them. These tasks explicitly showed learners the
potential consequences of pragmatic behaviors, and guided them to recognize and understand
the intentions and rudeness in the pragmatic behaviors. They could enrich learners’
knowledge of “the multicultural reality of English use” (Crawford, 2006, p. 74) by different
speech communities and further make learners become aware that particular pragmatic
behavior indicates membership in a certain speech community. In this sense, textbooks “play
a significant role in promoting sensitivity to translingual practices and catering to the needs of
L2 learners of English who do not desire to be assimilated into a monolingual
English-speaking culture but often have specific communicative goals in learning English”
(Hu & McKay, in press).
Role-play tasks were widely used in the textbooks for learners to practice producing
various speech acts and learn to interact effectively in real time. Role-plays can enhance
learners’ comprehension of L2 pragmatic input as learners need to understand the intention of
participants’ message and comprehend it in an appropriate way. They also facilitate learners’
attempts to produce pragmalinguistic forms that are context appropriate and negotiate
pragmatic differences in cross-cultural communication. Furthermore, role-plays can prompt
learners to notice the gap between what they want to say and what they can say when
performing an expected speech act, making them consciously recognize some of their
pragmalinguistic problems and then bringing their attention to input for relevant resources
that might generate new pragmalinguistic knowledge or consolidate their existing knowledge
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
115
(Swan, 1985). In addition, these tasks also help learners to proceduralize their declarative
knowledge of L2 pragmatic knowledge and gain control over this knowledge (Bialystok,
1993).
The textbooks varied in the quantity of contextual cues provided for the role-plays. The
absence of contextual information in the role-plays may cause difficulty for learners to
choose appropriate pragmalinguistic forms. Moreover, the role-play tasks were found to lack
contextual variation, which means learners would be deprived of the opportunities to practice
using different speech act realization strategies in different contexts. A detailed description of
the situations with reference to the power and distance of the interlocutors, and the
imposition/severity of the act can help learners to choose pragmalinguistic forms that are
appropriate in the context. Moreover, textbooks should reflect the diversity of context in
which language is used (McKay, 2003), as the presence of contextual variation prepares
learners for real-life communication in various contexts.
5.4. The textbooks’ potential in developing learners’ pragmatic competence
Based on the above discussion, it seems safe to draw the conclusion that the textbooks
may contribute to developing learners’ pragmatic competence, but they did not provide
sufficient conditions for learners to acquire pragmatic competence.
Given the inauthentic pragmalinguistic input, the textbooks ran the risk of misleading
learners to focus on only a restricted range of speech act strategies and modification devices,
or to use speech act strategies inappropriate in a given context. For example, learners may
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
116
find it easier to acquire requesting realized in interrogatives plus politeness markers and
grounders due to the high frequency of these modification devices in the textbooks. By
contrast, learners may be less likely or need a longer period to learn to request in syntactically
complex structures like a combination of conditional clauses and embedding because these
devices were presented less frequently in the textbooks. Similarly, the unmitigated refusals
and disagreements presented out of context or without any metapragmatic explanations
would be unlikely to help learners maintain a harmonious relation in interactions, but would
make them look rude and impolite if used in inappropriate contexts. To develop learners’
pragmalinguistic competence, textbooks should try to provide a full range of speech act
strategies and modifications, prioritizing those frequently used in naturally occurring speech,
in particular indirect strategies, in view of the widely recognized need for indirectness in
face-threatening speech acts (Beebe, Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz, 1990; Félix-Brasdefer, 2003;
Malamed, 2010; Nelson et al., 2002).
Consistent with Boxer and Pickering’s (1995) and Usó-Juan’s (2007) finding about the
textbooks they examined, the textbooks in the present study paid insufficient attention to the
sociopragmatic aspects of pragmatic teaching, and would have limited effects on developing
learners’ sociopragmatic competence. As has been discussed earlier, pragmatically competent
learners are able to assess the contextual variables of an interactional situation accurately,
have relevant background knowledge of the social values of the target language, and are
capable of negotiating the different pragmatic norms between L1 and L2. However, the
textbooks in the present study fell short of the expectation to equip learners with relevant
knowledge and ability. For one thing, the absence or simplified presentation of contextual
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
117
information would be ineffective in raising learners’ awareness of contextual appropriateness
of linguistic forms or helping them get a sense of contextualized language use. For another,
the limited information on sociocultural norms would be unlikely to enable learners to
develop an adequate understanding of different pragmatic behaviors, which would make it
difficult for them to negotiate through these differences in real-life communication.
The pragmatic tasks in the textbooks, though far from ideal, would do a better job to
raise learners’ pragmatic awareness, promote their acquisition of pragmatic features, and
facilitate their interpretation and production of speech acts. The matching tasks could enhance
learners’ awareness of the appropriate use of various pragmalinguistic forms, but the effect
would be limited because the pragmalinguistic forms and their functions were not made
salient to learners. By doing the discussion tasks, learners could become aware of pragmatic
variation and reflect on their own pragmatic behaviors through a comparison of different
pragmatic behaviors in relation to the cultural reasoning behind them.
.
5.5. Textbook similarities and differences in teaching pragmatics
The oral-English and the integrated-skills textbooks did not show great differences in the
presentation of pragmalinguistic input, except that the former presented much fewer
disagreements than the latter. The larger quantity of disagreements in the integrated-skill
textbooks was contributed by the topic-based conversations, many of which were arguments
between interlocutors. Though the textbooks had different preferences for specific speech act
realization strategies and modification devices, they generally showed the same tendency to
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
118
focus on a restricted range of strategies and underpresent indirect strategies. Moreover, the
distribution of speech act strategies and modification devices was not representative of their
occurrence in naturally occurring speech. The pervasiveness of inauthentic pragmalinguistic
input in the textbooks might have resulted from the textbook writers’ unreliable intuition of
how speech acts are linguistically expressed (Box & Pickering, 1995).
The two types of textbooks demonstrated somewhat complexity in the presentation of
sociopragmatic input. With regard to the availability of contextual information as an essential
part of sociopragmatic input, more model conversations in the integrated-skills textbooks
were provided with contextual information than those in the oral-English textbooks. In
general, contextual information in the textbooks, except New Course, was too simple to
reflect the relative power and social distance between the interlocutors. Hence it would be
difficult for the textbooks, especially the oral-English textbooks, to develop learners’
sensitivity to contextual factors and their ability to assess the appropriateness of linguistic
forms in a given situation. When it comes to information on sociocultural norms, the
oral-English textbooks included some as a basic component of teaching content, whereas the
integrated-skills textbooks gave no attention to them. Hence, the oral-English textbooks have
a better chance of helping learners avoid unintentional offense or breakdowns in
communication and facilitating their negotiation with interlocutors from different
sociocultural backgrounds. The absence of information on sociocultural norms from the
integrated-skills textbooks might be explained by the objectives of integrated-skills courses
that include acquisition of both linguistic competence and communicative competence. The
integrated-skills textbooks devoted a great proportion of their space to reading texts and
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
119
linguistic-knowledge-based exercises for the purpose of developing learners’ linguistic
competence, so that there may not be enough space and time for teaching sociocultural norms
that are crucial to the acquisition of communicative competence.
As for the pragmatic tasks, there was no systematic difference between the oral-English
textbooks and the integrated-skills textbooks. However, some differences were found
between individual textbooks. Challenge and New Course presented role-play tasks in a
decontextualized manner and gave little attention to the varying severity/imposition of a
speech act. Integrated Skills provided a certain amount of contextual information that would
not be detailed enough for learners to make informed judgment on contextual variables.
Talk/Say not only gave detailed description of the context but also varied contextual
parameters. Besides role-plays, Integrated skills and Say respectively employed matching
tasks and discussions on pragmatic behaviors. While the matching tasks were flawed for
teaching pragmalinguistic knowledge, the discussion tasks would be more useful to facilitate
a substantial understanding of pragmatic variation, promote learners’ reflection on differences
between L1 and NS pragmatic norms, and, at the same time, respect their subjectivity in
deciding whether to converge or diverge from the NS norms.
5.6. Chapter summary
This chapter discussed the findings of this study in relation to the five research questions
proposed in Chapter 2. It first discussed the pragmalinguistic input in the textbooks, pointing
out that the speech act realization strategies and modification devices in the textbooks were
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
120
not representative of authentic language use; what is worse, the unmitigated face-threatening
acts presented without any metapragmatic explanation ran the risk of misleading learners.
With regard to the presentation of sociopragmatic input, it was argued that the insufficient
provision of information on contexts and sociocultural norms would do little to help learners
become sensitive to contextual variables or provide them an insider ’s view to understand
different pragmatic behaviors. Although there were some problems with the pragmatic tasks
in the textbooks, they had some potential to raise learners’ pragmatic awareness, promote
their reflection on pragmatic variation, and offer them opportunities to practice interpreting
and producing speech acts in different interactional situations. When the pragmalinguistic
input, sociopragmatic input, and pragmatic tasks are taken in account, the textbooks showed a
certain potential in developing learners’ pragmatic competence. However, they did not
provide sufficient and satisfactory conditions for the acquisition of pragmatic competence.
The oral-English and integrated-skills textbooks did not show systematic differences in the
presentation of pragmalinguistic input, but the oral-English textbooks had an advantage over
the integrated-skills textbooks as they included sociocultural norms in the teaching of
sociopragmatic knowledge. The oral-English textbooks and the integrated-skills textbook did
not differ significantly in the pragmatic tasks either, and different types of pragmatic tasks
were employed in different individual textbook series.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
121
Chapter 6 Conclusion
This chapter first summarizes and highlights the most important findings of this study. It then
discusses the implications of these findings for textbook developers and university teachers.
The chapter concludes the dissertation by pointing out the limitations of the present study and
making recommendations for future research.
6.1. Summary of the main findings
The present study is an attempt to assess the currently widely used ELT textbooks for
English major students in China in terms of their potential for developing learners’
communicative competence in general and pragmatic competence in particular. To produce a
comprehensive assessment, a systematical examination of the pragmatic input and pragmatic
tasks centered on five major speech acts was conducted. Since pragmatics consists of
pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics, the analysis of pragmatic input and pragmatic tasks
covered both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic aspects.
The textbooks were found to have some potential for developing learners’
communicative competence, but they did not provide sufficient conditions. The deficiencies
of the textbooks were reflected in the following three aspects: Firstly, the pragmatic input in
the textbooks was not always reliable, as the distribution of speech act strategies and
modification devices was not representative of natural speech. Secondly, the insufficient
provision of sociopragmatic input would put learners at a disadvantage, when they need to
use linguistic formulae appropriate in the interactional context and within the sociocultural
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
122
constraints on language use. Thirdly, the decontextualized role-play tasks in the textbooks
could not help learners get a sense of contextualized language use.
6.2. Implications for textbook development and classroom teaching
The findings of this study can inform textbook developers who look for ways to present
pragmatic knowledge and activities in a manner that best facilitates learners’ acquisition of
communicative competence. It is desirable that textbooks draw on empirically established
information and naturalistic speech samples (Biber et al., 2002; Boxer & Pickering, 1995;
Campillo, 2007; Ishihara, 2010; Nguyen, 2011). This is an important step toward ensuring
that the pragmalinguistic input be representative of naturally occurring speech. A wide range
of speech act strategies and modification devices should be presented to learners, and those
frequently used ones in natural speech should spread throughout the textbooks in order to
facilitate learners’ mastery of them.
Contextual information should be provided along with model conversations and
role-play tasks (Jiang, 2006; Konakahara, 2011; Nguyen, 2011; Vellenga, 2004). The
presence of detailed contextual information can direct learners’ attention to various contextual
factors embedded in the context and allow them to make a connection between the linguistic
forms and the interactional contexts. In the meanwhile, contextual variation should be taken
into consideration, so that learners can get the opportunities to practice using different speech
act strategies and modifications in diverse contexts.
Textbooks should enhance learners’ awareness of pragmatic variation. This can be
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
123
achieved by drawing attention to the sociocultural norms of the target language, and using
pragmatic awareness-raising tasks to foster learners’ sensitivity to sociocultural differences
between L1 and L2. Textbook writer should include pragmatic norms beyond the “inner
circle” because of the changing demographics of English users. Awareness of pragmatic
variation helps learners avoid producing unexpected speech acts or pragmatically
inappropriate language.
The findings also have implications for university teachers who are using these
textbooks as one of the resources to develop learners’ communicative competence. Teachers
may consider using some supplementary materials to present those speech act realization
strategies and modification devices that are not included or underpresented in the textbooks.
This would help to increase learners’ pragmalinguistic repertoire and allow them more
linguistic choices. With regard to the small number of direct and blunt pragmalinguistic forms
presented in a decontextualized manner in the textbooks, teachers can remedy the problems
by informing learners of the potential consequences of using them. It is important that
classroom instruction prevents learners from “being unintentionally rude or subservient”
(Thomas, 1983, p. 96).
Considering that it is difficult to acquire sociopragmatic knowledge in an implicit way
(Fukuya & Clark, 2001; Rose & Ng, 2001), teachers can play a positive role in making
desirable sociopragmatic knowledge explicit to learners. For one thing, teachers may give
metapragmatic explanations of how contextual variables in a given situation determine
linguistic choices, thus helping learners gain a sense of contextualized language use. For
another, teachers can assist learners to understand the manner in which sociocultural
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
124
differences between L1 and L2 influence pragmatic behaviors. Importantly, teachers should
have an awareness of learners’ subjectivity and avoid imposing L2 pragmatic norms on them
(Ishihara & Cohen, 2010b). Instead, they should be taught strategies for negotiating
pragmatic norms and have the freedom to decide whether they will diverge from or converge
to the L2 norms (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Ishihara & Tarone, 2009; Judd, 1999; Kasper & Rose,
2002).
6.3. Limitations of the present study and recommendations for future research
The present study investigated pragmalinguistic input in the textbooks by focusing on
micro- level strategy use. It has yielded some interesting findings about the range and
distribution pattern of speech act strategies and modification devices available in the
textbooks, showing whether or not the textbooks represented naturalistic speech. However, its
quantitative nature cannot reflect the commonly existing combinations of strategies and
modifiers. That is to say, what strategies and modifiers are usually combined to soften the
illocutionary force, and up to how many strategies are used in combinations are not addressed
in this study. Future research can pay some attention to the orchestration of strategies and
modifiers in textbooks, which will deepen our understanding of pragmalinguistic input in
them.
This study provides a big picture of the contextual information provided in the textbooks,
yet it does not reveal under what specific contextual factors a speech act is realized. Ideally,
the study should have compared the strategy use of each speech act across different contexts,
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
125
comparatively analyzing whether or not the pragmalinguistic choice is appropriate in that
particular context. However, due to the size of the dataset for the present study, it would be
very laborious and time-consuming to do so. Future research focusing on one single speech
act at a time might conduct a comprehensive analysis of contextual factors under which the
speech act is realized, like what Konakahara (2011) did in his study of requests in the
textbooks. The findings of such research can shed light on the question of whether textbooks
present speech act strategies and modifiers in a way that is sensitive to the contextual
variables and can effectively foster the learning of pragmatic competence.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
126
References
Adamson, B., & Morris, P. (1997). The English curriculum in the People’s Republic of China.
Comparative Education Review, 41, 3-26.
Alcón, E. (2005). Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context? System,
33, 417-435.
Alcón, E. (2007). Fostering EFL learners’ awareness of requesting through explicit and
implicit consciousness-raising tasks. In M. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in
formal language learning (pp. 221-241). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in
pragmatics. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp.
13-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic
violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL
Quarterly, 32, 42-71.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Griffin, R. (2005). L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL
classroom. System, 33, 401-415.
Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with
words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Beebe, L. M., & Takahashi, T. (1989). Sociolinguistic variation in face-threatening speech
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
127
acts: Chastisement and disagreement. In M. R. Eisenstein (Ed.), The dynamic
interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation (pp. 199-218). New York:
Plenum Press.
Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In
R. C. Scarcella, E. S. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative
competence in a second language (pp. 55-73). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Bell, N. (1998). Politeness in the speech of Korean ESL learners. Working Papers in
Educational Linguistics, 14 (1), 25-47.
Bergman, M. L., & Kasper, G. (1993). Perception and performance in native and nonnative
aplogy. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 82-107).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic
competence. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp.
43-59). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). The Longman
grammar of spoken and written English. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and
Research Press.
Billmyer, K., & Varghese, M. (2000). Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability:
Effects of enhancing discourse completion tests. Applied Linguistics, 21, 517-552.
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, 29-60.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
128
Blum-Kulka, S. (1991). Interlanguage pragmatics: The case of requests. In R. Phillipson, E.
Kerllerman, L. Selinker, M. S. Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.). Foreign/second language
pedagogy research (pp. 255-272). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of
speech acts realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5, 196-213.
Bouton, L. F. (1994). Conversational implicature in a second language: Learned slowly when
not deliberately taught. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 157-167.
Boxer, D., & Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT
materials: the case of complaints. ELT Journal, 49, 44-58.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. D. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Campillo, P. (2007). Examining mitigation in requests: A focus on transcripts in ELT
coursebooks. In E. Alcón & M. P. Safont Jordà (Eds.), Intercultural language use and
language learning (pp. 207-222). Dordrecht: Springer.
Canale, M. (1983). On some dimensions of language proficiency. In J. W. Oller (Ed.), Issues
in language testing research (pp. 333-342). Rowley: Newbury House Publishers.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second
language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1 (1), 1-48.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2007). Rethinking the role of communicative competence in language
teaching. In E. Alcón & M. P. Safont Jordà (Eds.), Intercultural language use and
language learning (pp. 41-56). Dordrecht: Springer.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
129
pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics,
6 (2), 5-35.
Chang, B. (2003). Analysis of request events in English textbooks for Japanese secondary
schools. Proceedings of the 8th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied
Linguistics (pp. 35-49).
Chen, X., Ye, L., & Zhang, Y. (1995). Refusing in Chinese. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of
Chinese as native and target language (pp. 119-163). Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of theory of syntax . Cambridge: MIT Press.
Cohen, A. D. (1996). Speech acts. In S. L. McKay & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics
and language teaching (pp. 383-420). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: The
case of apology. Language Learning, 31, 113-134.
Cohen, A. D., Olshtain, E., & Rosenstein, D. S. (1986). Advanced EFL apologies: What
remains to be learned? International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 62, 51-74
Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996). English teaching and learning in China. Language Teaching,
29, 61-80.
Crandall, E., & Basturkmen, H. (2004). Evaluating pragmatics- focused materials. ELT
Journal, 58, 38-49.
Crawford, J. (2006). Becoming an L2 user: Implications for identity and culture in the
language classroom. Studies about Languages, 8, 70-76.
Crystal, D. (1997). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. New York: Cambridge
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
130
University Press.
Davis, J. (2007). Resistance to L2 pragmatics in the Australian ESL context. Language
Learning, 57, 611-649.
Delen, B., & Tavil, Z. M. (2010). Evaluation of four coursebooks in terms of three speech
acts: Requests, refusals and complaints. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 692-697.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Du, J. S. (1995). Performance of face-threatening acts in Chinese: Complaining, giving bad
news, and disagreeing. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as a native and target
language (pp. 165-206). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Edstrom, A. (2004). Expressions of disagreement by Venezuelans in conversation:
Reconsidering the influence of culture. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1499-1518.
Eisenstein, M., & Bodman, J. (1986). I very appreciate: Expressions of gratitude by native
and non-native speakers of American English. Applied Linguistics, 7, 167-185.
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1989). Internal and external modification in interlangluage request
realization. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics:
Requests and apologies (pp. 221-247). Norwood: Alex Publishing.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. (2003). Declining an invitation: A cross-cultural study of pragmatic
strategies in American English and Latin American Spanish. Multilingua, 22, 225-255.
Fukuya, K. J., & Clark, M. K. (2001). A comparison of input enhancement and explicit
instruction on mitigators. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol.
10, pp. 111-130). Urbana: Division of English as an International Language, University
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
131
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
García, C. (1989). Disagreeing and requesting by Americans and Venezuelans. Linguistics
and Education, 1, 299-322.
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of the mind: Figurative thought, language, and
understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Goffman, E. (1972). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. In J.
Laver & S. Hytcheson (Eds.), Communication in face-to-face interaction (pp. 319-346).
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Grant, L. & Starks, D. (2001). Screening appropriate teaching materials: Closings from
textbooks and television soap operas. International Review of Applied Linguistics in
Language Teaching, 39, 39-50.
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and
semantics (Vol. 3): Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Guerra, A., & Martínez-Flor, A. (2006). Is teaching how to suggest a good suggestion? An
empirical study based on EFL learners’ accuracy and appropriateness when making
suggestions. Porta Linguarum, 5, 91-108.
Hassall, T. (2003). Requests by Australian learners of Indonesia. Journal of Pragmatics, 35,
1903-1928.
Hayashi, T. (1996). Politeness in conflict management: A conversation analysis of
dispreferred messages from a cognitive perspective. Journal of pragmatics, 25, 227-255.
Hinkel, E. (1997). Appropriateness of advice: DCT and multiple choice data. Applied
Linguistics, 18, 1-26.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
132
Holmes, J., & Brown, D. F. (1987). Teachers and students learning about compliments.
TESOL Quarterly, 21, 523-546.
House, J. (1982). Conversational strategies in German and English dialogue. Error analysis.
In G. Nickel & D. Nehls (Eds.), Constructive linguistics and second language learning
(pp. 135-150). Heidelberg: Groos.
House, J. (2010). The pragmatics of English as a lingua franca. In A. Trosborg (Ed.),
Handbook of pragmatics. (Vol. 7, pp. 363-387). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
House, J., & Kasper, G. (1987). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requesting in a foreign language.
In W. Lörscher & R. Schulze (Eds.), Perspectives on language in performance:
Festschrift for Werner Hüllen (pp. 1250-1288). Tubingen: Narr.
Hu, G. (2002). English language teaching in the People’s Republic of China. In R. E. Silver,
G. Hu, & M. Iino (Eds.), English language education in China, Japan, and Singapore
(pp. 1-77). Singapore: National Institute of Education.
Hu, G. (2003). English language teaching in China: Regional differences and contributing
factors. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 24, 290-318.
Hu, G. (2005). English language education in China: Policies, progress, and problems.
Language Policy, 4, 5-24.
Hu, G., & McKay, S. (forthcoming). Multilingualism as portrayed in a Chinese English
textbook. In J. Conteh & G. Meier (Eds.), The multilingual turn in languages education:
Opportunities and challenges for individuals and societies. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Hymes, D. H. (1967). Models of the interaction of language and social setting. Journal of
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
133
Social Issues, 23 (2), 8-38.
Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. Pride, & J. Holmes (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Ishihara, N. (2010). Curriculum writing for L2 pragmatics — principles and practice in the
teaching of L2 pragmatics. In N. Ishihara & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Teaching and learning
pragmatics: Where language and culture meet (pp. 201-223). Harlow: Person.
Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2010a). Describing speech acts: linking research and pedagogy.
In N. Ishihara & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where
language and culture meet (pp. 56-74). Harlow: Pearson.
Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2010b). Learners’ pragmatics: Potential causes of divergence.
In N. Ishihara & A.D. Cohen (Eds.), Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where
language and culture meet (pp. 75-96). Harlow: Person.
Ishihara, N., & Tarone, E. (2009). Subjectivity and pragmatic choice in L2 Japanese:
Emulating and resisting pragmatic norms. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Pragmatic competence
(pp. 101-128). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Jeon, E., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic
development. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language
learning and teaching (pp. 165-211). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ji, P. (2007). Exploring pragmatic knowledge in College English textbooks. Chinese Journal
of Applied Linguistics, 30 (5), 109-119.
Jiang, X. (2006). Suggestions: What should ESL students know? System, 34, 36-54.
Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (2002). English language teaching in C hina: A bridge to the future.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
134
Asia-Pacific Journal of Education, 22, 53-64.
Judd, E. (1999). Some issues in the teaching of pragmatic competence. In E. Hinkel (Ed.),
Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 152-219). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English
language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. C. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the
world: teaching and learning the language and literature (pp. 11-30). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? Retrieved 16 May 2013 from http:
//www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW06/
Kasper, G. (2006). Introduction. Multilingua, 25, 243-248.
Kasper, G., & Roever, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In E. Hinke (Ed.),
Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 317-334).
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Malden:
Blackwell.
Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 149-169.
Kasper, G., & Zhang, Y. (1995). It’s good to be a bit Chinese: Foreign students’ experience of
Chinese pragmatics. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as a native and target
language (pp. 1-22). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i.
Koester, A. J. (2002). The performance of speech acts in workplace conversations and the
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
135
teaching of communicative functions. System, 30, 167-184.
Koike, D. A. (1989). Pragmatic competence and adult L2 acquisition: Speech acts in
interlanguage. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 279-289.
Koike, D. A. (1994). Negation in Spanish and English suggestions and requests: Mitigating
effects? Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 513-526.
Koike, D. A., & Pearson, L. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in the
development of pragmatic competence. System, 33, 481-501.
Konakahara, M. (2011). Analysis of request events in English textbooks for Japanese
secondary schools. Paper Collection of Graduate School of Education of Waseda
University, 19, 325-340.
Kondo, S. (2008). Effects on pragmatic development through awareness-raising instruction:
Refusals by Japanese EFL learners. In E. Alc ó n & A. Mart í nez-Flor (Eds.),
Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (pp.
153-177). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Kotthoff, H. (1993). Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of
preference structures. Language in Society, 22, 193-216.
Kripendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. London: Sage.
Kubota, M. (1995). Teachability of conversational implicature to Japanese EFL learners. The
institute for Research in Language Teaching Bulletin, 9, 35-67.
Kubota, M. (1996). Acquaintance or fiancée: Pragmatic differences in requests between
Japanese and Americans. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 12 (1), 23-38.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. New York: Harper and Row.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
136
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liao, C., & Bresnahan, M. I. (1996). A contrastive pragmatic study on American English and
Mandarin refusal strategies. Language Science, 18, 703-727.
LoCastro, V. (1998, March). Learner subjectivity and pragmatic competence development .
Paper presented at the Annual Conference of American Association for Applied
Linguistics, Seattle, WA.
Locher, M. A. (2004). Power and politeness in action: Disagreement in oral communication.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Malamed, L. H. (2010). Disagreement: How to disagree agreeably. In A. Martínez-Flor & E.
Usó-Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological
issues (pp. 237-256). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Martínez-Flor, A. (2005). A theoretical review of the speech act of suggesting: Towards a
taxonomy for its use in RLT. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 18, 167-187.
Martínez-Flor, A. (2010). Analyzing request modification devices in films: Implication for
pragmatic learning in instructed foreign language contexts. In E. Alcón & M. P. Safont
Jordà (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 245-280).
Dordrecht: Springer.
Martínez-Flor, A., & Fukuya, Y. (2005). The effects of instruction on learners’ production of
appropriate and accurate suggestion. System, 33, 463-480.
McCarthy, M. J. (1998). Spoken language and applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
137
McKay, S. L. (2003). Toward an appropriate EIL pedagogy: Re-examining common ELT
assumptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 1-22.
Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics: An introduction. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.
Ministry of Education. (2001). Jiaoyubu guanyu jiji tuijin xiaoxue kaishe yingyu kecheng de
zhidao yijian [MOE Guidelines for Promoting Primary English Instruction]. Retrieved
14 May 2013 from
http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_711/200407/665.html
Mir, M. (1992). Do we all apologize the same? — An empirical study on the act of
apologizing by Spanish speakers learning English. Pragmatics and Language Learning,
3, 1-19.
Murphy, B., & Neu, J. (1996). My grade’s too low: the speech act of complaining. In S. M.
Gass & J. New (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a
second language (pp. 191-216). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nelson, G., Carson, J., Batal, M., & Bakary, W. (2002). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Strategy
use in Egyptian Arabic and American English refusals. Applied Linguistics, 23, 163-189.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. London: Sage.
Nguyen, M. T. T. (2011). Learning to communicate in a globalized world: To what extent do
school textbooks facilitate the development of intercultural pragmatic competence?.
RELC Journal, 42, 17-30.
Ochs, E. (1996). Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In J. J. Gumperz & S. L.
Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 407-437). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
138
Olshtain, E. (1983). Sociocultural competence and language transfer: The case of apology. In
S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 232-249).
Rowley: Newbury House.
Olshtain, E., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1985). Degree of approximation: Nonnative reactions to
native speech act behavior. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language
acquisition (pp. 303-325). London: Newbury House.
Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. (1983). Apology: A speech act set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 18-35). Rowley: Newbury House.
Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. (1990). The learning of complex speech act behavior. TESL
Canada Journal, 7 (2), 45-65.
Person, E. (1986). Agreement/disagreement: An example of results of discourse analysis
applied to oral English classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 74,
47-61.
Pearson, L. (2006). Patterns of development in Spanish L2 pragmatic acquisition: An analysis
of novice learners’ production of directives. Modern Language Journal, 90, 473-495.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing in assessment: Some features of
preferred/dispreferred twin shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures in
social action (pp. 57-101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rees-Miller, J. (2000). Power, severity, and context in disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics,
32, 1087-1111.
Richards, J. (2005). The role of textbooks in a language program. Retrieved 30 February
2013 from
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
139
http://scholar.google.com.sg/scholar?hl=zh-CN&q=The+role+of+textbooks+in+a+langu
age+program&btnG=&lr=
Rintell, E. (1979). Getting your speech act together: The pragmatic ability of second language
learners. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 17, 97-106.
Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33,
385-399.
Rose, K. R., & Ng, C. (2001). Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments and
compliment responses. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language
teaching (pp. 145-170). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ross, H. (1992). Foreign language education as a barometer of modernization. In R. Hayhoe
(Ed.), Education and modernization: The Chinese experience (pp. 183-209). Oxford:
Pergamon.
Safont Jordà, M. P. (2005). Third language learners: Pragmatic production and awareness.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Sasaki, M. (1998). Investigating EFL students’ production of speech acts: A comparison of
production questionnaires and role plays. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 457-484.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper, & S.
Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21-42). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of
attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in
foreign language learning (pp. 1-63). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
140
Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language
instruction (pp. 3-33). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics
Vol. 3: Speech acts (pp. 59-82). New York: Academic Press.
Siegal, M. (1996). The role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguistic
competency: Western women learning Japanese. Applied Linguistics, 17, 356-382.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in
second language acquisition (pp. 235-256). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: Treads and issues. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 31, 289-310.
Takahash, S. (1996). Pragmatic transferability. Studies in second language acquisition, 18,
189-223.
Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In
K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 171-199).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Takahashi, S. (2010). Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics. In A. Trosborg
(Ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures (pp. 391-421). Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter.
Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. (1987). The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese
learners of English. JALT Journal, 8, 131-155.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
141
Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. (1993). Cross- linguistic influence in the speech act of correction.
In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 139-158). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Tateyama, Y. (2001). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines: Japanese
sumimasen. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp.
200-222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tateyama, Y. (2009). Requesting in Japanese: The effect of instruction on JFL learners’
pragmatic competence. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Pragmatic competence (pp. 129-166).
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tateyama, Y., Kasper, G., Mui, L. P., Tay, H., & Thananart, O. (1997). Explicit and implicit
teaching of pragmatic routines. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning
(Vol. 8, pp. 163-177). Urbana: Division of English as an International Language,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
The English division of Tertiary Foreign language Instruction Guidance Committee. (2000).
National English syllabus for English majors in institutions of higher learning.
Retrieved 14 May 2013 from
http://wenku.baidu.com/view/e05b052e453610661ed9f47f.html
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91-112.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. Harlow: Pearson
Education.
Trosborg, A. (1987). Apology strategies in native/non-natives. Journal of Pragmatics, 11,
147-167.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
142
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Tsui, A. (1994). English conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Usó-Juan, E. (2007). The representation and practice of communicative act of requesting in
textbooks: Focusing on modifiers. In E. Alc ó n & M. P. Safont Jord à (Eds.),
Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 223-243). Dordrecht: Springer.
Vàsquez, C., & Sharpless, D. (2009). The role of pragmatics in the master ’s TESOL
curriculum: Findings from a nationwide survey. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 5-28.
Vellenga, H. (2004). Learning pragmatics from ESL & EFL textbooks: How likely? TESL-EJ,
8 (2): 1-18. Retrieved 18 November 2012 from
https://tesl-ej.org/~teslejor/ej30wp/a3.html
Wang, V. X. (2011). Making requests by Chinese EFL learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory (2nd ed.). Malden:
Blackwell Publishers.
Wolfson, N. (1981). Compliments in cross-cultural perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 15,
117-124.
Wolfson, N. (1989). The bulge: A theory of speech behavior and social distance. Penn
Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 2 (1), 55-83.
Woodfield, H. (2008). Interlanguage requests: A contrastive study. In M. P ütz & J. N.
Aertselaer (Eds.), Developing contrastive pragmatics: Interlanguage and cross-cultural
perspectives (pp. 231-264). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wu, Y. A. (2001). English language teaching in China: Trends and challenges. TESOL
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
143
Quarterly, 35, 191-194.
Yang, X. (2006). Second language pragmatic development: A cross-sectional study on the
acquisition of English requests by Chinese learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Shanghai International Studies University, Shanghai.
Ye, L. S.. (1988). Conversational politeness and foreign language teaching. Taipei: Crane
Publishing.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.
144
Appendix
Chen, S., Wang, S., Zhang, Y., & Xu, J. (2005). Integrated skills of English (2nd edition)
(Student’s Book 2). Beijing: Higher Education Press.
Li, G., Mei, D., Li, P., Yuan, J., Feng, S., & Gu, W. (2008). A new English course (2nd edition)
(Student’s Book 1). Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Li, G., Mei, D., Li, P., Yuan, J., Feng, S., & Gu, W. (2008). A new English course (2nd edition)
(Student’s Book 2). Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Wang, S., He, N., & Yu, X. (2008). Learn to talk. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language
Education Press.
Wang, S., He, N., & Yu, X. (2008). Say it right. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language
Education Press.
Wilson, E., Olson, C., Yao, B., Li, H., & Chen, X. (2005). Challenge to speak (2nd edition)
(Student’s Book 1). Beijing: Higher Education Press.
Wilson, E., Olson, C., Li, H., Wang, J., Chen, X., Zhang, Y., Han, J., & Yao, B. (2005).
Challenge to speak (2nd edition) (Student’s Book 2). Beijing: Higher Education Press.
Zou, W., Chen, M., Liu, S., Zhang, X., & Tang, L. (2005). Integrated skills of English (2nd
edition) (Student’s Book 1). Beijing: Higher Education Press.
ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Library and Information Services Centre, National Institute of Education.