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


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


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.


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


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


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


vi

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 Analytical framework…………………………………………………27


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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),


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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).


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


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


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


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,


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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).


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)


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.


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)


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.


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)


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


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)


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).


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.


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.


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!


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.



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


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.


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)


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)


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


(Guerra & Martínez-Flor, 2006; Martínez-Flor, 2005)


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.


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)


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


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.)


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


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.


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)


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


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?


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.


(Barron, 2003; Beebe et al., 1990)


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.


192)

External

Intensifiers

Elements which increase

the illocutionary force of

refusal.

No way, not in a million year!


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


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.


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


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


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


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…


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)


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


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)


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.


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


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,


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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!


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.


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?’



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


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


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.


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


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? _________________________


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.


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


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,


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


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


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


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


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…



100


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.


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;


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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,


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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,


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_711/200407/665.html

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


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


http://scholar.google.com.sg/scholar?hl=zh-CN&q=The+role+of+textbooks+in+a+language+program&btnG=&lr

http://scholar.google.com.sg/scholar?hl=zh-CN&q=The+role+of+textbooks+in+a+language+program&btnG=&lr

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.


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.


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


https://tesl-ej.org/~teslejor/ej30wp/a3.html

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.


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.


teaching pragmatics: an evaluative study of english ... · integrated-skills textbooks do not...

Documents