Book contents
- Pragmatics in English Language Learning
- Pragmatics in English Language Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- 1 Second Language Pragmatics
- Part I Pragmatics in Action
- 2 ‘Mind Your Language’
- 3 Pragmatic Development in Request Performance
- 4 Placing Oneself in the Reader’s Shoes
- 5 ‘Hey, You, Can I Loan Your Yellow Pencil?’
- Part II Instructed Pragmatics
- Index
- References
4 - Placing Oneself in the Reader’s Shoes
Developing Pragmatic Awareness of Perlocutionary Acts
from Part I - Pragmatics in Action
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 September 2022
By
Book contents
- Pragmatics in English Language Learning
- Pragmatics in English Language Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- 1 Second Language Pragmatics
- Part I Pragmatics in Action
- 2 ‘Mind Your Language’
- 3 Pragmatic Development in Request Performance
- 4 Placing Oneself in the Reader’s Shoes
- 5 ‘Hey, You, Can I Loan Your Yellow Pencil?’
- Part II Instructed Pragmatics
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter investigates the perceived adequacy of the discourse of gratitude. It reports on a study in which questionnaires were administered to native speakers of English with experience as university lecturers. These questionnaires explored the envisaged impact on the addressee of foreign language learners’ written speech acts of thanking, the relevance of given textual-strategic features to the communicative effectiveness of speech acts of thanking, and the texts’ linguistic and textual problem areas relatable to the writers’ L1 background. The English lecturers expressed their likely cognitive, emotional, and behavioural responses to the learners’ writing, and indicated that they attributed importance to, and held the writers responsible for, logic and coherence, consideration of the addressee’s circumstances, and reader-friendliness. They identified two types of inadequacies: inaccuracy (e.g., deviations from linguistic norms), and inappropriateness (e.g., incongruity between text and co(n)text). The argument is put forward that language learners could enhance their interactional skills by adopting an other-oriented communicative perspective on their discourse, considering the interlocutor’s interactional rights, expectations, and foreseeable reactions.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Pragmatics in English Language Learning , pp. 84 - 113Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Ädel, A. (2014). Selecting quantitative data for qualitative analysis: A case study connecting a lexicogrammatical pattern to rhetorical moves. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 16, 68–80.Google Scholar
Alcón-Soler, E. (2013). Pragmatic variation in British and International English language users’ e-mail communication: A focus on requests. Revista Espanola de Linguistica Aplicada, 26, 25–44.Google Scholar
Alcón-Soler, E. (2015). Teachers’ perceptions of email requests: insights for teaching pragmatics in study abroad contexts. In Gesuato, S., Bianchi, F., & Cheng, W. (eds.), Teaching, Learning and Investigating Pragmatics: Principles, Methods and Practices. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 13–31.Google Scholar
Alemi, M., Eslami, Z. R., & Rezanejad, A. (2014). Rating EFL learners’ interlanguage pragmatic competence by non-native English speaking teachers. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 171–174.Google Scholar
Alemi, M., & Khanlarzadeh, N. (2017). Native and non-native teachers’ pragmatic criteria for rating request speech act: The case of American and Iranian EFL teachers. Applied Research on English Language, 6(1), 67–84.Google Scholar
Alemi, M., & Rezanejad, A. (2014). Native and non-native English teachers’ rating criteria and variation in the assessment of L2 pragmatic production: the speech act of compliment. Issues in Language Teaching (ILT), 3(1), 65–88.Google Scholar
Alemi, M., & Tajeddin, Z. (2013). Pragmatic rating of L2 refusal: Criteria of native and nonnative English teachers. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada, 30(7), 63–81.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Shin, S.-Y. (2014). Expanding traditional testing measures with tasks from L2 pragmatics research. Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 4(1), 26–49.Google Scholar
Beason, L. (2001). Ethos and error: How business people react to errors. College, Composition and Communication, 53(1), 33–64.Google Scholar
Bektas-Cetinkaya, Y. (2012). Pre-service EFL teachers’ pragmatic competence. The Turkish case. International Journal of Language Studies, 6(2), 107–122.Google Scholar
Change, L. (2011). Interlanguage pragmatic development: The relation between pragmalinguistic competence and sociopragmatic competence. Language Sciences, 33(5), 786–798.Google Scholar
Chen, H.-I. (2010). Contrastive learner corpus analysis of epistemic modality and interlanguage pragmatic competence in L2 writing. Arizona Working Papers in SLA & Teaching, 17, 27–51.Google Scholar
Chen, Y.-S., & Liu, J. (2016). Constructing a scale to assess L2 written speech act performance: WDCT and e-mail tasks. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(3), 231–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chivarate, B. (2011). Perception of politeness in English requests by Thai EFL learners. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 17(2), 59–71.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D. (2008). Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: What can we expect from learners? Language Teaching, 41(2), 213–235.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D. (2014). Towards increased classroom assessment of pragmatic ability. Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 4(1), 5–25.Google Scholar
Cortes, V. (2013). ‘The purpose of this study is to’: Connecting lexical bundles and moves in research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(1), 33–43.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J., Marti, L., Mei, M., Nevala, M., & Schauer, G. (2010). Cross-cultural variation in the perception of impoliteness: A study of impoliteness events reported by students in England, China, Finland, Germany and Turkey. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(4), 597–624.Google Scholar
DeWaard Dykstra, L. (2011). Reconceptualizing the goals for foreign language learning: the role of pragmatics instruction. In Scott, V. M. (ed.), AAUSC Volume 8: Principles and Practices of the ‘Standards’ in College Foreign Language Education. Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage, pp. 86–105.Google Scholar
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2011). ‘Please answer me as soon as possible’: Pragmatic failure in non-native speakers’ e-mail requests to faculty. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(13), 3193–3215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2015). Teaching email politeness in the EFL/ESL classroom. ELT Journal, 69(4), 415–424.Google Scholar
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2016). Variation in evaluations of the (im)politeness of emails from L2 learners and perceptions of the personality of their senders. Journal of Pragmatics, 106, 1–19.Google Scholar
Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2004). Face-keeping strategies in reaction to complaints. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 14(1), 181–197.Google Scholar
Gleason, J. B., & Perlmann, R. Y. (1985). Acquiring social variation in speech. In Giles, H. & Clair, R. N. St. (eds.), Recent Advances in Language, Communication and Social Psychology. London: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 86–111.Google Scholar
Hacking, J. F. (2008). Socio-pragmatic competence in Russian: How input is not enough. In Katz, S. L. & Watzinger-Tharp, J. (eds.), Conceptions of L2 Grammar: Theoretical Approaches and their Application in the L2 Classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage, pp. 110–125.Google Scholar
Hartung, K. J., & Wilson, D. G. (2016). Conversational moves that matter: Bridging learning outcomes and patterns of speech in informal cross-organizational conversations among top-level learners. Adult Education Quarterly, 66(3), 254–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendriks, B. (2010). An experimental study of native speaker perceptions of non-native request modification in e-mails in English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(2), 221–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, A., & Ho, D. G. E. (2010). The act of complaining in Brunei – then and now. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(3), 840–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, A., & Roseberry, R. L. (2001). A narrow-angled corpus analysis of moves and strategies of the genre: ‘Letter of Application’. English for Specific Purposes, 20(2), 153–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, T., Detmer, E., & Brown, J. D. (1995). Developing Prototypic Measures of Cross-Cultural Pragmatics, Technical Report # 7. Manoa, HI: University of Hawai’i at Manoa: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.Google Scholar
Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 185–212.Google Scholar
Ishihara, N. (2010). Assessing learners’ pragmatic ability in the classroom. In Tatsuki, D. & Houck, N. (eds.), Pragmatics: Teaching Speech Acts. TESOL Classroom Practice Series, Alexandra, VA: TESOL, pp. 209–227.Google Scholar
Jeon, E. H., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development. A meta-analysis. In Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing Research on Language Teaching and Learning. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 165–211.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H., Schneider, G., Taavitsainen, I., & Breustedt, B. (2008). Fishing for compliments: Precision and recall in corpus-linguistic compliment research. In Jucker, A. H. & Taavitsainen, I., eds., Speech Acts in the History of English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 273–294.Google Scholar
Koike, D. A. (1996). Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanish foreign language learning. In Gass, S. M. & Neu, J. (eds.), Speech Acts Across Cultures, Vol. 11. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 257–281.Google Scholar
Koike, D. A., & Pearson, L. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence. System, 33(3), 481–501.Google Scholar
Kumar, V., & Stracke, E. (2007). An analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(4), 461–470.Google Scholar
Laughlin, V. T., Wain, J., & Schmidgall, J. (2015). Defining and Operationalizing the Construct of Pragmatic Competence: Review and Recommendations, Research Report ETS-RR-15-06.Google Scholar
Lumley, T. (2002). Assessment criteria in a large-scale writing test: What do they really mean to the raters? Language Testing, 19(3), 246–276.Google Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roever, C. (2011). Testing of second language pragmatics: Past and future. Language Testing, 28(4), 463–481.Google Scholar
Savić, M. (2018). Lecturer perceptions of im/politeness and in/appropriateness in student e-mail requests: A Norwegian perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 124, 52–72.Google Scholar
Schauer, G. A. (2006). Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: Contrast and development. Language Learning, 56(2), 269–318.Google Scholar
Scher, S. J., & Darley, J. M. (1997). How effective are the things people say to apologise? Effects of the realization of the apology speech act. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 16(1), 127–140.Google Scholar
Sirikhan, S., & Prapphal, K. (2011). Assessing pragmatic ability of Thai hotel management and tourism students in the context of hotel front office department. Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles 53, 72–94.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2007). Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(4), 639–656.Google Scholar
Sydorenko, T., Maynard, C., & Guntly, E. (2014). Rater behaviour when judging language learners’ pragmatic appropriateness in extended discourse. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada 19, 32(1), 19–41.Google Scholar
Sykes, J. M. (2010). (In)commensurable discourse: researchers and practitioners bring pragmatics to language learning. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 3(1), 253–263.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2006). Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request. Pragmatics, 16(4), 513–533.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2011a). Do proficiency and study-abroad experience affect speech act production? Analysis of appropriateness, accuracy, and fluency. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 49(4), 265–293.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2011b). Rater variation in the assessment of speech acts. Pragmatics, 21(3), 453–471.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2011c). Pragmatic development as a dynamic, complex process: General patterns and case histories. The Modern Language Journal, 95(4), 605–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajeddin, Z., & Alemi, M. (2014). Criteria and bias in native English teachers’ assessment of L2 pragmatic appropriacy: content and FACETS analyses. Asia-Pacific Education Research, 23(3), 425–434.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tseng, F.-P. (2011). Analyses of move structure and verb tense of research article abstracts in applied linguistics journals. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(2), 27–39.Google Scholar
Wolfe, J., Shanmugaraj, N., & Sipe, J. (2016). Grammatical versus pragmatic error: Employer perceptions of nonnative and native English speakers. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 79(4), 397–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamashita, S. (2008). Investigating interlanguage pragmatic ability: What are we testing? In Alcón-Soler, E. & Martínez-Flor, A. (eds.), Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing, Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 201–223.Google Scholar