Book contents
- Speech Acts in English
- Studies in English Language
- Speech Acts in English
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 What Contemporary Research Tells Us about Speech Acts
- 3 Critical Assessment of the Representation of Speech Acts in Advanced EFL Textbooks
- 4 A Cognitive Pedagogical Grammar of Directive Speech Acts I: Know-What and Know-How of Directives
- 5 A Cognitive Pedagogical Grammar of Directive Speech Acts II: Activities and Practice Materials
- 6 Conclusions
- References
- Index
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 November 2020
Book contents
- Speech Acts in English
- Studies in English Language
- Speech Acts in English
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 What Contemporary Research Tells Us about Speech Acts
- 3 Critical Assessment of the Representation of Speech Acts in Advanced EFL Textbooks
- 4 A Cognitive Pedagogical Grammar of Directive Speech Acts I: Know-What and Know-How of Directives
- 5 A Cognitive Pedagogical Grammar of Directive Speech Acts II: Activities and Practice Materials
- 6 Conclusions
- References
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Speech Acts in EnglishFrom Research to Instruction and Textbook Development, pp. 229 - 245Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Abbas, L. H. & Saad, Q. K. (2018). Iraqi EFL students’ linguistic strategies in approaching warning and prohibition. English Language Teaching, 11(12), 11–37.Google Scholar
Abbeduto, L., Furman, L. & Davies, B. (1989). Identifying speech acts from contextual and linguistic information. Language and Speech, 32(3), 189–203.Google Scholar
Achard, M. (2018). Teaching usage and concepts: toward a cognitive pedagogical grammar. In Tyler, A., Huang, L. & Jan, H., eds., What Is Applied Cognitive Linguistics? Answers from Current SLA Research. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Achard, M. & Niemeier, S., eds. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K. (1996). Conversational Routines in English: Convention and Creativity. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Akbari, K. A. & Sharifzadeh, A. (2013). An evaluation of Top Notch series. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 4(4), 60–73.Google Scholar
Aksoyalp, Y. & Toprak, T. E. (2015). Incorporating pragmatics in English language teaching: to what extent do EFL course book address speech acts? International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 4(2), 125–133.Google Scholar
Alcón, E. (2005). Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context? System, 33(3), 417–435.Google Scholar
Alcón, E. & Safont, P. (2001). Occurrence of exhortative speech acts in ELT materials and natural speech data: a focus on request, suggestion and advice realisation strategies. SELL: Studies in English Language and Linguistics, 3, 5–22.Google Scholar
Alshehri, E. & Abdulaziz, K. (2017). Using learners’ first language in the EFL classroom. IAFOR Journal of Language Learning, 3(1), 20–33.Google Scholar
Alston, W. P. (2000). Illocutionary Acts and Sentence Meaning. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Atay, D., Kurt, G., Çamlibel, Z., Ersin, P. & Kaslioglu, O. (2009). The role of intercultural competence in foreign language teaching. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 10(3), 123–135.Google Scholar
Auerbach, E. (1993). Re-examining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 9–32.Google Scholar
Bacelar da Silva, A. J. (2003). The effect of instruction on pragmatic development: teaching polite refusal in English. Second Language Studies, 22(1), 55–106.Google Scholar
Bach, K. (1998). Standardisation revisited. In Kasher, A., ed., Pragmatics: Critical Assessment. London: Routledge, pp. 712–722.Google Scholar
Bach, K. & Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baicchi, A. (2016). The role of syntax and semantics in constructional priming: experimental evidence from Italian university learners of English through a sentence-elicitation task. In De Knop, S. and Gaëtanelle, G., eds., Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 211–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, J. & Carrell, P. L. (1988). Tuck in your shirt, you squid: suggestions in ESL. Language and Learning, 38(3), 313–364.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). The relationship of form and meaning: a cross-sectional study of tense and aspect in the interlanguage of learners of English as a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 253–278.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In Rose, K. and Kasper, G., eds., Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 13–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognise pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 233–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B. S. (1996). Input in an institutional setting. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 171–188.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Mahan-Taylor, R. (2003). Teaching Pragmatics. Washington, DC: United States Department of State.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Mossman, S. (2016). Corpus-based materials development for teaching and learning pragmatic routines. In Tomlinson, B., ed., SLA Research and Materials Development for Language Learning. New York: Routledge, pp. 250–267.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S. & Su, Y. (2017). The effect of corpus-based instruction on pragmatic routine. Language Learning & Technology, 21(3), 76–103.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S. & Vellenga, H. E. (2014a). Developing corpus-based materials to teach pragmatic routines. TESOL Journal, 6(3), 499–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S. & Vellenga, H. E. (2014b). The effect of instruction on pragmatic routines in academic discussion. Language Teaching Research, 19(3), 324–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barron, A. (2007). ‘Can you take the other bed, please?’ An appraisal of request presentation in EFL textbooks. Paper presented at the 22nd Congress of the German Society for Foreign (and Second) Language Research, Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany.Google Scholar
Bataineh, R. F. & Aljamal, M. A. (2009). Jordanian EFL and American Students’ Use of Warning in English: A Contrastive Study. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.Google Scholar
Bataller, R. (2013). Making a request for a service in Spanish: pragmatic development in the study abroad setting. Foreign Language Annals, 43(1), 160–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertolet, R. (1994). Are there indirect speech acts? In Tsohatzidis, S. L., ed., Foundations of Speech Act Theory. Philosophical and Linguistic Perspective. London: Routledge, pp. 335–349.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence. In Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S., eds., Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 43–57.Google Scholar
Blooth, A., Azman, H. & Ismail, K. (2014). The role of the L1 as a scaffolding tool in the EFL reading classroom. Procedia. Social and Behavioural Sciences, 118, 76–84.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning how to say what you mean in a second language: a study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 3, 29–59.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness: same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. (1991). Interlanguage pragmatics: the case of requests. In Phillipson, R., Kellerman, E., Selinker, L., Sharwood Smith, M. & Swain, M., eds., Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 255–272.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. & House, J. (1989). Cross-cultural and situational variation in requesting behaviour. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. and Kasper, G., eds., Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 123–154.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Boers, F. & Demecheleer, M. (1998). A cognitive semantic approach to teaching prepositions. English Language Teaching Journal, 52(3), 197–204.Google Scholar
Boers, F. & Lindstromberg, S. (2008). Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, B. (2018). Teaching and learning pragmatics and speech acts: an instructional pragmatics curriculum development project for EFL learners. School of Education Student Capstone Projects. Available at https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/hse_cp/176.Google Scholar
Bouton, L. (1996). Pragmatics and Language Learning. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Boxer, D & Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: the case of complaints. ELT Journal, 49(1), 44–58.Google Scholar
Brdar-Szabó, R. (2009). Metonymy in indirect directives: stand-alone conditionals in English, German, Hungarian, and Croatian. In Panther, K. U., Thornburg, L. & Barcelona, A., eds., Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 323–336.Google Scholar
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bu, J. (2012). A study of the effects of explicit and implicit teachings on developing Chinese EFL learners’ pragmatic competence. International Journal of Language Studies, 6(3), 57–80.Google Scholar
Burkhardt, A. (1990). Speech at theory. The decline of a paradigm. In Bukhardt, A., ed., Speech Acts, Meaning, and Intentions. Critical Approaches to the Philosophy of John R. Searle. New York: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 91–128.Google Scholar
Butler, C. W., Potter, J., Danby, S., Emmison, M. & Hepburn, A. (2010). Advice-implicative interrogatives: building ‘client-centred’ support in a children's helpline. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(3), 265–287.Google Scholar
Byram, M. S. & Risager, K. (1999). Language Teachers, Politics and Cultures. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Carroll, D. (2011). Teaching preference organisation: learning how not to say ‘no’. In Houck, N. and Tatsuki, D., eds., Pragmatics: Teaching Natural Conversation. Alexandria: TESOL, pp. 105–118.Google Scholar
Carstens, A. (2002). Speech act theory in support of idealised warning models. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 20(4), 191–200.Google Scholar
Carter, R., Hughes, R. & McCarthy, M. (2000). Exploring Grammar in Context: Upper-Intermediate and Advanced. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Castro, P. (1999). La dimensión europea en la enseñanza/aprendizaje de lenguas extranjeras: la competencia intercultural. Lenguaje y Textos, 13, 41–53.Google Scholar
Castro, P., Sercu, L. & Garcia, M. C. M. (2004). Integrating language-and-culture teaching: an investigation of Spanish teachers’ perceptions of the objectives of foreign language education. Intercultural Education, 15(1), 91–104.Google Scholar
Cenoz, J. & Valencia, J. F. (1996). Cross-cultural communication and interlanguage pragmatics: American vs. European requests. In Bouton, L. F., ed., Pragmatics and Language Learning. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, pp. 47–53.Google Scholar
Chen, L. & Oller, J. W. (2008). The use of passives and alternatives in English by Chinese speakers. In De Knop, S. and De Rycker, T., eds., Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 385–415.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1979). Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive Psychology, 11(4), 430–477.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Lucy, P. (1975). Understanding what is meant from what is said: a study in conversationally conveyed requests. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 14, 56–72.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. (2008). Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: what can we expect from learners? Language Teaching, 41, 213–235.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D. & Ishihara, N. (2013). Pragmatics. In Tomlinson, B., ed., Applied Linguistics and Material Development. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 113–126.Google Scholar
Coulson, S. & Lovett, C. (2010). Comprehension of non-conventional indirect requests: an event-related brain potential study. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 22(1), 107–124.Google Scholar
Crandall, E. & Basturkmen, H. (2004). Evaluating pragmatics-focused materials. English Language Teaching Journal, 58(1), 38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D. (2010). The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Language, 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dascal, M. (1989). On the roles of context and literal meaning in understanding. Cognitive Science, 13, 253–257.Google Scholar
De Knop, S. & De Rycker, T. (2008). Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
De Knop, S. & Gilquin, G. (2016). Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Del Campo, N. (2013). Illocutionary Constructions in English: Cognitive Motivation and Linguistic Realisation. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Delen, B. & Tevil, Z. M. (2010). Evaluation of four coursebooks in terms of three speech acts: requests, refusals and complaints. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 692–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diepenbroek, L. G. & Derwing, T. (2013). To what extent do popular ESL textbooks incorporate oral fluency and pragmatic development? TESL Canada Journal, 30(7), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dik, S. C. (1989). The Theory of Functional Grammar: Part I: The Structure of the Clause. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. (1997). The Theory of Functional Grammar: Part II: Complex and Derived Constructions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dirven, R. (1985). Definition of a pedagogical grammar (seen from a linguist's point of view). ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics, 67(1), 43–67.Google Scholar
Dirven, R. (2001). English phrasal verbs: theory and didactic application. In Putz, M., Niemeier, S. & Dirven, R., eds., Applied Cognitive Linguistics II: Language Pedagogy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 3–28.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (1985). Actes de Langage et Théorie de L’énonciation. Collection ERA 642 (UA 04 1028). Paris: University of Paris 7 Press.Google Scholar
Edelhoff, C. (1993). English among the other European languages. English Language Learning in Europe: Issues, Tasks and Problems. Best of ELTECS Conference, Bratislava, pp. 27–38.Google Scholar
Edmondson, W. & House, J.. (1981). Let's Talk and Talk About It. Munich: Urban and Schwarzenberg.Google Scholar
Ekin, M. T. Y. (2013). Do current EFL coursebooks work for the development of L2 pragmatic competence? The case of suggestions. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1306–1310.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (2001). Form-Focus Instruction and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: a review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S., Strage, A., Lampert, M. & Bell, N. (1987). Understanding requests. Linguistics, 25, 107–143.Google Scholar
Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2005). Raising the pragmatic awareness of language learners. English Language Teaching Journal, 59(3), 199–208.Google Scholar
Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1989). Interlanguage request modification. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G., eds., Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 221–247.Google Scholar
Farashaiyan, A. & Muthusamy, P. (2017). The linguistic presentation of speech acts in Top-Notch Intermediate textbooks. International Journal of Linguistics, 9(3), 1–20.Google Scholar
Farashaiyan, A., Tan, K. H. & Shahragard, R. (2018). An evaluation of the pragmatics in the Cutting Edge Intermediate textbooks. 3L: Language, Linguistics and Literature: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 24(4), 158–170.Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (1974). An analysis of vernacular performative verbs. In Shuy, R. & Bailey, C. J., eds., Towards Tomorrow's Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 139–158.Google Scholar
Fujimori, J. & Houck, N. (2004). Practical criteria for teaching speech acts. The Language Teacher, 28(4), 3–9.Google Scholar
Fukushima, S. (2000). Requests and Culture: Politeness in British English and Japanese. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Geis, M. (1995). Speech Acts and Conversational Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1979). Contextual effects in understanding indirect requests. Discourse Processes, 2, 1–10.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1984). Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cognitive Science, 8, 265–304.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2002). A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 457–486.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. & Gerrig, R. (1989). How context makes metaphor comprehension seem ‘special’. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 4, 154–158.Google Scholar
Gisladottir, R. S., Chwilla, D. J. & Levinson, S. C. (2015). Conversation electrified: ERP correlates of speech act recognition in underspecified utterances. PLoS ONE, 10(3), 1–24.Google Scholar
Givon, T. (1989). Mind, Code, and Context. Essays in Pragmatics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Glaser, K. (2009). Acquiring pragmatic competence in a foreign language: mastering dispreferred speech acts. Topics in Linguistics, 4, 50–57.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (2011). Semantic Analysis: A Practical Introduction, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. & Wierzbicka, A. (2013). Words and Meanings: Lexical Semantics Across Domains, Languages, and Cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalisations in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. & Suttle, L. (2010). Construction grammar. WIREs Cognitive Science, 1(4), 468–477.Google Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, F. (2019). Exploring the pedagogical potential of vertical and horizontal relations in the construction: the case of the family of subjective-transitive constructions with decir in Spanish. In Llopis-García, R. & Hijazo-Gascón, A., eds., Applied Cognitive Linguistics to L2 Acquisition and Learning: Research and Convergence. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 57(1), 121–145.Google Scholar
Gordon, D. & Lakoff, G. (1975). Conversational postulates. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J., eds., Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3. Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 83–106.Google Scholar
Grant, L. & Starks, D. (2001). Screening appropriate teaching materials: closing from textbooks and television soap operas. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 39(1), 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J., eds., Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3. Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Griffiths, P. (2006). An Introduction to English Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Grossi, V. (2009). Teaching pragmatic competence: compliments and compliment responses in the ESL classroom. Macquarie University, 24(2), 53–62.Google Scholar
Gu, X. (2011). The effect of explicit and implicit instructions of request strategies. Intercultural Communication Studies, 20(1), 104–123.Google Scholar
Hall, G. & Cook, G. (2013). Own-language use in ELT: exploring global practices and attitudes. ELT Research Paper, British Council, London.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotics: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. (1999). Construing Experience Through Meaning. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. & Barlow, J. (2009). Politeness strategies and advice-giving in an online arthritis workshop. Journal of Politeness Research Language Behaviour Culture, 5(1), 93–111.Google Scholar
Harwood, N. (2014). Content, consumption, and production: three levels of textbook research. In Harwood, N., ed., English Language Teaching Textbooks: Content, Consumption, Production. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 1–41.Google Scholar
Haverkate, H. (1984). Speech Acts, Speakers, and Hearers: Reference and Referential Strategies in Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayakawa, S. I. (1969). Modern Guide to Synonyms and Related Words. Darmstadt: Verlag.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K. (2017). A hierarchical approach to grammaticalisation. In Hengeveld, K., Narrog, H. & Olbertz, H., eds., The Grammaticalisation of Tense, Aspect, Modality and Evidentiality. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 13–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. & Sefi, S. (1992). Dilemmas of advice: aspects of the delivery and reception of advice in interactions between health visitors and first-time mothers. In Drew, P. & Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 359–417.Google Scholar
Hernández-Flores, N. (1999). Politeness ideology in Spanish colloquial conversation. The case of advice. Pragmatics, 9(1), 37–49.Google Scholar
Hijazo-Gascón, A., Cadierno, T. & Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2016). Learning the placement caused motion construction in L2 Spanish. In De Knop, S. & Gilquin, G., eds., Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 185–210.Google Scholar
Hinkel, E. (1997). Appropriateness of advice: DCT and multiple-choice data. Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Holdcroft, D. (1994). Indirect speech acts and propositional content. In Tsohatzidis, S. L., ed., Foundations of Speech Act Theory. Philosophical and Linguistic Perspective. London: Routledge, pp. 350–364.Google Scholar
Holme, R. (2009). Cognitive Linguistics and Language Teaching. London: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Holme, R. (2010). A construction grammar for the classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 48, 355–377.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1983). The structure of teachers’ directives. In Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. W., eds., Language and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 87–115.Google Scholar
Holtgraves, T. (1994). Communication in context: effects of speaker status on the comprehension of indirect requests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(5), 1205–1218.Google Scholar
House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 225–252.Google Scholar
House, M. & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In Coulmas, F., ed., Conversational Routine. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 157–185.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hutchby, I. (1995). Aspects of recipient design in expert advice giving on call-in radio. Discourse Processes, 19, 219–223.Google Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. & Cheikh-Khamis, F. (2019). ‘How to become a woman without turning into a Barbie’: change-of-state verb constructions and their role in Spanish as a foreign language. In Llopis-García, R. & Hijazo-Gascón, A., eds., Applied Cognitive Linguistics to L2 Acquisition and Learning: Research and Convergence. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 57(1), 97–120.Google Scholar
Ishihara, N. (2010). Adapting textbooks for teaching pragmatics. In Ishihara, N. & Cohen, A. D., eds., Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet. Harlow: Longman, pp. 145–165.Google Scholar
Ishihara, N. & Cohen, A. D. (2010). Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ishihara, N. & Maeda, M. (2010). Advanced Japanese: Communication in Context. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, N. D. (2012). Applying cognitive linguistics and task-supported language teaching to instruction of English conditional phrases. PhD thesis. Washington, DC: Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, N. (2015). A cognitive linguistic analysis of English conditionals in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) instruction: implications from sociocultural theory. In Masuda, K., Arnett, C. & Labarca, A., eds., Cognitive Linguistics and Sociocultural Theory: Applications for Second and Foreign Language Teaching. Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 103–129.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, N. (2018). The best of both worlds: combining Cognitive Linguistics and pedagogic tasks to teach English conditionals. Applied Linguistics, 39(5), 668–693.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judd, E. L. (1999). Some issues in the teaching of pragmatic competence. In Hinkel, E. & Long, M. H., eds. Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 152–167.Google Scholar
Kachru, Y. (1994). Cross-cultural speech act research and the classroom. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 5, 39–51.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (1989). Variation in interlanguage speech act realisation. In Gass, S., Madden, C., Preston, D. & Selinker, L., eds., Variation in Second Language Acquisition: Discourse and Pragmatics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 37–58.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (2006). Speech acts in interaction: towards discursive pragmatics. In Bardovi-Harlig, K., Félix-Brasdefer, C. & Omar, A. S., eds., Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 11, pp. 281–314.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. (1990). Literal meaning and logical theory. In Bukhardt, A., ed., Speech Acts, Meaning, and Intentions. Critical Approaches to the Philosophy of John R. Searle. New York: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 229–258.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. M. (1975). Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kissine, M. (2011). Misleading appearances: Searle, assertion, and meaning. Erkenntnis, 74, 115–129.Google Scholar
Kissine, M. (2012). Sentences, utterances, and speech acts. In Allan, K. & Jaszczolt, K. M., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 160–190.Google Scholar
Kissine, M. (2014). From Utterances to Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koester, J. (2002). The performance of speech acts in workplace conversations and the teaching of communicative functions. System, 30(2), 167–184.Google Scholar
Koike, D. (1994). Negation in Spanish and English suggestions and requests: mitigating effects? Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 513–526.Google Scholar
Koike, D. (1996). Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanish foreign language learning. In Gass, S. M. & Neu, J., eds., Speech Acts across Cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 257–281.Google Scholar
Koosha, B. & Vahid Dastjerdi, H. V. (2012). Investigating pragmatic competence: the case of requests in Interchange Series. Asian Social Science, 8(1), 54–61.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar as a basis for language instruction. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N., eds., Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Limberg, H. (2015). Principles for pragmatics teaching: apologies in the EFL classroom. English Language Teaching Journal, 69(3), 275–285.Google Scholar
Lindstromberg, S. (1996). Prepositions: meaning and method. English Language Teaching Journal, 50, 225–36.Google Scholar
Lindstromberg, S. & Boers, F. (2005). From movement to metaphor with manner-of-movement verbs. Applied Linguistics, 26, 241–61.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. & Low, G. (2006). Metaphoric competence, second language learning, and communicative language ability. Applied Linguistics, 27, 268–94.Google Scholar
Liu, D. (2010). Going beyond patterns: involving cognitive analysis in the learning of collocations. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 4–30.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. (2006). Advice-Giving in an American Internet Health Column. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Luomala, P. (2010). Pragmatics exercises and pragmatic metalanguage in English United textbooks series for Finnish upper secondary school. Master's thesis. University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
Marcondes, D. (1984). Language and Action. A Reassessment of Speech Act Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Márquez-Reiter, R. (2002). A contrastive study of conventional indirectness in Spanish pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of The International Pragmatics Association, 12(2), 135–151.Google Scholar
Martínez-Flor, A. (2003). Non-native speakers’ production of advice acts: the effects of proficiency. Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16, 139–153.Google Scholar
Martínez-Flor, A. (2005). A theoretical review of the speech act of suggesting: towards a taxonomy for its use in FLT. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 18, 167–187.Google Scholar
Martínez-Flor, A. & Fukuya, Y. (2005). The effects of instruction on learners’ production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. System, 33(3), 463–480.Google Scholar
Masuda, K. (2018). Cognitive Linguistics and Japanese Pedagogy. A Usage-Based Approach to Language Learning and Instruction. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Matsumura, S. (2001). Learning the rules for offering advice: a quantitative approach to second language socialisation. Language Learning, 51, 635–679.Google Scholar
Matsumura, S. (2003). Modelling the relationships among interlanguage pragmatic development, L2 proficiency, and exposure to L2. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 465–491.Google Scholar
Mauri, C. & Sansò, A. (2011). How directive constructions emerge: grammaticalisation, constructionalisation, cooptation. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3489–3521.Google Scholar
McConachy, T. & Hata, K. (2013). Addressing textbook representations of pragmatics and culture. ELT Journal, 67(3), 294–301.Google Scholar
McGrath, I. (2002). Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Meunier, F. (2008). Corpora, cognition and pedagogical grammars: an account of convergences and divergences. In De Knop, S. & de Rycker, T. D., eds., Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar: A Volume in Honour of Rene Dirven. Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 91–121.Google Scholar
Moradi, A., Karbalaei, A. R. & Afraz, S. (2013). A textbook evaluation of speech acts and language functions in high school English textbooks (I, II, and III) and Interchange series, books I, II, and III. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 2(2), 323–335.Google Scholar
Morgan, J.L. (1978). Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In Cole, P., ed., Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 9. Pragmatics. London: Academic Press, pp. 261–280.Google Scholar
Morrow, C. (1995). The pragmatic effects of instruction on ESL learners’ production of complaint and refusal speech acts. Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, NY.Google Scholar
Neddar, B. A. (2010). Cross-cultural pragmatic information in Algerian textbooks. A paper presented as a web poster in the 4th International Conference on Intercultural Pragmatics. Madrid.Google Scholar
Neddar, B. A. (2012). Short notes on discourse, interlanguage pragmatics and EFL teaching: where do we stand? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 5687–5692.Google Scholar
Nguyen, M. Th. Th. (2011). Learning to communicate in a globalised world: to what extent do school textbooks facilitate the development of intercultural pragmatic competence? RELC Journal, 42(1), 17–30.Google Scholar
Niemeier, S. & Reif, M. (2008). Making progress simpler? Applying cognitive grammar to tense-aspect teaching. In de Knop, S. & de Rycker, T., eds., Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar: A Volume in Honour of Rene Dirven. Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 325–356.Google Scholar
Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: a research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.Google Scholar
Nourdad, N. & Roshani Khiabani, L. (2015). Pragmatic content analysis of newly developed Iranian EFL English textbooks. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 10(1), 24–39.Google Scholar
Panther, K. U. & Thornburg, L. (1998). A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 755–769.Google Scholar
Panther, K. U. & Thornburg, L. (2003). Metonymies as natural inference and activation schemas: the case of dependent clauses as independent speech acts. In Panther, K. U. & Thornburg, L., eds., Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 113). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 127–147.Google Scholar
Panther, K. U. & Thornburg, L. (2005). Motivation and convention in some speech act constructions: a cognitive-linguistic approach. In Marmaridou, S., Nikiforidou, K., & Antonopoulou, E., eds., Reviewing Linguistic Thought: Converging Trends for the 21st Century. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 53–76.Google Scholar
Pérez-Hernández, L. (1996). The cognition of requests. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 4, 189–208.Google Scholar
Pérez-Hernández, L. (1999). Grounding politeness. Journal of English Studies, 1, 209–236.Google Scholar
Pérez-Hernández, L. (2001). Illocution and Cognition: A Constructional Approach. Logroño: University of La Rioja Press.Google Scholar
Pérez-Hernández, L. (2012). Saying something for a particular purpose: constructional compatibility and constructional families. Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics, 25, 189–210.Google Scholar
Pérez-Hernández, L. (2013). Illocutionary constructions: (multiple source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs, and specification links. Language and Communication, 33, 128–149.Google Scholar
Pérez-Hernández, L. (2019). From research to the textbook: assessing speech acts representation in course book series for students of English as an L2. Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 248–276.Google Scholar
Pérez-Hernández, L. & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2002). Grounding, semantic motivation, and conceptual interaction in indirect directive speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(3), 259–284.Google Scholar
Pérez-Hernández, L. & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2011). A Lexical-Constructional Model account of illocution. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 98–137.Google Scholar
Petraki, E. & Bayes, S. (2013). Teaching oral requests: an evaluation of five English as second language coursebooks. Pragmatics, 23(3), 499–517.Google Scholar
Rajabia, S., Azizifar, A. & Gowhary, H. (2015a). Investigating the explicit instruction of apology speech act on pragmatic development of Iranian EFL learners. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(4), 53–61.Google Scholar
Rajabia, S., Azizifara, A. & Gowhary, H. (2015b). The effect of explicit instruction on pragmatic competence development; teaching requests to EFL learners of English. Procedia. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 231–239.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (1987). Meaning and Force. The Pragmatics of Performative Utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (1994). Contextualism and anti-contextualism in the philosophy of language. In Tsohatzidis, S. L., ed., Foundations of Speech Act Theory. Philosophical and Linguistic Perspective. London: Routledge, pp. 156–166.Google Scholar
Ren, W. & Han, Z. (2016). The representation of pragmatic knowledge in recent ELT textbooks. English Language Teaching Journal, 70(4), 424–243.Google Scholar
Reza, N. & Zohreh, E. (2016). Critical perspectives on interlanguage pragmatic development: an agenda for research. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 25–50.Google Scholar
Richards, J. C. (1985). The Context of Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rintell, E. M. (1979). Getting your speech act together: the pragmatic ability of second language learners. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 17, 97–106.Google Scholar
Rintell, E. M. & Mitchel, C. J. (1989). Studying requests and apologies: an inquiry into method. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G., eds., Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 248–272.Google Scholar
Risselada, R. (1993). Imperatives and other directive expressions in Latin. A study in the pragmatics of a death language. Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 2. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben Publisher.Google Scholar
Römer, U. (2004). Comparing real and ideal language learner input: the use of an EFL textbook corpus in corpus linguistics and language teaching. In Aston, G., Bernardini, S. & Stewart, D., eds., Corpora and Language Learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 151–158.Google Scholar
Römer, U. (2006). Looking and ‘looking.’ Functions and contexts of progressives in spoken English and ‘school’ English. In Renouf, A. & Kehoe, A., eds., The Changing Face of Corpus Linguistics: Papers from the 24th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerised Corpora (ICAME 24). Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 231–242.Google Scholar
Römer, U., O'Donnell, M. B. & Ellis, N. C. (2014). Second language learner knowledge of verb-argument constructions: effects of language transfer and typology. The Modern Language Journal, 98(4), 952–975.Google Scholar
Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effect of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33(3), 385–399.Google Scholar
Rose, K. R. & Ng, C. K. (2001). Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments and compliment responses. In Rose, K. R. & Kasper, G., eds., Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 145–170.Google Scholar
Ross, A. (2018). The pragmatics of requesting in the Canadian workplace: a comparative investigation of requests presented in workplace ESL textbooks and oral discourse completion task responses. PhD thesis. Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1970). On declarative sentences. In Jacobs, R. A. & Rosenbaum, P. S., eds., Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn, pp. 222–277.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & Agustin, P. (2016). Cognitive pedagogical grammar and meaning construction in L2. In De Knop, S. & Gilquin, G., eds., Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 151–184.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & Baicchi, A. (2007). Illocutionary constructions: cognitive motivation and linguistic realisation. In Kecskes, I. & Horn, L., eds., Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Intercultural Aspects. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 95–128.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & Galera Masegosa, A. (2014). Cognitive Modelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rutherford, W. E. (1987). Second Language Grammar: Learning and Teaching. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ruytenbeek, N. (2017). The comprehension of indirect requests: previous work and future directions. In Depraetere, I. & Salkie, R., eds., Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line. Amsterdam: Springer, pp. 293–322.Google Scholar
Ruytenbeek, N., Ostashchenko, E. & Kissine, M. (2017). Indirect request processing, sentence types and illocutionary forces. Journal of Pragmatics, 119, 46–62.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. M. (1974). Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schauer, G. (2009). Interlanguage Pragmatics Development: The Study Abroad Context. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings. Psathas, 1979, 23–78.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organisation in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L., eds., Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3. New York: Academic Press, pp. 59–82.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Sercu, L. (2002). Implementing intercultural foreign language education. Belgian, Danish and British teachers’ professional self-concepts and teaching practices. Evaluation and Research in Education, 16(3), 150–165.Google Scholar
Shaffer, D. E. (2004). Teaching particles with image schemas. The Internet TEFL Journal, 51, 1–16.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 159–68.Google Scholar
Shimizu, T., Fukasawa, E. & Yonekura, S. (2007). Introductions and practices of speech acts in oral communication 1 textbooks: from a viewpoint of interlanguage pragmatics. Sophia Linguistica: Working Papers in Linguistics, 55, 143–163.Google Scholar
Soozandehfar, S. M. A. & Sahragard, R. (2011). A textbook evaluation of speech acts and language functions in Top-Notch series. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(12), 1831–1838.Google Scholar
Spada, N. & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: a meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (1996). Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 1–24.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.. (1995). Relevance, Communication and Cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2003). A construction-based approach to indirect speech acts. In Panther, K. U. & Thornburg, L., eds., Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 105–126.Google Scholar
Sung, M. & Yang, H. K. (2016). Effects of construction-centred instruction on Korean students’ learning of English transitive resultative constructions. In De Knop, S. & Gilquin, G., eds., Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 89–114.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289–310.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: where instructional studies were, are and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1–50.Google Scholar
Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In Rose, K. R. & Kasper, G., eds., Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 171–199.Google Scholar
Takahashi, S. (2005). Pragmalinguistic awareness: is it related to motivation and proficiency? Applied Linguistics, 26, 90–120.Google Scholar
Takahashi, S. (2012). A Cognitive Linguistic Analysis of the English Imperative. With Special Reference to Japanese Imperatives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49–100.Google Scholar
Tan, K. H. & Farashaiyan, A. (2016). Challenges in teaching interlanguage pragmatics at private EFL institutes in Iran. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 24(3): 45–54.Google Scholar
Tateyama, Y. (2001). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatics routines: Japanese ‘sumimasen’. In Rose, K. R. & Kasper, G., eds., Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 200–222.Google Scholar
Tateyama, Y., Kasper, G., Mui, L., Tay, H. M. & Thananart, O. (1997). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines. In Bouton, L., ed., Pragmatics and Language Learning, 8. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, pp. 163–177.Google Scholar
Tatsuki, D. H. & Houck, N. R. (2010). Pragmatics: Teaching Speech Acts. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2008). Some pedagogical implications of cognitive linguistics. In De Knop, S. & De Rycker, T., eds., Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 37–67.Google Scholar
Tello Rueda, Y. (2016). Developing pragmatic competence in a foreign language. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 8, 169–182.Google Scholar
Thibault, P. J. & Van Leuween, T. (1996). Grammar, society and the speech act: renewing the connections. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 561–585.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, B. (2013). Introduction: applied linguistics and materials development. In Tomlinson, B., ed., Applied Linguistics and Materials Development. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, B., Dat, B., Masuhara, H. & Rubdy, R. (2001). ELT courses for adults. English Language Teaching Journal, 55(1), 80–101.Google Scholar
Ton Nu, A. T. (2018). How EFL textbooks accommodate pragmatics: an investigation into a newly published textbook series for Vietnamese upper-secondary school students. English Australia Journal, 33(2), 37–43.Google Scholar
Tromp, J., Hagoort, P. & Meyer, A. S. (2016). Pupillometry reveals increased pupil size during indirect request comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(6), 1093–1108.Google Scholar
Trosborg, J. (1995). Interlanguage Pragmatics. Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Trott, S. (2016). The interpretation of indirect speech acts. Available at https://seantrott.com/2016/12/10/the-interpretation-of-indirect-requests/.Google Scholar
Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Learning: Theoretical Basics and Experimental Evidence. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tyler, A. & Evans, V. (2004). Applying cognitive linguistics to pedagogical grammar: the case of over. In Achard, M. & Niemeier, S., eds., Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching. Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 257–281.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., Mueller, C. & Ho, V. (2011). Applying cognitive linguistics to learning the semantics of English to, for, and at: an experimental investigation. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 181–205.Google Scholar
Ulum, O. G. (2015). Pragmatic elements in EFL course books. Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Science, 1, 93–106.Google Scholar
Usó-Juan, E. (2008). The presentation and practice of the communicative act of requesting in textbooks: focusing on modifiers. In Alcón, E. & Safont Jordà, M. P., eds., Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 223–243.Google Scholar
Valdman, A. (2003). The acquisition of sociostylistic and sociopragmatic variation by instructed second language learners: the elaboration of pedagogical norms. In Sieloff Magnan, S., ed., Issues in Language Program Direction. Boston, MA: Heinle, pp. 57–78.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, J. & Rojo, A. M. (2008). What can language learners tell about constructions? In De Knop, S. & De Rycker, T., eds., Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 197–230.Google Scholar
Van Ackeren, M.J., Casasanto, D., Bekkering, H., Hagoort, P. & Rueschemeyer, S-A. (2012). Pragmatics in action: indirect requests engage theory of mind areas and the cortical motor network. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(11), 2237–2247.Google Scholar
Vassilaki, E. (2017). Cognitive motivation in the linguistic realisation of requests in Modern Greek. In Athanasiadou, A., ed., Studies in Figurative Thought and Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 105–124.Google Scholar
Vellenga, H. (2004). Learning pragmatics from ESL & EFL textbooks: how likely? The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 8(2), 1–18.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. (1985). What People Say They Do with Words. Prolegomena to an Empirical-Conceptual Approach to Linguistic Action. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. (2003). Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1987). English Speech Act Verbs. A Semantic Dictionary. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wildner-Bassett, M. (1994). Intercultural pragmatics and proficiency: ‘Polite Noises’ for cultural awareness. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 32(1), 3–17.Google Scholar
Wong, J. (2002). ‘Applying’ conversation analysis in applied linguistics: evaluating dialogue in English as a second language textbooks. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 40, 37–60.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, D. (1980). Methodological remarks on speech act theory. In Seale, J. R., Kiefer, F. & Bierwisch, M., eds., Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company, pp. 291–312.Google Scholar
Yasuda, S. (2010). Learning phrasal verbs through conceptual metaphors: a case of Japanese EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 250–273.Google Scholar
Yin, Ch. P. & Kuo, F. Y. (2013). A study of how information system professionals comprehend indirect and direct speech acts in project communication. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 56(3): 226–241.Google Scholar