ADAMA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND LAW,

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH

INVESTIGATING THE CHALLENGES AND

OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEVELOPING PRAGMATIC

COMPETENCE OF EFL STUDENTS: THE CASE OF ST.

JOSEPH SCHOOL IN ADAMA

By

KORIE SHANKULIE

Advisor: HAILELEUL ZELEKE (PHD)

JUNE 2012

INVESTIGATING THE CHALLENGES AND

OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEVELOPING PRAGMATIC

COMPETENCE OF EFL STUDENTS: THE CASE OF St.

JOSEPH SCHOOL IN ADAMA

By

Korie Shankulie

A Thesis Submitted to School of Humanities and Law,

Department of English in partial fulfillment for

the requirement of Master of Arts degree (MA) in

English

JUNE 2012

Adama

Declaration

I declare that the research paper hereby submitted to Adama science

and Technology University for the degree, Masters of English has

not previously been submitted by me or anyone else for a degree at

this university or any other university, but it is my own work in design

and execution and that all materials contained therein HAVE been

fully acknowledged.

____________________________ ___________________________

Korie Shankulie Date

ADAMA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND LAW

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH

(GRADUATE PROGRAM)

Investigating the Challenges and Opportunities

for Developing Pragmatic Competence of EFL

Students: the Case of St. Joseph School in Adama

By

Korie Shankulie

Approved by the Board of Examiners:

Name Signature

Advisor

_________________________________________ ______________________

External Examiner

__________________________________________ _______________________

Internal Examiner

__________________________________________ _______________________

Acknowledgments

I sincerely thank my advisor, Dr. Haileleul Zeleke, for his insightful comments, professional

guidance and detailed advice throughout the development of this thesis. I remain greatly indebted to

him again for his fruitful comments and suggestions at the very earliest stage of the thesis. I am very

much indebted to the kindness, patience and warm-welcome he has shown me in the course of time.

I owe my gratitude to Dr. Luc Journe, for his constructive comments reading the first three chapters

of this work.

I am also grateful to my friends: Muktar Hussein, and Taddele Mognehode, for their enthusiasm and

warm-hearted encouragement.

I would like to express my particular gratitude to my mother, Soreti Dewano, for her unfailing

moral support.

Finally, I wish to acknowledge all the students and teachers who completed the questionnaires. My

thanks especially go to those teachers who allowed me to observe their classes.

Korie Shankulie,

-I-

List of Figures and Tables

List of Figures Page

Figure 1.Models of Communicative Competence……………………………………………………..…17

List of Tables

Table 1. Checklists for Absence or Presence of the Pragmatic Features.................................................62

Table2.Communicative Acts in the Textbooks...........................................................................................64

Table 3.Frequency Communicative Acts in each textbooks…………………………………..………….69

Table 4.Pragmatic Contents of Grade 10th

English textbook………………………………………..…..70

Table 5.Grade11Textbook Pragmatic contents………………………………………………………….74

Table 6.Challenges related to Teachers’ Training Programs……………………………………...........74

Table 7.Whether any lesson received helped the teachers or not………………………………..............72

Table 8.Challenges related to Students Textbooks………………………………………………….…...76

Table 9. Do the teachers include any lesson in their daily plan to teach pragmatics?.............................76

Table 10.Why teachers do not teach pragmatic aspect of English language?..........................................77

Table11.General Perception of Teachers about opportunities to learn pragmatics in EFL context……78

Table12. Classroom Observation Results………………………………………………………………..80

Table 13.Learners’ Language Skills Proficiency Background…………………………………………..83

Table 14.Exposure to the English Language outside the Classroom……………………………………84

Table 15. Learners’ Self-perceived Sociolinguistic Competence………………………………………..86

Table 16. Learners’ Self-perceived Discourse Competence………………………………………..........88

Table 17. Learners’ Self-perceived Pragmatic Competence…………………………………………….89

Table 18.Scaling the difficulty Level of Communicative Acts…………………………………………....92

-II-

Table 19. Table 19. MDCT Score Description………………………………………………………..…99

Table 20. The MDCT score of the students by group…………………………………………….........100

Table 21. Summary of MDCT Situation and the Weight of Distance, Power, and Rank of

Imposition………………………………………………………………………………..…..101

Table 22.Sources of Students’ Pragmatic Knowledge………………………………………………….101

-III-

List of Acronyms Used

L1…………………………………..first language

L2…………………………………. second language

FL…………………………………… foreign language

EFL………………………………… English as a foreign language

ILP…………………………………interlingual/language pragmatics

SLA………………………………..second language acquisition

SPCC………………………………self-perceived communicative competence

MDCT………………………………multiple choice discourse completion test

-IV-

ABSTRACT

This paper investigates the challenges and opportunities for teaching pragmatics in EFL context.

Learners often find the area of language use difficult. Teachers are advised to explicitly teach pragmatic

features of language and make use of authentic models of language to help learners practice using

appropriate language in social contexts. In spite of this, information about pragmatic aspect of language

and pragmatic-focused instruction is lacking in an EFL Ethiopian context classroom. Textbooks and

teachers are an integral part of language teaching in general in an EFL setting where there are no

opportunities to learn the language informally outside the classroom. However, the textbooks almost

never provide adequate pragmatic information for students to develop successfully their pragmatic

competence. The findings indicated that there is a scarcity of pragmatic information contained in the

English for Ethiopia, and the variety of pragmatic information is limited. Most of the metalanguage

explanations are simple; and there are no metapragmatic explanations at all.

It is fairly possible to infer from the teachers’ response that well-designed teacher training and teaching

materials should be in place for teachers to develop students’ pragmatic competence. Moreover, the

teaching hours to cover the issue of pragmatics; thus, to properly manage each lesson may solve the

current problem of teaching pragmatics in the classroom. The results of this study also showed that

teachers seldom use pragmatic instruction in classrooms, and mostly students have to spend time by

themselves developing pragmatic competence without explicit instruction. Overall, the pragmatics

instruction is immature and needs to be developed, and teachers need professional training to be aware

of how to teach pragmatics effectively. Although the learners’ self-perceived competence mean score

was high, their MDCT result was low; and this confirmed that self-perceived competence and the actual

performance never match. This is why according to Dewaele (2007) higher levels of self-perceived

competence are linked to lower levels of communication which in fact has to be further investigated in

our own context.

The research was entirely qualitative except that some simple statistical calculations were used to

compute the frequency, mean and percentage of the numerical data. The data were drawn from the

content analysis of two student textbooks (grade 10 &11), responses of four teachers teaching grade 9-

12 and self-perceived competence and pragmatic awareness test results of 183 students. The findings of

this study have implications for teaching pragmatics to EFL learners, the development of pragmatic-

focused materials, future research and well-designed teacher training.

-V-

Table of contents

Page

Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………………….I

List of Tables and Figures…………………………………………………………………………….II

Acronyms……………………………………………………………………………………………...IV

Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………..V

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………1

1.1.Background…………………………………………………………………………………….1

1.2. The Rationale for the Current Research………………………………………………………3

1.3.Statement of the Problem……………………………………………………………………...4

1.4.Objectives of the Study………………………………………………………………………..8

1.4.1.General objective…………………………………………………………………………..8

1.4.2.Specific objectives…………………………………………………………………………8

1.5.Research Questions……………………………………………………………………………9

1.6.Significance of the Study……………………………………………………………………...9

1.7.Delimitation of the Study……………………………………………………………………..10

1.8.Limitation of the Study……………………………………………………………………….10

1.9.Organization of the Study…………………………………………………………………….11

1.10. Definitions and Abbreviations……………………………………………………………...12

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE……………………………………….13

2.1.Communicative Competence……………………………………………………………….13

2.2. Communicative Performance………………………………………………………………15

2.3.Models of Communicative Competence……………………………………………………15

2.4. Pragmatics………………………………………………………………………………….17

2.4.1.Dimensions of Pragmatics………………………………………………………………18

2.4.2.Pragmatic Competence………………………………………………………………….19

2.4.3.The Importance of Teaching Pragmatics………………………………………………..19

2.4.4.Teachability of Pragmatics in EFL Setting…………………………………..................21

2.4.5.Pragmatic Instructions: Explicit vs. Implicit……………………………………………23

2.5.Communicative Function (Speech Acts)……………………………………………………24

2.5.1.Describing Speech Acts………………………………………………………………….25

2.5.1.1.Speech Acts of Apology……………………………………………………………..26

2.5.1.2.Speech Acts of Compliments………………………………………………………..28

2.5.1.3.Speech Acts of Complaints………………………………………………………….31

2.5.1.4.Speech Acts of Refusals……………………………………………………………..33

2.5.1.5.Speech Acts of Requests……………………………………………………………..34

2.5.1.6.Speech Acts of Gratitude…………………………………………………………….35

2.6.Challenges for Teaching Pragmatics………………………………………………………...38

2.6.1.Challenge Related to Course Books……………………………………………………39

2.6.2.Challenge Related to Courses in Teachers’ Training……………………………………39

2.6.3.Challenge Related to Language Class Size……………………………………………..41

2.6.4.Challenge Related to Teachers' Sense of Self-Efficacy…………………………….…..41

2.6.5.Challenge Related to the Attitude toward English Language…………………………..41

2.6.6.Learners’ Level of Target Language Proficiency……………………………………….42

2.6.7.Challenge Related to Pragmatics Teaching Methods…………………………………...42

2.6.8.Challenge Related to the Availability of Authentic Inputs……………………………...43

2.7.Possibilities/Opportunities for Teaching Pragmatics in EFL Classroom…………………….44

2.7.1.The Role of Language Teacher’s Talk……………………………………………………45

2.7.2.The Role of Textbooks………………………………………………………………........46

2.7.3.The Role of Culture……………………………………………………………………….47

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS AND PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY……………………….50

3.1. Methods of the Study………………………………………………………………………50

3.2. Research Design……………………………………………………………………………50

3.3. Procedures of the Study……………………………………………………………………50

3.4. The Data……………………………………………………………………………………51

3.4.1. Content Analysis Sampling Process…………………………………………………..52

3.4.1.1. Sampling Units for the Content Analysis……………………………………….....52

3.4.1.2. Data Coding Scheme for Content Analysis……………………………………….53

3.4.1.3. Procedure of Content Analysis…………………………………………………....53

3.5. Participants………………………………………………………………………………..54

3.6. Procedure for Collecting Data……………………………………………………………54

3.6.1. Data Sources……………………………………………………………………….54

3.6.2. Research Setting………………………………………………………..................54

3.6.3. Sampling………………………………………………………………..................55

3.7. Tools of Data Collection………………………………………………………………55

3.7.1. Questionnaire……………………………………………………………..............55

3.7.2. Classroom Observation………………………………………………………….56

3.7.3. Discourse Completion Test……………………………………………..............56

3.7.4. Content Analysis…………………………………………………………...........57

3.8. Procedure for Data Analysis………………………………………………………….59

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION…………………………..60

4.1. Pragmatic Content Analysis of the Textbooks......................................................................61

4.2. Pragmatic Features Contained in each Textbooks.................................................................69

4.3. Questionnaires for Teachers.......................................................................................73

4.4. Classroom Discourse Observation.............................................................................79

4.5. MDCT for Students…………....................................................................................82

4.6. Learners’ Self-perceived Communicative Competence............................................85

4.7. MDCT Scores and Descriptions…………………………………………………….97

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY OF RESEARCH RESULTS,

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS……………………………………………...103

5.1. Summary of Research Results....................................................................................103

5.2. Conclusions.................................................................................................................104

5.3. Recommendations.......................................................................................................106

5.4. Implications.................................................................................................................110

Bibliography................................................................................................................................I-XXV

Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………..I-XXII

Appendix 1: Textbooks’ Pragmatic Content Evaluation Checklist…………………………….I

Appendix 2: Questionnaire for Teachers………………………………………….....................III

Appendix:3 MDCT for Learners……………………………………………………………….VII

Appendix:4 Classroom Observation Checklist…………………………………………………XIII

Appendix:5 Communicative Acts in the Textbooks……………………………....…………….XV

Appendix:6 Self-perceived Competence Questionnaire ……………………………..................XX

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

Learning a foreign language is regarded nowadays as an essential component in the curricula at

different educational levels. In particular, learning the English language has become necessary

given its widespread use throughout the world according to House and Kasper (see, Martinez-Flor,

2004). However, in order to make learners become communicatively competent in the English

language, there is a shift from previous theoretical frameworks, which considered language as a

formal system based on grammatical rules, towards a more communicative perspective (ibid).

Alcaraz (see, Martinez-Flor, 2004) points out that the shift from language usage rule to language

use rule was possible due to the advent of pragmatics as a specific area of study within linguistics

that favored a focus on interactional and contextual factors of the target language (TL).

English is more of a foreign language than a second language in Ethiopia. This mainly is because

English is used so infrequently in daily life outside the classroom and students do not have the

opportunity to learn the language informally. Thus, the main way students have been expected to

learn English has been by using it as a medium of instruction. As put forward by Heugh, K. (2006)

role of English in Ethiopia, at least outside the educational system, resembles more closely that of

countries where English is considered as a foreign language than that of countries where it is

considered a second language used relatively widely as a lingua franca (e.g. In some urban settings

in Kenya). Contrary to this Amlaku (2011) argues that speaking English, or at least mixing English

while using a local language, is perceived by the majority of the societies as a sign of being

educated and modernized. Despite all weaknesses, English is increasingly getting acceptance and

stamina in Ethiopia for purposes of both domestic and foreign interactions and transaction other

than in the educational contexts as subject and medium of instruction.

As international and cross-cultural communication has become part of everyday life in Ethiopia,

pragmatic competence should be an important asset to a person and thus, rehearsing pragmatic skills

alongside other linguistic aspects should be one of the objectives of language teaching in formal

education. In Ethiopia, formal instruction of English or the learning environment, most commonly

comprises of a non-native language teacher, a fairly large classroom full of learners with very

dissimilar aptitudes, and the teaching materials, which refer to anything that can be used to facilitate

the learning of a language, such as textbooks, printouts, or grammar books. Teaching authentic

language use, which resembles the way the language is used in the “real world” outside the

classroom, in these circumstances is very challenging and the teaching materials should play an

integral role in offering the students a model of real-life language use.

Although language teachers have the right to develop their own materials, the most commonly used

materials are only published textbooks. As Vellegna (2004) aptly points out, the textbook is often

the very center of the curriculum and syllabus. In such cases, textbooks used should be carefully

designed, to make sure that they are perfectly in line with the learning objectives and learners’ need.

Basically, the chosen textbook should provide all the important linguistic inputs outlined for each

stage of learning and life outside the school. However, studies have shown (for example Vellegna

2004, Peiying, 2007; 2008) that textbooks rarely provide enough information for learners to

successfully acquire pragmatic competence.

Similarly, knowledge about how conversations work and what the sociocultural norms and practices

are in each communication culture is often inadequately presented in the textbook contents

(Bardovi-Harling 2001:25). In order for students to learn how language really works, they need

authentic materials of authentic communication situations. The demand for pragmatic input is

particularly relevant when upper secondary school teaching materials are concerned, because at this

level, students are expected to be quite proficient language users. In other words, at upper secondary

school stage, they are at an advanced level and competent to understand the subtleties of English.

Most students in upper secondary school study English as their compulsory language, that is, the

language that has started in the lower stage of the comprehensive school and that is obligatory to all

students.

Practicing pragmatic abilities in a classroom requires student-centered interaction. The teaching

materials should provide a relatively wide range of exercises designed to rehearse the

sociopragmatic knowledge of students. In a similar vein, Kasper (1997) suggests the inclusion of

activities such as role-play, simulation, and drama to engage students in different social roles and

speech events. The activities in the textbooks provide valuable opportunities to practice the

pragmatic and sociolinguistic skills that students need in their everyday interactions outside the

classroom.

Pragmatic competence can also be acquired through raising awareness on the pragmatic aspects of

second/foreign language, and in this process, the metalanguage, that is, “a language which is used to

describe language” (Lyons 1995: 7), can assist significantly. In teaching and learning of any

language, metalanguage is essential, both in classroom interaction and within the teaching materials.

In language instruction context, metalanguage helps the learners to understand the key elements of

the target language and the major differences between the target language and the learner’s L1.

Evidently, as the learner’s metalinguistic awareness increases, the level of language proficiency

increases as well (Renou 2001: 261), and therefore the teaching materials should be rich in

pragmatic metalanguage and teachers should also be aware of the significant role of learning

pragmatics.

In conclusion, this study entirely focused on challenges and opportunities for teaching pragmatic

competence. Besides, it was the intent of this research to evaluate teachers’ perception of the

textbooks content in terms of their pragmatic content. Furthermore, it was the concern of this study

to look at what teachers think are impediments for them to deliver pragmatic instructions in the EFL

setting.

1.2. The Rationale for the Current Research

It is might be questioned that why some researches of this kind are conducted and what main cause

motivated the researcher to study the problem in question. Hence, this research has its own grounds

to be conducted for.

1. The first motive of conducting this research largely grew from a belief that the teaching of

vocabulary and grammar is not enough to enable learners to become competent and naturalistic

users of English.

2. The other rationale is to provide enough information or basic guidelines for teachers to start

tackling the area of pragmatics in the classroom; at least in an informed, logical and confident

pedagogical manner.

3. It is also necessary to provide some basic or essential information on pragmatics, and to be of

practical use to teachers who are interested in, but have little knowledge of, pragmatics in a foreign

language context.

Many literatures depict that people who are trained with pragmatics are finding more positions

related to teaching, research, editing, forensics, trade, negotiation, corpus analysis, computer

programming, among other things. Indeed it is related to any work with a touch of language. To this

end, the study aims at investigating the challenges side by side with the opportunities/possibilities of

developing pragmatic competence of learners in an EFL context.

1.3. Statement of the Problem

Learning a language is more than just acquiring a simple understanding of the rules of grammar;

learners must be able to use the language as well. This use is needed far beyond the classroom, in a

variety of situations, where politeness and tact will help soothe tensions and open doors for

communication. Each context has its unique traits that require unique forms of language. Pragmatic

ability is this context-dependent use of language (Christiansen, 2003:1). If language learners want to

function smoothly in a society, their pragmatic ability is of utmost importance. Wolfson (see,

Christiansen, 2003) points out:

People do not normally take offense or make negative character judgments when

a nonnative speaker mispronounces a word or when grammatical errors are made;

indeed, such differences as those which result in a foreign accent are often found

very charming. Errors in rules of speaking are a very different matter. An

inappropriate question or the failure to utter the customary apology, compliment,

or congratulations will not be judged as an error natural to the process of language

learning or indeed, of intercultural differences, but as a personal affront. (p. 1).

Pragmatic ability is not only fundamental to the smooth functioning of society; it is also a crucial

skill for students who intend to study abroad in another language. According the body of literatures,

although it is such an important aspect of language, pragmatics did not receive considerable

attention in the English as foreign language contexts. For example, (Peiying, 2007 and 2008; and

Vellegna, 2004) evaluating the pragmatic content of the English language textbooks, found

respectively:

• neither English textbooks nor English classroom teaching provide adequate pragmatic input

to learners with regards to quantity and quality of pragmatic input,

• the extent of pragmatic knowledge in college English textbooks and classroom teaching is

limited and predominantly concentrates on metapragmatic information, metalanguage,

speech acts, cultural information,

• pragmatic information in the textbooks and classroom teaching is randomly distributed,

• the pragmatic input is taught explicitly with limited tasks and task varieties,

• the content(information-based) approach reflecting an information-transmission model

neglects the appropriate use of the target language, essential for effective communication,

and affords students with few opportunities for interactive learning and the use of English

for real purpose.

• textbooks include a paucity of explicit metapragmatic information, and teachers’ manuals

rarely supplement adequately (Vellegna, 2004).

The above mentioned research findings in other words could be challenges to teaching pragmatics

in an EFL context. Nevertheless, there is a scarcity of research on pragmatics in the setting of the

current research. Pragmatics plays a very important role in the process of language teaching and

learning because it draws the teacher’s attention to the development of the learner’s communicative

competence, which is now considered the goal of the language teaching process (Celce-Murcia,

et.al. 1995; Vellegna, 2004; Garcia, 2004 and Peiying, 2007).

English language textbooks present the language to students in terms of written and spoken

language, but their presentation of the language may not be as comprehensive as the one students

need to succeed in communication. However, textbooks play vital role in English language teaching

(ELT), especially in the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom where they provide the

primary, perhaps the only, form of linguistic input (Kim and Hall, 2002 in both Vellegna, 2004 and

Peiying, 2007). Textbooks are, hence, one of the challenges being faced by the teachers because

they rarely provide adequate pragmatic information for students to successfully develop their

pragmatic competence.

Further studies also suggest that teachers seldom bring in outside materials related to pragmatics, as

a result of which heavily relying on the contents of the textbooks to teach pragmatic ability is

unlikely (Vellegna, 2004). Vellegna again argues that textbook developers could include authentic

examples of speech acts and sufficient metaprgamatic explanations to facilitate acquisition of

pragmatic competence (2004:1). If both classroom teachers and textbook writers do not strive for

the inclusion of pragmatic materials to substantiate the textbooks, students will lose pragmatic

ability; the ability to use language appropriately according to the communication situation (Garcia,

2004:1). Garcia further points out that if students do not have the pragmatic ability, they will lack

the ability to:

understand a speaker’s intentions;

interpret a speaker’s feelings and attitude;

differentiate speech act meaning, such as the difference between a direct and commissive;

evaluate the intensity of a speaker’s meaning, such as the difference between a suggestion

and a warning;

recognize sarcasm, joking, and other facetious behavior; and

be able to respond appropriately (p. 1-2).

Vellegna (2004) opines that acquisition of pragmatic competence in English through textbooks is

highly unlikely, given that the amount and quality of pragmatic information provided in the

textbooks (p.1). Beside this Peiying (2007:1) asserts ‘there is a dearth of pragmatic information

contained in …textbooks and the variety of pragmatic information is limited.’ Peiying further

contends that most of the metapragmatic explanations are simple indicating the inadequacy of

pragmatic inputs in the textbooks.

The current Ethiopian upper secondary school’s English textbooks are written by foreigners, yet

most materials have been written based on the intuition of the textbook writers (CARLA, 2011:2).

There seems to exist a shared belief that native English speakers just know intuitively how to

interact in their language and should be able to explain the social use of the language to the learners.

However, this commonly shared belief is not necessarily true; in fact, a native speaker's intuition is

sometimes unreliable (ibid). By intuition they mean that textbook developers may not have real

experience of the textbook users to include good amount of pragmatic lesson in the textbook.

Similarly, Rover (see El-okoda, 2010:191) points out that although pragmatic competence is

considered to be a major component of communicative competence, little attention has been paid to

testing it in the literature. Likewise, EFL student teachers’ curriculum and in-service professional

development program lack the inclusion of good amount of pragmatic aspect of language teaching

(Cohen, 2008).

In addition, pragmatic errors are more serious than grammatical ones and people who speak with

pragmatic errors are often considered impolite; sometimes they could be interpreted as breach of

etiquette (Boxer and Pickering, 1995; Bardovi-Harlig and Mahan-Taylor, 2003). Hence, it is

imperative for learners to acquire the ability to properly use language.

Equipping Ethiopian students with communicative competence in order to help them communicate

effectively in all walks of their lives and international communication is truly essential. English has

been used as a medium of instruction from grade 7 or 9 upwards since long time ago, but problems

in learning and teaching English have been observed ever since (Jarvis, as cited in Amlaku, 2010)

had given his personal account of experiences and observations. Presently, says Amlaku for his part

‘[teachers] at schools and employers in industries have been complaining about the low level

English language competence of students and graduates, respectively’ (p.9). But what are the

challenges that pull back language learners not to competently communicate when there is a need to

do so?

Although there have been studies about communicative language teaching in Ethiopian schools, the

investigation on pragmatic information in English textbooks used in Ethiopia has not yet been

conducted. Similarly, whether there exist any additional pragmatic features in teacher’s book as a

resource for teachers has not been questioned. Likewise, whether English language teachers bring in

outside materials to help learners develop pragmatic competence has not yet been investigated in

the setting of the current research.

There is paucity of pragmatic contents and their presentations are marginalized as compared to

other language items. There are no courses offered to pre-service language teachers in the area of

pragmatics as a result of which teachers do not supplement textbook with inputs to help learners

acquire pragmatic competence. Although it is vitally important to acquire communicative

competence, there are no research emphases in the area of pragmatics in the present research area.

The current research, therefore, looks into the challenges and opportunities in teaching pragmatics

to language learners in the EFL context and the way forward to it.

1.4. Objectives of the Study

1.4.1. General Objectives of the Study

The major objective of the present study was to investigate the challenges of teaching pragmatics in

an EFL setting; by means of analyzing textbooks in terms of their pragmatic contents; exploring

opportunities/possibilities of teaching pragmatics in an EFL setting; discovering whether students

can choose appropriate language in a given situation; and forwarding possible recommendations

based on the research results.

1.4.2. Specific Objectives of the Study

This study was aimed to evaluate the communicative competence of Ethiopian EFL learners,

specifically those in St. Joseph School, through the discourse completion test analysis. In this

regard, the present study had three specific objectives:

Analyzing English textbooks on the basis of thanking strategies, apologizing strategies,

complimenting strategies, complaining strategies, refusing strategies, and requesting

strategies presented in Aijmer (1996); and Ishihara and Cohen, (2010).

Analyzing the discourse completion data collected from St. Joseph 10th

and 11th

grade

students,

Investigating the challenges teachers in EFL setting, particularly those in St. Joseph

School, were facing in teaching pragmatic aspects of the English language,

Considering these concerns, the aim of this study was two-fold: to deal with those theoretical

approaches that inform the process of learning speech acts in particular contextual and cultural

settings; and, secondly, to present a variety of methodological proposals, grounded on research-

based ideas, for the teaching of the major pragmatic features in foreign language classrooms.

1.5. Research Questions

One of the main purposes of English language education in Ethiopia can be to cultivate the

communicative competence of Ethiopian EFL learners. Many innovations have been made to

improve English education contexts and cultivate the communicative competence of Ethiopian

students. The notion of communicative syllabus has been adopted from various theories of language

teaching and learning which in fact reflects this innovation atmosphere of English language

education policies in Ethiopia. The notion of communicative competence has had a very powerful

influence on every aspect of language teaching. English language textbooks have been published on

the basis of communicative syllabus since very recently. Whereas, ‘communicative competence is

not on the list of items learned, but a set of strategies for realizing the value of linguistic elements in

context of use is on the list’ Widdowson(see in Chang, 2004:1 ).

In order to attain the above objectives, this study attempted to answer the following questions:

1. To what extent do the students’ textbooks provide pragmatic information for learners to

acquire pragmatic competence?

2. What are the challenges perceived by high school teachers to develop students’ pragmatic

competence?

3. How do the teachers perceive students’ textbooks pragmatic contents-are they challenges or

opportunities for them?

4. Do students choose appropriate language based on a provided situation/context?

5. To what extent do teachers consider other possibilities than the textbook, for teaching

pragmatics in an EFL setting?

1.6. Significance of the Study

The need to teach pragmatics in a target language has been demonstrated in studies conducted in the

fields of interlanguage and crosscultural pragmatics which indicate that the performance of

pragmatic features may differ considerably from culture to culture, thus creating communication

difficulties in cross-cultural encounters.

In this research an attempt was made to examine the socio-pragmatic aspect of the students’

textbook, the challenges faced by teachers and the availability of opportunities to teaching

pragmatic competence to EFL learners. Generally, this research is expected to have the following

significance:

1. It can help syllabus designers to revise English language syllabuses to include substantial

quantity of pragmatic features and the quality of their presentations in the textbooks.

2. The research would also be worthwhile resource for teachers who are interested to develop

their own teaching materials for teaching pragmatics/speech acts.

3. The research would be helpful for textbook writers to consider including the substantial

amounts of the pragmatic aspect of the English language in the English language textbooks

and wishing to have an informed opinion on the pedagogical implications derived from

research on pragmatics/speech act performance.

4. It fills the research gap that exists in studying challenges and possibilities to teaching

pragmatics in an EFL setting of Ethiopian context.

5. Above all, the research would be of importance for the other researchers to look into the

field attentively.

1.7. Delimitation of the Study

It is not an easy task to make an investigation of the challenges and opportunities of developing the

pragmatic competence in an EFL context. It would have been a good idea if the research work of

the present kind had addressed all micro level approaches to pragmatics: indexicals, presupposition,

implicature and speech acts. The present research, however, confined itself to the study of

pragmatic competence with particular emphasis on some speech acts and challenges to teaching

pragmatics along with the existing opportunities, if any, in the context of English as a Foreign

Language. Another concern was that it needed sufficient time, human power and financial resources

to incorporate all upper high schools in the Adama Town in the current research.

1.8. Limitation of the Study

This study was believed to have certain constraints. Researches of the present kind require practical

or experimental examination of the respondents’ awareness of pragmatics aspects of language use.

Many such experimental research works are available since the coming into attention of pragmatics

beginning from 1970s. In spite of this fact, the search for local research works could not be able to

avail any related works undergone at home. This in turn has hampered and limited the depth of the

current research.

In addition to the above points, lack of both multimedia resources and laboratories for conducting

experimental research in the schools while the learners practice language use, was a hurdle for the

current research. Furthermore, the research was first designed to be conducted on homemade

English language textbooks. Unfortunately, the new textbooks authored by foreign writers came

into use in the middle of the research work and they are voluminous in size. This might also throw

some light on the result of the present research.

Researches in the area of pragmatics (Ishihara, N. and Cohen, A. 2010) recommend that various

sources of data can be employed while undertaking a study: intuition and introspection, discourse

completion tasks (DCTs), role-plays, recording of natural conversation; and field observation of

natural conversation. However, due to the time, financial and material limitations the current

research employed only discourse completion tests, questionnaires, textbook content analysis and

class observation.

1.9. Organization of the study

This study is divided into five chapters. Chapter One, presents an overview of the study in which

the background to the research, rationale for the research, the objectives, the research questions, the

scope of the study, the limitation of the study as well as the organization of the study were briefly

presented. Chapter Two, reviews the theoretical issues relevant to the study including

communicative competence, pragmatics and pragmatic competence, speech act of complaining,

refusing, apologizing, requesting, complimenting etc. and the challenges and possibilities of

teaching pragmatic competence to the EFL learners. Chapter Three, discusses issues of

methodology and outlines the study design, data collection instruments, reliability and validity test

of the data collection instruments, procedure of data collection, selection of subjects and analytical

framework. Chapter Four, presents the data analysis and discusses the findings on the challenges

and possibilities of teaching pragmatic competence in EFL setting. Chapter 5, provides an overview

of major findings and conclusions, implications, and suggestions for further research.

1.10. Definitions of the Study terms/ Technical Terms

(Online Language Dictionaries. http://www.wordreference.com/definition/sociolinguistic)

Sociolinguistic/pragmatic transfer: refers to the learners’ strategy of incorporating native

language based elements in target language production and behaviour.

Pragmatic failure/deviance: it is a communicative failure that results from lack of compatibility

between speakers’ intent and hearers’ standards for acceptability.

Sociocultural competence: refers to the speakers’/writers’ ability to determine the pragmatic

appropriateness of a particular speech act in a given context.

Speech act information: speech act information in this study consists of 3 categories-types of

speech act, numbers of linguistic form provided for each speech act, and exercises or tasks using the

speech acts the students have just learned in each particular unit.

Usage: refers to the explanations about the usage of any linguistic forms and of any grammatical

features, expressions, phrases, or words which could enhance pragmatic knowledge of the students.

Politeness: refers to the use of appropriate language considering different social factors, including

social distance, age, role relationships, and so forth, between the speaker and the interlocutor in the

given contexts.

Register: refers to the sort of social genre of linguistic use. It comprises three dimensions-field,

tenor, and mode. Field refers to the social setting and purpose of the communication. Tenor refers to

the relationship between interlocutors or participants in the event. Mode refers to the medium of

communication as in spoken or written.

Style: refers to variations within registers representing choices along social dimensions. In this

study, it refers to the degrees along formality-casualness continuum.

Cultural information: in the present study refers only to the information about culture that one has

to know and be aware of when communicating verbally in order to avoid pragmatic failure or

breakdown in communication. Therefore, other information about cultures, for example, music or

food was ignored in the present study.

Quality: refers to the amount of details or explanation, the complexity or variety of examples

provided in the context.

MDCT refers loosely to a pragmatics instrument that requires students to read a written description

of a situation and select what would be best to say in that situation from a set of choices.

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1. Communicative Competence

People in virtually all locations of the globe are more mobile than ever, and more likely to traverse

into cultures different from their own. Literally and figuratively, the walls that separate us are

tumbling down. Though we may not have fully become a "global village," there is no denying that

the various cultures of the world are more accessible than ever before, and that the peoples of these

cultures are coming into contact at an ever increasing rate. These contacts ultimately comprise

interpersonal encounters. Whether it is the negotiation of an arms treaty, or the settlement of a

business contract, or merely a sojourner getting directions from a native, cultures do not interact,

people do. Communicative/interactional competence in such intercultural context is therefore

mandatory.

According to Bara (2010) the term competence refers to that abstract set of capacities which the

system [communication system] possesses, independently of the actual use to which those

capacities are put. Performance, instead, refers to the capacities actually exhibited by a system in

action (Bara, 2010:203).Therefore, the term “communicative competence” is comprised of two

words, the combination of which means competence to communicate. “Competence” is one of the

most controversial terms in the field of general and applied linguistics according to various works in

the area.

In some literature, it is also broadly called intercultural communication competence that it is

considered very broadly as an impression that behavior is appropriate and effective in a given

context. Normally, competence is considered as ability or a set of skilled behaviors. However, any

given behavior or ability may be judged competent in one context, and incompetent in another.

Consequently, competence cannot inhere in the behavior or ability itself. It must instead be viewed

as a social evaluation of behavior. This social evaluation as pointed out by Spitzberg (2009:380) is

composed of the two primary criteria -appropriateness and effectiveness.

As stated by Spitzberg (2009) Appropriateness means:

…the valued rules, norms, and expectancies of the relationship are not violated

significantly. Effectiveness is the accomplishment of valued goals or rewards

relative to costs and alternatives. With these dual standards, therefore,

communication will be competent in an intercultural context when it

accomplishes the objectives of an actor in a manner that is appropriate to the

context and relationship (p. 380).

The phrase ‘Communicative Competence’ currently in use was primarily coined by the US

anthropologist Dell Hymes according to Leung, C. (2005:2). The notion is intended to replace

Noam Chomsky's dichotomy of competence and performance. Competence is the knowledge of

rules of grammar, performance, is how the rules are used. Speakers draw on their competence in

putting together grammatical sentences, but not all such sentences can be used in the same

circumstances: Close the window and would you mind closing the window, please? are both

grammatical, but they differ in their appropriateness for use in particular situations. Speakers use

their communicative competence to choose what to say, as well as how and when to say it.

In the words of Georgakopoulou, and Goutsos, (2001) communicative competence is a relative term

in that, for example, a phrase like “I think I deserve a drink too” could be factually stating the

speaker’s wish to buy herself a drink; or it could be expressing a complaint to the person who has

not bought the speaker a drink; or it could be indirectly soliciting the hearer’s offer (p. 3).

Generally, this example may suggest that there is no hope for successful communication in our

everyday life, since we can utter so many speech acts in so many different ways. However,

surprisingly we do establish the link between linguistic form and function in a specific environment

in which they occur and interpret speech acts accurately.

Generally, communicative competence is not a matter of knowing rules for the composition of

sentences and being able to employ such rules to assemble expressions from scratch as and when

occasion requires. ‘It is much more a matter of knowing a stock of partially pre-assembled patterns,

formulaic frameworks, and a kit of rules, so to speak, and being able to apply the rules to make

whatever adjustments are necessary according to contextual standards’ Widdowson (1989:135).

2.2. Communicative Performance

The idea once competence is acquired, performance will take care of itself is false (see Widdowson

in Ohno, 2004). According to Widdowson, there are two distinguished aspects of performance: Use

and Usage. ‘Usage’ makes evident the extent to which the language user demonstrates his/her

knowledge of linguistic rules, whereas, ‘Use’ makes evident the extent to which the language user

demonstrates his ability to use the language rules for effective communication. This can be

summarized as:

Performance Use rules of socioculture social context

Usage rules of grammar linguistic context

In keeping with this Ohno (2011) opines that linguistic context focuses on usage to enable the

students to select which form of sentence is contextually appropriate, while social context focuses

on use to enable the students to recognize the type of communicative function their sentences

fulfill(p,28).

2.3. Models of Communicative Competence

Life in this contemporary globalized world commands respective challenges in communication and

brings nearly everyone into contact with people of other languages and cultures. Through this

contact cultures make people require exchanging cognitive notions, thoughts and precepts, and to do

so a strong medium is required. Foreign and second language education has developed to unravel

the challenges the present and prospective interlocutors encounter, by emphasizing on learning how

to communicate successfully with others speaking a different language and living a different

culture. On the basis of this reality various authors have developed different models of

communicative competence.

The first comprehensive model of communicative competence, which was intended to serve both

instructional and assessment purposes, is that of Canale & Swain (1980), further elaborated by

Canale (1983) as shown in (Kasper and Kenneth 2006; Martinez-Flor & Uso-Juan, 2006 & 2008

and Celce-Murcia, et.al 1995). This model posited four components of communicative competence:

1. Grammatical competence - the knowledge of the language code (grammatical rules, vocabulary,

pronunciation, spelling, etc.). Grammatical or formal competence, which refers to the Chomskyan

concept of linguistic competence(Alptekin, 2002:57); it is the native speaker’s knowledge of the

syntactic, lexical, morphological, and phonological features of the language, as well as the capacity

to manipulate these features to produce well-formed words and sentences.

2. Sociolinguistic competence - the mastery of the sociocultural code of language use appropriate

application of vocabulary, register, politeness and style in a given situation). Sociolinguistic

competence, as said by (Alptekin, 2002:58), deals with the social rules of language use, which

involve an understanding of the social context in which language is used. Such factors as the role of

the participants in a given interaction, their social status, and the information they share, and the

functions of the interaction are given importance. Social context here refers to the culture-specific

context embedding the norms, values, beliefs, and behavior patterns of a culture. Appropriate use

of the language requires attention to such constructs. Pragmatic knowledge is also subsumed under

this model according to Bachman and Palmer (see in Bagaric and Mihaljevic, 2007; Celce-Murcia,

2007).

3. Discourse competence - the ability to combine language structures into different types of

cohesive texts (e.g., political speech, poetry). Discourse competence, which is the ability to deal

with the extended use of language in context. This is ordinarily achieved through the connection of

a series of sentences or utterances to form a meaningful whole. These connections are often quite

implicit: ideas are linked to each other based on general knowledge of the world as well as

familiarity with a particular context. Where these conceptual and experiential bonds are weak or

inadequate, the meanings inferred from them are likely to be erroneous.

4. Strategic competence - the knowledge of verbal and non-verbal communication strategies which

enhance the efficiency of communication and, where necessary, enable the learner to overcome

difficulties when communication breakdowns occur. The summary of various models of

communicative competence are presented in the following diagram.

Canale and Swain (1980) Canale (1983) Bachman and Palmer (1996)

Fig 1. Models of Communicative Competence (in Bagaric and Mihaljevic, 2007:102)

2.4. Pragmatics

Pragma-is etymologically traced back to the Greek language and refers to activity, deed, affairs

(Trosborg, 1994:5). However, linguistic pragmatics is to be distinguished from non-linguistic

pragmatics, i.e. pragmatics in the domains of the sociologist, psychologist, the ethno methodologist,

the literary scholar, and so on. There are numerous definitions of pragmatics, and one of interest in

second language pedagogy has been proposed by Crystal (in Kasper and Kenneth, 2001: 2) as “the

study of language from the point of view of users, especially of the choices they make, the

constraints they encounter in using language in social interaction and the effects their use of

language has on other participants in the act of communication.”

In other words, pragmatics is the study of communicative action in its sociocultural context. This

seems to deal with what many teachers find a very challenging and complex area; how do we help

our students understand what the effects of inappropriate language use will be, how do we equip our

students to know when and how to be polite, to be casual, to be direct or authoritative etc.

Unanimously (Kasper and Rose, 2001; Rose and Kasper, 2002) indicated that communicative

actions include not only using speech acts (such as apologizing, complaining, complimenting, and

requesting) but also engaging in different types of discourse and participating in speech events of

varying length and complexity in various contexts.

According to Andrian, et.al (2003), ‘pragmatics is fundamentally about how the context of use

contributes to meaning, both semantic meaning and speaker’s meaning. The core topics of

Language Knowledge Grammatical

Competence

Organizational Knowledge

Grammatical

Competence

Strategic

Competence

Grammatical Knowledge

Strategic Competence

Sociocultural

Competence

Sociocultural

Competence Textual Knowledge competence

Discourse

Competence Pragmatic Knowledge

pragmatics are indexical, presupposition, implicature, and speech acts, but in reality there is no limit

to the ways in which context can influence meaning’ (163). Fromkin and Others (2011) also

contend that pragmatics is concerned with our understanding of language in context. According to

them, there are two kinds of contexts that are relevant to understand language. The first is linguistic

context-the discourse that precedes the phrase or sentence to be interpreted; the second is

situational context-virtually everything nonlinguistic in the environment of the speaker and hearer.

Situational context includes the speaker, hearer, and any third parties present, along with their

beliefs and their beliefs about what the others believe. It includes the physical environment, the

social environment/milieu, the subject of conversation, the time of the day, and so on, and infinitum

(p. 167). This implies almost any imaginable extra-linguistic factor may, under appropriate

circumstances, influence the way language is interpreted.

Almost these all definitions of pragmatics have some features in common i.e. language meaning

from the point of its users and various contexts (situations) of language use do exert some sort of

pressure on communication meanings.

2.4.1. Dimensions of Pragmatics

Basically, the study of pragmatics deals with areas such as deixis, conversational implicature,

presupposition, conversational structure/conversation analysis and speech acts. So far various

studies have classified components of pragmatics into two based on Leech’s and Thomas’s finding

(see in Eslami-Rasekh, 2005): sociopragmatics and pragmalinguistics.

According to Alcon and Martinez-Flor, (2008:3) pragmalinguistics refers to the linguistic resources

for conveying communicative acts and interpersonal meanings, whereas sociopragmatics refers to

the social perceptions underlying participants’ interpretation and performance of communicative

acts. Hence, while dealing with pragmatics attention is paid to consider knowledge of the means to

weaken or strengthen the force of an utterance (i.e. pragmalinguistic knowledge) and knowledge of

the particular means that are likely to be most successful for a given situation (i.e. sociopragmatic

knowledge). Generally, the ability to make appropriate choices from a large range of linguistic

forms and pragmatic strategies such as directness/indirectness and routines in the realization of

communicative acts is referred to as pragmalinguistics. Sociopragmatics is social assumptions or

principles underlying participants’ interpretation and performance of communicative acts. As such,

sociopragmatics is essentially about appropriate social behavior in a certain speech community

which has to do with context that is dealt separately in the forthcoming section.

2.4.2. Pragmatic Competence

Kasper says, ‘competence, whether linguistic or pragmatic, is not teachable. Competence is a type

of knowledge that learners possess, develop, acquire, use or lose’ (1997:1). But, why should

pragmatic competence be developed? Some works in the area indicate that grammatically correct

sentences would not mean appropriate utterances in different contexts because, language use choice

is determined or affected by various factors such as social norms, relationship between the

interlocutors, shared knowledge /background: ‘baby on sale’, social distance between the

interactants, age, gender, social power/rank/class, degree of imposition, etc. Similarly, grammatical

competence doesn’t guarantee pragmatic competence. Learning language involves many aspects:

not merely its sounds, words, grammar, meanings, functions, but the social, cultural and discourse

conventions.

Grammatical development does not guarantee a corresponding level of pragmatic development

(Bardovi-Harlig, 2001:14). Knowledge of language that is appropriate to the situations in which one

is functioning is a must, because failure to do so may cause users to miss key points that are being

communicated or to have their messages misunderstood (Eslami-Rasekh, 2005:199). EFL learner

may gain comfortable control of the vocabulary and grammar of the language without achieving a

comparable control over the pragmatic functional uses of the language (speech acts) (Cohen,

1996:253).

2.4.3. The Importance of Teaching Pragmatics

Developing pragmatic competence cannot be achieved overnight unless learners are exposed to and

practice authentic language use. What are the goals of teaching pragmatics? What are the ultimate

benefits to the learners? “English has now acquired the title of the world’s leading “global

language” (Crystal 2003:1) because it is used for business, science, and politics” Sonia and Thomas

(2009:2). Research into the pragmatic competence of adult foreign and second language learners

has demonstrated that grammatical development does not guarantee a corresponding level of

pragmatic development Bardovi-Harlig and Dornyei, (see in Eslami-Rasekh, 2005:199) and that

even advanced learners may fail to comprehend or to convey the intended intentions and politeness

values. It is necessary to understand and create language that is appropriate to the situations in

which one is functioning, because failure to do so may cause users to miss key points that are being

communicated or to have their message misunderstood (Elslami-Rasekh, 2005:199).

Hui (2007) further points out to the following reasons as to why to teach pragmatics in English

language classroom:

‘For avoiding miscommunication caused by cultural difference, being familiar

with diverse cultures and pragmatics is essential…. In other words, the teaching

and learning of pragmatics would release the difficulties of international

communications for both native and non-native speakers’ (p. 1).

Bardovi-Harlig and Mahan-Taylor (2003), state that the chief goal of instruction in pragmatics is to

raise learners’ pragmatic awareness and give them choices about their interactions in the target

language. They further indicate “the goal of instruction in pragmatics is not to insist on conformity

to a particular target language norm, but rather to help learners become familiar with the range of

pragmatic devices and practices in the target language” (p. 3). Kondo (see in Bardovi-Harlig and

Mahan-Taylor, 2003) argues ‘with such instruction, learners can maintain their own cultural

identities and participate more fully in the target language communication, and gain control of the

force and outcome of their contributions’ (p.1).

The main objective in teaching English as a foreign language (EFL) is to enable students to

communicate effectively in many situations and contexts. According to Teresa (2009) this involves

being able to control a wide range of language functions, which are how speakers use language for

requesting, congratulating, apologizing, complaining, consoling, and promising, among many other

functions (p.1). Nowadays, the relationship between pragmatics and language learning and teaching

is clear.

As Bouton in Guerra (2003) states:

Pragmatics and language learning are inherently bound together. Pragmatics

provides language teachers and learners with a research based understanding of

the language forms and functions that are appropriate to the many contexts in

which a language is used-an understanding that is crucial to a proficient speaker’s

communicative competence (p.10).

Generally, pragmatics is needed if we want a fuller, deeper and more reasonable account of human

language behavior (Mey, 2001). Furthermore, outside of pragmatics, no understanding; sometimes,

a pragmatic account is the only one that makes sense (p.4). Having pragmatic ability means being

able to go beyond the literal meaning of what is said or written, in order to interpret the intended

meanings, assumptions, purposes or goals, and the kinds of actions that are being performed

(Cohen, 2007).

2.4.4. Teachability of Pragmatics in EFL Setting

Knowledge without justification is not real knowledge, and pragmatic knowledge is no exception.

To act or behave appropriately in out of one’s own culture is a demanding task. However, pragmatic

ability is part of a learner’s communicative competence, and it has received attention in the

proposed models of communicative competence (Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei and Thurrell, 1995 and

Celce-Murcia, 2007; Kasper, 1997) questions whether teaching pragmatics is possible or not.

However, Brock and Nagasaka (2005), answer the question saying ‘Teaching Pragmatics in the EFL

Classroom? SURE You Can!’ In answering that question, they suggest that teachers should consider

adopting the simple acronym S.U.R.E. to guide them as they help their students See, Use, Review,

and Experience pragmatics in the EFL classroom (p. 20).

See: Teachers can help their students see the language in context, raise

consciousness of the role of pragmatics, and explain the function pragmatics plays

in specific communicative events. Use: Teachers can develop activities through

which students use English in contexts (simulated and real) where they choose

how they interact based on their understanding of the situation suggested by the

activity. Review: Teachers should review, reinforce, and recycle the areas of

pragmatic competence previously taught. Experience: Teachers can arrange for

their students to experience and observe the role of pragmatics in communication

(p, 21-24).

As suggested by Rose (2005: 386), there seem to be three central questions, i.e. ‘whether

pragmatics is teachable, whether instruction in pragmatics produces results that outpace exposure

alone, and whether different instructional approaches yield different outcomes’. First, with regard

to the teachability of pragmatics, there is evidence indicating that pragmatics is teachable and that

pedagogical intervention has a facilitative role in learning pragmatics in FL contexts (see Bardovi-

Harlig, 2001; Rose and Kasper 2001).

Pragmatics can easily be integrated into any classroom; whether traditional or communicative

Bardovi-Harlig, et.al. (2003:1). However, Kasper (2000:1) has argued:

In a foreign language situations…, students lack the need and opportunity of

genuine communication in the target language; therefore, it is nearly impossible

for students to develop pragmatic ability…the ability to interpret utterances in

context, especially when what a speaker says is not the same as what the speaker

means; to carry out communicative action effectively and interact successfully in

different environments and with different participants.

Kasper herself has admitted that as an increasing number of studies demonstrate, most of aspects of

pragmatics are quite amenable to teaching in foreign language classroom, but with reservation that

not all approaches to teaching pragmatics are equally effective (2000:2). It can be argued here

again that as it is the case for approaches of presenting pragmatics contents in an EFL classroom, it

is also true for the language teaching approach in general that there is no single perfect approach or

method or technique to teach language. In fact it is true that unless teachers also know about

methods of evaluating students’ progress in pragmatics, they may be reluctant to focus on

pragmatics in their teaching even though a number of assessment instruments for pragmatics is

available now (Kasper, 2001:2). In this case it is arguable that curriculum revision is not complete

without an integrated assessment component.

The question of teachability of pragmatic competence has inspired a number of research projects

exploring the role of instruction in learners’ pragmatic development. Kasper (1997) for example

argues that while competence cannot be taught, students should be provided with opportunities to

develop their pragmatic competence. Pragmatics in EFL setting is therefore teachable based on the

availability of the opportunities in the teaching environment.

2.4.5. Pragmatic Instructions: Explicit vs. Implicit Pragmatic Instruction

Studies propose that learners benefit from attention-drawing activities with pragmatic instruction

and appropriate feedback more than being exposed to new language items without any instruction.

They show that the target pragmatic features are most effectively learned when they are taught

explicitly using input enhancement techniques. Explicit pedagogic intervention is viewed as

necessary in order to develop learners’ pragmatic ability.

Takahashi (see Kasper & Rose, 2001:171-199) argues that “the target pragmatic features were

found to be most effectively learned when they were under the condition in which a relatively high

degree of input enhancement was realized with explicit metapragmatic information.” At the same

time, the degree of attainment of a second language pragmatic competence is to a certain extent

limited in the classroom environment. It is claimed that simple noticing and attention to target

pragmatic features in the input do not lead to learning.

Tateyama, Kasper, and Thananart (see Kasper& Rose, 2001:200) studied the effects of explicit and

implicit instruction in pragmatics with beginning English language learners of Japanese. Their pilot

study revealed that the explicit group outperformed the implicit group. The effects of pragmatic

instruction on learners were especially apparent in rather complicated situations where the learners

benefited from the teacher’s instruction.

Alternatively, Criado (2009:43) suggests that when approaching the learning of functions of

language two options are generally considered: explicit and incidental learning. Explicit learning

advocates for a conscious presentation of the information to be learned. It is assumed that being

conscious and aware of what we have to learn is more efficient for acquisition. On the other hand,

explicit attention consumes a lot of time and this slows down the process. Incidental learning

advocates usage (meaningful usage, with no explicit information on the words).

Various researchers have presented their studies which shed light on various aspects of pragmatic

competence and the way to improve that competence through explicit/implicit instruction.

Pragmatics should be explicitly taught, no matter how the learners are apt to use that knowledge in

their social interactions; because ‘the purpose of teaching pragmatics is to provide learners with

explicit knowledge of pragmatics, focusing on teaching sociocultural and pragmalinguistic routines’

Kawate-Mierzejewska (see JALT, 2001:109).

It is clear that the question what aspect of pragmatics should be taught is answered in the sense that

when designing tasks that are used to raise learners’ pragmatic conscious those aspects of

pragmatics: socioprgamatics and pragmalinguistics should receive attention. Therefore, conscious

raising tasks are important because, “(a) it can raise learners’ awareness about specific sociocultural

and pragmalinguistic routines that should be focused, and as a result, (b) it can provide the learners

with explicit sociocultural and pragmalinguistic knowledge about those routines focused on”

(JALT, 2001:110).

Tatsuki, Donna (see, JALT, 2001:912) also discusses three pedagogical foci that are relevant to the

teaching of pragmatics. The first one is a focus on form in which metapragmatic explanations are

implemented based on the assumption that explicit knowledge can later become implicit. The

second is a focus on meaning in which scaffolding was implemented based on the assumption that

through social interaction a learner can enlarge his/her repertoire of formulaic expressions. The final

focus is on awareness. The assumption is that pragmatic competence will improve if learners

become more aware of mismatches between their L1 pragmatic norms and those of the TL.

2.5. Communicative Functions (Speech Acts)

An important figure in the development of pragmatics, John Austin (see in Fasold and Connor-

Linton, 2006:162) has pointed out that when people use language they are performing a kind of

action. The actions are called speech acts. Within the realm of pragmatic ability, the ways in which

people carry out specific social functions in speaking such as apologizing, complaining, making

requests, refusing things/invitations, complimenting, or thanking have been referred to as speech

acts (Cohen, 2007, 2010).

When language is used by human beings in real-life situations, there are generally communicative

goals associated with every utterance. Speakers express their emotions, ask questions, make

requests, and commit themselves to actions - they do things with words. In linguistic pragmatics, we

use the term speech act to describe such language actions. A wide range of utterances can qualify

as speech acts.

Speech-act theory/speech act deals primarily with meaning in communication (as opposed to

meaning in language) and thus is part of the pragmatic aspect of a language's meaning-that it relates

to the knowledge of the world shared by speakers and hearers, rather than relating to signs and their

designations or name (semantic aspect) or to formal relations among signs (syntactic aspect).

Semantics should be restricted to assigning interpretations to signs alone-independent of a speaker

and hearer.

2.5.1. Describing Speech Acts

Under this section we shall discuss descriptions of different situations, which may call for different

speech acts. When performing or realizing speech acts, there are commonly identified factors that

can either negatively or positively affect the meaning/sense of speech acts in communication. The

examples of these factors may include (a) Social status: Relative social status of the speaker/writer

and the listener/reader. (b) Distance: Level of social distance and psychological distance (how

distant or close the speaker/writer and listener/reader feel to each other). (c) Intensity (power):

Intensity of the act (e.g., the magnitude of the imposition in a request or the severity of the

infraction in an apology).

In the following sub-section we will look at selected speech acts to a certain extent. The CARLA

Speech Acts website (http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/descriptions.html/ accessed on 19/10/2011)

has descriptions of six speech acts (apologies, complaints, compliments and responses to

compliments, requests, refusals, and thanks), with examples from various languages. The amount of

information on a given speech act varies greatly depending on the availability of research articles

that investigate that speech act.

2.5.1.1. Speech Acts of Apologies

Apology is a frequently used speech act which serves different purposes ranging from maintaining

polite rituals that could vary from one society to another (social etiquette), to the acknowledgment

of serious offences. In spoken and written interactions and in effect in intercultural interactions it

becomes relevant to ascertain what conditions must be present for the adequate performance of an

apology. This speech act must have the following conditions:

a) An act has occurred,

b) A believes that the act has offended B,

c) A takes responsibility for the act (Fahey, 2005:3).

In apologizing, the speaker/writer recognizes the infraction or offense caused through his/her fault

and attempts to repair the relationship with the listener/reader. The situation may be fairly tense if

the infraction is large or if the listener is in a more powerful position on the social scale than the

speaker. What are some routinized patterns in apologies in English and what strategies work most

effectively to repair and maintain a good relationship with the listener/reader? Speakers of English

language typically use apologies for a variety of reasons or functions. There are three reasons

people typically use apologies for (see http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/descriptions.html) These

are: to say that they are sorry, to explain why the offence happened, and to make a repair for the

offence and maintain a good relationship with the addressee (see also Cohen and Ishihara 2010:56).

Apologies are usually perceived as negative politeness devices that express respect rather than

friendliness and apology is considered to be a polite speech act used to restore social relations

following an offence (Holmes 1995: 154). Next, Holmes lists three categories of apologies focusing

on the relative status of the participants: upward apology is to a superior person of greater power,

equal apology is to an equal, and downward apology is to a subordinate or person of lesser power.

Complex speech acts like apologies actually consist of a set of strategies that are used by competent

speakers of the language with some regularity. There are five relatively typical strategies for making

an apology (see http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/descriptions.html):

1. An expression of an apology. The speaker/writer uses a word, expression, or sentence

containing a verb such as ‘sorry’, ‘excuse’, ‘forgive’, or ‘apologize.’ Languages have certain words

that are used to express an oral apology more than others. For example, in American English, ‘I

apologize . . .’ is found more in writing than it is in oral language. An expression of an apology can

be intensified whenever the apologizer feels the need to do so. Such intensification is usually

accomplished by adding intensifiers such as ‘really’ or ‘very’ e.g., ‘I’m really sorry.’

2. Acknowledgment of responsibility. The offender recognizes his/her fault in causing the

infraction. The degree of such recognition on the part of the apologizer can be placed on a scale.

The highest level of intensity is full acceptance of the blame: ‘It’s totally my fault.’ At a somewhat

lower level would be an expression of self-deficiency: ‘I was confused/I didn’t see/You are right.’

At a still lower level would be the expression of lack of intent: ‘I didn’t mean to.’ Lower still would

be an implicit expression of responsibility: ‘I could be wrong, but I was sure I had given you the

right directions.’ Finally, the apologizer may not accept the blame at all, in which case there may be

a denial of responsibility: ‘It wasn’t my fault,’ or even blaming of the listener: ‘It’s your own fault.’

3. An explanation or account. The speaker/writer describes the situation which caused him/her to

commit the offense and which is used by this speaker/writer as an indirect way of apologizing. The

explanation is intended to set things right. For instance, in some cultures this may be a more

acceptable way of apologizing than in others (Cohen, 2008:123). Thus, in cultures where public

transportation is unreliable, coming late to a meeting and giving an explanation like, “The bus was

late,” might be perfectly acceptable.

4. An offer of repair. The apologizer makes a bid to carry out an action or provide payment for

some kind of damage resulting from his/her infraction.

If someone is late for an appointment with a friend s/he might say something like:

How can I make it up to you? Can I buy you lunch on Friday? Or why don’t I buy you lunch on

Friday?

Or someone who fails to make it to an appointment might say:

Would you be willing to reschedule the meeting?

5. A promise of non-recurrence. The apologizer commits him/herself to not having the offense

happen again, which is situation-specific and less frequent than the other strategies. For example, if

you bump into a stranger, you are not going to promise you will never do it again, but you might if

it is a co-worker who you don’t pick up on time.

The five major patterns or strategies that make up the apology speech act are almost universally

available to speakers/writers, regardless of the language in which they are speaking or writing.

Nonetheless, preference for any one of these strategies or for a combination of them will depend on

the specific situation a speaker/writer is in within the given language and culture group.

(see, http://www.iles.umn.edu/Apolohies/Apologies.htm)

In realizing apologies people may use interjections and/or intensifiers. Not only could an intensifier

play an important role, but even an interjection like ‘Oh!’ could have an important role. In fact,

there could be times when a well-placed ‘Oh!’ and an offer of repair could take the place of an

expression of apology in English: e.g., ‘Oh! Here, let me help get something on that burn and clean

up the mess,’ as opposed to, ‘I’m very sorry that I bumped into you.’ Other ways of intensifying

apologies include expressing explicit concern for the listener and using multiple intensifying

strategies. So apologies can be intensified in the following ways:

1. Intensifying the apology expression:

(a) Use of adverbials, e.g., I’m really sorry.

(b) Use of repetition or multiple intensifiers, e.g., I’m really very sorry.

In English, there is a difference between ‘very’ and ‘really,’ with ‘really’ implying more regret

and ‘very’ more etiquette.

2. Expressing explicit concern for the listener, e.g., Have you been waiting long?

3. Using multiple intensifying strategies, e.g., I’m so sorry. Are you all right? I’m terribly sorry.

(see, http://www.iles.umn.edu/Apolohies/Apologies.htm accessed 19/10/2011).

2.5.1.2. Speech Acts of Compliments

Compliments in English often function as a social lubricant, helping the social relationships to go

smoothly. How compliments are used, for example, in English language? What strategies are used

to give and respond to compliments? Are there any taboos in giving or responding to compliments?

How do these norms of behavior vary across languages and cultures? Compliments are expressions

of positive evaluation that commonly occur in everyday conversational encounters among

interlocutors of equal or higher status. A compliment may be used to open a conversation or to

smooth conversational interaction by reinforcing the links of solidarity between the interlocutors.

People often compliment qualities related to personal appearance (e.g., clothes, hair), possessions,

skill, or accomplishments. (see, http://www.iles.umn.edu/Compliments/Compliments.html).

Research has shown that compliments are formulaic in terms of both their meaning and forms used

to compliment other people. For example, with regard to their meaning, compliments are mainly

realized by means of adjectives and verbs. In the majority cases compliments realized by means of

five adjectives: nice, good, beautiful, pretty, and great. And the majorities are realized through the

combination of two verbs such as like and love (Cohen and Ishihara, 2010:57-60).

Compliments are usually performed when the speaker wants to have a positive effect on the

interpersonal relationships with persons complimented. With respect to their form, almost all of the

compliments are realized in three patterns given and received by speakers as Manes and Wolfson

(see in Cohen and Ishihara, 2010). They found that most of the compliments in English fall into

three patterns, which are:

1. Your hair looks nice --> Noun Phrase + is/looks/ (really) Adjective

2. I like your car --> I (really) like/love + Noun Phrase

3. That's a nice tie --> (PRO (really) (a) Adjective + Noun Phrase (Note: NP=Noun Phrase,

ADJ=Adjective, PRO=Pronoun, V=Verb).

Likewise other researchers have also identified topics of compliments. According to Cohen and

Ishihara (2010:58) the major referents of compliments include attributes of the conversational

partner, such as:

1. appearance/possessions (e.g., You look absolutely beautiful!)

2. performance/skills/abilities (e.g., Your presentation was excellent.)

3. personality traits (e.g., You are so sweet.)

With regard to gender differences, females tend to give and receive more compliments to and from

other females and males, while males tend to give more compliments to women (overall

appearance) and, to a lesser degree, to other males (Cohen, 2008:124). Like other communicative

acts, compliment also has various distinctive functions and strategies.

According to recent research, compliments in English are often used to:

1. express admiration or approval of someone’s work/appearance/taste;

2. establish/confirm/maintain solidarity;

3. serve as an alternative to greetings/gratitude/apologies/congratulations;

4. soften face-threatening acts such as apologies, requests and criticism;

5. open and sustain conversation (conversation strategy); and

6. reinforce desired behavior. (Cohen and Ishihara, 2010:57)

The most commonly used adjectives in compliments were nice, good, pretty, great, and beautiful,

although the list undoubtedly varies for other varieties of English. As there are strategies to

compliment a given character, there are also strategies to respond to the given compliment.

Semantically, common responses to compliments can be categorized into acceptance, mitigation,

and rejection. Each category has sub-categories:

1. Accept:

a. Token of appreciation (Thanks/Thank you.)

b. Acceptance by means of a comment (Yeah, it’s my favorite, too.)

c. Upgrading the compliment by self-praise (Yeah, I can play other sports well too.)

2. Mitigate:

a. Comment about history (I bought it for the trip to Arizona.)

b. Shifting the credit (My brother gave it to me/It really knitted itself.)

c. Questioning or requesting reassurance or repetition (Do you really like them?)

d. Reciprocating (So is yours.)

e. Scaling down or downgrading (It’s really quite old.)

Alternatively, at this stage, learners can be introduced to and practice a variety of strategies for

responding to compliments (see http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/descriptions.html/ and Cohen

and Ishihara, 2010:59), such as:

1. showing appreciation (Thank you);

2. agreeing (Yeah, it’s my favorite too);

3. downgrading (It’s really quite old);

4. questioning (Do you really think so?);

5. commenting on history (I bought it for the trip to Arizona);

6. shifting credit (My brother gave it to me); and

7. returning the compliment (So is yours).

2.5.1.3. Speech Acts of Complaints

Complaints are used to express such instances as disapproval, annoyance, blame, threats, or

reprimand as a reaction to a supposed offence, also to hold the hearer responsible for the offensive

action and possibly request a repair, to share a specific negative evaluation, obtain agreement, or

establish a common link between the speaker and the addressee by ‘trouble sharing’; for example,

“I can't believe I didn't get an A on that course. I worked so hard!” has the following reaction from

the Hearer: “Same here. She doesn't give away A's very easily, that's for sure.”

(http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/descriptions.html).

Trosborg (1994:57) defined complaints as both ‘an abusive act and, like request, a face-threatening

act’. The speech act of complaint may consist of a number of acts, such as threatening, cursing, and

accusation, and these acts are likely to cause certain damage to the social relation between the

complainer and the complainee. In addition, a complaint is by definition non-polite because its

function is to show disapproval or cause offence to interlocutors. Like requests, if the complainer

does not want to impose too much impact on the complainee, the mitigating devices are still needed

when performing complaints. These mitigating devices may include the use of modifiers or

downgraders to lessen the degree of directness or to make a complaint sound more polite.

Complaints can be done in an even indirect way by replacing the complaint with other acts, such as

a request, or censuring in a way of hint. However, in some situations the complainer may want to

make the censure more justifiable by providing supportive statements, or by using upgraders to

increase the force of a complaint.

A coding method or strategies of speech act of complaint realization provided by Olshtain and

Weinbach (see in Cohen and Ishihara, 2010) is presented as follows:

1. Below the level of reproach-these are various realizations that enable the speaker to avoid

explicit mention of the offensive event or direct focus on speakers (e.g. “Such things

happen”, “Don’t worry about it, there is no real damage”).

2. Expression of annoyance or disapproval-encompasses various realizations that are vague

and indirect and do not explicitly mention either the socially unacceptable act, but do

express general annoyance at the violation (e.g. “Such lack of consideration!”, “This is

really unacceptable behavior!”).

3. Explicit complaint-refers to realizations where the speaker has made the decision to use an

open face-threatening act toward the hearer, but to instigate no sanctions

(e.g. “You’re inconsiderate!”, “One should not postpone this type of operation”,

“You should not have postponed such an operation”).

4. Accusation and warning-as a complaint when the speaker chooses to perform an open

face-threatening act and further implies potential sanctions against the hearer

(e.g. “Next time I’ll let you wait for hours!”).

5. Immediate threat-is expressed when the speaker chooses to openly attack the hearer (e.g.

“You’d better pay the money right now”, “I’m not moving one inch before you change my

appointment”), or as direct insults (e.g. “You’re an idiot!”).

Complaints have the following strategies/speech act sets: first of all, there is an explanation of

purpose, for example, ‘Look, I don’t want to be horrible about it’, then comes a complaint, for

example, ‘I think maybe the grade was a little too low’, then follows a request for solution, for

example, ‘I would appreciate it if you would reconsider my grade’, and finally a request for non-

recurrence, for example, ‘Well, I’d really like to find out about this because I’m hoping it won’t

happen again’. These are generally classified into two: direct and indirect strategies. Indirect

complaints are given to addressees who are not responsible for the perceived offence, for example,

‘She never cleans up after her. Isn’t that horrible’) and often open a conversation and create

solidarity between the speakers. Indirect complaints tend to center on three themes: Self (Oh, I’m so

stupid), other (John is the worst manager.) and Situation (Why did they have to raise tuition?).

2.5.1.4. Speech Acts of Refusals

In making a refusal, the speaker/writer is typically communicating a potentially undesirable

message as far as the listener/reader is concerned. What strategies can be used to mitigate refusals in

English? What pragmatic norms prevail in making and interpreting refusals in English?

There are distinctive functions and strategies for refusing. Refusals are often made in response to

requests, invitations, offers, and suggestions (Cohen and Ishihara, 2010:60). The direct and indirect

strategies of refusals can be described as follows:

I. Direct

1. Using performative verbs (I refuse.)

2. Non-performative statement:

a).“No”

b). Negative willingness/ability (I can’t.)

II. Indirect

1. Statement of regret (I’m sorry.)

2. Wish (I wish I could help you.)

3. An excuse, a reason, an explanation (I have a headache.)

4. Statement of alternative:

a). I can do X instead of Y (I’d rather . . .)

b).Why don’t you do X instead of Y? (Why don’t you ask someone else?)

5. Set condition for future or past acceptance (If you had asked me earlier, I would have . . .)

6. Promise of future acceptance (I’ll do it next time.)

7. Statement of principle (I never do business with friends.)

The following adjuncts to refusals can also be used to accompany the refusals described above:

1. statement of positive opinion/feeling or agreement (I’d love to come);

2. statement of empathy (I realize you are in a difficult situation);

3. pause fillers (um, well); and gratitude/appreciation (thanks so much for the invite).

4. gratitude/appreciation (Thanks so much for the invite).

(see http://www.carla.umn.edu/speech acts/refusal/index.html accessed 19/10/2011)

2.5.1.5. Speech Acts of Requests

By making a request, the speaker infringes on the recipient’s freedom from imposition

(http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/descriptions.html). The recipient may feel that the request is

an intrusion on his/her freedom of action or even a power play. As for the requester, s/he may

hesitate to make requests for fear of exposing a need or out of fear of possibly making the recipient

lose face. In this sense, requests are face threatening to both the Requester and the Recipient. Since

requests have the potential to be intrusive and demanding, there is a need for the Requester to

minimize the imposition involved in the request. One way for the Speaker to minimize the

imposition is by employing indirect strategies rather than direct ones. People tend to use a greater

degree of indirectness with people who have some power or authority over them than to those who

do not.

By making a request, the speaker/writer infringes on the listener’s freedom from imposition. The

recipient may feel that the request is an intrusion on his/her freedom of action or even a power play.

As for the requester, s/he may hesitate to make requests for fear of exposing a need or out of fear of

possibly making the recipient lose face. In this sense, requests are face threatening to both the

requester and the recipient.

Researchers have identified functions for and strategies for making requests. Because requests have

the potential to be intrusive and demanding, there often is a need for the requester to minimize the

imposition involved in the request. One way for the requester to minimize the imposition is by

employing indirect strategies rather than direct ones (Cohen and Ishihara 2010:66). The more direct

a request is, the more transparent it is and the less of a burden the recipient bears in interpreting the

request. The scale of directness can be characterized according to the following three strategies:

1. Direct strategies (marked explicitly as requests, such as imperatives):

a).Clean up the kitchen.

b).I’m asking you to clean up the kitchen.

c).I’d like to ask you to clean the kitchen.

d).You’ll have to clean up the kitchen.

e).I really wish you’d clean up the kitchen.

2. Conventionally indirect strategies (referring to contextual preconditions necessary for its

performance as conventionalized in the language):

a) How about cleaning up?

b) Could you clean up the kitchen, please?

c) You have left the kitchen in a total mess.

d) I’m a nun. (a request to someone to stop trying to pick her up) (ibid).

Both situational and cultural factors influence the selection of these request strategies. Still, there

may be consensus across a number of cultures with regard to requesting strategies. For example, a

big favor usually comes with more indirect and/or polite strategies than a low-imposition request in

various cultures. Friends use more casual requests than acquaintances, provided that the content of

the request is the same (Cohen and Ishihara 2010:67). However, the specific directness levels

appropriate for given situations might differ cross-culturally.

Some examples of other softening downgraders are:

a. Do you think I could borrow your lecture notes from yesterday?

b. Could you tidy up a bit before I start?

c. It would really help if you did something about the kitchen.

d. Will you be able to perhaps drive me?

e. Can I use your pen for a minute, please?

2.5.1.6. Speech Acts of Gratitude/Thanks

Thank you expressions are used to express appreciation of benefits and to enhance rapport between

interlocutors, and that this basic use is extended to the functions of conversational opening,

changing, stopping, closing, leave taking, and offering positive reinforcement. A further use is to

express dissatisfaction or discomfort indirectly often using sarcasm and often with differential

intonation (Jung, 1998: I). We thank/express gratitude in different ways for different reasons. We

may say:

"Thank you so much for the gift!" to show gratitude,

"Thanks for the wonderful meal." to compliment someone, or

"That’s all, thank you." to signal the conclusion of a conversation.

Thanking has various important social functions. The person offering the gratitude has to have a

valid reason for thanking. Thank you expressions may often be required by social convention. The

way gratitude is verbally expressed varies, ranging from simple, “thank you”, or “thanks”; to the

more extensive, “I appreciate x”, “I am thankful for x”, “ I am grateful for x”, “please accept my

thanks for x”, etc. The choice of a gratitude expression is largely dependent on how the thanker

evaluate what the benefactor did for him/her and how the expressions function. While the major and

general effect of thanking is, like the speech act of complimenting, to enhance rapport or solidarity

between interlocutors by making the other party feel good, there are some more specific functions

which thanking serves.

According to (Jung, 1998 and de Pablos-Ortega, 2010) the following are functions of thanking:

1. Function of appreciating benefit: it is a basic function of thank you expression. The benefit

could be either physical or mental.

2. Function of conversational opening, changing, stopping, or closing: in a conversational

opening, there can be potentially high tension between the interlocutors. Thank you

expressions used in this situation may reduce the tension somewhat.

3. Function of leave-taking and positive answer. Thank you expressions sometimes serve to

substitute for leave taking expressions, although the two types often co-occur.

4. Functions of emotional distraction or discomfort. Thank you expressions may be used to

indirectly express dissatisfaction with the interlocutor’s attitude.

There are distinctive strategies that most of the time proficient language users apply in

communication. There are phrases that commonly precede or follow an expression of gratitude or

thanks. These phrases perform another function for the speaker (see Jung, 1998 and de Pablos-

Ortega, 2010):

Complimenting (Thank you. You’re wonderful.)

Expressing affection (I really appreciate this. You’re a sweetheart.)

Reassuring the listener (I can’t thank you enough. This is just what I wanted. Blue is my

favorite color.)

Promising to repay (I don’t know how to thank you. I’ll pay you back as soon as I can.)

Expressing surprise and delight (Oh, wow! Thank you!)

Expressing a lack of necessity or obligation (I don’t know how to thank you. You didn’t have

to do this for me.)

Exaggerating to emphasize the depth of the gratitude (I really appreciate this. You’re a

lifesaver.).

There are also various responses to thanking strategies. According to (Jung, 1998 and de Pablos-

Ortega, 2010), six type of response to the use of “thank you” are identified: acceptance, denial,

reciprocity, comment, nonverbal gesture, no response; the choice of which is determined by factors

such as relationship of the interlocutors and communicative intent. In the speech act of thanking it

will be very effective if the benefactor accepts or acknowledges the gratitude. The thanker expects

the benefactor to respond to his/her politeness. There can be various strategies of responding to

thank you expressions.

1. Acceptance: you are (very) welcome, sure, ok, my pleasure,

2. Denial: No problem, Not at all, Don’t mention it.

3. Reciprocity: Thank you

4. Comments: detailed descriptions e.g. Thank you very much for the help. I really

appreciate it.

5. Non-verbal gestures: a smile, a node, etc.

6. No response (ibid).

How people respond to being thanked typically falls into these categories:

1. Recognizing the gratitude and relieving the speaker of its burden (You’re welcome.)

2. Indicating that it was gladly done (That’s quite all right.)

3. Denying the existence of the need to thank or playing it down (Not at all / Don’t mention it.)

Thanks and apologies can be responded in similar terms (That’s all right / Not at all). What thanks

and apologies have in common is the concept of indebtedness. A thanks implying the indebtedness

of the speaker to the listener closely resembles, apologies where the speaker actually recognizes his

indebtedness to his listener. For example:

A. Thank you for all your help. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate it.

B. Don’t mention it/That’s all right. It’s really nothing. (See

http//www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/thanks/index.html)

2.6. Challenges of Teaching Pragmatic Competence in EFL Setting

In foreign language context teachers are non-native speakers of English language and they need to

be well-prepared for teaching the pragmatic aspect of knowledge of language. In addition to this

fact there are no sufficient, or no course, is offered to teachers either during pre-service or in-service

education programs in the area of pragmatics. This situation is what El-Okda (2010) calls as

‘paucity of pragmatic courses in both pre-service teacher education programs and in-service

professional development’ (169). If the student teachers or those teachers that are handling the

teaching of English language are provided with the pragmatic courses, ‘[they] can help their

students see the language in context, raise consciousness of the role of pragmatics, and explain the

function pragmatics plays in specific communicative event’ (Brock and Nagasaka, 2005:20).

The second pillar in developing the pragmatic competence of learners is ELT material. The explicit

treatment of pragmatic language features in prescribed textbooks and their accompanying teachers’

guide is vitally important. Language teaching materials need to frequently include pragmatic

materials so as to help learners develop pragmatic competence, because ‘teachers in EFL settings,

where there are relatively few opportunities for students to use the language in communicative

contexts’ (Brock and Nagasaka, 2005), will make use of textbooks as the major source of pragmatic

knowledge. However, the attempt of including very few mini-dialogues for certain speech acts and

that are contrived and de-contextualized does not help the learners develop their pragmatic

competence or does not represent the reality outside the classroom (El-Okda, 2010:180). Let alone

the external environment, ‘many students do not know how to make polite requests in English in the

classroom’ (Brock and Nagasaka, 2005:21). We shall see this and other challenges in detail in the

next sub-sections.

2.6.1. Challenge Related To Course Books

There are various challenges that negatively hamper the English language learning from the

perspective of pragmatics. Learners’ pragmatic divergence can sometimes be attributed to the effect

of the instruction or the instructional materials, rather than being a result of insufficient pragmatic

awareness or incomplete pragmatic control on the learners’ part. One of the problems foreign

language teachers have with the textbooks is related to the dialogues in terms of their pragmatic

value. Much research sheds light on the dissatisfaction with the content of the course books used at

all levels, specifically in the field of English language teaching.

Practitioners are substantially dissatisfied with how spoken texts are presented in course books as

print materials. As the review of relevant research shows, ELT textbooks rarely include adequate or

comprehensible explanations of how conversation works in English. For Vellegna (2004), speech

acts (actions with functions) in the textbooks are, for the most part, pragmatically inadequate since

students are only occasionally given models of the speech acts with very little contextual

information or explicit metapragmatic discussion. As this review of literature shows, the language

of English language textbooks must vigorously be studied to unearth the nature and quality of

textbooks in terms of their value from the perspectives of pragmatics, linguistics and pedagogy.

It is also shown that pedagogical materials are inadequate to be reliable source of pragmatic input

for classroom language learners (Alcon & Safont, 2001; Bardovi-Harlig, 1996; Vellegna, 2004) and

unlikely to result in pragmatic development. Therefore, Eslami-Rasekh (2005) argues:

The responsibility for teaching the pragmatic aspects of language use falls on

teachers. However, as language teachers, we face certain challenges. These

include lack of adequate materials and training, which are the result of a lack of

emphasis on pragmatic issues in ESL teaching methodology courses (p.199).

2.6.2. Challenge Related to Courses in Teachers’ Training

Pragmatic competence is a key component of strategic competence, involving knowledge of when

and how to use particular language forms to perform desired language functions. Authentic

language input is not readily available in ESL/EFL textbooks, and teachers typically do not have the

skills to create pragmatic learning exercises for their students (Vallegna, et.al, 2007:20). Particularly

for teachers in peripheral social contexts, they may have had infrequent interaction with native

speakers and be unfamiliar with the rules for contextualized language use. Explicit instruction in

pragmatics has been suggested for learners and teachers in a similar way.

According to Vallenga and his coauthors (2007) for ESL/EFL teachers, competence in pragmatics

means understanding these concepts:

Language varies its structure systematically according to functions (e.g., starting or ending a

conversation, expressing disagreement, apologizing, requesting, refusing, etc.).

Politeness and appropriate language use varies according to contextual features.

Contextual features have different levels of importance in different languages.

Speakers make sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic choices when expressing speech acts.

(p.21).

Research shows that non-native English-speaking teacher candidates (NNESTCs) feel insecure

about their English language proficiency and their pragmatic competence may be weaker than their

organizational competence (Eslami-Rasekh, Pasternak & Bailey, in Zohreh R. Eslami and Eslami-

Rasekh, A., 2008). Biesenback-Lucas and Rose (see in Zohreh R. Eslami and Eslami-Rasekh,

2008) also witnessed that teacher education programs do not seem to focus on pragmatic aspects of

language and to train the teacher candidates in teaching the pragmatic dimensions of

language(p.179).

While some recent pioneering work (e.g., Eslami-Rasekh, 2005; Eslami & Eslami-Rasekh, 2008;

Yates & Wiggglesworth, 2005) has begun to investigate the effects of instructional pragmatics in

teacher education, (Ishihara, 2011: I). On the other hand, Ishihara argues that little has been

explored in depth as to the way in which teacher cognition develops in the classroom discourse of

language teacher development.

2.6.3. Challenge Related to Language Class Size

Teachers in most cases complain for the unmanageable class size. Large classes, limited contact

hours and little opportunity for intercultural communication are some of the features of the EFL

context that hinder pragmatic learning (Eslami-Rasekh et al., 2004; Rose, 1999).

2.6.4. Challenge related to Teachers' Sense of Self-Efficacy

Understanding teachers' perceptions and beliefs is important because teachers, heavily involved in

various teaching and learning processes, are practitioners of educational principles and theories (Jia,

Eslami & Burlbaw, cited in Eslami and Fatahi, 2008). Teachers have a primary role in determining

what is needed or what would work best with their students. Findings from research on teachers'

perceptions and beliefs indicate that these perceptions and beliefs not only have considerable

influence on their instructional practices and classroom behavior but also are related to their

students' achievement. In most cases teachers do not give attention to pragmatic/communicative

functions in the classroom. Omaggio (see in Uso-Juan, and Martinez-Flor, 2008) gives the

following three reasons for neglecting intercultural/pragmatic competence in the language class:

1. Teachers usually have an overcrowded curriculum to cover and lack the time to spend on

teaching culture, which requires a lot of work;

2. Many teachers have a limited knowledge of the target culture and, therefore, afraid to teach

it;

3. Teachers are often confused about what cultural aspects to cover (p.165).

2.6.5. Challenge Related to the Attitude toward English Language

Do learners realize that learning and efficiently using English language is one of the keys to

success? How about the teachers? Learners’ attitude to use English language out of classroom

situation can also negatively affect the development of pragmatic competence. In this regard, Cohen

(2008) has argued that the EFL learners of Japanese do consider speaking English with each other

as something ‘shameful’ (p. 25). This implies that the question of pragmatic competence can be

affected by the attitude language learners have toward the target language in addition to the subtle

treatments of the target language culture. Our students probably do not use English outside the

classroom. At least, most of them do not use it actively. They can watch films and listen to music

but they hardly ever talk for instance due to the competing negative attitude toward talking in

English out of class.

2.6.6. Challenge Related to Learners’ Level of Target Language Proficiency

In developing pragmatic competence, the other factor that has also received attention in

interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) is the influence of learners’ level of target language proficiency. A

propos to this, some studies show that FL learners’ pragmatic ability progresses in line with their

language proficiency (Rose, 2000, for supportive moves in requests; Takahashi & Beebe, 1987, for

refusal realization strategies), whereas in other studies it appears that, although proficiency has little

effect on the range of realization strategies (Kasper & Schmidt, 1996), it does influence the order

and frequency of semantic formulae used by learners (Kasper & Rose, 2002).

2.6.7. Challenge Related to Pragmatics Teaching Methods

Pragmatics should not be seen and treated as different language aspect that demands different

teaching method according to scholars. On top of this, pragmatics instruction should not be aimed

solely at serving advanced and proficient EFL students’ language learning nor should it be a

complementary pedagogical approach. As Childs (see Bouchard, 2011) argues,

Pragmatic is not an optional add-on. It is a necessary facet of language and of

language learning. That is because the whole point is no longer grammatical form

but communication of meaning, and that is based on situations. The emphasis is

on appropriate patterns, whether they are grammatical or not (p.40).

While this argument highlights the importance of teaching pragmatics in the language classroom, it

does not denigrate the importance of grammar knowledge in communicative competence. When

dealing with potential pragmatic failures, a combination of grammar knowledge and pragmatic

awareness creates the necessary conditions in which strategies for repair can be developed.

Given that instructing pragmatics in all context, there is not likely to be one approach which is to be

preferred over all others in every context (Kasper and Rose, 2001:8). It has been identified that the

content and forms of language teaching are significantly influenced by the content and forms of

language testing. According to (Kasper and Rose, 2001:9), especially in instructional contexts

where formal testing is regularly performed curricular innovations that comprise pragmatics as

learning objective will be ineffective as long as pragmatic ability is not included as a regular and

important component of language tests.’

2.6.8. Challenge Related to the Availability of Inputs

Research results in FL settings report that in EFL context the range of communicative

functions(speech acts) and realization strategies is quite narrow, and that the typical interaction

patterns restrict pragmatic input and opportunities for practicing discourse organization strategies.

So as to improve the pragmatic competence of EFL learners, arguments have been put forward for

the necessity of instruction in pragmatics (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001). Kasper (1997) argues learners

may not detect relevant input features, and that to achieve learners’ attention, input should be made

salient through ‘input enhancement’. It is believed that input enhancement will raise the learners’

consciousness about the target feature. Input enhancement is defined by Fukuya and Clark (see in

Zohreh R. Eslami and Eslami-Rasekh, 2008:180) as an implicit instructional technique that provides

no metapragmatic information.

However, Eslami-Rasekh(2005) suggests providing awareness raising activities before jumping in

to the teaching of pragmatic aspect of the target language. Through awareness-raising activities,

students acquire information about pragmatic aspects of language-for instance, what strategies are

used for apologizing in their first language (L1) and second language (L2), what is considered an

offence in their culture compared to the target culture, what are different degrees of offence for

different situations in the two languages, and how the nature of the relationship between the

participants affects the use of apologies. The aim is to expose learners to the pragmatic aspects of

language (L1 and L2) and provide them with the analytical tools they need to arrive at their own

generalizations concerning contextually appropriate language use. These activities are designed to

make learners consciously aware of differences between the native and target language speech acts.

The rationale for this approach is that such differences are often ignored by learners and go

unnoticed unless they are directly addressed (Schmidt 1993, 2001).

Takahashi (2001) proposes a much broader view of input enhancement. She distinguishes three

different degrees and types of input enhancement: explicit teaching, featuring metapragmatic

explanation about form-function relationships of the target structures; form-comparison, in which

students compare their own speech acts realizations with those of native speakers; and form-search,

in which students identify the target strategies in provided scenarios.

Similarly, Rose (2005: 388) states that while most studies have focused on the production of the

target features or their use in interaction, instruction aimed at improving learners’ pragmatic

comprehension has received far less attention. The role of instruction has also received special

attention in ILP research, since, as mentioned above, FL contexts provide learners with little access

to appropriate pragmatic input (see the volumes by Alcon & Martinez-Flor, 2005; Martinez-Flor et

al., 2003; Rose& Kasper, 2001; for reviews of research on pragmatic instruction).

2.7. Possibilities/Opportunities for Teaching Pragmatics in EFL Classroom

The challenge for second or foreign language teaching is whether we can arrange learning

opportunities in such a way that they benefit the development of pragmatic competence of learners.

What opportunities are offered for pragmatic learning? The research works have made mention of

such opportunities as: opportunities for pragmatic input: teacher talk (Kasper, 1997; Bardovi-Harlig

and Hartford, 1996; Nikula, 2008), textbooks (Salazar, 2007; Uso-Juan, 2007) and audiovisual

material (Alcón, 2005; Fernández-Guerra, 2008; Martínez-Flor, 2008).

Although typically an ESL environment is thought to be superior to an EFL environment for

learning language, especially the pragmatics of a language, some studies show that this is a

sweeping generalization and not necessarily true. According to Wallace (2011) ‘Pragmatics can be

successfully acquired in an EFL setting’ (p.274). Furthermore, some think that lack of exposure to

the target language in an EFL setting hinders students’ development of pragmatics. However, the

majority of SLA studies agree that pragmatics can be acquired successfully in an EFL setting if the

teacher teaches it explicitly. In fact, researches show that explicit pragmatics instruction can be

more effective than implicit pragmatics instruction.

Taguchi (see Wallace, 2011:274) shows us that for acquiring pragmatics, an ESL setting is not

necessarily better than an EFL setting, but that each setting may contribute to different learner

outcomes. Wallace (ibid) argues whatever the setting might be that greater practice means greater

performance speed. Studies of development of Foreign Language (FL) knowledge have tended to

focus more on the acquisition of syntactic, phonological, morphological and semantic forms than on

the development of pragmatic ability (Cohen, 2005). Evidence of this fact is that FL learners may

master the vocabulary and grammar of the target language without gaining a comparable control

over the pragmatic uses of the language (Usó-Juan and Salazar (2002:103). This amounts to saying

that FL learners may know several forms of thanking, complaining or apologizing without being

sure when it is appropriate to use one form or another as mentioned by both Uso-Juan and Salazar

(2002). Therefore, it has been argued that the teaching of pragmatics is necessary to develop

learners’ ability to communicate appropriately in the target language (TL), particularly in the

foreign language (FL) context (Kasper, 1997; Bardovi-Harlig, 2001).

Savignon (2006:10) discusses about shaping or designing language curriculum that entails five

components out of which one is “language for a purpose, or language experience.” Language for a

purpose or language experience is “the use of language for real and immediate communicative

goals”. She argues that for not all learners are taking a new language for the same reasons, teachers

should do the following in selecting language inputs:

It is important for teachers to pay attention, when selecting and sequencing

materials, to the specific communicative needs of the learners. Regardless of how

distant or unspecific the communicative needs of the learners, every program with

a goal of communicative competence should pay heed to opportunities for

meaningful language use, opportunities to focus on meaning as well as form (pp.

11-12).

2.7.1. The Role of Language Teacher’s Talk

Teachers vary in their attitudes to ´teacher talk´ according to findings. Some of them accept that it is

useful source of language input for all language levels, except from the more advanced ones. Others

regard it as an important part of the early stages of learning, but believe it should be abandoned as

soon as possible” (Lynch as quoted in Adriana 2009:1). There are at least three main reasons that

make teacher talk worth studying and improving. The reasons are as follows:

a. People have recognized the vital link between comprehension and the progress made in the

language classroom.

b. Studies of classroom language have shown that certain aspects of teacher talk, such as the

way we ask questions, influence the way learners use language.

c. It is not easy for learners to understand what the teacher is currently trying to focus their

attention on (ibid).

Due to its importance, it is inevitable to make sure that the teacher talk fulfils certain criteria. First

of all, it should be simplified, but not unnatural. It needs to exhibit a certain level of redundancy

(words like let me see, in fact, well, etc.) and words, together with structures, should be repeated at

regular intervals. Speaker is also required to break the text into ´short paragraphs´ that enable

students to interrupt, comment on them or ask questions. All new items that are presented need to be

supported by additional examples. Teachers are expected to ask for feedback, both verbally and

non-verbally while teaching pragmatic content of language. In connection with the body language,

it is strongly recommended to maintain an eye-contact with as many members of the class as it is

possible. The reasons for eye-contact are numerous. For instance, to put an emphasis on something

being explained, to stimulate interaction among students, to check understanding, etc.

Halušková(see in Adriana 2009:2).

2.7.2. The Role of Textbooks

Textbooks are key component in most language programs. In some situations they serve as the basis

for much of the language input learners receive and the language practice that occurs in the

classroom. They may provide the basis for the content of the lessons, the balance of skills taught

and the kinds of language practice the students take part in. In other situations, the textbook may

serve primarily to supplement the teachers’ instruction.

Bardovi-Harlig (2001) argues that since teachers’ talk cannot be considered as a pragmatically

appropriate model for learners, “textbooks with conversations are designed to be models for

students, and yet they generally fall short of providing realistic input to learners” (p. 25). She

suggests that textbooks should be used cautiously:

Any textbook should be used judiciously, since it cannot cater equally to the

requirements of every classroom setting. In bilingual and multilingual situations,

there are special limitations on the amount of English language teaching that can

be done via the textbook. The textbook can present examples of common

difficulties, but there are problems specific to different language groups which are

left for the teacher to deal with. It is also likely that a textbook will outlast its

relevance because of changes in the language policy of the community for which

it was written (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001:24).

Therefore, textbooks are always at the center of curriculum although there are some limitations

attributed to them with regards to their pragmatic contents.

2.7.3. The Role of Culture [Local and Target Culture]

People may meet with various problems in intercultural communication. The knowledge of target

language’s culture is as important as its grammar or vocabulary. Perhaps more to the point, a lack of

cross-cultural awareness can be a severe hindrance in the understanding of a message which is

linguistically accurate or comprehensible. As a rule, people are much less tolerant of cultural bumps

and cultural shocks than they are of grammatical mistakes and lexical insufficiency.

Language is inseparable from culture. Thus, when learners learn a language, they learn about

culture; and as they learn to use a new language, they learn to communicate with other individuals

from a different culture. Magnifying the significance of target language culture in learning a foreign

language, Jie (2010) opines:

Through analyzing and comparing the anecdotes of pragmatic failure in cross-

cultural communication from the aspects of lexicon, syntax and discourse, some

pragmatic strategies are suggested in intercultural communication. To improve

learners’ cultural awareness and communicative competence, a cultural-linguistic

approach in foreign language teaching should be adopted (p.1).

A language cannot exist in vacuum. It has to express some objective function when utterances are

made or some text is written. Regmi (2011:2) points out “When we learn a new language, we need

to adopt the culture of the target language to a certain extent because the cultural aspect comes

amalgamated with the target language.” However, what about the learners and their own culture?

Regmi again has the following to say with regards to this question:

The learners have their own set of cultural experiences and objectives of using a

language. They have their own cultural amalgamation which has to be addressed

during target language learning process to make it meaningful and relevant to the

learners. We can assume that integration of local culture and context is inevitable

while learning a target language (ibid).

Thus, local context becomes inseparable from the use of language. This is because, “… students

want to see cultural elements from both target language culture and local culture in foreign language

classrooms as well as in language learning materials” Devo and Yasemin (2010:4). Samovar,

Porter, and Jain (see Purba, 2011) emphasize:

Culture and communication are inseparable because culture not only dictates who

talks to whom, about what, and how the communication proceeds, it also helps to

determine how people encode messages, the meanings they have for messages,

and the conditions and circumstances under which various messages may or may

not be sent, noticed, or interpreted... Culture...is the foundation of communication

(p. 45).

Unlike structure teaching pragmatics calls for the inclusion of cultural aspects of language.

Pedagogical decisions concerning what and how to teach pragmatics are quite different from such

decisions concerning the teaching of linguistic structures. It is deducible from this that teachers can

decide on the priorities in teaching selected aspect of pragmatics. It seems that the first step toward

acquisition of sociocultural rules of language use is a program aimed at sensitizing learners to

cultural differences in pragmatic behavior across culture. Therefore, making learners be aware of

overall patterns of behavior in the target culture and of available choices for functional language

realization may well help learners become better users of input in the target language.

In connection with this, researchers argue that once we have developed a tentative list of pragmatics

aspect of language relevant for particular group/learners, we need to decide which of these are

suitable for the early part of the language learning and which should be left for the later stage

(Cohen, 1989, 2005 and 2009).

As there are barrier to developing pragmatic competence in EFL setting there are also possibilities

or opportunities to teaching pragmatic competence as clearly put forward by literature reviews made

so far. Henceforth, in order to undergo the research scheme the next chapter will tell how to go

about issues of methodology and outline of the study design, data collection instruments, reliability

and validity test of the data collection instruments, procedure of data collection, selection of

subjects and analytical frameworks.

CHAPTER THREE

METHODS AND PROCEDURE OF THE STUDY

3.1. Method of the Study

This chapter deals with the processes involved in selecting the research design, instruments, and

subjects of the study. Even though the investigation of the problem did not confine itself to a

particular method, qualitative method has been taken up to a large extent. The main thesis of the

study was an attempt to explore the challenges being faced by English language teachers to teach

pragmatics to their students, and investigate the manifestation of contents of pragmatics/social

language in the current EFL textbooks. For this purpose, therefore, a descriptive research method

was chosen as it is used to specify or describe a phenomenon without conducting an experiment.

3.2. Research Design

To achieve the purpose mentioned under section 3.1, the study was principally designed to be

qualitative. Questionnaires, observations, discourse completion tests and content analysis seemed to

be appropriate instruments to collect data for the study since objectively recorded teachers and

students behaviors such as actions, utterances and verbal expression of their attitudes (opinions)

towards the concept can be elements of descriptive studies (Mc Arthur 1983). A triangular approach

was used to collect data from all four (4) and 183 secondary school English language teachers and

respective students (details are given below).

3.3. Procedures of the Study

This study consisted of the following methodological steps. First and foremost, the researcher

conducted pretest- at this step the researcher has attempted to design some open ended discourse

completion test questions in order to asses pragmatic awareness of the learners. Doing the

groundwork has helped the researcher identify as to whether the stated problem was researchable or

not with the selected school level learners. In fact it was very early to give the full account of the

preliminary investigation. Regardless of this, it was fairly possible to say that the students had some

sort of pragmatic (pragmalinguistic) ‘awareness’. It was also not possible to tell how the students

had acquired the pragmatic/pragmalinguistic ‘knowledge’; as the data could not inform why the

learners fail and/or able to use the proper social language. That is why Cohen, (1996: 253) indicates

that the inability to use speech acts in their proper temporal/spatial context can be traced forth that

FL students may learn forms for offering their thanks or for apologizing but may not be sure when it

is appropriate to use one form or another. After the current research’s groundwork was finished,

formulating research questions, stating the motive behind the research, stating the limitation and

delimitation of the study, stating the significance of the study followed. Following the scheme of the

research, related discourses were reviewed. Next to reviewing related sources, research tools that

were proper to the study were chosen and designed. After instruments for data collection were

designed, determining sample size in question, and selecting an appropriate sample from the data on

hand took place.

Subsequently, before administering the tools, as it was part of the subjects of the present study,

textbooks were selected, and unit of analysis were defined, contents for analysis were constructed

and categorized; the contents were coded according to the established definition. Afterwards, the

questionnaires were administered to the language teachers with the intension to elicit their

perception of the pragmatic contents of the textbooks, their own awareness and teaching of the

pragmatic aspect of language and impediments they were facing in teaching pragmatic aspect of the

English language. Corresponding to this, questionnaires and discourse completion tests were

distributed to the participant students to assess their perception of their own language ability and

performance respectively. The questionnaires for the teachers were delivered on hand. Discourse

completion tests were distributed to the sampled students in a classroom, in collaboration with the

school teachers. All the questionnaire and test papers were collected back. On the whole, the

collected data were descriptively analyzed, interpreted and conclusion were drawn.

3.4. The Data

Rationales for textbooks

The study focused on textbook, because it is a critical part of the learning process, and in most

cases, reflects the teaching strategies adopted by the teachers. It has a significant impact on course

structure, classroom activities, and homework assignments. It often provides the students first

exposure to the subject, and provides a frame or screen for the students’ understanding of the

subject (Brunner, as cited in Butt, 2010: 58). While textbook content does not necessarily reflect the

material covered in a classroom, coverage of an issue in a textbook makes it more likely to be

covered in class, even if teachers do not follow their text directly. Teachers are also unlikely to

cover a concept that they have never heard about (Butt, 2010:59).

Although the cultural and pragmatic issues may be occasionally addressed in teaching English as a

foreign language (EFL), previous studies (for example Vellegna 2004, Usó-Juan 2007) have

indicated that the teaching materials do not systematically deal with the ways in which the linguistic

choices are affected by setting, situation, status and purpose.

The researcher strongly believed that if the communicative aspects of language and pragmatic

competence were a central theme in EFL classes, it would significantly benefit students in their

everyday communication situations and in their future careers. Readings of some previous research

works has shown that there is lack of pragmatic input in EFL materials, and this study will give

insight into whether this holds true in the Ethiopia’s upper secondary school EFL materials as well.

The study therefore drew upon various essential pragmatic elements that were evident or missing in

the data taken from content analysis of 10th

and 11th

grade textbooks. The discussion of the data was

carried out with reference to research on ESL/EFL and Pragmatics. The findings from this study

were assumed to provide an empirical base upon which EFL textbooks, pragmatic materials and

tasks can be developed in textbook writing. An important part of this study was simply to determine

the presence or absence of lessons about pragmatic awareness/competence of learners in the English

language textbooks.

3.4.1. Content Analysis Sampling Process

3.4.1.1. Sampling Units for Content Analysis

Since it was difficult to observe all contents, the researcher was forced to sample from available

content for coding pool. Units of analysis may differ from units of observation. Sample selection

depends largely on unit of analysis. The researcher was well aware that he needed to be clear about

unit of analysis before planning sampling strategy to avoid problems that may occur later. The

sampling could involve stratified, purposive, systematic or random technique of selecting the

representative population of the study. In the present study the researcher planned to pursue

purposive sampling.

Before sampling the representative data in relation to the central issues of the study, code sheets

were designed to identify the presence or absence of any elements relevant to the focus of the study.

The coding instructions and element definitions were written to ensure that specific concepts were

highlighted and received a specific level of attention in the text before they would be coded as

present. Code sheets included nine (9) categories(themes) [Pragmatic/ functional language:

definition, semantic formula-complimenting, thanking, refusing, complaining, apologizing,

complaining, etc., Language use rules: turn taking, staying on topic, opening or closing

conversation, Instruction: implicit vs. explicit or inductive vs. deductive-register, metapragmatic

and metalanguage explanations, and speech acts sets/model (Olshtain & Cohen, 1991), Approaches

to sociopragmatic competence: role plays, drama, DCT/DRT, observing naturally occurring data,

dialogue, and their authenticity, Social context: age, gender, rank, power, friends, acquaintances,

Physical context: office, hospital, school, library, restaurant, Pragmatic Learning strategies:

suggestions made for the learners to further practice the language and Cultural context: norms,

values, expectations, assumptions of culture at large] were looked only for presence (√) or absence

(x) for each element.

3.4.1.2. Data Coding Scheme for Content Analysis

After the data collected for the study were categorized, the textbooks were coded for the above

elements while entering the data into tables for analysis. Coding is the heart of content analysis.

Coding is the process of converting raw data into a standardized form. Each additional entry of

datum collected from the textbooks was registered under each code. Coding therefore is the

technique to classify content in relation to a conceptual framework. Like in the current study,

pragmatic elements can be categorized, general pragmatic information, language use rule, cultural

context, physical context, approaches to sociopragmatics competence, social context, physical

context, mode of instruction, etc.

3.4.1.3. Procedure of Content Analysis of the Textbooks

The process of content analysis begins during or after the data processing/entering. Thus the

procedure consisted of formulating the research questions, collecting the data, categorizing the data

based on the research questions, indentifying the connection between the data collected from the

textbooks and that of the respondents’ and finally interpreting or assigning meaning to the data

obtained.

3.5.Participants

The research subjects were grade 10th

and 11th

students at St. Joseph School. The total population of

the study comprised of 339 students and 4 teachers. Out of the total population of the students, the

researcher drew sound sample systematically based on the table of systematic random sampling;

and the representative sample was 183. After the sample population was decided, the total

population was divided by the sample population that resulted in every 1.85 student to be part of the

sample. By rounding off the fractions the students’ names were arranged alphabetically and every

2nd

student was included in the sample. Moreover, all (100%) teachers that were teaching English

language to grade 10th

and 11th

students were also part of the research subjects. Questionnaires were

distributed to all the participant teachers and students; and all of them had returned papers. In

addition to this, all the students included in the sample were seated for the MDCT.

Participants Students % Teachers %

Males 102 55.73 3 75

Females 81 44.25 1 25

Total 183 99.98 4 100

3.6. Procedures for Collecting Data

3.6.1. Data Sources

Two forms of data sources were used as input for the present study- primary and secondary sources.

The primary sources were teachers and students in the selected school in addition to which the

researcher observed the classroom’s textbooks use. The secondary data were synthesized from

various related discourses through reading.

3.6.2. Research Setting

The research setting was one non-governmental school; St. Joseph School in Adama. It was

purposefully chosen and found to be relevant to the study based on the preliminary investigations

made by the researcher. More to this point, as the textbook is the only classroom resource

nationwide; any setting that uses the material can suit the study to be carried out.

3.6.3. Sampling

In the present research the researcher employed two stage schemes of sampling: the first purposive

sampling only focusing on high achiever students. This was to test the extent to which the learners

were aware of pragmatic/functional aspect of the target language. Doing this in turn helped the

researcher to proceed with the research work as designed with some minor modification when need

arisen. During the first stage sampling, only 15 students were selected and tested. The second and

final sampling was systematic random sampling so as to include all students: low, medium and high

achievers as the aim was not to distinguish between these groups of students.

3.7. Tools of Data Collection

3.7.1 Questionnaire

Primarily, sample questionnaires were designed and administered to teachers who are teaching

English the same grade level at selected school. Feedbacks were obtained that there were no

difficulties to comprehend the message of the questionnaire. Similar questionnaires with minor

modifications were administered to elicit teachers’ perception of the students’ textbooks with

regards to pragmatic content and their own pragmatic background knowledge. Whereas,

questionnaire for self-perceived competence were newly developed for the students in addition to

the discourse completions test that was completely changed from open ended format to multiple

choice. The change was made to alleviate the difficulty that might occur in analyzing the data and

MDCT is gaining its prominence to test learners’ pragmatic proficiency in EFL (Setouguchi,

2008:1) and to mitigate its effect on the result. More than 99% of the questionnaires were close

ended. The respondents were asked to put only a tick mark (√) in the column of their

choice or that represents their perceptions of the rating scales. The rating scales range from one up

to five where 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=undecided 4=agree 5= strongly agree. In

the data analysis, the researcher has combined strongly disagree (1) and disagree (2), and

strongly agree (5) and agree (4) together.

3.7.2. Classroom Observation

Classroom observation has always been considered as one of the tools for data collection in

language acquisition researches, because it allows the study of a phenomenon or behavior at close

range with many of the contextual variables present (Waxman, 2011).

Thus, the researcher observed classrooms to ascertain the prevalent challenges to teach pragmatics

in EFL classroom as indicated by the teachers. This is to say that the observation was mainly done

to cross-check whether the problems forwarded by teachers exist or not. The researcher was

physically present in the classrooms to observe how the teachers use the textbooks to develop

pragmatic competence of learners through metapragmatic explanations of the language in point or

use materials prepared by themselves for the same purpose to supplement the text books.

Pertinent lessons were observed based on agreement with the teachers, especially, when there are

oral presentations and speaking skills sessions. In each class teachers who took part in filing out the

questionnaire were observed. In all the observations conducted, the researcher took the position

where his presence did not disturb the class. In other words, the observation was made without

intervention in any way. Teachers were requested to voluntarily cooperate with the researcher and

the sections were chosen on random basis.

3.7.3. Discourse Completion Test

Discourse completion tests are used to elicit the pragmatic awareness of learners. Hence, the

researcher employed DCT/MDCT to cross check what students replied in self-perceived

competence questionnaires with what language they chose in MDCT.

Beside the DCT/MDCT, some questions were added at the end of the test paper so that students can

give what they believed as regards to the sources of their current knowledge of pragmatics.

To test the difference in the learners’ awareness in the grammatical and pragmatic domains, the

researcher developed a contextualized pragmatic and grammatical judgment task presented in a

written format. The task was developed in five steps for pretest: (a) identifying and constructing the

test scenarios, (b) testing the scenarios through a production (written) task, (c) selecting the targeted

responses for the task, (d) piloting the judgment task in written format, and (e) retesting the revised

scenarios (MDCT). In the first step, 7 scenarios were constructed to elicit one of five speech acts:

complaint, compliment, requests, apologies, and refusals. To ensure that learners interpreted the

scenarios as requiring the targeted speech act, the researcher asked 15 (purposively selected)

secondary School EFL students to carry out a standard discourse completion task (DCT). They were

given a scenario and asked how they would react, as in Example 1.

You are wearing a new shirt and a classmate looks at you and says: “This shirt looks great on you!

Blue is a great color for you.”

You answer: _____________________________________________________________

The study was open ended and exploratory in nature. It asked learners to report whatever they were

thinking and then examines those reports to gain insights into what they know about pragmatics and

how they acquire pragmatic knowledge and ability.

3.7.4. Content Analysis

The purpose of this research is first to investigate the impediments faced by language teachers to

teach pragmatics and second to analyze aspects of the content of pragmatics manifested in the

students’ textbooks and their classes to determine if certain elements (e.g., apology, compliments,

complain, request, thanks, etc) are present. While content analysis, if used properly, can indicate the

presence (or absence) and extent of elements that may be signs of quality or effectiveness, based on

what previous studies or other literature have established about those elements.

As Krippendorff (2004) indicates:

Content analysis is potentially one of the most important research techniques in

the social sciences. The content analyst views data as representations not of

physical evidence but of texts, images, and expressions that are created to be seen,

read, interpreted, and acted on for their meanings, and must therefore be analyzed

with such uses in mind. Analyzing texts in the context of their uses distinguishes

content analysis from other methods of inquiry. (p. xiii)

Content analysis includes, for instance, comparing the frequency of single words, phrases, or things

in a text, or the space dedicated to them in a piece of work. The purpose of the content analysis was

to get the research data to a form that is easier to perceive, and thus to help in drawing the

conclusions. The conclusions do not, however, pop up straight from the analyzed data, because

content analysis can only give direction to theoretical discussion. According to writers, content

analysis is a scientific way of making observations and collecting data from a document. Further

precise definition of content analysis is provided by Krippendorff, (2004): “Content analysis is a

research technique for making replicable and valid inferences from texts (or other meaningful

matter) to the context of their use (p.18).

This definition of content analysis best suits the current study. In this definition it is deducible that

content analysis is a research technique; which implies that content analysis involves specialized

procedures. As a research technique, content analysis provides new insights by increasing the

researcher’s understandings regarding the phenomena under study. Krippendroff, further argues that

content analysis is a scientific tool (ibid); that is employed to collect and analyze data.

In the current study, a content analysis was conducted in order to discover the nature of pragmatic

materials and tasks in the high school English language textbooks written by foreign writers. The

textbooks were examined for pragmatic information quantitatively and qualitatively. Quantitative

data focused on percentage and amount of pragmatic information contained in the textbooks and

amount of variety of pragmatic information. Qualitative data concentrated on the nature of

pragmatic information and the level of richness of pragmatic information. Pragmatic information

was differentiated according to the categories on the basis of the frame works adapted from the

work of Vallenga (2004) and Peiying (2007). They are general pragmatic information,

metapragmatic information, metalanguage, speech acts, cultural information and pragmatically

oriented tasks.

Investigation of pragmatics content in each of the two textbooks focused on the explicit mention of

metapragmatic description of speech acts such as requests, apologies, complaints, compliments, etc.

page-by-page counts, coding, description and analysis of different pragmatic information in the two

textbooks was performed to obtain the intended data.

For validity and reliability of the whole work, the researcher employed triangulation so as to not

concentrating on just one source of information. He approached the topic from different points of

view by combining qualitative data from discourse completion tests (DCTs), questionnaire for

teachers and qualitative data from content analysis using checklists designed for the same purpose.

He used theories and background knowledge from books and journals or articles that guide him to

approach the topic in the right way.

3.8. Procedures for Data Analysis

In the process of data analysis the first step was organizing the data by research questions because

organizing by research questions draws together all the relevant data for the exact issue of concern

to the researcher and it preserves the coherence of the research. With respect to the content of the

textbook, coding the content according to the established definitions, categorizing the data, counting

the frequency of each code in the textbooks and tabulating was done. After the data were gathered

from the textbooks, the students and the respective teachers, both qualitative and quantitative

analyses were geared up. Content analysis and questionnaire were chief data gathering tools. Once

the data obtained through textbook content analysis, questionnaires, discourse completion test and

classroom observations were organized, the next step was description of the data. Thence, the

meaning was given to the data. This stage involved explaining the findings and triangulation for

veracity and validity (accuracy) of the data. The last stage of data analysis was reporting or drawing

conclusion and looking for implications that were dealt with in the next chapter.

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

In Ethiopia, English is taught as a foreign language. Equipping Ethiopian students with

communicative competence in order to help them communicate effectively in international

communication is truly essential. Although there have been studies about communicative language

teaching in Ethiopian schools, investigation on pragmatic information in English textbooks used in

Ethiopia has not yet been conducted. Similarly, whether there exist any additional pragmatic

features in teacher’s book as a resource for teachers has not been questioned. Likewise, whether

English language teachers bring in outside materials to help learners develop pragmatic competence

has not been investigated. Furthermore, no study has been conducted pertaining to the challenges

existing to developing pragmatic competence of language learners.

Developing learners’ communicative competence, i.e. the ability to communicate appropriately, is

commonly recognized as the ultimate goal of language teaching (Kasper 1997a; Usó-Juan and

Martinez-Flor 2006). Therefore, teaching practices should focus not just on the features of the target

language system but also on its sociolinguistic and pragmatic rules Judd (as qtd in Usó-Juan

2007:224). In other words, learners should be given plenty of opportunities to practice use of the

language that is appropriate to a given situation. Being central to language use, and language

learning, pragmatic issues must be addressed in language classroom (Rose, 1994:5). This is because

differences in linguistic and cultural background can produce important misunderstandings as they

imply different rules of interaction and the use of different linguistic terms to convey meaning

(Cenoz, 2007:7).

Hence, the inclusion of pragmatic elements in students’ books is mandatory in EFL context as there

are no other reliable opportunities for learners to take advantage of (Bardovi-Harlig, and Dorneyi,

1998; Kasper 1997; Valllenga, 2004; Peiying, 2007).

According to literatures, learners’ pragmatic knowledge and competence is framed mostly by the

information presented in the textbooks. In addition to that in the English as a foreign language

setting, teachers’ level of awareness about pragmatics is of paramount importance to help learners

with pragmatic skills that are important in communication. In order to successfully acquire

pragmatic competence/awareness, language learners need to be exposed to appropriate input in the

classroom, particularly in foreign language (FL) classroom settings, where learners’ opportunities to

be in contact with the target language are usually non-existent. In such a context, textbooks are the

core of the classroom syllabi and therefore constitute the primary source of input learners are

exposed to (Vellenga 2004).

The researcher has carried out analysis of the existing English language textbooks aimed at teaching

English language in both government and non-government upper high schools in Ethiopia. In

addition to the analysis, a survey of contemporary literature on some of the principles and practices

of curriculum planning and course design, with special reference to English pragmatics has been

taken up in order to ascertain the conformity scale of the current English language textbooks

designed by foreigners. The researcher specifically believed that the observations put forward by

teachers using the textbooks have a lot of contribution to make, for the conceptual and concrete

culmination of the research, which in fact is discussed in the forthcoming section. Checklists were

also used to measure the frequency and the extent to which the pragmatic features were treated in

the textbooks.

4.1. Pragmatic Content Analysis of the Textbooks

Question#1 Do the students’ textbooks provide enough pragmatic information for learners?

The pragmatic features investigated in this study were Speech act Information, Usage, Politeness,

Register, Style, and Cultural information. The books were analyzed both quantitatively and

qualitatively using tables as instruments for the data collection process. The investigation was

conducted on the basis of page-by-page inspection of the two selected books and any new point of

information related to Speech act information, Usage, Politeness, Register, Style, and Cultural

information even if it appeared in only one phrase was counted as an aspect of information.

It was found that every pragmatic feature focused in this study was not presented in each book. The

results were shown in table below. Presence was represented by a tick mark (√) and absence was

represented by (x).The criteria for evaluation was adapted from Celce-Murcia (2007); and Peiying

(2007).

Table 1. Checklists for Absence or Presence of the Pragmatic Features

Pragmatic features Book

1

Book 2

ML MP ML MP

Interpersonal Exchanges

1. Greeting and leave taking x x x x

2. Making introductions and identifying oneself x x x x

3. Extending, accepting and declining invitations and offers x x x x

4. Making and breaking engagements x x x x

5. Expressing and acknowledging gratitude x x x x

6. Complimenting and congratulating x x x x

7. Showing interest, x x x x

8. Showing surprise, x x x x

9. Showing sympathy, x x x x

10. Showing disbelief, x x x x

11. Showing disappointment x x x x

Information

1. asking for and giving information x x x x

2. reporting (describing, narrating) x x x x

3. explaining x x x x

4. remembering x x x x

Opinions

1. expressing and finding out about attitudes and opinions x x x x

2. agreeing and disagreeing x x x x

3. approving and disapproving x x x x

4. showing satisfaction and dissatisfaction x x x x

Feelings : expressing 1. love,

x x x x

2. happiness, x x x x

3. sadness, x x x x

4. pleasure, x x x x

5. anger, x x x x

6. embarrassment, x x x x

7. pain, x x x x

8. relief, x x x x

9. fear, x x x x

10. annoyance, x x x x

11. surprise x x x x

Suasion:

1. suggesting,

x

x

x

x

2. requesting, x x x x

3. Instructions x x x x

4. giving orders, x x x x

5. advising, and warning x x x x

6. asking for, granting and withholding permission x x x x

Problems:

1. complaining and criticizing

x

x

x

x

2. blaming and accusing x x x x

3. admitting and denying x x x x

4. regretting x x x x

5. apologizing and forgiving x x x x

Future scenarios: Expressing

wishes,

√

x

x

x

hopes, and desires x x x x

plans, goals, and intentions √ x x x

promising √ x x x

predicting and speculating √ x x x

possibilities and capabilities of doing something x x √ x

Following Rules of Conversation

1. taking turns in conversation

√

x

x

x

2. introducing topics of conversation x x x x

3. staying on topic x x x x

4. rephrasing when misunderstood x x x x

5. how to use verbal and nonverbal signals x x x x

6. how close to stand to someone when speaking x x x x

7. how to use facial expressions and eye contact x x x x

Changing language according to the needs of a listener or

situation, such as

1.talking differently to a baby than to an adult

x

x

x

x

2.giving background information to unfamiliar listener x x x x

3.speaking differently in a classroom than on a playground x x x x

Adapted from Peiying 2007, and Celce-Murcia, 2007.

Pragmatics, or the ability to communicate using language, is increasingly recognized as essential to

language competence and production. Researchers currently advocate metapragmatic instruction

which combines explicit instruction, awareness-raising activities, and guided practice (Eslami-

Rasekh, 2005; Kasper, 1997). However, the pragmatic features in the current students’ textbooks

were not explicitly laid down. The pragmatic information that was presented in the textbooks was

not backed up by further explanation either metapragmatic or metalanguage as displayed in the

above table. Instead of merely relying on the checklists already prepared by the researcher, the

decision was made to check the pragmatic information or content in the books through page-by-

page counting of each single case.

The researcher selected expressions for various language strategies such as thanking, refusing,

apologizing, complimenting, complaining and requesting, and classified them into categories

according to Aijmer (1996) and Ishihara and Cohen (2007) in order to evaluate the pragmatic

contents of the selected textbooks. After determining the general amount of pragmatic contents

provided in the textbooks, specific areas of interest were selected for analysis. The results were

shown in the table below.

Table2.Communicative Acts in the Textbooks

Com

munic

ativ

e A

cts

Top

ic /

typ

es

stra

tegie

s

Exam

ple

s or

stra

tegie

s o

r

reali

zati

on

of

stra

tegie

s

Book

1

Book

2

Com

pli

men

ts appearance/possessions e.g., You look absolutely beautiful!) √ x

performance/skills/abilities (e.g., Your presentation was excellent.) √ x

personality traits (e.g., You are so sweet.) √ x

Ref

usa

l

Direct refusals (e.g. ‘No’, ‘I can’t’, ‘I don’t think I can’) x x

Statement of regret (e.g. ‘I’m sorry’) x x

Statement of positive opinion (e.g. ‘I’d love to’, ‘I wish I could’) x x

Excuse, reason, explanation (e.g. ‘I have to study for the test’) x x

Gratitude (e.g. ‘Thank you’) x x

Statement of future acceptance (e.g. ‘Perhaps some other time’) x x

Indefinite reply (e.g. ‘I’m not sure’, ‘I don’t know’) x x

Statement of alternative (e.g., ‘How about the movies’) x x

Statement of empathy (e.g. ‘No offence to you’) x x

Th

an

kin

g Good wish to hearer (e.g. ‘Have a nice trip’, ‘Hope you have

fun’)

x x

Thanking someone explicitly (e.g. Thanks, thank you, thank you for,

thank you very much, thanks a lot, fine

thanks…)

√ √

Expressing gratitude (e.g. I’m grateful…) x x

Expressing the appreciation of

the addressee

(e.g. That’s kind of you, that’s nice of

you…)

x x

Expressing the appreciation of

the act

(e.g. That’s lovely, it’s appreciated…) x x

Acknowledging a debt of

gratitude

(e.g. I owe a debt of gratitude to…) x x

Stressing one’s gratitude (e.g. I must thank you…) x x

Expressing emotion (e.g. Oh, thank you…) x x

Suppressing one’s own

importance[self-denigration]

(e.g. I’m an ingrate, I’m so careless) x x

Ap

olo

gie

s

Explicitly apologizing (e.g. I apologize) √ x

Offering/presenting one’s

apologies

(e.g. I present my apologies) x x

Acknowledging a debt of

apology

(e.g. I owe you an apology) x x

Expressing regret (e.g. I’m sorry, I’m regretful …) √ x

Demanding forgiveness (e.g. Pardon me, forgive me, excuse

me…)

x x

Explicitly requesting the hearer’s

forgiveness

(e.g. I beg your pardon, ) x x

Giving an explanation or account (e.g. I’m sorry “The bus was late,” it’s so

unusual…)

x x

Self-denigration or self reproach (e.g. How stupid of me, how awful, I

ought to know this)

x x

Minimizing responsibility (e.g. I didn’t mean to…, I thought this

was…, )

√ x

Expressing emotion (e.g. Oh, I’m so sorry…,) x x

Acknowledging responsibility for

the offending act

(e.g. It’s my fault…,) x x

Promising forbearance from a

similar offending act

(e.g. I promise you that will never happen

again)

x x

Offering redress (e.g. Please let me pay for the damage I

have done)

x x

Req

ues

tin

g

Asking about ability to do

something[ability]

(e.g. Can you come to the party?

Can you help me? Can I talk to Mr.

president? )

√ x

Asking about the possibility of

the desired act happening

[consultation]

(e.g. Is it possible…, would you mind…,) x x

Asking whether the hearer is

willing to do or has an objection

to do something[willingness]

(e.g. Will you…, would you(like)…, ) √ x

Expressing a wish that the agent

should do something [want]

(e.g. I would like you to…,) x x

Expressing a need or desire for

goods [need]

(e.g. I want…, I need…,) x x

Stating that the hearer is under (e.g. You must…, you have to…,) x x

the obligation to do something

[obligation]

Stating that it is appropriate that

the hearer performs the desired

action

(e.g. You should…, ) x x

Asking an idiomatic WH

questions

(e.g. What about…, how about…, why

don’t you…, why not…)

√

Hypothesis (e.g. If you would…, perhaps you

would….)

x x

Appreciation (e.g. I would be grateful if you would

do…, I would be glad if …)

x x

Permission quest (e.g. May I …, let me…) x x

Naming the object requested (e.g. The next slide please) x x

Checking the

availability[existence]

(e.g. Is Mr…there…) x x

Com

pla

inin

g

Valuation-an utterance

expressing the feelings of the

Speaker about either the

Addressee or the problem.

(e.g. e.g. 'It's really disgusting.') x x

Closing - An utterance made by

the Speaker to conclude the

complaint set.

(e.g. OK, thanks. ) x x

Threat- An utterance stating an

action the Speaker might take,

depending on the reaction of the

Addressee.

(e.g. e.g. "I, er..could take it higher than

just talking to you." )

x x

Remedy - An utterance calling

for some corrective action.

(e.g. 'This is going to have to stop.') x x

Justification of The Addressee -

An utterance giving a reason or

excuse for the Addressee's

having committed the wrong or

considering the effect on the

Addressee.

( e.g. 'Is this time particularly difficult for

you?" )

x x

Justification of the speaker-An

utterance explaining why the

Speaker is making the complaint

and the effects of the wrong on

the Speaker.

( e.g. "... because I... you're making me

miss lectures by turning up late." )

x x

Act Statement- An utterance

which states the problem

directly.

(e.g. "This is the fourth time this month

you've been really late!" )

x x

Orientation - An utterance giving

the Speaker's intent in initiating

the complaint, but with no detail.

(e.g. 'I've been meaning to talk to you

about the rubbish you've been leaving

outside.' )

x x

Opener- An utterance initiating

the speech act set but giving no

information about the wrong.

(e.g. "Listen, Jimmy." )

x x

Explicit complaint

(e.g. You’re not fair. You’re

inconsiderate. One should

not postpone this type of operation. I’ve

been waiting here for nearly an hour. You

are always late. I expected different

treatment from a physician like you.)

x x

Request for Explanation-

An utterance calling for an

explanation of the Addressee's

behavior,

(e.g. 'I mean, why do you do it?') x x

Blame -An utterance finding

fault with the Addressee or

holding him/her responsible for

the wrong,

(e.g. 'You realize 'cause you're late

again...')

x x

Adapted from Aijmer 1996; Ishihara and Cohen, 2007

Most lessons are insubstantial and that there are no matapragmatic explanations provided. For

example, we can see the following lesson presented in grade 10 students’ book under the title

‘apologizing’.

“How would you say sorry to someone? Look at the expressions:

Sorry, I didn’t mean to…

I am sorry but…

I apologize for…

I hope you will forgive me but…

I seem to have made a mistake. I’m really sorry…

I am sorry for misunderstanding…

I hope you will understand…” (p. 62).

Another lesson that has to do with compliments as presented in 10th

English textbook on pages 85

and 91, has got similar problem. For example,

‘Mercy is a good person’

‘You are good at Maths’ (p.85).

Tesfaw is so good at speaking English.

Tesfaw is such a good English speaker (p.91).

In the excerpt there is no clear instruction for the learners to further practice the language feature

and there is no explicit metalanguage or metapragmatic explanation is given. Similarly, with the

intention to say ‘no’ or refusal to requests for sex, the following expressions are presented merely

for the sake of presenting in 11th

grade English language textbook. No metapragmatic explanation is

provided. They are present only in name.

‘ I would really rather not…

If you don’t mind, I’ll say ‘no’ to that.

I don’t want…, if you don’t mind.

I’m sorry, but I’ve said ‘no’ and I’m not going to change my mind.

I’d prefer to…/I’d rather…

Why don’t we… instead?’ (p.103).

Likewise, a topic about ‘tourist complaint’ that is presented in grade 11th

textbook page 128, must

have left learners with unsolved puzzle. That is to say complaining being important feature of

pragmatics, ample matapragmatic explanations and scenarios must have been provided. For the

excerpt presented above no metalanguage and metapragmatic explanation has been given. No

authentic context for practice and use is provided. No scenarios or situations were presented so that

the learners will learn how the expressions are used in a real life like simulations. The objective

states ‘by the end of the lesson you will be able to learn to apologize to someone’ however there are

no practice activities to assess learners’ behavior.

Table 3.Frequency of Communicative Acts in Each Textbook

Type of Communicative

Acts

Grade 10 textbook

Grade 11 textbook

f

# o

f pag

es

Tota

l # o

f

pag

es

% o

f

pra

gm

atic

pag

es

f

# o

f pag

es

Tota

l # o

f

pag

es

% o

f

pra

gm

atic

pag

es

Request 74 17

327

9.5

48 9

251

6.4

Apology 13 5 3 1

Compliments 10 3 11 2

Complaints - - 1 1

Refusing 4 3 7 1

Thanking 4 3 2 2

Total 105 31 72 16

The above table represents the quantity of pragmatic information contained in the student textbooks.

In this case even phrase was counted so as to include the most possible data in the process of

enumeration. As one can see from the table above, only few pages have gone for scantly explained

and discussed pragmatic language features. Almost all pages or the lion’s share have gone for

grammar, vocabulary, passages, and other language skills. This is somewhat paradox in that where

the most important source of pragmatic aspect of language is said to be textbook, particularly in

EFL setting and where there is meager opportunities for learners to develop their pragmatic

competence, scantiness of such pragmatic contents in the textbooks can highly debilitate learners’

communicative competence.

4.2. Pragmatic Features Contained in Each Textbook

Contiguous with examining the types of pragmatic features included or excluded in each of the

books under investigation, the present study looked into the number of each feature included. It was

found that there were differences in number of pragmatic features between the books as shown in

the table below. (√) may stand for presence, both scant and sufficient, and explanations given about

a particular communicative act; while (x) stands for absence and lack of explanation about a

particular communicative act.

Table 4.Pragmatic Contents of Grade 10th

English textbook

Page

No

Pragmatic Features/Topics

style

poli

tenes

s

regis

ter

usa

ge

ML

MP

f Tota

l

5 Relative clauses x x x x √ x 1 1 6 Making comparisons x x x x x x 1 1 6 Adverbs of time x x x x x x 1 1 7 Giving advice x x x x √ x 1 1 8 Making plans and suggestions x x x x √ x 1 1 20 Asking questions x x x x x x 1 1 21 Sequencing information x x x x x x 1 1 22 Giving advice x x x x x x 1 1 23 Remembering and

reminiscing

x x x x x x 1 1

34 Conditional sentences x x x x √ x 1 1 59 Modal verbs x x x x √ x 2 2 62 Apologizing x x x x √ x 1 1 67 Adjectives of character x x x x x x 1 1

92 Illustrating a point x x x x x x 1 1 114 Language use x x x x x x 2 2 145 Making wishes x x x x √ x 1 1 147 Wishing x x x x √ x 1 1 128 Social expressions x x x x x x 1 1 156 Hedges x x x x x x 1 1 215 Congratulations, inviting,… x x x x x x 1 1 226-28 Language use x x x x x x 3 3

It is observable from the table that most of the pragmatic elements that are rarely appearing in the

students textbooks lack explicit explanation of forms, meaning, usage, purpose/use and context.

Politeness, style, register and usage are absent altogether. Except very few metalinguistic

explanations there no metapragmatic explanations provided for those features of pragmatics.

Table 5.Grade11Textbook Pragmatic contents

Page

No. Pragmatic features/topics

style

poli

tenes

s

regis

ter

Usa

ge

ML

MP

f tota

l

14 Discussing advantages and

disadvantages[dialogue]

x √ √ √ √ x 1 1

23 Language of meeting √ √ √ √ x x 1 1

24 The language of discussion √ √ √ √ x x 1 1

35 How to write an informal letter x x x x √ x 1 1

40 Reported speech [dialogue] x x x x x x 1 1

98 Giving Advice x x x x √ x 1 1

99 Asking for Advice x x x x x x 1 1

102 Saying No [refusal] x x x x x x 1 1

108 Language of formal letter x x x x x x 1 1

127 A formal letter x x x x x x 1 1

128 Tourist Complaints x x x x x x 1 1

129 Making suggestion x x x x √ x 1 1

130 Turn taking √ √ √ x x x 1 1

172 Discourse markers* x x x x √ x 1 1

173 Discourse markers* x x x x √ x 1 1

213 Language we use to express wish* x x x x √ x 1 1

215 May I interrupt? x x x x x x 1 1

294 Speculating about the future*

hedges?

x x x x x x 1 1

318 Dialogue x x x x x x 3 3

The above table shows the inclusion and absence of the pragmatic features in question. None of the

books provided all the pragmatic features under investigation. Both of them, however, presented at

least a dearth of features. In both textbooks, pragmatic information accounts for merely a small

portion as indicated in the other section.

Pragmatics deals with meaning in context that is the meaning conveyed often indirectly beyond

what is literally communicated (Ishihara, 2010:1). Others like Yates (2004) also have described

pragmatics as the “secret rules of language”, the ‘rules’ that help us know how formal or informal to

be, how long to wait before we ask or answer a question, how to apologize to someone for bumping

into them or how to give a compliment. All of them have highlighted the importance of socially

appropriate language use; ability to use language in context has been identified as an essential

component of communicative competence. It is very rare case that one can find such qualities as

mentioned by scholars in the students’ books reviewed regarding social and authentic language use

contexts.

In Ethiopian EFL context, English is used mainly in the classroom and EFL learners thus have

significantly fewer opportunities to engage in English-based communication outside the classroom.

The English classroom, therefore, becomes the central place for their development of pragmatic

competence.

Previous studies show that pragmatic competence can be taught (Eslami-Rasekh, 2005; Kasper,

1997; Jianda, 2006). However, foreign language teachers, being foreign language learners

themselves, hesitate to teach pragmatics in their classrooms. A large number of EFL teachers have

learned English as a foreign language. Many may neither have any contact with native speakers, nor

have they had enough opportunities to fully develop their pragmatic knowledge and skills (Cohen,

2004; Kim & Hall, 2002). For those non-native teachers, textbooks can be of particular use in

equipping themselves with pragmatic competence. In other words, textbooks are the only tool non-

native speaker teachers use to teach the four language skills and pragmatic knowledge (Kim & Hall,

2002).

However, textbooks rarely provide enough information for learners to successfully acquire

pragmatic competence. In the worst case, they can be a source of pragmatic failure (Vasquez &

Sharpless, 2009). Bardovi-Harlig (2001), for instance, reported that speech act realizations

presented in textbooks might not reflect the manner in which native speakers commonly realize in a

speech act. The target language culture may be misrepresented and the rules of speaking or

politeness norms may be distorted. Moreover, textbooks have been criticized for decades for failing

to provide EFL learners with adequate and appropriate pragmatic knowledge (Bardovi-Harlig,

2001; Peiying, 2007; Takafumi, Fukusawa & Shinichi, 2007; Vellenga, 2004; Yang, 2007).

Vallenga (2004), in particular, reported that metalinguistic and metapragmatic information related

to ways of speaking were missing from ELT textbooks used in most university worldwide.

The results from the books analysis indicated that the pragmatic features focused in the study were

included in the books used in teaching the English language as a foreign language in Ethiopian

upper high schools. However, the features and the pragmatic information contained vary across the

books.

To conclude, from the data analysis, although the pragmatic features are included in those books

variedly, the amount of pragmatic information in the books is far short of being an adequate source

for EFL students to attain pragmatic competence. Likewise, non-native EFL teachers may also find

it insufficient to simply rely on students’ books to enhance their pragmatic knowledge. The

pragmatic features, only in title, are paid a lip service in the textbooks. Admittedly, in a plethora of

grammar, the paucity of the pragmatic features is visible in addition to the absence of explicit

explanations given to even the meager presentation of the pragmatic aspect of the language.

4.3. Questionnaire for Teachers

Question # 2.What are the Challenges Faced by High School Teachers in Teaching Pragmatic

Competence?

A questionnaire was designed for eliciting perceptions of teachers in relation to the challenges faced

in teaching pragmatic competence by language teachers who are teaching English language at St.

Joseph’s High School. In order to prepare questionnaires, first, the researcher reviewed relevant

literature as pointed out earlier. Second, questionnaires were designed and distributed to the

teachers before the actual data collection in order to ensure whether the questionnaires were

applicable as per what the researcher intended to collect pertaining to the apparent challenges. For

each category of challenges, there was one major open-ended question, followed by clarification

checks and attempts to elicit any further perceived challenges. The initial draft consisted of 12

statements. It was then submitted to the advisor; colleagues and classmates who were interested in

this area for feedback about the relevance and clarity of each statement. Acting upon their feedback,

the number of statements was increased to 24 and very few modifications in wording were made.

Four copies were distributed to English language teachers teaching grades 9-12, and all forms were

returned.

Table 6.Challenges Related to Teachers’ Training Programs

Whether they have learned a course on pragmatics

(request, apology, complain, compliment, thanks…

Yes % No %

4 100 - -

All of the subjects stated that they had exposure to information about pragmatics. For instance, one

subject mentioned that “When I was a sophomore student in the university, I took the course ‘An

Introduction to Linguistics.’ It’s the basic lesson to linguistics, and of course contains pragmatics.’

After ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question, the second category of the questionnaire was about the extent to which

those teachers were benefited out of the lesson/course received. Hence, the questionnaire has three

point scales. The researcher decided to consider the mean values between 1 and 1.5 inadequate,

between 1.6 and 2 fairly adequate, and finally between 2.6 and 3 adequate.

Table 7.Whether any Lesson Received Helped the Teachers or not

If in-service and/or pre-service training has helped them to:

Ad

equ

ate

Fa

irly

ad

equ

ate

Ina

deq

ua

te

Be aware of pragmatics as a branch of linguistics N 12 - -

% 100 - -

Mean 3 - -

Compare their L1 with that of English N - 8 -

% - 100 -

Mean - 2 -

Learn norms of politeness in face to face interaction in

English N - 8 -

% - 100 -

Mean - 2 -

Teach pragmatic aspect of English language N - - 4

% - - 100

Mean - - 1

Select activities to teach language USE N - 4 2

% - 50 50

Mean - 1 .5

Construct tests to evaluate language USE N - 4 2

% - 50 50

Mean - 1 .5

It can be seen from the table above that all the respondents replied that the lesson or any training

they received has made them ‘be aware of pragmatics as a branch of linguistics’. The mean of their

response was 3 which indicated that the lesson they received was ‘adequate’ to help them be aware

of pragmatics. They have again argued that the lesson they have received has fairly helped them

compare the pragmatic relationship between their mother tongue and that of English. The mean

score for the responses was 2 which mean that the lesson they received was ‘fairly adequate’ to

assist them compare the pragmatic relationship that exists between their L1 and the English

language. As confirmed by the teachers the instructions they received helped all or 100% of them,

‘learn norms of politeness in face to face interaction in English’. The mean of their responses

indicated that the lesson they have learned was ‘fairly adequate’ if not adequate.

Referring to the last three statements the teachers have opposite reactions as compared to the first

categories. The knowledge they had acquired about pragmatics was of no help to enable all or 100%

of them to deliver lesson on pragmatic aspect of the English language; to put it precisely in their

own response ‘inadequate’. Likewise, the lesson they received did not guarantee them to select

and/or design activities to teach pragmatic features of English language in the classroom. Similarly,

the lesson they received was ‘inadequate’ in that it was not of use by 50% of the teachers, to

construct tests to evaluate language use in the EFL setting where English is ‘spoken’ only in the

classroom.

In fact, 50% of the respondents have claimed that they selected activities to teach and constructed

tests to assess pragmatic knowledge. However, the mean score of their responses was one (1.5)

which means ‘inadequate’.

Challenges related to students textbooks

According to literatures textbooks can be either opportunity or challenge to teaching pragmatics in

EFL context. What do St. Joseph school teachers think of textbooks’ pragmatic contents?

Inadequate=1, fairly adequate=2 and adequate=3.

Challenges related to students textbooks

Statements

Teachers’ views about the pragmatic contents of their guide and

students’ textbooks:

Inad

equ

ate

Fai

rly

adeq

uat

e

Ad

equ

ate

a/explanation of pragmatic aspects of English

N 4 - -

Mean 1 - -

% 100 - -

b/activities that help learners learn to use language or

pragmatics N 2 4 -

Mean 1.5 1 -

% 50 50 -

c/how to teach pragmatic aspects of English language N 4 - -

Mean 1 - -

% 100 - -

d/how to test pragmatic aspect of English language N 4 - -

Mean 1 - -

% 100 - -

As shown in the table above, regarding the explanation of pragmatic aspects of English language

presented in textbooks or their guide, the teachers responded unanimously (100% of them) that the

contents are inadequate. Pertaining to the activities presented in the students’ textbook to help

learners learn to use language, 50% of the teachers contended ‘fairly adequate’ and the quarter part

of them argued ‘inadequate’. While with regards to the method of teaching and testing pragmatic

aspect of language, all the respondents with one voice said that the textbooks are ‘inadequate’.

Tables 9. Do the teachers include any lesson in their daily plan to teach pragmatics?

Table 9 represents that 75% of the participants affirmed that pragmatic lessons that they include in

their lesson plan were ‘fairly adequate’ and 25% of them acknowledged that the lesson they include

to supplement textbook is ‘inadequate’. In line with this item, there was subsequent question that

why teachers were not able to include pragmatic aspects of the English language in their lesson

plan. The responses are treated in the table below. The scales were assigned values as strongly

agree=5, agree=4, undecided=3, disagree=2, strongly disagree=1.

Item Adequate Fairly adequate Inadequate

Inclusion of lesson in lesson plan - 3=75% 1=25%

Table 10.Why teachers do not teach pragmatic aspect of English language?

Statements

Ratings

Str

ongly

agre

e

Agre

e

Undec

ided

Dis

agre

e

Str

ongly

dis

agre

e

Lack of extra time N - 3 - 1 -

% - 75 - 25 -

Limited knowledge of target culture and

language N 2 2 - - -

% 50 50 - - -

Confusion with which aspect of pragmatics to

cover N 1 2 1 - -

% 25 50 25 - -

Lack of training N 2 1 1 - -

% 50 25 25 - -

Insufficient materials N 1 3 - - -

% 25 75 - - -

Students’ language level N 2 2 - - -

% 50 50 - - -

Teachers’ language level N 4 - - - -

% 100 - - - -

Type of language assessment N 1 2 1 - -

% 25 50 25 - -

As shown in the table above, the three most common challenges the teachers reported that they are

encountering in teaching pragmatics were lack of training as stipulated by Bardovi-Harlig and

Mahan-Taylor, (2003:1) ‘Pragmatics does not receive the attention in language teacher education

programs that other area of language do’, large class sizes and time allotment. Students’ language

level and insufficient materials are the next most frequent difficulties for teachers to teach

pragmatics. In a similar way, all subjects (100%) commented that teacher’s language level could be

a factor that influenced pragmatic teaching. Finally, type of assessment, which in fact aimed at

passing exam, has significant impact up on the pragmatic lessons according to the teachers’

response. This is as Kasper (2000), puts forward, ‘Unless teachers also know about methods to

evaluate students' progress in pragmatics, they may be reluctant to focus on pragmatics in their

teaching.’

Table11.General Perception of Teachers about Opportunities for Learning Pragmatics in

EFL Context

Statements

Agreement scales/raters

Str

ongly

agre

e

Agre

e

Undec

ided

Dis

agre

e

Str

ongly

dis

agre

e

Teacher’s talk in the classroom is

important…to help learners acquire pragmatic

knowledge

N - 3 - 1 -

% 75 - 25 -

The current English textbook discusses and

identifies pragmatic areas of the students’

needs…

N - - 1 3 1

% - - 25 75 25

Methods and techniques of teaching CL and

pragmatics are supposed to be different

N - - 1 2 1

% - - 25 50 25

Teaching pragmatic competence is not as

important as teaching communicative ability

N - - - 3 1

% - - - 75 25

Teachers rarely bring in outside materials

related to pragmatics

N - 4 - - -

% - 100 - - -

Learning and teaching pragmatics from

textbooks is impossible

N - 1 1 1 1

% - 25 25 25 25

Textbooks are inadequate in presenting

authentic pragmatic samples, but teachers can

overcome shortcomings of textbooks

N 1 3 - - -

% 25 75 - - -

Textbooks cannot be counted as reliable

resources of pragmatic input

N - 2 - 2 -

% 50 50

It is shown in the table above that the idea of teacher’s talk in the classroom to help learners be

aware of language pragmatics was accepted by 75% of the participant, while 25% rejected it.

Pertaining to the statement, ‘Methods and techniques of teaching CL and pragmatics are supposed

to be different’, 25% of the teachers are in dilemma, and 50% of them, however ‘disagree’ and the

remaining 25% ‘strongly disagreed’ with the statement. In reference to the item stated ‘Teaching

pragmatic competence is not as important as teaching communicative ability’, 75% of the

participant teachers responded that they disagree with the statement and the remaining 25% of them

‘strongly disagree’. With regards to the statement ‘Teachers rarely bring in outside materials related

to pragmatics’, the respondents (100%) of them all together have witnessed they agree with the

statement. What was surprising to the researcher was that in table 7 the teachers responded that they

include pragmatic aspect of the English language in their daily lesson.

The sixth item aimed at eliciting teachers’ perception about the possibility of learning and teaching

pragmatics from the learners’ textbooks. 25% of them ‘strongly agreed, ‘agreed’, ‘undecided’,

‘disagree’ and ‘strongly disagreed’ with the statement respectively.

4.4. Classroom Discourse Observation

Analysis of classroom discourse was difficult because the manifestation of pragmatic features in the

classroom discourse was far short of existence as there was paucity of pragmatic elements in the

students’ textbooks. The lesson consisted of mostly teacher fronted activities and individual work.

This might be caused by the presence of the researcher that could be misunderstood by those

teachers that were trying to show off their English standing in front of the classroom all the way

through 45’ minutes. During the teacher-fronted activities, the teachers addressed the class as a

whole almost exclusively. When they addressed individual students, they did so in brief, using

formulaic language relating to the contents of the lesson i.e. grammar and reading passages. None

of the students asked a question during the presence of the researcher and they did not interact much

with each other except for brief comments which were not audible. The paucity of interaction in

English during non-teacher-fronted activities was somewhat common in the classes observed by the

researcher it was impossible to determine whether the students used English with one another. This

was because the researcher overheard some students diverting to Amharic and talking some other

business when he was sitting by some students during classroom discourse observation.

These observation tools were constructed in such a way that the observer only had to tick or cross

from a list when something happened in the class, e.g. “teacher uses board” (√), “students answer

individual questions” (x). The researcher had followed the following stages for doing observations.

First, the researcher decided the particular types of activities or behavior he wanted to observe.

Second, prepared a checklist or a record form to complete as he did his observation, or as soon as

possible afterwards. Thirdly, the researcher talked with the class teacher and got her/his permission;

explained what he wanted to do and negotiated what the teacher would get in return, e.g. some

feedback on the lesson’s effectiveness. Fourthly, he completed his observation and marked up his

checklist, took some time to reflect on the observations and finally, analyzed the result and came up

with the following results.

Table12. Classroom Observation Results

Key: DCT =discourse completion test, ODCT=oral discourse completion test, MDCT=multiple

choice discourse completion test or WDCT=written discourse completion test

Items category Subcategories Spotted Unspotted

Classroom Activities

1. drills √

2. translation √

3. discussion √

4. presentations √

5.conscious raising activities √

6.explicit instruction of pragmatics √

7.awareness-raising activities √

8.guided practice √

9. game √

10. role plays √

11. DCT, ODCT, MDCT or WDCT √

Participant

organization

1. teacher to students √

2. student to students or student to the

classroom

√

3.group work √

4. individual work √

Content or explicit

focus on language

1. form/grammar √

2. discourse √

3. usage √

4. use/function: complaining,

complimenting, refusing

√

Materials used 1. written √

2. audio √

3. visual √

4. stories √

5. dialogues √

6. scenarios/situations/authentic

language samples or models

√

Communicative

features

1. use of target language √

2. information gap √

3. sustained speech √

4. reaction to code or message √

5. incorporation of preceding utterances √

6. discourse initiation √

7. relative restriction of linguistic

form/semantic formula

√

Key: DCT-discourse completion test, MDCT-multiple choice discourse completion test,

WDCT-written discourse completion test.

Classroom discourse and textbook use were observed because the classroom is the ideal place for

teachers to help learners interpret language use. A classroom discussion of pragmatics is also a good

place to explore prior impressions of speakers (Bardovi-Harlig and Mahan-Taylor, 2003:38). The

aim of observing the classroom activities was to spotlight on turn-taking behavior of students and

teachers, cross-cultural comparisons in the use of communicative acts, treatment of learners’

pragmatic errors, the nature of linguistic input provided by the teachers, style shifting in the

classroom, direct or indirect influence of the teachers and techniques that are used to address

pragmatics in the classrooms.

As to the organization of the participants, the aim was to see whether the teacher working with the

whole class and/or individual students, whether the students were divided into groups or were

engaged in individual seat work, or if they were engaged in group work, how was it organized etc.

because as indicated in many literatures group work is considered to be an important factor in the

development of fluency skills and communicative skills. Observation results revealed that students

were typically involved in whole-class instruction with rare interaction with their teacher or other

students. Students were just watching or listening to the teachers. The teachers typically focused on

the content of the task or assignment, responded to students' signals, communicated the task's

procedures, and checked students' work.

As it can be seen from the table, all of the teachers never use any scenarios or situations to activate

students’ pragmatic awareness by explaining the meaning of different language functions or uses.

Beside this they never use any role-play activities to observe students’ pragmatic competence or

failure. This might be due to huge number of students that ranges from 62 to 65 in a classroom. The

researcher never observed the teachers asking their students to collect pragmatics information from

outside the classroom from TV, movies, magazines, novels, etc. that are either naturally occurring

or closer to authentic language use. As far as the researcher’s classroom observation is concerned,

no one of the teachers happened to include pragmatic topics such as refusing, thanking, apologizing,

complaining, complimenting, in their lesson.

With reference to materials used, the aim was to make a note of authentic/unauthentic materials that

stimulate real-life communicative situations. Many advocates of the communicative approach have

claimed that authentic materials are essential in order to prepare students for the kinds of discourse

they will encounter outside the classroom. Nevertheless, no teacher was found to use any additional

materials to help learners with the theme of lessons delivered, except textbook contents.

Although some teachers claimed in the questionnaire that the pragmatic lesson they brought into the

classroom from outside world was ‘fairly adequate’, no one of them found to have included

pragmatics related issues; rather they were heavily depending on the contents of the textbooks all

the way through while the researcher was observing their behavior in the classroom. To further find

out about the contradictions, the researcher talked to those teachers informally after the classroom

sessions as to why they were not bringing in outside materials. They responded that there were no

materials that they could make use of for the same purposes and on the other hand they were

bringing materials related to grammar and vocabulary teaching.

4.5. MDCT for Students

Question# 3. Do students choose appropriate language based on a provided situation/context?

Research on the acquisition of communicative competence suggests that a complex interplay of

psychological, affective and sociobiographical variables determine the levels of proficiency reached

by language learners and users (Dewaele, 2007:141).The focus in this section of the present study

was on self-perceived pragmatic proficiency in English. It is a judgment that we are all forced to

make at some point. Before distributing MDCT, rubrics were administered to the participant

students in order to assess their self-perceived competence so as to check the result against that of

what they would score in MDCT. In order to elicit learners’ perceived language skills proficiency,

the researcher had included an item so that learners act up on it in this regards. Hence, learners rated

their perceived proficiency using the rating scales: very good=(4), good=(3), fair=(2), and poor=(1).

Table 13.Learners’ Language Skills Proficiency Background

Skills Proficiency

Very good Good Fair Poor Total

Speaking N 29 90 56 8 100

% 16 50 30 4 100

Mean 0.158 0.491 0.30 0.04 0.98

Listening N 56 92 21 14 100

% 30 50 11 5 100

Mean 0.30 0.50 0.11 0.076 0.98

Reading N 87 74 22 - 100

% 48 40 12 - 100

Mean 0.48 0.40 0.12 - 1

Writing N 74 67 31 11 100

% 40 36 16 6 100

Mean 0.40 0.366 0.169 0.06 0.98

In view of the above table, almost a half (50%) of the respondents pointed out that their proficiency

in speaking skills is ‘good’; and 30% of them rated their speaking skills proficiency as ‘fair’. On the

other hand, very few of them (4%) responded that their speaking skills proficiency is ‘poor’. Those

who opted for the scale ‘very good’ accounted for about 16%. In relation to the listening skills 30%,

50%, 11% and 5% of the participants indicated that their perceived proficiency is ‘very good’,

‘good’, ‘fair’ and ‘poor’ correspondingly. With regards to the reading skills, 48% of the subjects

inclined to say that their perceived proficiency is ‘very good’ at reading and 40% of them on the

other hand, maintained that their perceived proficiency is ‘good’. The rest 12% of them indicated

that their reading proficiency is ‘fair’. No one of them rated their reading proficiency as ‘poor’.

With respect to the writing skills, those who selected the scale ‘very good’ were about 40% of the

sample; and 36% of them opted for the scale ‘good’ in that order. The rest 16% and 6% of the

participants selected ‘fair’ and ‘poor’ respectively.

Based on the data on hand, it is fairly possible to argue that students were ‘good’ at speaking and

listening; and ‘very good’ at reading and writing respectively. In order to elicit sorts of

opportunities learners had, the researcher devised and included one item in the questionnaire

administered to them. The respondents were asked to put their responses using the following scales:

Frequently =4, sometimes =3, rarely =2, no chance =1.

Table 14.Exposure to the English Language outside the Classroom

Frequently Sometimes Rarely No

chance

Total

Use of English with English

speakers/natives f 28 90 47 18 183

% 15 49 25.6 9.8 100

Watching films in English

without translation. f 119 37 16 11 183

% 65 20 8.7 6 100

Reading in English:

magazines, literature,

academic books

f 37 87 50 9 183

% 20 47 27 4.9 100

Although it is difficult to attribute the when and how, based on the above data 49% of the subjects

pointed out that they ‘sometimes’ used English language with the natives. Whereas, 15% of them

claimed that they frequently use English language with the English speakers; and 25 % of them

have rare contact with the English speakers. The remaining 9.8% of the respondents replied that

they have no chance to use English language with the English speakers.

Researches reveal that people who take an active approach to learning and who seek out chances to

use the language are much more likely to succeed than those who don't. The best kind of language

practice involves one in expressing, interpreting and negotiating meaning with proficient language

users. In meaningful interaction, whether it takes place in speech or in writing, one experiences the

forms of the language in a context that helps her to understand how to use them appropriately.

In line with the above question, the participants were also asked whether they watch films in

English that were not translated into local languages. Accordingly, 65% of them responded that they

frequently watch films without translation; 20% of them replied they watch films without

translation ‘sometimes’; and 8% of them ‘rarely’ watch films without translation and 6% of them

indicated that they have no chance to watch any films in English.

The participants were also asked whether they read any literary or nonliterary works produced in

English. In their response to the question, it was observed that 20% of them ‘frequently’ read

magazines, books, etc. and 47% of them replied that they ‘sometimes’ read such materials in

English. The remaining 27% and 4% of them showed that they ‘rarely’ read and have ‘no chance’ to

read such materials in English respectively.

On the basis of the data presented above, it is safely deducible that most of the participant students

have no frequent chance/exposure to the target language sources: human and material. This in turn

might hamper the development of learners’ pragmatic and linguistic competence. Thence, the

burden is on the teachers shoulder to supply the students with materials that can compensate

situations outside classroom.

4.6. Learners’ Self-perceived Communication Competence

The self-perceived communicative competence (SPCC) rubrics was developed to find out about

participants (students’) perception of their own competence in different communication contexts

and given different types of receivers. The scale was intended to let the respondents define their

own communication competence. Since people make decisions with regard to communication (for

example, whether they will even engage in it), it is their own perception that is important, and not

that of an outside observer. It is important that readers of this measure recognize that this is not a

measure of actual communication competence; it is a measure of perceived competence. Knowledge

of communication strategies empowers individuals to communicate, express themselves, perform

many different functions, and attain satisfactory outcome. It was just to test learners’ beliefs with

respect to practicing English anytime anywhere so as to be able to use the language effectively. It is

believed that practice makes perfect in all aspects of language including nonlinguistic features.

In order to solicit how learners perceive their communicative competence, the following rubrics was

designed and distributed to them before the discourse completion test was administered. Some items

were taken from 11th

grade English textbook (p. 42-43 and 88).The rubrics were made of five

models of communicative competence along with description: sociocultural competence, discourse

competence, strategic competence, grammatical competence, and pragmatic competence. The last

one in fact took the lion’s share for the main reason that the research’s theme revolved around it.

The likert scale was also part of the rubrics along with values attached to each description-strongly

agree=5, agree = 4 neither agree nor disagree=3, disagree=2, and strongly disagree=1. The mean

score were rounded to the nearest mathematical values.

Table 15.Learners’ Self-perceived Sociolinguistic Competence

Sociolinguistic Competence

Items Rating Values Total Mean

Score

5 4 3 2 1

1 Speaking English can help me interact with

native speakers. f 64 75 15 19 10 183 3.86

% 34.9 40.9 8.2 10.4 5.5 100

2 Studying English is important because it can

help me make friends who speak English. f 55 48 44 20 16 183 3.51

% 30. 26.2 24. 10.9 8.7 100

3 Learning English is important because it will

broaden my world view. f 89 60 25 8 1 183 4.23

% 48.6 32.8 13.7 4.4 .5 100

4 If I speak English well, I can travel around the

world without language barriers. f 31 54 60 30 7 183 3.

% 16.9 29.5 32.8 16.4 3.8 100

5 I want to do well in English because I want to

show my ability to my parents/ teachers/

friends.

f 35 40 45 52 11 183 3.17

% 19.1 21.9 24.6 28.4 6 100

6 I want to improve my English because most

of my friends speak English very well. f 18 32 50 51 32 183 2.71

% 9.8 17.5 27.3 27.8 17.5 100

7 I want to improve my English in order to

understand foreign cultures. f 43 72 40 16 12 183 3.62

% 23.5 39.3 21.9 8.7 6.6 100

8 It is important to speak appropriate English in

different social contexts. f 34 70 55 16 8 183 3.56

% 18.6 38.2 30 8.7 4.4 100

9 I think learning English will be more effective f 82 49 29 13 10 183 3.97

if we have group discussion with classmates

during the class. % 44.8 26.8 15.8 7.1 5.5 100

10 Whenever I have communication breakdown

in conversations with native speakers, I will

try to use verbal or non-verbal messages to

bridge the gap.

f 14 69 68 24 8 183 3.28

% 7.7 37.7 37.2 13 4.4 100

In relation to the first item, under the first criteria (sociolinguistic competence), 35% of the subjects

replied that they ‘strongly agree’, 41% of them claimed that they ‘agree’, 8.2% of them were

indifferent meaning they ‘neither agree nor disagree’, 10% of them responded that they ‘disagree’

and the last 5.4% of them singled out the likert scale ‘ strongly disagree’. The mean score of their

response was 3.87=4 [agree].

Regarding the second statement “studying English is important because it can help me make friends

who speak English”, 30% of the subjects ‘strongly agreed’ with the statement, 26.2% selected

‘agree’, 24% of them ‘neither agreed nor disagreed’ with the statement, 10.92% ‘disagreed’, and the

remaining 8.74% opted for ‘strongly disagree’. Nevertheless, the grand mean of their responses was

3.55; and when rounded off to the nearest value it means ‘agree’. In other words most of the

respondents agreed with the statement.

Regarding the statement “If I speak English well, I can travel around the world without language

barriers”, 16.9% have a strong belief, 29.5% replied they ‘agree’, 32’8% of them ‘neither agreed

nor disagreed’,16.4% of them opted for the scale ‘disagree’ and the remaining 3.8%, have weak

belief of the statement. The mean score for the responses was 3.37= (indifference).

For the statement “I want to improve my English in order to understand English speakers’ cultures”

23.5% of the participants replied they ‘strongly disagree”, 39.3% responded they ‘agree’, 21.9% of

them claimed they ‘neither agree nor disagree’ and 6.6% of them pointed out they ‘strongly

disagree’ with the statement. In spite of this, the mean score of all likert scales resulted in 3.62=4,

which implied that majority have agreed with the statement.

The next statement was “I think different social contexts may require me using different but

appropriate English”. As noted in the table above, 19% of the subjects ‘strongly agreed’, 38.3%

‘agreed’, 30% reserved from having a say (meaning they neither agreed nor disagreed), 8.7%

disagreed and 4.3% of them ‘strongly disagreed’ with the statement. However, the grand mean of

their response was 3.56=4(agree).

The next category was discourse competence. This item in fact was designed to see how learners

rate their ability to produce coherent idea in written or spoken English or to see the extent to which

learners perceived their discourse competence in using discourse markers to:

o Initiate discourse,

o Make a boundary in discourse (shift/partial shift in topic),

o Preface a response or a reaction,

o Fill a gap or dallying tactic,

o Hold the floor,

o Effect an interaction or sharing between the speaker and the hearer,

o Bracket the discourse either cataphorically or anaphorically,

o Make either foregrounded or backgrounded information.

Table 16. Learners’ Self-perceived Discourse Competence

Discourse Competence Total Mean

Score

1 I usually practice many grammar drills in

order to improve my English. f 49 61 50 16 7 183 3.5

% 26.8 33.3 27.3 8.7 3.8 100

2 I will ask myself to express my thoughts in a

comprehensive and correct manner in

English.

f 38 69 52 18 6 183 3.58

% 20.7 37.7 28.4 9.8 3 100

3 I perceive that I can express my ideas

naturally in spoken English. f 27 65 50 28 13 183 3.33

% 14.8 35.5 27.3 15.3 7 100

4 I will try to talk to native speakers to

strengthen my spoken English. f 47 64 36 25 11 183 3.59

% 25.6 34.9 19.7 13.7 6 100

5 I perceive that I feel more comfortable to

express my ideas in written English. f 45 58 38 29 13 183 3.48

% 24.6 31.7 20.8 15.8 7 100

6 I will read different grammar books written

by different authors to improve my

grammatical competence.

f 37 57 39 28 22 183 3.29

% 20.2 31.1 21.3 15.3 12 100

7 Students are expected to be able to use

extended utterances where appropriate f 48 62 38 26 9 183 3.59

% 26.2 33.9 20.8 14.2 4.9 100

8 Students need to have the ability to maintain

coherent flow of language over several

utterances

f 34 70 55 16 8 183 3.56

% 18.6 38.2 30 8.7 4.4 100

Under discourse competence, students reacted to statement, “I will ask myself to express my

thoughts in a comprehensive and correct manner in English” in different ways. For instance, 20.7%

of the subjects claimed that they ‘strongly agree’, 37.7% showed that they ‘agree’, 28.4% of them

pointed out they ‘neither agree nor disagree’ or they are in favor of no view, 9.8% o of them

preferred ‘disagree’ and the last 3% contended they ‘strongly disagree’ with the statement. The sum

total of their mean 3.95=4(agree), that is the majority of the students ask themselves to express their

thoughts in a comprehensive and correct manner in English.

Students were also asked, under discourse competence item 3 to rate their self-perceived

competence as in the following statement. “I perceive that I can express my ideas naturally in

spoken English”. This was intended to solicit views of the subjects about their own flow of idea

when they try to speak in English. Accordingly, 14.75%, 35.5%, 27.3%, 15.3% and 7% of the

subjects replied they ‘strongly agree’, ‘agree’, ‘neither agree nor disagree’, ‘disagree’ and ‘strongly

disagree’ respectively. The mean score showed that the majority of the respondents ‘neither agree

nor disagree’ with the statement. They were not sure as to whether their language naturally flows

when they write or speak or not.

Subsequent to the discourse competence, learners rated their self-perceived pragmatic competence.

Like in the other cases, students rated their self-perceived competence in relation to the pragmatic

competence as well. Their responses frequency and percentile as well as the mean score were

presented in the separate table below.

Table 17. Learners’ Self-perceived Pragmatic Competence

Pragmatic Competence Total Mean

Score

1 I know what to say, when to say and how to

say and rule of talking when talking with

other people in English

f 24 60 64 17 18 183 3.23

% 13.1 32.7 34.9 9.2 9.8 100

2 I pay special attention when I make requests f 47 69 38 21 8 183 3.66

% 25.6 37.7 20.7 11.4 4.3 100

3 I pay special attention to other people

making requests f 47 65 45 17 9 183 3.65

% 25.6 35.5 24.5 9.2 4.9 100

4 I pay special attention to other people when I

refuse f 36 63 54 16 14 183 3.47

% 19.6 34.4 29.5 8.7 7.6 100

5 I pay attention to other people’s feeling,

status and age when I complain f 52 67 44 14 6 183 3.78

% 28.4 36.6 24 7.6 3.2 100

6 I know when I should use modal verbs such

as can, could, would, or may when

apologizing, requesting, refusing, thanking,

inviting, suggesting ,etc.

f 60 71 34 8 10 183 3.86

% 32.8 38.7 18.5 4.3 5.4 100

7 I know taking turns in conversation f 44 77 44 11 7 183 3.75

% 24 42 24 6 3.8 100

8 I know how to do rephrasing when

misunderstood f 27 68 59 20 9 183 3.42

% 14.8 37 32.2 10.9 4.9 100

9 I have the skill as to how to use verbal and

nonverbal signals f 15 60 71 24 13 183 3.19

% 8 32.7 38.7 13.1 7 100

10 I know how close to stand to someone when

speaking f 39 65 49 18 12 183 3.53

% 21.3 35.5 26.7 9.8 6.5 100

11 I have the skills as to how to use facial

expressions and eye contact f 35 74 47 16 11 183 3.55

% 19 40.4 25.6 8.7 6 100

12 I know the giving background information to

unfamiliar listener will help f 34 59 60 24 6 183 3.48

% 18.6 32.2 32.8 13.1 3.3 100

13 I know speaking in a classroom is different

from speaking on a playground f 72 63 24 14 10 183 3.92

% 39.3 34.4 13.1 7.6 5.4 100

14 I know how to address and talk to people

whose age and status are different from mine f 58 64 32 16 13 183 3.73

% 31.6 34.9 17.4 8.7 7 100

Under the pragmatic competence, various items were posed to the subjects so as to grasp the general

pictures of their self-perceived competence. Language is not only a means of teaching but it is a

means of learning as well. Therefore, opportunities should be given to students, particularly at the

secondary schools levels, to relate school work to the skills required in employment and adult life.

Concerning this, a statement that was posed to the subjects was ‘whether they are aware of what to

say when and how to say; and whether they think that they have sufficient knowledge about rules of

turn taking when talking to others in English.’ Then, 13.1% replied that they ‘strongly agree’,

32.7% responded that they ‘ agree’ 34.9% of them contended they ‘neither agree nor disagree’,

9.2% of them claimed that they ‘disagree’ and the rest 9.8% said that they ‘strongly disagree’ with

the statement. The mean score of their responses was 3.23, which means ‘the majority of the

respondents ‘neither agree nor disagree’ with the statement. This implies that they neither know

what to say, when to say, how to say nor rules of talking to other people in English.

In the second statement under pragmatic competence which goes “I pay special attention when I

make requests”, 25.6% of the subjects ‘strongly agreed’ that they pay special attention when they

make requests, while 37.7% preferred ‘agree’, 20.7% of them voted for ‘neither agree nor disagree’,

11.4% of them indicated that they ‘disagree’, and 4.3% of them said that they ‘strongly disagree’

with the statement that was posed to see their awareness about people’s social status, relation they

have with me, power, age, etc. when they make requests.

With respect to the statement “I pay special attention to other people’s requests”, those participants

who replied ‘strongly agree’ were about 25.6%, those who said ‘agree’ were around 35.5%, those

who replied ‘neither agree nor disagree’ accounted for 24.5%, while 9.2% of them selected

‘disagree’ and the 4.9% responded they ‘strongly disagree’ with the statement. The mean score was

3.65 closer to likert scale ‘agree’.

“I pay special attention to other people’s status, age, sex, power, etc. when I refuse”, was the fourth

statement that was presented to the subjects. Consequently, 19.6% of them replied ‘strongly agree’

34.4% of them ‘disagreed’ 29.5% of them said they ‘neither disagree nor disagree’ whereas, 8.7%

‘disagreed’, and the remaining 7.6% of them selected ‘strongly disagree’. The mean score was 3.47

which means ‘neither agree nor disagree’.

Concerning, the statement “I pay attention to other people’s feeling, status and age when I

complain”, 28.4 of the participants responded ‘strongly agree’ 36.6% of them ‘agreed’, while 24%

of them said ‘neither agree nor disagree’, 7.6% of them replied ‘disagree’ and the rest 3.2% of them

‘strongly disagreed’ with the statement. The mean score of their responses was 3.78 which imply

that the majority ‘neither agree nor disagree’ with the statement.

For some, milder example of impoliteness is that language speakers or EFL learners may not

understand the differences of how and when to use such modals as ‘can’ and ‘could’ versus the

conditional ‘would’; the latter of which carries a more imperative meaning than the two modals in

respect to making requests (Jung in Dash, 2004). In connection to this “I know when I should use

modal verbs such as can, could, would, or may when apologizing, requesting, refusing, inviting,

suggesting, etc.” was one of the statements forwarded to the subjects. As a result, 32.78% of them

said they ‘strongly agree’, 38.7% of them ‘agreed’, 18.5% of them ‘neither agreed nor disagreed’,

4.3% of them ‘disagreed’, and 5.4% of them ‘strongly disagreed’ with the statement. The score of

their mean was 3.86.

The other item was “I know how to take turns in English conversations”. Related to this statement,

24% of the of the respondents replied ‘strongly disagree’, 42% of them said they ‘agree’, 24% of

them indicated they ‘neither agree nor disagree’, 6% of them claimed they ‘disagree’, and 3.8% of

them ‘strongly disagreed’. The mean score is 2.76 which implied disagreement.

The other statement presented to the subjects was “I know how to do rephrasing when

misunderstood in English”. Pertaining to this statement, 14.8% of them replied ‘strongly agree’,

37% responded ‘agree’, 32.2% of them answered ‘neither agree nor disagree’, while the rest 10.9%

and 7% responded ‘disagree’ and ‘strongly disagree’ respectively. The mean score was 3.42 which

imply the majority of the respondents ‘neither agree nor disagree’ with the statement.

Speech acts or communicative acts (Celce- Murcia, 2007) are also called social acts which can be

judged as appropriate and/or inappropriate according to specific and secrete rules of communication

in a given context, culture, or norm. These feature of language have also linguistic formula that

interlocutors are expected to use based on a particular norm, culture, or general social context.

In this research, learners were also asked to rate the difficulty level of some communicative acts as

given in the table below. At the end of the question of difficulty level, open ended question

followed with the secondary intention to be aware of the language used by the students in talking

about the issue of difficulty. The communicative acts were randomly ordered and the

subjects/students were simply requested to scale their perceived difficulty level of individual acts.

VD: very difficult D: difficult A: average E: easy VE: very easy.

Table 18.Scaling the difficulty Level of Communicative Acts

Rating scales

Speech acts VD % D % A % E % VE %

Invitations 34 18.5 47 25.6 42 22.9 34 18.5 26 14.2

Refusals 62 33.8 37 20 33 18 32 17.4 19 10

Apologies 29 15.8 33 18 29 15.8 47 25.6 45 24.5

Requests 31 16.9 36 19.6 48 26.2 47 25.6 21 11.4

Commands 33 18 46 25.1 49 26.7 36 19.6 19 10.3

Compliments 46 25 58 31.6 38 20.7 28 15.3 13 7

Suggestions 36 19.6 48 26.2 49 26.7 38 20.7 12 6.5

Giving advice 42 22.9 29 15.8 48 26.2 28 15.3 36 19.6

Thanking 15 8.1 20 10.9 21 11.4 23 12.5 104 56.8

Complaints 64 34.9 44 24 33 18 22 12 20 10.9

As it can be seen from the above table, 18.5%, 26.6%, 22.9%, 18.5% and 14.5% of the participants

replied that making invitation in English is very difficult, difficult, average, easy and very easy for

them respectively. To put this in a comparative way, the larger number, i.e. 26.6% took the lion’s

share implying that invitation in English is ‘difficult’ for the participants. In a similar pattern, as it

can be read from the data that giving refusals in English is ‘very difficult’ for 33.8%, difficult for

20%, average for 18% easy for 17.4 and very easy for the 10% of the subjects correspondingly. It is

therefore, vivid that giving refusals in English is ‘very easy’ for only few, i.e. 10% of the

participants.

In relation to the communicative act of apology, the presented data indicated that it is ‘very

difficult’ to apologize in English for 15.8%, ‘difficult’ for 18%, ‘average’ for 15.8%, ‘easy’ for

26.6% and ‘very easy’ for 24.5% of the participants in that order. Although the data did not tell how

apology is easy, the majority, i.e. 25.6% of the respondents witnessed that apologizing in English is

‘easy’. The researcher has a reservation that the data needed further verifications as to whether the

participants use appropriate semantic formula when/where they are supposed to apologize.

Nevertheless, the majority of participants were not confident enough to boldly claim that giving

apology in English is ‘very easy’.

As to the communicative act of request, only 11.4% of the subjects claimed that it is ‘easy’ to make

requests in English. Whereas, 16.9% of them responded that making requests in English is ‘very

difficult’. The remaining 19.6%, 26.6% and 25.6% of them pointed out that making request in

English is ‘difficult’, ‘average’ and ‘easy’ correspondingly.

It is evident from the table that about 90% of the sample participants rated ‘making commands in

English’ as ‘very difficult’, and 18% of them said ‘difficult’, 25% of them replied ‘average’ and

(19%) of them responded ‘easy’. The remaining 10.3% of them chosen the likert scale ‘very easy’.

Concerning compliments, 25% of the respondents pointed out giving compliments in English is

‘very difficult’ and 31% of them acknowledged that giving compliments in English is ‘difficult’ for

them. The remaining 20.7%, 15.3% and 7% of them asserted that it is ‘average’, ‘easy’ and ‘very

easy’ for them to give compliments in English in that order.

In expression of gratitude, the speaker thanks the hearer for something he or she is doing, or has

done. By thanking the hearer, the speaker expresses his or her feelings of indebtedness as well as

that of appreciation. Learners of English as a foreign language need to have this skill as language

users. It is apparent that this communicative act was rated as ‘very easy’ by almost more than half

of the respondents that accounted for 56.8% and 8.1% of them rated as ‘very difficult’ to express

gratitude in English.

Overall it is perceptible from the data presented above here that the participants, if not all, almost

the majority of them affirmed that those communicative acts are moderately difficult for them.

The majority of the participants (34.9%) rated that complaining in English is ‘very difficult’. And

yet 24% of them confirmed that complaining in English is ‘difficult’. The other 18%, 12% and

10.9% of the respondents rated their complaining skill as ‘average’, ‘easy’ and ‘very easy’

respectively.

It is commonly believed that the goal of language learning is communication. The goal of language

teaching is therefore teaching students to communicate in the language they are learning so that they

can use it successfully to perform a variety of functions. Learning will take place consciously if

students perceive the need for it. That need or gap can be observed from these data in relation to

various language functions. In the majority of the cases, participants rated those communicative acts

(functions) such as invitations, refusal, requests, apologies, commands, compliments, complaints,

and giving advices-as difficult. If students have only learned English to pass an examination, then

the language they might have acquired is probably transitional and focused on that need for the test.

As to why they have rated those communicative acts the way they have rated them, participants

have forwarded the following justifications. Note that the words of the participants were typed

exactly the way they were written down.

‘because of the English language very hard language’

‘Because some of them are not giving tention in our society so we don’t use them frequntly.

That’s why!’

‘b/c of my experience that when I mate foreign speakers those actions are very difficult to

me’

‘sometime those kinds of action is faced when I go one step further in my life and those

makes me stressed to reply on English’

‘giving advice is more difficult to me b/c I don’t have much words to give advice or I’m not

naturally have more vocabulary’

‘Thanking someone is easy to me b/c I learnt starting from Grade 0 OR that is the easiest

word from all other things’

‘Because I didn’t got most of the chance to try them or practice them in real’

‘b/c it is so complicated’

‘because I amn’t speaking always’

‘because I don’t speak them frequntly’

‘I may be run out of vocabulary for complaints.’

‘b/c it need high skill in speaking’

‘except refuzing most actions are not hard to do’

‘actually, All of them are not much difficult for me’

‘because English is not mother tang language of mine and I’m not native for English’

‘because when I say Apologies I feel that I make my self Inferior but if I Invite some one I

am happy with that’

‘I must be polite so it is difficult for me to talk using polite words’

‘b/c I feel it is difficult’

‘it is difficult b/c you don’t know which is difficult to people what it is easy for you to say

things by your own- you think that it may make them fell bad’

‘for me giving advise is most difficult if it’s personal and thanking is not difficult for me’

‘b/c the expression that I indicate as a least difficult are more familiar for me and I used

them always the most difficult one are not familiar for me’

Because sometimes I forget some words I don’t have enough vocabularies to express my

feelings’

‘b/c those are the difficulties that I get when I speak English with others’

‘because I use them rarely and some of them frequently’

‘I just said that because those things are even hard in Amharic.’

‘b/c of that I knew that from my life cycle for example I have difficult situation in complaints’

‘b/c the words are not usually used in social or in other places that is why’ - thank you’

‘b/c they need more explanation and experience on it’

‘b/c things are difficult when we talk in English’

‘b/c I have no enough vocabulary to express my feeling’

‘because I have less developed English speaking ability so I can’t talk to much English’

‘thanking someone is the easiest thing b/c thanking people for their help is the right thing’

‘b/c I didn’t practice such kind of things before and the light ones are the things I practice

most times and see on films’

In spite of the fact that these statements are ungrammatical, there are some facts as one reads all the

way through the statements. In connection to this, Amlaku (2010) argues ‘English in Ethiopia is a

medium of instruction from secondary school through higher education but the learners’ proficiency

remains always poor and the effectiveness of English language teaching remains always

questionable, despite the efforts being undertaken by the Ethiopian government and concerned

institutions’ (p.10).

Students affirmed that the English language itself is difficult for them. There are no such language

aspects as requesting, complaining, compliment, apologizing, etc. in their day to day social

language practices. Using these pragmatic aspects demanded them of some sort of efforts. Students

were not familiar with those language aspects, and those aspects of language did not receive enough

attention in the learning and teaching process. However, Cenoz, (2007:7) in other section has

argued that being central to language use, and language learning, pragmatic issues must be

addressed in language classroom, because English is mainly used in the classroom and EFL learners

thus have significantly fewer opportunities to engage in English based communications outside the

classroom. Therefore, English classroom becomes the central site for their development of

pragmatic competence.

4.7. MDCT Scores and Descriptions

There are six types of methods for pragmatic knowledge assessment that so far have been identified

by researchers according to Jianda, (2006), i.e., the Written Discourse Completion Tasks (WDCT),

Multiple-Choice Discourse Completion Tasks (MDCT), Oral Discourse Completion Tasks (ODCT),

Discourse Role Play Talks (DRPT), Discourse Self- Assessment Talks (DSAT) and Role-Play self-

assessments (RPSA).

DCTs are used to elicit data by giving speakers scenarios that describe a situation and having

speakers write down or role-play what they would say in that situation (Ishihara and Cohen, 2010).

The MDCTs used for this study consisted of 20 situations with their respective choices in which

learners have to choose socially acceptable language with an ideal interlocutor. The situations

varied based on the relative power of the two people, their social distance, and the degree of

imposition created by the intent (action). The DCT was chosen as the data elicitation tool because it

was the most expedient way to collect the relatively large amount of data. There were three to four

months between the pre- and posttest. The pretest format was WDCT.

MDCT was chosen for many reasons. It is easy to administer because of using paper-and-pencil

format. MDCT allows the researcher to control features of the situation. MDCT can quickly gather

large amounts of data in a short time. MDCT can make it easy to statistically compare responses

from different groups without any need for transcription. However, written DCT has limitations.

For example, written DCT data do not show the interactional facets of a speech event. Written DCT

is only written receptive and productive language and it does not encourage oral production or self-

reflection. Furthermore, written DCT is difficult to score because it requires recruiting, training,

scheduling, and paying raters (Brown, 2001). This problem could be solved if the design was

systematic and rigorous.

All the students who took part in the research were given a sociolinguistic test. This test was

devised to measure degrees of politeness, formality, appropriateness, and register variation in the

spoken mode. For each item, a sociocultural context was provided, and the participants needed to

choose from a list of four or five alternatives the most appropriate way to respond to that particular

situation representing the appropriate use of language based on the NS perspective and the

remaining options were distracters. The scoring for this test was based on native-speaker responses

to the items. A sample question is as follows:

You are having dinner with your friend's family. The food that your friend's mother has prepared is

delicious, and you want some more. You've decided to say something in order to get some more.

Which of the following, do you think, is the most appropriate?

A."You are a great cook."

B."Please give me more food."

C."This food sure is delicious."

D."Could I have some more?"

Therefore, both quantitative and qualitative data were involved. The quantitative data were

collected through MDCT; while the qualitative data were obtained through the analysis of the

responses of MDCT.

In order to eliminate the pretest effect on the test results, the test format was changed from open

ended to multiple choice items and the tests were administered to all learners at the same time and

collected back in the same time. The time allotted for the test was 35 minutes. Respondents did it

independently without discussion with their classmates and they were encouraged to ask any

questions if they were not clear with the vocabulary or expression. After the participants submitted

the questionnaire, the researcher checked the answers to avoid any unchecked or not unanswered

responses. If it did happen, the students would be required to complete them again.

The scores were tabulated and tallied and finally calculated so as to interpret them. Mean and

percentile for the correct answer and other distracters were calculated in the following table.

Immediately after the participants finished doing the test, there was a section of the question paper

that required them to indicate what was/were the sources of their current pragmatic knowledge.

Personal relationships between the interlocutors, their level of imposing rank, their power,

specifically their age, gender, and social distance between interlocutors were point of pragmatic

parameters when designing the MDCT.

Table 19. MDCT Score Description

Options for MDCT

Scenarios A B C D E F Total

Situation 1

f 96 28 26 25 8 183

Mean .52 0.15 .14 .136 .04 .98

% 52 15 14 13.3 4 100

Situation 2 f 9 30 31 105 8 183

Mean .05 .163 .169 .57 .04 .99

% 5 16.3 16.9 57 4 100

Situation 3 f 85 14 61 13 10 183

Mean .46 .08 .33 .07 .05 .99

% 46 8 33 7 5 100

Situation 4

f 12 54 86 16 9 6 183

Mean .07 .29 .46 .08 .049 .03 .95

% 7 29 46 8 4.9 100

Situation 5 f 64 82 12 14 10 183

Mean .34 .44 .065 .076 .05 .97

% 34 44 6.5 7.6 5 100

Situation 6

f 90 53 15 13 12 183

Mean .49 .28 .08 .07 .065 .98

% 49 28 8 7 6.5 100

Situation 7 f 138 13 12 8 11 183

With reference to the first situation, 52% of the examinees selected the correct answer (A). The

remaining sum total of them i.e. 48% were distracted. The implication is that their pragmatic

awareness is questionable. The deviation from the mean score is 0.042. Relating to the second

Mean .75 .07 .065 .043 .06 .98

% 75 7 6.5 4.3 6 100

Situation 8

f 13 21 130 19 - - 183

Mean .07 0.114 .71 .103 - - .99

% 7 11.4 71 10.3 - - 100

Situation 9 f 9 116 18 27 11 - 183 Mean .049 .633 .098 .147 .06 - .97

% 4.9 63.3 9.8 14.7 6 - 100

Situation 10

f 30 40 27 73 13 - 183

Mean .163 .218 .147 .398 .07 - .99

% 16.3 21.8 14.7 39.8 7 - 100

Situation 11

f 32 31 26 86 8 - 183

Mean .174 .169 .142 .469 .043 - .99

% 17.4 16.9 14.2 46.9 4.3 - 100

Situation 12

f 12 32 68 40 27 4 183

Mean .065 .174 .371 .218 .147 .021 .99

% 6.5 17.4 37.2 21.8 14.7 2.1 100

Situation 13

f 24 30 65 43 21 - 183

Mean .131 .163 .355 .234 .114 - .99

% 13.1 16.3 35.5 23.4 11.4 - 100

Situation 14 f 7 15 123 22 16 - 183 Mean .038 .08 .672 .12 .087 - .98

% 3.8 8 67.2 12 8.7 - 100

Situation 15

f 25 98 21 26 13 - 183

Mean .136 .535 .114 .142 .07 - .98

% 13.6 53.5 11.4 14.2 7 - 100

Situation 16

f 24 41 33 66 19 - 183

Mean .13 .224 .18 .36 .103 - .99

% 13 22.4 18 36 10.3 - 100

Situation 17 f 9 21 132 21 - - 183

Mean .049 .114 .72 .114 - - .98

% 49 11.4 72 11.4 - - 100

Situation 18

f 25 29 41 88 - - 183 Mean .136 .158 .224 .48 - - .98

% 13.6 15.8 22.4 4.8 - - 100

Situation 19

f 29 20 34 100 - - 183

Mean .158 .109 .185 .546 - - .97

% 15.8 10.9 18.5 54.6 - - 100

Situation 20

f 118 14 20 31 - - 183 Mean .644 .076 .109 .169 - - .97

% 64.4 7.6 10.9 16.9 - - 100

question, 43% of the examinees were distracted from the right or correct answer while the

remaining 57% of them have chosen the correct answer (D). The deviation from the mean score is

0.045. With regards to the third scenario, the subjects accounting for about 33% selected the right

answer (C), and the rest 67% were misled by other distracters. The deviation from the mean score is

0.042. Pertaining to the fourth situation, 46% of the participants have chosen the correct option. The

remaining sum total of them i.e. 54% were distracted by the other options.

Table 20. The MDCT score of the students by group

Scores Frequency % Mean

1-5 48 26.2 .26

6-10 69 37.8 .37

11-15 53 28.9 .27

16-20 13 7.1 .071

Total 183 100 .99

As it can be seen from the data presented above, the majority of the participants scored between 6

and 10 (37.8%). The average scorers were still not negligible that constitute for 28.9% scoring

points between 11-15 out of 20 points. The top scorers were between16-20 accounting for 7.1% as

compared to the other ones. This indicated that the majority of the participants did not have sort of

awareness about pragmatics and pragmatic test. This might be the case that their grammar

knowledge must have helped them than their pragmatic knowledge.

Table 21. Summary of MDCT Situation and the Weight of Distance, Power, and Rank of

Imposition

Situation Context D P R

Situation 1 speaker compliments the hearer School Low Equal -

Situation 2 speaker advices the hearer School Low Equal Low

Situation 3 hearer apologizes for talking aloud Library High High High

Situation 4 speaker requests a help Exam Room High Low Low

Situation 5 speaker refuses a request Shopping High - High

Situation 6 speaker gives compliment to… School Low High -

Situation 7 teacher versus student Classroom High High High

Situation 8 the speaker requests money Home Low Low Low

Situation 9 speaker apologizes Neighborhood High Low Low

Situation 10 response to a compliment School Low Low Low

Situation 11 speaker apologizes Appointment Low Low Low

Situation 12 speaker complains School Low Low Low

Situation 13 speakers orders meal Restaurant High High High

Situation 14 speaker suggests Restaurant High Low Low

Situation 15 speaker thanks a host Restaurant High - -

Situation 16 speaker apologizes Classroom High Low Low

Table 22.Sources of students’ pragmatic knowledge

Immediately after the last question of MDCT students were given alternative to choose pertaining

the source of their knowledge that aided them do the test.

The following table represents the students answer to the above question.

Items Frequency % Mean

I remembered what I heard in class 70 19.4 .19

I heard it once somewhere 42 11.6 .11

I remembered what I wrote in my notebook 31 8.6 .08

I remembered the teacher had explained it 67 18.6 .18

I knew the answer from reading 51 14.2 .14

I translated it from my mother tongue 29 8 .08

It sounded right 32 8.9 .08

Others 37 10.3 .10

Table 20 represents opportunities that learners have to acquire pragmatic competence. Respondents

claimed that knowledge of pragmatics that they obtained from the interactions in the classrooms

accounted for 19.4%. The second major source of pragmatic knowledge of students is the

explanations made by the language teachers standing for 18.6%.

From the above discussions the following points were the major themes in digging out the

challenges in EFL context: the teaching of pragmatics is ineffective, the existing materials are

deficient, social or contexts of language use are restraints, and teachers are unqualified in the area of

language pragmatics. In more detailed way the next chapter has to do with conclusion and

recommendation for the discussions.

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY OF RESEARCH RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Summary of Research Results

Based on the inventory made pertaining to the presence and absence of the pragmatic features in the

students’ textbooks, the research findings showed that there is a dearth of language use contents in

the plethora of other linguistic features that almost constituted above 90% of the textbooks contents

(see, table 3). It was also evident from the data analysis that the pragmatic elements that were only

given a lip service were given insufficient metapragmatic and metalanguage explanations. Hence, it

is one of the challenges to teaching pragmatics in Ethiopian EFL context.

The other research result was that teachers did not bring in outside materials to complement the

paucity of pragmatic contents of the English language textbooks so as to facilitate the opportunities

for teaching and learning pragmatics in the classroom. Evidence for this can be seen from table 11

where 100% of the teachers responded unanimously that no teacher could be singled out for

bringing in outside materials to instruct pragmatics in EFL setting where there are rare opportunities

to learning pragmatics.

Further research result was that the majority of the participant students scaled that most of the

communicative acts or social functions that they were tested for are difficult. As a result of which

most of them scored below average in MDCT (see, table 18). The students further explained that

those pragmatic features were difficult for them because have very negligible access to use the

communicative acts in the classroom.

The classroom observation results were also consistent with what was detected from the textbooks

inventory, teachers’ responses and that of students’ responses that there were no lessons or

interactions directed to the development of pragmatic competence in the classrooms.

5.2. Conclusions

In the modern communication and communication oriented terminology we are interested in the

process of providing language and its procedures, not just in the end-product, rather language use.

‘Pragmatics is needed if we want fuller, deeper and generally more reasonable account of human

language behavior’ (Mey, 2001). Furthermore, outside of pragmatics, no understanding; sometimes,

a pragmatic account is the only language use that makes sense. Further magnifying the essentiality

of pragmatics and pragmatic competence lesson some pronounce ‘Pragmatic competence is not a

piece of knowledge additional to the learners’ existing grammatical knowledge, but is an organic

part of the learners’ communicative competence’ (Kasper as qtd in Edwards and Csizer, 2004).

With the growing demand to communicate in a foreign language, both the teacher education and

language teaching process require specific attention not only to form and meaning but also to the

pragmatic features of a language as pragmatic competence is one of the most important component

of communicative competence.

It is believed that in EFL contexts teachers and textbooks play central roles as resources of the

target language and culture. A textbook is a framework which regulates the programs without which

classrooms have no face validity to students and learners don’t take their learning serious. In

situations when shortage of experts in teaching a foreign language is felt, the role of textbooks

become pivotal according to literatures. Textbooks portray the role of various people in the target

society, the way different people at different levels of society express their intentions through

utterances (Sahragard, et al., 2009).

In an EFL context such pragmatic awareness and knowledge could be developed by the help of the

teacher and the textbook. However, it is argued by Vellenga (2004) that the presentation of speech

acts or pragmatic features in textbooks are pragmatically unsatisfactory, they are not supported well

with contextual information, nor they are given explicit metapragmatic discussion. Similarly,

Kasper (see in Vallegna 2004) blames textbooks as one of the factors for learners’ ineffective

pragmatic strategy use.

Hence, based on the findings of this research the following conclusions were drawn. The current

English textbooks for Ethiopian upper high schools, i.e. grade 10 and 11 are containing only meager

features of pragmatics. By implication they are challenges to teaching socially acceptable language

or pragmatics to students. Being the most important source of developing communicative

competence, they do not cooperate with learners to help them develop pragmatics.

Textbooks are primary or central part of teaching and learning in the Ethiopian upper high schools.

However, they almost never provide adequate pragmatic information for students to successfully

develop their pragmatic competence. The findings indicated that there is a scarcity of pragmatic

information contained in the English for Ethiopia, and the variety of pragmatic information is

limited. Most of the metalanguage explanations are very shallow and there are no metapragmatic

explanations at all. The textbook writers haven’t given enough attention to the application of

pragmatic theory in their textbooks as pragmatic information contained in the two language

textbooks is not distributed evenly like it is the case for other language skills. Dimension of

pragmatic competence are still confined to the explicit instruction of lexical, syntactical, and

grammatical structures.

The results of the study emphasized the need for explicit teaching of pragmatic features. Language

learners should be given opportunities to be exposed to native-like conventions through the use of

authentic materials, audio-visual aids, teacher talk and the textbook. To increase such exposure,

teacher training needs to involve explicit teaching of pragmatic features to increase awareness.

Above all, textbooks need to carry out pragmatic features and classroom methodologies to provide

realistic, purposeful, and meaningful language practices. The pragmatic awareness, or lack of it, is

very much affected by the textbooks used and by the classroom practices. As the need for

communication increases with the mobility of people, effective language teaching and appropriate

use of the foreign language gains importance to develop linguistic competence. Rose (2005) argues

that “explicit instruction” is necessary for EFL learners to develop pragmatic competence. By

looking at the results it can be said that it is necessary to help language learners in general, and

language teachers, in particular, develop pragmatic awareness with the explicit but contextual and

meaningful teaching of daily speech conventions.

During the teacher training process, trainees should be provided with extensive pragmatic

knowledge and be guided to develop theirs. It is fairly possible to infer from the teachers’ response

that well-designed teacher training and teaching materials should be in place for teachers to develop

students’ pragmatic competence. Moreover, the teaching hours to cover the issue of pragmatics;

thus, to properly manage each lesson may solve the current problem of teaching pragmatics in the

classroom.

The findings of this study also showed that teachers seldom use pragmatic instruction in

classrooms, and mostly students have to spend time by themselves developing pragmatic

competence without explicit instruction. Overall, the pragmatics instruction is immature and needs

to be developed, and teachers need professional training to know how to teach pragmatics

effectively. Although the learners’ self-perceived competence mean score was high, their MDCT

result was low; and this confirmed that self-perceived competence and the actual performance

never match. This is why according to Dewaele (2007) higher levels of self-perceived competence

are linked to lower levels of communication which in fact has to be further investigated in our own

context.

Ultimately, it has long been recognized that language is an essential and important part of a given

culture and that the impact of culture up on a given language is something intrinsic and

indispensable. Therefore, it has become axiomatic to state that there exists a close relationship

between language and culture. This can further be argued that all communication acts are culturally-

loaded. Communication may be affected by culturally-related factors because communication acts

are fundamentally developed through social interactions. The results of this study indicated that

teaching language should also consider this fact so as to help learners develop the communicative

skills which demanded of them in the social life spectrum out of the school compound. If this is

simply paid a lip service and not be practiced cultural boundaries may bring about certain

misunderstandings that will obstruct seriously the flow of communication process. Therefore,

cultural and pragmatic awareness must aim to face these communication breakdowns.

5.3. Recommendations

There is no doubt that effective teaching in Ethiopian EFL classrooms can improve students’

pragmatic knowledge. Therefore, it is necessary for the textbook writers to write user friendly

textbooks in terms of providing pragmatic information to both the teachers and students. The

researcher has a strong belief that future EFL textbook would include immense presentation of a

variety of linguistic forms along with explicit metapragmatic explanations and contextually rich and

authentic opportunities for students to practice those forms. As it is the most important aspect of

language learning, textbooks developers should also take a note of procedures of teaching, selection

of authentic materials and designing of tasks. Besides, they should not forget the essentiality of

assessing the pragmatic aspects by providing modern approaches to testing pragmatic features of

language.

More importantly, there is a high expectation for aspiring teachers’ trainers and textbook writers to

improve their own knowledge of pragmatics and pedagogy for optimal students learning outcomes.

Teachers also should be able to receive sufficient knowledge in the area of pragmatics while they

are on job or taking undergraduate courses.

The aim of instruction in pragmatics is not to force learners to adopt native speaker pragmatic

choices or is not linguistic imperialism, but to expose learners to positive evidence or linguistic

empowerment to use the words of Phillipson, (2009: 12), making them aware of a variety of

linguistic resources that are used in combination with specific contextual factors. This knowledge

progressively enables learners to make more sound decisions when choosing linguistic as they

interact in the target language.

In consequence, it is necessary to conduct research exploring the effects of instruction in

pragmatic aspects of the English language in an Ethiopian EFL setting. Taking theory as the

foundation, learners can be instructed on the strategies and linguistic forms by which specific

pragmatic features are performed and how these strategies are used in different contexts. This may

contribute to the role language teaching has to help students situate EFL communicative practices

in their sociocultural context and appreciate their meanings and functions within the EFL

setting.

Here the researcher has provided teaching methods and concepts for teachers to refer to. First,

teachers should try to use dialogues or scenarios to activate students’ awareness of pragmatic

knowledge, explain the meanings of these different language uses, and most importantly discuss

language uses with students after exercises (Uso-Juan & Martinez-Flor, 2006). Teachers can also

give students a scenario, ‘a student asks a teacher to extend a deadline of final exam, for example’.

Students have to think about how to give an appropriate response to the teacher if they are in that

kind of situation, and later teachers discuss answers with students (Rose, 1994; Crandall &

Basturkmen (2004); Takimoto, 2006; Meier, 1997).

Second, increasing opportunities for students to produce target pragmatics is important. Teachers

can use role-play activities to observe students’ pragmatic competence. Or teachers can provide

discourse completion task (DCT) with students, which can have students read a variety of situations

and write down what they would say in each situation(Lee, S.J & McChesney, B., 2000). The

situations could be an apology for a friend, a request for parents, or a suggestion for subordinate

(Alcon, Soler, 2005; Eslami-Rasekh, 2005; Takimoto, 2006).

Third is to make students as observers and discoverers (Markee & Kasper, 2004). Teachers can

develop students’ pragmatics senses in several ways. For instance, teachers can prepare four video

clips containing different uses of requests, and students need to write down the phrases used to ask

somebody to do something in these clips, and finally students also have to think about why people

in the video clips use different types of language. Teachers can also have students to collect

pragmatics information outside the classroom such as TV, radios, novels, and other resources

(Alcon Soler, 2005; Eslami-Rasekh, 2005).

Finally, teachers should instill the concept of target pragmatics into students, and give explicit

pragmatic instruction no matter what language levels they are (Uso-Juan & Martinez-Flor, 2006;

Boxer, D. & Pickering, L., 1995). Hence, it’s imperative for teachers to know how to adjust lessons

based on students’ language proficiency, and to incorporate basic pragmatic knowledge into

lessons. Most importantly, teachers should develop students’ own perception of target pragmatics,

so that students can observe or notice language usages from TV, movie, magazine, and novel.

It is also commendable for teachers that an EFL classroom can provide the context and the explicit

instruction necessary for learners to begin developing pragmatic competence in English. If our goal

as teachers of English is for our students to leave our classrooms with the ability, at least on some

level, to communicate successfully in English, then we have to move beyond the bare bones

approach to teaching language. We must put flesh and blood on those bones by using English for

both classroom management and language instruction and by creating opportunities for students to

see, use, review and experience the English language in communicative contexts.

Additional research is needed to determine the effectiveness of metapragmatics for lower-level

learners and those in non-university settings. Before using metapragmatic instruction, teachers must

clearly identify their goals and determine the level of understanding they want their students to

demonstrate. In addition, instruction must be presented as a series of choices for empowerment

rather than a checklist for acculturation.

In sum, the two crucial things of teaching pragmatics are to have students recognize the importance

of appropriately using a language in a given context, and to help them develop their own “pragmatic

analysis” while encountering different language uses from a variety of sources. Teachers can just

use last five minutes in every lesson to introduce pragmatics, and do pragmatic activities. Explicit

instruction can help learners a lot and if teachers can successfully activate students’ pragmatic

awareness, students will definitely develop their pragmatic competence gradually. More

specifically,

Teachers should:

have adequate pragmatic competence;

receive training and development that is of great importance;

design activities aiming at raising students’ pragmatic awareness;

plan activities offering opportunities for communicative practice;

realize that there is not a single best way to develop the students’ pragmatic competence

in EFL classroom. Instructions, implicit or explicit, deductive or inductive, all function.

Teaching approaches, eclectic or suggestopedic, both improve the learners’ pragmatic

abilities;

encourage learners to read widely about the culture of the target language and participate

in as many social activities as possible so as to broaden their views and enrich their social

experiences;

lay more emphasis on functions, not merely on grammar and vocabulary;

organize more activities of listening and speaking than those of reading;

give more attention to dialogues and conversations than to texts;

test the learners’ pragmatic competence rather than merely their linguistic competence;

Textbooks should be prepared:

Enriching classroom input of textbooks with real-world materials, such as recordings of

native speaker conversations, radio programs, and even television soap operas;

with authentic and real life speech;

with high quality in pragmatic knowledge;

being supplemented with additional books that focus on pragmatics.

5.4. Implications for future research

The findings of this study have implication for classroom teaching, future research, and curriculum

design.

Future research implications

From the data, it’s difficult to conclude that what pragmatic topics, such as refusals, compliments,

apologies, complaints, etc., the teachers focused on while designing an effective lesson. In other

words, the results didn’t explain how teachers incorporate a specific area of pragmatic knowledge

into a lesson. Moreover, no assessment could prove that those students would really absorb

pragmatic knowledge to develop their pragmatic competence. Thus, future study might focus on a

particular area of pragmatics and design a comprehensive lesson and assessment for EFL teachers.

Or researchers could conduct a study to examine which area of pragmatic knowledge that students

are good/bad at, and what the reasons are.

As the current research is based on content analysis of two textbooks and questionnaires, the

findings were not conclusive enough to make a broad generalization. Henceforth, further research is

calling for attention to investigate how upper high school teachers can develop students’ pragmatic

competence in the process of classroom instruction by using different practical approaches.

Researchers in the area should pay due attention to each one of the communicative acts such as

compliments, complaints, apologies, request, gratitude etc. on their own. Further research at the

higher education level is recommended.

Further research should include a larger sample size and control group. Retrospective interviews

could offer valuable information about the factors affecting participants’ mitigation choices,

possibly highlighting examples of pragmatic resistance or helping to identify pragmatic knowledge

which has been acquired but not yet realized.

Additional research should also examine students’ oral requesting, apologizing, complimenting,

complaining, thanking, suggesting, refusing, etc. perhaps in the performance of the communicative

acts when students are unaware that they are being assessed. Such an assessment could offer insight

into the treatment’s impact on students’ real-world using the language. It could also highlight

changes not captured by the students’ written assessments as a result of their limited literacy skills.

This is especially important for students, like the participants in this study, whose English fluency

cannot be captured in written assessments. Future studies should also examine the effectiveness of

metapragmatic instruction on lower-level learners to determine what basic organizational

knowledge, if any, is required in order for metapragmatic instruction to be effective.

Finally, this study examined only making requests, refusals, apologies, giving compliments,

complaints, giving thanks; and further research is needed to develop effective metapragmatic

instruction for additional speech acts. Research should be undertaken at both micro and macro

levels of pragmatics at the higher learning institutions.

Pedagogical Implications

Language learners need to be taught pragmatic routines to help them avoid negative transfer, which

in fact lead to communication failure, when speaking English. The results of the studies reviewed

suggest that learners in an EFL context could benefit from pragmatic input. Although learners

benefit from both implicit and explicit instruction, explicit instruction has been shown to be more

effective (Rose and Ng Kwai-fun, 2001).Teachers ought to prefer to explicitly teach their students

communicative acts such as compliments, refusals, apologies, complaining, gratitude/thanks,

requests, strategies to accepting and rejecting requests, advice, invitation, compliments, suggestion

etc. For teachers who are unfamiliar with researches related to communicative acts or prefer to

adopt a model lesson, an excellent website is

http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/descriptions.html/.

The researcher believed that along with explicitly teaching pragmatic routines, awareness raising is

an essential component to aid students in their pragmatic development. The responses from students

were very positive, especially when they gave answers to open ended DCT.

One needs to take the issue of cross-cultural pragmatics into the classroom if as Jung (2001, p.6)

indicates, pragmatics is a subject that is an indispensable part of language learning and which has

received insufficient attention in acquisition. But the question is how to go from recognizing the

importance of the issues to moving into classroom language learning and mitigating cross-cultural

communication failure. There may be no easy solutions it would appear. Some writers alluding to

such difficulties argue that the cross-cultural pragmatics is ‘potentially an explosive’ area of making

judgments on what is pragmatically acceptable to the foreign learner. Openness to different

pragmatic interpretations consistent to sensitivities of various cultures and social groups would be

something to keep in mind as well as an approach free of stereotypical judgments.

Pragmatic competence can be developed in the classroom through a range of situations and

activities. The researcher believed that pragmatic rules that are different from or nonexistent in the

students’ first language need to be given emphasis. Comparative studies and needs analyses can be

carried out to address the most challenging pragmatic issues facing particular groups or all students.

On the whole, EFL context represent unique challenges for teaching of pragmatic competence, and

too little attention has been paid to this area. ‘If the pragmatic competence is to be dealt with

successfully in an EFL settings, methods and materials must be developed which do not assume or

depend on NS (native speakers) intuitions of the teacher’ (Rose, 1994:5).

Teacher Education Implication

Pragmatic competence is one of the vital components of communicative competence that needs to

be considered in EFL teacher education programs. Unfortunately, available teacher education

sources on EFL methodology and assessment lack a focus on teaching the pragmatic aspects of

language as witnessed by the teachers. Pragmatics has been identified as an important component of

language teachers’ knowledge base and appears to have been incorporated into some teacher

education programs in both EIL and EFL contexts. However, the treatment of pragmatics in teacher

training courses tends to center on theory/rhetoric rather than practical applications.

Implication for Curriculum Design

Educational administrators should take “pragmatics” into consideration when designing curriculum

guidelines for English subjects. Adding some discourse completion tasks or scenario tests into

national examinations should be a good start to value pragmatic knowledge. Furthermore, teacher

training and teaching materials should be provided so that teachers will develop students’ pragmatic

competence.

Bibliography

Adriana, Pčolinská, S. (2009). “Authenticity of Communication in the Language

Classroom.” Year 11; Issue 1; http://www.hltmag.co.uk/feb09/mart02.htm

Aijmer, K. (2011). Pragmatic Markers in Spoken Interlanguage. Goteborg University, Sweden.

Aijmer,K.(1996). Conversational Routines in English: Convention and Creativity. Addison

Wesley Longman Limited. USA.

Alcón, E.S (2010), ‘Investigating pragmatic learning in instructional contexts.’ Universitat

Jaume I.

Alcón, E. S. And Guzmán, J. P. (2010): The Effect of Instruction on Learners’ Pragmatic

Awareness: A Focus On Refusals: in International Journal of Studies (IJES):

Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia.

Alcón, S. E.. and Martínez-Flor, A. (2008). (Eds)Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language

Learning, Teaching and Testing. Multilingual Matters. Toronto.

Alcon S. E. (2005). Does Instruction Work for Learning Pragmatics in EFL Context? System:

An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics.

33(3), 417-435.

Alcon, E. & Safont, P.(2001). ‘Occurrence of exhortative Speech Acts in ELT Materials and

Natural Speech Data: A focus on request, suggestion and advice realization

strategies, ‘in SELL: Studies in English language and Linguistics, 3:5-22.

Alcón Soler, E. & Safont, Maria P. J. (2007). Intercultural Language Use and Language

Learning. Springer .Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Al Falasi, H. (2007): Just Say “Thank You”: A Study of Compliment Responses: in The

Linguistics Journal Volume 2 Issue 1. American University of Sharjah,

United Arab Emirates .http://www.linguistics- journal.com/April_2007_haf.php

Alptekin, C. (2002). Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT. ELT Journal,

56(1), 57-64.

Amaya, Lucía,F. (2008): Teaching Culture: Is It Possible to Avoid Pragmatic Failure? Revista

Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 21 (2008): 11-24 Pablo de Olavide University,

Seville.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA 2007-2011): ‘Social Language Use

(Pragmatics)’http://www.asha.org/public/speech/development/pragmatics.htm

Amlaku, B. Eshetie (2010). Language Policies and the Role of English in Ethiopia. A paper

presented at the 23rd

Annual Conference of IATEFL BESIG(19-21). Bielefeld,

Germany.

Andrian, A. and Others (2003). Linguistics: An Introduction to Language and Communication,

(4th

edn). Cambridge, USA.

Baba, J. (2010).Interlanguage pragmatics study of indirect complaint among Japanese ESL

learners. Department of Languages, Literatures and Cultures, University of South

Carolina, Columbia SC 29208, United States. December 2010, Volume 7, No.12

(Serial No.84)

Bach, K. (2011): SPEECH ACTS. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy

http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~kbach/spchacts.html

Bach, K. (1994): Meaning, Speech Acts, and Communication: [Introduction to Part I, Basic

Topics in the Philosophy of Language, ed. by Robert M. Harnish, Prentice-

Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: OUP.

http://www.answers.com/topic/communicative-competence#cite_note-5.

Bachman, L. F. and Palmer, A. S. (1982).The construct Validation of Some Components of

Communicative Proficiency. TESOL Quarterly Vol. 16 No.4 Pp 449-465.

Retrieved on 6/9/2011.

Bagarić, V. and Mihaljević J. D. (2007).Defining Communicative Competence. Metodika Vol. 8,

br. 1, page 94-103.Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of

Zagreb.

Bailey, Dona (2003).English for Ethiopia: Student Text Book. Grade 10. PEARSON.

Bara, Bruno G. (2010). Cognitive Pragmatics: The Mental Process of Communication.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Bardovi-Harlig ,K. and Mahan-Taylor, R. (2009). Why Teach Pragmatics in Language Classes

http://exchanges.state.gov/media/oelp/teaching-pragmatics/introms.pdf

Bardovi- Harlig, K. (2004): Pragmatics and Language Teaching: Bringing Pragmatics and

Pedagogy Together. In Bouton, Lawrence F., Ed. Pragmatics and Language

Learning. Monograph Series Volume 7 p 21-39.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Mahan-Taylor, R(2003). Introduction to Teaching Pragmatics. English

Teaching Forum. Indiana University. USA.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for Instruction in

Pragmatics. In Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (Eds.).Pragmatics and language teaching,

(pp.11-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. and Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic

violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning.

TESOL Quarterly, 32,

pp. 233–259

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and Language Teaching: Bringing Pragmatics and

Language Together. In: Bouton, Lawrence, F., ed. Pragmatics and Language

Learning. Monograph Series Volume 7, P 21-39.

Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen and Beverly S. Hartford(1996). "Input in an institutional setting".

Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18: 171-188.

Bardovi-Harlig, K., et.al (1991): Developing Pragmatic Awareness: Closing the Conversation:

ELT Journal Volume 45/1 January; OUP.

Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B. A. S., Mahan-Taylor, R., Morgan, M. J., & Reynolds, D. W.

Reynolds, D. W. (1991). Developing pragmatic competence: Closing the

Conversation. ELT Journal, 45, 4-15.

Barraja-Rohan, A. M. (2000). Teaching Conversation and Sociocultural Norms with

Conversation Analysis. In A. J. Liddicoat & C. Crozet (Eds.), Teaching

Languages ,Teaching Cultures (pp. 65-77). Melbourne: Applied Linguistics

Association of Australia.

Berelson, B. (1952). Content Analysis in Communication Research. New York: Free Press,

Best, J.W. & Kahn, J.V.(2007). Research in Education. Printice-Hall, India New Delhi.

Bloomer, A., Griffiths, P. & John, A. M. (2005).Introducing Language in Use. Routledge, UK.

Blum-Kulka, S. (1997). Discourse Pragmatics. In T. A. v. Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as Social

Interaction (pp. 38-63). London: Sage Publications.

Bouchard, J. (2011). Pragmatic failure and language Ideologies: Challenges in the Japanese EFL

Context. Studies in Culture.No.49. Japan.

Boxer, D. & Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials:

The case of complaints. ELT Journal. Volume 49. OUP.

Brock, M. N. and Nagasaka, Y.(2005): Teaching Pragmatics in the EFL Classroom? SURE You

Can! TESL Reporter 38, pp. 17-26

Butt, Neil Stuart, (2010) "Argument Construction, Argument Evaluation, and Decision-Making:

Content Analysis of Argumentation and Debate Textbooks" PhD, Dissertation.

Wayne State University Dissertations. Paper77.

http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/oa_dissertations/77

Byram, M., & Grundy, P. (2002). Introduction: Context and Culture in Language Teaching and

Learning. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15(3), 193-195.

Byram ,M., Morgan, C., & Colleagues. (1994). Teaching and Learning Language and Culture:

Great Britain: WBC.

Canale,M. and Swain, M. (1980) The Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to

Second Language Teaching and Testing. Applied Linguistics. 1, 1-47.

http://www.answers.com/topic/communicative-competence

Canale, M. (1983). From Communicative Competence to Communicative language Pedagogy. In

J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.).Language and communication. New

York: Longman.

Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA) (2011). Descriptions of

Speech Acts. http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/descriptions.html/

Carley, K.(1990) "Content Analysis." In R.E. Asher (Ed.),The Encyclopedia of Language and

Linguistics. Edinburgh: Pergamon Press

Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances. Oxford, UK.

Celce-Murcia, M. (2007).Rethinking the Role of Communicative Competence in Language

Teaching. In E. Alcón Soler and M.P. Safont Jordà (eds.), Intercultural Language

Use and Language Learning, 41–57.

Celce-Murcia, M. and Dornyei, Z. and Thurrell, S. (1995): Communicative Competence: A

Pedagogically Motivated Model with Content Specifications. Issues in Applied

Linguistics. Regents of the University of California.

Cenoz, J. (2007). The Acquisition of Pragmatic Competence and Multilingualism in Foreign

Language Contexts. In Alcon Soler & Maria Pilar Safont Jorda(ed.). Intercultural

Language Use and Language Learning. Springer.

Chakrani,B.(2007). Cultural Context and Speech Act Theory: A Socio-pragmatic Analysis of

Bargaining Exchanges in Morocco: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual

Symposium About Language and Society-Austin: Texas Linguistics Forum 51:

43-53.

Clark, H.H. (1996). Using Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, Andrew D. and Ishihara, Noriko (2010). Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where

Language and Culture Meet. Pearson Education Limited. UK.

Cohen, D. A. (2010): “Coming to Terms with Pragmatics”: In : Teaching and Learning

Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet. By Noriko Ishihara and Andrew

D. Cohen (eds). Longman, London.

Cohen, Andrew (2009): The Teaching of Pragmatics in the EFL classroom: ILI Language

Teaching Journal, Vol 3, No 2.

Cohen, A. D. (2008).Comprehensible Pragmatics: Where Input and Output Come Together.

Appeared in Articles and Information, Applied Linguistics Forum, TESOL, Dec.

2008 Volume 29, No. 1

http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/sec_issue.asp?nid=2857&iid=11749&sid=1

Cohen, A. (2008). Speaking Strategies for Independent Learning: A Focus on Pragmatic

Performance: In: Language Learning Strategies in Independent Settings. by Stella

Hurd and Tim Lewis (eds). Toronto.

Cohen, D. Andrew (2007): The teaching of Pragmatics in the EFL Classroom: in ILI Language

Teaching Journal, Volume 3, No 2, University of Minnesota, USA

Cohen, A.(2005): Strategies for Learning and Performing L2 Speech Acts: In Intercultural

Pragmatics 2-3 pp 275-301.

Cohen, A. (2003): Learner Strategy Training in the Development of Pragmatic Ability: in A.

Martinez Flor, E Uso Juan, and A. Fernandez Guerra (Eds), Pragmatic

Competence and Foreign Language Teaching. Castello de la Plana, Spain:

Publications de la Universitat Jaume I, 93-108.

Cohen, A. (1998). Contrastive Analysis of Speech Acts: What Do We Do With The Research

Findings? In Studia Angelica Posnaniensia XXXIII.

Cohen, A.D. and Olshtain, E. (1994): Researching the Production of Second Language Speech

Acts in Tarone, E., Gass, S.M., and Cohen, A.D. (Eds), Research Methodology in

Second Language Acquisition, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp 143-156.

Coleman, H. (Ed.). (1996). Society and the Language Classroom. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Christiansen, Y.(2003). Pragmatic Ability and Proficiency in Japanese Learners of English:

Department of Integrated Studies in Education McGill University, Montreal. A

Thesis Submitted To The Faculty Of Graduate Studies And Research In Partial

Fulfillment Of The Requirements Of The Degree Of Master of Arts.

Crandall, E. & Basturkmen, H.(2004). Evaluating Pragmatic-focused Marials. ELT Journal

Volume 58. OUP.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education. 6th

edn.

Routledge, NY.

Criado, R. (2009). The Distribution of the Lexical Component in ELT Course Books and Its

Suitability for Vocabulary Acquisition from a Cognitive Perspective. A Case

Study. International Journal of English Studies. IJES, Special Issue, Pp. 39-60

LACELL RESEARCH GROUP – UNIVERSIDAD DE MURCIA

Crystal, D. (2003). English as a Global Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Dash, P.(2004). Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure: A Definitional Analysis with Implications for

Classroom Teaching. Asian EFL Journal, Volume 6. Issue 3 Articles 5.

http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/september_04_pd.php

Devo.Y.D. and Yasemin, B. (2010).Students’ Understandings and Preferences of the Role and

Place of Culture in English Language Teaching: A Focus in an EFL context.

TESOL Journal Vol. 2, pp. 4-23. http://www.tesoljournal.com.

Dewaele,Marc J. (2007) Interindividual Variation in Self-perceived Oral Proficiency of English

L2 Users: in E. Alcón Soler and M.P. Safont Jordà (eds.), Intercultural Language

Use and Language Learning, 141–165.Birbeck College, London, UK.

de Pablos-Ortega, C. (2010). Attitudes of English Speakers towards Thanking In Spanish.

Pragmatics 20:2.149-170 International Pragmatics Association.

Dogancay-Aktuna, S. (2005). Intercultural Communication in English language Teacher

Education. ELT Journal, 59, 99-107.

Dufva, H. (1994). Language Awareness and Cultural Awareness for Language Learners. In

Jyväsklä (Ed.), Hungarologische Beiträge 2.Probleme des Spracherwebs

Hungarológia (pp. 19-32).

Duan, L. (2008). The Effects of Explicit and Implicit Instruction on Appropriacy of English

Refusal By Chinese EFL Students. A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English Language

Studies Suranaree University of Technology.

Edwards, M, and Csizér, K. (2004). "Developing Pragmatic Competence in the EFL Classroom."

English Teaching Forum Online. 42.3. 16.

<http://www.exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol42/no3/p16.htm>.

El-Okda, M. (2011). Developing Pragmatic Competence: Challenges and Solutions. Sultan

Qaboos University, Oman. http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/June_2011_meo.php

Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2005). Raising the pragmatic awareness of language learners. ELT Journal

Volume 59/3; doi:10.1093/elt/cci039. Published by Oxford University Press.

Eslami, Zohreh R. and Fatahi, A. (2008). Teachers' Sense of Self-Efficacy, English Proficiency,

and Instructional Strategies: A Study of Nonnative EFL Teachers in Iran. TESL-

EJ. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language.Volume 11, Number 4.

Eslami-Rasekh, Z.; Eslami-Rasekh, A. and Fatahi, A.(2004): The Effect of Explicit

Metapragmatic Instruction on the Speech Act Awareness of Advanced EFL

Students. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language: Volume 8,

Number 2. Texas A&M University.

Fahey, María P. (2005). Speech Acts as Intercultural Danger Zones: A Cross-cultural

Comparison of the Speech Act of Apologizing in Irish and Chilean Soap Operas.

Intercultural Communication, ISSN 1404-1634, issue 8. URL: Mary Immaculate

College University of Limerick. Ireland.

http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr8/palma.htm

Fernandez-Guerra, A. (2008). Requests in TV series and in naturally occurring discourse: A

comparison. In E. Alcón (Ed.), Learning how to request in an instructed language

learningcontext (pp. 11-126). Bern: Peter Lang.

Fasold, Ralph.W. & Connor-Linton, J. (2006). An Introduction to Language and

Linguistics.CUP, UK.

Fleet, M. (2006). The Role of Culture in Second or Foreign Language Teaching: Moving Beyond

the Classroom Experience. ERIC Journal Number.

Fromkin, V., Rodman, R. and Hymes, N. (2011).An Introduction to Language, (9th

edn).

Wadsworth, Cenage Learning, Canada.

Fu, A. (2001) “Pragmatics and its Pedagogical Application:” in PAC3at JALT 2001 Conference

Proceedings Graduate School of Kobe University, Japan. ED491716 Available at

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/

1b/d0/c9.pdf.

Gao, F. (2006). Language is Culture-On Intercultural Communication. Journal of Language and

Linguistics, 5(1), 58-67.

Garcia, P.(2004). Pragmatic Comprehension of High and Low Level Language Learners. TESL-

EJ. Volume 8.No 2. http://tesl-ej.or/ej30/a1.html

Georgakopoulou, A. and Goutsos, D. (2001).Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. Edinburgh

University Press, UK.

Ghaemil, F. and Ziafar, M.(2011) Contrastive Lexical Pragmatics as an Effective Strategy in

Teaching Pragmatics: A review article. Educational Research and Reviews Vol.

6(9), pp. 598-604, 5 September, 2011

Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/ERR

Guerra, A. B.F et.al (2003) (eds): Pragmatic Competence and Foreign Language Teaching: An

Introduction. Universitat Jaume I.

Habermas, J. (1998). On the Pragmatics of Communication: Massachusetts Institute of

Technology.

Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate Methodology and Social Context. Cambridge: CUP.

Horibe, H.(2008). The Place of Culture in Teaching English as an International Language (EIL).

Hiroshima Institute of Technology. JALT Journal, Vol. 30, No. 2,

Hymes D (1972a). ‘On communicative Competence.’ In Pride J B & Holmes J (eds.)

Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 269–285.

Hui, Grace, Chin Lin (2007). “The Significance of Pragmatics” Mingdao Journal 3(2).MingDao

University.

Ishihara, Noriko (2011). Co-constructing Pragmatic Awareness: Instructional Pragmatics in EFL

Teacher Development in Japan-Volume 15, Number 2, Hosei University,

Teachers College Tokyo, Japan.

Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2007).Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and

culture meet. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.

Ishihara N. (2010). Instructional pragmatics: Bridging teaching, research, and teacher education

Hosei University, Boissonade Tower 17F, 2-17-1 Fujimi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo

102-8160, Japan.

Jacques, M.(2002). Speech act theory and the analysis of conversations. Sequencing and

interpretation in pragmatic theory. Department of Linguistics University of

Geneva.

JALT (2001). “Conference Proceedings”:International Conference Centre; November 22-25,

Kitakyushu, JAPAN.

Jianda, L. (2006). Assessing EFL learners’ Interlanguage Pragmatic Knowledge: Implications for

testers and teachers. Reflections on English Language Teaching, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.

1-22 Guangdong University of Foreign Studies

Jie ,FANG(2010). A study on Pragmatic Failure in Cross-cultural Communication. Foreign

Languages College, Qingdao University of Science and Technology, Qingdao

266061, China. December 2010, Volume 7, No.12 (Serial No.84)

Julia Scherba de Valenzuela , J. S. (1998). The social construction of language competence:

Language socialization in three bilingual kindergartens. Unpublished Doctoral

Dissertation. University of Colorado at Boulder.

http://www.unm.edu/~devalenz/handouts/competence.html

Jung, Woo-hyun, (1998). Speech Acts of “Thank You” and Response to it in American English:

in AAAL. Baltimore, USA.

Jung, J.Y. (2001). Issues in Acquisitional Pragmatics. Working Paper in TESOL and Applied

Linguistics, Teacher’s College, Columbia University.

Kasper, G. (2008).Speech Acts in Interaction: Towards Discursive Pragmatics. University of

Hawai‘i,Minoa.

Kasper, G. (2006): Speech Acts in Interaction: Towards Discursive Pragmatics: in: Pragmatics

and Language Learning. Vol. 11; By Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig (Ed). University of

Hawai’i. USA.

Kasper,G.(2001). Classroom Research on Interlanguage Pragmatics. CUP, Cambridge, pp.33-60.

Kasper, G.(2000). “Data Collection in Pragmatics Research” in H. Spencery-Oatey(ed.):

Culturally Speaking. Managing Rapport Through Talk Across Cultures. London

and New York: Continuum.pp.316-41.

Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? NFLRC Network #6, University of

Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.

[http://www.lll.hawaii.edu/nflrc/NetWorks/NW6/]

Kasper, G. (1992): Pragmatic Transfer. Second Language Research V8, No 3 PP 203-31

.http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?

Kasper, G.(1991): Research Methods in Inter -language Pragmatics: SSLA,13,215-247. Printed

in the United States of America.

Kasper, G. (2004). Speech acts in (inter)action: repeated questions. Intercultural Pragmatics 1,

125–133.

Kasper, G. and Markee, N.(2004). Classroom Talk. An Introduction. In the Modern Language

Jurnal,88, P491-500.

Kasper, G. and Rose, K.R.(2006). Pragmatics in Language Teaching. CUP

Kasper, G., and K. R. Rose. 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford:

Blackwell.

Kasper,G. & Rose,K.(2001). Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge Applied Linguistics

Series. CUP.

Kasper, G. & Schmidt, R.(1996).Developmental Issues in Interlanguage Pragmatics: SSLA,

18,149-169. Printed in the United States of America. CUP.

Kim, D. & Hall, J.K.(2002). The role of an integrative book reading program in the development

of second language pragmatic competence. The modern language journal.86:332-

348.

Kondo, S. (2004).Raising Pragmatic Awareness in the EFL Context. Sophia Junior College

Faculty Bulletin, 24, 49-72.

Korta, K. and Perry, J. (2006/2011). ‘Pragmatics’: in: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

(Edward N. Zalta (ed) Retrieved from

http://plato.stanford.edu/wrchives/sum2011/entries/pragmatics/

Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kramsch, C. (1986.) “From Language Proficiency to Interactional Competence” The Modern

Language Journal Vol.70, Issue 4, 366-372.

Krasner, I. (1999). The Role of Culture in Language Teaching. Dialogue on Language

Instruction, 13(1-2), 79-88.

Krippendorff, Klaus. (2004). (2nd

ed) Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology, Sage

Publications, UK.

Krisnawati,E. (2011). Pragmatic Competence in the Spoken English Classroom. Conaplin

Journal Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol. I No. 1 (July 2011).

Lee, S.J & McChesney, B., (2000). Discourse Rating Tasks. A teaching tool for developing

sociocultural competence. ELT Journal. OUP.

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.

Leung, C. (2005). Convival Communication: Re-contextualizing communicative competence.

International Journal of Applied Linguistics. Vol. 15, No.2, 119- 143.

http://www.answers.com/topic/communicative-competence

LoCastro, V. (1998). Learner Subjectivity and Pragmatic Competence Development.

International Christian University, Tokyo.

Lyons. J.(1995). Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University

Press. ISBN 0 521 43302 9 Price #35.00 (hardback) - ISBN 0 521 43877 2

(paperback). xvii+376 pages.

Martínez Flor, A., and Usó-Juan, E. 2010) (Eds): Speech act Performance: theoretical, empirical

and methodological issues: John Benjamins Publishing Company, The

Netherlands. http://books.google.es/

Martinez-Flor, A. and Uso-Juan, E. (2006). Pragmatic Development in a Second or Foreign

Language: Some Classroom Techniques at University. CRETA. Cambridge

Scholars Publishing.

Martínez-Flor, A. (2005): A Theoretical Review of The Speech Act of Suggesting: Towards A

Taxonomy for Its Use in FLT, In Revista Alicantina De Estudios Ingleses18:167-

187.

Martínez-Flor, Alicia (2004): The effect of instruction on the development of pragmatic

competence in the English as a foreign language context: A study based on

suggestions. Doctoral Dissertation. Castellón: Universitat Jaume I.

Mc Arthur, T. 1983. A Foundation Course for Language Teachers. Cambridge: CUP.

McKay, S. (2002). Teaching English as an International Language: Rethinking Goals and

Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Meier, Ardth,J.(1997). Teaching the Universals of Politeness. ELT Journal. Volume 51. OUP.

Mey, J. L. (2009). Encyclopedia of Pragmatics: University of Southern Denmark. Denmark.

Mey, J.L. (1991/2001): Pragmatics: An introduction. 2nd

ed. Malden. Blackwell Publishing, UK.

Murphy, B., & Neu, J. (1996). My grade’s too low: The speech act set of complaining. In S. M.

Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication

in a second language.(pp. 191-216): Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage

Publications.

Nikula, T. 2008. Learning pragmatics in content-based classrooms. In E. Alcón & A. Martinez-

Flor (eds.) Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching, and

Testing. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 94–113.

Ohno, A. (2004). Communicative Competence and Communicative Language Teaching.

Olshtain, E., & Cohen , A. W. (1983). Apology: A speech-act set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd

(Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 18-35): Cambridge, MA:

Newbury House.

Park, K.. J, Chang Bok-Myung, Lee, J. and Koin S. (2000). None-native Speakers Performance

Apology and Complements: What can they learn from EFL books? Journal of

Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistic 4/1: 217-230.

Peiying, J. (2008). Pragmatics and Pedagogy in College English Teaching. Shanghai: Shanghai

Foreign Language Education Press.

Peiying, J. (2007). Exploring Pragmatic Knowledge in College English Textbooks. Fudan

University. www.celea.org.cn/teic/75/75-109.pdf

Peterson, E., & Coltrane, B. (2003).Culture in Second Language Teaching. ERIC Clearinghouse

on Languages and Linguistics, EDO-FL-03-09.

Phillipson, R.(2009). Linguistic Imperialism. NY. OUP.

Pohl,G. (2004): Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure and Implications for Language Teaching: in

Second Language Learning & Teaching; An electronic journal for postgraduate

students http://www.usq.edu.au/users/sonjb/sllt/4/Pohl04.html

Prodromou, L. (2008). English as Cultural Action. ELT Journal Volume4 2/2. Oxford University

Press.

Purba, H. (2011).The Importance of Including Culture in EFL Teaching. JET Journal of English

Learning Volume 1, Number 1. 45-56. Christian University of Indonesia Jakarta,

Indonesia

Renou, J. 2001. An examination of the relationship between metalinguistic awareness and

second-language proficiency of adult learners of French. Language Awareness 10

(4), 248-67.

Robinson, D. (2006): Introducing Performative Pragmatics. Routledge, New York.

Regmi,M. (2011):The Role of Local Culture and Context in English Language Teaching. An

Examination of the Relationship Between Metalinguistic Awareness and Second-

language Proficiency of Adult Learners of French. Language Awareness 10 (4),

248-67.

Rueda, T.Y.(2006). Developing Pragmatic Competence in a Foreign Language. Theoretical

discussion paper. Colombian Applied Linguistics Paper, 8th

volume, pp169-182.

Rose, K.R. (2005) On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System 33 (3),

385_399.

Rose, K., R. (2000).“An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development.”

SSLA JOURNAL. 22, 27-67.

Rose, K. R. (1999). “Teachers and students learning about requests in Hong Kong”. Culture in

Second Language Teaching and Learning. Ed. E. Hinkel. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. 167-180.

Rose, K.R. (1994). Pragmatic Conscious Raising in an EFL Context. In Pragmatic and Language

Learning. Volume 5, p 52-63.

Rose, K. & Kasper, G. (2003). Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP.

Rose, K.R and Kasper, G.. (2001). Pragmatics in Language Teaching pp.1-9 in Rose, K.R. and

G.Kasper (eds). Pragmatics in Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge

University Press. eBook.

Rose, K. & Ng Kwai-fun, C. (2001). Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments and

compliment responses. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics and

language teaching (pp. 144-170). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sahragard, R., Rahimi, A., &Zaremoayedi, I. (2009). An in-depth evaluation of Interchange

Series (3rd ed.). Porta Linguarum, 12, 37-54.

Salazar, P. (2007). Examining mitigation in requests: A focus on transcripts in ELT course

books. In E. Alcón & M. P. Safont (Eds.), Intercultural Language Use and

Language Learning (pp. 207-222). Amsterdam: Springer.

Sanders, R. E. (2005). In Hand Book of Language and Social Interaction, by Kristine L. Fitch

and Robert E. Sanders (ed) Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Savignon, S. J. (2006). Communicative Language Teaching: Linguistic Theory and Classroom

Practice.

Savignon, S.J. (1997). Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. New

York: McGraw-Hill. 2nd edition.

Savignon, S. J. (1983). Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. Reading,

MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Schmidt, R.W. (1993). Interaction, Acculturation, and the Acquisition of Communicative

Competence: A Case Study of an Adult. The University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Schmidt, R.W. and Richards, J.C. (1980). Speech Acts and Second Language Learning. Applied

Linguistics 1: 129-159.

Searle, J. R.(1969). Speech Acts: an essay in the philosophy of Language. CUP, UK.

Setoguchi, E. (2008). Multiple-choice discourse completion tasks in Japanese English Language

Assessment: Second Language Studies 27, pp 41-101. University of Hawai’i at

Manoa

Stefanescu, M. (2010) : Speech Act Theory – The Founding Fathers: The paper offering an

account of the beginnings of speech act theory based on the contributions of J. L.

Austin, J. Searle and H.P. Grice.

Smith, B. (2011). Towards A History of Speech Act Theory: From A. Burkhardt, Ed., Speech

Acts, Meanings and Intentions. Critical Approaches to the Philosophy of John R.

Searle, Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 29-61.

Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In H. Spencer-Oatey

(Ed.), Culturally speaking - Managing rapport through talk across cultures (pp.

11-46). London: Continuum.

Spitzberg, Brian, H. (2009). ‘ A Model of Intercultural Communication Competence’. San

Diego State University

Stephanie, A. et.al (2009): Appropriateness and Effectiveness of Communication Channels in

Competent Interpersonal Communication. Journal of Communication, Summer,

ICA.

Straub, H. (1999). Designing a cross-cultural course. English Forum, 37(3).

Suh, E. (2009). ‘Metapragmatic Requesting Instruction In An Adult Basic Education-ESL

Classroom’: A Pilot Study Minnewitesol Journal, Volume 26,

www.Minnewitesoljournal.Org

Taguchi, Naoko (2006): Analysis of Appropriateness in a Speech Act of Request in L2 English:

Appeared In Pragmatics 16:4.513-533, International Pragmatics Association.

Takafumi, SH. ; FUKASAWA Emi ; & Shinichi, Y. ; (2007) Introductions and Practices of

Speech Acts in Oral Communication 1 Textbooks: From A Viewpoint of

Interlanguage Pragmatics. "ORAL COMMUNICATION 1" Sophia Linguistica.

vol. 55, pp. 143-163 [21 page(s) (article)] (2 p.3/4). Sophia University, Graduate

School of Languages and Linguistics, Tokyo, JAPON

Takahashi, S. (2005).Pragmalinguistic Awareness: Is It Related To Motivation And Proficiency?

Applied Linguistics 26/1: 90–120 .Oxford University Press. Rikkyo University,

Japan.

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.

Takimoto, M. (2008). The Effects of Various Kinds of Form-Focused Instruction on Learners’

Ability to Comprehend and Produce Polite Requests in English. TESL Canada

Journal/ 31 Vol. 26, No 1,

Takimoto,M.(2006). The Effects of Explicit Feedback on the Development of Pragmatic

Proficiency. Language Teaching Research. 10(4), 393-417.

Tateyama, Y. (2007). The effects of instruction on pragmatic awareness. In K. Bradford-Watts

(Ed.), JALT 2006 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT.

Teresa, Y. L. Ting (2009). Learning to Hypothesize with Confidence through Sudoku Game

Play. English Teaching Forum, Number 1. Italy.

Tomalin, B. (2008). Culture - the fifth language skill. Available at

http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/articles/culture-fifth-language-skill.

Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman

Group Limited.

Thomas, J. (1983): “Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure”. Applied Linguistics 4: 91-112.

Thomas S. C. F. and Martin, S. (2009). To Teach Standard English or World Englishes? A

Balanced Approach to Instruction. English Teaching Forum. Number 2. Canada.

Trosborg, A. (1994). Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Compliments, and Apologies. Walter

de Gruyter and Co, Berlin.

Usó-Juan, E. (2008). The presentation and practice of the communicative act of requesting in

textbooks: focusing on modifiers. In: Intercultural language use and language

learning by E. Alcón Soler and Maria, Spain. P. S. Jordà (eds.), Dordrecht, The

Netherlands : Springer, 223-243.

Usó-Juan, E. and Martínez-Flor, A. (2008): Teaching Intercultural Communicative Competence

through the Four Skills. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 21 157-170.

Jaume I University.

Usó-Juan, E.(2007) The presentation and practice of the communicative act of requesting in

textbooks: Focusing on modifiers. In E. Alcón and P. Safont (eds.). Intercultural

Language Use and Language Learning. Ámsterdam: Springer, pp. 223-245.

Usó Juan, E. and Salazar, P. C. (2002). Developing Pragmatic Competence in the EFL Setting.

The Case of Requests in Tourism Texts* ELIA 3, pp.103-122. Universitat Jaume

I.

Uso-Juan,E. and Martinez-Flor,A.(2008). Teaching Learners to appropriately Mitigate Requests.

ELT Journal 62/4:349-357.

Vellenga, H. (2004). Learning Pragmatics from ESL & EFL Textbooks: How Likely? The

Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language: Volume 8, Number 2

Northern Arizona University.

Verschueren, J. (2000).Notes on the Role of Metapragmatic Awareness in Language Use.

Pragmatics 10:4.439-456 .International Pragmatics Association.

Vittoria, G. (2009).Teaching Pragmatic Competence: Compliments and compliment responses in

the ESL Classroom; VOL 24, No 2. Marcquarie University.

Wallace, G. (2011). ‘In an EFL setting, what factors affect students’ learning of target language

pragmatics?’ The Asian Conference on Language Learning Official Conference

Proceedings 2011. (pp. 274-283). Osaka, Japan. available at

http://iafor.org/acll_proceedings.html

Wang, X.Y. (2008). Reflection on the notion of culture teaching.US-China Foreign Language,

6 (1), 49-53.

Wardhaugh, R. (1992): An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.

Waxman, H. C. (2011). Classroom Observation - Purposes of Classroom Observation,

Limitations of Classroom Observation, New Directions.

http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1835/Classroom-Observation.html

Webb, B. (2003). English for Ethiopia: Student Text Book. Grade 11. PEARSON.

Wichien, S. and Aksornjarung, P.(2011).Pragmatic Features in English Course Materials Used at

a Thai University. The 3rd International Conference on Humanities and Social

Sciences April 2, 2011 Faculty of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University

Proceedings-English Studies in Various Contexts.

White, R. (1993). Saying Please: Pragmalinguistic Failure In English Interaction: ELT Journal

Volume 47/3 Oxford University Press.

Widdowson, H. G. (1989). Knowledge of language and ability for use. Applied Linguistics,

10.128-137.

Wolfson, N. (1976). Speech events and natural speech: Some implications for sociolinguistic

methodology. Language in society, 5, 189-209.

Yeo, Geoffrey (2010): Representing the Act: Records and Speech Act Theory. Journal of the

Society of Archivists Vol. 31, No. 2, 95–117.

Yule, G. (2008). Pragmatics. OUP, UK.

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. In H. G. Widdowson (Ed.), Oxford introductions to language

study: Oxford University Press.

Yang, X.J. (2007).Negative effect of instruction on L2 learners‟ pragmatic development.” Sino-

US English teaching, 4(10), 25-28.

Yates, L. (2004). The ‘secret rules of language’: Tackling pragmatics in the classroom. Prospect,

19(1), 3-22.

Zegarac, V., & Pennington, M. C. (2000). Pragmatic transfer in intercultural communication. In

H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), culturally speaking - Managing rapport through talk

across cultures (pp. 165-190). London: Continuum.

Zohreh, R. and A. Eslami-Rasekh. 2008. Enhancing the pragmatic competence of non-native

English-speaking teacher candidates (NNESTCs) in an EFL context. In Alcòn

Soler E. and A. Martínez-Flor (eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign

language learning, teaching and testing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 178-197.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX-1

ADAMA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND LAW, DEPARTMENT OF HUMANITIES AND

LANGUAGES

(Textbooks’ Pragmatic Content Evaluation Checklist)

General pragmatic information, metalanguage, metapragmatic information, and speech acts’

treatments in the textbooks understudy will be checked using the following criteria. The

frequency of the following pragmatic information in each textbook will be checked page-by-

page.

Key Book 1=10th

grade English textbook Book 2=11th

grade textbook

ML=metalanguage explanation Mp=metapragmatic explanation

Speech acts Book 1 Book 2

ML MP ML MP

Interpersonal exchanges

12. Greeting and leave taking

13. Making introductions and identifying oneself

14. Extending, accepting and declining invitations and offers

15. Making and breaking engagements

16. Expressing and acknowledging gratitude

17. Complimenting and congratulating

18. Showing interest, surprise, sympathy, disbelief,

disappointment, interest

Information

5. asking for and giving information

6. reporting (describing, narrating)

7. explaining

8. remembering

Opinions

9. expressing and finding out about attitudes and opinions

10. agreeing and disagreeing

11. approving and disapproving

12. showing satisfaction and dissatisfaction

Feelings

7. expressing love, happiness, sadness, pleasure, anger,

embarrassment, pain, relief, fear, annoyance, surprise

Suasion

8. suggesting, requesting, instructions

9. giving orders, advising, and warning

10. asking for, granting and withholding permission

Problems

6. complaining and criticizing

7. blaming and accusing

8. admitting and denying

9. regretting

10. apologizing and forgiving

Future scenarios

wishes, hopes, and desires

plans, goals, and intentions

promising

predicting and speculating

possibilities and capabilities of doing something

Following Rules of Conversation

1. taking turns in conversation

2. introducing topics of conversation

3. staying on topic

4. rephrasing when misunderstood

5. how to use verbal and nonverbal signals

6. how close to stand to someone when speaking

7. how to use facial expressions and eye contact

Changing language according to the needs of a listener or

situation, such as

8. talking differently to a baby than to an adult

9. giving background information to unfamiliar listener

10. speaking differently in a classroom than on a playground

APPENDIX-2

ADAMA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND LAW, DEPARTMENT OF HUMANITIES AND

LANGUAGES

Questionnaire (for teachers)

Dear Teacher/Senior Teacher of English,

This study aims at identifying the difficulties you might face in teaching your students a very

important aspect of knowledge of English language known as pragmatic competence/awareness.

Pragmatic competence/awareness can be roughly defined as the ability to use language forms

appropriately in social situations or contexts. As teachers of English we face many difficulties in

teaching this aspect of language/knowledge. Such difficulties can be classified in to four categories:

difficulty related to your teacher education program relevant or relevant in-service training,

difficulties related to textbooks and teacher guides, lack of exposure to real life use in natural

situations outside the classroom and difficulties related to testing this aspect of knowledge. This

questionnaire is designed with the purpose of finding out which difficulties you are facing currently.

Hence, you are kindly requested to respond to the following questionnaire.

Many thanks for your cooperation. The researcher,

Personal information

Gender: M F Level of your education: Diploma Degree Masters Degree

Experience in teaching the English language: one year two years three years +

1. Have you studied a course on pragmatics (more specifically speech acts such as: requests,

refusals, apologies, compliments, thanks, complaints, etc) in your undergraduate teacher

education program? Please, put a tick mark in front of your answer.

a. Yes b. no

And you can put forward a point regarding the time and courses you have received about

pragmatics, please.___________________________________________________________

Statements and Items

Raters Inadequate Fairly

adequate

Adequate

2 Have you been taught any of the following items in

any of your undergraduate courses or in-service

training courses? To what extent have pre-service

and/or in-service education programs helped you?

a Become aware of pragmatics as a branch of

linguistics

b Compare English and your L1 pragmatic norms

and strategies

c Learn norms of ‘politeness’ in face to face

interaction in English

d Teach the pragmatic aspect of the English

language

e Design or select activities for teaching of this

aspect of knowledge of English

f Design tests of this aspect of knowledge of

English

Please, add anything you think relevant that is not

mentioned about your learning pragmatics

_____________________________________

3 To what extent do your students’ English

textbooks and teacher’s guides include each of

the following?

a Explanation related to this[pragmatic] aspect of

knowledge of English

b Activities that help students practice performing

those[pragmatic] uses of language

c Guidance about how to teach those[pragmatic]

uses of language

d Guidance for teachers as to how to test

those[pragmatic] uses of language

4 Teachers do not include in their lesson plan

teaching such [pragmatic] language aspects.

If you do not include any lesson of pragmatics in

your lesson plan why?

a/time allotment Str

on

gly

agre

e

Ag

ree

Par

tial

ly a

gre

e

dis

agre

e

b/lack of knowledge

c/lack of training

d/students language level

e/teachers’ language level

f/type of assessment

g/inadequate materials

Do not forget adding other challenges you feel

you are facing please, ________________

5 Please put a tick mark in front of your

response

Str

on

gly

agre

e

Ag

ree

Par

tial

ly

agre

e

dis

agre

e

a Some people argue that one of the reasons why

teachers do not teach pragmatic/cultural aspect

of the English language is lack of extra time.

b Many teachers have limited knowledge of the

target culture [English language culture] and,

therefore, are afraid to teach it in the classroom.

c English language teachers are often confused

about what aspect of the language culture to

cover.

d Teachers’ talk in the classroom is more

important in foreign language classrooms where

opportunities for the full range of human

interactions are limited to help learners acquire

pragmatic knowledge.

e The current English textbook discusses and

identifies pragmatic areas of the students’ needs

and students will be able to relate to the social

and cultural contexts presented in the textbook

f Methods and techniques of teaching

communicative language and pragmatics are

supposed to be different

g Teaching pragmatic competence is difficult and

teaching pragmatic competence is not as

important as teaching communicative ability

h Teachers rarely bring in outside materials

related to pragmatics

i Learning pragmatics from textbooks is

impossible

j Textbooks are inadequate in presenting

authentic pragmatic language samples, but

teachers can overcome shortcomings of

textbooks

k Textbooks cannot be counted as a reliable

source of pragmatic input

l What would you like to suggest at the end that

need to be done regarding the teaching of

pragmatics ______________________________

APPENDIX-3

The Pragmatics Awareness Test

Situations [Scenarios]

Dear students,

The following template is prepared to obtain information from you that would be used for research

purpose. Therefore, cooperate with me in responding to the questions you are asked. I would like to

thank you in advance for your cooperation.

The researcher,

Personal information

Gender age grade level

Background questionnaire

1. Birth place ______________________________

2. First language ___________________mother tongue _____________

3. Self evaluation of proficiency in English as compared to native/first language

Raters

Skills Excellent very good Fair poor

Speaking

Listening

Reading

Writing

Your responses to the following situations will also help the researcher to know your knowledge of

complimenting, apologizing, thanking, complaining, requesting, and refusing. So please, choose the

appropriate answer for each item in relation to the situations accordingly.

There are 20 situations on the following pages. Each situation will have possible responses. Circle the

letter of your choice (a, b, c, d, e or f) that you think is the most appropriate and acceptable for the

situation described. Thank you!

Situation 1:

Your friend gave you a nice complement on your new t-shirt. You notice this friend is wearing a new

dress too. You would like to say something nice but actually you don’t think it suits her at all. What

would say?

A. "I like your dress too but I think you need another color."

B. "I see you're wearing a nice new dress too. I think it really suits you. How much did it cost?"

C. "Oh, is that a new dress too? Nice."

D. "And you are very nice today. Are you wearing a new dress too? It's very pretty."

E. You would say nothing.

Situation 2:

Your friend tells you that she is considering taking an evening course. You heard that this course is

very difficult. What would you say?

A. "Don't take that course, please. It's too hard!"

B. "You'd better not take that course."

C. You would say nothing.

D. "I suppose that course to be really difficult. Are you sure you want to take it?"

Situation 3:

The librarian comes up to you and your friend but looks at you and tells you that you are talking too

loudly. What would you say?

A. "Sorry, I didn't realize we were talking so loud."

B. “Thank you; it’s OK."

C. ''I'm terribly sorry. I honestly forgot I was in a library. Please accept my sincere apologies."

D. "OK, OK but I wasn't the only one talking, you know." (You point to your friend.)

E. You would say nothing

Situation 4:

You are in an exam room. Your pen has run out of ink. You know the teacher who is invigilating the

exam has extra pen. You stand up and go to the teacher and say:

A. "Oh, my pen seems to have run out of ink!"

B. "I wonder if you have a pen I could borrow? Mine seems to have run out of ink."

C. "Excuse me sir; I want your extra pen, please. Mine seems to have run out of ink."

D. "Give me your extra pen, please."

E. You would say nothing.

F. You simply shake the pen to make it write.

Situation 5:

You are in a hurry for school time is almost over. You decide to buy a pen on your way to school.

You pay for it and then the salesclerk asks you to fill out a customer survey form. If you fill out the

form you will be late. What do you say?

A. "Sorry, but I'm in a hurry."

B. "I'm sorry, I wish I could but I really can't. I'm in a hurry for school.”

C. "No, I don't have time for such things."

D. "OK, but I’ll do it very quickly." (You fill out the form and are late.)

E. You shake your head to indicate no and say nothing.

Situation 6:

When telling your friend that you like his/her shirt, you say:

A. "Hey, cool shirt, I like that!"

B. "Hello, you look very nice today, I really like that shirt."

C. “Hello, you look nice, I like that shirt”

D. “Thank you; it is nice shirt for how much did you by?”

E. “You are so sweet.”

Situation 7:

Consider, for example, a teacher making a simple request of a student to close a classroom door to

shut off the noise from the corridor. There are a number of ways this request can be made; which one

is the most appropriate one?

A. "Could you please close the door?"

B. "Why aren't you shutting the door?"

C. "SHUT THE DOOR!"

D. “Go back, and shut that door!”

E. “Don’t you know that the door should be shut.”

Situation 8:

You would like to go to a concert this weekend but you don’t have any money. You must not miss it

as one of the artists is your favorite. You have to borrow some money from your older uncle whose

name is Chemere. How would you ask?

A. “Give me 50 birr that I will pay you back tomorrow, please.”

B. “It’s not such a big deal if you lend me 50 birr that I will pay you back soon.”

C. “Oh, Chemere, please, I would like to go to the concert but I have no money.

Would you lend me 50 birr? I can pay you back tomorrow, I promise.”

D. “Lend me 50 birr please, you will be paid tomorrow.”

Situation 9:

Hunde is your neighbor. He is 40 and an office worker. You took his bicycle to school and got in an

accident. How would you apologize in an acceptable way?

A. “Hey, Hunde, I’m really sorry.”

B. “Oh, Hunde, I’m very sorry. I took your bicycle to the school, and I got in an accident.

Forgive me. I’m going to take it to a garage, and I myself am going to pay the costs of the

repairs.”

C. “I’m really very sorry, Hunde.”

D. “Hello, Hunde, I’m terribly sorry but I will repair it for you. I’m going to take it to a

garage”

E. “Oh my, what an idiot I am!”

Situation 10:

You are wearing a new shirt and a classmate looks at you and says: “This shirt looks great on you!

Blue is a great color for you.”

You answer:

A. ‘Hello, Thank you.’

B. ‘Oh, I’m sure thank you.’

C. ‘Yeah, I’m keen on choosing colors, don’t worry.’

D. ‘Thanks, I bought it for trip to Sodere’

E. Silence (you say nothing).

Situation 11:

You were planning on going to breakfast with your close friend, Guta, but as you walk up, it is

already 40 minutes past the time you were supposed to be at the restaurant. You call your friend’s cell

phone and apologize:

You answer:

A. ‘How can I make up to you? Can I buy you lunch on Sunday?’

B. ‘I’m so forgetful. You know me, I’m never on time.’

C. ‘Have you been waiting for a long time? It’s ok, forget it.’

D. ‘I’m sorry; would you be willing to reschedule the appointment?’

E. Silence

Situation12:

Your friends and you are given a project work that must be submitted within two days. One of your

friends is very much uncooperative. He doesn’t come on time whenever you ask him to contribute.

What would you say to him in that case?

A. “No harm done!”

B. “Shame up on you that we should have done it by now.”

C. “You are always late and now we have less time to do the job.”

D. “Come on let’s finish it.”

E. “Go and do it alone; it is not my business.”

F. You say nothing.

Situation 13:

You and your uncle went to a restaurant. You ordered roasted chicken. Your uncle decides to order

something else. When his meal comes it looks delicious but when your meal comes, it is burnt. What

would you say to the waiter?

A. "Hey waiter, my meal is burnt. Take it back to the kitchen and get me what he has."

(You point to your uncle’s meal)

B. "Please forgive me but my meal is burnt."

C. "Excuse me waiter, I'm sorry to have to say this but my meal is burnt. Give me something

else, please."

D. You would eat it even though it does not taste good.

Situation 14:

Just when you finally start eating your uncle lights up a cigarette. You do not like cigarette smoke

when you are eating. What would you say to your uncle?

A. "Doesn't cigarette smoke ruin your appetite?"

B. "Get out of here with that cigarette!"

C. "Would you mind waiting until I'm finished eating before smoking."

D. "You're ruining my meal. Put your cigarette out. Please."

E. You would say nothing.

Situation 15:

After the meal you would like to thank your hosts. What would you say?

A. “Thank you so much. That was a great meal."

B. “Thank you."

C. “You treated me too well. Thank you from the bottom of my heart."

D. "I appreciated the meal."

E. You would say nothing.

Situation 16

You are a student. You forgot to do the assignment for your English language. When your teacher

whom you have known for some years asks for your assignment, you apologize to your teacher.

A. “Can I bring it to you at the end of the day?”

B. “Shall I do the assignment at once?”

C. I’m sorry; I've completed my assignment but forgot to bring it with me. I'll hand it in

tomorrow.”

D. You would say nothing.

Situation 17

When someone compliments the watch you are wearing and says - I like your watch, you would:

A. Say, "Oh this cheap thing? It's not worth much."

B. Give it to him/her.

C. Say, "Thanks" and smile.

D. Say, "Would you like to have it?"

Situation 18

For a woman it is not considered appropriate to give compliments to:

A. A woman about her husband.

B. A man about his wife.

C. A couple about their child.

D. A doctor about his or her salary.

Situation 19

If someone offers you some food that you really don't like, you might say:

A. "I hate that."

B. "Sure, I'd love some more."

C. "I'll have just a little bit, please."

D. "Thanks, but I'm really full.”

Situation 20

You have just been asked out to dinner but you really don't want to go with the person who invited you. You

might say:

A. "Thanks a lot but I'm busy tonight.”

B. "No, I really don't enjoy being with you.

C. "I'm dieting so I mustn't go out to eat."

D. "I don't think so. I already have plans."

Look back at situations 1-20. When you wrote down your answers what did you think? Circle as

many as you want.

a). I remembered what I heard in class

b). I heard it once somewhere

c). I remembered what I wrote in my notebook

d). I remember the teacher had explained it

e). I knew the answer from reading

f). I translated it from my mother tongue

g). It sounded right

h).others

______________________________________________________________________________

I. Number the following actions from what you think is most difficult for you to say in English to

what is the least difficult, starting with number one as most difficult.

___________Invitations

___________ Refusals/Saying no to an offer

__________ Apologies/Saying sorry for something

__________ Requests/Asking for things

__________ Commands/Telling someone to do something

__________ Compliments

___________ Giving suggestions

___________ Giving advice

___________ thanking someone

___________ Complaints

J. Reason out why you ordered those actions from the most difficult to the least__________________

APPENDIX-4

Table12. Classroom Observation Checklist

Items

category

Subcategories Spotted Unspotted

Cla

ssro

om

Act

ivit

ies

1. drills

2. translation

3. discussion

1. presentations

2.conscious raising activities

3.explicit instruction of pragmatics

4.awareness-raising activities

5.guided practice

9. game

10. role plays

11. DCT, ODCT, MDCT or WDCT

Participant

organization

1. teacher to students

2. student to students or student to the classroom

3.group work

4. individual work

Content or

explicit focus

on language

1. form/grammar

2. discourse

3. usage

4. use/function: complaining, complimenting,

refusing

Mate

rials

use

d 1. written

2. audio

3. visual

4. stories

5. dialogues

6. scenarios/situations/authentic language

samples or models

Com

mu

nic

ati

ve

featu

res

1. use of target language

2. information gap

3. sustained speech

4. reaction to code or message

5. incorporation of preceding utterances

6. discourse initiation

7. relative restriction of linguistic form/semantic

formula

APPENDIX-5

Table2.Communicative Acts in the Textbooks

Com

munic

ativ

e

Act

s

Topic

/ty

pes

stra

tegie

s

Ex

amp

le o

r st

rate

gie

s

or

real

izat

ion

of

stra

teg

ies

Book 1

Book 1

Com

pli

men

ts appearance/possessions e.g., You look absolutely beautiful!)

performance/skills/abilities (e.g., Your presentation was excellent.)

personality traits (e.g., You are so sweet.)

Ref

usa

l

Direct refusals (e.g. ‘No’, ‘I can’t’, ‘I don’t think I

can’)

Statement of regret (e.g. ‘I’m sorry’)

Statement of positive opinion (e.g. ‘I’d love to’, ‘I wish I could’)

Excuse, reason, explanation (e.g. ‘I have to study for the test’)

Gratitude (e.g. ‘Thank you’)

Statement of future

acceptance

(e.g. ‘Perhaps some other time’)

Indefinite reply (e.g. ‘I’m not sure’, ‘I don’t know’)

Statement of alternative (e.g., ‘How about the movies’)

Statement of empathy (e.g. ‘No offence to you’)

Th

an

kin

g

Good wish to hearer (e.g. ‘Have a nice trip’, ‘Hope you have

fun’)

Thanking someone explicitly (e.g. Thanks, thank you, thank you for,

thank you very much, thanks a lot, fine

thanks…)

Expressing gratitude (e.g. I’m grateful…)

Expressing the appreciation

of the addressee

(e.g. That’s kind of you, that’s nice of

you…)

Expressing the appreciation

of the act

(e.g. That’s lovely, it’s appreciated…)

Acknowledging a debt of

gratitude

(e.g. I owe a debt of gratitude to…)

Stressing one’s gratitude (e.g. I must thank you…)

Expressing emotion (e.g. Oh, thank you…)

Suppressing one’s own

importance[self-denigration]

(e.g. I’m an ingrate, I’m so careless)

Ap

olo

gie s

Explicitly apologizing (e.g. I apologize)

Offering/presenting one’s

apologies

(e.g. I present my apologies)

Acknowledging a debt of

apology

(e.g. I owe you an apology)

Expressing regret (e.g. I’m sorry, I’m regretful …)

Demanding forgiveness (e.g. Pardon me, forgive me, excuse

me…)

Explicitly requesting the

hearer’s forgiveness

(e.g. I beg your pardon, )

Giving an explanation or

account

(e.g. I’m sorry “The bus was late,” it’s

so unusual…)

Self-denigration or self

reproach

(e.g. How stupid of me, how awful, I

ought to know this)

Minimizing responsibility (e.g. I didn’t mean to…, I thought this

was…, )

Expressing emotion (e.g. Oh, I’m so sorry…,)

Acknowledging responsibility

for the offending act

(e.g. It’s my fault…,)

Promising forbearance from a

similar offending act

(e.g. I promise you that will never

happen again)

Offering redress (e.g. Please let me pay for the damage I

have done)

Req

ues

tin

g

Asking about ability to do

something[ability]

(e.g. Can you come to the party?

Can you help me? Can I talk to Mr.

president? )

Asking about the possibility

of the desired act happening

[consultation]

(e.g. Is it possible…, would you

mind…,)

Asking whether the hearer is

willing to do or has an

objection to do

something[willingness]

(e.g. Will you…, would you(like)…, )

Expressing a wish that the

agent should do something

[want]

(e.g. I would like you to…,)

Expressing a need or desire

for goods [need]

(e.g. I want…, I need…,)

Stating that the hearer is

under the obligation to do

something [obligation]

(e.g. You must…, you have to…,)

Stating that it is appropriate

that the hearer performs the

desired action

(e.g. You should…, )

Asking an idiomatic WH

questions

(e.g. What about…, how about…, why

don’t you…, why not…)

Hypothesis (e.g. If you would…, perhaps you

would….)

Appreciation (e.g. I would be grateful if you would

do…, I would be glad if …)

Permission quest (e.g. May I …, let me…)

Naming the object requested (e.g. The next slide please)

Checking the

availability[existence]

(e.g. Is Mr…there…)

Com

pla

inin

g

Valuation-an utterance

expressing the feelings of the

Speaker about either the

Addressee or the problem.

(e.g. e.g. 'It's really disgusting.')

Closing - An utterance made

by the Speaker to conclude

the complaint set.

(e.g. OK, thanks. )

Threat- An utterance stating

an action the Speaker might

take, depending on the

reaction of the Addressee.

(e.g. e.g. "I, er..could take it higher

than just talking to you." )

Remedy - An utterance

calling for some corrective

action.

(e.g. 'This is going to have to stop.')

Justification of The

Addressee - An utterance

giving a reason or excuse for

the Addressee's having

committed the wrong or

considering the effect on the

Addressee.

( e.g. 'Is this time particularly difficult

for you?" )

Justification of the speaker-

An utterance explaining why

the Speaker is making the

complaint and the effects of

the wrong on the Speaker.

( e.g. "... because I... you're making me

miss lectures by turning up late." )

Act Statement- An utterance

which states the problem

directly.

(e.g. "This is the fourth time this month

you've been really late!" )

Orientation - An utterance

giving the Speaker's intent in

initiating the complaint, but

with no detail.

(e.g. 'I've been meaning to talk to you

about the rubbish you've been leaving

outside.' )

Opener- An utterance

initiating the speech act set

but giving no information

about the wrong.

(e.g. "Listen, Jimmy." )

Explicit complaint

(e.g. You’re not fair. You’re

inconsiderate. One should

not postpone this type of operation.

I’ve been waiting here for nearly an

hour. You are always

late. I expected different treatment from

a physician like you.)

Request for Explanation-

An utterance calling for an

explanation of the

Addressee's behavior,

(e.g. 'I mean, why do you do it?')

Blame -An utterance finding

fault with the Addressee or

holding him/her responsible

for the wrong,

(e.g. 'You realize 'cause you're late

again...')

APPENDIX-6

ADAMA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND LAW, DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE

(QUESTIONNAIRE for SELF-PERCEIVED COMPETENCE)

Dear students, the following table is about your general perception with regards to your

communicative competence. Hence, you are kindly required to put a tick mark in front of your

response for each description. Thank you.

5=strongly agree 4=agree 3=neither agree nor disagree 2=disagree 1=strongly disagree

Criteria Description Value

5 4 3 2 1

Soci

ocu

ltu

ral/

soci

oli

ngu

isti

c C

om

pet

ence

1 Speaking English can help me interact

with native speakers.

2 Studying English is important because it

can help me make friends who speak

English.

3 Learning English is important because it

will broaden my world view.

4 If I speak English well, I can travel around

the world without language barriers.

5 I want to do well in English because I

want to show my ability to my parents/

teachers/ friends.

6 I want to improve my English because

most of my friends speak English very

well.

7 I want to improve my English in order to

understand foreign cultures.

8 It is important to speak appropriate

English in different social contexts.

9 I think learning English will be more

effective if we have group discussion with

classmates during the class.

10 Whenever I have communication

breakdown in conversations with native

speakers, I will try to use verbal or non-

verbal messages to bridge the gap.

Dis

cou

rse

com

pet

ence

1 I usually practice many grammar drills in

order to improve my English.

2 I will ask myself to express my thoughts

in a comprehensive and correct manner in

English.

3 I perceive that I can express my ideas

naturally in spoken English.

4 I will try to talk to native speakers to

strengthen my spoken English.

5 I perceive that I feel more comfortable to

express my ideas in written English.

6 I will read different grammar books

written by different authors to improve

my grammatical competence.

7 Students are expected to be able to use

extended utterances where appropriate

8 Students need to have the ability to

maintain coherent flow of language over

several utterances

Str

ate

gic

Co

mp

eten

ce

1 Whenever there are words which I don’t

understand, I will look up the dictionary

right away.

3 Whenever there is something we don’t

understand in class, We should raise the

questions immediately.

4 When I read an article written in English,

I will always try to guess those unknown

words based on their contexts.

5 As long as there are things I don’t

understand, I will ask questions to

teachers.

Gra

mm

ati

cal

Com

pet

ence

1

I really believe that memorizing

vocabulary needs to go competence with

reading.

2 English four skills in listening, speaking,

reading, and writing should be developed

at the same time.

3 I usually spend a lot of time memorizing

vocabulary.

Pra

gm

ati

c C

om

pet

ence

1 I know what to say, when to say and how

to say and rule of talking when talking

with other people in English

2 I pay special attention when I make

requests

3 I pay special attention to other people

making requests

4 I pay special attention to other people

when I refuse

5 I pay attention to other people’s feeling,

status and age when I complain

6 I know when I should use modal verbs

such as can, could, would, or may when

apologizing, requesting, refusing,

thanking, inviting, suggesting ,etc.

7 I know taking turns in conversation

8 I know how to do rephrasing when

misunderstood

9 I have the skill as to how to use verbal and

nonverbal signals

10 I know how close to stand to someone

when speaking

11 I have the skills as to how to use facial

expressions and eye contact

12 I know the giving background information

to unfamiliar listener will help

13 I know speaking in a classroom is

different from speaking on a playground

14 I know how to address and talk to people

whose age and status are different from

mine