The Development of Pragmatic Competence in Request Speech ...

The Development of Pragmatic Competence in Request Speech Acts of Thai Learners of English in Study Abroad

Contexts

by

Jarinthorn Phaisarnsitthikarn

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning University of Toronto

© Copyright by Jarinthorn Phaisarnsitthikarn 2020

ii

The Development of Pragmatic Competence in Request Speech

Acts of Thai Learners of English in Study Abroad Contexts

Jarinthorn Phaisarnsitthikarn

Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning

University of Toronto

2020

Abstract

This mixed-methods study examines the effect of study abroad on the development of pragmatic

competence by Thai learners of English. Drawing on Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness

theory as a theoretical framework, this study focuses on the production of speech acts of request.

Data were collected using an enhanced discourse completion test (EDCT), a bio-data

questionnaire, and semi-structured interviews. The four study groups used in this study include

two groups of Thai learners of English: one with study abroad experience and another without.

Two additional groups were used to represent the learners’ native language (L1), Thai, and target

language (L2), English. Request data were coded based on the coding system developed by

Blum-Kulka et al. (1989). Quantitative methods were employed to analyze six aspects of

requests: request perspectives, request strategies, internal modifications, request structures,

alerters, and supportive moves. Follow-up questionnaires included in the EDCT and semi-

structured interviews provided insights into the participants’ perceptions regarding their request

production and L2 development. The results reveal linguistic and cultural differences between

the learners’ L1 and L2 communities. Although, in general, the linguistic features analyzed in the

requests of both learner groups tended to conform more closely to L2 norms than to the norms of

their L1, the study abroad group showed greater development toward L2 norms in terms of the

iii

variety and frequencies of various linguistic features, suggesting a positive effect of study

abroad. Data controlling for the social variables of social distance and relative power revealed

only minimal differences between the two learner groups, suggesting study abroad did not

impact the learners’ sensitivity to these variables. Interview data showed that study abroad

learners generally held a very positive view of the impact of study abroad on their pragmatic

development, citing confidence gains resulting from the greater number of real-world

interactions as a catalyst for this development. These findings support previous research that has

demonstrated a positive effect of study abroad on L2 learners’ pragmatic competence. Moreover,

from these findings come implications for instruction of L2 pragmatic skills as well as

recommendations for future research.

iv

Acknowledgments

Completing my PhD degree is one of the most challenging activities of my life. The best and

most difficult moments of this academic journey have been shared with many wonderful people

who helped me reach the finish line.

First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my academic advisor and

dissertation supervisor, Dr. Katherine Rehner, for her excellent dedication, expertise, thoughtful

advice, active guidance, and tremendous support in all aspects from my first day of PhD study up

to the final stages of dissertation completion. Without her, this dissertation would not have been

completed successfully.

I am very grateful to my professor and second member of my dissertation committee, Dr. Julie

Kerekes, whose classes sparked my interest in pragmatics, and who provided rigorous and

insightful feedback to help me improve my work. I would like to thank the third member of my

dissertation committee, Dr. Becky Chen, for her valuable feedback and unlimited patience in

guiding me through the statistical analysis. My sincere thanks also go to my External Examiner,

Dr. Jin Sook Lee, for her precious input and detailed feedback to help me improve the quality of

the dissertation. I would also like to thank my Internal-External Examiner, Dr. Marie-Paule Lory,

and Alternative Internal Examiner, Dr. Emmanuelle Le Pichon-Vorstman, for their questions and

support during my dissertation defense.

I wish to show my gratitude to the University of Toronto for providing a Graduate Funding

Package (2014–2017). With the generous financial support, I was able to devote all my time to

my PhD studies. Thanks also go to OISE for their wonderful staff and facilities.

I would like to send my special thanks to the following people for their help with this research

project: Dr. Nara Kitimetheekul and Mr. Palakorn Duangkate for their advice and great effort in

teaching me about statistics; all the experts at Kasetsart University for helping to validate my

data collection instruments, refine my data coding system, and ensure the reliability of the data

coding; all my friends in Thailand for supporting me directly and indirectly during the course of

my studies and the completion of this dissertation.

My special gratitude goes to my beloved family for their love and motivational support. I am

also deeply thankful to Scott, the most understanding and caring better half, who shared with me

v

the joys and sorrows of a PhD student life and who has always been there by my side. Thanks for

sharing with me your knowledge and help in polishing my drafts. I simply could not have done

this without you.

Many thanks also go to all my participants who took part in this study. Their generosity with

their time and enthusiastic participation have been invaluable for this project.

vi

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................ iv

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xi

List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xii

List of Appendices ...................................................................................................................... xiv

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations .........................................................................................xv

Chapter 1 Introduction..................................................................................................................1

1.1 Overview ..............................................................................................................................1

1.2 Background ..........................................................................................................................2

1.2.1 English in Thailand ..................................................................................................2

1.2.2 English instruction in Thailand ................................................................................3

1.3 Rationale ..............................................................................................................................4

1.3.1 The need for pragmatic competence development ..................................................4

1.3.2 The benefits of study abroad to Thai students .........................................................5

1.4 Objectives ............................................................................................................................6

1.5 Research questions ...............................................................................................................6

1.6 Definitions of terms .............................................................................................................7

1.7 Significance of the study ......................................................................................................9

1.8 Outline of the thesis ...........................................................................................................10

1.9 Chapter summary ...............................................................................................................10

Chapter 2 Theoretical Framework .............................................................................................11

2.1 Pragmatics ..........................................................................................................................11

2.2 Pragmatic competence .......................................................................................................11

2.2.1 Interlanguage pragmatics .......................................................................................13

2.2.2 Pragmatic failure ....................................................................................................15

vii

2.3 Speech act theory ...............................................................................................................16

2.4 Speech acts of request ........................................................................................................18

2.5 Politeness ...........................................................................................................................18

2.5.1 Leech’s politeness principle ...................................................................................19

2.5.2 Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory ...............................................................20

2.5.3 Criticisms of Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory and alternative

frameworks ............................................................................................................23

2.6 Chapter summary ...............................................................................................................26

Chapter 3 Literature Review ......................................................................................................27

3.1 ILP research on requests ....................................................................................................28

3.1.1 The proficiency effect on pragmatic competence ..................................................28

3.1.2 Proficiency and request strategies ..........................................................................28

3.1.3 Proficiency and internal modifications ..................................................................30

3.1.4 Proficiency and external modifications .................................................................32

3.1.5 Proficiency and comprehension .............................................................................33

3.1.6 Proficiency and pragmatic transfer ........................................................................35

3.1.7 Factors influencing pragmatic transfer ..................................................................36

3.1.8 Transfer of training ................................................................................................38

3.1.9 Mediation of social identity ...................................................................................38

3.1.10 Instruction of pragmatic competence .....................................................................40

3.2 ILP studies in study abroad contexts .................................................................................42

3.3 The pragmatic development of Thai learners of English ...................................................48

3.3.1 The cultural and linguistic backgrounds of Thai speakers .....................................49

3.3.2 ILP studies on Thai learners of English .................................................................51

3.4 Gaps in the literature ..........................................................................................................55

3.5 Chapter summary ...............................................................................................................56

viii

Chapter 4 Methodology ...............................................................................................................58

4.1 Methodological approach...................................................................................................58

4.2 Participants .........................................................................................................................60

4.2.1 Study abroad group (SA) .......................................................................................60

4.2.2 At home group (AH) ..............................................................................................62

4.2.3 Native Thai speaker group (NT) ............................................................................62

4.2.4 English dominant speaker group (ED) ...................................................................63

4.3 Data collection instruments................................................................................................64

4.3.1 Biodata questionnaires ...........................................................................................65

4.3.2 Enhanced discourse completion task (EDCT) .......................................................65

4.3.3 Interviews ...............................................................................................................69

4.4 Data collection procedures .................................................................................................69

4.5 Data coding ........................................................................................................................70

4.5.1 Request perspectives ..............................................................................................71

4.5.2 Request strategies...................................................................................................72

4.5.3 Internal modifications ............................................................................................73

4.5.4 Request structures ..................................................................................................75

4.5.5 Alerters ...................................................................................................................76

4.5.6 Supportive moves...................................................................................................76

4.5.7 EDCT qualitative data............................................................................................78

4.6 Inter-rater reliability ...........................................................................................................79

4.7 Data analysis ......................................................................................................................80

4.8 Chapter summary ...............................................................................................................82

Chapter 5 Request Data Analysis and Discussion ....................................................................84

5.1 Request perspectives ..........................................................................................................84

5.1.1 Choice of request perspectives ...............................................................................84

ix

5.1.2 Relative power .......................................................................................................90

5.1.3 Social distance .......................................................................................................94

5.2 Request strategies...............................................................................................................98

5.2.1 Choice of request strategies ...................................................................................98

5.2.1.1 Directness levels ......................................................................................98

5.2.1.2 Direct strategies .....................................................................................100

5.2.1.3 Conventionally indirect strategies .........................................................102

5.2.1.4 Unconventionally indirect strategies .....................................................105

5.2.2 Relative power .....................................................................................................107

5.2.3 Social distance .....................................................................................................111

5.3 Internal modifications ......................................................................................................113

5.3.1 Choice of internal modifications ..........................................................................113

5.3.1.1 Syntactic downgraders ...........................................................................115

5.3.1.2 Lexical/phrasal downgraders .................................................................122

5.3.1.3 Upgraders ..............................................................................................129

5.3.2 Relative power .....................................................................................................131

5.3.3 Social distance .....................................................................................................134

5.4 Request structures ............................................................................................................138

5.4.1 Choice of request structures .................................................................................138

5.4.2 Relative power .....................................................................................................140

5.4.3 Social distance .....................................................................................................143

5.5 Alerters .............................................................................................................................145

5.5.1 Choice of alerters .................................................................................................145

5.5.2 Relative power .....................................................................................................152

5.5.3 Social distance .....................................................................................................157

5.6 Supportive moves.............................................................................................................160

x

5.6.1 Choice of supportive moves.................................................................................160

5.6.2 Relative power .....................................................................................................168

5.6.3 Social distance .....................................................................................................173

5.7 Chapter summary .............................................................................................................177

Chapter 6 Perception Data Analysis and Discussion ..............................................................180

6.1 Second section of the EDCT ............................................................................................180

6.2 Semi-structured interviews ..............................................................................................198

6.3 Chapter summary .............................................................................................................209

Chapter 7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................210

7.1 Summary of the findings ..................................................................................................210

7.1.1 Research question 1 .............................................................................................210





7.2 Pedagogical implications .................................................................................................224

7.3 Limitations and opportunities for future research ............................................................228

References ...................................................................................................................................232

Appendices ..................................................................................................................................255

xi

List of Tables

Table 1 EDCT Social Variable Combinations ............................................................................. 68

Table 2 Request Perspectives ....................................................................................................... 71

Table 3 Request Strategies ............................................................................................................ 72

Table 4 Internal Modifications ..................................................................................................... 74

Table 5 Request Structures ........................................................................................................... 76

Table 6 Alerters............................................................................................................................. 76

Table 7 Supportive Moves ............................................................................................................ 77

Table 8 Distribution of Request Perspectives Used in All Nine Situations ................................. 85

Table 9 Distribution of Direct Strategies Used in All Nine Situations ...................................... 101

Table 10 Distribution of Conventionally Indirect Strategies Used in All Nine Situations ........ 103

Table 11 Distribution of Unconventionally Indirect Strategies Used in All Nine Situations .... 105

Table 12 Distribution of Request Structures Used in All Nine Situations ................................. 139

Table 13 Ratings of the Degree of Imposition ........................................................................... 182

Table 14 Percentage of Participants Experiencing Similar Situations in Real Life.................. 183

xii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Distribution of request perspectives used in situations controlling for relative power. 92

Figure 2. Distribution of request perspectives used in situations controlling for social distance. 97

Figure 3. Distribution of directness of levels of request strategies. ............................................. 99

Figure 4. Distribution of request strategies used in situations controlling for relative power. .. 108

Figure 5. Distribution of request strategies used in situations controlling for social distance. .. 112

Figure 6. Mean number of internal modification types used per head act. ................................ 114

Figure 7. Mean number of syntactic downgrader types used per head act. ................................ 117

Figure 8. Mean number of lexical/phrasal downgrader types used per head act. ...................... 124

Figure 9. Mean number of upgrader types used per head act. .................................................... 130

Figure 10. Mean number of internal modification types used per head act in situations

controlling for relative power. .................................................................................................... 134

Figure 11. Mean number of internal modification types used per head act in situations

controlling for social distance. .................................................................................................... 136

Figure 12. Distribution of request structures used in situations controlling for relative power. 141

Figure 13. Distribution of request structures used in situations controlling for social distance. 144

Figure 14. Mean number of various alerter types used per request. ........................................... 146

Figure 15. Mean number of various alerter types used per request in situations controlling for

relative power.............................................................................................................................. 154

Figure 16. Mean number of various alerter types used per request in situations controlling for

social distance. ............................................................................................................................ 158

Figure 17. Mean number of supportive types used per request. ................................................. 161

Figure 18. Mean number of mitigating supportive move types used per request. ..................... 162

Figure 19. Mean number of aggravating supportive move types used per request. ................... 168

xiii

Figure 20. Mean number of mitigating supportive move types used per request in situations

controlling for relative power. .................................................................................................... 171

Figure 21. Mean number of mitigating supportive move types used per request in situations

controlling for social distance. .................................................................................................... 175

xiv

List of Appendices

Appendix A. Bio-data questionnaire for SA group participants ................................................. 255

Appendix B. Bio-data questionnaire for AH group participants ................................................ 258

Appendix C. Bio-data questionnaire for NT group participants ................................................. 261

Appendix D. Bio-data questionnaire for ED group participants................................................. 266

Appendix E. Enhanced Discourse Completion Task .................................................................. 268

Appendix F. Interview questions for SA group participants ...................................................... 286

Appendix G. Interview questions for AH group participants ..................................................... 294

Appendix H. Interview questions for NT group participants ..................................................... 300

Appendix I. Interview questions for ED group participants ....................................................... 304

xv

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

AEC ASEAN Economic Community

AH At home learner

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations

CCSARP Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project

DCT Discourse Completion Task

EDCT Enhanced Discourse Completion Task

ED English dominant speakers

EFL English as a Foreign Language

EFL learner Learner in a country where English is used as a foreign language (e.g., Japan,

China, Korea, Thailand)

ESL English as a Second Language

ESL learner Learner in a country where English is an official and dominant language

(e.g., Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, New Zealand,

and Ireland)

FTA Face-threatening act

HA Head act

IELTS The International English Language Testing System

ILP Interlanguage pragmatics

L1 First language

L2 Second language

xvi

MOE Ministry of Education

NT Native Thai speakers

ODCT Oral discourse completion test

SA Study abroad learner (including learner with study abroad experience)

SM Supportive move

SLA Second language acquisition

TOEFL Test of English as a Foreign Language

UK United Kingdom

USA United States of America

1

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Overview

With the current focus in the field of second language (L2) education on the development of

communicative skills, there has been a recognition of pragmatic competence, which refers to

“the ability to communicate your intended message with all its nuances in any socio-cultural

context and to interpret the message of your interlocutor as it was intended” (Fraser, 2010, p. 15),

as an important component of communicative competence. In order to communicate effectively,

speakers must have not only linguistic knowledge, but also knowledge of conventions of

communication in a particular social environment. Acquiring L2 pragmatic competence is,

therefore, a complex and challenging part of the L2 acquisition (SLA) process.

Study abroad appears to be one way that many L2 learners believe to be highly effective in

improving their L2 language skills (Brown, Dewey, & Belnap, 2015; Kinginger, 2009;

Pellegrino, 1998; Yang & Rehner, 2015; Zhang, 2012). Being in the target language environment

grants learners ample opportunities to learn and use the target language with an embedded

cultural component, which is essential for developing communicative language skills, including

skills relating to pragmatic competence. The benefits of study abroad make it a popular option

among Thai learners of English, too, many of whom perceive advantages in learning English in a

native English-speaking country over the at-home context (Lertjanyakit & Bunchapattanasakda,

2015; Pimpa, 2004). While substantial research has been done to investigate the effects of the

study abroad experience on the pragmatic development of L2 learners of several languages (e.g.,

Alcón-Soler, 2015; Bardovi-Harlig & Dörnyei, 1998; Barron, 2003; Bella, 2011; Cohen &

Shively, 2007; Félix-Brasdefer, 2004; Hassall, 2013; Khorshidi, 2013; Schauer, 2009;

Matsumura, 2001; Schauer, 2009; Taguchi, 2011; Warga & Schölmberger, 2007; Yang, 2014),

no studies explore the pragmatic development of Thai learners of English in study abroad

contexts. In investigating L2 pragmatic development, many studies have investigated the request

realizations of L2 learners (e.g., Chen, 2001; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2009; Fearch & Kasper,

1989; Hill, 1997; Hendriks, 2008; Otcu & Zeyrek, 2008; Taguchi, 2005; Takahashi & Dufon,

1987; Trosborg, 1995; Tseng, 2015). Requests are of interest to studies on L2 pragmatic

development because they can be linguistically demanding for L2 learners and can differ

2

between languages (Ellis, 1994). Furthermore, the perceived appropriateness of requests

realization patterns can also differ cross-culturally (Blum-Kulka, et al., 1989). Because requests

are frequently performed in a range of situations in daily life and cannot be avoided by language

learners in the target language environment, they are particularly useful to research investigating

L2 pragmatic development in the study abroad context (Schauer, 2009). Despite the usefulness

of requests in studies investigating L2 pragmatic development, few studies have investigated the

English request realizations of Thai learners of English. Therefore, this study aims to examine

the development of the pragmatic competence of Thai learners of English in a study abroad

context through the learners’ production of speech acts of requests.

1.2 Background

1.2.1 English in Thailand

Although the role of English as a part of education in Thailand can be traced back to the mid-

nineteenth century and the reign of King Rama III, education at that time was restricted to the

children of Thai royalty and nobles (Baker, 2008). It was not until 1921 and the passage of the

Compulsory Primary Education Act that English became a part of the educational curriculum of

all Thai children until grade 4 (Darasawang, 2007; Ministry of Education, 1998). Subsequent

changes in national education curriculum, including major reforms in 1960 and 1977, expanded

the role of English in Thai education (Darasawang, 2007).

Today, the status of English in Thailand remains that of an expanding circle nation, in which

English is used primarily as a foreign language, according to Kachru’s (1985) three concentric

circles model. Although English is not used as an official language of the country, its importance

continues to increase in a similar way to other developing countries in Asia. People need to be

able to use English to cope with the country’s transformation from an agriculturally-based to a

semi-industrial and service-based economy, with large sectors related to tourism and

international trade. In recent years, the need for competent English speakers has been further

prompted by the establishment of greater regional economic integration among the nations of the

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), of which Thailand is a member.

Since its inception in 1967, ASEAN, a political organization currently comprised of ten

countries, including Thailand, has used English as its only working language (Kirkpatrick, 2008).

3

Beginning in 2015, the ten countries of ASEAN have strengthened their economic ties by

loosening trade and work restrictions through the creation of the ASEAN Economic Community

(AEC). With this shift toward regional economic integration, Thais have experienced increased

competition with workers from other countries in the region for jobs in Thailand and abroad

(Jindapitak, 2018). This highlights the growing importance of English as a language to facilitate

communication not only globally, but regionally and locally, as well.

Responding to the need for competent English users in order for the country to gain economic

competitiveness, the Thai government has attempted to shift education policy accordingly.

Prominent among recent policies intended to improve Thai students’ English proficiency is the

National Education Act 1999, which mandates that all Thai students study English from first to

twelfth grade (Wongsothorn, 2000). In addition to the 12 years of their basic education, students

at the university level may be required to take additional English courses, depending on each

university’s curriculum requirements in their undergraduate programs.

Despite the increasing importance of English skills and the educational requirements of English,

the English language ability of Thai people is still very poor. A 2014 Ministry of Education

(MOE) report shows that Thai children ranked last among AEC nations in English proficiency

(National News Bureau of Thailand, 2014). In 2010, Thailand ranked 116th

out of 163 countries

and Thai students’ 75 average total score on the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL)

was below the international average of 80 (Kaewmala, 2012). More recently, testing by Swiss-

based education company, English First, placed Thailand at number 64 out of 88 countries in

their 2018 English Proficiency Index, classifying Thailand as a low English proficiency country

(Bangkok Post, 2018). In terms of communication ability, although Thai students study English

from grade one, most of them still struggle to use the language to communicate after graduating.

Thailand continues to rank near the bottom in world English proficiency surveys, and the

majority of Thai university students seldom attain an acceptable level of proficiency of English

to use it functionally in the real situations (EF Education First, 2013; Prapphal, 2001).

1.2.2 English instruction in Thailand

There are several reasons for Thai students’ struggles with English proficiency. Many have

pointed to teaching methods as a factor that negatively impacts English education in Thailand

(Dili, 2017; Noom-Ura, 2013). Over the past several decades, the grammar-translation method

4

has been the main method used in teaching English (Choomthong, 2014; Foley, 2005;

Kitjaroonchai, 2013). Students rely on rote memorization of both grammar rules and vocabulary,

and they practice English by completing grammar drill exercises, such as gap filling with correct

verb forms or changing words into the correct tenses or word forms. Richards and Rodgers

(2001) suggest that this method can make learning become “a tedious experience of memorizing

endless lists of unusable grammar rules and vocabulary and attempting to produce perfect

translation of stilted or literacy prose” (p. 6). This is true for Thai students, many of whom see

English learning as a matter of replacing their Thai words and linguistic rules with those of

English. As a result, they lose both interest and motivation in learning English. The focus on

memorizing grammar rules and vocabulary rather than communicative competence reflects the

role of English as a core component of both university entrance exams as well as English

standardized tests, such as the TOEIC, used to select job applicants (Cherngchawano &

Jaturapitakkul, 2014). This has a negative impact on students’ communication ability as they

become preoccupied with producing English sentences with correct grammar and words and

focusing on forms rather than functions.

1.3 Rationale

1.3.1 The need for pragmatic competence development

Although attaining higher levels of fluency and accuracy can improve one’s ability to

communicate in an L2, pragmatic competence is also an important factor needed for effective

and proficient communication. Performing speech acts appropriately can be a challenging task

for L2 learners because it involves much more than using the correct linguistic form; performing

speech acts appropriately involves understanding the cultural and situational factors that

influence the appropriateness of a given speech act (Blum-Kulka, 1991; Kasper & Rose, 2002).

Fostering pragmatic competence and sensitivity to various cultural differences between

language-speaking groups will help language learners to use socially-appropriate language,

contributing to successful communication (Thomas, 1983).

5

1.3.2 The benefits of study abroad to Thai students

As it is widely believed that the best way to learn a language is to live in the target language

environment, many have pointed to the disadvantages of learning English in Thailand, where

Thai is the predominant medium of communication. In the monolingual Thai society, Thai

students lack exposure to English language input, opportunities to use English in their real life,

and situations for socialization in English, all of which make study abroad a desirable option for

Thai learners of English. Study abroad constitutes living in a target language community for an

extended period as a student. This may include time spent studying the target language in the

target language environment. This also includes the experience of learners whose experience as

students in the target language environment does not include language classes, but whose

coursework and interactions outside of the classroom are conducted in the target language. Study

abroad does not include time spent in the target language environment for periods of tourism and

employment. While working and traveling may be beneficial in terms of gaining exposure to the

target language, this type of exposure can be more limited and can involve more formulaic

interactions, such as ordering food or performing a work task, compared to the intensity and

range of social and linguistic input experienced in an academic program.

Research has shown the advantages of the study abroad context over the at-home context for

pragmatic development (e.g., Alcón-Soler, 2015; Bardovi-Harlig & Dörnyei, 1998; Félix-

Brasdefer, 2004, Hassall, 2013; Schauer, 2009; Taguchi, 2011; Warga & Schölmberger, 2007).

The opportunity to use the target language in authentic interactions is particularly important to

the development of pragmatic competence, which involves a familiarity with socio-cultural

factors through experience and observation. Studying in the target language environment allows

and often requires L2 learners to perform communicative tasks in order to navigate their daily

lives outside of the classroom. Moreover, through the communicative demands learners face in

their daily lives, they are compelled to raise their pragmatic awareness in a more meaningful way

than classroom instruction can provide. As Taguchi (2011) writes, “(L2 learners) have

opportunities to observe how people convey appropriate levels of politeness and formality in

speech acts. Being exposed to unscripted and authentic discourse in everyday interaction,

learners can also practice inferential comprehension” (p. 910).

6

1.4 Objectives

The main objective of this study is to better understand how the experience of study abroad

affects the pragmatic development of Thai learners of English. In order to achieve this objective,

this study examines the issue through two lenses: the learners’ linguistic production and their

perception of how study abroad has affected their development of pragmatic competence. With

regard to the learners’ linguistic production, this study compares the production of speech acts of

requests of learners with study abroad experience and those without study abroad experience.

Two additional study groups, one representing the learners’ L1 and another representing the

target language, are also used to understand this development. These comparisons focus on six

aspects of requests: request perspectives, request strategies, internal modifications, request

structures, alerters, and supportive moves (for examples and descriptions of these features, see

the Data Coding section in Chapter 4). In order to better understand and contextualize the

differences observed between study groups, interviews are conducted with participants from each

group. Interviews are also used to understand how learners with study abroad experience

perceive the effect of study abroad on the development of their own pragmatic competence.

1.5 Research questions

This study is guided by five main questions, as follows:

1. How do the patterns of request structures, request perspectives, request strategies, internal

modifications, supportive moves, and alerters used by study abroad learners compare to at home

learners and to the patterns displayed by English dominant speakers and native speakers of Thai?

2. How do such patterns displayed by these same four groups of speakers compare to each other

in situations that vary according to the social factors of relative power and social distance?

3. What factors in addition to relative power and social distance do participants from each group

perceive as influencing their respective requests?

4. To what extent does each group of participants perceive differently the degree of imposition in

making requests in the given situations?

7

5. How do study abroad learners compare to at home learners with regard to how they perceive

the development of their own pragmatic competence?

1.6 Definitions of terms

Alerter describes an optional element used to initiate a request utterance. Alerters include lexical

forms such as names, salutations, and other words and short phrases used to get a hearer’s

attention and/or prepare a hearer for an ensuing request.

Discourse Completion Task (DCT) refers to a data collection tool that elicits a response by

providing a participant with a set of circumstances and asking the participant to write the exact

words that he or she would say in such a situation.

External modification is an element of a request utterance found outside a head act. They are

optional and appear in the immediate context, either before or after a head act, used to either to

mitigate or aggravate the force of a request. External modifications include supportive moves

and alerters. For example: “Hey mate! My phone is almost dead. Can I use yours to call someone

really quick?”

Head act refers to a part of a request utterance that contains a reference to the speaker’s

requested action. A head act is, therefore, the core part of a request utterance. For example: “Hey

mate! My phone is almost dead. Can I use yours to call someone really quick?”

Interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) deals with the study of the use and acquisition of L2 pragmatic

knowledge by nonnative speakers. This is typically analyzed by comparing the L2 language use

of nonnative speakers with that of the native speakers of the target language.

Internal modification is an optional syntactic and lexical device that is not essential to the

communication of a request but can be added by a speaker to modify a request head act by either

to mitigating or aggravating the force of the request head act. For example: “Would you mind if I

used your phone for a minute?”

Pragmalinguistic knowledge refers to the knowledge of the linguistic resources needed to

appropriately communicate intended meaning (Leech, 1983).

8

Pragmatics relates to the study of the use of language to communicate the intended meaning of a

speaker, and the interpretation of the message by a hearer. It deals with the analysis of what

people mean rather than the literal meaning of words or phrases used in an utterance. Moreover,

pragmatics is concerned with how the communication of a speaker’s intended meaning is

influenced by the context in which it occurs.

Pragmatic competence refers to the ability to communicate and interpret intended meaning

within a given context.

Pragmatic failure refers to the inability of the speaker to convey the intended meaning to the

hearer and the inability of the hearer to understand the intended meaning of the speaker (Thomas,

1983).

Pragmatic transfer refers to the influence of learners’ L1 pragmatic knowledge and culture on

their production, comprehension, and learning of L2 pragmatic knowledge (Kasper, 1992).

Request is an attempt of a speaker to persuade a hearer to do something which will benefit the

speaker but costs something to the hearer (House & Kasper, 1987).

Request perspective describes the way a speaker refers to the agent of a head act’s requested

action. The request perspective of a requested action can be framed from the viewpoint of a

speaker, a hearer, both a hearer and speaker, or neither a speaker nor hearer. Request perspective

can be reflected in the use of pronouns such as ‘I’, ‘you’, and ‘we’, as well as grammatical

constructions such as passive voice.

Request strategy refers to a speaker’s choice of various structural and grammatical formulations

used in a request’s head act. Request strategies are classified according to the level of directness

that they refer to a speaker’s desire for a hearer to perform a requested action.

Request structure refers the sequence of head act(s) and supportive move(s) used in a request

utterance.

Request utterance refers to a sequence of words relating to a speaker’s request. A request

utterance may include only a single head act, or it may comprise multiple head acts and/or any

number of supportive moves.

9

Sociopragmatic knowledge refers to the knowledge of the social or contextual factors which

determine the appropriateness of particular linguistic choices (Leech, 1983).

Speech act refers to an utterance that has a performative function beyond communicating

information. Examples of these functions include acts such as requesting, apologizing, refusing,

promising, and so forth.

Supportive move refers to a part of the request utterance that appears outside of a head act. A

supportive move can appear either before or after a head act. Multiple supportive moves can be

used in a single request utterance. They are used to modify the impact, or force, of requests. For

example: “Could I borrow some money from you? I’ll pay you back tomorrow.”

1.7 Significance of the study

As there are no previous studies that address the impact of study abroad on the pragmatic

competence of Thai learners of English, this study will address this gap in the literature.

Additionally, it will contribute to a better understanding of the development of pragmatic

competence by Thai learners of English in general. In terms of interlanguage pragmatics (ILP),

the topic of this study will link to the larger issue of how the learning environment influences

pragmatic acquisition. Finally, because there is a lack of research that examines and compares

the production of the speech act of requests between native English and Thai speakers, this study

will widen the scope of cross-cultural pragmatics by providing useful information pertaining to

linguistic (e.g., words, sentence structure) and sociopragmatic (e.g., the use of linguistic forms in

an appropriate context) differences in making requests based on differences of cultural norms

between native English and Thai speakers.

In terms of pedagogical implications for L2 teaching, the findings of this study will contribute to

knowledge about the factors that facilitate the acquisition of pragmatic competence. The findings

may provide useful insights into how pre-study abroad instruction can help to facilitate

acquisition of pragmatic competence of learners when they are in the target language

environment and how knowledge of the benefits of target language exposure might be used to

improve classroom instruction for the vast majority of Thai learners of English, who will never

have the opportunity to live in the target language environment. Learning about Thai students’

perceptions of the development of their own pragmatic competence might also be important to

10

identifying the shortcomings of classroom instruction. This information will also have broader

implications for curriculum planners and policy makers in Thailand in terms of implementing the

necessary English language educational policies and curriculum to prepare Thai students to use

English effectively and appropriately in real-life situations.

1.8 Outline of the thesis

Following this initial chapter of introduction, Chapter 2 discusses the theoretical

framework for this study by reviewing the relevant concepts and theories related to pragmatics,

speech act theory, and politeness theory. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the literature related

to the broad topics of this study by reviewing relevant studies in the areas of interlanguage

pragmatics studies on speech acts of request, the impact of study abroad on the development of

pragmatic competence, and speech act studies involving Thai learners of English. Chapter 4

describes the methodology used to collect and analyze the data in this study, which includes

information about the participants, data collection instruments, procedures, and data coding.

Chapter 5 presents the findings and discussion of the elicited request data. Chapter 6 provides the

findings and discussion of the data relating to the participants’ perception of their language use

and pragmatic development. Chapter 7 offers a conclusion by summarizing the main results of

the study in relation to the research questions and to the extant literature and explores the

pedagogical implications of the study, as well as its limitations and opportunities for further

research.

1.9 Chapter summary

This chapter has provided a background of the history and current role of English in Thailand,

including English language instruction. This has been provided to support the rationale and

objectives of this study, both of which relate to understanding, in general, the development of

pragmatic competence by Thai learners of English, and, in particular, how this development is

affected by the experience of study abroad. This chapter has also presented the study’s research

questions and the significance of the study to the field of pragmatics as well as English language

learning and teaching in Thailand. Finally, an outline of the study’s organization has been

included in this chapter.

11

Chapter 2 Theoretical Framework

This chapter provides an overview of pragmatics and speech acts, both of which serve as

important foundational concepts to the theoretical framework used in this study. Included in the

discussion of pragmatics are the concepts of pragmatic competence, interlanguage pragmatics

(ILP), and pragmatic failure. This is followed by an overview of speech acts in general, and

speech acts of request in particular. Finally, this chapter presents a set of theoretical frameworks

applied in pragmatic and ILP studies on request speech acts, with an emphasis on Leech’s (1983)

politeness principles and Brown and Levinson’s (1987) concepts of politeness theory and face

threatening acts, which are used to guide the research design and data analysis in this study.

2.1 Pragmatics

Pragmatics, a subfield of linguistics, involves areas of study that include deixis, speech act

theory, conversational implicature, and conversational structure. The study of pragmatics has

been defined in a variety of ways, but one of the most widely cited definitions comes from

Crystal (1985), who described it 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” (p. 240). Pragmatics is therefore focused on the intended meaning rather than

literal meaning of each word combined in an utterance. Moreover, the intended meaning is

contingent upon the context in which the communication occurs. Leech (1983) describes the

importance of pragmatics within the field of linguistics, writing, “we cannot really understand

the nature of language itself unless we understand pragmatics: how language is used in

communication” (p. 1).

2.2 Pragmatic competence

Pragmatic competence describes the ability to effectively use language to communicate intended

meaning in a contextually appropriate manner and to successfully interpret intended meaning of

an interlocutor’s message. The concept of pragmatic competence is often placed in contrast with

grammatical competence, the latter of which includes knowledge of grammar, morphology,

syntax, and semantics in an abstract or decontextualized sense. Some L2 learners might be

12

considered fluent in an L2 due to their high level of grammatical competence; however, they

may still be unable to effectively communicate using language that is socially and culturally

appropriate if they lack pragmatic competence (Cook & Newson, 1996). This distinction

between different types of linguistic competences and by extension, the role of pragmatics in

research areas related to L2 use and instruction, takes its roots in the work of Hymes (1972) and

his notion of communicative competence. To Hymes (1972), communicative competence

describes a language user’s ability to use the language not only grammatically but also

appropriately to achieve communicative goals. Hymes’s formulation of communicative

competence expanded the conception of linguistic competence to include knowledge of

contextually appropriate use, which served as a basis for subsequent frameworks by Canale and

Swain (1980), Bachman (1990), and others, which situated pragmatic competence as one of

several components of overall communicative competence.

Canale and Swain’s (1980) model of communicative competence outlines three components of

language learners’ ability to communicate in their L2. Their model distinguished grammatical

competence, which includes knowledge of grammar rules and vocabulary, from strategic

competence, which is the ability of a language learner to overcome communication breakdowns.

Although Canale and Swain use the term ‘sociolinguistic competence’ to describe the third

component of communicative competence, their description of sociolinguistic competence as

knowledge of how to use language appropriately within context would also be recognizable as a

description of pragmatic competence. Similarly, Bachman’s (1990) model of communicative

competence identifies two main components of communicative competence: organizational

competence and pragmatic competence. Organizational competence relates to both knowledge of

grammar rules as well as conventions relating to how to organize discourse. According to

Bachman, pragmatic competence relates to “the relationship between utterances and the acts or

functions that speakers (or writers) intend to perform with these utterances” (Bachman, 1990, p.

89). As a result of the role of pragmatic competence in the communicative competence

framework, recommendations have been made as to the importance of pragmatics in language

learning curricula (Bardovi-Harlig & Dörnyei, 1998; Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper, 1989). In

addition, this framework has been instrumental in the development of the field of interlanguage

pragmatics (ILP) (Alcón Soler & Martinez-Flor, 2008).

13

2.2.1 Interlanguage pragmatics

Interlanguage refers to “a language system that each learner constructs at any given point in

development” (Ortega, 2009). Thus, a learner’s interlangauge evolves with their development

and may differ from the language spoken by proficiency language users as it can contain

overgeneralizations derived from a learner’s L1 and L2 (Richards & Schmidt, 2010). According

to Kasper (1996), “interlanguage pragmatics is the study of nonnative speakers’ use and

acquisition of L2 pragmatic knowledge” (p. 145). ILP differs from cross-cultural pragmatic

research, which compares the pragmatic aspect of language use between speakers representing

two or more cultures, but not between native and nonnative speakers of a single language. The

distinction between nonnative speakers’ use and acquisition in Kasper’s definition underscores

two general approaches that have characterized ILP research: comparative and acquisitional. The

former focuses on comparing native and nonnative speakers’ use of L2 pragmatic knowledge

while the latter focuses on the learning and development process of L2 pragmatic knowledge.

Comparative studies, which focus on L2 use, have dominated the ILP research field for much of

its history, prompting calls for more scholarship that explores the developmental aspect of L2

pragmatic knowledge in order to strengthen the connection between ILP and SLA research

(Kasper & Schimdt, 1996; Bardovi-Harlig, 2001). More recently, research topics related to L2

acquisition have received greater attention in ILP research, particularly in studies that center on

the role of instruction in pragmatic development (Gu, 2011; Yang, 2018).

While the terms “native speaker” and “non-native speaker” have commonly been used in the ILP

literature, there are many practical reasons not to use this term if it is avoidable, particularly

when referring to English speakers. Generally, the term “native English speaker” is used to refer

to a person who speaks English as his or her first language or mother tongue; however, in recent

years the validity of the concept of “native speaker” has been widely debated (see Davies, 2013;

Rubdy, 2015; Selvi, 2011). One line of argument is that the native/non-native speaker dichotomy

is too rigid and does not adequately allow for the range of complex possibilities that might define

a person’s linguistic background or competence (Rampton, 1990; Rajagopalan, 1997; Jain,

2014). In fact, the designation of “native speaker” can include those who are bilinguals or

multilinguals, speakers of varieties of English in outer-circle countries (Kachru, 1985), such as

Singapore and India, or even former learners of the language who have become very fluent in the

target language and have a blended cultural identity. Therefore, to identify whether one is a

14

native speaker of English or not can be problematic, as English is an international language that

has been learned and used in a variety of contexts around the world. There are many highly

fluent speakers who do not speak English as their first language but who can use English at a

native-like level to communication effectively.

This study will use the terms ‘native speaker’ and ‘nonnative speaker’ to refer to English

speakers in circumstances in which using these terms cannot be avoided, such as when

discussing previous ILP studies in Chapter 3 (Literature Review). As I will discuss in greater

detail in Chapter 4 (Methodology), this study uses more inclusive criteria for the English

speaking control group, participants of which will be referred to as ‘English dominant speakers’

in order to reflect the criteria based on language use and proficiency rather than place of birth or

nationality. Although the native/nonnative speaker dichotomy can be problematic (as are its

implications in the context of language learning), the terms themselves can be descriptive of the

methodological approaches and research questions of previous academic studies. Some

researchers may have intentionally used more exclusive recruitment criteria for groups designed

to include only participants who fit the conventional definition of ‘native English speaker’ –

someone who has spoken English since birth or has been raised in a predominately English-

speaking environment.

Compared to its use to refer to English speakers, the term ‘native speaker’ can, in most instances,

be applied without the aforementioned problems when referring to speakers of a language such

as Thai, which has comparatively few highly fluent speakers who speak the language as an

additional language. Further, languages like Thai do not have the same status as English as an

international lingua franca. Therefore, the problematic implications of the native/nonnative

speaker dichotomy are not meaningful in the other language contexts the same way that they are

in English. With this in mind, this study will use the term ‘native Thai speaker’ because this

term, defined in its conventional sense, serves as an appropriate descriptor for all of the Thai

participants in the study and the vast majority of Thai speakers.

15

2.2.2 Pragmatic failure

Underlying the interest in many ILP research topics is the assumption that communication

breakdowns may occur because of learners’ inability to understand or convey the intended

meaning of what is said. Thomas (1983) described this breakdown in communication as

‘pragmatic failure’. Although Thomas’s notion of pragmatic failure is not restricted only to

communication breakdowns involving L2 learners, it represents a common and challenging

obstacle in the L2 learning process. In order to better address the teaching and learning

challenges created by pragmatic failure, Thomas (1983) used Leech’s (1983) distinction between

the pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic components of pragmatics. Pragmalinguistic knowledge

refers to a speaker’s linguistic resources that can be used to modulate the force of an utterance,

and “includes strategies like directness and indirectness, routines, and a large range of linguistic

forms which can intensify or soften communicative acts” (Kasper 1997, p. 1). Sociopragmatic

knowledge, on the other hand, refers to a language user’s knowledge of “the context factors

under which particular strategic and linguistic choices are appropriate” (Kasper & Rose, 2002, p.

96). Thus, pragmalinguistic failure involves the misunderstanding of how linguistic encoding

relates to pragmatic force, while sociopragmatic failure involves the misjudgment of how

contextual factors relate to which linguistic resources are considered appropriate.

In the context of ILP, pragmatic failure can result from a learner’s pragmatic transfer, which

Kasper (1992) described as “the influence exerted by learners’ pragmatic knowledge of

languages and cultures other than L2 on their comprehension, production and learning of L2

pragmatic information” (p. 207). Pragmatic transfer in ILP research typically focuses on how L2

learners’ pragmatic knowledge of their native language influences the pragmatic aspects of their

L2 language use. Kasper (1992, 1998) described two types of transfer: positive transfer and

negative transfer. Positive transfer is when the pragmatic norms, forms, and strategies that a

learner transfers from their L1 match with those in the L2 and can therefore be transferred to the

L2. Conversely, negative transfer, also referred to as ‘interference’, occurs when the pragmatic

norms, forms, and strategies that a learner transfers from their L1 do not match with those in the

L2, and, therefore, cannot be transferred to the L2.

16

2.3 Speech act theory

Speech Act Theory represents a core theoretical framework used in the field of pragmatics. The

concept of speech acts developed from the work of Austin (1962), who described a performative

aspect of language, emphasizing that speech can represent not only the act of communicating

meaning but also the act of performing an action. For example, Austin proposes that by saying

the words “I do” in the context of a wedding, “I am not reporting on a marriage: I am indulging

in it” (Austin, 1962, p. 6). In other words, the action of speaking itself can be seen as

accomplishing something in the social reality rather than merely conveying information. By

distinguishing the performative and communicative functions of speech, Austin showed that

language use involves more than saying words: the act of speaking itself constitutes an action.

The term ‘speech act’, therefore, describes an utterance not only in terms of its meaning, but it

emphasizes the performative function of an utterance, particularly as it relates to a speaker’s

intention and the effect it has on the listener.

In order to describe how language is used to carry out actions, Austin (1962) identified three

dimensions through which speech acts can be analyzed: as locutionary acts, the production of the

actual words that the speaker uses; illocutionary acts, the act of expressing the intention or force

behind the words; and perlocutionary acts, the effect the utterances has on the hearer. To

illustrate these dimensions, Austin (1962, p. 101-102) used the example of the utterance “Shoot

her!” The locution of this utterance is its stated meaning, with ‘shoot’ referring to the action and

‘her’ referring to a person. The illocution of an utterance corresponds to the speakers’ intent,

which in this case is to urge, advise, or command the listener to shoot someone. The perlocution

is the result of the utterance, for example, that a listener was persuaded or compelled to shoot

someone. LoCastro (2012) notes that while in theory speech acts comprise all three aspects, in

practice, illocutionary acts have tended to be the focus of pragmatics studies.

Searle (1975, 1979) noticed that while many speech acts directly convey the illocutionary force,

other speech acts do so indirectly. To illustrate this distinction between ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’

speech acts, Searle (1975) used the example of a speaker making the following proposition:

“Let’s go to the movies tonight” (p. 61). This utterance is a direct speech act because the literal

meaning of the sentence and in particular, the meaning of ‘Let’s’, directly conveys the

illocutionary force, which is to propose. On the other hand, Searle contrasted this proposal by

17

introducing the reply: “I have to study for an exam.” This reply, representing an indirect speech

act, is understood as a refusal, but not because of its literal meaning, which simply introduces a

fact about the person who is speaking. In the absence of words and forms that literally convey

the illocutionary force of the utterance, the hearer can understand the intent of the speaker’s

indirect speech act by way of “mutually shared background information, both linguistic and

nonlinguistic, together with the general powers of rationality and inference on the part of the

hearer” (Searle, 1975, p. 60-61).

Searle’s explanation of how the intention of indirect speech acts can be understood is based in

part on Grice’s (1973) notion of the cooperative principle, which specifies rational behaviors

assumed to be present in effective communication. The cooperative principle assumes that

people are expected to make truthful (maxim of quality), informative (maxim of quantity),

relevant (maxim of relation), and clear (maxim of manner) contributions to a conversation

(Grice, 1973). Therefore, assuming the adherence to the cooperative principle, the

aforementioned example of a refusal (“I have to study for the exam”) would be understood as

such based on the expectation that the information stated relates to the context of conversation,

even if the connection is not explicitly stated.

In addition to rationality and inference as factors in indirect speech act communication, Morgan

(1978) and Searle (1975) proposed that some indirect speech acts can be easily understood

because they involve a conventionalized use of particular forms to indicate particular illocutions.

For example, the question “Can you reach for the salt?” can be clearly interpreted as a request

and not a question about the hearer’s ability to reach for the salt because of the use of the

interrogative form that uses “Can you” has been established in English as a conventional way to

make a request (Searle, 1975). This contrasts with indirect speech acts that do not involve

conventionalized use of form to indicate illocution. For example, if a speaker says to a hearer,

“This soup would taste much better with some salt”, the hearer would likely be able to

understand, based on rationality and inference of contextual factors, that the statement entails

more than a statement about the taste of the soup and is instead a request for the hearer to

perform the action of passing the salt.

18

2.4 Speech acts of request

According to House and Kasper (1987), speech acts of requests are illocutionary acts through

which a speaker wants the hearer to perform an act for the benefit of the speaker and at the cost

of the hearer. Speech acts of requests represent an important and widely researched type of

speech act in the fields of interlanguage and cross-cultural pragmatics. This interest relates to the

importance of requests in everyday conversation and that the nature of requests, which involves

an imposition on the hearer, provides a useful circumstance in which to analyze the link between

an utterance’s meaning and intent. Searle classifies requests as directive speech acts, a category

defined by the speaker’s intent for the hearer to perform an action (Searle 1975). According to

Searle (1975), requests are useful in pragmatic study because “ordinary conversational

requirements of politeness” necessitate the use of indirectness in order to achieve a desired result

(p. 64). In other words, conveying the illocutionary force of requests in a direct manner could be

considered impolite and thus, such an utterance would be less likely to achieve the desired

compliance of the hearer. From a sociolinguistic perspective, requests involve the imposition of

the speaker’s interests on the hearer, which has been described as ‘face threatening’ (Brown &

Levinson, 1987). Requests can be regarded as a constraint on the hearer’s freedom of action, and

for this reason, the use of politeness strategies is central to request making, as speakers seek to

mitigate the impositive effect of their requests.

2.5 Politeness

Trosborg (1995) described politeness as a ‘pragmatic mechanism’, the function of which is to

facilitate a “speaker’s intention of achieving smooth communication” (p. 24). From the

perspective that emphasizes politeness as serving a function in communication, several theories

and models of politeness have been applied to pragmatic research. These frameworks have been

particularly relevant in studies of speech acts that necessitate politeness, including speech acts of

requests.

Lakoff (1973, 1975), one of the first scholars to concentrate on linguistic politeness in the

pragmatics sense, described politeness as functioning “to reduce friction in personal

communication” (1975, p. 64). According to Lakoff, “the pillars of our linguistic as well as non-

linguistic interactions with each other are to (1) make yourself clear (2) be polite” (as cited in

Schauer, 2009, p. 10). However, these two principles are often in conflict with one another; that

19

is, politeness is often achieved at the expense of clarity. To Lakoff (1975), Grice’s cooperative

principle described an expectation of clarity in conversation that exists only in the absence of

situations that require politeness. Lakoff (1975) distinguished situations that require politeness as

those that involve “personal and interpersonal feelings” rather than “pure information” or

“information about the world” (p. 94). Thus, with Grice’s cooperative principle as a basis, Lakoff

developed her ‘rules of politeness’, which describe the three rules that govern politeness in

communication: don’t impose, give options, and make the listener feel good.

The first of Lakoff’s rules involves recognizing how context, including the social distance

between the speaker and hearer, affects the appropriateness of various linguistic expressions and

forms. For example, the use of passive voice is described as a linguistic device that can be used

to maintain distance and project authority (Lakoff, 1975). The second rule relates to showing the

hearer deference by giving options in conversation, which can be achieved through hedges and

tag questions that minimize the imposition or force of an utterance. The third rule concerns the

creation of solidarity between the speaker and hearer by using phrasal additions such as ‘I mean’

and ‘you know’. While these have no linguistic purpose, they serve a pragmatic purpose in that

they can be used to make an utterance more appropriate within a particular circumstance that

calls for an expression of solidarity or closeness.

Lakoff’s rules of politeness use English for illustrated purposes. However, just like Grice’s

cooperative principle, the rules themselves were intended to describe communication in a general

sense. Lakoff’s framework, therefore, adds a pragmatic element to Grice’s cooperative principle

by outlining a role for speech that is not optimally clear and by emphasizing how social context

relates to the appropriateness of the particular linguistic choices in communication.

2.5.1 Leech’s politeness principle

Like Lakoff, Leech (1983) saw the expectation for politeness as being in conflict with the

expectation for clarity in communication as proposed by Grice’s cooperative principle, with

politeness taking a paramount position over clarity. According to Leech (1983), “It could be

argued that the (Politeness Principle) has a higher regulatory role than (the Cooperative

Principle): to maintain the social equilibrium and the friendly relations which enables us to

assume that our interlocutors are being cooperative in the first place” (p. 82). In order to

complement Grice’s cooperative principle, Leech put forth a set of six maxims, collectively

20

known as his politeness principle, that guide and constrain the conversation of rational people

with an effort for politeness in social interaction, which are as follows:

1. Tact Maxim: (a) Minimize cost to other; (b) Maximize benefit to other.

2. Generosity Maxim: (a) Minimize benefit to self; (b) Maximize cost to self.

3. Approbation Maxim: (a) Minimize dispraise of other; (b) Maximize praise of other.

4. Modesty Maxim: (a) Minimize praise of self; (b) Maximize dispraise of self.

5. Agreement Maxim: (a) Minimize disagreement between self and other: (b) Maximize

agreement between self and other.

6. Sympathy Maxim: (a) Minimize antipathy between self and other; (b) Maximize sympathy

between self and other. (p. 132)

Another notable aspect of Leech’s (1983) framework is its distinction between two different

types of politeness: ‘absolute politeness’ and ‘relative politeness’. Relative politeness relates to

the judgment of how politeness is appropriately expressed within a particular community or

culture and within a particular context. Absolute politeness, on the other hand, describes various

degrees at which politeness can be expressed. This can involve minimizing the impoliteness of

what are seen as impolite illocutions, such as requests, or maximizing the politeness of what are

seen as polite illocutions, such as compliments. Leech proposes that minimizing impoliteness

involves the use of modifications such as indirectness, hedging, and understatement. Maximizing

politeness, on the other hand, can be achieved through language that intensifies. For example,

lexical additions can make the expression “Thanks” more polite, such as “Thanks a lot”, which

can be even further intensified as “Thank you very much” (Leech 2014, p. 12). Leech (2014)

later clarified this distinction as one between pragmalinguistic (absolute politeness) and

sociopragmatic (relative politeness) aspects of politeness.

2.5.2 Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory

Like the earlier works of Lakoff (1973, 1975) and Leech (1983), Brown and Levinson (1987)

proposed a universal model to describe the dynamics and functions of politeness in conversation.

Brown and Levinson’s (1987) framework, referred to as ‘politeness theory’, which remains the

21

most influential model of the function of politeness in communication (LoCastro 2012), is based

on Goffman’s (1967) concept of face, or one’s desired public image. Brown and Levinson (1987)

defined face as “the public self-image that every member wants for himself” (p. 66). Face can be

divided into two types of desires, or needs, of an individual: positive face and negative face.

Positive face refers to “the positive and consistent image people have of themselves, and their

desire for approval”, while negative face is “the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, and

rights to non-distraction” (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 61). In this view, positive face describes

the people’s want for social approval, while negative face refers to their desire to maintain

personal control of their actions, free of interference.

According to Brown and Levinson (1987), some speech acts may threaten the face needs of the

speaker, the hearer, or both. These speech acts, referred to as face threatening acts (FTAs), can

be divided into two types corresponding to the two dimensions of an individual’s face needs that

are threatened: positive FTAs and negative FTAS. Positive FTAs threaten the positive face need

for one’s self-image to be accepted and appreciated, and include speech acts that threaten to

damage the face of the hearer, such as complaints and statements of disagreement, and those that

threaten to damage the positive face needs of the speaker, such as apologies. Similarly, FTAs

also describe acts that threaten an individual’s negative face needs for unimpeded freedom of

action, or negative FTAs. Negative FTAs that threaten the negative face of the speaker include

expressions of thanks or acceptance of offers, while those threatening the negative face of the

hearer include suggestions, compliments, and warnings. Requests, the subject of this study, are

considered negative FTAs, as they are illocutionary acts through which a speaker wants the

hearer to perform an action for the speaker, which Brown and Levinson considered to be

“intrinsically impolite” (Schauer, 2009, p. 11).

Brown and Levinson (1987) suggested a ‘means-ends’ approach by which the individual engages

in a process that analyzes several factors in order to determine the appropriate language that will

satisfy her/his ends. First, a speaker will determine whether he/she wishes to respect the hearer’s

face needs “as a rational means to secure (the hearer’s) cooperation” (Brown & Levinson, 1987,

p. 90). Next, a speaker must determine the extent to which he/she wishes to minimize the threat

to the hearer’s face. When considering the degree of mitigation to be used in an FTA, a speaker

considers factors related to her/his own wants, such as the desire for clarity or urgency, and the

desire not to overemphasize the threat to the hearer’s face. In order to select the appropriate

22

degree of politeness, a speaker must assess the seriousness of an FTA. This is determined by

three independent social variables:

1. Social Distance (D) of the speaker and hearer; the level of familiarity and solidarity between

two people.

2. Relative Power (P) of the speaker and hearer; the power that the hearer has over the speaker.

3. Absolute Ranking (R) of imposition in the culture; the degree to which the speaker wishes to

impose on the hearer and the degree to which the hearer accepts the imposition. (Brown &

Levinson, 1987, p. 74)

Based on an assessment of the speaker’s own interest in minimizing an FTA as well as the

FTA’s potential threat to the hearer’s face, the speaker rationally selects an appropriate strategy

as well as the particular linguistic means by which to meet these needs.

The model described by Brown and Levinson outlines four choices of general strategies that

speakers can use in order to achieve their desired ends. Within each of these strategies is a range

of linguistic choices that a speaker can manipulate in order to achieve the desired degree of

mitigation. These general strategies, referred to as politeness strategies, can be described as

follows:

1. Do the FTA bald on record (e.g., ‘Clean the kitchen.’)

2. Do the FTA with redressive action, with either positive or negative politeness (e.g., ‘Hey

buddy, let’s clean the kitchen.’ [positive politeness]; ‘Do you think you might be able to clean the

kitchen sometime today?’ [negative politeness])

3. Do the FTA off the record (‘The kitchen is starting to get quite dirty.’)

4. Don’t do the FTA (Adapted from Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 60)

Doing the FTA act ‘bald on record’ refers to using no mitigation and performing the FTA with

“maximum efficiency” (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 60). This strategy entails the highest risk to

the hearer’s face, but may be the preferred strategy when the desire to protect the hearer’s face is

outweighed by the speakers’ desire for clarity or urgency. Using redressive action involves an

23

appeal to the hearer’s positive face (positive politeness) or negative face (negative politeness) in

order to minimize the FTA. Positive politeness can be implemented through linguistic devices

that seek to emphasize a mutual interest or in-group status between interlocutors or that

demonstrate the speaker’s interest in the hearer’s needs or desires. Negative politeness, on the

other hand, uses linguistic devices such as indirectness, hedges, and passive structures in order to

minimize the imposition of the FTA on the hearer. Doing the FTA off record relies heavily on

the hearer’s ability to make rational inferences to correctly interpret the intended meaning. The

final strategy is to not perform the FTA, which eliminates the potential threat other hearer’s face,

but also means the speaker’s intended message is not communicated.

2.5.3 Criticisms of Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory and alternative

frameworks

Although Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory continues to be a widely-used framework for

discussing the phenomenon of politeness, criticisms have challenged the validity of this

framework. Some criticisms have highlighted limitations, such as the inability for Brown and

Levinson’s model to account for non-linguistic politeness (Fraser, 1990) or the agency of

individuals to use language creatively and flexibly (see Locastro, 2012, p. 144-145 for

discussion). However, one of the main criticisms, and certainly a very important consideration

for research within the field of ILP, relates to the cross-cultural validity of the framework. Gu

(1990), Ide (1989), Mao (1994), Matsumoto (1988), Wierzbicka (1990, 1991), Yu (1999), and

others have argued that the rational communicative behaviors purported to be universal by

Brown and Levinson (1987) reflect a culturally-specific value placed on individual agency and

rights that does not exist in more collectivist or group-oriented societies. Matsumoto (1988), for

example, proposed that the concept of negative face, in which the expectation that a rational

person wants to be unimpeded in her/his actions, does not exist in the collectivist Japanese

culture. Instead, the desire to belong and fit into one’s group is a driving force behind rational

behavior in communication.

The relationship between indirectness and politeness has also been demonstrated to be subject to

cultural variation. For example, Ogiermann (2009b) challenged the claim of a universal

association between indirectness and politeness by showing that direct requests are often

perceived as more polite than indirect requests by German, Polish, and Russian speakers. Similar

24

observations have challenged the correlation between indirectness and politeness, including

studies involving speakers of Korean (Yu, 2011), Spanish (Felix-Brasdefer, 2005), Arabic

(Ajaaj, 2016), and Turkish (Marti, 2006). Other researchers (for example, see Economidou-

Kogetsidis, 2010; Held, 1996) have demonstrated that culturally-specific factors beyond those

identified by Brown and Levinson (social distance, relative power, and absolute ranking)

contribute to a speaker’s assessment of appropriate linguistic choices in speech acts of requests.

There have been several notable alternative frameworks since that draw from and respond to

Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory and its criticisms. Some scholars have sought to

address the perceived Western bias of Brown and Levinson’s model by formulating more

comprehensive theories of how culturally-specific values may affect how face threats are

perceived and the strategies used to respond to them. Ting-Toomey’s (1985, 1988, 2005) face-

negotiation theory, for example, distinguishes cultures whose values are oriented toward

individualism from those that are oriented toward collectivism. Ting-Toomey proposes that

because this cultural dimension influences the way people view face threats, accounting for how

a culture is oriented with regard to the individualism-collectivism continuum can help to explain

why the strategies used to negotiate face threats vary across cultures. Ting-Toomey’s framework,

therefore, can also be applied in analyses of cross-cultural communication.

Like Ting-Toomey (1985, 1988, 2005), Cupach and Imahori (1993) also use the premise that

culture influences individuals to formulate their conceptions of face as a basis for their

framework of identity management theory. According to this framework, the ability to maintain

mutual face needs with a person with a different cultural background is viewed as a type of

competence. By adding the dimension of intercultural communicative competence, which

highlights how intracultural communication can differ from intercultural communication,

identity management theory provides an alternative framework to politeness theory that focuses

on cross-cultural communication. Similarly, Holtgrave’s (1992) face management framework

also attempts to account for the role of cultural differences in cross-cultural communication by

acknowledging the role of culture in shaping how the severity of face threats is perceived and

how language is manipulated to respond to such threats.

Despite the presence of alternative frameworks and the apparent limitations and shortcomings of

Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory, there are also arguments to be made for its

25

utility and contribution to linguistics. As Haugh and Obana (2011) pointed out, prominent critics

such as Ide (1989) and Matsumoto (1988) did not reject Brown and Levinson’s model outright,

but rather argued that it needs to be complemented by other perspectives that can better account

for cultural variability. Of the strength of politeness theory’s scope, Goldsmith (2008) writes,

“The theory draws together an incredibly wide range of language features into one

comprehensive lens and also focuses our attention on the subtle features of talk” (p. 264). Even

where politeness theory falls short of providing a universal model of politeness, it still provides a

common basis for comparison, refinements, and alternative frameworks. It could also be argued

that in light of the criticisms that regard the theory as biased toward an English-speaking

perceptive, ILP research involving English speakers may still find the framework particularly

useful.

As this study uses an EDCT as its main data collection instrument, the data do not show turn-

taking or communication between speakers but rather, language use from one side in a

hypothetical situation. Instead of demonstrating communicative competence, the data show

pragmatic knowledge and, thus, alternative frameworks that focus on negotiation of face and

turn-taking in conversation may be limited in their application to the data of this study. Pan

(2000) makes a similar observation, arguing that Brown and Levinson’s (1987) framework might

be more suited to a ‘language-based approach’ to politeness that focuses on the syntactic and

lexical modifications of single speech acts compared to its use in a ‘society-based approach’,

which is a broader view of politeness that is more concerned with the role of politeness in

discourse and communication. As Ogiermann (2009a) notes of the ‘language-based approach’,

“although speech acts strategies provide a simplified view on politeness, they are an ideal unit of

analysis when it comes to cross-cultural comparison” (p. 21).

This study’s use of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) framework relates mainly to the use of the

social variables in their framework in this study’s research design. Rather than accepting an

assumption that these variables represent all of the factors involved in request-making, the design

of this study minimizes the shortcomings of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory and

supplements this framework by allowing participants, in their own words, to identify other

variables that influence their language choices when making requests. An additional reason to

use this element of politeness theory is its prevalence in previous and current ILP research.

Because of the centrality of Brown and Levinson’s framework in ILP research over the last thirty

26

years, using its social variables in this study’s design allows the results of this study to be

compared to those of previous research.

2.6 Chapter summary

This chapter has presented a discussion of pragmatics, including the concepts of pragmatic

competence, ILP, and pragmatic failure, which are important foundational components to much

of the literature relevant to this study, which is discussed in Chapter 3. Also provided were

overviews of speech act theory in general and speech acts of request in particular as they are

relevant to the language production examined in this study. Therefore, this discussion will help

the reader understand the review of relevant literature discussed in Chapter 3 as well as the

interpretation of the study’s findings, which is included in Chapters 5 and 6. As previously

discussed in this chapter, the concept of politeness plays a central role in understanding the

communication of speech acts, including speech acts of requests. Therefore, this chapter has also

presented a discussion of the development of theoretical frameworks relating to politeness,

focusing on the most prominent model in the field of pragmatics, Brown and Levinson’s (1987)

politeness theory. Major criticisms of the universality of Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory

as well as alternative politeness frameworks were also discussed, along with the justification for

the use of Brown and Levinson’s model in this study. Because this study uses an analysis of

speech acts of request in order to understand the development of pragmatic competence by Thai

learners of English, Brown and Levinson’s model of politeness plays a significant role in the

research design in this study, which will be discussed in Chapter 4, as well as the analysis of the

data, which is presented in Chapters 5 and 6.

27

Chapter 3 Literature Review

This chapter presents a review research in three areas of interlanguage pragmatics (ILP): ILP

studies on speech acts of requests, ILP studies on the development of pragmatic competence in

study abroad contexts, and ILP studies involving Thai learners of English.

Learners’ production, perception, and comprehension of requests have been the subject of many

studies that explore issues related to L2 pragmatic competence. These studies involve both cross-

sectional and longitudinal research designs, as well as a range of data collection methods,

including written and oral discourse completion tasks (DCTs), role plays, authentic discourse,

and ratings and interview tasks (for an overview, see Kasper & Roever, 2005; Leech, 2014, p.

248). A range of research topics relating to requests in ILP research will be discussed, which will

focus on factors relating to the development of pragmatic competence of learners of English in

several aspects of requests. These factors include linguistic proficiency, pragmatic transfer, and

the teachability of pragmatic competence.

As for the ILP studies on the development of pragmatic competence in study abroad contexts,

unlike ILP studies on the speech act of requests, the studies included in this part of the literature

review examine pragmatic development more generally, and thus, are not limited only to speech

acts of requests. Rather than focusing on speech acts of request, this review of ILP studies on the

development of pragmatic competence in study abroad contexts focuses on factors relating to the

study abroad learning environment that may influence the development of pragmatic competence

by ESL learners.

Finally, the review of studies involving Thai learners of English focuses on how linguistic

differences between Thai and English as well as cultural differences between Thai and English

speakers affect learners’ acquisition of pragmatic competence in English, with a particular focus

on how these differences relate to L1 pragmatic transfer. It also reviews studies that use a range

of pragmatic features in order to explore the role of proficiency, type of instruction, and exposure

to English in the acquisition of pragmatic competence by Thai learners of English.

28

3.1 ILP research on requests

3.1.1 The proficiency effect on pragmatic competence

The relationship between general language proficiency and pragmatic competence is a widely

researched issue within ILP research. The findings of these studies generally show that language

proficiency can positively affect the development of pragmatic competence, but other studies

show mixed results or no effect of proficiency on pragmatic competence. The degree to which

proficiency affects the development of pragmatic competence is dependent on the aspect of

pragmatic competence being examined (e.g., production, comprehension, mitigating devices,

directness level), as well as on contextual and individual factors relating to L2 acquisition (e.g.,

exposure to the target language environment, the learning environment, instruction, and

communicative competence).

3.1.2 Proficiency and request strategies

The results of ILP studies involving English learners’ use of request strategies and directness

levels have been mixed in terms of demonstrating a correlation between proficiency and L2

norms in terms of the use of request strategies and levels of directness. Some research has

indicated that higher proficiency learners outperform their lower proficiency counterparts in the

production of indirect requests toward the norms of the target language. For example, Pérez i

Parent (2002) examined Catalan-speaking EFL learners at three proficiency levels and found the

production of unconventionally indirect requests by higher proficiency learners was comparable

in frequency to the requests of a study group comprising native speakers of British English.

These results were obtained by using Blum-Kulka et al’s (1989) Cross-Cultural Study of Speech

Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP) coding scheme in order to analyze participants’ written DCT

responses for six request situations. Pérez i Parent interpreted the findings to be the result of

lower proficiency learners transferring conventions of their L1 as well as request strategies

modeled during explicit instruction in their English classes. These results are consistent with

those observed by Rose (2000), who used a cartoon oral production task (COPT) to elicit request

responses from Cantonese-speaking primary school EFL students who were divided by age (ages

7, 9, and 11). The results of Rose’s study showed a correlation between gains in proficiency and

a move from a reliance on direct request strategies to the use of conventionally indirect request

strategies, which represents a move toward the norms of the target language. Rose reports that

29

because the data produced by control groups completing the COPT in Cantonese also showed a

preference for conventionally indirect requests, the transfer of L1 pragmatic norms does not

appear to have been a factor. Rather, Rose suggests that these results may reflect a

developmental sequence in which direct strategies are utilized before conventionally indirect

strategies for L2 English learners in a way that is similar to the sequence observed for young L1

English learners. It should be noted that because Rose’s study involved primary school children,

it is not clear to what extent these results can be generalized to represent language learners of

other age groups. In a study investigating the role of L1 transfer in the acquisition of English

pragmatic skills, Takahashi and Dufon (1989) used role plays to compare the request strategies

of two groups of Japanese ESL learners grouped into intermediate and advanced proficiency

levels. The findings revealed development away from indirect request strategies and toward

more direct request strategies, which the authors suggest represents a move away from the norms

of the learners’ L1, which is characterized by indirectness, toward the target norm, which is

comparatively more direct.

In contrast, other studies have shown little or no correlation between proficiency gains and

increased use of target-like request strategies and directness levels. For example, Tseng’s (2015)

study of Taiwanese EFL learners’ requests showed no significant difference in directness level

between high-intermediate and low-intermediate proficiency learners. Tseng employed an

experimental writing task in which participants were provided with a high-imposition request

situation and asked to compose an email in order to make a request. Data were subsequently

coded using a coding scheme based on Blum-Kulka et al.’s (1989) CCSARP framework.

According to Tseng, these findings suggest that at their current stages of development, both

groups are still strongly influenced by the pragmatic norms of their L1. Tseng’s interpretation

implies an expectation that this L1 influence would become less pronounced when the learners

progress to more advanced proficiency levels. Tseng also concludes that the learners’ preference

for directness related to their desire for conciseness and clarity. Similarly, Su’s (2010) study on

bi-directional pragmatic transfer found that the request production of Chinese EFL students

showed no significant difference in the request strategies or directness levels between two groups

differentiated by proficiency level. Su’s study used the CCSARP framework (Blum-Kulka et al.,

1989) to analyze and compare the DCT-elicited requests of intermediate and advanced

proficiency groups. In contrast to Tseng (2015), Su concludes that the similar linguistic choices

30

of the two study groups relate to both groups receiving explicit instruction modeling their

preferred strategies, which were characterized by conventional indirectness.

3.1.3 Proficiency and internal modifications

ILP research has shown that English learners tend to use fewer internal request modifications

than native English speakers (e.g., Chen, 2001; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2009; Fearch & Kasper,

1989; Göy, Zeyrek, & Otcu, 2012; Hill, 1997; Hendriks, 2008; Najafabadi & Paramasivam,

2012; Otcu & Zeyrek, 2008; Trosborg, 1995). Several cross-sectional studies have explored the

relationship between proficiency and learners’ use of internal modifications. For example, Göy et

al. (2012) investigated the correlation between proficiency level and the frequency of internal

modifications by examining the role play performances of Turkish EFL learners. Participants

were divided into three study groups, with one group of 15 American native English speakers

acting as a control group, and two experimental groups comprising 19 Turkish EFL learners of

two proficiency levels: beginner and upper intermediate. The results showed that the higher

proficiency group used more internal modifications, both of the syntactic and lexical/phrasal

subtypes, than the lower proficiency group. However, both EFL learner groups used these

modifications considerably less than did the American native English speaker group. The

researchers suggest these findings may relate to multiple factors, including learners’ lack of

knowledge about how linguistic forms relate to their mitigating function and how using these

forms can affect pragmatic clarity. Otcu and Zeyrek (2008) reported similar findings in their

study which compared the role play performances of Turkish ESL learners of lower intermediate

and higher intermediate proficiency to American native English speakers. The results showed

proficiency correlated to an increase in use of both syntactic and lexical/phrasal internal

modifications. However, despite this apparent development, Otcu and Zeyrek’s study showed

differences between upper intermediate ESL learners and native speakers of American English,

with upper intermediate learners producing fewer internal modifications and using a more

limited range of modifiers: tense and aspect modifications were not observed in the learner data.

In light of these findings, it is notable that the more advanced learner group overused cajolers.

The authors suggest that this supports the hypothesis of Takahashi and Beebe (1987) that L1

transfer is more likely to occur with more advanced language learners because of their greater

access to L2 linguistic resources.

31

While most studies show that English learners use fewer internal modifications than native

English speakers, a proficiency effect on the use of internal modifications has not been

consistently demonstrated. In a study using role plays to examine the pragmatic development of

Dutch EFL learners of three proficiency levels (intermediate, advanced, and high advanced) by

Trosborg (1995), for example, the results showed that the lowest proficiency group of Dutch

EFL students produced more internal modifications than their advanced counterparts. The author

suggests that these results, which were coded using Blum-Kulka et al.’s (1989) CCSARP

framework, demonstrate a non-linear development of this feature of learners’ request-making. In

another study involving Dutch EFL learners by Hendrik (2008), no significant difference was

observed between intermediate and advanced learners in terms of the frequency of internal

modifications in their requests. Like Otcu and Zeyrek (2008), Hendrik reports the learners’ use

of tense and aspect modifications was particularly underrepresented when compared to native

English speakers. Hendrik used an oral production DCT to compare two EFL learner groups,

which were designated as intermediate and advanced proficiency, to control groups of native

speakers of Dutch and English. Data were subsequently coded using a modified version of the

CCSARP coding manual (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989). The author notes that the data from the

native Dutch and English speaker groups suggest that syntactic downgraders play a larger role in

English requests compared to Dutch requests, which is one explanation for the learners’ underuse

of this internal modification type.

A study by Najafabadi and Paramasivam (2012) examined the request production of Iranian EFL

learners divided into advanced, intermediate, and low proficiency groups by comparing the

requests of these groups to those of a group of American native English speakers. Request

responses were elicited using a written DCT, and the data were subsequently coded using a

modified version of the CCSARP coding scheme (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989). The findings

suggest that pragmatic development seen in the use of internal modifications was dependent on

the type of modification. Out of the three proficiency levels, only advanced learners

approximated native speakers in the frequency of conditional and understater modifications.

However, all three groups, including advanced proficiency learners, used downtowners

infrequently compared to native speakers. Although differences between learners and native

speakers were typically characterized by the learners’ underuse of modifications, the use of the

politeness marker ‘please’ was an exception, with development toward native speaker

32

frequencies being marked by less frequent use. Several previous studies have also reported a

preference, particularly among lower proficiency learners, for politeness markers (House &

Kasper 1987; Faerch & Kasper 1989; Barron 2003; Göy et al., 2012; Rose, 2000). According to

Barron (2003), this overuse is the result of the learners’ “pragmatic overgeneralization via a

playing-it-safe strategy” (p. 149), and ‘please’ serves a dual function to clarify and mitigate the

illocuationary force of a request. Najafabadi and Paramasivam (2012) note that, although in their

study even the most advanced learner groups’ requests differed from the requests of the native

speaker group, achieving complete native-speaker-like requests may not be a desirable goal for

learners, as this may not be necessary to successfully make requests, and learners may prefer to

use their distinct linguistic patterns as a way to maintain their identity.

3.1.4 Proficiency and external modifications

Although language learners tend to underuse internal modifications, the findings of many studies

indicate that there is also a tendency for language learners to overuse external modifications

(Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2009; Faerch & Kasper, 1989; Kasper, 1981; Najafabadi &

Paramasivam, 2012; Otcu & Zeyrek, 2006; Wang, 2011; Woodfield & Economidou-Kogetsidis,

2010). Commenting on this overreliance on external modifications in their study of learners of

Hebrew, which used a written DCT comprising seven request situations to compare learners of

Hebrew from various linguistic backgrounds to native speakers of Hebrew, Blum-Kulka and

Olshtain (1986) suggest that the phenomenon may relate to learners’ lack of confidence and an

attempt to provide clarity in their message. Economidou-Kogetsidis (2009) points out that

compared to internal modifications, “external modifications tend to be syntactically less

demanding and pragmalinguistically less complex” (p. 102). In terms of development, studies

that report a preference for external modifications over internal modifications appear to support

the notion that external modifications are more accessible to learners of lower proficiency levels

compared to internal modifications, which require a higher level of proficiency due to the

syntactic and pragmalingustic knowledge necessary to produce them. For example, Najafabadi

and Paramasivam’s (2012) study of Iranian EFL learners found that as learners gain proficiency,

their overreliance on external modifications is reduced as they move toward native speaker-like

frequencies.

33

Results that demonstrate learners’ overuse of external modifications and preference for external

over internal modifications are not universal. Trosborg (1995), for instance, reported that Dutch

ESL learners underused external modifications when compared to native English speakers.

However, Trosborg’s study involved data collection by role play, which allowed for turn taking.

Over the course of a conversation, native English speakers used more supportive moves only

because they engaged in longer conversations. In contrast, the learners in Trosborg’s study used

more supportive moves per turn, but took fewer turns than native speakers. Trosborg suggests

that native speakers are more skilled at planning out a sequence of supportive moves to utilize

over the course of several turns. Trosborg’s study highlights the potential for different data

collection instruments to capture a different picture of this aspect of requesting, with turn taking

(or its absence) appearing to play a role in how supportive moves are utilized in requests. Similar

to the results observed by Najafabadi and Paramasivam (2012), the learners in Trosborg’s study

developed toward native-speaker-like frequencies of external modifications with their gains in

proficiency. However, this development was characterized by a reduction of the underuse rather

than overuse of external modifications. In their study of Turkish EFL students’ requests, Otcu

and Zeyrek (2008) found that learners of various proficiency levels used supportive moves at

similar frequencies to native speakers. However, despite this similarity, development was

observed in terms of the range of supportive move types employed by learners, with lower

proficiency learners relying on fewer supportive move types. Lower proficiency learners’ use of

external modification was characterized by an absence of imposition minimizers and an

overreliance on grounders, preparators, and getting a precommitment. Similarly, when

controlling for proficiency by dividing non-native Hebrew-speaking participants into low

intermediate, high intermediate, and advanced proficiency levels, Blum-Kulka and Olshtain

(1986) found that with higher proficiency, learners used more external modifications, thus

moving away from the target-language norms. The authors attribute the low number of external

modifications of the lower proficiency group to their lack of linguistic resources rather than their

pragmatic awareness of L2 norms.

3.1.5 Proficiency and comprehension

In addition to studies that use requests to explore the relationship between proficiency and

pragmatic production, some studies have been conducted to assess the extent to which

34

proficiency affects pragmatic comprehension. Comprehension of indirect speech acts represents

a particular point of interest to researchers, as determining the illocutionary force requires that

the learner use previous knowledge of conventionalized forms or inference from contextual

factors. In their study of learners’ comprehension of request of various directness levels, Cook

and Liddicoat (2002) observed that proficiency affects learners’ ability to process linguistic and

contextual information. This was found by comparing the questionnaire responses of Japanese

and Chinese ESL learners grouped by proficiency level. The participants were grouped into two

proficiency levels, with a TOEFL score of 550 or IELTS score of 6.5 used as the dividing line

between higher and lower proficiency groups. Learners were asked to interpret various requests,

which varied by strategy and directness level. The findings showed that the native English

speaker group selected correct responses of all directness levels more consistently than the

learner groups. However, a proficiency effect was observed in the learners’ interpretation of

conventionally and non-conventionally indirect requests, which Cook and Liddicoat attribute to

differences in processing strategies between high and low proficiency learners. The more indirect

the request, the more the hearer must rely on contextual information. While proficient language

users can process contextual and linguistic information automatically, lower proficiency learners

cannot effectively process contextual information because of the processing demands of

decoding linguistic input.

Similar proficiency effects were observed by Garcia (2004) in her study comparing low and high

proficiency learners to native English speakers in their abilities to recognize various

nonconventionally indirect speech acts by using a multiple choice listening task. The results

showed a significant proficiency effect in the identification of speech acts of suggestions,

corrections, and offers. However, no significance difference was observed between high and low

proficiency learners’ identification of requests, with both groups’ identification of

nonconventionally indirect requests comparing favorably to the native speaker group. Garcia

suggests that the fact that requests in her study included explicit reference to the agent involved

in a speech act made this speech act type easier to identify than other speech act types that did

not make such a reference. Similar results were also observed by Takahashi and Roitblat (1994),

who found that high proficiency Japanese EFL students were able to accurately interpret

meaning of conventionally indirect requests comparable to native English speakers. However,

the findings also showed that comprehension took longer for the learners when compared to

35

native speakers. The research was conducted by asking participants to read 12 short stories, half

included a sentence intended to be interpreted as a conventionally indirect request and half of the

stories including the same sentence intended to be interpreted literally. The authors interpret the

results as showing both advanced ESL learners and native speakers processing both literal and

implied meanings in a similar way.

In order to explore the proficiency effect on comprehension accuracy and speed of indirect

speech acts, Taguchi (2005) compared the comprehension of indirect requests and refusals

between high and low proficiency Japanese EFL learners. The study used a multiple choice

questionnaire and a 38-item listening track to measure the processing time and accuracy of the

EFL learners. The findings showed that compared to low proficiency learners, high proficiency

learners more accurately interpreted indirect speech acts. When comparing the learners'

comprehension speed, it was found that comprehension of non-conventionally indirect speech

acts required more time than conventionally indirect speech act, but no proficiency effect was

observed in learners’ comprehension speed. Taguchi suggests that the absence of a proficiency

effect on the learners’ comprehension speed may show that individual factors not related to

language skills, such as sociocultural knowledge, play a more significant role than proficiency in

the speed in pragmatic processing. Taguchi explains the correlation between higher proficiency

and greater accuracy by proposing that more proficient learners may become more skilled at

focusing their attention to the most relevant part of the information they hear.

3.1.6 Proficiency and pragmatic transfer

In addition to studies that explore the relationship between proficiency and pragmatic

competence, the transfer of pragmatic knowledge from learners’ L1, or pragmatic transfer, has

also been the subject of research aimed at understanding the acquisition process of L2 pragmatic

competence. Studies exploring this relationship have yielded mixed results, ranging from

positive to negative to no correlation between proficiency and pragmatic transfer. In a study

using a written DCT to compare the requests of high and low proficiency Chinese EFL learners

to groups comprising native speakers of the learners’ L1 and L2, for example, Bu (2012) found

that as L2 proficiency increases, the effect of L1 transfer is reduced in learners’ use of direct

strategies, lexical/phrasal downgraders, and grounders. According to Bu (2012), “high

proficiency L2 learners are less likely to transfer their native language pragmatic norms since

36

they have enough control over L2” (p. 37). However, others have argued that learners need to

attain a minimum level of L2 proficiency before the transfer of complicated L1 strategies can

occur (see, for example, Blum-Kulka, 1982; Ellis, 1994). For example, in Pérez i Parent’s (2002)

study of Catalan EFL learners’ requests, the author reported greater evidence of L1 transfer in

the request strategies of intermediate proficiency learners compared to lower proficiency

learners. Pérez i Parent attributed this finding to the fact that lower proficiency learners lack the

L2 linguistic resources necessary in order to transfer pragmatic knowledge from their L1.

The proficiency effect on L1 transfer was also tested by Takahashi (1996) in a study involving

one hundred and forty-two Japanese EFL learners divided into high and low proficiency groups.

Data were collected through a questionnaire which asked participants to rate the contextual

appropriateness of Japanese requests and the similarities in contextual appropriateness between

these requests and their English equivalents. Takahashi investigated the transfer rates of request

strategies and found neither a positive nor a negative correlation between proficiency and L1

transfer. Instead, the context of the requests, specifically, the degree of imposition, was found to

have significant roles in the learners’ transfer of L1 request strategies. With higher imposition

requests, which required a greater degree of mitigation, learners of both proficiency groups

tended to rely on their L1 pragmalinguistic knowledge in the production of their English

requests.

3.1.7 Factors influencing pragmatic transfer

While some studies have demonstrated that learners’ proficiency can be a significant factor in

their transfer (or avoidance of transfer) of their L1 pragmatic norms to their L2 requests, other

factors relating to the differences between learners’ L1 and L2 pragmatic norms may also play a

role. Using Thomas’ (1983) distinction between pragmalinguistic failure and sociopragmatic

failure, pragmalinguistic transfer can be seen as a result of incorrectly mapping L1 linguistic

features onto L2 requests, while sociopragmatic transfer is the result of assessing context-

appropriate L2 language use based on social norms of the L1 context. Kasper (1992) observes:

At a sociopragmatic level, learners have been shown to display sensitivity towards

context-external factors such as interlocutors' familiarity and relative status…and

37

context-internal factors such as degree of imposition, legitimacy of the requestive goal

and 'standardness' of the situation in request. (pp. 211-212)

Loutfi (2019), for example, found evidence of L1 sociopragmatic transfer in his investigation of

request strategies of Moroccan EFL learners. The learners’ written requests in seven DCT

situations with varied levels of social distance, relative power, and degree of imposition were

compared to the responses of a group of native speakers of American English, as well as the

learners’ responses from a translated Moroccan Arabic DCT. The researcher concludes that in

some situations, particularly those which were characterized by differences in request strategy

directness between the learners’ L1 and L2 norms, the learners’ request strategies were

influenced by their L1 norms. Wei (2018) also demonstrated that cultural differences between

learners’ L1 and L2 can result in the transfer of L1 sociopragmatic norms to L2 requests. The

researchers compared the written DCT email responses of two groups of Chinese EFL learners

(low and high proficiency) to native speakers of Australian English, finding evidence of L1

sociopragmatic transfer in the high proficiency learners’ use of formal and deferential address

terms and salutations. Wei found that the use of titles such as ‘Dean’ and expressions such as

“Respected” in the salutations of high proficiency learners’ email requests reflected their L1

cultural norms, but not those of the target language culture.

Pragmalinguistic transfer has also been observed in the request-making of English learners. In a

study investigating the requests of Algerian EFL learners, Dendenne (2014) found the learners’

use of the word ‘please’ as an external request modification was consistent with the linguistic

norms of their L1 but not those of the target language. Dendenne attributed this to an

overgeneralization based on the learners’ L1 linguistic knowledge of the mitigating impact that

‘please’ has in English requests. Data in Dendenne’s study were elicited using a written DCT and

coded using an adapted version of the CCSARP (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989) coding scheme. Other

studies have demonstrated that perceptions of differences between L1 and L2 pragmalinguistic

features can result in learners’ avoidance of L1 pragmatic transfer. Using a written DCT to elicit

data, House and Kasper (1987), for example, compared the requests of native speakers of British

English, native Dutch and German speakers, and German and Danish EFL learners, finding that

Danish EFL learners did not transfer the Danish negative marker ‘ikke’ to their English requests.

The researchers propose that this avoidance of transfer related to the learners’ perception that this

marker is a linguistic feature specific to their L1. House and Kasper also propose that their

38

findings reveal learners’ perception of the level of distance between their L1 and L2 can affect

their transfer of L1 linguistic features. The authors observed that Danish learners utilized their

L1 more freely when requesting in German than in English, which the authors attribute to a

perception by the learners that their L1 is more similar to German than it is English.

3.1.8 Transfer of training

In addition to the transfer of L1 pragmatic knowledge, learners’ pragmatic production and

comprehension may also be negatively impacted by ‘transfer of training’, or the influence of the

L2 instruction learners receive in school. According to Odlin (1989), “While some influences

from teaching are no doubt beneficial, others can induce errors that might not otherwise occur”

(p. 18). Mohammadi and Sa’d (2014), for example, proposed that the overreliance on hearer

dominance requests by Iranian EFL students relates to their exposure to hearer dominance

request forms presented in their formal instruction. The data in Mohammadi and Sa’d’s study

were collected using written DCT and coded using the CCSARP coding methods (Blum-Kulka

et al., 1989). In an analysis of a range of linguistic acts collected in face-to-face conversations

with native English speakers, Kasper (1982), for example, reported that although the cajoler ‘I

mean’ would transfer positively into English from its German equivalent, ‘ich meine’, its

avoidance by German EFL students represents a conscious avoidance resulting from explicit

instruction. Although ‘I mean’ and ‘ich meine’ are functionally the same, the learners in Kaspers’

study self-reported that they were instructed by their teachers that this phrase would be

inappropriate in English. Although Kasper’s study did not focus exclusively on requests, the

observations contain a relevance to understanding learners’ requests production because the

findings demonstrate that transfer of training can influence learners’ language choices. Similarly,

in Takahashi and Beebe’s (1987) study of Japanese ESL and EFL learners’ refusal strategies, the

written DCT-elicited findings revealed the learners’ overuse of direct strategies. The researchers

concluded that these findings can be explained by the fact that the participants had been

influenced by explicit instruction that emphasized the directness of American English speakers.

3.1.9 Mediation of social identity

When learners’ requests deviate from the norms of the target language, it is typically viewed as

representing deficiencies in learners’ pragmatic competence. This can potentially lead to

39

misunderstandings with serious and negative consequences in communications. According to

Economidou-Kogetsidis (2008), the social implication of these deviations “can be unfortunate

for the learners and for intercultural communication in general” (p. 112). Similarly, Thomas

(1983) observes that “While grammatical errors may reveal a speaker to be a less proficient

language-user, pragmatic failure reflects badly on him/her as a person” (p. 97). However,

deviations from target language norms do not necessarily mean that learners lack pragmatic

competence; learners0 may consciously choose to deviate from target language norms as a

means of mediating their social identity. Beebe observes that learners may choose not to be

native-like in their language use “because they may find that the reward of being fluent in the

target language is not worth the cost in lost identification and solidarity with their own native

language group” (as cited in Kecskes, 2003, p. 195).

Several studies have demonstrated learners’ resistance to conforming to native-speaker-like

language use as a means of mediating their social identity. Although these studies broadly deal

with pragmatic communication and do not focus solely on speech acts of requests, their findings

contain implications for the interpretation of language learners’ request production. For example,

in his study involving high proficiency Korean ESL learners studying in Australia, Davis (2007)

reported the learners’ preference for North American English influenced their resistance to

adapting to Australian-English pragmatic norms. Davis attributes this to a “widespread cultural

regard for North American forms” commonly held in the learners’ home country. While the

target for these learners was still a native variety of their L2, Davis’s study demonstrates that

learners’ agency in their production of pragmatic routines may cause deviations from the target

form. A multiple choice data collection instrument as well as an interview were used in Davis’s

study. Preferences for L1 pragmatic norms have also been reported. For example, LoCastro

(2001) used focus group discussion, essay writing, and a questionnaire in her study of attitudes

of Japanese EFL learners toward L2 pragmatic norms. LoCastro reported that many learners

prefer to keep their own Japanese identities, which LoCastro interprets as “suggesting it as

inappropriate for them to accommodate to the L2 pragmatic norms” (p. 83). Likewise, in his

study involving English learners from Asia and the Middle East, Hinkel (1996) distributed a 29-

item questionnaire to explore awareness and perceptions of L2 pragmatic norms. Hinkel found

that despite their recognition of the pragmatic norms of native speakers of American English,

40

many learners were not willing to follow them, viewing them critically when compared to the

norms of their L1 communities.

3.1.10 Instruction of pragmatic competence

In addition to research that focuses on how proficiency gains relate to learners’ pragmatic

development, the manner in which pragmatic competence is acquired also represents an

important area within ILP research. This area can be broadly divided into research that focuses

on the effects of pedagogical interventions and research which relates to how exposure to the

target language environment affects learners’ pragmatic development. While this study focuses

on the effect of study abroad and, thus, more directly relates to the latter, it is important to

outline the main issues relating to the teaching of pragmatic competence as well for several

reasons. First, although learning may take place differently in the classroom and in the target

language environment, the study abroad learners in this study have received classroom

instruction prior to their time spent in the English-speaking environment. Following on this

point, understanding the broad issues and findings of research studies relating to both classroom

instruction and exposure to the target language environment can provide a complementary and

more complete view of the acquisition process of pragmatic competence. A comprehensive view

of how these two learning contexts relate is necessary for a discussion of the expected

implications and recommendations of this study.

According to Rose (2005), three lines of inquiry are central to the area of instruction in ILP

research: “the teachability of pragmatics, the relative benefits of instruction versus exposure, and

whether different approaches to instruction yield different results” (p. 385). Before considering

the question of the relative benefits of instruction versus exposure, which will be discussed in the

next section, this section will begin by examining the teachability of pragmatics and the effects

of various teaching approaches.

The results of research exploring the teachability of pragmatics have generally found that

instruction can yield positive results (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Jeon & Kaya, 2006; Olshtain &

Cohen, 1990; Rose, 2005; Taguchi, 2011; Takahashi, 2010). Research involving instruction of

various aspects of request has also demonstrated a positive effect of instruction. For example, in

a study involving 160 Spanish EFL students, Safont (2003) reported an increase in the use of

41

both internal and external modifications after instruction. Instruction in Safont’s study included

both awareness raising tasks and role play activities, and the results were measured by using a

pre and post-instruction written DCT. In a study also involving Spanish EFL students, Salazar

(2003) examined the effect of instruction on request strategies and modifications by using a pre

and post-instruction written DCT. Salazar reported that after a twenty-minute instructional

session, learners demonstrated a greater range of request strategies, with an increased use of

lexical modifications. However, Salazar also reported that a posttest conducted three weeks after

the instruction session showed that these initial gains were not retained.

Research investigating different teaching approaches to pragmatics has generally shown explicit

instruction to be favorable when compared to implicit instruction (House, 1996; Rose and Ng

Kwai-Fun, 2001; Taguchi, 2015; Tateyama, Kasper, Mui, Tay, & Thananart, 1997). In a study

comparing the results of explicit and implicit instruction of request strategies involving Chinese

EFL students, Gu (2011) reported that while both groups demonstrated some improvements,

explicit instruction was more effective in facilitating improvements in learners’ choices of

pragmatic forms and raising their pragmatic awareness. Data were collected using a pre and post-

instruction written DTC as well as pre and post-instruction role plays. Similar results were

reported by Alcón-Soler (2005) in a study involving explicit and implicit instruction of request

strategies with 132 Spanish EFL students. Participants were randomly divided into three groups

(a control group, implicit instruction group, and explicit instruction group), with all participants

completing a pre and post-instruction written test. Alcón-Soler found that although both groups

improved in terms of pragmatic awareness and appropriate use of request strategies, the group

receiving explicit instruction demonstrated greater gains in these areas when compared to the

group that received implicit instruction. Alcón-Soler notes that unlike other studies on the effect

of instruction on pragmatic development, which typically involve classroom instruction, this

study involves self-study and that different results could be possible with classroom instruction.

Takahashi (2001) also compared the effectiveness of implicit and explicit instruction in request

production in a study that involved weekly 90-minute instructional periods to two groups of

Japanese EFL learners. Both study groups completed pre and post-instruction written DCTs,

which were compared to the DCT data of native English speakers. Takahashi reported that

Japanese EFL learners who received explicit instruction outperformed those who received

implicit instruction in the production of target request forms; however, some gains were

42

demonstrated by learners receiving implicit instruction. In addition to the relative effects of

explicit and implicit instruction, recommendations have been made relating to the sequence of

introducing sociopragmatic and pragmalingustic information. According to Bou-Franch and

Garces-Conejos (2003), sociopragmatics should be introduced before pragmalinguistics because

“developing L2 sociopragmatic knowledge will result in the improvement of the production and

interpretation of L2 pragmalinguistic strategies” (p.2).

Underlying the hypothesis that instruction of pragmatics is more effective than exposure to the

target language alone is the view that sees the acquisition of pragmatic competence as a

cognitive process that involves conscious recognition and processing of L2 pragmatic knowledge

(see for example, Bialystok, 1993; Schmidt, 1993). Research has consistently demonstrated that

instruction is more beneficial than exposure alone in the development of pragmatic competence

(Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Bouton, 1994; Félix-Brasdefer, 2007). While studies comparing

instruction and exposure have shown instruction to be more beneficial to learners’ pragmatic

development, some studies have also shown exposure alone can have a positive effect (see Rose,

2005). In addition, several external factors may limit the effectiveness of classroom instruction.

In the foreign language context, instruction of pragmatics presents a particular challenge for non-

native speaking (NNS) teachers. According to Rose (1997), the complexity of pragmatic systems

makes them impossible to describe in a thorough and complete way, which represents “one of

the main problems in educating NNS teachers to deal with pragmatics in the classroom” (p. 131).

Another problem that poses a challenge to the NNS teachers is textbooks. Although teachers can

create their own materials or bring in authentic materials to their classroom, textbooks are still

the main teaching materials in a language class and are favored by non-native English-speaking

teachers (Reves & Medgyes, 1994). According to Diepenbroek and Derwing’s (2014) study that

examined 48 popular integrated skills textbooks used in Language Instruction for Newcomers to

Canada (LINC) and ESL programs for pragmatics and fluency activities, pragmatics activities

are included in the textbooks; however, the surveyed textbooks lack consistency and scope in

coverage of pragmatics.

3.2 ILP studies in study abroad contexts

The interest of many learners in study abroad is in large part grounded in the belief that exposure

to an authentic target language environment and the increased opportunity to use the target

43

language will benefit their L2 language development (Freed, 1998). Indeed, research supports

this belief, showing that study abroad can produce positive effects in the areas of listening

comprehension (Cubillos, Chieffo, & Fan, 2008) oral fluency and accuracy (Freed, 1995; Llanes

& Muñoz, 2009), written proficiency (Evans & Fisher, 2005), pronunciation (Diaz-Campos,

2004), and sociolinguistic competence (Kinginger, 2008; Regan, Howard, & Lemée, 2009). The

growing interest in study abroad participation by language learners mirrors an increased interest

in the topic in ILP research. Given that L2 classroom contexts can be limited in terms of

providing language learners with opportunities to encounter a wide range of L2 input, increasing

attention has been paid to the effect of study abroad on L2 learners’ pragmatic development in

the field of ILP (e.g., Alcón-Soler, 2015; Barron, 2003; Cohen & Shively, 2007; Félix-Brasdefer,

2004; Hassall, 2013; Khorshidi, 2013; Matsumura, 2001; Owen, 2002; Schauer, 2009; Taguchi,

2011; Warga & Schölmberger, 2007, Yang, 2014). Similar to research investigating the effect of

study abroad on other areas of linguistic development, the findings of studies investigating

pragmatic development have generally shown a positive effect of study abroad on language

learners’ pragmatic competence.

Some research studies (including some studies already discussed in this chapter) involve study

abroad participants, but do not address the effect of study abroad on pragmatic development.

Rather, these studies may involve ESL learners out of a matter of convenience for researchers

working in native English-speaking countries. The studies reviewed in this section will involve

research questions related to the study abroad effect, which typically are addressed by comparing

study abroad learners to at home learners or by using pre- and posttests to measure the effect of

study abroad. Key areas in ILP research on study abroad effects to be discussed in this literature

review are the extent to which the target language environment helps promote L2 learners’

pragmatic development and how factors such as length of stay, proficiency, and the intensity of

interactions, and program and individual variations play a role in this development.

The results of studies investigating the extent to which length of stay impacts learners’ pragmatic

development have yielded mixed results. Several studies have demonstrated a correlation

between learners’ length of stay in the target language environment and their pragmatic

development. For example, Khorshidi (2013) observed sustained development of Iranian study

abroad learners’ production of English requests and apologies throughout the study abroad

period. Khorshidi tested learners’ production of requests and apologies using a written DCT at

44

the beginning, middle, and end of a six-month study abroad period and concluded that the gains

made in the production of both speech acts were significant, suggesting that longer periods

abroad provide greater gains in pragmatic competence. In a study using role plays to investigate

the effect of length of stay on the production of refusals by native English-speaking learners of

Spanish, Félix-Brasdefer (2004) reported that learners with more than nine months’ experience

living in the target language environment demonstrated significant development in their use of

target refusal forms and strategies when compared to learners who spent less time in the in the

target language environment. Similarly, Olshtain and Blum-Kulka (1985) also describe length of

stay as a significant factor in their investigation of the pragmatic development of Hebrew

learners from various language backgrounds and with various time spent in the target language

environment. The results showed that learners who had spent longer than ten years in the target

language environment tended to rate the appropriateness of speech acts similarly to native

speakers, whereas those with shorter periods of time spent in the target language environment

did not display such native-like perceptions.

The results of other studies, however, suggest that while learners may gain pragmatic

competence as a result of exposure to the target language environment, length of stay is not

necessarily a significant factor in this development. In a study investigating the effect of study

abroad on Japanese ESL learners’ use of speech acts of advice, Matsumura (2001) compared 97

Japanese university exchange students studying in Canada to 103 Japanese EFL students.

Participants completed a multiple choice questionnaire designed to assess their perception of

appropriate advice forms controlling for the variable of social status. Matsumura reported that

the study abroad group demonstrated greater gains than the at home group, and that the first few

months of study abroad represented a particularly important window in terms of the development

of learners’ awareness of sociopragmatic norms of the target language. However, the

development observed within the first three months of the learners’ time abroad was not matched

in later stages of their stay. Matsumura suggests that the initial gains observed in the study

abroad participants’ pragmatic development may relate to their enthusiasm toward the

experience that may have led to interactions with native speakers.

Similar results were reported by Alcón-Soler (2014), whose study used written email tasks to

investigate the effect of instruction during study abroad on upper intermediate Spanish ESL

learners’ request mitigations while studying in England. Participants were divided into two

45

groups, with an experimental group receiving instruction on writing emails and a control group

that did not. Data collection took place in four phases throughout the learners’ time abroad. The

results showed an immediate impact by the experimental group as demonstrated by the increased

use of request mitigators. However, these initial gains were not sustained throughout the study

abroad period, and by the end of their time abroad, the initial effect of increased use of request

mitigators disappeared. By contrast, after initially showing slow development upon arriving in

the target langue environment, the control group made gains at the end of their stay. The

researcher concludes that these findings support the hypothesis that instruction can have an

immediate effect on learners’ development, but prolonged quality exposure to the target

language environment can produce similar effects.

In a cross-sectional study involving Iranian learners of English, Mofidi and Shoushtari (2012)

compared the production of complaints between learners with various periods of time spent in

the target language environment, ranging from one to more than twenty years. Using responses

collected from a written DCT, the researchers found no correlation between length of stay and

pragmatic competence. The benefits of short-term study abroad on learners’ pragmatic

development support findings that suggest an importance of the initial period of exposure to the

target language environment. Hassall (2013), for example, looked at the effects of a short-term

study abroad. Data were collected using written pre and posttests, an interview, and regular dairy

keeping tasks. This study examined the development of knowledge about Indonesian address

terms by Australian study abroad participants during a short summer course and the findings

demonstrate that even in short periods spent studying abroad, pragmatic competence can be

improved considerably. The study also showed that pragmatic development can be slowed by the

process of L1 transfer and transfer of training received in prior classroom instruction.

Studies that compare the effects of length of stay to the effects of the quality of learners’

interactions during their stay, referred to as ‘intensity of interactions’, tend to show that the

intensity of learners’ interactions plays a more significant role in learners’ development than

length of stay. For example, Bella (2011) investigated the impact of length of stay and intensity

of interaction by comparing native Greek speakers to two groups of Greek learners: a group of

long-term residents with limited interaction with native speakers and another group with limited

experience living in the target language environment, but with more opportunities to interact

with native Greek speakers. Data were collected by using role plays and analyzed using Beebe et

46

al.’s (1990) coding scheme, which categorizes refusal strategies by directness level and

mitigating devices in similar way to the CCSARP coding manual’s (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989)

taxonomy of request strategies and modifiers. The results showed that while both learner groups

underused mitigating devices, such as lexical/phrasal downgraders, the group with limited

lengths of stay and more opportunities for interaction outperformed the group with longer

lengths of stay and limited opportunities for interactions, suggesting that the quality of

interactions while in the target language environment was a more significant factor than the

length of stay in the target language environment.

Similar results were reported by Bardovi-Harlig and Bastos (2011) in a study involving 122 low

intermediate to low advanced English learners from several language backgrounds studying at an

American university. Data collection involved two computer-delivered tasks: one to assess

participants’ abilities to recognize conventional L2 expressions through a listening task and

another to assess participants’ production of conventional L2 expressions. The participants’

length of stay was measured by the number of months spent in the target language environment,

while their intensity of interaction was measured by their self-reported weekly language use logs.

The researchers found that while intensity of interaction and proficiency were significant factors

in the learners’ production of conventional expressions, length of stay had no significant effect

on either recognition or production. Bardovi-Harlig and Bastos noted that the length of stay of

most participants in their study was eight months or less, and more time in the target language

environment may be necessary to observe the effect of length of stay.

In a study of 126 English learners of various language backgrounds studying at an American

university, Xu, Case, and Wang (2009) found that while both length of stay and proficiency were

contributing factors, proficiency had a more significant impact on the learners’ development than

did length of stay, as measured by learners’ identification of pragmatic errors. Data collection

involved presenting the participants with 20 scenarios and DCT answers and then asking

participants to rate the correctness of the DCT answers. Eight answers were grammatically

correct but pragmatically inappropriate, eight answers were pragmatically correct but

grammatically incorrect, and four correct control answers were included. The researchers

hypothesized that the lower proficiency group may have had difficulties processing both

grammar and pragmatic components simultaneously.

47

The relationship between linguistic proficiency and gains in pragmatic competence were also

explored in Li’s (2014) study of American learners of Chinese by examining their request

realizations throughout their study abroad period in China. The participants were grouped

according to their Chinese proficiency, described by the researcher as intermediate and

advanced. Data collection was conducted with a computerized oral DCT at the beginning and

end of the participants’ study abroad period. The requests were analyzed for appropriateness,

planning time, and rate of speech. The results showed while both groups made gains in several

areas, including the use of alerters, request strategies, internal modifications, and external

modifications, the learners’ proficiency levels were not a significant factor in their development

of their production of requests, as both groups made comparable gains. However, the findings

also indicated that the advanced learners made greater gains in their processing ability, as

measured by speech rate. The researcher concluded by suggesting four semesters of training as

the optimal amount of instruction prior to departing for the study period.

While the results of Li’s (2014) study showed a marginal proficiency effect on pragmatic

development during the study abroad period, Matsumura (2003) found that proficiency had no

direct impact on this development in a study of 137 Japanese learners of English during their

study abroad in Canada. However, while Matsumura reported that proficiency had no direct

effect on the learners’ pragmatic development, it did have an effect indirectly. Learners of higher

proficiency were found to be more likely to seek out opportunities to interact using the target

language and thus, proficiency was seen as contributing to advanced proficiency learners’

intensity of interactions during their time abroad. The data in Matsumura’s study were collected

by multiple choice questionnaires administered in three month intervals.

In addition to proficiency, other factors related to individual variation, such as motivation and

personality, may impact pragmatic development during study abroad. For example, in a

longitudinal study of German learners of English studying in England, Schauer (2009) found that

gains in pragmatic competence varied significantly between individual learners. These results

were observed over a range of request features, including pragmalinguistic awareness and use of

request strategies and modifications. Data collection was conducted by showing participants

videos of request scenarios and asking them to assess the grammatical correctness and pragmatic

appropriateness of requests. Hassall (2015) linked the variation in learners’ pragmatic

development during the study abroad period to their formation of L2 identity in the study abroad

48

environment. According to Hassall, within the L2 environment, learners form and understand

their identity within a new set of social norms. This process can vary individually and can affect

the learners’ attitudes toward and investments in learning their L2. Hassall’s study, which

followed the development of two Australian learners of Indonesian during a brief study abroad

period, highlights how individual motivation and attitudes toward the target language

environment can interact with other factors such as prior knowledge of foreign languages and L2

proficiency to influence pragmatic development during the study abroad period. Similar

conclusions were reached by Isabelli-Garcia (2006), in a study on American learners of Spanish

during their study abroad period in Argentina. The researcher collected data using pre and

posttest oral proficiency assessments, diary entries, informal interviews, and social network

contact logs. Isabelli-Garcia concluded that individual variation in pragmatic gains can be

influenced by the interconnected factors of learners’ motivations, attitudes toward the study

abroad environment, and the strength of their social networks in the study abroad environment.

3.3 The pragmatic development of Thai learners of English

The body of ILP research involving Thai learners of English is relatively small compared to that

of language learners from East Asian countries, namely Japan, Korea, and China. However,

some studies have been conducted to focus on the development and use of Thai EFL learners’

pragmatic knowledge involving a range of speech acts (Chiravate, 2011; Noonkong, Damnet, &

Charttrakul, 2017; Phoocharoensil, 2012; Pin-Ngern, 2015; Sirikhan & Prapphal, 2011;

Suttipanyo, 2007; Thijittang, 2010; Wannaruk, 2008; Wongwarangkul, 2000; Worathumrong &

Luksaneeyanawin, 2016). These studies often focus on issues relating to how linguistic and

cultural background differences between Thai and English affect learners’ acquisition of English

pragmatic knowledge, including how these differences relate to L1 pragmatic transfer. As is the

case with other Asian languages and English, there are considerable linguistic differences

between Thai and English as well as significant cultural differences that characterize Thai and

English-speaking communities. This creates challenges for Thai learners of English in their

attempts to acquire pragmatic knowledge in the target language.

49

3.3.1 The cultural and linguistic backgrounds of Thai speakers

One of the most defining features of Thai culture is its hierarchical social structure (see, for

example, Kirch, 1973; Klausner, 1993; Gullette, 2014). As observed by Simpson (1997), despite

the social changes that have come with Thailand’s rapid economic development through the

1980s and 1990s, “social relationships among Thais are still characterized by a distinct

awareness of and attention to the protocols associated with rank and status, and corresponding

respect for the rights and obligations implicit in the hierarchy” (p. 41). Thailand’s hierarchical

social structure is not a rigid caste system in which one’s social position is fixed and defined by

class at birth. Rather, social status is assessed using a myriad of variables, including age

(Howard, 2007), occupation (Ockey, 2005), wealth (Vorng, 2011), educational background

(Gullette, 2014), and “affiliation with sources of social power” (Simpson, 1997, p. 41). As such,

Thais can change their status through actions such as acquiring educational qualifications,

changing jobs, as well as the conspicuous adoption of lifestyle markers that signal

cosmopolitanism (Gullette, 2014; Vorng, 2011). Inherent to conceptions of this social structure

are cultural values related to loyalty, obedience, and one’s social rights and obligations

(Simpson, 1997). These values are influenced, reinforced, and reflected by important cultural

institutions, such as Thai Buddhism, the monarchy, the national government, and public

education (Farrelly, 2016).

Within social interactions among Thais, a complex set of factors may be taken into account to

determine the relative position of each interlocutor within the social hierarchy. Thai language

plays an important role in articulating social relationships in Thai culture, as certain linguistic

features can be utilized to overtly acknowledge the relative position of interlocutors within a

given social interaction (Simpson, 1997). A prominent feature of Thai language that illustrates

the wide range of linguistic resources available to acknowledge the social relationship between

the interlocutors can be seen in the variety of speech registers used to reflect different levels of

formality and distance between speakers. Lexical choices play an important role in register

creation in Thai (Iwasaki & Ingkaphirom, 2000), perhaps due in part to the absence verb tense,

inflection, and other syntactic resources. The most formal register termed raachaasap (ราชาศพท),

or royal vocabulary, is based on Sanskrit, Pali, and Khmer and is used by commoners when

speaking to or about the royal family (Hoonchamlong, 1992). Also very formalized and

50

containing a vocabulary derived from Sankrit, Pali, and Khmer is a special register used by

laypeople when speaking about or to Buddhist monks. Aside from these specialized, highly

formal registers, a range of registers are used in everyday life, with a range of lexical choices

available to mark the formality and distance between speakers. This is demonstrated by the range

of words meaning ‘eat’, for example, with ‘kin’ (กน) , ‘than’ (ทาน), ‘rap prathan’ (รบประทาน)

demonstrating different levels of formality from informal to formal, and ‘chan’ (ฉน) and ‘sawoei’

(เสวย), reserved for monks and royal family members, respectively.

The range of pronouns distinguishes Thai from English, and is another linguistic resource

available to articulate the relationship between interlocutors. Compared to English, pronouns in

Thai are more complex as their usage can reflect age, gender, status, and the relationship

between interlocutors (Smyth, 2002). Cook (1968) identified 57 personal pronouns used in Thai,

and although this list includes some Chinese loan words and specialized words used in highly

formal situations, Iwasaki & Ingkaphirom (2005) still place the number at 22 even after

excluding less commonly used personal pronouns. Not only can pronouns articulate the social

relationship between interlocutors, they can also convey politeness, both positive politeness

(showing solidarity) and negative politeness (showing deference). Although technically not

personal pronouns, Smyth (2002) observes that kinship terms and occupational titles can be used

in the same way as personal pronouns, fulfilling the same role as personal pronouns in

acknowledging the relationships between speakers. Without a comparable resource in English, it

can be a challenge for Thais in finding a different way to substitute the use of pronoun in

articulating all kinds of social relationship in communication.

Another distinctive feature in the Thai language, which does not exist in English, is the use of

particles. It is difficult to determine the number of particles because differences in the way they

are spoken, such as in tone or vowel length, can produce subtle differences in communicative

function (Smyth, 2002). Particles occur at the end of many sentences and phrases in Thai, and

can perform a variety of functions. Some particles can serve a grammatical function, such as

marking a question, while other particles have no grammar function but instead serve a

communicative purpose, such as showing formality or a speaker’s attitude. The latter type of

particle is particularly important as a resource to create register and to show the relationship

between speakers. Mood particles, for example, can perform a range of communicative

51

functions, such as indicating intention, urging, or a speaker’s evaluation of a message (Iwasaki &

Ingkaphirom, 2000). Polite particles, for example, have no lexical meaning or syntactic function,

and function primarily to show respect to the addressee. The most common polite particles,

khrap (ครบ) and kha (คะ), used by men and women, respectively, are frequently added to the end

of nearly every sentence in some situations, such as speaking to a stranger or someone of higher

status.

3.3.2 ILP studies on Thai learners of English

Several studies have used speech acts of requests as a basis to investigate the development of

Thai EFL learners’ pragmatic competence. Chiravate (2011) conducted a study comparing 30

native speakers of American English with 60 Thai EFL learners, with the latter divided evenly

into high and low-proficiency groups. The objective of the study was to formulate an

understanding of the Thai EFL learners’ perception of politeness in English requests. To examine

the participants’ perception of requests’ politeness levels, participants were asked to choose only

one politeness strategy out of six choices that they would be likely to use in twelve situations that

varied in social and psychological factors. The findings in Chiravate’s study demonstrated

differences between the politeness strategies perceived to be appropriate by both EFL learner

groups, on the one hand, and the native English speakers, on the other, with the degree of

closeness in the requester-requestee relationship having a particular influence on the differences

between the EFL learners and native English speakers. For example, while native English

speakers tended to employ a moderate politeness strategy (Can you...?) in close relationship

situations, Thai EFL learners tended to employ the most direct strategy: an imperative sentence.

The use of imperatives in these situations can be regarded as evidence of L1 influence on the

learners’ use of politeness strategies. The researcher further explained that direct requests in Thai

society are typically used in cases of a socially close requester-requestee relationship.

In a study investigating the request production of Thai EFL learners, Suttipanyo (2007)

compared the DCT-elicited responses of 22 Thai EFL learners and 22 native speakers of

American English. The data were analyzed to determine the extent to which request strategies

and mitigating devices differed between the two groups. Suttipanyo reports that both groups

favored conventionally direct request strategies, followed by direct and non-conventionally

indirect requests. However, the strategies used by the Thai learners of English were observed to

52

be less varied than those of the native English speakers. Furthermore, the requests of Thai

learners of English were limited in their use of internal modifications when compared to native

English speakers. Other notable differences included the effect of relative power between

requester and requestee, with requests made to superiors using direct strategies much more

frequently with Thai learners of English than with native English speakers.

Like Suttipanyo (2007), Wongwarangkul (2000) used requests as the focus of a study of Thai

EFL learners’ interlanguage pragmatics, focusing on the impact of the relative age between

requester and requestee. Unlike other studies reviewed in this section, Wongwarangkul’s study

involved learners with extensive experience using English with extensive experience working

and/or studying abroad. Fifty participants completed an oral DCT that elicited both Thai and

English responses. Wongwarangkul reported a significant influence of age on both the Thai and

English request formulation of participants, as demonstrated by the number of internal

modifications, length of utterance and the use of pronouns. Politeness toward older requestees

was characterized in particular by an increased use of politeness markers and the address term

‘sir’. Furthermore, the length of utterance was observed to be longer in situations involving

requests to older requestees when compared to those involving younger requestees.

Wongwarangkul considers the use of these patterns in the participants’ English requests as

possibly representing L1 transfer; however, the author noted that transfer of this nature does not

necessarily represent pragmatic failure as long as the speaker’s intended message is successfully

communicated.

The speech act of apologies has been the focus of several studies involving Thai learners of

English. Pin-Ngern (2015), for example, used a written DCT to investigate the effect of

proficiency on learners’ production of apologies in English. Participants included 20 Thai EFL

learners divided equally into high and low proficiency groups. Pin-Ngern reported no significant

proficiency effect with regard to the learners’ choices of apology strategies or the effect of the

social variables of social distance, social status, or the degree of severity of the offense. The

researcher noted that both groups were particularly sensitive to the variable of social status,

reflected in the strategies used in situations involving an apology to a professor, which is

attributed to the Thai cultural norm of respect for teachers. However, differences were observed

between the two groups as well, with high proficiency learners demonstrate more mitigation and

greater complexity in their apologies when compared to the low proficiency learners.

53

The findings of Pin-Ngern (2015) support the conclusions of studies by Thijittang (2010) and

Bergman and Kasper (1993), who also found contextual variables had a significant effect on the

way Thai learners of English made apologies. Thijittang’s (2010) study involved the analysis of

the written DCT-elicited apologies of 160 undergraduate Thai EFL learners, the proficiency of

which was not specified. The researcher found Thai EFL learners were more sensitive to social

status when compared to the norms of native English speakers reported from previous studies.

Apologies from speakers of higher social status were less likely to contain explicit apology

strategies, instead expressing a lack of intention rather than an acceptance of blame. In contrast,

lower social status speakers were more likely to accept blame when apologizing to a person of

higher status. Social distance was also found to be a significant factor in the realization of

apologies; however, this was seen as having a comparable effect to that of native speakers of

English. Bergman and Kasper (1993) report significant differences in the way native speakers of

American English and native speakers of Thai assessed the severity of various offenses. For

example, native Thai speakers were more likely to see offenses involving a religious image as

severe whereas native speaker of American English were more likely to see offenses involving a

mistake made by a waiter or a student’s plagiarism as serious. The researchers compared the

DCT responses of Thai EFL learners to the native English speaker groups, concluding that L1

pragmatic transfer played a role in the majority of the learners’ response.

In a study investigating the effect of explicit instruction on Thai EFL learners’ production of

apologies and complaints, Noonkong, Damnet, and Charttrakul (2017) elicited pre- and post-

instruction responses using a DCT, which were then rated for appropriateness by native English

speakers. Using a pragmatic consciousness-raising approach, grounded in Schmidt’s (1993)

Noticing Hypothesis, the researchers devised a twelve-hour course to introduce apology and

complain strategies favored by native speakers as well as promote pragmatic awareness of how

these strategies interact with contextual factors. The results showed significant improvement of

the learners’ production of both speech acts. However, the researchers noted that low scores in

the assessment of the learners’ “correct expressions” and “quality of information” indicate the

learners’ may be limited by their grammatical proficiency. Furthermore, the researchers also

acknowledged that these results indicated an immediate improvement, but a delayed posttest

would offer a more reliable means of measuring lasting changes to the learners’ pragmatic

competence.

54

Sirikhan and Prapphal (2011) investigated the relationship between proficiency and pragmatic

competence in the context of hotel front-office work. Participants were fourth-year Thai

university students undertaking internships at hotels in Thailand and were divided into high,

intermediate, and low proficiency groups. Data were collected using a closed and open item

questionnaire that elicited responses relating to eight speech acts: informing, apologizing,

handling complaints, offering, promising, requesting, thanking, and responding to compliments.

The results showed a significant proficiency effect, with high proficiency learners performing

closer to target forms with the use of lexical/phrasal modifications in particular, including

politeness markers and forms of address. To a lesser extent, the use of syntactic modifications,

such as adverbials, was influenced by learners’ proficiency. The findings also showed that

regardless of proficiency, pragmatic failures occurred in both pragmalinguistic and

sociopragmatic aspects of the participants’ production.

In a study focusing on Thai EFL learners’ refusal production, Wannaruk (2008) explored the

relationships between proficiency, L1 transfer, and learners’ use of refusal strategies and

modifications. Participants included 40 native speakers of American English, 40 native Thai

speakers, and 40 Thai EFL students, who were further divided into high intermediate,

intermediate, and low intermediate proficiency groups. The findings, from data which were

collected using a written DCT, suggest the refusals of both Thai and English speakers share

similar strategies in general. However, differences were observed in the Thai sensitivity to

refusals made to people of higher status and in the value of expressing modesty. Both of these

were observed to be a factor in L1 pragmatic transfer in the Thai EFL learner data. In addition,

Wannaruk observed that the effect of L1 transfer was influenced by proficiency, with lower

proficiency learners demonstrating a greater degree of L1 transfer.

Similar results were reported by Chantharasombat and Pongpairoj (2018) in their study of Thai

EFL learners’ responses to negative English Yes/No questions. Participants included 14 Thai

university students divided into intermediate and upper-intermediate proficiency groups. A

written DCT form was used to elicit negative responses to negative Yes/No questions in English,

a feature which is characterized by differences in the learners’ L1 and the target language. The

results demonstrated higher rates of L1 pragmatic transfer among lower proficiency learners,

suggesting a greater reliance on L1 pragmatic knowledge, which leads to pragmatic failure with

the target pragmatic feature.

55

The speech acts of compliments and compliment responses have also been used to investigate

various factors in Thai EFL learners’ acquisition of pragmatic competence. Worathumrong and

Luksaneeyanawin (2016) investigated the effect of exposure to the target language on the

compliments of Thai EFL learners. Thai EFL participants were divided into high exposure and

low exposure groups. Their DCT responses were compared to those of native Thai speakers and

native speakers of American English. The high exposure group was observed to generally

conform more closely to the norms of native English speakers. However, evidence of L1 transfer

was observed in the compliments of both groups in the overuse of kinship address terms, such as

‘sister’ and ‘brother’. The low exposure group’s preference for hearer-oriented perspectives in

their compliments was attributed to training transfer, reflecting a greater reliance on forms

learned in the classroom for learners with low exposure learners. Proficiency was also

determined to be a factor in Thai EFL learners’ pragmatic competence in a study investigating

compliment responses by Phoocharoensil (2012). The researcher used a DCT to elicit

compliment responses from high and low proficiency Thai EFL learners, then comparing the

responses to those of native speakers of American English. Evidence of L1 transfer was observed

in the compliment responses of low proficiency learners, while high proficiency learners were

observed to approximate the compliment response patterns of native English speakers.

3.4 Gaps in the literature

The study of requests is a very well-researched topic within the field of ILP. The studies

reviewed in this chapter involved a variety of research designs, including cross-sectional and

longitudinal designs, as well as an array of data collection methods, such as written and oral

DCTs, role plays, authentic discourse, rating tasks, and interviews. However, the extent to which

these studies contextualize the learners’ production by using their perspectives on their own

request making is limited or nonexistent. The present study aims to implement an innovative

mixed-methods approach in order to provide greater context to the collected request data as well

as to gain insights into the participants’ request-making processes. This methodology involves

the use of a written DCT with the addition of follow-up questions and interviews, which are

designed to gain insights into the participants’ decision-making processes when making requests.

These data collection instruments will be discussed in detail in Chapter 4.

56

In addition to the gap in the research methods used in the ILP studies of requests, no studies have

investigated the effect of study abroad on the pragmatic development of Thai learners of English.

Many of the studies reviewed in this chapter have reported that language learners’ L2 pragmatic

competence can be influenced by L1 pragmatic transfer. Because L1 pragmatic transfer relates to

linguistic and cultural features of language learners’ L1, it can be expected that learners with

different L1 backgrounds are affected by L1 transfer in different ways. That is, Thai learners of

English may develop request-making strategies, influenced by Thai linguistic and cultural norms,

in a different way than learners with other L1 backgrounds. Moreover, the requests of learners of

different L1 backgrounds have been shown to be variably effected by a range of factors,

including exposure to the target language environment. Therefore, exploring how Thai learners

of English are impacted by study abroad will contribute to a more comprehensive understanding

of how L2 learners acquire request-making strategies.

In addition to addressing the gaps in the literature in ILP studies of requests, there is a lack of

research that examines and compares the production of the speech act of requests between native

English and Thai speakers. Therefore, the fact that this study will also involve the request

production of native Thai speakers (described in Chapter 4 in the participant section) will

broaden the understanding of cross-cultural pragmatics by providing useful information

pertaining to pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic differences in making requests based on

differences of linguistic and cultural norms between native English and Thai speakers.

3.5 Chapter summary

This chapter has presented a review of three areas of interlanguage pragmatic (ILP) research: ILP

studies on speech acts of requests, ILP studies on the development of pragmatic competence in

study abroad contexts, and ILP studies involving Thai learners of English. The first of these

areas, ILP studies on speech acts of requests, reflects a large body of research investigating

language learners’ production, perception, and comprehension of requests. These studies

generally demonstrate that language proficiency can positively influence the development of

pragmatic competence. However, studies have also shown mixed results or no effect of

proficiency on pragmatic competence. In addition to research that focuses on how proficiency

gains relate to learners’ pragmatic development, the discussion of ILP studies on speech acts of

requests has also included an overview of other factors that influence learners’ acquisition of

57

pragmatic competence, including transfer of training and the mediation of social identity, both of

which have been demonstrated to play a role in learners’ deviations from native speaker norms.

Finally, the effects of pedagogical intervention have been presented. The research presented in

this chapter has generally shown the positive effects of instruction on pragmatic skills, with

studies demonstrating the strengths of explicit instruction compared to implicit instruction.

This chapter has also presented a review of relevant literature investigating the development of

pragmatic competence in study abroad contexts, involving English language learners from

various cultural backgrounds. Research has demonstrated the benefits of exposure to the L2

environment on a variety of aspects of learners’ language use, including the development of their

pragmatic competence. Several factors relating to pragmatic development during the study

abroad were discussed: length of stay, proficiency gains, quality of interactions, and individual

variation. Studies investigating the correlation between length of stay and gains in pragmatic

competence have been mixed, while quality of interaction appears to be a more significant factor.

Learners’ proficiency has been shown to have a minimal effect on pragmatic development while

studying abroad. Gains in pragmatic competence have been shown to vary between individual

learners based on factors such as motivation, personality, and attitude.

Finally, several studies involving Thai EFL learners’ acquisition of pragmatic competence have

been discussed in this chapter. This discussion has included studies that involve a range of

pragmatic features to investigate the role of proficiency, type of instruction, and exposure to

English in the acquisition of pragmatic competence of Thai learners of English. These studies

generally reflect the considerable linguistic and cultural differences between Thai and English-

speaking communities.

58

Chapter 4 Methodology

This chapter describes the methodology used to answer the research questions guiding this study.

Recall from Chapter 1 that these questions are as follows:

1. How do the patterns of request structures, request perspectives, request strategies, internal

modifications, supportive moves, and alerters used by study abroad learners compare to at home

learners and to the patterns displayed by English dominant speakers and native speakers of Thai?

2. How do such patterns displayed by these same four groups of speakers compare to each other


3. What factors in addition to relative power and social distance do participants from each group


4. To what extent does each group of participants perceive differently the degree of imposition in


5. How do study abroad learners compare to at home learners with regard to how they perceive


This chapter is divided into five sections. The first section describes the methodological

approach. The next section explains the selection of participants. Then, information about the

data collection instruments is presented along with a discussion of their validity and reliability.

This is followed by an outline of the data collection procedures. The last section describes the

data coding and data analysis.

4.1 Methodological approach

Although qualitative and quantitative approaches to research design are better established than a

mixed methods approach (Creswell, 2009), this study employs a mixed methods approach, which

involves collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data using both quantitative and qualitative

methods. According to Creswell and Clark (2011), “mixed methods research is practical in the

sense that the researcher is free to use all methods possible to address a research problem” (p.

13). Thus, considering the research questions of this present study, which relate to various

59

dimensions of speech acts of request, including comparisons of the study groups’ request

production as well as their perceptions of factors relating to this production, a combination of

quantitative and qualitative methods is appropriate.

A mixed methods approach can be advantageous because it allows for triangulation by

minimizing weaknesses of both quantitative and qualitative research and by combining their

strengths in order to enhance the overall validity of a research study. As Creswell (2009)

explains, “recognizing that all methods have limitations, researchers felt that bias inherent in any

single method could neutralize or cancel the biases of other methods” (p. 14). This study uses a

triangulation of methods because it uses both quantitative and qualitative methods in the form of

an enhanced discourse completion task (EDCT) as well as semi-structured interviews. The

EDCT comprises a conventional discourse completion test (DCT) to collect and interpret data

relating to the participants’ choices and frequencies of linguistic devices in their requests. This

data was coded and analyzed quantitatively. In addition to the conventional DCT, the EDCT also

uses qualitative methods in the form of open-ended questions in order to collect and interpret

data relating to the participants’ perceptions and explanations of their linguistic choices. This

study also employs semi-structured interviews in order to further understand these perceptions as

well as the learners’ perceptions relating to their own pragmatic development. Combining

different types of research methods can allow the researcher to gain a greater breadth and depth

of understanding of the topic studied than using either a quantitative or qualitative method alone.

This study employs sequential mixed methods procedures, which “refers to an investigation in

which the phases of the research occur in a consecutive order, with one phase emerging from or

following the other” (Cronholm & Hjalmarsson, 2011). This study involves two phases of data

collection. The first phase of this study uses an EDCT, in which both quantitative and qualitative

data collection methods were employed. The EDCT consists of two sections, the first of which

involves eliciting request responses that are subsequently coded and analyzed quantitatively. The

second section of the EDCT involves open-ended, Likert scale, and yes-no questions relating to

the participants’ request responses from the first section. Data produced by the open-ended

questions were analyzed qualitatively while data derived from Likert scale and yes-no questions

were analyzed quantitatively. While data collection in the first phase of this study involves an

EDCT, the second phase of this study involves qualitative inquiry consisting of semi-structured

interviews. The questions used in this phase were in part informed by the data collected from the

60

EDCT. The data obtained from semi-structured interviews are used to explore the participants’

perceptions about their own development of pragmatic competence and the role that the learning

environment has played in this development. Therefore, by using the data collected using the

EDCT (phase one) to shape the questions used in the semi-structured interviews (phase two), the

data from the second phase can help contextualize the data obtained from the first phase. Without

this context derived from the second phase of data collection, the inferences and interpretations

of the phase one (EDCT) data would be based primarily on the researcher’s own perspective.

4.2 Participants

This research involves a total of 136 participants recruited through a purposive sampling

technique. Purposive sampling, also referred to as judgmental sampling, is a nonrandom

sampling technique that uses the researcher’s judgment to select “individuals or groups of

individuals that are proficient and well-informed with a phenomenon of interest” (Etikan, Musa,

& Alkassim, 2016, p. 2). There are four groups of participants in this study and the criteria for

the selection of participants was based on factors relating to their language background, which in

some cases includes the participants’ language learning background. The demographic

information relating to the selection criteria of each group is outlined below. It is important to

note that in order to enhance the homogeneity of the overall sample in terms of their educational

background and experience related to the contexts used in the data collection method, the initial

recruitment criteria for all participants in each group was a minimum of some university-level

education. In addition, because this study focuses on the variables of the participants’ language

and cultural backgrounds as well as their experience with English, other variables such as gender

and age were not considered as a recruitment criterion.

4.2.1 Study abroad group (SA)

The SA group comprises 34 participants who completed a Bachelor of Arts degree in English at

a public university located in Bangkok, Thailand. After completing their bachelor’s degree in

Thailand, these participants continued their graduate studies with a master’s degree in countries

in the inner circle of English usage (Kachru, 1985), where English is used as a primary language

(e.g., Anglophone Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Australia, New

Zealand, and Ireland). At the time of data collection of this study, the participants were

completing or had recently completed a master’s degree in Canada (4), the United States of

61

America (9), the United Kingdom (16), Australia (4), and New Zealand (1). With the exception

of three participants, who had recently returned to Thailand at the time of data collection, all

other SA group participants were living in their study abroad location at the time of data

collection. This group of participants represents Thai learners of English who have study abroad

experience. There were 12 males and 22 females, whose ages ranged from 22 to 27 years of age.

This gender imbalance is the result of the small number of male graduates from the English

bachelor’s degree program from which participants for this study group were recruited. All of

these participants speak Thai as their mother tongue, and they are high-intermediate to advanced

English users. This proficiency level was assessed based on the participants’ IELTS or TOEFL

scores as well as their successful completion of coursework in their degree program, with the

final three years of their curriculum comprising English courses which are designated by the

program to be at the CEFR level of B2 to C1. These participants completed their Bachelor of

Arts degree in English with a minimum GPA of 3.0, and they were able to satisfy the language

requirement upon being accepted to a master’s degree program at universities in an English-

speaking country. All of these participants had taken an English standardized test and received a

minimum score of 6.5 overall band score for the International English Language Testing System

(IELTS) and 80 for the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). Although study abroad

group participants studied in master’s degree programs in which English was the language of

instruction, these participants typically did not participate in ESL classes during their time

abroad.

In order to minimize the differences between study abroad group participants, it was required

that each participant had completed their bachelor’s degree between 2012- 2014. This selection

of the graduation timeframe was determined to ensure that all of the participants had experienced

the same curriculum and received comparable instruction during their bachelor’s degree studies.

In addition, in an attempt to minimize variables among participants in terms of the length of time

they had spent in the target language environment, those whose length of stay was no less than

one year but not more than two years were recruited. The average length of time the study abroad

learner participants had been living abroad (excluding any vacation time in English speaking

countries prior to their time living there during their study abroad period) was 15.3 months. Out

of the 34 participants, there were three who had already completed their degree and returned to

Thailand for no more than 6 months prior to the data collection for this study.

62

4.2.2 At home group (AH)

The AH group includes 34 English major students in the fourth year of a bachelor’s degree

program at a public university in Bangkok, which is the same university and bachelor’s degree

program in English that the participants in the SA group had previously attended before pursuing

their master’s degrees in inner circle countries. This group of participants represents Thai

learners of English who do not have study abroad experience. There were 10 males and 24

females, whose ages ranged from 22 to 24 years of age. As with the SA group, the low number

of male students enrolled in the English bachelor’s degree program from which participants were

recruited resulted in a gender imbalance of participants in the AH group. All of these participants

speak Thai as their mother tongue, and they are high-intermediate to advanced English users.

This proficiency level was assessed based on the participants’ successful completion of

coursework in their degree program, with the final three years of their curriculum comprising

English courses which are designated by the program to be at the CEFR level of B2 to C1. The

fact that the participants in the AH group have participated in the same bachelor’s degree

program and have experienced the same university curriculum as the participants in the study

abroad group helps ensure that the participants of these two study groups, namely SA and AH

groups, have English education backgrounds that are comparable to one another. In addition, in

order to control factors that might influence their English pragmatic knowledge and competence,

such as their learning motivation and their learning behaviors resulting from the desire to study

abroad, the participants recruited in this groups were exclusively those who expressed an

intention and high possibility of studying abroad in addition to maintaining a minimum GPA of

3.0, which is typically required to apply to study in a master’s degree program at a university

abroad.

4.2.3 Native Thai speaker group (NT)

The NT group consists of 34 fourth-year non-English major students at a public university in

Bangkok, which is the same university as the participants in the study abroad group and AH

group. There were 15 males and 19 females, whose ages ranged from 22 to 24 years of age.

These participants speak Thai as their mother tongue. They come from different regions of

Thailand and speak different dialects at home; however, this does not affect their standard Thai

and English proficiency in any way. All of the participants have studied English as a compulsory

subject in primary school and high school for approximately 12 years prior to their bachelor’s

63

degree program. At the time of data collection, the participants were enrolled in a final

compulsory English course following two pre-requisite courses, namely Foundation English II

(equivalent to CEFR level A2) and Foundation English III (equivalent to CEFR level A2/B1).

The NT group participants’ English language proficiency was, therefore, approximately at a low-

intermediate level, or CEFR level B1. In order to reduce bias and to ensure a representative

sample of the 34 participants, students from various faculties were recruited including students

from the Faculty of Agriculture (2), Agro-Industry (3), Economics (5), Engineering (6), Fisheries

(2), Forestry (4), Social Science (5) and Veterinary Science (7). None of the NT group

participants had traveled extensively in an English-speaking country prior to data collection. The

participants in this group produced baseline data for requests in Thai.

4.2.4 English dominant speaker group (ED)

The ED group consists of 34 highly fluent English speakers, 14 males and 20 females whose

ages ranged from 28 to 45 (only three of whom were over 35 years of age at the time of data

collection). Both the gender imbalance as well as the age range, which differs from the age

ranges of the other study groups, reflect the demographics of the potential participants showing

interest and willingness to participate in the study. As the reader will recall from the discussion

of the terms “native speaker” and “nonnative speaker” presented in Chapter 2, these terms can be

problematic, particularly when used as a designation for English speakers. In addition to the

problematic nature of this dichotomy presented in this discussion, the term “native English

speaker” has problems specific to the needs of this study. This study seeks to learn more about

how the pragmatic competence of Thai learners of English develops when living in countries

where English is the primary language of communication. It should be noted, therefore, that

there is no one standard form of English, because the English language itself has a range of

dialects and varieties, several of which are represented in this study. There are also differences in

culture and norms of communication between English speaking communities. Among these

variations, the presence of highly fluent non-native English speakers cannot be overlooked, as all

of the predominately English-speaking, or inner-circle (Kachru, 1985), cultures represented in

this study contain large immigrant populations who are themselves proficient English speakers.

In order to account for the varieties of English and the realities of who communicates using

English in English-speaking countries, defining this study group not by participants’ birthplace

64

or ethnic heritage, but rather by their English language use was deemed more desirable as a

means of approximating the norms of the learners’ target language.

Therefore, the term “English dominant speakers” is used in this study to refer to those who are

best positioned to produce the baseline data for English requests. This includes those who might

speak other languages as their first language, but who identify English as the main language they

use in their day-to-day communication. However, language and culture cannot be separated, and

it cannot be ignored that the culture where one grew up can affect the way one uses English,

especially when cultures play a significant role in making linguistic choices. Therefore, to create

some balance between recognizing the varieties of English and the reality that to some extent

English-speaking cultures can be characterized by a common set of cultural norms, the

participants in the English dominant speaker group were not only selected on the basis of using

English as their predominant language, but also on the basis of having lived for 15 years or more

in inner circle countries where English is the primary language spoken. These are the same

countries where participants in the study abroad group have studied so that they can represent the

English-speaking cultures that the study abroad learners have experienced during their time spent

abroad. The ED participants are from five countries including United States of America (13),

Canada (10), the, the United Kingdom (7), Australia (3), and New Zealand (1). The participants

in this group produced baseline data for requests in English.

The decision to include a group of English-dominant speakers from the above-mentioned

countries to act as the target language norms in this study also reflects the prestige of these

varieties of English among Thai students. The value placed on these inner-circle English norms

in the Thai educational context is reflected in the teaching job market in Thailand, which is

biased toward native English-speaking teachers. This results in limitations for nonnative

speaking English teachers both in terms of the positions that are available to them, as well as in

terms of their pay (Bangkok Post, 2015). Such institutional bias toward native English-speaking

teachers can act to reinforce students’ perceptions that their language learning goals should be

centered on using English norms as their target.

4.3 Data collection instruments

English and Thai data collection instruments were used in this study, with the Thai version of

data collection instruments being translated from the original English versions. The English data

65

collection instruments were used with the ED group, SA group, and AH group, whereas the Thai

translated version was used with the NT group. Considering that each type of data collection

instrument has its own strengths and weaknesses, as observed in the literature review of several

empirical studies on speech act production, three types of data collection instruments were

judged to be appropriate and to be the best way to obtain necessary information to address the

research questions of the present study. The three types of data collection instruments used in

this study are a biodata questionnaire, an EDCT, and semi-structured interviews.

4.3.1 Biodata questionnaires

Biodata questionnaire forms were used to obtain relevant demographic information from each

group of participants. English biodata questionnaire forms were used for SA group participants,

AH group participants, and ED group participants. A Thai language biodata questionnaire was

used for participants in the NT group. The biodata questionnaire consists of basic questions

asking the participants to provide general demographic information such as the participant’s age,

gender, education level, and language learning experience, with some more specific questions

about residential history in relation to second language learning, language proficiency level, and

any other languages they may speak (see Appendices A-D).

4.3.2 Enhanced discourse completion task (EDCT)

After completing a biodata questionnaire, the participants in each group were asked to complete

an open-ended written EDCT (see Appendix E). The EDCT is divided into two sections: request

elicitation and a self-report on request production. The aims of the EDCT are to examine and

compare participants’ linguistic choices in making requests in English and Thai as well as the

reasons for the selections of their linguistic choices. The EDCT was designed to take no more

than 45 minutes to complete, and the participants were asked to return the EDCT at a time

convenient to them.

The EDCT used in the study is an adapted version of the DCT, which has been used as a data

collection instrument in numerous cross-cultural and ILP studies (Kasper & Dahl, 1991). This

type of data collection device allows researchers to control and manipulate variables, such as

social power and social distance, in order to compare between study groups relatively easily

(Mackey & Gass, 2005). DCTs, therefore, will produce more stereotyped responses, but they

66

allow comparability among different groups because the contexts in which speech acts are

produced can be controlled. Written DCTs typically elicit a response by providing a set of

circumstances to a participant and asking the participant to write the exact words that he or she

would say in such a situation. Although DCTs have been demonstrated to elicit shorter responses

than those in naturally-occurring interactions (Beebe & Cummings, 1996) and do not allow for

turn taking, they can measure knowledge and thus, “…can be thought of as measuring potential

for performance, as knowledge is arguably a necessary precondition for performance”

(McNamara & Roever, 2006, p. 67).

The adaptation that differentiates this study’s EDCT from a standard DCT is that in addition to

the conventional DCT design, the EDCT also includes a section of follow-up questions designed

to provide greater context and insights into the participants’ request-making process. In this

study, a Thai version of the EDCT was administered to the NT group, and this group’s data were

used as a baseline to primarily examine differences between Thai and English request production

and perception as well as to identify possible incidences of L1 transfer in the English requests

made by Thai learners of English. The English version was administered to three groups of

participants – the AH, SA, and ED groups – in order to examine their request production and

perception. The ED group’s data were used as a baseline to represent the target language of the

AH and SA groups.

The first section of the EDCT consists of nine different hypothetical situations designed to elicit

requests in different social contexts, each of which controls for the social variables of relative

power and social distance. Brown and Levinson (1987) identified three social variables – relative

power, social distance, and the absolute ranking of imposition – that influence the speaker’s

calculation of the level of the face threat. This calculation is then used to determine the degree of

politeness to use. However, all situations in this study’s EDCT controlled only for the social

variables of relative power and social distance. The degree of imposition of a face-threatening

act (FTA) has the potential to be judged very differently between cultures and, therefore, this

social variable was studied in a different part of the EDCT. By doing this, the degree of

imposition involved in each situation was determined by the participants rather than the

researcher. However, situations deemed by the researcher to be extreme in terms of degree of

imposition were avoided. This was done in an effort to minimize the chance that differences in

degree of imposition would distort the analysis of the controlled social variables of relative

67

power and social distance. The participants were asked to write responses as they would produce

them verbally in real situations, using the language corresponding to their EDCT form, with NT

group participants writing their responses in Thai and the remaining three groups writing their

responses in English. There was no limit on the number of words used in each request. The

English EDCT questionnaire and the Thai translation of the questionnaire can be seen in

Appendix E.

The nine situations in the first section of the EDCT were designed to control for the social

variables of relative power and social distance by using three different degrees of each variable.

Three types of relative power are used in this study, which are defined by situations in which

participants are asked to make a request to a person in a higher position of social power relative

to the speaker (low-high), an equal position of social power (equal power), and a lower position

of social power relative to the speaker (high-low). For example, a situation involving the

participant in the role of a student making a request to a professor would be classified as low-

high relative power. Similarly, three types of social distance were used in the study,

characterized by the degree of familiarity between the two interlocutors (i.e., between the person

making the request and the person receiving the request). Social distance levels were defined as

close (involving a close friend and a family member), acquaintance (involving a classmate, a

teacher, and a server at a restaurant at which the speaker is a regular customer), and stranger

(people whom the requester does not know). These variables were systematically combined so

that each of the nine situations is characterized by a unique combination of two values (see Table

1). In other words, the relative power type of low-high was combined with each of the three

social distance types, creating three situations (low-high + close; low-high + acquaintance; low-

high + stranger). This process was repeated for equal power and high-low types of relative

power.

A potential weakness of comparing the results of nine situations in this section of the EDCT is

that responses at the beginning of the EDCT might receive a different level of attention than

those at the end. Some participants may, for example, spend more time writing a response to the

first situation than to the last situation due to their fatigue with completing the task. This could

potentially result in misleading results when comparing the data collected from situational

contexts found earlier in the EDCT to those found later in the EDCT. In order to prevent such a

68

bias, the order of the nine situations on the questionnaires was shuffled to create four different

EDCT forms.

Table 1

EDCT Social Variable Combinations

Situation Social Distance Relative Power

1. Asking a professor to give you permission for a late enrollment Stranger Low-high

2. Asking a stranger to allow you to cut in line for a taxi Stranger Equal

3. Asking a school child to move inside the train to let you enter Stranger High-low

4. Asking a professor to reconsider your exam score Acquaintance Low-high

5. Asking a classmate to lend you a cell phone Acquaintance Equal

6. Asking a server to bring the drink that you ordered Acquaintance High-low

7. Asking an older relative to lend you money Close Low-high

8. Asking a close friend to help you prepare for an exam Close Equal

9. Asking a younger sibling to do your housework Close High-low

The second section of the EDCT consists of four follow-up questions intended to contextualize

the responses from the first section of the EDCT by allowing participants to elaborate on their

perception of the situations and their responses. The second section includes one Likert scale

item, two short answer questions, and one binary yes-no question. Each of these items is paired

with each of the situations used in the first section of the EDCT. The Likert scale item asks the

participants to rate their perception of the degree of imposition of the requested action in the

situation. The short answer questions ask the participants to explain the factors that influenced

how they rated the degree of imposition, the factors that influenced their request and why they

chose to form their requests as they did. Finally, the yes-no question asks participants if they

have ever experienced situations similar to those which appear in the first section of the EDCT.

To ensure that the Thai and English EDCT forms were equivalent in meaning, the EDCT was

written in English and then translated to Thai by the researcher. A native Thai-speaking

translator, who is a fluent speaker of English, then back translated the EDCT into English. Then

a native English-speaking professor of English compared the original English version of the

EDCT to the back translated version in order to identify inconsistencies. Minor adjustments were

made following this procedure to address all possible inconsistencies.

Validity checks were performed by two native Thai-speaking professors of English, both of

whom have experience living in predominately English-speaking countries, and two native

English speakers, including one American and one British EFL teacher with experience living in

Thailand. Checks were made to ensure that the language used to describe the EDCT scenarios

was clear and natural. In addition, all scenarios were assessed to ensure that they were

69

reasonably possible in both Thai-speaking and English-speaking cultures and that the values

assigned to represent the social variables were reasonably consistent between the Thai and

English cultural contexts. In addition, the two native Thai-speaking professors of English and

two native English speakers checked the clarity of the interview questions. Finally, a pilot study

was conducted to further check the EDCT’s reliability and validity, with minor changes made

accordingly.

4.3.3 Interviews

Semi-structured interviews were conducted individually with a subset of five randomly selected

participants from each study group (see Appendices F-I). Each interview lasted approximately 60

minutes. With the three study groups whose native language is Thai – the NT, AH, and SA

groups – interviews were conducted in Thai in order to facilitate accurate and complete

communication. For the English dominant speaker group, interviews were conducted in English

for the same reason. Some interviews were conducted in person while others were done via

teleconference. The interviewer, who is the researcher, is a native-Thai speaker who is a

proficient speaker of English and who has approximately five years of experience living in

Canada and the United States. At the time of the interviews, the interviewer was 36 years of age.

The difference in age between the interviewer and interviewees was no more than 15 years. All

interviews were audio-recorded and selectively transcribed.

4.4 Data collection procedures

In order to test and refine the data collection instruments prior to their implementation in the

main study, a pilot study was conducted using three respondents who matched the criteria for

each study group. In the pilot study, three potential participants from the SA, AH, and ED groups

were asked to complete a pilot version of the English biodata questionnaires and English EDCT,

and one participant from each group was asked to participate in an individual interview.

Similarly, three potential participants from the NT group were asked to complete a pilot version

of the Thai biodata questionnaire and Thai EDCT, and one participant was asked to participate in

an individual interview. After the completion of the pilot study, some minor changes were made

in order to create the final versions of the data collection instruments, which were used in the

main study.

70

Following the pilot study, the data collection for the main study began. Data collection was

completed over two phases. In the first phase, the participants in each study group were asked to

complete the biodata questionnaire and the EDCT questionnaire. This first phase was completed

in approximately one month. The second phase began one week after the completion of the first

phase and was completed in approximately one month. In this phase, five randomly selected

participants from each study group participated in a semi-structure interview.

4.5 Data coding

The system of coding the request data elicited by the EDCT was based primarily on Blum-Kulka

et al.’s (1989) CCSARP coding manual. According to this coding system, several distinct

components can be distinguished within a single request utterance. First, each request utterance

contains at least one head act, which is the central component of the request utterance. A head

act is the part of the request utterance that most directly refers to the desired illocutionary act and

is the core component essential for realizing the request. Various aspects of the head act can be

manipulated by the speaker in order to modulate the impositive force and the degree of

politeness of a request, including the request strategy, request perspective, and syntactic and

lexical features. These aspects all serve as means by which to analyze a head act.

External to a request’s head act(s), a request utterance can contain two other components:

supportive moves and alerters. An alerter is a word or brief phrase(s) that functions to get the

attention of the hearer and indicate the ensuing request (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989). Supportive

moves are utterances that, while outside of the head act itself, serve to complement the head act

by modulating the impositive force and the degree of politeness of the request. Both alerters and

supportive moves can be used to analyze a request. Finally, the position of a request’s head act

relative to its supportive move(s) (if any) is also included in this study’s coding system. All of

these components can be seen in the following example:

“Hey buddy, can you lend me a dollar? I left my wallet at home.”

This request contains two alerters (‘hey’ and ‘buddy’), one head act (‘can you lend me a

dollar?’), and one supportive move (‘I left my wallet at home.’). The section below will describe

in more detail the coding system used in this study to analyze the EDCT requests and their

components.

71

4.5.1 Request perspectives

A speaker has choices with regard to how her/his request is oriented: from the viewpoint of the

speaker, the hearer, or both. That is to say, there is a difference between asking “Can I use your

pen?” and “Can you lend me your pen?” A speaker can also choose to frame her/his request in

such a way as to avoid naming the hearer. This may be done with passive voice or use of the

infinitive (e.g., “Is it possible to borrow your pen?”).

To identify the request perspective, the agent of requestive verb, or the verb that directly relates

to the desired action, is identified (see Table 2). This clarification is necessary to understand the

procedure in cases in which more than one verb is present. This includes cases in which the

requestive verb is not the main verb of a sentence, such as with requests that use embedded

structures. The following example from Blum-Kulka et al.’s (1989) CCSARP Coding Manual

shows a request with an embedded structure identified as speaker dominance perspective:

“Do you think I could borrow your notes from yesterday?”

Similarly, the example below from the present study shows an embedded structure with hearer

dominance perspective:

“Is there any way you would let me go in front of you?”

Although the clause contains the verb ‘go’, of which the speaker is the agent, the verb ‘let’ is the

requestive verb. The hearer is the agent associated with this verb and therefore, the request is

classified as using hearer dominance perspective.

Table 2

Request Perspectives

Perspective Example

Hearer dominance Could you lend me your notes from yesterday?

Speaker dominance Could I borrow your notes from yesterday?

Joint perspective Do you have some time when we could look at my exam?

Impersonal Would it be possible to borrow some money?

Following this coding method, a head act must have one (and no more than one) of the

perspectives listed below. Therefore, requests with multiple head acts will contain multiple

perspectives, with each perspective corresponding to a single head act. In other words,

72

identifying a request perspective involves categorizing each head according to its perspective

type. As a result, a request with two head acts would also contain two request perspectives: one

perspective for each head act.

4.5.2 Request strategies

The choice of request strategy reflects a speaker’s use of various structural and grammatical

formulations in a request, which affects the directness level of the request (see Table 3).

Table 3

Request Strategies

Strategy Description Example

Direct strategies

Mood derivable The grammatical mood of the locution conventionally

determines the force of a request. The prototypical form is

the imperative.

Please take care of all the housework during

my absence.

Explicit

performative

The illocutionary intent is explicitly named by the speaker

by using a relevant illocutionary verb.

I’m asking you to do the housework for me.

Hedged performative

The illocutionary verb denoting the requestive intent is modified, e.g., by modal verbs or verbs expressing

intention.

I wanted to ask if you could do my house chores while I am gone.

Locution derivable The illocutionary intent is directly derivable from the semantic meaning of the locution.

You will have to do the chores all by yourself when I am gone.

Want statement The utterance expresses the speaker’s desire that the event

denoted in the proposition come about.

I would like you to help me do housework.

Expectation

statement

The emphasis of the utterance is centered on the possibility

of desired action occurring (rather than the speaker’s

desire for an action to take place). It is still a direct strategy, but less direct than a want statement.

I was hoping that you might reconsider my

exam.

Conventionally

indirect strategies

Suggestory formula The illocutionary intent is phrased as a suggestion by

means of framing a routine formula.

Maybe you could fill me in on what I missed

from class.

Preparatory The utterance contains reference to a preparatory condition

for the feasibility of the Request, typically one of ability,

willingness, or possibility, as conventionalized in the given language.

Can I borrow a couple of bucks?

Mitigated

preparatory

Preparatory expressions embedded within another clause. Do you think I could take this cab?

Mitigated wants Statements of want in hypothetical situations. If you have the time to help me study, I would

greatly appreciate it.

Unconventionally

indirect strategies

Strong hints The illocutionary intent is not immediately derivable from

the locution; however, the locution refers to relevant

elements of the intended illocution and/or propositional act.

(Intent: to get the hearer to bring a drink that

had been ordered).

I ordered a beer a little earlier.

Mild hints The locution contains no elements which are of immediate

relevance to the intended illocution or proposition, thus putting increased demand for context analysis and

knowledge activation on the interlocutor.

(Intent: to get the hearer to move inside the

train) Sorry.

73

‘Directness’ refers to the “degree to which the speaker’s illocutionary intent is apparent from the

locution” (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989, p. 278). This study mainly uses the CCSARP coding scheme

developed by Blum-Kulka et al. (1989), in which request strategies are broadly classified into

three major categories based on the degree of directness. These categories are subdivided into

nine request strategies. This study has modified this scheme to include three additional request

strategies based on the taxonomies used by Taguchi (2006) (mitigated preparatory and mitigated

want) and Tseng (2015) (expectation statement) in order to better capture the characteristics of

request strategies found in the collected data.

Each head act is characterized by a single request strategy. A single head act must have one (and

no more than one) request strategy. Therefore, requests with multiple head acts will contain

multiple request strategies, with each strategy corresponding to a single head act. In other words,

identifying a request strategy involves categorizing each head act according to its strategy. A

request with a single head act would contain one request strategy, and a request with two head

acts would contain two request strategies.

4.5.3 Internal modifications

The head act of a request can be modified internally to either mitigate or aggravate the

impositive force of the request, thus saving the hearer’s face or threatening it. According to

Blum-Kulka et al., (1989), internal modifications represent optional syntactic devices and lexical

additions. This study’s classification system is based on that which is described in the CCSARP

coding manual (Blum-Kulka el al., 1989), which divides internal modifications into three broad

categories – syntactic downgraders, lexical/phrasal downgraders, and upgraders – defined by the

modification type (syntactic or lexical/phrasal) and their effect on the impositive force

(mitigating or aggravating) of the request (see Table 4). Downgraders have a mitigating effect on

the impositive force of a request while upgraders have an aggravating effect. The CCSARP

coding manual also describes the specific syntactic devices and lexical additions that constitute

these broad categories, and this was also used as the basis for classifying the internal

modifications in this study. In addition to the internal modification types identified in the

CCSARP coding manual, the description of consultative devices was taken from Blum-Kulka

and Olshtain (1984) and the categories of modal tense and polite particle were created in order to

74

better capture the internal modifications observed in this study. The following table shows a

definition and example for each type of internal modification described in this study:

Table 4

Internal Modifications

Category Description Example

Syntactic downgraders

Interrogative All question forms are coded as interrogative. Would you mind if I used your phone?

Conditional clause All conditional adverbial clauses are coded as conditional

clause. I would be deeply grateful to you if you

would allow me to take your course.

Embedded structure There is a use of either an embedded question or embedded statement noun phrase or noun clause relating

to the requestive verb.

Could you explain why I had such a low grade?

Aspect The durative aspect marker counts as mitigating only if it

can be substituted by a simple form. I am hoping that you might reconsider my

exam.

Tense Past tense forms are coded as downgrading only if they

are used with present time reference. I wanted to ask if you could go over what

Professor Sirima covered last week.

Modal tense Past modal tense forms are coded as downgrading only if

they are used with present time reference. This includes

the modals ‘could’ and ‘would’.

Could I borrow your phone to make a quick

call?

Passive Voice Any use of passive voice is coded as passive voice. Is there any way I could be added to the

class?

Lexical/phrasal

downgraders

Politeness marker An optional element added to a request to bid for cooperative behavior.

Can I use your phone, please?

Polite particle An optional element added to a request that contains no

literal meaning, but rather is added to the end of an

utterance to convey politeness, without functioning

specifically as a bid for cooperation. Polite particles are a

common feature of Thai language and are not used exclusively in requests. There is no functional equivalent

to a polite particle in English.

Khaw kheun kawn dai mai kha

Beg board before can PART PART

Can I ask (you) to go first?

Understater Adverbial modifiers by means of which the speaker under-represents the state of affairs denoted in the

proposition.

Could you please move in a little bit more?

Hedge Adverbials used by a speaker when he or she wishes to avoid a precise propositional specification in order to

avoid the potential provocation of such precision.

When you have a chance, can I have a glass of water?

Subjectivizer Elements in which the speaker explicitly expresses his or her subjective opinion vis-à-vis the state of affairs

referred to in the proposition, thus lowering the assertive

force of his request.

I wonder if you’d mind explaining to me why I received such a low grade

Downtowner Sentential or propositional modifiers which are used by a

speaker in order to modulate the impact his or her request

is likely to have on the hearer.

Could you possibly help me?

Appealer Elements used by a speaker whenever he or she wishes to

appeal to his or her hearer’s benevolent understanding.

Appealers function to elicit a hearer signal, occur in a syntactically final position, and may signal turn-

availability. Tags are a common realization in English,

and in Thai the particle na is a common addition at the end of sentences that has the equivalent function of an

English tag.

Phom khaw keun taeksee khan nee na khrap

I beg board taxi car this PART PART

I’m asking to use this taxi, OK?

75

Table 4

Internal Modifications (continued)


Consultative device Elements by means of which the speaker seeks to involve

the hearer and bids for her/his cooperation, in addition to other strategy types. Frequently these devices are

ritualized formulae.

Would you mind if I took this taxi?

Upgraders

Intensifier Adverbial modifiers used by speakers to intensify certain

elements of the proposition the utterance. I really need that cab.

Time intensifier Adverbial modifiers used by speakers to intensify certain elements of the proposition the utterance with particular

reference to the time of a desired action.

Can you bring it now please!

4.5.4 Request structures

Request structure refers to the sequence of the request head act(s) and supportive move(s) within

a request. The most basic request comprises only a single head act and no supportive moves.

Following the description outlined in the CCSARP coding manual (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989), a

request containing a single head act with no supportive moves is categorized as ‘head act only’

(see Table 5). Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) also noted that requests without a requestive head act,

such as with unconventionally indirect requests (hints), the request can also be described as head

act only (HA only). Although various combinations of head act/supportive move sequences

could occur when multiple head acts are present in a request, a single category of ‘multiple head

act’ was used to describe such requests. Following the guidelines provided by Blum-Kulka et al.

(1989) in the CCSARP coding manual, the only relevant components used to define a request’s

structure are head acts and supportive moves; alerters were not considered when determining

request structure. According to alerters’ function of getting the attention of the hearer and

indicating the ensuing request, alerters must be positioned at the beginning of a request. The

position of supportive moves and head acts within a request sequence, on the other hand, is

flexible and varied. Therefore, when compared to alerters, the position of which is fixed at the

beginning of a request, the sequence of head acts and supportive moves is a better reflection of

how a speaker manipulates the request sequence in order to optimize the request’s

appropriateness and effectiveness within the particular set of circumstances in which the request

is made. The table below shows each request structure used in this study, with head acts

italicized.

76

Table 5

Request Structures

Structure type Example

HA only Could I borrow your phone to make a short call?

HA+SM Would it be possible for you to lend me some money? I’ll pay you back in twenty minutes.

SM+HA I'm really sorry but I am late for a flight. Would you mind if I took this taxi?

SM+HA+SM Hey, I know you are super busy with work these, but would I be able to study with you for the exam? I fell pretty far behind while I was sick and you would be doing me a big favour.

Multiple HA My friends and I want to go on a trip for the week. I wanted to ask if you could do my house chores while I am gone. I

could pay you back and do your chores for the following week or pay you for doing the chores. Do you think you can help me out?

4.5.5 Alerters

Alerters are words or brief phrases that function to get the attention of the hearer and indicate the

ensuing request (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989) (see Table 6). It is possible for more than one alerter

to be present in a single request. The following request, for example, contains three alerters

(attention getter + title + name):

“Good morning, Professor Downs. I've just realized that I'm required to take this course for the

semester, but it is already closed for enrollment. Is there any way you could please accept me

into the course?”

Table 6

Alerters

Alerter type Example

Title / Role professor, teacher, ajaarn (professor)

Name John, Peterson

Honorific Address Sir, Madam, Miss, Mr., khun (sir/madam)

Endearment Term honey, sweetie, baby, thii rak (my dear)

Friendship Term mate, dude, buddy, phuean (friend)

Kinship Term Bro, sis, phii (older brother/sister), phaa (auntie), lung (uncle)

Pronoun you, kae (you), eng (you), mueng (you)

Attention Getter Hey, hi, excuse me, good morning, sawat dii (hello), heay (hey)

4.5.6 Supportive moves

Like internal modifications, supportive moves function to modulate the impositive force of a

request and can do so with either a mitigating or aggravating effect. Unlike internal

modifications, supportive moves are external to the head act, either preceding or following the

head act. One supportive move comprises a single utterance relating to the head act and, as such,

multiple supportive moves can be present within a single request. The boundaries of supportive

77

moves often correspond to the boundaries of sentences, and such is the case in the following

example, which shows five supportive moves:

“You know how my friends are going out on this trip. I want to go, too. The problem is mom and

dad are giving me a hard time about the chores. I need you to do them for me. It's just an hour a

day. I promise to get you something nice in return.”

However, it is also possible that sentences containing multiple independent clauses could also

contain multiple supportive moves. After all, the EDCT is designed to capture spoken

communication and as such, matters relating to written sentence structure are not relevant; the

utterance is a more relevant unit with which to define supportive moves. For example, the final

two sentences in the previous example could be written as a single sentence, in which case, a

single sentence would contain two supportive moves:

“It's just an hour a day and I promise to get you something nice in return.”

The supportive moves used in this study can be broadly classified as either mitigating supportive

moves or aggravating supportive moves. The classification of supportive moves is based on the

categories used in the CCSARP coding manual (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989) and Blum-Kulka and

Olshtain (1984). Several categories, which include small talk, self-introduction, thanking, giving

alternatives, apologizing, negative consequences, and urging, were also added in order to better

capture the modifications observed in this study. The following table (Table 7) provides a

definition and an example of the supportive moves used in this study, with the relevant

supportive move in italics:

Table 7

Supportive Moves


Mitigating supportive

moves

Small talk The speaker engages the hearer with brief and often

formulaic talk that is not directly connected to the content

of the request, but which might have an effect of establishing a polite and friendly rapport before

introduction introducing his or her request.

Good Morning Mrs. Memery, how are you?

Would you mind reconsidering and

explaining to me about my exam?

Preparator The speaker prepares his or her hearer for the ensuing request by announcing that he or she will make a request,

by asking about the potential availability of the hearer for

carrying out the request, or by asking for the hearer’s permission to make the request.

I need to ask you for a favour. Would it be possible to borrow some money?

78

Table 7

Supportive Moves (continued)


Getting

precommitment

In checking on a potential refusal before making his or

her request, a speaker tries to commit his or her hearer before telling him or her what he is letting himself or

herself in for.

Could you do me a favour? Can I use your

phone for a minute?

Grounder The speaker gives reasons, explanations, or justifications for his or her request.

I just realized that I don’t have enough cash for the pizza. Do you have some cash I

could borrow?

Disarmer The speaker tries to remove any potential objections that the hearer might raise upon being confronted with the

request.

I know you’re busy, but can you bring over my drink when you have a sec?

Self-introduction The speaker gives information about himself or herself to the hearer, especially when this information establishes a

relevance for the speaker’s request.

My name is John and I’m a fourth-year student. I was really hoping you would

consider letting me enroll in your class.

Promise of a reward To increase the likelihood of the hearer’s compliance with the speaker’s request, a reward due on fulfillment of

the request, is announced.

I was wondering when you have some time to meet and share your notes. I can treat you

to lunch or coffee.

Imposition minimizer The speaker tries to reduce the imposition placed on the hearer by his request.

Would you mind if I used your phone to make a quick call? It'll just be a second.

Sweetener By expressing exaggerated appreciation of the hearer’s

ability to comply with the request, the speaker lowers the imposition involved.

Could you help me study? You really know

this stuff.

Thanking The speaker expresses thanks or appreciation for the hearer’s presumed compliance with the request.

Is there any way you’d be willing to let me go before you? I’d really appreciate it.

Giving alternatives The speaker introduces various ways by which the hearer

could comply with the request, ostensibly to provide convenience to the hearer.

Is there any way I can still enroll even

though I missed the official enrollment period? Or maybe there is a waiting list?

Apologizing The speaker expresses a general regret or apologies to the

hearer for the imposition caused by the request.

I’m really sorry to bother you, but could I

borrow some money to pay for the food

delivery?

Aggravating supportive

moves

Negative

consequences

I may miss my fight if I do not get this cab.

Can I take this taxi?

Urging I want you to take care of my housework for me. Pretty please?

4.5.7 EDCT qualitative data

Of the four follow-up questions in the second part of the EDCT, two questions are open-ended

(see Appendix E). The first open-ended question (question 1) produced qualitative data which

concerned the participants' perceptions of the factors they took into accounts when making each

of their requests in section 1 of the EDCT. The second open-ended question (question 3) relates

to the reasons for the participants’ rating of the degree of imposition for each of the requested

actions in section 1 of the EDCT.

79

Microsoft Word and Excel were used in coding the qualitative data obtained from these two

questions. These data were in the form of text. The first step in the coding process began with

preparing the data by compiling all responses to these two questions in Word document files.

Then an initial reading was undertaken to identify themes and develop a coding system.

Categories for question 1, for example, consisted of the various factors that participants indicated

impacted their choices when making requests, such as the hearer’s position as a professor, the

time constraints of the hearer, and the potential for offense. As Mackey and Gass (2005) explain,

“…the schemes for qualitative coding generally emerge from the data rather than being decided

on and preimposed prior to the data being collected or coded (p. 241)”. In order to systematically

process the data and account for the identified categories, a second reading of the responses was

undertaken. This time, data were coded by highlighting the words, phrases, or sentences within

each response that related to one of the identified categories. At this time, the system of

categories was refined and amended to better reflect and include all reasons indicated by the

participants. Each highlighted component was labeled using the comment function of Microsoft

Word. After the coding was completed, DocTools ExtractData, a Microsoft Word tool that

allows users to extract comments from an active Word document, was used to transfer the coded

data to a new Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The new spreadsheet, comprising the extracted data,

included two sortable columns: one column included the text from the participants’ responses

and the other column consisted of the labels corresponding to each response. These columns

could then be sorted according to categories, which allowed for similarly coded responses to be

grouped together and counted. Frequencies were noted and further trends were identified with

the categorized and grouped responses.

4.6 Inter-rater reliability

In order to ensure the validity of the data coding process, inter-rater reliability checks were

conducted by two raters. Inter-rater reliability is “a measure of whether two or more raters judge

the same set of data in the same way” (Mackey & Gass, 2005, p. 129). One rater was a native

Thai-speaking professor specializing in English-Thai translation and linguistics. The other rater

was a native English-speaking lecturer who is an advanced speaker of Thai. The coded data from

part one of the EDCT were taken from a random sample of five of the thirty-four EDCT forms

from each study group (representing 14.7% of the total EDCT forms for each group) and coded

by each rater. An agreement rate was calculated by dividing the number of observations agreed

80

upon by the total number of observations (Orwin, 1994). The result was an agreement rate of

88% between the researcher and the native-Thai speaking inter-rater and an agreement rate of

92% between the researcher and the native-English speaking inter-rater. Each instance of coding

discrepancy was discussed and nearly every case resulted in a code matching the researcher’s

initial assignment.

4.7 Data analysis

After the request response data from the first section of the EDCT were coded, both descriptive

and inferential data analyses were used. Because the data produced by section one of the EDCT

consist of both nominal and ratio-scale data, the analysis methods employed were dependent

upon the aspect of the request. Request perspective, for example, involved categorizing each

head act by its perspective type. Each head act must have one perspective and cannot have more

than one perspective; if a head act is classified as ‘hearer dominance, it cannot also be classified

as ‘speaker dominance’. Therefore, the data collected for request perspective are nominal scale,

or categorical data. Similarly, each head act can also be categorized by its request strategy and

each request can be categorized by its structure. For this nominal scale data, descriptive analysis

involved calculating percentages. For request perspective and request strategy, this involves

calculating the percentages of head acts representing each category of perspective and strategy.

For request structure, the descriptive data analysis involves calculating the percentage of requests

represented by each category of request structure. Inferential statistical analysis of the nominal

scale data uses chi-square analysis, which was conducted to determine the degree of similarity

and difference between the four study groups’ use of various request perspectives, strategies, and

structures. A chi-square test is a nonparametric test often used with nominal scale data. Chi-

square tests were initially performed to identify the degree of difference between the four study

groups. When statistically significant differences were identified, a post-hoc analysis, also using

chi-square tests, was performed in order to determine which pair-wise comparisons yielded

statistically significant differences.

While the aforementioned aspects of requests involved categorizing each head act and request

according to a single categorical type, other aspects of request involved observing frequencies of

various features within a single head act or request. For example, internal modifications are

features that can be observed multiple times or not at all within a single head act. It is possible

81

for a head act to contain multiple types of modifications and/or multiple occurrences of the same

type of modification within a head act. For example, a head act might contain two tense

modifications and one aspect modification. Therefore, the data collected for internal

modifications are ratio scale data. Likewise, the data collected for supportive moves and alerters

are also ratio scale because multiple occurrences (or no occurrences) of these features can be

observed within a single request. For ratio scale data, descriptive data analysis involved

calculating the average number of times that a particular feature is observed within the relevant

unit, which is either a head act or a request. With internal modifications, for example, this ratio

was calculated by observing the average number of each modification type per head act. For

supportive moves and alerters, the ratio was calculated by observing the average number of times

these features occurred per request. An average of each ratio is used to represent these features of

each study group’s requests. Inferential statistical analysis of the ratio scale data was performed

by using Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn’s Tests, which were conducted to determine the degree of

similarity and difference between the four study groups’ use of various types of internal

modifications, supportive moves, and alerters. A Kruskal-Wallis Test is a nonparametric test

used when parametric test assumptions are not met. It was determined that these assumptions

were not met after implementing the Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests, which showed that the data

were not normally distributed. Kruskal-Wallis tests were initially performed to identify the

degree of difference between the four study groups. When statistically significant differences

were identified by Kruskal-Wallis Tests, a post-hoc analysis using Dunn’s Tests was performed

in order to determine which pair-wise comparisons yielded statistically significant differences.

For both types of data, nominal scale and ratio scale, inferential data analysis involved multiple

stages of testing. After the respective inferential data analysis of the entire data set was

conducted for each type of data, the aggregated data sets controlling for the social variables of

social distance and relative power were undertaken. Because this analysis involved multiple

comparisons, a conservative alpha level of <.01 was set in order to minimize the likelihood of

false positive results (type 1 errors).

Data from the second part of the EDCT were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. The

quantitative data from the second section of the EDCT include one 5-point Likert scale item and

one yes/no question. The Likert scale item was analyzed descriptively by comparing the average

ratings given by each group. Inferential statistical analysis of the Likert scale item was also

82

conducted by comparing the average ratings given by each group and using an alpha of <.01.

When statistically significant differences were identified by Kruskal-Wallis Tests, a post-hoc

analysis using Dunn’s Tests was performed in order to determine which pair-wise comparisons

yielded statistically significant differences. The yes/no question was analyzed by comparing the

percentages of yes and no answers between the study groups. The qualitative data from the

second part of the EDCT involve open-ended short answer data, which were sorted and

categorized using keywords such as age, status, and power to determine those factors that the

participants consider when making requests and their underlying reasons for the choice of their

requests. Responses were grouped by item so that comments and observations could be in the

margins. The goal was to locate specific data during intensive analysis. Then patterns that

emerged from the data of each group were identified.

Data from the interviews were selectively transcribed (Mackey & Gass, 2005). Because the aim

of using interviews in this study is to gain insights into how the participants perceive their

English pragmatic development in relation to their learning environment rather than conduct

conversation analysis, only parts of the interview that were seen as important, relevant to the

research questions, and interesting were transcribed. After the transcriptions from the interviews

were completed, they were read repeatedly, and sorted according to the interview questions.

Patterns that emerged from the data were identified.

4.8 Chapter summary

This study aims to investigate the relationship between study abroad and the development of

pragmatic competence by Thai learners of English. In order to understand this phenomenon, this

study investigated five major research questions that involved comparing four study groups. One

study group comprised Thai learners of English with study abroad experience while another

group consisted of Thai learners of English with no study abroad experience. Two additional

study groups were used: one to represent speakers of the learners’ native language, Thai, and

another to represent the learners’ target language, English. Both qualitative and quantitative

research methods were used in the form of semi-structured interviews and an EDCT, which

included a standard DCT as well as a second section with follow-up questions. EDCT request

responses were coded using a coding system based primarily on Blum-Kulka et al.’s (1989)

CCSARP coding manual, and statistical analyses of this data were subsequently undertaken. The

83

purpose of using this mixed methods approach was to provide additional context and a better

understanding of the perspective of participants on their own request formations.

84

Chapter 5 Request Data Analysis and Discussion

This chapter presents the findings and discussion for the first section of the EDCT, which is the

principle data collection instrument used in this study. The data obtained from the first section of

the EDCT are quantitative data derived from coding the participants’ request responses. The

findings and discussion of the data combined from the nine situations of the EDCT will be

divided according to the six main request aspects analyzed in this study: request perspectives,

request strategies, internal modifications, request structures, alerters, and supportive moves. For

each of these sections, a consideration of relative power and social distance is also included. This

chapter concludes with a summary of the key findings from the data from the first section of the

EDCT.

5.1 Request perspectives

5.1.1 Choice of request perspectives

Participants used a variety of request perspectives to form their requests. Table 8 captures all

four study groups’ choices of perspectives used in all nine situations combined to see general

patterns between groups. As can be seen, hearer dominance was the most preferred perspective

for each of the four participant groups (e.g., Could you bring me the drink I ordered, please? –

AH participant). The learner groups (AH and SA) used hearer dominance at a very similar rate to

one another (64.49% and 60.68%, respectively), which is considerably more frequent than that of

the NT (48.63%) and ED (49.22%) groups, who themselves had very similar rates. Statistical

analysis by chi-square with an alpha of <.01 showed that the AH group used hearer dominance

perspective significantly more than did both the NT group, 2 (1, N = 367) = 16.612, p =<.001,

and the ED group, 2 (1, N = 365) = 15.246, p =<.001. The other learner group, SA, also used

hearer dominance perspective significantly more than did the NT group, 2 (1, N = 356) =

12.731, p =<.001, and the ED group, 2 (1, N = 354) = 15.246, p =.003. There was no significant

difference between the learner groups (AH and SA), and similarly, there was no significant

difference between the baseline language groups (NT and ED).

85

Table 8

Distribution of Request Perspectives Used in All Nine Situations

Perspectives NT

(n=329)

AH

(n=321)

SA

(n=323)

ED

(n=321)

Hearer Dominance 48.63% 64.49% 60.68% 49.22% Speaker Dominance 44.07% 30.53% 31.58% 36.14%

Joint Perspective 0.00% 0.00% 0.93% 2.80%

Impersonal 7.29% 4.98% 6.81% 11.84%

Speaker dominance was the second most used perspective by every group (e.g., Can I use your

phone to make a quick call? – ED participant). The NT group (44.07%) represented an outlier,

using it more than every other group. However, the chi-square analyses indicated the NT group’s

more frequent use of speaker dominance perspective was only statistically significant when

compared to the AH group, 2 (1, N = 243) = 12.731, p =<.001, and the SA group,

2 (1, N =

243) = 12.731, p =.001. There were no significant differences found among comparisons

between the AH, SA, and ED groups.

Joint perspective was infrequently used (e.g., Could we go over things for the exam together? –

ED speaker), with the ED group using it the most frequently (2.80%) followed by the SA group

(0.93%). The AH and NT groups did not use this perspective at all. Analysis by chi-square

showed the ED group’s use of joint perspective was significantly more than the NT group, 2 (1,

N = 9) = 9.354, p =.002, and the AH group, 2 (1, N = 9) = 9.128, p =.004. A similar pattern was

observed with impersonal perspective (e.g., Is it possible to take this course at this time? – SA

speaker). The ED group (11.84%) used impersonal perspective more than did any other group,

and this difference was statistically significant when compared to the AH group, 2 (1, N = 243)

= 12.731, p =.002. There were no statistically significant differences between any other groups

with this perspective.

The findings reveal a pattern in which the two learner groups (AH and SA) were very similar to

one another in terms of how often they used each type of request perspective. However, there

were considerable differences between the learner groups and the baseline language groups (NT

and ED) with respect to the use of hearer dominance and speaker dominance perspectives, which

made up the majority of the requests when combined (between 85% to 95% of each group’s

requests). The hearer dominance perspective was used significantly more by the learner groups

than by the baseline language groups. With speaker dominance, the opposite trend was observed;

the baseline language groups used this perspective more than did the learner groups, with the

difference between both learner groups and the NT group at a level of statistical significance.

86

To some extent, both learner groups deviated from the norms of ED speakers in their use of

hearer dominance and speaker dominance perspectives. However, the data suggest that L1

transfer cannot account for these differences because the NT and ED groups used hearer

dominance at nearly the same rate. In addition, the NT group used speaker dominance more than

did the ED group while the learner groups used it less, which suggests that the learner groups’

underuse of speaker dominance perspective was not the result of generalizing a convention from

their L1.

An alternative explanation for the learners’ heavy use of hearer dominance requests could be the

effects of ‘training transfer’, or the influence of explicit English instruction that the learners

received in school (Odlin, 1989). Mohammadi and Sa’d (2014) concluded that the preference for

hearer dominance requests by Iranian EFL students could be explained by their exposure to

hearer dominance request forms in their initial EFL learning. This conclusion is consistent with

the findings of Usó-Juan’s (2008) survey of English language teaching textbooks, which found

that requests using hearer dominance requests focusing on the hearer’s ability or willingness to

comply with the request were overused in textbook presentations of requests. Similarly, the basic

forms and expressions in making requests presented in most examples in English textbooks for

Thai EFL learners are typically hearer dominance (i.e., Can you…? or Could you…?).

Therefore, it may be in the current data that the Thai learners (like the Iranian learners in

Mohammadi and Sa’d’s study) were relying more on using the familiar forms they learned early

and often in their English education.

This explanation is complicated, though, by the understanding of requests described by Blum-

Kulka et al. (1989), who suggested that the avoidance of naming the hearer “as the principle

performer of the action serves to soften the impact of the imposition” (p. 203). Therefore, it is

somewhat surprising that the hearer dominance perspective was also the most used perspective

of the baseline language groups, who were presumably not limited by their fluency or familiarity

with various forms in their respective languages.

Interestingly, many of the requests that were not hearer dominance were observed in two

situations (situations 5 and 7) that involved a choice of using the verbs ‘borrow’ and ‘lend’. In

these situations, the frequent use of ‘borrow’, which produces a speaker dominance response,

was observed in every study group. According to Leech (1983), the use of ‘borrow’ can make a

87

request “marginally more polite” than a request using ‘lend’ because it avoids naming the hearer

(p. 134). However, Ogiermann (2009b) argues that Leech’s proposition should not be taken as a

universal, as cultures that value directness may see speaker dominance requests as manipulative.

Ogiermann’s study demonstrates the differences these cultural values have on request

perspective by showing a strong preference by English speakers for speaker dominance requests

and an overwhelming use of hearer dominance requests by Polish and Russian speakers.

While differences in Thai and English speakers’ cultural values related to directness were

observed in other aspects of the data, which will be discussed later, they did not appear to be a

factor in the choice of the verbs ‘borrow’ and ‘lend’. This choice of ‘borrow’ and ‘lend’

appeared in two situations: situation 5 (borrowing a cell phone from a classmate) and situation 7

(borrowing money from an older relative). The data showed that the speaker-oriented verb

‘borrow’ (‘yuem’ [ยม] in Thai) was used considerably more often than the hearer-oriented verb

‘lend’ (‘hai yuem’ [ใหยม] in Thai) by every study group, whether using the English language

EDCT (AH, SA, and ED) (see examples 1-2, showing ‘borrow’ and 3-4 showing ‘lend’) or the

Thai language EDCT (NT) (see examples 5-6). Interestingly, the NT group used the speaker-

oriented verb ‘yuem’ (borrow) in all but one of the responses in situation 7.

(1) Could I borrow some money from you? (SA, situation 7)

(2) Could I please borrow some money to pay for the food? (ED, situation 7)

(3) Can you lend me a few quid and I'll pay you back tomorrow? (ED, situation 7)

(4) Can you lend me some money for pizza? (AH, situation 7)

(5) อยากจะขอยมเงนคณอาซกหนอยคะ yak cha kho yuem ngoen khun a sak noi kha

want will ask borrow money Mr. uncle about a little (polite particle) (NT, situation

7)

(6) หนขอยมเงนหนอยไดไหมคะ nu kho yuem ngoen noi dai mai kha

I ask borrow money a little can (question particle) (polite particle) (NT, situation 7)

In addition to similarities in the way these Thai and English verbs orient the request perspective,

these verbs also appear to correlate semantically. Blum-Kulka and Levenston (1987)

88

demonstrated an overgeneralization of the verbs ‘give’ and ‘have’ by Israeli ESL learners in

contrast to the native English-speaking norms of using ‘borrow’ and ‘lend’. In contrast, the use

of ‘borrow’ and ‘lend’ correlate in meaning closely to the Thai verbs ‘yuem’ and ‘hai yuem’. The

similarities between the Thai and English use of these verbs, both in terms of request perspective

and meaning, appear to minimize negative L1 transfer. It should be noted that in situation 7, the

verb ‘lend’ (and ‘hai yuem’ [ใหยม] in Thai) appears in the EDCT request prompt. Despite the

presence of this hearer-oriented verb in the request prompt, participants from all study groups

preferred the speaker-oriented verb ‘borrow’ (‘yuem’ [ยม] in Thai) in this situation. The prompt

for situation 5, however, included neither ‘borrow’ nor ‘lend’, and instead the more neutral verb

‘use’ (‘chai’ [ใช] in Thai) appeared in the prompt. Despite the absence of the word ‘borrow’ in

the prompt for situation 5, participants from all study groups still demonstrated an overwhelming

preference for this verb.

Excluding the hearer dominance perspective and focusing on the less direct, more mitigating

perspectives, it can be seen that speaker dominance was preferred by a large margin over joint

perspective and impersonal requests by every study group. It is notable, however, that the ED

group appears to show greater variety in their choices of these types of request perspectives

when compared to the other three study groups.

Initially, when considering the CCSARP coding manual’s description for the impersonal

perspective, it was expected that the ED speakers would use this perspective more than the other

study groups because passive voice is not used as much in Thai as it is in English, and its use in

Thai is normally associated specifically with negative events (Smyth, 2002). However, the use of

passive voice was extremely rare in the requests of all groups. Similarly, impersonal pronouns,

such as ‘someone’ and ‘anyone’, which were also used in the CCSARP coding manual’s

description of impersonal perspective requests, did not appear in the collected data.

Instead of being implemented by the use of passive voice and impersonal subject pronouns, as

suggested by Blum-Kulka et al. (1989), nearly all of the impersonal perspective requests in the

data came in the form of hints by every study group. These requests tended to be characterized

by the presence of enough context that the requester could make the request easily understood

without explicitly referring to the desired action, and therefore, without mentioning the agent of

89

the desired action. For example, situation 3 involves a request to a school child to make space so

that the speaker can enter the train. In another situation, the speaker wants the server in a

restaurant to bring a drink that had already been ordered (see examples 7-8, showing hints coded

as impersonal perspective).

(7) Excuse me, sorry, I never got my Diet Coke. (ED, situation 6)

(8) พยงไมไดน าเลยนะ phi yang mai dai nam loei na

older sibling still not receive water at all (particle) (NT, situation 6)

Explaining the use of this type of request (example 7), a participant from the ED group

explained, “I’d think (the server) probably forgot because they’re busy and I don’t want to take

up their time.” The pressure of time has been demonstrated to influence request perspectives,

prompting requests favoring clarity over indirectness (Mills, 1991). It can be concluded that, for

some speakers, referring to the desired object can be as clear and direct as referring to the desired

action in the request. Therefore, it should not be assumed that impersonal perspective is

necessarily used only in order to soften the impact of the request by making it more indirect. In

these high context situations, this type of impersonal perspective request, referring to the desired

object, might be used for the sake of fast and efficient communication.

In the restaurant situation and throughout the data, the SA and AH learner groups consistently

used impersonal requests less and hearer dominance requests more often than did the ED group

(see examples 9-10).

(9) Could you bring me a drink, please? (AH, situation 6)

(10) Would you mind bringing me a glass of water when you have free time? (SA,

situation 6)

Faerch and Kasper (1989) noted that language learners tend to “adhere to the conversational

principle of clarity, choosing explicit, transparent unambiguous means of expression rather than

implicit, opaque and ambiguous realizations” (p. 233).

In high context situations, the ED group showed more flexibility in their requests by formulating

their requests in ways that would be clearly understood yet that were unconventional. However,

the learner groups tended to realize these requests by ‘playing it safe’ and using more

90

conventional and familiar request forms. For the learner groups, the use of conventional requests

forms (e.g., Can you…?, Could you…?) provides an unambiguous signal that a request is being

made. For ED group participants, such a signal was unnecessary and may actually be a less

efficient way of communicating the request in a high context situation.

As for joint perspective, the use of ‘we’ or ‘us,’ which is a type of a positive politeness strategy

suggested by Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987), was rarely found in the data. It was used very

infrequently by the ED and SA groups, and not used at all by the NT and AH groups. What

might account for this phenomenon is that, while including both the hearer and speaker in an

activity can highlight solidarity, most of the contexts in the hypothetical situations in the EDCT

were not set up for an action that could be performed by both the hearer and speaker (e.g., asking

a professor to allow enrollment in a course after the deadline, asking someone to move inside the

train, borrowing a classmate’s cell phone, asking a server for the drink the requester had ordered,

borrowing money from a relative, and asking a sibling to do the housework while the speaker is

gone).

While the differences between the two learner groups were not statistically significant, the SA

group’s use of each perspective was consistently more similar to that of the ED group than was

that of the AH group in terms of the percentages that each request perspective comprised of the

total number of requests. Compared to the AH group, the SA group demonstrated a greater

variety of use, perhaps revealing a trend of greater flexibility in their use of requests. This could

represent a positive impact, albeit a minimal impact, of the study abroad experience on the

learners’ sociopragmatic and/or pragmalinguistic development.

5.1.2 Relative power

Figure 1 displays the perspective choices of the four study groups according to the relative power

between the speaker and hearer. As can be seen, in situations involving low-high and high-low

relative power, hearer dominance was the most used perspective by every study group. In equal

power situations, speaker dominance perspective was favored by every study group, while hearer

dominance was the second most used perspective. Aside from high-low situations, in which

impersonal perspectives was the second most used perspective by every study group, impersonal

and joint perspective request head acts were infrequently used.

91

AH group participants used hearer dominance more than any other group when controlling for all

three relative power types; however, a statistical analysis showed that there were no significant

differences between the AH group’s use of this perspective and that of any other group. The NT

group used speaker dominance perspective more than every other group when controlling for all

three types of relative power. However, this difference was only statistically significant in high-

low situations, with the NT group using speaker dominance perspective significantly more than

the AH group, 2 (1, N = 21) = 10.399, p =.001. No statistically significant differences between

groups were observed in any power relation type with the joint and impersonal perspectives.

It was expected that the relative power of the hearer would positively correlate with the need for

greater mitigation, which might be seen in the form of a greater degree of indirectness. In terms

of request perspective, shifting the focus away from the hearer’s performance of the requested

action has been associated with the softening of a request’s impositive force (Biesenbach-Lucas,

2007; Blum-Kulka et al., 1989). Therefore, it would be expected that there would be more hearer

dominant requests observed in high-low situations than in low-high situations. Indeed, this was

the case with all study groups. However, the fact that all study groups used hearer dominance the

least in equal power situations suggests other factors may have interacted with relative power to

influence the selection of request perspective.

The fact that all four study groups displayed this same pattern was, in itself, quite unexpected.

Social hierarchy is a central feature of Thai culture and one that distinguishes it from English-

speaking cultures (see, for example, Kirch, 1973; Klausner, 1993; Gullette, 2014). According to

Kirch (1973), “there are virtually no social roles nor interactions among Thai that do not carry

some connotations of hierarchical difference in status…” (p. 195). It was, therefore, expected

that the variable of relative power would have a stronger effect on the perspective choice of the

NT group, and perhaps the two learner groups, than it would on the ED group. However, this

was not observed in the data relating to perspective choice.

92

Figure 1. Distribution of request perspectives used in situations controlling for relative power.

One explanation for these unexpected results could be that the NT group did not rely on

perspective to capture relative power between speaker and hearer but instead, did so through the

use of other mitigating tools in the form of honorific language, which are available in Thai and

not in English. Thai language possesses a wide range of pronouns that can indicate gender,

family relationships, and occupations – many of the factors that weigh heavily in the

construction of social hierarchy (Smyth, 2002). Pronouns can also be manipulated to show the

social status of the speaker in relation to that of the hearer, as well as the perceived intimacy of

the speaker and hearer (Vongvipanond, 1994). In addition, as discussed in the description of the

66

.96

%

84

.31

%

77

.57

%

70

.37

%

16

.07

%

2.9

4%

11

.21

%

7.4

1%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

16

.96

%

12

.75

%

11

.21

%

22

.22

%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

NT AH SA ED

High-low

Hearer Dominance

Speaker Dominance

Joint

Impersonal

29

.63

%

47

.22

%

45

.10

%

32

.04

%

68

.52

%

52

.78

%

52

.94

%

61

.17

%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.9

8%

4.8

5%

1.8

5%

0.0

0%

0.9

8%

1.9

4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

NT AH SA ED

Equal

Hearer Dominance

Speaker Dominance

Joint

Impersonal

48

.62

%

63

.06

%

58

.77

%

44

.55

%

48

.62

%

34

.23

%

31

.58

%

40

.91

%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

1.7

5%

3.6

4%

2.7

5%

2.7

0%

7.8

9%

10

.91

%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

NT AH SA ED

Low-high

Hearer Dominance

Speaker Dominance

Joint

Impersonal

93

present study’s coding methodology, the subject and object of a sentence are typically omissible

in Thai language, so a Thai speaker can avoid using pronouns altogether when making a request.

Thus, the inclusion and selection of a Thai pronoun in a request may reflect the speaker’s attempt

to articulate the relationship between speaker and hearer. Despite its potential importance as a

mitigating (or aggravating) tool in request-making, this characteristic of Thai language may not

be captured when coding request perspectives.

A closer look at the Thai requests shows that the pronoun choice, whether intentional or not,

acknowledged the power dynamic between the speaker and hearer in low-high situations. The

pronoun ‘nu’ (หน, ‘I’) appeared extensively in all low-high situations. ‘Nu’, literally meaning

‘mouse’, is often used to refer to young children, but can also be used, typically by females, to

convey one’s own age and lower status to a hearer (see examples 11-12, asking a professor to

add to a class after the deadline, and 13, asking an older relative to borrow money).

(11) หนรบกวนอาจารยใหหนลงในรายวชานไดไหมคะ nu ropkuan achan hai nu long nai rai wicha ni dai mai kha

I bother professor give me enroll in subject this can (question particle) (polite

particle) (NT, situation 1)

(12) ถาหนจะขออนญาตลงตอนน อาจารยจะอนญาตไหมคะ tha nu cha kho anuyat long ton ni achan cha anuyat mai kha

if I will ask permission enroll now professor will permit (question particle) (polite


(13) หนขอยมเงนคณปาไปจายคาอาหารกอนไดไหมคะ nu kho yuem ngoen khun pa pai chai kha ahan kon dai mai kha

I ask borrow money Mrs. aunt go pay fee food first can (question particle) (polite


In addition to pronouns referring to the speaker’s lower status in low-high situations, pronouns

reflecting the hearer’s higher position were also common. University professors are highly

respected and occupy a high position in the Thai social hierarchy (Suphawong, as cited in Ockey,

2005). Two of the low-high situations involved a request to a professor, and the term ‘achan’

(อาจารย, professor), the occupational title for university professors, was used as a pronoun in

nearly every request in place of a neutral ‘you’ pronoun (e.g., 11-12). Similarly, age-based

hierarchy is an important component of the Thai family social structure (Howard, 2007). In the

94

low-high situation involving a request to an older family member, kinship terms, such as ‘lung’

(ลง, ‘uncle’) and ‘pa’ (ปา, ‘aunt’) were often used as pronouns in place of a neutral ‘you’ pronoun

or the hearer’s name (e.g., 13). The use of these honorific second person pronouns can act to

soften a hearer dominance request in Thai in a way that is not possible in English.

English request perspectives can normally be characterized as having an ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘we’, or

impersonal orientation. In contrast, Thai speakers have flexibility when selecting pronouns as the

choice of pronouns can change the framing of the request by acknowledging the relative power

of its interlocutors. Because choice of pronouns in Thai changes how the speaker and hearer’s

roles are framed within a request, this linguistic feature performs the same function as request

perspective. An understanding of request perspective in Thai requests (and by extension, an

understanding of the language background of Thai learners of English) is incomplete without a

consideration of the use of honorific pronouns.

On the surface, the data appear to suggest a similar influence of the relative power variable

between the baseline language groups. However, a more in-depth consideration shows that the

NT group participants used other ways besides request perspective to frame the roles of the

hearer and speaker within the request in a way to show deference or politeness to those in a

higher social position. With the ability to manipulate the request with the inclusion and selection

of pronouns, the importance of request perspective as a mitigating device may be minimized for

Thai speakers. If so, it appears that this did not negatively impact the learner groups’ abilities to

manipulate their use of request perspective in response to the various contexts involving different

levels of relative power. Despite the learner groups’ lack of access to this important feature of

their L1 when making English requests, both learner groups’ responses to the variable of relative

power were comparable to that of the ED group as measured by request perspective.

5.1.3 Social distance

Figure 2 presents the findings for social distance for all four study groups, showing that hearer

dominance was used in the majority of request head acts involving close social relationships,

followed by speaker dominance. The perspectives used in situations involving close relationships

were the least varied in terms of distribution between the four perspectives; hearer dominance

perspective was observed in more than 60% of the request head acts of every study group. In

95

addition, close situations were also characterized by the lack of differences between study

groups. The distribution of request perspectives was relatively similar between all study groups,

and an analysis using chi-square revealed no statistical differences between the study groups.

Situations involving acquaintances showed more variety in terms of each group’s distribution of

request perspective, with speaker and hearer dominance representing comparable proportion of

each group’s request perspectives. No perspective type made up a majority of any group’s

request head acts, with the exception of the AH group’s (55.86%) use of hearer dominance. The

AH group used hearer dominance more than every other group, but this difference was only

statistically significant when compared to the ED group, 2 (1, N = 94) = 13.733, p =<.001.

Acquaintance situations were also characterized by the greatest use of impersonal request head

acts by every group.

With requests to strangers, the NT group was an outlier, using speaker dominance perspective

considerably more than the other study groups. This difference was statistically significant when

comparing the NT group with the AH group, 2 (1, N = 97) = 14.048, p =<.001, the SA group,

2

(1, N = 99) = 12.328, p =<.001, and the ED group, 2 (1, N = 104) = 7.042, p =.008. All other

groups used hearer dominance most often, followed by speaker dominance. The greatest use of

hearer dominance was by the AH group, which used this perspective significantly more than the

NT group, 2 (1, N = 120) = 12.391, p =<.001. In addition, the SA group used hearer dominance

perspective significantly more than the NT group, 2 (1, N = 115) = 7.477, p =.006. Impersonal

request head acts were infrequently used by every group in stranger situations, and joint

perspective request head acts were not used by any study group.

Similar to the expectation of relative power’s influence on the directness of requests, it was

expected that a greater degree of social distance would positively correlate with a greater degree

of indirectness. Taken together with the aforementioned notion that hearer dominance

perspective represents the most direct request perspective (Biesenbach-Lucas, 2007; Blum-Kulka

et al., 1989), it might be predicted that hearer dominance perspective would be observed the most

in situations involving close relationships and least in those involving requests to strangers, with

requests involving acquaintances falling somewhere in between the two. This expectation held

true, with all study groups using the most hearer dominance perspective requests in situations

characterized by close social relationships. However, the data from situations involving strangers

96

and acquaintances did not follow the expected trend with the data collected from the three groups

completing an English EDCT (the AH, SA, and ED groups). With these groups, hearer

dominance appeared at a higher rate in situations involving strangers than in those involving

acquaintances. Looking beyond the aggregated data sets to the data from individual situations

reveals that one situation involving strangers, situation 3 (asking to get on the train), is

disproportionally represented by hearer dominance perspective. This perspective represented

between 75.00% (ED) to 85.71% (SA) of the total request head acts of these groups. In this

situation, the speaker must make a request that is time sensitive – presumably the speaker has

only a few seconds to make her/his request. Therefore, the use of hearer-oriented perspective

may reflect the need for pragmatic clarity taking precedence over the desire for indirectness in

making a request to a stranger. It should also be noted that the NT group’s use of hearer

dominance in this situation (in 70.45% of all request head acts) was consistent with this trend.

The aforementioned findings for situations involving strangers and acquaintances highlight

differences in the use of perspective between the learner groups and the ED group because in

these situations, the ED group tended to use a greater variety of request perspectives, while the

learner groups tended to rely more heavily on hearer dominance perspective requests. However,

there was also a general trend in these situations in which the SA group’s distribution of request

perspective types conformed somewhat more closely to the ED norms than that of the AH group.

This suggests some degree of pragmatic development of the SA group participants toward ED

norms in the situations that were expected to involve a greater need for speakers to mitigate their

requests.

97

Figure 2. Distribution of request perspectives used in situations controlling for social distance.

65

.05

%

72

.82

%

75

.96

%

66

.06

%

33

.01

%

26

.21

%

22

.12

%

26

.61

%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.9

6%

4.5

9%

1.9

4%

0.9

7%

0.9

6%

2.7

5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

NT AH SA ED

Close Relationship

Hearer Dominance

Speaker Dominance

Joint

Impersonal

40

.19

%

55

.86

%

46

.85

%

30

.77

%

42

.99

%

33

.14

%

40

.54

%

45

.19

%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

1.8

0%

3.8

5%

16

.82

%

9.0

1%

10

.81

%

20

.19

%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

NT AH SA ED

Acquaintances

Hearer Dominance

Speaker Dominance

Joint

Impersonal

42

.02

% 6

5.4

2%

60

.19

%

50

.00

%

54

.62

%

29

.91

%

31

.48

%

37

.04

%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

3.3

6%

4.6

7%

8.3

3%

12

.96

%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

NT AH SA ED

Strangers

Hearer Dominance

Speaker Dominance

Joint

Impersonal

98

5.2 Request strategies

5.2.1 Choice of request strategies

5.2.1.1 Directness levels

Figure 3 captures the directness levels present in the requests made by the four study groups. As

can be seen, conventionally indirect strategies (e.g., Can I borrow a few bucks from you for the

pizza? – AH participant) represent the majority of request strategies with every study group.

However, the NT group used this directness level considerably less than did every other study

group. Analysis by chi square (p =<.01) showed this difference between the NT group and each

of the other study groups was statistically significant when comparing the NT group to the AH

group, 2 (1, N = 444) = 73.174, p =<.001, the SA group,

2 (1, N = 452) = 84.381, p =<.001,

and the ED group, 2 (1, N = 421) = 41.216, p =<.001. The two learner groups selected

conventionally indirect strategies at rates similar to one another, but more frequently than the ED

group. This difference was only statistically significant when comparing the ED and SA groups,

with the SA group using conventionally indirect strategies significantly more than the ED group,

2 (1, N = 525) = 8.892, p =.003.

Direct strategies (e.g., Please help me study for the final test. – SA participant) were the second

most used request strategy type with three study groups: NT (38.60%), AH (9.97%), and SA

(8.36%). Direct strategies were the least used strategy type by the ED group (10.59%). However,

the ED group used direct strategies at comparable rates to both of the learner groups. There were

no statistically significant differences when comparing the ED, AH, and SA groups to one

another. While the NT group used conventionally indirect strategies significantly less than did all

other study groups, it used direct strategies conventionally more than the other three study

groups. This difference was statistically significant when comparing the NT group to the AH

group, 2 (1, N = 159) = 72.089, p =<.001, the SA group,

2 (1, N = 154) = 82.630, p =<.001,

and the ED group, 2 (1, N = 161) = 68.407, p =<.001.

Unconventionally indirect strategies (e.g., I think you forgot my drink. – AH participant) were the

least represented request strategy type in the request head acts of the NT (8.51%), AH (5.92%),

and SA (5.57%) groups. The two learner groups used this directness level slightly less than did

the NT group, and significantly less than did the ED group (12.46%). Analysis using chi square

99

showed that the ED group used unconventionally indirect strategies significantly more than both

the AH group, 2 (1, N = 59) = 8.231, p =.004, and the SA group,

2 (1, N = 58) = 9.322, p

=.002.

Figure 3. Distribution of directness of levels of request strategies.

These findings show a significant difference in the use of directness levels by ED participants

and NT participants. As we have seen, directness is more common in Thai requests than in

English requests. Both groups of learners tended to conform more closely to the norms of ED

participants than the norms of NT participants. However, there were differences between the

learner groups and the ED group, which can be characterized by a reliance on conventionally

indirect strategies and a reluctance to use unconventionally indirect strategies. Perhaps this is due

to the learners’ familiarity with conventionally indirect forms and knowledge that these are the

forms most often used in English. Unconventionally indirect strategies often require a higher

degree of pragmatic knowledge and a greater risk of not being clear in their intended meaning.

While this difference between the learner groups and the ED group was relatively small, it is one

that did not appear to change with the study abroad experience; the learner groups consistently

chose similar directness levels to one another when aggregating the data from all situations and

when controlling for individual social variables.

The relationship between politeness and directness has been a central aspect of studies of speech

acts of requests. To Blum-Kulka (1987), conventional indirectness is the ideal strategy to achieve

politeness by balancing two basic needs: “the need for pragmatic clarity and the need to avoid

38

.60

%

9.9

7%

8.3

6%

10

.59

%

52

.89

%

84

.11

%

86

.07

%

76

.95

%

8.5

1%

5.9

2%

5.5

7%

12

.46

%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

NT AH SA ED

Directness Level

Direct

Conventionally Indirect

Unconventionally Indirect

100

coerciveness” (p. 131). Studies have appeared to support this assertion, widely demonstrating a

preference for conventionally indirect requests by both native English speakers as well as

learners of English (see for example, Barron, 2003; Jones & Halenko, 2014; Otcu & Zeyrek,

2008; Perez i Parent, 2002; Woodfield, 2008). As we have seen, the ED group as well as both

learner groups prefer conventionally indirect requests, which is consistent with the findings of

previous studies. However, studies of other languages besides English challenge the universality

of this convention by demonstrating that the relationship between politeness and indirectness

varies across cultures (see for example, Barron, 2008; Marti, 2005; Ogiermann, 2009b; Yu,

2011). The NT group’s data suggest that this relationship may also be perceived differently by

Thai speakers than by English speakers. Although conventionally indirect strategies made up the

largest proportion of the NT group’s request head acts, this preference was much less

pronounced when compared to that of the ED group. That is, the NT group’s requests tend to be

more direct than the requests of the ED group. Some researchers have argued that the use of

conventionally indirect request strategies is particularly important to English speakers’ efforts to

mitigate a request, whereas other languages value other linguistic devices such as honorifics

(Eslami, Kim, Write, & Burlbaw, 2014) or external modifications (Gu, 2011). As the reader will

recall, a similar assertion has been made about the value placed on honorific pronouns by the NT

group in the previous section about request perspective in this chapter.

5.2.1.2 Direct strategies

Table 9 shows the use of direct strategies by the four study groups. As the table shows, for the

AH, SA, and ED groups, no single direct strategy represented more than 6% of the strategies

used of each respective group. The NT group, however, used mood derivable requests (e.g.,

Please allow me to take this course. – SA participant) and explicit performative requests (e.g., I

ask you to do the housework for me. – AH participant) with greater frequency (14.29% and

19.45%, respectively). Analysis by chi square showed that with mood derivable requests, the

differences between groups do not reach a level of statistical significance. The difference with

explicit performative was more dramatic. Notably, the AH group only used this strategy one time

and it was not used by the SA or ED groups. With explicit performative, the NT group’s more

frequent use was statistically significant when compared to the AH group, 2 (1, N = 65) =

66.144, p =<.001, the SA group, 2 (1, N = 64) = 69.672, p =<.001, and the ED group,

2 (1, N =

64) = 69.264, p =<.001. Expectation statements (e.g., I was really hoping you would consider

101

letting me enroll in your class. – ED participant) were infrequently used by the ED group

(3.12%). However, because this strategy was not used at all by the other study groups, chi square

analysis showed there were significant differences between the ED group and the NT group, 2

(1, N = 10) = 10.409, p =.001, the AH group, 2 (1, N = 10) = 10.158, p =.001, and the SA

group, 2 (1, N = 10) = 10.221, p =.001.

Table 9

Distribution of Direct Strategies Used in All Nine Situations

Strategies NT

(n=329)

AH

(n=321)

SA

(n=323)

ED

(n=321)

Direct strategies 38.60% 9.97% 8.36% 10.59%

Mood derivable 14.29% 5.30% 3.72% 2.8%

Explicit performative 19.45% 0.31% 0 0

Hedged performative 1.22% 0.62% 1.24% 0.62%

Locution derivable 0.30% 0.62% 0.62% 0.93%

Want statement 3.34% 3.12% 2.79% 3.12%

Expectation statement 0 0 0 3.12%

One of the most notable differences between the baseline language groups’ use of direct

strategies revealed by these findings can be seen in the use of explicit performative requests. As

Table 9 shows, this strategy was the most used direct strategy by the NT group and was not used

by the ED group. The fact that explicit performative was not used by the SA group and was used

very infrequently by the AH group suggests that the two learner groups did not transfer the

preference for this strategy from their L1 into their English requests. This can perhaps be

explained in large part by the fact that preparatory requests are prominently featured in the

presentations of requests in commercial English language teaching textbooks while explicit

performative requests are often omitted from the presentation of requests (Akutsu, 2006; Barron,

2016; Usó-Juan, 2008). The use of explicit performative requests in Thai almost always involves

the illocutionary verb ‘kho’ (ขอ), which can be translated into English as illocutionary verbs such

as ‘beg’, ‘ask’, or ‘request’. In a practical sense, translations between Thai and English often use

explicit performative requests containing the illocutionary verb ‘kho’ as a functional equivalent

to English requests using conventionally indirect strategies, such as preparatory requests (see, for

example, Deepadung, 2009; Klinkajorn, 2014).

In addition to explicit performative, expectation statements also highlight an important difference

between the study groups. Unlike explicit performative, however, the data for expectation

statements show a difference between the two learner groups and the ED group, with only the

ED group using this type of direct strategy. This difference can perhaps be explained by the

102

connotation of ‘wang’ (หวง, ‘hope’) in Thai requests. Using the word ‘wang’ in requests in Thai

can covey a strong imposition, especially when the hearer is the one who is expected to perform

a desired action. The ‘hope’ expression, in Thai, is usually used in a context where the speaker

has more power than the hearer and wants to pressure the hearer. Pragmatic transfer of this

concept may explain the absence of expectation statements in the AH and SA groups’ data.

However, it should be noted that expectation statements made up only a small proportion of the

ED data (3.12%) and thus, the absence of this request strategy in the learner data does not

represent a major difference between the learner groups and the ED group.

Both learner groups’ apparent preference for mood derivable requests is consistent with the

observations of Suttipanyo (2007), who observed that Thai learners of English showed a marked

preference for mood derivable requests. All of the mood derivable requests in Suttipanyo’s study

were modified with the politeness marker ‘please’. Similarly, the mood derivable requests in the

current study were frequently modified with ‘please’, as well. The learners’ preference for such

requests could perhaps be explained in part by the fact that they consist of a relatively basic

linguistic form and are clear in meaning. It should also be noted that mood derivable requests

were observed to be much more commonly produced by NT participants than by ED

participants. Thus, L1 transfer, the relative ease of producing the linguistic form, and the clarity

of meaning may all be contributing factors to the learners’ use of mood derivable requests.

5.2.1.3 Conventionally indirect strategies

Table 10 shows the use of conventionally indirect strategies by the four study groups. As can be

seen, preparatory was not only the most used conventionally indirect strategy of each study

group (e.g., Could I take this taxi before you? – AH participant) but was also the most used

strategy of any directness level of each study group. The NT (51.06%) and ED (49.22%) groups

used preparatory requests at very similar rates, in about half of all request head acts. The AH

(76.95%) and SA (71.21%) groups used this strategy considerably more than did the baseline

language groups. Analysis by chi square showed that the difference between the learner groups

was not statistically significant. However, there were statistically significant differences when

comparing the AH group to the NT group, 2 (1, N = 415) = 47.156, p =<.001, and the ED

group, 2 (1, N = 405) = 52.980, p =<.001. Similarly, there were also statistically significant

103

differences when comparing the SA group to the NT group, 2 (1, N = 398) = 27.810, p =<.001,

and the ED group, 2 (1, N = 388) = 32.496, p =<.001.

Table 10

Distribution of Conventionally Indirect Strategies Used in All Nine Situations

Strategies NT (n=329)

AH (n=321)

SA (n=323)

ED (n=321)

Conventionally indirect strategies 52.89% 84.11% 86.07% 76.95%

Suggestory formula 0 0.31% 0 1.25%

Preparatory 51.06% 76.95% 71.21% 49.22%

Mitigated preparatory 1.82% 6.23% 9.91% 24.30%

Mitigated wants 0 0.62% 4.95% 2.18%

Mitigated preparatory was the second most used conventionally indirect strategy by every study

group (e.g., Is there any way I can still enroll even though I missed the official enrollment

period? – ED participant). However, there were notable differences between the study groups.

This strategy was used considerably more by the ED group (24.30%) than it was by any other

group. Analysis by chi square showed the difference was statistically significant when

comparing the ED group to the NT group, 2 (1, N = 84) = 72.934, p =<.001, the AH group,

2

(1, N = 98) = 40.510, p =<.001, and the SA group, 2 (1, N = 110) = 23.545, p =<.001. The SA

group used mitigated preparatory the second most (9.91%), but there was not a statistically

significant difference when compared to the AH group. However, there was a statistically

significant difference when comparing the SA group to the NT group, 2 (1, N = 38) = 19.404, p

=<.001. The NT group used mitigated preparatory the least, and the difference was also

significant when compared to the AH group, 2 (1, N = 26) = 8.217, p =<.001.

The remaining conventionally indirect strategies, suggestory formula (e.g., Why don’t you do

housework instead of me when I am on my trip? – AH participant) and mitigated wants (e.g., I

would appreciate if you could let me take this taxi. – SA participant), were used either

infrequently or not at all by every study group. The NT group did not use mitigated want

statements at all, which was significantly different when compared to the SA group, 2 (1, N =

16) = 16.707, p =<.001, and the ED group, 2 (1, N = 7) = 7.253, p =.007. The SA group (4.95%)

used the mitigated want strategy the most frequently out of the four study groups. In addition to

the statistically significant difference with the NT group, there was also a statistically significant

difference between the SA and AH groups, 2 (1, N = 18) = 11.113, p =.001. There were no

statistically significant differences between study groups with the use of suggestory formula.

104

The main difference between the Thai and English baseline language groups’ use of

conventionally indirect strategies was that the NT participants used the preparatory strategy

nearly exclusively while the ED group used a mix of preparatory and mitigated preparatory.

Mitigated preparatory is distinguished from preparatory by the positioning of the requestive verb

in embedded structures. While this type of embedded structure is possible in Thai language, it is

not as common as it is in English (see examples 14-16).

(14) ไมทราบวาผมจะขอขนรถแทกซคนนไปกอนไดไหมครบ

mai sap wa phom cha kho khuen rot thaeksi khan ni pai kon dai mai khrap

not know that I will ask get in car taxi (classifier) this go before can (question

particle) (polite particle) (NT, situation 2)

(15) Would you mind if I grab this taxi first? (ED, situation 2)

(16) Is there any way I could get in that taxi? (ED, situation 2)

Despite the fact that conventionally indirect strategies made up comparable proportions of the

AH and SA groups’ requests, a closer look at the selection of particular types of conventionally

indirect strategies shows variation between the two learner groups. With the data combined from

all nine situations, as well as most of the aggregated data controlling for the social variables, the

SA group consistently showed more use of mitigated preparatory requests than did the AH

group. The pattern may suggest some pragmatic development toward the norms of ED

participants for learners with study abroad experience, although the difference is not a substantial

one.

As we have seen, other types of conventionally indirect requests besides preparatory were very

uncommon in the requests of the NT group. This may be a contributing factor in the learner

groups’ preference for preparatory requests. Thai and English preparatory requests also share

some common grammatical elements, which may facilitate positive L1 transfer and, in turn,

explain the learners’ preference for this request strategy. In Thai, the grammatical construction of

preparatory requests is quite different from English in some ways, such as word order, but it

shares some common aspects which can be translatable to English, namely the use of the modal

verb ‘dai’ (ได), which can be translated as ‘can’ (see example 17).

105

(17) นองขยบนดนงไดไหม

nong khayap nit nueng dai mai

younger sibling move tiny one can (question particle) (NT, situation 2)

Other factors that are likely to contribute to the learners’ preference for preparatory requests

include the fact that these requests are easier to produce grammatically and more familiar to the

learners from English language teaching textbooks, which commonly use the preparatory forms

of ‘Can you…?’ and ‘Could you…?’ in instruction related to requests (Akutsu, 2006; Barron,

2016; Usó-Juan, 2008). Mitigating these requests by using embedded structures involves more

complex grammatical structures that require changing the word order to create noun phrases in

forming questions. In general, for study abroad learners, who have significantly more experience

outside of the classroom interacting with English dominant speakers than do non-study-abroad

learners, this type of mitigation may become more familiar and less challenging to some extent.

However, while the data show some development by the SA group in the use of preparatory and

mitigated preparatory requests, this development appears to be minimal.

5.2.1.4 Unconventionally indirect strategies

Table 11 captures the use of unconventionally indirect strategies by the four study groups. As

shown, both types of unconventionally indirect strategies, which are mild hints (Sorry. [Intent: to

get the hearer to move inside the train] – SA participant) and strong hints (I ordered a beer a

little earlier. [Intent: to get the hearer to bring a drink that had been ordered] – ED participant),

were infrequently used by every study group. Between the two, strong hints were more common

and ranged from 4.33% (SA) to 10.59% (ED) of request head acts between study groups. Mild

hints were used the most by the ED group, but represented only 1.87% of its request head acts.

Analysis by chi square showed no significant differences between all study groups’ use of either

strong hints or mild hints.

Table 11

Distribution of Unconventionally Indirect Strategies Used in All Nine Situations

Strategies NT (n=329)

AH (n=321)

SA (n=323)

ED (n=321)

Unconventionally indirect strategies 8.51% 5.92% 5.57% 12.46%

Strong hints 7.90% 4.67% 4.33% 10.59%

Mild hints 0.61% 1.25% 1.24% 1.87%

The majority of unconventionally indirect requests, which were nearly exclusively comprised of

strong hints, came in situation 6 (asking for an ordered drink). In this situation, both baseline

106

language groups (NT and ED) used strong hints nearly twice as often as did the learner groups.

The strong hints from all study groups generally consisted of a reference to the desired object, a

drink, without referring specifically to the action the speaker desired for the hearer to perform

(see examples 18-19). Because of the context in which the role of the hearer is fixed and limited,

a reference to the object desired would be unambiguous and understood as a request for the

hearer to bring the drink. Still, consistent with previous observations of L2 learners’ preference

for clarity (Kasper 1982), the learner groups used this request strategy much less frequently than

did those performing the request using their L1. Instead, the learner groups opted for the

conventionally indirect strategy of preparatory requests (see examples 20-21).

(18) พยงไมไดน าอะครบ

phi yang mai dai nam a khrap

older sibling still not receive water (interjection) (polite particle) (NT, situation 6)

(19) I ordered a beer a little earlier. (ED, situation 6)

(20) Could I have a drink now? (SA, situation 6)

(21) Can you bring my drink for me as soon as possible please? (AH, situation 6)

Mild hints were used only in one situation, situation 3 (asking to get on the train). Mild hint

requests used in this situation were observed in the form of brief formulaic apologies, such as

‘excuse me’ and ‘sorry’. This type of request was observed with all four study groups in this

situation. The brief utterances coded as mild hints were coded as such because they do not refer

to the requested action itself. However, with the context of the situation, the meaning of the mild

hint would be transparent to the hearer. In both Thai and English, this type of brief, formulaic

apology would be generally used to ask someone to make room or allow the speaker to pass (see

examples 22-23). The context of this situation also necessitates a brief request because of the

short period of time available while the subway door is open for the speaker to enter.

(22) ขอโทษนะคะ kho thot na kha

ask blame (particle) (polite particle) (NT, situation 3)

(23) Excuse me. (SA, situation 3)

107


Figure 4 captures the effect of relative power on the request strategies and levels of directness

employed across the four study groups. As can be seen, when controlling for the social variable

of relative power, the learner groups’ (SA and AH) choices of request strategies were very

similar to one another.

Across all strategy types and directness levels, and when controlling for each of the three relative

power types, there was only one statistically significant difference between the two learner

groups: in low-high situations, the SA group used mitigated want statements more than did the

AH group, 2 (1, N = 8) = 8.077, p =.007. Compared to the norms of the target language, as

represented by the ED group, both learner groups’ request strategy choices in terms of directness

levels were affected in comparable ways by the social variable of relative power. All three

groups used direct strategies slightly less in equal power situations than they did in low-high and

high-low situations. Unconventionally indirect requests were found mostly in high-low requests

by these three groups as well. Conventionally indirect strategies were favored in each of the three

relative power type by both learner groups and the ED group.

The NT group appears to have been more greatly influenced by the social variable of relative

power when compared to the other three study groups. High-low situations in particular offer a

contrast between the NT group and the other groups. The learner groups and the ED group used

conventionally indirect strategies slightly less in high-low situations than they did in low-high or

equal power situations. The NT group, however, used considerably fewer conventionally indirect

strategies (25%) in high-low situations, instead preferring direct strategies (58.04%) and in

particular, mood derivable (29.46%) and explicit performative (28.57%).

108

Figure 4. Distribution of request strategies used in situations controlling for relative power.

Preparatory was the preferred strategy of the AH, SA, and ED groups across all three relative

power types. Although the learner groups consistently used this strategy more frequently than did

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

NT AH SA ED NT AH SA ED NT AH SA ED

High-low Equal Low-high

Direct Strategies

Expectation statement

Want statement

Locution derivable

Hedged performative

Explicit performative

Mood derivable

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Conventionally Indirect Strategies

Mitigated wants

Mitigated preparatory

Preparatory

Suggestory formula

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%



Unconventionally Indirect Strategies

Mild hints

Strong hints

109

the ED group, all three groups were similar in that the effect of relative power appears to have

been minimal on the selection of this strategy. The use of mitigated preparatory, overall, the

second most used request strategy by these three groups, was more greatly affected by the social

variable of relative power. This was especially the case for the ED group, which used the

mitigated preparatory strategy in only 8.33% of request head acts in high-low situations but

42.72% of request head acts in equal power situations. While the two learner groups also used

this strategy less frequently in high-low situations than in low-high and equal power situations,

their use did not vary to the same degree as that of the ED group between relative power types,

ranging only from 0.98% (high-low) to 13.16% (low-high) with the AH group and 0% (high-

low) to 16.67% (equal power) with the SA group.

When controlling for the social variable of relative power, a trend emerged in which the NT

participants used direct strategies most frequently when requesting down (high-low) and least

frequently when requesting up (low-high). However, the learner groups do not appear to have

transferred this norm of their L1 to their English requests. Instead, like the ED group, both

learner groups preferred conventionally indirect strategies by a wide margin compared to direct

strategies in high-low situations. This contradicts the results observed by Suttipanyo (2007),

which showed Thai learners of English opting for more direct strategies in high-low situations

when compared to native English speakers, a result that Suttipanyo attributed to L1 transfer.

However, these contradicting results might be explained by the design of Suttipanyo’s high-low

situations, in which students were asked to take on the role of a professor making a request to a

student, and thus, students were asked to imagine what a professor would say rather than draw

from their own experience with making requests. The students’ idea of how a professor would

make a request might not accurately reflect how these requests would be realized in practice nor

reflect how the students would genuinely make requests in the types of high-low situations they

normally experienced.

It was found that most of the ED participants’ use of conventionally indirect strategies was

characterized by greater use of preparatory requests in high-low situations compared to low-high

and equal situations. The ED group tended to use more mitigated preparatory requests in low-

high and equal power situations, with both learner groups following this same trend. However,

the SA group used mitigated preparatory requests more often than did the AH group in equal

power situations, suggesting some development toward the ED norms with greater exposure to

110

the target language environment. It is also noteworthy that the SA group used more mitigated

want requests in low-high and equal situations than did any other group. This is perhaps the

result of the SA learners’ raised awareness of how the mitigating structures that are present in

mitigated preparatory and mitigated want requests are implemented by English speakers, or

perhaps a result of improved proficiency or confidence in using the more complex grammatical

structures found in mitigated preparatory and mitigated want requests. The notion that familiarity

with these linguistic forms and proficiency are necessary for learners of English to produce these

forms is supported by Taguchi (2006), whose study involving the requests of Japanese EFL

learners showed that mitigated preparatory and mitigated want strategies were not observed in

the data of either low or high proficiency learners. Taguchi attributed these results to the

learners’ lack of familiarity with these forms and lack of the proficiency necessary to form these

complex structures, which the author argued would be difficult even for high proficiency

learners. Studying abroad perhaps contributed to the SA group participants’ exposure to these

forms as well as the development of the general linguistic proficiency needed to produce these

forms.

The small number of direct requests made it somewhat difficult to identify patterns with a

reasonable degree of confidence when controlling for relative power. The aggregated data

controlling for equal power, for example, show that the groups using the English language EDCT

(AH, SA, and ED) used direct strategies in no more than 6% of request head acts. One exception

to the generally low number of direct requests when controlling for relative power can be seen in

the data of the ED group when controlling for low-high situations. With low-high situations, the

ED group used direct strategies in 17.27% of request head acts, and among these direct strategies

they preferred expectation statements (see example 24). Most of these requests came from the

two situations involving requests to professors, and as previously mentioned, this type of request

may be seen as inappropriate in Thai. The two groups of Thai learners of English did not use

expectations statements at all, which may reflect this norm of their L1.

(24) I was hoping you would allow me to study in this module. (ED, situation 1)

Unconventionally indirect requests were so infrequently used that dividing the data into the

aggregated data sets controlling for relative power resulted in a very low number of

unconventionally indirect requests in each relative power type. Therefore, it was not possible to

111

identify with any degree of certainty any patterns of the groups’ use of unconventionally indirect

strategies in this data controlling for relative power.


Figure 5, which is arranged according to directness level, captures the effect of social distance on

the strategies employed across the four study groups. As was the case when controlling for the

social variable of relative power, the data in this figure controlling for social distance also

showed that the two learner groups’ choices of request strategies were quite similar to one

another. Analysis by chi square showed that there were no statistically significant differences

between the AH and SA groups in their use of directness levels or any individual strategy across

all three levels of social distance. The directness levels of the requests by the ED group were

quite similar to those of both learner groups in close and stranger situations. These similarities

were confirmed by chi square analysis, which showed no statistically significant differences

between the ED group and learner groups in the directness level for close and stranger situations.

However, in situations involving acquaintances, the ED group used relatively fewer

conventionally indirect and more unconventionally indirect requests. The less frequent use of

conventionally indirect strategies by the ED group was statistically significant when compared to

the SA group, 2 (1, N = 164) = 8.960, p =.003. The ED group’s greater use of unconventionally

indirect strategies was statistically significant when compared to both the AH group, 2 (1, N =

33) = 11.707, p =.001, and the SA group, 2 (1, N = 34) = 10.235, p =.001.

The variable of social distance appears to have had a greater influence on the ED group’s use of

preparatory than it did on that of other study groups. In situations involving acquaintances, the

ED group used preparatory much less frequently than in other social distance types, in only

22.62% of its total request head acts. In situations involving close social relationships, however,

the ED group used preparatory in 58.72% of its request head acts. By contrast, the learner

groups’ use of preparatory did not vary much across the three social distance levels, with the AH

group’s use of preparatory ranging only from 74.77% (stranger) to 79.61% (close) and the SA

group’s use ranging from 65.74% (stranger) to 79.81% (close).

112

Figure 5. Distribution of request strategies used in situations controlling for social distance.

Social distance does not appear to be a strong factor in the choice of conventionally indirect

strategies for the learner groups, which is a contrast to the ED group. This difference between the

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%


Close relationship Acquaintances Strangers

Direct Strategies

Expectation statement

Want statement

Locution derivable

Hedged performative

Explicit performative

Mood derivable

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Conventionally Indirect Strategies

Mitigated wants

Mitigated preparatory

Preparatory

Suggestory formula

0%

10%

20%

30%

NT AH SA EDS NT AH SA ED NT AH SA EDS


Unconventionally Indirect Strategies

Mild hints

Strong hints

113

learner groups and ED group may reflect the learners’ reliance on a familiar request form,

preparatory, while the ED participants were able to use other available types of conventionally

indirect strategies, such as mitigated preparatory. Similar to the aggregated results for relative

power, it appears that the SA group may show some development in the use of mitigated

preparatory when compared to the AH group, using this strategy slightly more than the AH

group in each of the three social distance types.

As we have seen, three groups using the English EDCT (AH, SA, and ED) used direct strategies

somewhat infrequently. When dividing the data into aggregated data sets to control for social

distance, the number of requests was very low for each social distance type with these groups.

Therefore, determining any patterns that might relate to this social variable was not feasible. The

same can be said for unconventionally indirect requests, which were used very infrequently by

every study group; the low number of requests makes it difficult to identify with any reasonable

degree of certainty any patterns when controlling for social distance.

5.3 Internal modifications

5.3.1 Choice of internal modifications

As can be seen in Figure 6, which shows the use of internal modifications by type across all

study groups, the ED group used internal modifications the most frequently (M = 2.88), followed

by the SA (M = 2.31), NT (M = 2.19), and AH (M = 1.96) groups. Inferential statistical analysis

by Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn’s tests (p =<.01) showed that the ED group used internal

modifications significantly more than did the other three study groups (p =<.001). Other

statistically significant differences were observed when comparing the NT and SA group, with

the SA group using significantly more internal modifications than did the NT group (p =<.001).

As the reader will recall from the description of the coding methods presented in Chapter 4,

internal modifications can be subdivided into three general categories: syntactic downgraders,

lexical/phrasal downgraders, and upgraders. Among these categories, the greatest differences

between groups were observed with syntactic downgraders. The baseline language groups

represented the extremes in terms of the average number of syntactic downgraders per head act,

with the ED group using 1.97 syntactic downgraders per head act and the NT group using 0.65

syntactic downgraders per head act. In between these extremes were the two learner groups, with

114

the AH group using 1.38 syntactic downgraders per head act and the SA group using 1.55. The

difference between the AH and SA groups was not statistically significant. However, the ED

group was observed to use syntactic downgraders significantly more than did every other group

(p =<.001) and the NT group was observed to use syntactic downgraders significantly less than

did every other study group (p =<.001).

Figure 6. Mean number of internal modification types used per head act.

Taken together, these findings reveal two general patterns relevant to this study’s research

questions. First, the findings that the NT group used considerably fewer internal modifications

(and in particular, syntactic downgraders) when compared to the ED group points to a

fundamental difference between the learners’ L1 and target language in terms of how request

head acts are mitigated. Second, the data reveal a trend in which the SA group consistently

conforms more closely to the norms of the ED group in terms of the frequencies of internal

modifications in general as well as specific types of modifications, which suggests the SA

group’s pragmatic development was positively affected by their experience studying abroad.

These findings are also consistent with previous ILP research that has shown learners of English

from various linguistic backgrounds tend to use fewer internal request modifications than native

English speakers (e.g., Chen, 2001; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2009; Fearch & Kasper, 1989; Göy,

Zeyrek, & Otcu, 2012; Hill, 1997; Hendriks, 2008; Najafabadi & Paramasivam, 2012; Otcu &

Zeyrek, 2008; Trosborg, 1995). Because internal modifications represent a wide range of

syntactic and lexical forms, the factors influencing the learners’ choices and development are

complex and varied. In order to understand the underlying factors that contribute to these

patterns, one needs to consider how the use of individual internal modification types are affected

by factors such as L1 transfer, fundamental syntactic and lexical differences between Thai and

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

NT AH SA ED

Internal Modifications

Syntactic downgraders

Phrasal and lexical downgraders

Upgraders

115

English, explicit instruction in English classes, and the grammatical complexity of certain

linguistic forms.

While the NT group used fewer syntactic downgraders than did every other study group, this

group used significantly more lexical/phrasal downgraders than did every other study group (p

=<.001), with 1.54 lexical/phrasal downgraders per head act. The AH group (M = 0.55) used

lexical/phrasal downgraders significantly less than did the ED and NT groups (p =<.001).

Upgraders were not used by the NT group and were very infrequently used by the other three

study groups. The greatest average number of lexical/phrasal upgraders per head act was

observed with the SA group, which used 0.04 lexical/phrasal upgraders per head act. The SA

group used lexical/phrasal upgraders significantly more often than did the NT group (p =.001).

5.3.1.1 Syntactic downgraders

Interrogative (e.g., Can I use your phone? – AH participant) was the most used type of syntactic

downgrader by every study group. However, the data reveal differences between the study

groups in the use of interrogative modifications. The learner groups used this type of

modification the most and at similar rates to one another. This was followed by the ED group,

which used interrogative modifications significantly less than the AH group (p =.003). The NT

group used interrogatives the least often, and when compared to the other three study groups, this

difference was statistically significant (p =<.001).

Three syntactic downgrader types – aspect (e.g., I’m wondering if we can look at my exam

together – AH participant), tense (e.g., I wanted to ask if you could go over what Professor

Sirima covered last week. – ED participant), and modal tense (e.g., Could you please allow me to

take this course – SA participant) – are not syntactic features of the Thai language and thus, were

not observed in the NT group’s requests. All three of these modification types were used the

most by the ED group. Modal tense was the second-most used syntactic downgrader by the

English EDCT groups (AH, SA, and ED), with the ED group (M = 0.62) using this type of

modification the most frequently. The difference was significant when comparing the ED group

to every other study group (p =<.001). The learner groups used modal tense modifications at

rates similar to one another, but significantly more than the NT group (p =<.001). Tense and

aspect modifications were both used significantly more frequently by the ED group than by the

other three study groups (p =<.001).

116

Embedded modifications (e.g., Could you explain why I had such a low grade? – ED participant)

were also used most often by the ESD group, with 0.27 embedded modifications per head act.

The difference was statistically significant when comparing the ED group’s rate of embedded

modifications per head act with those of the other three study groups (p =<.001). The NT group

(M = 0.09) used this modification type the least, which was significantly less than the use of the

SA group (p =.003).

The NT group also used conditional clauses (e.g., I would be deeply grateful to you if you would

allow me to take your course. –EDS participant) the least often. Statistical analysis showed that

this difference was statistically significant when compared to the SA (p =.001) and ED (p =.007)

groups. Passive voice modifications (e.g., Is there any way I could be added to the class? – ED

participant) were not used by the NT or AH groups and were very infrequently used by the SA

and ED groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the study groups in

their use of passive voice modifications.

The absence of some syntactic features in Thai is one of the factors that contributed to the

comparatively fewer number of syntactic downgraders observed in the NT group’s requests. The

difference in the use of syntactic downgraders is particularly evident between the NT and ED

groups. All seven types of syntactic downgraders identified in this study were found in the

English data (see Figure 7). However, because the Thai language has no verb inflection, three

types of syntactic downgraders – aspect, tense, and modal tense – were not possible in the Thai

language responses of the NT group. This difference between Thai and English grammar can

present challenges to Thai learners of English. Both groups of learners used syntactic

downgraders less frequently than did the ED group. However, the learners demonstrated some

pragmatic development in the L2, as can be seen from the increase of their use of syntactic

downgraders, which moved away from the NT group’s norm. In particular, when comparing the

learner groups, the SA group conformed more closely to the norms of the ED group than did the

AH group. Although the difference in the overall rates of syntactic downgraders use between the

learner groups did not reach a level of statistical significance, a pattern that suggests the

development of the SA learners’ pragmatic competence was observed not only with syntactic

downgraders in general, but also with all seven types of syntactic downgrader. Also contributing

to this pattern is the fact that two types of syntactic downgraders, tense and passive voice, were

used by the ED and SA groups and were not used at all by AH group.

117

Figure 7. Mean number of syntactic downgrader types used per head act.

It is notable that although the two learner groups used fewer syntactic downgraders as a whole

compared to the ED group, both learner groups used one syntactic downgrader type,

interrogatives, significantly more frequently than did the ED group. Considering that the average

number of interrogative modifications per head act used by the NT group was the lowest among

all study groups, it can be inferred that the AH and SA’s preference for interrogative was not

affected by their L1. This preference might alternatively be explained by explicit instruction of

English requests, in which the fixed expressions taught to students on how make requests were

often in a question form. Studies by Akutsu (2006), Barron (2016), and Usó-Juan (2008)

reported that the preparatory request strategy using interrogative forms is one of two request

strategies (along with mood derivable) to dominate the presentation of requests in commercial

English language teaching textbooks aimed at learners at a range of proficiency levels. The focus

in Thai classrooms on the interrogative forms of requests using ‘Can I/you’ and ‘Could I/you’

was also reported by participants in the interviews conducted in this study.

Interrogative forms were a more common feature of the learners’ requests than those of the ED

group, but the learners tended to use less complex structures that contained fewer additional

syntactic modifications compared to the interrogative requests of the ED group. In other words,

the AH and SA groups tended to use direct questions or simple sentences while the ED group

used indirect questions or complex sentences containing other types of syntactic downgraders,

such as embedded or conditional structures (see examples 25-28). This is consistent with

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

NT AH SA ED

Syntactic Downgraders

Passives

Embedded

Conditional clauses

Modal tenses

Tenses

Aspects

Interrogatives

118

Suttipanyo’s (2007) observation that American native speakers of English used more varied and

complex interrogative forms compared to Thai learners of English, who tended to use simple

modal interrogative forms, such as ‘Can I/you’ and ‘Could I/you’. The results of this study

showed that this difference between the two learner groups and the ED group was less

pronounced in the requests of the SA group; the SA group showed more similarity to the ED

group’s norms than did the AH group both in terms of the number and variety of syntactic

modifications that were applied to their interrogative requests. This suggests that although the

SA learners were limited by their linguistic proficiency in using complex sentences, they were

conscious of the need to mitigate the impositive force of their requests and thus made use of

other internal modifications, such as the use of the modal verbs ‘could’ or ‘would’, or

consultative devices that can soften their requests in the interrogative form.

(25) Is there any way you could please accept me into the course? (ED, situation 1)

(26) …do you think I could ask you a few questions about class sometime before the exam?

(ED, situation 8)

(27) Can you allow me to take this course…? (AH, situation 1)

(28) Is it possible for me to enrollment at this time? (SA, situation 1)

In addition to using embedded structures at higher frequencies, the ED group also used a greater

variety of introductory phrases with embedded structures compared to the NT group (see

examples 29-30). For example, the ED data included phrases such as ‘Is there any way/ chance/

possibility’, ‘I was wondering if’, ‘do you think’, or ‘I hope that’. The data suggest learners with

study abroad experience were better able to approximate the ED group’s norms both in terms of

frequency and the variety of linguistic forms used to introduce embedded structures (see example

31). AH group participants, on the other hand, tended to be more limited to introducing

embedded structures with the phrases ‘I would like to know/ask…’ (see example 32).

(29) Is there any way I can still get into the course? (ED, situation 1)

(30) ไมทราบวาอาจารยจะอนญาตใหหนลงทะเบยนไดไหมคะ mai sap wa achan cha anuyat hai nu long thabian dai mai kha

not know that professor will permit for me enroll can (question particle) (polite


119

(31) I was wondering whether it’s possible for me to take this course now. (SA, situation

1)

(32) I would like to know the reason why I got a low grade for this exam. (AH, situation

4)

Conditional clauses are similar to embedded structures in that they too create a more

grammatically complex request by embedding the requestive verb in a subordinate clause rather

than using it as the main verb of the head act. This grammatical feature exists in both Thai and

English and was used by all study groups with a relatively similar average number per head act.

Although there was less variability between groups in the frequency of conditional clauses, the

general pattern observed in other syntactic downgrader types also held true with conditional

clauses, with the SA group conforming more closely than the AH group to the ED norms. The

collected data also reveal a significant difference between how conditional clauses are formed in

Thai and English requests. In English requests, conditional clauses typically contain the

requestive verb while the main clause conveys a hypothetical result of thanks or appreciation

(e.g., if you do the action, I will be thankful) (see example 33). In Thai requests, the conditional

clause often contains the illocutionary verb ‘kho’ (ขอ, ‘ask’), with the main clause containing the

requestive verb (e.g., if I ask you, will you do the action) (see example 34). As a result, the

hypothetical condition conveyed in Thai requests reflects the action of asking while that of

English requests relates to the requested action. In terms of the grammar and sentence structure,

the difference is subtle; however, the potential impact and appropriateness of the request would

be quite different in the respective languages. It is somewhat surprising that there was no

evidence of L1 transfer of the Thai formulation of conditional clauses in the requests of the SA

and AH groups. What may explain the learners’ recognition of the differences between their L1

and English could be the formulaic nature of these requests and the fact that conditional clauses

used in English requests are used frequently enough to be observed in media and perhaps

conversations outside of the classroom (see examples 35-36, showing the AH and SA groups’

uses of conditional clause modifications).

(33) I would be deeply grateful to you if you would allow me to take your course. (ED,

situation 1)

(34) ถาหนอยากขอใหอาจารยลองดขอสอบหนใหมไดไหมอะคะ tha nu yak kho hai achan long du kho sop nu mai dai mai a kha

120

if I want ask for professor try look exam again can (question particle) (interjection)

(polite particle) (NT, situation 4)

(35) If you let me grab this taxi, I will be so thankful. (AH, situation 2)

(36) It would highly appreciate [sic] if you could allow me to enroll this course. (SA, situation

4)

As we have seen, modal tense was the second most used type of syntactic modifications for the

groups using the English EDCT (AH, SA, and ED). While modal tense is a common

grammatical feature in English, it does not exist in Thai. Therefore, for Thai learners of English,

the use of modal tense modifications represents not only a pragmatic difference between English

and their L1, but also a linguistic difference. In a study of Chinese learners of English, whose L1

also has no tense marking for modals, Lin (2009) observed that higher proficiency learners used

modal tense modifications more frequently than did lower proficiency learners, which

demonstrated development toward the norms of native English speakers. Similar to Lin’s results,

the data from the present study showed that the learner groups underused modal tense compared

to the ED group. The SA group, presumably the more proficient of the two learner groups, used

more modal tense modifications than did the AH group, although this difference did not reach a

level of statistical significance. Linguistically, the learners demonstrated a greater understanding

and ability to use the modal verbs ‘could’ and ‘would’, which are typically used to refer to past

events but refer to the present when used in a request. Pragmatically, the learners understood that

using modal verbs such as ‘could’ and ‘would’ can make a request more polite (see examples 37-

39). This is likely influenced by explicit instruction in the learners’ English classes. However,

the use of modals by the SA learners were found to be different than that of the AH learners to

some extent as the SA group showed more preference for the modal verb ‘would’ than did the

AH group. In addition to the higher frequency of the modal verb ‘would’, this modal verb was

also used in a greater variety of situations by the SA learners while the AH group did not use

‘would’ at all in some situations. This points to the possible development of the SA learners

toward the ED norms in the use the modal tense modifications. In the situations in which the ED

and SA groups tended to use the modal verb ‘would’, the AH learners appear to use ‘can’, which

does not have the same mitigating effect as ‘would’ or ‘could’.

(37) Would that be possible if you could allow me to register the course? (SA, situation 1)

(38) Could you please let me go first? (SA, situation 2)

121

(39) Can I use your cell phone for a short call? (AH, situation 5)

Tense modifications are another type of syntactic modification that has similar characteristics to

modal tense, as both types of modifications involve shifting the form of a present tense verb to a

past tense verb. Using past tense in a request does not signify past action but instead signifies

counterfactuality or hypotheticality and thus, this verb tense shift softens a request. Like modal

tense, this syntactic feature does not exist in the Thai language. In accordance with expectations,

based on the absence of this feature in the learner groups’ L1, the ED group used tense

modifications considerably more than did the learner groups (see examples 40-41). There was

minimal implementation of this modification by the SA group, and the AH group did not use it at

all (see example 42, showing the SA group using a tense modification). The fact that tense was

used by the SA learners, even though there were fewer instances than were observed with the ED

group, suggests that learners acquired this knowledge through living in the L2 environment. In

addition, it is noteworthy that tense modifications were nearly always directly connected to other

syntactic modifications, namely aspect and modal tense, which increases the grammatical

complexity of using this type of syntactic downgrader. This would perhaps have a discouraging

influence on the choices of lower proficiency learners in particular.

(40) Would you mind if I took this taxi first? (ED, situation 2)

(41) I was hoping that you might reconsider my exam. (ED, situation 4)

(42) I was wondering if it is still possible for me to enroll this course. (SA, situation 1)

As the reader will recall from the description of internal modifications presented in Chapter 4,

aspect refers to using progressive tense as a mitigating device when it is possible to use a simple

tense. From the collected data of the SA and ED groups, this type of syntactic modification

normally occurred with the use of tense modifications where the auxiliary verb ‘be’ is shifted

from present tense to past tense. However, all of the AH group’s uses of aspect were expressed

in present tense (see example 43, showing the AH group’s use of an aspect modification, and 44,

showing the SA group’s use of an aspect modification). The AH group’s use of aspect in this

way might be explained by the absence of aspect and tense as features in their L1 as well as the

absence these modifications in formal instruction on requests in their English classes. Barron

(2016) observed in a survey of a commercial textbook series that initially, in lower proficiency

level textbooks, no syntactic downgraders are presented in examples of requests, while the

122

syntactic modifications presented to more advanced students are limited in scope and do not

include tense or aspect. Similarly, surveys of commercial textbooks by Akutsu (2006) and Usó-

Juan (2008) reported a variety of linguistic forms are used when presenting requests, but

progressive and past tenses in requests were not reported in either of these studies. If the use of

progressive or past verb tenses is not normally explicitly taught to students in English class, the

fact that SA learners demonstrated development towards the ED norms could relate to their

experience living in the L2 environment. The SA learners demonstrated their understanding that

the use of the past progressive forms of an auxiliary verb does not signify past actions, but rather

is a way of making a request more polite.

(43) Do you mind if I am asking you for taking this taxi [sic]? (AH, situation 2)

(44) I was wondering whether it’s possible for me to take this course now. (SA, situation 1)

Although passive voice exists in both Thai and English, this syntactic modification was not used

at all by the NT group. This can be explained by the way passive voice is used in Thai, which is

more restrictive and typically used only when reporting unpleasant or unwanted circumstances

(Smyth, 2002). Interestingly, all of the passive voice structures used by the ED group were found

only in situation 1 (asking a professor for late enrollment) and they were used in a way that is

consistent with Blum-Kalka et al.’s (1989) description in the CCSARP coding manual: passive

voice can be used to avoid naming the hearer which consequently minimizes the impositive force

put on the hearer (see example 45). Although the use of passive voice was observed in the SA

participants’ responses, it was not used to deemphasize the hearer as the agent in the same way

as it was in the requests of ED participants (see example 46). Rather, the SA group used it with

clauses that reflected their feelings of appreciation. This could be caused by a generalization of

English grammar.

(45) If there is any way an exception could be made, I would greatly appreciate it. (ED,

situation 1)

(46) It would be greatly appreciated if you could help me take the course. (SA, situation 1)

5.3.1.2 Lexical/phrasal downgraders

As we have seen, syntactic downgraders appear to be a more important feature of English

requests compared to Thai requests, which can be explained to some extent by the absence of

123

several syntactic features in Thai that exist in English. With lexical/phrasal downgraders, the

converse is true; the most frequently observed type of lexical/phrasal downgrader in Thai

requests, polite particles, have no analogous feature in English. This can, to some extent, explain

why lexical/phrasal downgraders were more frequently used by the NT group compared to the

three groups completing the English EDCT. The learner groups’ data do not appear to reflect a

pattern of L1 transfer. Rather, the fact that Thai and English users utilize lexical/phrasal

downgraders so differently might contribute to the learners’ awareness of ED norms and the

learners’ ability to approximate these norms in their own requests. This development appears to

have been aided by the study abroad experience. When comparing the two learner groups’ use of

lexical/phrasal downgraders, the SA group showed more similarity to patterns observed in the

requests of the ED group.

Figure 8 illustrates the various lexical/phrasal downgraders used by each study group. This

shows the two learner groups used politeness markers more than any other modification type.

The NT group used politeness markers at similar rates to both the AH and SA groups, while the

ED group used this modification type significantly less frequently than did the NT (p =.001), AH

(p =.001), and SA (p =<.001) groups. The NT favored polite particles (e.g., Khaw kheun kawn

dai mai kha [ขอขนแทกซคนนไปกอนไดไหมคะ, beg board taxi car this before can PART PART/Can I

ask you to go first?] – NT participant), using 0.52 polite particles per head act, which was

significantly more when compared to the other three study groups (p =<.001). Polite particles are

not a lexical feature of English and thus, this modification type was not observed in the English

EDCT data. Consultative devices (e.g., Would you mind if I get this taxi first? – AH particpant)

were most frequently used lexical/phrasal downgrader by the ED group (M = 0.27). The ED

group used consultative devices significantly more than did the other three study groups (p

=<.001). After the ED group, the most frequent use of consultative devices came from the SA

group, which used 0.17 consultative devices per head act. The only statistically significant

difference of any internal modification when comparing the AH and SA groups came with

consultative devices, with the SA group using this type of modification significantly more

frequently than the AH group (p =.004). The SA group also used consultative devices

significantly more frequently than did the NT group (p =<.001). The AH group also used this

modification type significantly more than the NT group (p =.003).

124

Figure 8. Mean number of lexical/phrasal downgrader types used per head act.

Understaters (e.g., Could you please move inside a little bit? – SA participant) and appealers

(e.g., Phom khaw keun taeksee khan nee na khrap [ผมขอขนแทกซคนนนะครบ, I beg board taxi car this

PART PART/I’m asking to use this taxi, OK? – NT participant) were both types of

lexical/phrasal downgraders that were used much more often by the NT group than by the other

three study groups. The NT group used 0.41 understaters per head act, which was significantly

more than the other three study groups (p =<.001). Appealers were also used significantly more

often by the NT group when compared to the other three study groups (p =<.001), with the NT

group using 0.26 appealers per head act. Appealers were not observed in the data of the AH, SA,

or ED groups.

The remaining lexical/phrasal downgrader types were either infrequently used or absent in the

head acts of the NT, AH, and SA groups, and were used the most frequently by the ED group.

The ED group used hedges (e.g., When you have a chance, can I have a glass of water? – ED

participant) significantly more frequently than did the NT (p =<.001), AH (p =<.001), and SA (p

=.003) groups. A similar trend was observed with subjectivers (e.g., I was wondering if you

would mind going over my test results with me. – SA participant), with the ED group using this

modification significantly more frequently than the NT (p =<.001), AH (p =<.001), and SA (p

=.001) groups. Statistically significant differences were also observed with downtowners (e.g.,

Could you possibly help me? – ED participant) when comparing the ED group to the other three

study groups (p =<.001).

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

ED SA AH NT

Lexical and Phrasal Downgraders

Politeness markers

Consultative devices

Polite particles

Understaters

Hedges

Subjectivizers

Downtoners

Appealers

125

As the reader will recall from the description of lexical/phrasal modification types presented in

Chapter 4, polite particles describe a class of lexical additions that contain no literal meaning, but

rather are added to the end of an utterance to convey politeness. This is in contrast to politeness

markers, such as ‘please’, which function specifically as a bid for cooperation. Polite particles

are not used exclusively in requests, and in fact, are quite commonly added to the end of most

utterances in many contexts (Smyth, 2002). Because there are no natural substitutes for polite

particles in English, it is not uncommon for Thais to add Thai particles to their English

sentences, particularly in contexts such as when a Thai teacher communicates using English in

the classroom or when Thais communicate with one another in English using social media

(Promnath & Tayjasanant, 2016; Yiamkhamnuan, 2011). However, neither polite particles nor

any other indications of L1 transfer of this prominent feature of the learners’ L1 were observed

in the learners’ data.

Politeness markers exist in both Thai and English and were used by every study group. While a

variety of politeness markers were observed in the NT group data, only ‘please’ was observed in

the requests of the three groups completing English EDCT. Compared to the ED group, both

groups of learners used ‘please’ considerably more frequently. This is consistent with the

findings of several previous studies (Barron, 2003; Faerch & Kasper, 1989; House & Kasper,

1987; Faerch & Kasper, 1989; Barron, 2003), which have observed English learners’ overuse of

the politeness marker ‘please’ when compared to native English speakers. Barron (2003)

describes this overuse as the learners’ “pragmatic overgeneralization via a playing-it-safe

strategy” (p. 149), adding that ‘please’ functions both to clarify and mitigate the illocutionary

force of a request. However, Trosborg (1995) notes that the presence of ‘please’ in request

models provided in EFL textbooks may also contribute to this overuse of ‘please’ by English

learners. Finally, it should also be noted that while both learner groups overused politeness

markers compared to the ED group, the learner groups’ average numbers of politeness markers

per head act were similar to that of the NT group, suggesting that L1 transfer may also be a

contributing factor.

As we have seen, the NT group used considerably more understaters than did the other three

study groups completing the English EDCT. However, in terms of linguistic forms, the variety of

understaters was much greater in English (i.e., ‘just’, ‘a little bit’, ‘a bit’, ‘a few’, ‘a tiny bit’,

‘quick’, ‘a minute’, ‘a sec’, ‘a short’, ‘a couple’, ‘a moment’, ‘a while’, ‘short’, ‘briefly’) than in

126

Thai (i.e., ‘noi’, [หนอย, ‘a little’], ‘nit’ [นด, ‘tiny’], ‘nit nueng’ [นดนง, ‘a bit’], ‘thi’ [ท, ‘one time’],

‘paep’ [แปบ, ‘for a moment’]). Participants from both learner groups used a variety of words and

phrases in a similar way to ED participants, suggesting that the learners did not directly translate

all of their understaters from Thai. The data suggest that both learner groups were able to

approximate the ED norms of understater use, with neither L1 transfer nor study abroad

experience appearing to be a significant influence on the learners’ use of understaters.

The consultative devices observed in the English (from the AH, SA, and ED groups) request

response data were generally used as introductory phrases of indirect questions and included

phrases such as ‘Would you mind’, ‘Do you think…’, ‘Would it be alright if…’, ‘Is it

possible…’, ‘Would it be possible…’, ‘Is it alright if…’, ‘Is there any way…’, etc. Therefore,

the phrases classified as consultative devices can occur with the interrogative and embedded

structure types of syntactic downgraders. For example, the request “Could I enroll in this

course?” which was coded as interrogative, can occur with a consultative device, as in “Is there

any way I could enroll in this course?” While these phrases are frequently used in English and

can be directly and equivalently translated into Thai, they are not common in Thai, which is

reflected by the infrequent presence of consultative devices in the NT group’s requests.

Despite the fact that the SA group used consultative devices at frequencies closer to the norms of

the ED group than did the AH group, both learner groups’ consultative devices used linguistic

forms that were more similar to one another than to those of the ED group. The AH and SA

groups used only a few forms, including ‘Would/do you mind…’, ‘Would it be possible…’, and

‘Is it possible…’, while the ED group used all of the aforementioned consultative devices. The

phrase ‘Is there any way/chance/possibility…’ was also commonly used by the ED (28 times),

but it was not used at all by the AH group and used only 2 times by the SA group. Similarly, the

phrase ‘Do you think…’ was used by the ED group 14 times, but it was not used at all by either

the SA or AH group. While both learner groups tended to use less variety of linguistic forms

with their consultative devices, it is noteworthy that grammatical errors were more common in

the requests of AH group participants, particularly when using the phrase ‘Would you mind…’

(see examples 47-48).

(47) Would you mind if you’ll show me which part I made mistake [sic]’? (AH, situation 4)

127

(48) Do you mind to pay first [sic]? (AH, situation 7)

As we have seen, downtoners were used most frequently by the ED group, followed by the the

NT and SA groups. AH learners used a downtoner only 1 time in 321 head acts. English

downtoners found in the collected data include ‘any’, ‘possibly’, ‘maybe’, and ‘perhaps’, and

Thai downtoners include ‘pho cha’ (พอจะ, ‘probably could’), which could be translated literally

to ‘probably could’. Another Thai downtoner is ‘pho di’ (พอด, ‘as it turns out’), which has the

approximate meaning ‘as it turns out’ or ‘happens to’. It is notable that these phrases – ‘as it

turns out’ and ‘happens to’ – did not appear in the ED group’s requests, highlighting a difference

between the two languages that may in part explain the limited use of downtoners by the AH

group. As for the SA group, although this group used downtoners at a similar rate to that of the

NT group, L1 transfer does not appear to be a factor. Rather than attempting to translate Thai

downtoners into English, the SA group tended to rely heavily on the downtoner ‘any’. The lack

of variety of the SA group’s downtoners compared to that of the ED group might be explained

by the presence of ‘any’ in the expression ‘Is there any way…’, which the SA learners might

have observed being commonly used by English speakers in everyday interactions during their

time abroad. This could be reinforced by the learners’ previous instruction in school of the use of

the determiner ‘any’ when forming questions (see example 49, showing the ED group’s use of a

downtowner, 50, showing the SA group’s use of a downtoner, and 51, showing the NT group’s

use of a downtoner).

(49) Would it be possible for you to perhaps have another look at my paper for me? (ED,

situation 4)

(50) Is there any way that I can enroll the course [sic]? (SA, situation 1)

(51) อาจารยพอจะมวธหรอแนะน าหนวาจะลงวชานไดยงไง achan pho cha mi withi rue nae nam nu wa cha long wicha ni dai yang ngai

professor probably could have method or recommend me that will enroll subject this

can how (NT, situation 1)

Although subjectivizers were used infrequently by every study group, an analsysis of this

lexical/phrasal downgrader type’s linguistic forms highlights a possible effect of L1 transfer on

the AH group’s requests. English subjectivizers include expressions such as ‘I wonder if…’, ‘I

was wondering if….’, ‘I’m afraid that…’, and ‘I think…’ The linguistic forms used by the

128

English EDCT groups were similar to one another, with ‘wonder’ being the most commonly

used form (see examples 52-54). The use of this form is similar to the Thai linguistic form ‘mai

sap wa’ (ไมทราบวา, ‘I don’t know if/that’), which was the only subjectivizer used by the NT group

(see example 55). This subjectivizer can be literally translated to ‘I don’t know if…’ or

equivalently translated to ‘I wonder if…’ The AH group’s use of the expression ‘I don’t know

if…’, therefore, might represent L1 transfer from a literal translation of the Thai phrase. This

expression was not observed in the requests of ED or SA group participants.

(52) I was wondering if I could please use your phone for a second? (ED, situation 5)

(53) I wonder if you could kindly add me into the course, please? (SA, situation 1)

(54) Excuse me, professor! I don’t know if you can let me enroll the course because it does

interest me. (AH, situation 1)

(55) ไมทราบวาอาจารยจะรบหนเขาเรยนไหมคะ

mai sap wa achan cha rap nu khao rian mai kha

not know that professor will accept me enter study (question particle) (polite particle)

(NT, situation 1)

In a similar way to subjectivers, hedges were not used frequently, but an analysis of their

linguistic forms used in the request responses reveal some difference between Thai and English

and some development of the SA learners. As we have seen, hedges were used only by the ED

and SA groups. This suggests that this feature is not common in Thai. The most common English

hedge found in the ED and SA groups’ data was the phrase ‘when you have/ get a chance’.

While this phrase exists in Thai, it was not used at all by the NT group, which highlights a

possible cultural difference between Thai and English users in some situations. Most of the ED

and SA groups’ hedges were used in the situation asking for a server to bring a drink that had

been ordered (situation 6). While ED participants may try to minimize the force of the request to

make it less imposing, Thais would be more likely to see this as a mistake of the server and his

or her duty to correct it. In other words, the way Thais perceive the need to mitigate a request in

this situation may be different from ED group participants. Second, the fact that the AH group

did not use hedges at all suggests that the AH group might have been influence by this different

perception of the social situation between Thai and English. The SA group, on the other hand,

might have learned and become familiar with this expression through their experience living

129

abroad. This assumption can be well supported by the linguistic forms that the SA group used,

which are similar to those used by the ED group (see examples 56-57). However, a greater

variety of hedges was observed in ED group participants’ requests. The other English words and

phrases classified as hedges found in the collected data include ‘other’, ‘some’, ‘sometime’,

‘someplace’, ‘some point’, and ‘when you are free’.

(56) Hey, man, could I grab that drink I ordered when you get a chance? (ED, situation 6)

(57) GG, can you bring me water when you get a chance, please? (SA, situation 6)

While appealers are available in both Thai and English, they were used by only the NT group.

Tags are a common realization in English. Thai appealers used by the NT group include ‘na’ (นะ)

‘na’ (นา) ‘thoe’ (เถอะ) ‘si’ (ส) ‘di’ (ด) which are technically classified as mood particles. As noted

by Smyth (2002), mood particles represent a major obstacle for the serious Thai language

learners. Their function is often conveyed in English purely by intonation, so they cannot easily

be translated; to complicate matters, one particle may have several variant forms, involving a

change in tone or vowel length, with each form reflecting a subtle difference. Without mood

particles, statements often sound incomplete, abrupt, or even impolite. The use of mood particles

is very common in the Thai language, but without even approximate translations for these lexical

features, the likelihood of L1 transfer is minimal. The absence of appealers from any of the

English EDCT data supports this hypothesis.

5.3.1.3 Upgraders

Finally, a greater degree of uniformity between the study groups was observed with the two

types of upgraders: intensifiers (I really need that cab. – SA participant) and time intensifiers

(Can you bring it now please! – AH participant) (see Figure 9). Neither type of upgrader was

used by the NT group while no time intensifiers were observed in the head acts of the ED group.

Although the ED group and the two learner groups did use upgraders, these internal

modifications were very infrequently used. The SA group (M = 0.04) used intensifiers more than

any other study group, which was statistically significant when compared to the NT group (p =

.001). There were no statistically significant differences between the study groups in their use of

time intensifiers.

130

The infrequent use of upgraders in the collected data could be explained by the fact that unlike

downgraders, upgraders essentially threaten the negative face of the hearer. The request

situations presented in the present study’s EDCT elicited requests in which the speakers

attempted to mitigate the imposition of the requests rather than aggravate the impositive force of

the requests. It is notable that although upgraders are available in Thai, they were not observed in

the data, suggesting that using lexical additions to aggravate the force a request is not a common

feature of the learners’ L1.

Figure 9. Mean number of upgrader types used per head act.

A closer look at the use of intensifiers, one of the two types of upgraders, shows that the SA

group showed more similarity to the ED group than did the AH group in terms of the linguistic

variety. The variety of intensifiers used by the SA and ED groups include ‘greatly’, ‘really’,

‘highly’, ‘truly’, ‘very’, ‘deeply’, and ‘much’ whereas the AH learners used only ‘really’ (see

examples 58-60). In addition, the way the AH group used intensifiers was also different from the

SA and the ED groups. The SA and ED groups used intensifiers to intensify their expression of

appreciation. On the other hand, the AH group used intensifiers only to strengthen their wish for

a particular desired outcome to occur. This difference in how intensifiers were used might also

affect the impact of the request differently; an emphasis on the requester’s desire aggravates the

force of the request more than an emphasis on the requester’s hypothetical gratitude should the

desired action occur.

(58) I would deeply appreciate if you could let me take this taxi, please. (SA, situation 2)

(59) I would truly appreciate the opportunity to study with you. (ED, situation 1)

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

NT AH SA ED

Upgraders

Instensifiers

Time Intensifiers

131

(60) I really want to study this course. (AH, situation 1)

As we have seen, time intensifiers, too, were used very infrequently by both learner groups.

These modifications were not observed in the data of the either the ED or the NT group. The low

frequency of use suggests these are not important modifications for any group and that the few

occurrences in the learner requests were likely not a product of L1 transfer or their observations

of English speakers. It is possible that they were used by the learners in order to provide clarity

rather than to aggravate the force of the request (see example 61-62, showing the AH and SA

groups’ use of time intensifiers).

(61) I need to go to the airport right now. (AH, situation 2)

(62) Can I have my drink now, please? (SA, situation 6)


When controlling for the variable of relative power, all four study groups used internal

modifications the least often in high-low situations. In these situations, the rate of internal

modifications per head act was similar between the four study groups; there were no statistically

significant differences. However, differences were observed in low-high and equal power

situations (see Figure 10). All groups used internal modifications the most often in low-high

situations, but this was especially pronounced with the ED group, which used internal

modifications significantly more frequently when compared to the NT (p =<.001), AH (p

=<.001), and SA groups (p =.002). In equal power situations, the ED group also used

significantly more internal modifications when compared to the other three study groups (p

=<.001). An additional difference was observed when comparing the SA group to the AH group

(p =.003) in equal power situations, with the SA group using significantly more internal

modifications.

The data for syntactic downgraders followed a similar trend to the overall use of internal

modifications when controlling for relative power, with the all four study groups using syntactic

downgraders the most often in low-high situations and the least often in high-low situations. The

aggregated data for each relative power type showed that the ED group used most syntactic

downgraders per head act, followed by the SA and AH groups. The NT group consistently used

the fewest number of syntactic downgraders with each relative power type. Among the types of

132

syntactic downgraders that appear to differ in use dependent on the social power dynamic,

interrogative modifications stand out. The use of interrogative modifications varied only

minimally with the English EDCT groups (AH, SA, and ED). However, the NT group used this

modification type much less frequently in high-low situations than it did in low-high situations.

In low-high situations, there were no statistically significant differences between study groups in

the use of interrogative modifications, but in high-low situations, the NT group used this type of

modification significantly less often than did the other three study groups (p =<.001). Embedded

structures were another type of syntactic modification that varied greatly between relative power

types. This type of modification was consistently used the most by the ED group, but all four

groups followed a similar pattern of using embedded modifications the most often in low-high

situations and the least often in high-low situations.

The use of lexical/phrasal downgraders by both learner groups varied to a lesser extent than

when compared to the baseline language groups and when controlling for the variable of relative

power. The NT group consistently used lexical/phrasal downgraders more frequently in each

relative power type than did the other three study groups. Among the types of lexical/phrasal

downgraders that varied in frequency between relative power types, understaters stood out. This

type of lexical/phrasal downgrader was infrequently used by the study groups in low-high

situations and was the most used type of lexical/phrasal downgrader by the NT group in equal (M

= 0.54) and high-low (M = 0.60) situations. Although the NT group’s use of understaters was

more similar to that of the other three groups in low-high situations, the difference was

statistically significant in equal and high-low situations when comparing the NT group to the

other three study groups (p =<.001). The NT group also used significantly more than did the AH

(p =.007) and SA (p =.003) groups in low-high situations. An additional notable difference can

be seen in the ED group’s use of consultative devices. The ED group used this type of

lexical/phrasal downgrader consistently more than did the other three groups and used

consultative devices the most often in equal power situations, differing significantly from the

other three groups (p =<.001).

Upgraders were not used by the NT group and when used by the other three study groups, they

were mostly used in low-high and equal power situations. Most upgraders used by the AH, SA,

and ED groups were intensifiers. Most of the time intensifiers, which were only used by the two

133

learner groups, were observed in high-low situations. When controlling for relative power, there

were no statistically significant differences between the study groups.

The data controlling for the social variable of relative power show that all study groups used

fewer internal modifications with situations characterized by high-low. However, the social

variable of relative power had a greater influence on the use of internal modifications of the ED

group compared to the other three study groups. Compared to the ED group, the learners’

requests appear to show their limitations in linguistic production, which resulted in more

formulaic and less linguistically varied requests. In situations requiring a higher degree of

mitigation, such as a request to a professor (situations 1 and 4), ED group participants tended to

use more elaborate and grammatically complex requests and in particular, the use of aspect

modifications and the use of embedded and conditional structures. The data show participants

from both learner groups not only used these structures less frequently when compared to ED

group participants, but when these structures were used by the learners, they were often used in

grammatically incorrect requests. The relatively small effect of relative power on the learners’

use of internal modifications, therefore, might relate more to their linguistic limitations rather

than socio-pragmatic failure. While the experience of studying abroad appears to aid the

development of the learners’ use of internal modifications, the influence of the relative power on

the learners’ requests was similar between both groups.

134

Figure 10. Mean number of internal modification types used per head act in situations controlling for relative power.


When controlling for the variable of social distance, all four study groups were observed to use

internal modifications most often in situations involving requests to strangers and least often

with requests involving close relationships (see Figure 11). However, this difference appears to

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50




Passive

Embedded

Conditional clause

Modal tense

Tense

Aspect

Interrogative

0.00

0.40

0.80

1.20

1.60

2.00




Appealer

Downtoner

Subjectivizer

Hedge

Understater

Polite particle

Consultative device

Politeness marker

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08



Upgraders

Time intensifier

Intensifier

135

be much less pronounced with the NT group, which used 2.294 internal modifications per head

act in stranger situations and 2.02 internal modifications per head act in close situations. By

contrast, the other three study groups used on average approximately one more internal

modification per head act in stranger situations than they did in close situations. For example, the

ED group used 3.41 internal modifications per head act in stranger situations and 2.41 internal

modifications per head act in close situations. Stranger situations were characterized by a similar

average number of internal modifications per head with the NT, AH, and SA groups. In these

situations, the ED group used internal modifications significantly more frequently than did the

NT (p =<.001), AH (p =<.001), and SA (p =.002) groups. In acquaintance situations, the AH

group was an outlier, using only 2.02 internal modifications per head act, which was

significantly fewer than the rates of the SA (p =.002) and ED (p =.001) groups. In close

situations, the baseline language groups used internal modifications at comparable rates to one

another while the learner groups showed similarities to one another. Both baseline language

groups used significantly more internal modifications per head act when compared to the learner

groups (p =<.001).

Syntactic downgraders were used by each group the most frequently in stranger situations and

the least frequently in close relationship situations. The use of interrogatives appears to vary only

minimally between the three social distance types for each group. Modal tense modifications,

however, were observed at different rates between the social distance types in the data of the AH,

SA, and ED groups. These three groups used modal tense modifications the most often in

stranger situations, ranging from 0.54 (NT) to 0.69 (ED) modal tense modifications per head act.

Analysis by Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn’s tests showed that there were no statistically significant

differences between the AH, SA, and ED groups in the use of modal tense modifications in

stranger situations. However, in acquaintance and close situations, there were greater differences

between the learner groups and the ED group in the use of this modification type. When

comparing the use of modal tense modifications of the AH (M = 0.40) and ED (M = 0.61) groups

in acquaintance situations, the ED group was observed to use this modification type more

frequently than the AH group (p =.003). The difference between the learner groups and the ED

group was even more pronounced in close situations. In close situations, the learner groups used

only 0.19 (AH) and 0.27 (SA) modal tense modifications per head act, while the ED group used

136

0.57 modal tense modifications per head act, which was significantly more than both of the

learner groups (p =<.001).

Figure 11. Mean number of internal modification types used per head act in situations controlling for social distance.

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50


Close Relationship Acquaintances Strangers


Passive

Embedded

Conditional clause

Modal tense

Tense

Aspect

Interrogative

0.00

0.40

0.80

1.20

1.60

2.00




Appealer

Downtoner

Subjectivizer

Hedge

Understater

Polite particle

Consultative device

Politeness marker

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10


Close relationships Acquaintances Strangers

Upgraders

Time intensifier

Intensifier

137

The use of lexical/phrasal downgraders varied only minimally between the three social distance

levels for the NT group, ranging only from 1.48 modifications per head act in close situations to

1.64 modifications per head act in acquaintance situations. There was a greater degree of

variability with the other three study groups, all of which used lexical/phrasal downgraders the

most often in stranger situations and the least often in close situations. Among the types of

lexical/phrasal downgraders that appear to be influenced by social distance, understaters stood

out. While the NT group used understaters least often in requests to strangers, the three English

EDCT groups (AH, SA, and ED) used them the most often in these situations. In stranger

situations, there were no statistically significant differences between the study groups in their use

of understaters. However, in close situations, understaters were a common feature of the NT

group’s requests, with 0.50 understaters per head act. This was significantly more than the rates

of all three of the other study groups (p =<.001), all of which used understaters very infrequently

in these situations.

In general, upgraders were used very infrequently by the AH groups and were not used at all by

the NT group. With the SA and ED groups, these modifications were used mostly in stranger

situations. In these situations, the SA group used significantly more upgraders when compared to

the NT group (p =.004). For both the SA and the ED, most upgraders used in stranger situations

were intensifiers, while time intensifiers were infrequently used in general by these groups.

Two general trends were observed when controlling for the social variable of social distance that

appear similar to the trends observed when controlling for the social variable of relative power.

First, internal modifications were used the least by all of the study groups in situations that

would be expected to require the smallest degree of mitigation. When controlling for social

distance, Brown and Levinson’s (1987) predictive model holds that the size of the FTA is

directly proportional to the social distance between a speaker and a hearer. That is, in close

situations, the FTA would be relatively small and thus, require fewer mitigating devices. Indeed,

the data controlling for social distance show that in close situations, the study groups used the

fewest number of internal modifications per head act. Second, as was observed with the data

controlling for relative power, the ED group appears to have been affected more by the variable

of social distance than were the other three study groups. Similar to the interpretation of this

trend in the data controlling for relative power, the fact that internal modifications used by the

learner groups consistently contained grammar errors suggests that the relatively small effect of

138

social distance on the learners’ use of internal modifications might be a product of linguistic

limitations rather than socio-pragmatic failure.

5.4 Request structures

5.4.1 Choice of request structures

A variety of request structures were observed in the data of every study group, with no single

request structure type representing a majority of the requests of any group. The use of HA + SM

has the greatest range of difference between the baseline language groups (NT and ED). As

shown by Table 12, the NT group used this structure the most often (35.88%), and the ED group

(20.74%) used this structure the least often. Analysis by chi square (DF=1, p =<.01) showed that

this difference was statistically significant, 2 (1, N = 170) = 16.943, p =<.001. Of the two

learner groups, the SA group (25.57%) used this structure at a rate more consistent with the ED

group, while the AH group (31.37%) tended to use this structure at a rate more in line with the

NT group. The AH group used the HA + SM structure significantly more than the ED group, 2

(1, N = 158) = 8.868, p =.003, and the SA group used this structure significantly less than the NT

group, 2 (1, N = 186) = 16.707, p =.006.

The use of the SM + HA + SM structure mirrors that of the HA + SM structure, with the baseline

language groups representing the extremes. This was the most preferred structure of the ED

group (36.79%), while the NT group used it less frequently (25.25%). However, chi square

analysis showed this difference was not statistically significant. As for the structure of SM+HA,

both of the language baseline groups (NT and ED) used this structure slightly less often than did

the learner groups (AH and SA). Similar to the SM+HA+SM structure, there were no statistically

significant differences between the study groups with the use of the SM+HA structure. HA only

was the fourth most used structure with every study group, and multiple head acts was the least

used structure by every study group. There were no statistically significant differences between

study groups with the use either of these structures.

139

Table 12

Distribution of Request Structures Used in All Nine Situations

Structure NT

(n=301)

AH

(n=306)

SA

(n=305)

ED

(n=299)

HA only 11.96% 9.15% 8.20% 14.05% HA+SM 35.88% 31.37% 25.57% 20.74%

SM+HA 17.94% 23.20% 26.56% 21.74%

SM+HA+SM 25.25% 31.37% 34.10% 36.79% Multiple HA 8.97% 4.90% 5.57% 6.69%

The request structure data reveal notable differences between the NT and ED groups. First, NT

group participants had a greater tendency to open a request with a head act, followed by a

supportive move (HA+SM). Second, ED group participants favored using the more elaborate

SM+HA+SM structure. By mitigating the request with supportive moves before introducing the

head act, the SM+HA+SM structure can also be characterized as less direct than the HA+SM

structure. Request structure can reflect culturally specific communicative styles, which can in

turn be transferred by L2 learners (Al-Ali & Alawneh, 2010). The data suggest that the learners’

requests structures were influenced by the norms of their L1, particularly with the use of

HA+SM and SM+HA+SM structures. However, the SA group performed more closely to the

norms of ED participants and the AH group used these structures more like the NT group. With

study abroad experience, the SA group demonstrated a development of pragmatic competence

and less reliance on their knowledge of request structures taken from Thai.

The multiple head act category was described in the CCSARP coding manual (Blum-Kulka et al,

1989). However, to my knowledge, only Fukushima (1996) has used this category in an analysis

of English request structures. It is possible to imagine a number of variations within this type of

head act. For example, requests could contain two, three, or possibly more head acts. These

requests might open with a head act or could open with a supportive move. While this category

acts as a kind of catch-all for any request with more than one head act, the elaborate structure of

this type of request should not necessarily be seen as a mitigating feature in a similar way to

SM+HA+SM requests. To the contrary, the fact that the requester refers to the desired action

multiple times within a single request might be seen as an aggravating device, adding pressure on

the hearer rather than softening the request. Seen in this light, the slightly greater use of multiple

head act requests by the NT group is consistent with their tendency to favor more direct request

structures when compared with the ED group (see example 63, showing the ED group’s use of a

multiple head act request structure with head acts italicized).

140

(63) Hello, my name is….I’m really interested in registering to your course, but the

enrolment is already full. Can I put my name down on the waiting list? This is the last

course that I need in order to graduate. Could you please help me with the registration?

(ED group, situation 1)

The fact that both learner groups used multiple head act requests less than did the baseline

language groups might be a result of the learners opting for less complex or perhaps more

conventional request structures. Interestingly, the learner groups also used HA only requests less

than did the baseline language groups. This is consistent with Faerch and Kasper’s (1989)

assertion that “(l)earners at the intermediate and advanced level of second language acquisition

tend to be more verbose and use more words than native speakers” (p. 120). The use of

unsupported head act requires judgment on the part of the requester that the head act is

appropriately mitigated for the situation. On the other hand, the use of multiple head acts could

perhaps include more direct and complex structuring of the request. The use of a single head act

with supportive moves might act as a more familiar formula for learners to balance the need to

appropriately mitigate a request without making the request unwieldy or difficult to form. Unlike

the pragmatic development described above with the use of other structures, namely HA+SM

and SM+HA+SM, the effect of study abroad does not appear to be significant with regard to HA

only and multiple head act requests.


The data controlling for the social variable of relative power suggest this variable influences the

choices of request structure of every study group. For situations involving a high-low power

dynamic, the study groups were remarkably similar in their use of the various request structures

(see Figure 12). High-low power situations were characterized by the use of HA only, which

ranged from 23.53% (SA group) to 31.37% (NT group). This is notable because all groups used

HA only very infrequently and in the case of the AH group, not at all, in low-high and equal

power situations. High-low situations involved the most varied distribution of request structures,

with no single structure making up more than one third of any study group’s requests. Analysis

by chi square showed that there were no significant differences between the study groups’ uses

of request structures in high-low situations.

The data in equal power situations also demonstrated similarities between the study groups.

Equal power situations were characterized by a preference for SM+HA+SM by every group.

141

Although this request structure did not account for a majority of the requests of any group, it

represented the most used request structure of every group. The SM+HA structure was used at

very similar frequencies by each group. The greatest difference in equal power situations came

with the baseline language groups’ use of HA+SM, with the NT group (35.29%) using this

structure the most frequently of any study group and the ED group (19.39%) using it the least

frequently. However, this difference was found not to be statistically significant. Similarly, there

were no statistically significant differences in equal power situations with the use of HA only or

multiple head act structures, which were infrequently used by every study group.

Figure 12. Distribution of request structures used in situations controlling for relative power.

31

.37

%

27

.45

%

23

.53

%

30

.39

%

29

.41

%

33

.33

%

31

.37

%

29

.41

%

10

.78

%

13

.73

%

14

.71

%

11

.76

%

19

.61

%

25

.49

%

25

.49

%

22

.55

%

8.8

2%

0.0

0%

4.9

0%

5.8

8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

NT AH SA ED

High-low

HA only

HA + SM

SM + HA

SM + HA + SM

Multiple HA

1.9

6%

0.0

0%

0.9

9%

6.1

2%

35

.29

%

33

.33

%

28

.71

%

19

.39

%

19

.61

%

24

.51

%

27

.72

%

25

.51

%

37

.25

%

36

.27

%

41

.58

%

44

.90

%

5.8

8%

5.8

8%

0.9

9%

4.0

8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

NT AH SA ED

Equal

HA only

HA + SM

SM + HA

SM + HA + SM

Multiple HA

2.0

6%

0.0

0%

0.0

0%

5.0

5%

43

.30

%

27

.45

%

16

.67

%

13

.13

%

23

.71

%

31

.37

%

37

.25

%

28

.28

%

18

.56

%

32

.35

%

35

.29

%

43

.43

%

12

.37

%

8.8

2%

10

.78

%

10

.10

%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

NT AH SA ED

Low-high

HA only

HA + SM

SM + HA

SM + HA + SM

Multiple HA

142

When controlling for relative power, the greatest differences among the four study groups’ uses

of request structures came with low-high situations. The greatest differences came with two

structures: HA+SM and SM+HA+SM. The HA+SM structure was the most used structure by the

NT group. By comparison, this structure was used significantly less by the SA group, 2 (1, N =

59) = 16.907, p =<.001, and ED group, 2 (1, N = 55) = 22.088, p =<.001. The use of

SM+HA+SM mirrored this result, with the NT group using this structure the least out of the

study groups, and significantly less frequently than the SA group, 2 (1, N = 54) = 16.907, p

=.008, and ED group, 2 (1, N =61) = 14.145, p =<.001.

It was expected that adding complexity to the request sequence is a device that can be used to

mitigate requests. That is to say, a request structured with pre-head act and post-head act

supportive moves (SM+HA+SM) is more elaborate in its structure and therefore, represents a

greater degree of mitigation than a request containing only post-head act supportive moves

(HA+SM), for example. This expectation is consistent with the findings of Fukushima (1996),

who observed that request structures of both Japanese-speaking and British English-speaking

participants became more elaborate in high imposition requests than in low imposition requests.

Similarly, Konakahara (2011) observed that both British English speakers and Japanese speakers

favored the use of the most complex structure, SM+HA+SM, in high imposition situations.

While the present study did not control for the variable of degree of imposition, it was expected

that a similar pattern would be observed when controlling for the variables of relative power and

social distance. In a similar way to high imposition requests, it is presumed that situations

involving greater social distance and requests from a position of lower relative power would

generally correlate with more highly mitigated requests. When controlling for the variable of

relative power, the data from the ED group conformed to the expected results of the

aforementioned expectation to some extent. The ED participants showed a preference for

SM+HA+SM in both low-high and equal power situations. In contrast, the NT group used the

more direct and less elaborate HA+SM structure the most in low-high situations. With HA+SM

requests, the learner groups demonstrated a similar trend to the ED group, with the SA group

more closely conforming to the ED norms.

143


As was observed when controlling for the social variable of relative power, the social variable of

social distance also appears to correlate with differences in request structure use with every

group. In situations involving requests to strangers, the four groups used a varied distribution of

request structures, with no single structure representing more than one third of the total requests

of any group (see Figure 13). For every group, the HA+SM, SM+HA, and SM+HA+SM

structures were used slightly more than HA only and multiple head act requests. Analysis by chi

square showed no statistically significant differences between the study groups in stranger

situations.

Situations involving acquaintances revealed greater differences between the study groups. The

NT (21.65%) and ED (23.00%) groups used the HA only structure more in acquaintance

situations than they did when controlling for other social distances. This was in contrast to the

AH (9.80%) and SA (8.82%) groups, which used this structure more often in requests to

strangers. However, the difference between the baseline language groups and the learner groups

was only statistically significant when comparing the ED and the SA groups, 2 (1, N = 32) =

7.612, p =.006. The NT group preferred the HA+SM structure, using it significantly more than

did the ED group, 2 (1, N =55) = 12.032, p =.001. The NT group also stood out in its infrequent

use of the SM+HA+SM structure, which was significantly less frequent when compared to the

AH group, 2 (1, N = 29) = 13.484, p =<.001, SA group,

2 (1, N = 24) = 8.509, p =.004, and ED

group, 2 (1, N = 35) = 20.804, p =<.001.

When controlling for social distance, the least varied distribution of request structures was in

situations involving close relationships. The HA only and multiple head act structures were used

very infrequently by every study group. There were also similarities between all four study

groups in the preference for SM+HA+SM, which was used in more than 40% of requests of

every study group. The most notable difference was with the HA+SM structure, which was used

by the NT group in 37.25% of requests but in only 17.65% of the ED group’s requests. The AH

(33.33%) group implemented this structure at a frequency similar to the NT group while the SA

group (20.79%) used it with a frequency comparable to the ED group. Analysis by chi square

showed a statistically significant difference between the NT and ED groups, 2 (1, N = 56) =

144

9.846, p =.002, but there were no statistically significant differences involving the learner

groups.

Figure 13. Distribution of request structures used in situations controlling for social distance.

0.0

0%

0.9

8%

1.9

8%

5.8

8%

37

.25

%

33

.33

%

20

.79

%

17

.65

%

9.8

0%

20

.59

%

17

.82

%

15

.69

%

51

.96

%

44

.12

% 56

.44

%

54

.90

%

0.9

8%

0.9

8%

2.9

7%

5.8

8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

NT AH SA ED

Close Relationship

HA only

HA + SM

SM + HA

SM + HA + SM

Multiple HA

21

.65

%

9.8

0%

8.8

2%

23

.00

%

39

.18

%

31

.37

%

29

.41

%

17

.00

%

23

.71

%

26

.47

%

34

.31

%

26

.00

%

5.1

5%

23

.53

%

18

.63

%

30

.00

%

10

.31

%

8.8

2%

8.8

2%

4.0

0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

NT AH SA ED

Acquaintances

HA only

HA + SM

SM + HA

SM + HA + SM

Multiple HA

14

.71

%

16

.67

%

13

.73

%

13

.40

%

31

.37

%

29

.41

%

26

.47

%

27

.84

%

20

.59

%

22

.55

%

27

.45

%

23

.71

%

17

.65

%

26

.47

%

27

.45

%

24

.74

%

15

.69

%

4.9

0%

4.9

0%

10

.31

%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

NT AH SA ED

Strangers

HA only

HA + SM

SM + HA

SM + HA + SM

Multiple HA

145

The results controlling for the variable of social distance did not support the expectation that

greater social distance would positively correlate with more complex and less direct request

structures. All groups favored the SM+HA+SM structure in close relationship situations and

tended to use more direct and less elaborate structures (mostly, HA+SM) with strangers. Some of

this might be attributed to the context of situation 3 (asking to get on the train), which involved

an added element of a time constraint in a situation with a request to a stranger, and which

resulted in many HA+SM requests. In this set of situations involving strangers, the groups

performed more similarly to one another than in the other situations controlling for social

distance.

5.5 Alerters

5.5.1 Choice of alerters

The total number of alerters used per request did not vary greatly between the study groups, with

each group using just over one alerter per request. The ED group used the fewest, with 1.01

alerters per request, and the AH group used the most, with 1.14 alerters per request. Analysis by

chi square showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the four study

groups in the total number of alerters per request.

Figure 14 displays the mean number of various alerter types used per request across the study

groups. As can be seen in this illustration, attention getters (e.g., ‘hello’, ‘hi’) represented the

most common type of alerter for the AH, SA, and ED groups, all of which used attention getters

considerably more than did the NT group. Analysis by Dunn’s test with an alpha of <.01 showed

that there were significant differences between the NT group’s use of attention getters when

compared to the AH group (p =<.001), the SA group (p =<.001), and the ED group (p =<.001).

For the NT group, kinship terms (e.g., ‘bro’, ‘phi’ [พ, ‘older brother/sister’]) represented the most

common alerter. The NT group’s use of kinship terms was significantly more than those of the

AH group (p =<.001), the SA group (p =<.001), and the ED group (p =<.001). Another notable

difference that distinguished the NT group from the other three groups was the use of pronouns

(e.g., you, ‘kae’ [แก, ‘you’]) as alerters. The NT group used 0.16 pronouns per request while this

type of alerter was not used by the other three study groups. The NT group’s use of pronouns

was significantly different when compared to all three other study groups (p =<.001). The NT

146

group also stood out from the other three groups in their use of title/role alerters (e.g., teacher,

‘achan’ [อาจารย, professor]), using this alerter type significantly more than the AH (p =.007), the

SA (p =.001), and the ED groups (p =<.001). While the NT group used names (e.g., ‘John’,

‘Peterson’) as alerters less frequently than the other three groups, analysis by Dunn’s test

revealed that there was no statistically significant difference when comparing the NT and AH

groups. However, this analysis showed that the NT group used significantly fewer name alerters

when compared to the SA (p =.005) and ED (p =<.001) groups.

Figure 14. Mean number of various alerter types used per request.

When combining the data from all nine situations, the SA and ED groups used individual alerter

types at very similar rates. Analysis by Dunn’s test confirmed the similarities, showing that there

were no statistically significant differences between the SA and ED groups with any alerter type.

There were, however, some differences between the ED group and the other learner group, the

AH group. Names were the second most common type of alerter used by the both learner groups

as well as the ED group. While this alerter type was used significantly more by the ED group

when compared to the AH group (p =.009), the AH group used honorific address more

frequently when compared to the ED group (p =.001). The AH group also stood out with the use

of friendship terms (e.g., ‘mate, ‘dude’), using an average of 0.08 friendship terms per request,

which was significantly more than the NT (p =<.001), SA (p =.001), and ED (p =.001) groups.

Although the difference was not great enough to reach a level of statistical significance using an

alpha of <.01, it is notable that the learner groups and in particular, the AH group, used alerters

0.1

2

0.1

5

0.2

0

0.2

3

0.0

7

0.1

0

0.0

8

0.0

3

0.0

0

0.0

8

0.0

3

0.0

3

0.2

9

0.0

7

0.0

6

0.0

5 0.1

6

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.2

4

0.6

2

0.6

0

0.5

7

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

NT AH SA ED

All Nine Situations

Title/ roles

Names

Honorific addresses

Friendship terms

Kinship terms

Pronouns

Attention getters

147

somewhat more frequently than the ED group. Given the similarity between the two baseline

language groups, the greater frequency of alerters used by the AH group does not appear to be a

product of L1 transfer. Instead, this use of alerters by the AH group, presumably the least

proficient group in terms of both linguistic and pragmatic development, might be explained by

the relative simplicity of form and the explicit function of alerters. Typically, alerters are either

single words or, in the case of attention getters, short fixed expressions. Faerch and Kasper

(1989) observe that lower proficiency language learners may favor mitigating their requests

internally with lexical and phrasal devices because these devices are both transparent and easier

to process than syntactic structures. In a similar way, alerters can function to show respect or

obligation by referring to the relationship between speaker and listener and thus, act as a

mitigating or coercive element to an ensuing request without adding a significant burden in terms

of linguistic production on the speaker.

These findings reveal several notable differences in the use of individual alerter types that

distinguish the NT group from the other three study groups. One of the most striking differences

between the NT group and the groups completing the English EDCT can be observed in the use

of attention getters. English attention getters observed in the request responses included ‘hello’,

‘hi’, ‘hey’, ‘excuse me’, and ‘sorry’. There were a number of frequently used Thai attention

getters used in Thai requests, including ‘sawat di’ (สวสด, ‘hello’), ‘hoei’ (เฮย, ‘hey’), and ‘kho

thot’ (ขอโทษ, ‘excuse me’/ ‘sorry’), which have similar meanings and functions to their English

counterparts. However, the use of the Thai word ‘ni’ (น), literally meaning ‘this’ or ‘here’, was

common as an alerter and no comparable word in English was used as an alerter. Despite the NT

group’s frequent use of ‘ni’ as an alerter, there was no evidence of L1 transfer of this word by

either of the learner groups. Moreover, the fact that the learner groups tended to employ attention

getters at similar frequencies to the ED group, differing significantly than the norms of their L1,

also suggests neither learner group was influenced by their L1 when producing attention getters.

The NT group’s preference for kinship terms also distinguished this group from the other three

study groups. This preference of the NT group was unsurprising, as the use of kinship terms

among Thai speakers can be widely applied in a variety of contexts, both familial and non-

familial (see examples 64-66, showing the NT group’s use of kinship term alerters in requests to

148

non-family members), acting as a means of invoking the social relationship between

interlocutors (Kuwinpant, 2002; Howard, 2007). Thai kinship terms can be applied to family,

friends, acquaintances, and strangers and function to articulate the hierarchical social dynamics

defined by age, gender, and power that pervade in everyday social interactions (Kirsch, 1973;

Tannenbaum, 1995; Simpson, 1997). Howard (2007) observed that the model of elder-junior

relationships not only involves “different rights and obligations related to power asymmetries,

but also underpinnings of family relationships, including mutual feelings of dependence, love,

and respect” (p.205). Thus, kinship terms provide Thai speakers a device in requests that can

have both a compelling and mitigating effect due to important cultural values related to social

hierarchy and family that are quite different than those found in English-speaking cultures.

(64) พครบ ผมก าลงจะตกเครองบน ผมขอเรยกแทกซกอนไดไหมครบ

phi khrap phom kamlang cha tok khrueang bin phom kho riak thaeksi kon dai mai

khrap

Older sibling (polite particle) I in the process of will miss airplane I ask call taxi

before can (question particle) (polite particle) (NT, situation 2)

(65) นองๆ ขอโทษนะคะ ชวยเขยบเขาไปขางในหนอยไดไหมคะ nong nong kho thot na kha chuai khayoep khao pai khang nai noi dai mai kha

younger sibling younger sibling apologize (particle) (polite particle) help move enter

go inside a little can (question particle) (polite particle) (NT, situation 3)

(66) นองครบ พยงไมไดน าเลยนะ nong khrap phi yang mai dai nam loei na

Younger sibling (polite particle) older sibling still not receive water at all (particle)

(NT, situation 6)

Evidence for possible L1 transfer of kinship terms can be seen in situation 9 (asking a younger

sibling to do your housework). The AH and SA groups used terms such as ‘sis’, ‘bro’, and

‘brother’ in 8 and 9 of their 34 respective requests while only a single kinship term, ‘sis’, was

observed in the ED group’s 34 request responses. However, differences in kinship terms used

between the learner groups and ED group appear minimal in most situations, which appears to

suggest that perhaps the learners were aware to some extent of the difference between Thai and

English with regard to kinship terms.

Interestingly, a few occurrences of the word ‘bro’ with strangers were observed in the request

responses of the SA group and to a lesser extent, the ED group (see examples 67-69). While the

149

use of the term ‘bro’ used to address non-family members has been observed to be a

characteristic of particular English-speaking communities (see Wilson, 2010, for example), it

was observed in only 1 of 299 request responses of the ED group. ‘Bro’ is one of several address

terms referred to by Leech as ‘familiarizers’, which can function not only as an attention getting

device, but also as a means of establishing solidarity between interlocutors (Leech, 1999). In this

way, the use of a kinship terms with non-family members in English can be comparable to the

Thai convention, albeit in a much more restricted context by native English speakers.

(67) Hey bro, would you do me a favor? Move inside a little bit, so I can get on the train.

Thanks. (SA, situation 2)

(68) Hey bro, I had been sick for a week. I need your help man. I know you have been busy

with your job. But if you have time, would you please help me study for the upcoming

exam or let me borrow your lecture? I would be appreciated man [sic] (SA, situation 8)

(69) Hey brother, my phone’s run out of battery, can I use your phone to make a quick call?

Thanks. (ED, situation 5)

Taken on its own, the SA group’s use of ‘bro’ might appear to be an unimportant or anomalous

occurrence in the data. However, when considering this alongside the learner groups’ relatively

frequent use of honorific address alerters and friendship terms, an interesting pattern emerges of

a preference for forms of address that explicitly make reference to the social relationship

between the two interlocutors. In this way, honorific addresses and friendship terms perform a

similar function to Thai kinship terms to show deference or closeness of the speaker and hearer.

With these three categories of alerters – kinship terms, honorific address, and friendship terms –

a pattern exists in which the learner groups used these alerters more frequently than did the ED

group. Taking the data from any one of these alerter types individually shows little or no

evidence of L1 transfer. However, taken together, the learners’ preference for these types of

alerters may represent the transfer of the Thai convention of articulating the relationship between

speaker and hearer when introducing a request.

To Leech (1999), ‘bro’ and other familiarizers, including terms that are classified as friendship

terms in this study, such as ‘mate’ and ‘man’, are similar to honorific addresses, such as ‘sir’ and

‘madam’, in that they “do not require knowledge of the name of the person” (p.111) and thus,

can be used with strangers. While familiarizers and honorific addresses can be used to mark

relationships in very different ways, the former showing familiarity and the latter showing

150

distance and respect, both used to articulate a relationship that frames the ensuing request.

However, the use of these forms of address in English dominant environments is limited.

Regarding honorific addresses, Leech (1999) noted that in English-speaking cultures, such overt

signals of respect are restricted to particular contexts, such as service encounters. Similarly, the

term ‘bro’ tends to be restricted as well to particular contexts involving, among other factors,

younger males addressing other males in casual settings (Aggarwal & Aggarwal, 2017). Both

learner groups may be familiar with honorific addresses, namely ‘sir’ and ‘madam’, but may be

unfamiliar with when to appropriately use them to initiate a request. Similarly, the SA group may

have been exposed to the use of the term ‘bro’ as a form of address but might use it less

judiciously than ED group participants would.

In many ways, the differences in linguistic structures and word meaning between Thai and

English are significant enough that the transfer of the literal meaning of words is minimized. The

frequently used kinship terms ‘nong’ (นอง, ‘younger sibling’) and ‘phi’ (พ, ‘older sibling’) refer

to relative age rather than gender of siblings and thus, are not directly translatable to ‘brother’

and ‘sister’. Similarly, Thai contains a much wider range of pronoun choices that have more

specific meaning than the English pronouns ‘I’ and ‘you’ (see Simpson, 1997 for example).

Included in the NT data were pronouns such as ‘nu’ (หน, I) ‘thoe’ (เธอ, ‘she’/‘you’) ‘nai’ (นาย,

‘you’) ‘kae’ (แก, ‘you’) ‘mueng’ (มง, ‘you’), all of which have connotations of status, age, and/or

closeness of the speakers. For example, ‘nu’ is typically used to refer to a younger and thus,

lower status individual, and ‘kae’ and ‘mueng’ are considered impolite terms which would cause

offense unless being used by close friends.

In many instances, no English term exists that contains the same level of specificity related to

culturally relevant information about the relationship between speaker and hearer. However, the

Thai learners of English used the English terms available to them to approximate the functions of

forms of address in their L1 (see examples 70-71). This transfer was often obscured by the

coding system because Thai and English words that function in a similar way to refer to the age,

status, and/or closeness of the interlocutors were often coded in different categories. For

example, English friendship terms such as ‘mate’, ‘buddy’, and ‘dude’, along with the kinship

term ‘bro’ can all function to show closeness between friends in a similar way to the Thai

151

pronouns ‘kae’ and ‘mueng’ (see example 72). Similarly, English honorific addresses such as

‘sir’ and ‘madam’ can show deference or respect to a stranger in a similar way as the Thai

kinship term ‘phi’.

(70) Hey dude, my battery is dead and I need to make a phone call. Can I borrow your phone?

(AH, situation 5)

(71) Hey mate. Sorry to interrupt, is it okay if I can borrow your phone for sec? Mine is

dead. (SA, situation 5)

(72) แก ขอยมโทรศพทโทรหา(ชอคน) แปบนะ เรองดวนมาก ขอบใจมากแก

kae kho yuem thora sap tho ha (chue khon) paep na rueang duan mak khop chai mak

kae

You ask borrow phone call (name person) momentarily (particle) story urgent very

thank you very you (NT, situation 5)

Rather than relying on translating the literal meaning of Thai forms of address into English, the

Thai learners of English used English forms of address that approximate the function of their

Thai counterparts. By doing this, the learners were transferring the culturally specific value

associated with referencing the relationship between speaker and hearer. It is noteworthy that

although this pattern was present in the data of both learner groups, it is more pronounced with

the AH group; SA group participants’ use of these alerter types was consistently more in line

with the norms of ED group participants, suggesting that pragmatic development occurred as a

result of their time spent in the target language environment.

While the total numbers of honorific addresses used by the NT and learner groups were

relatively similar, the way that this alerter was used by these groups was different. From the

collected data, it was found that the AH and SA used a great number of honorific addresses in

situation 2 (asking to cut a taxi line), in which a request was made to a stranger. However, the

NT group used the honorific address term ‘khun’ (คณ, ‘sir’ /‘madam’/‘Mr.’/‘Mrs.’) the most in

situation 7 (borrowing money from an older relative). Typically, ‘khun’ can be used with

strangers and is rarely used when the speaker and the hearer know each other well. However,

situation 7 involves an exception because ‘khun’ can also be used preceding kinship terms to

show respect to an older relative, a convention not used in English (See examples 73-74).

152

(73) คณลงคะ คณลงพอมเงนใหยมสก 500 ไหมคะ พอดตอนนหนสงพซซาใหเขามาสงแตตอนนหนไมมเงนสดตดตว เลย เดยวหนรบไปกดคนใหนะคะ khun lung kha khun lung pho mi ngoen hai yuem sak 500 mai kha pho di ton ni nu

sang phissa hai khao ma song tae ton ni nu mai mi ngoen sot tit tua loei diao nu rip

pai kot khuen hai na kha

Mr. uncle (polite particle) Mr. uncle happen to have money for borrow about 500

(question particle) (polite particle) just now I order pizza for them come send but now I

not have cash close me at all soon I hurry go press return for (particle) (polite particle)

(74) คณนาครบ ผมขอยมเงนสกหนอยไดไหมครบ ถาแมกลบมาแลว เดยวผมจะรบคนเงนให ขอบคณครบ

khun na khrap phom kho yuem ngoen sak noi dai mai khrap tha mae klap ma laeo

diao phom cha rip khuen ngoen hai khop khun khrap

Mrs. Aunt (polite particle) I ask borrow money about a little can (question particle)

(polite particle) if mother return come already soon I will hurry return money for thank

you (polite particle)

A closer look at the data shows that the learners’ use of ‘sir’ was not a result of direct translation

from the Thai honorific, ‘khun’, but rather from the kinship term ‘phi’. As described above,

‘khun’ is used quite differently than the English term ‘sir’. While the term ‘phi’ carries with it

other connotations relating to family as well as relative age, which are not present in ‘sir’, the

function of ‘sir’ as marker of deference and polite respect makes it a logical choice for Thai

learners of English in some situations.


When controlling for the social variable of relative power, the data show that all groups used

alerters least often in high-low power situations. Every group used an average of less than one

alerter per request in high-low power situations, ranging from 0.83 (ED) to 0.92 (AH and SA)

alerters pre request, with no statistically significant differences between groups. The baseline

language groups both used alerters the most frequently in low-high situations, with the ED using

1.25 alerters per request and the NT group using 1.34. This was slightly more than the average

frequencies of the learner groups; however, there were no statistically significant differences

between groups. The AH group represented an outlier in the use of alerters in equal power

situations, using 1.33 alerters per request, which was significantly more than both of the baseline

language groups, the NT and ED groups (p =<.001).

As seen in Figure 15, several patterns with individual alerter types emerged when controlling for

relative power. With each study group, title/role alerters were used only in low-high situations.

153

The learner groups (AH, M = 0.38; SA, M = 0.32) used this alerter type at similar frequencies to

the ED group (M = 0.31) whereas the NT group (M = 0.63) used this alerter type significantly

more than did every other study group (p =<.001). There is an additional notable difference in

low-high situations with the use of names as alerters. While the four study groups were

comparable in their use of names as alerters in high-low and equal power situations, in low-high

situations the ED group used names more than did any other group. This difference was

statistically significant when comparing the ED group to the NT (p =<.001) and the AH (p

=<.001) groups. There was also a statistically significant difference when comparing the SA

group to the NT group (p =.001) in the use of names as alerters in low-high situations.

Honorific address was used very infrequently by all study groups in high-low situations. The NT

group (M = 0.19) used this type of alerter more than did any other group in low-high situations;

however, a statistically significant difference was found only when comparing the NT group to

the ED group (p =.001). In equal power situations, honorific address was used more by the

learner groups than by the baseline language groups. The AH group used honorific address

alerters significantly more than the NT group (p =.005) in equal power situations.

There were no friendship terms used as alerters in low-high situations by any group, and this

alerter type was infrequently used in high-low and equal power situations. However, there were

still some notable differences between the AH group and the other study groups that emerged

with the use of friendship terms. First, in equal power situations, the AH group (M = 0.16) used

this alerter type more than did every other group, with statistically significant differences when

comparing the AH group to the NT group (p =<.001) and the ED group (p =.009). The AH group

also used friendship terms more than did any other group in high-low situations, which was a

statistically significant difference when compared to the NT group (p =<.001) and SA group (p

=.007).

154

Figure 15. Mean number of various alerter types used per request in situations controlling for relative power.

The data controlling for relative power show consistent differences between the NT group and

the other three study groups in their use of the remaining three alerter types – kinship terms,

pronouns, and attention getters. With all three relative power types, attention getters were the

most used alerter type for the learner groups and the ED group. While the NT group used this

alerter type significantly less often in all three power relation types than did the other three study

0.1

8

0.1

2

0.1

6

0.2

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

0.0

1

0.0

1

0.0

0

0.0

7

0.0

1

0.0

2

0.4

7

0.0

9

0.0

9

0.0

1

0.0

5

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.2

1

0.6

4

0.6

6

0.6

0

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

NT AH SA ED

High-low

Title/ roles

Names

Honorific addresses

Friendship terms

Kinship terms

Pronouns

Attention getters

0.1

3 0.2

4

0.2

4

0.2

1

0.0

4 0.1

6

0.1

4

0.0

5

0.0

0

0.1

6

0.0

7

0.0

6

0.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

0.0

1

0.4

1

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.3

3

0.7

8

0.6

6

0.6

1

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

NT AH SA ED

Equal

Title/ roles

Names

Honorific addresses

Friendship terms

Kinship terms

Pronouns

Attention getters

0.6

3

0.3

8

0.3

2

0.3

1

0.0

4

0.1

1 0.2

2

0.2

9

0.1

9

0.1

3

0.1

0

0.0

3

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.3

0

0.1

2

0.0

8

0.1

2

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.1

9

0.4

4

0.4

8

0.5

0

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

NT AH SA ED

Low-high

Title/ roles

Names

Honorific addresses

Friendship terms

Kinship terms

Pronouns

Attention getters

155

groups (p =<.001), it used kinship terms significantly more often than did the other three study

groups (p =<.001) for each relative power type. Pronouns were not used by the learner groups or

ED group at all, and although this was also true for the NT group in low-high situations, the NT

group’s use of pronouns in equal power and high-low situations was significantly more than that

of every other study group (p =<.001).

These findings show that some alerter types correlated to a particular relative power dynamic. A

closer look at the data reveals that some alerter types were used mostly in only one or two of the

situations within an aggregated data set, suggesting that other context-specific factors played an

important role in the selection of alerters. The use of titles, for instance, can be seen particularly

in situations 1 (asking a professor for late enrollment) and 4 (asking a professor to reconsider

your exam), both of which involved a low-high power dynamic with a request to a professor. The

use of titles in these situations highlights differences between Thai and English norms as well as

the pragmatic development of SA group participants toward the norms of the ED group.

Although it is possible to use honorific addresses such as ‘Mr.’, ‘Mrs.’, or ‘Miss’, typically

preceding a last name, to address a teacher in English, it is uncommon and inappropriate to use

their equivalent Thai terms in such as a context as speaking to a professor. The term ‘achan’

(อาจารย), which can be translated as ‘professor’ or ‘teacher’, is commonly used in Thai to address

a university-level teacher. In the requests of the NT group, ‘achan’ was not used in combination

with names. In Thailand, a university teacher is a highly respected occupation. It is associated

with being authoritative and knowledgeable, and its value carries over outside of the teaching

context, with acquaintances who are not students often referring to a professor as ‘achan’. When

using the term ‘achan’, the speaker shows respect to the hearer by acknowledging the power and

the status of the person being referred to as ‘achan’ (Thijittang, 2010).

In the Thai data, the term ‘achan’ was used as an alerter in 61 out of 63 request responses,

whereas names and honorific addresses were not used at all when referring to a professor. While

the AH and SA groups used titles much less frequently by comparison, in 39 and 33 of their 68

respective responses, the learner groups opted for the use of ‘sir’ in these situations and used it

much more frequently than did the ED group. Titles are commonly used in Thai, but the learners

appear to have been unsure about transferring such usage into English. Therefore, in order to

show respect and be polite with the hearer who is a professor, they generalized the use of

156

honorific addresses. The learner groups’ use of titles appears to show a development of the

learners’ pragmatic competence toward ED norms. Although the learners used titles less

frequently when compared to the norms of the L1, they still preferred using titles over using

names when addressing a professor. These findings contradict the observations of Li (2014), who

found that Chinese learners of English tended to favor names over titles when addressing

professors, which was a phenomenon Li attributes to the lack of specificity in titles compared to

names and the desire of the learners to be pragmatically transparent. Cultural and linguistic

norms in Thai, however, appear to have had a greater influence on the learners’ selection of

alerters than this pragmatic consideration.

It is noteworthy that in the remaining situation controlling for low-high relative power, in which

a request is made to an older relative, a similar pattern was observed, with the ED group using

names the most and the NT group using them the least. In contrast to titles and the honorific

addresses, names do not carry any connotation of the asymmetrical power dynamic in either Thai

or English. In Thai culture, referring to this power dynamic carries important implications,

perhaps making names less important or valuable in their role as alerters in request making. In

English speaking cultures, the use of names perhaps has a connotation of friendliness or relates

to cultural values of acknowledging one’s individual agency. As with the other low-high

situations, the SA group’s use of names in situation 7 (borrowing money from an older relative)

was more similar to that of the ED group, and AH responses tended to conform more to those of

NT group participants.

The fact that the AH group used alerters more than did the baseline language groups in equal

power situations can to some extent be attributed to the AH group’s greater use of friendship

terms used in situation 8 (asking a friend to study with you for an exam), which involved asking

a friend to help study for an exam. While the NT data for this situation did not contain friendship

terms, pronouns were widely used. The Thai pronouns used included ‘kae’ (แก, ‘you’) and

‘mueang’ (มง, ‘you’), which would be considered overly familiar and offensive to use with

anyone except friends, thus functioning in a similar way as friendship terms to establish

solidarity. The AH group’s use of friendship terms, therefore, may show that AH participants

were influenced by their L1 cultural values and that the SA group demonstrated more

development toward the English-speaking cultural norms.

157

Although the average number of alerters per request was similar between study groups in high-

low power situations, the distribution of alerters by type reveals a noteworthy difference between

the study groups. As the reader will recall from the presentation of the statistical data, when

controlling for high-low power, the NT group was an outlier with their preference for kinship

terms. The ED group’s use of kinship terms was minimal while the learner groups both used

them somewhat more than the ED group. For both learner groups, most of the use of kinship

terms came in situation 9 (asking a younger sibling to do your housework), which involves a

request to a younger sibling. In Thai, the kinship term ‘nong’ (นอง, ‘younger sibling’) was widely

used in this situation, and for the learner groups, the term ‘bro’ or ‘sis’ acted as a replacement.


The variable of social distance appears to have had little impact on the use of alerters by the NT

group, which only varied in use from 1.07 alerters per request in close and stranger situations to

1.10 alerters per request in acquaintance situations. The use of alerters varied more substantially

across different levels of social distance for the other three study groups. All of the study groups

used the fewest average number of alerters per request in close situations, with no statistically

significant differences observed between the study groups. Situations with acquaintances

involved the highest average number of alerters per request for all study groups, with no

statistically significant differences observed between the study groups. The greatest differences

between the study groups came in situations with requests to strangers, in which the ED group

used only 0.89 alerters per request while the AH (M = 1.15) and SA (M = 1.19) used

significantly more when compared to the ED group (p =.002).

Title/role alerters were observed only in situations involving strangers and acquaintances

(see Figure 16). While each group’s use of this alerter type was comparable between these two

social distance levels, the NT group used it somewhat more in requests to strangers (M = 0.33)

than they did in requests to acquaintances (M = 0.28). While analysis by Dunn’s test showed that

there were no statistically significant differences between the study groups in their use of

title/role alerters in acquaintance or close situations, the NT group used this alerter type

significantly more in stranger situations when compared to the SA (p =.004) and ED (p =.001)

groups. By contrast, names were used infrequently in requests to strangers compared to requests

of acquaintance or close social distance levels, and this alerter type was not used at all by the NT

158

group in situations involving strangers. The ED group used this alerter type more than did the

other three study groups in every social distance level, with a statistically significant difference

observed when comparing the ED and NT groups’ uses of names in requests to strangers (p

=.002).

Figure 16. Mean number of various alerter types used per request in situations controlling for social distance.

0.2

1

0.2

4

0.2

4

0.2

8

0.1

8

0.0

1

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0 0.1

1

0.0

2

0.0

4

0.3

5

0.2

1

0.1

7

0.1

3 0

.25

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0 0.0

9

0.4

2

0.4

3

0.4

1

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

NT AH SA ED

Close Relationship

Title/ roles

Names

Honorific addresses

Friendship terms

Kinship terms

Pronouns

Attention getters

0.2

8

0.1

8

0.1

6

0.1

7

0.1

4

0.2

1 0.3

0

0.3

2

0.0

0

0.0

6

0.0

5

0.0

2

0.0

0 0

.12

0.0

5

0.0

4

0.2

2

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

0.2

1

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.2

6

0.7

5

0.6

4

0.7

2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

NT AH SA ED

Acquaintances

Title/ roles

Names

Honorific addresses

Friendship terms

Kinship terms

Pronouns

Attention getters

0.3

3

0.2

1

0.1

7

0.1

4

0.0

0

0.0

2

0.0

7

0.0

9

0.0

4

0.2

3

0.2

0

0.0

7

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

0.0

0

0.2

9

0.0

0

0.0

1

0.0

0

0.0

2

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.3

8

0.7

0

0.7

4

0.5

8

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

NT AH SA ED

Strangers

Title/ roles

Names

Honorific addresses

Friendship terms

Kinship terms

Pronouns

Attention getters

159

The use of honorific addresses and friendship terms varied between social distance types,

revealing differences between the study groups. In particular, the NT group stood out from the

other three study groups with its use of honorific addresses. While honorific address alerters

were used very infrequently by the AH group (M = .01) and not at all by the SA and ED groups

in close situations, the NT group (M = .18) used this alerter type significantly more than did any

other study group (p =<.001). However, in stranger situations, the learner groups used honorific

address alerters more than the baseline language groups, with statistically significant differences

observed when comparing the AH group to the NT (p =<.001) and ED (p =.002) groups, and

when comparing the SA group to the NT group (p =.001). Although between all of the study

groups, a friendship term was used only one time (SA group) in stranger situations, in

acquaintance and close situations, this alerter type was used the most by the AH group, with a

statistically significant difference when comparing the AH group to the NT group (p =<.001) in

requests to acquaintances and when comparing the AH group to the NT (p =<.001) and SA (p

=.002) groups in close situations.

An analysis controlling for social distance of the remaining three alerter types – kinship terms,

pronouns, and attention getters – shows considerable differences in the way these alerters were

used by the NT group when compared to the other three study groups. Kinship terms were used

more often in close situations than in stranger or acquaintance situations by every study group.

However, when controlling for situations involving strangers and acquaintances, the NT group

consistently used this alerter type significantly more than every other study group (p =<.001). In

close situations, the NT group used kinship terms significantly more than did the SA (p =.001)

and ED (p =<.001) groups. The learner groups and ED group did not use pronoun alerters at all

in any situation. Although this alerter type was used infrequently by the NT group in stranger

situations (M = .02), it was more common in acquaintance (M = .21) and close (M = .25)

situations. In acquaintance and close situations, there was a statistically significant difference

when comparing the NT group’s use of pronoun alerters to the other three study groups (p

=<.001), with the NT group using alerters significantly more than the other three study groups.

Finally, the greatest difference between the NT group and the other three groups came with

attention getter alerters, which were the most common alerter type for the learner groups and ED

group in all three social distance levels. This alerter type was used the most by these three groups

in stranger and acquaintance situations and the least in close situations. However, in all three

160

social distance levels, the NT group used attention getters significantly less frequently compared

to the other three study groups (p =<.001).

A notable pattern these findings reveal is that all study groups used alerters more frequently in

situations with acquaintances than in those of the close or stranger social distance level. In a

study on apology speech acts of Thai EFL students, Thittijang (2010) observed a similar

phenomenon with alerters when using a similar research design controlling for social distance,

arguing that the “emergent and relatively uncertain nature of relationship between acquaintances

is reflected in the care people take to signal solidarity and avoid confrontation” (p. 157). The

greatest difference between the learner groups and the ED group came with the social distance

level of stranger, with both learner groups using alerters significantly more than the ED group. In

situation 2 (asking to cut a taxi line), which involved a request to a person of undefined age, the

learner groups used honorific addresses, namely ‘sir’, much more frequently than did the ED

group. In a comparable situation, situation 3 (asking to get on the train), which involved a

request to a younger student, honorific addresses only appeared one time in the request responses

of the SA and ED groups. This illustrates how the students generalized the term ‘sir’ in order to

outwardly show polite respect to strangers of equal power, but not to someone younger and

presumably with lower relative power. This appears to indicate that both groups of learners,

particularly the AH group, were still influenced by the norms of their L1 culture, which does not

value equality in the same way that English-speaking cultures do.

5.6 Supportive moves

5.6.1 Choice of supportive moves

As shown in Figure 17, which shows the use of supportive moves by type across all study

groups, the use of supportive moves was the greatest with the SA (M = 2.80) and ED (M = 2.77)

groups, which used supportive moves at similar rates to one another. The AH group (M = 2.55)

used supportive moves slightly less often than the SA and ED groups, and NT group (M = 1.96)

used considerably fewer supportive moves per request than any other group. Analysis by Dunn’s

test (p =<.01) showed that there were statistically significant differences between the NT group

and all other study groups in the use of supportive moves, with the NT group using supportive

moves significantly less frequently than the AH, SA, and ED groups (p =<.001). Mitigating

supportive moves made up the large majority of supportive moves used by every study group,

161

and generally, the patterns described above were also observed with mitigating supportive

moves, with the NT group using significantly fewer mitigating supportive moves per request

compared to every other study group (p =<.001). In contrast, aggravating supportive moves were

used infrequently by every study group, with no statistically significant differences between

study groups.

Figure 17. Mean number of supportive types used per request.

Figure 18 presents the use of various mitigating supportive moves by type across all study

groups. As can be seen in this illustration, grounders (e.g., I just realized that I don’t have

enough cash for the pizza – ED participant) were by far the most used type of supportive move

by each study group. However, the groups differed in their use of this type of supportive move.

The SA group (M = 1.54) used grounders the most, with the AH (M = 1.39) and ED (M = 1.36)

groups using it somewhat less frequently. Analysis by Dunn’s test showed that there was a

significant difference between the SA and ED groups (p =.008) in their use of grounders, with

the SA group using it more frequently. The NT group (M = 1.05) used grounders significantly

less than the AH (p =<.001), SA (p =<.001), and ED (p =.005) groups.

Imposition minimizers (e.g., It will only be a minute. – SA participant) were the second most

used type of supportive move, ranging from 0.19 per request with the ED group to 0.20 per

request with the SA group. There were no statistically significant differences between the study

groups in the use of imposition minimizers. Preparators (e.g., I need to ask you for a favour. –

ED participant) and promises of reward (e.g., I’ll buy a gift for you. – AH participant) were used

at comparable frequencies to one another, and like imposition minimizers, there were no

statistically significant differences between the study groups with the use of these supportive

move types. Small talk (How are you today? – SA group), getting precommitment (Can you do

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

NT AH SA ED

Suppotive moves

Aggravating

Mitigating

162

me a favor? – ED participant), self-introduction (I’m a fourth-year student, majoring in English.

– AH participant), sweeteners (You really know your stuff. – ED participant), negative

consequence (I may miss my fight if I do not get this taxi. – AH participant), and urging

supportive moves (pretty please? – AH participant) were also used at similar rates with each

study group and with no statistically significant differences. However, these supportive move

types were very infrequently used by every study group. The use of disarmers (e.g., I know you

are busy. – AH participant) varied among study groups, with the ED group using them the most

frequently (M = 0.25) and the NT group using them the least frequently (0.02). The AH (M =

0.15) and SA (M = 0.17) groups used disarmers at rates similar to one another and that fell in

between the rates of the baseline language groups. The NT group used disarmers significantly

less than every other group (p =<.001), while the ED group used them significantly more than

the AH (p =.008) and SA (p =.008) groups. Giving alternatives supportive moves (e.g., Or

maybe there is a waiting list? – ED participant) also reveal differences between study groups,

with the ED group using this type of supportive move significantly more than the AH (p =.<001)

and SA (p =.001) groups. Finally, the rates of use for apologizing supportive moves (e.g., I’m

really sorry to bother you. – ED participant) show a difference between the NT group and the

other study groups, with the NT group using apologizing supportive moves significantly less

frequently than the AH (p =.007), SA (p =.<001), and ED (p =.<001) groups.

Figure 18. Mean number of mitigating supportive move types used per request.

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

NT AH SA ED

Mitigating Supportive Moves

Apologizing

Giving alternative

Thanking

Sweetener

Imposition minimizer

Promise of reward

Self-introductions

Disarmers

Grounders

Precommitment

Preparators

Small talk

163

These findings show significant differences between Thai and English in the way supportive

moves are used. Notably, the findings show that supportive moves are more common in English

than in Thai. Thai learner of English participants, regardless of their backgrounds as SA or AH

learners, were able to approximate ED norms in terms of the overall number of supportive moves

per request. These findings are not consistent with those of many previous studies that have

shown a tendency for learners to overuse supportive moves (Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2009;

Faerch & Kasper, 1989; Wang, 2011; Otcu & Zeyrek, 2006; Woodfield & Economidou-

Kogetsidis, 2010). This phenomenon has been explained by pointing to the relative simplicity

and less syntactically demanding nature of supportive moves when compared with internal

modifications (Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2009). Indeed, while both learner groups in the present

study used supportive moves at ED-like frequencies, they both also underused internal

modifications. This shows that although the learner groups did not overuse supportive moves,

they did prefer using supportive moves to internal modifications as a means of mitigating their

requests. The fact that the learner groups and the ED group used supportive moves at similar

frequencies might also suggest that both groups of learners’ pragmatic competence has

developed enough to approximate the ED norms with regard to the rate of use of supportive

moves. Previous studies have shown that both EFL (Najafabadi & Paramasivam, 2012) and ESL

(Trosborg, 1995) learners develop toward native-like frequencies of supportive moves after

reaching advanced proficiency levels. The reader will recall from the description of the study

groups’ selection criteria in Chapter 4 that both learner groups are comprised of high-

intermediate to advanced learners of English.

The findings that grounders were the most common type of supportive move used in the requests

of every study group in all nine EDCT situations combined as well as in each of the nine EDCT

situations individually is consistent with other studies that have shown grounders are the most

common supportive move used by English learners (Faerch & Kasper, 1989; Woodfield, 2004;

Schauer, 2007), as well as studies by Economidou-Kogetsidis (2008, 2009), which showed that

both English learners and native English speakers used grounders more than any other type of

supportive move (see Figure 18). Although grounders were the most used type of supportive

move by every study group, they were used by the NT group significantly less than the other

three study groups, suggesting that the learners’ patterns of use did not reflect a reliance on

transferring the norms of their L1. Interestingly, SA group participants showed a slight overuse

164

of grounders when compared to the ED group while AH group participants demonstrated ED-

like frequencies. One situation in which the learners diverged the most from the ED group is

situation 6 (asking for an ordered drink). In this situation, the AH and SA learners overused

grounders by providing background information to the hearer about the situation whereas the ED

group tended to keep their requests short and concise by stating only their actual requests (see

examples 75-77).

(75) Hey, man, could I grab that drink I ordered when you get a chance? (ED, situation 6)

(76) Hey, my drink doesn’t come yet [sic]. I’m so thirsty. Bring me my drink when it is ready

to be served. (AH, situation 6)

(77) Excuse me, I’ve ordered the drink, but I feel it takes too long time [sic]… around 10-15

minutes. Could you check it for me please? (SA, situation 6)

A closer examination of the content of some supportive move types can provide additional

insights that are not apparent when looking only at the statistical findings. Despite the similar

rates of use of imposition minimizers by the four study groups, differences were found in the

how the information communicated by the groups’ imposition minimizers functions within their

respective requests. These differences highlight contrasting cultural norms between Thai and

English users as well as evidence of L1 influence on the AH group. Imposition minimizers

included several types of approaches to minimizing the hearer’s cost of accepting the request,

such as offering to pay for the cost or attempting to minimize the time and effort of the hearer in

doing the requested action. These approaches were common in the imposition minimizers of all

study groups (see examples 78-79). A cultural difference may be seen, however, in the use of

imposition minimizers that provide the hearer a choice to refuse to do the requested action,

which was used frequently by the NT and AH groups while it was used only one time by the SA

and ED groups (see examples 80-81). Situations that NT and AH group participants tended to

use this type of phrase were situation 2 (asking to cut a taxi line) and situation 8 (asking a friend

to study with you for an exam), in which the reason for the request involved some inaction or

fault on the part of the speaker. In such cases, some NT and AH group participants showed their

willingness to accept the consequences of their actions as a way to minimize the imposition of

their requests. This also shows how the SA learners deviated from their L1 norms toward the ED

norms.

(78) It'll only be a minute. (ED, situation 5)

165

(79) I will pay back to you as soon as I can. (SA, situation 7)

(80) ถาแกไมสะดวกกไมเปนไรนะ tha kae mai saduak mai pen rai na

if you not convenient not is anything (particle) (NT, situation 8)

(81) If you are hurry [sic], that’s fine. (AH, situation 2)

A similar phenomenon was observed with disarmers. Although there were no statistically

significant differences between the study groups in terms of how frequently they used disarmers,

a difference can be seen in the content of the disarmers between the ED group and the two

learner groups. While the ED group’s disarmers tended to refer to the contextual factors

preventing the hearer from easily complying with the request, the learner groups’ disarmers

tended to acknowledge their own role in creating the need to make a request. This was most

apparent in situation 1 (asking a professor for late enrollment), in which ED participants focused

on the norms and rules relating to the requested action while participants from the AH and SA

groups focused on how their own inaction resulted in the need to make a request (see examples

82-85, showing ED, SA, and AH groups’ uses of disarmers).

(82) I realize the session is full this semester… (ED, situation 1)

(83) I understand that this is highly unorthodox but… (ED, situation 1)

(84) It's all my fault and irresponsibility, but … (SA, situation 1)

(85) I know it’s my fault that I didn’t enroll on this course in time but… (AH, situation 1)

In addition to examining the content of supportive moves as a means of supplementing the

statistical data, considering the linguistic forms used with supportive moves can also highlight

differences between study groups. With the use of disarmers, for example, the ED group was not

only different in terms of the content but was also distinguished by the linguistic forms present in

these supportive moves, which generally demonstrated the use of longer utterances and a greater

variety of verbs acknowledging the speaker’s awareness of the circumstances surrounding the

request. The AH and SA groups, on the other hand, relied on the use of the verb ‘know’. This

could be the result of the learners’ limited vocabulary knowledge used in articulating their

intention or feeling.

166

Although thanking supportive moves were infrequently used by every study group and there

were no statistically significant differences between the study groups, differences in the

linguistic forms used in thanking supportive moves point to possible development associated

with SA learners. Overall, the ED group tended to use more variety of forms and more elaborate

utterances to express gratitude or appreciation (see examples 86-87). While the SA group’s

thanking supportive moves were less varied and less complex compared to the ED group’s, they

were noticeably more varied than those of the AH group. Unlike the AH group, the SA group’s

thanking supportive moves contained verbs such as ‘appreciate’ and adverbial modifications,

such as ‘so’ in ‘thank you so much’ (see example 88). It is worth noting that although the SA

group’s thanking supportive moves were more varied and complex compared to the AH group’s,

these longer, more complex utterances also frequently contained grammatical errors, such as

‘very appreciate’ or ‘I would be appreciated’ (see example 89). This may be explained by using

Schmidt’s (1993) Noticing Hypothesis, with the SA learners having noticed the phrases and

vocabulary used in the L2 environment without yet mastering the use of these forms.

(86) I’d really appreciate it. (ED, situation 5)

(87) I would appreciate anything you could do to help. (ED, situation 1)

(88) Very appreciate you [sic]. (SA, situation 8)

(89) Thank you. (AH, situation 6)

In addition to the aforementioned statistical differences between study groups in terms of how

frequently they used apology supportive moves, the content and linguistic forms used by the

study groups were also found to be different. The apology supportive moves of all three groups

completing the English EDCT tended to be more elaborate and specific in their reference to the

offense compared to the apologies of the NT group (see example 90). Unlike thanking supportive

moves, the SA group’s apologies tended to contain very few grammatical errors and their word

choice tended to be more similar to the apologies of the ED group. Both the ED and SA group

heavily relied on the verb ‘bother’ in their apologies (see example 91, showing the SA group’s

use of the verb ‘bother). By contrast, this verb was less frequently used by the AH group, which

instead favored the verb ‘disturb’ (see example 92). The AH learners’ less frequent use of the

verb ‘bother’ could relate to their limited vocabulary knowledge. Like ED group participants, the

167

SA learners may recognize the conventionalized use of the verb ‘bother’ in request situations. In

contrast, Thai has no equivalent word or expression that is used in such a general or

conventionalized way.

(90) I’m really sorry to have to ask you this… (ED, situation 2)

(91) I am really sorry to bother you. (SA, situation 1)

(92) I’m so sorry to disturb you sir. (AH, situation 2)

As the reader will recall, the remaining mitigating supportive move types – small talk,

preparators, getting precommitments, self-introductions, promises of reward, sweeteners, and

giving alternatives – were used infrequently and generally contained only minimal differences

between study groups in terms of frequency of use. Although it was infrequent, some evidence of

L1 pragmatic transfer on the part of the AH group in particular was observed in the linguistic

forms used in these supportive move types. For example, with the use of self-introduction, most

of which occurred in situation 1 (asking a professor for late enrollment), NT and AH participants

omitted their names and instead gave information about their year of study and faculty. By

contrast, SA and ED participants included their names. This could be because names were not

considered important piece of information for NT participants in this particular context or it was

not necessary that the hearer (professor) know the name of the speaker (student), and this norm

of the learners’ L1 influenced the requests of the AH learners. Possible evidence of L1 pragmatic

transfer also can be seen in both the AH and SA groups’ use of sweeteners in situations 8 (asking

a friend to study with you for an exam) and 9 (asking a younger sibling to do your housework),

which involved informal situations where the speaker and hearer are friends or siblings. The

linguistic features used by the NT, AH, and SA groups usually included affectionate terms such

as ‘nong rak’(นองรก, ‘my beloved sister’), ‘my dear’, ‘sweety’, ‘pretty’, or ‘my hun’ while those

used by the ED group were terms that the speaker praised or expressed admiration of the hearer

such as “You are very good at this subject”, “I have always greatly admired you”, “You are the

best” instead of using affectionate terms. Therefore, it is likely that both the AH and SA groups

were influenced by their L1 when using sweeteners.

Despite the infrequent use of aggravating supportive moves in the data, some differences

between the study groups emerge when focusing on their linguistic forms (see Figure 19). For

168

example, when compared to the AH group, the SA learners used more variety and more complex

linguistic forms in their urging supportive moves, such as “I hope you understand my situation”.

Urging supportive moves used by the AH group, on the other hand, tended to be restricted to a

single word or short phrases such as ‘please’, ‘please?’, ‘OK?’, ‘please help me’, ‘I’m begging

you’, ‘can you?’, ‘right?’, or ‘deal?’. These phrases are easy for the learners to use due to the

simplicity of the form and the clarity of the meaning. Therefore, the presence of more complex

forms by the SA group suggests some linguistic development, differentiating it from the AH

group.

Figure 19. Mean number of aggravating supportive move types used per request.


When controlling for the social variable of relative power, several patterns emerged that

demonstrated a correlation between relative power and the use of supportive moves as well as

differences between the study groups with regard to this correlation. For every study group, the

fewest supportive moves were used in high-low situations, ranging from 1.13 (NT) to 1.74 (SA)

supportive moves per request, and the most were used in low-high situations, ranging from 2.26

(NT) to 3.51 (ED) supportive moves per request (see Figure 19). Although the mean number of

supportive moves used by each group was considerably different between power relation types,

the mean of each study group relative to one another was generally consistent, with the SA and

ED groups using supportive moves at comparable rates to one another and at higher rates than

the NT and AH groups. The NT group consistently used the fewest supportive moves per request

when controlling for all three types of relative power. The difference between the NT group and

other groups was the largest in low-high situations, with the NT group using supportive moves

significantly less often than every other group (p =<.001). There were no statistically significant

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

NT AH SA ED

Aggravating Supportive Moves

Urging

Negative consequneces

169

differences, however, in the total number of supportive moves per request when comparing the

study groups in equal power and high-low situations.

In terms of the broad categories of supportive move types, mitigating and aggravating, the data

controlling for relative power reveal differences between the study groups’ use of supportive

moves. The greatest differences between study groups can be seen in low-high situations. The

learner groups and ED group used more mitigating supportive moves in low-high situations than

they did in high-low or equal power situations. This was not the case with the NT group, which

used mitigating supportive moves more in equal power situations. In low-high situations, the

difference is statistically significant when comparing the NT group’s use of mitigating

supporting moves to that of any other study group (p =<.001), with the NT using fewer

supportive moves per request. Although aggravating supportive moves were infrequently used in

low-high situations, the difference is notable between the baseline language groups, with the ED

group using significantly fewer aggravating supportive moves when compared to the NT group

(p =.002). In low-high situations, the AH group used aggravating supportive moves at similar

rates to the NT group. There was also a statistically significant difference when comparing the

AH group to the ED group, with the AH group using more aggravating supportive moves in low-

high situations.

While low-high situations involved the greatest differences between the study groups’ use of

aggravating supportive moves, equal power situations involved the most frequent use of

aggravating supportive moves by each study group. However, this supportive move type was

used in comparable numbers by each study group, ranging from 0.25 (NT) to 0.36 (SA)

aggravating supportive moves per request. The learner groups and ED group used mitigating

supportive moves at comparable rates in equal power situations, somewhat less than they did in

low-high situations. The NT group used the fewest mitigating supportive moves in equal power

situations, which was different at a level of statistical significance when comparing the NT group

to the SA (p =.004) and ED groups (p =.003). High-low situations contained the fewest number

of mitigating supportive moves per request by each group, with no statistically significant

differences. There were also no statistically significant differences between groups in the use of

aggravating supportive moves in high-low situations, which were infrequently observed in the

data.

170

When examining the use of individual supportive move types controlling for different relative

power, the most-used supportive move type, grounders, was found most frequently in low-high

situations with every study group, with the NT group using grounders significantly less than the

learner groups (p =<.001) and the ED group (p =.001). All study groups used grounders the least

frequently in high-low situations. The four study groups’ uses of grounders in high-low

situations were also found to be more uniform, with no statistically significant differences. In

equal power situations, the NT group differed from the SA (p =.001) and ED (p =.009) groups,

using grounders significantly less frequently.

Promise of reward supportive moves was used with considerably different means with different

types of relative power. With low-high situations, this supportive move type was used at a

maximum of 0.03 times per request (ED), but high-low situations, the use ranged from 0.25

(AH) to 0.33 (NT) times per request. This was consistent across all study groups. A similar trend

was observed with thanking/appreciation. Every study group used this supportive move type

considerably more in high-low situations than they did in low-high or equal power situations.

The supportive move types that involved the greatest degree of difference between the study

groups include disarmers. Disarmers were consistently used the most by the ED group while this

supportive move type was used consistently the least often by the NT group. This difference is

statistically significant when comparing the NT and ED groups in low-high (p =<.001), equal

power (p =<.001), and high-low (p =<.001) situations. The use of disarmers by the learner

groups was more similar to the NT group in low-high situations. Analysis by Dunn’s test showed

that the ED group used disarmers significantly more than did the AH (p =.003) and SA (p

=<.001) groups in low-high situations. In equal power situations, the learner groups used

disarmers at a rate similar to the ED group, with the learner groups’ rates significantly higher

than that of the NT group (p =<.001).

171

Figure 20. Mean number of mitigating supportive move types used per request in situations controlling for relative power.

A closer look at the individual situations provides additional insights into the aforementioned

aggregated data sets controlling for relative power. For example, notable differences were

observed between the NT group and the other study groups in the use of grounders in situations 1

(asking a professor for late enrollment) and 4 (asking a professor to reconsider your exam), both

of which involved a request to a professor and are therefore, characterized by a low-high power

dynamic. In these situations, the NT group used grounders significantly less frequently than did

the other study groups. Instead, the NT group introduced negative consequences, which like

grounders, explains the reason for the request. However, negative consequences differ from

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00




Apologizing

Giving alternative

Thanking

Sweetener


Promise of reward

Self-introduction

Disarmer

Grounder

Precommitment

Preparator

Small talk

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40




Urging

Negative consequence

172

grounders in that they have an aggravating impact rather than mitigating one. For example, in

situation 1(asking a professor for late enrollment), the grounders of the English EDCT groups

(AH, SA, and ED) tended to convey information about the speaker’s need to take the course in

order to graduate. In contrast, the NT group tended to introduce negative consequences that

focused on what would happen if the speaker were not allowed to enroll in the course. Overall,

the NT group used relatively few mitigating supportive moves in situation 1. Similarly, in

situation 4 (asking a professor to reconsider your exam), the NT group also used grounders much

less frequently than did the English EDCT groups. The English EDCT groups tended to explain

that the results were unexpected because they had prepared well and were able to provide correct

answers on the exam. The NT group, on the other hand, tended to be briefer and less specific,

communicating that they had thought they had done well on the exam. These results could be

viewed as unexpected because with an emphasis on social hierarchy in Thai society, supportive

moves used to minimize the force of the request might be expected to reflect this aspect of Thai

culture. However, giving too many reasons, or using too many grounders, could be considered by

Thais as implying disapproval of the professor grading, which could threaten the face of the

hearer. These observations are consistent with the general pattern revealed in the data that

distinguishes the NT group from the other three study groups when controlling for the variable of

relative power.

A difference in cultural norms might explain why the NT participants used relatively fewer

supportive moves or why they chose different supportive moves than the ED group. Despite

these differences between the learners’ L1 and target languages, there is no evidence of L1

pragmatic transfer with regard to the effect of relative power when considering both the

frequency of all supportive moves combined and the frequency of individual types of supportive

moves; both learner groups used similar numbers of supportive moves when compared to ED

group participants controlling for this variable. In particular, both learner groups demonstrated a

similar pattern to the ED group in which the number of supportive moves per request positively

correlated to the relative power of the hearer, a pattern that was not observed with the NT group.

Study abroad does not appear to have affected the learners’ sensitivity to relative power as seen

in the number of supportive moves per request.

173


When controlling for the variable of social distance, supportive moves were used the most in

situations involving close relationships by every study group. Close relationship situations were

also characterized by the least variability between groups, with the number of supportive moves

per request ranging only from 2.68 (NT) to 3.32 (SA) supportive moves per request (see Figure

21). Analysis by Kruskal-Wallis test showed that there were no statistically significant

differences between the study groups in the total number of supportive moves per request in

close relationship situations.

The data from situations involving strangers and acquaintances show considerable differences

between the NT group and the other three study groups, with the NT group using fewer

supportive moves per request. Analysis by Dunn’s test showed that this difference was

statistically significant when comparing the NT group to the AH (p =.008), SA (p =<.001), and

ED (p =<.001) groups in stranger situations and also when comparing the NT group to the AH (p

=<.001), SA (p =<.001), and ED (p =.002) groups in acquaintance situations. All study groups

used the fewest supportive moves in acquaintance situations, with the learner groups and the ED

group using supportive moves at very similar rates. In stranger situations, the AH group (M =

2.45) used slightly fewer supportive moves when compared to the ED group (M = 2.88), but this

difference was not statistically significant.

Mitigating supportive moves made up the majority of supportive moves by a wide margin for

every group when controlling for each social distance level. Aggravating supportive moves were

particularly infrequently used in acquaintance situations, with mitigating supportive moves

representing nearly all of the supportive moves of every group. Every study group used

aggravating supportive moves most frequently in situations with strangers, ranging from 0.25

(ED) to 0.39 (NT) aggravating supportive moves per request. Analysis by Kruskal-Wallis test

showed there were no significant differences between the study groups when controlling for all

three types of social distance. For every study group, mitigating supportive moves appeared the

most often in requests in close situations, in which there were no statistically significant

differences between study groups. In stranger and acquaintance situations, the NT group used

fewer mitigating supportive moves per request. The NT group’s rate of mitigating supportive

move use was significantly less than that of the AH (p =.002), SA (p =<.001), and ED (p =<.001)

174

groups in stranger situations. Similarly, there were significant differences when comparing the

NT group with the AH (p =<.001), SA (p =<.001), and ED (p =.001) groups in acquaintance

situations, with the NT group using fewer mitigating supportive moves. The learner groups and

ED group were very similar in the frequency of mitigating supportive moves per request in

acquaintance situations. Although not a statistically significant difference, the NT group (M =

2.08) used mitigating supportive moves somewhat less often in stranger situations than did the

ED group (M = 2.64).

The most used supportive move type for every group was grounder when controlling for all three

social distance levels. With the learner groups and ED groups, the number of grounders per

request varied minimally across different social distance levels. Although the study groups all

used grounders at similar rates in close situations, the NT group used significantly fewer

grounders in acquaintance situations when compared to the AH (p =.002) and SA (p =.002)

groups. In situations involving requests to strangers, with the NT group using significantly fewer

grounders than the SA (p =.001) and ED (p =.007) groups.

Disarmers also show differences between the study groups when controlling for social distance.

This supportive move type was used the most frequently in close situations, with the ED group

using disarmers the most and the learner groups using disarmers only slightly less frequently.

The NT group used disarmers significantly less than the AH (p =<.001), SA (p =.003), and ED (p

=<.001) groups in close situations. With strangers and acquaintances, the ED group also used

disarmers the most often and the NT group used this supportive move type the least often. In

stranger situations, the ED group used disarmers significantly more than the NT (p =<.001) and

AH (p =.005) groups, and in acquaintance situations, the NT group used disarmers significantly

less than the SA (p =.009) and ED (p =.001) groups. As for the learner groups’ use of disarmers

in stranger and acquaintance situations, the AH group conformed more to the norms of the NT

group while the SA group was more comparable to the ED group.

Although the use of disarmers in close situations demonstrate differences between the NT group

and other groups, close situations generally saw comparable rates of each supportive move type

with the study groups; analysis by Kraskul-Wallis showed that there are no statistically

significant differences between groups in the use of any supportive move type in close situations

besides disarmers. Aside from the similarities between groups in close situations, this social

175

distance level was also characterized by the use of promise of reward and imposition minimizers,

which were both used considerably more by every study group in close situations than they were

in situations involving strangers or acquaintances.

Figure 21. Mean number of mitigating supportive move types used per request in situations controlling for social distance.

Although the supportive move types of promise of reward and giving alternative were not

frequently used by the ED group in stranger situations, this social distance type involved

statistically significant differences, with the ED group using significantly more promise of

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

NT AH SA EDS NT AH SA EDS NT AH SA EDS



Apologizing

Giving alternative

Thanking

Sweetener


Promise of reward

Self-introduction

Disarmer

Grounder

Precommitment

Preparator

Small talk

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50




Urging

Negative consequence

176

reward supportive moves when compared to the NT (p =.001), AH (p =.001), and SA (p =.005)

groups. Similarly the ED group used significantly more giving alternative supportive moves

when compared to the NT (p =.001), AH (p =<.001), and SA (p =.001) groups. Apologizing

supportive moves were not frequently used by the learner groups or the ED group in

acquaintance situations. However, the NT group did not use apologizing at all, which was found

to be significantly different when compared to the AH (p =.006) and ED (p =.001) groups.

These findings suggest a general pattern in which social distance appears to have had a greater

influence on the use of supportive moves by the NT group than by any other study group. In

particular, situations defined by close social relationships elicited a significant increase in the

number of the NT group’s supportive moves. Many of these supportive moves came from

situation 8 (asking a friend to study with you for an exam), in which the NT group used

considerably more preparators and imposition minimizers compared to the other three study

groups. Both learner groups were similar to each other and the ED group in their response to

different levels of social distance, suggesting study abroad had a minimal if any effect on the

learners’ sensitivity to social distance, as measured by their use of supportive moves. Other

patterns characterizing the relationship between social distance and supportive moves can be

observed when looking beyond the aggregated data sets to how supportive moves were used in

individual situations. The ED group’s use of disarmers in situation 1 (asking a professor for late

enrollment), for example, points to a difference in perception about how factor of social distance

relates to the requested action. ED group participants mentioned in their disarmers the fact that

they had never previously studied with the professor, but this factor was not mentioned at all by

the learners. This suggests that the ED group participants might have thought that this social

distance factor could affect the decision made by the hearer. The fact that neither learner group

did this suggests that study abroad experience did not affect the SA learners’ use of disarmers.

Situation 1 also highlights a potential cultural difference that can be seen in the way participants

use the supportive move type of introducing negative consequences, with the NT group using

negative consequences much more frequently than the ED group. The differences between the

two baseline language groups could come from cultural differences in the way the teacher-

student relationship is perceived. Bergman and Kasper (1993) contrasted American and Thai

perceptions of this relationship, reporting that Thais perceive a closer social relationship between

teacher and student, similar to that of distant relatives. In contrast, Americans view the teacher-

177

student relationship more as a working relationship. In the cultural context that views this

relationship as a working one, the aggravating effect of introducing a negative consequence

would perhaps be more inappropriate than in the cultural context which sees a closer, family-like

relationship between student and teacher. It is evident that in situation 1, the SA learners used

this type of supportive move at a very similar rate to the ED. Moreover, the way the negative

consequences were framed was somewhat less direct than what was observed in the requests of

the NT and AH participants. The SA learner group’s request responses, therefore, suggest that

experience with study abroad may play a role in contributing to learners’ pragmatic awareness of

how this role is perceived differently in English-speaking cultures. After all, studying abroad

puts students into situations that directly relate to this relationship in an English-speaking context

(see examples 93-96, showing all study groups’ use of supportive moves introducing negative

consequences).

(93) It’s my last chance and otherwise I might be unable to graduate. (ED, situation 1)

(94) If I don’t join this class, I can’t graduate. (AH, situation 1)

(95) This means that I couldn’t graduate in time. (SA, situation 1)

(96) ไมอยางนนหนจะไมส าเรจตามหลกสตรแนๆ เลย

mai yang nan nu cha mai samret tam laksut nae nae loey

not like that I will not succeed according curriculum certain certain at all

5.7 Chapter summary

The findings of the first section of the EDCT consist of coded data representing six aspects of the

participants’ request responses: request perspectives, request strategies, internal modifications,

request structures, alerters, and supportive moves. These data were analyzed quantitatively to

compare the study groups’ linguistic production of requests both in terms of types and frequency

of various linguistic features. In addition to applying quantitative analysis to the coded data

derived from the request responses, the request responses were examined in order to identify and

discuss various trends with regard to the linguistic forms not captured by the coding system.

The degree of similarity between the study groups varied, depending on the aspect of the request.

However, it can be summarized that, generally, the norms of NT and ED participants are quite

178

different in several ways. The requests of NT participants tended to contain more direct features.

This is particularly evident in the data relating to request strategies, perspectives, and request

structures. ED participants modified their requests internally using syntactic features relating to

verb inflection, which are features not found in Thai. NT participants modified their requests

using lexical features, such as polite particles, which are not available in English.

Generally, when compared to the ED group, both learner groups (AH and SA) used less variety

of lexical and grammatical forms in their requests. Similarly, the coded data, which reflect the

participants’ choices and frequencies of various linguistic features, showed that both of the

learner groups tended to differ to some extent from the ED group in every request aspect.

However, the SA group appears to show more similarities to the ED group than does the AH

group in terms of the variety of lexical and grammatical forms as well as in the choices and

frequencies of various linguistic features. It can be summarized that study abroad experience

correlates with some development toward the linguistic norms of ED participants. It is

noteworthy, however, that there is some evidence that L1 transfer played a role in influencing

both learner groups’ requests. In addition, there is also evidence to suggest that training transfer

was an even more significant factor in the learners’ request-making than L1 transfer.

In terms of the social variables of relative power and social distance, it can be summarized that

no single group appears to be more sensitive to these than the other groups. Although a group

may have shown a lesser or greater sensitivity to one of these social variables when looking at

one particular aspect of the request, these results did not produce a consistent trend that can

characterize a particular group as being more sensitive than another group to these social

variables. It was expected that when requesting from a lower position of relative power,

participants from all study groups would use more modifications and indirect features in order to

make their requests more polite. Frequent modifications and indirectness were also expected

with greater social distance. However, it can be concluded that no general pattern from any study

group was observed that is consistent with this expectation. The patterns that did emerge appear

to be more complex and are perhaps influenced by other contextual factors, such as time

sensitivity or the high context nature of a request. It can be summarized that these patterns reflect

differences between the baseline language groups. Although the SA group appears to show more

similarities to the ED group than does the AH group, there were generally minimal differences

179

between the SA and AH groups, suggesting a minimal effect of study abroad on the learners’

sensitivity to the social variables of relative power and social distance.

180

Chapter 6 Perception Data Analysis and Discussion

This chapter presents the findings and discussion of the data collected from the second section of

the EDCT and the semi-structured interviews, which are used to contextualize the requests

elicited in the first section of the EDCT. The data obtained from the second section of the EDCT

and the semi-structured interviews are concerned with the participants’ perceptions of their own

language use and, for the learner groups, with their English pragmatic development as L2

learners. Findings are organized and discussed in two parts. The first part deals with the second

section of the EDCT, which consists of follow-up questions designed to provide insights into the

participants’ request making processes in the elicited request responses in the first section of the

EDCT. The second part involves the semi-structured interviews aimed at understanding

participants’ views on language use norms, politeness, and language learning. The chapter

concludes with a summary of the various interpretations presented.

6.1 Second section of the EDCT

The second section of the EDCT contains four follow-up questions, all of which apply to each of

the nine situations from the first section of the EDCT. The follow-up questions are intended to

provide context and insights into the participants’ perspectives on their language use when

responding to the request situations in the first section of the EDCT. Before turning to a

situation-by-situation presentation and interpretation of the findings from the participants’

responses to these follow-up questions, let us briefly consider each of the four questions.

The objective of the first open-ended question of the EDCT’s second part was to allow the

participants to identify in their own words the relevant factors that influenced their language

choices while making requests in the first section of the EDCT. Interestingly, the desire to be

polite appeared quite frequently in the answers of all study groups in some situations. Compared

to other factors, politeness is uniquely vague and requires further interpretation. According to

Brown and Levinson (1987), the level of politeness needed in a request is derived from other

context-specific factors. That is, a speaker uses variables such as her/his social distance or

relative power to the hearer in order to determine how polite the request should be. Thus, when a

participant identifies the desire to be polite as a factor in their decision making, it begs the

181

question: what factors influenced their perception that a request should be polite? The answer

appears to be, at least in part, social distance and relative power. The desire for politeness was

quite commonly represented in the participants’ answers in five situations, including all three

situations involving strangers, which suggests social distance was a factor connected to the need

for politeness. One of the remaining situations in which many participants identified the desire to

be polite as a factor influencing their requests was situation 4 (asking a professor to reconsider

your exam), which involved a professor, representing a low-high power dynamic. Situation 7

(borrowing money from an older relative), which also involved a low-high power dynamic, also

contained some answers from every study group related to the need to be polite. This suggests

that relative power was also a factor, with the desire for politeness associated with low-high

requests. In order to better understand how other factors were considered and how these factors

intersect with the desire to be polite, these factors will be discussed below according to each of

the nine situations from the EDCT.

According to Brown and Levinson (1987), a speaker making an FTA, such as a request, must

determine the appropriate degree of politeness by assessing three independent social variables:

relative power, social distance, and the degree of imposition (termed ‘absolute ranking of

imposition’ by Brown and Levinson). In the first section of the EDCT, each hypothetical request

situation was designed to control for the first two of these social variables: relative power and

social distance. The data produced controlling for these two variables have been presented and

discussed in Chapter 5. The last of these variables, the degree of imposition, was the focus of the

second and third follow-up questions in the second half of the EDCT. The second question asked

participants to identify, using a five-point Likert scale, the perceived level of imposition for each

of the nine situations provided in the first section of the EDCT. The overall results are presented

in Table 13. Statistical analysis by Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn’s tests (p =<.01) showed that

significant differences between the study groups’ ratings occurred only in situations 1, 6, and 9.

In situation 1 (asking a professor for late enrollment), the SA group (M = 3.65) rated the degree

of imposition as significantly higher than did the NTS group (M = 1.85). The SA group also

rated the degree of imposition as significantly higher in situation 6 (asking for an ordered drink)

when compared to the NTS group (M = 1.26). In situation 9 (asking a younger sibling to do your

housework), the rating given by the ED group (M = 2.76) was significantly higher than that

assessed by the SA (M = 1.94) and NTS groups (M = 1.97). Question three asked participants to

182

explain their rating, asking them to provide information about the factors they considered when

rating the degree of imposition for each situation. The findings related to these two follow-up

questions are presented in detailed below situation-by-situation.

Table 13

Ratings of the Degree of Imposition

Average SD

Very low

imposition

1

2 3 4

Very high

imposition

5

Situation 1

EDS 3.41 1.13 5.88% 14.71% 29.41% 32.35% 17.65%

SA 3.65 1.10 5.88% 5.88% 29.41% 35.29% 23.53%

AH 2.76 1.10 11.76% 32.35% 29.41% 20.59% 5.88% NTS 3.24 1.33 11.76% 20.59% 20.59% 26.47% 20.59%

Situation 2

EDS 3.79 1.07 2.94% 11.76% 14.71% 44.12% 26.47%

SA 3.97 1.06 2.94% 5.88% 20.59% 32.35% 38.24%

AH 3.97 0.80 0.00% 2.94% 23.53% 47.06% 26.47% NTS 3.88 1.18 2.94% 11.76% 20.59% 23.53% 41.18%

Situation 3

EDS 1.62 1.07 70.59% 8.82% 8.82% 11.76% 0.00% SA 2.15 1.11 35.29% 29.41% 23.53% 8.82% 2.94%

AH 1.74 0.99 55.88% 23.53% 11.76% 8.82% 0.00%

NTS 1.74 1.83 47.06% 35.29% 14.71% 2.94% 0.00% Situation 4

EDS 2.97 1.22 14.71% 20.59% 26.47% 29.41% 8.82%

SA 3.32 1.34 11.76% 17.65% 20.59% 26.47% 23.53% AH 3.32 0.84 0.00% 14.71% 47.06% 29.41% 8.82%

NTS 3.53 0.96 2.94% 11.76% 26.47% 47.06% 11.76% Situation 5

EDS 2.32 1.07 26.47% 32.35% 23.53% 17.65% 0.00%

SA 2.38 0.99 20.59% 35.29% 29.41% 14.71% 0.00% AH 2.21 0.95 26.47% 35.29% 29.41% 8.82% 0.00%

NTS 2.21 1.10 32.35% 29.41% 26.47% 8.82% 2.94%

Situation 6 EDS 1.56 0.99 67.65% 17.65% 8.82% 2.94% 2.94%

SA 1.85 0.89 41.18% 38.24% 14.71% 5.88% 0.00%

AH 1.56 0.82 58.82% 32.35% 2.94% 5.88% 0.00% NTS 1.26 0.51 76.47% 20.59% 2.94% 0.00% 0.00%

Situation 7

EDS 2.21 1.15 35.29% 26.47% 23.53% 11.76% 2.94% SA 2.12 0.91 29.41% 35.29% 29.41% 5.88% 0.00%

AH 2.24 1.05 29.41% 32.35% 23.53% 14.71% 0.00%

NTS 2.12 0.95 26.47% 44.12% 23.53% 2.94% 2.94% Situation 8

EDS 3.12 1.25 14.71% 14.71% 26.47% 32.35% 11.76%

SA 3.24 1.21 5.88% 26.47% 23.53% 26.47% 17.65% AH 3.50 0.99 2.94% 14.71% 23.53% 47.06% 11.76%

NTS 3.79 0.85 0.00% 8.82% 20.59% 52.94% 17.65%

Situation 9 EDS 2.76 1.30 20.59% 23.53% 26.47% 17.65% 11.76%

SA 1.94 0.98 38.24% 41.18% 8.82% 11.76% 0.00%

AH 2.53 1.13 17.65% 38.24% 23.53% 14.71% 5.88% NTS 1.97 1.06 44.12% 26.47% 17.65% 11.76% 0.00%

The final follow-up question of the EDCT’s second section asked participants whether or not

they had ever made requests in a similar situation to those which were described in the first

section of the EDCT. Participants indicated whether or not they had experienced this by selecting

‘yes’ or ‘no’ for each of the nine situations (see Table 14). It is possible that a participant with

previous experience making a similar request to that which was elicited by the request prompt

183

might have a different perspective on this request than a participant with no previous experience

making such a request. Therefore, patterns emerging from this data will also be considered below

in the situation-by-situation presentation.

Table 14

Percentage of Participants Experiencing Similar Situations in Real Life

Yes No Yes No

Situation 1 Situation 6

ED 38.24% 61.76% ED 94.12% 5.88%

SA 32.35% 67.65% SA 94.12% 5.88% AH 70.59% 29.41% AH 85.29% 14.71%

NT 47.06% 52.94% NT 94.12% 5.88%

Situation 2 Situation 7 ED 44.12% 55.88% ED 61.76% 38.24%

SA 11.76% 88.24% SA 47.06% 52.94%

AH 8.82% 91.18% AH 67.65% 32.35% NT 14.71% 85.29% NT 47.06% 52.94%


ED 94.12% 5.88% ED 61.76% 38.24%

SA 61.76% 38.24% SA 47.06% 52.94%

AH 67.65% 32.35% AH 64.71% 35.29% NT 61.76% 38.24% NT 41.18% 58.82%


ED 58.82% 41.18% ED 64.71% 35.29% SA 52.94% 47.06% SA 50.00% 50.00%

AH 38.24% 61.76% AH 61.76% 38.24%

NT 58.82% 41.18% NT 61.76% 38.24% Situation 5

ED 73.53% 26.47%

SA 73.53% 26.47% AH 91.18% 8.82%

NT 76.47% 23.53%

What follows is the situation-by-situation consideration of the findings emerging from the four

follow-up questions included in the second section of the EDCT.

Situation 1 (asking a professor for late enrollment)

All of the study groups often cited the formality of the situation as a factor in how they made

their requests, connecting the need for formality to the hearer’s job of being a professor. The

specific ways that the participants described how this formality would be reflected in the requests

included the avoidance of slang by some SA group participants and the use of formal vocabulary

and polite particles by NT participants. In addition to frequently mentioning the position of the

professor, the four study groups also referred to the hearer’s power as a factor in how the

requests were made. However, this factor seemed to characterize the responses of the NT, AH,

and SA groups in particular. All four groups also mentioned that this request would be an

imposition on the hearer, but this factor was more common in the responses of the ED group.

Some less frequently mentioned but notable factors include the desire for clarity due to the

184

importance of the situation, time sensitivity, and that this type of request would be a regular

occurrence for the professor.

Since this request is to a professor and person of power, the language I used was more

formal [the author’s translation from Thai]. (AH)

The request should be formal as it is in a university setting. (ED)

I spoke more formally and didn’t use slang. For example, I wouldn’t use “hey” as a

greeting [the author’s translation from Thai]. (SA)

In terms of the degree of imposition they perceived of the request in situation 1, the two baseline

language groups rated the request similarly as having a moderate imposition. This suggests that

differences between the learners’ L1 and L2 cultures were not a factor in their perception of the

degree of imposition. The AH group appears to be an outlier, rating the situation as having a

lower degree of imposition compared to the other three study groups. When asked about their

experience with a similar situation, it is notable that the AH group was also quite different from

the other three study groups in their experience with this situation, with a large percentage of AH

participants (70.59%) reporting experience with a similar situation. By contrast, the other three

study groups ranged from 32.35-47.06%. The AH group’s familiarity with this type of request

might play a role in influencing their perception that this is a low imposition request; participants

who have not experienced this type of request may be more likely to view it as unusual and thus,

a higher imposition on the hearer.

Although the degree of imposition was rated similarly by the two baseline language groups, the

reasons provided by these study groups reveal some differences between them. The ED group

tended to see the imposition coming from the fact that the professor would have to make an

exception. The NT group, however, focused more on the imposition coming from the fact that it

was their own fault. Participants from both learner groups also mentioned this reason, that the

imposition comes from the fact that it was their own fault. This explanation is consistent with the

requests of the learner groups in situation 1. As the reader will recall from the discussion of the

request data for supportive moves from Chapter 5, AH and SA participants differed from the ED

group in their use of disarmers because the learner groups focused on how their own inaction

resulted in the need to make a request. In contrast, ED participants used disarmers to focus on the

185

norms and rules relating to the requested action. All study groups provided answers that reflect

the feeling that this request would be an inconvenience for the professor. Some AH participants

who rated the situation as having a low degree of imposition mentioned that adding one more

student would not make a difference in terms of the professor’s teaching load.

It’s possible the professor will have to bend the rules. (ED)

By asking him to let me enroll, it’s asking him to work harder. (ED)

It is my fault, so I don’t feel like it’s their responsibility [the author’s translation from

Thai]. (NT)

The teacher is already teaching the class and having one more student won’t affect

much [the author’s translation from Thai]. (AH)

Situation 2 (asking to cut a taxi line)

The ED group stood out in one important regard with this situation, namely four ED participants

(two Britons, one Canadian, and one American) chose not to make the request. All four of these

participants cited reasons related to morality or fairness as the main factor in their decisions. The

ED group also tended to cite the fact that the hearer was a stranger as a factor in their request

making. Interestingly, this was given as a reason for why the request should be polite, or formal,

by some but also why it should be informal by others. These ED participants explained that an

informal-sounding request might project friendliness that would result in a better chance of the

hearer complying with the request. It is notable that some participants felt that informality would

be ideal in this situation because formality was frequently mentioned in situation 1, which also

involved a request to a stranger. Rather than only reflecting a difference in relative power, this

difference might reflect the fact that the request in situation 2 would involve a request to a

stranger whom the speaker would likely never encounter again, whereas situation 1 involved a

request to a stranger with whom the speaker might have a future relationship. It is plausible that

individual differences between participants also played a role in these different views. This

points to the potential that additional context related to the potential future relationship between

speaker and hearer may play a role in calculation of a request to a stranger.

186

All groups frequently mentioned the urgency of the situation as a principle factor, which

participants from all study groups mentioned would lead them to minimize the lengths of their

requests. Some NT group members explained that urgency would prompt them to form a request

to elicit the sympathy of the hearer. Similarly, participants from both learner groups also

mentioned that because of the situation’s urgency, they would want the hearer to understand their

predicament. The patterns observed in the responses between the learner groups were quite

similar. In this equal power situation, the factor of relative power between the speaker and hearer

was not mentioned at all by any study group.

Because I don’t know this person, I intensify my opening apology “I’m really sorry”.

(ED)

I wouldn’t make this request, since it's assuming that I have a greater need than they

do, and it's not fair for me to go first. (ED)

I made this request as short and to the point as possible [the author’s translation from

Thai]. (SA)

Because I need to go quickly, I want to make the other person have sympathy for me [the

author’s translation from Thai]. (NT)

Situation 2 was rated by all study groups as having a high to very high degree of imposition.

Cultural differences between Thai and English speakers do not appear to play a role in their view

of the degree of imposition in this situation. However, the participants’ self-reported experience

with this situation distinguishes the ED group from the other three study groups. While 44.12%

of ED participants report experience with this situation, less than 15% of NT, AH, and SA

participants report having had this experience. This might be explained by the abundance of taxis

available in Thailand compared to many English-speaking countries. Typically, a taxi queue

might be found leaving an airport, but in other locations in Thailand, no formal queue is present.

Don’t make your problem my problem. Only a shameless person would ask. (ED)

The other person might also need to take a flight soon [the author’s translation from

Thai]. (SA)

187

Losing out on a taxi you have been waiting for is wasting time and its bad manners to

ask [the author’s translation from Thai]. (NT)

Situation 3 (asking to get on the train)

With this situation, there were generally fewer differences between the study groups and more

consistent answers from the participants. It was expected that in a high-low situation, such as

situation 3, the learner groups and the NT group would cite their seniority over the hearer as a

factor because Thai culture is characterized by hierarchical social relationships (Gullette, 2014;

Kirch, 1973; Klausner, 1993). This was indeed present in the responses of these groups.

However, this was also frequently given as a response from the ED group, perhaps due to the

explicitness of this factor in the situation’s prompt. The main factor mentioned by all four study

groups was the urgency of the situation. All groups mentioned that this would limit the length of

their request and many participants also mentioned that there would be no time for formality in

their requests. Although social distance was not referred to as frequently as the relative power

between the speaker and hearer, the fact that the request was made to a stranger was also

mentioned by some participants in the ED group.

Moving inside the train is a small request and people should do it without being asked.

People should be considerate [the author’s translation from Thai]. (AH)

The urgency and time would be the main factor, but the age of the person would also

come into my mind. I might add a bit more, like "can I squeeze in here" if the person

were old. (ED)

There's no time for an elaborate request when getting on the train during the rush hour

[the author’s translation from Thai]. (SA)

Generally, all four study groups were similar to one another in their rating of situation 3’s degree

of imposition; all study groups rated the request as quite a low imposition. However, it is

noteworthy that 24 participants (70.59%) from the ED group rated it as having the lowest level

of imposition, a very low imposition. The ED group also stood out from the other three study

groups in terms of previous experience with this situation, with 94.12% of ED group participants

reporting some experience with a similar situation and only 61.76-67.65% of the other study

188

groups reporting such experience. Most participants cited the ease of the requested action,

emphasizing that it would only involve taking a step or moving slightly to allow room. Although

the average rating of the degree of imposition between groups was generally similar, there were

differences within groups, which might be explained by participants’ experience with such

situations in daily life. Even if participants had experienced this type of situation before, riding

the train would perhaps be a daily occurrence for participants living in cities such as Bangkok or

Toronto. On the other hand, some participants, particularly those from smaller towns, may not

often experience this type of situation.

It’s common to move to make room for other passengers [the author’s translation from

Thai]. (AH)

When I lived in London, it happened to me most days when traveling on the Tube [the

author’s translation from Thai]. (SA)

I can’t imagine that moving a little bit inside the train to let another person on board

would be much of an imposition. (ED)

Situation 4 (asking a professor to reconsider your exam)

One of the most cited considerations that participants mentioned as a factor when forming their

request in this situation was that the request could potentially offend the hearer. In this situation,

the speaker received a lower grade than expected on an exam and therefore, he/she asks the

hearer, a professor, to review the exam. Many participants mentioned that they would want to

word the request carefully so as to frame the request in terms of seeking clarification rather than

asking the hearer to defend the grade. Similar to situation 1 (asking a professor for late

enrollment), the participants often mentioned the hearer’s role as a professor as an important

factor and with this, the hearer’s power in the situation. Unlike situation 1, however, the

participants rarely mentioned the need for formality. It is unclear if this relates to the fact that

situation 1 involved a stranger and this situation involved an acquaintance (a professor with

whom the participant has previously studied). With the aforementioned reasons, there were no

notable differences between the study groups. Although the study groups’ explanations were

rather similar with this situation, some differences were present that seem to suggest differences

between Thai and English-speaking cultures. It was somewhat common for participants in the

189

NT, AH, and SA groups to mention their awareness that the professor would be busy and by

making this request, the professor would have more work. This was not mentioned by the ED

group. Instead, some ED group participants discussed the desire for clarity and directness.

Since the professor has the power, I would be careful with the way I talked with him [the

author’s translation from Thai]. (SA)

I do not want my professors to feel insulted, so I would want to be careful that my

request wouldn’t show that I believe my professor was wrong [the author’s translation

from Thai]. (SA)

The teacher is busy and will have to spend time to look at my exam again when the

teacher might be correct [the author’s translation from Thai]. (NT)

I'd want to be direct enough that I could achieve my goal. (ED)

Although 58.82% of participants from both the NT and ED group reported previous experience

with a similar situation, the ratings of the degree of imposition for situation 4 show some

possible differences between the assessments of these two groups. The ED group rates this

request’s degree of imposition at slightly below moderate (M = 2.97), while the NT group rates it

as moderate to high (M = 3.53). The two learner groups produced identical average ratings (M =

3.32), falling in between the rating of the two baseline language groups. However, differences

between the study groups were not statistically significant in this situation.

Those from the ED group who rated the imposition level as low cited their right to information

about their grade or that this kind of action is the job of the professor as reasons. However, others

from the ED group rated this request as having a high degree of imposition and gave similar

reasons as other study groups. The reasons given that this would be a highly imposing request

include the feeling that this would in some way accuse the professor of making a mistake or that

it would burden the professor. The ED group’s rating, along with their stated reason that the

request related to a right to information, suggests that a speaker’s perception of a request’s

legitimacy may relate to their perception of that request’s degree of imposition. This factor may

reveal differences between Thai and English-speaking cultures and explain the difference in the

rating of degree of imposition.

190

Sometimes a professor has hundreds of students and this might create more work [the

author’s translation from Thai]. (AH)

That shows we think the professor made a mistake and that could make her lose face if

it is wrong [the author’s translation from Thai]. (NT)

It is the professor’s job to deal with students’ grades and concerns. This is not an

unreasonable request on my part. (ED)

It’s my right to ask. The professor may be at fault. (ED)

Situation 5 (borrowing a cell phone from a classmate)

Participants from all four study groups cited similar factors that they considered when forming

their requests for this situation. The main factor discussed was that the hearer is someone

familiar to the speaker. The participants consistently linked this factor to their desire for a casual

request and to avoid being overly formal. It is notable that some participants from the ED group

elaborated on this theme, suggesting that although they would make this request using casual

language, it would also need to be polite. Therefore, it can be inferred that for some of these

participants, the concept of politeness is not necessarily equated to formality. This is in contrast

to situation 1 (asking a professor for late enrollment), in which many participants explicitly

linked politeness and formality.

I would be friendly by avoiding being really formal [the author’s translation from Thai].

(AH)

This would be a very informal request. I used some slang [the author’s translation from

Thai]. (SA)

I made my request in a relatively casual way because this is one of my classmates and

the request doesn’t seem like that big of a deal. That being said I need to always be

polite and explain to them clearly why I need to use their phone when I should have

one myself. (ED)

All study groups rated the imposition of the request in situation 5 to be low. Only one participant

(NT) from any of the study groups rated it as a very high imposition. Most participants felt that

191

this kind of request is common and that it would not be difficult for the hearer to comply with the

requested action. Some participants mentioned that time constraints or concerns for hygiene

might play a role in some situations, but otherwise, this request would not cause much

inconvenience. Consistent with these explanations that this type of request is a common

occurrence, more than 70% of participants from each group reported having some experience

with a similar situation.

This is a very common situation and I know that the other person wouldn’t feel like

it’s a big request [the author’s translation from Thai]. (AH)

If the student was not in a hurry, it probably wouldn’t be inconvenient because it would

only take a minute [the author’s translation from Thai]. (SA)

I have lent my phone to other people and also borrowed phones. It’s not a big deal [the

author’s translation from Thai]. (AH)

It shouldn’t be much of a problem to borrow a phone from someone you know for a

moment. (ED)

Situation 6 (asking for an ordered drink)

The study groups differed in several notable ways when describing the factors they considered

when making a request in this situation. These differences appear to reflect different cultural

attitudes between Thai and English-speaking cultures toward the relationship between customer

and server in the context of a restaurant. There is also some indication that the SA group may

have been influenced by English-speaking cultural values related to this context during their time

abroad. Generally, the ED group explicitly mentioned a desire to be polite but also to show

familiarity and understanding to the server. Many ED group participants mentioned this could be

done by using brief requests and very casual language, including the use of the server’s first

name, and showing an awareness that the server is busy. The ED group participants also

mentioned that showing an awareness of the situation would also reduce the chance of

embarrassing the server. This is reflected in the request data, with the ED group frequently using

hedge internal modifications that implicitly acknowledge the busyness of the server (e.g., When

you get a chance could you grab me my drink? – ED participant). The NT and AH groups, on the

192

other hand, tended to focus on the server’s role and responsibility and did not mention saving the

server’s face or showing familiarity as factors. This can be interpreted as reflecting a different

cultural view on this type of customer service relationship, which reflects a more general

difference described by various scholars (see for example, Gullette, 2014; Kirch, 1973; Klausner,

1993; Qingxue, 2003) that can be characterized by an orientation of English-speaking countries

toward egalitarianism compared to the hierarchical orientation of Thai culture. Interestingly, the

SA group cited reasons that were similar to both the ED group on the one hand and the NT and

AH group on the other. This may be explained by the fact that many of the SA group participants

have experienced working as a server during their time abroad. For college students in Thailand,

it would be uncommon to work in a restaurant, as these jobs would be more commonly taken by

less-educated workers. Employment as a restaurant server is not only common for young,

college-educated people in English-speaking countries, but it is also quite common for Thai

students studying abroad to work in a Thai restaurant.

I would just say the name of the drink I ordered rather than making it into a complete

sentence because I don’t want to embarrass the wait staff for forgetting my order. (ED)

I know the server. I would probably know his/ her name, so this request would be

informal with a smile. (ED)

It is the waiter/waitress’s responsibility to serve drink. They should know what they’re

supposed to do [the author’s translation from Thai]. (NT)

I wanted to be polite because I knew the server was busy [the author’s translation from

Thai]. (SA)

The average rating for the degree of imposition was lowest for each study group in this situation,

with all groups rating it as having a low to very low imposition. Participants identifying this

request as having a very low imposition comprise the majority of participants in each study

group; however, the NT group was slightly more homogenous than other groups in this regard,

with 76.47% of participants choosing this rating. The main factor that participants cited when

explaining their low rating of this request is that the hearer’s job is directly related to the

requested action. This supports the aforementioned observation discussed with situation 4

193

(asking a professor to reconsider your exam) that a request’s perceived legitimacy relates to the

perceived degree of imposition of that request.

One trend seen especially with the learner groups and not with the baseline language groups is

that they considered the factor that the restaurant is busy. This belief might explain why some

participants from the AH and SA groups rated this situation higher than did the other two groups,

but it is unclear why this belief appears to be relevant especially to these two groups. The low

rate of imposition perceived by all four study groups might relate to the fact that a high

percentage of participants from each study group report having previous experience with a

similar situation. Because more than 85% of participants from each study group report having

experienced a similar situation, situation 6 may be interpreted as involving a common request.

Even though he or she is supposed to bring the customer a drink when it is requested,

the server is busy [the author’s translation from Thai]. (AH)

This request is the server's job and I would not be asking if the server did not mess up

the order in the first place. (ED)

Serving orders is part of a waiter's job so it shouldn't be considered an imposition at

all [the author’s translation from Thai]. (NT)

Situation 7 (borrowing money from an older relative)

The desire to minimize the imposition of the request was the most cited factor considered in all

of the study groups’ explanations. Many participants explained that even though the amount of

money was relatively small, they would want to make it clear that the money would be returned

shortly. This is reflected in the participants’ requests, in which imposition minimizer supportive

moves (e.g., I will pay you back as soon as I get home tomorrow. – ED participant) were

extensively used. Out of the nine EDCT situations, imposition minimizers were used the most by

each group in this situation. The explanations provided by all of the study groups also explicitly

mentioned the ability to be polite without being formal in their requests. This reiterates the

aforementioned observation in situation 5 (borrowing a cell phone from a classmate) that

formality does not necessarily equate to politeness. In elaborating the basis for this desire for

politeness, the NT, AH, and SA groups all referred to a desire to show respect to the hearer

194

because the hearer is a guest and an older family member. Although the ED group also discussed

a desire to be polite, this desire was not explicitly linked to either of these factors. Another small

difference between the ED group and the other study groups is that the ED group was the only

one that did not mention embarrassment in having to make this request.

I want to make it clear that I will pay them back as soon as possible. (ED)

I'd also want to make it clear that I would return their money very quickly [the author’s

translation from Thai]. (SA)

Showing respect and being quite informal [the author’s translation from Thai]. (AH)

It would be embarrassing to ask a relative and a guest for money [the author’s translation

from Thai]. (NT)

All four study groups report previous experience with situation 7 at comparably moderate rates,

between 47.06-67.65%. Likewise, the four study groups rated the degree of imposition very

similarly, varying only from 2.12 to 2.24, a low level of imposition. Although all four groups

rated the degree of imposition similarly, there was a difference between Thai participants (NT,

AH, and SA) and the ED participants in how they explained their choice. The NT and the learner

groups frequently cited the fact that the hearer was a close family member as a reason to explain

their rating. Interestingly, this reason was given to explain both why this request would have a

low level of imposition and also why it was not the lowest level of imposition. This action of

lending a younger family member money was described as being consistent with an older family

member’s role, which involves taking care of younger family members, especially with

providing food or money. However, some participants expressed reluctance to ask for this

because of a fear of implying an expectation that their older family member would feel obligated

to provide for them in this way. The ED group, on the other hand, tended to refer to the small

amount of money and the fact that the money would be paid back quickly.

The old relative is a guest and I am the host, so I should take care of the guest [the


195

However, this is people in my family and the old relatives are usually kind and always

buy snack for kids, so it should be OK to borrow their money [the author’s translation

from Thai]. (AH)

Family members are expected to help each other out, and in this case, Aunt Rose will

likely get some of the food [the author’s translation from Thai]. (SA)

The amount of money would be small, and I promise to repay it. (ED)

Situation 8 (asking a friend to study with you for an exam)

The factors that the participants cited as considerations in how they formed their requests varied

little between study groups with this situation. The main factor discussed by participants in every

study group was that the speaker would want to acknowledge the potential inconvenience caused

to the hearer, particularly because the hearer is understood to be busy. In addition to expressing

understanding of the hearer’s situation, participants frequently mentioned that they would want

to frame the request in a way that would highlight the possible benefits to the hearer. As was the

case with previously discussed situations, the ED group mentioned that the familiarity between

the speaker and hearer would lead them to use more casual language. This was less common

with the NT and learner groups; however, some participants from the NT group referred to

familiarity as a consideration in how they formed their requests. This can perhaps be seen in the

NT group’s request data, which included pronouns that are considered offensive and would be

used nearly exclusively with close friends. Some notable but somewhat infrequently cited factors

reported by participants in the ED group included the desire to express the seriousness of the

situation and the desire for clarity, which was explicitly linked to directness.

I considered the burden my friend would face in having to help me, so I feel like I would

need to explain the situation before asking for help and acknowledge how much of an

inconvenience it might be. (ED)

The language I use in this request is the same as when I talk to my close friends in

regular situation, which included words that might not be polite when used with others.

However, the tone I used in this situation will be softer than normal [the author’s

translation from Thai]. (NT)

196

My request will be simple and show the mutual benefit of studying together [the author’s


Despite comparable percentages of participants from each study group reporting having

experienced a similar situation (47.06-64.71%), there were differences in the baseline language

groups’ ratings of this situation’s degree of imposition. Although these differences were not

statistically significantly, they still may reflect a cultural difference between the learners’ L1 and

L2 cultures. The NT group’s average rating was 3.79, slightly below the level of high imposition,

while the ED group’s average rating was 3.12, slightly above the level of moderate imposition.

The SA group was more similar to the ED group in their rating, and the AH group was more

similar to the NT group. This is unsurprising since the SA group is distinguished from the AH

group by the criterion of having studied in the target language culture. Therefore, some study

abroad learners may have experienced similar situations in the L2 environment. The reasons

given for these ratings varied within groups more than between groups. Generally, those who

rated the request as having a low degree of imposition cited the fact that they could help their

friend or that their friend would need to study anyway. Those who rated this situation as having a

higher degree of imposition cited their friend’s busy schedule as the reason.

My friend is very busy with school and work, so the time available for helping me is

limited [the author’s translation from Thai]. (NT)

It’s a win-win situation. My friend will have to study for the exam too and talking

with a friend and studying together is all very minimal in terms of requests. (ED)

I knew she was very busy; I would consider that a very high imposition [the author’s


Situation 9 (asking a younger sibling to do your housework)

Several factors were discussed as considerations in the participants’ request-making process with

this situation. Participants from every study group mentioned that they would like to highlight

the benefit to the hearer of complying with the request. Participants from all study groups

explained that as the speaker, they would emphasize that they would return the favor or give

money to the hearer. Some participants from the NT, AH, and SA groups also mentioned that in

197

order to persuade the hearer to comply with the request, they would offer to give the hearer a gift

or souvenir from the trip. This was not mentioned by any of the ED participants, which might be

due to a cultural difference between Thai and English speakers. For Thai speakers, it would be

quite common and perhaps even expected that when a family member goes on even a short

vacation, he or she will bring back a small gift, which is typically in the form of sweets or food.

Another potential cultural difference relating to views on family relationships can be seen in the

somewhat common responses of the NT, AH, and SA groups that mention the speaker’s right as

an older sibling to make such a request, whereas this factor was mentioned less frequently by the

ED group. Participants from all study groups linked the familiarity with the hearer as a reason to

use informal language, and some participants also linked this to their desire to be informal but

polite. Less common, but mentioned by AH and SA group participants, was a recognition that

the hearer would comply because of his or her personality. Finally, one ED participant

mentioned that although it was asking a lot of the hearer, by using the word ‘favor’ the request

could be made to feel as though it were a small request. This is notable because the word ‘favor’

is used very frequently in the English EDCT requests; however, it was only explained by one

participant.

Especially if they are a younger sibling, I would expect them to help me out [the author’s

translation from Thai]. (AH)

I would offer to exchange a week of chores so it’s fair. (ED)

I would ask my sister what she wants from the place I’m going to and I would find the

things that she wants. This will make her happy and feel OK to help me [the author’s


It is my sister, we are very good friends, I trust her, and I know she will do the favor [the


Comparable percentages of participants from each study group reported previously experiencing

a similar situation (50-64.71%). However, differences between the baseline language groups’

perceived degree of imposition were present in this situation, with the ED group rating the

request as 2.76, just under a moderate level of imposition, and the NT group rated it at a low

degree of imposition, with a rating of 1.97. Interestingly, the SA group’s rating was comparable

198

to that of the NT group while the AH group’s was more similar to that of the ED group.

Inferential statistical analysis confirms that the ED group’s rating of this situation’s degree of

imposition was significantly higher than those of the SA and NTS group. While the reason for

this pattern with the learner groups is unclear, it should be noted that the ratings varied greatly

within groups, particularly with the ED and AH groups. The differences between the baseline

language groups are perhaps easier to explain. The NT group cited their higher position in the

family as a reason for rating the request as having a low degree of imposition. The ED group, on

the other hand, tended to mention the amount of time or their sibling’s other obligations as

factors. The SA and AH groups both often said that it is a fair exchange since the speaker will

repay the hearer. However, it is not clear why the AH group rated this request’s degree of

imposition higher compared to the rating of the SA group.

It’s not a big imposition and it’s my younger sister [the author’s translation from Thai].

(NT)

One assumes this scenario concerns children of school age, and therefore my sibling

would have less free time each day. (ED)

The job is simple, and we can exchange work at different times [the author’s translation

from Thai]. (SA)

6.2 Semi-structured interviews

Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with five participants from each study

group. However, the focus of the discussion below will center on the interviews with participants

from the AH and SA groups in order to explore these participants’ perceptions regarding their

own linguistic and pragmatic development. Participants from these two groups discussed their

views on their English linguistic and pragmatic development in Thailand and in the classroom in

their Thai schools, in particular. The topics of politeness and language use norms were also

discussed with participants from the two learner groups. Finally, participants from the SA group

discussed the role of study abroad in the development of their English linguistic and pragmatic

skills. Additional topics discussed with all study groups were intended to better understand the

request responses of each group as well as the cultural and linguistic differences that characterize

199

the learners’ L1 and L2. The themes discussed with participants from all four of the study groups

included cross-cultural communication in general and request-making in particular.

Interviews with participants from the AH and SA groups reveal that the two groups of Thai

learners of English share a similar perspective on their motivation to study English. Most

participants from these two learner groups expressed a great interest in studying the language and

improving their language skills. Their underlying motivations were typically related to their

future job prospects. As either former or current English major students or graduates, all of the

participants felt that English would likely be a central component of their future career in areas

such as education and the service industry, such as employment with hotels and airlines. Four

participants from the SA group and two participants from the AH group also talked about the

opportunity to work abroad or continue their studies abroad as a motivating factor.

Although the two learner groups held many views in common with regard to their motivation

and interest in English, the ways that they framed their goals differed. Interestingly, four

participants from the SA group emphasized that their goal is not to sound like a native speaker.

They further explained that although native-speaker-like language use had been their goal prior

to studying abroad, after living in an English-speaking environment, they felt that it was not

possible to reach a native-speaker-like level of accuracy, and their current goals are to focus on

fluency and communicative ability instead. In the words of one SA group participant, “My goal

is to speak without having to stop and search for words. Sometimes I don’t know the word for

something, and I have to give a long explanation to get to my point.” The AH group, on the

other hand, characterized their goals as a desire to speak like a native speaker of English. This

goal identified by the AH group is consistent with research by Jindapitak and Teo (2012) and

Jinapitak (2014), who found that university-level Thai EFL learners viewed English spoken with

Thai pronunciation as an inferior model for learning when compared to native-English speaker

pronunciation. Methitham (2009) reported similar attitudes in a survey of teachers’ perceptions,

in which Thai English teachers perceived native English-speakers as better equipped to provide

models for language use compared their native Thai-speaking counterparts, which led these

teachers to use native-like English as a goal for learners. The AH group participants’ goal to use

English like a native speaker, therefore, may be in part shaped by their experiences in the

classroom. With practical experience outside of the classroom, SA group participants appear to

have reassessed the value of native-speaker-like language use.

200

SA participants also discussed their view that this is not only an unrealistic goal, but an

unnecessary one as well. These participants mentioned that native English speakers would

understand their difficulty in speaking a second language and would therefore, not expect them

to speak it perfectly. In contrast to their perception of native English speakers’ attitudes toward

their errors, all of the SA learners felt as though they are more frequently judged for making

mistakes when using English in Thailand, including in their classrooms, than they were while

abroad. The SA group participants also mentioned that their perceptions changed after seeing the

success of non-native English speakers in their study abroad locations. Similarly, Rajani Na

Ayuthaya and Sitthitikul (2016) reported that after observing the successful communication of a

Chinese speaker of English in their classroom, Thai university student participants in their study

developed more realistic language learning goals and a more positive view of non-native speaker

varieties of English as legitimate.

The AH and SA groups shared a very similar perspective on the benefits and limitations of their

formal education in contributing to their language development. Both groups described a

limitation in the methods of instruction, which center on teaching grammar and the memorization

of textbooks rather than meaningful language use. These accounts are consistent with the

observations of Noom-Ura (2013), who notes that rote memorization and grammar translation

methods are common in Thai EFL classrooms despite their detrimental effect on the linguistic

development of Thai students. In addition to lacking meaningful practice, all of the SA group

participants and three of the AH group participants expressed a lack of confidence in the

material. According to one AH participant:

Very often I hear words or expressions in movies that I’ve never learned from my

textbook, and words I learned in the textbook, I don’t hear in movies. I don’t know if

that’s because of the context. In the textbook, there is no context [the author’s translation

from Thai].

The lack of real-world context was a theme discussed by several participants from these groups,

who noted that textbook exercises tend to involve filling in the blank to complete a linguistic

form rather than using their own ideas in a natural way. While this was generally seen as a

limitation in terms of developing fluency, participants felt that it did help them to develop their

accuracy, which was necessary in order to be successful on examinations.

201

With regard to their teachers, more than half of the participants from both learner groups

expressed the feeling that their teachers at the university level had more knowledge of English-

speaking cultures and the language itself when compared to their teachers at the high school

level. Three of these participants noted that their university teachers’ knowledge often came from

firsthand experience living in an English-speaking country, and these participants said that they

enjoyed listening to their university teachers relate stories about their experiences and challenges

when learning language and culture while living abroad. Butler (2007) and Medgyes (1994) have

pointed out that a shared language background with students can be an advantage for non-native

English-speaking teachers because it allows the teacher to anticipate and address problems that

learners have related to differences between their L1 and the target language. In a similar way,

non-native English-speaking teachers with firsthand experience living in the target language

culture can use their shared cultural background with their students as a basis from which to

address cultural differences between the L1 culture and target language culture. Helping

language learners understand the cultural context of the target language can be a challenge in

EFL classrooms, but it is an important component in development of learners’ pragmatic

competence that can facilitate successful communication outside of the classroom.

All of the participants from both learner groups also noted that it is helpful that their university

teachers speak English while teaching their classes, whereas their high school teachers did not.

However, more than half of these participants also described a feeling of awkwardness or

discomfort when having to speak English to their Thai teachers or classmates. Interestingly,

these same participants described feeling comfortable when communicating in written English in

the same context. Two AH participants also noted that they often used brief English phrases with

their friends on social media or in chat applications but would not feel comfortable speaking

English to communicate with their friends. In their study of Thai university students’ anxieties in

English classrooms, Rajani Na Ayuthaya and Sitthitikul (2016) observed that participants’ self-

consciousness about their accent made them reluctant to speak in their English classes. Similarly,

some AH participants in the current study explained that their discomfort in speaking related to

not knowing how to correctly pronounce or stress words that are otherwise familiar.

All of the participants from the AH and SA groups agreed that speech acts, including requests

were taught at several points in their formal education. However, this was seen as a minor aspect

of their overall curriculum. Four SA participants and three AH participants were familiar with

202

the term ‘pragmatics’ from their Introduction to Linguistics class, which was a required course in

their BA curriculum, but they were unsure about the meaning or could not explain what

pragmatics is. When asked about their exposure to lessons on native English-speaking cultures,

all of the participants from these two study groups pointed out that in the English major

curriculum at their university, they were required to take a course on English varieties and

cultures of English native speakers. SA group participants generally felt that this was a helpful

course in preparing them for studying abroad in an English-speaking country. The students from

both groups expressed that they enjoyed this course and had a desire to learn more about

English-speaking cultures, but they were doubtful about how practical it would be to integrate

cultural information into their other English courses. As one SA learner said, “The teacher has

many things they need to cover in the lesson, and I don’t know how much they should put

information about culture in these lessons” [the author’s translation from Thai]. This notion is

consistent with the findings of Nilmanee and Soontornwipast (2014), who reported in a survey of

university-level Thai English-language teacher’s perceptions of teaching culture in Thai EFL

classrooms that inflexibility in the curriculum and a lack of time both represented significant

challenges. The participants’ view, therefore, appears reflect a larger issue in Thai EFL

classrooms that goes beyond the participants’ particular degree program.

Research has demonstrated a positive effect of study abroad on language learners’ reading

comprehension (Dewey, 2004), written production (Evans & Fisher, 2005), listening

comprehension (Cubillos, Chieffo, & Fan, 2008), and spoken production (Freed, 1995; Llanes &

Muñoz, 2009). When asked about the impact of their study abroad experience on their English

skills, all of the SA group participants held very positive views of the effects on their linguistic

skills. These participants felt that studying abroad had a more significant impact on their

listening and speaking skills than it did on their reading and writing skills, which is consistent

with the observation of Churchill and DuFon (2006) that study abroad learners expect to make

greater gains in listening and speaking skills compared to reading and writing skills. Two SA

participants explained that although they had to read and write in English as a part of their

university courses while studying abroad, their gains were only temporary in these areas while

they felt as though the progress made with their listening and speaking skills would be more

long-lasting. The main effect that most SA group participants expressed was that studying abroad

gave them confidence in using English. As one SA group participant said:

203

When I first came to England, I wasn’t confident enough to talk to anyone, like I was

mute. When I had questions, I wouldn’t ask because I was scared they wouldn't

understand me, and I wouldn’t understand them. But later on, I got used to it because I

had to use English every day. I can see now that I am much more confident than I was in

the beginning [the author’s translation from Thai].

Confidence might appear to be a component of the learners’ English skills that would not be

reflected in the EDCT request responses. However, the learners’ confidence with using English

might be reflected in the greater variety of linguistic forms observed with the SA group in their

request responses. This was particularly evident in the analysis of the SA group’s internal

modifications and request strategies. With both of these request aspects, the SA group’s requests

tended to be more varied and complex when compared with those of the AH group. However,

these more linguistically complex requests of the SA group also tended to contain grammar

errors. The SA group’s willingness to take chances and use fewer simple, formulaic requests

might be a reflection of their confidence. Confidence might also relate to their language learning

goals focused on successful communication rather than native-speaker-like accuracy, as

previously discussed. According to Cook (2014) and Masuda (2003), goals of native-speaker-

like language use can contribute to a fear of speaking English, which can have a negative impact

on learners’ development. The SA group might be more comfortable making mistakes because

their language learning goal relates to successful communication rather than perfection. In

striving for native-speaker-like accuracy, however, the AH group might be seen as using simple,

formulaic requests in order to play it safe and ensure correct linguistic forms with their requests.

If the feedback that EFL students receive in Thailand is perceived to be judgmental, playing it

safe would appear to be a logical general strategy for approaching communication in English.

There were several ways that SA participants described their learning process while abroad.

According to most SA participants, an impactful means of improving their pragmatic

competence was the opportunity to observe other people in the everyday contexts. According to

one SA participant, “I always listened to what people usually said in line at the supermarket or at

a restaurant, and I just said things in the same way” [the author’s translation from Thai]. Three of

the participants mentioned their schoolwork as having a significant impact on their English

development, particularly from giving presentations and writing term papers. However, they did

not feel that schoolwork helped in their pragmatic development. Two SA participants felt that the

204

fact that their programs consisted of many other international students, including students from

other Asian and non-English-speaking European countries, meant that at school they were

exposed to many other cultures besides that of the local English-speaking community. These

participants expressed a perception that their classmates could not be used as a model for English

pragmatic norms because they, too, had only minimal experience living in an English-speaking

culture. It is important to note, however, that three of the SA participants also expressed the view

that non-native English speakers with experience living in an English-speaking country could be

used as a model for English pragmatic norms.

The SA group participants felt that some study abroad destinations were better than others in

terms of their exposure to English-speaking culture and opportunities to use English in daily

interactions. The perception of two SA participants is that Thai learners of English are more

likely to encounter other Thais in the UK than in other English-speaking countries, such as the

US and Canada. This was based both on their personal experience and on communicating with

their friends and former classmates who also studied abroad. According to one participant,

“There are so many Thai people in Bournemouth (UK). The year I started school, there were

about 50-60 Thai students starting school in Bournemouth” [the author’s translation from Thai].

These participants felt that living abroad in the presence of a large Thai community limited their

opportunities to use English in school. Those who studied in the US and Canada felt that it was a

positive factor that they had no choice but to make friends with non-Thais because it forced them

to communicate in English. One participant who studied in the UK felt pressure to socialize with

other Thais in order not to be perceived as rejecting her community. However, all of the SA

participants felt that having Thai friends or acquaintances could also be an advantage because

these friends had a shared cultural background and could explain things about English and the

local culture using the participant's L1. Non-Thai friends were also seen as a great resource for

information about language and culture, and participants expressed that asking friends was a

comfortable and clear way to get answers to questions they encountered.

In reflecting on their decision to study abroad, participants were unanimous in their feeling of

satisfaction with the language development outcomes that came from this decision. In particular,

this outcome was tied to their knowledge of the target language culture, which allows them to

communicate in an appropriate way. Some reported that, initially, there were some hardships

which made them question this decision. A common feeling that three of the SA group

205

participants expressed was shock and dismay with their speaking and listening skills during their

initial study abroad period. One SA participant explained that she realized her English was not as

strong as she had previously thought. She had been satisfied with her IETLS test score and took

it as an indicator that she had strong English communication skills, but after arriving in the UK,

she was unable to understand even basic conversation, which she attributed partly to not being

familiar with the local accent. By the end of the study abroad period, participants felt that their

time abroad had met and exceeded their expectations. All of the SA participants stated that they

believed studying abroad would help mainly with their ability to communicate and their

confidence and reported that they were satisfied that these outcomes were achieved.

The theme of general cross-cultural communication was discussed with participants from every

study group, and some common themes were present in the perspectives across the four study

groups. One theme relates to the idea of the people from another culture using a language in an

appropriate way. Four NT participants noted that the use of polite particles in Thai was very

important, and that the language can sound very ‘strong’ if this is missing. According to one NT

participant, “If a foreigner wants to speak Thai politely, they can use khrap (ครบ) and kha (คะ) at

the end of their sentences. Sometimes you don’t need to use it with friends, but if you aren’t sure,

you should use these words” [the author’s translation from Thai]. All of the NT participants

expressed a positive attitude of non-Thais learning their language, describing it as ‘cute’ and that

it showed their interest in understanding Thai people. If a non-native Thai speaker makes a

mistake using Thai, all of the NT participants explain that they would be understanding and not

take offense.

In line with the perceptions of NT participants, all of the ED group participants expressed

understanding that English learners may experience difficulties with communication, and this

should not be treated as an offence. One participant said that when English learners speak “it

might sound rude, but it’s not rude. They’re trying to their best to communicate with you.”

Another ED participant, who is from the UK but now lives in Thailand, explained his view that

when in Thailand, it is not important for Thai people to understand his culture; he should make

an attempt to understand Thai culture. However, when someone moves to his country, they

should make an attempt to understand this culture.

206

Regarding differences between communication in Thai and English-speaking cultures, two SA

participants and three AH participants said that sometimes it can feel strange to speak without

using kinship terms. Another difference observed by a AH participant is politeness in Thai is

often reflected in vocabulary, which is not necessarily the case in English. According to this

participant, “Speaking politely in Thai is more complex than English. For example, when you

talk to an older person, you use more polite words. When you talk to a monk, you use even more

polite words” [the author’s translation from Thai]. An example discussed was the use of

vocabulary to express the verb ‘eat’ in Thai. With friends or someone younger in a casual

situation, the word ‘kin’ (กน) would be common. However, this might be considered impolite to

use with someone older or a superior at work. Instead, the verb ‘than’ (ทาน) would be more

appropriate. Even more formal, such as when speaking to an audience, the word ‘rap prathan’

(รบประทาน) would be used. ‘When speaking to a monk, the appropriate word for ‘eat’ is ‘chan’

(ฉน), and with a member of the royal family, Thai speakers would use the word ‘sawoei’ (เสวย),

which is strictly forbidden to be used in other contexts. The various words for ‘eat’ that reflect

different levels of politeness are by no means unique or an exception in Thai. While different

registers of speech, marked by vocabulary choices, are possible to show different levels of

formality in English, too, the extent to which this characterizes Thai language is arguably far

greater. The EDCT coding system may not fully capture this feature of Thai. Although the

coding of internal modifications accounts for lexical and phrasal modifications made to requests,

the coding system generally focused on optional lexical and phrasal additions rather than word

choice.

Cultural differences between Thai and English-speaking communities were also discussed. One

SA group participant explained that it is not common in Thailand to greet people that you do not

know, but in the US, people frequently speak to strangers. According to this participant, “I was

surprised to see Americans talk to people they don’t know very often. They say thank you to the

bus driver when they leave the bus. That would never happen in Bangkok” [the author’s

translation from Thai]. This notion of the differences between American and Thai cultures was

also mentioned by an American participant who lives in Thailand. This participant noted that

even though he is aware it is not normal to greet salesclerks when entering a convenience store

or supermarket in Thailand, he feels he is doing something rude to not do so, as it is the norm in

207

his culture. A SA group participant with experience studying in the UK expressed the belief that

it can be more challenging to learn the cultural norms of English speakers because English-

speaking cultures are more varied, whereas the Thai language community is smaller and shares

the same culture.

When focusing specifically on requests, all of the interviewed SA participants felt that their

ability to make requests improved significantly during their time abroad. One reason provided by

all of the SA group participants was that they were able to make requests very often when living

abroad, but they did not have this opportunity in Thailand. This was supported by the feelings of

four AH group participants who claimed that there was a lack of opportunity to make real

requests outside of school in Thailand. All of the SA participants added that more than only

providing opportunities to make requests, studying abroad made it necessary to make requests.

Making requests was seen as being a significant part of everyday interactions and a necessary

component of being successful and comfortable in the study abroad environment. Four the SA

participants’ perceptions of their improvement in request making appears to be consistent with

the EDCT request data, which show the SA group conforming more closely to the norms of the

ED group when compared to the AH group. This is also consistent with previous research that

shows a positive study abroad effect on language learners’ request production (for example, see

Barron, 2003; Owen, 2002).

Another factor that study abroad students felt helped them to improve with their request making

was that they could receive feedback when making a request. This feedback was often in the

form of positive reinforcement; when the learner made a request and the hearer complied, they

could see that the way they communicated their request was successful. However, many reported

that they experienced problems with making requests, which could be learning experiences, too.

A SA group participant who studied in the Canada experienced a problem related to directness

when communicating his desire for a member of his host family to cook a particular dish.

According to this participant:

My host mother cooked something that I really liked, and I wanted her to make it again.

But I didn’t want to say it directly, so I said something like, ‘I really liked that meal that

you made that time.’ But she never cooked it again, so I don’t think she understood [the

author’s translation from Thai].

208

While the opportunity to receive feedback, both negative and positive, was generally seen as a

benefit of exposure to the target language environment, one participant felt that receiving

negative feedback at times caused her to revert to the forms she knew before studying abroad.

This participant reported that she sometimes preferred to use familiar structures because when

trying a less familiar request structure, she was not always fully understood.

Another theme that emerged from the interviews with SA group participants was that there were

more factors affecting how they made requests in Thai than in English. These were often put into

terms relatable to the social variables controlled for in this study. One SA participant, for

example, noted that “In Thai, we have to always think about age, but in English, I can use the

same words or the same request if it’s an older or younger person” [the author’s translation from

Thai]. In addition, two SA group participants were less sure about the differences between Thai

and English-speaking cultures with regard to the factor of closeness and how it affects language

use. They felt that it was important to both Thai and English-speaking cultures, but they felt

more confident in their assessment that the closeness was a very important factor in language

choices when speaking Thai. As one participant noted:

My classmate told me that I don't have to be too formal when speaking to each other, but

sometimes I was not sure whether my way of speaking was OK when speaking casually

with them. We worked together on several projects and I think we have kind of close

relationship, but not close friends. I'm not sure if my classmate and I share the same ideas

about how causal to be.

Although all of the SA group participants reported that an increase in confidence was one of the

most significant impacts of their time abroad on their general English skills, two participants also

expressed that they were not always confident making requests in English-speaking

environments. One participant explained that in restaurants in the UK, for example, she avoided

making special requests for how to prepare her meal because she was not sure if this would be

normal for British people. However, she would be very comfortable making this type of request

in Thailand, where she understands the norms in this context. Other SA group participants

mentioned that during their initial study abroad period, they felt uncomfortable making requests

to older acquaintances, such as teachers or their friends’ parents, because these types of request

would always be marked with polite particles in Thai. Various scholars (for example, see

209

Bennui, 2017; Promnath & Tayjasanant, 2016; Yiamkhamnuan, 2011) have observed that the

inclusion of Thai polite particles in English sentences is a characteristic of the variety of English

often used in Thailand, suggesting that for native Thai speakers, English does not have an

equivalent resource to replace this feature of Thai language. With more experience, however, SA

participants became more accustomed to making requests without Thai polite particles, and as

one participant explained, ‘Please’ can be used just the same as kha (คะ) (a polite particle). If I

want something, I can ask for it and say ‘please’ at the end of the sentence” [the author’s

translation from Thai].

6.3 Chapter summary

When participants were asked in the second section of the EDCT to provide their own insights

into the factors that they considered in their request making, a pattern emerged with the three

groups sharing Thai as their mother tongue (NT, AH, and SA), who described similar

perspectives. The factors identified by these three groups were often different from those of the

ED group, perhaps reflecting differences between Thai and English-speaking cultures. These

differences appear to have been most pronounced in situations involving a differential of power

and in particular, the relationship between student and professor as well as family relationships.

In contrast to the factors considered by participants when making a request, there appears to be

less evidence suggesting cultural differences when looking at the study groups’ ratings of each

situation’s degree of imposition. With the exception of situations 6 (asking for an ordered drink)

and 8 (asking a friend to study with you for an exam), the data contain no patterns that

distinguish the SA from the AH group; study abroad appears to have had a limited role in

affecting the SA group’s perception of the degree of imposition.

Finally, regarding their own pragmatic development, the learners with study abroad experience

had a very positive view of their experience, noting that studying abroad was most helpful by

giving opportunities to observe, speak in real world contexts, and receive feedback through

interaction. This resulted in greater confidence, cultural awareness and improved listening and

speaking skills, all of which contributed to the development of their pragmatic competence. Both

learner groups were generally positive about the role of university education in their pragmatic

development. However, they generally felt that there were significant limitations to how

pragmatic competence can be developed only in an EFL classroom.

210

Chapter 7 Conclusion

This study has investigated the relationship between study abroad and the development of

pragmatic competence by Thai learners of English. In order to understand this phenomenon, five

major research questions were proposed, each of which will be addressed below in the summary

of the findings section. The findings are also compared with findings from previous research in

order to place the findings of this study within the broader context of trends of related research.

This chapter then presents the pedagogical implications of this study. Finally, this chapter

presents a discussion of the limitations of this study as well as suggestions for future research.

7.1 Summary of the findings

7.1.1 Research question 1

How do the patterns of request structures, request perspectives, request strategies, internal

modifications, supportive moves, and alerters used by study abroad learners compare to at

home learners and to the patterns displayed by English dominant speakers and native speakers

of Thai?

Request perspectives

The learner groups used hearer dominance requests more than the ED group. In contrast, the ED

group used more variety in their selection of perspective than did the learner groups. There is

little or no evidence to suggest that this difference is a result of the learners’ L1 transfer. Instead,

it seems that training transfer is likely to have been a factor, with participants from both of the

learner groups relying on the hearer-oriented request forms they were taught in school. This is

consistent with the observations of Usó-Juan (2008), whose survey of textbooks found that

requests using hearer dominance requests focusing on the hearer’s ability or willingness to

comply with the request were overused in textbook presentation of requests. Furthermore,

Mohammadi and Sa’d (2014) have also reported a preference for hearer dominance by English

learners, attributing this trend to training transfer. A small but consistent trend across various

situations in which the study abroad students conformed more to the ED norms than did the AH

group suggests a positive correlation between studying abroad and pragmatic development.

211

The frequent use of pronouns relating to social status and familiarity in Thai is notable as it

points to a mitigating tool available to Thai language speakers that relates directly to request

perspective but is not reflected in the quantitative data analysis. This supports similar

observations made by Eslami, Kim, Write, & Burlbaw (2014), who report the role of honorifics

in Korean plays a significant role in request mitigation that has no direct analogy in English.

With regard to the learners’ pragmatic development, this mitigating function of pronouns to refer

to a request’s speaker and/or hearer in the learners’ L1 may have the effect of diminishing the

perceived role of perspective as a mitigating tool in their L2.

Request strategies

Direct request strategies are much more common in the requests of the NT group than in those of

the ED group. This finding is consistent with the observations of several previous studies (Ajaaj,

2016; Felix-Brasdefer, 2005; Marti, 2006; Ogiermann, 2009b; Yu, 2011) that have challenged

the claim by Brown and Levinson (1987) of a universal association between indirectness and

politeness. The results of this study also suggest that for Thai speakers, there is no apparent

association between politeness and indirectness, as measured by the directness level of request

strategies. Despite this characteristic of their L1, the learner groups did not show any signs that

this convention was transferred when they made their requests in English. In line with the results

of previous research, which has widely demonstrated a preference for conventionally indirect

requests by both native English speakers as well as learners of English (see for example, Barron,

2003; Jones & Halenko, 2014; Otcu & Zeyrek, 2008; Perez i Parent, 2002; Woodfield, 2008),

both learner groups as well as the ED group showed a preference for conventionally indirect

strategies. However, the learner groups differed from the ED group by using conventionally

indirect strategies comparatively more and unconventionally indirect strategies less. Rather than

L1 transfer, the learners’ apparent avoidance of more ambiguous unconventionally indirect

strategies may relate more to their preferences as language learners for pragmatic clarity in their

requests. Conventionally indirect strategies also represent the strategies that learners most often

encounter in their English lessons in school. This familiarity was also likely a factor in the

learners’ choices. While there were differences between the learners and the ED group in this

regard, the learners’ choices conformed much more closely to the ED group than to the NT

group. The differences between the two learner groups with regard to directness level were

212

minimal, suggesting that studying abroad did not prompt changes in how Thai learners of

English used directness levels in their requests.

The choices for degree of directness of the learner groups were quite similar to one another, and

both learner groups used directness levels only marginally differently than did the ED group.

However, when looking at the particular strategies used by these three groups, more considerable

differences emerge. Notably among these differences involves the overuse of preparatory

requests by the learners, which likely relates to explicit instruction from the learners’ English

classes and the relative grammatical simplicity of preparatory compared to other conventionally

indirect strategies. While both learner groups used considerably more preparatory requests than

did the ED group, the difference was much less pronounced with the SA group. The SA group

modified their preparatory requests, using mitigated preparatory more similarly to the ED norms.

Preparatory and mitigated preparatory represent the two most used request strategies of the ED

group, and the data relating to these two strategies represent the strongest evidence of the

development of the SA learners’ pragmatic competence after living in an English-speaking

environment. However, in the data relating to other request strategies, there was little other

evidence suggesting pragmatic development of SA learners. The learners’ avoidance of other

strategies used by ED, in particular strong hints and expectation statements, may be explained by

the learners’ desire for pragmatic clarity and L1 transfer, respectively.

Internal modifications

The existence or availability of grammatical features in two languages is one of the main factors

affecting how Thai and English requests are modified. Because Thai language does not have

verb inflection or different modal forms to show tense, many of the syntactic modifications

available to English speakers are not possible in Thai. Similarly, Thai particles have no

functional equivalent or translatable forms in English. The data reflect these differences between

Thai and English, with the NT using significantly fewer syntactic modifications and significantly

more lexical/phrasal modifications when compared to the ED group. The SA group’s use of both

syntactic and lexical/phrasal downgraders suggests some development toward ED norms after

their time studying abroad, although the SA group’s use of these internal modification types was

still less than that of the ED group. The findings that both learner groups used fewer internal

modifications appears to be consistent with several previous studies that have demonstrated that

213

English learners tend to use fewer internal request modifications than native English speakers

(e.g., Chen, 2001; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2009; Fearch & Kasper, 1989; Göy, Zeyrek, & Otcu,

2012; Hill, 1997; Hendriks, 2008; Najafabadi & Paramasivam, 2012; Otcu & Zeyrek, 2008;

Trosborg, 1995).

Individual types of modifications used by the learner groups, such as the use of the

interrogative forms, modal tense modifications, and the politeness marker ‘please’, are likely to

reflect the effect of explicit instruction. More syntactically demanding modifications were

observed more frequently in the requests of the SA group learners than in those of AH group

learners. The reliance on the politeness marker ‘please’ is notable in that this phenomenon was

also observed by several scholars (House & Kasper 1987; Faerch & Kasper 1989; Barron 2003;

Göy et al., 2012; Rose, 2000). Participants from both learner groups in this study used this

politeness marker approximately twice as often as did ED participants.

Request structures

All study groups show a fair degree of variability in their request structure choices. A closer

examination of the data reveals differences between the pragmatic norms of the learners’ L1 and

target language relating to directness and the complexity of request structures. Compared to the

ED group, the NT group tended to favor the relatively more direct and less elaborate request

structure of HA+SM. This is further support for observations of researchers (Ajaaj, 2016; Felix-

Brasdefer, 2005; Marti, 2006; Ogiermann, 2009b; Yu, 2011) that have challenged the claim by

Brown and Levinson (1987) of a universal association between indirectness and politeness. By

comparison, the ED group used the less direct and more elaborate structures (SM+HA;

SM+HA+SM) more often than did the NT group. The learners’ possible transfer of this

pragmatic norm of their L1 appears to lessen with the experience of study abroad. However, the

experience of study abroad does not appear to have played a role in other request structure

preferences relating to head act only and multiple head act structures of the SA group. The

learner groups both used HA only and multiple head act requests at similar rates to one another

and slightly less than baseline language groups.

214

Alerters

Overall, the alerter data suggest that translation of the learners’ L1, particularly with titles used

to refer to professors or teachers, played a role in the learners’ English request responses. More

significant than L1 transfer occurring from translating the literal meaning of words, however, is

the pragmatic transfer of the Thai convention of articulating the relationship – the closeness,

asymmetrical power dynamic, or both – between interlocutors when initiating the request. Thai

and English differ both in the use and meaning of words that denote these relationships. Thai

language contains a variety of pronouns that can refer to these aspects of the speaker’s

relationship to the hearer. In addition, Thai language speakers commonly use kinship terms with

non-family, which can also function to articulate the relationship of speaker and hearer.

Although their L1 and target language differ in these ways, the learners were able to use the

vocabulary available to them in English, namely honorifics, kinship terms, and friendship terms,

in order to perform this function of acknowledging the power dynamic and/or closeness between

the speaker and hearer. As mentioned above in the section discussing request perspectives, the

importance of honorifics in Thai appears to support the interpretations of previous researchers

(for example, see Eslami, Kim, Write, & Burlbaw, 2014) who argued that in some languages,

this linguistic device can play a significant role in mitigating requests. With experience studying

abroad, SA learners appear to be less reliant on these markers that explicitly refer to the social

dynamic between the interlocutors, conforming more closely to the alerter patterns of ED.

Supportive moves

When considering the frequency of supportive moves, it was found that the effects of L1 transfer

and study abroad were minimal both in the total number of supportive moves and in specific

types of supportive moves. Significant differences were observed between the baseline language

groups representing the learners’ L1 and target language, with the ED group using more

supportive moves than the NT group. However, both learner groups were observed to use

supportive moves at rates more similar to speakers of the target language. This contrasts with the

findings of several previous studies (Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2009; Faerch & Kasper, 1989;

Kasper, 1981; Najafabadi & Paramasivam, 2012; Otcu & Zeyrek, 2006; Wang, 2011; Woodfield

& Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2010), which have reported a tendancy for English learners to

overuse supportive moves. However, the findings that participants from the AH and SA groups

215

used supportive moves at comparable frequencies to the ED group are in line with the

observations of Najafabadi and Paramasivam (2012), whose study of Iranian EFL learners

showed that as English learners gain in proficiency, an overreliance on supportive moves is

reduced as they move toward native speaker-like frequencies. The English learners represented

by both learner groups in this study represent learners at a high-intermediate to advanced

proficiency level.

A more significant indicator of the learners’ development can be seen in the linguistic forms

used in supportive moves. SA learners were observed to use more varied, complex, and longer

supportive moves, which were more comparable to those of ED group participants, albeit with

frequent grammatical errors. In contrast, at home learners’ supportive moves tended to be more

limited in range and less elaborate. Furthermore, AH learners favored the use of simple fixed

expressions, which was particularly evident in their thanking and urging supportive moves. In

terms of L1 transfer of linguistic form, some evidence was observed with both learner groups in

the use of sweeteners. There is also some indication that L1 transfer may be a factor in the self-

introduction supportive moves of at home learners.

In sum, both groups of learners, regardless of whether or not they had had study abroad

experience, used supportive moves in numbers similar to the ED group. This ability to adapt to

the target language norms might be explained by the relative grammatical simplicity of

supportive moves compared to internal modifications, thus making supportive moves more

accessible to language learners compared to other types of mitigating devices. Study abroad

appears to have a greater effect on linguistic forms used by the learners, with SA participants

demonstrating greater variety, complexity, and length of supportive moves comparable to those

of ED participants. These gains may be the result of greater exposure and outside of the

classroom interactions with English dominant speakers, which the learners have internalized and

used in their own supportive moves. The frequent grammatical errors in the study abroad group’s

longer, more complex supportive moves indicate that while the learners have noticed and

attempted to use the different, more syntactically demanding forms, they have not yet mastered

them.

216


How do such patterns displayed by these same four groups of speakers compare to each other


Request perspectives

All study groups used hearer dominance the most in both low-high and high-low situations.

These findings for low-high power relations were not consistent with the expectation that in a

lower position of power, a speaker would make her/his request more indirect by avoiding hearer

dominance perspective. Another unexpected result is that there were only minimal differences

between the four study groups in their sensitivity to the variable of relative power. It was

expected that because Thai culture is characterized by a strong social hierarchy, the speaker’s

sensitivity to her/his relative position to the hearer would affect the use of request perspective.

One interpretation of these unexpected results could be that there are mitigating tools available in

Thai that are not available in English. In particular, Thai speakers’ choice of pronouns can reflect

the power dynamic in the relationship between speaker and hearer speaker. Therefore, if Thai

speakers, including the Thai learners of English in the AH and SA groups, are in fact sensitive to

the variable of relative power, it may not necessarily be expressed in request perspective. It is

also important to note that some situations might favor the use of particular perspective types.

For example, in situation 3 (asking to get on the train), it would seem unlikely to expect a joint

perspective request. Therefore, the aggregate data sets controlling for the social variables may to

some extent reflect the specific circumstances relating to individual situations.

Similarly, it was expected that greater social distance would correlate with less direct request

perspectives. As expected, the preference for hearer dominance perspective was greatest for all

study groups in close situations. The study groups were quite similar in close situations. In

situations involving strangers and acquaintances, the learner groups tended to rely more heavily

on hearer dominance requests while the ED group participants’ requests were characterized by

more variety in their request perspective choices. However, in these situations, the study abroad

group conformed somewhat closer to the ED norms than did the AH group, suggesting possible

pragmatic development in the situations that were expected to involve a greater need for speakers

to mitigate their requests.

217

Request strategies

When controlling for relative power, NT participants used direct strategies least frequently when

requesting up (low-high) and most frequently when requesting down (high-low). Rather than

transferring this norm of their L1 to their English requests, the learners showed similarities to the

ED group by using conventionally indirect strategies much more frequently than direct strategies

in high-low situations. The similarities between the ED and learner groups with regard to their

sensitivity to relative power is consistent with previous findings by Jalilifar (2009), who

observed the request strategies of advanced Iranian EFL learners displayed similar sensitivity to

relative power when compared to the request strategies of native speakers of Australian English.

The ED group tended to use the mitigated strategies of mitigated wants and mitigated

preparatory more often in equal and low-high than in high-low situations. Both learner groups

also followed this trend, although the SA group conformed more closely to the ED norms than

did the AH group. While the ED group tended to use direct strategies less often in low-high

situations, the direct strategy of expectation statements was found to be an exception, with the

ED using it as a relatively common strategy in the two low-high situations involving professors.

Neither learner group used this strategy at all in these situations, reflecting the norms of their L1.

The NT group tended to use direct strategies more frequently with close social distance. Social

distance did not appear to have influenced the use of direct strategies of the other three study

groups. This finding from the three groups completing the English EDCT is consistent with the

observations of Economidou-Kogetsidis (2010), who found that neither British English nor

Greek speakers’ request directness levels were particularly influenced by the variable of social

distance. Both the findings from the three English EDCT groups as well as the NT group are in

contrast with those of Fukushima (2000), who observed in the requests of English and Japanese

speakers that direct strategies were more likely to be employed in situations in which there was a

greater social distance between the speaker and hearer than in situations in which the social

distance was small. With regard to the directness level of request strategies, the most notable

difference between the learner groups and the ED group was observed in situations involving

strangers and acquaintances. In these situations the ED group used more unconventionally

indirect strategies, but the learner groups tended not to do so. As for individual strategies, social

distance did not appear to be a strong factor in the choice of conventionally indirect strategies for

218

the learner groups. However, the ED group used considerably more preparatory requests in

requests involving close social relationships compared to those with acquaintances.

Internal modifications

All groups used fewer internal modifications in high-low and in close situations. However, both

social distance and relative power appear to have a greater influence on the ED group’s use of

internal modifications compared to that of other three study groups. Similar findings were

reported by Göy, Zeyrek, & Otcu (2012), who observed that upper-intermediate Turkish EFL

learners also tended not to change their internal modifications across situations controlling for

the variables of relative power and social distance. These results were interpreted by Göy,

Zeyrek, & Otcu as resulting from the weakness of the learners’ control over their pragmatic

knowledge. Similarly, the results in the present study might be explained in part by the learner

groups’ limitations in terms of linguistic production, which resulted in more formulaic and less

linguistically varied requests. In low-high and stranger situations, ED participants tended to use

more elaborate and grammatically complex requests. Modifications of aspect and use of

embedded and conditional structures were frequently present in the ED group’s requests in these

situations. The minimal effect of these two social variables on the learners’ use of internal

modifications might be explained as a result of linguistic limitations rather than socio-pragmatic

failure.

Request structures

It was expected that requests made to strangers and/or to a hearer in a higher social position

would result in a greater degree of mitigation. In terms of request structure, this would be

reflected by the presence of supportive moves, particularly to begin the request utterance. When

controlling for relative power, the ED group appears to conform to this expectation, favoring the

SM+HA+SM structure. In contrast, the NT group favored the more direct and less elaborated

HA+SM structure. The learner groups showed more similarities to the ED group, with the SA

group generally conforming more closely to the ED norms when compared to the AH. When

controlling for social distance, all groups favored the SM+HA+SM structure in close relationship

situations and tended to use more direct and less elaborate structures (HA+SM) with strangers,

which was in contrast to the expected results. The study groups generally showed minimal

differences in how the social variable of social distance related to their use of request structures.

219

Alerters

Alerter types varied considerably by situation, which is reflected in the aggregated data

controlling for of relative power and social distance. The use of titles in low-high situations

demonstrates differences between the norms of the learners’ L1 and target language: the ED

group favored honorific addresses and names while the NT group favored titles and kinship

terms. Differences between the learner groups also suggest some degree pragmatic development

of SA participants toward the norms of the ED group, as the SA group conformed more closely

to the ED norms than did the AH group. In equal power situations, the AH group stood out from

the other study groups, using alerters considerably more often. The AH group’s frequent use of

alerters can be attributed to a large degree to its preference for friendship terms, which may

reflect the influence of an L1 cultural value placed on using forms of address to emphasize

solidarity with friends. With high-low situations, the NT group was an outlier, using kinship

terms much more frequently than the other groups. The Thai learners of English generally did

not transfer this norm of their L1 to their English requests.

When controlling for the variable of social distance, alerters were used more frequently in

requests to acquaintances than in situations involving close or stranger social distance. Similar

observations were reported in a study on apology speech acts of Thai EFL students by Thittijang

(2010), who observed alerters were used more in situations involving acquaintances than in those

characterized by close or stranger levels of social distance. A notable difference between the

learner groups and the ED group was observed with requests to strangers, in which both learner

groups used alerters significantly more than the ED group. This can be attributed to the use of

honorific address, and specifically, the learners of both the AH and SA group generalization of

the term ‘sir’ in order to show polite respect.

Supportive moves

Relative power had an influence on the number of supportive moves used by every study group.

The ED and learner groups used more supportive moves when making requests in low-high

situations and fewer supportive moves in high-low situations. The NT group differed from this

pattern, using the most supportive moves in equal power situations and fewer supportive moves

in low-high situation. This difference between the NT group and the other study groups’

supportive move use was particularly evident with the use of grounders in low-high situations.

220

Grounders were quite common and represented a large proportion of the AH, SA, and ED

groups’ supportive moves in low-high situations. However, this was not the case with the NT

group. The data controlling for relative power show no evidence of L1 pragmatic transfer when

considering both the total number and number individual types of supportive moves, with both

learner groups using a similar numbers of supportive moves per request when compared to

English dominant speakers. Moreover, the similarity between the two learner groups suggests

study abroad did not impact the learners’ sensitivity to relative power as seen in the number of

supportive moves per request.

The requests of the NT group appear to have been more affected by the variable of social

distance. All study groups tended to use more supportive moves in close situations. However,

this trend was more pronounced with the NT group. Overall, social distance appears to have had

an impact on the learner groups in a way more similar to the ED group than to the NT group.

However, because the learner groups’ are similar to one another in terms of how their use of

supportive moves was affected by social distance, it suggests that study abroad had a minimal, if

any, effect on the learners’ sensitivity to social distance, as measured by their use of supportive

moves.


What factors in addition to relative power and social distance do participants from each group


When asked to describe the factors they considered when making their requests, there were

several general factors that were reported by all of the study groups. One of the most common

factors cited by all study groups was the desire to be polite. According to Brown and Levinson’s

(1987) politeness theory, the level of politeness needed in a request is derived from the speaker’s

perception of three social variables: relative power, social distance, and the degree of imposition.

Therefore, although it is notable that the desire to be polite was so often cited by all study groups

as a factor in their requests making, this leads to the question of how these variables along with

other contextual factors influenced the participants’ perception that a desire for politeness was

needed. Some of these factors centered on the specific contextual aspects of the situation but are

generally related to the degree of imposition. For example, participants from all groups discussed

the inconvenience a request may cause the hearer, which often related to the demand on the

221

hearer’s time and sometimes was elaborated further to mention the hearer’s lack of available

time. All study groups also described the normality of a request as a factor. Most often this was

mentioned as a factor to characterize requests that were normal in daily life or involved

requesting actions that would be normal for the hearer to do, given their occupation. One factor

that was mentioned by all study groups but may be less directly related to the degree of

imposition is the consideration of putting the hearer in a defensive position when asking a

professor to reconsider and explain a low grade. Fairness was also a consideration of every study

group, although this was mentioned by the ED group with reference to requested actions that

were perceived to be unfair, whereas the AH and SA groups mentioned it with reference to the

fairness of a proposed compensation for the hearer’s cooperation. These findings are consistent

with those of previous research (Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2010; Held, 1996) that also

demonstrated other factors besides those identified by Brown and Levinson (1987) (e.g., social

distance, relative power, and degree of imposition) can contribute to a speaker’s assessment of

appropriate linguistic choices in speech acts of requests.

Although the study groups generally reported many of the same considerations when making

requests, there were also differences between the study groups. In particular, differences

emerged between the ED group, on the one hand, and the three groups sharing Thai as their

mother tongue (NT, AH, and SA), on the other. The fact that the factors described by these three

groups were often different than those described by the ED group can be interpreted as reflecting

differences between Thai and English-speaking cultures. For example, the NT, AH, and SA

groups all mentioned the fact that the hearer was a family member as a factor they considered

when making their requests. In these situations, involving requests to family members, the ED

group tended to cite the minimal resources, namely money and time, needed by the hearer to

comply with the request. One other factor that characterized the responses of ED group

participants was the fact that they had a right to make a particular request, which was not

mentioned by any other study group.


To what extent does each group of participants perceive differently the degree of imposition in


222

Generally, the extent of the differences between the study groups’ perceptions of the degree of

imposition was very small. As measured by a five-point Likert scale, the range of ratings

between groups for the degree of imposition in a single request situation never varied by more

than one point. Situations 5 (borrowing a cell phone from a classmate) and 7 (borrowing money

from an older relative) were both rated very similarly by every study group as having a low

degree of imposition, with the difference between the study groups’ average ratings never

exceeding 0.2 points. Situation 2 (asking to cut a taxi line) was also rated quite similarly by study

groups as having a high degree of imposition, with average ratings ranging from 3.79 to 3.97

between study groups.

With two situations, situations 4 (asking a professor to reconsider your exam) and 8 (asking a

friend to study with you for an exam), the baseline language groups represented the extremes,

with the NT group rating the degree of imposition higher than the ED group in both situations. In

situation 4, the average rating of the ED group was 2.97 while the NT group’s average rating was

3.53. A similar range was observed with situation 8, with the ED group giving an average rating

of 3.12 and the NT group giving a slightly higher rating of 3.79. Although this trend could be

interpreted as possibly reflecting a difference of perceptions based on cultural differences, the

difference between these two groups was rather small. Another reason that this may not reflect a

cultural difference is that the two learner groups, who are also Thai students just as the NT

group, provided a rating somewhere in between the two extremes of the baseline language

groups. The facts that this pattern did not bear out in other situations and the baseline groups

were quite similar to one another casts further doubt on the interpretation that cultural differences

can explain differences in the ratings. For example, in situation 3 (asking to get on the train), the

NT group provided a slightly higher average rating of 2.15 compared to the other three groups,

which ranged from 1.62 to 1.74. In summary, the differences for each situation tended to be

small, and to the extent that there were differences, they do not appear to reflect a pattern that

characterizes any consistent differences between the study groups.

The absence of consistent differences in the rating of the degree of imposition across study

groups differs from the results reported by Economidou-Kogetsidis (2010), who found that

Greek and British English speakers perceived the degree of imposition differently between

several request situations. Although differences in the present study were not reflected to a large

extent in the Likert scale ratings, differences emerged when asking participants about the factors

223

they considered when making these ratings. It is notable that the data from these follow-up

questions appear to suggest cultural differences in the way participants viewed the rights and

obligations of the speaker and/or hearer as impacting the degree of imposition. Similar

observations of the apparent relationship between the perceived imposition of a request and

culturally-specific views on interlocutors rights and obligations were also made by Economidou-

Kogetsidis (2010) and Fukushima (2000).


How do study abroad learners compare to at home learners with regard to how they perceive


The learners with study abroad experience viewed their study abroad experience as having a

significant impact in the development of their L2 skills, including their pragmatic competence.

SA group participants described a dramatic increase in their confidence, which in turn, allowed

them to interact using the target language. This interaction was a factor in the development of

their pragmatic competence; many noted that by using English every day in real life situations,

they were able to receive authentic feedback from English dominant speakers, which allowed

them to assess and modify their subsequent interactions. SA group participants also noted that

the opportunity to observe English being spoken by others while studying abroad provided

information about the norms of authentic interaction of English dominant speakers.

The findings that SA participants viewed their study abroad experience as having a significant

impact on their L2 development is consistent with previous research that has demonstrated a

general belief among language learners that studying abroad is a highly effective means of

improving their L2 skills (Brown, Dewey, & Belnap, 2015; Kinginger, 2009; Pellegrino, 1998;

Yang & Rehner, 2015; Zhang, 2012). The findings of this study are also consistent with research

that has also highlighted the perception among Thai learners of English that there are advantages

in learning English in a native English-speaking country over the at-home context (Lertjanyakit

& Bunchapattanasakda, 2015; Pimpa, 2004). The perception of the SA learners of their own

pragmatic development is also reflected in the data, which appear to show modest gains toward

the norms of the ED group when compared to the data of the AH group. These findings, too, are

consistent with previous research that has investigated pragmatic development of study abroad

learners in a variety of language contexts and which generally report moderate gains in

224

pragmatic competence resulting from the period of study abroad (e.g., Alcón-Soler, 2015;

Barron, 2003; Cohen & Shively, 2007; Félix-Brasdefer, 2004; Hassall, 2013; Khorshidi, 2013;

Matsumura, 2001; Owen, 2002; Schauer, 2009; Taguchi, 2011; Warga & Schölmberger, 2007;

Yang, 2014).

When asked about their views on their pragmatic development prior to studying abroad, the SA

group participants shared a similar perspective with the AH group participants. Both groups

described their pragmatic development mostly relating to their experience in school and their

exposure to English media. Although both learner groups were generally positive about the role

of university education in their pragmatic development, they felt that there were significant

limitations to how pragmatic competence can be developed in an EFL classroom. With the

exception of a course on native speaker varieties, the cultural component of English was very

limited in their coursework. Although participants from both the AH and SA groups reported

having been taught speech acts, including requests, this was viewed as being only briefly

covered. In addition, some AH participants reported that they were not always confident in using

the linguistic forms taught in class because they differed from those they observed in English

movies. While SA group participants noted that studying abroad benefited their pragmatic

competence by giving them opportunities to observe, speak in real world contexts, and receive

feedback through interaction, the AH group participants recognized that the absence of these

opportunities in Thailand represented a major limitation to the development of their pragmatic

competence.

7.2 Pedagogical implications

The findings of this study have implications for how teachers and curriculum developers can

help learners improve their pragmatic competence. Many of these implications could aid the

development of learners’ pragmatic competence regardless of whether or not they will have the

opportunity to study abroad. This study focuses specifically on the effect of study abroad on

pragmatic development. However, some of the benefits of study abroad, namely exposure to the

target language culture, can be applied to some extent in EFL classrooms. Cultural knowledge

facilitates comprehension and the ability to effectively communicate using a foreign language.

Culture is an important element that helps explain differences in perception of politeness and

how people in different cultures perform speech acts, including making request. However, as

225

Snodin (2016) observed, “culture is often neglected in the Thai EFL classroom or introduced in

no more than a superficial supplement to language instruction” (p. 388). The findings of the

interview data with SA group participants in the present study confirm that students believe their

exposure to a course centered on English-speaker cultures was beneficial in helping them

understand the native English speakers’ perspectives and norms. This results in increasing their

confidence in using the language more naturally and appropriately. Therefore, more attention

should be paid to finding a way to integrate the cultural aspect of the target language into

language instruction, rather than focusing only on teaching the form and function. For learners

going abroad, pre-departure training could facilitate the learners’ adjustment the new social and

cultural environment in the target language environment. Kinginger (2008) argues that although

study abroad has been widely demonstrated to benefit language learners of a variety of

proficiency levels, pre-departure training focusing on raising learners’ awareness of language

learning and use is necessary to most efficiently develop their communicative skills. In addition

to raising their language learning awareness, pre-departure training could also provide insights of

learners from the same L1 culture who have experience in the study abroad destination, which

could be particularly beneficial and therefore, pre-departure training should include these

perspectives.

As seen in the findings of this study, formal instruction plays an important role in learners’

pragmatic knowledge and their performance. Learners tended to rely on linguistic forms they

have learned through explicit instruction in school and that they are familiar with. While the

request forms learners are taught in school would likely be enough for learners to achieve their

desired ends, there are several benefits to expanding learners’ familiarity with alternative

linguistic forms. This can facilitate a better comprehension when learners encounter these

alternative forms, and allow learners to communicate more naturally, confidently, and

effectively. Due to the significance of explicit instruction, attention should be paid to improving

instruction of speech acts, including requests, by introducing the learners to a variety of common

linguistic forms. However, introducing linguistic forms is not enough; relevant and realistic

materials should be used to ensure the quality of the input. The findings of the interview data

show that learners from both the AH and SA groups reported that they learned a greater variety

of request expressions than that which they are comfortable using. This is because these

226

expressions were often presented in textbooks with a limited context or a context that the

learners felt was inauthentic.

While learners with the opportunity to study abroad can benefit from being in the target language

environment and observing authentic language use in daily interactions, EFL instructors can

mitigate the lack of an authentic target language environment by using authentic materials such

as reality TV shows, talk shows, vlogs where people document their real interactions. Snodin

(2016) reported that the feedback from Thai learners of English on the use of such authentic

materials in the classroom “include the novelty of the experience, changing perspectives,

facilitating better communication, practical and useful knowledge, fun, autonomous learning,

critical thinking and empathy towards other cultures” (p. 387). Incorporating authentic materials

into lessons could help learners without the opportunity to study abroad to learn target speech

acts in a more meaningful context than what is available in the textbook. Discussion on cultural

related topics should be done as a follow-up activity so that students can think critically and

understand the use of the target speech acts. Sykes and Cohen (2008) observe that online and

computer-based instructional material also have the ability of facilitate L2 pragmatic

development through authentic and meaningful interactions. Despite the potential of these media,

however, the authors note that more work needs to be done in order to develop and implement

such materials, which appears to still be the case presently.

In addition to learning focused in the classroom, autonomous learning is another way that

learners can gain cultural knowledge and exposure to linguistic forms in order to improve their

pragmatic competence. Teachers should encourage students to seek input wherever possible

outside of class. One way this could be done in Thailand is by organizing activities to promote

communication between Thai learners of English and foreign English speakers, such as a social

club where Thai students and interactional students at the same school can interact. Elnadeef and

Abdala (2019) conclude that extra-circular activities such as English social clubs can benefit

English learners’ by offering a low-risk and realistic language context. International exchange

programs are quite common in Thai universities. The SA learners in this study reported that the

confidence gained from the increased opportunities to use English while abroad helped them to

develop their pragmatic competence. Extracurricular activities can be a chance for Thai and

English-speaking students to socialize, practice using each other’s language, and learn about

each other’s culture in a relaxed and natural context. This promotes not only the students’

227

learning but also their skills in intercultural communication, resulting in more confidence when

using English. In addition to providing benefits to the Thai learners of English, the opportunity to

interact with local university students would likely have an appeal to many exchange students,

too.

Finally, the findings of this study also have pedagogical implications regarding teacher education

and professional development. Teachers need to have both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic

knowledge of the target language. In other words, not only do teachers need to know the various

linguistic forms used to perform language functions, but they also must understand the norms of

speakers of the target language in terms of how contextual factors affect which linguistic forms

are judged most appropriate. Therefore, knowledge of the target language culture (or cultures) is

an essential component of teacher knowledge as it will allow the teachers to supplement the

presentation of language provided in textbooks by giving learners additional context related to

how language is used in real situations. This could present a challenge to non-native speaker

teachers who do not have experience in the target language culture. As reported by Nilmanee and

Soontornwipast (2014), Thai teachers “tend to carry the belief that they need to be well-equipped

with the knowledge of foreign culture, preferably first-handed experiences, in order to teach

culture effectively” (p. 10). However, teacher training and professional development can

empower non-native speaking teachers by giving them the resources to help facilitate learners’

pragmatic development. Cohen (2015) suggests that native English speakers, too, can benefit

from professional development since despite their intuition, their understand of the target

language norms may be based on an “anecdotal, idiosyncratic, or otherwise limited and/or

inaccurate understanding of the actual target language norms” (p. 583). Collaborative teaching

between native and non-native speaking teachers in a workplace can be beneficial to both

learners and teachers (Baniabdelrahman, 2013; Carless, 2006; Tajino & Tajino, 2000). In

addition to in-classroom collaborations, non-native English-speaking teachers and their native

English-speaking colleagues can work together by having regular workshops where teachers can

share their own cultural knowledge and perspectives on teaching pragmatics. Non-native

English-speaking teachers could benefit from native English-speaking teachers’ perspective on

their own culture while native English-speaking teachers working in an EFL context would have

a greater understanding of their students’ culture. This would allow them to identify and mitigate

areas in which English-speaking and students’ L1 culture differ. In addition to having the

228

aforementioned knowledge, teachers also need to create a supportive language-learning

environment where students are willing to take risks in learning. They need to design activities

that are meaningful to students and allow them to have enough practice in order to promote

retention of the forms and functions of expression as well as to improve accuracy and fluency.

7.3 Limitations and opportunities for future research

There are several limitations contained in this study that should be noted. First, the sample size

of each group was relatively small, with 34 participants in each group, and therefore, there may

be limitations in terms of the generalizability of the study. A study with a greater number of

participants in each study group may produce different findings. In addition, because the SA and

AH groups comprised only English major students, the results of this study may not be

generalizable to represent all Thai learners of English. The findings obtained from the study

mainly represent the performance of learners who have a high-intermediate to advanced

proficiency level with extensive formal English training. Future research could examine the

pragmatic development of Thai learners of English who have different English learning

backgrounds and English proficiency levels than the participants in this study. By recruiting

student participants from non-English majors, the research could have a larger number of

participants and would represent a larger proportion of Thai learners of English, which would

consequently enhance the generalizability of the study to the population at large.

Another limitation comes from the fact that this study is a cross-sectional study, in which the

data were collected from different groups of participants at a single point in time and therefore,

the data representing the development of their pragmatic competence should be taken with

caution. Although some criteria were put into place to control for the SA and AH groups’

language backgrounds, the interpretation of the development of the SA group rests on the

assumption that the data elicited from the AH group can represent the language choices of SA

participants’ pre-study abroad. As an alternative, a longitudinal study of a single group of

participants could be worth considering. This type of longitudinal approach would allow

researchers to observe and monitor the progress of a single group of participants and thus,

determine language development with a higher degree of confidence given that the data would be

produced by a single group of participants.

229

It is recommended that future studies using a cross-sectional design to compare study abroad and

at home learners should attempt to control for the length of time the study groups are exposed to

classroom instruction and, thus, their proficiency level. This can help ensure that any gains in L2

and pragmatic competence documented in the research are the result of study abroad and not of

additional classroom exposure. In the present study, the AH group were in their final year of

their four-year bachelor’s degree program, whereas the SA group had completed their four years

of instruction as English major students plus an additional 15 months of study while aboard. This

means that the SA group had a longer exposure to English instruction, which may have been a

factor affecting their development. However, despite this limitation, the inferred gains by the SA

group in this study are consistent with previous literature that demonstrates a positive study

abroad effect (e.g., Kinginger, 2008; Regan, Howard & Lemée, 2010).

To minimize the limitation of the EDCT in terms of the naturalness of the conversation,

researchers are encouraged to use other types of data collection instruments to elicit natural

request responses, such as recording the participants’ daily conversation. The findings obtained

from natural observations could be compared with the data obtained from the EDCT situations

that consists of the same combination of social variables and that involve similar situational

contexts. For example, a request to a professor for a deadline extension, which is analyzed as a

low-high, acquaintance situation on the EDCT, could be compared with data obtained from

another data collection instrument using a similar situation characterized by the same dynamics

of social variables.

The EDCT was designed to control for the social variables of relative power and social distance

by creating aggregated data sets from three situations to represent each level of these variables

(e.g., situations 1, 2, and 3 were combined to represent situations involving strangers). However,

because the situations were quite different and contained a variety of other contextual factors,

these data sets may be limited in how well they represent their intended target variable. For

example, situation 3 (asking to get on the train), which is defined as having a social distance of

‘stranger’ and ‘high-low’ relative power between the speaker and hearer, involved a very

significant time constraint and thus, the brief answers for this situation may skew the data to

reflect briefer, less modified responses in stranger and high-low situations. In order to better

control for the desired variables, more similar situations could be used. However, using only

similar situations might carry its own risks. For instance, the participants’ responses might be

230

affected by their raised awareness that they are being observed, a phenomenon known as the

Hawthorne effect. For example, if the situations involve the same requested action to a stranger,

acquaintance, and a family member, the participants might become aware that these situations

are controlling for social distance, which could lead to the participants trying “to please the

researcher by giving the answers and responses they think are expected” (Mackey & Gass, 2005,

p. 114). In order to avoid potential problems associated with aggregated data sets, analyzing data

by situation is recommended. Doing this could better account for the complex contextual factors

that influence the participants’ judgment of which request forms are most suitable. In addition,

other contextual variables besides relative power, social distance, and degree of imposition

should be considered, including gender, the personality of the hearers, or the normality of the

request. Furthermore, since requests can be classified into requesting for an action and requesting

for information, it would be interesting to see if these different types of request would elicit

similar results in situations with similar social variables.

Finally, the use of the CCSARP coding system produced some limitations in that its design is

primarily focused on capturing English requests. Although this coding system was modified to

better reflect the types of modifications used in Thai requests, this coding system still falls short

of reflecting the means available for Thai speakers to modify their requests. Thai pronouns, for

example, are more complex than their English counterparts and can impact politeness differently

as well. Despite this limitation, the present study contributes to what is known about how

linguistic features of Thai requests can be coded using an adaptation of the CCSARP coding

system. Therefore, future research is required to further contribute to the development of coding

methods that can reflect Thai linguistic features that are manipulated in request making.

Pragmatic development involves both teaching and learning. Therefore, a study examining

teacher perspectives on teaching pragmatics to Thai learners of English in the EFL context is

suggested. Insights from both Thai and non-Thai English teachers regarding their experiences

teaching pragmatics and obstacles in teaching L2 pragmatics can yield useful information with

pedagogical implications on how teaching pragmatics can be improved and how institutes can

promote professional development of their teachers.

Finally, this study demonstrates differences between Thai learners of English and English

dominant speakers in terms of their linguistic choices when making requests. However, the

231

differences in the perception of how these linguistic choices related to politeness by these groups

remain unexplored. It is assumed that using request strategies and modifications that are different

from those of proficient target language users could lead to misunderstandings or perceived

impoliteness. However, some differences in linguistic choices by English learners may not

necessarily be perceived as being any less polite by English dominant speakers. In order to

explore the extent to which linguistic choices relate to perceptions of politeness, the perception

of politeness attached to each request strategy and its modifications could also be explored by

asking both English learners and English dominant speakers to rate the appropriateness of

various strategies and linguistic modifications used to make requests.

232

References

Al-Ali, M. N., & Alawneh, R. (2010). Linguistic mitigating devices in American and Jordanian

students’ requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(2), 311-339.

Alcón-Soler, E. (2005). Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context?

System, 33, 417-435.

Alcón-Soler, E. (2014). Pragmatic learning and study abroad: Effects of instruction and length of

stay. System, 30, 1-13.

Alcón-Soler, E. (2015). Instruction and pragmatic change during study abroad email

communication. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 34-45.

Alcón-Soler, E., & Martinez-Flor, A. (2008). Introduction. In E. Alcón & A. Martinez-Flor

(Eds.), Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing

(pp. 3-21). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Aggarwal, K. & Aggarwal, S. (2017). Bro: Linguistic dilemma, network intruders or medico-

social approach. Open Access Journal of Surgery, 5(3), 1-3.

Ajaaj, M. A. (2016). Politeness strategies in Arabic culture with reference to eulogy. EFL

Journal, 1, 161-173.

Akutsu, Y. (2006). Request strategies in ‘oral communication a’ textbooks. The Economic

Journal of Takasaki City University of Economics, 48(3), 135-149.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental consideration in language testing. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Baker, W. (2012). English as a lingua franca in Thailand: Characterisations and implications.

Englishes in Practice, 1, 18-27.

233

Bandiabdelrahman, A. (2013). Effect of team teaching and being the teacher native or non-native

on EFL students’ English language proficiency. African Educational Research Journal,

1, 85-95.

Bangkok Post. (2015). Right qualifications, wrong colour skin. Retrieved from

https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/special-reports/716900/right-qualifications-

wrong-colour-skin.

Bangkok Post. (2018). Thai English proficiency drops. Retrieved from

https://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/1570042/thai-english-proficiency-drops

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in

pragmatigcs. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.) Pragmatics in Language Teaching

(pp. 13-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Bastos, M. (2011). Proficiency, length of stay, and intensity of interaction,

and the acquisition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Intercultural

Pragmatics, 8(3), 347-384.

Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do pragmatic learners recognize pragmatic

violations? Pragmatic verses grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL

Quarterly, 32, 233-259.

Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in Interlangauge Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Publishing.

Barron, A. (2008). Contrasting requests in inner circle Englishes: A study in variational

pragmatics. In M. Putz and J. N. Aertselaer (Eds.) Developing Contrastive Pragmatics:

Interlanguage and Cross-Cultural Perspectives (pp. 335-402). Berlin: Mouton de

Gruyter.

Barron, A. (2016). Developing pragmatic competence using EFL textbooks: Focus on requests.

Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal, 7(1), 2172-2179.

Beebe, L. M., & Cummings, M. C. (1996). Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire

data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu

234

(Eds.) Speech Acts across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second

Language (pp. 65–86). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bella, S. (2011). Mitigation and politeness in Greek invitation refusals: Effects of length of

residence in the target community and intensity of interaction on non-native speakers’

performance. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1718-1740.

Bergman, M. L., & Kasper, G. (1993). Perception and performance in native and nonnative

apology. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.) Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 82-107).

New York: Oxford University Press.

Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence.

In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.) Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 43-57). New York:

Oxford University Press.

Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the

speech act performance of Hebrew second language learners. Applied Linguistics, 3(1),

29-59.

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and

apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Blum-Kulka, S., & Levenston, E. A. (1987). Lexical-grammatical pragmatic indicators. Studies

in Second Language Acquisition, 9(2), 155-170.

Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech

act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196-213.

Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1986). Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic

failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8(2), 165-179.

Bou-Franch, P., & Garces-Conjos, P. (2003). Teaching linguistic politeness: A methodological

proposal. IRAL, 41, 1-22.

Bouton, L. (1994). Can NNS skill in interpreting implicature in American English be improved

through explicit instruction?: A pilot study. In L. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics

235

and Language Learning Monograph Series Vol. 5 (pp. 88–108). Urbana-Champaign:

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Brown, J., Dewey, D. P., & Belnap, K. (2015). Student interactions during study abroad in

Jordan. In R. Mitchell, N. Tracy-Ventura, & K. McManus (Eds.), Social Interaction,

Identity and Language Learning During Residence Abroad, Eurosla Monograph Series, 4

(pp. 199-220). Amsterdam: The European Second Language Association.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language use: politeness phenomena. In E.

Goody (Ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction (pp. 56-311).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. Bu, J. (2012). A study of relationships between L1

pragmatic transfer and proficiency. English Language Teaching, 5(1), 32-43.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.

Carless, D. R. (2006). Good practice in team teaching in Japan, South Korea and Hong Kong.

System, 34, 341-351.

Chantrasombat, J., & Pongpairoj, N. (2018). Interlanguage pragmatics: Deviant patterns of

negative responses to English negative yes/no questions by L1 Thai speakers.

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 7(3), 193-199.

Chiravate, B. (2011). Perception of politeness in English requests by Thai EFL learners. 3L:

Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 17(2), 59-71.

Choomthong, D. (2014). Preparing Thai students’ English for the ASEAN Economic

Community: Some pedagogical implications and trends. Language Education and

Acquisition Research Network (LEARN) Journal, 7(1), 45-57.

Chen, E. (2001). Making email requests to professors: Taiwanese vs. American students. Paper

presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics Conference, St. Louis,

Missouri.

236

Cohen, A. D. (2016). The teaching of pragmatics by native and nonnative language teachers:

What they know and what they report doing. Studies in Second Language Learning and

Teaching, 6, 561-585.

Cohen, A. D., & Shively, R. L. (2007). Acquisition of Requests and Apologies in Spanish and

French: Impact of Study Abroad and Strategy‐Building Intervention. The Modern

Language Journal, 91(2), 189-212.

Cook, M., & Liddicoat, A. J. (2002). The development of comprehension in interlanguage

pragmatics: The case of request strategies in English. Australian Review of Applied

Linguistics, 25(1), 19-39.

Cook, J. R. (1968). Pronominal reference in Thai, Burmese, and Vietnamese. Berkeley, CA:

University of California.

Cook, V. J., & Newson, M. (1996). Chomsky’s universal grammar: an introduction (2nd ed.).

Oxford: Blackwell.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Mixed methods procedures (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research

(2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Cronholm, S., & Hjalmarsson, A. (2011). Experiences from sequential use of mixed methods.

The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 9(2), 87-95.

Crystal, D. (1985). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

Cubillos, J. H., Chieffo, L., & Fan, C. (2008). The impact of short-term study abroad programs

on L2 listening comprehension skills. Foreign Language Annals, 41(1), 157-185.

Cupach, W. R. & Imahori, T. T. (1993). Identity management theory: Communication

competence in intercultural episodes and relationships. In R. L. Wiseman & J. Koester

(Eds.), Intercultural Communication Competence (pp. 112-131). Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.

237

Darasawang, P. (2007). English language teaching and education in Thailand: A decade of

change. In D. Prescott (Ed.), English in Southeast Asia: Varieties, Literacies and

Literatures (pp. 187-204). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Davies, A. (2013). Native speakers and native users: Loss and gain. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Davis, J. M. (2007). Resistance to L2 pragmatics in the Australian ESL context. Language

Learning, 57(4), 611-649.

Dendenne, B. (2014). Could you help me with these bags brother? My shoulders are falling:

Transfer in interlanguage requests performed by Algerian EFL learners. Journal of

Language and Linguistics Studies, 10, 29-47.

Díaz-Campos, M. (2004). Context of learning in the acquisition of Spanish second language

phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 249-273.

Diepenbroek, L. G., & Derwing, T. M. (2014). To what extent do popular ESL textbooks

incorporate oral fluency and pragmatic development. TESL Canada Journal, 30(7), 1-20.

Dili, R. M. (2017). An assessment of the application of the 2008 Thai English language policy at

the basic education level. Paper presented at the 10th

International Conference, Chiang

Mai, Thailand.

Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2008). Internal and external mitigation in interlanguage request

production: The case of Greek learners of English. Journal of Politeness Research, 4,

111-138.

Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2009). Interlanguage request modification: The use of

lexical/phrasal downgraders and mitigating supportive moves. Multilingua, 28, 79-112.

Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2010). Cross-cultural and situational variation in requesting

behavior: Perceptions of social situations and strategic use of request patterns. Journal of

Pragmatics, 42, 2262-2281.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

238

Elnadeef, E. A. E., & Abadala, A. H. E. H. (2019). The effectiveness of English club as free

voluntary speaking activity strategy in fostering speaking skill in Saudi Arabia context.

International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 2, 230-235.

EF Education First. (2013). EF English proficiency index, 3rd edition. Retrieved from

http://www.ef.co.uk/epi/

Eslami, Z. R., Kim, H., Write, K. L., & Burlbaw, L. M. (2014). The role of learner subjectivity

and Korean English language learners’ pragmatic choices. Lordz Papers in Pragmatics,

10(1), 117-146.

Evans, M., & Fisher, L. (2005). Measuring gains in pupils’ foreign language competence as a

result of participation in a school exchange visit: the case of Y9 pupils at three

comprehensive schools in the UK. Language Teaching Research, 9(2), 173-192.

Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1989). Internal and external modification in interlangauge request

realization. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics:

Requests and Apologies (pp.221-247). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Farrelly, N. (2016). Being Thai: A narrow identity in a wide world. Southeast Asian Affairs,

331-344.

Félix‐Brasdefer, J. C. (2004). Interlanguage refusals: Linguistic politeness and length of

residence in the target community. Language Learning, 54(4), 587-653.

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2005). Indirectness and politeness in Mexican requests. In D. Eddington

(Ed.), Selected Proceedings of the 7th

Hispanic Linguistic Symposium (pp. 66-78).

Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2007). Pragmatic development in Spanish as a FL classroom: A cross-

sectional study of learner requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4, 253-286.

Foley, J. A. (2005). English in Thailand. RELC Journal, 36(2), 223-234.

Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219-236.

239

Fraser, B. (2010). Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging. In W. Mihatsch & S. Schneider

(Eds.), New Approaches to Hedging (pp. 15-34). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group

Publishing Limited.

Freed, B. F. (1995). What makes us think that students who study abroad become fluent. In B. F.

Freed (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context (pp. 123-148).

Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing

Freed, B. F. (1998). An overview of issues and research in language learning in a study abroad

setting. Frontiers, 4, 31-60.

Fukushima, S. (1996). Request strategies in British-English and Japanese. Language Sciences,

18(3-4), 671-688.

Fukushima, S. (2000). Requests and culture: Politeness in British-English and Japanese.

Language Sciences, 18, 671-688.

Garcia, P. (2004). Developmental differences in speech act recognition: A pragmatics awareness

study. Language Awareness, 13(2), 96-115.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction rituals. New York: Pantheon Books.

Goldsmith, D. J. (2008). Politeness theory. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging

Theory in Interpersonal Communication: Multiple Perspectives (pp. 255-268). Los

Angeles: Sage.

Göy, E., Zeyrek, D., & Otcu, B. (2012). Development patterns in internal modification use in

requests: A quantitative study on Turkish learners of English. In H. Woodfield & M.

Economidou-Kogetsidis (Eds.), Interlangauge Request Modification (pp. 51-87).

Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Grice, H. P. (1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and

Semantics (Vol. 3) (pp. 41-58). London: Academic Press.

Gu, X. (2011). The effect of explicit and implicit instruction of request strategies. Intercultural

Communication Studies, 20(1), 104-123.

240

Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 237-257.

Gullette, G. S. (2014). Rural-urban hierarchies, status boundaries, and labour mobilities in

Thailand. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40(8), 1254-1274.

Hassall, T. (2013). Pragmatic development during short-term study abroad: The case of address

terms in Indonesian. Journal of Pragmatics, 55, 1-17.

Hassal, T. (2015). Individual variation in L2 study-abroad outcomes: A case study from

Indonesian pragmatics. Multilingua, 34(1), 33-59.

Held, G. (1996). Two polite speech acts in contrastive view: Aspects of the realization of

requesting and thanking in French and Italian. In M. Hellinger & U. Ammon (Eds.),

Contrastive Sociolinguistics (pp. 363-384). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hendricks, B. (2008). Dutch English requests: A study of request performance by Dutch learners

of English. In M. Puetz & J. Neff-van Aertsaeler (Eds.), Developing Contrastive

Pragmatics: Interlangauge and Cross-Cultural Perspectives (pp. 335-354). Berlin:

Mouton de Gruyter.

Hill, T. (1997). The development of pragmatic competence in an EFL context. (Unpublished

Doctoral Dissertation), Tokyo: Temple University.

Hinkel, E. (1996). When in Rome: Evaluations of L2 pragmalinguistic behaviors. Journal of

Pragmatics, 26, 51-70.

Holtgraves, T. (1992). The linguistic realization of face management: Implications for language

production and comprehension, person perception, and cross-cultural communication.

Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 141-159.

Hoomchamlong, Y. (1992). Some observations on /phom/ and /dichan/: Male and female first

person pronouns in Thai. In C. J. Compton and J. F. Hartmann (Eds.), Papers on Tai

Languages, Lingustics, and Literatures (pp. 186-204). Dekalb, IL: Center for Southeast

Asian Studies, Northern Illinois University.

241

House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and

metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 225-252.

House, J., & Kasper, G. (1987). Interlanguage pragmatics: requesting in a foreign language. In

W. Loerscher & R. Schulze (Eds.), Perspectives on Language in Performance (pp. 1250-

1280). Tuebingen: Narr.

Howard, K. (2007). Kinterm usage and hierarchy in Thai children’s peer groups. Journal of

Linguistic Anthropology, 17(2), 204-230.

Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.),

Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). New York: Penguin.

Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms of discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic

politeness. Multilingua, 8, 223-248.

Isabelli-Garcia, C. (2006). Study abroad social networks, motivations and attitudes: Implications

for second language acquisition. In M. Dufon & E. Churchill (Eds.), Language Learners

in Study Abroad Contexts (pp. 231-285). Bristol: Multiligual Matters.

Iwasaki, S. & Horie, P. I. (2000). Creating speech register in Thai conversations. Language in

Society, 29, 519-554.

Iwasaki, S. & Horie, P. I. (2005). A reference grammar of Thai. Lingua, 117, 1497-1512.

Jain, R. (2014). Global Englishes, translinguistic identities, and translingual practices in a

community college ESL classroom: A practitioner researcher reports. TESOL Journal,

5(2), 490-522.

Jeon, E. H., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic

development. In N. John & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing Research on Language

Learning and Teaching (pp. 165-211). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

Jindapitak, N. (2018). English as an ASEAN lingua franca and the role of nativeness in English

education in Thailand: Moving toward the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC).

English Today, 1-8.

242

Jones, C., & Halenko, N. (2014). What makes a successful spoken request? Using corpus tools to

analyse learner language in a UK EAP context. Apples – Journal of Applied Language

Studies, 8(2), 23-41.

Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language

in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the World:

Teaching and Learning of Language and Literature (pp. 11–36). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Kasper, G. (1982). Teaching-induced aspects of interlanguage discourse. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 4, 99-113.

Kasper, G. (1992) Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, 8(2), 203-231.

Kasper, G. (1996). Introduction: Interlangauge pragmatics in SLA. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 18, 145-148.

Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? Honolulu: University of Hawaii,

Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Retrieved from:

http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/networks/NW06/

Kasper, G. (1998). Interlanguage pragmatics. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Learning foreign and second

languages: Perspectives in research and scholarship (pp. 183-208). New York: The

Modern Language Association of America.

Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in

second language acquisition, 13(2), 215-247.

Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies of

Second Language Acquisition, 18, 149-169.

Kasper, G., & Roever, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In E. Hinkle (Ed.),

The Handbook of Research in Second Language Learning (pp. 317-334). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

243

Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford:

Blackwell.

Keawmala (2012). Thai education failures – part 4: Dismal English language training.

Retrieved from http://asiancorrespondent.com/78647/thai-education-failures-part-4-

dismal- english-language-education/

Kecskes, I. (2003). Situation-bound utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Khorshidi, H. R. (2013). Request strategy development in Iranian study abroaders. International

Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 2(6), 129-142.

Kinginger, C. (2008). Language learning and study abroad: Case studies of Americans in France.

Modern Language Journal, 92, 1-131.

Kinginger, C. (2009). Language learning and study abroad: A critical reading of research. New

York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Kirkpatrick, A. (2008). English as the official working language of the Association of Southeast

Asian Nations (ASEAN): Features and strategies. English Today, 24(2), 27-34.

Kirsch, A. T. (1973). The Thai Buddhist quest for merit. In J. T. McAlister (Ed.), Southeast Asia:

The Politics of National Integration (pp. 188-201). New York: Random House.

Kitjaroonchai, N. (2013). Motivation toward English language learning of students in secondary

and high schools in education service area office 4, Saraburi Province, Thailand.

International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 1(1), 22-33.

Klausner, W. (1993). Reflections on Thai Culture. Bangkok: The Siam Society.

Klinkajorn, N. (2014). Strategies for translation the speech acts of directives, rejections, and

inquiries in English dialogues into Thai. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), Bangkok,

Chulalongkorn University.

244

Konakahara, M. (2011). Requests in Japanese learners’ English in comparison with British

English and Japanese. Bulletin of the Graduate School of Education of Waseda

University, 18(2), 245-260.

Kuwinpant, P. (2002). Thai society and culture. A paper presented to the Graduate School of

International Development, Nagoya University.

Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness: Or, minding your p’s and q’s. In C. Corum, T. Cedric

Smith-Stark, & A. Weiser (Eds.), Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting of the Chicago

Linguistic Society. Chicago Linguistic Society, (pp. 292-305). Chicago: Chicago

Linguistic Society.

Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and women’s place. New York: Harper and Row.

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.

Leech, G. (1999). The distribution and function of vocatives in American and British English

conversation. In H. Hasselgard & S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Out of Corpora: Studies in Honor

of Stig Johansson (pp. 107-118). Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lertjanyakit, H. & Bunchapattanasakda, C. (2015). The determinanants of Thai students

decision-making to study in the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

International (Humanities, Social Science and Arts), 8(4), 96-112.

Li, S. (2014). The effects of different levels of linguistic proficiency on the development of L2

Chinese request production during study abroad. System, 45, 103-116.

Lin, Y. (2009). Query preparatory modals: Cross-linguistic and cross-situational variations in

request modification. System, 41, 1636-1656.

Llanes, A., & Muñoz, C. (2009). A short stay abroad: Does it make a difference? System, 37(3),

353-365.

245

LoCastro, V. (2001). Individual differences in second language acquisition: Attitudes, learner

subjectivity, and L2 pragmatic norms. System, 27, 69-89.

LoCastro, V. (2012). Pragmatics for language educators: A sociolinguistic perspective. New

York: Routledge.

Loutfi, A. (2019). Pragmatic transfer in Moroccan EFL learners’ requests. Asian Journal of

Education and E-Learning, 4, 15-19.

Mao, L. R. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of Language

and Social Psychology, 24, 451-486.

Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Lawrence

Earlbaum Associates, Publishers: Mahwah, NJ.

Marti, L. (2006). Indirectness and politeness in Turkish-German bilingual and Turkish

monolingual requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1836-1869.

Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in

Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 403-426.

Matsumura, S. (2001). Learning the rules for offering advice: A quantitative approach to second

language socialization. Language Learning, 51(4), 635-679.

Matsumura, S. (2003). Modelling the relationships among interlanguage pragmatic development,

L2 proficiency, and exposure to L2. System, 24(4), 465-491.

McNamara, T. F. & Roever, C. (2006). Language Testing: The Social Dimension. Oxford, UK:

Basil Blackwell.

Mills, M. H. (1991). The performance force of the interrogative in colloquial Russian: From

direct to indirect speech acts. The Slavic and East European Journal, 35(4), 553-569.

Ministry of Education (1998). History of Thai Education. Retrieved from

http://www.moe.go.th/main2/article/e-hist01.htm

246

Mofidi, M., & Shoushtari, Z. G. (2012). A comparative study of the complaint strategies among

Iranian EFL and ESL students: The study of the effects of length of residence and amount

of contact. English Language Teaching, 5(11), 118-125.

Mohammadi. M, & Sa’d, S. H. T. (2014). Native speaker’s assessment of (im)portliness of non-

native speakers’ requests. International Journal of Research Studies in Language

Learning, 3(4), 23-40.

Morgan, J. (1978). Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In P. Cole (Ed.) Syntax and

Semantics (Vol. 9) (pp. 261-280). New York: Academic Press.

National News Bureau of Thailand. (2014, October 14). Thailand ranks at bottom of English

skills survey in ASEAN. Retrieved from http://thainews.prd.go.th/website_en/

news/news_detail/WNSOC5710160010038

Najafabadi, S. A., & Paramasivam, S. (2012). Iranian EFL learners’ interlanguage request

modifications: Use of external and internal supportive moves. Theory and Practice in

Language Studies, 2(7), 1387-1396.

Nilmanee, M., & Soontornwipast, K. (2014). Exploring factors influencing the teaching of

culture and its challenges: Teachers’ perceptions. Language Education and Acquisition

Research Network Journal, 7(2), 1-18.

Noom-ura, S. (2013). English-teaching problems in Thailand and Thai teachers’ professional

development needs. English Language Teaching, 6(11), 139-147.

Noonkong, U. R., Damnet, A., & Charttrakul, K. (2017). Enhancing Thai engineering students’

complaints and apologies through pragmatic consciousness-raising approach (PCR).

Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 8(6), 92-99.

Ockey, J. (2005). Creating the Thai middle class. In M. Pinches (Ed.), Culture and Privilege in

Capitalist Asia (pp. 231-251). London: Routledge.

Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-Lingustic Influence in Language Learning.

Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

247

Ogiermann, E. (2009). Politeness and in-directness across cultures: A comparison of English,

German, Polish and Russian requests. Journal of Politeness Research, 5, 189-216.

Olshtain, E., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1985). Crosscultural pragmatics and the testing of

communicative competence. Language Testing, 2(1), 16–30.

Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. (1990). The learning of complex speech act behavior. TESL Canada

Journal, 7(2), 45-65.

Orwin, R.G. (1994). Evaluating coding decisions. In H. Cooper and L.V. Hedges (Eds.), The

Handbook of Research Synthesis (pp. 150-151). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Otcu, B. & Zeyrek, D. (2006). Requesting in L2: Pragmatic development of Turkish learners of

English. In Series A: General & Theoretical Papers, LAUD 2006, Paper 680. Essen

Universitat Duisburg-Essan.

Otcu, B. & Zeyrek, D. (2008). Development in requests: A study on Turkish learners of English.

In M. Puetz & J. Neff-van Aertsaeler (Eds.), Developing Contrastive Pragmatics:

Interlangauge and Cross-Cultural Perspectives (pp. 265-299). Berlin: Mouton de

Gruyter.

Owen, J. S. (2002). Interlanguage pragmatics in Russian: A study of the effects of study abroad

and proficiency levels on request strategies. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), Bryn

Mawr, PA: Bryn Mawr College.

Pan, Y. (2000). Politeness in Chinese face-to-face interaction. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood

Publishing.

Pellegrino, V. A. (1998). Student perspective on language learning in a study abroad context.

The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 4(2), 91-120.

Pérez i Parent, M. (2002). The production of requests by Catalan learners of English: Situational

and proficiency level effects. Atlantis, 24(2), 147-168.

248

Phoocharoensil, S. (2012). L2 English Compliment responses: An investigation of pragmatic

transfer. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 1(6), 276-

287.

Pin-Ngern, A. (2015). Thai EFL learners’ apology speech act realization. Asian International

Journal of Social Sciences, 15(2), 34-55.

Pimpa, N. (2004). The relationship between Thai students’ choices of international education and

their families. International Education Journal, 5(3). 352-359.

Prapphal, K. (2001). English proficiency of Thai learners and directions of English teaching and

learning in Thailand. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Language Institute.

Promnath, K. & Tayasanant, C. (2016). English-Thai code-switching of teachers in ESP classes.

PASAA: Journal of Language Teaching and Learning in Thailand, 51, 97-126.

Rajagopalan, K. (1997). Linguistics and the myth of nativity: Comments on the new/non-native

Englishes. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 225-31.

Rampton, M. B. H. (1990). Displacing the ‘native speaker’: Expertise, affiliation, and

inheritance. ELT Journal, 47(2), 97-101.

Regan, V., Howard, M., & Lemée, I. (2009). The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence in a

study abroad context. North York, ON: Multilingual Matters.

Reves, T. & Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native English speaking EFL/ESL teacher’s self-

image: An international survey. System, 22(3), 353-367.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching, 2nd

edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rose, K. R. (1997). Pragmatics in teacher education for nonnative-speaking teachers: A

consciousness-raising approach. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 10(2), 125-138.

Rose, K. R. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic

development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 27-67.

249

Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33, 385-

399.

Rose, K. R., & Ng Kwai-Fun, C. (2001). Inductive and deductive teaching of complaints and

compliment responses. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds), Pragmatics in Language

Teaching (pp. 145-170). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rubdy, R. (2015). Unequal Englishes, the native speaker, and decolonization in TESOL. In R.

Tupas (Ed.), Unequal Englishes: The Politics of Englishes Today (pp. 42-58). Macmillan

Publishers: London.

Safont, M. P. (2003). Instructional effects on the use of request acts modification devices by EFL

learners. In A. Martinez-Flor, E. Usó-Juan, & A. Fernandez (Eds.), Pragmatic

Competence and Foreign Language Teaching (pp. 211-232). Castellon, Spain: Servei de

Publications de la Universitat Juame I.

Salazar, P. C. (2003). Pragmatic instruction in the EFL context. In A. Martinez-Flor, E. Usó-

Juan, & A. Fernandez (Eds.), Pragmatic Competence and Foreign Language Teaching

(pp. 233-246). Castellon, Spain: Servei de Publications de la Universitat Juame I.

Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S.

Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 21-42). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Searle, J. R. (1975). A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In K. Gunderson (Ed.), Language, Mind

and Knowledge (Vol. 7) (pp. 344-369). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Searle, J. R. (1979). Expressions and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Selvi, A. F. (2011). The non-native speaker teacher. ELT Journal, 65(2), 189-189.

Schauer, G. (2007) Finding the right words in the study abroad context: The development of

German learners’ use of external modifiers in English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2),

193-220.

250

Schauer, G. (2009). Interlanguage pragmatic development: The study abroad context. London:

Continuum International Publishing.

Simpson, R. C. (1997). Metapragmatic discourse and the ideology of impolite pronouns in Thai.

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 7(1), 38-62.

Sirikhan, S., & Prapphal, K. (2011). Assessing pragmatic ability of Thai hotel management and

tourism in the context of hotel front office department. The Asian EFL Journal, 53(3),

72-94.

Smyth, D. (2002). Thai: An essential grammar. London: Routledge.

Snodin, N. (2016). Rethinking culture teaching in English language programmes in Thailand.

RELC Journal, 47(3), 387-398.

Su, I. (2010). Transfer of pragmatic competences: A bi-directional perspective. The Modern

Language Journal, 94(1), 87-102.

Suttipanyo, J. (2007). Request strategies by Thai learners of English and American exchange

students. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis), Bangkok: Srinakharinwirote University.

Sykes, J. & Cohen, A.D. (2008). L2 Pragmatics: Six Principles for Online Materials

Development and Implementation. Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language, (11),

81-100.

Taguchi, N. (2005). Comprehending implied meaning in English as a foreign language. The

Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 543-562.

Taguchi, N. (2006). Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English.

Pragmatics, 16(4), 513-533.

Taguchi, N. (2011). Pragmatic development as a dynamic, complex pattern: General patterns and

case histories. The Modern Language Journal, 95(4), 605-627.

Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and

should be going. Language Teaching, 48, 1-50.

251

Tajino, A., & Tanijo J. (2000). Native and non-native: What can they offer? ELT Journal, 54, 3-

11.

Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18,

189-223.

Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In K.

R. Rose & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 171-199).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Takahashi, S. (2010). The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance. In A.

Martinez-Flor & E. Usó-Juan (Eds.), Speech Act Performance (pp. 127-142).

Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

Takahashi, S., & Beebe, L. M. (1987). The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese

learners of English. JALT Journals, 8, 131-155.

Takahashi, S., & Dufon, M. A. (1989). Cross-linguistic influence in indirectness: The case of

English directives performed by native Japanese speakers. (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED370439).

Takahashi, S., & Roitblat, H. L. (1994). Comprehension process of second language indirect

results. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 475-506.

Tannenbaum, N. B. (1995). Who can compete against the world? Power-protection and

Buddhism in Shan worldview. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Asian Studies.

Tateyama, Y., Kasper, G., Mui, L., Tay, H, & Thananart, O. (1997). Explicit and implicit

teaching of pragmatic routines. In L. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning

(pp. 163-178). Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language,

University of Illinois.

Thijittang, S. (2010). A study of pragmatic strategies of English of Thai university students:

Apology speech acts. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), Hobart, Australia: University

of Tasmania.

252

Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91-112.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1985). Toward a theory of conflict in culture. In W. R. Gudykunst, L. Stewart,

& S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communication, Culture, and Organizational Processes (pp.

71-86). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflicts: A face-negotiation theory. In Y. Kim and W. R.

Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in Intercultural Communication (pp. 213-235). Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.

Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory. In W. R.

Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about Intercultural Communication (pp. 71-92). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies. Berlin:

Mouton de Gruyter.

Tseng, C. H. (2015). “You must let me pass, please!”: An investigation of email request

strategies by Taiwanese EFL learners. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 11-28.

Usó-Juan, E. (2008). A pragmatic-focused evaluation of requests and their modification devices

in textbook conversations. In E. Alcón (Ed.), Learning How to Request in an Instructed

Language Learning Context (pp. 65-90). Bern: Peter Lang AG, International Academic

Publishers.

Vongvipanond, P. (2014). Linguistic perspectives of Thai culture. Paper presented at a workshop

of the University of New Orleans, USA.

Vorng, S. (2011). Beyond the urban-rural divide: Complexities of class, status and hierarchy in

Bangkok. Asian Journal of Social Sciences, 39, 674-701.

Wang, V. X. (2011). Making requests by Chinese EFL learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Publishing.

Wannaruk, A. (2008). Pragmatic transfer in Thai EFL refusals. Regional Language Centre

Journal, 39(3), 318-337.

253

Warga, M., & Schölmberger, U. (2007). The acquisition of French apologetic behavior in a study

abroad context. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 221-251.

Wei, L. (2018). Pragmatic transfer and development: Evidence from EFL learners in China.

Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

Wierzbicka, A. (1990). Cross-cultural pragmatics and different values. Australian Review of

Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 43-76.

Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112.

Wilson, N. (2010). Bros, boys, and guys: Address term function and communities of practice in a

New Zealand rugby team. New Zealand English Journal, 24, 33-54.

Wongsothorn, A. (2000). Thailand's globalisation and language policy: Effects on language

classroom practice. Anthology series-seameo regional language centre, 326-338.

Wongwarangkul, C. (2000). Analysis of the nature of interlanguage pragmatics in choice making

for request strategies by Thai EFL learners. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), East

Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

Woodfield, H. (2004). Requests in English: A study of ESL and native speakers’ responses to

written discourse completion tasks. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), Bristol:

University of Bristol.

Woodfield, H., & Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2010). ‘I just need more time’: A study of native

and non-native students’ requests to faculty for an extension. Multilingual, 29, 77-118.

Worathumrong, S., & Luksaneeyanawin, S. (2016). Interlanguage pragmatics study of

compliments among Thai EFL learners. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied

Linguistics, 20(1), 157-182.

Xu, W., Case, R. E., & Wang, Y. (2009), Pragmatic and grammatical competence, length of

residence, and overall L2 proficiency. System, 37, 205-216.

254

Yang, J., & Rehner, K. (2015). Learner beliefs about sociolinguistic competence: A qualitative

case study of four university second language learners. Language Learning in Higher

Education, 5(1), 157-180.

Yang, L. (2018). Pragmatic learning and teaching in L2 Chinese. In C. Ke (Ed.), The Routledge

Handbook of Chinese Second Language Acquisition (pp. 261-278). London: Routledge.

Yang, X. (2014). A case study of Chinese students’ second language pragmatic development

during study abroad in a UK university. In International Journal of Modern Education

Forum, 3(2), 39-45.

Yiamkhamnuan, J. (2011). The mixing of Thai and English: Communicative strategies in

internet chat rooms. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 32, 478-492.

Yu, K. (2011). Culture-specific concepts of politeness: Indirectness and politeness in English,

Hebrew, and Korean requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8, 385-409.

Yu, M. (1999). Universalistic and culture-specific perspectives on variation in the acquisition of

pragmatic competence in a second language. Pragmatics, 9(2), 281-312.

Zhang, Y. (2012). 90% Of China’s super-rich want to send children abroad. International

Business Times. Retrieved from https://www.ibtimes.com/90-china%E2%80%99s-super-

rich-want-send-children-abroad-434838

255

Appendices

Appendix A. Bio-data questionnaire for SA group participants

(Distributed in English)

Bio-data Questionnaire

Directions: Please provide the following information about yourself.

1. Name: _____________________________________________________________

2. Email address: ______________________________________________________

Phone number: ______________________________________________________

3. Gender: Male Female Rather not say

4. Age: ______________________________________________________________

5. How many years have you studied English? _______________________________

6. On a scale of 1-5, how interested are you in the English language? Please circle the

number below.

7. Have you ever studied English in a private language institute?

Yes No

If yes, what course(s) did you take and for how long?

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

256

8. If you are currently a student, how many hours per week do you spend practicing English

outside of class other than your regular homework activities and class assignments?

________ hour(s)

9. Have you ever been to any foreign countries where English is not the primary spoken

language? Yes No

If yes, where did you go and for how long?

_____________________________________________________________________

10. Have you ever been to or lived in any native English-speaking country before you began

your latest study abroad program? Yes No

If yes, where did you go or reside and for how long?

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

11. How would you describe your English proficiency? (Please check )

Skills Excellent Good Fair Poor

Listening

Speaking

Reading

Writing

Grammar

12. What university in an English-speaking country are you studying in / have you studied

in?

University: __________________________________________

Faculty and major: ____________________________________

Country: ____________________________________________

Year in which you began your study abroad program: _________

Year in which you graduated or expect to graduate: __________

257

13. What English language proficiency score did you submit as part of the graduate school

application? Please identify and specify the score you received. (please check all that

apply)

The Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) Score _________

International English Language Testing System (IELTS) Score _________

Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) Score _________

Other (please specify) ______________________________ Score _________

258

Appendix B. Bio-data questionnaire for AH group participants

(Distributed in English)



1. Name: ______________________________________________

2. Email address: ________________________________________

Phone number: _______________________________________


4. Age: ________________________________________________

5. University studies: Faculty ______________ Major __________ Year of study_____

6. How many years have you studied English? __________________________________

7. On a scale of 1-5, how interested are you in the English language? Please circle the

number the number below.


Yes No


_____________________________________________________________________

259

_____________________________________________________________________

How many hours per week do you spend practicing English outside of class other than

your regular homework activities and class assignments? ________ hour(s)


language? Yes No


_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

10. Have you ever been to or lived in any native English-speaking countries?

Yes No


____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

11. Do you plan to study abroad in the future? Yes No

If yes, when and where do you plan to go and for how long?

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________



Listening

Speaking

Reading

Writing

Grammar

13. Have you ever taken any of the following English language proficiency tests? Please

specify the score you received. (please check all that apply)

260





261

Appendix C. Bio-data questionnaire for NT group participants

(Distributed in Thai – see English version below, followed by the Thai translation.)



1. Name: ________________________________________________________________

2. Email address: _________________________________________________________

Phone number: _________________________________________________________


4. Age: _________________________________________________________________

5. University studies: Faculty ______________ Major ___________ Year of study_____

6. On a scale of 1-5, how interested are you in the English language? Please mark the box

above the number below.

7. How many years have you studied English? __________________________________


Yes No


_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

262

9. How many hours per week do you spend practicing English outside of class other than

your regular homework activities and class assignments? ________ hour(s)


language? Yes No


____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

11. Have you ever been to or lived in any native English-speaking countries?

Yes No


_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________



Listening

Speaking

Reading

Writing

Grammar

13. Have you ever taken any of the following English language proficiency tests? Please

specify the score you received. (please check all that apply)



263



264

(Thai Translation)

แบบสอบถาม

ค าสง: กรณากรอกขอมลของคณดงตอไปน 1. ชอ: ________________________________________________________

2. อเมล: ______________________________________________________

เบอรโทรศพท: _______________________________________________

3. เพศ: ชาย หญง ไมระบ

4. อาย: _____________________________________________

5. คณะทศกษา: ____________________ ภาควชาและสาขาวชา ________________ ชนป ________

6. คณสนใจเกยวกบภาษาองกฤษมากแคไหนจากระดบ 1 ถง 5 กรณาท าเครองหมายในชองสเหลยมดานลาง

7. คณเรยนภาษาองกฤษมาเปนระยะเวลากป ____________________________

8. คณเคยเรยนภาษาองกฤษทโรงเรยนสอนภาษาหรอไม

เคย ไมเคย

หากเคย คณเรยนหลกสตรอะไร และเปนระยะเวลานานเทาใด

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

9. คณใชเวลาเทาใดตอสปดาหในการฝกภาษาองกฤษนอกหองเรยนทนอกเหนอจากการท าการบานวชา

ภาษาองกฤษหรอกจกรรมอนๆ ทอาจารยมอบหมาย ____________ชวโมง

10. คณเคยไปตางประเทศซงเปนประเทศทภาษาองกฤษไมใชภาษาหลกในการพดหรอไม


265

หากเคย คณไปประเทศอะไร และเปนระยะเวลานานเทาใด

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

11. คณเคยไปหรออาศยอยในประเทศทใชภาษาองกฤษเปนภาษาพดหรอไม


หากเคย คณไปประเทศอะไร และเปนระยะเวลานานเทาใด

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

12. คณคดวาทกษะความช านาญภาษาองกฤษของตนเองเปนเชนไร (กรณาท าเครองหมาย )


Listening

Speaking

Reading

Writing

Grammar

13. คณเคยผานการทดสอบเพอประเมนทกษะภาษาองกฤษของคณดงตอไปนหรอไม กรณาระบคะแนน

สอบทคณได (กรณาระบการสอบทกอนทคณเคยสอบ)

The Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) คะแนนทไดรบ _________

International English Language Testing System (IELTS) คะแนนทไดรบ _________

Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) คะแนนทไดรบ _________

อนๆ (โปรดระบ) ________________________________ คะแนนทไดรบ _________

266

Appendix D. Bio-data questionnaire for ED group participants



1. Name: ________________________________________________________

2. Email address: __________________________________________________


4. Age: __________________________________________________________

5. Nationality: ____________________________________________________

6. Native language: ________________________________________________

7. In which English-speaking country/countries have you been living and for how long?

______________________________________________________________

8. If English is not your native language, how long have you been speaking English?

______________________________________________________________

9. If English is not your native language, how would you describe your English proficiency?

______________________________________________________________

10. Occupation: ____________________________________________________

11. Highest level of education completed:

High school

College / University (Bachelor’s degree)

Master’s degree

PhD or higher

267

If other, please specify _______________________

268

Appendix E. Enhanced Discourse Completion Task

Directions:

There are 2 sections on this questionnaire.

Section 1 consists of nine different situations. Please read the description of each situation

carefully. Think of what you would say if the situations described really happened to you. Then

write the words that you would speak in each situation in the space provided. There is no specific

length or number of sentences, so you can say as much or little as you wish.

Section 2 consists of five follow-up questions relating to the given situations and your responses

in section 1. Please read the prompts carefully and respond as directed.

Please note that there are no right or wrong answers to any of the questions and your responses

will not be graded.

Section 1

Situation 1

It is the beginning of a semester and there is a course you have just realized that you need to take

in order to graduate. However, you found out that the course is already closed for enrollment.

You want the professor, with whom you have never studied, to allow you to take this course.

What do you say to the professor?

You say: _______________________________________________________________

Situation 2

You are looking for a taxi to take you to the airport. You are running late and need to get a taxi

as soon as possible so that you will not miss your flight. There is a person waiting to get a taxi

before you. There is one available taxi coming. You want that person to let you take that taxi

first. What do you say to that person?

You say: _______________________________________________________________

Situation 3

You are at a subway station waiting for a train to go to work. When your train arrives, you see

that the train is quite crowded. However, you cannot wait to catch the next train because you do

not want to be late for work. There is a high school student standing right at the door and if that

269

student moves inside a little bit, you will be able to get on the train. You want that student to

move inside. What do you say to that student?

You say: _______________________________________________________________

Situation 4

You have received a much lower grade on an exam than you had expected. You had put a lot of

effort into the class and you believe you had prepared very well for the exam and had performed

well on the exam. You want your professor to reconsider your exam and explain why you

received a low grade. What do you say to your professor?

You say: _______________________________________________________________

Situation 5

You are at your university and need to make a local phone call, but the battery on your cell

phone is dead and there are no payphones nearby. You see one of your classmates walking in

your direction. You want to use your classmate’s cell phone to make a short phone call. What do

you say to your classmate?

You say: _______________________________________________________________

Situation 6

You are at a restaurant near your house for dinner. You are a regular customer and you know the

server working there. It is quite busy at the restaurant this evening and the server forgot to bring

you the drink you ordered. You want the server to bring you your drink. What do you say to the

server?

You say: _______________________________________________________________

Situation 7

You are at home and you have ordered food for delivery. While you are waiting for your food,

you realize that you do not have enough cash to pay for the food and they do not accept credit or

debit cards. The only other person at home is your older relative who is visiting. You want your

relative to lend you some money. What do you say to your older relative?

You say: _______________________________________________________________

270

Situation 8

You were sick and did not go to school at all last week. There will be a final exam next week and

you need to catch up with the lessons. You have a close friend who is enrolled in the same

courses as you and has good knowledge of the subject. Your friend has to work part-time and is

very busy. You want your friend to help you study for the upcoming exam. What do you say to

your friend?

You say: _______________________________________________________________

Situation 9

You want to go on a trip with your friends for one week. You want your younger sibling to do

the housework that you are normally responsible for. This housework usually takes about one

hour each day. What do you say to your younger sibling?

You say: _______________________________________________________________

Section 2

Situation 1

1. What do you think influenced the way you made your request in this situation? In other

words, why did you choose to make a request in this particular way?

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

2. On a scale of 1-5, please circle the number that you think represents how much of an

imposition your request is on the person you talked to in this situation?

3. Based on your response to question 2 (rating the level of imposition), please explain what you

were considering about the situation when you made your rating.

__________________________________________________________________________

271

__________________________________________________________________________

4. Have you experienced a similar situation in your own life?

Yes No

Situation 2



__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________





__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________


Yes No

Situation 3



__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________



272



__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________


Yes No

Situation 4



__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________





__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________


Yes No

273

Situation 5



__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________





__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________


Yes No

Situation 6



__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________



274



__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________


Yes No

Situation 7



__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________





__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________


Yes No

Situation 8



__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

275





__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________


Yes No

Situation 9



__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________





__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________


Yes No

276

(Thai Translation)

แบบสอบถามชนดเตมเตมบทสนทนาภาษาไทย

ค าสง:

แบบสอบถามนแบงเปน 2 สวน

สวนท 1 ประกอบไปดวยสถานการณตางๆ 9 สถานการณ กรณาอานค าบรรยายของแตละสถานการณอยาง

ละเอยด แลวคดวาคณจะพดวาอยางไรหากสถานการณเหลานนเกดขนกบคณจรงๆ จากนนเขยนค าพดทคณคด

วาจะพดลงในชองวางทก าหนดให แบบทดสอบนไมมการจ ากดความยาวของประโยคหรอจ านวนของประโยค

ทคณจะพดในสถานการณนนๆ ดงนนคณสามารถทจะพดมากหรอนอยไดตามทคณตองการ

สวนท 2 ประกอบไปดวยค าถาม 5 ค าถามทใหคณอธบายหรอขยายความเกยวกบสถานการณหรอค าตอบของ

คณจากสวนท 1 ของแบบสอบถาม กรณาอานค าถามแตละขออยางละเอยดและตอบค าถามตามทระบไวในแต

ละขอ

หมายเหต แบบสอบถามนไมมค าตอบทถกหรอผดตายตว และจะไมมการใหคะแนนวดผล ขอมลทไดจาก

แบบสอบถามนจะใชในการศกษาวจยเทานน ขอขอบคณอยางมากส าหรบการมสวนรวมในงานวจยชนน

สวนท 1

สถานการณท 1

ชวงแรกของการเปดภาคเรยน คณมรายวชาหนงทคณจ าเปนตองลงทะเบยนเรยนเพอใหส าเรจตามหลกสตร อยางไรกตาม คณพบวารายวชาดงกลาวปดรบการลงทะเบยนแลว คณตองการขอใหอาจารยผสอนรายวชานน ซงเปนอาจารยทคณไมเคยเรยนดวยมากอนอนญาตใหคณลงทะเบยนเรยนรายวชาน คณจะพดกบอาจารยวาอยางไร คณ : ______________________________________________________________________


คณก าลงรอเรยกแทกซเพอเดนทางไปยงสนามบน คณก าลงไปสายและตองการขนแทกซใหไดเรวทสดเพอวา

คณจะไดไมพลาดเทยวบนของคณ ขณะเดยวกนกมผโดยสารคนหนงรอเรยกแทกซอยกอนหนาคณ และม

277

แทกซผานมาหนงคนพอด คณตองการใหบคคลผนนยอมใหคณขนแทกซคนดงกลาวกอน คณจะพดกบบคคลผ

นนวาอยางไร

คณ : ______________________________________________________________________


คณอยทสถานรถไฟใตดนก าลงรอขนรถไฟเพอไปท างาน เมอรถไฟมาถง คณเหนวาภายในรถไฟมผโดยสาร

คอนขางแนน อยางไรกตาม คณไมสามารถรอขนขบวนถดไปไดเพราะคณไมตองการไปท างานสาย คณเหนวา

มเดกนกเรยนคนหนงยนอยตรงประตรถไฟและถานกเรยนคนนนขยบเขาไปดานในรถไฟเลกนอย คณกจะ

สามารถขนขบวนนได คณตองการใหเดกนกเรยนคนนนขยบเขาไปดานใน คณจะพดกบเดกนกเรยนคนนนวา

อยางไร

คณ : ______________________________________________________________________


คณไดรบผลการเรยนวชาหนงซงผลการเรยนนนต ากวาทคณคาดคดไวมาก คณไดพยายามตงใจเรยนวชานอยาง

มากและเชอวาคณไดอานหนงสอเตรยมตวสอบเปนอยางดและท าขอสอบไดด คณตองการใหอาจารยผสอน

พจารณาขอสอบของคณอกครงและอธบายวาท าไมคณจงไดคะแนนต า คณจะพดกบอาจารยวาอยางไร

คณ : ______________________________________________________________________


คณอยทมหาวทยาลยและตองการใชโทรศพท แตโทรศพทมอถอของคณแบตเตอรหมดและไมมโทรศพท

สาธารณะอยบรเวณนน คณเหนเพอนรวมชนเรยนของคณคนหนงก าลงเดนมาทางทคณอย คณตองการยม

โทรศพทของเพอนรวมชนเรยนคนนน คณจะพดกบเขาวาอยางไร

คณ : ______________________________________________________________________


คณมาทานอาหารเยนทรานอาหารใกลๆ บาน คณเปนลกคาประจ ารานอาหารน และคณรจกคนเคยพนกงาน

เสรฟทน วนนรานอาหารมลกคาเยอะและพนกงานเสรฟลมน าเครองดมทคณสงมาให คณตองการใหพนกงาน

เสรฟน าเครองดมของคณมาให คณจะพดกบพนกงานเสรฟวาอยางไร

คณ : ______________________________________________________________________


คณอยทบานและคณไดสงอาหารใหมาสงทบาน ขณะทคณรอรบอาหารอยนนคณนกขนไดวาคณไมมเงนสด

พอทจะจาย และพนกงานสงอาหารไมสามารถรบช าระดวยบตรเครดตได บงเอญวาญาตผใหญทมาเยยม

278

ครอบครวของคณอยทบานขณะนนพอด คณตองใหญาตผใหญชวยโดยการใหคณยมเงนคาอาหาร คณจะพดกบ

ญาตผใหญของคณวาอยางไร

คณ : ______________________________________________________________________


คณปวยและไมไดไปเรยนเลยตลอดทงสปดาห สปดาหหนาจะมการสอบปลายภาคและคณตองการเรยนตามให

ทน คณมเพอนสนทคนหนงทลงเรยนรายวชาเดยวกนนและเรยนเกงในวชาดงกลาว เพอนของคณยงมากเพราะ

ตองท างานพเศษ แตคณตองการใหเพอนของคณชวยตวใหส าหรบการสอบในสปดาหหนา คณจะพดกบเพอน

วาอยางไร

คณ : ______________________________________________________________________


คณตองการไปเทยวตางจงหวดกบเพอนๆ เปนเวลาหนงสปดาห คณตองการใหนองของคณชวยท างานบานท

เปนหนาทประจ าของคณในชวงทคณไมอย งานบานทคณท าประจ าใชเวลาประมาณหนงชวโมงตอวน คณจะ

พดกบนองของคณวาอยางไร

คณ : ______________________________________________________________________

สวนท 2


1. คณคดวาสงใดบางทมอทธพลตอการเลอกวธการพดขอรองของคณในสถานการณดงกลาว หรอท าไมคณจงเลอกวธการพดขอรองเชนนน ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________

279

2. กรณาวงกลมเลอกหมายเลขระหวาง 1- 5 ทคณคดวาแสดงถงระดบความรบกวนหรอความยงยากของสงทคณขอรองในสถานการณดงกลาว

3. จากค าตอบของคณในขอท 2 (เลอกระดบความรบกวนและความยงยากของสงทคณขอรอง) กรณาอธบายวาคณพจารณาถงสงใดบางเกยวกบสถานการณดงกลาวทมผลตอการเลอกระดบความรบกวนและความยงยากของสงทคณขอรอง ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 4. คณเคยประสบเหตการณทมลกษณะคลายกบเหตการณดงกลาวหรอไม เคย ไมเคย สถานการณท 2

1. คณคดวาสงใดบางทมอทธพลตอการเลอกวธการพดขอรองของคณในสถานการณดงกลาว หรอท าไมคณจง

เลอกวธการพดขอรองเชนนน

____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2. กรณาวงกลมเลอกหมายเลขระหวาง 1- 5 ทคณคดวาแสดงถงระดบความรบกวนหรอความยงยากของสงทคณขอรองในสถานการณดงกลาว

280


1. คณคดวาสงใดบางทมอทธพลตอการเลอกวธการพดขอรองของคณในสถานการณดงกลาว หรอท าไมคณจงเลอกวธการพดขอรองเชนนน ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2. กรณาวงกลมเลอกหมายเลขระหวาง 1- 5 ทคณคดวาแสดงถงระดบความรบกวนหรอความยงยากของสงทคณขอรองในสถานการณดงกลาว

3. จากค าตอบของคณในขอท 2 (เลอกระดบความรบกวนและความยงยากของสงทคณขอรอง) กรณาอธบายวาคณพจารณาถงสงใดบางเกยวกบสถานการณดงกลาวทมผลตอการเลอกระดบความรบกวนและความยงยากของสงทคณขอรอง ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 4. คณเคยประสบเหตการณทมลกษณะคลายกบเหตการณดงกลาวหรอไม เคย ไมเคย

281





1. คณคดวาสงใดบางทมอทธพลตอการเลอกวธการพดขอรองของคณในสถานการณดงกลาว หรอท าไมคณจงเลอกวธการพดขอรองเชนนน ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________

282

2. กรณาวงกลมเลอกหมายเลขระหวาง 1- 5 ทคณคดวาแสดงถงระดบความรบกวนหรอความยงยากของสงทคณขอรองในสถานการณดงกลาว



3. จากค าตอบของคณในขอท 2 (เลอกระดบความรบกวนและความยงยากของสงทคณขอรอง) กรณาอธบายวาคณพจารณาถงสงใดบางเกยวกบสถานการณดงกลาวทมผลตอการเลอกระดบความรบกวนและความยงยากของสงทคณขอรอง

283

____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 4. คณเคยประสบเหตการณทมลกษณะคลายกบเหตการณดงกลาวหรอไม เคย ไมเคย สถานการณท 7




1. คณคดวาสงใดบางทมอทธพลตอการเลอกวธการพดขอรองของคณในสถานการณดงกลาว หรอท าไมคณจง

เลอกวธการพดขอรองเชนนน

284

____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2. กรณาวงกลมเลอกหมายเลขระหวาง 1- 5 ทคณคดวาแสดงถงระดบความรบกวนหรอความยงยากของสงทคณขอรองในสถานการณดงกลาว




285


286

Appendix F. Interview questions for SA group participants

(Conducted in Thai – see below for the English version, followed by the Thai-translated version)

Part 1: English learning history and opinions about learning English

1. When did you start learning English? Approximately, how many hours per week have

you spent learning English in class?

2. How much do you like English? What aspects of English you do like the most?

3. Is there anything you do outside of the classroom to improve your English?

4. Apart from using English in class, is there anything you do outside of class that involves

using English? (e.g., working part-time)

5. Have you ever been to countries where you had to use English to communicate (e.g.,

vacation, summer camp, English class, etc.) before you began your study abroad

program? If so, where and how long?

6. How do you feel when you speak English with native English speakers?

7. How do you feel when you speak English with non-native English speakers?

8. Do you have many English-speaking friends? If so, what is your relationship like? (e.g.,

how often do you talk to each other/ see each other/ spend time together?)

9. What factors do you think are important in cross-cultural communication using English?

10. What are your goals in learning English?

11. How interested are you in learning about English speakers’ cultures? If so, is there a

particular English-speaking culture that you are interested in? (e.g., American, British,

Canadian, etc.) Why are you interested in that particular culture?

12. How much have you learned about English speakers’ cultures in your English classes?

How was it taught?

287

13. Do you do anything that helps you to understand English speakers’ cultures? If so, what

have you done? If not, why not?

14. What do you think about English teaching in Thailand?

15. What do you think about learning English in Thailand?

Part 2: Experience learning Abroad

16. Why did you decide to further your studies abroad?

17. What country did you choose to go to? Why did you choose this country?

18. How long have you lived/ did you live in this country?

19. What advantages and disadvantages you do think studying in an English-speaking

country might have on your English language development?

20. Do you think learning English in Thailand and in an English-speaking environment can

be equally effective in improving your English language skills?

21. What English skills do you think studying in an English speaking-environment can help

improve the most compared to studying in Thailand?

22. What was your biggest challenge in terms of the language, and communication at the

beginning of your time abroad?

23. What are the challenges you have now with English after having lived abroad for some

time?

24. How do you feel about living in a different culture?

25. How much have you learned about native English speakers’ cultures after having lived

in an English-speaking country? How did you learn it/ them?

26. Do you think that English in all of English-speaking countries is the same? If not, what

differences do you perceive?

27. How would you describe your English proficiency at the beginning of your time abroad?

288

28. How would you describe your English proficiency now?

29. Can you describe how living or studying in an English-speaking environment has

impacted your English language development?

Part 3: Perceptions toward your own pragmatic development

30. Do you know what pragmatics and pragmatic competence are?

31. Have you learned in any English classes about using English appropriately in different

social situations? If so, what did you learn?

32. How would you describe your pragmatic competence in English?

33. How much do you think studying English in a classroom can help you develop

pragmatic competence in the language?

34. How much do you think you have developed English pragmatic competence from

studying in an English-speaking environment and culture?

35. During your time abroad, have you ever failed to communicate your intended messages

using English?

Part 4: Making English requests

36. Before going abroad, did you learn in class how to make requests in English? If so, what

did you learn?

37. While studying abroad, did you learn (or are you learning) in class how to make English

requests?

38. What are the differences that you perceive in the way Thai people make requests and

native English speakers make requests in their respective languages?

39. How often do you make requests in English in real life?

40. What are the typical situations in which you have to make English requests?

289

41. Do you make requests in English the same way as you do in Thai? If not,

- What factors do you take into account when making requests in Thai?

- What factors do you take into account when making requests in English?

42. How difficult is it for you to make a request in English?

43. In what type of situation do you find it most difficult to make a request in English?

44. In what type of situation do you find it most difficult to make a request in Thai?

45. Are you always successful when you make English requests?

46. Have you ever struggled when having to make English requests? If so, please describe.

47. Is there a time when your English request was not successful? If so, can you describe the

situation?

48. Have you ever chosen not to make an English request even though you wanted to make

a request? If so, what stopped you from making the request?

49. Have you had an experience when people misunderstood or misinterpreted your English

requests? If so, please describe how it happened.

50. Do you think studying abroad has helped you improve your pragmatic competence in

English better than studying in Thailand has? If so, in what ways?

51. How would you describe the quantity of your interactions in an English-speaking

community?

52. How would you describe the quality of your interactions in an English-speaking

community?

53. To what extent do you think the quantity and quality of your interactions in an English-

speaking community have affected your ability to achieve native-like pragmatic

behavior in English?

290

Part 5: Follow-up question on request responses in the EDCT (if any)

54. Can you tell me more about your request response to situation number _____ that you

chose to say (refer to the participant’s response) ?

(Thai Translation)

สวนท 1ประวตการเรยนภาษาองกฤษและความคดเหนเกยวกบการเรยนภาษาองกฤษ 1. คณเรมเรยนภาษาองกฤษเมอไหร และคณเรยนภาษาองกฤษในหองเรยนประมาณสปดาหละกชวโมง 2. คณชอบภาษาองกฤษมากแคไหน ดานใดของภาษาองกฤษทคณชอบมากทสด 3. คณท ากจกรรมนอกหองเรยนเพอพฒนาทกษะภาษาองกฤษของคณบางไหม ถาใช คณท าอะไร 4. นอกเหนอจากการใชภาษาองกฤษในหองเรยน คณไดใชภาษาองกฤษนอกหองเรยนในการท ากจกรรม

อนๆ หรอไม (เชน ท างานพเศษ) 5. กอนทคณจะไปเรยนตอตางประเทศ คณเคยเดนทางไปตางประเทศซงเปนประเทศทคณตองใช

ภาษาองกฤษในการตดตอสอสาร (เชน ไปพกผอน ไปเขาคายฤดรอน หรอเพอเรยนภาษาองกฤษ และอนๆ ) หรอไม ถาเคย คณไปทไหน และเปนระยะเวลาเทาไหร

6. คณรสกอยางไรเวลาพดภาษาองกฤษกบชาวตางชาตเจาของภาษา 7. คณรสกอยางไรเวลาพดภาษาองกฤษกบชาวตางชาตทไมใชเจาของภาษา 8. คณมเพอนทเปนเจาของภาษาหรอเพอนทใชภาษาองกฤษเปนภาษาหลกเยอะไหม ถาม ความสมพนธ

ของคณกบเพอนเปนยงไง (เชน คณคยกนบอยไหม หรอเจอกนบอยไหม หรอใชเวลาดวยกนบอยไหม)

9. ปจจยใดบางทคณคดวามความส าคญในการสอสารขามวฒนธรรมโดยใชภาษาองกฤษเปนภาษาในการสอสาร

10. เปาหมายของคณในการเรยนภาษาองกฤษคออะไร 11. คณสนใจเรยนรวฒนธรรมของเจาของภาษามากนอยแคไหน ถาใช คณสนใจวฒนธรรมของเจาของ

ภาษาองกฤษชาตใดชาตหนงโดยเฉพาะเจาะจงหรอไม (เชน อเมรกน องกฤษ แคนนาดา และอนๆ) หากม ท าไมคณจงสนใจวฒนธรรมนน

12. คณไดเรยนรเกยวกบวฒนธรรมของเจาของภาษาในวชาภาษาองกฤษมากนอยเทาใด และอาจารยสอนวฒนธรรมของเจาของภาษาอยางไร

13. คณท าอะไรทชวยใหคณเขาใจวฒนธรรมของเจาของภาษาหรอไม ถาท า คณท าอะไรบาง ถาไมท า เพราะเหตใดคณจงไมท า

14. คณคดวาการสอนภาษาองกฤษในประเทศไทยเปนอยางไรบาง

291

15. คณมความคดเหนอยางไรเกยวกบการเรยนภาษาองกฤษในประเทศไทย สวนท 2 ประสบการณการเรยนตางประเทศ

16. ท าไมคณจงตดสนใจเรยนตอตางประเทศ 17. คณเรยนตอประเทศอะไร ท าไมคณจงเลอกประเทศน 18. คณอาศยอยประเทศนมานานเทาใดแลว / คณอาศยอยประเทศนนานเทาใด 19. คณคดวามขอไดเปรยบหรอขอเสยเปรยบอะไรบางทการเรยนตอตางประเทศทใชภาษาองกฤษเปน

ภาษาหลกมตอการพฒนาทกษะภาษาองกฤษของคณ 20. คณคดวาการเรยนภาษาองกฤษในประเทศไทยและตางประเทศสามารถมประสทธภาพเทาเทยมกนใน

การพฒนาทกษะภาษาองกฤษของคณ 21. คณคดวาการเรยนตางประเทศชวยพฒนาทกษะภาษาองกฤษดานใดทไดดทสดเมอเปรยบเทยบกบการ

เรยนในประเทศไทย 22. ในชวงแรกของการเรยนตางประเทศ อะไรคออปสรรคทยงใหญทสดส าหรบคณในเรองภาษาและ

การสอสาร 23. หลงจากทคณไดมาอาศยในตางประเทศเปนระยะเวลาหนงแลว ตอนนคณเผชญกบอปสรรคอะไรใน

เรองภาษาองกฤษ 24. คณรสกอยางไรกบการใชชวตในวฒนธรรมทแตกตางไปจากวฒนธรรมของคณ 25. คณไดเรยนรเกยวกบวฒนธรรมของเจาของภาษาไปมากนอยเทาใดหลงจากทคณมาอยตางประเทศ

และคณเรยนรวฒนธรรมของเจาของภาษาอยางไร 26. คณคดหรอไมวาภาษาองกฤษมลกษณะเหมอนกนในทกๆ ประเทศทพดภาษาองกฤษเปนภาษาหลก

หากคณคดวาไมเหมอน คณคดวามความแตกตางอะไรบาง 27. คณคดวาความสามารถภาษาองกฤษของคณในชวงแรกของการเรยนตอตางประเทศเปนอยางไร 28. คณคดวาทกษะภาษาองกฤษของคณขณะนเปนเชนไร 29. กรณาบรรยายวาการอาศยหรอการเรยนในตางประเทศทใชภาษาองกฤษเปนภาษาหลกนนมผลกระทบ

ตอการพฒนาทางดานภาษาองกฤษของคณอยางไรบาง สวนท 3 การรบรถงการพฒนาการทางวจนปฏบตศาสตรของตนเอง

30. คณทราบหรอไมวาวจนปฏบตศาสตร (pragmatics) และความสามารถทางวจนปฏบตศาสตร (pragmatic competence) คออะไร

31. คณเคยเรยนเกยวกบการใชภาษาองกฤษใหเหมาะสมกบบรบทและสถานการณตางๆทางสงคมในวชาภาษาองกฤษหรอไม ถาใช คณเรยนอะไรบาง

32. คณคดวาความสามารถทางวจนปฏบตศาสตรในภาษาองกฤษของคณเปนเชนไร

292

33. คณคดวาการเรยนภาษาองกฤษในหองเรยนชวยใหคณพฒนาความสามารถทางวจนปฏบตศาสตรไดมากนอยแคไหน

34. คณคดวาคณไดพฒนาความสามารถทางวจนปฏบตศาสตรในภาษาองกฤษมากนอยแคไหนจากการเรยนตอตางประเทศในสภาพแวดลอมและวฒนธรรมของเจาของภาษา

35. ในชวงทคณอยตางประเทศ คณเคยประสบความลมเหลวในการสอความหมายของขอความตามทคณตงใจโดยใชภาษาองกฤษในการสอสารหรอไม ถาเคย

สวนท 4 การขอรองเปนภาษาองกฤษ

36. กอนทคณจะไปเรยนตอตางประเทศ คณเคยเรยนวธการขอรองเปนภาษาองกฤษในวชาภาษาองกฤษหรอไม ถาเคย คณเรยนอะไรบาง

37. ขณะทคณศกษาอยตางประเทศ คณเคยเรยนหรอก าลงเรยนวธการของรองเปนภาษาองกฤษในหองเรยนหรอไม ถาเคย ถาเคย คณเรยนอะไรบาง

38. คณคดวาการขอรองของคนไทยในภาษาไทยและเจาของภาษาในภาษาองกฤษมความแตกตางอะไรบาง

39. คณขอรองเปนภาษาองกฤษบอยแคไหนในชวตจรง 40. โดยปกต คณตองขอรองเปนภาษาองกฤษในสถานการณใดบาง 41. คณใชวธการขอรองในภาษาองกฤษเหมอนกบวธการขอรองในภาษาไทยหรอไม

- คณพจารณาปจจยใดบางในการขอรองเปนภาษาไทย - คณพจารณาปจจยใดบางในการขอรองเปนภาษาองกฤษ

42. คณคดวาการขอรองเปนภาษาองกฤษมความยากแคไหนส าหรบคณ 43. ในสถานการณใดทคณคดวายากมากทสดในการขอรองเปนภาษาองกฤษ 44. ในสถานการณใดทคณคดวายากมากทสดในการขอรองเปนภาษาไทย 45. คณมกจะประสบความส าเรจในการขอรองเปนภาษาองกฤษหรอไม 46. คณเคยประสบความปญหาและตองพยายามอยางมากในการขอรองเปนภาษาองกฤษหรอไม ถาเคย 47. คณเคยไมประสบความส าเรจในการขอรองเปนภาษาองกฤษบางไหม ถาเคย กรณาบรรยาย

สถานการณทคณไมประสบความส าเรจในการขอรอง ยกตวอยางเชน 48. ในการพดภาษาองกฤษ คณเคยเลอกทจะไมขอรองแมวาคณตองการทจะขอรองหรอไม ถาเคย ท าไม

คณจงเลอกทจะไมขอรอง 49. คณเคยประสบกรณทบคคลทคณขอรองเขาใจค าขอรองของคณผดหรอตความหมายค าขอรองของคณ

ผดหรอไม ถาเคย กรณาบรรยายสงทเกดขน

293

50. คณคดวาการเรยนตางประเทศชวยใหคณพฒนาความสามารถทางวจนปฏบตศาสตรดกวาหรอมากกวา การเรยนในประเทศไทยหรอไม อยางไร

51. คณคดวาปรมาณของการปฏสมพนธของคณในตางประเทศเปนเชนไร 52. คณคดวาคณภาพของการปฎสมพนธของคณในตางประเทศเปนเชนไร

53. คณคดวาปรมาณและคณภาพของการปฎสมพนธของคณในตางประเทศมผลตอความสามารถของคณทจะบรรลพฤตกรรมทางวจนปฏบตศาสตรของเจาของภาษาองกฤษมากนอยแคไหน

สวนท 5 ค าถามเพมเตมเกยวกบค าตอบของคณในแบบสอบถาม EDCT (ถาม) 54. กรณาอธบายเพมเตมเกยวกบค าตอบในการขอรองของคณในสถานการณท _____ ซงคณพดวา

อางองค าตอบของผเขารวมการวจย .

294

Appendix G. Interview questions for AH group participants


Part 1: English learning history and opinions about learning English



2. How would you describe your English proficiency?

3. How much do you like English? What aspects of English do you like the most? Why?

4. Is there anything you do outside of the classroom to improve your English?

5. Apart from using English in class, is there anything you do outside of class that involves

using English? (e.g., working part-time)

6. Have you ever been to countries where you had to use English to communicate? (e.g.,

vacation, summer camp, English class etc.) If so, where and how long?

7. How do you feel when you speak English with native English speakers?

8. How do you feel when you speak English with non-native English speakers?

9. Do you have any native-English friends? If so, what is your relationship like? (e.g., how

often do you talk to each other/ see each other/ spend time together?)


11. What are your goals in learning English?

12. How interested are you in learning English speakers’ cultures? If so, is there a particular

English-speaking culture that you are interested in? (e.g., American, British, Canadian,

etc.) Why?

13. Do you do anything that helps you to understand English speakers’ cultures? If so, what

have you done? If not, why not?

295

Part 2: Experience with learning English in Thailand

14. What do you think about English teaching in Thailand?

15. What is your opinion about learning English in Thailand?

16. What advantages and disadvantages you do think studying in an English-speaking

country might have on your English language development?

17. Do you think learning English in Thailand and in an English-speaking environment can

be equally effective in improving your English language skills?

18. What English skills do you think studying in an English speaking-environment can help

improve the most compared to studying in Thailand?

19. How much have you learned about English speakers’ cultures in your English classes?

How is it taught?

20. Do you think that English in all of English-speaking countries is the same? If not, what

differences do you perceive?

Part 3: Perceptions toward your own pragmatic development

21. Do you know what pragmatics and pragmatic competence are?

22. Have you learned in any English classes about using English appropriately in different

social situations? If so, what did you learn?

23. How would you describe your pragmatic competence in English?

24. How much do you think studying English in a classroom can help you develop

pragmatic competence in the language?

25. Do you think people who study abroad can improve their English pragmatic competence

faster and more effectively than they would by studying only in Thailand? If so, why? If

not, why not?

296

Part 4: Making English requests

26. Have you learned in class how to make requests in English? If so, what did you learn?


English speakers make requests in their respective languages?

28. How often do you make requests in English in real life?

29. What are the typical situations in which you have to make English requests?

30. Do you make requests in English the same way as you do in Thai?



31. How difficult is it for you to make a request in English?

32. In what type of situation do you find it most difficult to make a request in English?

33. In what type of situation do you find it most difficult to make a request in Thai?

34. Are you always successful when you make English requests?

35. Have you ever struggled when having to make English requests? If so, please describe

how it happened.

36. Is there a time when your request was not successful? If so, can you describe the

situation?

37. Have you ever chosen not to make an English request even though you wanted to make

a request? If so, what stopped you from making the request?

38. Have you had an experience when people misunderstood or misinterpreted your English


Part 5: Follow-up question on request responses in the EDCT



297

(Thai Translation)

สวนท 1 ประวตการเรยนภาษาองกฤษและความคดเหนเกยวกบการเรยนภาษาองกฤษ 1. คณเรมเรยนภาษาองกฤษเมอไหร และคณเรยนภาษาองกฤษในหองเรยนประมาณสปดาหละกชวโมง 2. คณคดวาความสามารถภาษาองกฤษของคณเปนอยางไรบาง 3. คณชอบภาษาองกฤษมากแคไหน ดานใดของภาษาองกฤษทคณชอบมากทสด 4. คณท ากจกรรมนอกหองเรยนเพอพฒนาทกษะภาษาองกฤษของคณบางไหม ถาใช คณท าอะไร 5. นอกเหนอจากการใชภาษาองกฤษในหองเรยน คณไดใชภาษาองกฤษนอกหองเรยนในการท ากจกรรม

อนๆ หรอไม (เชน ท างานพเศษ) 6. คณเคยเดนทางไปตางประเทศซงเปนประเทศทคณตองใชภาษาองกฤษในการตดตอสอสารหรอไม

(เชน ไปพกผอน ไปเขาคายฤดรอน หรอเพอเรยนภาษาองกฤษ และอนๆ ) หรอไม ถาเคย คณไปทไหนบาง และไปนานแคไหน

7. คณรสกอยางไรเวลาพดภาษาองกฤษกบชาวตางชาตเจาของภาษา 8. คณรสกอยางไรเวลาพดภาษาองกฤษกบชาวตางชาตทไมใชเจาของภาษา 9. คณมเพอนทเปนเจาของภาษาหรอเพอนทใชภาษาองกฤษเปนภาษาหลกบางไหม ถาม ความสมพนธ

ของคณกบเพอนเปนยงไง (เชน คณคยกนบอยไหม หรอเจอกนบอยไหม หรอใชเวลาดวยกนบอยไหม)


11. เปาหมายของคณในการเรยนภาษาองกฤษคออะไร 12. คณสนใจเรยนรวฒนธรรมของเจาของภาษามากนอยแคไหน และคณสนใจวฒนธรรมของเจาของ

ภาษาองกฤษชาตใดชาตหนงโดยเฉพาะเจาะจงหรอไม (เชน อเมรกน องกฤษ แคนนาดา และอนๆ) หากม ท าไมคณจงสนใจวฒนธรรมนน ท าไมจงสนใจวฒนธรรมนนๆ

13. คณท าอะไรทชวยใหคณเขาใจวฒนธรรมของเจาของภาษาหรอไม ถาท า คณท าอะไรบาง ถาไมท า เพราะเหตใดคณจงไมท า

สวนท กฤษในประเทศไทยประสบการณการเรยนภาษาอง 2

14. คณคดวาการสอนภาษาองกฤษในประเทศไทยเปนอยางไรบาง 15. คณมความคดเหนอยางไรเกยวกบการเรยนภาษาองกฤษในประเทศไทย

298

16. คณคดวามขอไดเปรยบหรอขอเสยเปรยบอะไรบางทการเรยนตอตางประเทศทใชภาษาองกฤษเปนภาษาหลกมตอการพฒนาทกษะภาษาองกฤษของคณ

17. คณคดวาการเรยนภาษาองกฤษในประเทศไทยและตางประเทศสามารถมประสทธภาพเทาเทยมกนในการพฒนาทกษะภาษาองกฤษของคณ

18. คณคดวาการเรยนตางประเทศชวยพฒนาทกษะภาษาองกฤษดานใดทไดดทสดเมอเปรยบเทยบกบการเรยนในประเทศไทย

19. คณไดเรยนรเกยวกบวฒนธรรมของเจาของภาษาในวชาภาษาองกฤษมากนอยเทาใด และอาจารยสอนวฒนธรรมของเจาของภาษาอยางไร

20. คณคดหรอไมวาภาษาองกฤษมลกษณะเหมอนกนในทกๆ ประเทศทพดภาษาองกฤษเปนภาษาหลก หากคณคดวาไมเหมอน คณคดวามความแตกตางอะไรบาง

สวนท การรบรถงการพฒนาการทางวจนปฏบตศาสตรของตนเอง 3

21. คณทราบหรอไมวาวจนปฏบตศาสตร (pragmatics) และความสามารถทางวจนปฏบตศาสตร

(pragmatic competence) คออะไร

22. คณเคยเรยนเกยวกบการใชภาษาองกฤษใหเหมาะสมกบบรบทและสถานการณตางๆทางสงคมในวชาภาษาองกฤษหรอไม ถาเคย คณเรยนอะไรบาง

23. คณคดวาความสามารถทางวจนปฏบตศาสตรในภาษาองกฤษของคณเปนเชนไร 24. คณคดวาการเรยนภาษาองกฤษในหองเรยนชวยใหคณพฒนาความสามารถทางวจนปฏบตศาสตรได

มากนอยแคไหน 25. คณคดวานกเรยนไทยทเรยนตอตางประเทศสามารถพฒนาความสามารถทางวจนปฏบตศาสตรใน

ภาษาองกฤษไดรวดเรวและมประสทธภาพมากกวาเมอเทยบกบการเรยนในประเทศไทยเพยงอยางเดยวหรอไม กรณาอธบายค าตอบของคณ

สวนท การขอรองเปนภาษาองกฤษ 4

26. คณเคยเรยนวธการขอรองเปนภาษาองกฤษในวชาภาษาองกฤษหรอไม ถาเคย คณเรยนอะไรบาง


28. คณขอรองเปนภาษาองกฤษบอยแคไหนในชวตจรง 29. โดยปกต คณตองขอรองเปนภาษาองกฤษในสถานการณใดบาง

299

30. คณใชวธการขอรองในภาษาองกฤษเหมอนกบวธการขอรองในภาษาไทยหรอไม - คณพจารณาปจจยใดบางในการขอรองเปนภาษาไทย - คณพจารณาปจจยใดบางในการขอรองเปนภาษาองกฤษ

31. คณคดวาการขอรองเปนภาษาองกฤษมความยากแคไหนส าหรบคณ 32. ในสถานการณใดทคณคดวายากมากทสดในการขอรองเปนภาษาองกฤษ 33. ในสถานการณใดทคณคดวายากมากทสดในการขอรองเปนภาษาไทย 34. คณมกจะประสบความส าเรจในการขอรองเปนภาษาองกฤษหรอไม 35. คณเคยประสบปญหาและตองพยายามอยางมากในการขอรองเปนภาษาองกฤษหรอไม ถาเคยกรณา

บรรยายเหตการณทคณประสบปญหา 36. คณเคยไมประสบความส าเรจในการขอรองเปนภาษาองกฤษบางไหม ถาเคย กรณาบรรยาย

สถานการณทคณไมประสบความส าเรจในการขอรอง ยกตวอยางเชน 37. ในการพดภาษาองกฤษ คณเคยเลอกทจะไมขอรองแมวาคณตองการทจะขอรองหรอไม ถาเคย ท าไม

คณจงเลอกทจะไมขอรอง 38. คณเคยประสบกรณทบคคลทคณขอรองเขาใจค าขอรองของคณผดหรอตความหมายค าขอรองของคณ

ผดหรอไม ถาเคย กรณาบรรยายสงทเกดขน สวนท 5 ค าถามเพมเตมเกยวกบค าตอบของคณในแบบสอบถาม EDCT (ถาม)

39. กรณาอธบายเพมเตมเกยวกบค าตอบในการขอรองของคณในสถานการณท _____ ซงคณพดวา อางองค าตอบของผเขารวมการวจย .

300

Appendix H. Interview questions for NT group participants


Part 1: Experience with the English language



2. How would you describe your English proficiency?

3. Have you ever been to countries where you had to use English to communicate? (e.g.,

vacation, summer camp, English class etc.) If so, where did you go and for how long?

4. Do you have any English-speaking friends? If so, what is your relationship like? (e.g.,

how often do you talk to each other/ see each other/ spend time together?)


Part 2: Experience in making and receiving requests

6. How often do you make requests in real life?

7. What are the typical situations in which you have to make requests?

8. How comfortable are you in making requests?

9. In what type of situation do you find it most difficult to make a request?

10. Have you ever made requests in English? If so, do you make requests the same way as

you do in Thai?




English speakers make requests in their respective languages?

12. Are you usually successful when you make requests?

301

13. Have you ever struggled when having to make requests? If so,


situation? For example,

15. Have you ever chosen not to make a request even though you wanted to make a request?

If so, what stopped you from making the request?

16. Have you had an experience when people misunderstood or misinterpreted your


17. Have you had an experience when you misunderstood or misinterpreted the requests

made by other people? If so, please describe how it happened.

18. Have you ever experienced an inappropriate request made to you? If so, what was the

request and why did you think it was inappropriate?

Part 3: Follow-up question on some request responses in the EDCT



(Thai Translation)

ค าถามสมภาษณ

สวนท 1 ประสบการณทางดานภาษาองกฤษ

1. คณเรมเรยนภาษาองกฤษเมอไหร และคณเรยนภาษาองกฤษในหองเรยนประมาณสปดาหละกชวโมง 2. คณคดวาความสามารถภาษาองกฤษของคณเปนอยางไรบาง 3. คณเคยเดนทางไปตางประเทศซงเปนประเทศทคณตองใชภาษาองกฤษในการตดตอสอสารหรอไม

(เชน ไปพกผอน ไปเขาคายฤดรอน หรอเพอเรยนภาษาองกฤษ และอนๆ ) หรอไม ถาเคย คณไปประเทศอะไรและคณไปนานแคไหน

302

4. คณมเพอนทเปนเจาของภาษาหรอเพอนทใชภาษาองกฤษเปนภาษาหลกบางไหม ถาม ความสมพนธของคณกบเพอนเปนยงไง (เชน คณคยกนบอยไหม หรอเจอกนบอยไหม หรอใชเวลาดวยกนบอยไหม)


สวนท 2 การขอรองและไดรบการขอรอง

6. คณขอรองเปนภาษาองกฤษบอยแคไหนในชวตจรง 7. โดยปกต คณตองขอรองในสถานการณใดบาง 8. คณรสกสะดวกใจมากนอยแคไหนในการขอรอง 9. ในสถานการณใดทคณคดวายากมากทสดในการขอรอง ยกตวอยางเชน 10. คณเคยขอรองเปนภาษาองกฤษไหม ถาเคย คณใชวธการขอรองในภาษาองกฤษเหมอนกบวธการ

ขอรองในภาษาไทยหรอไม - คณพจารณาปจจยใดบางในการขอรองเปนภาษาไทย - คณพจารณาปจจยใดบางในการขอรองเปนภาษาองกฤษ


12. คณมกจะประสบความส าเรจในการขอรองหรอไม 13. คณเคยประสบปญหาและตองพยายามอยางมากในการขอรองหรอไม ถาเคย

- ในสถานการณใดทคณประสบปญหาในการขอรองเปนภาษาองกฤษ - อะไรท าใหการขอรองของคณในสถานการณนนยงยากและตองพยายามอยางมาก

14. คณเคยไมประสบความส าเรจในการขอรองบางไหม ถาเคย กรณาบรรยายสถานการณทคณไมประสบความส าเรจในการขอรอง ยกตวอยางเชน

15. คณเคยเลอกทจะไมขอรองแมวาคณตองการทจะขอรองหรอไม ถาเคย ท าไมคณจงเลอกทจะไมขอรอง

16. คณเคยประสบกรณทบคคลทคณขอรองเขาใจค าขอรองของคณผดหรอตความหมายค าขอรองของคณผดหรอไม ถาเคย กรณาบรรยายสงทเกดขน

17. คณเคยประสบกรณทคณไดรบการขอรองแตคณเขาใจค าขอรองผดหรอตความหมายค าขอรองผดหรอไม ถาเคย กรณาบรรยายสงทเกดขน

303

18. คณเคยประสบกรณทมผมาขอรองคณดวยค าขอรองทไมเหมาะสมหรอไม หากเคย กรณาบรรยายรายละเอยดของค าขอรองนน และอธบายวาเหตใดคณจงคดวาค าขอรองนนไมเหมาะสม

สวนท 3 ค าถามตดตามเกยวกบค าตอบของคณในแบบสอบถาม EDCT (ถาม) 19. กรณาอธบายเพมเตมเกยวกบค าตอบในการขอรองของคณในสถานการณท _____ ซงคณพดวา

อางองค าตอบของผเขารวมการวจย .

304

Appendix I. Interview questions for ED group participants


Part 1: Experience with languages and cultures

1. What is your native language?

2. If English is not your native language, how long have you been speaking English and

how long have you been living in an English-speaking country/ community/

environment?

3. Besides English, what other language(s), if any, can you speak?

- How long have you been speaking it/ them?

- How would you describe your proficiency in using this/these language(s)?


5. How interested are you in learning about other cultures?

6. Do you do anything that helps you to understand other cultures? If so, what have you

done?

7. Do you think it is necessary for non-native English speakers to learn and know native

English speakers’ cultures in order to communicate effectively in an English-speaking

country/ community/ environment? Why or why not?

Part 2: Experience in making and receiving requests

8. How often do you make requests in real life?

9. What are the typical situations in which you have to make requests?

10. How comfortable are you in making requests?

11. In what type of situation do you find it most difficult to make a request? For example,

305

12. If you can speak more than one language, do you make requests in English the same

way as you do in the other language(s)?


- What factors do you take into account when making requests in the other

language(s)?

13. Are you usually successful when you make requests?

14. Have you ever struggled when having to make requests?


situation? For example,

16. Have you ever chosen not to make a request even though you wanted to make a request?

If so, what stopped you from making the request?

17. Have you had an experience when you misunderstood or misinterpreted the requests

made by other people, in particular by English as a second language speaker? If so, what

happened?

18. Have you ever experienced an inappropriate request made to you? If so, what was the

request and why did you think it was inappropriate?

Part 3: Follow-up question on some request responses in the EDCT (if any)


chose to say (refer to the participant’s response)

The Development of Pragmatic Competence in Request Speech ...

Documents

Transcript of The Development of Pragmatic Competence in Request Speech ...