1887
Volume 32, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0213-2028
  • E-ISSN: 2254-6774
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Studies on speech acts represent an extensive, multidisciplinary area of research, encompassing diverse theoretical approaches such as those stemming from pragmatic, conversational, discourse, cognitive, constructional, and functional perspectives. Altogether, these theories offer an eloquent picture of the type of knowledge that is necessary to perform and understand speech acts correctly. English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers need to be aware to what extent such contemporary research findings on speech acts have made their way into present-day textbooks, and this paper sets out to elucidate this issue.

First, we look at contemporary studies on speech acts in search of the key theoretical aspects of illocutionary performance that should ideally be included in ESL course book series. Second, we analyze a collection of seven such course series to assess to what extent they incorporate those theoretical findings. Finally, we consider the weaknesses of present-day textbooks in relation to the teaching of illocutionary acts, thus providing an informed ground for their elaboration and improvement.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/resla.17024.per
2019-07-24
2019-09-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aksoyalp, Y. , & Toprak, T. E.
    (2015) Incorporating pragmatics in English language teaching: to what extent do EFL course book address speech acts?International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English literature, 4(2), 125–133.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Austin, J. L.
    (1962) How to do things with words. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Baicchi, A.
    (2015) Conceptual metaphor in the complex dynamics of illocutionary meaning. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13 (1), 106–139. doi:  10.1075/rcl.13.1.05bai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.13.1.05bai [Google Scholar]
  4. Barron, A.
    (2007, March). ‘Can you take the other bed, please?’: An appraisal of request presentation in EFL textbooks. Paper presented at the22nd Congress of the German Society for Foreign (and Second) Language Research, Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Boxer, D. , & Pickering, L.
    (1995) Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: The case of complaints. ELT Journal, 49(1), 44–58. doi:  10.1093/elt/49.1.44
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/49.1.44 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, P. , & Levinson, S.
    (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, MA: Chicago Press University. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  7. Carroll, D.
    (2011) Teaching preference organization: Learning how not to say ‘no’. In N. Houck & D. Tatsuki (Eds.), Pragmatics: Teaching natural conversation (pp.105–118). Alexandria: TESOL.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Del Campo, N.
    (2013) Illocutionary constructions in English: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. Berlin, Germany: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 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. doi:  10.18806/tesl.v30i7.1149
    https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v30i7.1149 [Google Scholar]
  10. Dik, S. C.
    (1989) The theory of Functional Grammar: Part I: The structure of the clause. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (1997) The theory of Functional Grammar: Part II: Complex and derived constructions. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110218374
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110218374 [Google Scholar]
  12. Gibbs, R. W.
    (1984) Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cognitive Science, 8, 265–304. doi:  10.1207/s15516709cog0803_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0803_4 [Google Scholar]
  13. (1994) The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge, MA: Chicago Press University.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Givón, T.
    (1989) Mind, code, and context. Essays in pragmatics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Glaser, K.
    (2009) Acquiring pragmatic competence in a foreign language – mastering dispreferred speech acts. Topics in Linguistics, 4, 50–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Halliday, M. A. K.
    (1994[1985]) An introduction to Functional Grammar. London, England: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Leech, G.
    (1983) Principles of pragmatics. New York, NY: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Levinson, S. C.
    (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  19. Limberg, H.
    (2015) Teaching how to apologize: EFL textbooks and pragmatic input. Language Teaching Research, 20(6), 700–718. doi:  10.1177/1362168815590695
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815590695 [Google Scholar]
  20. LoCastro, V.
    (2012) Pragmatics for language educators. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Moradi, A. , Karbalaei, A. , & Afraz, S.
    (2013) A textbook evaluation of speech acts and language functions in high school English textbooks (I, II and III) and Interchange Series, Books I, II, and III. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 2(2), 323–335.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Nguyen, T. T. M.
    (2011) Learning to communicate in a globalized world: To what extent do school textbooks facilitate the development of intercultural pragmatic competence?RELC Journal, 42(1), 17–30. 10.1177/0033688210390265
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688210390265 [Google Scholar]
  23. Panther, K.-U. , & Thornburg, L.
    (1998) A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 755–769. doi:  10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00028‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00028-9 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2005) Motivation and convention in some speech act constructions: a cognitive-linguistic approach. In S. Marmaridou , K. Nikiforidou & E. Antonopoulou (Eds.), Reviewing Linguistic Thought: Converging Trends for the 21st Century (pp.53–76). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110920826.53
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110920826.53 [Google Scholar]
  25. Pérez-Hernández, L.
    (1996) The cognition of requests. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 4, 189–208.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (1999) Grounding politeness. Journal of English Studies1, 209–236. 10.18172/jes.53
    https://doi.org/10.18172/jes.53 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2001a) Illocution and Cognition: A Constructional Approach. Logroño: Servicio de Publicaciones Universidad de La Rioja.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (2001b) The directive-commissive continuum. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies, 23, 77–98.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (2009) Análisis léxico-construccional de verbos de habla. Círculo de lingüística aplicada a la comunicación, 40, 62–92.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (2012) Saying something for a particular purpose: Constructional compatibility and constructional families. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 25, 189–210.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (2013) Illocutionary constructions: (Multiple source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs, and specification links. Language & Communication, 33(2), 128–149. 10.1016/j.langcom.2013.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2013.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  32. Pérez-Hernández, L. , & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2002) Grounding, semantic motivation, and conceptual interaction in indirect directive speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(3), 259–284. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)80002‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)80002-9 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2011) A Lexical-Constructional Model Account of Illocution. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 98–137.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Petraki, E. , & Bayes, S.
    (2013) Teaching oral requests: an evaluation of five English as second language coursebooks. Pragmatics, 23(3), 499–517. 10.1075/prag.23.3.06pet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.23.3.06pet [Google Scholar]
  35. Searle, J. R.
    (1969) Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  36. (1979) A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In J. R. Searle (Ed.), Expression and meaning. Studies in the theory of speech acts (pp.1–29). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511609213.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213.003 [Google Scholar]
  37. Spencer-Oatey, H.
    (2005) (Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 1(1), 95–119.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. (2008) Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Takahashi, H.
    (2012) A cognitive linguistic analysis of the English imperative. With special reference to Japanese imperatives. Amsterdam, Holland: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.35
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.35 [Google Scholar]
  40. Ulum, O. G.
    (2015) Pragmatic elements in EFL course books. Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Science, 1, 93–106.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Valenzuela, J. , & Rojo, A. M.
    (2008) What can language learners can tell us about constructions?In S. De Knop & T. De Ruyker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar (pp.259–294). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110205381.2.197
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110205381.2.197 [Google Scholar]
  42. Vanparys, J.
    (1996) Categories and complements of illocutionary verbs in a cognitive perspective. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Vellenga, H.
    (2004) Learning pragmatics from ESL & EFL textbooks: How likely?TESL-EJ, 8(2), 1–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Verschueren, J.
    (1985) What people say they do with words: prolegomena to an empirical-conceptual approach to linguistic action. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Waara, R.
    (2004) Construal, convention and constructions in L2 speech. In M. Achard , & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp.52–75). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110199857.51
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199857.51 [Google Scholar]
  46. Wong, J.
    (2001) ‘Applying’ conversation analysis in applied linguistics: Evaluating dialogue in English as a second language textbooks. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 40, 37–60.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/resla.17024.per
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/resla.17024.per
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error