PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF EFL TEXTBOOKS: THE EXPLICIT REPRESENTATION OF SPEECH ACTS IN SENIOR HIGH TEXTBOOKS IN CHINA

Shichang Jiang, Lingling Deng

Abstract


This article reports on a quantitative and qualitative analysis of a series of seven senior high English textbooks used in China with a particular focus on their representation of speech acts. The detailed analysis focused specifically on the extent to which speech acts are covered, the range and distribution of speech act, and whether adequate contextual and meta-pragmatic information is provided to facilitate the learning of speech acts. The findings show that speech acts are still under-represented in the seven books. The range of speech acts is rather limited, some highly-conventional speech acts are excluded, and the distribution of speech acts across textbooks is neither patterned nor justified. It seems that the authors contrived textbooks based on their native intuitions rather than research-informed data. Although apparent change takes place in the availability of a repertoire of linguistic structures for most speech acts, the way speech acts presented in the seven textbooks still falls short of ideal expectations. The textbooks attempt to simplify speech act instruction to lists of grammatical structures and obscure the complex context-dependent nature of speech act realization. Little or no information about the contextual variables is explicitly provided when a particular speech act is embedded in model dialogues, nor is there adequate meta-pragmatic explanation with respect to the appropriate realization or level of formality of different linguistic structures in various social contexts. The implications of these results for educational managers, textbook developers, and teachers will be mentioned.

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter


Keywords


textbook analysis, speech acts, contextual information, meta-pragmatic knowledge, EFL textbooks

Full Text:

PDF

References


Banerjee, J. and Carrell, L. P. 1988. Tuck in your shirt, you squid: Suggestions in ESL. Language Learning 38(2): 313-364. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1988.tb00416.x

Bardovi-Harling, K., Hartford, B., Morgan, M., et al. 1991. Developing pragmatic awareness: Closing the conversation. ELT Journal45(1): 4-15. doi:10.1093/elt/45.1.4

Bardovi-Harling, K. and Hartford, B. 1993. Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition15(3): 279-304. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100012122

Bardovi-Harling, K. 2001. Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics?. In Kenneth R. Rose and Gabriele Kasper(Eds.). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 13-32.

Boxer, D. and 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

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 74-80.

Cohen, A. 1996. Speech acts. In Mckay, Sandra Lee and Hornberger, Nancy H. (Eds.). Sociolinguistics and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 383-420.

Cohen, A. 2010. Coming to terms with pragmatics. In Noriko Ishihara and Andrew D. Cohen (eds.). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. New York: Routledge. 3-20.

Cohen, A. and Ishihara, N. 2013. Pragmatics. In Tomlison, B. (ed.). Applied linguistics and material development. London: Bloomsbury Academic. 114-119.

Hymes, D. 1972. On Communicative Competence. In Pride, J. B. and Holmes, J. (Eds.). Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 269-293.

Jiang, X. 2006. Suggestions: what should ESL students know?. System34(1): 36-54. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2005.02.003

Kasper, G. 2001. Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. In K. Rose and G. Kasper (Eds.). Pragmatics in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press. 33-60.

Koester, A. J. 2002. The performance of speech acts in workplace conversation and the teaching of communicative functions. System30(2): 176-184. doi: 10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00003-9

Li, R., Raja Suleiman, R. and Sallie, A. 2015. An investigation into Chinese EFL learners’ pragmatic competence. GEMA online Journal of Language Studies 15(2): 101-118. doi: 10.17576/gema-2015-1502-07

Limberg, H. 2016. Teaching how to apologize: EFL textbooks and pragmatic input. Language Teaching Research20(6): 700-718. doi: 10.1177/1362168815590

Martinez-Flor, A. 2004. The effect of instruction on the development of pragmatic competence in the English as a foreign language context: A study based on suggestion. Castellón, Spain: Universitat Jaume I. 68-74.

Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. 2017. General Senior High School Curriculum Standards. Beijing: People’s Education Press.

Nguyen, 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. doi:10.1177/0033688210390265

Ogiermann, E. 2009. On apologising in negative and positive politeness cultures. Amerserdam: John Benjamins.

Ren, W. and Han, Z. 2016. The representation of pragmatic knowledge in recent ELT textbooks. ELT Journal 70(4): 424-434. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccw010

Rose, K.R. 2005. On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System 33(3): 385-399. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2005.06.003

Schmidt, R. and Richard, J. 1980. Speech acts and second language learning. Applied Linguistics1(2): 129-157. doi: 10.1093/applin/I.2.129

Searle, J. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Searle, J. 1976. A Classification of Illocutionary Acts. Language in Society 5(1): 1-23. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500006837

Taguchi, N. 2015. Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching48(1): 1-50. doi: 10.1017/S0261444814000263

Uso-Juan, E. 2008. The presentation and practice of the communicative act of requesting in textbooks: Focusing on modifiers. In Eva Alcón Soler and Maria Pilar Safont Jordà (Eds.). Intercultural language use and language learning. Castelló: Springer Netherlands. 223-243.

Vellenga, H. 2004. Learning pragmatics from ESL & EFL textbooks: How likely?. TESL-EJ 8(2):1-18.

Wang. V. 2011. Making requests by Chinese EFL learners. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.137-166.

Zheng, L. and Huang, J. 2010. A study of Chinese EFL learners’ pragmatic failure and the implications for college English teaching. Polyglossia18: 41-53.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejlll.v6i2.392

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2022 Shichang Jiang, Lingling Deng

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The research works published in this journal are free to be accessed. They can be shared (copied and redistributed in any medium or format) and\or adapted (remixed, transformed, and built upon the material for any purpose, commercially and\or not commercially) under the following terms: attribution (appropriate credit must be given indicating original authors, research work name and publication name mentioning if changes were made) and without adding additional restrictions (without restricting others from doing anything the actual license permits). Authors retain the full copyright of their published research works and cannot revoke these freedoms as long as the license terms are followed.

Copyright © 2017-2023. European Journal of Literature, Language and Linguistics Studies (ISSN 2559 - 7914 / ISSN-L 2559 - 7914). All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library. All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and standards formulated by Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002), the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing (2003) and  Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (2003) and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Copyrights of the published research works are retained by authors.