The Presentation of Speech Acts in Oral English Textbooks

Source:
By:Li Xin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30564/jler.v4i3.4443

Abstract:

In this study, an evaluation of the presentation of speech acts in six oral English textbooks is conducted from both qualitative and quantitative perspectives to see how speech acts are presented and whether enough and explicit meta-pragmatic and contextual information are provided.

Results show that 1) there is a paucity of speech acts and the average percentage of the six textbooks including speech acts is only 28.3%. And some speech acts like ‘threatening’, ‘warning’, ‘declaring’, ‘welcoming’ are not presented at all. 2) Meta-pragmatic and contextual information is too general and far from enough. Among all the six textbooks, from Book 1 to Book 5, contextual information is deduced by learners through reading conversations. Only in Book 6, a contextual description is provided before the conversation begins. Contextual information such as the age, gender and social status of Speaker and Hearer is never presented. Contextual information like the relationship between Speaker and Hearer and the place where the conversation happens is inferred from reading the conversations. Meta-pragmatic information like the degree of formality, politeness strategy, indirect speech act strategy, and social norms are not at all involved. Only in Book 1, a cultural tip is provided.

Since oral English textbooks are one of the main sources for Chinese EFL learners to enhance their pragmatic competence, it is much expected that they should present a wide variety of popularly-used speech acts with rich contextual information as appropriate language input.

References:

[1] Akutsu, Y. 2006. Request Strategies in “Oral Communication A” Textbooks [J].The Economic Journal of Takasaki City University of Economics 48: 135-149. [2] Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words [M]. Oxford: OUP. [3] Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B., Mahan-Taylor, R., Morgan, M., and Reynolds, D. 1991. Developing pragmatics awareness: Closing the conversation[J]. ELT Journal 45, 4-15. [4] Blum-Kulka, S. 1989. Playing it Safe: The Role of Conventionality in Indirectness. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 37-70) [C]. Norwood: Ablex Publishing. [5] Boxer, D. & Pickering, L. 1995. Problems in the Presentation of Speech Acts in ELT Materials: the Case of Complaints [J]. ELT Journal 49: 44-58. [6] Cane, G. 1998. Teaching Conversation Skills More Effectively [J]. The Korea TESOL Journal 1: 31-37. [7] Fang, Zhenyu et al. 2011. JIUZHEJIUBAIJU WANZHUANKOUYU (Just Say These 900 Sentences) [M]. Beijing: Dolphin Books. [8] Grant, L. & D.Starks. 2001. Screening Approprirte Teaching Materials: Closing from Textbooks and Television Soap Operas [J]. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Langauge Teaching 39: 39-50. [9] He, Z. & Zhang, J. 2003. Pragmatic exploration in foreign language teaching [J]. Shandong Foreign Language Teaching 4:3-8. [10] Hu, M.X. 2007. The realization of speech act pragmatic awareness in comprehensive English textbooks [J]. Foreign language education 4：65-69. [11] Ji, P. 2007. Exploring pragmatic knowledge in college English textbooks. CELEA Journal 5: 109⁃ 119. [12] Koosha, B. 2012. Investigating Pragmatic Competence: The Case of Requests in Interchange Series[J]. Asian Social Science 8(1):54-61. [13] Li, M. & Yu. Z. 2020. A contrastive study of pragmatic knowledge in Chinese and Foreign English textbooks [J]. Modern Foreign Languages 43(6): 806-817. [14] Neguyen, M. T. T. 2011. Learning to Communicate in a Gloalized World: to What Extent do School Textbooks Facilitate the Developemnt of Intercultural Pragmatic Competence? [J]. RELC Journal 42: 17-30. [15] Ren, W. & Z. Han. 2016. The representation of pragmatic knowledge in recent ELT textbooks [J]. ELT Journal 70(4): 424⁃434. [16] Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. 1973. Opening Up Closings [J]. Semiotica 8: 289-327. [17] Schmidt, R. 1990. The Role of Consciousness in Second Langauge Learning [J]. Applied Linguistics 11: 129-158. [18] Schmidt, R. 1993. Consciousness, Learning and Interlangauge Pragmatics [A]. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlangauge Pragmatics (pp.21-43) [C]. New York: OUP. [19] Scotton, C. M. & J. Bernsten. 1988. Natural conversations as a model for textbook conversation [J]. AppliedLinguistics 9: 372-384. [20] Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [21] Searle, J. R. 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. [22] Vellenga, H. 2004. Learning pragmatics from ESL & EFL textbooks: How likely? Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language 8 (2). Retrieved May 4, 2016 from http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej30/a3.html. [23] Wong, J. 2001. Applying Conversation Analysis in Applied Lingustics: Evaluating Dialogue in English as a Second Langauge Textbooks [J]. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 40: 37-60. [24] Wu, G.Q. 2004. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure in English textbooks[J]. Foreign Language Study (2):51-56. [25] Xia, J. M. 2003. Theory and practice of modern foreign language curriculum design[M].Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. [26] Yang, Y. & Zhuang, E. 2008. Cross-Cultural foreign language teaching: textbooks and teaching methods. LANGUAGE TEACHING: Textbooks and teaching methods[J]. Jiangsu Research on Foreign Language Teaching (2):16-21.