Cover not available
Article published In:
Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 32:1 (2019) ► pp.248–276

From research to the textbook

Assessing speech acts representation in course book series for students of English as an L2

| University of La Rioja

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.

Keywords: pragmatics, speech acts, teaching, second language, course books
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Contemporary theoretical advances on speech acts
    • 2.1Advances stemming from pragmatic and conversational theories of speech acts
    • 2.2Advances stemming from functional theories of speech acts
    • 2.3Advances stemming from cognitive and constructional theories of speech acts
  • 3.Representation of speech acts in ESL textbooks: Literature review
  • 4.Corpus
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1ESL textbooks representation of Searle’s taxonomy of speech acts
    • 5.2Representation of pragmatic/conversational analysis categories
      • AC1
      • AC2
      • AC3
      • AC4
    • 5.3ESL textbook representation of functional analysis categories
    • 5.4ESL textbooks representation of constructional/cognitive analysis categories
  • 6.Conclusions
  • References
Published online: 24 July 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.17024.per
References
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
Austin, J. L.
(1962) How to do things with words. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baicchi, A.
(2015) Conceptual metaphor in the complex dynamics of illocutionary meaning. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13 (1), 106–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barron, A.
(2007, March). ‘Can you take the other bed, please?’: An appraisal of request presentation in EFL textbooks. Paper presented at the 22nd Congress of the German Society for Foreign (and Second) Language Research, Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany.
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S.
(1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, MA: Chicago Press University. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Del Campo, N.
(2013) Illocutionary constructions in English: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. Berlin, Germany: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, S. C.
(1989) The theory of Functional Grammar: Part I: The structure of the clause. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
(1997) The theory of Functional Grammar: Part II: Complex and derived constructions. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W.
(1984) Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cognitive Science, 81, 265–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1994) The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge, MA: Chicago Press University.Google Scholar
Givón, T.
(1989) Mind, code, and context. Essays in pragmatics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Glaser, K.
(2009) Acquiring pragmatic competence in a foreign language – mastering dispreferred speech acts. Topics in Linguistics, 41, 50–57.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.
(1994[1985]) An introduction to Functional Grammar. London, England: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Leech, G.
(1983) Principles of pragmatics. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C.
(1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Limberg, H.
(2015) Teaching how to apologize: EFL textbooks and pragmatic input. Language Teaching Research, 20(6), 700–718. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LoCastro, V.
(2012) Pragmatics for language educators. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.
(1998) A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 301, 755–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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 logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Hernández, L.
(1996) The cognition of requests. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 41, 189–208.Google Scholar
(1999) Grounding politeness. Journal of English Studies 11, 209–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001a) Illocution and Cognition: A Constructional Approach. Logroño: Servicio de Publicaciones Universidad de La Rioja.Google Scholar
(2001b) The directive-commissive continuum. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies, 231, 77–98.Google Scholar
(2009) Análisis léxico-construccional de verbos de habla. Círculo de lingüística aplicada a la comunicación, 401, 62–92.Google Scholar
(2012) Saying something for a particular purpose: Constructional compatibility and constructional families. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 251, 189–210.Google Scholar
(2013) Illocutionary constructions: (Multiple source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs, and specification links. Language & Communication, 33(2), 128–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) A Lexical-Constructional Model Account of Illocution. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 81, 98–137.Google Scholar
Petraki, E., & Bayes, S.
(2013) Teaching oral requests: an evaluation of five English as second language coursebooks. Pragmatics, 23(3), 499–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R.
(1969) Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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 logoGoogle Scholar
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
(2008) Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Ulum, O. G.
(2015) Pragmatic elements in EFL course books. Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Science, 11, 93–106.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Vanparys, J.
(1996) Categories and complements of illocutionary verbs in a cognitive perspective. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Vellenga, H.
(2004) Learning pragmatics from ESL & EFL textbooks: How likely? TESL-EJ, 8(2), 1–18.Google Scholar
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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, 401, 37–60.Google Scholar