request strategies in oral communication a textbooks › home1 › k-gakkai › ronsyuu ›...

The Economic Journal of Takasaki City University of Economics vol.48 No.3 2006 pp.135～149

－ 135 －

Summary

This study investigated request strategies appeared in Oral Communication A textbooks

quantitatively using a directness scale adopted from a study by Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper,

G. (1989b). The purpose of the study is to see if the textbooks have enough amount of presentation,

and if the distribution of the sentences in the scale is appropriate as model materials. The result

showed that textbooks used too many direct strategies, variations, and sentences. The most direct

level of strategies (mood derivables) and the most direct level of variations (imperative) were

presented by far the most, both in numbers and the proportion. On the other hand, indirect

strategies and variations seemed fewer than they should be. Although query preparatory sentences

were presented much, the most indirect formulas researched (“I’d appreciate” and “Do you mind

if?”) were not introduced in many of the textbooks. Some problems in the distribution were also

found. These results revealed that there is much room for improvement in the textbooks in terms of

acquisition of speech act of request.

1. Introduction

Communicative competence comprises pragmatic competence, and it is difficult for a learner

of a language to participate in the target language community successfully without the competence.

Studies in interlanguage pragmatics and acquisition of pragmatic competence have shown that

pragmatic knowledge and skills can be taught to some extent. On the other hand, they have shown

that it should be taught explicitly to be acquired effectively, and improvement in other language

skills such as reading or listening do not necessarily guarantees improvement in pragmatic skills. It

is necessary for a language learner to have opportunities to be exposed to enough pragmatic

strategies and situations and that in appropriate manners to acquire the competence.

This study investigated request strategies appeared in Oral Communication A textbooks

quantitatively, using a direct/indirect scale adopted from a study by Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., &

Request Strategies in ‘Oral Communication A’ textbooks

Yuka AKUTSU

The Economic Journal of Takasaki City University of Economics vol.48 No.3 2006

－ 136 －

Kasper, G. (1989b). In Akutsu (2001), the frequency of pragmatic formulas appeared in the previous

version of Oral Communication A textbooks was investigated regarding ten speech act situations;

request, refusal, apology, suggestion, gratitude, invitation, disagreement, complement, complaint,

and correction. The purpose of the study was to see how much the speech act situations were

presented in each textbook, and how effectively they were presented in terms of acquisition

enhancement. The results showed that there were large differences among the textbooks

regarding the amount of speech act situations, sentences, and the ways of presentation, and the

author pointed out that there was much room for improvement in terms of the presentation suitable

for acquisition of pragmatic skills.

Although analysis into the nature or the quality of formulas was not performed in the study

above, during the examination, it was noticed that there was a characteristic tendency in request

strategies in the textbooks: high frequency of direct strategies. It seemed to contradict the results

from the previous studies on request strategies used by native speakers (NSs) of English. In many

studies including Tanaka & Kawade (1987) and House & Kasper (1987), it was shown that NSs

normally use indirect strategies to make a request with very few exceptions. If the contradiction is

verified, it may suggest a problem for high school English learners because in reality, their almost

sole source of material for oral communication is the textbook they are provided in the current

English education system in Japan. This study will investigate the amount, variations, and

characteristics of request sentences in Oral Communication A textbooks.

2. Background of this study

2. 1. Studies on textbooks

The prior studies on textbooks suggest that there is much room for improvement for both

Japanese textbooks of English and ESL textbooks. Akutsu (2001) which was mentioned earlier

investigated Oral Communication A textbooks regarding speech acts presentations

quantitatively. Oral Communication A was one of the three subjects in Oral communication

course in high school English curriculum. The course was started in 1994 to foster

communicative competence, and one of the main goals for the subject is to provide the

students with English skills to “respond appropriately according to the situation or purpose”

according to its contents, or “naiyo”, described by Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,

Science and Technology. As the subject is the only one which is explicitly allotted to speaking

aspect of oral communication, it is obviously important to include realistic and practical model

conversations in the textbooks so that the learners can understand how to talk appropriately

Request Strategies in Oral ‘Communication A’ textbooks（AKUTSU）

－ 137 －

in a given situation.

In the study, the sentences used in each speech act situation were counted and checked if

they appeared in concrete contexts; if readers could tell who were using the sentences. The

variations used in each speech act were also counted to see how many different formulas were

presented for each speech act. The study revealed that presentation of speech acts differed

greatly among textbooks. First, the number of speech act situations dealt in each textbook

ranged from six to nine among the ten speech acts researched - request, refusal, apology,

suggestion, gratitude, invitation, disagreement, complement, complaint, and correction. Most

of the 17 textbooks covered request, refusal, apology, suggestion gratitude, and invitation,

about half offered disagreement and complement, and few presented complaint and correction.

The total number of sentences used as speech acts were also different; from the least 51 to the

most 215. Also, there was a large difference in providing information about the interlocutors

using the sentences as well. Three textbooks provided the information all the time while

seven textbooks lacked it in more than 30% of the cases, one of them more than half. As

shown in the previous studies, information about interlocutors is one of the necessary

conditions for effective input which leads to acquisition (e.g., Schmidt (1996)). The study also

pointed out that some information in the textbooks could easily result in teaching-induced

failures without proper instruction from the teachers. The study showed that although all the

textbooks had been authorized by the Ministry, there are differences in them in terms of

speech act materials, and that there may be some problematic presentations, too.

ESL textbooks have been examined by many researchers, and as a whole, the researchers

claimed that the presentations and the contents, including pragmatic strategies, had some

problems from acquisition-of-pragmatic point of view (Scotton and Bernsten, 1988; Bardovi-

Harlig, Hartford, Mahn-Taylor, Morgan, and Reynolds, 1991; Bouton, 1996). The first problem

pointed out was that the amount and contents of pragmatic strategies are not satisfactory.

Bardovi-Harlig et al. (1991) examined the presentation of closings in 20 ESL textbooks and

found that very few included complete closings on a constant basis. The other problem is that

the ways of presentation are not appropriate for acquisition. After reviewing the studies, they

went as far as to say, “in general, textbooks cannot be counted on as a reliable source of

pragmatic input for classroom language learners” (in Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; p25). Candall and

Basturkmen who reviewed several major English for Academic Purposes textbooks pointed

out that the conventional approach to improve pragmatic competence in many speaking

textbooks is ‘present learners with lists of “useful expressions” for various speech acts’, and

also noted that those lists typically present ‘explicit realizations of speech acts rather than


－ 138 －

subtle and indirect ones,’ and ‘usually neglects to who when and for what purposes it is

appropriate to make a speech act, and which expressions would be appropriate in a particular

situation’ (in Candall and Basturkmen、2005; p38-39).

2. 2. Request strategies by NSs and NNSs

According to the previous studies on contrastive analysis of request strategies used by

NSs and NNSs, one of the characteristics of NNSs’ strategies was that they choose more

direct strategies than NSs do. Tanaka and Kawade (1982) investigated perception of politeness

by native speakers of English and advanced learners of English whose native tongue is

Japanese. One of the findings was that learners tend to choose “less polite strategies in certain

situations.” In the study, they found that 14.2% of advanced learners selected rather direct

expressions or least polite strategies such as “I want to borrow your car” or “Lend me your

pen” when speaking to his/her father and his/her girl/boy friend. Few native speakers (5.2%)

chose those strategies. As a whole, the studies suggested that even advanced learners’

strategies were different from those by NSs, and it could be considered inappropriate in some

situations.

House and Kasper (1987) investigated request realization strategies by 200 German and

200 Danish learners of English. The data were examined along three dimensions: directness

level, internal modification, and external modification. They found that the learners used much

more direct formulas, including mood directive (Do X), than native speakers of English did. On

the other hand, NSs used the second most indirect form, query preparatory (Could you do X?),

almost all the time (92%)

2. 3. Requests in classroom settings

Yates (2005) investigated and compared the directives and mitigation styles used by two

groups of novice teachers; one with 9 people with Anglo-Australian background and the other

with 9 people with Peoples Republic of China background. She collected the data of directives

used in two class sessions, and compared them by group (Australian and Chinese, and male

and female). The classes include ESL, business, math, music, science, and swimming. She

found that in general, the groups’ data differed in the use of mitigation styles and directives.

Although the paper’s primary focus was to discuss the individual differences among the

participants, it also revealed that there were some characteristic tendencies for each group.

She introduced some examples that the Chinese background teachers used very direct

strategies to the students, and in some cases, Chinese teachers’ direct styles brought


－ 139 －

unfavorable reactions from the students. She suggested that although lack of English

proficiency might have something to do with the style, their cultural background which sees

teachers as authority figures may have affected the style negatively.

3. Research Questions

This paper will analyze the requestive expressions in Oral Communication A textbooks

published in 2002 in terms of the amount and characteristics in the distributions of the strategies,

linguistic forms, and the sentences. The following were looked into to see if the textbooks have

enough amount of presentation, and if the distribution of the sentences is appropriate as model

materials, reflecting the frequency or pattern of the target language community.

<The amount>

( i ) the total number of request sentences

a. in all the textbooks

b. in each textbook

(i i ) the amount of request strategies

a. the number of textbooks including each strategy

b. the number of strategies in each textbook

(iii) the amount of linguistic forms (variations) and the sentences

a. the number of textbooks including each variation

b. the number of variations in each textbook

c. the number of sentences of each variation in each textbook

<The distribution>

( i ) distribution of sentences of direct strategies and conventionally indirect strategies

( i i ) distribution of strategies and sentences

a. distribution of strategies across the textbooks

b. distribution of strategies in each textbook

c. distribution of variations across the textbooks

d. distribution of variations and in each textbook

4. Method

First, all the sentences of request in Oral Communication A textbooks were picked up, and the

total number of request sentences in each textbook was counted. Expressions with illocutionary


－ 140 －

force of request were chosen; for instance, a sentence “I’m sorry” was counted as a request if the

meaning in the context was to ask the interlocutor to repeat him/herself. If it was used as an

apology, it was not included.

Second, all the sentences were categorized according to the linguistic forms into a scale

described below, and the number of the sentences in each category (strategy) and subcategory

(linguistic form: variation) were counted. The number of textbooks dealing with each strategy or

linguistic form shows how much the textbooks as a whole deal with speech act of request while the

number of strategies or sentences in each textbook tells each textbook’s attitude.

The scale used in this study was adapted from CCSARP, a study by Blum-Kulka, S., House, J.,

& Kasper, G. (1989b: 18), and adjusted as described later in this section. The original scale was made

based on degrees of requestive transparency. They identified the request sentences with

grammatical indicators signaling the illocutionary force. They categorized request strategies into

three types, ‘direct strategies’, ‘conventionally indirect strategies’, and ‘hints’ according to the

strategies’ illocutionary transparencies. ‘Direct strategies’ are most transparent or ‘direct’, and

mood derivables (Do X), performatives (I ask you to do X), hedged performatives (I would like to

ask you to do X), obligation statements (you will have to do X), and want statements (I want X) are

included in this order of directness as its subcategories. The strategies in the next level of

directness are called ‘conventionally indirect strategies’, and they derive their illocutionary

transparency form the semantic content or conventional usage. The strategies in this category

include suggestory (how about -?), stating preparatory (I’ll have…), and query preparatory (could

you -?). Most indirect level of strategies are ‘hints’, and the requestive force comes from its

context. ‘Hints’ are divided into two types; strong hints and mild hints.

Chart 1. shows the scale used in this study. Several changes were made to the CCSARP scale

so that it fits better to this study. First, the original scale divided the strategies into three, direct

strategies, conventionally indirect strategies, and hints. However, hints were omitted in the scale

here because there were no hint strategies found in the textbooks. Also, performatives and hedged

performatives were omitted form the chart for the same reason. Second, one or more sub-

subcategories, or ‘variations’, were added to each category (strategy) to show distribution of the

linguistic forms used, as shown in the chart 1. A total of 16 sub-categories (linguistic forms:

variations) were added. Some of the different linguistic forms in different directness levels were

categorized as one to comply with Blum-Kulka’s scale of strategies; imperative and you must,

should and had better, how about, let’s, what about, and shall we, could you and would you, can I

and could I. The higher a strategy or a linguistic form is in the chart, the more transparent the

force is, and therefore, more direct.


－ 141 －

<chart 1. Scale>

5. Data and Analysis

5. 1. Amount of request

5. 1. 1 The total number of request sentences

The total number of request sentences appeared in the 15 textbooks was 1325. The

number in each textbook differed much, from the least 44 to the most 157, and the average was

88.3 as shown in the chart 2. The difference between the most and the least is almost as much

as three times. Though the number alone cannot be interpreted as small, it may not be too

many as the total number includes repetitive appearances of each expression in “exercises” or

“review” sections.

5. 1. 2. The amount of request strategies

a. The number of textbooks including each strategy

Out of the six strategies (mood derivables, obligation statements, want statements,

suggestory, stating preparatory, and query preparatory) researched, all of the fifteen

textbooks introduced mood derivables and query preparatory. Most introduced want

statements (14 textbooks) and suggestory (12). Only seven presented obligation statements,

and eight included stating preparatory.

b. The number of strategies in each textbook

The average number of strategies in each textbook was 4.7 out of six. Four textbooks

included all six, while two textbooks introduced only three strategies.

strategy linguistic form(variation)imperative/you must

mood deribvables imperative + pleaseimperative + will you?

obligation statements should/had better

want statementswant/need/I'd likeI'd like you to

suggestorywhy don't youHow about/Let's/What about/shall we?

stating preparatoryI'll haveI'd appreciateWill you?Can you?

query preparatoryMay I?Could you?/Would You?Can I?/Could I?Do you mind?

direct

conventionally indirect


－ 142 －

5. 1. 3. The amount of linguistic forms(variations) and the sentences

a. The number of textbooks including each variation

No textbook introduced all 16 variations (imperative/you must, imperative + please,

imperative + will you?, should/had better, want/need/I’d like, I’d like you to, Why don’t

you?, How about/Let’s/What about/Shall we?, I’ll have, I’d appreciate, Will you?, Can you?,

May I?, Could you/Would you?, Can I/Could I?, Do you mind?). 14 textbooks introduced

“imperative + please”, “want/need/I’d like”, and “Could you/Would you?.” On the other

hand, the least variation presented was “imperative + will you?”, and only one textbook, and

a total of one sentence appeared in the 15 textbooks. “I would appreciate” was dealt in only

two textbooks and “Do you mind?” appeared in four textbooks. All these three are very

commonly used in daily situations, and especially, “I’d appreciate” and “Do you mind?” are

obviously important expressions in making polite requests. The small number seems to be

problematic.

b. The number of variations in each textbook

The number of variations of strategies in each textbook ranged from the least six to the

most 15 out of the 16 variations researched, and the average was 10.0. As the variations

were not at all difficult or rare, the number seems to be too small again.

c. The number of sentences of each variation

The variation with the most sentences was “imperatives/you must”, and 541 sentences

were presented in total. “Could you/Would you?” (172 sentences), and “How

about/Let’s/What about/Shall we” (123) followed “imperatives/you must.” The variations

with the least number of sentences were “I would appreciate” (six sentences in total), “I’d

like you to ” (nine sentences), and “Do you mind” (16 sentences).


－ 143 －

<Chart 2. Amount>

birdlandbirdland %

crown

crown%

departuredeparture%echo

echo%English S

treetEnglish S

treet%evergreenevergreen%expressw

aysexpressw

ays%interact

interact%mainstream

mainstream

%new

startnew start%

On A

irOn A

ir%progressive

progressive%select

select%speak to the w

orldspeak to the w

orld%talk up

talk up%表現計集計

ave.

2730.08554.12446.24141.42228.23730.33734.91535.73842.76040.32952.72225.32747.44673.03139.254140.836.1

910.085.1917.366.167.775.71312.3716.700 .085.423.678.0712.346.3810.11017.66.7

00.000.000.000.000.000.010.900.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.010.10.1

3640.09359.23363.54747.52835.94436.15148.12252.43842.76845.63156.42933.33459.65079.43949.464348.542.9

55.610.600.044.022.600.032.800.033. 410.700.000.000.000.000.0191.41.3

55.510.600.043.922.600.032.800.033.410.700.000.000.000.000.0191.41.3

44.463.847.711.022.697.443.824.844.5128.123.611.135.311.600.0554.23.7

00.000.000.000.000.010.810.900.044.521.300.000.000.011.600.090.70.6

44.463.847.711.022.6108.254.724.889.0149.423.611.135.323.200.0644.84.3

4550. 010063.73771.25252.53241.05444.35955.72457.14955.18355.73360.03034.53764.95282.53949.472654.848.4

88.9117.000.077.111.300.043.824.844.500.000.000.000.000.09

11.4463.53.1

1213.3127.600.010

10.1810.300.012

11.3921.466.7138.700.024

27.647.023.211

13.91239.38.2

2022.22314.600.017

17.2911.500.016

15.11126.21011.2138.700.024

27.647.023.220

25.316912.811.3

00.000.023.811.079.000.010.912.400.010 .723.600.000.011.600.0161.21.1

00.000.000.000.011.300.054.700.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.060.50.4

00.000.023.811.08

10.300.065.712.400.010.723.600.000.011.600.0221.71.5

11.153.200.011.011.386.621.900.033.474.700.000.07

12.323.267.6433.22.9

22.2106.423.810

10.145.117

13.9109.424.800.074.700.033.411.823.222.5725.44.8

77.800 .059.633.045.143.343.800.000.064.01018.222.38

14.011.633.8574.33.8

1516.7148.959.61313.11012.82117.265.749.524

27.02315.41018.21921.800.023.267.617213.011.5

00.053.211.922.01012.897.432.800.000.064.000.089.200.011.633.8483.63.2

00.000. 000.000.000.097.400.000.033.432.000.011.100.000.000.0161.21.1

2527.83421.71325.02929.32937.26855.72523.6614.33033.75234.92036.43337.91628.1812.72025.340830.827.2

4550.05736.31528.84747.54659.06855.74744.31842.94044.96644.32240.05765.52035.11117.54050.659945.239.9

90100.0157

100.052100.099100.078100.0122

100.0106

100.042100.089100.0149

100.055100.087100.057100.063100.079100.01325100.088.3

direct C

onventionary Indirect

mood

derivables

obligationstatem

entsw

ant

statemen

tssu

ggestorystatin

gpreparatory

query preparatory

imperatives/you must

imperatives +please

imperatives +will you?

mood directivetotal

should/hadbetter

should/hadbetter totalwant need/

I'd like

I'd like you to

want total

why don't you

I'll have

Will you?

Can you?

May I?

Could you?/Would you?

Can I?/ Could I?

Do you mind?

query preparatorytotal

conventionaryindirect total

strategies total

I wouldappreciate

statingpreparatory total

how about/ let's/ whatabout/ shall we

suggestory total

direct total

Chart 2

Amount


－ 144 －

5. 2. The distribution of request

5. 2. 1. Distribution of sentences in direct/indirect strategies

As a whole, direct strategy sentences were used more than indirect ones. Only four

textbooks presented indirect strategy sentences more than direct ones. Within the 1325

request sentences, 726 (54.7%) were categorized as direct strategies, and 599 (45.3%) as

conventionally indirect strategies.

<Chart 3. Distribution>

5. 2. 2. Distribution of strategies and sentences

a. Distribution of strategies across the textbooks

Among the direct strategies, mood derivables were used by far the most, a total of 643

sentences (48.5% of total request sentences), followed by want statements with 64 sentences

(4.8%). Within the 599 conventionally indirect strategy sentences, query preparatory

sentences were the most; 408 (30.8%), followed by suggestory with 169 sentences (12.8%).

96.9% of the request strategy sentences were composed of these four strategies.

Within the 726 direct strategy sentences, mood derivables sentences composed 88.5%

(643 sentences), and want statement occupied 8.8% (64 sentences). Within the 599

conventionally indirect strategy sentences, query preparatory composed 68.1% (408

sentences), and suggestory 28.2% (169 sentences).

imperative/you must 541（40.8%)

imperative + please 101（7.6%）

imperative + will you? 1（0.1%）

should/had better 19（1.4%）

want/need/I'd like 55（4.2%）

I'd like you to 9（0.7%）

why don't you 46（3.5%）

How about/Let's/What about/Shall we? 123（9.3%）

I'll have 16（1.2%）

I'd appreciate 6（0.5%）

Will you? 43（3.2%）

Can you? 72（5.4%）

May I? 57（4.3%）

Could you?/Would You? 172（13.0%）

Can I?/Could I? 48（3.6%）

Do you mind? 16（1.2%）

mood derivables

obligation statements

want ststements

suggestory

stating preparatory

query preparatory

diect

726 (55.4%)

conventionallyindirect

599 (44.6%)

643

（48.5%）

19

（1.4%）

64

（4.8%）

169

（12.6%）

22

（1.6%）

408

（30.4%）


－ 145 －

b. Distribution of strategies in each textbook

All the textbooks had mood derivables by far the most, ranging from the least 33.3% (29

out of 87) to the most 79.4% (50 out of 63) of request sentences in each textbook. The average

was 48.5% (42.9 out of 88.3) of the total request sentences. The second most strategy was

query preparatory in all of the textbooks except one, which had suggestory more. The

average percentage of query preparatory was 30.8% (27.2 out of 88.3), and suggestory was

12.8% (11.3 out of 88.3).

c. Distribution of variations across the textbooks

Among the 16 strategies and the total of 1325 sentences, “imperative” sentences

occupied 541 (40.8％ of the total sentences). The next most used linguistics forms were

“imperative + please” with 101 sentences (15.7%), followed by 172 (13.0%) of “Could you/

Would you”, and “How bout/Let’s/What about/Shall we?” with 123 sentences (9.3%). The

total of these four composed 78.8% of all the request sentences.

d. Distribution of variations in each textbook

14 textbooks had “imperative” the most, ranging from 73.0% to 28.2% of the total

sentences. One textbook had “How about/Let’s/What about/Shall we” more than

“imperative”, with 27.6% of the sentences. The second most strategies were not so

unanimous among the textbooks; seven textbooks had “Could you/Would you?” second most

(27%-8.9%), three had “imperative + please” (17.3-6.3%), another three had “How

about/Let’s/What about/Shall we” (21.4-13.3%), and two had “May I” (18.2 and 14.0%) as the

second most variation.

Most textbooks (12) distribute a large portion of the sentences to the most and the second

most variations; the total of the two variations exceeded 50% of the total request sentences in

each textbook. In one textbook, “imperative” occupied 73% of the total, and “imperative +

please” (the second most) 6.3%; only about 20% of the sentences was given to the other

variations. The average percentage of the portion of the most plus the second most variations

was 57.7%.

6. Discussion

6. 1. The amount

The total number may seem to be not so small, but as pointed out before, many of them

appeared in review sections without any context. Also, many of the strategies or linguistic forms

were not presented at all or presented very few in number. Especially, the fact that very important


－ 146 －

forms such as “Do you mind?” or “I’d appreciate” were not included in most of the textbooks could

be a big problem. It is true that these forms require more advanced grammatical knowledge, but

they were both supposed to be covered in the high school grammar course. It should not be too

difficult for them.

On the other hand, the large number of query preparatory and “Could you/Could you..?”

concurred with the NSs’ data that “Could you/Could you?” are very frequently used in most of

request sentences, and it can be considered as realistic. However, there were several problems in

the presentation again. First, one textbook did not include “Could you/Would you?” variation at all.

The variation is obviously one of the most important formulas in request as shown in the previous

studies, and lack of these poses a big problem. Second, the number of “Could you/Would you?” was

sometimes fewer than the other query preparatories, such as “Will you?” or “Can you?”, which are

more direct than “Could you/Would you?” and used less often by NSs. Also, the choice of the

variations seemed rather arbitrary because in many cases, there were no clear reasons found in the

contexts for the choice. The degree of imposition or the relationship of the interlocutors sometimes

did seem to have influence on the choice, but far from always. Most often, the readers cannot tell

those pieces of information from the context anyway because context is not provided at all. The

possibility that the students believe these variations are interchangeable seemed very high. Since

the differences in illocutionary forces in query preparatory variations may difficult to understand

for Japanese learners of English, the presentations as if they are interchangeable are all the more

problematic.

The amount in each textbook differed much, and that seems to show the attitude and interest

of each textbook toward teaching of pragmatic skills. Although not a single textbook presented all

the variations or linguistic formulas, some presented most of them. Another several textbooks had

conventionally indirect sentences much more than direct ones. However, as a whole, the amount

did not seem to be enough for effective acquisition of request expressions. Each textbook seems to

have its way of dealing with request strategies and sentences, and this may not benefit the students

because the textbook is likely to be the only source of information for them and they may not have

any other chances to learn those expressions in other courses. All the textbooks should, at least,

include the very basic strategies and linguistic forms such as the ones in this study.

6. 2. Distribution

The huge percentage of mood directive strategies and especially “imperatives” in them stood

out in the data. One of the reasons for the outstanding number may be “Classroom English” unit

which nine of the 15 textbooks had. The unit usually listed “useful expressions” for classroom


－ 147 －

communication, typically conversations from a teacher to students and from students to a teacher.

The expressions were often requests and in most of the expressions of request from a teacher to

students were mood derivables, and many of those were imperatives (see chart 4. Classroom

English).

This imbalanced presentation seems to lead to both pragmalinguistic failures and

sociopragmatic failures. The small proportion of the other request strategies may bring about

pragmalinguistic failures. If they do not learn enough request strategies, they cannot tell the

difference of pragmatic force in each request strategy, and therefore, they might use the most

familiar request strategies, that is, mood derivables, when making requests. Sociopragmatic

failures may occur because presentations like this signal that teachers (higher status people)

normally use mood derivables or “imperatives” to students (lower status people) when making

requests. This tendency concurs with the study by Yates that Chinese background teachers,

authority figures, use many directives in classrooms. The huge proportion of the direct strategies

in Classroom English also seemed to reflect the Japanese culture, and there is a high possibility

that this cultural norm is understood as transferable.

<Chart 4. Classroom English>

birdland 27 15 8 29.6 53.3 7 5 71.4crown 85 53 28 32.9 52.8 48 28 58.3departure 24 26 12 50.0 46.2 18 12 66.7Echo 41 13 9 22.0 69.2 11 9 81.8English Street 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

evergreen 37 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

expressways 37 19 0 0 0 0 0 0

interact 15 7 2 13.3 28.6 5 2 40.0mainstream 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

new start 60 8 0 0 0 8 0 0

On Air 29 17 9 31.0 52.9 9 8 88.9progressive 22 17 12 54.5 70.6 12 11 91.7select 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

speak to the world 46 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

talk up 31 7 4 12.9 57.1 5 4 80.0

imperatives in Classroom English（CE） Imperatives in TS in CE

(a)total # of imoerative

(ims) sentences

(b)# of sentences in

Classroom

English(CE)

(e)/(d)=% of ims in TS

(c)/(b)=% of ims in CE

( C)# of ims in CE

(e)# of ims in TS

sentences

(d)# of

teaher→students(TS)

sentences in CE

(c)/(a) = % of im in CE in

all of the im

s in the book


－ 148 －

7. Conclusion

The textbooks used too many direct strategies, variations, and sentences. The most direct level

of strategies (mood derivables) and the most direct level of variations (“imperatives”) were

presented by far the most, and the amount and the proportion of them were outstanding.

On the other hand, indirect strategies and variations seemed fewer than they should be. The

most indirect formulas researched (“I’d appreciate” and “Do you mind?”) were not introduced in

many of the textbooks. Also, in spite of the fact that they included many query preparatory

sentences, which concur with the data of NSs, very important and common formula, such as

“Would you/Could you?” was not included in a textbook, and some of the presentation could be

misleading. Considering the results from the other studies on Japanese speaking English learners

which suggest their English tended to be too direct, these characteristics of the textbooks should

be paid more attentions and improved quickly.

（Full–Time Lecturer, The Faculty of Economics, Takasaki City University of Economics）

ReferencesAkutsu, Y. (2001). Examining Speech Acts in “Oral Communication A” Textbooks (1). Kyoai Ronsyu, 13, 163-

178Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. S. Scarcella,

E. Andersen, & S.C. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55-73). New York: Newbury House.

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 universityPress.

Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B., Mahan-Taylor, R., Morgan, M., and Reynolds, D.(1991). Developingpragmatics awareness: Closing the conversation. ELT Journal, 45, 4-15.

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (eds) (1989b). Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics: Anintroductory overview. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House and G. Kasper(eds). Cross-cultural Pragmatics:Requests and Apologies (pp.1-34). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Bouton, L. (1996). Pragmatics and language learning. In L. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics ns language learning,monograph series vol. 7 (pp.1-20). Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language,University of Urbana-Champaign.

Boxer, D. & Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: The case ofcomplaints. ELT Journal, 49. 44-58

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 UniversityPress.

Cohen, A. D. (1996). Investigating the production of speech act sets. In S. M. Gass, & J. Neu (Eds). Speechact across cultures (pp21-44). New York : Morton de Gruyter.

Cohen, A. D. & Tarone, E. (1994). Describing and teaching speech act behavior: Stating and changing anopinion. In L. Barbara, & M. Scott (Eds.), Reflections on language learning (pp. 110-121). Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters.

House, J. & Kasper, G.(1987). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requesting in a foreign language. In W. Loerscher,


－ 149 －

& R. Scheulze (eds.), Perspectives on language in performance (pp. 1250-1288). Tubingen: Narr.Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1989). Internal and external modification in interlanguage request realization. In

Blum-Kulka & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 221-247).Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

House, J. & Kasper, G. (1987). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requesting in a foreign language. In W. Loerscher& R. Scheulze (eds.), Perspectives on language in performance (pp. 1250-1288). Tubingen: Narr.

Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, 8, 203-231.Kasper, G. (1996). Introduction: interlanguage pragmatics in SLA. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 18, 145-148. Maeshiba, N., Yoshinaga, N. Kasper, G., & Ross, S. (1996). Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage

apologizing. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds). Speech act across cultures (pp21-44). New York: Morton deGruyter.

Robinson, M. (1991). Introspective methodology in interlanguage pragmatics research. In G. Casper (Ed.),Pragmatics of Japanese as native and target language. (technical Rep., Vol. 3, pp. 29-84). Honolulu:University of Hawaii, Second language teaching and curriculum center.

Schmidt, R. W. (1993). Consciousness, learning, and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics. (pp.21-42). New York: Oxford University Press

Scotton, C., and Bernsten, J. (1988). Natural conversations as a model for textbook dialogue. AppliedLinguistics, 9, 213-243

Takahashi, T. & Beebe, L. M. (1993). Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of correction. In G. Kasper& S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics. (pp.138-157). New York: Oxford University Press.

Tanaka, S., & Kawade, S. (1982). Politeness strategies and second language acquisition. Studies in secondlanguage acquisition, 5, 18-33.

Thomas. J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: an introduction to pragmatics. New York: LongmanThomas. J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91-109. 文部省．1989．「高等学校指導書　外国語編」検定教科書．Birdland. 京都：文英堂検定教科書．The Crown Oral communication A. 東京：三省堂検定教科書．Departure Oral communication A. 東京：大修館検定教科書．Echo English course Oral communication A. 東京：三友社検定教科書．English Street Oral communication A. 広島：第一学習社検定教科書．Evergreen Communication A. 広島：第一学習社検定教科書．Expressways Oral communication A. 東京：開隆堂検定教科書．Interact Oral communication A. 東京：桐原書店検定教科書．New Start English Communication A. 東京：旺文社検定教科書．Mainstream. 大阪：増進堂検定教科書．On Air Oral communication A. 東京：開拓社検定教科書．Progressive Oral communication A. 東京：尚学図書検定教科書．Speak to the world Oral communication A. 東京：教育出版検定教科書．Select Oral communication A. 東京：三省堂検定教科書．TALK UP Oral communication A. 大阪：振興出版社啓林館

request strategies in oral communication a textbooks › home1 › k-gakkai › ronsyuu ›...

Documents