THE PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ALGERIA

MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCATION

AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
UNIVERSITY OF MENTOURI, CONSTANTINE
FACULTY OF LETTERS AND LANGUAGES
DEPARTMENT OF LETTERS AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE

Developing Pragmatic Awareness and Communicative Competence

of Third Year Students of English, University of Constantine1: A

Focus on Instructional Effects

Thesis Submitted to the Department of Letters and English Language in

Candidacy for the Degree of Doctorat 3ème Cycle LMD in Applied Language

Studies

By Miss. MounaFeratha Supervisor: Pr. Youcef Beghoul

Board of Examiners:

Chairman: Pr. Hacene SAADI (University of Mentouri, Constantine)

Supervisor: Pr. Youcef BEGHOUL (University of Mentouri, Constantine)

Member: Pr. Riad BELOUAHEM (University of Mentouri, Constantine)

Member: Pr. Hacene HAMADA (ENS Constantine)

Member: Pr. Samir LARABA (University of Mentouri, Constantine)

Member: Dr. Ammar BOUKRIKA (University of Jijel)

-October 2015-
This thesis is dedicated to my parents.

For their endless love, support and encouragement

i
 Acknowledgements

I am especially grateful to my supervisor, Dr. Youcef BEGHOUL, who has been a

central figure in my development as a researcher. I am indebted to his valuable guidance,

tremendous support and generosity with his time throughout my thesis, and I admire his

commitment to academic excellence and his impressive knowledge of the field.

I also would like to express my heart-felt gratitude and appreciation to the members of

the jury for their valuable advice, enlightening comments, and encouraging words. I will not

forget to express my sincere gratitude to Pr. Hacène Saadi for encouraging me to finish my

thesis and for always getting out of his way to help me.

I am very grateful to Dr. Azzedine Boulfelfel, Miss Nesrine Djarboua for being

extraordinarily helpful in facilitating my data collection at the department of English, and for

being exceptionally supportive and encouraging. This thesis could not have been possible

without the participation of all the informants. I greatly appreciate their generosity with their

time and energy.

I am also very thankful to Miss Meriem Bouhenika and Miss Nacéra Boudersa for

their invaluable assistance in data collection. I would like to express my gratitude, too, to my

friends and colleagues at the Department of Arts and English Language for their

encouragement and good wishes.

My family deserves my utmost respect and appreciation for their constant support,

especially my parents who have given me everything and have always been there for me.

ii
 Abstract

This study investigates the effectiveness of explicit pragmatic instruction on the speech act

awareness and the communicative competence of a sample of learners of English as a Foreign

Language (EFL) at university level and their need to learn English as communication. It also

assesses the degree of relationship between the learners’ pragmatic theoretical knowledge and

their speech act awareness and between the latter and communicative proficiency. The

hypotheses are, first, the students’ needs in learning English are perfectly compatible with the

communicative trend. Second, if students are more exposed to explicit pragmatic instruction

and communicative tasks, they will develop better their speech act awareness. Third, Students

speech act awareness increases their communicative proficiency. Fourth and last, students’

pragmatic theoretical awareness increases their speech act awareness. The sample answers a

needs analysis questionnaire before an experiment is carried out in which a control group

receives no explicit instruction and an experimental/teacher instruction group learns explicitly

through classroom interaction. Three test formats are administered to assess performance in

two speech acts (requests and apologies). The tools used have managed to measure the

learners' interlanguage pragmatic knowledge of English in an EFL context, specifically in

terms of the aforementioned two speech acts. The results show that students need English for

communication and interaction and, therefore, they favour the communicative approach to

language teaching. The first hypothesis is, thus, confirmed. The findings reveal that explicit

pragmatic instruction has a positive impact on the EFL learners’ speech act awareness, which

confirms the second hypothesis. The scores obtained indicate a weak degree of association between

the learners’ theoretical knowledge and their speech act awareness which disconfirms the third

hypothesis. Finally, the results of the communicative proficiency test show a close relationship

between the learners’ speech act awareness and communicative proficiency.

Key words: Communicative Competence, Needs Analysis and Pragmatic Awareness

iii
 List of Abbreviations

CA: Communicative Approach

CLA: Communicative Language Ability

CLT: Communicative Language Teaching

DCT: Discourse Completion Test

FL: Foreign Language

IprA: International Pragmatic Association

IFID: Illocutionary Force Indicating Device

L2: Second Language

NA: Needs Analysis

NS: Native Speaker

TL: Target Language

WCPT: Written Communicative Proficiency Test

iv
 List of Tables

Table 1: Audio-lingual Method vs. Communicative Language Teaching 33

Table 2: Types of Meaning 47

Table 3: The Semantic-pragmatic Distinction 50

Table 4: Studies Examining the Effect of Pragmatic Instruction from 1981 to 1997 62

Table 5: Studies Relating Pragmatics to the Classroom 1993-2003 62

Table 6: Comparison of Five Classifications of Illocutionary Type 82

Table 7: Quantitative vs. Qualitative Data 99

Table 8: Descriptive vs. Inferential Statistics 110

Table 9: Participants’ Age 115

Table 10: Participants’ Status of English at School 116

Table 11: Participants’ Level of English before University 117

Table 12: Participants’ Reasons for Learning English 118

Table 13: Participants’ Preferences for English Mediums 119

Table14: Participants’ Current Level of English Language 120

Table 15: Participants’ Desired Level of English Language in the Future 120

Table 16: Participants’ Preferences for Language Skills 120

Table 17: Participants’ Preferences for English Language Activities 121

Table 18: Participants’ Long Term English Learning Goals 122

Table 19: Participants’ Present and Future Needs in English 123

Table 20: Participants’ Preferences for Writing Activities (Formal Communication) 124

Table 21: Participants’ Preferences for Writing Activities (Informal Communication) 125

Table 22: Participants’ Interest in Speaking about Jobs and Works 126

Table 23: Participants’ Interest in Speaking about Health and Fitness 127

Table 24: Participants’ Interest in Speaking about Shopping 127

v
Table 25: Participants’ Interest in Speaking about Customs and Culture 128

Table 26: Participants’ Interest in Speaking about Food and Drinks 129

Table 27: Participants’ Interest in Speaking on the Telephone 129

Table 28: Participants’ Interest in speaking while on Holiday Trips 130

Table 29: Participants’ Interest in Describing Families 131

Table 30: Participants’ Interest in Making Plans and Social Arrangements 131

Table 31: Participants’ Interest in Radio or TV Programmes 133

Table 32: Participants’ Interest in Lectures 133

Table 33: Participants’ Interest in Telephone Calls 134

Table 34: Participants’ Interest in understanding Native speakers 134

Table 35: Participants’ Interest in Academic Reports 135

Table 36: Participants’ Interest in Educational Books 136

Table 37: Participants’ Interest in Newspapers 137

Table 38: Participants’ Interest in Short Stories 137

Table 39: Participants’ Interest in Social Magazines 138

Table 40: Participants’ Interest in Academic Papers 138

Table 41: Participants’ Preference for Working in Class 139

Table 42 : Participants’ Preference for Working Alone 140

Table 43: Participants’ Preference for Working in Pair 141

Table 44: Participants’ Preference for Working in Groups 141

Table 45: Participants’ Preference for Acting out a Role Play Exercise 142

Table 46: Participants’ Preference in a Teacher Supervised Lesson 143

Table 47: Participants’ Preference for Working in a Project 144

Table 48: Participants’ English Practice in Class 144

Table 49: Participants’ Time of English Practice in Class 145

vi
Table 50 : Participants’ English Learning Aim 146

Table 51: Academic Purposes vs. Communication Purposes: Learners’ Needs 153

Table 52: Differences between Traditional and Communicative Approach 155

Table 53: Description of the Requests Situations (pre-test) according to the Social
163
Variables

Table 54: Description of the Requests Situations (post-test) Variables 164

Table 55: Description of the Apology Situations (Pre-test) 164

Table 56: Description of the Apology Situations (Post-test) 165

Table 57: Speech Act Awareness Pre-test Format and Scoring 166

Table 58: Speech Act Awareness Post-test Format and Scoring 168

Table 59: Scoring Scale for Rating DCT Situations 170

Table 60: Instruction Planning and Delivery 177

Table 61: Summary of Data for Both Groups (Pre-test) 181

Table 62: Summary of Data for Both Groups (post-test) 184

Table 63: Communicative Competence Test Format and Scoring 189

Table 64: Pragmatic Theoretical Knowledge Pre -test Format and Scoring 191

Table 65: Pragmatic Theoretical Knowledge Post -Test Format and Scoring 193

Table 66: Summary of Data of the (IG) Group Pre tests 196

Table 67: Pragmatic Knowledge and Speech act Awareness of the (IG) Group Pre tests 198

Table 68: Summary of Data of the (IG) Group Post tests 200

Table 69: Pragmatic Knowledge and Speech act Awareness of the (IG) Group 201
Post-tests

Table 70: Summary of Data of the (EG) Group Pre tests 203

Table 71: Pragmatic Knowledge and Speech Act Awareness of the (EG) Group 204
Pre-tests
Table 72: Summary of Data of the (EG) Group Post-tests 206

vii
Table 73: Pragmatic Knowledge and Speech Act Awareness of the (EG) Group 207
Post-tests

Table 74: Summary of Data of the (IG) Group Post-tests 209

Table 75: Speech act Awareness and Communicative Proficiency Scores of the (IG) 210
Group Pre tests

Table76: Summary of Data of the (EG) Group Post tests 212

Table 77: Speech act Awareness and Communicative Proficiency Scores of the 213
(EG) Group Post tests

viii
 List of Figures

Figure 1: Classification of Needs 17

Figure 2: Components of Communicative Competence 23

Figure 3: Components of Language Competence 27

Figure 4: Jaszczolt’s Classification of Deixis 57

Figure 5: Types of Speech Acts 75

Figure 6: Possible Strategies for doing Face-threatening Acts 85

Figure 7: Two Group Experimental Design 103

Figure 8: Need Analysis Questionnaire Design 114

Figure 9: Participants’ Age 115

Figure 10: Participants’ Status of English at School 116

Figure 11: Participants’ Level of English before University 117

Figure 12: Participants’ Reasons for Learning English 118

Figure 13: Participants’ Preferences for English Mediums 119

Figure 14: Participants’ Preferences for Language Skills 121

Figure 15: Participants’ Preferences for English Language Activities 121

Figure 16: Participants’ Long Term English Learning Goals 122

Figure 17: Participants’ Present and Future Needs in English 123

Figure 18: Participants’ Preferences for Writing Activities (Formal Communication) 124

Figure 19: Participants’ Preferences for Writing Activities (Informal Communication) 125

Figure 20: Participants’ Interest in Speaking about Jobs and Works 126

Figure 21: Participants’ Interest in Speaking about Health and Fitness 127

Figure 22: Participants’ Interest in Speaking about Shopping 128

Figure 23: Participants’ Interest in Speaking about Customs and Culture 128

Figure 24: Participants’ Interest in Speaking about Food and Drinks 129

ix
Figure 25: Participants’ Interest in Speaking on the telephone 130

Figure 26: Participants’ Interest in Speaking while on Holiday Trips 130

Figure 27: Participants’ Interest in Describing Families 131

Figure 28: Participants’ Interest in Making plans and Social Arrangements 132

Figure 29: Participants’ Interest in Radio or TV Programmes 133

Figure 30: Participants’ Interest in Lectures 133

Figure 31: Participants’ Interest in Telephone Calls 134

Figure 32: Participants’ Interest in understanding Native Speakers 135

Figure 33: Participants’ Interest in Academic Reports 135

Figure 34: Participants’ Interest in Educational Books 136

Figure 35: Participants’ Interest in Newspapers 137

Figure 36: Participants’ Interest in Short Stories 137

Figure 37: Participants’ Interest in Social Magazines 138

Figure 38: Participants’ Interest in Academic Papers 138

Figure 39: Participants’ Preferences for Working in Class 139

Figure 40: Participants’ Preferences for Working Alone 140

Figure 41: Participants’ Preferences for Working in Pair 141

Figure 42: Participants’ Preferences for Working in Groups 142

Figure 43: Participants’ Preferences for Acting out a Role Play 142

Figure 44: Participants’ Preferences for Working in a Teacher Supervised Lesson 143

Figure 45: Participants’ Preferences for Working in a Project 144

Figure 46: Participants’ English Practice in Class 145

Figure 47: Participants’ Time of English Practice in Class 145

Figure 48 : Student’s Major Aim in Learning English 146

Figure 49: Difference in the Mean of both (Experimental and Control Group) 185

x
Figure 50: Scatter Plot for (IG) Pragmatic Knowledge and Speech Act Awareness 197

Correlation in the Pre-test

Figure 51 : Scatter Plot for (IG) Pragmatic Knowledge and Speech Act Awareness 200

Correlation in the Post test

Figure 52: Scatter Plot for (EG) Pragmatic Knowledge and Speech Act Awareness 203

Correlation in the Pre test

Figure 53: Scatter Plot for (EG) Pragmatic Knowledge and Speech Act Awareness 206

Correlation in the Post-test

Figure 54:Scatter Plot for (IG) Speech Act Awareness and Communicative Proficiency 209

Correlation in the Post-test

Figure 55: Scatter Plot for (EG) Speech Act Awareness and Communicative 212

Proficiency Correlation in the Post test.

xi
 Contents

General Introduction 1

Chapter I: Needs Analysis and Communicative Language Teaching

Introduction 13

I.1 Needs Analysis (NA) 13

I.2 Language Learning and Needs Analysis 13

I.3 Conducting Needs Analysis 15

I.3.1 Major Steps in Conducting a Needs Analysis. 16

I.3.1.1 Identification of the Target Population 16

I.3.1.2 Identification of Types of Needs 16

I.3.1.3 Classification of Needs 17

I.4 Methods of Needs Assessment 17

I.5 What is Communicative Competence? 18

I.5.1 Hymes’s Notion of Communicative Competence 19

I.5.1.1 Grammaticality, Acceptability or Formal Possibility 21

I.5.1.2 Feasibility 21

I.5.1.3 Appropriateness 21

I.5.1.4 Probability/Actual Performance 22

I.6 Components of Communicative Competence 23

I.6.1 Grammatical Competence 24

I.6.2 Sociolinguistic Competence 25

I.6.3 Strategic Competence 25

I.7 Pragmatic Competence and Foreign Language Teaching 28

I.7.1 The Cognitive Approach 29

xii
 I.7.2 The Audio-lingual Approach 30

I.8 Role of Communicative Competence in Language Teaching 31

I.9 Communicative Language Teaching 31

I.9.1 Origins of Communicative Language Teaching 32

I.9.2 Audio-lingual Method vs. Communicative Language Teaching 33

I.9.3 Teaching Materials in Communicative Language Teaching 34

I.9.3.1. Text-based Materials 34

I.9.3.2. Task-based Materials 34

I.9.3.3. Realia 34

I.9.4. Authenticity in Communicative Language Teaching 34

I.10. Needs Analysis and Implementation of CLT 35

Conclusion 37

Chapter II: Pragmatics

Introduction 39

II.1 Definition of Pragmatics 39

II.2 History of Pragmatics 43

II.3 Important Notions in Pragmatics 44

II.3.1 Context and Meaning 44

II.3.1.1 Context 44

II.3.1.2 Types of Context 46

II.3.1.2.1 Physical Context 46

II.3.1.2.2 Linguistic Context (co-text) 46

II.3.1.2.3 Social Context 46

II.3.1.3 Meaning 47

II.3.1.3.1 Semantic versus Pragmatic Meaning 48

xiii
 II.3.1.3.1.1 Pragmatics versus Semantics 48

II.4 Areas of Pragmatics 50

II.4.1 Deixis 50

II.4.1.1Types of Deixis 51

II.4.1.1.1 Person Deixis 52

II.4.1.1.2 Place Deixis 53

II.4.1.1.3 Time Deixis 53

II.4.1.1.4 Discourse Deixis 53

II.4.1.1.5 Social Deixis 54

II.4.2 Presupposition and Entailment 54

II.4.2.1 Presupposition 55

II.4.2.2 Entailment 56

II.4.3 Conversational Implicatures 56

II.4.3.1 What is an Implicature? 56

II.4.3.2 Conversational Implicatures (Gricean Theory) 56

II.4.3.3 Grice’s Cooperative Principle (Maxims) 58

II.4.3.3.1 Grice’s Maxims 58

II.4.3.3.1.1 Maxim of Quality 58

II.4.3.3.1.2 Maxim of Quantity 58

II.4.3.3.1.3 Maxim of Relation 58

II.4.3.3.1.4 Maxim of Manner 58

II.4.4 Relevance Theory 59

II.5 Pragmatic Instruction 60

II.6 Teaching Pragmatics 65

II.6.1 Teaching Pragmatics via Instruction 65

xiv
II.7 Teaching Pragmatics at the Department of Letters and English Language 67

Conclusion 68

Chapter III: Speech Acts Theory

Introduction 69

III.1 Speech Acts Theory 69

III.1.1 What is a Speech Act? 69

III.1.2 Austin’s Theory of Speech Acts 70

III.1.2.1 Key Concepts in Austin’s Speech Act Theory 71

III.1.2.1.1 Performatives 71

III.1.2.1.1.1 Performatives vs. Constatives 71

III.1.2.1.1.2 Types of Performatives: Implicit vs. Explicit 72

III.1.2.1.2 Felicity Conditions 72

III.1.2.1.3 Sincerity Condition 73

III.1.3 Types of Speech Acts 74

III.1.3.1 Locutionary Act 76

III.1.3.2 Illocutionary Act 76

III.1.3.3 Perlocutionary Act 77

III.1.4 Searle’s Theory of Speech Act 78

III.1.4.1 Searle’s Taxonomy of Speech Acts 79

III.1.5 Indirectness 82

III.2 Politeness 83

III.2.1 Politeness Theory 84

III.2.2 Politeness Strategies 84

III.3 The Speech Act of Request and Apology 85

III.3.1 The Speech Act of Request 86

xv
 III.3.1.1 The Grammar of a Request 87

III.3.1.2 Request Strategies 87

III.3.2 The Speech Act of Apology 88

III.3.2.1 What is an Apology? 88

III.3.2.2 How to Apologize 89

III.3.2.3 Classifying Apologies 89

III.3.2.4 Apology Strategies 89

III.4 Speech Acts: at the Intersection of Language and Culture 90

Conclusion 91

Chapter IV: Research Design and Methodology

Introduction 93

IV.1 Overall Research Design 93

IV.2 Research Aim 93

IV.3 Research Questions 94

IV.3.1 Descriptive Questions (Description) 94

IV.3.2 Relational Questions (Relationship) 95

IV.3.3 Causal Questions (Causality) 95

IV.4 Causation vs. Correlation 96

IV.5 Research Hypotheses 97

IV.6 Quantitative and Qualitative Data 98

IV.7 Research Participants 99

IV.7.1 First Category of Participants (Needs Analysis Questionnaire) 99

IV.7.1.1 Rationale for Selecting the Participants of the Questionnaire 99

IV.7.2 Second (Main) Category of Participants (Experimental Design) 100

xvi
 IV.7.2.1 Rationale for Selecting the participants of the Main Study 101

IV.8 Data Collection Instruments 101

IV.8.1 Needs Analysis Questionnaire 101

IV.8.2 Two-group (Pre-test Post-test) Experimental Design 102

IV.8.3 Pragmatic Language Tests 104

IV.9 Research Procedures 104

IV.9.1 Stage I: Tests Construction 105

IV.9.1.1 Test1: Pragmatic Theoretical Knowledge 105

IV.9.1.2 Test 2: Speech Act Awareness 105

IV.9.2.1.1 Speech Act Comprehension Test 105

IV.9.2.1.2 Discourse Completion Test (DCT) 106

IV.9.1.3 Test 3: Written Communicative Proficiency Test (WCPT) 106

IV.9.2 Stage II: Treatment (Instructional Materials) 107

IV. 10 Data Analysis Procedures 108

IV.10.1 Statistics for Analysing the Questionnaire’s Data 108

IV.10.2 Statistics for Analysing the Experimental Data 109

IV.10.3 Descriptive vs. Inferential Statistics 110

IV.10.4 Correlation Analysis 111

Conclusion 111

Chapter V: Needs Analysis (NA)

Introduction 112

V.1 Needs Analysis Questionnaire 112

V.2 Aim 112

V.3 Description of the NA Questionnaire 113

V.3.1 Section One: Personal Background 113

xvii
 V.3.2 Section Two: General Needs 113

V.3.3 Section Three: Learning Needs 114

V.4 The Questionnaire Overall Design 114

V.5 Analysis of the Questionnaire 115

V.5.1 Participants’ Profile 115

V.5.2 Learners’ General Needs 117

V.5.3 Learning Needs 122

V.5.3.1 Writing 123

V.5.3.2 Speaking 125

V.5.3.3 Listening 132

V.5.3.4 Reading 136

V.5.4 Learning Habits 139

V.6 Discussion of the Findings 146

V. 6.1 Interpretation of the Findings 148

V.6.2 Description of the findings 148

V.6.3 Academic Purposes vs. Communication Purposes: Learners’ Needs 151

V.6.4 Most Consistent Approach with the Needs of the Learners 154

Conclusion 157

Chapter VI: Experiment and Correlated Data Analysis

Introduction 158

VI.1 Experiment 158

VI.1.1 Pilot Study 158

VI.1.2 Description of the Tests 159

VI.1.2.1 Speech Act Awareness Test 159

xviii
 VI.1.2.1.1 Speech Act Comprehension Test 160

VI.1.2.1.2 Written Discourse Completion Task (WDCT) 161

VI.1.2.1.2.1 Description of the DCT Situations vis-à-vis the Social

Variables 162

VI.1.2.1.2.1.1 Description of the Requests Situations (Pre-test) 163

VI.1.2.1.2.1.2 Description of the Requests Situations (Post-test) 164

VI.1.2.1.2.1.3 Description of the Apology Situations (Pre-test) 164

VI.1.2.1.2.1.4 Description of the Apology Situations (post-test) 165

VI.1.3 Speech Act Awareness Pre/Post Test Format and Scoring 165

VI.1.3.1 Speech Act Awareness Pre-test Format and Scoring 166

VI.1.3.2 Speech Act Awareness Post-test Format and Scoring 168

VI.1.3.3 Scoring Scale for Rating DCT Situations 169

VI.1.3.3.1 Administration of Instruction and Tests 170

VI.1.3.3.1.1. Instruction Planning and Delivery 171

VI.1.3.3.2 Comparison between the Pre-test and the Post-test within EG

and IG 177

VI.1.3.3.3 Statistical Analysis of the t-test 178

VI.1.3.3.3.1 A Comparison of the Pre-test in Speech Act Awareness

between EG and IG 179

VI.1.3.3.3.2 A Comparison of the Post-test in Speech Act

Awareness between EG and IG 182

VI.2 Pragmatic Language Tests Data Analysis 186

VI.2.1 Description of the Tests 186

VI.2.1.1 Written Communicative Proficiency Test (WCPT) 187

VI.2.1.1.1 Communicative Competence Test Format and Scoring 187

xix
 VI.2.1.2 Pragmatic Theoretical Knowledge 190

VI.2.1.2.1 Pragmatic Theoretical Knowledge Pre/Post Test Format and

Scoring 190

VI.2.1.2.1.1 Pragmatic Theoretical Knowledge Pre -Test

Format and Scoring 190

VI.2.1.2.1.2 Pragmatic Theoretical Knowledge Post -Test

Format and Scoring 191

VI.3.1 Statistical Analysis: Pearson’s Correlation 193

VI.3.1.1 Interpretation of Data 194

VI.3.1.2 Correlation coefficient (r) of Students Scores for Pragmatic

Awareness and Speech Act Awareness Pre-test (IG) 195

VI.3.1.2.1 Calculating the Correlation 197

VI.3.1.3 Correlation coefficient (r) (IG) of Students Scores of Pragmatic

Awareness and Speech act Awareness Post test 200

VI.3.1.3.1 Calculating the Correlation 201

VI.3.1.4 Experimental Group Pre-test Correlation between Pragmatic

Awareness and Speech Act awareness 203

VI.3.1.4.1 Calculating the Correlation 204

VI.3.1.5 Experimental Group Post- test Correlation between Pragmatic

Knowledge and Speech act awareness 206

VI.3.1.5.1 Calculating the Correlation 207

VI.3.1.6 Control Group Post Test Correlation between Speech Act Awareness

and Communicative Competence 209

VI.3.1.6.1 Calculating the Correlation 210

VI.3.1.7 Experimental group Post-test Correlation between Speech Act

xx
 Awareness and Communicative Competence 212

VI.3.1.7.1 Calculating the Correlation 213

VI.4 Discussion of the Data 215

Conclusion 215

Chapter VII: Findings, Pedagogical Implications, Limitations and Further Research

Introduction 216

VII.1 Scope of the Study 216

VII.2 Summary of the Main Findings 217

VII.3 Limitations of the Study 218

VII.3.1 Methodological Issues 219

VII.4 Theoretical Implications 219

VII.5 Pedagogical Implications 221

VII.6 Significance of the Study 222

VII.7 Suggestions for Further Research 223

VII.8 General Recommendations 224

VII.9 Promoting the Methodology of Teaching Pragmatics in an EFL Context 225

VII.9.1 Pragmatics Syllabus Design 226

VII.9.1.1 Objectives 226

VII.9.1.2 Expected Learning Outcomes 227

VII.9.1.2.1 Knowledge and Understanding 227

VII.9.1.2.2 Cognitive Skills 227

VII.9.1.2.3 Practical and Subject-specific Skills 228

VII.9.1.2.4 Key Transferable Skills 228

VII.9.1.3 Teaching Program 229

VII.9.1.3.1 Learning Activities 229

xxi
 VII.9.1.4 Pragmatics Lectures Plan and Design 229

Conclusion 243

General Conclusion 244

Bibliography 248

Appendices

xxii
 General Introduction

Developing learners’ pragmatic awareness and communicative competence has

become one of the fundamental goals of teaching English as a foreign language. Being one of

the main constituents of communicative competence, pragmatic competence involves

knowledge of those pragmatic and socio-pragmatic rules and conventions that help the

learners understand how the target language is usually used to communicate. Pragmatic

awareness is a key factor in successful communication; it enables learners to use the target

language appropriately in different communicative situations. The present research deals with

the issue of pragmatic awareness in relation to the notion of communicative competence. It

introduces pragmatic proficiency as part of the overall communicative competence which

focuses on one’s ability to communicate and interpret the interlocutors intended messages

appropriately in any socio-cultural context. The very complicated notion of pragmatic

awareness includes, in this research, the following features (variables): pragmatic theoretical

knowledge, speech act awareness (speech act comprehension+ speech act production). From

an educational perspective, pragmatic awareness is introduced in the context of EFL teaching

and learning at the department of Arts and English language, University of Constantine1. It is

analysed in the teaching of pragmatics, as a module included in the LMD curriculum. This

latter covers the theoretical components introduced in different pragmatic text-books and

neglects to a great extent that part of pragmatics which focuses on enhancing learners’

pragmatic competence (the ability to use language appropriately in context). The present

research investigates the feasibility of teaching pragmatics by explicit instruction and its role

in developing both the pragmatic awareness and the communicative competence of learners.

The development of pragmatic awareness and communicative competence is important for

language learners; this is especially because it should be the main objective they need to attain

1
from learning English as a foreign language i.e. to communicate appropriately in different

social and cultural situations.

1. Context of the Study

Since any language syllabus should provide ways to improve the effectiveness of

teaching, it is necessary to begin by an effective and accurate analysis of the situation of

teaching in higher education. In this study, teaching English as a foreign language at the

Department of Arts and English language, University of Constantine 1, is taken as a context

of investigation. In this context, there is an apparent gap between the proposed curriculum and

the actual classroom practices.

2. Statement of the Problem

There is a common agreement among researchers and educational organisations that

nowadays there is an urgent necessity to develop learners’ intercultural communication.

Therefore, various studies have been carried out to achieve the desired aim of most learners of

English as a foreign language which is communicative competence (including both accuracy

and appropriateness of language use). At the university level, in Algeria’s EFL departments,

for example, students are exposed only to some fundamental English courses like Grammar,

written expression with a frequency of not more than three hours per week each. One may

consider, then, that the focus of teaching English at the Department of Arts and English

Language is on enhancing the students’ linguistic competence. The only hint to the

communicative aspect of language is in teaching oral expression for only three hours

per/week, which is to a great extent insufficient in comparison to the time taken by other

units. This shows that the curriculum designed for teaching English as a foreign language in

the tertiary level at the Department of Arts and English Language is rather traditional. The

2
traditional methods applied are the grammar translation method, the direct method and the

audio lingual one. The three methods emphasize:

a. Learning of the target written language (academic language), mainly its grammar

(learning of the grammar rules + intensive use of translation exercises).

b. development of the reading and writing skills

c. Use of the native tongue as the medium of instruction.

According to Nunan, the traditional method of teaching English

“...has a focus on the view of language as a structured system of

grammatical patterns, with a trend for formal and bookish
language, with the aim to have students producing formally
correct sentences and in terms of skills, an emphasis on reading
and writing” (1988, pp. 26-27)

Given the nature of the approach adopted in teaching English as foreign language at

the Department of Arts and English Language, students end up with a mere acquisition of

linguistic elements and a mere mastery of both the writing and reading skills of language.

However, communication (interaction) in the classroom is what more attractive to learners as

what they want is to reach a native-like performance of the language.

Many studies have been conducted on the use of CLT in EFL settings (Ellis, 1996;

Gorsuch, 2000; Incecay & Incecay, 2009; etc). Those researchers have revealed that

implementing CLT is of great importance since it helps promote learners’ communicative

skills. Algerian universities could benefit from these advances and attempt to adopt the

communicative approach which is quite relevant to the development of students’ pragmatic

awareness and intercultural communication.

3
 In the present study, the possibility of adopting the communicative approach at the

Department of Arts and English language is addressed through conducting a ‘Needs

Assessment’. The approach to teaching will be more efficient if the students’ learning needs

are addressed. Tudor emphasized the importance of needs analysis writing that “the desire

to make language teaching more responsive to learners’ needs has been a consistent feature of

both writing and practical experimentation in language teaching since the 1960s” (1996,

p.66). As a matter of fact, teaching English as a foreign language should be directed towards

satisfying the present and future needs of learners, and, in this manner, they can be well

equipped for the future challenges of life where English plays a major role.

Before dealing with Needs Analysis, one should answer the following question: Why

should Needs Analysis be conducted?

The main reason behind conducting a needs assessment in the context of teaching

English as a foreign language at the Department of Arts and English Language is to draw

attention to the necessity of bringing modifications and changes in the curriculum provided as

a guide for teachers at the tertiary level. This means determining learners’ needs (abilities,

wants and preferences) and helping introduce a syllabus that best fits their needs (the

communicative one). A needs assessment is conducted to introduce some modifications and

new components in the teaching syllabus and the materials used to teach pragmatics i.e.

teaching language as used in its context. It tries to review the teaching of English in the

Algerian context in a communicative perspective which fits the needs of learners and their

desired goal which is learning English in order to communicate effectively and appropriately

i.e. being communicatively competent.

Developing an effective method for teaching pragmatics at the Department of Arts and

English Language, University of Constantine1, requires introducing explicit instruction which

4
helps improve learners’ communicative skills. In this study, the empirical research on

language teaching that targets EFL learners’ pragmatic competence is because of the

following two main reasons:

1. Importance of Intercultural Communication among EFL Learners

Today, Intercultural communication skills have become essential components of

foreign language learning. As globalization and international exchanges increase, English as a

foreign language is no longer limited to native speaker circles and standardized forms.

English is being used by a greater diversity of people in different contexts for various

purposes and in many styles or forms. Language learning ought to reflect this change by

addressing learners’ shifting needs.

The emphasis on language in use in the latter half of the twentieth century has led to

the flourishing of pragmatic studies. Those studies revealed the EFL learners are unable to

communicate effectively i.e. they are unable to interpret the appropriate communicative

meaning in order to perform language functions. In Bardovi-Harlig’s words “A learner of

high grammatical proficiency will not necessarily show concomitant pragmatic competence”

(1996, P. 2). It is possible that such problems are due to the flagrant lack of explicit

instruction about pragmatics and the communicative load of language. Foreign language

learners' pragmatic competence (their ability to use language in context) is an essential

constituent of their general communicative competence. In this respect, many sociolinguists

note that the development of communicative competence should be one of the most important

goals of language teaching. Kasper, for instance, wrote

If we map the communicative actions in classic language

classroom discourse against the pragmatic competence that non-
native speakers need to communicate in the world outside, it
becomes immediately obvious that the language classroom in its
classical format does not offer students what they need - not in
terms of teacher's input, nor in terms of students' productive
5
 language use. (1997, P. 5)

2. Inefficiency of Teaching Pragmatics at the Department of Arts and English

Language (University of Constantine 1)

Teaching pragmatics in this department is still not very efficient when compared to

teaching other language subjects such linguistics, grammar, phonetics and phonology...etc.

The first step in raising the students’ pragmatic awareness is to improve pragmatic language

teaching quality.

In recent times, the Department grew more concerned with the teaching of some

essential subjects, especially those which deal with theories of language in use, such as

pragmatics, sociolinguistics, English for Specific Purposes and English for Science and

Technology. These subjects help in increasing the learners’ communicative ability in the

English language. Pragmatics has lately become one of the most important subjects

introduced in the field of teaching and learning English as a foreign language. Teaching

pragmatics at the Department of English was introduced with the implementation of the LMD

system in higher education in Algeria. As a result, teachers are asked to teach a series of

lessons on pragmatics which are not provided by a clear and detailed official syllabus; lesson

plans serve as theory based mini courses that cover different aspects of pragmatics.

These courses provide an opportunity for students to be exposed to the scope of

pragmatics with a particular reference to some famous linguists whose contributions

influenced strongly the study of pragmatics. Starting from the definition and background of

pragmatics, the courses present an overview of different issues covered in this field such as

Deixis (types of Deixis, the interpretation of Deixis, distance and reference etc...), Speech

Acts (Austin’s Model of Speech Acts, Searle’s Classification) and the Cooperative Principle

(Grice’s Maxims). The courses focus specifically on the review of relevant literature in

pragmatics (see Appendix A).

6
 The pragmatic information given in this syllabus is somehow insufficient for the

students to be able to use language appropriately and, thus, it is preferable that instructional

pragmatic lessons be also introduced in the syllabus, as called for in most recent studies done

in the field of pragmatics (refer to section II.9 in Chapter II). Our investigation is an attempt

to introduce a pragmatic explicit instruction based course which could be of a great influence

on the students and result in more appropriate performance of language in different situations.

3. Aims of the Study

Needs Analysis is conducted in the present study to investigate the learners’ pragmatic

awareness by introducing new directions to the method of teaching one of the most important

subjects in the field of teaching English as a foreign language which is pragmatics.

When learning English for using it to communicate in real world, one of the benefits in

learning pragmatics is that the learners get familiarized with the various rules of speech acts in

order to communicate with people from different social and cultural backgrounds. With

frequent practice in using a foreign language and interaction in a global way, learners will be

responsive to people’s intended meanings in a successful and complete way. The present

study is also an exploration of the teaching of pragmatics as a module in an EFL setting (case

of the Department of Arts and English Language) and it is an attempt to enhance the students’

pragmatic awareness and communicative competence by applying some of the findings of

research in pragmatics to EFL teaching.

It addresses the issue of the effectiveness of the instructional approach that has

attracted the attention of many pragmaticians in the last few decades, namely, the formulation

of different communicative acts (speech acts) such as apology, request, refusal and complaint

etc... It is concerned with the introduction of explicit pragmatic instruction in the EFL

classrooms at the Algerian tertiary level. It attempts to investigate the effect of pragmatic

7
explicit instruction on the speech act awareness of third year students of English as a foreign

language at the Department of Arts and English Language, University of Constantine1. It also

tries to show if other factors (variables), such as pragmatic knowledge, may affect student’s

speech act awareness and their communicative competence.

4. Research Questions

This research attempts to answer the following questions:

1. Which is mostly needed by students: learning English for communication purposes or

learning English for academic ones?

2. To what extent will the introduction of explicit pragmatic instruction affect student’s

awareness of speech acts?

3. To what extent will students' speech act awareness improve their communicative

competence i.e. their ability to communicate appropriately and effectively in different

communicative situations?

4. To what extent will students’ pragmatic theoretical knowledge affect their speech act

awareness?

5. Research Hypotheses

There are four hypotheses behind this investigation.

Hypothesis 1: “Students have the type of English learning needs which favours the

communicative perspective, i.e. they need English for communication and interaction”

Hypothesis 2: “If students were more exposed to explicit pragmatic instruction and

communicative tasks, they would develop their speech act awareness better”

Hypothesis 3: “Students’ speech act awareness would increase their communicative

competence”

8
 Hypothesis 4: “Students’ pragmatic theoretical awareness would increase their speech

act awareness”

6. Population and Sampling

There are two categories of participants: those answering a needs analysis

questionnaire and those undergoing an experimental design. The former are first, second and

third year students of English enrolled at three different university levels, which means that

their opinions are determined by their needs before and after experiencing the learning of

English, and, thus, they cover the needs of all categories (levels) of students at the Department

of Arts and English Language and their differences in learning experience raise their

awareness of their needs. It is deemed that their opinions have to be taken into consideration

as the basis for the development of an effective teaching and learning process. The latter are

only third year students enrolled in the option of applied language studies. Because of

institutional constraints, it is not possible to assign students randomly to different groups, thus

making it necessary to work with two intact groups. The two groups are: (1) a control group,

which is not exposed to explicit instruction on pragmatics (independent variable being tested),

but has the usual courses from the textbooks delivered by the teacher (2) the experimental

group who receives explicit instruction on pragmatics from the instructor.

7. Research Tools

Three data collection instruments are employed in this research:

7.1 Needs Analysis Questionnaire

As a research tool, the questionnaire is considered the most effective source of

gathering personal information (beliefs, attitudes, feelings…etc.).

The needs analysis questionnaire is conducted to collect personal information from the

students regarding their English language background and their perceptions of the necessity of

English for their future and the reasons why they consider it important. Furthermore, the
9
questionnaire is administered to answer the first research question which is ‘Do students need

to learn English for communication purposes or for academic ones?’ and to recommend an

approach (methodology) which best fits the students’ needs.

7.2 Two Group (Pre-test/ Post-test) Experimental Design

The Two Group (pre-test/ post-test) Experimental Design is the commonly used

research method, simply because it allows the researcher to make causal inferences about the

relationship between the independent variables and a dependent one.

In the present study, the experiment is designed to test the second research hypothesis

and thus to determine the effect of explicit pragmatic instruction (independent variable) on the

speech act awareness (dependent variable) of third year graduate students of English

(University of Constantine 1).

7.3 Pragmatic Language Tests

Two pre-test and three post-tests are designed to measure the participants’ pragmatic

proficiency at the level of pragmatic theoretical knowledge and communicative proficiency.

The pragmatic language tests are designed to test the third and fourth research hypotheses.

They are used to determine the degree of association between the speech act awareness and

pragmatic theoretical knowledge and between speech act awareness and communicative

competence.

8. Structure of the Thesis

This study consists of seven chapters. The first chapter addresses the areas of ‘Needs

Analysis’ and ‘Communicative Language Teaching’. The chapter first covers the definition

and origins of Needs Analysis, language learning needs analysis and methods for conducting

a needs assessment. Most of the chapter is devoted to the conceptual definition of the term

‘communicative competence’ as conceived by Hymes (1972) and the different models that

10
have been developed by other linguists with a particular reference to the Bachman’s model

(1990). The latter introduces pragmatic competence (the main concern of the present research)

as a part of communicative competence. The chapter also provides an overview of

communicative language teaching, its origins, main characteristics, and teaching materials.

The second chapter presents a comprehensive introduction to pragmatics with a focus

on the various definitions provided by numerous linguists and pragmaticians. It also deals

with some of the main notions in pragmatics such as meaning and context; the chapter also

covers important topics commonly dealt with in pragmatic textbooks such as deixis,

presupposition and entailment, conversational implicatures, Grice Maxims and relevance

theory; it explores those issues and the importance of their analysis in facilitating the student’s

awareness of the pragmatic meaning that helps them interact effectively in different situations.

It also considers a significant area which is the contribution of pragmatics to language

teaching and pragmatic instruction.

The third chapter introduces the theory developed by Austin (1965) and Searle (1975).

It is divided into two major parts; part one includes an overview of the theory of speech acts

and provides a definition of speech acts and the key concepts in Austin’s speech act theory.

The chapter also identifies Searle’s taxonomy of speech acts which is followed by a summary

of the literature that addresses the role of indirectness and politeness in the realization of

speech acts. Part two addresses the speech acts of request and apology; it concentrates on their

definitions, types, classification and strategies.

The fourth chapter describes the overall study design and the data collection. In

addition to the restatement of the research aim and research hypotheses and questions, the

chapter covers the different criteria for a research design such as including variables, stating

conditions for judging causality and correlation and designing a research plan that permits

11
accurate assessment of cause and effect relationships between independent and dependent

variables. The chapter, furthermore, highlights some methodological issues and the rationale

procedures which are followed throughout the research work including the research

participants, instruments and procedures.

The fifth chapter deals with assessing the students’ different needs, beliefs and

behaviours by analysing the data collected by the questionnaire.

The sixth chapter introduces the main study and describes the instruments of data

collection, scoring procedure, tests design and administration and the statistical methods for

analysing both quantitative and qualitative data. It is devoted to covering the procedures

followed to test hypotheses 2, 3 and 4 based on the design and analysis of two major research

instruments: the experiment and the pragmatic language tests. It presents and explains the

findings of the main study.

The seventh chapter summarizes the overall findings of this study and answers the

four research questions. The findings of the study are discussed vis-à-vis the research

questions and hypotheses. The implications of the effect of explicit instruction on the

development of pragmatic competence, implications for teaching pragmatics, and implications

for foreign language instruction are presented. Finally, some limitations of this study are dealt

with and some suggestions for future research are provided.

12
 Chapter I

Needs Analysis and Communicative Language Teaching

Introduction

The present chapter addresses the areas of ‘Needs Analysis’ and ‘Communicative

Language Teaching’. The chapter first covers the definition and origins of Needs Analysis,

language learning needs analysis and methods for conducting a needs assessment. Most of the

chapter is devoted to the definition of the term ‘communicative competence’ as conceived by

Hymes (1972) and the different models that have been developed by other linguists with a

particular reference to the Bachman’s model (1990). The latter introduces pragmatic

competence (the main concern of the present research) as a part of communicative

competence. The chapter also provides an overview of communicative language teaching, its

origins, main characteristics, and teaching materials.

I.1 Needs Analysis (NA)

Needs Analysis is a process undertaken in educational setting to determine the

students’ gap between their existing skills, knowledge and abilities and those that are needed

for the achievement of students’ objectives. Once this gap is determined, decisions can be

taken as to the type of syllabi required and their application. NA helps students identify where

they are in terms of their knowledge, skills and competencies and their learning goals

I.2 Language Learning and Needs Analysis

According to Richards et al (1992) NA is “the process of determining the needs for

which a learner or group of learners requires a language and arranging the needs according to

priorities.” (1992, pp. 242-243). A very sophisticated definition is given by Brown (1995) in

which NA refers to the systematic collection and analysis of all subjective and objective

information necessary to define and validate defensible curriculum purposes that satisfy the

13
language learning requirements of students within the context of particular institutions that

influence the learning and teaching situation. This means that NA is held to gather specific

information (subjective and objective information) about the learner in order to know the

objectives, for which the language is needed, the situation in which the language will be used,

with whom the language will be used, and the level of proficiency required.

The NA process can be used as the basis for developing a set of courses and classroom

practices that meet to learners’ needs. Accordingly, Richards (1990) suggests a strategy to

assure the fulfilment of learners’ needs. It consists of four steps:

1. Determine the needs of a particular group of learners for learning English

2. Develop objectives for a language course that will meet those needs

3. Select teaching and learning activities and experience that will enable these objectives

to be realised

4. Evaluate the outcome.

Needs Analysis is, therefore, a process for classifying and evaluating needs in a

defined educational context, which seeks to identify a valid curriculum and instructional and

management objectives in order to facilitate learning in an environment that is closely related

to the real life situations of the student.

Richards considers NA as ‘fundamental’ to the planning of general language courses

and in language curriculum planning. NA can be utilized as a means to a number of things,

i.e.:

a) It can serve as a device for gathering an extensive range of

input into the content, design, and implementation of language
programme by involving all the stakeholders,
b) it can help in setting goals, objectives and content for a
language programme by determining general and specific
language needs,
c) Needs analysis can be instrumental in providing data which
can be used for reviewing and evaluating an existing
programme, and finally it can help teachers in understanding the

14
 local needs of the students and making decisions in pedagogy
and assessment for further improvement. (1990, p. 2)

As a process ‘Needs Analysis’ can be undertaken before or during the course.

Conducting a needs analysis before the course helps the teacher to set the desired objective

and the suitable lessons’ plans whereas when done during the course, it helps to ascertain the

achievement of the objectives, the appropriateness of the teaching and assessment methods

and to find out whether the course is in line with the learners desired outcomes.

I.3 Conducting Needs Analysis

Munby (1978) introduces 'communication needs processor’. Munby’s work places the

learner’s purposes in the central position within the structure of needs analysis.

Needs analysis is the first step in course/syllabus design and it provides relevancy and

validity for course design activities. According to Hutchinson & Waters (1987), NA emerged

in the field of teaching and learning FL languages through the ESP movement. For them, the

role of needs analysis in any ESP course is unquestionable.

Jordan (1997) notes the importance of learning needs:

If we accept…that a student will learn best what he wants to

learn, less well what he only needs to learn, less well still what
he either wants or needs to learn, it is clearly important to leave
room in a learning programme for the learner’s own wishes
regarding both goals and processes. (1997, p. 26)

In simpler terms, Needs Analysis is a very important process undertaken in

educational setting which helps in identifying learners’ wants and goals in order to establish

the suitable course design that fulfils their needs. NA as a process is defined as an

educational planning device. According to Witkin, NA is “any systematic procedure for

setting priorities and making decisions about allocation of educational resources” (1984, p.

35). In other words, NA is the preliminary sources which are used to determine the type of

educational program (curriculum and syllabi) required by the target population. Nunan

15
(1988) also refers to the information-gathering process; he claims that “techniques and

procedures for collecting information to be used in syllabus design are referred to as needs

analysis” (1988, p. 13).

By conducting an NA in an educational system, the teachers and syllabus designers

determine which programmes and syllabi are needed, that is to say, adopting learners- needs

based approach as a starting phase of syllabus design will help ensure the effectiveness of

teaching materials, course content, schedules, etc.,. According to McCawley “A needs

assessment is a systematic approach to studying the state of knowledge, ability, interest, or

attitude of a defined audience or group involving a particular subject” (2009, p.3) This means

that needs assessment helps in investigating a target population interests , beliefs and

attitudes towards a specific subject. In an educational context, needs assessment is considered

as the first step towards introducing new methods of teaching and whose main concern is the

achievement of the different learning objectives of the students.

I.3.1 Major Steps in Conducting a Needs Analysis

This section covers the main phases to be followed when carrying out needs analysis;

they are classified as follows:

I.3.1.1 Identification of the Target Population

 Identifying Learners’ Needs (the focus of Needs Analysis)

 Identifying Teachers’ Needs

I.3.1.2 Identification of Types of Needs

Brown (1995) proposes three dichotomies to categorize needs:

 Situation needs vs. language needs

 Objective needs vs. subjective needs

 Linguistic content vs. learning processes

16
I.1.3.1.3 Classification of Needs

Hutchinson and Waters (1987) proposed a simpler categorization of needs:

Needs

Target Needs Learning needs

Necessities Lacks Lacks

(types of (what existing gaps (what the
needs need to be closed from learner
determined by the teaching perceives as a
the target perspective) lack)
situation)

Societies,
Companies, Teachers Learners Perspective
Employers

Figure1: Classification of Needs based on Hutchinson and Waters (1987) as cited in

Huhta et al, 2013, P.11)

I.4 Methods of Needs Assessment

The most common ways to collect information in NA are:

 Questionnaires

 Interviews

 Tests

In order to determine the need for a type of program or service and to determine what

type of content should be included in a curriculum, a questionnaire would be the appropriate

method which is designed and used for asking a group or a community member what they see

as the most important needs of that group or community.

The present study conducts a needs assessment through a needs analysis questionnaire

in order to validate the necessity to bring some modifications, new components and materials

in teaching pragmatics. It tries to review the teaching of English in the Algerian context from

17
a communicative perspective, which fits one major need of students which is learning English

in order to communicate effectively and appropriately i.e. being communicatively competent.

I.5 What is Communicative Competence?

Generally speaking, the notion of communicative competence refers to the ability to

adapt the knowledge of effective and appropriate language patterns in different contexts. i.e.

the ability to effectively communicate in a language (mother, second or foreign).

Communicative competence, as a term, includes two words, which, taken together,

mean competence to communicate. The central word in the combination is 'competence'.

'Competence' is a very controversial term in general and applied linguistics. The term goes

back to Chomsky (1965) who distinguishes between 'competence' (the individual speaker-

listener’s knowledge of language) and 'performance' (the actual use of this language in real

situations). Brown describes this term as follows:

The term competence has been used, beginning with Chomsky's

original formulation of the concept. Inspired by the Saussurean
concepts of langue and parole, Chomsky puts forward
competence and performance. He linked competence to an
"idealized” speaker-hearer who doesn’t display such
performance variables as memory limitations, distraction, shifts
of attention and interest, errors and hesitation phenomena such
as repeats, false starts, pause, omissions and additions. (2005, p.
31)

As a complex term, communicative competence may substitute terms such as;

appropriateness and effectiveness; that is to say it refers to the ability to use language

appropriately in social interaction.

A major problem is that linguists, including Hymes, while claiming to be simply

elaborating on the notion of linguistic competence, they, in fact, changed it in ways that are

not so obvious to everyone. An attempt was made by some linguists to make these changes

clearer and to draw attention to the serious problems that arise when this concept is applied in

various areas.

18
I.5.1 Hymes’s Notion of Communicative Competence

Communicative competence was suggested by Hymes in the 1970s. It includes the use

of sociolinguistic rules. Indeed, Hymes expanded on Chomsky’s view of linguistic

competence by considering the social factors of language. He wrote that "social life has

affected not merely outward performance, but inner competence itself” (1971, p. 274). This

theory of communicative competence has had a great influence on the field of second and

foreign language teaching. Indeed, the major aim within the communicative approach became

to make a non-native speaker communicatively competent in the target language.

For Hymes, it is necessary to take into account not only the linguistic/grammatical

competence but also the ability to use language in an appropriate, feasible, and probable way.

His arguments are mostly based on the linguistic competence suggested by Chomsky (1965).

In other words, the notion of communicative competence came to question and to complete

that of linguistic competence. This notion of linguistic competence is summed up by

Chomsky as follows:

Linguistic theory is concerned primarily with the ideal speaker-

listener in a completely homogenous speech community, who
knows its language perfectly and is unaffected by such
grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations,
distractions, shift of attention and interest, and errors (random or
characteristic) in applying his knowledge in actual performance.
(1965, p. 3)

Therefore, for Chomsky, competence (language/linguistic competence) embodies the

perfect knowledge of the abstract system of language rules used by a homogenous speech

community. Such a competence entails both a perfect understanding and production of all

well-formed sentences in a particular language. The actual use of language, affected by what

he terms grammatically irrelevant conditions, and identified with the criterion of acceptability,

not grammaticality, is the domain of performance.

19
 Hymes introduced a broader notion that covers both the grammatical competence and

the sociolinguistic one and describes it as the knowledge of the rules for understanding and

producing both the referential and social meaning of language. His main concern was to make

a distinction between linguistic competence that deals with producing and understanding

grammatically correct sentences, and communicative competence that deals with producing

and understanding utterances that are appropriate and acceptable to a particular situation.

Thus, Hymes coined 'communicative competence' as a term and defined it as knowledge of

the rules for understanding and producing both the referential and the social meaning of

language.

He introduced first the concept of communicative competence in the context of

language development among disadvantaged children. According to him, a child does not

only acquire grammatical, but also appropriate language. His plea was that the concept of

linguistic competence, with its emphasis on coding and decoding, was insufficient to address

the educational needs of children. For Hymes, in order to be adequate, a linguistic theory must

take care of all of the linguistic, pragmatic, cognitive and social aspects of communication.

Hymes suggested four criteria by which an utterance is judged:

a. Whether (and to what degree) something is formally possible;

b. Whether (and to what degree) something is feasible in virtue of the means of

implementation available;

c. Whether (and to what degree) something is appropriate (adequate, happy,

successful) in relation to a context in which it is used and evaluated;

d. Whether (and to what degree) something is in fact done, actually performed, and

what its doing entails. (1971, p. 281)

20
I.5.1.1 Grammaticality, Acceptability or Formal Possibility

It is awareness of the phonological, morphological, syntactic, and semantic rules, i.e.

knowledge of rules that is used to produce and judge an unlimited number of correct

utterances by the language norms. In other words, it is to be able to formulate and interpret

grammatically correct sentences composed of words taken in their ordinary meaning. It is the

mastery of listening, speaking and writing, based on knowledge of lexical items, rules of

morphology, syntax, grammar, semantics and phonology needed to practice them.

I.5.1.2 Feasibility

Although a limited number of rules may construct an infinite number of grammatically

accurate utterances, not all of these sentences are feasible. A sentence like "I thought a

thought but the thought I thought I thought was not the thought I thought I thought!” can

neither be easily uttered nor easily understood, because of the quite complex nesting,

embedding, and branching, although it is perfectly grammatical. Such an utterance can only

be used as a tongue twister.

I.5.1.3 Appropriateness

The third aspect is what Hymes calls appropriateness and that he specifies as the

"sense of relating to contextual features” (1971, p. 285). It is basically concerned with the

regularities and conventions that guide the language used by members of a speech

community, and on which they agree, because they have similar experiences of the world, the

same backgrounds, and they share a lot of extra linguistic knowledge. This means that in real

life people do not use well-formed sentences, but utterances. The latter can be a clause, a

phrase, or even one single word and still conveys the meaning as perfectly. Therefore, people

also use what is appropriate when they come to use what is grammatically correct.

Appropriateness is simply the contextual use of language i.e. where, when, and to whom can a

21
given type of language be used. For instance, telling a joke in a funeral may be quite

grammatical, feasible, and probable but hardly appropriate. The same applies if one starts

talking of death in a wedding reception. It can be defined also as the quality that makes

language suitable for a given social situation. For example, a formal situation will require

language conventionally regarded as formal, whereas an informal situation will require

informal language.

I.5.1.4 Probability/Actual Performance

The last aspect is what Hymes terms probability. He stipulates that "something may be

possible, feasible, and appropriate and not occur” (1971, p. 285). For example, a created

expression such as "I saw him three cigarettes ago” may be tolerated from a famous writer or

a poet, but not from a layman. It is simply not done.

Hymes notes that these conditions can be in relation to the linguistic system and to the

idiosyncratic use of it, i.e. they have both social and cognitive aspects. He concludes by

writing:

In sum, the goal of a broad theory of competence can be said to

be to show the ways in which the systematically possible, the
feasible, and the appropriate are linked to produce and interpret
actually occurring cultural behaviour (1971, p. 286)

According to Hymes, a person who fulfils all four aspects is competent. He suggests

that what needs to be attended to from such a theory is "the capacities of persons, the

organization of verbal means for socially defined purposes and the sensitivity of rules to

situations" (1971, p. 292)

22
I.6 Components of Communicative Competence

During the 1970's and 1980's, many applied linguists who were interested in the field

of language learning and teaching contributed considerably to an extended development of the

notion of communicative competence suggested by Hymes. The theoretical reflections and

empirical work of some of those seem to have had the most important impact on the theory of

communicative competence. Among these are Munby (1978), Canale and Swain (1980),

Canale (1983), Savignon (1983), and Bachman (1990).

Munby (1978), inspired by the theory of Hymes, represented the four aspects of the

language user’s knowledge and abilities. According to Brinker:

Munby represents the ultimate in what one might call the

shopping list concept of conversational behaviour. The idea of
communicative competence consists of a more or less open set
of identifiable functions or notions which can be taught or learnt
(2001, p. 1682).

23
 Munby pointed out that this conception of communicative competence tends to imply

that it is possible to be communicatively competent without being grammatically competent.

This may lead to neglect grammar in the study of language. Munby wrote:

The upsurge of interest in the content of the language syllabus,

following the concern with communicative competence
generated by Dell Hymes, reflects inter alia a feeling that we
ought to know much more about what is that should be taught
and learnt if a non-native is to be communicatively competent in
English (1978, p. 1)

The widely cited model by Canale and Swain (1980), later expanded by Canale

(1983), includes four competencies under the heading of communicative competence:

grammatical competence (awareness of the language units and structure); sociolinguistic

competence (knowledge of the socio-cultural rules of language use in a particular context);

strategic competence (understanding how to use communication strategies to handle

breakdowns in communication) and discourse competence (knowledge of achieving

coherence and cohesion in a spoken or written text). In what follows are the four components

of communicative competence as defined by Canal and Swain.

I.6.1 Grammatical Competence

For Canale and Swain (1980), grammatical competence includes one's knowledge of

phonology, morphology, lexical items, syntax, and semantics. As stated later by Canale:

Grammatical competence remains concerned with the mastery

of language code (verbal and non-verbal) itself. Thus included
here are features and rules of the language such as vocabulary,
word formation, sentence formation, pronunciation, spelling and
linguistic semantics. (1983, p. 7)

24
I.6.2 Sociolinguistic Competence

Sociolinguistic competence includes the knowledge of rules that govern the

production and understanding of language in different sociolinguistic contexts. According to

Swain:

Sociolinguistic competence addresses the extent to which

utterances are produced and understood appropriately in
different sociolinguistic contexts, depending on contextual
factors such as topics, status of participants, and purposes of the
interactions. Appropriateness of utterances refers to both
appropriateness of meaning and appropriateness of form. (1984,
p. 188)

1.6.3 Strategic Competence

Strategic competence is the ability to convey messages using various verbal or

nonverbal strategies. Canale and swain defined it as; "verbal and non verbal communication

strategies that may be called into action to compensate for breakdowns in communication due

to performance variables or insufficient competence” (1980, p. 30)

Canale and Swain (1980) emphasized the importance of Hymes' work. They focused

on communication in social context i.e. both form and meaning (more precisely social

meaning). This model was updated by Canale (1983). He proposed a four-dimensional model

of communicative competence: grammatical, sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic

competence.

Savignon (1983) suggested a version of communicative competence that was largely

based on the model of Canale and Swain. She viewed communicative competence as the

ability to communicate effectively in different social contexts. For her, communicative

competence includes grammatical competence, socio-linguistic competence, discourse

competence and strategic competence. Savignon provided an outline that summarizes the

central characteristics of competence in communication as follows:

25
  Communicative competence is a dynamic rather than a static concept. It
depends on the negotiation of meaning between two or more persons
who share to some degree the same symbolic system. In this sense,
communicative competence can be said to be an interpersonal rather
than an intrapersonal trait.
 Communicative competence applies to both written and spoken
language as well as to many other symbolic systems
 Communicative competence is context specific. Communication takes
place in an infinite variety of situations, and success in a particular role
depends on one's understanding of the context and on prior experience
of a similar kind. It requires making appropriate choices of register and
style in terms of the situation and the other participants.
 There is a theoretical difference between competence and performance.
Competence is defined as a presumed underlying ability, and
performance as the overt manifestation of that ability. Competence is
what one knows. Performance is what one does. Only performance is
observable, however, it is only through performance that competence
can be developed, maintained, and evaluated.
 Communicative competence is relative, not absolute, and depends on
the cooperation of all the participants involved. It makes sense, then, to
speak of degrees of communicative competence. (1983, p. 8-9)

A more recent contribution to the theory of communicative competence, which is

considered to be a further reinterpretation of Canale and Swain’s model, is Bachman’s model

of communicative language ability. Bachman’s Communicative Language Ability model

(1990) is based on Hymes (1972) and Canale and Swain (1980) theoretical frameworks with a

particular reference to Bachman and Palmer’s empirical study (1982). Using an empirical

study based on multiple methods data analysis, Bachman and Palmer distinguished three types

of competencies. In their study, they examined “three distinct traits of communicative

competence (linguistic competence, pragmatic competence and sociolinguistic competence)

by means of four methods: oral interview, writing sample, multiple-choice test and self-

rating” (1982, p. 450).

Later on, Bachman refers to those competencies to develop a communicative language

ability model.

26
 Figure 2: Components of Language Competence (Bachman 1990: 87)

In his framework, Bachman did not only propose a model of language competence

which includes pragmatic competence as one of its main components, but he went further in

his analysis and considered pragmatic competence as a language competence component on

its own. In his framework, Bachman proposed a division of pragmatic competence into two

language competence components: illocutionary competence and sociolinguistic competence.

He refers to illocutionary competence as “the knowledge of the pragmatic conventions for

performing acceptable language functions” (1990: 90), and sociolinguistic competence as

“knowledge of the sociolinguistic conventions for performing language functions

appropriately in a given context” (1990: 90). In his framework, Bachman further subdivided

illocutionary and the sociolinguistic competence components into smaller elements. For him

illocutionary competence comprises the mastery of the following functions: Ideational,

manipulative, heuristic and imaginative functions. Whereas sociolinguistic competence

includes the following aspects: sensitivity to dialect or variety, to register, to naturalness and

to cultural references and figures of speech.

27
 The concept of pragmatic competence has been analysed and elaborated by other

linguists such as Thomas (1983) who defined it as the ability to communicate effectively

which involves knowledge beyond the level of grammar. Bialystok’s pragmatic competence

(1990) comprises:

 the interlocutors’ ability to use the rules by which utterances come together to create

speech.

 The speaker’s ability to use language in different situations.

 The listener’s ability to understand the speaker’s real intentions

I.7 Pragmatic Competence and Foreign Language Teaching

The introduction of pragmatic competence in language teaching is as necessary as the

other components. The development of the notion of pragmatics in language learning is

extensively improved by the emergence of many works on language use and function such as

Austin (1962), Searle (1969), and Grice (1975). Those works will be further discussed in the

chapter on speech acts.

Historically speaking, for many decades the traditional grammar approach (also

known as the grammar / translation method) was the main (mostly used) method in teaching

foreign languages. This approach was based principally on the written language where

learners were expected to master grammatical rules. It aimed at enabling the users of a given

language to put words together to convey meaning. It consisted of a set of rules dealing with:

morphology (the study of the word structures, especially in terms of morphemes), phonetics

and phonology (the study of the sound system) and syntax (the study of the rules that govern

the ways in which words combine to form phrases, clauses, and sentences). Unfortunately,

this approach fails, to some extent, to satisfy the language learners’ needs and interests

nowadays. It goes without saying that the twentieth century saw the rise and fall of a variety

of language teaching approaches and methods. The most active period in the history of

28
approaches and methods was from the 1950s to 2000s. “Language teaching in the twentieth

century was characterized by the frequent change and innovation and by the development of

sometimes competing language teaching ideologies.” (Richards & Rodgers, 2002, p. 1).

These approaches are language teaching philosophies that can be interpreted and applied in a

variety of different ways in the context of language teaching. Many different methods,

approaches and techniques have been developed, the most dominant of which are:

I.7.1 The Cognitive Approach

Cognitive learning theories emerged in the late 1940s and early 1950s; their principal

focus is on the learner’s cognitive activity that involves reasoning and mental processes.

Indeed, it is concerned with learner’s understanding of different language forms by showing

and analysing their capacities in learning. Accordingly, they are encouraged to work out

grammar rules deductively for themselves. Keating wrote:

The key to learning according to the cognitive perspective is the

learner’s perception, thinking, memory, and information
processing and organization. Learning involves the formation of
mental connections that may not necessarily be demonstrated in
overt behaviour changes. This viewpoint has often been
compared to computer information processing, with a focus on
how people process information from the environment, how
they perceive the stimuli around them, how they put those
perceptions into memory and how they retrieve that knowledge
(2004, p. 58)

So, according to Schunk (2004), the cognitive approach is concerned with the human

mind processes such as thinking, memory and problem solving and it focuses on mental

actions and awareness that help in making connections for the understanding of concepts and

information i.e. the ability to break down information and to rebuild with logical connections

leads to the increase of comprehension. This approach is also the first which introduced the

four main language skills: listening, speaking, reading and writing. Alas, the cognitive

approach to language teaching and learning achieved only limited success as its focus on

mind processes proved as insufficient for teaching and learning foreign language.

29
I.7.2 The Audio-lingual Approach

The audio-lingual method dominated foreign language teaching in the 1950s and

1960s. It is derived from "The Army Method," so called because it was developed in the US

during the Second World War. At that time, the US government found it a great necessity to

set up a special language-training program to produce speakers proficient in the languages of

friend and foes. It is a method of foreign language teaching which puts emphasis on the

teaching of listening and speaking skills before reading and writing. It uses dialogues as the

main form of language presentation and drills as the main training technique. Its main aim is

to enable learners to use English in everyday oral communication. Speaking is put before and

above writing and the use of language laboratories are typical teaching means used. Mukalel

states the main aims of the audio lingual approach as follows:

The audio- lingual method aims at the following in a foreign

language teaching classroom:
(1) teaching the foreign language as communication with a view
of achieving development of communication skills… (2) the
scientific attitude which structural linguistics holds so dear is
considered basic also to audio-lingual method of teaching a
foreign language…(3) a high momentum of practice is the
device by which in the audio lingual method in-taking of
language takes place …(4) the stress put on aural-oral skills....In
other words strict sequential ordering of the material in terms of
the four skills is recommended (1998, pp. 79-80)

According to Mukalel, the audio lingual method attempts to make learners able to use

the target language communicatively .i.e. make fluent speakers of the target language by

training them in listening comprehension, accurate pronunciation, reading comprehension and

production. Mastery of all four language skills, beginning with listening and speaking, and

using these skills as a basis for the teaching of reading and writing is also one of its main

objectives. As an approach, the audio lingual method was open to criticism as it provides

misleading and incomplete views of human learning.

30
I.8 Role of Communicative Competence in Language Teaching

Communicative competence was introduced in the field of teaching foreign language

as a key component in the curriculum and syllabus design. The objective of language learning

came to be concerned with developing learners’ communicative competence which refers to

their ability to use the foreign language appropriately within its context in addition to

developing their linguistic ( grammatical) competence. Communicative competence has been

defined and discussed in many different ways by scholars of different fields.

I.9 Communicative Language Teaching

With the notion of communicative competence and the communicative approach to

language, there has been a growing interest in the contextual and social dimension of foreign

language education and, thus, teachers started to believe that active learning is more effective

than passive learning and sought to promote the acquisition of communicative competence by

their learners. As this idea gained attention, there was a general shift towards using techniques

where students were more actively involved. Those techniques and methods can be provided

by means of the communicative tasks. Therefore, the shift resulted in introducing a new

approach named ‘Communicative Language Teaching’.

The communicative approach to foreign language teaching and learning has been

defined in different ways, since it was first introduced in the late 1970s. It is based on the

work of sociolinguists who believe that an effective knowledge of a language cannot be

limited to knowing vocabulary, rules of grammar, and pronunciation. They argue that learners

need to be able to use the language appropriately in any social context. In this approach,

students are given tasks to accomplish using language instead of studying it. It is based

primarily on language functions (asking permission, asking directions, etc.), not structural

development (past tense, conditional, etc.). Howatt (1984), an expert in the field of CLT,

distinguished between a strong version of CLT and a weak one. He wrote:

31
 There is, in a sense, a ‘strong’ version of the communicative
approach and a ‘weak’ version. The weak version which has
become more or less standard practice in the last ten years
stresses the importance of providing learners with opportunities
to use their English for communicative purposes and,
characteristically, attempts to integrate such activities into a
wider program of language teaching.... The ‘strong’ version of
communicative teaching, on the other hand, advances the claim
that language is acquired through communication, so that it is
not merely a question of activating an existing but inert
knowledge of the language, but of stimulating the development
of the language system itself. If the former could be described as
‘learning to use’ English, the latter entails ‘using English to
learn it.’ (Cited in Richards 2001, p. 155)

In the weak version, the communicative tasks are seen as a means to enable the

students to activate their knowledge of the foreign language, i.e. words and structures are first

taught and practiced traditionally, after which the students use them in communicative tasks.

In the strong version, on the other hand, the students learn the language by using it creatively

for communication and that test and error are an essential part of this learning process, i.e. the

students build their co-operational knowledge, private speech, and create their own

performance sharing their understanding of the tasks.

I.9.1 Origins of Communicative Language Teaching

For Richards and Rodgers “the communicative approach could be said to be the

product of educators and linguists who had grown dissatisfied with the audio-lingual and

grammar-translation methods of foreign language instruction” (2001, p. 153). They also claim

that “the origins of communicative language teaching are to be found in the changes of

situational language teaching approaches, which influenced the British language teaching

tradition until the late 1960s.” (2001, p. 153)

CLT has been an influential approach for at least two decades now. Larsen-Freeman

wrote, “We learn to communicate by communicating” (1986, p. 131).

32
I.9.2 Audio-lingual Method vs. Communicative Language Teaching

Unlike the audio-lingual method, the communicative approach gives priority to the

semantic content of language learning. That is, learners learn the grammatical form through

meaning and not vice versa. Thus, according to Richards & Rogers, “learning activities are

selected according to how well they engage the learner in meaningful and authentic language

use (rather than merely mechanical practice of language patterns)” (1986, p. 72).

Finocchiaro and Brumfit contrast the audio-lingual method and the communicative approach

as follow:

Audio-lingual Communicative Language Teaching

Attends to structure and form more than meaning. Meaning is paramount
Demands memorization of structure-based Dialogues, if used, center around communicative
dialogues. functions and are not normally memorized.
Language items are not necessarily Contextualization is a basic premise.
contextualized.
Language learning is learning structures, sounds, Language learning is learning to communicate.
or words.
Mastery or “over-learning” is sought. Effective communication is sought.
Drilling is a central technique Drilling may occur, but peripherally.
Grammatical explanation is avoided. Any device which helps the learners is accepted
— varying according to their age, interest, etc.
Communicative activities only come after a long Attempts to communicate may be encouraged
process of rigid drills and exercises from the very beginning
The use of the student’s native language is Judicious use of native language is accepted
forbidden. where feasible.
Translation is forbidden at early levels Translation may be used where students need or
benefit from it.
Reading and writing are deferred till speech is Reading and writing can start from the first day, if
mastered desired.
The target linguistic system will be learned The target linguistic system will be learned best
through the overt teaching of the patterns of the through the process of struggling to
system. communicate.
Linguistic competence is the desired goal. Communicative competence is the desired goal
(i.e. the ability to use the linguistic system
effectively and appropriately).
Varieties of language are recognized but not Linguistic variation is a central concept in
emphasized. materials and methodology
The sequence of units is determined solely by Sequencing is determined by any consideration of
principles of linguistic complexity content, function, or meaning which maintains
interest
(1983, p. 91)
Table 1: Audio-lingual Method vs. Communicative Language Teaching

33
I.9.3 Teaching Materials in Communicative Language Leaching

As far as materials are concerned, Brown’s view is:

I will not prescribe a particular type of material or materials
based on a particular philosophy of teaching or theory of
language. In other words, I believe that decisions regarding
approaches, syllabuses, techniques, and exercises should always
be left up to the individuals who are on site and know the
situation best. What I will advocate is a strategy in which
students’ needs, objectives; tests, teaching and program
evaluation will all be related to each other and to the materials”.
(1995, p. 163)

According to Richards and Rodgers (2001, P. 168) Materials used in CLT fall into

three types: text-based, task-based and realia.

I.9.3.1 Text-based Materials

They include practice exercises, reading passages, gap fills, recordings, etc. They can

be found in almost any course book as well as in books containing supplementary materials.

They form an essential part of most lessons.

I.9.3.2 Task-based Materials

They include game boards, role-play cards; materials for drilling, pair work tasks, etc.

They might be used to support ‘real life’ tasks such as role-playing, booking into a hotel or a

job interview.

I.9.3.3 Realia
They include such things as magazines, newspapers, fruits and vegetables, axes, maps,

things from the real world outside the classroom. They can be used in many activities. For

example, fruits and vegetables could be used in a shopping activity; an axe could be used to

show the effect of using the present continuous in a short action verb.

I.9.4 Authenticity in Communicative Language Teaching

The need to expose students to real and authentic communication has been a central

issue; explicit criteria of whether given communicative activities are authentic or not have not

yet been decided on. Some say the most authentic communication in language learning is a

34
communication between a learner and a native speaker of the target language in a native

community or setting (Breen, 1985). This criterion, however, simplifies the issue of

authenticity and is sometimes misleading. Others emphasize that the receiver of messages of

communication does not have to be a native speaker as long as he/she plays an authentic role

of the receiver of communication in the activity.

It is commonly assumed that there is some sort of an absolute notion of authenticity in

which all the different kinds must be simultaneously and completely present.

According to Breen there are four types of authenticity:

1. Authenticity of the texts which we may use as input data for

our learners.
2. Authenticity of the learners own interpretation of such texts.
3. Authenticity of the tasks conducive to language learning.
4. Authenticity of the actual social situation of the language
classroom. (1985, p. 61)

I.10 Needs Analysis and Implementation of CLT

‘Needs Analysis’ is one of the crucial steps in the establishment of any curriculum and

approach, especially those which are learner-centred ones. In their work on learners’ attitudes

and perceptions in EFL context Savignon and Hang Wang (2003) provide a summary of the

main studies (Horwitz, 1988; Kern,1995; Bacon and Finnemann,1990; Wen and Johnson,

1997 and Gaies, Galambos, and Cornish, 1999) which have been done to investigate the

learners’ beliefs, attitudes and perception of language teaching and learning. They survey

them as follows:

Horwitz (1988) designed a tool named the Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory

(BALLI). This tool has been used to study the students’ perception of different issues

concerning language learning and teaching, specifically, errors correction. Kern’s (1995) also

examined the students’ attitudes towards errors correction and found that there were reliable

beliefs about error correction. Other scholars and linguists used different tools: questionnaires

35
or interviews to investigate learner attitudes and beliefs about language learning. For instance,

Bacon and Finnemann (1990) developed a 109-item questionnaire to examine tertiary

learners’ attitudes towards teaching foreign languages and their impact on the development of

the learners’ linguistic and communicative competence. Wen and Johnson (1997) designed

Language Learner Factor Questionnaire, and Gaies, Galambos, and Cornish (1999) used a

modified version of Sakui and Gaies’s (1999) 45-item questionnaire. Those studies have

highlighted to a great extent the learners’ attitudes which can help in making a language

program more attuned to their needs.

In recent years, language teaching has become more and more learner-centred, which

means that almost everything starts from the learner and almost everything goes back to him.

It is not merely in relation to him, but with him, and depending on his resources (time,

available cash, personality, etc.) Wilkins wrote:

Rather than orientate learning to the subject and its content, we

should take account of the learner and his needs. We should
predict the situations in which the learner is likely to need the
language and then teach the language that is necessary to
perform linguistically in those situations. It will be more
efficient process because it will include only what is relevant to
the learner. It will be more motivating because it is learner
rather than subject centred (1978, p. 16).

Basically, Needs Analysis is a way of finding out what learners want and need to

learn. It consists of estimating their current ability level, and what they want to achieve. It

goes back in part to finding out the reason why learners (students) are learning English. It can

be conducted either in conversation or by getting students to fill out a form. Needs Analysis is

a process that should be updated regularly, especially if students make either rapid or little

progress.

During the last three decades, teaching and learning foreign languages have mainly

focused on developing learner ability to use language appropriately in context.

36
Communicative language teaching (CLT) contrasts sharply with established traditions that

emphasize learner knowledge of formal features. Not surprisingly, the introduction of such an

approach requires innovation in various EFL contexts; as a consequence, different processes

have been developed in order to make the implementation of CLT efficient. Waters & Vilches

write: “...Probably one of the important factors in the successful implementation of any

change or innovation is its acceptance by the end-users (in the case of language teaching and

learning it can be teachers and learners)” (2001, p. 133).

Although only few studies have been done to investigate the learners’ beliefs, attitudes

and perception of language teaching and learning, Needs Analysis remains one of the crucial

points in the establishment of any curriculum and approach, especially those which are

learner-centred ones. And yet, as Savignon asserts:

If all the variables in L2 acquisition could be identified and the

many intricate patterns of interaction between learner and
learning context described, ultimate success in learning to use a
second language most likely would be seen to depend on the
attitude of the learner (1997, p. 107).

This means that the learner’s views of learning cannot be ignored, especially when

there is a mismatch between teacher beliefs and learner beliefs.

Conclusion

During the latter half of the twentieth century, there was a big shift of interest towards

the theory of communicative competence which emerged to complete that of linguistic

competence. This shift did not only influence the theories and methods of teaching English as

a foreign language but also raised the awareness of the EFL Students’ about their needs and

preferences. Besides the FL linguistic and grammar mastery, EFL learners now are looking

for a strong ability to use language as a means of communication.

37
 This chapter has covered the area of need assessment and the one of communicative

language teaching. Both areas are interrelated in a way that the implementation of CLT

necessitates the conduct of a needs analysis. Communicative competence being the ability to

interact well with others in all everyday situations, developing it should be the aim of

language teaching. Assuming that the main aim of learners of English is developing

communicative competence, CLT should be implemented. Indeed, the implementation of

CLT in EFL contexts revealed that there is a conflict with local situation of learning but this

conflict cannot be a justification for abandoning CLT. One way to deal with the problem is to

conduct a needs assessment to gather information about the beliefs, attitude and views of the

learners and teachers towards CLT. Needs analysis can be limited to gathering information

about the attitudes, beliefs and opinion of the learners.

38
 Chapter II

Pragmatics

Introduction

In the last decades, different trends with implications for communication emerged

from research in the field of linguistics. One of these was towards an increasingly inferential

view of pragmatics. For a time, this trend seemed to pull in the right direction. This chapter

will deal with a comprehensive introduction to pragmatics and the various definitions

provided by numerous linguists and pragmaticians. It will cover some important topics that

are such as deixis, presupposition and entailment, conversational implicatures, Grice maxims

and relevance theory, and the importance of their analysis in facilitating the student’s

awareness of the pragmatic meaning that helps them interact effectively in different situations.

The chapter will also consider significant areas dealing with the contribution of pragmatics to

language teaching and pragmatic instruction.

II.1 Definition of Pragmatics

Since its introduction to modern linguistics, pragmatics has been defined in numerous

ways, and the following definitions are the most specific ones provided by famous linguists

such as Morris (1938), Levinson (1983), Leech (1983), kasper and Blum Kulka (1993), Yule

(1996) and Crystal (1998).

As a term, pragmatics was originally used by the philosopher Morris (1938). Morris

divided semiotics into three basic branches: semantics, syntactics and pragmatics that he

defines as: “The relation of signs to interpreters” (1938, p. 6-7). Morris pinpoints that

pragmatics is concerned with the relationship between linguistic forms and the users of those

forms .i.e. the link between signs of language (linguistic units) and the users’ uttering and

interpretation of these signs. This means that since no human being is like another, and each

one is unique and has his own point of view of the world around him, so his/her choices of

39
signs depends on his/her intention and interpretation when both sending and receiving signs

(linguistic messages).

Levinson is a linguist who wrote extensively on pragmatics. He wrote “Pragmatics is

the study of those relations between language and context that are grammaticalized or

encoded in the structure of a language” (1983, p. 9). In this definition, Levinson suggests that

pragmatics is the study of such relations that focus on the inference of meaning which is

determined by both the structures of language and the context in which those structures are

used. It is all about those extra-linguistic features (situational context and shared knowledge)

that allow the participants in the communicative event grasp the intended meaning of each

other.

Another important definition Levinson states is that “Pragmatics is the study of all

those aspects of meaning not captured in a semantic theory” (1983, p. 12). This one indicates

that since semantics is concerned with the study of meaning, that is the relation between the

different linguistic signs (words, phrases…..) and what those signs denote, i.e. it focuses on

the propositional meaning (denotative meaning) of different language structures and neglects

the context in which those structures are used, pragmatics appeared to cover those aspects

ignored by semantics such as the context in which language is used, the different

paralinguistic features, and the participants’ social and cultural backgrounds.

Once again, Levinson manifests the importance of the notion of context in the field of

pragmatics when he writes that “Pragmatics is the study of the relations between language and

context that are basic to an account of language understanding” (1983, p. 21) and that

“Pragmatics is the study of the ability of language users to pair sentences with the contexts in

which they would be appropriate” (1983, p. 24). Both definitions show that pragmatics

necessitates the presence of the notion of context in the study of language because of its

importance in facilitating the inference of meaning of the different language structures used

40
when sending and receiving language messages. This leads to a good language understanding

in order to attend a successful communication. In other words, as far as pragmatics is

concerned with the study of language with a reference to its context one crucial attribute is

required, it is the aptitudes of language users to match the language they use with its context

in a way that they have to be appropriate by using language forms that are suitable and right

for particular situations and occasions in order to avoid misunderstanding and communication

failure.

Mey suggests that pragmatics is “the study of the condition of human language uses as

these are determined by the context of society. Pragmatic is needed if we want a fuller,

deeper, and generally more reasonable account of human language behaviour” (1993, p. 42).

This means that pragmatics is concerned with the analysis of various social contexts of

language which can influence the explanation or the interpretation of the language used in

society.

Another definition stated by Mey is “Pragmatics is the science of language seen in

relation to its users.” (1993, p. 5). This one indicates that pragmatics refers to the study of

language meaning which is raised from the reason or opinion of the speaker and listener when

using language right through managing the relationship between the intended meaning and the

linguistic items they use.

Yule (1996) provided a detailed definition of Pragmatics which covers four aspects

with which pragmatics is concerned. According to him, in order to understand what the

pragmatics is all about we have to explore its relationship with other areas of linguistic,

particularly sociolinguistics. He writes:

1. Pragmatics is concerned with the study of meaning as communicated by a speaker (or

writer) and interpreted by a listener (or reader). It has, consequently, more to do with the

41
analysis of what people mean by their utterances than what the words or phrases in those

utterances might mean by themselves. Pragmatic is the study of speaker meaning.

2. This type of study necessarily involves the interpretation of what people mean in a

particular context and how the context influences what is said. It requires a consideration of

how speakers organize what they want to say in accordance with who they are talking to,

where, when, and under what circumstances. Pragmatic is the study of contextual meaning.

3. This approach also necessarily explores how listeners can make inferences about what

is said in order to arrive at an interpretation of the speaker’s intended meaning. This type of

study explores how a great deal of what is unsaid is recognized as part of what is

communicated. We might say that it is the investigation of invisible meaning. Pragmatic is

the study of how more meaning gets communicated than is said.

4. This perspective then raises the question of what determines the choice between the

said and the unsaid. The basic answer is tied to the notion of distance. Closeness, whether it is

physical, social, or conceptual, implies shared experience. On the assumption of how close or

distant the listener is, speakers determine how much needs to be said. Pragmatics is the study

of the expression of relative distance. (1996, pp. 3- 4)

Crystal (1997) sees pragmatics as "the study of language from the point of view of

users, especially of the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in

social interaction and the effect their use of language has on other participants in the act of

communication" (1997, p. 301). Thus, for him, pragmatics is the study of language users’

ability to connect and make compatible language and context by surmounting the

inconvenience they come across during social conversations and the way their choices of

linguistic forms influence other participants’ understanding and interpretation of their

intentions in the act of communication.

42
 From the above stated definitions of pragmatics, we can conclude that it is a field that

reveals the many dimensions of language use and the various levels of meanings they produce

in social contexts. Much of these definitions actually point to the notion of context and its

importance in presenting a good understanding and ability to adopt the right kind of language

use in different social contexts. They also pinpoint that pragmatics emphasizes the importance

of the analysis of speakers’ intentions and hearers’ interpretations in order to establish how

people select the right interpretation of meaning. So, every effort in pragmatic analysis

provides an opportunity to understand better the nature of language, how it works and what it

means to us. So, we can define pragmatics as that part of linguistics which is more concerned

with the analysis of language with a reference to the context in which it is used giving priority

to the social and cultural backgrounds of the language users.

II.2 History of Pragmatics

As a term ‘Pragmatics’ was used for the first time in 1938 by the philosopher Charles

Morris as a subdivision of ‘semiotics’. According to him, semiotics includes three aspects:

syntactics/syntax, semantics and pragmatics. He referred to pragmatics as the part of

semiotics which emphasizes the relationship between users, words and reference

relationships.

New perspectives in the field of linguistics helped shift linguists’ focus to examining

real life conversations (language used in its real context) which led to the developments of

significant theories introduced by linguists such as Austin (1962), Searl (1969) and Grice

(1975). According to Leech, “the more lasting influences on modern pragmatics have been

those of philosophers, notably, in recent years, Austin (1962), Searl (1969), and Grice (1975)”

(1983, p. 2).

Later on, other linguists made useful contributions in the field of pragmatics; In 1977,

Mey published the 1st Journal of Pragmatics in Holland. In 1983, Leech wrote his book

43
‘Principle of pragmatics and Levinson wrote his ‘Pragmatics’. In 1988, there was

establishment of the IPrA (the International Pragmatic Association) and this was the year

where pragmatics turned into an independent discipline.

II.3 Important Notions in Pragmatics

With time, all the studies carried out have turned pragmatics into a discipline and have

generated different information which may help in explaining what pragmatics is or should

be. Two of the most important notions which are the basis that constructs the core of

pragmatics are meaning and context.

II.3.1 Context and Meaning

Both context and meaning play the most important role in the analysis of language

when used in real situations; these notions have been interpreted variously by different

linguists, especially those who tackle the phenomenon of language from a social and

communicative perspective, and, thus, are considered to be in the core of pragmatics.

II.3.1.1 Context

In modern linguistics, context has always supplied valuable information to understand

why and how the structures of a particular language vary in meaning when used in real

conversations and interactions (communication), and, thus, understanding the nature, and role

of context in the inference of the various meanings of pieces of language used in different

situations would be of great value.

Many linguists and researchers (Cook,1999 and Widdowson, 2000) argued the

importance of the aspect of context and it role in the understanding the properties of language

(appropriate interpretation of meaning) and, thus, they suggested the importance of the study

of different features of context since it is the central issue in the newly developed disciplines,

particularly, pragmatics.

44
 Although the notion of context was defined quite a long time ago, it remained an

ambiguous area until recently. In fact, it remained vague because different linguists who

attempted to define it did it from different points of view in order to answer questions

encountered in their own fields and to support their own ideas and theories. However, there

has been much more agreement in the last twenty years on what context should be about.

Cook (1999), for instance, in his study about the relationship between discourse and literature,

defined context as follows: “the term ‘context’ can be used in a broad and narrow sense. In

the narrow sense, it refers to (knowledge of) factors outside the text under consideration. In

the broad sense, it refers to (knowledge of) these factors and to (knowledge of) other parts of

the text under consideration, sometimes referred to as 'co-text’.” (1999, p. 24).

When studying language meaning, Widdowson took 'context' into account. For him,

context is concerned with “those aspects of the circumstance of actual language use which are

taken as relevant to meaning.” He further pointed out, “in other words, context is a schematic

construct... the achievement of pragmatic meaning is a matter of matching up the linguistic

elements of the code with the schematic elements of the context.” (2000, p. 126)

Mey identified context as follows:

Context is a dynamic, not a static concept. It is to be understood

as the surroundings, in the widest sense, that enable the
participants in the communication process to interact, and that
make the linguistics expression on their interaction intelligible.
(1993, p. 38).

Therefore, Mey viewed context as a set of circumstances that surround a

communicative event and which help the participants to determine the interpretation of the

language used during the interaction.

45
II.3.1.2 Types of Context

Pragmatically speaking, there are three main types of contextual information that can

help in the understanding of the actual meaning of different linguistic units used (uttered) in

certain situations.

II.3.1.2.1 Physical Context

Such type of contextual information includes what is physically present around the

speakers/hearers at the time of communication. What objects are present, where the

communication is taking place, as well as the timing, what is going on around, the situation in

which it is used, and what actions are occurring, all of which assist in making communication

successful.

II.3.1.2.2 Linguistic Context (co-text)

This type of contextual information is all about what has been previously said in a

conversation. Sometimes it is called co-text and identified as the set of words that surround

the language unit in question in the same phrase, or sentence.

II.3.1.2.3 Social Context

The social context refers to the social relationship among the participants in

communication (speakers/ hearers). The study of social context is considered to be of a great

importance in pragmatics, since it leads to the successful transmission and understanding of

the different pieces of language used during conversations, and which is also provided by

shared knowledge of the same linguistic community in addition to the social relationships

among people involved in interaction. According to Halliday,

Knowledge is transmitted in social contexts, through

relationships, like those of parent and child, or teacher and pupil,
or classmates, that are defined in the value systems and ideology
of the culture. And the words that are exchanged in these
contexts get their meaning from activities in which they are
embedded, which again are social activities with social agencies
and goals. (1989, p. 6)

46
 Understanding context becomes an important task in the area of applied linguistics

since it plays a vital role in disambiguation of meanings as well as in understanding the actual

meaning of words and expressions (sentences and utterances). Indeed, context points out to

variation of meaning and provides valuable information to understand why and how particular

words and expressions vary in meaning when used in different situations.

II.3.1.3 Meaning

It goes without saying that identifying the meaningful elements of specific languages

and understanding how language works has been for a long time the center of attention of

linguistics and linguists.

Given its fundamental role in several language-oriented disciplines of study, there is a

great need to understand and appreciate the nature of meaning of language. The notion of

meaning is diverse and that is why its definition is quite problematic since the word 'meaning'

itself has different meanings. Leech (1974) identified seven types of meaning. They are

classified as follows:

1. Conceptual meaning Logical, cognitive, or denotative content

2. Connotative meaning What is communicated by virtue of what language refers to.
3. Social meaning What is communicated of the social circumstances of
language use
4. Affective meaning What is communicated of the feelings and attitudes of the
speaker/writer.
5.Reflected meaning What is communicated through association with another
sense of the same expression.
6. Collocative meaning What is communicated through association with words
which tend to occur in the environment of another word.
7. Thematic meaning What is communicated by the way in which the message
Is organized in terms of order and emphasis.
Table 2: Types of Meaning (1974, p. 23)

47
 According to Leech, types of meaning includes: (1) conceptual meaning, to which he

referred as denotative meaning in that it is concerned with the relationship between a word

and the thing it denotes (what language refers to). It is the basic type of meaning in linguistics.

(2) associative meaning which includes five types of meaning (connotative, social, affective,

reflected and collocative meaning); these types can be recognized and explained through

mental connections (associations). (3) thematic meaning is more about the way in which the

message is organized; it is determined by the order of the words in a sentence. But even when

meaning is understood in the first sense above, there are still different ways to explain the

meaning of different language forms.

II.3.1.3.1 Semantic versus Pragmatic Meaning

One way for explaining the diversity of the interpretation of the concept of meaning in

language is to make a mere distinction between semantics and pragmatics.

II.3.1.3.1.1 Pragmatics versus Semantics

Two widely divergent fields in the philosophy of language go by the names of

‘semantics’ and ‘pragmatics’. They respectively have been a source of controversy for a long

time. According to Chierchia and McConnell-Ginet, the relationship between semantics and

pragmatics is wide open; they state “the issue of just how semantics should be related to more

pragmatically oriented theories of information processing is wide open” (1990, p. 5). For

them, semantics is concerned with the relationship between linguistic forms (expressions) and

their meanings; this means that semantics is concerned with the individual meanings of

words, as opposed to the overall meaning of a passage. They support their idea by adding that:

Direct experience with interpretation of language is experience

with interpreting uses; however, we cannot always be sure in
advance which phenomena will fall exclusively in the domain of
semantics and which will turn out to require attention to
pragmatic factors as well (1990, p. 5)

48
This is a fact that makes it difficult to free semantics from pragmatic considerations. Table 3

shows the major distinction between pragmatics and semantics.

Semantics VS Pragmatics

Semantics is the study of the Pragmatics is the study of language users’

relationship between linguistic entities ability to connect and make compatible

Definition
and their literal meanings, it is concerned language and context by surmounting the
with the propositional meaning of words inconvenience they come across during
rather than overall meaning of discourse social conversations and the way their
pieces. choices of linguistic forms influence other
participants’ understanding and
interpretation of their intentions in the act of
communication.
A branch of linguistics concerned with A branch of linguistics concerned with
Characteristics

 The study of the relationship  The use and function of language.

between language entities and
their meanings.  The relationship between the
 The denotative meanings of linguistic expressions (utterances)
language units. and their context of use and users.

 Form (Sign) and referent  Constatives vs. performatives

 Denotative and connotative  Felicity conditions ( sincerity
meanings conditions)
 Lexicalization  Deixis
 Etymology  Presuppositions and entailments
Areas

 homonymy  Speech act theory

 Polysemy  The cooperative principle
 Synonymy and antonomy  Grice’s maxims
 Theory of relevance
 Theory of Politeness

49
 Sentence Utterance
A sentence is a group of words An utterance is the use of a piece of
combined together by the grammatical language by a particular speaker, on a
rules of a language. particular occasion, for a particular purpose.

Sentence Meaning (Type Meaning) Utterance meaning (Speaker Meaning)

It is concerned with what is literally said The notion of utterance/speaker meaning
by uttering the sentence. This type of was derived in order to account for the
meaning is attached to the sentence at intuition that we sometimes use to express
the level of words. thoughts that are not directly expressed in

Meaning
the sentence meaning but that the audience
must derive for a successful conversation.

Descriptive/Referential Meaning Situational/Contextual Meaning

What does X mean? What do you mean by X?

Semantic meaning is concerned with Pragmatic meaning is concerned with the

the meaning that the grammar and implied meaning of linguistic passages,
vocabulary convey. meaning in context and the interlocutors in
the speech events intentions.

Table 3: The Semantic-pragmatic Distinction

II.4 Areas of Pragmatics

Most pragmatic studies cover certain topics among which are deixis, presupposition

and entailment, conversational implicative (Grice Maxims) and relevance theory.

II.4.1 Deixis

Deixis is one of the most important notions in general linguistics and specifically in

pragmatics since it is concerned with certain linguistic items that have a pragmatic

interpretation depending on different features of the speech situation such as the participants

(speaker and hearer), the location and the time of the utterance. Many linguists have defined

deixis variously. Jaszczolt states that ‘deixis’ derives from Ancient Greek which means ‘to

show’, ‘to point out’ (2002, p. 191). Lyons (1977), Fillmore (1982), Levinson (1983), Yule

(1996) and other linguists made a considerably detailed study on deixis. Lyons, for instance,

defined deixis as:

50
 The location and identification of persons, objects, events,
processes and activities being talked about, or referred to, in
relation to the spatiotemporal context created by the act of
utterance and the participation in it, typically, of a single speaker
and at least one addressee” (1977, p. 637).

Lyons’ work on deixis includes the study of space, time, social and discourse deixis.

According to him, the interpretation of deixis makes reference to the context. Fillmore’s view

is similar to that of Lyons. According to him, “Deixis, in a broad sense, is fundamentally a

context-dependent linguistic phenomenon, typically anchored in the perspective of the

speaker” (1982, p. 35). Fillmore (1983) perceives deixis as a phenomenon that covers the

different linguistic items that are controlled by certain details of the context (place, time,

participants) in which the utterances are produced.

Levinson, on the other hand, defines deixis as follows:

Deixis concerns the ways in which languages encode or

grammaticalize features of the context of utterance or speech
event, and thus also concerns ways in which the interpretation of
utterances depends on the analysis of that context of
utterance.(1983, p. 54)

By his definition, Levinson attempts to grammaticalize the aspects of deictic use in

languages and, for him, the term deixis is used to cover the function of different linguistic

expressions which relate utterances to the context in which they are produced. Yule states that

“deixis is a technical term (from Greek) for one of the most basic things we do with

utterances. It means “pointing’ via language” (1996, p. 9); for him deixis is a word used to

cover the process of referring to different features of context by means of language.

II.4.1.1 Types of Deixis

Deixis is a linguistic concept that relates to words and phrases. Some words or phrases

are said to be deictic. Jaszczolt (2002) proposed a useful classification of Deixis:

51
 Deixis

Person Deixis Place Deixis Time Deixis Discourse Deixis Social Deixis

Figure 4: Jaszczolt’s Classification of Deixis (2002)

These types of deixis are meant to be as follows:

II.4.1.1.1 Person Deixis

Person deixis is usually realized by personal pronouns, it is concerned with encoding

the roles of the participants in the speech situation in which a given utterance is produced.

Person deixis involves (1) the speaker’s reference to himself; for instance, first person

singular and plural pronouns ‘I/me’ and ‘we/us’ are typical deictic elements where the speaker

refers to himself.(2) the speaker’s reference to the addressee(s) using second person singular

and plural pronouns ‘You’. (3) The speaker’s reference to other people and entities using

third person pronouns ‘he/him’, ‘she/her’ and ‘they/them’. According to Finegan “personal

deixis can mark a number of overlapping distinction: person, gender, number, and social

relations” (1994, p. 178). This means that the system of pronouns, specifically English

pronouns, makes a distinction at the level of person between first person, second person and

third person. The gender distinction is made in the third person singular only ‘he’ for

masculine referents and ‘she’ for feminine referents, but, unlike in French, the choice of

pronouns in the second person does not reflect the social status of the referents.

It goes without saying that there are many pronouns that, without greater context, do

not designate a specific person, and this makes these pronouns dependent on context. For

instance, when someone says 'you' or 'me', others outside of the frame of reference will not

know to whom those pronouns refer. If, on the other hand, a speaker says ‘John Searle’ or

‘David Crystal’ it is immediately clear to which persons they are referring. Pronouns

52
including 'you' and 'me' are, thus, deictic and, thus, person deixis can be grasped only when

we understand the roles of the participants: speaker, recipient and hearers who are not

addressees.

II.4.1.1.2 Place Deixis

Place or spatial deixis indicates spatial locations where the interlocutors were during

the conversation. Finegan describes place deixis as “the marking in language of the

orientation or position in space of the referent of a linguistic expression” (1994, p. 179). Here

we allocate demonstratives for instance ‘this’ vs. ‘that’ and ‘these’ vs. ‘those’ and such

adverbs of place as ‘here’ and ‘there’. Spatial deictic expressions identify the location relative

to the speaker and the hearer ‘here’ as an adverb of space includes the place or the location of

the speakers at the time of the utterance. So, it is also used for time relative to the speaker’s

location at the time of the utterance and generally the place pointed at if the use of ‘here’ is

gestural; in other words, spatial deixis presupposes time deixis: the locations are specified

with respect to the time of utterance.

II.4.1.1.3 Time Deixis

Temporal or time deixis encodes temporal items relative to the time of the utterance.

Temporal deictic expressions point to the moment of utterance. Finegan spots temporal deixis

as “the orientation or position of the reference of actions and events in time” (1994, p. 179)

generally marked either by tense markers (encoded on the verb with affixes or expressed in an

independent morpheme) or adverbs of time such as ‘now’, ‘tomorrow’, ‘next year’

‘then’…etc

II.4.1.1.4 Discourse Deixis

Discourse deixis (text deixis) refers to the use of linguistic units within an utterance to

refer to parts of the passage that include the utterance. In other words, when an expression

refers to another linguistic expression or a piece of discourse, it is discourse deictic. It can

also be referred to as a deictic reference to a portion of a discourse relative to the speaker's

53
current location in the discourse. In both spoken and written discourses, there is frequently

occasion to refer to earlier segments of discourse.

II.4.1.1.5 Social Deixis

Social deixis is concerned with the social information which is used to identify the

social status of the speaker, hearer as well as the relationships between them; it includes:

social status, familiarity, age and sex, and expressions of social deixis are closely associated

with personal pronouns, forms of address etc...

According to Huang, social deixis has 4 axes:

1. speaker-referent (referent honorific): used by a speaker to show respect towards a referent.

2. speaker-addressee (addressee honorific): used by a speaker to show deference towards an

addressee.

3. speaker-bystander (bystander honorific): used by a speaker to signify respect to a

bystander, including participants in the role of an audience and non-participant over

hearers

4. speaker-setting (levels of formality): relation between a speaker and a speech setting or

event. (2007, p 209)

Besides all of the ways in which words can be dependent on other words and phrases,

different linguistic expressions can also be deictic and, thus, the study of those deictic

expressions which have a direct pragmatic interpretation depending on parameters of the

speech situation is necessary to understand how comprehension of ideas involves more than

just auditory input. Consequently, this is part of high level linguistics that seeks to understand

how humans communicate.

II.4.2 Presupposition and Entailment

Presupposition and entailment are very important elements which have been broadly

examined in the field of pragmatics.

54
II.4.2.1 Presupposition

Presupposition is a pragmatic notion meaning the relation between two sentences in

which the truth of one is a necessary condition for the truth or falsity of the other one. It is a

language technique particularly used in communication and interaction (negotiation of

meaning), where someone would like to persuade someone to take a different perspective.

A presupposition is a necessary precondition for the processing of any communication

and, thus, it is an important aspect for communication which typically involves the existence

of some objects or ideas; it can even be the most important component of the overall linguistic

message. Various definitions of presupposition have been presented by different linguists.

During everyday interaction, it happens that a speaker assumes that certain

information is already known by the addressee; such information will generally not be stated

and consequently will count as part of what is communicated but not said. According to

Levinson:

The term presupposition refers to those assumptions which

appear to be built into the linguistic structure of texts and which
relate linguistic structure to extra-linguistic context in terms of
the inferences which are expected to be made about this
context” (1983, p. 68).

Levinson defines presuppositions as presumptions or inferences made when using

different structures of language and which refer to different devices or deductions associated

with the extra linguistic context. This is clearly pointed by Yule:

Speakers continually design their linguistic messages on the

basis of assumptions about what their hearers already know
[…]. What a speaker assumes is true or is known by the hearer
can be described as a presupposition (1996, pp. 131-132).

This is supported by Hudson when he stated that “a presupposition is something

assumed (presupposed) to be true in a sentence which asserts other information"(2001, p.

321). For him, a presupposition is a linguistic phenomenon referring to a linguistic structure

which is assumed to be true or is known by the hearer.

55
II.4.2.2 Entailment

Entailment is a logical relationship between two propositions where the truth of one

recommends the truth of the other. Crystal defines entailment as:

A term that refers to a relation between a pair of sentences such

that the truth of the second sentence necessarily follows from
the truth of the first, e.g. I can see a dog entails 'I can see an
animal'. One cannot both assert the first and deny the second
(1998, p. 136).

Entailment is defined as any true inference derived from a true proposition. According

to Levinson, entailments are “background assumptions against which an action, theory,

expression or utterance makes sense or is rational” (Levinson 1983, p. 168). In other words,

an entailment is the relationship between two sentences where the truth of one requires the

truth of the other.

II.4.3 Conversational Implicatures

Conversational implicatures are expressions that intend additional meanings.

II.4.3.1 What is Implicature?

Before trying to define conversational implicatures, it is important to define the notion

of implicature. Originally, the term ‘implicature’ was coined by the philosopher Grice; it

refers to the implied meaning of the utterance, that is to say, suggesting one thing by saying

something else. Implicatures can be part of sentence meaning or dependent on conversational

context. Levinson refers to implicature by relying on “some very general expectation of

interactional cooperation” (1983, p. 50).

II.4.3.2 Conversational Implicatures (Gricean Theory)

Conversational implicatures are messages (pragmatic inferences) interlocutors convey

which are often above and beyond the literal meaning (propositional meaning) of the words

they speak. According to Levinson,

56
 Implicature stands as a paradigmatic example of the nature and
power of pragmatic explanations of linguistic phenomenon......It
provides some explicit account of how it is possible to mean (in
some general sense) more than what is actually said........The
notion of implicature seems likely to affect substantial
simplifications in both the structure and the content of semantic
descriptions. .......Implicature seems to be simply essential if
various basic facts about language are to be accounted for
properly......The principles that generate implicatures have a
very general explanatory power: a few basic principles provide
explanations for a large array of apparently unrelated fact (1983,
PP, 97-100).

Grice (1967) developed the notion of conversational implicature which refers to the

communicational (implicated) content of an utterance rather than its propositional content.

According to Yule “implicature is an additional conveyed meaning. It is something more than

just what the words mean” (1996, P. 36), that is to say, understanding an utterance is far from

proposition analysis and literal meaning interpretation. It is the unity of what is said and what

is implicated. Grice’s view is that the utterance interpretation is not a matter of decoding

messages, but rather involves an understanding of the linguistic meaning of what is said

(sentence meaning), the information from the context (shared knowledge) and the speaker

assumption that the utterance conforms to the rules of cooperative conduct (Gricean maxims).

In addition to identifying and classifying the phenomenon of implicature, Grice also

attempted to describe how such implicatures are understood since he suggested a general

Cooperative Principle and four maxims indicating how to be cooperative; he claimed that

people generally follow specific rules for successful communication. For him, “A

conversational implicature is “what has to be supposed in order to preserve the supposition

that the Cooperative Principle is being observed” (1975/1989, pp. 39-40). Grice’s aim was to

understand how speaker’s meaning rises from sentence meaning .i.e. Speaker meaning =

Sentence meaning + what is implicated. According to Fais “One of the defining features of

conversation is that it is cooperative in nature.” (1994, pp. 231-242). Conversation is a

cooperative behavior.

57
II.4.3.3 Grice’s Cooperative Principle (Maxims)

The Cooperative Principle is one of the basic concepts in pragmatics postulated by

Grice (1975); it has something to do with the distinction between saying and meaning. His

aim is to discover the device behind this process. Grice insisted on the fact that conversation

is based on a mutual principle of cooperation, something like: “Make your conversational

contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or

direction of the talk in which you are engaged.”(1975, p. 165)

II.4.3.3.1 Grice’s Maxims

In 1975, Grice proposed the following conversational maxims:

II.4.3.3.1.1 Maxim of Quality

Try to make your contribution one that is true

1. Do not say what you believe to be false.

2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

II.4.3.3.1.2 Maxim of Quantity

1. Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of

the exchange).

2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

II.4.3.3.1.3 Maxim of Relation

Be relevant.

II.4.3.3.1.4 Maxim of Manner

Be perspicuous.

1. Avoid obscurity of expression.

2. Avoid ambiguity.

3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).

4. Be orderly. (Cited in Cole & Morgan, 1975; PP. 41–58)

58
 When stating these maxims. Grice was just observing the difference between “what is

said” and “what is meant” to show that people in reality do follow specific steps and rules

(maxims) when involved in different conversations.

II.4.4 Relevance Theory

Relevance theory, also known as the inferential model of communication, was

originally proposed by Sperber & Wilson (1986); indeed, their work is an attempt to capture

the notion of relevance in communicative situations through both linguistic and contextual

inferences. According to Sperber & Wilson,

It is left to the communicator to make correct assumptions about

the codes and contextual information that the audience will have
accessible and be likely to use in the comprehension process. The
responsibility for avoiding misunderstandings also lies with the
speaker, so that all the hearer has to do is go ahead and use
whatever code and contextual information which come most
readily to hand (1986, p. 43).

For them, the relevance theory includes the utterance understanding (the informative

intention of the speaker) and the utterance interpretation (the communicative intention of the

speaker); so they insist that communication is the responsibility of the speaker. They write:

Relevance theory takes a different approach. It characterises

communication as a different type of social process than does
the code model. From the point of view of the code model,
communication can be described as social because it is a form of
interaction, but the abilities it presupposes in communicators are
signal-oriented rather than other oriented. All an encoder has to
do is produce a signal; all a decoder has to attend to is a signal.
This can happen without either communicator having any notion
that there are other notions like itself, with mental states and
capacities, or even that it is itself such being. (1986, P.146)

For Sperber and Wilson, communication is a social activity which requires certain

mental abilities in order to utilize the appropriate language entities to transmit language

messages for a successful decoding of appropriate meaning of performed conversations.

According to Johnson-Laird “Sperber and Wilson attempt to reduce Grice's conventions to

one: be relevant.”(1988, p. 349). Thus, the inferential theory considers a scrupulous

59
explanation of how the hearer infers the speaker’s meaning on the basis of the evidence

provided.

II.5 Pragmatic Instruction

Since its introduction in linguistics, pragmatics has had diverse applications. Research

in this field has always been of crucial importance in teaching and learning foreign languages.

A great number of researchers have drawn attention to the importance of developing learners’

pragmatic awareness which enables them to use language appropriately. Since it is obvious

that learners’ pragmatic failure is due to their lack of knowledge of certain language forms

that are socially appropriate in the target language community, researchers presume that

pragmatic competence can be developed through different pragmatic instruction. This point is

fittingly observed by Bardovi-Harlig

Research on instruction in second language (L2) pragmatics has

made fundamental contributions to the teaching of pragmatics in
an L2 and a foreign language (FL) context and has shown the
benefits of instruction versus exposure in various aspects of
pragmatics (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Bardovi-Harlig & Griffin,
2005; Kasper & Rose, 2002 [chap7]; Pearson, 2005; Rose, 2005;
Rose and Kasper, 2001) (2006, p. 165).

Different studies looked at the effect of pragmatic instruction on increasing pragmatic

awareness and instructional methods are used to focus learner’s attention. These studies have

been devoted to examine the effect of different types of instruction on the foreign language

learners’ awareness of the pragmatic aspects that enable them to use the target language

appropriately in its different contexts. Bhatia and Ritchie stated that:

A vigorous line of research on pragmatics therefore examines

the effectiveness of different instructional arrangement,
especially those commonly referred to as “implicit” and
“explicit” respectively. Based on approximately 40 studies
available to date, reviews (Kasper, 2001; Rose, 2005) and a
meta-analysis of 13 quantitative studies (Jeon & Kaya, 2006)
suggest that explicit instruction is generally superior to implicit
instruction. (2009, p. 268)

60
 A great deal of research on pragmatics has been carried out on specific and, often,

separate aspects such as speech acts of apology, performatives ...etc. This means that the use

of speech acts is of crucial importance in pragmatics. Celce-Murcia et al (1995), for example,

defined it as “competence in conveying and understanding communicative intent by

performing and interpreting speech act and speech acts sets” (1995, p. 9).

The studies carried out in the field of pragmatics associate the production of pragmatic

competence to the study of the English language in classrooms.

The following tables include the pragmatic and speech acts studies that were carried

out between 1981and 2001(Kasper 1997 & Da Silva 2003).

Study Teaching Proficiency Languages Research Design Assessment/

Goal Goal Procedure/
Instrument
House & Discourse Advanced Advanced L1 Explicit vs. Pre-test/ Role play
Kasper markers & German implicit posttest
1981 strategies FL English control
group L2
baseline

Wildner- Pragmatic Intermediate L1 German Eclectic vs. Pre-test/ Role play

Bassett routines FL English suggestop posttest
1984, edia control
1986 group

Billmyer Complime High L1 Japanese +/- Pre-test/

1990 nt Intermediate SL English instruction posttest Elicited
control conversation
group L2
baseline

Olshtain & Apology Advanced L1 Hebrew Teachability Pre-test/ Discourse

Cohen FL English posttest completion
1990 L2 question
baseline

Wildner- Pragmatic Beginning L1 English Teachability pre-test/ Questionnair

Bassett routines & SL German to posttest es
1994 strategies beginning role play
FL
students

61
Bouton Implicatur Advanced L1 mixed SL +/- Pre-test/ Multiple
1994 e English instruction posttest choice
control Question
group

Kubota Implicatur Intermediate L1 Japanese deductive Pre-test/ Multiple

1995 e FL English vs. posttest/ choice &
inductive delayed sentence
vs. zero post-test combining
control question
group

House Pragmatic Advanced L1 German explicit vs. Pre-test/ Roleplay

1996 Fluency FL English implicit posttest
control
group

Morrow Complaint Intermediate L1 mixed SL teachability/ Pre-test/ Roleplay

1996 & English explicit posttest/ holistic
Refusal delayed ratings
post-test
L2
baseline
Tateyama Pragmatic Beginning L1 English Explicit vs. Pre-test/ Multi-
et al. routines FL Japanese implicit posttest method
1997 control
group

Table 4: Studies Examining the Effect of Pragmatic Instruction from 1981 to 1997
(based on Kasper (1997) and cited in Mestre Mestre, 2011, P. 67).

INTERVENTIONAL STUDIES TO DATE

Pragmatic Routines Wildner-Bassett (1994), House (1996) and Yoshimi (2001)
Apologies Olshtain & Cohen (1990) and Tateyama (2001)
Implicatures Bouton (1994) and Kubota (1995)
Compliments Billmyer (1990), LoCastro (2000), and Rose & Ng Kwai-fun
(2001)
Requests LoCastro (1997), Fukuya & Clark (2001), and Takahashi (2001)
Socio/stylistic variation Lyster (1994)
Hedges in academic Wishnoff (2000)
writing
Interactional norms Liddicoat & Crozet (2001)
Refusals King and Silver (1993), Morrow (1996), and Kondo (2001)
Table 5: Studies Relating Pragmatics to the Classroom 1993-2003 (Silva, 2003; cited in
Mestre Mestre, 2011, P.68)

62
 As can be seen, most of the participants in the above stated studies are foreign

language learners, who may have little access to target-language (English) input and even less

opportunity for using English outside the classroom. They are either beginners, intermediate

or advanced.

Most of the studies are carried out using specific speech acts such as apologies,

complements, requests complaints and refusals. Those communicative acts are measured by

assessment instrument such as role plays, multiple choice questions and DCTs which indicate

that pragmatic studies showed greater interest in examining ESL and EFL learners

performance in the TL (English).

Russel and Vasquez (2011) summarized some of the main studies carried out in the

field. According to them, the results of Bardovi-Harlig (2001) and Kasper and Rose (2002)

work on speech act instruction suggested that classroom instruction on speech acts helps

learners to attain pragmatic proficiency. For Searle (1969), speech acts are language users’

endeavour to perform different actions with specific intentions that are typically universal to

all languages. For him, examples of speech acts may include apologies, requests,

compliments, and complaints, and effective communication is more than just exchanging

information; it also about understanding the intention behind the information. Indeed, much of

what we try to communicate to others and what others try to communicate to us gets

misunderstood. This can cause conflict and frustration, and thus, learners must be able to

understand the intended meaning communicated by speech acts, and they must also be able to

use appropriate language and manner according to the immediate social and cultural context,

which is a difficult task for even highly advanced learners.

Rose’s work on pragmatics (2005) also shows that instruction in pragmatics is more

useful than a mere exposure to the TL culture, and he claims that there are many research

works which have shown the benefits of the inclusion of pragmatic instruction into second

63
and foreign language studies. According to him, numerous studies that compared pragmatic

instruction to exposure (or no instruction) have demonstrated a benefit for instruction over

exposure (Billmyer, 1990; Bouton, 1994; Lyster, 1994; Wishnoff, 2000; Yoshimi, 2001).

Billmyer (1990) studies compliments and compliment responses with two groups of English

as a Second Language (ESL) students; one group received pragmatics instruction (the

experimental group) and a group did not (the control group). The result showed that the

experimental group’s performance in the instructed area (appropriateness, spontaneity and

deflection) is much better than the one of the control group; that is to say, the control group

simply accepted compliments, failing to use any pragmatic strategies at all. Yoshimi’s

findings (2001) were similar to those of Billmyer. The latter examined Japanese interactional

markers, with the experimental group which receive a total of 24 hours of instruction spread

out over the course of one semester. At the end of the semester, the experimental group who

received pragmatic instruction showed a significant increase in the frequency of interactional

markers in their oral performance while the control group did not show any such increase.

Taguchi’s study (2011) also supports the previous studies findings; he explicitly

asserts that “instruction is better than non-instruction for pragmatic development” (2011, p.

291). He argues that including pragmatics instruction in FL textbooks and curricula is a

necessity because instruction is better than a mere exposure for the acquisition of pragmatic

proficiency. Other scholars like Hoven (1999), Kramsch and Anderson (1999), and LeLoup

and Ponterio (2000) favour the use of multimedia and authentic materials in the application of

pragmatic instruction. They claim that the use of multimedia tools is effective for the

instruction of speech acts.

As can be seen, all the findings and results of the above stated studies show the

significance of introducing speech acts in classroom materials when teaching pragmatics in

EFL context.

64
II.6 Teaching Pragmatics

Pragmatics deals with the appropriate interpretation of meaning that the speaker needs

to negotiate along with the hearer within a given social and cultural context. It requires the

understanding of the social use of language. Pragmatic competence means being able to go

beyond the propositional meaning of what is communicated. So, learners need to collaborate

to make sure that authentic communication takes place. Indeed, learners that have the basic

notions of pragmatic systematic classification understand better people’s intended meanings.

Thus, understanding a variety of situations prepares students for more successful

communication (Comprehension+ production).

The contribution of pragmatics to language teaching is unquestionable. Pragmatics, in

essence, is a study of language and language teaching from a functional perspective. It is

because of this reason that pragmatics is a theory of linguistic performance.

According to Eslami-Rasekh et al, “the responsibility of teaching the pragmatic aspect

of the language use falls on teachers” (2004, p. 301). Indeed, many teachers make great effort

in order to find effective ways to develop their learners’ awareness of pragmatics.

The classroom provides one of the best places for learners to learn and experiment.

There, learners are able to try out new forms and examples of communication. For instance,

they can exercise their language skills and attempt to perform and understand different

linguistic entities like native speakers of English do, instead of the ones they are used to.

II.6.1 Teaching Pragmatics via Instruction

Instruction in pragmatics helps increase learners’ pragmatic understanding in order to

use the target language appropriately when involved in the act of communication. Pragmatic

instruction also helps learners consider the range of pragmatic strategies and techniques while

communicating in the TL. In fact, with such instruction, learners can preserve their own

65
cultural backgrounds and participate more fully in TL communication. According to Kondo

successful communication is a result of optimal rather than total convergence.

Teaching pragmatics via instruction is considered to be of great importance simply

because observation of language learners shows that they are in a dire need to develop their

pragmatic awareness and performance and that instruction in pragmatics can be a successful

methodology to achieve the aim of improving the learners’ pragmatic and communicative

competence. EFL learners, who are away from the real context, should be taught to make

appropriate choices of language entities, that is to say instruction helps students use the TL

appropriately in different situations. In an EFL context, learners show up disabilities in

language performance as a means of communication, and this may be caused by lack of

pragmatic instruction. That is to say, a learner of high grammatical proficiency does not

necessarily show equivalent pragmatic development. Thus, even advanced non-native

speakers are neither linguistically unsuccessful, nor pragmatically successful. The

introduction of instructional materials in EFL classes have also been supported by scholars

such as Bardovi-Harlig, 1996, 1999; Kasper & Schmidt, 1996; Kasper & Rose, 1999. Most of

those linguists argued that maintaining a conversation in English requires a certain amount of

knowledge in order to make the appropriate choice of language entities. In fact, teaching via

instruction equips the learners with effective language tools that help them understand and

perform different communication acts such as giving support, indicating agreement, inviting,

making requests, apologising, showing strong emotional response, adding or correcting

speaker’s information ...etc.

Learners should be provided with the opportunity to use language for communication

in the EFL classes. In fact, the divergence between grammatical and pragmatic development

in EFL context may be reconsidered by teaching pragmatics.

66
II.7 Teaching Pragmatics at the Department of Letters and English Language

The aim of this department is to provide a high quality education through

interdisciplinary courses, to build up the students’ linguistic knowledge and language skills,

and to develop their critical, analytical and creative thinking. So, students study English in

order to develop their linguistic skills and use them when pursuing different professions, in

the field of communication management. Apart from classical disciplines, in recent times the

department paid special attention to the teaching of some very important subjects, especially

those which deal with theories about language in use, such as Pragmatics, Sociolinguistics,

English for Specific Purposes and English for Science and Technology. These subjects help

increase the learners’ communicative ability in the English language.

Teaching pragmatics at this department has been introduced with the implementation

of the LMD system in higher education in Algeria. As a result, teachers are not trained to

teach this very important subject and, thus, they are asked to teach a series of lessons on

pragmatics which are not provided by a formal syllabus in teaching pragmatics; lesson plans

served as theory based mini courses that cover different aspects of pragmatics.

Pragmatic courses at the department provide an opportunity for students to be exposed

to the scope of pragmatics with a particular reference to famous linguists whose contributions

influenced strongly its study. Starting from its definition and backgrounds, the courses present

an overview of different issues covered such as Deixis (types of Deixis, the interpretation of

Deixis , distance and reference), Speech Acts (Austin’s Model of Speech Acts, Searle’s

Classification) and the Cooperative principle (Grice’s Maxims).

It is, thus, no exaggeration to say that past theories of language learning and teaching

are to a great extent insufficient because they do not cover adequately the pragmatic

dimension of language. Unfortunately, most theorists in the past have thought very little about

what gives linguistic symbols their special qualities, and so they persisted with structuralist

67
theories and neglected those theories dealing with language in use and whose main objective

is to enable foreign language learners to improve their communicative proficiency when using

language in real life situations.

Conclusion

This chapter has touched on a number of topics that establish pragmatics as a central

subject in the theory of language like context and meaning since they play a crucial part in the

development of language understanding and learning. The chapter has also covered a number

of different pragmatic areas such as deixis, presuppositions and entailments and

conversational implicatures (Grice’s Maxims) and the relevance theory since they construct a

convenient approach to modern human language. The chapter reviewed specific issues such as

the integration of pragmatic in the field of teaching foreign languages, pragmatic instruction

to which the numerous studies carried out in the field of pragmatics have referred. It could be

seen that most of those studies have been done on a specific area in pragmatics which is

speech acts.

In a nutshell, since the area of speech acts constructs the central part of pragmatics, it

can be regarded as the most appropriate way to accomplish the objective of improving

English language learners’ communicative competence, and, thus, the next chapter will be all

devoted to a detailed study of such an important area.

68
 Chapter III

Speech Acts Theory

Introduction

This chapter introduces the theory developed by Austin (1965) and Searle (1975). The

chapter is divided into two major parts; part one includes an overview of the theory of speech

acts and the key concepts in Austin’s speech act theory. The chapter also identifies Searle’s

taxonomy of speech acts which is followed by a summary of the literature that addresses the

role of indirectness and politeness in the realization of speech acts. Part two, on the other

hand, addresses the speech acts of request and apology; it deals with their definitions, types,

classification and strategies.

III.1 Speech Acts Theory

Speech acts are one of the key areas of linguistic pragmatics. Philosophers like Grice

(1975), Austin (1962) and Searle (1965, 1969 and 1975) proposed the basic conceptions of

this new theory of language and communication. This theory was developed based on the

assumption that:

The minimal units of human communication are not linguistic

expressions, but rather the performance of certain kinds of acts,
such as making statements, asking questions, giving directions,
apologizing, thanking, and so on (Blum-Kulka, House, &
Kasper, 1989, p. 2)

III.1.1 What is a Speech Act?

The term ‘speech act’ has been defined as “a minimal unit of discourse, a basic unit of

communication” (Searle, 1969, p. 16). It can be defined as the action performed by a speaker

with an utterance. For example, saying ‘I'll be there at six’ does not imply that it is merely

speaking; it is performing the speech act of 'promising.' It is an utterance used to perform an

action and which serves a function in communication; it is an act of speaking performed when

69
apologizing, complimenting, greeting, complaining, inviting, requesting or refusing i.e. all

sorts of things we can do with words.

Austin (1965) outlined the Theory of Speech Acts and the concept of performative

language, in which to say something is at the same time to do it.

III.1.2 Austin’s Theory of Speech Acts

The Speech Act theory is a theory that is largely attributed to the British Philosopher

Austin (1962) who first proposed making a distinction which he saw as central to the

philosophy of language between utterances that could be verified, in a sense that they were

cognitively meaningful, and those utterances that may be perceived as performing some kind

of linguistic ‘act’. In other words, Austin assumed, first and foremost, that there is a crucial

distinction between constative ‘statements’ that can either be true or false and are necessarily

descriptive, and non-constative ‘statements’ outside of the true/false dichotomy, namely those

used to perform an action. The latter had been ignored in research on the philosophy of

language. Austin called such meaningful non-constative utterances ‘performatives’ since they

are utterances the production of which, given certain conditions (to be investigated), serves as

the performance of some conventional social act.

Austin (1965) developed his theory of speech acts in a series of lectures which were

published as a book entitled ‘How to Do Things with Words’. The Speech act theory is one of

the key areas of linguistic pragmatics and which claims that many utterances, termed

performatives, do not only communicate information, but are equivalent to actions. That is to

say, through the use of these utterances, people do things or have others do things for them

like apologizing, making requests and complimenting, etc. Lyons stated that “Austin’s main

purpose was to challenge the view that the only philosophically (and also linguistically)

interesting function of language was that of making true or false statements” (1981, p. 173).

70
III.1.2.1 Key Concepts in Austin’s Speech Act Theory

In his famous work, ‘How to do Things with Words’, Austin (1962) outlined the

theory of Speech Acts and put forward the following concepts.

III.1.2.1.1 Performatives

According to Austin, the term ‘performative’ is:

... derived, of course, from ‘perform’, the usual verb with the
noun ‘action’; it indicates that the issuing of the utterance is the
performing of an action – it is not normally thought of as just
saying something. (1962, pp. 6-7)

‘Performatives’ is the first key concept Austin examined within the speech act

theory. For him, performatives are “a special class of sentences with peculiar syntactic and

pragmatic properties” (1965, p. 231). He argues that performatives are active statements that

are used to perform something rather than just describing something. Grammatically

speaking, performatives are expressions that may have two grammatical forms, so they

maybe:

1) statements that encompass the first person singular ‘I’ plus an active verb in the simple

present tense; for instance, ‘I hereby order you to leave the room’ or

2) statements in which the verb is used in its passive form (passive voice); for example,

‘students are advised to take extra maths classes’.

III.1.2.1.1.1 Performatives vs. Constatives

Austin (1965) made an important distinction between performatives and constatives.

According to him, constatives are propositions which can be true of false, i.e. they are

statements of facts which could be right or wrong, e.g. ‘He is my Father’. The truth or falsity

of the statement in this example can be determined through making reference to the

information in the world. Performatives are different from constatives; they are statements

(utterances) performed under particular conditions; they are not performed to describe

71
something but to accomplish something. For instance, by saying ‘I promise to do my best’,

the speaker is not stating a fact about the world, rather he is performing the act of promising.

III.1.2.1.1.2 Types of Performatives: Implicit vs. Explicit

Austin (1962) makes a distinction between two types of performatives: implicit

performatives and explicit performatives; this distinction was specified too by linguists such

as Searle (1969), Levinson (1983) and Leech (1983). According to Leech, explicit

performatives occur “when a speaker needs to define his act as belonging to a particular

category’’ (1983, P.181). That is to say, the speaker performs an utterance explicitly when he

or she uses performative verbs like order, promise, request, etc… These performative verbs

determine the illocutionary force of the utterance. On the other hand, implicit performatives

are those expressions which do not include an explicit performative verb and the speaker

needs some cues to name the illocutionary force of the utterance.

III.1.2.1.2 Felicity Conditions

The term of felicity conditions is another key concept proposed by Austin (1962); he

defined them as follows:

A. There must exist an accepted conventional procedure having

a certain conventional effect, that procedure to include the
uttering of certain words by certain persons in certain
circumstances.
B. The particular persons and circumstances in a given case
must be appropriate for the invocation of the particular
procedure invoked.
C. The procedure must be executed by all participants both
correctly and completely.
D. Where, as often, the procedure is designed for use by persons
having certain thoughts or feelings, or for the inauguration of
certain consequential conduct on the part of any participant, then
a person participating in and so invoking the procedure must
intend so to conduct themselves, and further must actually so
conduct themselves subsequently. (1962, pp. 14-15)

Thus, the felicity conditions are conditions that must be in place and the criteria that

must be satisfied for a speech act to achieve its purpose; in other words, by uttering a

72
performative sentence, the speaker indicates a certain speech situation, a certain convention;

he also indicates that there are certain persons and circumstances; these are all conditions

which aid understanding the speech act and the speech situation. Other conditions may

include the hearer’s reaction, thoughts, feelings or intentions etc.

According to Levinson, Austin defined a set of conditions which “performatives must

meet if they are to succeed” (1983, p.229). They are called ‘felicity conditions’ If these

conditions are not met, which can happen under certain circumstances, performatives are

‘infelicitous’ or ‘unhappy’ then. Constatives, on the other hand, are “declarative statements

whose truth or falsity can be judged” (Schiffrin 1994, p. 50).

Austin’s felicity conditions framework was summarised by Allan as follows:

 A preparatory condition, meant to establish whether or not the circumstances of the

speech act and the participants in it are appropriate to its successful performance.

 An executive condition, meant to determine whether or not the speech act has been

properly executed.

 A fulfilment condition that is determined by the perlocutionary effect of the speech

act.(1994, P. 229)

III.1.2.1.3 Sincerity Condition

According to Austin, sincerity condition refers to the interlocutor state of mind; that is

to say the psychological state of the participant in the conversation which consists of:

thoughts, feelings and intentions. Searle explains Austin’ view and states that many

illocutionary acts with a propositional content include the expression of a psychological state.

For example, when uttering a sentence one expresses a belief, a desire, or asks for something.

“When the propositional content of an illocution is the same as that of the expressed

psychological state, one can say that the speech act is sincere.” (1965, p. 18). This means

when performing an utterance one expresses a certain psychological state such as a belief, an

73
intention, a desire or a want. The propositional content of the performative utterance is, in

general, identical with the propositional content of the expressed psychological state.

After analysing the different conditions proposed to be a major portion in the analysis

and the understanding of different performative utterances and language used in real life

situations, Austin realized that the classification of constatives and performatives is to a

great extent inadequate, and thus, according to Levinson, he isolated “three basic senses in

which in saying something one is doing something, and hence three kinds of acts are

simultaneously performed” (Levinson 1983, p. 236). These three kinds are: the locutionary,

illocutionary and perlocutionary acts.

III.1.3 Types of Speech Acts

Austin defines three kinds of acts i.e three ways of doing things with words:

locutionary act, illocutionary act, and perlocutionary act. It is the second category ‘the

illocutionary act’ which is the most important in Austin’s investigation and which is used in

linguistics to “refer to a theory which analyses the role of utterances in relation to the

behaviour of speaker and hearer in interpersonal communication” (Crystal 1997, p. 427).

Leech defines Austin’s types of speech acts as follows:

locutionary act: performing an act of saying something

illocutionary act: performing an act in saying something

perlocutionary act: performing an act by saying something (1983, p. 199).

The following figure describes Austin’s classification of speech acts; it includes

Austin’s first division of utterances (Constatives vs. Performatives). Then there is the

interpretation of each type with particular subdivisions which constitute the three types of

speech acts: Locutionary, illocutionary and Perlocutionary act.

74
 Utterances

Constatives Performatives

Explicit
Implicit
Performatives
Performatives

Propositional Illocutionary
Utterances Utterances

Speaker’s intention Speaker’s intention

Literal meaning to interact to affect behaviour

LOCUTIONARY ACT ILLOCUTIONARY ACT PERLOCUTIONARY ACT

Figure 5: Types of Speech Acts (Based on Austin’s (1962) Speech Acts Classification)

75
III.1.3.1 Locutionary Act

A locutionary act is an act that has a semantic meaning; it is an act accomplished by

uttering a semantically (literally) meaningful sentence; that is to say, it is an utterance which

is still deprived of any speaker’s meaning. According to Austin, a locutionary act is

accomplished by “uttering a certain sentence with a certain sense and reference” (1962, P.

109). So, for him, a Locutionary act refers to any utterance that has a propositional meaning.

III.1.3.2 Illocutionary Act

As already suggested by Austin above, an illocutionary act is a complete act, made in

a typical utterance; it is the action performed by the speaker in producing a given utterance

and which is determined by the nature of the illocutionary force of utterance and by the

propositional content (what is uttered).

The illocutionary act 'takes effect' in certain ways, as

distinguished from producing consequences in the sense of
bringing about states of affairs in the 'normal' way, i.e. changes
in the natural course of events. Thus, 'I name this ship the Queen
Elizabeth' has the effect of naming or christening the ship; then
certain subsequent acts such as referring to it as the
Generalissimo Stalin will be out of order. (Austin, 1962, p. 117)

On the other hand, Yule claims that “the illocutionary act is thus performed via the

communicative force of an utterance which is also generally known as the illocutionary force

of the utterance” (1996, p. 48).

According to Searle, the illocutionary act is an act of doing something rather than an

act of saying something, e.g., asking, promising, apologizing, ordering and warning etc. In

other words, sometimes it is not easy to determine what kind of illocutionary act the speaker

performs. To assume the speaker’s different intentions, many indications such as explicit

performative verbs, various paralinguistic features (stress and intonation) and word order

should be stated. These are called the Illocutionary Force Indicating Device (IFID).

76
 According to Mey, “one should not believe a speech act to be taking place, before one

has considered, or possibly created, the appropriate context.” (1993, p. 139). Yule also

emphasises the notion of the Illocutionary Force Indicating Device IFID when he writes “In

order to correctly decode the illocutionary act performed by the speaker, it is also necessary

for the hearer to be acquainted with the context the speech act occurs in” (1996, p. 49).

Indeed, illocutionary acts are considered the core of the theory of speech acts. Austin

then proposed a tentative classification of explicit performative verbs. He distinguished five

categories based on the notion of illocutionary act:

(1) Verdictives, which express verdicts or evaluations given by

judges. Verbs such as, p. to condemn, to absolve, to judge, to
estimate, to appraise.
(2) Exercitives, which express the exercising of powers and rights. It
includes verbs like to vote, to appoint, to excommunicate, to
order, to warn.
(3) Commissives, which express commitments or undertakings.
Verbs belonging to this category include to promise, to
guarantee, to contract, to commit.
(4) Behavitives, which have to do with social behavior or reaction to
it. This category includes verbs such as to thank, to refuse, to
apologize, to complain.
(5) Expositives, which are used to explain or clarify reasons,
arguments and communications. Verbs belonging to this
category include to reply, to argue, to concede, to assume.
(1962, pp. 150-163)

III.1.3.3 Perlocutionary Act

The perlocutionary act is made by means of an illocutionary act and depends entirely

on the hearer's reaction. A perlocutionary act is a non-linguistic act performed as a

consequence of performing the locutionary and illocutionary acts. If the performance of the

illocutionary act convinces the listener to make a reaction, that reaction is one of its

perlocutionary effects..

77
 To sum up, Austin’s theory attempts to illustrate how speakers use language to

perform some actions and how listeners deduce the intended meaning from what is said. For

him:

It was for too long the assumption of philosophers that the

business of a ‘statement’ can only be to ‘describe’ some state of
affairs, or to ‘state some fact’, which it must do either truly or
falsely. (…) But now in recent years, many things, which would
once have been accepted without question as ‘statements’ by
both philosophers and grammarians have been scrutinized with
new care. (…) It has come to be commonly held that many
utterances which look like statements are either not intended at
all, or only intended in part, to record or impart straightforward
information about the facts (…). (1962, p. 1)

III.1.4 Searle’s Theory of Speech Act

The most famous expansion of Austin’s work was done by Searle who proposed new

dimensions to what came to be known as Speech Act Theory. Mey writes that “Searle’s

proposal, is more oriented [than Austin’s] towards the real world, in as much as it takes its

point of departure in what actually is the case, namely that people perform a speech act

whenever they use language, irrespective of the ‘performative’ criterion”, (1993, p. 125)

Austin’s work on speech acts was systematized and further developed by Searle

(1969); he claims that:

“...all linguistic communication involves linguistic acts. The unit of

linguistic communication is not, as has generally been supposed, the
symbol, word or sentence, [...] but rather the production of the symbol
or word or sentence in the performance of the speech acts” (1969,
p.16)

Searle points out that there are many ways of describing the same speech act which

are the physical act, act of reference, perlocutionary act, and illocutionary act. According to

him:

The speaker will characteristically have moved his jaw and

tongue and made noises. He will have performed acts within the
class which includes making statements, asking questions,
issuing commands, giving reports, greeting and warning. The

78
 members of this last class are what Austin called illocutionary
acts and it is with this class that I shall be concerned in this
paper. (1975, p.377)

According to Searle, Austin’s classification contains several weaknesses. He departed

from Austin by proposing his own set of speech acts and additionally proposed the process of

felicity conditions which must be performed for a speech act to be successful.

III.1.4.1 Searle’s Taxonomy of Speech Acts

According to Searle’s theory of speech acts, there are five different kinds of ways of

speaking. Any (simple) speech act will fall under at least one of these categories, and in some

borderline cases, the categories will overlap.

Representatives (or assertives): those acts in which a speaker expresses his belief towards

something or represents a state of affairs. This may include performative verbs such as assert,

state, describe, and suggest. “The point or purpose of the members of the assertive class is to

commit the speaker (in varying degrees) to something's being the case, to the truth of the

expressed proposition.” (1979, p.12) “The simplest test of an assertive is this: can you literally

characterize it (inter alia) as true or false?” (1979, p.13).

Assertives

Beliefs

Statements Assertion Description

Directives: which are used by the speaker to direct the hearer/reader to do something using

verbs like invite, order, suggest, request, challenge. “The illocutionary point of these consists

in the fact that they are attempts (of varying degrees, and hence, more precisely, they are

79
determinates of the determinable which includes attempting) by the speaker to get the hearer

to do something.” (1979, p.13)

Directives

Desires

Orders Commands Requests

Commissives: They are used if the speaker commits himself to a course of action found in

verbs like intend, promise, pledge, and threat. These “are those illocutionary acts whose point

is to commit the speaker (again in varying degrees) to some future course of action” (1979,

p.14)

Commissives

Intentions

Vows Promises Pledges

Expressives: They are those acts in which the speaker expresses his psychological state or

attitude, as in the verbs like greet, apologize and congratulate. “The illocutionary point of this

class is to express the psychological state specified in the sincerity.” (1979, p. 15).

80
 Expressives

Expressions

Apologies Thanks Congratulations

Declarations (or Declaratives): They are those speech acts that lead to an action that reveals

correspondence between the propositional content and reality; these actions can be implied in

verbs like appoint, marry, and declare war. According to Searle:

The defining characteristic of this class is that the successful

performance of one of its members brings about the
correspondence between the propositional content and reality;
successful performance guarantees that the propositional content
corresponds to the world: if I successfully perform the act of
appointing you chairman, then you are chairman (1979, p.16-
17).

Declarations

Creations

There are other linguists who have introduced their own classifications of

performatives (or illocutions); in an online paper, Allan gathered some influential types of

such acts (with their writers) in a form of comparison quoted in the table below:

81
Allan Bach and Harnish Searle Vendler Austin
Assertives Assertives Expositives Expositives
Statements
Commissives Commissives Commissives Commissives

Expressives Acknowledgments Expressives Behabitives Behabitives

Invitationals Interrogatives
Directives Directives Exercitives
Exercitives

Verdictives Verdictives Verdictives

Authoritatives
Declarations
Effectives Operatives

Table 6: Comparison of Five Classifications of Illocutionary Type (After Allan available

at www.arts.monash.edu.au)

III.1.5 Indirectness

One of the crucial distinctions made by speech act studies is between direct speech

acts, where the speaker says what s/he means, and indirect speech acts where s/he means more

than or something other than, what s/he says. Most of the standard speech act theories

(Austin, 1962; Searle, 1975; Grice, 1975) would accept this distinction, but when it comes to

precisely defining what is meant by the notion of indirectness, the situation becomes more

complex.

Indirectness has been defined differently by different scholars. From a strictly

linguistic point of view, Frank defines indirectness as follows:

A speech act is expressed indirectly when the illocutionary type

as indicated by linguistic means following the normal
interpretation of all illocutionary force indicating devices does
not correspond with the primarily intended illocutionary
function (1975, p. 219).

Thus, the relation between the intended meaning of the speaker and its interpretation

by the hearer can be of several kinds: it can be mediated by logical implications of the

82
propositional contents of the sentence, conversational and cultural rules of habits and proverb

etc.

Searle shows that in indirect speech acts:

The speaker communicates to the hearer more than he actually

says by way of relying on their mutually shared background
information, both linguistic and non-linguistic, together with the
rational powers of rationality and inference on the part of the
hearer. (1975, pp. 60-61).

In the literature, politeness and indirectness are considered as parallel dimensions.

Thus, in order to decrease the threat and to avoid the risk of losing face, there is a preference

for indirectness on the part of the speaker performing the request to soften the conversational

interaction. . Leech, For instance, proposes that given the same propositional context, it is

possible:

…to increase the degree of politeness by using a more and more

indirect kind of illocution. Illocutions tend to be more polite
because they increase the degree of optionality and because the
more indirect an illocution is, the more diminished and tentative
its force tends to be (1983, p.108).

Indirectness is very useful in socially distant situations. People have varied levels of

directness tolerance, and until you know where the limit is, it is wise to stay well on the polite

side. “Indirectness is a widely used conversational strategy. People tend to use indirect speech

acts mainly in connection with politeness” (Leech, 1983, p. 108) since they, thus, diminish the

unpleasant message contained in requests and orders for instance.

III.2 Politeness

The notion of politeness has traditionally been mainly concerned with individual

choices in spoken face-to-face interaction. According to Wolfson:

In deciding how much to take another person's feelings into

account, we have three factors to consider. First, people are
usually more polite to others when they are of higher status or
perceived of as being powerful; second, people are generally
more polite to others who are socially distant; and third, we are

83
 usually more polite in relation to the gravity of the threat we are
about to make to others' face.(1989, p.67)

Many l inguists adopt this view as well. For Lakoff,“to be polite is saying the socially

correct thing” (1975, p. 53). For Adegbija, politeness is associated with situations in which

one “speaks or behaves in a way that is socially and culturally acceptable and pleasant to the

hearer” (1989, p.58). Brown sees it as “saying and doing things in such a way as to take into

account the other person’s feeling” (1980, p. 114).

III.2.1 Politeness Theory

Politeness theory is a theory which deals with the analysis of people’s social behaviour

performed to ensure that people feel affirmed in a social interaction (saving face). Thus,

politeness theory holds that people use various politeness strategies in order to save the

hearers’ face. Under politeness theory, there is a positive and a negative face. Positive face

which is the desire to be liked, appreciated, approved, etc. Negative face, on the other hand, is

a part of personality that desires not to be imposed upon. Politeness strategies will differ

depending on whether a person is dealing with another’s positive or negative face.

III.2.2 Politeness Strategies

A framework to deal with different politeness strategies was proposed by Brown and

Levinson (1987) where they suggest a number of strategies the speaker should apply for

accomplishing some communication acts also termed ‘Face Threatening Acts (FTAs)’. The

five core categories of strategies are arranged from the least polite to the most polite in

politeness degree. The following figure illustrates the strategies proposed by Brown and

Levinson:

84
 Figure 6: Possible Strategies for doing Face-threatening Acts after Brown and
Levinson (1987, p.69)

Figure 6 indicates that in the act of communication the face threatening acts

can be performed either by ‘baldly, without redress,’ that is to say, doing it in the most

direct, clear, unambiguous way possible, or by a ‘redressive action’ which is performed

using particular soft expressions used usually to save face. Levinson and Brown clarify

that a ‘redressive action’ takes the form of either positive or negative politeness and a

speaker with redressive action can be more polite. That is to say, if the speaker addresses the

listener directly and makes his communicative intention quite clear, then he is said to ‘go on

record’ in doing an act which can be less polite whereas, an ‘off record’ strategy is often

more polite as it means more than one intention has been conveyed and the interlocutor does

not need to commit himself for one particular intention.

III.3 The Speech Acts of Request and Apology

Requests and apologies are the most used speech acts in daily life among which some

common features are shared. According to Blum Kulka et al:

1. They can be performed in a single turn, or more than one turn.

2. They can be realized linguistically in a variety of ways. Three dimensions of modification

can be identified:

a) directness level

85
 b) internal modification of the act, and

c) external modification of the act.

3. The choice of linguistic realization depends on a variety of social factors to do with the

relationship between the speaker and the hearer.

4. There are cross-linguistic differences relating to the preferred form of a request or refusal

in the same situation, although the main categories of requests or refusals can be found in

different languages. (1989: 64)

III.3.1 The Speech Act of Request

A request is generally defined as an act of asking formally or politely for something.

Trosborg defines a request as follows:

A request is an illocutionary act whereby a speaker (requester)

conveys to a hearer (requestee) that he/she wants the requestee
to perform an act, which is for the benefit of the speaker (1994,
p.187)

So when making a request, the speaker is performing an act to which s/he expects the

hearer to react in a verbal or non verbal manner.

Blum-kulka and Olshtain classify the speech act of requesting into three levels

according to the degree of directness:

a) The most direct and explicit level (e.g. performatives and hedged performatives).

b) The conventionally indirect level (e.g. requests that realize the act by referring to

contextual preconditions necessary for its performance, as conventionalized in a

given language).

c) The non-conventional indirect level (e.g. the open-ended group of indirect strategies

that realize the act by either partial reference to an object or element needed for the

implementation of the act.) (1984, p. 201).

86
 Considering Searle's taxonomy of speech acts (1969), requests, as speech acts, fall

under the second category, that of directives. A request is defined as “an attempt to get hearer

to do an act which speaker wants hearer to do, and which it is not obvious that hearer will do

in the normal course of events or of hearer's own accord” (1969, p. 66).

III.3.1.1 The Grammar of a Request

Expressions of requests take the form of questions (subject and verb (auxiliary) change

their position in the statement of a question). In some cases, one may use the imperative when

asking someone to do something, but it should be preceded by a polite word (please, if you

wouldn’t mind...etc). Sometimes, you should be polite when asking someone to do something

for you, therefore, you have to ask if they are able to do it first (use modals of ability).

Sometimes one makes an indirect request of a suggestion instead of giving an order because it

is more polite. Furthermore, some requests can be given as instructions to people you know

well.

III.3.1.2 Request Strategies

The request strategies in the following classification are well-ordered depending on

the degree of directness. Blum-Kulka (1989) summarizes a combination of level of directness

and strategy types as follows:

1. Direct level

a. Mood derivable: Utterances in which the grammatical mood of the verb signals

illocutionary force (for example, "Leave me alone.").

b. Performatives: Utterances in which the illocutionary force is explicitly named (for

example, "I tell you to leave me alone.")

c. Hedged performatives: Utterances in which naming of the illocutionary force is

modified by hedging expressions (for example, "I would like to ask you to leave me

alone.").

87
 d. Obligation statements: Utterances which state the obligation of the hearer to

carry out the act (for example, "Sir, you'll have to move your car.")

e. Want statements: Utterances which state the speaker's desire that the hearer

carries out the act (for example, "I want you to move your car.").

2. Conventionally indirect level

a. Suggestory formulae: Utterances which contain a suggestion to do something (for

example "How about cleaning up?")

b. Query-preparatory: Utterances containing reference to preparatory conditions (e.g.

ability, willingness) as conventionalized in any specific language (for example,

"Would you mind moving your car?").

3. Non-conventionally indirect level

a. Strong hints: Utterances containing partial reference to object or element needed for

the implementation of the act (for example, "The game is boring.").

b. Mild hints: Utterances that make no reference to the request proper (or any of its

elements) but are interpretable as requests by context (for example, "We've been

playing this game for over an hour now."). (Cited in Francis, 1997, p. 28)

III.3.2 The Speech Act of Apology

To express apology is a common occurrence for people to do since in their social

interaction they cannot avoid for doing wrong.

III.3.2.1 What is an Apology?

Apology is defined as “regretful acknowledgement of fault or failure; assurance that

no offence was intended” (The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1980, p. 43-44). Therefore, an

apology is the speech act used when a behaviour norm is broken. Reiter as well defines an

apology as a “compensatory action for an offense committed by S (the speaker) which has

affected H (the hearer).” (2000, p. 44). Apologies are a means of maintaining the social order;

88
they are called for when social norms are violated. According to Holmes (1990) apologies are

“social acts conveying affective meaning” (1990, p. 155). Thus, apologies offer an

opportunity to save face in a threatening or difficult circumstance.

III.3.2.2 How to Apologize

To apologize is to tell someone that you are sorry for having done something that has

caused him/her inconvenience or unhappiness.

III.3.2.3 Classifying Apologies

Considering Austin’s classification of illocutionary forces, apologies belong to the

category of ‘behabitives’ which he defines as “a kind of performative concerned roughly with

reactions to behaviour and with behaviour towards others and designed to exhibit attitudes

and feelings” (1962 [1975, p. 83]).

In apologising the speaker performs:

A locutionary act by uttering: I apologise (explicit performative) or I’m sorry (primary

performative),

An illocutionary act by which s/he apologises, and,

A perlocutionary act by which s/he pacifies the hearer (who accepts the apology and

forgives).

In his speech act taxonomy, Searle assigns apologies to the category of ‘expressives’.

III.3.2.4 Apology Strategies

In the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project, Blum-Kulka and Olshtain

identified five strategies that speakers use to apologize. The strategies specify the use of five

performative verbs (regret, excuse, be sorry, forgive, pardon) beside (apologize) which

express apology such as ‘I am sorry’, ‘excuse me’ and ‘I apologize’ etc. these expressions are

also termed explicit Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices (IFIDs), These strategies are:

89
 1- Expressions of responsibility: expressions that range from responsibility acceptance

and explicit self-humbling, to calm the complainer, to a complete denial of the fault

and unclear responses.

2- Explanation or account of the cause brought about by the offense; an explanation

generally occurs when the speaker intends to justify the offense on which he/she has

no control.

3- An offer of repair: In situations where the function can be compensated, an offer of

repair is used either specified or unspecified.

4- Promise of forbearance: is a way for admitting responsibility but not necessary via an

explicit apology. (1984, p. 206)

III.4 Speech Acts: at the Intersection of Language and Culture

Pragmatics is the study of the choices that people make in using language and, as such,

it lends itself very well to examining manifestations of culture in language usage. Researchers

working in this area (pragmatics) analyse speech acts, that is, communicative actions, such as

thanking, apologising or requesting. They describe the ways in which members of different

cultural groups tend to realise speech acts, while taking into account who speaks to whom and

in which social setting. Although individuals surely have unique ways of using language,

studies in pragmatics have established common tendencies among members of cultural groups

and identified potential sources of friction and misunderstanding in cross-cultural

communication.

Numerous studies have examined learners’ developing ability in realising appropriate

speech acts as well as differences between learners of different levels and native speakers in

this regard. Thus, while learners often get the message across and may provide a correct

textbook answer, overtones that are inappropriate to the social situation may cause irritation at

best and offense at worst. For example, learners of English might not be aware of the fact that

90
‘excuse me’, used as a request, for example, when wanting to get by a person on a crowded

bus has a slightly annoying or even aggressive overtone. Such infelicities in linguistic choices

often occur because learners tend to draw on their native language as a resource, where the

equivalent expression may be perfectly acceptable. Many foreign language learners perceive

appropriate language use as a challenge, not only because manipulating levels of directness

requires mastery of more complex linguistic devices but also because engagement in

interpersonal functions in the language classroom is often limited so that learners lack the

practice and awareness that is needed for performing speech acts appropriately. Indeed,

teaching subtle nuances that can make a big difference on the social level is part of the

curriculum. In addition, we think that learners can and need to do a great deal of self-study for

improving their pragmatic competence.

Teaching speech acts helps the learners to avoid language misunderstandings

(pragmatic failure) and to develop their communication skills (speaking and listening)

through a deep understanding of both cultural and social behaviour.

Speech acts are functional units of communication (e.g., what is

being said). Since they take culture into account (e.g., who is
being spoken to and in what context) they are an integral part of
intercultural communication. They are different from speech
events particular instances when people exchange speech (e.g.,
an exchange of greetings, an enquiry, a conversation) in that the
act is what the speaker actually says during the speech event.
Longman Dictionary of Language and Applied Linguistics
(Richards, Platt, & Platt; 1992)

In Speech acts classes, teachers should introduce the TL cultural values and their

impact on communication (interaction) and put those values into practice through the analysis

and evaluation of different dialogues and conversations which are culturally- bound.

Conclusion

This chapter provides a very broad review of the literature on Speech Acts; it is

divided into two parts; the first part includes mainly Austin’s theory of speech acts and

91
Searle’s classification of speech acts; it includes also the main key concepts in the theory of

speech acts such as: performatives, felicity conditions, and sincerity conditions, and highlights

notions of indirectness and politeness which play a very crucial role in the realisation of

speech acts. An overview of the speech act of request and apology is generated in the second

part of this chapter by providing an outline which upholds their definitions, classification and

strategies.

92
 Chapter IV

Research Design and Methodology

Introduction

This chapter describes the overall study design and the multiple data collection. In

addition to the restatement of the research aim and research hypotheses and questions, the

chapter covers also the different criteria for a research design such as including variables,

stating conditions for judging causality and correlation and the research plan that permits

accurate assessment of cause and effect relationships between independent and dependent

variables. The chapter, furthermore, highlights methodological issues and the rationale of the

procedures followed throughout the research work including the research participants,

instruments and procedures.

IV.1 Overall Research Design

It is important to be clear about the role and purpose of research design, and to know

and understand where design fits into the whole research process from framing questions to

finally analysing and reporting data.

IV.2 Research Aims

The present research is mainly concerned with the introduction of explicit pragmatic

instruction in the EFL classrooms at the Algerian tertiary level. Considering the situation of

teaching and learning English at the Department of Letters and English Language, the present

research preliminary aim is to determine the English Language general and learning needs of

the participants (1st, 2nd and 3rd year students) in order to find out their choice between

learning English for academic purposes or communicative ones and to recommend an

approach which best fits their needs.

The main aim of this research is to investigate the effect of pragmatic explicit instruction on

the speech act awareness of third year students of English as a Foreign Language at the

93
Department of Letters and English Language, University of Constantine1. The study also tries

to show if other factors (variables), such as pragmatic knowledge, may affect student’s speech

act awareness and their communicative competence.

IV.3 Research Questions

Finding a research questions is probably the most important task in the research

process because the questions become the driving force behind the research from beginning to

end. In the light of the literature review and in order to achieve the aim of our research the

investigation attempts to answer the following questions:

1. Which is mostly needed by students: learning English for communication purposes or

learning English for academic ones?

2. To what extent does the introduction of explicit pragmatic instruction affect student’s

awareness of speech acts?

3. To what extent does students' speech act awareness improve their communicative

competence i.e. their ability to communicate appropriately and effectively in different

communicative situations?

4. To what extent does students’ pragmatic awareness (i.e. their pragmatic knowledge)

affect their speech act awareness?

As can be seen, our research addresses the commonly known three basic types of

questions: descriptive, relational and causal.

IV.3.1 Descriptive Questions (Description)

Our research is designed primarily to describe what is going on or what exists. The

motive is to know these students as language learners and users and to know what route they

prefer for their English language learning and, therefore, to understand how best to meet the

students’ needs in matter of language learning. A students’ poll that seeks to describe various

94
opinions about English language learning needs is conducted to answer the first question

which is descriptive in nature.

IV.3.2 Relational Questions (Relationship)

Our research is also designed to look at the relationships between two or more

variables. The third question investigates the relationship between pragmatic theoretical

knowledge and speech act awareness; the fourth one examines the relationship between

speech act awareness and communicative competence.

IV.3.3 Causal Questions (Causality)

The main aim of our research is to determine whether the pragmatic explicit

instruction affects students’ speech act awareness. Then, the second question is a causal one

since it investigates a causal relationship between pragmatic explicit instruction and speech

act awareness.

A research question is the first practical step the investigator has to take when

undertaking research. It guides and centres the research, and it should be accurately and

clearly defined. Our research covers the three types of questions.

The first research question seeks for the description of the students’ needs and their

preferences regarding the two types of learning purposes. The evaluation of the students’

preferences in this question leads to the selection of an appropriate approach that best fits their

needs, wants and preferences. The second research question explores the cause and effect

relationship (causal). In other words, it investigate the effect of the explicit pragmatic

instruction (independent variable) on the students’ speech act awareness (dependent

variable).The third and fourth research questions search for the degree of association between

the students’ pragmatic knowledge and speech act awareness and between their speech act

awareness and communicative competence (correlational relationship). In the third and fourth

research questions all the variables are considered as dependent variables which can be

95
affected by a common independent variable (pragmatic instruction); this means that the

relationship between the variables in the third and fourth research questions is a relationship

of association and not a causal one. Indeed, this indicates that there is quite a difference

between correlational and causal relationships.

In what follows we will spot the key distinction between a correlational relationship

and a causal one.

IV.4 Causation vs. Correlation

Many researchers claim that a probabilistic dependence between two variables might

be explained either by one variable being a cause of the other or by the existence of a

common cause of both. According to Elster:

One usually refers to a correlation between two variables

that does not stem from a causal relation between them,
but from their common relation to some third variable.
(1983, p. 47)

Harvey and Bryant define correlation and causation as follows:

Causation assumes that the relationship between two or

more variables, events, or behaviors is such that as one
changes it causes changes on the other………..A
correlation exists when two variables change (increase or
decrease) in proportion to one another, but not in a way
that one produces the change in the other. Two variables
may change as consequence of being the effect of a
common independent variable. (2000, p. 29)

So, correlation is an empirical relationship between two variables such that changes in

one are associated with changes in the other or particular attributes in one are associated with

particular attributes in the other, whereas causation is a relationship in which one action or

event is the direct consequence of another. In order to imply causation, an experiment must be

performed where subjects are randomly assigned to different conditions.

As far as this research is concerned, there is both a causation and correlation between

the different variables stated in the research questions; there is causation between the

96
pragmatic explicit instruction and the speech act awareness since the introduction of the

pragmatic explicit instruction in the course of pragmatics causes a change on the students’

speech act awareness. While the correlation is between ‘pragmatic theoretical knowledge and

speech act awareness’, between ‘speech act awareness and communicative competence’ since

in every pair of variables the change in one variable is associated with the change of the other,

but not in a way that one causes the change in the other. Therefore, our research addresses

both types of relationships between variables which are ‘correlation’ and ‘causation’.

IV.5 Research Hypotheses

A research hypothesis is an educated prediction. It commonly takes the form of an if-

then statement so you can test it with your research, that is to say, a research question is a

testable statement of opinion. It is created from the research prediction and it provides an

explanation for an observed event.

Our research tackles the following research hypotheses based on the research

questions stated above and, thus, it addresses both the empirical and statistical types of

hypothesis.

 Hypothesis 1: “Students have the type of English learning needs which favours the

communicative perspective, i.e. they need English for communication and interaction”

 Hypothesis 2: “If students are more exposed to explicit pragmatic instruction and

communicative tasks they will develop better their speech act awareness”

 Hypothesis 3:“Students speech act awareness affects their communicative

competence”

 Hypothesis 4: “Students pragmatic theoretical awareness increases their speech act

awareness”

Considering the diversity of the research questions and hypotheses in our research, we

have opted for a mixed methods design.

97
 A mixed methods research (also called ‘multi-methodology’) design is a process of

investigation used to collect and analyze both quantitative and qualitative research data from

multiple methods in a single study. According to Creswell, “mixed methods research has

come of age. To include only quantitative or qualitative methods falls short of the major

approaches being used today in the social and human sciences” (2003, p. 4). That is to say,

‘mixing’ both quantitative and qualitative approach can help solve practical problems and

increase knowledge in research.

The nature of the research questions and hypotheses in this study necessitates the use

of mixed methods (multiple methods) and, thus, in order to answer the research questions,

data collected in this study are analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively.

IV.6 Quantitative and Qualitative Data

The following table shows the main differences between qualitative and a quantitative

data.

Qualitative Quantitative

"All research ultimately has "There's no such thing as qualitative data.

a qualitative grounding" Everything is either 1 or 0"
- Donald Campbell - Fred Kerlinger

The aim is to classify features, count them,

The aim is a complete, detailed
and construct statistical models in an
description.
attempt to explain what is observed.

Researcher may only know roughly Researcher knows clearly in advance what
in advance what he/she is looking for. he/she is looking for.

Recommended during earlier phases Recommended during latter phases of

of research projects. research projects.

The design emerges as the study All aspects of the study are carefully
unfolds. designed before data is collected.

Researcher uses tools, such as

Researcher is the data gathering
questionnaires or equipment to collect
instrument.
numerical data.

98
 Data is in the form of words, pictures Data is in the form of numbers and
or objects. statistics.

Subjective - individuals interpretation

Objective -seeks precise measurement &
of events is important ,e.g., uses
analysis of target concepts, e.g., uses
participant observation, in-depth
surveys, questionnaires etc.
interviews etc.

Qualitative data is more 'rich', time Quantitative data is more efficient, able to
consuming, and less able to be test hypotheses, but may miss contextual
generalized. detail.

Researcher tends to become

Researcher tends to remain objectively
subjectively immersed in the subject
separated from the subject matter.
matter.

Table 7: Qualitative vs Quantitative Data Analysis (Quoted from Miles & Huberman,
1994, p. 40)

In this research, the three research instruments were analysed quantitatively and

qualitatively. Generally speaking, qualitative and quantitative data are closely related to each

other; that is to say, each research instrument is analysed quantitatively based on the

qualitative data provided by the participants (respondents) of the study.

IV.7 Research Participants

The participants in this research were divided into two categories based on two

different instruments used for collecting data.

IV.7.1 First Category of Participants (Needs Analysis Questionnaire)

The participants of this category were first, second and third year students of English

at University of Constantine 1. The questionnaire was administered to 120 students. 92 of the

respondents were females, and 28 were males. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to

25.

IV.7.1.1 Rationale for Selecting the Participants of the Questionnaire

Three main reasons influenced the decision of selecting the participants of the needs

analysis questionnaire. First, the participants were enrolled in three different university levels

(1st, 2nd and 3rd graduate students), which means that their opinions are determined by their

99
needs before and after experiencing the learning of English at the level of university, and,

thus, this category covers the needs of all categories (levels) of students at the Department of

Letters and English Language. Second, the participants’ differences in the learning experience

raise their awareness of their needs, for instance, advanced (2nd and 3rd year) participants are

able to determine their lacks and weaknesses which would help more in determining their real

needs. That is to say, the participants were advanced enough to evaluate their level of

achievement in English. Third, the sample represented all the graduate students at the

Department of Letters and English Language who were supposed to be all concerned with the

needs analysis, and it was deemed that their opinions had to be taken into consideration as the

basis for the development of an effective teaching and learning process.

IV.7.2 Second (Main) Category of Participants (Experimental Design)

The original sample selected to participate in this study was 100 third year students

majoring in English as a foreign language (EFL) from the University of Constantine 1.

However, several participants were absent in part of the treatment or in the pre-test(s) or post-

test(s). Therefore, the final sample was 72 graduate students. The students belonged to two

classes and were enrolled in the option of applied language studies. Because of institutional

constraints, it was not possible to assign students randomly to different groups, thus making it

necessary to work with two intact groups.

The two groups were: (1) the control group, which was not exposed to explicit

instruction on pragmatics (independent variable being tested), but had the usual courses from

the textbooks delivered by the teacher (2) the experimental group who received explicit

instruction on pragmatics from the instructor. There were 34 students in the control group and

38 students in the experimental/Teacher Instruction group; both the pre-test(s) and post-test(s)

were randomly assigned to the intact classes.

100
IV.7.2.1 Rationale for selecting the Participants of the Main Study

Third year students of English at the sixth-semester level were chosen as the subject

population for the following reasons. First, courses of pragmatics are developed and taught

during the fifth and sixth semester. Second, third year graduate students are expected to have

enough knowledge of English grammar that they learned in the first four semesters and also

enough vocabulary to understand and perform basic communicative acts (speech acts). Third,

because of institutional constraints, it was not possible for us to choose another category as

we are allowed to teach only at the graduate level. That is to say, before choosing this

category, we attempted to carry out the main study with first year master students and because

of the institutional constraints we stopped working with the master level students and this

happened after giving the students the pre-tests. So, the original category of participants was

Master students and not third year graduate students.

IV.8 Data Collection Instruments

Three data collection instruments were employed:

IV.8.1 Needs Analysis Questionnaire

A questionnaire (survey) is a research tool containing a series of questions used for the

purpose of collecting information (data) from respondents about a particular issue of interest.

Conway defines it as follows:

A questionnaire in an internal research tool and one means

of eliciting the thoughts, feelings, beliefs, experiences, and
attitudes of a sample group of individual. It is a concise,
preplanned set of questions designed to yield specific
information about a particular topic from one or more
groups of people (2006, p. 3).

In this research, the questionnaire is being conducted to collect personal information

from the students regarding their English language background and their perceptions of the

necessity of English for their future and the reasons why they consider it to be important. The

101
questionnaire aims also at finding out the perceptions of the students regarding the importance

of their learning needs.

As a research tool, the questionnaire is considered the most effective source of

gathering personal information (beliefs, attitudes, feelings…etc). According to Wilkinson,

“The questionnaire is the favoured tool of many of those engaged in research, and it can often

provide a cheap and effective way of collecting data in a structural and manageable form”

(2003, p. 7)

IV.8.2 Two-group (Pre-test Post-test) Experimental Design

One of the most practical research tools in the field of methodology is the two-group

pre-test/ post-test experimental design. This type of experiment involves a control group and

an experimental (treatment) group. The experimental group gets the treatment while the

control group does not. In this study, the control group is the group that does not receive the

explicit pragmatic instruction. The various analyses performed upon a two-group pre-test-

post-test design in the present study are presented in (Fig 7).

102
 Two Group (pre-test/ post-test) Experimental Design

Control Group Target Population Experimental Group

3rd Year graduate
students
34 Students 38 Students

Pre-test Pre-test
Speech Act Awareness Speech Act
Awareness
No Treatment (No Instruction)

Treatment (Explicit Pragmatic

instruction)

Post-test Post-test
Speech act Awareness Speech act Awareness

Figure 7: Two Group Experimental Design

Figure 7 shows that there are three stages of analysis:

Stage One: It permit us to see how both groups changed from pre-test to post-test, whether one,

both or neither improves after (period of treatment)

Stage Two: The scores in the two pre-test groups are compared to guarantee the effectiveness of

the experiment procedures.

103
Stage Three: The scores in the two post-test groups are compared to ensure the effectiveness

of the treatment (explicit pragmatic instruction).

Indeed, this design evaluates the efficiency of the sampling process and also

determines whether the group given the treatment showed a significant difference.

A true random sampling was not possible and intact groups were used. Therefore a

pre-test – post-test group design was adopted in this study. The participants were not allowed

to interact with one another while answering the test.

In this design, we are most interested in determining whether the two groups are

different after the explicit pragmatic instruction. Typically, we measure the groups at one or

more levels. The data in this study was collected by a pragmatic and a speech act judgment

assessment that was presented in the form of tests.

IV.8.3 Pragmatic Language Tests

A number of tests ranging between pretests and posttests are given before and after the

treatment to measure the participants’ pragmatic proficiency at the level of the pragmatic

theoretical knowledge, speech act awareness, speech act comprehension, speech act

performance, and communicative proficiency.

IV.9 Research Procedures

Before carrying out the main study, the experiment, and introducing the designed

instructions to teaching pragmatics at the Department of Letters and English Language, an

attempt to investigate the participants’ attitudes, perception, level and beliefs about the

elements of the communicative perspective of language learning and teaching versus the

traditional approach to language teaching and learning was done through conducting a needs

analysis questionnaire. The questionnaire was administered to 120 graduate (third year)

students at the Department of Letters and English Language to be answered in 30 minutes.

104
 The main study was conducted in the second semester of third-year students of

English at University of Constantine 1. Five tests ranging between pre-tests and post-tests

were used in order to investigate if there is any improvement in the student’s pragmatic

theoretical knowledge, pragmatic and speech acts awareness (comprehension and realization)

and communicative proficiency after receiving the explicit instruction. Both pre-tests and

post-tests were administered to the respondents in class in the presence of their instructor for a

period of 15 minutes for test 1 and 45 minutes for each of the other tests. The main study

(experiment) was therefore designed in two stages which can be briefly described as follows:

IV.9.1 Stage I: Tests Construction

A number of tests ranging between pre-tests and post-tests were given before and after

the treatment to measure the participants’ pragmatic proficiency at the level of the pragmatic

theoretical knowledge, speech act awareness (speech act comprehension + speech act

performance), and communicative proficiency. The tests can be described as follows:

IV.9.1.1 Test1: Pragmatic Theoretical Knowledge

The pragmatic theoretical knowledge pre-test and post-test includes questions about

the definition of the main issues and theoretical concepts in pragmatics such as: Speech acts,

Grice maxims ….etc.

IV.9.1.2 Test 2: Speech Act Awareness

Because pragmatic language is a part of all communication, any communicative

language assessment should include the test of speech act awareness which is the

amalgamation of two tests (speech act comprehension test + speech act production test).

IV.9.2.1.1 Speech Act Comprehension Test

The Test of speech acts comprehension is an effective instrument designed to assess

student’s comprehension of the intended meaning of different utterances and to provide

105
information on crucial dimensions of pragmatic language: physical setting, audience, topic,

purpose…etc

The Test of speech act comprehension allowed us to assess the effectiveness, and

appropriateness, of a student's pragmatic language comprehension. It also provided important

information about the social skills.

IV.9.2.1.2 Discourse Completion Test (DCT)

DCT is the most used data collection instruments in pragmatic research. Golato notes

that DCTs are “widely used in the field of pragmatics, intercultural communication, and

second language acquisition, mainly because their simplicity of use and high degree of control

over variables lead to easy reliability” (2003, p. 93).

In the present research, the DCT takes the form of a written questionnaire used to

collect appropriate data in order to examine the participants’ performance in the request and

apology situations. The DCT used in the present research is the second part of the speech act

awareness; it consists of six apology situations and six request situations in both the pre-test

and post-test. A total of twelve situations were used in order to examine the participants’

appropriate performance of the request and apology speech acts, each of which is preceded by

a brief description of the situation.

Both the pragmatic language pre-tests and post-tests consisted of different activities

introducing the contextual situations and the physical setting. The pre-test not only served as

the means by which to practice the different intended meaning of utterances but also to

expose students to what they would encounter on the post-test.

IV.9.1.3 Test 3: Written Communicative Proficiency Test (WCPT)

In the present research, the purpose of the Written Communication Proficiency Test

(WCPT) is to assess the participants’ ability to communicate in different situations and their

106
abilities to deduce the different contextual features using an appropriate and grammatically

correct language.

The WCPT includes a set of activities created to investigate the participants’

understanding of the different communicative events and their ability to communicate

appropriately. The activities cover the following issues: completing dialogues, identifying

different features of context and language situations in real life conversations and grammar

errors of different situations and statements and determining the best word to insert into a

blank etc......

IV.9.2 Stage II: Treatment (Instructional Materials)

In the present study, both the control and experimental group are respectively termed

(IG) and (EG).

(IG): It is the Implicit Group who did not receive explicit pragmatic instruction.

(EG): It is the Explicit Group who received explicit pragmatic instruction.

The two groups received instructions in different ways. In the EG, instruction of

request and apology were realized through six stages i.e. three phases for each speech act.

The Speech Acts Disclosure Stage: At this stage, the students were provided with

models of English requests and apologies. These were explained explicitly by the teacher

(instructor) (see appendix H).

The Speech Acts Strategies Stage: At this stage, students were provided with a

detailed description of both speech acts under study (formulas and strategies of making

requests and apologies). Then, they were given a number of pragmalinguistic formulas

(request and apology) and asked to rank the given situations in the order of directness, then to

discuss the social variables that affect their choices of the request formulas such as relative

power, social distance, imposition and their impact on the students appropriate choice of

strategies (see appendix H part 2).

107
 The Speech Acts Performance Stage: this stage includes speech acts (role-play)

activities which engaged students in different communicative situations and social roles where

they could practice (perform) the speech acts of request and apology taking into account the

socio-pragmatic aspects of both speech acts. Students were also asked at this stage to bring

different communicative situations and analyse those situations with a particular reference to

the social variables of language use. During the tasks, errors were pointed out if there were

any, and feedback was provided.

In addition to the explicit instruction, a number of communicative activities which are

useful for pragmatic and communicative development were developed in order to raise the

students’ awareness of how language forms are used appropriately in context.

IV. 10 Data Analysis Procedures

To investigate the research questions proposed earlier and to make a scientific

interpretation, the data were analysed through descriptive and inferential statistics. The

significance value was set at 0.05 at all statistical tests. The data were collected from two

sources. One is the subjects’ score on pragmatic and speech acts tests; means, standard

deviations, t-test and Person correlation analysis of each group were compared to see whether

there was any significant difference between the scores obtained before and after the

experiment. The other came from the needs analysis questionnaire; the results obtained from

the questionnaire were analysed by calculating the percentage of their responses. These

analyses were the basis for the discussion in the following two chapters.

IV.10.1 Statistics for Analysing the Questionnaire’s Data

The statistical analysis of data collected from a questionnaire depends on the objective

of the study. Generally speaking, the objective of the questionnaire is to obtain general and

specific information about the research participants. The first statistical task, therefore, is to

108
do a descriptive analysis of variables in order to examine the results obtained for each type of

variable.

There are many decisions that must be made about the questionnaire’s content,

wording and format and that can have important consequences for the whole research. After

deciding about the type of data and variables, the data can be analysed with the help of

statistical software or manually

Accordingly, the items of the questionnaires are analysed on the basis of the students’

responses frequencies, categorized by percentages (%) and using a quantitative analysis.

The data are also displayed in tables, figures, charts and graphs to make them clearer.

IV.10.2 Statistics for Analysing the Experimental Data

When planning an experiment, it is essential to know that the results can be analysed.

Planning the statistical analysis is an integral part of planning the experiment.

Statistics is a branch of mathematics which presents a powerful tool for data analysis

in various fields of application. According to Kern “Statistics concerns data, their collection,

analysis, and interpretation” (2010, p.1). Descriptive statistics concerns the summarization of

data. It consists of techniques used to describe and summarize the different features of a set of

measurement (numeric observations referred to as data). In descriptive statistics, the data

collected from the research tools can be described in multiple ways. Descriptive statistics

entails calculating numbers from the data, such as percentages, averages (means), sums...etc.

They are called descriptive measures. Inferential statistics does more. It consists of procedures

used to make inferences associated with the data set, draw conclusions, and make decisions

and predictions about the population (sample) characteristics from which the data originated.

An experimental research usually seeks to investigate causality, and in particular to

draw a conclusion on the effect of changes in the values of predictors or independent

variables on dependent variables. As far as this research is concerned, there is causation

109
between explicit pragmatic instruction and the students’ speech act awareness (hypothesis 2),

and thus, our research requires a kind of causal statistical studies which seeks to compare two

sample variances. The appropriate statistical tool used in order to investigate the second

research hypothesis is a t-test. A t- test is a statistical examination of two population means,

and degrees of freedom to determine a p value (probability) that can be used to determine

whether the population means differ.

IV.10.3 Descriptive vs. Inferential Statistics

Statistical procedures fall under two major categories: descriptive statistics and

inferential statistics. The main difference between the two categories is that descriptive

statistics tends to recapitulate the statistical information, and inferential statistics intends to

deduce additional data and draw conclusions about the data findings.

Descriptive Statistics Inferential Statistics

Numerical
 Percentages Margin of Error
 Averages  Amount of random sampling

Graphical  Compare means of two samples

 Arrange data in tables  Pre/post tests scores
 graphs and charts use  t Test calculations

Relationships  Compare means from three

 Causation samples
 Regression analysis  Pre/post tests and follow-up
 Correlation coefficient  ANOVA = analysis of variance

Table 8: Descriptive and Infrential Statistics

Both descriptive and inferential statistics are effective in research, but they both have

advantages and disadvantages. Descriptive statistics is good for a small population. It can get

accurate statistical parameters of a small number for the population without leaving rooms for

any errors; that is to say, one may have the accuracy that s/he wants, but it is all limited to a

very small population whereas inferential statistics take those parameters further and get great

estimate of what a much larger population’s statistics is. And thus, one does not need the data

110
of the entire population to make conclusions; this category of statistics needs accurate samples

in order for to draw conclusions.

IV.10.4 Correlation Analysis

The correlation is one of the most common and most useful statistics. A correlation is

a single number that describes the degree (strength) of relationship between two variables. A

strong, or high, correlation means that two or more variables have a strong relationship with

each other while a weak, or low, correlation means that the variables are hardly related.

Correlation coefficients can range from -1.00 to +1.00. The value of -1.00 represents a perfect

negative correlation while a value of +1.00 represents a perfect positive correlation. A value

of 0.00 means that there is no relationship between the variables being tested.

Conclusion

This chapter has outlined the research paradigm, research methodologies, strategies

and design used in the study, including research questions, research hypotheses, participants,

procedures, data collection tools, data collection and analysis methods, and data credibility

issues. It also has provided an explanation of the statistical procedures used to analyze the

data. A descriptive and empirical research methodology has been used for this study.

111
 Chapter V

Needs Analysis (NA)

Introduction

The present chapter describes needs assessment designed in order to determine the

needs of Algerian EFL students at the department of Letters and English language, University

of Constantine 1. It deals particularly with analysing the data collection instrument which is a

questionnaire. It includes also a detailed interpretation of the finding of the needs assessment.

V.1 Needs Analysis Questionnaire

As a research tool, the questionnaire is regarded as the appropriate tool to establish the

needs of students and to answer the first research question in the present study which is, ‘ Do

students need to learn English for communication purposes or for academic ones?’ It is arranged

in multi-option question patterns where the assessment of attitudes and beliefs is inevitable. A

significant number of scaled questions are included too in order to achieve the aim.

V.2 Aim

The aim of the present questionnaire is to establish the students’ general and learning

needs. The questionnaire design is partially based on Hutchinson and Waters (1987)

‘categorization of needs’ stated in Chapter I (Section 1.3.2). It seeks to cover the participants’

wants and abilities (general needs) and learning needs that includes the students’ attitudes

towards the four language skills and towards materials and motivational habits. The

questionnaire design allows the students to make choices between elements of the

communicative approach and those of the traditional one and thus this may lead us to suggest

an appropriate approach that could be an alternative to the current one which is practically a

traditional one.

The students’ questionnaire aimed at gathering information related to the following

areas:

112
  The students’ profile

 The students’ present level in English language use

 The students’ reasons for learning English

 The students’ preferences for English mediums

 The students’ preferences for English language activities

 The students’ long term English learning goals

 The students’ learning preferences in terms of language skills

 The importance of particular language skills

 The students’ English practice in class

 The students’ preference for learning behaviour

V.3 Description of the Questionnaire

The NA questionnaire is divided into three major sections; each one contains multiple-

choice questions. There are a total of nineteen questions.

V.3.1 Section One: Personal Background

This section includes questions eliciting background information about the

participants, their age, gender, status of English at school and level of English before the

university.

V.3.2 Section Two: General Needs

This section is divided into two subsections: ‘Necessities’ and ‘Wants’. Each section

covers multiple-choices questions about the participants’ various domains of needs to learn

English, the mediums they need most when using English and their abilities presented by both

their present English language level and the expected and desired degree of improvement by

the end of their studies.

113
V.3.3 Section Three: Learning Needs

This section is also divided into three subsections: ‘Learners preferred teaching

materials’, ‘Learners’ skills’ and ‘Learners’ preferred environment and habits’. The questions

in this section investigate the learners’ long term goal, their needs of skills improvement,

including the different activities they need to be able to do in English in each skill and their

preferences for learning and learning activities.

V.4 The Questionnaire Overall Design

Participants’ Profile
Age, sex, school level before university and abilities

General Needs Learning Needs

(Direct multiple option (Indirect questions
questions) Elements choices)

Teaching materials Learning

choices environment and
habits choices

Traditional Communicative Interactive Teacher’s led

Methods Method Classroom classroom

Multiple choice questions

Outcomes

Academic purposes Communicative purposes

The Selected Approach

Figure 8: Need Analysis Questionnaire Design

114
V.5 Analysis of the Questionnaire

The analysis of the students’ responses is organized and presented as follows:

V.5.1 Participants’ Profile

The participants in this questionnaire were first, second and third year students of

English at the University of Constantine 1. The questionnaire was administered to 120

students. 92 of the respondents were females, and only 28 males. The age of the participants

was from 18 to 25.

Age Male Female Number of Students Percentage

18 years old 2 10 12 10%
19 years old 5 19 24 20%
20 years old 9 25 34 28.33%
21 years old 5 16 21 17.5%
22 years old 4 8 12 10%
23 years old 1 10 11 9.16%
24 years old 1 1 2 1.66%
25 years old 1 3 4 3.33%
Table 9: Participants’ Age

Figure 9: Participants’ Age

115
 The tables and figures below present a part from the participants’ profile that indicates

the participants’ status and level of English at school (before the university). The majority of

students, which is 65.83%, studied English as a third language at school, 21.66% as a second

language and 12.5% as a first language. Concerning their level of English before university;

51.66%, representing the majority, stated that their level of English was good before

university, 38.33% their level was average, 73.5% said that their English was excellent and

only 2.5% indicated that their level of English was below average. This means that the

participants have a good level of English which is their third language (before university).

Options Number Percentage

1st language 15 12.5%
2nd language 26 21.67%

3rd language 79 65.83%

Total 120 100%

Table 10: Participants’ Status of English at School

Figure 10: Participants’ Status of English at School

116
Options Number Percentage
Below Average 3 2.5%

Average 46 38.33%

Good 62 51.67%

Excellent 9 7.5%

Total 120 100%

Table 11: Participants’ Level of English before University

Figure 11: Participants’ Level of English before University

V.5.2 Learners’ General Needs

Question 1: Why do you need to learn English?

The intended purpose of this question is to discover the students’ perception of their

reasons for learning English. The majority of the students, which is 91.66 %, considers

communication and interaction as their reason for studying English.78.33% need English for

more knowledge by getting to know different people and cultures, 67.5% of learners need

English for meeting people around the world .60.83% consider success in future professional

life as their reason for learning English., 39.16% think that they need English only for study,

20% need it for pleasure and only 12.5% need English for training. The results are revealed in

the table and graph below:

117
Options/Needs Number Percentage
For study 47 39.16%
For work 73 60.83%
For training 15 12.5%
For communication and interaction 110 91.66%
For pleasure 24 20%
For more knowledge by getting to know different people 94 78.33%
For meeting people around the world. 81 67.5%
For some other purposes 8 6.66%
Table 12: Participants’ Reasons for Learning English

Figure 12: Participants’ Reasons for Learning English

Question2: Which of the following mediums do you need when using English?

This question aims at eliciting responses from the students about the medium they

need when using English. The table and the figure below show that 68.33% who represent

the majority are in a dire need to speak in English; writing in English is required by 57% of

the students, the remaining ones which are about 3.33% need English for reading.

118
 Percentage
Options Number

Speaking 82 68.33%

Writing 69 57.5%

Reading 4 3.33%

Table 13: Participants’ Preferences for English Mediums

Figure 13: Participants’ Preferences for English Mediums

Question3: Tick the corresponding boxes in the table below to indicate your English
language level at present (now) and its degree of improvement by the end of your studies
(future).
This question investigates the students’ level of English language at the present time

and the degree of improvement they want to achieve by the end of their studies in six English

activities which cover the four language skills, such as comprehension when reading, fluency

and confidence in speaking, accuracy when speaking, vocabulary, understanding other

speakers, understanding radio or TV programmes, and accuracy when writing. The following

tables show the students’ attitude towards each English activity in a scaled form.

119
 English Language Level/ NOW
Reading Comprehension Fluency and Confidence Accuracy in Speaking
BA A G E BA A G E BA A G E
3 59 48 8 21 69 27 2 11 66 30 1
2.54 40.67 6.77 17.64 57.98 22.68 1.68 10.18 61.11 27.77 0.92
50%
% % % % % % % % % % %
Understanding other
Understanding radio or TV Accuracy in writing
speakers
BA A G BA A G BA A G BA A G
3 37 66 3 37 66 3 37 66 3 37 66
2.58 31.89 56.89 2.58 31.89 56.89 2.58 31.89 56.89 2.58 31.89 56.89
% % % % % % % % % % % %
Table14: Participants’ Current Level of English Language

English Language Level / FUTURE

Reading Fluency and Accuracy in
Vocabulary
Comprehension Confidence Speaking
B B B B
A G E A G E A G E A G E
A A A A
44 68 1 46 65 6 45 53 4 40 66
44. 3. 33.
36.6 56.66 0.92 38.3 54.1 38.3 55
5% 16 33 33
6% % % 3% 6% 3% %
% % %
Understanding other Understanding radio
Accuracy in Writing
Speakers or TV
B B B
A G E A G E A G E
A A A
23 80 5 35 67 2 34 67
19.1 4.1 29.1 55.83 1.66
66.66% 28.33% 55.83%
6% 6% 6% % %

Table 15: Participants’ Desired Level of English Language in the Future

Question 4: What do you enjoy doing in English?

This question seeks to find students’ learning preferences for language skills. The

results show that 82.5% enjoy speaking in English while 33.33% prefer writing and only 30%

enjoy reading in English.

Percentage
Options Frequency
Speaking 99 82.05%
Writing 40 33.33%
Reading 36 30%
Table 16: Participants’ Preferences for Language Skills

120
 Figure 14: Participants’ Preferences for Language Skills

Question 5: What do you want to be able to do with English?

This question intends to investigate the language activities which students want to

develop more. The students’ responses indicate the following: 78.33% want to be able to

interact in English, 61.66% seek to understand native speakers, 36.66% want to be able to

write correctly in English and 31.66% want to read books and documents in English.

Percentage
Options Frequency
Write correctly 44 36.66%
Understand native speakers 74 61.66%
Be able to interact 94 78.33%
Read books and documents 38 31.66%
Table 17: Participants’ Preferences for English Language Activities

Figure 15: Participants’ Preferences for English Language Activities

121
Question 6: What is the most important long term goal?

The aim of the question is to establish the students’ most important long term English

learning goal. 88.33% have a long term goal of being able to interact in both spoken and

written English, 25.83% want to memorize English grammar rules and vocabulary and only 15%

want to be able to read publications in academic English. The following table and graph show the

long-term goals established by the students.

Options Frequency Percentage

To be able to communicate in English, both spoken

106 88.33%
and written
To be able to read publications in academic English 18 15%
To memorize English grammar rules and
31 25.83%
vocabulary
Table 18: Participants’ Long Term English Learning Goals

Figure 16: Participants’ Long Term English Learning Goals

V.5.3 Learning Needs

Question 7: Please, tick the boxes which correspond to your present and future needs in

English.

122
 The purpose of this question is to discover the students’ reasons for studying English at

the present time and in the future regarding the four language skills listening i.e. speaking, reading

and writing. The table and graph demonstrate the following: 88.33% need to improve their

speaking fluency, 47.5% think that they have to improve their listening comprehension. The

writing skill is the aim of 40% whereas the reading skill takes the smallest percentage, which

means that only 21.66% of the students want to improve their reading skill.

Options Frequency Percentage

To improve listening comprehension 57 47.5%

To improve speaking fluency 106 88.33%
To improve reading skills 26 21.66%
To improve writing skills 48 40%
Table 19: Participants’ Present and Future Needs in English

Figure 17: Participants’ Present and Future Needs in English

V.5.3.1 Writing

Question8: Which of these activities do you need to be able to write in English?

This question attempts to establish students’ preference for teaching/learning activities

to improve their writing skill. It also seeks to identify the context of these activities. The

tables and graphs below show that the majority of learners prefer the writing activities of

123
informal communication such as personal letters, SMSs and short daily notes. Writing reports

and taking notes are preferred to be used in formal communication. The tables and graphs

indicate that 54% of learners need to be able to take notes, 33% need to be able to write short

stories, 25% prefer writing personal letters, 17% prefer writing SMSs and short daily notes,

and 58% need to be able to write reports in English in formal communication ( academic),

while in informal communication, 45.83% need to improve their writing skill when taking

notes, 37.50% need to be able to write short stories, 70.83% prefer improving their skill for

writing personal letters and 80.83% which represent the majority need to improve their skill

of writing SMS s and short daily notes and only 1.67% of learners want to be able to write

reports in English.

Formal Communication (Academic) Frequency Percentage

Note-taking 65 54%
Short stories 40 33%
Personal letters 30 25%
SMS s and short daily notes 20 17%
Reports 69 58%
Table 20: Participants’ Preferences for Writing Activities (Formal Communication)

Figure 18: Participants’ Preferences for Writing Activities

(Formal Communication)

124
 Informal communication (with family and friends) Frequency Percentage
Note-taking 55 45.83%
Short stories 45 37.50%
Personal letters 85 70.83%
SMS s and short daily notes 97 80.83%
Reports 2 1.67%
Table 21: Participants’ Preferences for Writing Activities
(Informal Communication)

Figure 19: Participants’ Preferences for Writing Activities

(Informal Communication)

V.5.3.2 Speaking

Question 9: Which among these situations of speaking interests you most? How useful will
it be to you?
This question attempts to explore the students’ most interesting contexts of speaking. Nine

scaled speaking situations are used to elicit the learners’ preferences and to investigate to

which extent learners need to improve their speaking skill in each situation. Among nine

situations used, shopping, other people’s countries, customs and culture, ordering and buying

food and drink, using the telephone, choosing holiday trips and making plans and social

arrangements are considered the most important and useful by the majority of students. On the

other hand, jobs and works, health and fitness and describing families are just interesting

125
enough. The tables and graphs below show the extent to which students need the speaking

skill in each situation.

a. Jobs and Works

The following table and graph indicate that 33.33% of learners find that using English in work

places is not interesting, 10% think that it is very useful.7.50% of students consider it crucial,

4.16% of learners find it slightly interesting and only 0.83% think that it is interesting.

Jobs and Works

Crucial to know 9 7.5%
Very useful 12 10%
Interesting 1 0.83%
Slightly interesting 5 4.16%
Not interesting 40 33.33%
Table 22: Participants’ Interest in Speaking about Jobs and Works

Figure 20: Participants’ Interest in Speaking about Jobs and Works

b. Health and Fitness

The following table and graph indicate that only 0.83% of learners find that using

English in the domain of health and fitness is not interesting, 0.83% think that it is very

useful. A majority of 49.16% of students consider it as crucial to know, 15% of learners find

it slightly interesting and only 1.66% think that it is interesting.

126
 Health and Fitness
Crucial to know 59 49.16%
Very useful 1 0.83%
Interesting 2 1.66%
Slightly interesting 18 15%
Not interesting 1 0.83%
Table 23: Participants’ Interest in Speaking about Health and Fitness

Figure 21: Participants’ Interest in Speaking about Health and Fitness

c. Shopping

The following table and graph indicate that 56.66% of learners find that using English

when shopping is very useful, 22.35% think that it is intersting.16.66% of students consider it

crucial, 1.66% think that it is interesting, and only 0.83% of learners find it slightly

interesting.

Shopping
Crucial to know 20 16.66%
Very useful 68 56.66%
Interesting 27 22.35%
Slightly interesting 1 0.83%
Not interesting 2 1.66%
Table 24: Participants’ Interest in Speaking about Shopping

127
 Figure 22: Participants’ Interest in Speaking about Shopping

d. Customs and Culture

The following table and graph indicate that 43.33% of learners find that using English

to interact with people with different customs and culture is very useful, 4.16% think that it is

interesting. 25% of students consider it crucial to know, 18.33% of learners find it slightly

interesting and 2.5% think that it is not interesting.

Customs and Culture

Crucial to know 30 25%
Very useful 52 43.33%
Interesting 5 4.16%
Slightly interesting 22 18.33%
Not interesting 3 2.5%
Table 25: Participants’ Interest in Speaking about Customs and Culture

Figure 23: Participants’ Interest in Speaking about Customs and Culture

128
 e. Food and Drinks

The following table and graph indicate that 45.83% of learners find that using English

when ordering and buying food and drinks is very useful, 38.33% think that it is crucial.

1.66% of students consider it as slightly interesting, 0.83% of learners find it interesting and

only 0.83% think that it is not interesting.

Food and Drinks

Crucial to know 46 38.33%
Very useful 55 45.83%
Interesting 1 0.83%
Slightly interesting 2 1.66%
Not interesting 1 0.83%
Table 26: Participants’ Interest in Speaking about Food and Drinks

Figure 24: Participants’ Interest in Speaking about Food and Drinks

f. Using the Telephone

The following table and graph indicate that 71.66%% of learners find that using

English on the telephone is very useful, 20.83%% think that it is crucial.1.66% of students

consider it slightly interesting and 1.66% of learners find it interesting

Using the telephone

Crucial to know 25 20.83%
Very useful 86 71.66%
Interesting 2 1.66%
Slightly interesting 2 1.66%
Not interesting
Table 27: Participants’ Interest in Speaking on the telephone

129
 Figure 25: Participants’ Interest in Speaking on the telephone

g. Holiday Trips

The following table and graph indicate that 52.5% of learners find that using English

in holiday trips is very useful, 20.83% think that it is crucial to know. 2.5% of students

consider it interesting, and only 0.83% think that it is not interesting.

Holiday Trips
Crucial to know 25 20.83%
Very useful 63 52.5%
Interesting 3 2.5%
Not interesting 2 1.66%
Table 28: Participants’ Interest in speaking while on Holiday Trips

Figure 26: Participants’ Interest in speaking while on Holiday Trips

130
 h. Describing Families

The following table and graph indicate that 18.33% of learners find that using English

to describe families is very useful, 14.16% think that it is crucial to know.0.83% of students

consider it as slightly interesting, and only 2.5% think that it is not interesting.

Describing Families
Crucial to know 17 14.16%
Very useful 22 18.33%
Slightly interesting 1 0.83%
Not interesting 3 2.5%
Table 29: Participants’ Interest in Describing Families

Figure 27: Participants’ Interest in Describing Families

i. Making Plans and Social Arrangements

The following table and graph indicate that 50% of learners find that using English to

make plans and social arrangement is very useful, 12.5% think that it is crucial to know,

0.83% of students consider it slightly interesting, 0.83% of them find it interesting and only

0.83% think that it is not interesting.

Making Plans and Social Arrangements

Crucial to know 15 12.5%
Very useful 60 50%
Interesting 1 0.83%
Slightly interesting 1 0.83%
Not interesting 1 0.83%
Table 30: Participants’ Interest in Making Plans and Social Arrangements
131
 Figure 28: Participants’ Interest in Making plans and Social Arrangements

V.5.3.3 Listening

Question10: Which of the contexts of use in the first column do you need to be able to
understand in English?

This question intends to show the multiple requirements of the listening skill in

learning English as a foreign language and to analyse learners’ self-assessment on various

ways of improving their listening skill. Five language situations ranging between academic

and communicative ones have been adopted and each one has been scaled to show the degree

of requirement of each. The tables and graphs below indicate that the majority of students

need to understand English when using the telephone with native speakers and academic

reports.

a. Radio or TV Programmes

The following table and graph indicate that 33.33% of learners need to be able to

understand most words when listening to the radio or watching a TV programmes while

23.33% need to understand the general idea.

132
 Radio or TV programmes
Every word 0 0%
Most words 40 33.33%
The general idea 28 23.33%
Table 31: Participants’ Interest in Radio or TV Programmes

Figure 29: Participants’ Interest in Radio or TV Programmes

b. Lectures

The following table and graph indicate that 28.33% of learners need to understand

the general idea of lectures. 27.5% want to understand most words and 27.5% every word.

Lectures
Every word 33 27.5%
Most words 33 27.5%
The general idea 34 28.33%
Table 32: Participants’ Interest in Lectures

Figure 30: Participants’ Interest in Lectures

133
 c. Telephone Calls

The following table and graph indicate that 54.16% of learners need to be able to

understand every word when using the telephone, 20.83% want to understand most words,

while 16.66% need to understand the general idea.

Telephone Calls
Every word 65 54.16%
Most words 25 20.83%
The general idea 20 16.66%
Table 33: Participants’ Interest in Telephone Calls

Figure 31: Participants’ Interest in Telephone Calls

d. Native Speakers

The following table and graph indicate that 40% of learners need to be able to

understand the general idea when listening to native speakers, 37.5% want to understand most

words and 32.5% need to understand every word.

Native Speakers
Every word 39 32.5%
Most words 45 37.5%
The general idea 48 40%
Table 34: Participants’ Interest in understanding Native speakers

134
 Figure 32: Participants’ Interest in understanding Native Speakers

e. Academic Reports

The following table and graph indicate that 43.33% of learners need to be able to

understand every word in academic reports, 13.33% want to understand the general idea,

while 8.33% need to understand most words.

Academic Reports
Every word 52 43.33%
Most words 10 8.33%
The general idea 16 13.33%
Table 35: Participants’ Interest in Academic Reports

Figure 33: Participants’ Interest in Academic Reports

135
V.5.3.4 Reading

Question 11: What material would you like to be able to read in English? How would you
like to read it?

This question attempts to show the students’ preferred reading material and the kind of

reading they use for each material. The tables and graphs below show that the majority of

students prefer reading social magazines and newspapers; most of them prefer reading

educational books and short stories. Skimming and scanning depend on the kind of material

read.

a. Educational Books

The following table and graph indicate that 45% of students would like to be able to

scan educational books while 43.33% would like to skim them.

Educational Books
Skimming 52 43.33%
Scanning 54 45%
Table 36: Participants’ Interest in Educational Books

Figure 34: Participants’ Interest in Educational Books

b. Newspapers

The following table and graph indicate that 44.16% of the students would like to be

able to skim newspapers while 38.33% would like to scan them.

136
 Newspapers
Skimming 53 44.16%
Scanning 46 38.33%
Table 37: Participants’ Interest in Newspapers

Figure 35: Participants’ Interest in Newspapers

c. Short Stories

The following table and graph indicate that 46.66% of students would like to be able

to skim short stories while 11.66% would like to scan them.

Short Stories
Skimming 56 46.66%
Scanning 14 11.66%
Table 38: Participants’ Interest in Short Stories

Figure 36: Participants’ Interest in Short Stories

137
 d. Social Magazines

The following table and graph indicate that 61.66% of students would like to be able

to skim social magazines while 49.16% would like to scan them.

Social Magazines
Skimming 74 61.66%
Scanning 59 49.16%
Table 39: Participants’ Interest in Social Magazines

Figure 37: Participants’ Interest in Social Magazines

e. Academic Papers

The following table and graph indicate that 44.16% of students would like to be able

to scan Academic papers while 17.5% would like to skim them.

Academic Papers
Skimming 21 17.5%
Scanning 53 44.16%
Table 40: Participants’ Interest in Academic Papers

Figure 38: Participants’ Interest in Academic Papers

138
V.5.4 Learning Habits

Question12: How important are the following learning habits to you? (Use the following 1
to 5 scale for each learning habit; please tick only one number for each).
This question investigates the students’ preference for classroom interaction and

activities. The majority of students prefer acting out role play exercises, working in pair and

group work interaction, as compared to working alone, working in a teacher directed lesson

and working in a project. The tables and figures below show the students preferences for each

learning habit.

a. Working in Class

The following table and graph indicate that 49.16% of the students prefer working in

class; 15.83% find it very enjoyable and important; 5% think that it is important; 0.83%

believes that it is somehow important and 20.83% find it neither important nor enjoyable.

Working in Class
Most enjoyable and important 59 49.16%
Very enjoyable and important 19 15.83%
enjoyable and important 6 5%
Somehow enjoyable and important 1 0.83%
Neither enjoyable nor important 1 0.83%
Table 41: Participants’ Preferences for Working in Class

Figure 39: Participants’ Preference for Working in Class

139
 b. Working Alone

The following table and graph show that the students do not enjoy working alone in

class; only 1.66% of students find that working alone in class is most enjoyable and

important; 1.66% find it very enjoyable and important; 1.66% find it enjoyable, and 21.66%

find it neither enjoyable nor important.

Working Alone
Most enjoyable and important 2 1.66%
Very enjoyable and important 2 1.66%
Enjoyable and important 2 1.66%
Somehow enjoyable and important 0 0%
Neither enjoyable nor important 26 21.66%
Table 42 : Participants’ Preferences for Working Alone

Figure 40: Participants’ Preference for Working Alone

c. Working in Pair

The following table and figure indicate that 29.16% of students prefer working in pair;

they believe that it is very enjoyable and important. 25% think that pair-work is the most

important and enjoyable; 4.16% find it enjoyable and important; 2.5% find it neither

enjoyable nor important and only 0.83% find it somehow enjoyable and important.

140
 Working in Pair
Most enjoyable and important 30 25%
Very enjoyable and important 35 29.16%
enjoyable and important 5 4.16%
Somehow enjoyable and important 1 0.83%
Neither enjoyable and important 3 2.5%
Table 43: Participants’ Preferences for Working in Pair

Figure 41: Participants’ Preferences for Working in Pair

d. Working in Groups

The following table and graph indicate that 54.16%, the majority of students, prefer

working in small groups, 27.5% of them believe that it is very important, 3.33% find this kind

of work neither enjoyable nor important, 1.66% think that it is somehow important and only

0.83% find it important.

Working in Small Groups

Most enjoyable and important 65 54.16%
Very enjoyable and important 33 27.5%
enjoyable and important 1 0.83%
Somehow enjoyable and important 2 1.66%
Neither enjoyable nor important 4 3.33%
Table 44: Participants’ Preferences for Working in Groups

141
 Figure 42: Participants’ Preference for Working in Groups

e. Acting out a Role Play Exercise

The table and graph below show that the majority of students, 65.83%, prefer acting a

role play exercise; 24.16% find it very enjoyable and important; 4.16% believe that it is

somehow enjoyable and important; 2.5% find it neither enjoyable nor important and only 0.83

find it enjoyable and important.

Acting out a Role Play Exercise

Most enjoyable and important 79 65.83%
Very enjoyable and important 29 24.16%
enjoyable and important 1 0.83%
Somehow enjoyable and important 5 4.16%
Neither enjoyable nor important 3 2.5%
Table 45: Participants’ Preferences for Acting out a Role Play Exercise

Figure 43: Participants’ Preference for Acting out a Role Play Exercise

142
 f. Working in a Teacher Supervised Lesson

The table and graph below indicate that students do not enjoy working in a teacher

direct lesson; 25% of students think that it is enjoyable and important; 10% find it most

enjoyable and important; 10% believe that it is neither enjoyable nor important; 0.83% thinks

that it is very enjoyable and important and 0.83% finds it somehow enjoyable and important.

Working in a Teacher Supervised Lesson

Most enjoyable and important 12 10%
Very enjoyable and important 1 0.83%
enjoyable and important 30 25%
Somehow enjoyable and important 1 0.83%
Neither enjoyable nor important 12 10%
Table 46: Participants’ Preferences in a Teacher Supervised Lesson

Figure 44: Participants’ Preference for Working in a Teacher Supervised Lesson

g. Working in a Project

The following table and graph indicate that the students do not really enjoy working in

a project. 19.16% of students think that it is somehow enjoyable and important; 13.33% find it

neither important nor enjoyable; 11.66% think that it is most important, 2.5% find it important

and 1.66% believe that it is very important.

143
 Working in a Project
Most enjoyable and important 14 11.66%
Very enjoyable and important 2 1.66%
enjoyable and important 3 2.5%
Somehow enjoyable and important 23 19.16%
Neither enjoyable nor important 16 13.33%
Table 47: Participants’ Preference for Working in a Project

Figure 45: Participants’ Preferences for Working in a Project

Question 13: How often do you practice English in class?

This question attempts to show the time devoted to the practice of English in class.

The table and graph below illustrate that 46.66% of students declare that they practice English

in class sometimes, 26.66% assert that they often practice English in class and 26.66% affirm

that they always practice English in class.

Options Frequency Percentage

Sometimes 56 46.66%
Often 32 26.66%
Always 32 26.66%
Total 120 100%
Table 48: Participants’ English Practice in Class

144
 Figure 46: Participants’ English Practice in Class

Question 14: Do you think that the time devoted to practice is enough?
This question attempts to examine the students’ attitude towards the time devoted to

the practice of English in class. 96.66% write that the time devoted to practice is enough and

3.33% declare that it is not enough.

Options Frequency Percentage

Yes 4 3.33%
No 116 96.66%
Total 120 100%
Table 49: Participants’ Time of English Practice in Class

Figure 47: Participants’ Time of English Practice in Class

145
Question15: What is your main aim in Learning?

The purpose of this question is to know the students’ main aim from learning English;

78.33% answer that their main aim is mastery of the language and 21.66% look only for good

marks.

Options Frequency Percentage

Good marks 26 21.66%
Mastery of the language 94 78.33%
Total 120 100%
Table 50 : Participants’ English Learning Aim

Figure 48 : Student’s Major Aim in Learning English

V.6 Discussion of the Findings

The preliminary purpose of the present study was to determine the English Language

general and learning needs of the participants (1st, 2nd and 3rd year students) and then come to

a decision about their choices between learning English for academic purposes or

communicative ones.

The findings of the needs analysis questionnaire have helped answer the first research

question which is ‘Do students need to learn English for communication purposes or for

academic ones?’ and to recommend an approach (methodology) which best fits the students’

needs.

146
 This part of study which is mainly concerned with the Needs Analysis of graduate

students of English is classified as a quantitative and qualitative study in nature with an

interpretive approach. According to Bryman (2008) an interpretive approach places an

emphasis on gathering data to interpret and understand social interactions, meanings and

contexts in which people act. Through the adoption of an interpretive approach in this part of

study, the English graduate students’ needs are described and interpreted in order to make

those needs and preferences understandable, so that teachers can perceive the importance of

these needs and make an effort to help their students with the best fitting approach (academic

or communicative) in the future. Using an interpretive approach in the analysis of the needs

assessment questionnaire leads to the implementation of a description and explanation. Punch

examines the issue of description versus explanation and draws a contrast between them.

According to him:

Description and explanation represent two different levels of

understanding. To describe is to draw a picture of what happens,
or of how things are proceeding, or of what a situation or a
person or an event is like. Description is concerned with making
complicated things understandable. To explain, on the other
hand, is to account for: what happens, or how things are
proceeding, or what something or someone is like. It too is
concerned with making complicated things understandable, but
on a different level. It involves finding the reasons for things,
events and situations, showing why they have come to be what
they are. Description is a more restricted purpose than
explanation (Punch, 2005, p.15).

After the quantitative description of the students’ responses, the following sections

provide procedures of the interpretation (description + explanation) of the gathered data (the

description and explanation of the findings).

147
V. 6.1 Interpretation of the Findings

In this study, the needs analysis questionnaire is implemented as a key data collection

method; when interpreting data, we have:

1. described and explained the questionnaire’s findings.

2. categorised the different findings into categories and areas and associated those

findings to the appropriate purposes’ types (academic or communicative needs’

purposes).

3. attempted to select an appropriate approach which best fits the students’ needs.

(The selected approach will be proposed based on the determination of the

students’ required type of needs).

V.6.2 Description of the findings

In this section, the participants’ responses (needs, preferences, wants and abilities) are

conveniently grouped into four phases:

 Phase 1: Participants’ Profile

 Phase 2: Participants’ General and Learning Needs

 Phase 3: Participants’ Language Skills and Teaching Materials Preferences

 Phase 4: Participants’ Preferred Learning Environment

Phase 1: Participants’ Profile

The analysis of the participants’ profile indicates that the participants in this

questionnaire were 120 first, second and third year students of English at University of

Constantine 1. They consist of 92 females and only 28 males. The age of the participants is

from 18 to 25. These information about participants show that the first part of the present

research which addressees the first research question attempted to cover the needs of most

EFL students at the Department of Letters and English Language with different backgrounds.

148
The heterogeneity of the sample at the level of personal backgrounds is only a reflection on

the heterogeneity of the students learning English at the tertiary level in Algerian institutions

(the case of Constantine 1 University). This favours the random selection of the sample in the

study and ensures a high degree of representativeness, and leaves no need to use a table of

random numbers. This means that no other variable, such as age, sex, etc., than the

participants’ need affects the learners’ responses and choices of the elements in the

questionnaire. This means that the analysis of questionnaire is based only on the learners’

needs rather than on other variables which may affect their responses. The participants profile

includes also the participants’ status and level of English at school (before the university). The

responses of participants indicate that they have a good level of English which is their third

language (before university). As a matter of fact, English has always been a foreign language

(second foreign) in the Algerian educational system from primary to tertiary level.

Phase 2: General and Learning Needs

The Needs Analysis Questionnaire revealed that communication and interaction with

native speakers are what the learners want to achieve from learning English as a Foreign

Language. The students’ choices of the language skills varied. The analysis also showed that

speaking is more preferred as a medium compared to reading and writing (figure 13).

Considering the participants’ current and future level of English, the participants’

responses indicate the following:

The participants’ level of English language at the present time in the following

activities: comprehension when reading, vocabulary, understanding other speakers,

understanding radio or TV programmes and accuracy when writing is GOOD, whereas the

participants’ level of English in ‘fluency’ and ‘confidence in speaking and accuracy when

speaking’ is AVERAGE. The participants want that their future level of English language in

the six English activities, reading comprehension, fluency and confidence in speaking,

149
speaking accuracy, vocabulary, comprehension, understanding radio or TV programmes, and

accuracy when writing would be EXCELLENT.

The analysis of the questionnaire also revealed that the students want to be able to

interact in English and understand native speakers rather than being able to write correctly

and read books and documents in English. This indicates clearly that the students of the

present study need English for communication purposes.

Phase 3: Language skills and teaching materials preferences

The students’ choices of the language skills of language varied. The analysis revealed

that speaking and listening are more preferred as skills compared to reading and writing

(figure 17); that is to say, the students need to improve their speaking fluency and their

listening comprehension more than improving their writing and reading skills (figure 17).

The questionnaire results also indicate that the course syllabus preferred by students

seems to be a useful one that incorporates tasks and activities covering the four language

skills with a particular emphasis on speaking and listening. The course material required by

students includes a set of exercises which engage learners in communication and which

contribute to the improvement of their language proficiency by focusing on the development

of communicative ability. The preferred activities deduced from the students’ responses are as

follows:

a. Writing Activities: Between formal and informal communication, the students prefer

writing personal letters, short daily notes and SMSs more than taking notes and

writing reports.

b. Speaking Activities: Students need to improve their speaking skill in the following

language situations: Shopping, other people’s countries, customs and culture, ordering

and buying food and drink, using the telephone, holiday trips and making plans and

150
 social arrangements. Other language situations like jobs and works, health and fitness

and describing families are considered as just interesting enough by the students.

c. Listening Activities: Students prefer improving their listening skill when engaging in

the following language situations: understanding native speakers, telephone calls and

TV programmes more than listening to lectures and academic reports.

d. Reading Activities: Students prefer reading news papers , social magazines and short

stories better than educational books and academic reports. The students’ preferred

activities showed that they seek for communication and interaction in English as a

foreign language

Phase 4: Learning environment and habits

Regarding the area of learning environment and habits, the students’ responses specify

that they prefer a learner- centred classroom where teachers use a variety of student groupings

to encourage communication in the target language among them. Students need an

environment arranged in a manner that allows them to work together in pairs or groups and

where the teacher can move around to facilitate conversations among students language

(figures 39, 40,41,42,43,44,45,46 &47).

V.6.3 Academic Purposes vs. Communication Purposes: Learners’ Needs

The following table shows the students’ choice between learning English for academic

purposes or for communication ones with a particular reference to what scholars and experts

have said about both types of purposes. Seven needs are selected for the interpretation as the

most important features analysed in the questionnaire.

151
 English for
Needs’ English for Academic
Communication Learners’ Needs
Areas Purposes
Purposes
Communication and
Communication and
interaction and
Academic(language for interaction in English
getting in touch with
education ) language
native speakers are
Present
the learners’ what
and Future Now that language is
they want to achieve
Needs in Learners are not learning communication, it
from learning
English the English language for naturally follows that the
English as a Foreign
& the sake of it, but because goal of language
Language. (Figures
Long Term they need, or will need, to instruction is to equip the
12 & 15 )
Learning use English in their learners with the ability to
To be able to
Goals professional or academic use the language for
communicate in
lives (Gillett, 2011) communication, namely,
English, both
communicative
spoken and written
competence. (Liu, 2003)
(Figures 16 & 48)

It is within EAP that

writing really rises in
importance and focus, and
arguably becomes the main
skill on which a student’s
success depends. (Rogers, speaking and listening are
2012) considered to be the
essential skills of
In academic contexts, communication in real life
Language
reading is considered the
Skills Students are in a
dominant means for
dire need to speak in
learning new information
English rather than
and gaining access to Effective Communication
write and read
alternative explanations reflects the accountability
(Figures 14 & 17)
and interpretations. Also, of speaker and listener.
reading plays a primary (Baker& Westrup,2003)
role in independent
learning whether the goal
is performing better on
academic tasks, learning
more about a subject
matter, or improving
language abilities (Grabe,
2001).
EAP may constitute of
Language teaching specific skills
Skills and such as reading texts, A variety of games, roles The course material
Teaching writing reports, taking plays, simulations, and required by students
Materials notes and so forth for task-based communication includes a range of
Preference students at the tertiary- activities have been exercise types which
s level institution. prepared to support engage learners in

152
 (a) Listening to lectures Communicative classes. communication and
Wanted and taking notes (i.e. The use of “authentic” which contribute to
Level of quickly). “real-life” materials in the the improvement of
English (b) Reading and taking communicative classroom their language
Language notes (i.e. more leisurely); might include language proficiency by
in the reading quickly for based realia, such as signs, focusing on the
Future information; skimming for magazines, development of
the gist of content or an advertisements, and communicative
& argument. newspapers, or graphic ability. (Figures 18,
Preference (c) Writing (constructing a and visual sources around 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,
s for paragraph, a good essay or which communicative 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,
English report). activities can be built. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,
Language (d) Oral skills, such as (Richards & Rodger 2001) 34, 35, 36, 37 & 38)
Activities seminar strategies (giving
short talks or presentations,
stating a point of view,
asking questions for
clarification, etc.
(Jordan.1997)

Students prefer a
learner- centred
classroom where
teachers use a
While EFL teachers variety of student
typically aim to keep the Communicative groupings to
classroom as learner- Classrooms are organized encourage target
centred as possible, the so that students work language
EAP classroom is together in small communication
invariably more teacher- cooperative teams, such as among them.
centred and subject- groups or pairs, to Students need an
Learning
centred. Where the EFL complete activities...... In environment
Environme
teacher works to elicit foreign language learning arranged in a
nt and
ideas and activate environments, students manner that allows
habits
language, the EAP teacher work cooperatively on a students to work
is required to transmit a language-learning task or together in pairs or
certain amount of objective collaboratively by groups and where
information to learners to achieving the goal through the teacher can
help prepare them for communicative use of the move around to
academic life. (Allison target language. (Richards facilitate
1996) & Rodger 2001) conversations
among students
language. (Figures
39, 40, 41, 42, 43,
44, 45, 46, 47 & 48)

Table 51: Academic Purposes vs. Communication Purposes: Learners’ Needs

153
 Table 51 indicates that the type of purposes needed and preferred by students is

‘learning English for communication’, which means they need English for communication

and interaction. This confirms the first research hypothesis which is that “students have the

type of English learning needs which favours the communicative perspective, i.e. they need

English for communication and interaction”

V.6.4 Most Consistent Approach with the Needs of the Learners

The present study has been driven by a need to investigate the teaching of pragmatics

at the Department of Letters and English Language, University of Constantine 1. The study

recommends the design of a satisfactory pragmatics course for LMD students at the

department through the introduction of pragmatics instruction and communicative activities.

Therefore, we have undergone a needs assessment in order to determine the students’ needs

that would permit the identification of an appropriate approach which fits their preferences

and abilities better and that would lead to a new syllabus. This syllabus would deal with

language use theoretically and practically in order to develop the students’ pragmatic

awareness and communicative competence. Conducting a needs assessment in the present

study helped in interpreting the students’ needs in an appropriate approach suiting the kind of

learning desired by them.

Over the last four decades or so, teaching and learning English as foreign language

have been influenced by two major approaches: 1) the traditional skills-based approach, also

known as the ‘direct’ and ‘formal’ instructional approach, and (2) the communicative

language referred to as the ‘indirect’ and ‘informal’ learning approach.

Nunan (1988) made a distinction between traditional approaches and communicative

approaches.

154
 TRADITIONAL APPROACHES COMMUNICATIVE APPROACHES
Language as a structured
Focus in learning system of grammatical Language as communication.
patterns.
How language On the basis of what language items
items are On linguistic criteria alone. the learner needs to know in order
selected to get things done.
How language Determined on other grounds, with
Determined on linguistic
items are the emphasis on content, meaning
grounds.
sequenced and interest.
The ‘whole picture’ of In any particular phase, only what
Degree of
language structure by the learner needs and sees as
coverage
systematic linear progression. important.
The variety of language is accepted,
As a unified entity with fixed
View of and seen as determined by the
grammatical patterns and a
language character of particular
core of basic words.
communicative contexts.
Type of Genuine everyday language is
Formal and bookish.
language used emphasized.
What is Have students communicate
regarded as a Have students produce effectively and in a manner
criterion of formally correct sentences. appropriate to the context they are
success working in.
Which
Spoken interactions are regarded as
language skills
Reading and writing. at least as important as reading and
are
writing.
emphasized
Teacher/student roles Teacher-centered. Student-centered.
Incorrect utterances are seen Partially correct and incomplete
Attitude toward
as deviations from the norms utterances are seen as such rather
Errors
of standard grammar. than just “wrong”.
Similarity/dissimilarity Reverses the natural language
Resembles the natural language
to learning process by
learning process in that the content
natural concentrating on the form of
of the utterance is emphasized
language utterances rather than on
rather than the form.
learning content.
Table 52: Differences between Traditional and Communicative Approach (Nunan, 1988,
P.52)

The elements of the communicative approach in Nunan’s distinction (1988) match the

students’ needs in the present study, particularly, in ‘Focus in learning’, ‘View of language’,

‘Type of language used’, ‘What is regarded as a criterion of success’, ‘Which language

skills are emphasized’ and ‘Teacher/student roles’. Besides those teaching and learning

areas, the learners’ needs are considered very important in the language elements to be

155
covered in the syllabus. The content & methodology match the learners’ needs in the

communicative approach (Nunan, 1999).

It goes without saying that the current traditional methods of teaching English as a

foreign language at the University of Constantine 1 failed to guarantee the achievement of

learners’ needs (being communicatively competent). And thus, there is an urgent need to shift

towards an approach which focuses on developing learners’ pragmatic awareness and

communicative proficiency.

In the light of the analysis and evaluation of the needs of 1st , 2nd and 3rd year graduate

students of English at the Department of Letters and English Language, University of

Constantine 1, the communicative approach would be the most appropriate approach. This

approach:

1) Meets the students’ needs

2) Serves as a basis for planning a syllabus that aims at developing the students’

communicative competence.

3) Supports the communicative aspects of language by providing the appropriate

tools, training and environment to the teaching of English as foreign language in

the Algerian context.

As far as the present study is concerned, needs analysis was conducted in order

to support the assumption that learners need English for communication and interaction, and

thus have the type of English learning needs which favours the communicative perspective.

Confirming the first hypothesis of the present research ensures the effectiveness of the whole

investigation which deals with the reconsideration of teaching pragmatics by introducing explicit

pragmatic instruction and communicative activities. According to Hutchinson and Waters, “We

would still maintain that any course should be based on an analysis of learners’ need”. (1987,

156
p. 53). Certainly, needs analysis is conducted based on the assumption that it is part of the

planning instructional materials) that takes place as a part of the development of a course.

Conclusion

This chapter has introduced the first research tool with which this study is conducted;

it has covered the information regarding the research participants, their language learning

needs. The data has been analysed, findings have been interpreted and conclusions have been

drawn. The idea was to investigate the language learning needs of the students and suggest an

approach. The hypothesis was that students have the type of English learning needs that are in

line with the communicative perspective i.e. they need English for communication and

interaction. The analysis of data collected through the questionnaire has clearly indicated that

the students need English for communication and interaction and thus the first hypothesis was

confirmed.

157
 Chapter VI

Experiment and Correlated Data Analysis

Introduction

This chapter will introduce the main study and describe the instruments of data

collection, scoring procedure, tests design and administration and the statistical methods for

analysing both quantitative and qualitative data. It will be devoted to cover the procedures

followed to test hypotheses 2, 3 and 4 based on the design and analysis of two major research

instruments: the experiment and pragmatic language tests. Lastly, the findings of the main

study will be presented and explained.

VI.1 Experiment

The purpose of the experiment is to test the impact of explicit pragmatic instruction on

the speech act awareness of advanced EFL students. More specifically, the goal is to answer

the following research question:

 To what extent does the introduction of explicit pragmatic instruction affect student’s

awareness of speech acts?

Experimental design is very useful in addressing evaluation questions about the

effectiveness and impact of treatment.

VI.1.1 Pilot Study

Before administration, the tests were piloted on 7 subjects, relatively close to the

profile of the target population, in order to fine-tune the questions, instructions, and

procedures. In the pilot study, besides completing the surveys, the subjects were also asked to

make comments on the clarity of the activities and situations, and to give comments about the

process of completing the surveys, as well. The data collected were then analysed both as

preliminary results and to assess the design of the surveys for the sake of revising the final

version of the surveys. As some of the respondents gave several alternative answers to one
158
and the same question, or gave hypothetical answers that would either describe or explain

what they would do instead of saying the apologies and requests themselves, the instructions

of the survey needed some changes in order to make it clearer to the respondents what they

had to do. Originally the instructions were that the subjects had to say how they would

apologize and make requests in each of the situations.

The pilot study carried out before the main one indicates that the research

methodology design was acceptable. The methods used for the investigation were suitable.

Participants’ selection, instructional materials and procedures were appropriate. The tests’

standard answering protocol and scoring were accurate enough to present the results. The

pilot study shows the feasibility of this research in terms of research questions and hypotheses

and the research methods used to investigate those questions. That is to say, each research

tool was the appropriate one to examine the research questions and hypotheses. Moreover,

detailed information of the whole study including the participants’ profile, research

procedures and data collection were provided (see chapter IV). The results and discussion will

be shown in the following sections.

VI.1.2 Description of the Tests

Many EFL students are learning English to acquire communicative competence. It is

important to test how effectively students can accomplish their communicative ability of

native speakers as non-native speakers. Testing, thus, has direct relation with teaching and

enables us to know whether examinees understand what they have learned and how well they

can apply them outside the classroom.

VI.1.2.1 Speech Act Awareness Test

The test of speech act is composed of two sections: the first section assesses the

students’ speech act comprehension and the second section measures the students’ speech act

159
performance. This test is, then, a combination of two tests [speech act comprehension test +

speech act production test].

VI.1.2.1.1 Speech Act Comprehension Test

In the present study, the speech act comprehension test is designed to measure the

students’ speech act understanding and identification of the different types of speech acts,

utterances meaning, interlocutors’ intention and contextual features.

Most of the previous studies carried out in the field of interlanguage pragmatics (see

chapter II section 8) regard speech act awareness as a language constituent which refers only

to the speech act realization (using DCT). This means that pragmatic comprehension was

neglected completely though it is the most important component of the speech act awareness

which can be taught and explained in an academic context. Together with speech act theory,

speech act comprehension is that part of pragmatics which can be taught through the courses

of pragmatics. The present study covers this component by designing a set of activities which

aim at measuring the students’ speech act awareness at the level of understanding and

interpreting the appropriate meaning of speech acts used in different communicative

situations, which is an important part of the pragmatic language proficiency construct.

The speech act comprehension test attempts to investigate whetherstudents are able

to:

 comprehend the linguistic meaning pragmatically

 understand the utterance based on the contextual features that denote the speaker's

intentions;

 understandthe interlocutor’sthoughts;

160
  distinguish speech act meanings, such as the difference between a declaration and

a directive;

 furnish appropriate answers;

 and recognize the speaker’s sense of humour and sadness state.

In this study, there is an attempt to analyse the performances of third year English

learners on a speech act task that focus on the comprehension of different utterances used in

social and communicative situations. A pre and post speech act comprehension tests are used.

They include different activities that measure the students’ understanding and inference of the

different types of speech acts, contextual information and their performance of the appropriate

speech acts in specific communicative social situations.

VI.1.2.1.2 Written Discourse Completion Task (WDCT)

The WDCT is used to assess the participants’ meta-pragmatic knowledge and to

determine whether the participants are able to perform the speech they could produce in face-

to-face interaction. It is used to provide information on:

1. The learners’ pragmatic knowledge of the contextual features and linguistic forms by

which requests and apologies can be realized.

2. The learners’ meta-pragmatic knowledge of the social factors under which particular

linguistic choices are appropriate.

3. The learners’ attitudes regarding the use of requests and apologies in order to measure

changes in knowledge and attitudes that might be the result of instruction. All this

information is fundamental in determining how FL pragmatic knowledge develops.

The selection and construction of dialogues took into account the following important

issues:

1. The social and contextual features of the communicative acts i.e. internal contextual

features (absolute ranking of imposition of the speech act); absolute ranking of the imposition
161
is described by Hudson as “the potential imposition of carrying out the speech act, in terms

of the expenditure of goods and /or services by the hearer, or the obligation of the speaker

to perform the act” (2001, p. 284).

2. The relative power of the speaker over the hearer “the degree to which the speaker can

impose his or her will on the hearer due to a higher rank within an organization,

professional status, or the hearer's need to have a particular duty or job performed”

(Hudson, 1995, p.4).

3. The social distance of the speaker and the hearer (interlocutors) which is the degree to

which people are willing to accept and associate with those having different social status.

Consequently, The DCT collected data were examined through determining the main

social variables that the participants should take into account when performing the appropriate

speech acts (requests/apologies). The main variables are: social power (P), social distance (D)

and degree of imposition (R).

A significant difference in pre-test to post-test scores would be interpreted as

development in the area of interlanguage pragmatics (IL). Essentially, a DCT functions to

create a scenario to which a participant or informant must respond. Typically, there is an

initial statement outlining the context within which a dialogue occurs. Next, the first line of

the dialogue is presented, and the participant is, then, given an opportunity to respond in the

way that s/he believes most appropriate.

VI.1.2.1.2.1 Description of the DCT Situations vis-à-vis the Social Variables

The DCT situations in speech act awareness tests take the form of role-plays

resembling real-life situations, and, therefore, the data obtained can be regarded as such. In

addition, written role-plays were preferred to spoken ones because they allow focusing on the

language in which we are interested and are, therefore, time-saving in terms of collection.

162
 The following is a detailed description of the request and apology situations in the

DCT according to the social variables. The description covers all the social variables based on

which the research determines the level of appropriateness when correcting the test papers.

(+D = High Social Distance, -D = Low Social Distance). The situations used for the pre and

post-test were either created for the present study or modified from previous research studies

(Özyildirim, 2010, http://turkoloji.cu.edu.tr/DILBILIM/isil_ozyildirim_apology_forms.pdf )

VI.1.2.1.2.1.1 Description of the Requests Situations (Pre-test)

Social Social Imposition

Situations Requester Requestee
Power Distance Ranking

S1: Asking a student

(stranger) to turn the music Student Student S=H + SD High
down
S2: asking a friend to lend
Friend
some money Speaker S=H -SD Low

S3: Asking a brother to close

the window Student Brother S<H -SD High

S4: Asking a salesman to

allow exchanging a shirt Customer Salesman S<H +SD Low

S5: Asking a waiter for the

menu Customer Waiter S>H +SD High

S6: Asking the president of a

President
university to spare one or
Student of S<H +SD Low
two hours for an interview
University
Table 53: Description of the Requests Situations (pre-test) according to the Social
Variables

163
VI.1.2.1.2.1.2 Description of the Requests Situations (Post-test)

Social Social Imposition

Situations Requester Requestee
Power Distance Ranking
S1: Asking a student
(stranger) to lend a pen Students Students S=H + SD Low

S2:Borrowing a friend’s Friend

Speaker S=H -SD High
notes (classmate)
S3: Asking a professor to
give you more time to write Student Professor S<H +SD Low
a paper.
S4: Asking a stranger to
Speaker Stranger S<H +SD Low
take a photo of you
S5: Borrowing a
Student Student S=H -SD High
classmate’s camera
S6: Asking a friend to post a
letter for you Speaker friend S=H -SD High

Table 54: Description of the Requests Situations (post-test) Variables

VI.1.2.1.2.1.3 Description of the Apology Situations (Pre-test)

Social Social
Situations Speaker Hearer Severity Obligation
Power Distance
S1: Stepping on a
woman’s foot in a Speaker Woman S=H + SD Low High
bus
S2: Being late to a
meeting and friend
Speaker Friend S=H -SD High High
waiting standing in a
crowded street
S3: Denting slightly
Speaker Driver S<H +SD Low High
the car in front
S4: Forgetting to
buy the book that Father Son S>H -SD High High
child asked for
S5: Telling a friend
with a nice new
Speaker Friend S=H -SD Low Low
hair-cut style that he
looks so bad
S6: Failing to give a
professor his book
Student Professor S<H +SD High High
back because not
finishing reading it
Table 55: Description of the Apology Situations (Pre-test)

164
 VI.1.2.1.2.1.4 Description of the Apology Situations (post-test)

Situations Speaker Hearer Social Social Severity Obligation

Power Distance
S1: Giving a party at
home one night
withthe volume of the Speaker Neighbour S<H + SD High Low
music too high
S2: Gettinglate to a
business meeting with Speaker Boss S<H +SD High High
the boss
S3: Waking soundly
sleeping sister with Speaker Sister S=H -SD Low High
noise inthe kitchen
S4: Promising to lend
brother’s textbooks to
Speaker Brother S=H -SD High High
friend without his
consent
S5: Bumping into a
stranger and causing
him to drop his/her Speaker stranger S<H +SD High High
books
S6: Hitting
neighbour’s car while Speaker Neighbour S<H +SD High High
parking
Table 56: Description of the Apology Situations (Post-test)

VI.1.3 Speech Act Awareness Pre/Post Test Format and Scoring

Both tests include various activities which aim at assessing the students’ knowledge

and understanding of performative verbs which allow them to expand the kinds of direct

speech acts they can make. They attempt to measure the students’ ability to bring speech acts

into their conversational contexts. Each test is divided into two sections: speech act

comprehension and speech act realization. The Activities used for the pre and post-test were

either created by us or modified from the following source:

http://www.sfu.ca/~jeffpell/Ling324/ass5fjp.pdf.

165
VI.1.3.1 Speech Act Awareness Pre-test Format and Scoring

Activities Body Scoring

1/Which of the following verbs is a performative? part 1: 0.5
Activity1 2/Choose two verbs to write two sentences that can Part 2: 0.5
Performative Verbs be uttered performatively?

For each of the following illocutionary acts, give

Activity2 two non-synonymous sentences that could be used
Identifying Similar to perform them.
Meaning 1/Reminding someone to pick up the cleaning. Part 1:0.5
2/Offering to help someone wash the dishes Part 2:0.5
3/Asking someone to hurry in the shower Part 3:0.5
For each of the following sentences, name at least
Activity3 two illocutionary acts their utterance could
Identifying perform and specify the conditions in which they
illocutionary meaning may be uttered.
and their context of 1/Assignments will be collected next week Part 1:0.5
use 2/I'm cold Part 2:0.5
3/Is Linda there? Part 3:0.5
4/Our dinner reservations are at seven o'clock. Part 4:0.5
5/You may want to review chapter 3 before Part 5:0.5
Friday's test.
Choose two illocutionary acts and give two
Activity 4 different locutions which would express each act.
Understanding 1/ Congratulate
illocutinary acts 2/ Request Part 1:0.5
3/ Apologize
4/ Warn Part 2:0.5
5/ Thank
Activity5 For each of the utterances below:
Identifying the speech 1/ Name the speech act performed Part 1: 1
acts 2/ Decide whether the speech act is direct or Part 2: 1
indirect.
Table 57:Speech Act Awareness Pre-test Format and Scoring

Situations

Apologies

1/ You stepped on the foot of a woman in a bus while you were trying to sit down, but it was
impossible to avoid this as the woman extended her legs too much towards the front seat.
Still, you felt the need to apologize.

166
 2/ You were half an hour late to a meeting with a friend and made him/her wait standing in
a crowded street.
3/ You were late at stopping at the red lights while you were driving in heavy traffic and
dented slightly the car in front of you. The driver of the car came out angrily.
4/ When you came back home in the evening, your child asked whether you bought the
book he/she wanted for his/her homework. You suddenly remembered that you had
forgotten all about it and felt very sorry about this situation.
5/ You promised to help your sister/brother study for an exam but you did not have the time
to do so.
6/ You promised a professor that the following day you would give him back his book, but
you failed to do so because you did not finish reading it.

Requests
1/ You are trying to study in your room and you hear loud music coming from another
student’s room down the hall. You do not know the student, but you decide to ask
him/her to turn the music down. What would you say?
2/ You are at a record store with your best friend. There’s a CD you really want to buy, but
you do not have any money. How do you ask your friend to lend you some money?
3/ You are studying at home. Your younger brother opens the window and the cold wind
blows right in your face and bothers you. You want to ask him to close it. What would
you say?
4/ You have bought a shirt from a store for your father, but he does not like its colour. You
decide to go to the store and ask the salesman to allow you to exchange the shirt. What
would you say?
5/ Your friend and you go to a restaurant to eat. You want to order and need to ask the
waiter for the menu. What would you say?
6/ You are writing your thesis and need to interview the president of a university whom you do

not know. You know the president is very bus, but still want to ask her/him to spare one or

two hours for your interview. What would you say?

167
VI.1.3.2 Speech Act Awareness Post-test Format and Scoring

Activities Body Scoring

Activity1 1/For each of the following speech acts, indicate part 1: 3
performative verbs the type of speech act:
and types of speech 2/Tick the boxes to indicate which of the above Part 2: 1
acts speech acts contains a performative verb.
Activity2 For each of the utterances below:
Identifying Similar 1/Name the speech act performed. Part 1: 1.75
Meaning 2/ Decide whether the speech act is direct or Part 2: 1.75
indirect.

Activity3 Choose two illocutionary acts and give two

Understanding different locutions which would express each act. Part 1:0.5
illocutinary 1/ Congratulate Part 2:0.5
acts 2/ Request
3/ Apologize
4/ Warn
5/ Thank

Activity 4 Fill in the blanks with the corresponding speech Part 1: 0.25
Identifying the act. Part 2: 0.25
speech acts

Table 58: Speech Act Awareness Post-test Format and Scoring

Situations

Apologies

1/ While you were giving a party at home one night, one of your neighbours knocked at the
door and shouted in a very angry manner that the volume of the music was too high.
2/ You were half an hour late to a business meeting with your boss and made him/her wait
for you.
3/ Your sister was sleeping soundly and you woke her up with the noise you were making in
the kitchen.
4/ You promised to lend your friend your brother’s textbooks without his consent although
you knew he would not allow it.
5/ You bumped into a stranger in the way to class causing him to drop the books he/she was
carrying

168
6/ You hit your neighbour’s car while parking.

Requests

1/ For registration you need to fill out a couple of forms. You search all of your pockets
and cannot find a pen. You want to ask another student who is sitting next to you in the
department hall. What would you say?
2/You were absent during last Friday’s history class that you are enrolled in. So, you decide
to borrow your friend’s notes to catch up with the rest of the class. What would you say
to get this friend to lend you the notes?
3/ You have a paper due in one of your classes next week. However, you will be very busy
that week and don’t have any time to write it. You go to your professor’s office to ask for
more time to write the paper. How do you request an extension?
4/ A friend of yours from out of the town is paying you a visit. Both of you would like to
take a photo together to remember this happy moment. You decide to ask a nearby
person, who is a stranger to you, to do this favour. What would you say?
5/ You want to go out for a trip and you need your classmate’s camera. What would you say
to ask him/her to lend it to you?
6/ You want your friend to post a letter for you because you are sick. How would you ask
him/her to do so?

VI.1.3.3 Scoring Scale for Rating DCT Situations

In each situation of the DCT, the first line of the dialogue is presented, and the

participant is then given an opportunity to respond in the way that s/he believes most

appropriate. The participants’ responses to the DCT items were rated onthe basis ofa four-

point scale (Jernigan 2007, p12):

169
 Score
Description Indicators
(pts)

Response is completely acceptable  approaches native-like

usage
pragmatically given the context, not  minor grammatical errors
do not interfere with
1
noticeably affected by any errors pragmatic effectiveness
 totally appropriate to
the situation
Response is generally appropriate  near native-like usage
 minor grammatical errors
given the context, but contains one or more may distract from
pragmatic effectiveness 0.75
pragmalinguistic flaws that affect the  may be too brief or too
long
intended meaning  somewhat appropriate
to the situation
Response is generally unacceptable  generally non-native-
like usage
pragmatically in this context, though noticeable errors distract
from pragmatic effectiveness 0.5
perhaps not in all contexts at times
 too brief or too long
 generally inappropriate
to the situation
Response is unacceptable  clearly non-native-like
usage
pragmatically given the context  numerous errors distract
from pragmatic effectiveness 0.25
throughout
 clearly inappropriate to
the situation
Table 59: Scoring Scale for Rating DCT Situations

Each situation in the DCT is scored out of 2. The scores change from one situation to

another according to the formulas of request and apology provided by the students.

VI.1.3.3.1 Administration of Instruction and Tests

The main study was conducted in the second semester of the third year of English at

the University of Constantine 1. Speech act awareness pre-test and post-test were used in

order to investigate if there was any improvement in the student’s pragmatic and speech acts

awareness (comprehension and realization) after receiving the explicit instruction. Both pre-
170
 test and post-test were administered to the respondents in class in the presence of their

instructor. After the pre-test and the post-test, the papers were marked by two teachers of

pragmatics according to the procedures stated above. It was assumed that the subjects in EG

and IG had a similar level in the scores but also there were no differences in the pre-test as

shown in the following section.

VI.1.3.3.1.1. Instruction Planning and Delivery

The study was conducted during the second semester of the academic year 2011/2012

within two groups enrolled in the option of Applied Linguistics. As a matter of fact, what the

researcher had planned initially was to conduct the experiment within two groups of first year

Master students (during the academic year 2010/2011). The choice of first year Master

students had been based on the fact that they had been studying pragmatics in their third year

which means that they were familiar with the subject. The plan was not achieved since after

the researcher administered the pre-test, the teacher of pragmatics of the two groups did not

allow her to give them the explicit pragmatic instructions. As agreed on with the teacher, the

instructions were supposed to be delivered within the last 30 minutes of each pragmatic

lecture. Because of this constraint and because the researcher was not qualified enough to

teach at the Master level, the only option left for the researcher was to change the sample to

BA third year students. The instructions were delivered for 10 weeks as follows:

SPEECH ACTS (Revision)

DOING THINGS WITH LANGUAGE
‘Speech act theory’
Week 1
Locutionary act
Illocutionary act
Perlocutionary act
PERFORMATIVE VERBS
Week 2 Classification of Speech acts, according to the
functions performed
Making Requests
Week 3
Stage 1
171
 What the word ‘request’ means is discussed with the students.
Stage 2
The grammar of a request is discussed with students.
Stage 3
The frequent situations in which requests are made are discussed with students:
Asking people to perform an action
Asking people not to do something
Additional Requests

Activities
Making Requests
Activity 1:
a) Choose the correct alternative for the following:
1)………………I borrow a pen, please?
Will Could Would
2) 'I've forgotten my wallet.' - Don't worry. I ………….lend you some money if
you like.
will could would
3)……………….. you like to come to the cinema tonight?
Can Could Would
4) Do you mind………………….. the window pleas
closed to close closing
5) Would you mind ………………………..me with these boxes?
helping help if helping
6)…………………… I left early tomorrow morning? I have a doctor's
appointment.
Could Dou you mind if Would you mind if

b) Choose the most appropriate answer for expressing the idea specified in
Week 4
parentheses.
1) …………….. I speak to Mr. Smith, please? (Formal polite request)
Can May Would Would you mind if
2) ……………… you open the window, please? It's hot in here. (Polite request)
Could Couldn't Won't Wouldn't
3).………………buying two loaves of bread way home? (Polite request)
Could you Will you Would you Would you mind

4) Would you mind if I ………… your dictionary for an hour or so? (Polite
request)
Borrowed will borrow would borrow
5) Mrs. Redding, ………… lend me two hundred dollars till next week, please?
(Polite request)
can't you could you do you mind would you mind
6) Would you mind ……………. here? I have a headache. (Polite request)
not to smoke not smoke no smoking not smoking
Exercise 2: Identifying Request Directness Levels
Individually or in small groups, identify the following requests as either direct,
indirect, or neither:
1. Turn off the television now! It’s time for breakfast.
172
 2. I’m asking you to turn off the television, son.
3. I would like to ask you to turn off the television now and come to breakfast.
4. You have to turn off that television, son.
5. I really wish you’d turn off that television.
6. How about turning off the television now?
7. Son, your breakfast is getting cold. Why don’t you come into the kitchen and eat?
8. I don’t want you to be late for school, son. Could you turn off the television now?
9. I don’t know why I even bother to make breakfast for you.
10. I know that can’t be the television I hear.
11. You know how I feel about watching television in the morning.
12. I’m sorry I forgot to make breakfast today.
13. Oh! What’s on television?
14. That’s my favorite program, son.
Activity 3: read each statement and identify the situation is which it is used?
1. ‘please get back to work, don’t waste your time or mine’
a. an employee speaking to a boss
b. a boss speaking to an employee
c. one employee speaking to another
2. ‘I wish you’d stop doing that’
a. a police officer speaking to a dangerous driver
b. a student speaking to a teacher who often forgets the student’s name
c. a person speaking to a friend who often criticizes himself
3. ‘Let’s wash our hands, we wash our hands before eating’
a. a parent speaking to a child
b. a doctor speaking to a patient
c. a hostess speaking to a dinner guest.
Week 5
Activity 4: What are the appropriate expressions for requesting or asking for
permission for these responses?
1)…………………………………………………………………………………………
‘Not at all. Here you are. But I need it to do some translating next period. Give it back
to me by that time.’
2)…………………………………………………………………………………………
‘I'm sorry. The wind is too cold for me.’
3)…………………………………………………………………………………………
‘No, I wouldn't mind. I'm leaving to bed now.’
4)…………………………………………………………………………………………
‘Sorry. I have a sore throat. I can't speak up more.’
5)…………………………………………………………………………………………
‘No, I don't mind. Please turn it off when you leave.’
Exercises 5: Collecting Requests
a) Identify the characteristics of the request situation. Include the following
information:
Week 6 • Speaker and addressee gender, age, and any other relevant information
• Speaker’s social distance: close friend, acquaintance, stranger, etc.
•Speaker’s dominance: superior, equal, subordinate, etc.
• Degree of imposition: involved in the request—high, medium, low

173
 • Situation: what the speaker and addressee are involved in doing
• Setting: where the speaker and addressee are
b) Analyze whether the request is direct or indirect.

Situation 1
You are visiting a friend and it is very hot in her apartment.
You say to her: “………………”

Situation 2
You are studying for an exam and your sister is playing her stereo very loudly.
You say to her: “…………. “

Situation 3
There is no food in your house for dinner. You have a lot of work to do, so you
don’t have time to go to the grocery store.
You say to your servant: “……”

Note: You may want to use the following form to organize your data:
Request : _______________________________________________________
Speaker: _________________________________________________________
Addressee: _______________________________________________________
Speaker’s social distance: _____________ Speaker’s dominance: ___________
Imposition: ______________ Situation: _______________________________
Setting: ________________________

INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR STUDENTS

Read the descriptions of the situations carefully and act accordingly.
It is important that you understand the situations completely; therefore, you are
encouraged to ask questions if you find something you do not understand.

Scenario 1
Your flatmate is typing a three-page essay for her/ his lecturer. Suddenly her/ his
computer stops working and s/he asks you to lend her/ him your computer. You
are chatting online with your boyfriend, who is in another town at the moment.
Today is your boyfriend's birthday. But if it is urgent and your friend is not going
Week 7 to use the computer for an hour, you are willing to lend it to her/ him. You two
are good friends

Scenario 2
Your friend was sick and missed an important class last week. You attended the
class and took careful notes. So s/he approaches you and asks if you mind lending
her/ him your notes. You are working on your assignments right now and need
the notes at hand. However, if s/he can make a quick photocopy and give you back
within an hour, you are willing to lend her/ him the notes. You two are good
friends.

174
 Scenario 3
You are a university lecturer. A student in your class is applying for a scholarship
and wants you to write her/ him a reference letter. You have been teaching this
student for quite a few semesters and know s/he is one of your best students. You
would be happy to write her/ him a reference letter but you are having some
deadlines at the moment. So if it is not urgent, you will write it next week.

Scenario 4
You are a university lecturer and supervising a student’s thesis. The student that
you are supervising is supposed to submit a chapter draft to you when you two
have a meeting today. However, s/he was sick and not able to complete it. At the
meeting s/he asks for an extension. You can give her/ him as much time as s/he
needs. However, you are taking a sabbatical leave in two weeks’ time. If s/he can
give you the chapter within the next week, you can read it and give your
comments before you go. If not, it may take a longer while for you to get back to
her/ him because you have other commitments.

Scenario 5
You are a university lecturer. You have an appointment with your student at
10:30 a.m. Friday this week. S/he wants to show you her/ his revised thesis. You
are her/ his supervisor. However, today s/he drops in your office and asks if you
can move the appointment to another date or time because s/he has an urgent
class. You are fully booked until two weeks after but if the student can come after
your office hour tomorrow, you are willing to see her/ him then.

Apologies

Reasons for using apologies

Apologizing for Interrupting, Disturbing, Approaching, or Leaving Someone
Expressing an Apology for Doing Something Embarrassing
Week 8 Expressing an Apology for Saying Something Wrong
Formal Apologies
Accepting an Apology
Five possible strategies for making an apology

Activities
Apologies
Activity 1:
Complete these apology sentences with the correct word.
1. “Please …………. me for interrupting you. I didn’t realise you were on the phone.”
Week 9 2. “I can’t believe I forgot your birthday. Please don’t be ……………at me.”
3. “I’m so ……………I’m late. There was so much traffic!”
4. “Oh no, how ……….. of me! Do you have a cloth so I can clean it?”
5. “We …………. for the train delay. We will get you to your destination as soon as
possible.”
6. “I’m ……………..but you are sitting in my seat.”
Activity 2:
175
 Each of the following questions will provide a description of a situation. Following
the situation there are a number of responses. Please choose two acceptable
responses.
1) An applicant for a job has been waiting for quite some time, although s/he had
been called in for an appointment for an interview. The manager finally comes out
and says:
a. Sorry to have kept you waiting.
b. Sorry I'm late. I hope I didn't keep you waiting too long.
c. Have you been waiting long?
d. I was unavoidably held up in a meeting.
e. I'm sorry. I was help up.
2) A young man/woman bumps into you at the supermarket and some of your
groceries spill onto the floor.
He/she turns to you and says:
a. Sorry.
b. I'm sorry.
c. Terribly sorry.
d. I'm terribly sorry. Did I hurt you?
e. I'm really sorry. Here, let me help you.
f. I'm sorry but you were in my way and I couldn't help bumping into you.
g. Are you all right?
h. Please forgive me.
3) A student forgets to return a book to the professor:
a. I'm terribly sorry. I forgot it.
b. Oh, damn! I forgot it.
c. Sorry, I forgot.
d. Oh, I'm very sorry. I completely forgot.
e. I'm really sorry but I forgot to bring it.

Apologizing Situations
Situation Apology Needed? Person who Person who receives
(Yes/No) made the the apology?
mistake?
Dana broke her
friend’s toy
I was walking
around the corner
and accidentally
Week 10 bumped into Chris

Paul is late to
school
I was walking
around the corner
and accidentally
bumped into Chris

176
 Who should apologize?
SITUATION 1
Student A: You work in an office. Your boss gives you too much work, and you
sometimes don’t have enough time to do it well. Recently, you have had some
problems at home, so you aren’t able to think clearly at work. Yesterday, during
a big meeting, your boss angrily criticized a report you wrote and said you were doing
a terrible job. You felt very embarrassed.
Student B: You are the manager at an office. One of your workers, Student A, is not
doing a good job these days. You give this person the same amount of work as
everyone else, but he/ she often does it badly and always makes excuses. This person’s
last report was very bad and caused problems between you and your boss. When you
mentioned this nicely at a meeting, Student A seemed very Angry with you.

WHO SHOULD APOLOGIZE?

Student A [ ] Student B [ ] Both Student A and Student B [
]

SITUATION 2
Student A: You made a cool sculpture and gave it to your friend, Student B, for his /
her birthday. Your friend said, “Oh, I love it!” But a few weeks later, you visited
another friend’s house and saw the sculpture there. So Student B didn’t keep the
sculpture he /she gave it to another person! The next time you saw Student B, you
mentioned this and said you were upset. Now your friend is angry with you.
Student B: Your friend, Student A, gave you a weird sculpture for your birthday. You
didn’t like it, but you didn’t want to say anything bad about it. You have another friend
who likes unusual objects, so you gave the sculpture to him. When Student A learned
about this, he / she was very angry and said terrible things to you.

WHO SHOULD APOLOGIZE?

Student A [ ] Student B [ ] Both Student A and Student B [
]

Table 60: Instruction Planning and Delivery

VI.1.3.3.2 Comparison between the Pre-test and the Post-test within EG and IG

The general teaching effects in the present study were reflected by the comparison of

the mean scores between the pre-test and the post-test and the distribution frequency of

improvement among the students after instruction. The comparison of the mean scores is used

to test Hypothesis 2, to find out if there is a significant difference between the two tests,

Furthermore, the distribution of improvement can find out to what extent the students

177
improved after instruction. To find out the general teaching effects, the scores of pre-test and

post-test within the two groups were compared respectively. Therefore, an independent t-test

was used as a statistical method to obtain the results for the second research question and to

test Hypothesis 2.

VI.1.3.3.3 Statistical Analysis of the t-test1

The t-test, also known as the student t test, is a test of significance that can be used to

determine whether a significant difference exists or does not exist between two groups.

When a t-test is used to determine whether the two sample means of two independent

samples come from the same population, we use the statistical test called the t-test for

Independent Means. This is the most common t-test used in science. The formula for

calculating “t” depends upon whether the two samples being compared have equal variances.

The formula for the t-test is a ratio. The top part of the ratio is just the difference

between the two means or averages. The bottom part is a measure of the variability or

dispersion of the scores. The following is the formula for the t-test:

The top part of the formula is easy to compute. For that purpose, we just find the

difference between the means. The bottom part is called the standard error of the

difference.

1
The statistical (mathematical) information about calculations ( t test & correlation) in this section and
section VI.3.1are provided by the (Web Center for Social Research Methods
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/)

178
 The t-value will be positive if the first mean is larger than the second one and negative

if it is smaller. Once you compute the t-value you have to look it up in a table of significance

to test whether the ratio is large enough to say that the difference between the groups is not

likely to have been an accidental finding. To test the significance, you need to set a risk level

(called the alpha level). In most social research, the 'rule of thumb' is to set the alpha level at

.05. This means that five times out of a hundred you would find a statistically significant

difference between the means even if there was none (i.e., by 'chance'). You also need to

determine the degrees of freedom (df) for the test. In the t-test, the degree of freedom is the

sum of the persons in both groups minus 2. Given the alpha level, the df, and the t-value, you

can look the t-value up in a standard table of significance (available as an appendix in the

back of most statistics texts) to determine whether the t-value is large enough to be

significant. If it is, you can conclude that the difference between the means for the two groups

is different (even given the variability). Fortunately, statistical computer programs routinely

print the significance test results and save you the trouble of looking them up in a table.

VI.1.3.3.3.1 A Comparison of the Pre-test in Speech Act Awareness between EG and IG

The following are the scores of the students of both control and experimental group in the

post-test.

Speech Act Awareness Pre-test Scores

Control Group Experimental Group

7.25 7.75
5 5
6 6
4.75 4.25
9.25 9.25
10.25 10.25
12 12
14 14
2.5 2.5
179
 2.75 2.25
4 4.75
6.75 6.75
8 8.5
8.25 8.25
8.5 8.25
7.25 7.5
8 8.25
8 8.25
6.5 6.5
5 5
12.25 12.25
14.25 14.25
11 11.5
8.75 8.75
11.5 11.5
7.25 7.25
10.5 10.5
12.25 12.25
4.25 4.25
6.25 6.25
6 6.25
14.5 14.5
13.5 13.5
13.25 13.25
7.25
5.25
6.5
4.75
The following table shows the results obtained from the data collected and multiple
trials of the experiment.

180
 Data
Control Group Experimental Group Total
N 38 34 72

X 289.5 315.25 604.75

X2 2851.25 3033.4375 5884.6875

SS 386.2426 418.1069 805.2075

Mean 8.5147 8.2961 8.3993

t obtained

Mean1—Mean2 T Df

0.2187 0.27 70

Level of Significance

Confidence Intervals

0.95 0.99
Observed

± ±
Mean1 8.5147
1.191 1.6018

± ±
Mean2 8.2961
1.107 1.4833

Mean1−Mean2 ± ±
[Assuming
0.2187
unequal 1.594 2.1227
sample variances.]
Table 61: Summary of Data for Both Groups (Pre-test)

181
 From the table above, one can see that the scores for the pre-test of the speech act

awareness were not significantly different before the treatment; the t obtained is 0.27 (t= 0.27)

p=0.46. The result of the t test showed that there is no significant difference between the two

groups before the treatment. It was hoped that this balance might guarantee a valid result for

the post-test.

VI.1.3.3.3.2 Comparison of the Post-test in Speech Act Awareness between EG and IG

The following are the scores of the students of both control and experimental group in

the post-test

Speech Act Awareness Post-test Scores

Control Group Experimental Group

8.25 14.25
6.25 13.5
5.75 11.25
5.5 9.75
8.25 7.75
11 10
13 11.5
13 13.5
3.75 14.25
3.5 13.5
3.5 15.25
5.5 14.25
9.5 12.5
8.25 13.75
7.25 14.75
4 12.5
7.5 12.25
9 12.5
7.75 14.5
6.25 14.5
11.5 10.75
13.5 9.75
12.5 7.5
9.25 6.75
182
 12.75 15.25
8 15.25
9.5 15.25
11 14.75
6.25 12.75
5 13.75
5.5 14.75
13.25 6.75
12 12.25
12.25 14.25
12.5
12.5
8.5
12.5

The following table shows the results obtained from the data collected and multiple

trials of the experiment.

Data

Control Group Experimental Group Total

N 38 34 72

X 471.75 289 760.75

X2 6084.9375 2787.625 8872.5625

SS 228.4095 331.125 834.4991

Mean 12.4145 8.5 10.566

t obtained

Mean1—Mean2 T df

3.9145 5.87 62

Level of significance

Confidence Intervals

183
 Observed 0.95 0.99

± ±
Mean1 12.4145

0.8182 1.0963
± ±
Mean2 8.5
1.1028 1.4831

Mean1−Mean2 ± ±

[Assuming unequal 3.9145

1.3529 1.7993
sample variances.]

Table 62: Summary of Data for Both Groups (post-test)

The post-test was used to measure the participants’ speech act awareness after the treatment.

The mean scores of the IG and EG for the post-test were compared through an independent t-test. It

was found that the EG gained a higher mean score in the post-test than the IG did. The statistical

analysis showed there was a significant difference between the two meansin the independent t test the t

obtained is 5.79 t-test (t=5.79) and (p=0.01 ≤0.05). This indicated that explicit instruction helped

facilitate the participants’ speech act comprehension and speech act production of request and

apology.

184
 14

12

10

8
IG Group
6 EG Group

0
Mean (pre) Mean (post)

Figure 49: Difference in the Mean of both (Experimental and Control Group)

The results from the pre- test/post data analysis indicates that explicit pragmatic

instruction helped students develop their pragmatic awareness since it made significant

contributions to the learners' speech act comprehension and realization.

The two groups’ pre-test /post-test experiment in the present study was designed to

answer the second research question which is: ‘To what extent does the introduction of

explicit pragmatic instruction affect student’s awareness of speech acts?’; the results stated

above indicate that the introduction of explicit pragmatic instruction affect to a great extent

the students’ speech act awareness (comprehension+ realization). The results also revealed

that explicit instruction increases the students’ pragmatic awareness and this fully supports the

second hypothesis of the research; ‘If students are more exposed to explicit pragmatic

instruction and communicative tasks, they will develop better their speech act awareness.’

By confirming the second hypothesis, the research provides a strong argument for the

necessity of changing or improving the way of teaching pragmatics at the department of

185
Letters and English Language. That is to say, pragmatics classrooms should provide

pragmatics courses which help in raising the students’ awareness about the pragmatic input

(contextual features, implicatures, social variables and communicative acts) and engage them

in the authentic activities which can help them use the language appropriately i.e. taking into

consideration the cultural and social aspects of the TL when involved in the act of

communication. The findings of the experiment show the crucial role that pragmatic explicit

instruction can play in developing FLL appropriate use of language (successful

communication) in EFL settings.

VI.2 Pragmatic Language Tests Data Analysis

This part of the study is devoted to the analysis of the correlated data in order to

evaluate whether there is a relationship between speech act awareness and communicative

competence, and between pragmatic theoretical knowledge and speech act awareness.

Correlation analysis is a statistical method used to describe the extent of relationship between

two variables .

A descriptive analysis of the quantitative data is discussed based on the following

research questions:

 To what extent does students' speech act awareness improve their

communicative competence i.e. their ability to communicate appropriately and

effectively in different communicative situations?

 To what extent does students’ pragmatic awareness (i.e. their pragmatic

knowledge) affect their speech act awareness?

VI.2.1 Description of the Tests

A pragmatic and communicative language test is critical for evaluating adequate

communication and for understanding the conversations in different contexts. It is pragmatic

186
language (language in social context) that helps understand not only what is said but why it is

said. Both tests expand on the comprehensive analysis of social communication in context.

The tests attempt to explore other factors that may affect the students’ speech act awareness

i.e. the understanding, effectiveness, and appropriateness, of a student's pragmatic language

skill.

VI.2.1.1 Written Communicative Proficiency Test (WCPT)

The WCPT is an assessment instrument devoted to testing not only learners’

knowledge of a language and how to use it (competence) but also to what extent learners

apply their knowledge to meaningful communicative situations (performance); it is used to

evaluate the English language proficiency of third year students at the department of Letters

and English Language, University of Constantine 1. The test includes a number of activities

that aim to evaluate the students’ appropriate choice of utterance in order to complete mini

dialogues performed in communicative situations, the students’ performance in short

communicative conversations. A part of activities is devoted to the assessment of students’

vocabulary choice and comprehension by determining the best word to insert into a blank;

other activities evaluate the students’ use of tenses.

VI.2.1.1.1 Communicative Competence Test Format and Scoring

Activities Body Scoring

Activity1
Read the
following
dialogue
and, -Tourist: Excuse me; How far is it to the museum?
starting Policeman:…………………… part 1: 01
from Part -Tourist: Is it difficult to find?
1; choose -Policeman: No, It’s easy. Just walk down this street for two
the blocks. .............… Part 2: 01
187
appropriate -Tourist: Thank you.
utterance to -Policeman: You’re welcome
complete
the
dialogues.

Activity2  Peter: Good morning dad. Would you mind doing me a

Supply the favour?
missing  Father:...................................................? Part 1: 01
parts in the  Peter: I am wondering if you could lend me fifty pounds.
following  Father: Why do you need this money?
dialogue  Peter:................................…......... and I want to buy her
between a a present. Part 2: 01
father and  Father: But I gave you some money last week,
his son ..............................................?
Peter who Part 3: 01
 Peter: No, but I don't have enough money to buy a good
is asking
present.
for a loan:
 Father..................................................
Part 4: 01
 Peter: Thanks, dad.

Activity3 Dialogue 1:
Write A: How old is this mummy?
where these B: it's about 4000 years old.
mini- The speakers:……………………………… Part 1:01
dialogues The place:……………………………………
take place Dialogue 2
and who A: How would you like to pay for this suit, sir?
the B: By credit card.
speakers A: Well; Shall I put it in a bag for you, sir?
are: B: Yes, please.

188
 The place:…............................................................ Part 2:01
The speakers:……………........................................
Activity 4
1. The...………………who replaced the main actor broke his Part 1: 01
Fill in the leg.
blank 2. In Algeria, people ............... the 1st of November. Part 2: 01
3. I wouldn't have reached this stage if she............... me.
4. ............... the bad weather, the match was played. Part 3 :01
5. She is............... . She speaks both Arabic and English.
6. The village was ............... when the river flooded. Part 4 :01
7. I could see the general outline, but the black board was not
close enough to see the................. . Part 5 :01
8. The breadwinner is a person who..............
Part 6 :01

Part 7 :01

Part 8 :01

Activity 5 1.It's midnight; you shouldn't be doing your homework now. ( Part 1 :01
Rewrite the supposed )
following 2. If he had done his homework, his teacher would have given Part 2 :01
sentences him a present. ( should )
using the 3. People considered it unnecessary to educate women.( was ) Part 3 :01
word(s) in 4. What is your opinion of this book? ( think )
brackets to Part 4 :01
give the
same
meaning
Table 63: Communicative Competence Test Format and Scoring

189
VI.2.1.2 Pragmatic Theoretical Knowledge

The pragmatic theoretical knowledge pre-test and post-test include questions about the

definition of the main issues and theoretical concepts in pragmatics such as speech acts, Grice

maxims , locutionary acts, illocutionary acts, perlocutionary acts and illocutionary force.

VI.2.1.2.1 Pragmatic Theoretical Knowledge Pre/Post -test Format and Scoring

Both tests include various activities which aim at assessing the student’s theoretical

knowledge of the subject of pragmatics which reflects the way it is taught at the university.

VI.2.1.2.1.1. Pragmatic Theoretical Knowledge Pre -test Format and Scoring

Scoring
Questions Body
(points)
Question1 1/ The study of natural language understanding, and
Choose the specifically the study of how context influences the part 1:
appropriate definition interpretation of meanings. It is a subfield of 02
of pragmatics. linguistics.
2/ The branch of semiotics that deals with the
relationship between signs, especially words and
other elements of language, and their users. Part 2:
3/ The study of the use of natural language in 02
communication; more generally, the study of the
relations between languages and their users. It is
sometimes defined in contrast with linguistics.
Part3:
02
Question 2 Speech acts are:
Choose the 1/ Utterances that constitute some acts in addition to Part 1:
appropriate definition the mere act of uttering. 02
of speech acts 2/ Acts or types of acts capable of being performed in Part 2:
different contexts. 02
3/ Acts that a speaker performs when making an Part 3:
utterance. 02
190
 Question 3 Part 1:
Where one tries to be as
02
The Maxim of informative as one possible can
Match each of
Quantity and as much information as it
the following maxims
is needed
with its corresponding
definition where one tries to be
truthful, and does not give
The Maxim of information that is false or that
Relation is not supported by evidence

Part 2:
where one tries to be relevant, 02
and says things that are
The Maxim of
pertinent to Part 3:
Manner
02

Part 4:
when one tries to be as clear, as
The Maxim of 02
brief, and as orderly as one
Quality
can in what one says, and
where one avoids obscurity and
ambiguity

Table 64: Pragmatic Theoretical Knowledge Pre -test Format and Scoring

VI.2.1.2.1.2 Pragmatic Theoretical Knowledge Post -Test Format and Scoring

Items Statements True/ False

options

scoring

1 Pragmatics is the study of meaning of words, phrases and

01
full sentences

2 Pragmatics is concerned with the meanings that words convey 01

191
 when they are used

3 Pragmatics examines the devices used by language users in

02
order to express the desired meaning and how it is perceived.

4 Pragmatics is the study of the relationships between linguistic

forms and entities in the world; that is, how words literally 01

connect to things

5 Pragmatics is the study of other things that might influence

01
meaning besides the semantic system.

6 Cooperation principle: means that to communicate requires

01
continuous and determined cooperation

7 Grice maxims: are quantity, quality, relevance, and manner 01

8 The maxim of quantity: It is where one tries to be truthful and

does not give information that is false or that is not supported 01

by evidence

9 The maxim of quality: It is where one tries to be as

informative as one possibly can and gives as much 01

information as is needed, and no more.

10 The maxim of relation: where one tries to be relevant, and

01
says things that are pertinent to the discussion.

11 The maxim of manner: It is when one tries to be as clear, as

brief, and as orderly as one can in what one says, and where 01

one avoids obscurity and ambiguity.

12 Performative verbs: are verbs that when uttered actually make

01
the meaning of the word/verb happen

192
 13 A speech act: is an act that a speaker performs when making
01
an utterance.

14 Locutionary act: saying something (the locution) with a

certain meaning in the traditional sense. This may not 01

constitute a speech act.

15 Illocutionary act: the performance of an act in saying

01
something.

16 The illocutionary force: is the speaker's intent. A true 'speech

02
act'

17 Perlocutionary acts: Speech acts that have an effect on the

feelings, thoughts or actions of either the speaker or the 02

listener. In other words, they seek to change minds.

Table 65: Pragmatic Theoretical Knowledge Post -Test Format and Scoring

VI.3.1 Statistical Analysis: Pearson’s Correlation

The analysis of the data involved both descriptive and inferential statistics. Descriptive

statistics of the mean, median, standard deviation, and possible score ranges were calculated

for all variable constructs used for inference. Inferential statistics allowed for the formulations

of conclusions beyond the data. Inferential statistics is a measure not only to test hypotheses,

but also to draw conclusions, generalizations, or inferences about a larger population from a

sample of participants from that population. The statistical technique used for testing

hypotheses 3 and 4 was the Pearson’s correlation. Pearson’s correlation is a common measure

of the correlation between two variables and is very widely used to measure the strength of

linear dependence among variables. A table of results reflecting the correlations between the

tests scores was produced.

193
 The correlation is one of the most common and most useful statistics. A correlation is

a single number that describes the degree of relationship between two variables.

VI.3.1.1 Interpretation of Data

This section will discuss the data in relation to hypotheses 3 and 4. To test these

hypotheses, the principals’ total pragmatic knowledge test, and communicative proficiency

scores were correlated with their total speech act awareness test scores. The following tables

indicate the results of correlation (r) or the degree of the relationship between the pragmatic

theoretical knowledge and speech act awareness of both IG and EG groups in the pre-tests

and post-tests. The main result of a correlation is called the correlation coefficient (or ‘r’). It

ranges from -1.0 to +1.0. The closer r is to +1 or -1 the more closely the two variables are

related. If r is close to 0, it means there is no relationship between the variables. If r is

positive, it means that as one variable gets larger the other gets larger. If r is negative it means

that as one gets larger, the other gets smaller (often called an "inverse" correlation).

While correlation coefficients are normally reported as r = (a value between -1 and

+1), squaring them makes then easier to understand. The square of the coefficient (or r

square) is equal to the percent of the variation in one variable that is related to the variation in

the other. After squaring r, the decimal point should be ignored. An r of .5 means 25% of the

variation is related (.5 squared =.25). An r value of .7 means 49% of the variance is related (.7

squared = .49).

A correlation report can also show a second result of each test - statistical significance.

In this case, the significance level will tell you how likely it is that the correlations reported

may be due to chance in the form of random sampling error. If you are working with small

sample sizes, choose a report format that includes the significance level. This format also

reports the sample size.

194
 A key thing to remember when working with correlations is never to assume a

correlation means that a change in one variable causes a change in another. The following is

the data statistics analysis.

VI.3.1.2 Correlation coefficient (r) of Students Scores for Pragmatic Theoretical

Knowledge and Speech Act Awareness Pre-test (IG)
Correlation is a statistical formula used to describe the extent of the relationship

between two variables. In what follows the pairs of scores of the participants (2 scores for

each participant) in the pretests and post tests are listed in a tables and presented in a scatter

plots. Each two variables are observed to show how they are linearly related.

Considering the correlation between pragmatic theoretical knowledge and speech acts

awareness tests scores of the control group (IG), here are the pragmatic knowledge test scores

and the speech act awareness test scores of 34 of the students in the (IG)

Students(IG) Pragmatic Speech Act Awareness

Knowledge
S1 18 7.25
S2 16 5
S3 14 6
S4 14 4.75
S5 16 9.25
S6 16 10.25
S7 12 12
S8 16 14
S9 14 2.5
S10 12 2.75
S11 12 4
S12 16 6.75
S13 12 8
S14 14 8.25
S15 14 8.5
S16 12 7.25

195
 S17 18 8
S18 16 8
S19 18 6.5
S20 16 5
S21 16 12.25
S22 14 14.25
S23 14 11
S24 16 8.75
S25 12 11.5
S26 18 7.25
S27 16 10.5
S28 18 12.25
S29 16 4.25
S30 16 6.25
S31 14 6
S32 14 14.5
S33 18 13.5
S34 16 13.25

The results of the data analysis of (IG) pre-tests scores are presented as follows:

(IG) Group Pre- test

Variables Mean SD Variance

Pragmatic Knowledge 15.11 1.95 3.80

Speech Act Awareness 8.51 3.37 11.36

Table 66: Summary of Data of the (IG) Group Pre-tests

The variables correlation is represented through the subsequent scatter plot.

196
 Figure 50: Scatter Plot for (IG) Pragmatic Knowledge and Speech Act Awareness
Correlation in the Pre-test

VI.3.1.2.1 Calculating the Correlation

The formula for the correlation is:

∑ ∑ ∑
√[ ∑ ∑ ][ ∑ ∑ ]

N = number of pairs of scores

∑ = sum of the products of paired scores

∑ = sum of X scores

∑ = sum of Y scores

∑ = sum of squared X scores

197
 ∑ = sum of squared Y scores

Students’ (IG) Group X Y X*Y X² Y²

S1 18 7.25 130.5 324 52.5625
S2 16 5 80 256 25
S3 14 6 84 196 36
S4 14 4.75 66.5 196 22.5625
S5 16 9.25 148 256 85.5625
S6 16 10.25 164 256 105.0625
S7 12 12 144 144 144
S8 16 14 224 256 196
S9 14 2.5 35 196 6.25
S10 12 2.75 33 144 7.5625
S11 12 4 48 144 16
S12 16 6.75 108 256 45.5625
S13 12 8 96 144 64
S14 14 8.25 115.5 196 68.0625
S15 14 8.5 119 196 72.25
S16 12 7.25 87 144 52.5625
S17 18 8 144 324 64
S18 16 8 128 256 64
S19 18 6.5 117 324 42.25
S20 16 5 80 256 25
S21 16 12.25 196 256 150.0625
S22 14 14.25 199.5 196 203.0625
S23 14 11 154 196 121
S24 16 8.75 140 256 76.5625
S25 12 11.5 138 144 132.25
S26 18 7.25 130.5 324 52.5625
S27 16 10.5 168 256 110.25
S28 18 12.25 220.5 324 150.0625
S29 16 4.25 68 256 18.0625
S30 16 6.25 100 256 39.0625
S31 14 6 84 196 36
S32 14 14.5 203 196 210.25
S33 18 13.5 243 324 182.25
S34 16 13.25 212 256 175.5625
Total 514 289.5 4408 7900 2851.25
Table 67: Pragmatic Theoretical Knowledge and Speech act Awareness of the
(IG) Group Pre-test

198
 The first three columns are the same as in the table above. The next three columns are

simple computations based on pragmatic and speech act scores data. The bottom row consists

of the sum of each column. This is all the information required to compute the correlation.

Here are the values from the bottom row of the table (where N is 34 people) as they are

related to the symbols in the formula:

N = 34
∑ = 4408
∑ = 514
∑ = 289.5
∑ = 7900
∑ = 2851.25

√[ ][ ]

√[ ][ ]

√[ ][ ]

199
 In statistics, the correlation coefficient r measures the strength and direction of a linear

relationship between two variables on a scatter plot. So, the correlation for the 34 cases of the

(IG) in the pre-test is 0.14, which is a very weak positive relationship. This indicates that

there is a very weak relationship between the students’ pragmatic theoretical knowledge and

their speech act awareness.

VI.3.1.3 Correlation coefficient (r) (IG) of Students Scores of Pragmatic Theoretical

Knowledge and Speech act Awareness Post-test
The results of the data analysis of (IG) post-tests scores are presented as follows:

(IG) Group Post tests

Variables Mean St Dev Variance

Pragmatic Knowledge 14.82 3.19 10.20

Speech Act Awareness 8.5 3.12 9.73

Table 68: Summary of the Data of the (IG) Group Post tests

The variables correlation is represented through the subsequent scatter plot.

Figure 51: Scatter Plot for (IG) Pragmatic Knowledge and Speech Act Awareness
Correlation in the Post-test

200
VI.3.1.3.1 Calculating the Correlation

Students (IG) Group X Y X*Y X² Y²

S1 20 8.25 165 400 68.0625
S2 14 6.25 87.5 196 39.0625
S3 17 5.75 97.75 289 33.0625
S4 14 5.5 77 196 30.25
S5 16 8.25 132 256 68.0625
S6 15 11 165 225 121
S7 16 13 208 256 169
S8 16 13 208 256 169
S9 15 3.75 56.25 225 14.0625
S10 16 3.5 56 256 12.25
S11 16 3.5 56 256 12.25
S12 18 5.5 99 324 30.25
S13 16 9.5 152 256 90.25
S14 18 8.25 148.5 324 68.0625
S15 14 7.25 101.5 196 52.5625
S16 18 4 72 324 16
S17 16 7.5 120 256 56.25
S18 14 9 126 196 81
S19 18 7.75 139.5 324 60.0625
S20 17 6.25 106.25 289 39.0625
S21 15 11.5 172.5 225 132.25
S22 16 13.5 216 256 182.25
S23 16 12.5 200 256 156.25
S24 18 9.25 166.5 324 85.5625
S25 16 12.75 204 256 162.5625
S26 12 8 96 144 64
S27 10 9.5 95 100 90.25
S28 8 11 88 64 121
S29 10 6.25 62.5 100 39.0625
S30 10 5 50 100 25
S31 8.25 5.545.375 68.06 30.25
S32 7 13.25 92.75 49 175.5625
S33 16 12 192 256 144
S34 18 12.25 220.5 324 150.0625
Total 504.25 289 4274.375 7822.0625 2787.625
Table 69: Pragmatic Knowledge and Speech act Awareness of the (IG) Group Post- tests

201
 ∑ ∑ ∑
√[ ∑ ∑ ][ ∑ ∑ ]

N = 34
∑ = 4274.375
∑ = 504.25
∑ = 289
∑ = 7822.06
∑ = 2787.62

√[ ][ ]

√[ ][ ]

√[ ][ ]

202
 The correlation for the 34 cases of the (IG) in the post test is -0.03, which is a very

weak negative relationship. This indicates that there is a very weak relationship between the

students’ pragmatic theoretical knowledge and their speech act awareness.

VI.3.1.4 Experimental Group Pre-test Correlation between Pragmatic Awareness and

Speech Act awareness
The results of the data analysis of (EG) students’ pre-test scores are presented as

follows:

(EG) Group Pre-test

Variables Mean StDev Variance

Pragmatic Knowledge 12.86 3.48 12.16

Speech Act Awareness 8.29 3.31 11

Table 70: Summary of Data of the (EG) Group Pre tests

The variables correlation is represented through the subsequent scatter plot.

Figure 52: Scatter Plot for (EG) Pragmatic Theoretical Knowledge and Speech Act
Awareness Correlation in the Pre test

203
VI.3.1.4.1 Calculating the Correlation

Students (EG) Group X Y X*Y X² Y²

S1 12 7.75 93 144 60.0625
S2 16 5 80 256 25
S3 18 6 108 324 36
S4 14 4.25 59.5 196 18.0625
S5 16 9.25 148 256 85.5625
S6 13 10.25 133.25 169 105.0625
S7 16 12 192 256 144
S8 18 14 252 324 196
S9 11 2.5 27.5 121 6.25
S10 10 2.25 22.5 100 5.0625
S11 10 4.75 47.5 100 22.5625
S12 12 6.75 81 144 45.5625
S13 12 8.5 102 144 72.25
S14 16 8.25 132 256 68.0625
S15 17 8.25 140.25 289 68.0625
S16 8 7.5 60 64 56.25
S17 18 8.25 148.5 324 68.0625
S18 10 8.25 82.5 100 68.0625
S19 10 6.5 65 100 42.25
S20 10 5 50 100 25
S21 12 12.25 147 144 150.0625
S22 8 14.25 114 64 203.0625
S23 10 11.5 115 100 132.25
S24 12 8.75 105 144 76.5625
S25 16 11.5 184 256 132.25
S26 16 7.25 116 256 52.5625
S27 8 10.5 84 64 110.25
S28 10 12.25 122.5 100 150.0625
S29 20 4.25 85 400 18.0625
S30 14 6.25 87.5 196 39.0625
S31 14 6.25 87.5 196 39.0625
S32 10 14.5 145 100 210.25
S33 12 13.5 162 144 182.25
S34 6 13.25 79.5 36 175.5625
S35 8 7.25 58 64 52.5625
S36 12 5.25 63 144 27.5625
S37 18 6.5 117 324 42.25
S38 16 4.75 76 256 22.5625
Total 489 315.25 3972.5 6755 3033.4375
Table 71: Pragmatic Theoretical Knowledge and Speech Act Awareness of the (EG)
Group Pre-tests

204
 ∑ ∑ ∑
√[ ∑ ∑ ][ ∑ ∑ ]

N = 38
∑ = 3972.5
∑ = 489
∑ = 315.25
∑ = 6755
∑ = 3033.43

√[ ][ ]

√[ ][ ]

√[ ][ ]

205
 The correlation for the 38 cases of the (EG) in the pre-test is - 0.19, which is a very

weak negative relationship. This indicates that there is a very weak negative relationship

between the students’ pragmatic theoretical knowledge and their speech act awareness.

VI.3.1.5 Experimental Group Post- test Correlation between Pragmatic Theoretical

Knowledge and Speech Act awareness
The results of the data analysis of (EG) students’ post test scores are presented as

follows:

(EG) Group Post test

Variables Mean StDev Variance

Pragmatic Knowledge 13.84 2.99 8.97

Speech Act Awareness 12.41 2.45 6.01

Table 72: Summary of Data of the (EG) Group Post-tests

The variables correlation is represented through the subsequent scatter plot.

Figure 53: Scatter Plot for (EG) Pragmatic Knowledge and Speech Act Awareness
Correlation in the Post-test

206
VI.3.1.5.1 Calculating the Correlation

Students (IG)Group X*Y X² Y²

X Y
S1 15 14.25 213.75 225 203.0625
S2 16 13.5 216 256 182.25
S3 18 11.25 202.5 324 126.5625
S4 15 9.75 146.25 225 95.0625
S5 16 7.75 124 256 60.0625
S6 18 10 180 324 100
S7 17 11.5 195.5 289 132.25
S8 18 13.5 243 324 182.25
S9 14 14.25 199.5 196 203.0625
S10 16 13.5 216 256 182.25
S11 8 15.25 122 64 232.5625
S12 8 14.25 114 64 203.0625
S13 14 12.5 175 196 156.25
S14 14 13.75 192.5 196 189.0625
S15 16 14.75 236 256 217.5625
S16 18 12.5 225 324 156.25
S17 10 12.25 122.5 100 150.0625
S18 18 12.5 225 324 156.25
S19 10 14.5 145 100 210.25
S20 18 14.5 261 324 210.25
S21 14 10.75 150.5 196 115.5625
S22 16 9.75 156 256 95.0625
S23 16 7.5 120 256 56.25
S24 14 6.75 94.5 196 45.5625
S25 12 15.25 183 144 232.5625
S26 10 15.25 152.5 100 232.5625
S27 10 15.25 152.5 100 232.5625
S28 10 14.75 147.5 100 217.5625
S29 11 12.75 140.25 121 162.5625
S30 12 13.75 165 144 189.0625
S31 10 14.75 147.5 100 217.5625
S32 15 6.75 101.25 225 45.5625
S33 13 12.25 159.25 169 150.0625
S34 16 14.25 228 256 203.0625
S35 14 12.5 175 196 156.25
S36 12 12.5 150 144 156.25
S37 10 8.5 85 100 72.25
S38 14 12.5 175 196 156.25
Total 526 471.75 6437.25 7622 6084.9375
Table 73: Pragmatic Knowledge and Speech Act Awareness of the (EG) Group Post-
tests
207
 ∑ ∑ ∑
√[ ∑ ∑ ][ ∑ ∑ ]

N = 38
∑ = 6437.25
∑ = 526
∑ = 471.75
∑ = 7622
∑ = 6084.93

√[ ][ ]

√[ ][ ]

√[ ][ ]

208
 The correlation for the 38 cases of the (EG) in the post test is -0.33, which is a very

weak negative relationship. This indicates that there is a weak negative relationship between

the students’ pragmatic theoretical knowledge and their speech act awareness.

VI.3.1.6 Control Group Post-test Correlation between Speech Act Awareness and
Communicative Competence
The results of the data analysis of (IG) students’ pre-test scores are presented as

follows:

(IG) group post-test

Variables Mean StDev Variance

Speech Act Awareness 8.5 3.12 9.73

Communicative Proficiency 8.14 2.89 8.36

Table 74: Summary of the Data of the (IG) Group Post-tests

The variables correlation is represented through the subsequent scatter plot.

Figure 54: Scatter Plot for (IG) Speech Act Awareness and Communicative Proficiency
Correlation in the Post-test

209
VI.3.1.6.1 Calculating the Correlation

Students (IG) Group X Y X*Y X² Y²

S1 8.25 6 49.5 68.0625 36
S2 6.25 8 50 39.0625 64
S3 5.75 8 46 33.0625 64
S4 5.5 11 60.5 30.25 121
S5 8.25 6 49.5 68.0625 36
S6 11 5 55 121 25
S7 13 3 39 169 9
S8 13 12 156 169 144
S9 3.75 4 15 14.0625 16
S10 3.5 12 42 12.25 144
S11 3.5 6 21 12.25 36
S12 5.5 6 33 30.25 36
S13 9.5 10 95 90.25 100
S14 8.25 5 41.25 68.0625 25
S15 7.25 8 58 52.5625 64
S16 4 6 24 16 36
S17 7.5 7 52.5 56.25 49
S18 9 4 36 81 16
S19 7.75 12 93 60.0625 144
S20 6.25 6 37.5 39.0625 36
S21 11.5 13 149.5 132.25 169
S22 13.5 8 108 182.25 64
S23 12.5 11 137.5 156.25 121
S24 9.25 12 111 85.5625 144
S25 12.75 11 140.25 162.5625 121
S26 8 10 80 64 100
S27 9.5 11 104.5 90.25 121
S28 11 7 77 121 49
S29 6.25 5 31.25 39.0625 25
S30 5 5 25 25 25
S31 5.5 6 33 30.25 36
S32 13.25 12 159 175.5625 144
S33 12 11 132 144 121
S34 12.25 10 122.5 150.0625 100
Total 289 277 2464.25 2787.625 2541
Table 75: Speech Act Awareness and Communicative Proficiency Scores of the (IG)
Group Pre-tests

210
 ∑ ∑ ∑
√[ ∑ ∑ ][ ∑ ∑ ]

N = 34
∑ = 2464.25
∑ = 289
∑ = 277
∑ = 2787.62
∑ = 2541

√[ ][ ]

√[ ][ ]

√[ ][ ]

211
 The correlation for the 34 cases of the (IG) in the post test is 0.35, which is a positive

relationship. This indicates that there is a positive relationship between the students’ speech

act awareness and their communicative proficiency.

VI.3.1.7 Experimental group Post-test Correlation between Speech Act Awareness and
Communicative Competence
The results of the data analysis of (EG) students’ post test scores are presented as

follows:

(EG) Group Post-test

Variables Mean StDev Variance

Speech Act Awareness 12.41 2.45 6.01

Communicative Proficiency 11.94 2.56 6.57

Table 76: Summary of Data of the (EG) Group Post tests

The variables correlation is represented through the subsequent scatter plot.

Figure 55: Scatter Plot for (EG) Speech Act Awareness and Communicative Proficiency
Correlation in the Post test

212
VI.3.1.7.1 Calculating the Correlation

Students (EG)
X*Y X² Y²
Group X Y
S1 14.25 7 99.75 203.0625 49
S2 13.5 10 135 182.25 100
S3 11.25 11 123.75 126.5625 121
S4 9.75 13 126.75 95.0625 169
S5 7.75 14 108.5 60.0625 196
S6 10 12 120 100 144
S7 11.5 14 161 132.25 196
S8 13.5 14 189 182.25 196
S9 14.25 14 199.5 203.0625 196
S10 13.5 12 162 182.25 144
S11 15.25 11 167.75 232.5625 121
S12 14.25 16 228 203.0625 256
S13 12.5 16 200 156.25 256
S14 13.75 12 165 189.0625 144
S15 14.75 11 162.25 217.5625 121
S16 12.5 12 150 156.25 144
S17 12.25 10 122.5 150.0625 100
S18 12.5 12 150 156.25 144
S19 14.5 13 188.5 210.25 169
S20 14.5 14 203 210.25 196
S21 10.75 11 118.25 115.5625 121
S22 9.75 10 97.5 95.0625 100
S23 7.5 6 45 56.25 36
S24 6.75 5 33.75 45.5625 25
S25 15.25 13 198.25 232.5625 169
S26 15.25 16 244 232.5625 256
S27 15.25 12 183 232.5625 144
S28 14.75 16 236 217.5625 256
S29 12.75 12 153 162.5625 144
S30 13.75 14 192.5 189.0625 196
S31 14.75 14 206.5 217.5625 196
S32 6.75 9 60.75 45.5625 81
S33 12.25 10 122.5 150.0625 100
S34 14.25 13 185.25 203.0625 169
S35 12.5 11 137.5 156.25 121
S36 12.5 11 137.5 156.25 121
S37 8.5 9 76.5 72.25 81
S38 12.5 14 175 156.25 196
Total 471.75 454 5765 6084.9375 5674
Table 77: Speech act Awareness and Communicative Proficiency Scores of the (EG)
Group Post tests

213
 ∑ ∑ ∑
√[ ∑ ∑ ][ ∑ ∑ ]

N = 38
∑ = 5765
∑ = 471.75
∑ = 454
∑ = 6084.93
∑ = 5674

√[ ][ ]

√[ ][ ]

√[ ][ ]

214
 The correlation for the 38 cases of the (EG) in the pre-test is 0.53, which is a positive

relationship. This indicates that there is positive relationship between the students’ speech act

awareness and their communicative proficiency.

VI.3.2 Discussion of the Data

The data in the previous sections of this chapter mainly show the results of the second,

third and fourth research questions and hypotheses. The findings of the t-test used to test the

second hypothesis indicate that explicit pragmatic instruction was an appropriate means for

the development of EFL learners’ speech act awareness i.e. the results provide new insight for

the application of pragmatic instructions in pragmatics classrooms instead of the mini

theoretical courses of the main theories developed in the field of pragmatics. The results of

the correlation (r) used to test the third research question and hypothesis proved that learners’

with high speech acts awareness are communicatively competent. The learners’ speech act

awareness affects positively their communicative proficiency. The results of the correlation

(r) in the fourth research question and hypothesis illustrate that there is no strong association

between the learners’ pragmatic theoretical knowledge and their speech act awareness.

Conclusion

This chapter has explored the main research procedures used in the study to test

hypotheses 2, 3and 4. It has examined the data collected from the experiment and the

pragmatic language tests, the scoring procedures, tests design and administration. It has also

presented the result of the statistical methods of the t-test and the correlation which are used

to investigate the main study research questions.

215
 Chapter VII

Findings, Pedagogical Implications, Limitations and Further Research

Introduction

This chapter summarizes the overall findings of this study and answers the four

research questions. The effects of explicit instruction on the development of pragmatic

competence and its implications on teaching pragmatics and on foreign language teaching are

presented. Some limitations of this study are outlined and some suggestions for future

research are provided.

VII.1 Scope of the Study

To have good communication skills in English and to achieve communicative

competence in it are the aim of many people worldwide. This has created a huge demand for

English teaching around the world: “The worldwide demand for English has created an

enormous demand for quality language teaching and language teaching materials and

resources” (Richards, 2006, p. 5).

In order to communicate effectively, learners of English need to develop pragmatic

competence, which can be accomplished through pragmatic instruction in the classroom,

particularly in oral classes. With the raise of pragmatic awareness, learners will acquire

competence and their performance will improve. In addition to teachers who ought to explore

and enhance materials form textbooks, syllabus designers should also include pragmatic

awareness in their designed curricula.

This study is a mixed method research; both qualitative and quantitative techniques are

used to collect and analyse the data. Multiple tools of data source are used to ensure the

authenticity of the findings. An experiment and a survey are conducted with three set

objectives. The first objective is to evaluate the feasibility of adopting the CLT approach
216
based on the needs of a sample of students of English as a foreign language. This objective is

achieved through a students’ needs analysis to determine the present and the future needs of

these learners as well as their attitudes and their beliefs in matter of the way English is taught.

This is based on the students’ needs analysis in which they choose between studying English

following the communicative method or using the traditional grammar one. The second

objective is to see whether the introduction of pragmatic explicit instruction increases the

speech act awareness of a sample of third year graduate students at the Department of Letters

and English Language, University of Constantine1. The latter objective requires an

experimental design. Therefore, a pre-test [treatment] post-test control group design was

adopted with 72 students during a whole semester; the students were in their sixth semester of

studying English and about to graduate. They were divided in two groups: one group of 34

students as a control group (IG) and the other one of 38 students as an experimental group

(EG). An ‘awareness test’, developed to measure the subjects’ pragmatic awareness of speech

act realisation patterns, was administered as a pre-test to both groups. The extra focus on

pragmatic development activities in the experimental group were explained in the syllabus

and considered as part of the course requirement. The third objective is to investigate the

interference between the students’ speech act awareness and their pragmatic theoretical

knowledge and also their communicative proficiency. This objective has been achieved by

conducting pragmatic and communicative language assessment tests for the same sample

through the calculation of the degree of associations between the students’ speech act

awareness, their pragmatic theoretical knowledge and communicative proficiency.

VII. 2 Summary of the Main Findings

All in all, there are several salient observations that can be made in this study. They

constitute insights into the perceptions of learners of their experience with the English

language. The results of the NA questionnaire used to answer the first research question
217
reveal that the most consistent approach with the needs of the students is the communicative

one. This is, of course, based on the responses of the students to whom the NA questionnaire

was administered. The results of the data collected through the Pre-test [Treatment] Post-test

experiment which are used to investigate the second research question indicate that the scores

for the pre-test of the speech act awareness are not significantly different before the treatment

because the ‘t’ of the one tailed t-testis -0.27 (t=-0.27). The two groups (IG and EG) were

equal in the speech act awareness pre-test whereas the EG gained a higher mean score in the

post-test than the IG did. The statistical analysis showed there was a significant difference

between the two means in the one tailed t-test (t=5.79). This indicates that explicit instruction

helped facilitate the participants’ speech act comprehension and speech act production of

request and apology. Perhaps, it would be inaccurate to conclude that, for example, the third

year graduate students who received explicit classroom instruction possess a higher degree of

pragmatic competence than those who did not have this experience. At any rate, the results of

this study do confirm that the acquisition of pragmatic competence is necessary to be a well-

rounded communicator in English. The results of the data collected through the pragmatic

language tests which are used to examine the third and fourth research questions were

revealing. As far as the third research question is concerned the results of the analysis of the

correlation coefficient proved that learners with high speech acts awareness are

communicatively more competent. The learners’ speech act awareness affects positively their

communicative proficiency. However, the r (s) values in both the pre-tests and post-tests used

to test the fourth research question indicated that there is no strong association between the

learners’ pragmatic theoretical knowledge and their speech act awareness.

VII.3 Limitations of the Study

As with any study, there are always factors which limit the validity of the results

obtained. A pilot study had been conducted before the main study which led to a number of
218
changes in the way the research tools were designed. In addition to the impact of the pilot

study, in the present investigation, there are certain factors that may have inhibited its overall

success.

This study depended on having access to people, documents and, for various reasons,

access was limited. The time available to investigate a research problem and to measure

change or stability within a sample is constrained by the due date of submitting the research

work. This study may have required more time to complete the literature review, apply the

methodology, and gather and interpret the results. In any research, there are always biases of

one sort or another, whether we are conscience of them or not.

VII.3.1 Methodological Issues

The use of a questionnaire as a tool can be inadequate to understand some forms of

information given by individuals for the reason that they live with constant changes of

feelings, emotions and behaviour; that is to say, in any study which involves an evaluation of

attitudes, perceptions and beliefs there is a possibility that people may answer questions with

an intention to save face. The same possibility also exists for this study, because there is no

way to tell how truthful a respondent is; using multiple sources for collecting data to verify

the participants’ responses would be of a great benefit, but, unfortunately, this could not be

done because of the time restriction.

The DCT as a data collection method in this study resides on its potential to force

participants to follow a course of action they would not normally follow in real life.

According to Márquez-Reiter, “it is difficult to tell how representative the interactions are of

what the informants would say in ‘spontaneous’ unprovoked conversation.” (2000, p.77)

VII.4 Theoretical Implications

In this study, the effectiveness of teaching pragmatics via explicit instruction was

investigated. The comprehension of the speech act theory and the performance of the speech
219
acts of requesting and apologizing were the objectives to be achieved by third year graduate

students, University of Mentouri, Constantine. One may notice that both speech acts have

been drawn up on the basis of speech act and politeness theory. Therefore, one should agree

on the importance of examining the rules of production of politeness speech acts (requests,

apologies, complaints...etc...), which people use in the production of their spoken and written

utterances in mother tongue as well as in foreign language. The communicative acts request

and apology can take various linguistic forms depending on the relation between the

interlocutors. For instance, a request statement can take the form of an order in cases where

social power is present. Generally, the interlocutor’s realization of the requests is voluntary

and its performance is negotiated according to the way they are formulated and what

politeness qualities are used. Usually, interlocutors, in situations where social power and

social distance are present, try to use common linguistic formulas to ensure the appropriate

use of the different speech acts in order to avoid misunderstanding (pragmatic failure) in the

speech act situation. For that reason and in order to understand the participants (in the social

setting), utterances semantically, and pragmatically, the following notions must be taken into

account:

1) The background knowledge upon which they rely when they interact.

2) The intentions of the speaker ( identification of the illocutionary acts)

3) The effect of the utterance on listeners (perlocutionary acts)

4) The interlocutors’ reaction that follows from expressing something in a certain

way

5) The audience design, which means that the speakers design their style primarily

for and in response to the audience. That is to say, an utterance is partly shaped on

the basis of assumptions about the hearer.

220
 Indeed, the identification of the pragmatic meaning of the interlocutor’s utterance

when communicating cross-culturally is very important for successful communication.

Pragmatic awareness helps Algerian EFL learners overcome misunderstandings arising from

the their assumption that a construction in the target language will have the same

presuppositions, implicatures, illocutionary force and social factors than in their first

language.

VII.5 Pedagogical Implications

Educators now generally believe that it is important to help the foreign language

learners achieve communicative competence as well as linguistic competence. There is a

method of foreign language teaching called communicative language teaching (CLT), and the

goal of CLT is to develop students’ communicative competence, which includes both

knowledge about the language and knowledge about how to use the language appropriately in

communicative situations. The findings of the present study recommend a need for the

teachers to understand and accommodate the differences between Algerian and English

cultures when engaging students in communicative activities. The university teachers should

adjust their teaching standards by adopting CLT as an approach instead of the traditional one

which aims at developing test-taking skills; teachers should adopt the one that encourages the

developments of the students’ communicative competence. Finally, the implementation of

CLT involves not only the teacher’s effort, but the identification of the learners’ needs and

preferences to incorporate them into educational practices and policies.

One of the important means for providing better pragmatics and speech act teaching

quality is to inculcate to learners all the complexity of the speech acts theory both as a purely

linguistic phenomenon and as a pure social act. Speech acts would be useless if either the

221
cooperative principle or Austin's felicity conditions as speech acts are not understood or

accepted as what they are; that is to say, participants in the act of communication give power

to a performative utterance by respecting the cooperation principal rules and by being aware

of the different felicity conditions.

VII.6 Significance of the Study

Intercultural communication effectiveness is more related to the participants’

intercultural social relationships and involves intercultural communicative acts for effective

communication. Thus, in an EFL setting, learners need to be engaged in various social roles

and speech events by incorporating communicative activities such as role play,

communication games, simulation, and problem solving games. Those tasks are provided by

the teacher who should also try to give cultural elements that are necessary to be involved in

learning, and cultural comparison activities which are quite helpful.

The present research work has attempted to provide an overview of pragmatics and

speech act studies as a means to call for explicit pragmatic instruction in teaching English as a

Foreign Language. More specifically, the study has reflected on the method used in EFL

settings to enhance the learners’ pragmatic awareness and communicative competence

throughthe implementation of explicit instruction and exposure to the TL culture.

The findings of the present study support many of the research findings in the field of

pragmatics (see chapter II section 8) and, thus, it adds to the theory of interlanguage

pragmatic development. As previously said, pragmatic competence in a foreign language is

one of the main components of an ELL’s communicative proficiency which is incorporated in

different models of communicative competence (see chapter I section I.1.3). Indeed, many

studies have sought finding answers to some issues such as the need for teaching FL
222
pragmatics, the way pragmatic competence should be taught and the best instructional

measures to develop pragmatic skills.

Pragmatic proficiency should be considered as a major constituent of language

development. Unfortunately, studies on pragmatic proficiency and speech acts have received

modest attention in FLT contexts. This study, as a result, can add to the field of pragmatics.

Indeed, EFL learners need an opportunity to become good communicators in the target

language. The current study has indicated that teaching pragmatics via instruction should be

included in the EFL context in Algerian universities.

Findings of this study have implications for the field of foreign language education.

First of all, language teachers and curriculum designers need to recognize and plan for the

different target goals language learners may have. It must be recognized that foreign language

speakers also possess a desire to express their own identity. For example, some tested learners

in this study mentioned that depending on the situation, they wanted to show their cultural

origin, their thinking patterns, ideas, and values. As language educators, our job is to inform

language learners of the pragmatic choices and their consequences in a certain situation rather

than trying to transform them into native-speakers. In other words, learners must be given the

appropriate instruction to make the appropriate language choice, which allows them the

freedom to express their own values and beliefs.

VII.7 Suggestions for Further Research

The present study has proved the effectiveness of teaching pragmatics via instruction

and its role in developing the FFL learners’ pragmatic awareness and communicative

competence. However, due to some limitations, some factors might not be considered,

particularly, in the research tools (questionnaire/ experiment).

223
 Further studies should focus on the examination and assessment of the needs of a

larger sample of students (larger than the sample in this study) and to analyse the needs of the

English language institutions (departments). Other studies should also analyse and evaluate

teachers’ attitudes towards the current situation of teaching English at the tertiary level and

the teaching problems they face (curriculum design, teaching methods and other pedagogical

problems) and then, try to find a solution to these problems. Moreover, other researches

should address the important issue of adopting an approach which emphasizes communication

and interaction (language use) as the means and the ultimate goal of language teaching and

learning. Research which examines how social variables such as relative power, social

distance and imposition affect the learners’ choice of request and apology strategies would be

of great benefit and add a lot to the field of interlanguage pragmatics. Finally, constructive

and comparative studies in the field of pragmatics which basically help develop EFL learners’

speech act awareness in both L1 and FL should also be carried out.

VII.8 General Recommendations

The results obtained from the different research instruments used in this study revealed

important facts that have to be taken into consideration. Firstly, a pragmatic course has to be

introduced in the Department of Letters and English language as a compulsory module from

the first year, since the results of needs analysis of students showed that they are in need of

English to master the communicative acts rather than a mere mastery of linguistic items that

are used only in an academic context. Furthermore, the NA results revealed that the students

need an approach which meets their general and learning needs. Besides their academic

studies, the learners at the Department of Letters and English language have expressed a great

motivation for exploring the side of language which cover the different components of

communicative competence and which, according to the research, can be afforded only
224
through applying the communicative approach. Unfortunately, this step requires a

reconsideration of the whole system of higher education in Algeria. For that reason, it is

necessary to setup administrative reforms by officially stating the introduction of these

courses in the students’ curriculum; thus, it will help the students to acquire some language

knowledge which enables them to use it in real communicative situations.

VII.9 Promoting the Methodology of Teaching Pragmatics in an EFL Context

In the last few decades, there was a shift towards communicative language learning

(CLL) which focuses on developing learners’ pragmatic awareness and communicative

proficiency. As a fundamental unit which is supposed to improve the learners’ appropriate

language use in different situations and social settings, pragmatic competence gained much

more attention from scholars and researchers. Consequently, the teaching of pragmatics in an

EFL context at the tertiary level should be reconsidered to meet the objective and need of EFL

learners which is being pragmatically and communicatively competent. By opening up new

perspectives to teaching pragmatics in EFL context, teachers should at least try find their way

in developing appropriate teaching techniques and materials. They have to make sure that

their ways of teaching and the teaching materials they use help in raising their students’

pragmatic awareness and develop their communication skills. Unfortunately, teaching

techniques and materials that are used by teachers of pragmatics at the Department of Letters

and English Language, University of Constantine 1 have not considerably helped in raising

students’ pragmatic awareness.

Based on the findings of the present research, there have been three suggested

reconsiderations. First, it was suggested that there should be a reconsideration of the content

of the pragmatic course. It was argued that pragmatic courses were theoretically-based and

lack many intercultural communication aspects. Alternatively, a thematic way of teaching

pragmatics was regarded as a remedial solution. For instance, instead of dealing with the
225
subject of pragmatics as the study of theories of language in use, it would be better to take

some themes as the content, and then use these themes to draw the learners’ attention to

elements of intercultural competence. Second, a socio-pragmatic approach would be adopted

as an effective method of teaching and learning to help learners search for communication

cues ( social distance/ power, audience design and making choices) that cannot be directly

presented in the classrooms as well as to encourage learning autonomy. Third, concerning the

teaching materials, the analysis of authentic materials by the implementation of technology

(CDs, DVDs of English movies or language exchanges) and awareness raising activities

would help in developing the learners’ cultural awareness of the target language.

In terms of developing the learners’ pragmatic awareness and communicative

competence by teaching pragmatics, we tried to highlight some effective teaching techniques

and materials (Theoretical knowledge, explicit instruction and communicative activities) that

might contribute to the teaching of a pragmatic course. Consequently, we thought that it

would be appropriate to propose a general syllabus for the module of pragmatics at the tertiary

level in the Algerian universities.

VII.9.1 Pragmatics Syllabus Design

This module is designed to introduce the learner to pragmatics (linguistic level of

pragmatics and language in use), with particular focus on aspects of meaning that arise from

the speakers’ interpretation of the linguistic items used in real social context rather than the

meaning of the proper entities of the linguistic system itself. Indeed, this module is

particularly relevant to learners interested in learning English for communication and

interaction.

VII.9.1.1 Objectives

The main objectives of the module of pragmatics are as follows:

226
  To provide theoretical knowledge of the key concepts introduced in the area of

pragmatics and determine their relation to the cultural and social dimensions of the TL

(English)

 To develop pragmatic and communicative skills and competency in the TL

 To apply these skills when involved in the act of communication with NS of English

 To encourage learners to reflect on issues related to pragmatics in global contexts

 To develop the students' transferable skills including communication (oral and written)

 To explain the relationship between pragmatics and other disciplines

VII.9.1.2 Expected Learning Outcomes

Following a module specification guidelines, the planned learning outcomes of this

module are presented as follows:

VII.9.1.2.1 Knowledge and Understanding

After successfully completing the module, students will be able to:

1. Define the key notions related to pragmatics

2. Describe the principles/goals of pragmatics

3. Recognize how pragmatics is related to issues of interpreting and performing

language in social context

4. Understand the fundamental theories of pragmatics as a sub-field of socio-linguistics

5. Demonstrate intercultural/cross-cultural pragmatics and how pragmatics occurs in

different socio-cultural contexts,

6. Describe the relationship between pragmatics and other disciplines

VII.9.1.2.2 Cognitive Skills

Having successfully completed the module, students will be able to:

1. Categorize and demonstrate information in an appropriate and logical way,

2. Recognize the relationship between the various theoretical concepts in pragmatics,

227
 3. Evaluate critically various approaches to the study of pragmatics

VII.9.1.2.3Practical and Subject-specific Skills

After successfully completing the module, students will be able to:

1. Apply the pragmatic knowledge when analysing different conversations and dialogues

(conversational agents)

2. Identify the context cues and social features such as: social distance and social power

3. Recognize the appropriate meaning of utterances used in various communicative

settings

4. Recognize the speakers’ intention

5. Categorize the different types of speech acts based on Searle’s classification

6. Develop an awareness of pragmatic issues for a best application in real life situations

(global and intercultural communication experiences)

VII.9.1.2.4 Key Transferable Skills

Having successfully completed the module, students will be able to:

1. Employ critical thinking and problem-solving techniques when dealing with new data

(pragma-linguistic data)

2. Explain the various pragmatic theories with a particular reference to the study of

languages in general and language teaching;

3. Carry out individual assignment and present findings and ideas in a planned, coherent

manner in seminars through collaborations with partners.

4. Apply the pragmatic knowledge achieved to communicate effectively in different

social contexts.

228
VII.9.1.3 Teaching Program

A teaching programme will consist of a weekly lecture outlining a body of knowledge

and concepts. It will also include a weekly assignment in which the issues presented in the

lecture will be applied to the critical analysis of empirical evidence. Ideas, concepts and

theories will be introduced in the lectures. Assignments will providean opportunity to explore

particular issues in greater depth. They will also encourage the students to explore pragmatics

on the basis of different kinds of linguistic data (audio and visual pieces of discourse) and will

provide an occasion to engage with specific pragmatics’ areas in more details through

investigation and collaboration.

VII.9.1.3.1 Learning Activities

Pragmatics’ learning activities may include the different activities that encourage and

require a student to:

 Build vocabulary

 Learn about the culture of the TL

 Read and synthesize information

 Improve fluency through dialogues, role- plays and guided conversation

 Improve speaking, listening skills, note-taking and writing skills

 Practise speaking in a range of situations (make good choices)

 Learn to form logical, coherent opinions

 Develop new ways of expressing oneself in order to communicate clearly

These communicative activities should be integrated into the lesson.

VII.9.1.4 Pragmatics Lectures Plan and Design

The following is a list of lessons’ template which can be used for the teaching of

pragmatics at the tertiary level in Algerian universities.

229
 Unit One: Scope of Pragmatics
Lesson Main Content Activities/ Assignments Further reading/ References

Definition of Levinson (1983, p.9) – “Pragmatics is

Pragmatics the study of those relations between 1. Define pragmatics in your own
language and context that are words. Crystal, D. (1997). The Cambridge
grammaticalized or encoded in the Encyclopedia of Language.
structure of a language” Cambridge: CUP.
.
Leech (1983, p.6) – “Pragmatics is “the Leech, G. (1983). Principles of
study of meaning in relation 2. What are the common features in Pragmatics. London: Longman.
to speech situations” the four definitions of Pragmatics?
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics.
Mey (1993, p. 5) -“Pragmatics is the Cambridge: Cambridge University
science of language seen in relation to Press.
230

its users.”
Mey, J.(1993). Pragmatics: an
Crystal (1997, p. 301) –“Pragmatics is introduction. Oxford: Blackwell
the study of language from the point of 3. Think of language statements which Publishers Ltd.
view of users, especially of the choices you can interpret them from a
they make, the constraints they pragmatic perspective rather than
encounter in using language in social simply considering their semantic
interaction and the effects their use of (propositional) meaning?
language has on other participants in
the act of communication”

Origins (Charles Morris, 1938) / (Carnap,

1938)
 Meaning and Features of Context

Context Halliday, M.A.K. and Ruqaiya Hasan

(1976). Cohesion in English. Essex:
Definition London.

Mey(1993, p. 38) -identifies context as Hudson, R.A. (1980). Sociolingusitics.

follows: 1. Attempt a definition of context. Cambridge: CUP.
“Context is a dynamic, not a static
Key Terms in concept. It is to be understood as the Hymes, D. (1972). On Communicative
Pragmatics surroundings, in the widest sense, that Competence. Philadelphia: University
enable the participants in the 2. Why is context a fundamental of Pennsylvania Press.
communication process to interact, and aspect in the study of pragmatics?
that make the linguistics expression on
their interaction intelligible”
231

Types of Context
3. Why is the study of language in
There are three types of context relation to its social context
important?
Physical Context

Such type of contextual information

includes what is physically present
around the speakers/hearers at the time
of communication. What objects are
present, where the communication is
taking place, as well as the timing, what
is going on around, the situation in
which it is used, and what actions are
occurring, all of which assist in making
 communication successful.

Linguistic Context (co-text)

This type of contextual information is

all about what has been said before in a
conversation. Sometimes it is called co-
text and identified as the set of words
that surround the language unit in
question in the same phrase, or
sentence. In other words, it is the
discourse that surrounds a language unit
and helps determine its interpretation.

Social Context

Halliday (1989, p. 6) – “Knowledge is

232

transmitted in social contexts, through

relationships, like those of parent and
child, or teacher and pupil, or
classmates, that are defined in the value
systems and ideology of the culture.
And the words that are exchanged in
these contexts get their meaning from
activities in which they are embedded,
which again are social activities with
social agencies and goals”
 Meaning

Utterance vs. UTTERANCE MEANING What the 1. Differentiate between utterance

sentence utterer meant by saying the sentence in meaning and sentence meaning. Chierchia, G. and S. McConnell-Ginet
meaning a given occasion (2000). Meaning and Grammar. 2nd
edition. MIT Press.
SENTENCE MEANING (literal
meaning), what the utterer reference in
discourse, literally said

Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In P.

Cole, ed. Pragmatics. Syntax and
Semantics No. 9. Academic Press
2. Make a list of utterances which
though may not be grammatical, .
SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS are communicative.
233

Semantic versus Literal meaning vs. utterance meaning

Pragmatic linguistic meaning speaker’s meaning
Meaning semantic
value/denotation
 Unit Two: Areas of Pragmatics
Deixis Is it always necessary to consider
Deixis deictic references in the interpretation
Types of Deixis Definition of meaning?
Lyons (1977, p. 637) - “the location and
identification of persons, objects, Activity 1
events, processes and activities being
talked about, or referred to, in relation (Source: Fromkin & Rodman's 1998
to the spatiotemporal context created by edition of An Introduction to
the act of utterance and the Language ) Finegan, E. (1994). Language: Its
Structure and Use. New York: Harcourt
participation in it, typically, of a single Circle any deictic expression in the
Brace College Publishers
speaker and at least one addressee” following sentences. (Hint: Proper
names and noun phrases containing
Person Deixis "the" are not considered deictic Crystal, D. (1997). The Cambridge
expressions. Also, all sentences do not
234

Encyclopedia of Language.
Finegan (1994, p. 178) - “personal include deictic expressions.) Cambridge: CUP.
deixis can mark a number of 1. I saw her standing there. .
overlapping distinction: person, gender, Leech, G. (1983). Principles of
number, and social relations” 2. Dogs are animals. Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Place Deixis 3. Yesterday, all my troubles seemed
so far away.
Finegan (1994, p. 179) “describes
place “the marking in language of the 4. The name of this rock band is "The
orientation or position in space of the Beatles."
referent of a linguistic expression”

5. The Declaration of Independence

was signed in 1776.
 6. The Declaration of Independence
Time Deixis was signed last year.

Finegan (1994, p. 179) - “the

orientation or position of the reference 7. Copper conducts electricity.
of actions and events in time”
8. The treasure chest is on the right.
Discourse Deixis
Discourse deixis, also referred to as text
deixis, refers to the use of expressions 9. These are the times that try men's
within an utterance to refer to parts of souls.
the discourse that contain the utterance.
In other words, when an expression 10. There is a tide in the affairs of men
refers to another linguistic expression which taken at the flood leads on to
or a piece of discourse, it is discourse fortune.
deictic. It can also be referred to as a
deictic reference to a portion of a
discourse relative to the speaker’s the
235

current location in the discourse.

Social Deixis
Social deixis is concerned with the
social information which is used to
identify the social status of the speaker,
addressee as well as the relationships
between them, it includes: social status,
kin relationship, age, sex, profession,
ethnic group. Expressions of social
deixis are closely associated with
personal pronouns, forms of address
etc...
 Presupposition
Levinson (1983, p. 68). “The term (Source: Fromkin & Rodman's 1998
presupposition refers to those edition of An Introduction to
assumptions which appear to be built Language) Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics.
into the linguistic structure of texts and Cambridge: Cambridge University
which relate linguistic structure to Activity Press.
extra-linguistic context in terms of the
inferences which are expected to be The following sentences make certain Yule, G. (1996): Pragmatics. Oxford:
Presupposition made about this context” presuppositions. What are they? (The Oxford University Press.
and Entailment first one has been done for you!)

Entailment 1. The police ordered the minors to

Crystal (1998, p. 136) - “a term that stop drinking.
refers to a relation between a pair of Presupposition: The minors were
sentences such that the truth of the drinking.
second sentence necessarily follows 2. Please take me out to the ball game
236

from the truth of the first, e.g. I can see again.

a dog entails 'I can see an animal'. One Presupposition: ........................
cannot both assert the first and deny the 3. Valerie regretted not receiving a
second” ( new T-bird for Labour Day.
Presupposition: ........................
4. That her pet turtle ran away made
Emily very sad.
Presupposition: ..........................
5. It is strange that the United States
invaded Cambodia in 1970.
Presupposition: ...........................
6. Isn't it strange that the United States
invaded Cambodia in 1970?
Presupposition: ............................
 Unit Three: Theories of Pragmatics
Grundy, P. (2000). Doing Pragmatics
Conversational Levinson (1983, p. 50) refers to (2nd Ed.). London: Arnold.
Implicatures implicature by relying on “some very 1. Discuss the conversational maxims Yule, G. (1996). The Study of Language
(Gricean general expectation of interactional proposed by Grice (2nd ed.). Cambridge: CUP.
Theory) cooperation”

Grice (1975/1989, pp. 39-40) -“A 2. Explain the term “Implicature.” Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and
conversational implicature is “what has When do implicatures occur? conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan
to be supposed in order to preserve the Give examples to illustrate your (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech
supposition that the Cooperative answer. acts 2, 41-58. New York: Academic
Press.
Principle is being observed”

Grice’s
Cooperative Grice’s Maxims (Cited in Cole &
Principle Morgan, 1975; PP. 41–58) (Source :May Abumelha Eng 323
237

(Maxims) Linguistics II (Practice Sheet))

Maxim of Quality Indicate which maxim is flouted in
Try to make your contribution one that the following exchanges and which
is true implicature is raised.
1. Do not say what you believe to
be false. 1. A: Do you know where Salwa is?
2. Do not say that for which you B: I was supposed to have lunch with
lack adequate evidence. her, but she didn’t come.

Maxim of Quantity 2. Sara is married and has two children,

ages 7 and 4. In a conversation about
1. Make your contribution as her father-in-law in the presence of her
informative as is required (for the children, she refers to him as the first
current purposes of the exchange). generation and to her children as
2. Do not make your contribution the third generation.
 more informative than is required.
3. A: Who was that man I saw you with
yesterday?
B: That was just someone.
Maxim of Relation
Be relevant
4. A: Have you been married before?
Maxim of Manner B: The thing is that I’m allergic to
Be perspicuous rice.
1. Avoid obscurity of expression 5. Diane: Don’t you think John is a
2. Avoid ambiguity wonderful guy?
3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary Susan: Yeah, he’s about as sensitive
prolixity) as Rambo.
4. Be orderly

Grundy, P. (2000). Doing Pragmatics

238

(2nd ed.). London: Arnold.

Speech Acts Austin’ Speech acts (Doing things
Theories with Words)

Austin developed his theory of speech

acts in a series of lectures which were 3. Give other examples of utterances
published posthumously as a book that show that we perform acts as we
entitled ‘How to Do Things with speech.
Words’. The Speech act theory is one of
the key areas of linguistic pragmatics
and which claims that many utterances,
termed performatives, do not only
communicate information, but are
equivalent to actions. That is to say,
through the use of these utterances,
 people do things or have others do
things for them like apologizing,
making requests and compliments etc.
Utterances that may be used to realize
the above functions are known as
speech acts

Locutionary, Illocutionary,
Perlocutionary Acts

Austin (1962, p.109-110) “when an

individual makes an utterance, he
performs (i) the locutionary act, which
is the act that utters a sentence
with a certain meaning using the
grammar, phonology and semantics of
the language (ii) the Illocutionary act
239

which is the intention of an

utterance to constitute either an act of
promise, command, criticism, Yule, G. (1996). The Study of Language
agreement, greeting, pronouncement (2nd ed.). Cambridge: CUP.
etc. (iii) the Perlocutionary act
which is the effect or the response it
achieves on the hearer like
embarrassment, fear, confusion,
enjoyment, or amusement. Remember
that one utterance or sentence can
perform all of the above functions.
The illocutionary act is where speakers
actually “do things with words”.

According to Austin, illocutionary act

 is performed by “performative
sentences”, because by virtue of its
structure, a performative sentence
has a “conversational force” like
pronouncing a man and a woman
husband and wife or sentencing a
defendant in court. Exercise 1 (Appendix H)
1. For each of the following
Searle’s classification of speech acts speech acts, indicate the type of speech
act:
Searle (1969) identifies three major (a) I will turn my paper in on Friday.
Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford:
conditions or performing speech act. (b)May I have an extension on the due
Oxford University Press.
According to him, “felicity conditions” date for my paper?
must be met in order to make a promise (c) The teacher is supposed to return
for instance. our papers today.
The conditions are as follows: (d)Iqbel's essay is the best in the class.
1. the utterance refers to some future act (e) I will give you until Monday to turn
240

of the speaker in your papers.

2. the speaker would not normally be (f) You have succeeded in the
carrying it out examination.
3. the speaker recognizes he has taken on (g) I regret that you failed the
a responsibility examination.
These “conditions” are to (h)Your paper was handed in too late to
determine when the performance of be considered.
speech act may be appropriate or (i) Your papers are due on Friday.
inappropriate. (j) Congratulations on passing the
Searle (1976) further gives 5 course.
types of acts that are performed in (k)Your papers will be marked down
speaking. They are: for each day that they are late.
(l) If you don't start on your papers
Searle (1979, p.12) Representatives early, you won't have enough
(or assertives): “The point or purpose time.
 of the members of the assertive class is
to commit the speaker (in varying
degrees) to something's being the case,
to the truth of the expressed
proposition.” Searle, J. R. (1979). A taxonomy of
illocutionary acts. In his Expression and
Searle (1979, p.13) Directives: “The Meaning: Studies in the Theory of
illocutionary point of these consists in Speech Acts. Cambridge University
the fact that they are attempts (of Press.
varying degrees, and hence, more
precisely, they are determinates of the 2. Differentiate between Austin’s
determinable which includes speech acts and Searle’s acts.
attempting) by the speaker to get the Illustrate with examples.
hearer to do something.”

Searle (1979, p.14) Commissives:

Which are used if the speaker commits
241

himself to a course of action found in

verbs like intend, promise, pledge, and
threat. these “are those illocutionary
acts whose point is to commit the
speaker (again in varying degrees) to
some future course of action”
Searle (1979, p.15) Expressives: They
are those acts in which the speaker
expresses his psychological state or
attitude, as in the verbs like greet,
apologize and congratulate. “The
illocutionary point of this class is to
express the psychological state
specified in the sincerity.”
 Searle (1979, p.16-17) Declarations
(or Declaratives): “The defining
characteristic of this class that the
successful performance of one of its
members brings about the
correspondence between the
propositional content and reality,
successful performance guarantees that
the propositional content corresponds to
the world: if I successfully perform the
act of appointing you chairman, then
you are chairman”
242
Conclusion

This chapter recaps on the overall findings of this study and discusses the results of the

data collected through the three research tools used. It also provides answers to the four

research questions and hypotheses. Furthermore, it discerns the limitations of the study, and

suggests some theoretical and teaching implications.

243
 General Conclusion

Nowadays, the development of learners' pragmatic awareness and communicative

competence has been regarded as the major goal of foreign language teaching and learning.

Foreign language competency entails the control of Linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge

when communicating in it, in other words, it entails pragmatic competence that involves the

ability to understand how language is used in different contexts to produce different

communicative results. Communicating in a foreign language requires awareness of the

linguistic system and the manner in which to interact with others in order to have the intended

impact. It also requires awareness of the appropriateness of language use in different

situations. For these reasons, language instruction should provide guidance to learners on how

to use language not only correctly but also appropriately i.e. pragmatically, so that they can be

successful when communicating outside the language classroom. The production of effective

speech acts should be taught and shared with students along with the traditional teaching of

other language skills.

This study is divided into three parts. The first part is an attempt to answer the first

research question: which is mostly needed by students: learning English for communication

purposes or learning English for academic ones? And, thus, to investigate this research

question we assumed that students have the type of English learning needs which favour the

communicative perspective, i.e. they need English for communication and interaction. This

part of the study focuses on analysing the first, second and third year students’ needs in matter

of English language learning and their choice between learning following the traditional

approach to language teaching or the communicative one. The data analysed reveal that the

learning needs of the students can be satisfied by CLT.

244
 The second part concentrates on the investigation of the second (main) research

question which is what the effect of pragmatic instruction on third year graduate learners’

performance of speech acts are .i.e. to what extent does the introduction of explicit pragmatic

instruction affect students’ awareness of speech acts? Based on this question, we assume that

pragmatic explicit instruction would affect positively the learner’s speech act awareness. To

answer the second question, we have focused on one aspect of our participants’ pragmatic

comprehension, namely that of the production of requests and apologies. And, thus, to answer

this question, a pre-test/ post-test experiment is designed in order to account for the

instructional effects. The students’ comprehension of speech acts and their use of requests and

apologies is first analysed in the pre-test and in the post-test. The analysis at this stage is

quantitative. The results of the pre-test show that the learners of English under investigation

do not have pragmatic awareness of speech acts, in the absence of any pertinent instruction.

On the other hand, the results of the post-test which are compared with those of the pre-test

via a statistical method called a t-test show that there is a significant improvement in the

speech act comprehension and production of the third year students. This implies that some

form of explicit pragmatic instruction is necessary for giving the learners the opportunity to

reflect on their communicative encounters and to experiment with different pragmatic options

because the classroom may be the only available setting where they can try out using the

foreign language.

The third part of the study is an attempt to answer the third and fourth research

questions which are: To what extent does students' speech act awareness improve their

communicative competence i.e. their ability to communicate appropriately and effectively in

different communicative situations? And to what extent does students’ pragmatic theoretical

knowledge affect their speech act awareness? In this part, we assume that students’ speech act

awareness improves their communicative competence and students’ pragmatic theoretical

245
knowledge increases their speech act awareness. Examining these two research questions

required the design of a pragmatic theoretical knowledge test and a communicative

proficiency one in addition to the test of speech act awareness used in the experiment. In order

to answer the research questions and discover the nature of the relationship between the

variables, the tests were examined using the correlation coefficient statistical method. The

results of the data analysis showed that there is no relationship between pragmatic theoretical

knowledge and speech act awareness in both pre-tests and post-tests and there is a positive

relationship between the speech act awareness and communicative competence in the post-

test.

The present research work was framed within seven distinctive chapters. The first

chapter was almost devoted to the area of ‘Needs Analysis’ and CLT, it covered Hymes

notion of communicative competence and its development being the major goal in teaching

and learning English as a foreign language. The second one addressed the field of pragmatics

covering its definition, history, key concepts and language use theories, the chapter tackled

too the teaching pragmatics via instruction. The third chapter was the central body of the

whole study, it was devoted to the theory of speech acts and its major divisions and

constituents. The fourth one covered the overall research methodology; chapter five and six

where devoted to the analysis of the data collection tools within the interpretation of the

findings, the ‘seven’ chapter provided some theoretical and pedagogical implications.

It goes without saying that the present research supports the fact that any foreign

language syllabus design follows certain procedures. Those procedures should not be

formulated in a haphazard manner. In order to avoid pedagogical failure syllabus design

should to be designed taking into account the following issues: ‘Who we teach’, ‘What to

teach’ and ‘How to teach it’. This means that needs analysis should be the first phase in

syllabus design.

246
 The reconsideration of pragmatics teaching through the introduction of explicit

instruction in the present study required a deep analysis of the learners’ English language

needs and preferences.

The present research provided further worth evidence that teaching pragmatics via

adopting an explicit approach (explicit instruction) seems to have positive effects on learners’

pragmatic competence through raising their awareness of FL pragmaliguistic and socio-

pragmatics features. The main benefit of explicit instruction is that it helps developing FL

learners’ both pragmatic and communicative competence. And then, this work adds to the

wide range of pragmatic and sociolinguistic research on the effectiveness of instruction in

pragmatics. This work confirmed the findings of many interlanguage pragmatics studies.

247
 References

Adegbija, E. (1989). A comparative study of politeness phenomena in Nigerian

EnglishYoruba and Ogori, Multilingual, 8, 57-80.

Allan, K. (1994) Felicity conditions on speech acts, in Encyclopedia of Language and

Linguistics, edited by Ron Asher, 3, 1210 - 1213. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Allison, D. (1996). Pragmatist discourse and English for academic purposes. English for

Specific Purposes, 15, 85–103.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Austin, J. L. (1965). How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bach, K. and Harnish, R. (1979).Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge: The

MIT Press.

Bachman, L. F. (1990).Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Bacon, S. M, Finnemann, M, D. (1990).A study of attitudes, motives and strategies of

university foreign language students and their disposition to authentic oral and written

input. Modern Language Journal, 74, 459–473.

Baker, J. and Westrup, H. (2003). Essential Speaking Skills: A Handbook for English

Language Teachers. London: Continuum International Publishing.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and

pedagogy together. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning. 7, 21-

39. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International

Language.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). The interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda

for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49, 677-713.

248
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in

pragmatics?In Rose and Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge:

CUP, 13-32.

Bardovi-Harlig, K, Félix-Brasdefer, C & Omar, A, S. (2006). Pragmatics and Language

Learning, 11. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language

Resource Center.

Bardovi-Harlig, K & Griffin, R. (2005). L2 Pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL

classroom. System, 33, 401-415.

Bhatia, T, K, Ritchie, W. C. (2009). The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Emerald

Group Publishing Limited: Howard house.UK.

Bialystok, E. (1990).Communication Strategies: A Psychological Analysis of Second-

Language Use. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

Billmyer, K. (1990). I really like your lifestyle: ESL learners learning how to

compliment. Penn Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 6(2), 31-48.

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989).Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and

Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Alex.

Blum-Kulka, S.&Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A Cross-cultural Study of

Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 7(3), 169-213.

Bouton, L, F. (1994). Can NNS skill in implicatures in American English be improved

through explicit instruction? In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning

monograph series, 5, 89-109. Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an

International Language: University of Illinois.

Breen, M, P. (1985). Authenticity in the language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 6(1):60-70.

http://www.zait.uni-bremen.de/wwwgast/tesl_ej/ej02/a.1.html.

249
Breen, M. P &Candlin, C. (1985).The Essentials of a Communicative Curriculum in

Language Teaching. Applied Linguistics,1(2), 89-112.

Brinker, K (2001).Linguistics of text and conversation, 2.In Halbband. Nunan, David

(1993).From learning-centeredness to learner-centeredness. Applied Language

Learning, 4, 1–18.

Brown, H.D. (1994). Teaching by Principles. Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Prentice Hall.

Brown, H.D. (1995). The Elements of Language Curriculum: A Systematic Approach to

Program Development. Boston: New York: Heinle & Heinle.

Brown, J. D. (2005). Testing in Language Programs: A Comprehensive Guide to English

Language Assessment (New edition). New York: McGraw-Hill. [ISBN 0-07-294836-

1]

Brown, R. L. (1980). The pragmatics of verbal irony, In R. W. Shuy and A. Shnukal, editors,

Language Use and the Uses of Language, 111–127. Georgetown University

Press.Washington.

Brown, P, and S. Levinson.(1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods (3rded.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Canale, M. (1983). From Communicative Competence to Communicative Language

Pedagogy. In J Richard and RW Schmidt. Eds Language and Communication.

London: Longman.

Canal, M, sand Swain, M.(1980).Theoretical bases of communicative approach to second

language testing and teaching. Applied Linguistics.1 (1). 30.

Carnap, R.(1938) Introduction to Semantics, Cambridge Mass. MIT Press

250
Celce-Murcia. M, Dörnyei. Z and Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A

pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied

Linguistics, 6(2): 5-35.

Chierchia, G., &McConnell-Ginet, S. (1990). Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to

Semantics. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Chierchia, G. &McConnell-Ginet, S. (2000). Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to

Semantics. 2nd edition. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Cole, P & Morgan, J (eds.) (1975): Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York:

Academic Press.

Conway, M.J. (2006). How to Collect Data? Measurement and Evaluation. ASTD Press.

Cohen, A., & Olshtain, E. (1990).Developing a measure of sociolinguistic competence: The

case of apology. Language Learning, 31(1), 113-134.

Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cook, G. (1999). Discourse and Literature. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education

Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods

Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publication.

Crystal, D. (1997). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics: Blackwell Publisher Ltd.

Crystal, D. (1997). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: CUP.

Ellis, G, (1994) "The Appropriateness of the Communicative Approach in Vietnam: An

Interview Study in Intercultural Communication". La Trobe University, Bundoora,

Australia.

251
Elster, J. (1983). Explaining Technological Change: A Case Study in the Philosophy of

Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Eslami-Rasekh, Z. Eslami-Rasekh, A. and Fatahi, A.(2004): The Effect of Explicit

Metapragmatic Instruction on the Speech Act Awareness of Advanced EFL Students.

The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language.8(2), Texas A&M

University.

Fais, L. (1994). Conversation as collaboration: some syntactic evidence. Speech

Communication. 15. 231-242.

Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Towards a descriptive framework for spatial deixis. In: R. J. Jarvella &

W. Klein (eds.). Speech, Place, and Action.31–59.

Finegan, E. (1994). Language: Its Structure and Use. New York: Harcourt Brace College

Publishers

Finocchario, M. &Brumfit, C (1983).The Functional-Notional Approach. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

Francis, C. (1997). Talk to me! The development of request strategies in non-native speakers

of English. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 13(2), 23-40.

Fromkin V. Rodman R. (1998). An Introduction to Language. London: Holt-Saunders.

Fukuya, Y. J., & Clark, M. K. (2001). A comparison of input enhancement and explicit

instruction of mitigators. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning

Monograph Series. 10, 111-130. Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an

International Language: University of Illinois.

Gaies, S J., Galambos, A and Cornish, Y. (1999).The metacognitive beliefs of Russian

learners of English. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American

Association for Applied Linguistics, Stamford, CT, March 6–9.

252
Gillett, A. J. (2011). What is EAP? Retrieved January 6, 2013, from

http://www.uefap.com/bgnd/

Golato, A. (2003). Compliment and Compliment and Responses: Grammatical Structure and

Sequential Organisation. The Nethelands: John Benjamin Publishing Company.

Gorsuch, G, J, (2000) "EFL educational policies and educational cultures: Influences on

teachers' approval of communicative activities", TESOL Quarterly, 34, 4, 675—710.

Grabe, W. (2001). Reading-writing relations: Theoretical perspectives and instructional

practices. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking Literacies: Perspectives on L2

Reading-writing Connections (pp. 15- 47). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Grice, H. P. (1967). Logic and conversation, in P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds.) (1975): Syntax and

Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.

Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and

Semantics: Speech Acts 2, 41-58. New York: Academic Press.

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In A. Jaworski, & N. Coupland

(Eds.). The Discourse Reader, 76-87. New York: Routledge.

Grice, H.P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Grundy, P. (2000). Doing Pragmatics (2nd Ed.). London: Arnold.

Halliday, M. A.K. (1989). Spoken and Written Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Halliday, M.A.K. &Hasan,R. (1976).Cohesion in English. Essex: London.

Harvey, A.G & Bryant, R.A.(2000).Memory for acute stress disorder. Behaviour Research

and Therapy. 38, 21-33.

Holmes, J. (1990). Apologies in New Zealand English, Language in Society, 155-199,

Cambridge University Press.

Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign

language students. The Modern Language Journal72, 285–294.

253
House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines

and Metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 225-252.

House, J. & Kasper, G. (1981).ZurRolle der kogni-tion in kommunikationskursen. Die

NeuerenSprachen, 80, 42-55.

Hoven, D. (1999). A model for listening and viewing comprehension in

multimedia environments. Language Learning & Technology, 3(1), 88-103.

Huang, Y. (2007). The Oxford Dictionary of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hudson, R.A. (1980). Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: CUP.

Hudson, T. (1995).Developing Prototypic Measures of Cross-cultural Pragmatics. Honolulu:

University of Hawaii at Manoa, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

Hudson, T. (2001). Indicators for pragmatic instruction: Some quantitative tools. In K.R.

Rose, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching. pp. 283-380.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. (1987).English for Specific Purposes: A Learning Centred

Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hymes, D.H. (1971). On communicative competence. In J. Pride and J. Holmes (Eds).

Sociolinguistics. Penguin.

Hymes, D. H. (1972).On Communicative Competence. In Pride, J. B., & Holmes, J. (Eds.),

Sociolinguistics,269-293. Baltimore, USA: Penguin Education, Penguin Books Ltd.

Inceçay, G& Inceçay, V, (2009) "Turkish university students? perceptions of communicative

and non-communicative activities in EFL classroom", Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 1, 1, 618—622.
Jaszczolt, K.M. (2002). Semantics and Pragmatics. Longman.

Jeon, E. H., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic

development: A meta-analysis. In J.M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing

Research on Language Teaching and Learning, 165-211. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

254
Jernigan, J. (2007).Output and English as a Second Language Pragmatic Development: The

Effectiveness of Output-focused Video-based Instruction, English for Academic

Purposes Program, Georgia Gwinnett College 1000 University Center Lane,

Lawrenceville, GA 30043, USA.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1988). Mental Models.New York: Cambridge University Press.

Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for Academic Purposes: A Guide and Resource Book for

Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? (NetWork #6) [HTML document].

Honolulu: University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.

from www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW06.

Kasper, G. (2001). Classroom research in interlanguage pragmatics. In K. Rose & G. Kasper

(Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching, 33-60. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Kasper, G. (2001). Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied Linguistics, 22,

502-530.

Kasper, G & Blum-Kulka, S. (1993) (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,

19, 81-104.

Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002).Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Malden, MA:

Blackwell.

Kasper, G. and Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatics in language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies

in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 149-169.

255
Keating, D. P. (2004).Cognitive and brain development. In R. J. Lerner & L. D. Steinberg

(Eds.), Handbook of Adolescent Psychology, 45–84. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Kern, R. G. (1995). Students’ and teachers’ beliefs about language learning. Foreign

Language Annals.28: 72–92.

Kern, G, J. (2010): Introduction to Probability and Statistics Using. Available from:http://gis-

lab.info/docs/books/kerns10_ipsur.pdf.

King, K. A., & Silver, R. E. (1993). Sticking points: Effects of instruction on NNS refusal

strategies. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 9, 47-82.

Kondo, S. (2001). Instructional effects on pragmatic development: Interlanguage refusal.

Paper presented at Pac SLRF at University of Hawai‘i at Manoa.

Kramsch, C,& Anderson, R. (1999).Teaching text and context through

multimedia. Language Learning & Technology, 2(2), 31-42.

Kubota, M. (1995).Teachability of conversational implicatures to Japanese EFL learners.

Institute of Research in Language Teaching Bulletin, 9, 35-67.

Lakoff, R. 1975. Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper Colophon.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986).Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Leech, G. (1983): Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.

Leech, G. (1974), Semantics. Auxland: Pengin Books.

LeLoup, J., & Ponterio, R. (2000).Enhancing authentic language learning experiences through

internet technology. Report No. EDO-FL-OO-O2. Washington, DC: Office of

Educational Research and Improvement.

Levinson, S. (1983): Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

256
Liddicoat, A. J., & Crozet, C. (2001).Acquiring French interactional norms through

instruction. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching, 125-

144. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Liu, X. (2003). The cultivation of intercultural communicative competence: A constructivist

view. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 1, 34-36. Retrieved from

http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotalWYWJ200301008.htm

LoCastro, V. (1997).Pedagogical intervention and pragmatic competence development.

Applied Language Learning, 8, 75-109.

LoCastro, V. (2000).Evidence of accommodation to L2 pragmatic norms in peer review tasks

of Japanese learners of English. JALT Journal, 23(1), 6-30.

LoCastro, V. (2001). Individual differences in second language acquisition: Attitudes, learner

subjectivity, and L2 pragmatic norms. System, 29(1), 69-89.

Lyster, R. (1994). The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion

students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 15, 263-287.

Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lyons, J. (1982). Language and meaning. London: Fontana Paperbacks. Wardhaugh, R.

1992. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Second Edition. Oxford: Blackwell.

Márquez-Reiter. R. (2000). Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay. John Benjamins

B.V.

McCawley, P, (2009). Methods for Conducting an Educational Needs Assessment. University

of Idaho.

Merstre Mestre, E, M. (2011). Error in the Learning and Teaching of English as a Second

Language at Higher Education Level. Department of Applied Linguistics. At

https://riunet.upv.es/bitstream/handle/10251/11277/tesisUPV3574.pdf?

Mey, J.(1993).Pragmatics: an Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

257
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994).Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage.

Morris, C. W. (1938): Foundations of the theory of sign, in Morris, C. W. (ed.)

(1971).Writings on the General Theory of Signs. The Hague: Mouton.

Morrow, C. (1996).The pragmatic effects of instruction on ESL learners' production of

complaint and refusal speech acts. Unpublished manuscript, Buffalo.

Mukalel, J. C. (1998). Linguistics for the Teacher. New Delhi: Discovery Pub. House.

Munby, J. (1978). Communicative Syllabus Design.London: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (1988). Syllabus Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston: Heinle&Heinle.

Olshtain, E, Cohen, A, (1984). Apology: a speech act set. In Wolfson, NessaEliote, Judd

(Eds), Sociopragmatics and Language Acquision. newbury House, Rowley, MA, pp.

18-36.

Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. (1990). The learning of complex speech act behavior. TESL

Canada Journal, 7, 45-65.

Özyildirim, I. (2010). The level of directness in Turkish apology forms in relation to the level

of education. Journal of Faculty of Letters. Vol 27 (1). 179- 201.

Pearson, C, L.(2005). Beginnings &Beyond: An Anthology of Poetry. Springville, Utah:

Cedar Fort.

Punch, K.F. (2005). Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative

Approaches. Sage Publications Ltd. London EC1Y 1SP.

Reiter, R. (2000).Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay: A Contrastive Study of

Requests and Apologies. John Benjamins publishing company. Amsterdam/

Philadelphia.

Richards, J.C. (1990). The Language Teaching Matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press

258
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today, New York: Cambridge

Richards, J.C., &Rodgers, T.S.(1986).Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J.C. &Rodgers, T.S. (2001).Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2002). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C., Platt, J.& Platt, H. (1992): Dictionary of language teaching and applied

linguistics.UK: Longman Publishing Group.

Rogers, L. (2012). From EFL to EAP: A Shift in Skills. Delta ELT Publishing Ltd. Quince

Cottage, Hoe Lane

Rose, K. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33, 385-

399.

Rose, K., & Kasper, G. (2001).Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Rose, K., & Ng Kwain-fun, C. (2001).Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments and

compliment responses. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language

Teaching,145-170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Russell, V & Vásquez, C. (2011). A Web-Based Tutorial for Spanish Pragmatic. In The

IALLT Journal.Vol. 41 (2).Valdosta State University of South Florida.

Sakui, K & Gaies, S. (1999). Investigating Japanese learners’ beliefs about language learning

System. 27: 473–492

Savignon, S. J. (1983). Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice.

Readings, Mass: Addison-Wesley. USA.

259
Savignon, S. J. (1997). Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice: Texts

and Contexts in Second Language Learning (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Savignon, S, J & Wang, C. (2003). Communicative Language Teaching in EFL Contexts:

Learner Attitudes and Perceptions. EBESCO Publishing.

Schiffrin, D.(1994). Approaches to Discourse. Oxford; Blackwell.

Schunk, D. H. (2004). Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In P. Cole, ed. Pragmatics, Syntax and Semantics No.

9.Academic Press.

Searle, J. (1965). What is a speech act? In P. P. Giglioli (Ed.), Language and Social

Context (136–154). Harmonds worth, England: Penguin Books.

Searle, J. (1969): Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Searle, J. (1975): Indirect speech acts, in Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (eds.): Syntax and Semantics

3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.

Searle, J. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and

Semantics, vol. 3: Speech Acts, 59–82. New York.

Searle. J. R (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1):pp. 1–23

Searle, J. (1979). A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts in Expression and Meaning: Studies in

the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press.

Silva, A.C. (2003). The effects of instruction on pragmatic development: teaching polite

refusals in English. SLS Papers.Vol 21, [HTML document]. Honolulu: University of

Hawai'i, from www.hawaii.edu/sls/sls/wp-content/.../06/Silva.pdf

Sperber, D and Wilson, D. (1986). Inference and Implicature in C. Travis(ed). Meaning and

Interpretations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 45-75.

260
Swain, M. (1984). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and

comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in

Second Language Acquisition ,235-257.Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In P. Cole, ed. Pragmatics, Syntax and Semantics No.

9.Academic Press.

Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics, 31, 289-310.

Takahashi, S. (2001).The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In

K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching, 125-144. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Tateyama, Y. (2001). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines: Japanese

'sumimasen'. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching, 200-

222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tateyama, Y., Kasper, G., Mui, L., Tay, H., & Thananart, O., (1997). Explicit and implicit

teaching of pragmatic routines.In L. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language

Learning, Vol. 8. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Thomas, J. (1983). Cross cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91-112.

Trochim, W. M. The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2nd Edition. Internet WWW page,

at URL: <http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/> (version current as of October

20, 2006.

Trosborg, A. (1994). Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints, and Apologies.

Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Tudor, I. (1996). Learner-centeredness as Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

261
Waters, A. & M.L.C. Vilches. (2001). Implementing ELT innovations: a needs analysis

framework. English Language Teaching Journal.55(2),133-141.

Wen, Q and. Johnson, R, K (1997). L2 learner variables and English achievement: A study of

tertiary-level English majors in China. Linguistics, 18, 27–48..

Widdowson, H.G. (2000). Linguistics. Shanghai. Shanghai Foreign Language Education

Press.

Wildner-Bassett, M.(1984).Improving Pragmatic Aspects of Learners'

Interlanguage.Tübingen: Narr.

Wildner-Bassett, M. (1986). Teaching 'polite noises': Improving advanced adult learners'

repertoire of gambits. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Learning, Teaching and Communication in

the Foreign Language Classroom 163-178.Århus: Aarhus University Press.

Wildner-Bassett, M. (1994). Intercultural pragmatics and proficiency: 'Polite' noises for

cultural appropriateness. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 3-17.

Wilkins, D.A. (1978). Notional Syllabuses. Oxford University Press.

Wilkinson, D. (2003).The Researcher’s Toolkit: The Complete Guide to Practitioner

Research, London: Routledge Falmer.

Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. New York: Newbury House

Publishers.

Wishnoff, J. (2000). Hedging your bets: L2 learners’ acquisition of pragmatic devices in

academic writing and computer-mediated discourse. Second Language

Studies, Working papers of the department of Second Language Studies, 19, 119-

157.University of Hawaii.

Witkin, B. R. (1984). Assessing Needs in Educational and Social Programs. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

262
Yoshimi, D. R. (2001). Explicit instruction and JFL learners' use of interactional discourse

markers. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching. 223-247.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yule, G. (1996): Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

263
APPENDICES
 Appendix A

The Syllabus of Pragmatics as Taught in Reality

In what follows is a detailed account of the various topics dealt with in the syllabus of

pragmatics.1

I. Pragmatics
Definition
Background
II. Deixis
Types of Deixis
The Interpretation of Deixis
Distance & Reference
III. Speech Acts
John Austin Model of Speech Acts
John Rogers Searle Classification
Performative Hypothesis
IV. Cooperative Principle [Grice Maxims Model]

1
This is according to the teacher in charge of the teaching team of pragmatics at the department of English,
academic year 2011/2012.
 Appendix B

List of Performative Verbs

abolish, accept, acknowledge, acquit, admit, admonish, advise, affirm, agree to,

announce, answer, apologize, ascribe, ask, assert, assess, assume, authorize, baptize, beg, bet,

bid, caution, charge, claim, classify, command, commiserate, compliment, concur,

congratulate, convict, counsel, declare, delegate, demand, deny, describe, diagnose, disagree,

donate, dub, excuse, exempt, fire, forbid, grant, guarantee, guess, hire, hypothesize, identify,

implore, inform, instruct, license, name, notify, offer, order, pardon, permit, plead, pray,

predict, prohibit, promise, query, question, rank, recommend, refuse, reject, renounce, report,

request, require, resign, sanction, say, sentence, state, submit, suggest, summon, suppose,

swear, tell, testify, thank, urge, volunteer, warn, withdraw.

 Appendix C
Learner Needs Analysis

Dear respondent,
I humbly request you to spare some of your precious time to help me in completing data by
filling up the following questionnaire. I assure you that the information will be kept strictly
confidential and willbe used for academic purpose only.
Thanks for your kind co-operation.
Personal Background

Sex: Male Female

Age…………
1. What was the status of English at school?

1st language 2nd language 3rd language

2. What was your level of English before the university?

Below average Average Good Excellent

Needs
1. Why do you need to learn English?

For study

For work

For training

For communication and interaction

For pleasure

For more knowledge by getting to know different people and cultures

For meeting people around the world.

For some other purposes

What are they?...........................................................................................................

……………………………………..………………………………………….
2. Which of the following mediums do you need when using English?

Speaking

Writing

Reading

3. Tick the corresponding boxes in the table bellow to indicate your English language at

present (now) and its degree of improvement by the end of your studies (future).

English language level

NOW Future
English Bellow average Good Excellent Bellow Average Good Excellent
activities average average
Comprehension
when reading
Fluency and
confidence in
speaking
Accuracy when
speaking
Vocabulary

Understanding
other speakers
Understanding
radio or TV
programmes
Accuracy when
writing

4. What do you enjoy doing in English?

Writing
Speaking
Reading
5. What do you want to be able to do with English?

Write correctly

Understand native speakers

Be able to interact (communicate)

Read books and documents

6. What is the most important long term goal?

To be able to communicate in English, both spoken and written

To be able to read publications in academic English

To memorize English grammar rules and vocabulary

7. Please, tick the boxes which correspond to your present and future needs in English:

To improve your listening comprehension

To improve your speaking fluency

To improve your reading skills

To improve your writing skills

Learning Needs

Writing

1. Which of these activities do you need to be able to write in English? (Tick only one
column for each activity that you need):

Activity Formal Communication Informal communication

(academic) (with family and friends)
Note-taking
Short stories
Personal letters
SMS s and short daily notes
Reports
Speaking

2. Which among these situations of speaking interests you most? How useful will it be to
you?(Please tick only one of the five boxes):

1 = Crucial to know/ 2 = Very useful/ 3 = Interesting /4 = Slightly interesting /5 = Not

interesting

Language situations 1 2 3 4 5
Jobs and works
Health and fitness
Shopping
Other people’s countries; customs and culture
Ordering and buying food and drink
Using the telephone
Choosing holiday trips
Describing families
Making plans and social arrangements

Listening

3. Which of the contexts of use in the first column do you need to be able to understand in
English? Indicate what you need to understand from each in the subsequent column(Please
tick only one corresponding column for the chosen context):

Context Every word Most words The general idea

Radio or TV programmes
Lectures
Telephone calls
Native speakers
Academic reports
Reading

4.) What material would you like to be able to read in English? How would you like to read
it? (Please tick only one column for each material):

Materials Skimming (reading only for Scanning (reading in

the gist) details)
Educational Books
Newspapers
Short stories
Social magazines
Academic papers

Learning Habits

There are many ways to learn a new language. Think of your own way of learning in the
following.
1. How important are the following learning habits to you? (Use the following 1 to 5 scale
for each learning habit; please tick only one number for each)
1 = Most enjoyable and important 2 = Very enjoyable and important / 3 = Enjoyable and
important / 4 = Somehow enjoyable and important / 5 = Neither enjoyable nor important

Learning habits 1 2 3 4 5
Working alone
Working with another student
Working in small groups
Working in a class
Acting out a role play exercise
Working in a teacher directed lesson
Working in a Project

2. How often do you practice English in class?

 Sometimes
 Often
 Always

3. Do you think that the time devoted to practice is enough?

Yes no
4. What is your main aim from Learning?

 Getting good marks and succeeding

 Getting a good mastery of the English language
 Appendix D

Pre-test: Pragmatic theoretical knowledge

Pragmatics

Choose the appropriate definition by ticking the corresponding box

Pragmatics is:

1. The study of natural language understanding, and specifically the study of how
context influences the interpretation of meanings. It is a subfield of linguistics.

2. The branch of semiotics that deals with the relationship between signs, especially
words and other elements of language, and their users.

3. The study of the use of natural language in communication; more generally, the

study of the relations between languages and their users. It is sometimes defined in

contrast with linguistics.

Speech acts

Choose the appropriate definition by ticking the corresponding box

Speech acts are:

1. Utterances that constitute some acts in addition to the mere act of uttering.

2. Acts or types of acts capable of being performed in different contexts

3. Acts that a speaker performs when making an utterance.

.
Grice's Maxims

Match each of the following maxims with its corresponding definition.

where one tries to be as informative as one

The Maxim of Quantity possibly can, and gives as much information as

it is needed.

where one tries to be truthful, and does not give

information that is false or that is not supported

The Maxim of Relation
by evidence

where one tries to be relevant, and says

The Maxim of Manner
things that are pertinent to the discussion

when one tries to be as clear, as brief, and as

The Maxim of Quality
orderly as one can in what one says, and

where one avoids obscurity and ambiguity

 Appendix E

Post-test: Pragmatic Theoretical knowledge

Determine whether the following statements are true or false by writing true or false in
the box next to each statement:

Pragmatics is the study of meaning of words, phrases and full sentences.

Pragmatics is concerned with the meanings that words convey when they are used.

Pragmatics examines the devices used by language users in order to express the

desired meaning and how it is perceived.

Pragmatics is the study of the relationships between linguistic forms and entities in

the world; that is, how words literally connect to things.

Pragmatics is the study of other things that might influence meaning besides the

semantic system.

Which of the following statements are true or false? Answer by ticking one of the boxes.

Cooperation principle: means that to communicate requires continuous and determined

cooperation.

True False

Grice maxims: are quantity, quality, relevance, and manner.

True False
The maxim of quantity: It is where one tries to be truthful and does not give information
that is false or that is not supported by evidence.

True False
 The maxim of quality: It is where one tries to be as informative as one possibly can and
gives as much information as is needed, and no more.

True False

The maxim of relation: where one tries to be relevant, and says things that are
pertinent to the discussion.
True False

The maxim of manner: It is when one tries to be as clear, as brief, and as orderly as one can
in what one says, and where one avoids obscurity and ambiguity.

True False

Performative verbs: are verbs that when uttered actually make the meaning of theword/verb
happen.
True False

A speech act: is an act that a speaker performs when making an utterance.

True False

Locutionary act: saying something (the locution) with a certain meaning in the traditional

sense. This may not constitute a speech act.

True False

Illocutionary act: the performance of an act in saying something.

True False
The illocutionary force: is the speaker's intent. A true 'speech act'.

True False

Perlocutionary acts: Speech acts that have an effect on the feelings, thoughts or actions of

either the speaker or the listener. In other words, they seek to change minds.

True False
 Appendix F

Pre-test: Speech act awareness

Part one: Speech Act Comprehension

Exercise 1

Which of the following verbs is a performative? Choose two verbs to write two sentences

that can be uttered performatively: Concede, Apologize, Believe, Say, Thank, Frighten,

Deny, Forget, Wish, Hint, Nominate, Oppose, Joke, Congratulate, Doubt

Performative

verbs:……………………………………………………………………………………………

1….................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

2…………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………….........................................................................................................................

Exercise 2

For each of the following illocutionary acts, give two non synonymous sentences that could

be used to perform them.

(1) Reminding someone to pick up the cleaning.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………
(2) Offering to help someone wash the dishes.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

(3) Asking someone to hurry in the shower.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Exercise 3

For each of the following sentences, name at least two illocutionary acts their utterance

could perform and specify the conditions in which they may be uttered.

(1) Assignments will be collected next week.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………….

(2) I'm cold.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………..

(3) Is Linda there?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………
(4) Our dinner reservations are at seven o'clock.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

(5) You may want to review chapter 3 before Friday's test.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Exercise 4:

Choose two illocutionary acts and give two different locutions which would express each

act.

Congratulate, request, apologize, warn, thank.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………...........................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................

Exercise 5:

For each of the utterances below:

1. Name the speech act performed

2. Decide whether the speech act is direct or indirect.

a) Can you make your bed?

.........................................................................................

b) Have a safe journey

………………………………………………………….

c) Where do you live?

.......................................................................................

d) I wonder what happened to Mary

……………………………………………………………

e) I hear there's a fire in the next building

……………………………………………………………

f) Enjoy yourself

……………………………………………………………

g) Can you people at the back hear me?

.........................................................................................

h) Is this the new dress you bought yesterday for 5000 DA?

..........................................................................................

i) Where is your book?

..........................................................................................
 Appendix G

Pre-test: Speech act awareness

Part Two: Discourse Completion Task (DCT)

Section 1: There are 6 situations given below. What would you say if you were the person

involved in those situations? Write your responses exactly as you would say them.

1. You stepped on the foot of a woman in a bus while you were trying to sit down, but it was

impossible to avoid this as the woman extended her legs too much towards the front seat.

Still, you felt the need to apologize.

The woman: “Ah! Be careful!”

You: ……………………………………………………………………………………………

2. You were half an hour late to a meeting with a friend and made him/her wait standing in a

crowded street.

Your friend asks: “Where have you been?”

You: ……………………………………………………………………………………….......

3. You were late at stopping at the red lights while you were driving in heavy traffic and

dented slightly the car in front of you. The driver of the car came out angrily.

The driver: “Don’t you see what you did? You damaged my car!”

You: ……………………………………………………………………………………………

4. When you came back home in the evening, your child asked whether you bought the book

he/she wanted for his/her homework. You suddenly remembered that you forgot all about it

and felt very sorry about this situation.

Your child: “How can you forget to buy such an important thing?”

You: ……………………………………………………………………………………………

5. You had a new style of hair-cut. It looked very nice. Your friend saw you and said: “You

look so beautiful!”
You: ……………………………………………………………………………………………

6. You promised a professor that the following day you would give you back his book, but

you failed to do so because you did not finish reading it.

The Professor: Excuse me, have you got my book?

You: ………………………………………………………………………………………….....

Section2: Please read the following descriptions of situations and write what you

would say in each situation.

1. You are trying to study in your room and you hear loud music coming from another

student’s room down the hall. You do not know the student, but you decide to ask him/her to

turn the music down. What would you say?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

2. You are at a record store with your best friend. There’s a CD you really want to buy, but

you do not have any money. How do you ask your friend to lend you some money?

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

3. You are studying at home. Your younger brother opens the window and the cold wind

blows right in your face and bothers you. You want to ask him to close it. What would you

say?

..............................................................................................................................................

4. You have bought a shirt from a store for your father, but he does not like its colour. You

decide to go to the store and ask the salesman to allow you to exchange the shirt. What would

you say?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

5. Your friend and you go to a restaurant to eat. You want to order and need to ask the waiter

for the menu. What would you say?

….………………………………………………………………………………………………
6. You are writing your thesis and need to interview the president of a university whom you

do not know. You know the president is very busy, but still want to ask her/him to spare one

or two hours for your interview. What would you say?

………………………………………………………………………………………………….
 Appendix H

Post-test: Speech act awareness

Part one: Speech Act Comprehension

Exercise 1

1. For each of the following speech acts, indicate the type of speech act:

(a) I will turn my paper in on Friday.

(b) May I have an extension on the due date for my paper?

(c) The teacher is supposed to return our papers today.

(d) Iqbel's essay is the best in the class.

(e) I will give you until Monday to turn in your papers.

(f) You have succeeded in the examination.

(g) I regret that you failed the examination.

(h) Your paper was handed in too late to be considered.

(i) Your papers are due on Friday.

(j) Congratulations on passing the course.

(k) Your papers will be marked down for each day that they are late.

(l) If you don't start on your papers early, you won't have enough time.

2. Tick the boxes to indicate which of the above speech acts contains a performative

verb.

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)

(h) (i) (j) (k) (l)

 Exercise 2

For each of the utterances below:

1. Name the speech act performed.

2. Decide whether the speech act is direct or indirect.

(1) Don't even think of trying to cheat on this test.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

(2) Tell me what happened.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

(3) I think it would be good if you sold that heap you call a car.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

(4) There are wolves on the prowl tonight.

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

(5) Would you be so kind to tell me what time is it?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

(6) I am so sorry that your cat has died.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

(7) If you had a moment, I wouldn't mind a bit of help.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

(8) I promise I’ll come tonight.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

(9) Don't smoke.

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

(10) I'd like to apologize for my trouble making.

……………………………………………………………………………………………….

Exercise 3:

Choose two illocutionary acts and give one locution which would express each act.

Congratulate, request, apologize, warn, thank.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………...........................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

Exercise 4:

Fill in the blanks with the corresponding speech act.

'It's hot in here' could be:

- An indirect ……………………for someone to open the window

- An indirect …………………to close the window because someone is cold

- A ………………… implying that someone should know better than to keep the

windows closed. (Expressed emphatically)

 Appendix I

Post-test: Speech act awareness

Part Two: Discourse Completion Task (DCT)

Section1: There are 6 situations given below. What would you say if you were the person involved in those
situations? Write your responses exactly as you would say them.
1. While you were giving a party at home one night, one of your neighbours knocked at the door and shouted in
a very angry manner that the volume of the music was too high.
Your neighbour: “Be more respectful at this hour! Our heads are ringing because of the volume!
You: ……………………………………………………………………………………………

2. You were half an hour late to a business meeting with your boss and made him/her wait for you.
Your boss asked: “Where have you been?”
You: ……………………………………………………………………………………….......

3. Your sister was sleeping soundly and you woke her up with the noise you were making in
the kitchen.
Your sister: what is this noise?

You: ……………………………………………………………………………………………

4. Youpromised to lend your friend your brother’s textbooks without his consent although
you knew he would not allow it.

Your brother: have you seen my textbooks?

You:…………………………………………………………………………………………….

5. You bumped into a stranger in the way to class causing him to drop the books he/she was
carrying.
The stranger: Oh!

You: ……………………………………………………………………………………………
6. You hit your neighbour’s car while parking.

Your neighbour: you hit my car.

You: ………………………………………………………………………………………….....

Section2: Please read the following descriptions of situations and write what you would say

in each situation.

1. For registration you need to fill out a couple of forms. You search all of your pockets and

can not find a pen. You want to ask another student who is sitting next to you in the

department hall. What would you say?

……………………………………………………………………………………………….
2. You were absent during last Friday’s history class that you are enrolled in. So, you decide

to borrow your friend’s notes to catch up with the rest of the class. What would you say to get

this friend to lend you the notes?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

3. You have a paper due in one of your classes next week. However, you will be very busy

that week and don’t have any time to write it. You go to your professor’s office to ask for

more time to write the paper. How do you request an extension?

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

4. A friend of yours from out of the town is paying you a visit. Both of you would like to take

a photo together to remember this happy moment. You decide to ask a nearby person who is a

stranger to you, to do this favour. What would you say?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

5. You want to go out for a trip and you need your classmate’s camera. What would you say to

ask him/her to lend it to you?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

6. You want your friend to post a letter for you because you are sick. How would you ask him/her

to do so?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………….
 Appendix J

Communicative Proficiency Test

Exercise1

Read the following dialogue and, starting from Part 1; choose the appropriate

utterance to complete the dialogues.

Tourist: Excuse me; How far is it to the museum?

Policeman: ..........… …………………………

Tourist: Is it difficult to find?

Policeman: No, It’s easy. Just walk down this street for two blocks. .............…

Tourist: Thank you.

Policeman: You’re welcome

Part 1: Tick the box of the corresponding answer.

Tourist: Excuse me. How far is it to the museum?

Policeman: ..........……………………………

a) What can I do for you?

b) It’s three blocks.

c) Take the Main Road to the drugstore.

d) I don’t know.
Part 2: Tick the box of the corresponding answer.

Tourist: Is it difficult to find?

Policeman: No, It’s easy. Just walk down this street for two blocks. ..............…

a) Then turn to the right and walk one more block.

b) Turn left to the high school.

c) How can I get there?

d) Take the Main Road to the drugstore.

Exercise 2:

Supply the missing parts in the following dialogue between a father and his son

Peter who is asking for a loan:

Peter: Good morning dad. Would you mind doing me a favour?

Father: ................................................................?

Peter: I am wondering if you could lend me fifty pounds.

Father: Why do you need this money?

Peter:................................…......... and I want to buy her a present.

Father: But I gave you some money last week, ..............................................?

Peter: No, but I don't have enough money to buy a good present.

Father: ..............................................................................................

Peter: Thanks, dad.

Exercise 3:

Write where these mini-dialogues take place and who the speakers are:

Dialogue 1:

A: How old is this mummy?

 B: it's about 4000 years old.

The

speakers:………………………………………………………………………………………

The

place:…………………………………………………………………………………………

Dialogue 2

A: How would you like to pay for this suit, sir?

B: By credit card.

A: Well; Shall I put it in a bag for you, sir?

B: Yes, please.

The place:…..........................................................................................................................

The

speakers:……………………………………………………………………………………

Exercise 4:

Choose only one correct answer from a, b, c or d:

1. The ………………who replaced the main actor broke his leg.

a) horseman b) agent c) stuntman d) professional

2. In Algeria, people ............... the 1st of November.

a) survive b) commemorate c) invite d) ignore

3. I wouldn't have reached this stage if she............... me.

a) was not helping b) did not help c) would not help d) had not helped

4. ............... the bad weather, the match was played.

a) Although b) Despite c) However d) Because

5. She is............... . She speaks both Arabic and English.

a) monosyllabic b) literate c) bilingual d) monolingual

6. The village was ............... when the river flooded.

a) supposed b) delighted c) subjected d) submerged

7. I could see the general outline, but the black board was not close enough to see

the.................. .

a) forms b) details c) frames d) shapes

8. The breadwinner is a person who............... .

a) earns money b) buys bread c) sells bread d) eats bread

Exercise 5:

Rewrite the following sentences using the word(s) in brackets to give the same

meaning:

1. It's midnight; you shouldn't be doing your homework now. ( supposed )

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

2. If he had done his homework, his teacher would have given him a present. (should)

…………………………………………………………………………………………………
3. People considered it unnecessary to educate women. (was)

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

4. What is your opinion of this book? (think)

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

5. It was my habit to play hide-and-seek when I was young. (used)

………………………………………………………………………………………………….
 Appendix K

Pragmatic Explicit Instruction

SPEECH ACTS

DOING THINGS WITH LANGUAGE

John Austin in his book "How to do things with words" is the first to introduce the idea of

Speech Acts, analysing the relationships between utterances and performance.

─────────────────────────────────────

A SPEECH ACT IS AN ACTION PERFORMED BY MEANS OF

LANGUAGE

Ex:
Describing something ("It is snowing.")
Asking a question ("Is it snowing?")
Making a request or order ("Could you pass the salt?", "Drop your weapon or I'll shoot
you!")
Making a promise ("I promise I'll give it back.")
We use language to do a wide range of
things. Ex.:
Conveying information: The PM is out of the country.
Requesting information: When and where is the lecture?
Giving orders: Stand up!
Making requests: Please, carry my bags.
Making threats: Do that again, and I’ll send you to your room.
Giving warnings: There’s a spider on your shoulder.
Giving advice: You ought to go to the lectures every week.

─────────────────────────────────────
 People use language with communicative intentions.

Speech acts are acts of communication that express those intentions.

─────────────────────────────────────

Speech act theory 


A speech act can be divided into three different smaller acts:

locutionary act

illocutionary act

perlocutionary act

─────────────────────────────────────

The locutionary act

The act of performing words into utterances that make sense in a language with correct

grammar and pronunciation

Locution: A form of expression; a phrase, an expression

─────────────────────────────────────

The illocutionary act

Intended communicative action by the speaker, bound by certain conventions (the

illocutionary act can only be achieved if there is a convention in society that makes it

possible)

Illocution: An action performed by saying or writing something, e.g. ordering,

warning, promising

─────────────────────────────────────
 The perlocutionary act

The effect that an utterance has on thoughts, feelings or attitudes of the listener.

Perlocution: An act of speaking or writing which aims to effect an action but which in

itself does not effect or constitute the action, as persuading, convincing.

─────────────────────────────────────

locutionary act

illocutionary act

perlocutionary act

These are dimensions of a speech act, which means that they cannot be performed

separately.

In an utterance you can always find these different aspects.

─────────────────────────────────────

Often the same utterance can have different

illocutionary force (intended function) in different

contexts.

I predict that I’ll see you later

Ex: I’ll see you later I promise you that I’ll see you later

I warn you that I’ll see you later

─────────────────────────────────────

How can the illocutionary force (the intended

function) be recognized?

1. Word order

2. Intonation

3. Stress

4. Performative verbs
 Felicity condition (appropriateness)  context and role of the speaker

─────────────────────────────────────

PERFORMATIVE VERBS

• I assert that | the Prime Minister is out of the country.

• I ask | when and where is the lecture?

• I order you to | stand up.

• I request that you | carry my bags.

• I warn you that if you | do that again, and I’ll send you to your room.

• I warn you that | there’s a spider on your shoulder.

• I bet you | fifty dollars that New Zealand will beat Australia in the Rugby World

Cup.

• I advise you to | go to the lectures every week.

These sentences have verbs that state the speech act.

These sentences are explicit performatives.

These verbs are called performative verbs.

These verbs can be used to perform the acts they name.

─────────────────────────────────────

Classification of Speech acts, according to the

functions performed:

representatives

directives

commissives

expressives
 declarations

─────────────────────────────────────

Representatives

the speaker asserts a proposition to be true, using such verbs as: affirm, believe,

conclude, deny, report.

Directives

the speaker tries to make the hearer do something, with such words as: ask, beg,

challenge, command, dare, invite, insist, request.

Commissives

the speaker commits himself (or herself) to a (future) course of action, with verbs such

as: guarantee, pledge, promise, swear, vow, undertake, warrant.

Expressives

the speaker expresses an attitude to or about a state of affairs, using such verbs as:

apologize, appreciate, congratulate, deplore, detest, regret, thank, welcome.

Declarations

the speaker alters the external status or condition of an object or situation, solely by

making the utterance: I now pronounce you man and wife, I name this ship...

─────────────────────────────────────

Direct and indirect speech Acts

Another type of classification of speech acts according to their structure:

1) Declarative

2) Interrogative

3) Imperative

Direct speech acts (direct relationship structure and function)

Indirect speech act (indirect relationship structure and funcion)

 ─────────────────────────────────────

IDENTIFYING INDIRECT SPEECH ACTS

Indirect speech acts are not direct literal statements of various acts the speaker wants
to be performed.
Rather, what the speaker actually means is different from what s/he literally expresses.
Direct speech act I hereby tell you about the weather
It’s cold outside
Indirect speech act I hereby request of you that you close the door
 Part One

Instructional Materials / Making Requests

Warm-up Activities

What are the correct ways of making requests?

How many kinds of requests are there?

What would you want to request?

From whom would you request it?

Under what circumstances would you make a request?

Making Requests

Stage 1

A request is a communicative function typically expressed by an interrogative or an

imperative sentence; it is used to ask for goods, services and favours.

Stage 2

The grammar of Request

Requests are questions, so they use the grammar of questions (the auxiliary is changed

with the subject, and the sentence finishes with a question mark). Since the person making the

request wants someone to do something, it is polite to ask if they are able to do it. Therefore,

people making requests often use modals of ability. a request is generally used when a person

can choose whether or not to do it. People almost never give orders to strangers. Sometimes a

person will make request instead of giving an order because it is more polite. Sometimes even

a request is too strong, and we use a suggestion, or an indirect request. Also some requests

can be given as instructions to people you know well.

 Stage 3

The frequent situations in which requests are made:

Asking people to perform an action

Some common questions for making requests are:

Can/you…….? /could you…….?

Will you…….? /would you…….?

(Note that ‘would you’ and ‘could you’ are more polite)

From less polite to more polite here are some examples:

Can/will you show me?

Can/will you show me, please?

Could/would you show me, please?

"Please" is often used with requests to make them more polite. It is a shorter form of

the older expression "If it pleases you". "Please" comes at the beginning or end of a sentence,

as with names, but it does not usually come before the name at the beginning or after the

name at the end.

Asking people not to do something

When asking someone not to do something, sometimes it is best to use the imperative,

especially if it is a matter of safety. This is called a warning .You are telling someone not to

do something dangerous.

Examples: slow down / don’t fall.

-In other situations, it is more appropriate to ask a person not to do something.

Example: would you please stop doing that?

-you can imply your wishes instead of stating them direct.

 Additional Requests

Would you mind cooking dinner tonight?

Do you mind mailing a letter for me?

Would it be too much trouble to pick me up from work?

Note: ‘do you mind/would you mind’ takes a verb in the ‘ing’ and ‘would it be too

much trouble’ combines with the infinitive.

 Activities

Making requests

Activity 1:

a) Choose the correct alternative for the following:

1)………………I borrow a pen, please?

Will Could Would

2) 'I've forgotten my wallet.' - Don't worry. I ………….lend you some money if you like.

will could would

3)……………….. you like to come to the cinema tonight?

Can Could Would

4) Do you mind………………….. the window pleas

closed to close closing

5) Would you mind ………………………..me with these boxes?

helping help if helping

6)…………………… I left early tomorrow morning? I have a doctor's appointment.

Could Dou you mind if Would you mind if

b) Choose the most appropriate answer for expressing the idea specified in parentheses.

1) …………….. I speak to Mr. Smith, please? (Formal polite request)

Can May Would Would you mind if

2) ……………… you open the window, please? It's hot in here. (Polite request)

Could Couldn't Won't Wouldn't

3).………………buying two loaves of bread on the way home? (Polite request)

Could you Will you Would you Would you mind

4) Would you mind if I ………… your dictionary for an hour or so? (Polite request)

Borrowed will borrow would borrow

5) Mrs. Redding, ………… lend me two hundred dollars till next week, please? (Polite

request)

can't you could you do you mind would you mind

6) Would you mind ……………. here? I have a headache. (Polite request)

not to smoke not smoke no smoking not smoking

Exercise 2: Identifying Request Directness Levels

Individually or in small groups, identify the following requests as either direct,

indirect, or neither:

1. Turn off the television now! It’s time for breakfast.

2. I’m asking you to turn off the television, son.

3. I would like to ask you to turn off the television now and come to breakfast.

4. You have toturn off that television, son.

5. I really wish you’d turn off that television.

6. How about turning off the television now?

7. Son, your breakfast is getting cold. Why don’t you come into the kitchen and eat?

8. I don’t want you to be late for school, son. Could you turn off the television now?

9. I don’t know why I even bother to make breakfast for you.

10. I know that can’t be the television I hear.

11. You know how I feel about watching television in the morning.

12. I’m sorry I forgot to make breakfast today.

13. Oh! What’s on television?

14. That’s my favorite program, son.

Activity 3: read each statement and identify the situation is which it is used?

1. ‘please get back to work, don’t waste your time or mine’

a. an employee speaking to a boss

b. a boss speaking to an employee

c. one employee speaking to another

2. ‘I wish you’d stop doing that’

a. a police officer speaking to a dangerous driver

b. a student speaking to a teacher who often forgets the student’s name

c. a person speaking to a friend who often criticizes himself

3. ‘Let’s wash our hands, we wash our hands before eating’

a. a parent speaking to a child

b. a doctor speaking to a patient

c. a hostess speaking to a dinner guest.

Activity 4: What are the appropriate expressions for requesting or asking for permission for

these responses?

1)……………………………………………………………………………………………

‘Not at all. Here you are. But I need it to do some translating next period. Give it back to me

by that time.’

2)……………………………………………………………………………………………

‘I'm sorry. The wind is too cold for me.’

3)……………………………………………………………………………………………

‘No, I wouldn't mind. I'm leaving to bed now.’

4)……………………………………………………………………………………………

‘Sorry. I have a sore throat. I can't speak up more.’

5)………………………………………………………………………………………….......

‘No, I don't mind. Please turn it off when you leave.’

Exercises 5: Collecting Requests

a) Identify the characteristics of the request situation. Include the following

information:

• Speaker and addressee gender, age, and any other relevant information

• Speaker’s social distance: close friend, acquaintance, stranger, etc.

•Speaker’s dominance: superior, equal, subordinate, etc.

• Degree of imposition: involved in the request—high, medium, low

• Situation: what the speaker and addressee are involved in doing

• Setting: where the speaker and addressee are

b) Analyze whether the request is direct or indirect.

Situation 1

You are visiting a friend and it is very hot in her apartment.

You say to her : “ ………………”

Situation 2

You are studying for an exam and your sister is playing her stereo very loudly.

You say to her : “ …………. “

 Situation 3

There is no food in your house for dinner. You have a lot of work to do, so you don’t

have time to go to the grocery store.

You say to your servant: “……”

Note: You may want to use the following form to organize your data:

Request :

Speaker:

Addressee:

Speaker’s social distance: Speaker’s dominance: _

Imposition: Situation:

Setting:
 INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR STUDENTS

Read the descriptions of the situations carefully and act accordingly.

It is important that you understand the situations completely; therefore , you are encouraged to

ask questions if you find something you do not understand.

Scenario 1

Your flatmate is typing a three-page essay for her/ his lecturer. Suddenly her/ his

computer stops working and s/he asks you to lend her/ him your computer. You are

chatting online with your boyfriend, who is in another town at the moment. Today is

your boyfriend's birthday. But if it is urgent and your friend is not going to use the

computer for an hour, you are willing to lend it to her/ him. You two are good friends.

Scenario 2

Your friend was sick and missed an important class last week. You attended the class

and took careful notes. So s/he approaches you and asks if you mind lending her/ him

your notes. You are working on your assignments right now and need the notes at

hand. However, if s/he can make a quick photocopy and give you back within an hour,

you are willing to lend her/ him the notes. You two are good friends.
 Scenario 3

You are a university lecturer. A student in your class is applying for a scholarship and

wants you to write her/ him a reference letter. You have been teaching this student for

quite a few semesters and know s/he is one of your best students. You would be happy

to write her/ him a reference letter but you are having some deadlines at the moment.

So if it is not urgent, you will write it next week.

Scenario 4

You are a university lecturer and supervising a student’s thesis. The student that you

are supervising is supposed to submit a chapter draft to you when you two have a

meeting today. However, s/he was sick and not able to complete it. At the meeting s/he

asks for an extension. You can give her/ him as much time as s/he needs. However, you

are taking a sabbatical leave in two weeks’ time. If s/he can give you the chapter within

the next week, you can read it and give your comments before you go. If not, it may

take a longer while for you to get back to her/ him because you have other

commitments.
 Scenario 5

You are a university lecturer. You have an appointment with your student at 10:30 a.m.

Friday this week. S/he wants to show you her/ his revised thesis. You are her/ his

supervisor. However, today s/he drops in your office and asks if you can move the

appointment to another date or time because s/he has an urgent class. You are fully

booked until two weeks after but if the student can come after your office hour

tomorrow, you are willing to see her/ him then.

 Part Two

Instructional material/ Apologies

An English saying goes “Sorry is the hardest word”. This is not because it is hard to

pronounce or spell, but because you have to admit that you have done something wrong.

Reasons for using apologies

 To say that they are sorry

 To explain why the offense happened

 To make a repair for the offense and maintain a good relationship with the addressee The

most common way of apologizing is to say 'Sorry' or 'I'm sorry'. You can also make

your apology much more emphatic with the adverbs very, so, terribly, and extremely. For

example:

 I'm sorry for being late. / I'm very sorry for being late. / I'm terribly sorry for being

late. / I'm extremely sorry for being late.

When you want to apologize for accidentally doing something, for example stepping on

someone's foot or toes, you can say 'Sorry' or 'I beg your pardon'. For example:

He accidentally stepped on someone's toes. 'Sorry / I beg your pardon,' he said.

 The expression 'I beg your pardon' is rather old-fashioned.

A note: Speakers of American English will usually say 'Excuse me' in such situations.

Apologizing for Interrupting, Disturbing, Approaching, or Leaving Someone

When you are interrupting someone, you can apologize to them politely by saying 'Excuse

me' or 'I'm sorry to interrupt'. For example:

 Excuse me butting in. (butt in is a phrasal verb)

 Sorry to interrupt / I'm sorry to interrupt, but I've got something important to say.

When you are disturbing someone, you can apologize to them by saying 'Excuse me' or

'I'm sorry to disturb'. For example:

 Excuse me for disturbing you at this late hour.

 Sorry to disturb you again / I'm sorry to disturb you again, but I really need your help.

When you are approaching someone (e.g., when you want to speak to a stranger), you can

use the expression 'Excuse me'. For example:

 Excuse me, is there a fairly cheap restaurant near here?

The expression 'Pardon me' can also be used in the above situations. It is sometimes used

by speakers of American English. For example:

 Pardon me, Major, I wonder if you could do me a favour.

Sometimes you have to leave someone for a short period of time in order to do something.

In such situations you should use the expression 'Excuse me'. For example:

 Excuse me. I have to make a telephone call. I'll be right back.

Expressing an Apology for Doing Something Embarrassing

You can use the expressions 'Excuse me' or 'I beg your pardon' to apologize when you

have done something slightly embarrassing, such as burping or sneezing.

Expressing an Apology for Saying Something Wrong

You can use the expressions 'Sorry' or 'I Beg your pardon' to apologize for making a

mistake in what you're saying, or for using the wrong word. For example:

The town is situated in the southeast, sorry / I beg your pardon, southwest corner of

England.

Formal Apologies

When you want to apologize in a very formal manner, you can use the expression 'I

apologize'. For example:

 I apologize for my bad behaviour.

 I really must apologize for my bad manners.

Another formal expression, used especially in writing, is 'Please accept my apologies'.

 Please accept my appologies for this unfortunate incident.

You can also use the expression 'Forgive me' to apologize to someone in a formal manner.

For example:

 Forgive me, Ms. Batista. I am very late for our meeting. I was held up in traffic.

Accepting an Apology

You can accept an apology by using several fixed expressions, such as 'That's ok', 'That's

alright', 'Forget it', 'It doesn't matter', or 'Don't worry about it'. For example:

 A: I'm sorry for being late, sir. B: That's alright, but don't let it happen again.

 A: I apologize for my bad behaviour. B: Forget it.

 A: I'm sorry for spilling my drink. B: Don't worry about it. No harm done.

Five possible strategies for making an apology

1. An expression of an apology.

2. Acknowledgement of responsibility.

3. An explanation or account.

4. An offer of repair.

5. A promise of non-recurrence.

1. Acknowledge of responsibility

The offender recognizes his/her fault in causing the infraction.

The degree of recognition on the part of the apologizer:

Acceptance of the blame Express self-deficiency Expression of lack of intent Implicit

expression of responsibility Not accept the blame at all

2. An explanation or account

The speaker describes the situation which caused him/her to commit the offense.

Explanation is used by the speaker as an indirect way of apologizing.

“ The bus was late.”

“ My clock doesn’t work.”

3. An offer of repair

The apologizer makes a bid to carry out an action or provide payment for some kind of

damage resulting from his/ her infraction.

“ How can I make it up to you- why don’t I buy you

lunch on Friday?”

“ Would you be willing to reschedule the meeting?”

4. A promise of non-recurrence

The apologizer commits him/herself to not having the offense happen again.

“ It won’t happen again!”

“ I will never be late again!”

Factors that may affect how you would deliver an apology:

 Your familiarity with the person being apologized to

 The intensity of the act

 The relative authority that each of you has

 Your relative ages

 Your sex and that of the other person

 The place where the exchange take place

 Activities

Apologies

Activity 1:

Complete these apology sentences with the correct word.

1. “Please …………. me for interrupting you. I didn’t realise you were on the phone.”

2. “I can’t believe I forgot your birthday. Please don’t be ……………at me.”

3. “I’m so ……………I’m late. There was so much traffic!”

4. “Oh no, how ……….. of me! Do you have a cloth so I can clean it?”

5. “We …………. for the train delay. We will get you to your destination as soon as possible.”

6. “I’m ……………..but you are sitting in my seat.”

Activity 2:

Each of the following questions will provide a description of a situation.

Following the situation there are a number of responses. Please choose two acceptable

responses.

1) An applicant for a job has been waiting for quite some time, although s/he had been

called in for an appointment for an interview. The manager finally comes out and says:

a. Sorry to have kept you waiting.

b. Sorry I'm late. I hope I didn't keep you waiting too long.

c. Have you been waiting long?

d. I was unavoidably held up in a meeting.

e. I'm sorry. I was help up.

2) A young man/woman bumps into you at the supermarket and some of your groceries

spill onto the floor.

He/she turns to you and says:

a. Sorry.

b. I'm sorry.
 c. Terribly sorry.

d. I'm terribly sorry. Did I hurt you?

e. I'm really sorry. Here, let me help you.

f. I'm sorry but you were in my way and I couldn't help bumping into you.

g. Are you all right?

h. Please forgive me.

3) A student forgets to return a book to the professor:

a. I'm terribly sorry. I forgot it.

b. Oh, damn! I forgot it.

c. Sorry, I forgot.

d. Oh, I'm very sorry. I completely forgot.

e. I'm really sorry but I forgot to bring it.

 Apologizing Situations

Situation Apology Needed? Person who made Person who

(Yes/No) the mistake? receives the

apology?

Dana broke her

friend’s toy

I was walking

around the corner

and accidentally

bumped into Chris

Paul is late to school

 Who should apologize?

SITUATION 1

Student A: You work in an office. Your boss gives you too much work, and you sometimes

don’t have enough time to do it well. Recently, you have had some problems at home, so you

aren’t able to think clearly at work. Yesterday, during a big meeting, your boss angrily

criticized a report you wrote and said you were doing a terrible job. You felt very

embarrassed.

Student B: You are the manager at an office. One of your workers, Student A, is not doing a

good job these days. You give this person the same amount of work as everyone else, but he/

she often does it badly and always makes excuses. This person’s last report was very bad and

caused problems between you and your boss. When you mentioned this nicely at a meeting,

Student A seemed very Angry with you.

WHO SHOULD APOLOGIZE?

Student A [ ] Student B [ ] Both Student A and Student B [ ]

 SITUATION 2

Student A: You made a cool sculpture and gave it to your friend, Student B, for his / her

birthday.Your friend said, “Oh, I love it!” But a few weeks later, you visited another friend’s

house and saw the sculpture there. So Student B didn’t keep the sculpture he /she gave it to

another person! The next time you saw Student B, you mentioned this and said you were

upset. Now your friend is angry with you.

Student B: Your friend, Student A, gave you a weird sculpture for your birthday. You didn’t

like it, but you didn’t want to say anything bad about it. You have another friend who likes

unusual objects, so you gave the sculpture to him. When Student A learned about this, he /

she was very angry and said terrible things to you.

WHO SHOULD APOLOGIZE?

Student A [ ] Student B [ ] Both Student A and Student B [ ]