Teaching and Learning English in the Primary School: Interlanguage Pragmatics in the EFL Context [1st ed. 2019] 978-3-030-23256-6, 978-3-030-23257-3

Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages i-xx
Introduction (Gila A. Schauer)....Pages 1-6
Literature Review (Gila A. Schauer)....Pages 7-83
Methodology (Gila A. Schauer)....Pages 85-118
Results: Speech Acts in Textbooks (Gila A. Schauer)....Pages 119-158
Results: Speech Acts in Children’s Books (Gila A. Schauer)....Pages 159-187
Results: EFL Primary School Teachers (Gila A. Schauer)....Pages 189-232
Results – Young L2 Learners (Gila A. Schauer)....Pages 233-266
Conclusion (Gila A. Schauer)....Pages 267-280

Citation preview

English Language Education

Gila A. Schauer

Teaching and Learning English in the Primary School Interlanguage Pragmatics in the EFL Context

English Language Education Volume 18

Series Editors Chris Davison, The University of New South Wales, Australia Xuesong Gao, The University of New South Wales, Australia Editorial Advisory Board Stephen Andrews, University of Hong Kong, China Anne Burns, University of New South Wales, Australia Yuko Goto Butler, University of Pennsylvania, USA Suresh Canagarajah, Pennsylvania State University, USA James Cummins, OISE, University of Toronto, Canada Christine C. M. Goh, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technology University, Singapore Margaret Hawkins, University of Wisconsin, USA Ouyang Huhua, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou, China Andy Kirkpatrick, Griffith University, Australia Michael K. Legutke, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Germany Constant Leung, King’s College London, University of London, UK Bonny Norton, University of British Columbia, Canada Elana Shohamy, Tel Aviv University, Israel Qiufang Wen, Beijing Foreign Studies University, China Lawrence Jun Zhang, University of Auckland, New Zealand

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11558

Gila A. Schauer

Teaching and Learning English in the Primary School Interlanguage Pragmatics in the EFL Context

Gila A. Schauer Department of Linguistics University of Erfurt Erfurt, Germany

ISSN 2213-6967     ISSN 2213-6975 (electronic) English Language Education ISBN 978-3-030-23256-6    ISBN 978-3-030-23257-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23257-3 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Dedicated to primary school EFL teachers teaching English to young learners everywhere In memory of Alan Waters, a great educator and teacher trainer

Acknowledgements

This book would not exist if I had not chatted with Grit Bergner, who was then based at Erfurt University, while she was preparing materials for her MEd students who were studying to become primary school EFL teachers. I picked up some of the textbooks that she was working with and, while leafing through them, noticed that there appeared to be very little pragmatic input. When I shared my impression with Grit, she agreed that this would be an interesting research topic, so I then began talking to some MEd students, who were planning to become primary school teachers, and some in-service primary school teachers about my idea, and the project grew from these discussions and the issues that were raised in them. I am very grateful to Grit Bergner and Charlott Falkenhagen for initial discussions about the project. This project would not have been possible without my research assistants Stefanie Müller, Mareike Albrecht and Daniel Böhm – thank you so much for brainstorming; for sharing your views, experiences and ideas; and for all your hands-on work during the development  and distribution of the survey, and data collections at the schools. My profound gratitude goes to the primary school teachers who took part in the study, to the headteachers and teachers of the schools in which data collection with pupils took place, and to the parents and legal guardians who allowed their children to take part in this research project. A very big thank you goes to the primary school learners who participated in the project. I would also like to thank Beate Hampe, Petra Kirchhoff, Susanne Hoppe, Sandra Stadler-Heer and Stephanie Karl for interesting discussions about the project. A big thank you goes to Susanne Grimm for making sure that I did not lose sight of the timeline and finances. Thank you also to Susan Bretschneider and Dagmar Müller for all the support in the Dean’s Office. I am grateful to Nicola Halenko, Kenneth Fordyce, Chia-Chun Lai, Lena De Mol, Naoko Osuka, Sadegh Sadeghidizaj and Masoud Shaghaghi for thoughtprovoking discussions about teaching pragmatics to English as a foreign language and English as a second language learners over the years.

vii

viii

Acknowledgements

Special thanks go to my proofreaders for discussions about the readerfriendliness of the book and for fine-combing through the manuscript. I am grateful to Jolanda Voogd and Helen van der Stelt at Springer for their support and encouragement for this project. Special thanks are due to the anonymous reviewers for their encouragement, many helpful suggestions and insightful comments. It is a privilege to receive pre-­ publication feedback from experts in the field who truly endeavour to make a book as reader-friendly, clear and accessible as possible. I am very grateful to my aunts, uncles and cousins who are in-service or retired teachers for sharing their experiences with me, for being so open about a variety of issues, for giving feedback and for not minding when family get-togethers became a little one-sided with regard to the topics discussed. I am grateful and very much indebted to Astrid Hübschmann and Stefan Renner – thank you for all your support and thought-provoking discussions over the years and for never mincing your words. My deepest gratitude goes to my parents – thank you for your love, support and great sense of humour.

Contents

1 Introduction................................................................................................    1 References..........................................................................................................    6 2 Literature Review......................................................................................    7 2.1 Pragmatics.........................................................................................    7 2.1.1 Defining Pragmatics..............................................................    8 2.1.2 Historical Background and Important Concepts and Terms..............................................................................   10 2.1.3 Speech Act Theory: Background..........................................   17 2.1.4 Speech Act Theory: Requests...............................................   21 2.1.5 Speech Act Theory: Responses to Requests.........................   27 2.1.6 Speech Act Theory: Greetings and Leave-Takings...............   30 2.1.7 Speech Act Theory: Expressions of Gratitude and Responses to Expressions of Gratitude..........................   32 2.1.8 Speech Act Theory: Apologies.............................................   39 2.1.9 Speech Act Theory: Suggestions and Responses to Suggestions.......................................................................   43 2.1.10 Speech Act Theory: Expressing Feelings – Physical and Mental States..................................................................   45 2.1.11 Speech Act Theory and Politeness........................................   47 2.1.12 Speech Act Theory: Studies Investigating EFL Textbook Input......................................................................   50 2.1.13 Speech Act Theory: L1 Pragmatics......................................   53 2.1.14 Data Collection Methods Involving Young Learners............   57 2.2 Concepts and Issues in ELT and SLA..............................................   60 2.2.1 Communicative Competence................................................   61 2.2.2 Culture..................................................................................   63 2.2.3 Intercultural Competence......................................................   64 2.2.4 Language Learning Contexts................................................   67 2.2.5 Noticing Hypothesis.............................................................   70 2.2.6 Teaching EFL to Young Learners.........................................   72 References...................................................................................................   74 ix

x

Contents

3 Methodology...............................................................................................   85 3.1 The German and Thuringian Education Context..............................   85 3.2 L2 Learners of English in Primary Schools......................................   87 3.2.1 Participants...........................................................................   87 3.2.2 Data Elicitation Method........................................................   89 3.2.3 Procedure..............................................................................   90 3.3 EFL Primary Teachers in Thuringia.................................................   91 3.3.1 Participants...........................................................................   91 3.3.2 Instrument.............................................................................   94 3.3.3 Procedure..............................................................................   95 3.4 EFL Teaching Materials....................................................................   96 3.4.1 Textbooks..............................................................................   96 3.4.2 Picture Books........................................................................   98 3.5 Speech Act Categories......................................................................   101 3.5.1 Requests................................................................................   101 3.5.2 Responses to Requests..........................................................   104 3.5.3 Greetings and Leave-Takings...............................................   105 3.5.4 Thanking and Responding to Thanks...................................   107 3.5.5 Apologies..............................................................................   108 3.5.6 Suggestions and Responses to Suggestions..........................   108 3.5.7 Expressing Feelings – Physical and Mental States...............   110 Appendix.....................................................................................................   111 A. Written Task Completed by the Young L2 Learners..........................   111 B. Spoken Task Completed by the Young L2 Learners..........................   112 C. Questions in the Teacher’s Survey.....................................................   114 References...................................................................................................   116

4 Results: Speech Acts in Textbooks............................................................   119 4.1 Overview of Speech Act Instances...................................................   119 4.2 Making and Responding to Requests...............................................   124 4.2.1 Requests................................................................................   125 4.2.2 Responding to Requests........................................................   129 4.3 Greetings and Leave-Takings...........................................................   133 4.3.1 Greetings...............................................................................   133 4.3.2 Leave-Takings.......................................................................   138 4.4 Thanking and Responding to Thanks...............................................   141 4.4.1 Expressions of Gratitude.......................................................   141 4.4.2 Responses to Expressions of Gratitude.................................   144 4.5 Apologies..........................................................................................   146 4.6 Suggestions and Responses to Suggestions......................................   148 4.6.1 Suggestions...........................................................................   148 4.6.2 Responses to Suggestions.....................................................   150 4.7 Expressing Physical and Mental States............................................   152 4.8 Chapter Summary.............................................................................   154 References...................................................................................................   157

Contents

xi

5 Results: Speech Acts in Children’s Books................................................   159 5.1 Overview of Speech Act Instances in Children’s Books..................   159 5.2 Making and Responding to Requests...............................................   165 5.2.1 Requests................................................................................   166 5.2.2 Responses to Requests..........................................................   170 5.3 Greetings and Leave-takings............................................................   173 5.3.1 Greetings...............................................................................   174 5.3.2 Leave-Takings.......................................................................   177 5.4 Expressions of Gratitude...................................................................   179 5.5 Apologies..........................................................................................   180 5.6 Suggestions.......................................................................................   181 5.7 Expressions of Physical and Mental States......................................   182 5.8 Chapter Summary.............................................................................   183 References...................................................................................................   185

6 Results: EFL Primary School Teachers...................................................   189 6.1 Components of the Lesson................................................................   190 6.2 Assessment.......................................................................................   194 6.3 Skills, Knowledge and Competence Areas.......................................   196 6.4 Grouping Pupils: Classroom Activities.............................................   200 6.5 Pragmatic Routines...........................................................................   202 6.6 Rituals at the Beginning and the End of the Lesson.........................   207 6.7 Differentiation...................................................................................   210 6.8 Special Needs....................................................................................   212 6.9 Homework........................................................................................   216 6.10 Textbooks and Other Materials.........................................................   218 6.11 Children’s Books and Songs.............................................................   222 6.12 Summary...........................................................................................   228 References...................................................................................................   230 7 Results – Young L2 Learners....................................................................   233 7.1 Young L2 Learners’ Performance in the Written Task.....................   233 7.1.1 Written Task W1: Matching Words and Images...................   233 7.1.2 Written Task W2: Matching Words......................................   234 7.1.3 Written Task W3: Illustrated Discourse Completion Task...................................................................   236 7.2 Young L2 Learners’ Performance in the Spoken Task.....................   243 7.2.1 Spoken Task S1: Greeting and Simple Interaction Task.....................................................................   243 7.2.2 Spoken Task S2: Colours and Numbers................................   248 7.2.3 Spoken Task S3: Total Physical Response............................   249 7.2.4 Spoken Task S4: Translation.................................................   251 7.2.5 Spoken Task S5: Requests....................................................   253 7.2.6 Spoken Task S6: Goodbye....................................................   259 7.3 Summary...........................................................................................   262 Appendix.....................................................................................................   264 References...................................................................................................   265



xii

Contents

8 Conclusion..................................................................................................   267 8.1 Summary of Findings.......................................................................   267 8.1.1 Textbooks..............................................................................   267 8.1.2 Children’s Books..................................................................   270 8.1.3 EFL Primary School Teachers..............................................   272 8.1.4 Young L2 Learners...............................................................   274 8.2 Limitations........................................................................................   276 8.3 Implications......................................................................................   277 8.3.1 Theoretical Implications.......................................................   277 8.3.2 Methodological Implications................................................   278 8.3.3 Pedagogical Implications......................................................   278 References...................................................................................................   280

Abbreviations

A

Speaker/Writer that provides the initial turn in a conversation or starts the written exchange B A’s Interlocutor BFLA Bilingual First Language Acquisition BNC British National Corpus CC Communicative Competence CCSARP Cross-cultural Speech Act Realization Project CHILDES Child Language Data Exchange System CLT Communicative Language Teaching COPT Cartoon Oral Production Task DCT Discourse-Completion Task EFL English as a Foreign Language ELT English Language Teaching ESL English as a Second Language FL Foreign Language GSL German as a Second Language H Hearer ICC Intercultural Communicative Competence ILP Interlanguage Pragmatics L1 First Language, Native Language or Mother Tongue L2 Second or Foreign Language MFLA Monolingual First Language Acquisition NS Native Speakers NNS Non-native Speaker S Speaker SEBD Social, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties SEN Special Educational Needs SLA Second Language Acquisition TEFL Teaching English as a Foreign Language TEYL Teaching English to Young Learners TL Target Language xiii

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Origins and areas of investigation in interlanguage pragmatics......................................................................................... 15 Fig. 4.1 Overview of speech act categories in the eight textbooks................ 120 Fig. 4.2 Speech act instances in the textbooks – comparing speech act pairs................................................................................. 123 Fig. 4.3 Request instances in the eight textbooks.......................................... 125 Fig. 4.4 Responses to request instances in the eight textbooks...................... 130 Fig. 4.5 Greeting instances in the eight textbooks......................................... 134 Fig. 4.6 Leave-taking instances in the eight textbooks.................................. 138 Fig. 4.7 Thanking instances in the eight textbooks........................................ 142 Fig. 4.8 Responses to expressions of gratitude instances in the eight textbooks........................................................................ 145 Fig. 4.9 Apology instances in the eight textbooks......................................... 146 Fig. 4.10 Suggestion instances in the eight textbooks...................................... 149 Fig. 4.11 Responses to suggestion instances in the eight textbooks................ 150 Fig. 4.12 Physical and mental state expression instances in the eight textbooks........................................................................ 152 Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2 Fig. 5.3 Fig. 5.4 Fig. 5.5 Fig. 5.6 Fig. 5.7 Fig. 5.8

Overview of speech act categories in children’s books.................... 162 Request instances in the children’s books......................................... 167 Request response instances in the children’s books.......................... 171 Greeting instances in the children’s books........................................ 174 Leave-taking instances in the children’s books................................. 177 Expression of gratitude instances in the children’s books................ 179 Suggestion instances in the children’s books.................................... 181 Expressions of physical or mental states in the children’s books...................................................................... 182

xv

xvi

List of Figures

Fig. 6.1 Assessment........................................................................................ 194 Fig. 6.2 Classroom activities: grouping learners............................................ 201 Fig. 6.3 EFL primary teachers’ views on the importance of polite language.............................................................................. 203 Fig. 6.4 EFL primary teachers’ use of opening and closing rituals............... 208 Fig. 6.5 Differentiation................................................................................... 210 Fig. 6.6 Differentiation strategies employed by the EFL teachers................. 211 Fig. 6.7 Pupils with special needs.................................................................. 213 Fig. 6.8 Homework: setting it or not.............................................................. 216 Fig. 6.9 Homework: frequency....................................................................... 217 Fig. 6.10 Textbook use in EFL primary school classes.................................... 219 Fig. 6.11 Use of additional materials produced by the textbook publisher............................................................................................ 221 Fig. 6.12 Use of children’s songs in English lessons....................................... 227 Fig. 7.1 Matching words and images............................................................. 234 Fig. 7.2 Find the matching words................................................................... 235 Fig. 7.3 Illustrated discourse completion task................................................ 236

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Table 2.2

Table 2.8

Request framework based on CCSARP (1989, p. 18)................ 23 Request framework based on Trosborg (1995, p. 205, slightly abbreviated)........................................................ 24 Greeting and Leave-taking framework (Edmondson and House 1981; House 1982)............................... 31 Five most frequent thanking response expressions in Schneider (2005, p. 117)......................................................... 36 Five most frequent thanking response expressions in Bieswanger (2015, p. 538)...................................................... 37 Five most frequent thanking response expressions in Dikin (2018, pp. 196–9).......................................................... 38 Apology framework (Olshtain and Cohen 1983, pp. 22–23)................................................................................... 41 Suggestion framework (Martínez Flor 2005, p. 175).................. 44

Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Table 3.7 Table 3.8 Table 3.9 Table 3.10 Table 3.11 Table 3.12 Table 3.13 Table 3.14 Table 3.15

Young EFL learners.................................................................... 88 Teachers’ age............................................................................... 92 Teachers’ years of EFL teaching experience............................... 92 Teachers’ degrees/qualifications................................................. 93 Subjects studied by teachers....................................................... 93 Overview of EFL textbooks for young learners.......................... 97 Overview of textbook chapters for year 3................................... 98 Overview of textbook chapter for year 4.................................... 98 Children’s books investigated in Chap. 5.................................... 100 Overview of request strategies.................................................... 102 Overview of address term types.................................................. 103 Overview of request modifiers.................................................... 104 Overview of request responses.................................................... 105 Overview of Greeting and Leave-taking strategies..................... 106 Thanking strategies..................................................................... 107

Table 2.3 Table 2.4 Table 2.5 Table 2.6 Table 2.7

xvii

xviii

List of Tables

Table 4.1

Overview of speech act categories and page numbers of individual textbooks................................................................ 121 Table 4.2 Occurrence of individual speech act categories in the textbooks........................................................................... 121 Table 4.3 Request strategies in the eight textbooks.................................... 126 Table 4.4a Request Modifiers in the eight textbooks – Overview................ 127 Table 4.4b Request Modifiers in the eight textbooks – Address terms......... 128 Table 4.5a Request responses in the eight textbooks – Overview................ 131 Table 4.5b Request responses in the eight textbooks – Answer types.......... 131 Table 4.6 Address terms in request responses in the eight textbooks......... 132 Table 4.7 Greeting strategies in the eight textbooks................................... 134 Table 4.8 Greeting routines in the eight textbooks..................................... 135 Table 4.9 Address terms used in greetings in the eight textbooks.............. 137 Table 4.10 Leave-taking strategies in the eight textbooks............................ 139 Table 4.11 Modifiers used in leave-takings in the eight textbooks............... 140 Table 4.12 Leave-taking routines in the eight textbooks.............................. 140 Table 4.13 Thanking instances and routines in the eight textbooks.............. 143 Table 4.14 Thanking Modifiers in the eight textbooks – Overview.............. 144 Table 4.15 Responding to thanks in the eight textbooks............................... 145 Table 4.16 Apologies in the eight textbooks................................................. 147 Table 4.17 Suggestions in the eight textbooks.............................................. 150 Table 4.18a Responses to Suggestions in the eight textbooks – Accepting a suggestion............................................ 151 Table 4.18b Responses to Suggestions in the eight textbooks – Declining a suggestion............................................. 151 Table 4.19 Expressions of physical or mental states in the eight textbooks.................................................................. 153 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 5.6a Table 5.6b Table 5.7 Table 5.8 Table 5.9 Table 5.10 Table 5.11 Table 5.12

Background information on children’s books investigated......... 161 Occurrences of individual speech act categories in the children’s books................................................................ 164 Request strategies in the children’s books.................................. 168 Request modifiers in the children’s books.................................. 169 Address Term use in requests in the children’s books................ 169 Responses to requests in the children’s books – Overview........................................................................ 172 Responses to requests in the children’s books – Answer types................................................................. 172 Greeting strategies in the children’s books................................. 175 Greeting routines in the children’s books................................... 175 Address terms used in greetings in the children’s books............ 176 Leave-taking routines in the children’s books............................. 178 Address terms used in leave-takings in the children’s books...... 178 Expressions of physical or mental states in the children’s books.......................................................................... 183

List of Tables

Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table 6.6 Table 6.7 Table 6.8 Table 6.9 Table 6.10 Table 6.11 Table 6.12 Table 6.13 Table 6.14 Table 7.1 Table 7.2 Table 7.3 Table 7.4 Table 7.5 Table 7.6 Table 7.7 Table 7.8 Table 7.9 Table 7.10 Table 7.11 Table 7.12 Table 7.13 Table 7.14 Table 7.15

xix

Evaluating lesson components.................................................... 190 Assessment activities.................................................................. 195 Skills, knowledge and competence areas: teachers’ evaluation..................................................................... 198 Skills and competence areas: actual instruction focus in the last unit.................................................................... 199 Grouping learners: frequency of classroom activity type(s) in the last unit.................................................................. 201 Teachers’ use of pragmatic routines in their last teaching unit......................................................................... 204 Learners’ pragmatic routine use in the last unit (estimated by teachers)................................................................ 206 Opening and closing rituals......................................................... 209 Ways of supporting learners with special needs in the EFL classroom.................................................................. 214 Homework................................................................................... 217 EFL teachers’ satisfaction with their textbook series................. 220 Use of children’s books by teachers............................................ 223 Use of children’s books by teachers............................................ 225 Use of songs by teachers............................................................. 227 Young L2 learners’ utterances in task W3a................................. 237 Young L2 learners’ strategies in task W3a.................................. 237 Young L2 learners’ utterances in task W3b – speech bubble 1............................................................... 238 Young L2 learners’ request granting expressions in task W3b................................................................................. 239 Young L2 learners’ utterances in task W3b – speech bubble 2............................................................... 242 Young L2 learners’ reply to Good Morning in task S1..................................................................................... 244 Young L2 learners’ reply to What’s your name? in task S1..................................................................................... 245 Young L2 learners’ reply to How are you? in task S1..................................................................................... 246 Young L2 learners’ reply to How old are you? in task S1..................................................................................... 247 Young L2 learners’ favourite colour........................................... 249 Young L2 learners’ responses to task S3 – TPR......................... 250 Young L2 learners’ responses to task S4 – Oral translation....... 252 Young L2 learners’ responses to task S5 – Request reactions I.............................................................. 254 Young L2 learners’ responses to task S5 – Verbal expressions............................................................... 255 Young L2 learners’ responses to task S5 – Request reactions II............................................................ 256

xx

Table 7.16 Table 7.17 Table 7.18 Table 7.19

List of Tables

Young L2 learners’ responses to task S5 – Learners’ requests............................................................... 258 Young L2 learners’ responses to task S6.1 – Favourite word................................................................. 260 Young L2 learners’ responses to task S6.3 – Goodbye............... 261 Young L2 learners’ responses to task S4 – Oral translation....... 264

Chapter 1

Introduction

Abstract  According to EUROSTAT data from 2014, nearly 80% of all primary school pupils in the 28 EU countries are learning English at the primary school level. In Germany, foreign language education has to be offered in primary schools in all states and is compulsory for everyone from grade 3 onwards (Kultusministerkonferenz, Fremdsprachen in der Grundschule: Sachstand und Konzeption. https://www.kmk.org/themen/allgemeinbildende-schulen/unterrichtsfaecher/fremdsprachen.html. Accessed 30 Oct 2017, 2013, p. 5). Although a number of publications are available that provide helpful ideas and information on what teaching approaches and materials may be most suitable for teaching a foreign language to young learners (e.g. Klippel, English in der Grundschule: Handbuch für einen kindgemäßen Fremdsprachenunterricht. Cornelsen, Berlin, 2000; Kirsch, Teaching foreign languages in the primary school. Continuum, London, 2008; Schmid-Schönbein, Didaktik und Methodik für den Englischunterricht. Cornelsen Scriptor, Berlin, 2008; Maynard, Teaching foreign languages. Routledge, Abingdon, 2012), very few research monographs exist to date (e.g. Brunsmeier, Interkulturelle Kommunikative Kompetenz im Englischunterricht der Grundschule: Grundlagen, Erfahrungen, Perspektiven. Narr, Tübingen, 2016) that examine the teaching and learning of English as a foreign language (EFL) in the primary school contexts from different angles. This book aims to provide a more detailed picture of EFL teaching in the primary school context by analysing data from multiple sources, such as textbooks, children’s books, teachers’ views on a variety of primary EFL issues that were collected with an online survey, and finally young learners’ data that were elicited with spoken and written tasks. Keywords  Interlanguage pragmatics · Young learners · EFL learners · Survival English · Input materials · EFL teacher’s views · Teaching a foreign language at primary school

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 G. A. Schauer, Teaching and Learning English in the Primary School, English Language Education 18, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23257-3_1

1

2

1 Introduction

As I mentioned in the acknowledgments, the idea for this monograph which addresses a variety of issues relevant to teaching young L2 learners1 originated from conversations with colleagues teaching MEd students majoring in English as a foreign language (EFL), as well as with students enrolled on MEd primary education programs, and in-service teachers with and without a qualification in English that were teaching EFL in primary schools. These informal discussions then resulted in the design of this research project, which while mainly focusing on interlanguage pragmatics (ILP)  – the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately in a second or foreign language (L2) and to comprehend the L2 even if indirect or conventional expressions are used (cf. Sects. 2.1.1 and 2.1.2) – also addresses some other issues, such as the four skills, differentiation, and general materials selection in the field of teaching English to young learners (TEYL). When conceptualizing this book, the target audience that I had in mind were MEd students, MA students in applied linguistics, in-service teachers, as well as teacher educators and researchers interested in interlanguage pragmatics, English language teaching (ELT) and second language acquisition (SLA). Since not all of these groups may have detailed or much previous knowledge of applied linguistics and pragmatics as relevant to TEYL, I have provided a very detailed review of the literature in Chap. 2 so that individuals not yet familiar with this field and its concepts and terminology get a thorough and accessible introduction to key issues. While analysing the data, I realized that certain speech acts I was investigating had not received much attention in pragmatics and that it was therefore necessary to add to existing frameworks or develop new categories (cf. for example response to requests in Sect. 3.5.2 and expressing feelings in Sect. 3.5.7). Because of these theoretical contributions, the present monograph may also be of interest to students and researchers in the wider area of pragmatics (e.g. cross-cultural, first language or variational pragmatics). Depending on the individual reader’s background and interests, they may wish to not read the monograph chronologically but instead focus on the issues that address their main interests. In the literature review Chap. 2, I have included suggestions on what readers from different backgrounds may wish to concentrate on in Sects. 2.1 and 2.2. In addition, I have included several signposts (e.g. “as explained in Sects.  In the results chapters of this book (i.e. Chaps. 4, 5, 6, and 7), the materials, activities and tasks are intended for young learners of English attending either grade 3 or 4 of German primary school, i.e. learners aged between 8 and 10. However, it needs to be noted that young learners can also refer to other age groups, i.e. slightly younger or older children. While Cameron (2001) and Enever (2016) agree that young learners tends to encompass children aged between 5 and 12 years, Enever also points out that younger children aged between 3 and 4 could also fall into this category if preprimary settings are included. Regarding primary education, Elsner (2018, p. 18) notes that “the average age for beginning with learning a foreign language is 7,7 years” in Europe. Thus, while my own analysis will focus on children aged 8–10, I will also refer to studies involving slightly older and younger primary school children in the review of the literature in Chap. 2. The age range of the children will be mentioned for all studies that I review in detail in the literature review.

1

1 Introduction

3

2.1.5 and 3.5.2”) throughout the book to enable readers to find relevant information on issues closely related to the content of the chapter or section they are currently reading. The research project reported on in this book is based on three distinct data sets: 1. a detailed analysis of 10 speech acts in input materials (textbooks and children’s books2 used in EFL primary schools in Germany), 2. a comprehensive survey of EFL primary school teachers, 3. a comparative analysis of young L2 learners’ written and spoken output in English. Speech acts (cf. Sect. 2.1) are a way of looking at language based on its functions. In this book, I will investigate if and to what extent young EFL learners are exposed to 10 different speech acts (requests, responses to requests, greetings, leave-takings, expressions of gratitude, responses to expressions of gratitude, apologies, suggestions, responses to suggestions and expressions of mental or physical states) in eight German EFL textbooks for the primary school representing four textbook series (Bumblebee, Ginger, Playway, and Sunshine). As Limberg (2015, p. 701) notes “the textbook is a primary source of language input and practice for foreign language learners”. In primary school contexts in which teachers are expected to cover a wide variety of subjects including their pupil’s native language, mathematics, general studies and a foreign language, teachers may not have specialist knowledge in all subjects, as they may not have studied them at all or not in great depth at university. Textbooks can be very valuable for teachers, as they provide teachers with lesson plans and all necessary materials to teach a lesson in a subject that primary school teachers may not be very familiar with and/or feel somewhat uneasy about. Textbooks are also a valuable source of L2 input for young EFL learners because children tend to have access to them and can therefore engage with the textbooks in the lessons and at home. In addition to textbooks, picturebooks are another valuable source of L2 input in EFL classrooms. Kolb (2013, p. 33) points out that “stories and picturebooks play a widely accepted role in the teaching of English as a foreign language in primary schools (Ellis et  al, 2002; Enever et  al. 2006)”. Because children’s books are frequently employed in primary school L2 classrooms (cf. Sect. 6.11), I also included them in the research project and examined the same 10 speech acts that I have also focused on in the textbook analysis in the 22 picturebooks investigated in this project. The 10 speech acts were selected because they are included as compulsory elements in the curriculum for English as a foreign language in primary schools in the German state of Thuringia in which the study is situated in (Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur 2010). In addition, they form part of my notion of Survival English which I am introducing in writing here for the first time:

 In this book, I will be using the terms children’s books and picturebooks interchangeably.

2

4

1 Introduction

Survival English My view is that young and/or beginner level L2 learners should be equipped with linguistic means that enable them to survive in an emergency situation in the first years of their L2 learning process, i.e. Survival English. What constitutes Survival English depends to a degree on the age of the L2 learners, as it is closely tied to their own real-life contexts and the emergency situations they may find themselves in as a result. For example, while adult L2 learners may travel on their own, drive cars or have children who may fall ill in a foreign country, young L2 learners are likely to be in the company of responsible adults when abroad who (under normal circumstances) take care of their needs. Thus, for young L2 learners an emergency may be different in some respects than for teenagers or adults. Children may need to use Survival English when they have become separated from their parents or guardians (e.g. in an airport, train station, city centre, shopping mall, zoo or on the beach). In addition, young L2 learners may need to use Survival English when they or their family members / responsible adults have had an accident, have fallen ill or have been the victim of aggression and violence and need medical treatment because of this. If these incidents occur in a country where the young learner’s first language is not widely known and spoken, then using English to obtain assistance is likely to be the L2 learners’ best option. They will therefore need to know how to make simple requests (e.g. Help! or Can you help me?), understand and respond to requests they are likely to encounter in an emergency situation (e.g. What is your name? Where are your parents? What do your parents look like? What is your mother’s first name?), tell people about their physical or mental states (e.g. I’m thirsty. I feel sick.). In addition, it would be advantageous if they were also able to use simple thanking expressions (e.g. thank you) to show gratitude to the person that is assisting them and to apologize (if necessary) for any inconvenience caused. In addition to these core Survival English speech acts, young and/or beginner level learners should also be able to use and respond to simple everyday greetings (e.g. hello) and leave-takings (e.g. bye), understand suggestions (e.g. Let’s look for your parents then.) and be able to respond to them (e.g. Ok), and also to understand responses to expressions of gratitude (e.g. you’re welcome) directed at them.

In addition to the 10 speech acts that I investigated in the textbooks and picturebooks, I also analysed data from in-service primary EFL teachers. All EFL primary school teachers working in the German state of Thuringia were contacted via their schools and asked to participate in an online survey. The survey addressed 11 topics: components of the lesson; assessment; skills, knowledge and competence areas;

1 Introduction

5

grouping pupils: classroom activities; pragmatic routines; rituals; differentiation; special needs; homework; textbooks; picturebooks and songs. The final data set of the research project consists of young L2 learner data. For this part of the project, data were elicited from two very different teaching contexts: a) a private international school in Thuringia in which teaching takes place in English and which therefore represents an immersion context and b) a typical state primary school also situated in the German state of Thuringia, in which children receive 2 hours of English instruction per week. Children in both schools completed two sets of tasks: a written task containing word matching exercises as well as an illustrated Discourse Completion Task (DCT), and a spoken task3 in which the young learners interacted with a research assistant. By analysing written and spoken data from the same participant groups, this study also contributes to the general debate about suitable and representative data elicitation methods in interlanguage pragmatics. To obtain a better understanding of a specific teaching context, the German state of Thuringia was chosen as the research site. This means that all data (excluding some pilot study data which had deliberately been collected in a neighbouring German state, cf. Chap. 3) were either collected in Thuringia or had some kind of connection4 to Thuringia. This triangulated approach in a specific setting was chosen to obtain deeper insights into interlanguage pragmatics and related issues in EFL primary classrooms. In the following, I will provide a detailed review of the literature in Chap. 2. In Chap. 3, I will first provide background information on the research site, Thuringia, and the German education system (Sect. 3.1). This will be followed by information on the young L2 learners (Sect. 3.2) and EFL teachers (Sect. 3.3) who participated in the research project. Subsequent to this, I will provide background information on the textbooks and picturebooks (Sect. 3.4). I will then describe the speech act categories and strategies that will be used for the analysis of all speech acts in this study in Sect. 3.5. This will be followed by an analysis and discussion of the textbook and picturebook data in Chaps. 4 and 5 respectively. In Chap. 6, I will analyse the teachers’ survey data. This will be followed by the analysis of the young L2 learners’ data in Chap. 7. The conclusion is then presented in Chap. 8.

3  The spoken task consisted of several different elements, some of which addressed features of learners’ pragmatic competence (e.g. greetings, leave-takings, requests, responses to requests, responses to expressions of gratitude), while others focused on other areas, such as knowledge of numbers, colours, and general vocabulary. 4  The textbooks and picturebooks investigated in this research project are connected to Thuringia because they were either used by Thuringian primary EFL teachers or because Thuringian MEd students had encountered them during their studies.

6

1 Introduction

References Brunsmeier, S. (2016). Interkulturelle Kommunikative Kompetenz im Englischunterricht der Grundschule: Grundlagen, Erfahrungen, Perspektiven. Tübingen: Narr. Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Elsner, D. (2018). Institutionalized foreign language learning: Teaching English at different levels. In C. Surkamp & B. Viebrock (Eds.), Teaching English as a foreign language: An introduction (pp. 17–37). Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler. Enever, J. (2016). Primary ELT: Issues and trends. In G. Hall (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of English language teaching (pp. 353–366). Abingdon: Routledge. EUROSTAT. (n.d.). Foreign language learning statistics. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php/Foreign_language_learning_statistics. Accessed 30 Oct 2017. Kirsch, C. (2008). Teaching foreign languages in the primary school. London: Continuum. Klippel, F. (2000). English in der Grundschule: Handbuch für einen kindgemäßen Fremdsprachenunterricht. Berlin: Cornelsen. Kolb, A. (2013). Extensive reading of picturebooks in primary EFL. In J. Bland & C. Lütge (Eds.), Children’s literature in second language education. London: Bloomsbury. Kultusministerkonferenz. (2013). Fremdsprachen in der Grundschule: Sachstand und Konzeption. https://www.kmk.org/themen/allgemeinbildende-schulen/unterrichtsfaecher/fremdsprachen. html. Accessed 30 Oct 2017. Limberg, H. (2015). Teaching how to apologize: EFL textbooks and pragmatic input. Language Teaching Research, 20(6), 700–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815590695. Maynard, S. (2012). Teaching foreign languages. Abingdon: Routledge. Schmid-Schönbein, G. (2008). Didaktik und Methodik für den Englischunterricht. Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor. Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur. (2010). Lehrplan für die Grundschule und für die Förderschule mit dem Bildungsgang der Grundschule: Fremdsprache. Erfurt: Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur.

Chapter 2

Literature Review

Abstract  One aim of this book is to examine if, how, and to what extent pragmatic features are included in four textbook series in Germany that are published by the major school book publishing houses Cornelsen, Klett and Schrödel, as well as in picturebooks used in primary schools, and to what extent young EFL learners attending primary school are able to use simple pragmatic features. In contrast to other subdisciplines of linguistics, such as grammar or lexicography, pragmatics is often not as well known among teaching professionals and also tends to be less focused on in publications exploring issues in English language teaching, teaching English to young learners or second language acquisition. This is very unfortunate because pragmatics is a key component of successful communication and therefore needs to be taught to second or foreign language learners to equip them with the means to achieve their communicative goals in an appropriate and efficient manner (cf. Cohen, Learning pragmatics from native and nonnative language teachers. Multilingual Matters, Bristol, 2018). In this chapter, I will first provide a definition of pragmatics and explain some key areas of pragmatics that are relevant for this book, such as speech act theory and various speech act frameworks. I will then discuss the concepts of communicative competence, culture and intercultural competence. This will be followed by a discussion of different learning contexts, the noticing hypothesis and considerations relevant to teaching young learners of English. Keywords  Pragmatics · Interlanguage pragmatics · Speech acts · Requests · Greetings · Leave-takings · Thanking · Reactive speech acts · ELT · SLA

2.1  Pragmatics As this book was written with different audience groups in mind, not all sections may be relevant to all audience groups. In Sects. 2.1.1 and 2.1.2, I explain key concepts and terms in pragmatics. These sections are intended for readers with little or no background knowledge of pragmatics, e.g. undergraduate students, pre-service or in-service teachers who have not attended seminars or lectures on pragmatics. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 G. A. Schauer, Teaching and Learning English in the Primary School, English Language Education 18, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23257-3_2

7

8

2  Literature Review

Section 2.1.3 provides a contrastive review of different speech act frameworks. This section may be of interest to students and researchers specialising in pragmatics. Readers not interested in a detailed theoretical discussion of speech act frameworks but unfamiliar with pragmatics may only wish to read the beginning of the chapter in order to familiarize themselves with some important speech act terminology. The subsequent sections on individual speech acts, i.e. Sects. 2.1.4, 2.1.5, 2.1.6, 2.1.7, 2.1.8, 2.1.9, and 2.1.10, can be read individually and – in most parts – in no specific order depending on the reader’s interest, although it would help to read them in sequence if the reader is interested in all of the speech acts discussed as this makes it easier to see how the speech acts – and research on them – are connected. Sections 2.1.10, 2.1.11, 2.1.12, 2.1.13, and 2.1.14 may be of particular interest to pre- and in-service teachers and students and researchers interested in interlanguage pragmatics.

2.1.1  Defining Pragmatics I would like to begin with a definition of pragmatics that is frequently used in linguistics to explain what pragmatics focuses on. Definition Crystal defines 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 effects their use of language has on other participants in the act of communication” (Crystal 1985, p. 240).

This definition shows that pragmatics places great emphasis not only on the producer (e.g. speaker/writer) of an utterance,1 but also on the receiver (e.g. listener/ reader). In addition, the word participants shows that not only the intended recipient of the utterance is of interest in pragmatics but also other individuals, who may happen to overhear/also read what the producer said or wrote. I will come back to this important point below, but will now first return to the beginning of Crystal’s (1985) definition. Crystal writes about the user and this encompasses a large variety of individuals and potentially also animals, but since the focus of this book is on human interaction

1  According to Huang (2007, p. 11) “an utterance is the use of a particular piece of language – be it a word, phrase, a sentence, or a sequence of sentences – by a particular speaker on a particular occasion.” Thus, examples of utterances are Help!, I’ll call you back in a minute or longer stretches of text, e.g. a text of paragraph length. It needs to be noted that the term text itself is defined as a “continuous stretch of written or spoken language” (Mullany and Stockwell 2010, p. 19).

2.1 Pragmatics

9

I will from here on concentrate on human to human communication only. Users can be young or old, native speakers or L2 learners, individuals with fully functioning brains or those that do not have fully functioning ones (e.g. people who have suffered a stroke), etc. Depending on who these users are, they may have different linguistic options at their disposal. For example, it would be very surprising if a 3-month-old baby could produce I would like some milk now, please, because infants at this age typically only vocalize, coo and laugh with production of complete sentences starting considerably later (Clark 2009; Rowland 2014; cf. also Sect. 2.1.13). Therefore, the repertoire of linguistic and pragmatic options of different user groups may vary considerably. In his definition, Crystal (1985) also mentions the constraints language users encounter when using language. This can refer to not (yet) having a well-developed and comprehensive repertoire of different linguistic options to achieve a communicative aim, such as asking someone for something and not having acquired the necessary grammar and lexis to say Would you mind passing me the sugar, please? and instead having to resort to Give me the sugar. This also nicely illustrates that pragmatics (the choices that are made in a specific context) is often linked to other areas such as grammar2 and lexis (Culpeper and Schauer 2018). The constraints mentioned in Crystal’s definition can, however, also refer to other phenomena, such as when the language producer is under the influence of medication (e.g. when waking up after surgery) or drugs (e.g. when having consumed a specific amount of alcohol), when the producer is in intense pain (e.g. after having had an accident) or in shock (e.g. after having witnessed something traumatic) or when the user is involved in an emergency situation (e.g. user’s child has had an accident) or has just been informed of some very positive news (e.g. having won a prize). All of these events may have an impact on an individual’s ability to produce language. Crystal’s definition clearly demonstrates that pragmatics does not solely focus on the producer of an utterance, but that the effect of the language used is also a central concern. This means that researchers in pragmatics are not only interested in choices of those that produce language, but are also very much interested in how the producer’s utterance is being perceived. Thus, pragmatics research addresses both what a speaker/reader/signer3 is actually producing and how it relates to the individual context of the social interaction and also how a listener/reader/recipient of sign ­language is perceiving and interpreting what is being said/written/signed to them.

2  For empirical interlanguage pragmatic studies that address the relationship between pragmatics and grammar see Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei (1998), Niezgoda and Röver (2001) and Schauer (2006, 2012). See Bardovi-Harlig (2003) for an overview chapter that addresses interlanguage pragmatics and grammar. See Ariel (2008) for a perspective on pragmatics and grammar that is not closely connected to interlanguage pragmatics. 3  The term signer here refers to users of sign language, such as American, British or German sign language, i.e. individuals that may have no or limited hearing. It is a “visual-gestural language which is used by many deaf people […] as their native language” (Deuchar 1984, p. 1).

10

2  Literature Review

One of the key issues in pragmatics is the context in which language is being used and whether (and to what degree) the language being used is considered appropriate in that specific situation. Quite often this means that issues concerning politeness and impoliteness are also addressed (cf. 2.1.11 on pragmatics and politeness). Cohen (2010, pp. 3–4) provides a helpful summary of how pragmatics relates to the four skills (listening, reading, speaking and writing): Listening: As listeners, we need to interpret what is said, as well as what is not said, and what may be communicated non-verbally. These verbal and non-verbal cues transmit to us just how polite, direct or formal the communication is and what the intent is (e.g. to be kind, loving, attentive, or devious, provocative, or hostile). (…) Reading: As readers, we need to comprehend written messages, identifying the rhetorical structure of the message and catching sometimes subtle indications of tone or attitude in the communication (e.g. anything from humorous, sincere, sympathetic or collaborative tone to one that is teasing, sarcastic, angry, …) Speaking: As speakers we need to know how to say what we want to say with the proper politeness, directness, and formality (…). We also need to know what not to say at all and what to communicate non-verbally. (…) Writing: As writers, we need to know how to write our message intelligibly, again paying attention to level of politeness, directness and formality (…)

As Cohen’s overview illustrates, using the four skills successfully, efficiently and appropriately always entails considering aspects that belong in the area of pragmatics. Thus, teaching learners of English as a foreign language (TEFL) should automatically involve addressing pragmatic issues. An area of pragmatics that beginner level learners and young learners tend to and should encounter is the area of speech acts which I will address in Sects. 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.1.5, 2.1.6, 2.1.7, 2.1.8, 2.1.9, and 2.1.10. In the following Sect. 2.1.2, I will provide some background information on the origins of pragmatics and will then explain concepts and terms that are particularly important for this study.

2.1.2  H  istorical Background and Important Concepts and Terms Pragmatics is one of the younger disciplines in linguistics compared to, for example, lexicography (Fontenelle 2011). Linguistic pragmatics has its origins in the field of language philosophy. The term itself goes back to Peirce (1905, p. 163), who was inspired by other philosophers such as Kant, and who wrote about his new theory of pragmatism that “the most striking feature of [it is] its recognition of an inseparable connection between rational cognition and rational purpose”. The first publications on pragmatics that are frequently referred to in the literature and that contain more detailed discussions on how pragmatics relates to language go back to the mid-­twentieth century (e.g. Morris 1938; Austin 1962). Morris proposed a three-way distinction of syntax, semantics and pragmatics as core components of semiotics (the study of signs and symbols). He argued that “pragmatics presupposes both syntactics and semantics” and that “it would attempt

2.1 Pragmatics

11

to develop terms appropriate to the study of the relations of signs to their users and to order systematically the results” (1938, p. 33). He thus emphasized the connection of pragmatics to other subdisciplines of linguistics, and also called for a systematic study of pragmatics. Furthermore, he noted that interpreters, convention and understanding are important issues to consider when studying pragmatics. Interpreters are beings (human or otherwise, e.g. animals) that try to make sense of a sign (e.g. an utterance said to them, a written note, a facial expression) and understand what the producer of the sign wishes to convey (e.g. asking for directions, issuing an invitation, showing agreement). Conventions play an important role in an interpreter’s ability to correctly decode what the other person intended to convey. If messages are very direct (e.g. Please shut the door), it is generally not difficult for the interpreter to correctly decode the intended meaning of the person they are communicating with (also called their interlocutor). If messages are not direct, then it can be more difficult for the interpreter to decode the intended meaning of their interlocutor correctly. For example, in a study of an adult Japanese learner of English who had emigrated to the United States, Schmidt (1983) wrote that the learner’s indirect attempts of uttering a request, such as “You like this chair?” when he wanted his interlocutor to move and vacate the seat were not decoded as requests for moving by American English native speakers. This was because the formula [Do] you like … is not conventionally used in English to signal that the other person is asked to vacate their seat. Instead, the utterance is more likely to be interpreted as a polite question enquiring about the interlocutor’s level of comfort when sitting on this piece of furniture. This means that there is a mismatch between the L2 learner’s intended meaning and the meaning decoded by his American English interlocutors. Grice (1975) introduced the noun implicature that is related to the verb imply to refer to a producer’s intended meaning of a particular expression. The terms that correspond to what the interlocutor is doing when they are decoding the message are the noun inference and the verb infer. Thus, while the Japanese learner was implying that the seat should be vacated, his interlocutors were inferring that he was intending to convey something else, such as showing concern about their well-being. Schmidt argued that the learner of English used this expression because similar indirect requests or hints are conventionally used in the learner’s native language, Japanese (cf. Rinnert and Kobayashi 1999 on hints in Japanese and English). Employing strategies that are used either in a producer’s mother tongue or in any other language that the producer knows and is able to communicate in a second or foreign language, is an activity that is often referred to as transfer.4 The term transfer was introduced into the field of L2 pragmatics by Gabriele Kasper who defined pragmatic transfer as “the influence exerted by L2 learners’ pragmatic knowledge of languages and cultures other than L2 on their comprehension, production and learning of L2 pragmatic information” (1992, p. 207). This definition shows the breadth of pragmatic transfer, as it covers not only use (i.e. production), but also understanding (i.e. comprehension) of pragmatic information 4  Another term for transfer that is sometimes used is cross-linguistic influence (cf. Jarvis and Pavlenko 2008).

12

2  Literature Review

and in addition also addresses the impact of transfer on a learner’s learning process (i.e. learning), while explicitly stating that the origins of transfer can be found in languages as well as cultures the learner already knows. Transfer can then be further categorized as either positive or negative. Definition Positive pragmatic transfer happens when L2 learners employ pragmatic strategies in their L2 that originate from the learners’ native Language (L1), or another language that the learners know, and that match the L2 target norms, which means that the learners are able to successfully achieve their aim in the L2 and that their utterances are decoded by their interlocutors in the way they were intended. In contrast, negative pragmatic transfer takes place when L2 learners employ a strategy from their L1 (or another language that the learners know) and there is no match between the original language norms and the L2 norms, which means that the L2 learners’ interlocutors do not decode the utterance correctly and the L2 learners’ aims are not successfully achieved. This was the case with Schmidt’s (1983) Japanese learner of English, who used a hint to imply to his interlocutors to vacate the seat which would have been inferred as a request for moving by Japanese native speakers but was most likely inferred as a question about their well-­being by his American English interlocutors.

The subdiscipline of pragmatics that investigates how certain language functions are typically performed in a particular language and culture and how these performances differ from or are similar to other languages and cultures is called crosscultural pragmatics. Definition According to Taguchi and Röver, “the main premise of cross-cultural pragmatics is that language use reflects the underlying values, beliefs and assumptions shared by members of the given speech community” (2017, p. 3).

Juliane House, who has been “a leading figure in applied linguistics for several decades” (Blum-Kulka 2013, p.  2562) and who was also involved in one of the earliest and largest international pragmatics studies, the Cross-Cultural Speech Act  The CCSARP was a large study conducted in the 1980s by an international group of researchers that investigated how requests and apologies are performed in a variety of languages, e.g. English, French, German, Hebrew, Spanish. Although a number of articles (e.g. Blum-Kulka and Olshtain 1984) were published that presented the results of the project, the most well-known publication is the book published in 1989 entitled “Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies” edited by Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House and Gabriele Kasper. 5

2.1 Pragmatics

13

Realization Project (CCSARP),5 conducted several studies that compared English and German pragmatic norms. She summarized her findings in an overview article and wrote that “a consistent pattern has emerged: German subjects tend to interact in ways that are more direct, explicit and verbose, more self-referenced and content-­ oriented; they are also less prone to resort to verbal routines than English speakers” (2006, p. 251). Regarding a preference for directness on the German native speakers’ part, she cited comments from interviews she had conducted with English native speakers about their experiences and feelings when interacting with Germans (2006, p. 255): English-speaking respondents say they felt they were ‘ordered’ around in grocery stores by requests such as: ‘Gehen Sie da drüben hin’ (‘Go over there’) or ‘Wiegen Sie Ihre Ware da, wo das Obst ist’ (‘Weigh your goods where the fruit is’). The ‘naked’ infinitive is often misunderstood by members of Anglophone cultures as being essentially rude and aggressive. One respondent comments: ‘German customers don’t react to this, but I do’.

These comments also illustrate one of the reasons for why cross-cultural pragmatic studies were conducted, namely to obtain insights into cross-cultural differences that could then inform L2 teaching. The aforementioned examples of German native speakers using a more direct approach when working in supermarkets or shops could be included in textbooks for English learners of German to prepare them for the utterances they are likely to encounter when shopping in Germany. Another subdiscipline of pragmatics that is of importance for this book is variational pragmatics, a relatively new area of pragmatics which was introduced into the field by Anne Barron and Klaus Schneider. Definition Variational pragmatics investigates pragmatic variation in (geographical and social) space […] [I]n examining pragmatic variation across geographical and social varieties of language, variational pragmatics aims at determining the impact of such factors as region, social class, gender, age and ethnicity on communicative language use. […] Region in variational pragmatics […] not only deals with sub-national varieties of a language, but also with languages as pluricentric entities (e.g. German German, Austrian German, Swiss German; English English, Irish English, …; Argentinian Spanish, Peruvian Spanish, ….). (Schneider and Barron 2008, p. 1, my emphasis)

Variational pragmatics is important for studies focusing on L2 learners because in the case of some languages, such as English, there is more than one variety of the language that is of international importance and that L2 learners should be aware of. This is also why textbook publishing houses for intermediate – advanced L2 learners in secondary education tend to include stories and characters from different countries in which the language is spoken to make learners aware of differences and similarities in the varieties of the same language. For example, book 2 of Green Line New for

14

2  Literature Review

Bavaria (Ashford et al. 2004), an EFL textbook for grammar schools in the German state of Bavaria, includes information on different words used for a season (autumn in British English and fall in American English). While it is often vocabulary items and spelling differences that textbook writers focus on, some textbook writers also present pragmatic expressions that differ in varieties of the language, such as the greeting G’day included in a primary EFL textbook for year 4 (Ehlers et  al. 2017), which is clearly associated with a pupil from Australia. Thus, when writing a textbook, textbook writers and publishers need to consider what pragmatic information they should provide for learners. Quite often geographical location may play a role when it comes to deciding which particular variety of a language to first expose learners to or to mainly focus on. With regard to the German context, the main focus of beginner level books in EFL school settings has so far tended to be on Great Britain. This is also why the default variety of English in this book is British English. Should more than one variety of English be discussed, the varieties will be clearly labelled and differentiated. The subdiscipline of pragmatics that focuses on L2 learners is called interlanguage pragmatics. Definition Researchers working in interlanguage pragmatics are interested in a variety of issues that relate to L2 learners and their ability to (a) produce utterances that are appropriate and effective and therefore achieve their communicative aims, (b) understand L2 utterances that they encounter correctly. While some researchers tend to focus on how instruction (e.g. the use of particular teaching materials or instructional approaches) can help L2 learners produce appropriate language and enable them to correctly decode language directed at them, others are interested in how L2 learners’ pragmatic skills develop outside of formal instructional contexts.

The first word of the term, interlanguage, goes back to developments in second language6 acquisition and more precisely to the linguist Selinker and his view of L2 learning. Mitchell, Myles and Marsden (2013, p. 36) write about interlanguage: The term interlanguage was coined in 1972, by Selinker, to refer to the language produced by learners, both as a system which can be described at any one point in time as resulting from systematic rules, and as the series of interlocking systems that characterize learner 6  The linguistic field that researches the acquisition of another language that is not an individual’s first language is called second language acquisition. It needs to be noted, however, that second language acquisition (SLA) covers both second and foreign language acquisition. The difference between foreign and second language is the learning context (cf. also Sect. 2.2.4). A foreign language learning context is typically a country in which the target language (i.e. the language that the individual is learning and which is not his or her L1) is not the official language (e.g. Germany for learners of English). In contrast, a second language learning context is a context in which learners are learning the official language of that country (e.g. Great Britain for learners of English).

2.1 Pragmatics

15 SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

PRAGMATICS

INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMATICS

No Instruction

Instruction

Awareness / Comprehension / Understanding

Input materials

Production

Awareness / Comprehension / Understanding

Production

Single Moment

Single Moment

Developmental

Developmental

Fig. 2.1  Origins and areas of investigation in interlanguage pragmatics

progression. In other words, the interlanguage concept relies on two fundamental notions: the language produced by the learner is a system in its own right, obeying its own rules, and it is a dynamic system, evolving over time.

For many years, the term interlanguage pragmatics was the predominant one for the subfield of pragmatics that focuses on L2 learning and teaching, as it demonstrated – via its link to Selinker – that this subfield of pragmatics “lies at the intersection of the study of second language acquisition (SLA) and pragmatics” (Felix-Brasdefer 2013, p.  2801). In more recent years, L2 pragmatics or second language pragmatics, have also been used to refer to the same subdiscipline of pragmatics (cf. Culpeper et al. 2018; Taguchi and Röver 2017). Figure 2.1 schematically illustrates the disciplines of linguistics that provide the foundation of interlanguage pragmatics, pragmatics and second language acquisition, and the different strands of interlanguage pragmatics research. As was already stated in the definition of interlanguage pragmatics above, the process of learning L2 pragmatics can be investigated by either looking at it from a perspective that examines the effect of instruction on L2 learners’ pragmatic understanding (also referred to as their awareness or comprehension) and/or pragmatic production (e.g. Martínez Flor and Alcon Soler 2007; Halenko and Jones 2011; Usó Juan 2013; Fordyce 2013; Glaser 2014; Sadeghidizaj 2014). In addition, the pragmatic content of input materials that are used in L2 classrooms, such as textbooks, can be analysed to see what learners are exposed to (e.g. Usó Juan 2007; Ogiermann 2010; Limberg 2015; Aliyoun 2018; cf. also Sect. 2.1.12).

16

2  Literature Review

Alternatively, researchers in ILP not focusing on instruction may be examining L2 learners’ pragmatic understanding and/or pragmatic production by concentrating on other variables, such as length of stay in a study abroad context, amount of contact with native speakers, or personal feelings regarding L2 norms (e.g. Barron 2003; Felix-Brasdefer 2004; Schauer 2009; Shively 2011; Lai 2013; Osuka 2017). In both subareas, instruction and no-instruction focused interlanguage pragmatics, two different kinds of research projects examining understanding and/or production can be differentiated: studies that are conducted at a particular moment in time (called single-moment studies) to obtain insights into L2 learners’ ability to produce or comprehend L2 input,7 or longitudinal developmental studies that examine how L2 learners’ pragmatic competence develops over a period of time. An example for a single-moment study is Hassal’s (2003) investigation of requests produced by Australian learners of Indonesian and Indonesian native speakers in which he found that – probably as a result of positive transfer from their Australian English native language – the L2 learners of Indonesian mainly used the ability8 (e.g. Can you give me the salt) or the permission (e.g. May I borrow a pen?) request strategies and therefore displayed a similar preference as the Indonesian native speakers. Another example of a single moment study is the investigation of two groups of L2 learners of English attending either a German state primary school or an English language private primary school in Germany in this book (cf. Chap. 7). An example of a developmental study that investigated L2 learners’ progress over a 9-month period is my own study (Schauer 2009) that examined the pragmatic progress of German L2 learners of English in the study abroad context at an English university. The results showed that L2 learners’ ability to detect pragmatic infelicities (i.e. impolite/inappropriate language) increased significantly during their stay and that the L2 learners stopped using request strategies that were too direct (i.e. imperatives) during their sojourn in Great Britain. Another example of a developmental study, this time focusing on the effect of instruction, is Sadeghidizaj’s (2014) investigation of Iranian L2 learners of English who received explicit, implicit and no pragmatic instruction in their classes. The results of the study showed that explicit teaching of how to perform a request in English had the most impact on Iranian L2 learners’ productive pragmatic competence, as the explicitly taught group significantly decreased their use of imperatives and instead increased their use of more complex indirect request formulae, such as “I was wondering if you could give me 50 dollars to do that” (Sadeghidizaj 2014, p. 225). Many of the examples that I have included in this section are requests, i.e. utterances that are used to ask someone to do or not to do something and which in some form benefit the producer of the utterance. Requests are one of the most frequently investigated utterance types in interlanguage pragmatics and belong to the big area of

7  These studies frequently focus on a particular proficiency level of L2 learners. L2 learners’ output is often compared to native speakers’ output. 8  See 2.1.4 for a detailed discussion of request categories.

2.1 Pragmatics

17

pragmatics called speech acts. I will discuss the speech acts that I will examine in this book (requests, responses to requests, greetings, leave-takings, expressions of gratitude, responses to expressions of gratitude, apologies, suggestions, responses to suggestions, expressions of physical and mental states) in Sects. 2.1.4, 2.1.5, 2.1.6, 2.1.7, 2.1.8, 2.1.9, 2.1.10, and 2.1.11. However, before discussing individual speech acts in detail, I will provide some general background on important notions and concepts in speech act theory, as well as relevant speech act frameworks.

2.1.3  Speech Act Theory: Background As mentioned in Sect. 2.1.2, requests are one of the most frequently investigated utterance types in interlanguage pragmatics. The subfield of pragmatics they belong to – speech act theory – is one of the key areas9 of pragmatics that has attracted much research in the last 40 years. As Martínez Flor and Usó Juan (2010a, p. 6) note “[w]hile it is true that speech act theory is not the whole of pragmatics, this theory has been established as perhaps the most relevant in this field”. Focusing on interlanguage pragmatics, Bardovi-Harlig (2010, p.  219) agrees and writes that “[t]he dominant area of investigation within interlanguage pragmatics has been the speech act”. Speech Act Theory goes back to Ordinary Language Philosophy and in particular to the British philosopher John L. Austin, who worked at Oxford University, and his American student John R. Searle. Definition Austin (1962, p.  108) proposed that utterances could be divided into three components or acts: 1. the locutionary act [the actual words that the speaker uses]: “which is roughly equivalent to uttering a certain sentence” 2. the illocutionary act [the intention behind the words], “such as informing, ordering, warning […] utterances that have a certain (conventional) force” 3. the perlocutionary act [the effect the utterance has on the hearer]: “what we bring about or achieve by saying something, such as convincing, persuading, and even surprising or misleading”

9  Other core areas of pragmatics are for example implicature, politeness (cf. Sect. 2.1.11), and deixis. The latter is “a technical term from Greek […] which means pointing via language” (Yule 1996, p. 9) and tends to focus on the use of “demonstratives, first and second person pronouns, tense markers, adverbs of time and space and motion verbs” (Huang 2007, p. 133).

18

2  Literature Review

For example, a guest at a dinner party may say to another person “It is rather warm in here, isn’t it?” (locutionary act). The speaker is saying this with the intention of alerting their interlocutor to the fact that it is uncomfortably warm and that it would be a good idea to open a window (illocutionary act). The perlocutionary act then refers to the hearer’s interpretation of what has been said and could result in the hearer opening the window to make the speaker more comfortable. Of the three speech act components of a speech act (locutionary, illocutionary, perlocutionary), it is the illocutionary act which has received the most attention in pragmatics research. Closely associated with the notion of illocutionary acts is the concept of illocutionary force, “which is the communicative plan or design behind [a] s[peaker]‘s remark” (Leech 1983, p. 200). Apart from arguing that each utterance or speech act consists of the three aforementioned components, Austin also proposed a framework for categorizing utterances according to their function. This grouping of utterances based on functional equivalence is a core concern of speech act theory. In his framework, Austin (1962, p. 151) proposed five categories that utterances could be assigned to: 1. Verdictives • Typified by the giving of a verdict • Examples: estimating, appraising 2. Exercitives • Exercising of powers, rights, or influence • Examples: advising, ordering, warning 3. Commissives • Typified by promising or otherwise undertaking; they commit you to doing something • Examples: promises, declaring an intention 4. Behabitives • A miscellaneous group […] hav[ing] to do with attitudes and social behaviour • Examples: apologizing, congratulating, cursing 5. Expositives • Difficult to define – they make plain how our utterances fit into the course of an argument or a conversation, how we are using words • Examples: “I argue”, “I assume”, “I illustrate”

Thus, according to Austin, a promise would be classified as a commissive speech act that would then consist of a locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary act, e.g. speaker says I’ll look after your cat while you are away and intends this as a promise and hearer decodes this as a promise and writes down instructions for speaker on how to care for his cat. Although Austin developed both the tripart distinction of speech act components (locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary) and also a speech act categorization framework, only the former is still very much referred to. With regard to speech act categories, the framework of his student, Searle, “has been the most influential” (Allott 2010, p.  179) and “is probably the most well-known” (Holtgraves 2002, p. 14).

2.1 Pragmatics

19

Searle (1999, pp. 148–149) distinguishes five speech act categories: 1. Assertives • Commit the hearer to the truth of the proposition • Examples: statements, descriptions, classifications 2. Directives • Try to get the hearer to behave in such a way as to make his [sic] behavior match the propositional content of the directive • Examples: commands, requests, orders 3. Commissives • Committment by the speaker to undertake the course of action represented in the propositional content • Examples: promises, vows, contracts 4. Expressives • Express the sincerity condition of the speech act • Examples: apologies, thanks, congratulations 5. Declarations (declaratives) • Bring about a change in the world by representing it as having been changed • Examples: making someone redundant, excommunicating, nominating a candidate

Searle’s framework shows clearly that he was influenced by Austin’s thinking, as some categories even have the same name (e.g. commissive) and cover the same or similar content. Due to his early death in 1960, Austin’s thinking on speech acts is only available to us in a write-up of his lectures and he therefore did not have the opportunity to explain or develop his views and conceptualizations on speech acts further. His student, Searle, in contrast, has contributed to the debates about speech act theory since the 1960s. This, in addition to his somewhat more accessible way of naming and categorizing speech acts, may be the reason for the impact his speech act category framework has had. It needs to be noted, however, that other speech act frameworks have been suggested but have not received the same attention as John Searle’s. Two examples are Bruce Fraser’s speech act framework published in 1978 and Kent Bach and Robert Harnish’s speech act framework published in 1979. Fraser proposes a framework consisting of five categories (1978, p. 5): 1. Representative Acts – the speaker intends the utterance to count as committing him [or her] to the truth of what he [or she] has said. Examples include acts of stating, claiming, admitting, reporting, pointing out, mentioning, testifying and speculating. 2. Directive Acts  – the speaker intends his [or her] utterance to count as an attempt to get the hearer to carry out the act specified in his [or her] utterance. Examples include pleading, soliciting, requesting, ordering, demanding, urging, suggesting, instructing, commanding, and daring. 3. Evaluative Acts – the speaker intends his [or her] utterance to count as a reflection of his [or her] evaluation of the state of affairs specified in his [or her] utterance. Examples include thanking, criticising, praising, condemning, congratulating, applauding, and complaining. 4. Commissive Acts – the speaker intends his [or her] utterance to count as committing him [or her] to carrying out the state of affairs specified in his [or her] utterance. Examples include promising, swearing, obligating, and vowing.

20

2  Literature Review

5. Establishive Acts – the speaker intends his [or her] utterance to count as creating the new state of affairs specified in his [or her] utterance. Examples include authorizing, forbidding, permitting, granting, cancelling, appointing, classifying, excusing and forgiving.

In contrast to Austin and Searle, who are both philosophers, Fraser is a linguist and interested in how his theories can be applied to real life linguistic concerns. This is also one of the reasons why he addressed the issue of general applicability across languages with regard to his speech act framework. He (1978, p. 5) writes that [i]n presenting the taxonomy, I assume that although every language may have some of the acts identified above, it need not have them all. Nor is it necessary for each language to embody the degree of subtlety shown in English. Or possibly, a language may reflect other, different distinctions not included in English. Nevertheless, insofar as has been determined, every language organizes its speech acts along the lines indicated.

The approach of Bach and Harnish towards speech act categories is somewhat different to Fraser’s. They differentiate between six general categories which are then subdivided further and which are – in contrast to Austin and Searle’s framework – explained in more detail. Although acknowledging the work of Austin and Searle, Bach and Harnish write that “a more obvious merit (we hope) of our taxonomy is its comprehensiveness and explicitness” (1979, p. 40). They distinguish between two speech act categories: communicative and conventional speech acts. According to their framework, constatives, directives, commissives and acknowledgments belong to the communicative speech act category and effectives and verdictives belong to the conventional speech acts. Bach and Harnish note that “constatives, directives, commissives and acknowledgements […] correspond roughly to Austin’s expositives, exercitives, commissives and behabitives, respectively, and closely to Searle’s representatives, directives, commissives and expressives, although our characterization of them are different from Searle’s” (1979, pp. 40–41). Definitions and examples of their categories are (Bach and Harnish 1979, p. 41): 1. Constatives • express the speaker’s belief and his [or her] intention or desire that the hearer have or form a like belief • Examples: Assertives, Informatives, Responsives 2. Directives • express the speaker’s attitude toward some prospective action by the hearer and his [or her] intention that his [or her] utterance, or the attitude it expresses, be taken as a reason for the hearer’s action • Examples: Requestives, Questions, Permissives 3. Commissives • express the speaker’s intention and belief that his [or her] utterance obligates him [or her] to do something (perhaps under certain conditions) • Examples: Promises, Offers 4. Acknowledgments • express feelings regarding the hearer or, in cases where the utterance is clearly perfunctory or formal, the speaker’s intention that his [or her] utterance satisfy a social expectation to express certain feelings and his [or her] belief that it does • Examples: Apologize, Greet, Thank

2.1 Pragmatics

21

Effectives and verdictives are very much related to institutions and language use in institutional contexts. The authors (1979, pp. 110–111, original emphasis) argue that Effectives effect changes in institutional states of affairs; they are necessarily conventional inasmuch as they achieve their effects only because mutually believed to do so. Only thus is a student graduated, a bill vetoed, or a site consecrated. Verdictives are judgments that by convention have official, binding import in the context of the institution in which they occur. Thus, to call a runner out, to find a defendant guilty, or to assess a piece of property is not just to make a judgment; given the position and attendant authority of an umpire, a judge, or a tax assessor, it is also to make it the case, if only so far as the relevant institution is concerned, that what is judged to be so is so in fact. Generally speaking, conventional illocutionary acts, whether effective or verdictive, are endemic to particular institutions. In most instances they affect the institutional status of persons or things.

Since this book focuses on speech acts, it is important to discuss the origins of the subject matter which this book will address and to cover relevant theory that provided the foundations of much of interlanguage pragmatics research. As the next sections will show, some definitions used by interlanguage pragmatics researchers refer to technical terms that go back to Austin (e.g. illocutionary force). However, what the discussion of individual speech acts in the subsequent sections will also frequently show is that researchers in pragmatics may not always agree on how frameworks or categories ought to be conceptualized or defined. While this may be somewhat frustrating at times – because it may not occur to the same extent in other disciplines of linguistics – it is important to remember that debates about how to categorize utterances are rather normal in pragmatics and have taken place since the early days of speech act theory, as this section has demonstrated. In the following, I will introduce and discuss speech acts that are particularly relevant for L2 learners and that will also be focused on in the textbook analysis. As they are one of the most frequently used speech acts, I will begin with requests.

2.1.4  Speech Act Theory: Requests Requests have received much attention in pragmatics research and according to Ogiermann (2009, p.  190) are “the most frequently studied speech act in cross-­ cultural and interlanguage pragmatics”. Definition A very simple definition of a request is a speech act in which a speaker or writer asks someone to do or not do something. Safont Jordà (2008, p. 42) notes that “request speech acts are performed by the speaker [or writer] in order to engage the hearer [or reader] in some future course of action that coincides with the speaker’s goal”.

22

2  Literature Review

Requests can cover a large variety of subject matters, such as asking someone to (a) pass an item to someone, (b) move out of someone’s way, (c) provide some kind of information (e.g. directions), which are all of minor cost to the interlocutor, or they can address issues that are of considerable cost to the interlocutor, e.g. (d) lend a large amount of money, (e) check a friend’s flat and feed his cat on a daily basis for 2  weeks, or (f) explain a very complex issue for several hours. Requests belonging to this former category of being of relatively low cost to the interlocutor are called low-imposition requests, while requests that are at a high cost to the interlocutor are called high-imposition requests. In the case of young EFL learners, the assumption would be that they would need to primarily be able to produce and comprehend low-imposition requests, as high-imposition requests tend to be directed at L2 learners with greater maturity and age. Requests were also one of the two speech acts investigated in the Cross-cultural Speech Act Realization Project and have been widely investigated in the field of first language pragmatics.10 Fraser (1978, p. 6) offers the following explanation for why requests are so popular in pragmatics: Requests are very frequent in language use (far more frequent, for example, than apologizing or promising); requests are very important to the second language learner; they have been researched in more detail than any other type of speech act; they permit a wide variety of strategies for their performance and finally, they carry with them a good range of subtle implications involving politeness, deference, and mitigation.

According to Leech (2014, p. 134) “English has an amazing range of conveying requests and it exhibits a tendency to favour indirectness of requests more than most other languages, indirectness here being closely connected with politeness”. I will address politeness in more detail in Sect. 2.1.11, but it is important to already note here that not performing a request according to the norms of the target language can have negative consequences for L2 learners, such as being perceived as rude and potentially not achieving their communicative aims (cf. e.g. Schauer 2006, 2009, Economidou-Kogetsidis 2011, 2016). A number of different frameworks for the analysis of request have been developed over the years (e.g. House and Kasper 1981; Blum-Kulka et al. 1989; Trosborg 1995). Both, the categorization system for request strategies proposed by the contributors to the CCSARP, and Trosborg’s 1995 framework have been frequently employed in interlanguage pragmatics research. Since these two frameworks also form the basis of the request strategy framework that is used for the analysis of request strategies in this book (cf. 3.5.1 for more details), I have included both frameworks in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 here. Requests strategies 1–5 are called direct requests in the CCSARP’s framework, while requests strategies 6 and 7 are called conventionally indirect requests and

 This subfield of pragmatics investigates pragmatic production and perception of native speakers. Early studies on requests in first language pragmatics sometimes used the term “directives” referring to Searle’s framework instead of the term requests (cf. Ervin-Tripp 1976).

10

2.1 Pragmatics

23

Table 2.1  Request framework based on CCSARP (1989, p. 18) Nr. Strategy Name 1 Mood derivable 2 Performative 3

Hedged performative

4

Obligation statement Want statement Suggestory formulae Query preparatory

5 6 7

8

Strong hint

9

Mild hint

Definition Utterances in which the grammatical mood of the verb signals illocutionary force Utterances in which the illocutionary force is explicitly named Utterances in which the naming of the illocutionary force is modified by a hedging expression Utterances which state the obligation of the hearer to carry out the act Utterances which state the speaker’s desire that the hearer carries out the act. Utterances which contain a suggestion to do x Utterances containing reference to preparatory conditions (e.g. ability, willingness) as conventionalized in any specific language Utterances containing partial reference to object or element needed for the implementation of the act Utterances that make no reference to the request proper (or any of its elements) but are interpretable as a request by context

Example Leave me alone! I am asking you to clean up that mess! I would like to ask you to give your presentation a week earlier than scheduled. You’ll have to move the car. I really wish you’d stop bothering me. How about cleaning up? Could you clear up the kitchen, please? Would you mind moving your car? You have left the kitchen in a right mess. I am a nun (in response to a persistent hassler)

requests strategies 8 and 9 are called non-conventionally indirect requests. These three directness levels also signify the length of the hearer’s or reader’s inferential (i.e. decoding) process. This means that the more direct requests strategies tend to be decoded more quickly with regard to their intended meaning than the more indirect strategies. The idea behind conventionally indirect requests is that individuals familiar with the conventions of the target language (i.e. competent native speakers who have been socialized into the norms and conventions of their L1 and who have completed this socialisation successfully or proficient L2 learners) are aware that certain utterance such as Can you pass me the book? carry conventional meaning that can differ from the literal. In the example Can you pass me the book? the intention of the producer of the utterance (i.e. the illocutionary act) in most circumstances tends to be to receive the book referred to in the utterance and not to enquire whether the interlocutor has the necessary muscle strength to lift and pass the book. The anticipated perlocutionary act would then be an affirmative response (either verbally or non-verbally) followed by handing over the book, or an implied affirmative response demonstrated only by handing over the book.

24

2  Literature Review

Table 2.2  Request framework based on Trosborg (1995, p. 205, slightly abbreviated) Nr Directness level 1 Indirect request 1 Indirect request

Strategy name Hints (mild) Hints (strong)

2

Ability

Example I have to be at the airport in half an hour. My car has broken down. Will you be using your car? Could you lend me your car?

Willingness

Would you lend me your car?

Permission

May I borrow your car?

Suggestory formulae

How about lending me your car?

Wishes

I would like to borrow your car.

Desires/needs

I want/need to borrow your car.

Obligation Performatives (hedged) Performatives (unhedged) Imperatives Elliptical phrases

You must/have to lend me your car. I would like to ask you to lend me your car.

6 7

Conventionally indirect Conventionally indirect Conventionally indirect Conventionally indirect Conventionally indirect Conventionally indirect Direct Direct

7

Direct

8 8

Direct Direct

2 2 3 4 5

I ask/require you to lend me your car. Lend me your car. Your car (please).

Linguistic studies working with recordings of authentic11 English native speaker data (e.g. Aijmer 1996; Culpeper and Gillings 2018) have shown that the conventionally indirect ability strategy, e.g. Could you give me the butter, is frequently used in English. If L2 learners are not (sufficiently) familiar with conventional expressions for speech acts in the target language, this can lead to misunderstandings and L2 speakers/writers not achieving their communicative goals, as in the case of Schmidt’s Japanese learner of English in Sect. 2.1.2. Although also distinguishing direct, non-conventionally indirect and indirect requests, Trosborg’s overview of request strategies presents a slightly different conceptualisation of requests than the CCSARP framework. In contrast to the CCSARP framework, her framework moves from the most indirect requests at the top to the most direct requests at the bottom, and thus presents the directness levels in reverse order to the CCSARP level (1 is non-conventionally indirect, 2–5 are convention Authentic English native speaker data refers to recordings of spoken language or written texts that researchers in linguistics have examined. Typically, these data form part of language corpora, which may be accessible to everyone or may be accessible only for a particular group of people (e.g. individuals belonging to a particular institution). These corpora include large amounts of written texts (either originally written or transcripts of spoken texts) that tend to have been partially pre-coded by linguists. Corpus websites offering public access to a corpora are https://corpus.byu. edu/ and http://corpora.lancs.ac.uk/bnc2014/signup.php  (cf. Love et al. 2017). A helpful general introduction to corpus linguistics is McEnery and Hardie (2012).

11

2.1 Pragmatics

25

ally indirect and 6–8 are direct). Strategies that belong to the same level are given the same number. While Trosborg is using some of the CCSARP request strategy names (e.g. mild and strong hints, suggestory formulae), she is also introducing other terms in her framework (e.g. she refers to imperatives instead of mood derivables). In addition, she proposes a different directness classification for what is called a want statement in the CCSARP and classified as a direct strategy. In her framework, the equivalent is called desires/needs and classified as conventionally indirect. This indicates that even though there may be some consensus on the classification of several categories, there is no general agreement on a definite categorization system for request strategies. For the present investigation, I therefore used a combination of both frameworks that seemed to represent my data best (cf. Sect. 3.5.1). Many studies comparing the use of different request strategies by English native speakers and L2 learners of English have been conducted in interlanguage pragmatics. Summarizing the results of studies examining more advanced L2 learners, Usó-Juan (2010, p. 242) writes that [t]he overall results obtained in these studies suggest that both learners of English and English native speakers favoured strategies belonging to conventionally indirect requests. However, when learners do not use this strategy type they tend to resort to direct strategies more frequently than the English native speakers.

Regarding the use of request strategies by young learners of English, Rose (2000) conducted a cross-sectional study12 on Cantonese native speakers attending a primary school in Hong Kong. Participants in his study were three primary year groups (2, 4, 6) which comprised children of an average age of 7, 9 and 11 years respectively. He found that the percentage of children not being able to formulate requests based on a variety of cartoon prompts decreased from year group 2 to year group 6 with 49% of children in year group 2 not being able to produce requests, followed by 12.1% of children in year group 4 and only 1.1% in year group 6. In addition, the children’s use of direct strategies also decreased with increasing age and increasing proficiency level from year 2 (11.06%), to year 4 (0.7%) with a minimal increase in year 6 (1.1%). At the same time, the use of indirect strategies increased over the years: 35.4% (year 2), 85.7% (year 4), 96.8% (year 6). This study therefore suggests that young L2 learners not living in an English-­ speaking target country will decrease their use of direct strategies and increase their use of indirect strategies with increasing age and proficiency level. This will then bring them in-line with English native speaker preferences (cf. Leech 2014) and should be the aim of teaching requests in the EFL classroom. In addition to the individual request strategies that speakers or writers may use to formulate their requests, a considerable amount of research has also been conducted on L2 learners’ ability to further modify the illocutionary force of the utterance with

12

 See 2.1.14 for details on how the data were collected.

26

2  Literature Review

internal and external modifiers. Internal modifiers13 are defined as linguistic and syntactic devices that modify the illocutionary force of the request, such as the politeness marker please or the past tense modal could.14 External modifiers (which are also called supportive moves) are defined as additional statements which support the head act of the request, i.e. the request proper. Examples are the grounder (which provides a reason for the request) and the attention getter (which is employed to obtain the interlocutor’s attention). Thus, the request Excuse me, could you please tell me the way to the station? consists of one external modifiers, namely the attention getter Excuse me which precedes the head act could you please tell me the way to the station. In addition, the request contains the two internal modifiers could (past tense modal) and please (politeness marker). Numerous studies have addressed the employment of external and internal modifiers by advanced L2 learners of English and have compared them to English native speakers’ use of request modifiers (cf. Economidou-Kogetsidis and Woodfield’s edited volume on request modification published in 2012). Studies focusing on advanced adult learners of English found that internal modifiers were used less frequently by L2 learners than by native speakers (e.g. Economidou-­Kogetsidis 2008 focusing on Greek learners of English), that L2 learners had a smaller repertoire of internal modifiers (e.g. Woodfield 2008 focusing on Japanese and German learners of English), that L2 learners tended to overuse external modifiers (e.g. House and Kasper 1987 focusing on German learners of English) and that German learners studying English in the German higher education context had a smaller external modifier repertoire than German learners of English in the British higher education context (Schauer 2007). Thus, even advanced L2 learners of English tend to struggle somewhat with including request modifiers in a manner that is similar to that of English native speakers. My own interviews with English native speakers (e.g. Schauer 2009) have shown that the absence of modifiers such as the politeness marker please, tend to be perceived negatively by native speakers if they consider the L2 learner to generally be of an advanced proficiency level. Studies examining the actual language use of English native speakers in real-life conversations have also found that the politeness marker is frequently used in English (e.g. Aijmer 1996; Culpeper and Gillings 2018). It is therefore important for advanced learners to have a good repertoire of external and internal modifiers and to be able to use them appropriately. Interlocutors’ expectations regarding the use of external and internal modifiers are likely to be

 Internal modifiers can be subdivided further into upgraders (which increase the illocutionary force of the request), and downgraders (which decrease the illocutionary force of the request). Upgraders can for example be intensifiers such as really or very as in “I really need to go” or “It’s very urgent” (Schauer 2009, p. 91). Examples for downgraders are the politeness marker please and downtoners such as just or maybe as in “Just a minute” or “Could I maybe have some of them” (Schauer 2009, p. 90). 14  Leech (2014) provides a very detailed discussion of modals that are used in requests. With regard to could he writes “[t]he choice of the hypothetical, distancing from could marks the utterance with the indirectness characteristic of a polite request” (2014, p. 155). 13

2.1 Pragmatics

27

considerably lower in the case of young L2 learners. Nevertheless, even young learners of English should be able to use some basic modifiers, since some of them are taught early on to native speakers of English, as the frequently overheard instruction of parents to their young children Mind your ps and qs referring to pleases and thank yous demonstrates (see also Sect. 2.1.13 on L1 pragmatic development).

2.1.5  Speech Act Theory: Responses to Requests While requests have been examined extensively in pragmatics, very few studies (e.g. Felix-Brasdefer 2015) are available which actually use the wording responses to requests, as Sadeghidizaj (2014) also notes. One of the reasons for this is probably that one possible response to a request – the refusal – has received much attention (e.g. Takahashi and Beebe 1987; Kondo 2008; Eslami 2010; Yamanaka and Fordyce 2010; Al-Gathani and Röver 2018) because it can be very face-threatening, and that as a result all other possible responses (e.g. granting a request) were considered less interesting. This is unfortunate because individuals engaging in communication should be able to do both: produce a request and respond to a request. With regard to the latter, the responsive15 speech act, they should be able to reply in a manner that reflects their aims and wishes. Definition In this book, I will differentiate three different types of request responses. These responses are: (a) refusing a request, (b) granting a request (c) answering a request. When refusing a request, the interlocutor tells the person who has made the request that they will not perform the desired action. When granting a request, the interlocutor tells the person who has made the request that that they will perform the desired action. Both refusing and granting a request need to be distinguished from answering a request, which entails providing the information the interlocutor asked for, e.g. A: How old are you? B: I’m nine.

I will now discuss the three possible request response options that I have identified. As mentioned above, refusals have been examined in interlanguage pragmatics in detail in the past. Takahashi and Beebe (1987, p. 133) note that “The inability to  Responsive speech acts are speech acts that happen as a second pair part to a preceding utterance, for example, a response to a suggestion, a response to a request or a response to an expression of gratitude.

15

28

2  Literature Review

say ‘no’ clearly and politely, though not too directly, has led many non-­native speakers to offend their interlocutors. The problem seems to stem in part from cross-cultural differences in refusal patterns”. Eslami (2010, p. 232) argues that “[l]earners exposure to the way refusals are realised in different contexts is of outmost importance in ESL/EFL instructional settings”. Investigating adult learners of different proficiency levels, Al-Gathani and Röver found that beginner level learners relied on direct refusals including the word no and that their L2 learners displayed a more varied and elaborate use of refusal strategies with increasing proficiency level, e.g. intermediate level learners began to use the exclamation oh and advanced level learners employed expressions of regret to soften the impact of the refusal. Investigating young L2 learners’ ability to understand different speech acts, Lee (2010) examined16 the comprehension of direct and indirect refusals by Cantonese native speaking EFL learners in three age groups (aged 7, 9, 12). Below are two sample refusals of requests that were designed by the researcher, Lee. The situations feature a child character called Mei Mei and her interlocutors. The first one is a direct refusal from Mei Mei to a classmate called Fong Fong. The second one is an indirect refusal occurring in a conversation between a teacher and Mei Mei: 1. Fong Fong: “Mei Mei can I take a look at your English worksheet?” Mei Mei: “Sorry, I don’t think it is right to do so.” 2. Mei Mei: “Teacher may I go out?” Teacher: “After finishing this part.” (Lee 2010, p. 372). The results of Lee’s study involving young EFL learners in Hong Kong aged 7, 9 and 12 years showed that with increasing age and proficiency level young L2 learners got better at understanding direct refusals. Learners’ ability to correctly understand the direct refusal in example 1 increased from 50.7% (7-year-olds) to 69.8% (9-year olds) and to finally 78.0% (12-year-olds). In contrast, young L2 learners’ ability to correctly decode indirect refusals remained lower throughout with 17.6% (7-year-olds), 32.3% (9-year-olds) and 29.4 (12-year-olds) and also did not show a linear increase in accordance with L2 learners’ age and proficiency level. Since young learners at the age levels investigated even had problems identifying indirect refusals, it does not seem to make much sense to focus on this refusal type in EFL primary classrooms. Instead, given their age and general low proficiency level even at the end of their time in primary school, it is far more important to enable young learners to say no decisively. As Al-Ghathani and Röver (2018, p. 151) argue [f]or Beginner learners, a lexical item like ‘no’ is a highly efficient way to make a refusal […] Low-proficiency learners are not incapable of performing social actions, they just do so with the limited tools they have available, and with a focus on message and limiting processing effort. […] As processing capacity increases with increasing proficiency, learners can package their message more conventionally and with a greater overt orientation to the interlocutor. 16

 See Sect. 2.1.14 for details about the data collection method.

2.1 Pragmatics

29

Al-Gathani and Röver’s points are highly relevant because young EFL learners in primary classrooms are just beginning their foreign language learning journey. Thus, while they should be equipped with basic (and ideally also polite) strategies to achieve their aims when communicating in the foreign language, they will have much opportunity to acquire more intricate and advanced strategies in the later stages of their language learning career. The second possible response to a request that I will discuss is granting a request, i.e. telling or otherwise indicating to an interlocutor that their request will be fulfilled. Accepting a request can be done by using words that clearly indicate acceptance or agreement, such as yes, or it can be done by simply doing what was asked for by the interlocutor, e.g. handing over the salt. In addition to agreement tokens, such as yes, there are also other expressions that can be used to indicate to the interlocutor that their request is granted. Two expressions that can be used when granting a request for smaller items are here you go and here you are. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, the expression here you go comes from American English and tells the interlocutor “this is the object you asked me to give you” (Cambridge Dictionary n.d.), while MacMillan Dictionary (n.d.) notes that here you are/go is “used when you are giving someone something that they have asked for or that they have just bought, [e.g.] Here you go sir. I’m sure she’ll love these”. In the preceding example the expression is used in a service encounter and the speaker using it is the salesperson directing the utterance to the customer. However, both expressions here you are and here you go can also be used by individuals who are customers, as an example from Kecskes (2015, p. 173) recorded at the University Library of the State University of New York at Albany in the United States shows: Student: Librarian: Student: Librarian:

I am returning these books. Can I see your library card, please? Here you are … Do you want to extend the due date of any of these books?

In a study involving young EFL learners in a partial immersion17 context in a French primary school, Girard and Sionis (2004) found that their beginner level learners of English aged 5–7 years were able to use here you are in social interaction and role plays. Thus, it would not seem too early for young learners in grades 3 and 4 of German primary schools to encounter these expressions and to expect them to be able to comprehend and produce these in situations involving requests.

 The authors of the study describe the partial immersion context of their young L2 learners as follows (Girard and Sionis 2004, p. 32): Usually, total immersion consists in giving education (i.e. the whole regular national curriculum) in a foreign language. In the present case, the children learn math and science in French in the morning and have other activities in English with a 25-year-old Welsh teacher in the afternoon. The teacher resorts to a method based on short videos and interactive role-play games. There were 15 children aged 5–7 at the beginning of the observation. All of them were French, with French-speaking parents, except for a Romanian boy, whose mother tongue was Romanian, who had already started learning English in an international school and was currently learning French.

17

30

2  Literature Review

The final category of a request response that I will focus on here is called answer to the request. This request response typically follows a request for information. I will subdivide this category into positive (e.g. A: Have you got a brother? B: Yes, I’ve got a brother.), negative (A: Are you from York? B: No, I am not.) and neutral (A: What are your hobbies? B: My hobbies are reading and swimming.) in my analysis of the data. The answer category of request responses has, like granting a request, received relatively little research attention in interlanguage pragmatics. However, Edmondson and House (1981), introduced the term tells for a request response that covers similar ground as the tripartite distinction I mentioned above. They (1981, pp. 177–178) write [t]he Tell we might call the most ‘neutral’ informative illocution. […] The assumption behind a Tell is that the content of the illocution – the ‘fact’ communicated – is of interest and relevance to the hearer’s concerns and interests, and Tells are therefore made as a response […] to the hearer’s explicit or implicit desire to know the fact. […] Tells then commonly satisfy Requests for Tells, and appear in highly simplistic […] exchange structures.

Given that there is very little research on answers to requests in interlanguage pragmatics research involving adult learners, it is not surprising that the body of literature available on young learners is also very limited. In their study of young first language learners, Salomo, Lieven and Thomasello (2013, p. 470) noted that “[t]here is very little research on young children’s question answering and whether they provide the appropriate information required by the question”. Thus, more research is needed on EFL learners and especially young EFL learners’ production and comprehension of request responses that are not refusals.

2.1.6  Speech Act Theory: Greetings and Leave-Takings Like requests, greetings and leave-takings also occur very frequently in everyday life. Definition According to Aijmer (1996, p. 2) greetings are “conversational routines […] [or] formulaic speech acts […] which serve as more or less automatic responses to recurring features of the communication situation”.

This means that competent speakers of a language know when to greet someone or say goodbye and also tend to have a repertoire of different greeting and leave-­ taking expressions at their disposal, which they employ according to the contextual conditions of the specific situation that they are in. For example, while it would be considered appropriate to greet a neighbour one has lived next to for some time but does not know well with an informal Hello accompanied by a friendly smile or nod,

2.1 Pragmatics

31

Table 2.3  Greeting and Leave-taking framework (Edmondson and House 1981; House 1982) Category Name Definition Greets In performing a Greet, a speaker ritually recognizes the presence of the hearer, and salutes him [or her] as a fellow social member. […] An initiating Greet is therefore satisfied by a responding Greet, and often the same [words] are exchanged. (Edmondson and House 1981, p. 188) How-Are-Yous In using a How-are-you, a speaker asks after the hearer, or a close relative or friend, in order to express a ritual interest in his [or her] welfare. (Edmondson and House 1981, p. 188) Responses to How-Are-Yous

[These] tend to be equally ritual. (Edmondson and House 1981, p. 189)

Identification

A speaker reveals his [or her] identity by giving his [or her] particular name […] (House 1982, p. 56) A Leave-take actually achieves the termination of an encounter and [is] clearly satisfied by its reciprocation. (Edmondson and House 1981, p. 196)

Leave-Takes

Wish-Wells

Wish-Wells tend to occur in the closing phase of a conversation […] [A] speaker expresses his [or her] positive attitude towards his [or her] hearer by “wishing him [or her] well” for the future, either in general terms or with respect to some forthcoming event. (Edmondson and House 1981, p. 196)

Example Good morning Hello Hi How are you? How are things? I’m fine thanks Not too bad My name is xy Bye bye Goodbye See you Have a nice weekend. Have a good holiday. Have fun.

it may not be appropriate to use the same greeting in a more formal situation, e.g. when meeting a high-ranking state representative in a formal context, such as the Queen of England. With regard to children’s ability to perform and comprehend greetings Eisenstein Ebsworth, Bodman and Carpenter (1995, p. 89) write [g]reetings are among the first speech acts that are learned by children in their native language. Dogancay (1990) identifies greetings among the routines explicitly taught to children. Greetings commonly appear in the speech of American English-speaking children between the ages of nine months to eighteen months. Greeting is important in developing and maintaining social bonds in all age groups. In fact, greeting rituals have been found in nearly all cultures (Levinson 1983).

Thus, it is reasonable to expect that even young learners of a foreign language will be able to employ some simple greeting and leave-taking strategies. Two frameworks for the analysis of greetings and leave-takings were developed at the beginnings of interlanguage pragmatics as a subdiscipline of pragmatics by Edmondson and House (1981) and House (1982). Table 2.3 presents categories from their frameworks that are particularly relevant for young beginner level learners. Strategies that are more typical of advanced and/or adult learners or native speakers have been omitted.

32

2  Literature Review

According to House and Edmondson (1981) and House (1982), Greets as well as Leave-takes tend to be reciprocated and in the case of greetings the same expressions are frequently used (cf. also Ferguson 1976), e.g. 1. Teacher: Good morning, boys and girls. Class: Good morning, Mrs Smith. 2. Friend: See you later. Friend: Bye. Unfortunately, greetings and leave-takings have not been researched very much in interlanguage pragmatics, although a number of studies have addressed greetings from cross-cultural perspective (e.g. Ferguson 1976 comparing American English and Syrian Arabic; Grieve and Seebus 2008 comparing Australian and German telephone greetings; Farese 2015 comparing the Italian ciao and the English hi) or have focused on languages or varieties that have not received much research attention to date (e.g. Naden 1980 examining greetings in the African language Bisa; Sherzer 1999 exploring the greeting rituals of the Kuna Indians in Panama; Akhimien 2004 describing the use of How are you in Nigerian English; Nilsson et al. 2018 investigating Swedish Swedish and Finnish Swedish greetings). One of the few studies that has addressed greetings and leave-takings is a recent one by Aliyoun (2018) in which he investigated the presentation of greeting and leave-taking categories in two beginner to intermediate level EFL textbooks series for secondary school students in Germany (Lighthouse Series by Cornelsen) and Iran (Prospect Series by the Textbook Publishing Company of Iran). He found that in the books for years 1–3, the Lighthouse series included considerably more Greets, How-Are-Yous and Identification than the Prospect series (e.g. Lighthouse included 228 Greets compared to 23 Greets in Prospect), but that certain expressions were under-represented in both books (e.g. there were only 4 Good Morning Greets each in both series). His investigation further showed that the number of Leave-takes in both textbook series was considerably lower than the Greets presented in the two textbook series with 69 Leave-takes in Lighthouse and 2  in Prospect. Thus, L2 learners working with these books will only be exposed to a limited number of leave-taking instances and will also encounter few complete dialogues that start with a Greet and finish with a Leave-take, which is not helpful for the ILP development of EFL learners.

2.1.7  S  peech Act Theory: Expressions of Gratitude and Responses to Expressions of Gratitude Being able to thank someone for a positive action they have done is important for all individuals partaking in social interactions.

2.1 Pragmatics

33

Definition As Jautz (2013, pp. 1–2) notes [t]hanking is considered a prime example of polite verbal behaviour and is thus often realized with the help of routine formulae. […] However, it is not enough to know the very words thank you or thanks, but […] also to know when and how they are used, as speaker’s use of thanking routines differ according to situations of use […].

Wang et al. (2015, p. 1039) who conducted a cross-cultural study on American English and Chinese note that “[g]ratitude is a socially desirable virtue that is said to benefit humankind at societal, relational, and individual levels. Feeling and expressing gratitude has long been viewed as a moral virtue”. Focusing on early pragmatic instruction in children’s first language and also on the impact of thanking or not thanking someone, Eisenstein and Bodman (1993, p. 64) wrote [e]xpressing gratitude has important social value in American English. One indications of its importance is that it is one of the few functions that most speakers can remember being explicitly taught as children. Used frequently in a wide range of interpersonal relationships, this function, when appropriately expressed, can engender feelings of warmth and solidarity among interlocutors. Conversely, the failure to express gratitude adequately can have negative consequences for the relationship of speaker and listener.

This view is also supported by the social anthropologist Fox (2014) for the British context. Interlanguage pragmatics research on expressions of gratitude is very much linked to Eisenstein and Bodman’s studies, since their investigations were among the earliest in the field. They conducted their research in the early 1980s and 1990s and together with Coulmas (1981) – who had written a more theoretical paper comparing the features of expressions of gratitude with responses to expressions of gratitude and with apologies – are one of the most frequently cited scholars in this sub-field of ILP. Eisenstein and Bodman (1986, pp. 180–183) developed the following categories for the various components of expressions of gratitude as a result of their research involving adult L2 learners of English in the United States and American English native speakers: • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Thanking (e.g. Thanks; Thank you; Thank you very much) Compliment (e.g. You’re a life saver) Complimenting the action (e.g. You saved my life) Complimenting the event (e.g. It was a wonderful lunch) Complimenting the object (e.g. That’s beautiful) Complimenting the person (e.g. That’s very kind of you) Expressing appreciation (e.g. I really appreciate this) Expressing liking (e.g. I love it) Expressing relief (e.g. Oh, God.) Expressing reluctance to accept (e.g. Are you sure this is all right?) Expressing surprise (e.g Oh, how pretty) Expressing the lack of necessity (e.g. You didn’t have to do that) Promising to reciprocate (e.g. Next time it’s my treat)

34

2  Literature Review

Unfortunately, the categories Eisenstein and Bodman used are often not explained in detail or at all, and therefore are also not always clearly differentiated (e.g. while sometimes subcategories for compliments are provided, some examples are just coded as compliment), which is regrettable. A possible reason for their – at times rather unconventional – approach could be that at the beginning of interlanguage pragmatics as a discipline, specific approaches to data coding and data description were still works in progress and that the somewhat more standardized approach towards the description and definition of categories that resulted from the CCSARP was still being developed. Several years later, Svenja Adolphs and I (Schauer and Adolphs 2006) developed a model for expressions of gratitude that was based on authentic and elicited data from British English native speakers. We made a major differentiation between basic and extended expressions of gratitude. Basic expressions consisted of short thanking expressions that (a) only conveyed appreciation towards the interlocutor but nothing more and (b) were rather short. The basic expressions were then coded according to the lexical items involved in the thanking expression, e.g. thank you, thanks, ta, cheers, thank you very much. Thus, the basic expressions either included only lexical items referring to gratitude (e.g. thank you) or lexical items referring to gratitude and intensifiers, such as (thank you very much). The extended expressions of gratitude were coded according to their function. Based on our data, we assigned them to six distinct categories (Schauer and Adolphs 2006, pp. 127–130): • Thanking + complimenting interlocutor (e.g. Thank you very much. That’s much appreciated.) • Thanking + stating reason (e.g. Thank you very much for coming.) • Thanking + confirming interlocutor’s commitment (e.g. Are you sure? OK, thanks.) • Thanking + stating intent to reciprocate (e.g. Thanks very much, I’ll get it next time.) • Thanking + stating interlocutor’s non-existent obligation (e.g. Wow, you shouldn’t have.) • Thanking + refusing (e.g. Ah, no, it’s okay, thank you.)

It needs to be noted that both frameworks are included here to provide an overview of how thanking expressions of adult L2 learners or native speakers may be coded. While Eisenstein and Bodman’s (1993, p.  68) research showed that advanced adult L2 learners of English who were living in the United States and represented a number of different L1s (Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Russian, Spanish) “were successful on the whole in responding in a native-like manner to situations requiring simple, […] ritualized expressions of gratitude, [situations] requiring complex speech act [thanking] sets were problematic for many of [them]”. Bardovi-Harlig et al. (2008) conducted a study which also included thanking scenarios and compared American English native speakers with intermediate to advanced adult English L2 learners living in the United States with similar L1 backgrounds as in Eisenstein and Bodman’s study (Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean). They also found that their L2 learners could produce simple thanking expressions such as thank you and thanks, but displayed problems with situations that required at least the use of intensifiers, such as very much or so much in addition to the aforementioned lexical items.

2.1 Pragmatics

35

While these results provide some insights into the difficulties intermediate to advanced level adult L2 learners may face, the question that needs to be asked for the present investigation into young EFL learners is of course what do they need to know? I would argue that they should be able to produce simple thanking expressions that are frequently used by native speakers and are appropriate in the widest possible range of situations. As was the case with requests and responses to requests, young EFL learners need to know expressions of gratitude, because they are universally used (Coulmas 1981, p. 70) and even small children below the age of five are able and expected to produce them in English (Greif and Gleason 1980, see also Sect. 2.1.13). So, what are the simple expressions of gratitude that are frequently used and tend to be appropriate in most contexts? The studies by Eisenstein and Bodman (1986, 1993) and Bardovi-Harlig et al. (2008) that elicited thanking data from L2 learners and native speakers of American English have already shown that the simple frequently used thanking expressions in American English involve routines that are based on the slightly more formal thank you or the slightly more informal thanks either with intensifiers or without, e.g. “Thank you” (Eisenstein and Bodman 1993, p. 77) or “Thank you very much” (Bardovi-Harlig, Rose and Nickels 2008, p. 120). Comparing authentic British English and New Zealand English expressions of gratitude that were produced from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s in the case of the British data and from the late 1980s to the mid-1990s in the case of the data from New Zealand, Jautz (2013, p.  84) found that thank  +  pronoun was the most frequently used expression (311 instances in the British and 219 instances in the New Zealand data) followed by thanks (116 instances in the British and 151 instances in the New Zealand data). In contrast, other expressions, such as cheers (6 instances in the British and 4 in the New Zealand data) or ta (no instances in the British and 6 instances in the New Zealand data) were rarely used. In our study (Schauer and Adolphs 2006), we compared naturally occurring data collected from native speakers of British English between 1994 and 2001 with questionnaire data elicited from young adult British English native speakers in 2001. We also found that thank you and thanks were very highly represented in our data: thank you (440 naturally occurring instances and 16 questionnaire instances), thanks (136 naturally occurring instances and 20 questionnaire instances). However, in contrast to Jautz (2013) we found a larger number of the informal expressions cheers (212 naturally occurring and 14 questionnaire instances) and ta (24 naturally occurring and 2 questionnaire instances). This shows that compared to Jautz’s (2013) study which focused on earlier data and did not show any instances of ta in the British data, both informal expressions are in use British and New Zealand English. This means that L2 learners communicating with native speakers from Great Britain or New Zealand may well hear these expressions directed at them or may overhear them during a stay abroad in either of these countries. Does this mean that young beginner level EFL learners should be able to actively produce these expressions of gratitude? My answer would

36

2  Literature Review

be “no”. Young EFL learners should first of all be given plenty of opportunity to produce and respond to simple highly frequent expressions of gratitude, such as thank you. Once they have mastered this, they can then be exposed to a wider range of strategies in their intermediate language learning years. In addition to expressions of gratitude, L2 learners should also be familiar with responses to expressions of gratitude. Definition On responses to expressions of gratitude, Leech (2014, p. 200) writes polite responses to thanks are minimizers – minimizing the debt that the thanker has expressed toward the thanked. Negative expressions are characteristic: It doesn’t matter; No problem. (The less common negative response Don’t mention it is a paradoxical oddity, in that it forbids, too late, what has just been said.) Also characteristic are responses like You’re welcome or ((It’s) my) pleasure that express S[peaker]’s happiness or willingness to do H[earer] a good turn, by implication minimizing the need for gratitude. The discourse markers all right (with its variant spelling alright), right, or okay (with its variant spelling OK) can also be responses signalling that the thanks are accepted: the speaker feels no debt (now) exists and is ready to close the topic and move on.

Given that the number of studies in pragmatics that investigate expressions of gratitude is – compared to studies investigating requests or apologies – rather small, it is not surprising that responses to thanking have not been focused on much to date. Because of this, I will first review three studies (Schneider 2005; Bieswanger 2015; Dikin 2018) that examined the use of responses to expressions of gratitude in different varieties of English: American English, British English, Canadian English, and Irish English, before moving on to a study that compared L2 learners and native speakers’ production of thanking responses (Schauer 2001). Schneider (2005) compared thanking responses by British, Irish and American native speakers who were all teenagers or young adults. The data were collected with a questionnaire. The five most frequent thanking responses of his study are presented in Table 2.4 (the list includes the main lexical item identified in the thanking response, e.g. welcome for all expressions including welcome such as you’re welcome).

Table 2.4  Five most frequent thanking response expressions in Schneider (2005, p. 117) Responses including Welcome Okay Anytime No problem Pleasure

Irish English 51 (34.2%) 14 (9.4%) 38 (25.5%) 36 (24.2%) 1 (0.7%)

British English 21 (16.3%) 66 (51.2%) 16 (12.4%) 8 (6.2%) 8 (6.2%)

US American English 69 (53.5%) 1 (0.8%) 24 (18.6%) 26 (20.2%) 4 (3.1%)

2.1 Pragmatics

37

The results of the top five strategies in Schneider’s (2005) study show that there are considerable differences in English native speakers’ use of thanking responses depending on which variety of English they were speaking. For example, while more than 50% of the American English native speakers used an expression containing welcome, only 6.3% of the British native speakers used this expression. Instead, the majority of the British English speakers used a response that included okay. While both the American and British data indicated clear preferences for one particular strategy that was used in more than 50% of the cases, the Irish English native speakers did not have a clear preference. Although they preferred responses ­containing welcome (34.2%), the next two response types were almost equally popular, e.g. expressions including anytime (25.5%) or no problem (24.2%). In a study conducted a few years later and focusing on prompted18 thanking responses directed at the researcher from adult American and Canadian English native speakers aged between 30 and 50 years, Bieswanger (2015) compared the results he obtained in the year 2010  in Vancouver, Canada, and New  York City, USA.  He elicited responses to expressions of gratitude by asking passers-by for directions and thanking them for the information he received. The five most frequently used verbal19 response types of his study are presented in Table 2.5. Compared to Schneider’s (2005) results, Bieswanger’s (2015) findings regarding thanking responses in American English show some differences. For example, there is no clear preference for a response including welcome, although it is still one of the most frequently employed strategies. In addition, responses just employing yeah which featured with 0.8% in Schneider’s American English data are considerably more prevalent. Possible explanations for these differences are a) the different data collection methods, b) different participant populations (teenagers and young adults versus adults) and c) regional variation in the United States (Bieswanger’s data originates from New York City, while Schneider’s data originates from Knoxville in Tennessee). Table 2.5  Five most frequent thanking response expressions in Bieswanger (2015, p.  538) Responses including Welcome Anytime Yeah No problem Mh-hm

Vancouver, Canada 27.1% (19) 27.1% (19) 28.6% (20) 11.4% (8) 11.4% (8)

New York City, USA 37.1% (23) 37.1% (23) 27.4% (17) 1.6% (1) 3.2% (2)

 The researcher asked passers-by for directions in the two major cities and then thanked his interlocutors for their answers thereby hoping to elicit responses to his expressions of gratitude. 19  In contrast to the other studies reviewed here, Bieswanger also included non-verbal data in his investigation. He found that 8.6 per cent of the thanking responses in Vancouver were non-verbal (i.e. nods), while the percentage of non-verbal thanking responses in New York was considerably higher with 24.2 percent. 18

38

2  Literature Review

Table 2.6  Five most frequent thanking response expressions in Dikin (2018, pp. 196–9) Strategy Type You’re welcome

Number and Percentage 33% (514)

No problem No response

25% (385) 18% (281)

Acknowledgment 11% (172) No worries

8% (123)

Examples very welcome; welcome; you are very welcome; you’re most welcome; you’re very much welcome no pro; no prob.; no problem, no probs; not a problem; including all individuals who gave no spoken response at all to being thanked aight; alright; cool; k; mhmm; Okay; okay, yeah; yeah; sure don’t worry about it; no worries, take care; yeah no worries

Focusing solely on Canadian data, Dikin (2018) used a similar research method as Bieswanger in that he asked his undergraduate students to go out and ask for directions in Toronto, Canada, in November 2013 and March and June 2015, and to thank their interlocutors for the information so that they would be able to collect thanking responses. The five most frequently used thanking response strategies that he identified are presented in Table  2.6. As his study is slightly different from Schneider (2005) and Bieswanger (2015) in that he did not always provide the key lexical items that form the basis of the thanking response, I have included examples from his study for the individual strategies he refers to. Dikin’s (2018) data show a preference for you’re welcome strategies by his Canadian English speakers. Also noticeable in Dakin’s findings are the no problem responses which were frequently employed by the interlocutors and the response expression featuring a form of no worries. The latter one is interesting, because it is primarily associated with Australian English according to the Oxford English Dictionary (nd) which notes “colloquial, originally and chiefly Australian”. Comparing the findings of the three studies, it is clear that a thanking response including a form of you’re welcome is likely to work for L2 learners in the English varieties investigated here. A thanking response featuring no problem would seem to be a helpful alternative for L2 learners, especially for German native speakers learning English, as they can transfer the German kein Problem into English. The question that arises is of course whether responses to expressions of gratitude are likely to be problematic for EFL learners and young and/or beginner level EFL learners in particular. As very little research is available on this issue, I will be referring here to a small-­ scale study (Schauer 2001) that I conducted for my MA dissertation on expressions of gratitude and responses to expressions of gratitude. In this study, three young adult participant groups (15 German L2 learners of English studying at a British university, 17 German L2 learners of English studying English as a subject at a higher educational institution in Germany and 16 British English native speakers) were asked to respond to a questionnaire containing 16 scenarios (8 eliciting a thanking expression and 8 eliciting a response to a thanking expression).

2.1 Pragmatics

39

The results of the study showed that even advanced L2 learners of English either studying the language for their future profession or living in the target country sometimes produced thanking responses that were problematic. For example, there was negative transfer from German, e.g. “I beg you no problem” (corresponding to Ich bitte Sie, dass ist [doch] kein Problem in German, produced by an L2 learner in Germany), expressions that were probably intended to be kind and reassuring but did not really work, e.g. “Next time you can do it yourself!” (L2 learner in England), or attempts at humour and/or self-praise that were also problematic in the context, e.g. “Hey, I’m great.” (L2 learner in Germany). Thus, since even advanced learners of English displayed a number of problems when producing responses to expressions of gratitude, my view is that easy, standard expressions, such as you’re welcome or no problem should be taught early on and should be revisited regularly throughout L2 learners’ language learning to ensure that learners have appropriate strategies available that they can resort to if needed. In addition, knowing expressions such as you’re welcome is beneficial to beginner level learners, as not being aware of them could lead to confusion as a result of negative transfer.20

2.1.8  Speech Act Theory: Apologies Apologies, like requests, have been at the centre of interlanguage pragmatics research since the beginnings of the discipline. Andrew Cohen and Elite Olshtain were the researchers that developed the earliest versions of apology frameworks which – at times in slightly modified forms – are still very much in use today. Definition According to Olshtain and Cohen (1983, p. 20) [t]he act of apologizing is called for when there is some behaviour which has violated social norms. When an action or utterance (or the lack of either one) has resulted in the fact that one or more persons perceive themselves as offended, the culpable person(s) needs to apologize. […] The act of apologizing requires an action or an utterance which is intended to ‘set things right’.

Offenses for which an individual may need to apologize for range from rather minor mishaps (e.g. stepping on someone’s foot without causing injury) to considerably more serious offenses (e.g. causing great pain to a person or considerable damage to an expensive item).  For example, in German the similar sounding Willkommen is only used as a greeting and consequently German EFL learners could be puzzled when they encounter you’re welcome as a response to an expression of gratitude and may wonder if their interlocutor is inviting them to continue the conversation or is intending something else.

20

40

2  Literature Review

Warning One issue that needs to be addressed here is that native speakers or highly proficient non-native speakers of the British English may use apology utterances in rather surprising situations. Mills (2017, pp. 64–65) writes English people are seen to use ‘sorry’ in situations where its use is not warranted in other languages. For example, when someone steps on your foot, it is often stereotypically the case in English politeness that both people involved will apologise […] When [British people] commit an offence (a minor infringement of pavement etiquette for example) and are met with the requisite ‘sorry’, they are quite likely to respond in kind. This can lead to a surreal escalation of apologies, which have very little to do with real feelings of regret.

Thus, although an apology expression may be uttered by a person who had his or her foot stepped on, this does not in fact indicate that they are feeling sorrow and would like to let the person who stepped on their foot know that they consider the presence of their foot in the vicinity of the other person to have been the problem that lead to the other person stepping on it. Rather, an apology in this context is a cultural convention that L2 learners need to be aware of, as situations that result in such conventionalized apology exchanges happen very frequently in everyday life. Frameworks for apologies were developed early on and apologies were also focused on in the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (1989). As mentioned above, one of the earliest frameworks developed for the investigation of apologies was the one by Cohen and Olshtain (1981, p. 119) who distinguished four major semantic formulas and in the case of formula 1 four subformulas: 1. An expression of apology (a) An expression of regret (e.g. I’m sorry) (b) An offer of apology (e.g. I apologize) (c) A request for forgiveness (e.g. Excuse me or Forgive me) (d) An expression of an excuse (not an overt apology but an excuse which serves as an apology) 2 . An acknowledgement of responsibility 3. An offer of repair 4. A promise of forbearance (i.e. that it won’t happen again) Since the use of the term semantic formula has been critiqued in recent years, Cohen (2018, p. 7) explaining his and Olshtain’s use of the term in the 1980s clarified “contrary to what is suggested by the term, semantic formulas are often not formulaic (Bardovi-Harlig, 2006:4). Hence, we will refer to these strategies as speech act strategies”. I will, therefore, also use the term strategies and sub-strategies when discussing apologies from here on even if in the original frameworks published in the 1980s the terms semantic formula and sub-formula were used.

2.1 Pragmatics

41

As for requests, Cohen and Olshtain (1981) also address the use of intensifiers that can have an impact on how an apology is perceived, e.g. I’m sorry compared to I am very sorry. Providing an overview of intensification strategies for apologies in American English, Cohen (2018, p. 6) writes “[a]n expression of apology can be intensified […] in American English, usually by adding intensifiers such as ‘really’, ‘terribly’, ‘awfully’, ‘so’, ‘very’ or some combination of them [,] for example ‘I’m really very sorry’.” In their revised apology framework published in 1983, Olshtain and Cohen added another major strategy, namely “an explanation or account of the situation” (p.22) which means that their revised apology model includes five instead of four major strategies. In addition, they also provided more detailed information on the major strategies and discussed some new sub-strategies, while at the same time deleting substrategy d that they had included for formula 1 in their original framework. An overview of their 1983 framework which according to Kondo (2010, p. 146) “is widely used to compare apologies in interlanguage pragmatics” is provided in Table 2.7. Table 2.7  Apology framework (Olshtain and Cohen 1983, pp. 22–23) Category No Strategy 1 Expression of an apology

2

Explanation or account of the situation

3

Acknowledgment of responsibility

4

Offer of repair

5

Promise of forbearance

Definition & Examples [This] consists of a number of subformulas: a) an expression of regret, e.g. “I’m sorry” b) an offer of apology, e.g. “I apologize” c) A request for forgiveness, e.g. […] “please forgive me” […] In all these subformulas the apology is direct and one the apology verbs is used: “Apologize”, “be sorry”, “forgive”, “excuse”, and “pardon”. [This explains what caused] the offense and is offered either in addition or in lieu of the expression of an apology. Thus, a person late for a meeting might explain “the bus was delayed”. This formula will be chosen by the speaker/offender only when he/she recognizes responsibility for the offense. There are four subformulas in this case […]: a) Accepting the blame, e.g. “It’s my fault” b) Expressing self-deficiency, e.g. “I was confused”, “I wasn’t thinking” or “I didn’t see you” c)recognizing the other person as deserving apology, e.g. “you are right!” d) Expressing lack of intent, e.g. “I didn’t mean to” [This] would be relevant only if physical injury or other damage has resulted (e.g. “I’ll pay for the broken vase” or “I’ll help you get up”). [This] relates to a case where the offender could have avoided the offense but did not do so, perhaps repeatedly; e.g. when someone has forgotten a meeting with a friend more than once, the person might want to say something like “it won’t happen again”.

42

2  Literature Review

Reviewing interlanguage pragmatic studies that mainly focused on adult intermediate  – advanced level L2 learners, Kondo (2010, p.  148) writes that “cross-­ linguistic differences exist in the use of apology strategies, and in many cases, learners were found to transfer strategies from their native language.” Regarding German learners of English, Kasper (1981) found in her study involving advanced adult German EFL learners and British English native speakers that the native speakers only used expressions involving sorry apart from one exception which was I apologize. The preference of British English native speakers for the use of sorry was subsequently supported by a questionnaire study conducted by Ogiermann (2008) who also found that 98% of the 645 apologies that she had collected were based on a form of sorry. This suggests that only knowing one apology expression would not be problematic for young beginner level learners, especially if they convey their apologetic attitude with the expected tone of voice and facial expression. The difference in L2 learner and native speaker apology behaviour that Kasper (1981) noted was therefore not related to the lexical item sorry, but rather to L2 learners limited repertoire of apology intensifiers compared to that of native speakers. With regard to apology intensifiers, the adult L2 learners relied exclusively on very, while the English native speakers employed a much broader repertoire, such as really sorry, oh hell I’m sorry or awfully sorry (Kasper 1981, p. 216). Ogiermann’s (2008, pp.  266) results also showed that British English native speakers often tended to use intensifiers: “the total number of intensifiers in the English data amounts to 273 instances, which means that the English respondents intensified forty- two percent of all their [apologies]”. Concerning the expressions used to intensify their apology, she noted that “nearly all English intensifiers take the form of adverbials, such as ‘really’, ‘so’ and ‘very’” Ogiermann’s (2008, p. 267). Thus, English native speakers tend to have a broad repertoire of apology intensifiers and do not only rely on the intensifier very. In his study involving young L2 learners of English in Hong Kong (see Sect. 2.1.4 for more details) in which he also focused on requests, Rose (2000) found that his learners’ use of apology intensifiers increased with increasing proficiency level (e.g. while only 1.6% of EFL learners in primary grade 2 employed intensifiers, 6.6% of EFL learners in primary grade 4 and 32.8% of EFL learners in grade 6 used intensifiers when formulating an apology). Concerning young EFL learners’ use of apology strategies, he found that the repair and forbearance strategies were only used from grade 4 onwards, as there were no instances at all in grade 2. This suggests that young EFL learners may only acquire these two strategies later on in their language learning. Thus, it would make sense to prioritize young EFL learners’ instruction of simple expressions of apologies based on a form of sorry and provide apology intensifiers in their input materials which enable them to notice and understand the function of intensifiers, even if they might not use them at that early stage. Since there is only one utterance that directly responds to an apology in all of the eight textbooks, replies to apologies will not be included in this investigation.

2.1 Pragmatics

43

2.1.9  S  peech Act Theory: Suggestions and Responses to Suggestions Suggestions are somewhat similar to requests in that they also “belong to the group of directive speech acts” (Martínez Flor 2005, p. 168) and therefore also intend to initiate some future action. Definition Edmondson and House (1981, pp. 124–125) define suggestions as the case in which a speaker communicates that he [or she] is in favour of H[earer]’s performing a future action as in H[earer]’s own interest, while in the case of the Request, the future action to be performed by H[earer] was claimed to be in the interests of the speaker. In fact, of course, there is no sharp dividing line between these two cases, especially as states of affairs are commonly discussed by members which have important consequences for both conversational partners. […] speakers often negotiate co-operative future actions, i.e. the future action is to be performed jointly by S[peaker] and H[earer], as in the interests of both. We shall analyse this case as a Suggest also: if a speaker communicates that he [or she] is in favour of H[earer]’s participating in a future joint activity, he [or she] is necessarily implying that he [or she] himself [or herself] is willing to participate in this joint activity also. There is a distinction here then between a Suggest-for-you and Suggest-for-us.

As Edmondson and House state, the difference between requests and suggestions is supposed to be that while requests are intended to (primarily) benefit the speaker or writer in some way, suggestions ought to (primarily) benefit the hearer or reader, while also potentially being of benefit to both parties. Regarding the investigation of suggestions in ILP, Martínez Flor (2010, p. 262), who developed a framework for this speech act that I will review below, notes that “in comparison to other directive speech acts, such as requests […], or refusals […], which have been extensively investigated in the field of interlanguage and cross-­ cultural pragmatics, research on suggestions has received less attention […]”. This may perhaps not be that surprising since suggestions – while of course very useful in everyday life communication – are speech acts that are avoidable for L2 learners in most cases, whereas other speech acts, such as requests, responses to requests or expressions of gratitude are not. What I mean by this is that L2 learners, especially those of lower or intermediate proficiency, who are not living in the target country and mainly need their foreign language for basic communication when on holiday or when talking to foreigners in their own country, can easily avoid formulating suggestions, as they are not commonly directed at strangers.21  While suggestions may be made by individuals working for a particular company or institution in service or institutional encounters (e.g. sales representatives, hair dressers, advisors, etc.), individuals not representing an institution are less likely to make suggestions to interlocutors they are not familiar with.

21

44

2  Literature Review

Table 2.8  Suggestion framework (Martínez Flor 2005, p. 175) Type Direct

Strategy Performative verb

Conventionalised forms

Noun of suggestion Imperative Negative imperative Specific formulae (interrogative forms)

Conventionalised forms

Indirect

Possibility/probability Should Need Conditional Impersonal

Hints

Example I suggest that you … I recommend that you … My suggestion would be … Try using … Don’t try to … Why don’t you …? How about …? What about …? Have you thought about…? You can … You could … You should … You need to … If I were you, I would … One that (that you can do) would be … Here’s one possibility … There are a number of options … A good idea would be … I’ve heard that …

A framework for suggestions that is often referred to in interlanguage pragmatics is the one developed by Martínez Flor (2005, p. 175) which is presented in a slightly abbreviated form in Table 2.8. The different strategies presented in the framework indicate that some of the suggestion strategies may be easier for young and/or beginner level learners than others. For example, “I suggest that you help Peter” is relatively straightforward, because a) the sentence is relatively short and b) the verb remains in its bare infinitive form. Other strategies such as how about can be followed by a noun (e.g. “How about a cup of tea?”), a gerund (e.g. “How about meeting them for lunch?”) or even by a conditional clause (e.g. “How about if I ask Cindy if she can help” BNC1994), as well as some other (complex) options. It also needs to be noted that a standardized suggestion form involving let(‘s)/ (us) (cf. Leech 2014, p. 137) has not been included in Martínez-Flor’s framework, but need not be excluded in investigations involving suggestions. Summarizing the results of interlanguage pragmatics studies on L2 learners’ use of suggestions, Martínez Flor (2010, p. 264) writes studies examining the use and acquisition of suggestions have overall indicated that learners having a high level of proficiency in the English language does not necessarily correlate with a high level of pragmatic improvement. In fact, learners’ suggestions have often been regarded as direct, unmitigated and less polite than those made by NSs. In this sense, it has been suggested that some pedagogical intervention may be beneficial to make learners become pragmatically competent when performing suggestions.

2.1 Pragmatics

45

Thus, including suggestion strategies in L2 learners’ textbooks for advanced learners could help them acquire pragmatic skills regarding suggestions that enable them to communicate in situations involving friends or acquaintances who only speak the target language (e.g. friends made on school exchange programmes). Concerning responses to suggestions, Edmondson and House (1981) differentiate between suggestions that are satisfied (i.e. agreed to or successful) and contras or counters to suggestions (i.e. responses that do not agree with the producer of the suggestion). With regard to successful suggestions they (1981, p.  128) explain “[n]ote that some enthusiasm, evidenced by the repetition or the addition of a Grounder is quite typical. A certain amount of gush is conversationally normative here! […] [ Examples are]: Hmmm, that’s a good idea; Yes, let’s do that; […] Great”. They also state that interlocutors accepting a suggestion may then make a suggestion themselves along the same lines in the conversation to develop the issue further. Very few interlanguage pragmatic studies have examined responses to suggestions to date. One of the few is Koike (1995) who investigated English native speakers’ reactions to suggestions in their L2 Spanish. Her learners represented different proficiency levels in Spanish and were first year, second year and advanced level students. Koike (1995, p. 274) found that “in general, many students of all levels were able to say something in response to all the speech acts that would lead to further interaction and input from the speaker, which would probably then lead to an understanding of the speaker’s true intent through negotiation of meaning”. Thus, although L2 learners of Spanish seemed to not always respond in a native-like manner to suggestions and may not have been able to decode them as such, they at least had strategies at their disposal which enabled them to converse further with their interlocutors and come to a satisfactory conclusion through a longer process of negotiation.

2.1.10  S  peech Act Theory: Expressing Feelings – Physical and Mental States While all the individual speech acts reviewed so far have had a history (albeit not a very extensive one in some cases) of studies being conducted on them, the final speech act that I will be focusing on in my analysis has not. I am including this speech act here for two reasons, (1) it covers a language function that is useful for young and/or beginner level learners and (2) the Thuringian curriculum for English as a foreign language classes in primary schools stipulates that young EFL learners should be able to communicate how they feel using simple expressions (Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur 2010).

46

2  Literature Review

Definition Thus, the speech act that I am suggesting here, expressing feelings – physical and mental states, has to do with being able to talk about one’s mental or physical state, i.e. how one is feeling, and has a distinct syntactical structure, typically I am/‘m (adjective) or I feel (adjective). Examples include I’m tired or I’m hungry (physical states) or I’m happy or I’m sad (mental states). With regard to speech act frameworks, this speech act could be categorized as a subcategory of assertives in Searle’s (1999) or of representatives in Fraser’s (1978) framework because producers of this speech act commit themselves to the truth of what they are saying, i.e. they are assessing their physical state or mental state and are indeed thirsty and/or hungry, happy or sad.

Being able to articulate how they feel is important for young level learners, as they should have the means to express what is going on with them. This is not only important in emergency situations (such as when children have become separated from their parents in a place they do not know; when they are feeling unwell or when they have been involved in an accident), but also in everyday life where learners should be able to express how they are and how they feel. Giving them the linguistic means to express themselves can never start too early, as Clark (2009, p. 318) has shown that children as young as 2 years old are able to express their feelings regarding physical states in their native language. Therefore, it is only appropriate to ensure that young L2 learners aged 8–10 are also able to do so, especially since (a) even pre-school children can provide information on their physical state, interlocutors are likely to assume that older children will be able to do likewise, even if they are not native speakers, and (b) the syntactic structure is relatively easy. The syntactic structure of this speech act I am/‘m (adjective) or I feel (adjective) can also be found in other speech acts. For example, the same structure is also present in responses to well-being questions in greetings (e.g. A: Hello. How are you today? B: I’m very well, thank you.), or in indirect complaints (e.g. I’m cold! directed at a parent who is chatting with a neighbour outside the family’s home in winter). In the present investigation, I will treat responses to well-being questions that are part of greeting structures separately, i.e. these frequently standardized expressions that often do not convey authentic statements regarding an individual’s well-being will be discussed as part of greetings. The same applies to feelings of sorrow, e.g. I’m sorry, since those have already been focused on as apologies. Indirect complaints, on the other hand, will be included in the discussion of expressing feelings and states of beings, as well as utterances that are provided without context or seem to be directed at no-one in particular (i.e. utterances that could theoretically be indirect complaints as well if interlocutors were present or that may just be instances of a person thinking aloud and coming to terms with their own feelings).

2.1 Pragmatics

47

This concludes my discussion of literature on individual speech acts, in the following sections I will address speech act theory and politeness in Sect. 2.1.11, studies investigating pragmatics and EFL textbook input in Sect. 2.1.12, L1 Pragmatics in Sect. 2.1.13 and data collection methods involving young learners in Sect. 2.1.14.

2.1.11  Speech Act Theory and Politeness Arguing for teaching politeness in EFL classrooms, Limberg (2016, p. 266) points out that “politeness is encoded and decoded in culturally specific ways, which means that non-native speakers have to acquire knowledge and skills in managing politeness norms of a specific target community”. Bella, Sifianou and Tzanne (2015, p. 23) write [o]ur main assumption is that politeness has to be taught since it is not something innate (Watts 2003: 9). The need to teach politeness holds particularly true in the context of teaching foreign languages since, unlike native speakers who may be socialized into politeness in their native language, learners of foreign languages need to learn how to express themselves in a polite way. In such contexts, the danger of becoming unwittingly impolite and interpreting others’ behaviour as impolite increases.

Given these emphatic calls for the teaching of politeness in a foreign language, it may be somewhat surprising that there is no generally agreed upon definition of politeness, although the area of politeness research has attracted much attention in the last 40 years and can be considered a key field of pragmatics research (Culpeper et al. 2018). How can a field flourish even though there is no agreed upon definition? The question actually already includes the answer – because one of the issues researchers in this subfield of pragmatics have been interested in is how to define and conceptualize politeness. Since the mid-1970s, different conceptualisations and models of politeness have been put forward (e.g. Lakoff 1977; Leech 1983; Brown and Levinson 1987; Fraser 1990; Spencer-Oatey 2008). Some of these are very elaborate and one of the most detailed ones (Brown and Levinson 1987) lists different components of politeness over more than 130 pages. Most of these models are far too intricate for young EFL learners, as they tend to presuppose a rich repertoire of linguistic options available to both speakers and listeners, i.e. they tend to be based on competent native speakers or advanced L2 learners, but not on children. Because of this, I will focus on a conceptualisation of politeness that contains aspects that are also relevant for young EFL learners and their teachers, namely Fraser’s (1990) conversational contract view.

48

2  Literature Review

Definition Fraser (1990, p.  232–3) explains the conversational contract view as follows: upon entering into a given conversation, each party brings an understanding of some initial set of rights and obligations that will determine, at least for the preliminary stages, what the participants can expect from the other(s). […]. The dimensions on which interactive participants establish rights and obligations vary greatly. Some terms of a conversational contract may be imposed through convention; they are of a general nature and apply to all ordinary conversations. Speakers, for example, are expected to take turns22 […], they are expected to use a mutually intelligible language […]. These are seldom negotiable. Related are terms and conditions imposed by the social institutions applicable to the interaction. Speakers are expected to speak only in whispers, if at all, during a Protestant church service […]. Such requirements are also seldom, if ever, renegotiated. And finally, other terms may be determined by previous encounters or the particulars of the situation. These are determined for each interaction, and most are renegotiable in light of the participants’ perception and/or acknowledgements of factors such as the status, the power, and the role of each speaker, and the nature of the circumstances.

Fraser makes several key points here. First of all, he mentions the expectations that interlocutors tend to have when they engage in conversation. He then also addresses the importance of conventions and norms of institutional23 discourse, and lastly emphasises the importance of status,24 power, interlocutors’ roles and the contextual conditions of the interaction. These points can be illustrated by looking at what young EFL learners attending primary school need to know in their first language with regard to politeness as conceptualized by Fraser (1990). For example, in most cultures people tend to greet each other when they establish contact, e.g. when

 The term turn is frequently used in conversation analysis. The idea is that two people taking part in a conversation will generally take turns (i.e. swap back and forth with regard to their roles of listeners and speakers). The turn itself tends to refer to a unit of speech that a speaker produces while the interlocutor is listening. 23  Institutional discourse refers to language use that is related to an institution. It can refer to written text or spoken conversations. Institutional discourse can occur between a representative of an institution (e.g. a teacher or a police officer) and a member of the public (e.g. a pupil or a lost child) or between two representatives of an institution (e.g. two teachers) (Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford 2005). Institutional discourse has certain norms that individuals familiar with the culture the institutional discourse takes place in are aware of. For example, in certain cultures teachers are addressed with a special professional title, such as sensei in Japanese or hoca in Turkish and individuals attending educational institutions (e.g. schools, universities) in these cultures would be expected to use these terms when addressing the teaching staff. 24  Status is a technical term in pragmatics. Typically, two different status relationships between interlocutors are distinguished: equal status (both interlocutors have the same status, such as friends or colleagues), higher and lower status (one interlocutor is higher status, such as head of school, and one is lower status, such as trainee teacher). 22

2.1 Pragmatics

49

a pupil sees a teacher for the first time in the day or when a child goes to see his or her doctor. Children need to know what kind of greeting is expected from them (e.g. is a verbal greeting used and if so, what kind; are address terms used – and if so, what kind, e.g. gender title + surname or professional titles), and parents, guardians or teachers will need to teach children these norms and conventions in their L1. Primary school pupils also need to be taught the rules of classroom interaction. They need to know that they will not always be able to chat with their friends and that while they may know the answer to the question their teacher asked, they may not be able to tell him or her at once. Instead, they may need to raise their hand or otherwise indicate to their teacher that they would like to say something. In addition to the conventions of classroom interaction, learners may also need to be taught what constitutes polite language use in the classroom. For example, there may be certain rules on how young learners can ask questions or ask for assistance – while [address term] I want you to help me with this may not be acceptable, young learners need to be taught that they should rather use Can you please help me with this [address term]. However, coming back to the point Fraser (1990) made about specific contextual conditions, children also need to be taught that while they may be asking for help with a task they have been set, their teacher may not be able to give them the answer, e.g. in exam conditions. They have to be aware that in certain contexts they have a right to ask questions and to expect an answer that assists their learning, but that this may not be the case in other situations. Bella, Sifianou and Tzanne (2015, p. 36) state that “it is our belief that the teaching of pragmatics in general, and politeness, in particular, should be introduced at the earlier stages of language learning” and argue that the teaching of politeness should be based on a speech act approach. Speech acts provide a useful foundation for teaching politeness, because they categorize utterances according to their function and enable teachers to discuss different options for the same function, as I have illustrated in the example about requests and asking for assistance above. Young EFL learners need to know which norms and conventions from their first language they may be able to transfer to English (e.g. thanking someone for information or a favour or apologizing when causing someone harm) and which not, and what linguistic forms or routines they can use for these language functions. Textbook input could provide L2 learners with helpful information regarding polite and appropriate language in their target language and one of the aims of this book is to find out if the four German EFL textbook series contain pragmatic content that exposes young EFL learners to appropriate and polite speech act options. The results of the textbook investigation regarding the 10 speech acts that I investigated are presented in Chap. 4. In the next section, however, I will review previous studies on speech acts and EFL textbooks.

50

2  Literature Review

2.1.12  S  peech Act Theory: Studies Investigating EFL Textbook Input Textbooks frequently play an important role in EFL classrooms, as they constitute a resource which provide a structured approach to foreign language teaching. It also needs to be noted that in some teaching contexts, L2 teachers will be obliged to use a specific textbook or textbook series that has been selected by a school committee, a local education authority or the state. Background As Martínez-Flor and Usó-Juan (2010b, p. 424) point out “The main source of input presented in classroom settings has always tended to be textbooks. In fact, textbooks have been acknowledged by Vellenga (2004) as “the centre of the curriculum and syllabus in most classrooms”. Focusing on the German EFL context, Limberg (2015, p. 701) notes that “the textbook is a primary source of language input and practice for foreign language learners. […] we do know that foreign language teachers in public schools seem to use textbooks frequently as their default teaching material (in Germany, see DESI Konsortium, 2008, p. 377; see also Altbach 1991)”.

Unfortunately, however, L2 textbooks have long been critiqued with regard to their pragmatic content. Referring to studies that investigated ESL textbooks25 (e.g. Bardovi-Harlig et al. 1991, who examined conversational closings; Boxer and Pickering 1995, who investigated complaints) or international textbooks for Business English (Williams 1988 who compared speech acts presented in the textbooks compared to actual speech acts produced in business meetings), Bardovi-­ Harlig (2003, p.  40) comments that “[w]e are becoming increasingly aware that textbooks and other instructional materials do not provide authentic examples of even the most common speech acts, conversational exchanges or other patterns of language”. Not many studies exist that analyse speech act input in EFL textbooks, and most of these studies tend to focus on EFL textbooks that are used in secondary education (e.g. Ogiermann 2010; Nguyen 2011; Limberg 2015; Schauer 2016; Aliyoun 2018). Ogiermann investigated requests in in the six volumes of Green Line New published by Klett for German grammar schools. She notes that “it can be concluded that although all six volumes offer implicit and/or explicit pragmatic input, it is not systematic, and it decreases with the learner’s increasing proficiency” (2010, p. 124). Nguyen examined three consecutive textbooks and accompanying workbooks of the English series in use in Vietnamese secondary schools and focused on the presence or absence of 27 different speech acts. Her analysis showed that there was no sys25

 See also Schauer and Adolphs (2006) on thanking expressions in international/ESL textbooks.

2.1 Pragmatics

51

tematic and repeated presentation of the speech acts that she investigated and similarly to Ogiermann’s findings, the number of speech acts learners were exposed to during these 3 years decreased from 20 to 8. Limberg (2015) examined the input available regarding apologies in three textbook series in use in German grammar schools Camden Town published by Diesterweg, English G21 published by Cornelsen and Green Line published by Klett. He points out that the “important observation across all three textbook series is that apology input steadily decreases from Year 5 to 10. Most apologies are presented to students in textbooks 1 and 2 (Year 5 and 6) […]. Advanced learners (textbooks 5 and 6) are hardly confronted with any apology situation” (2015, p. 712). In 2016, I focused on the agreement and disagreement strategies presented in the six volumes of the Orange Line series published by Klett for German secondary schools and found an unsystematic presentation of agreement strategies with the majority of agreements included in the first book and a limited number of disagreement strategies presented throughout the six volumes. Aliyoun (2018) compared greetings and leave-takings in the initial three volumes of the German Lighthouse series published by Cornelsen for secondary schools and the Iranian Prospect series. His results revealed an unsystematic presentation of greetings and leave-takings in both textbook series and a considerably higher number of greetings than leave-takings meaning that the books included very few conversations that started with a greeting and ended with a leave-taking therefore not representing typical everyday conversations. Thus, based on the findings of these studies, EFL textbooks written for secondary school students do not tend to be written with a pragmatic speech act progression concept in mind. Instead, the results tend to indicate that with increasing proficiency level, EFL learners are exposed to decreasing levels of pragmatic input in their textbooks. Regrettably, hardly any research is available on pragmatic input in primary school EFL textbooks. This is also one of the reasons why the pragmatic textbook analysis presented in Chap. 4 was conducted. One of the few studies that examined issues related to pragmatics is Vollmuth (2004) who investigated seven sets26 of instructional materials for EFL in German primary schools focusing on materials for the third grade. She analysed English – What fun (published in 1991 by Cornelsen), Kooky I (published in 1993 by Cornelsen), Conrad and Company (published in 1994 by Langenscheidt), Here we go (published in 1998 by Klett), Bumblebee 3 (published in 1999 by Schrödel), Keystones 1 (published in 1999 by Diesterweg) and Fun and Action 3 New (published in 1999 by Klett). Vollmuth analysed the seven textbooks regarding the four skills and pragmatic content. Concerning the latter, she focused on a number of language functions

 The individual sets (Lehrwerke) consisted of pupil’s books, teacher’s book, pupil’s workbooks, transparencies, audio files, software and additional material available from the publisher for a textbook series.

26

52

2  Literature Review

which do not always overlap with traditional speech act categories. For example, requests are divided into the categories Aufforderung27 (including imperatives and suggestions) and Bitten (including want statements and conventionally indirect ability requests). For this reason, I will focus on her analysis of language functions that best match speech acts here. She found that all seven instructional sets included expressions of gratitude28 and greetings, but only four of them featured leave-takings (English – What fun, Kooky, Conrad and Company, Here we go). Regarding the greeting routines included in the instructional sets, she found that six included good morning (English – What fun, Kooky, Conrad and Company, Here we go, Bumblebee, Fun and Action), five included hello (Kooky, Conrad and Company, Here we go, Bumblebee, Keystones) while only three featured hi (Conrad and Company, Here we go, Bumblebee). Three different leave-taking formulae were included in the instructional sets. Goodbye was included in four sets (English – What fun, Kooky, Conrad and Company, Here we go), Bye/Bye-bye in one (Here we go) and see you later in one (English  – What fun). Summarizing her analysis of all language functions she investigated, Vollmuth noted that specific language function expressions are frequently not repeated and that the repertoire included in the textbooks is rather limited. She also points out that [i]nsbesondere durch die häufige Verwendung von TPR-Aktivitäten sowie eng gesteuerte Lehrer-Schüler-Dialoge wird ein im eigentlichen Sinne unhöfliches Sprachverhalten angebahnt, da die jungen Lernenden dazu angehalten werden, in Form von Imperativen miteinander zu kommunizieren. Die Lernerinnen und Lerner werden nicht mit Wendungen […] ausgestattet, die einen angemessenen Gesprächsbeginn ermöglichen (excuse me) bzw. helfen, einen Gesprächsabschluss (nice to have met you) einzuleiten. because of the frequent use of TPR activities as well as narrowly constrained teacher-­ student-­dialogues, a way of interacting is promoted that is actually impolite because the young learners are instructed to use imperative when communicating with each other. The young learners are not equipped with routines that would enable them to begin a conversation in an appropriate manner (excuse me) or to bring a conversation to an end (nice to have met you). (Vollmuth 2004, p. 151)

Thus, Vollmuth’s (2004) research also highlights an issue that Aliyoun (2018) critiqued regarding secondary school EFL textbooks in Germany and Iran, namely that complete conversations that reflect authentic language use are frequently absent in EFL learners’ textbooks. She also addresses the very important point of appropriate request strategies and the fact that the textbooks she investigated overemphasized imperatives over conventionally indirect strategies that are typically used in authentic English conversations (Leech 2014). This is an issue that I will revisit in Chaps. 4 and 5.

 The English translation for both terms is request.  Vollmuth did not differentiate thanking routines and instead only comments that thank you/ thanks were included in all instructional sets.

27 28

2.1 Pragmatics

53

2.1.13  Speech Act Theory: L1 Pragmatics Although researchers interested in first language acquisition have investigated pragmatic phenomena for more than 40 years (e.g. Dore 1974; Dale 1980; Reeder 1980), the number of studies examining speech acts is considerably smaller than in interlanguage pragmatics. Background Cekaite‘s (2013, p. 603) overview of the field of child29 pragmatic development provides some reasons for why this is the case: The study of child pragmatic development is a heterogeneous field that brings together linguistic pragmatics and child development, and encompasses different traditions and theoretical perspectives on language and social interaction […] Topics studied within the field of children’s pragmatic development in their first language focus on a broad range of distinct but inextricably related aspects of communicative competence: the emergence and development of verbal communicative acts (i.e., speech acts) in young children; the development of conversational skills; children’s growing sensitivity to the social parameters of talk; and children’s acquisition of extended discourse genres such as narratives, explanations, definitions, and so forth.

Thus, although pragmatics is a research area of first language acquisition/child language researchers, quite often the focus of the studies in L1 pragmatics is not on speech acts, but rather on how parents and children achieve joint attention, engage in conversations and take turns, tell stories or provide explanations (cf. Clark 2009). With regard to those studies that focus on speech acts, it also needs to be noted that the data collection methods that are used in L1 child language pragmatics tend to differ from those used in interlanguage pragmatics. Due to the young age of some child learners in L1 pragmatics, studies in this area tend to be based on observational data, i.e. interactions that children have with family members, day-care staff or researchers and that tend to either involve typical every-day life activities or activities resembling play sessions. In contrast, many studies in interlanguage pragmatics are based on written or spoken role-plays and Discourse Completion Tasks (cf. Sect. 2.1.14). The difference in data collection methods can have an effect on the number of participants involved in the study. Due to the time-consuming nature of observational research with young children, some of these studies tend have a very small number of participants. Another aspect of the observational data collection employed in L1 child

 Although child pragmatic development could refer to both the development of a child’s native language or native languages (as in the case of bilingual children) or second/foreign languages, it is frequently used to refer to L1 issues only. In contrast, children’s pragmatic development in their L2 is allocated to the field of second language acquisition.

29

54

2  Literature Review

pragmatics is that researchers may report on more than one speech act in their studies. Because of this, the review of L1 speech act studies is presented according to children’s ages and not according to individual speech acts. Also, since the focus of this book is on English, I will concentrate on studies that examined English as a first language and will report on findings related to speech acts investigated in this book. In one of the earliest studies on speech act development in children’s native language, Dore (1974) examined the use of one-word utterances by two children, a girl and a boy, both aged 1-year-and-3 months at the beginning of the data collection period and 1-year-and-5 months (girl) and 1-year-and-7-month (boy) at the end of the data collection period. The data collection was stopped when the children began to use two words in one utterance. Data were collected every 2 weeks in sessions lasting between 30 and 45  min and involved the video-recording of natural conversation between the children and their mothers or nursery school teachers. The results showed that both children used simple greeting or leave-taking words, such as hi or bye-bye, by the end of the data collection period, but that the number of observed instances varied with the boy using more than the girl. Also, both children displayed the ability to request information, items or assistance and respond to requests with one-word utterances and rising intonation contours. Dale (1980) examined 20 children in two sessions over a 2-week period. The children belonged to five different age groups (1-year olds, 1-year-and-3-month olds, 1-year-and 6-months-olds, and 2-year olds) and each age group consisted of two boys and two girls. The data were collected in structured and predetermined play situations lead by a researcher that involved various toys, as well as by recording naturally occurring interactions between the children and their parents. The results suggested an order of speech act difficulty for children aged between 1 and 2 years with greetings and leave-takings being considered relatively easy because these speech acts were performed by 18 children. Requests were distinguished into requests for actions, permissions and present objects and requests for information and absent objects. Requests for actions, permission and present objects were performed by 12 children and therefore considered easier than requests for absent objects and information which were performed by only five children. Refusals were considered somewhat more difficult since they were produced by only four children. Reeder (1980) conducted a study comparing 14 children who represented two age groups: 2-year-and-6-months old and 3-year olds. The data were collected with a play task in the children’s day-care centre. The results showed that “a closer fit is found between the three-year-olds and the native speaker model in the discrimination of REQUESTS; i.e. the 3-year-olds appear significantly more mature than the 2½ -year-olds at discriminating requests” (Reeder 1980, p. 24). In a study focusing on comprehension, Hübscher, Wagner and Prieto (2016) examined children’s ability to discern politeness levels displayed by facial expressions and intonation contours in requests. The participants were aged between 2-years-and-10-months and 4-years and took part in an experiment in a research setting. They were shown short videos in which requests such as Can you give me the ball please were included which were either produced by the speaker in the

2.1 Pragmatics

55

video with a friendly facial expression (i.e. a smile) and intonation (i.e. higher pitch range and rising intonation) or an unfriendly stern facial expression and intonation (i.e. lower pitch range and falling intonation). The results showed that in 78% of the cases, children were able to identify a request as polite or impolite based on the facial expressions and intonation of the speaker in the video. Thus, children do not only pay attention to the content of utterances directed at them but can also differentiate speaker’s mood based on how they produce utterances fairly well between the ages of nearly 3 and 4-year-old. Becker and Smenner (1986) examined 250 children aged between 3-years-and-­ 6-months and 4-years-and-6-months focusing on expressions of gratitude. The children took part in a colour-naming game with their preschool teacher and then received a sticker as a reward for taking part from either an unfamiliar age-peer (a 4-and-a-half-year-old girl) or an unfamiliar adult. The results revealed that only 37% of the children thanked their interlocutor for the sticker. In addition, the findings showed that significantly more expressions of gratitude were directed at the adult interlocutor than the child interlocutor. This suggests that children aged between 3-and-a-half and 4-and-a-half years make speech act decisions based on factors such as interlocutor’s age. James (1978) also examined whether children varied their speech act production according to their interlocutor’s age. Twenty-two children aged between 4-years-­ and-6-months and 5-years-and-2-months took part in her study. Data were collected in a play situation with different dolls representing adults, age peers, themselves and a younger child (aged around 2 years). The children were instructed to act out eight role play situations which were described to them. All situations involved directives, but half of them were considered to lead to a request and half to a command.30 The findings showed that children tended to vary the directness of their utterances based on their interlocutors. In scenarios that the researchers had designed to lead to more direct requests (e.g. scenarios in which children asked to receive something back that had been taken from them), the children tended to use imperatives more frequently than conventionally indirect requests, as 51% of the requests directed at adults, 90% of the requests directed at age peers and 86% of the requests directed at younger children were imperatives. In contrast, in the request scenarios (e.g. scenarios which involved children asking for assistance that the other person is not obliged to provide), children used considerably fewer imperatives. Here 93% of the requests directed at adults, 92% of the requests directed at age peers and 87% of the requests directed at younger children were conventionally indirect requests. These findings suggest that (a) children deliberately vary their language use depending on the contextual conditions of a situation and (b) children tend to employ more indirect  The publication date of the study already indicates why these two terms that today would seem somewhat unusual in speech act investigations are used. At the time of the publication, speech act categories were not as well established and researched as today. The requests situations in this study seem to be intended to generate what today is typically referred to as conventionally indirect requests, while the command situations were likely intended to generate imperatives or other more direct strategies.

30

56

2  Literature Review

request strategies towards adults than age peers or younger children in request situations that were designed to generate commands. In a study focusing on greetings, leave-takings and expressions of gratitude, Greif and Gleason (1980) examined 22 children aged between 2 and 5 years. Data were collected in a research setting in which children were recorded while they played with their parents and when interacting with a research assistant who gave them a present as a reward for their participation. The study concentrates on the interaction with the assistant which followed a standardized procedure: The assistant followed a script designed to elicit three routines from the children. The script went as follows: After entering the playroom, the assistant turned to the child and said, “Hi, I’m  ___. Hi, (child’s name).” The assistant then paused to wait for or allow time for a response. Next, the assistant said: “Here’s a gift for you for today’s visit.” (Pause). Then, after unstructured conversation, the assistant said to the child, “Goodbye, (child’s name).” (Greif and Gleason 1980, pp. 160–161)

The results revealed that 27% of the children greeted the assistant, 7% thanked her and 25% said goodbye to her without being prompted. This supports the earlier findings by Dore (1974) and Dale (1980) that greetings and leave-takings are speech acts that even very young native speakers can produce. Expressions of gratitude were produced by considerably fewer children in this study than in Becker and Smenner’s (1986) investigation. Greif and Gleason (1980) also examined whether parents prompted their children to return the greetings, leave-takings and to say thank you to the assistant. They found that after being prompted by their parents, 28% of the children then greeted the assistant, 51% thanked her and 33% said goodbye. This is interesting, as it shows that parents address pragmatic shortcoming in their children in their native language. The prompts the parents spontaneously employed towards their children, namely “Say X, or Can you say X, or What do you say?” (Greif and Gleason 1980, p. 163) further show that the teaching or pragmatic concerns in children’s first language tends to be direct and often related to specific routine questions. As Greif and Gleason (1980, p. 163) note “The parents’ prompts, or elicitation routines, and the children’s routines in response appear, therefore, to have a very predictable form, with the use of the word say acting like a flag to signal to the child to repeat the following words in virtually unchanged form”. Ely and Gleason (2006) examined apologies produced by children aged from 1-year-and-2-months to 6-years-and-2-months. They analysed naturally occurring data that had been recorded for linguistic research purposes and formed part of a repository, the Child Language Data Exchange System (CHILDES). Ely and Gleason (2006, p. 608) found that [i]n terms of onset, Peter (Bloom, 1970) was the youngest child to use an apology term. At 1;10 he said sorry in response to his mother’s prompt (Can you say you’re sorry?). The latest first use was observed in Shem (Clark, 1978) at 2;11, more than 7 months after the beginning of observations. The average age of onset was 2;4; girls (2;2;0) produced apologies on average more than 3 months before boys (2;5;18), although this difference was not statistically significant.

2.1 Pragmatics

57

This shows that apologies are typically acquired by English native speakers before they are 3 years old. However, what this also reveals is that children’s pragmatic development in their first language does not necessarily progress at the same speed, i.e. that there is individual variation in children’s language development. While this may be a well-known fact with regard to lexical and grammatical development in children’s first language, it is important to emphasize that the same also applies to pragmatic development. In addition, the findings show that many speech acts are acquired by native speakers before they begin primary education. This means that young EFL learners aged between 8 and 10 years and attending grades three or four of primary school should be able to learn, perform and comprehend these speech acts in their L2, as their cognitive development at that age should allow them to do so.

2.1.14  Data Collection Methods Involving Young Learners In interlanguage pragmatics, a variety of data collection methods31 are used. Background A general distinction can be made between the collection of naturally occurring data and the collection of elicited data. Researchers working with naturally occurring data may record conversations (e.g. audio-record or video-­record conversations between parents and children as done in L1 pragmatics), use already existing recordings or, when focusing on written language, may collect already existing written output, such as letters, emails, or social media posts. Researchers working with elicited data, on the other hand, may develop questionnaires or role-plays, for example.

In ILP, questionnaires which include a number of different situations and ask participants to imagine that they find themselves in these situations and are interacting with the interlocutors specified in the individual scenarios are frequently used. These questionnaires are often referred to as production questionnaires or Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs). Below are two examples: (1) You are talking with your American friend during the break. She offers a snack to you, but you don’t want to eat it now. The American friend says: “Do you want some?” You say: …………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………… (Osuka 2017, p. 294)

31  See Culpeper et al. (2018) or Taguchi and Röver (2017) for recent overviews of methods primarily used for adult or more advanced L2 learners.

58

2  Literature Review (2) You go to the library to return lots of books you have borrowed and your hands are full with the books and your bag. There is a man standing near the door of the library who looks like a professor. You would like to ask him to open the door. What would you say? You say: …………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………… (Sadeghidizaj 2014, p. 305)

Often the scenarios included in a questionnaire focus on one or two speech acts and feature various situations involving interlocutors who can be assigned to different categories, such as friends (i.e. equal status interlocutors) or individuals who are in a position of authority (e.g. higher status interlocutors). The idea is that by completing several scenarios featuring equal and higher status interlocutors, researchers obtain insights into participants’ decision-making rationales and potential32 authentic language use (e.g. are utterances directed at higher status interlocutors more formal and longer than those directed at equal status interlocutors?). Production questionnaires come in various formats, such as paper-based or computer-based. The responses may be made in written or in spoken language. In contrast to questionnaires, role plays tend33 to involve an interaction between the participant and an interlocutor (either the researcher or another individual). Participants receive instructions about the context of the role play and what their goal is in the interaction (e.g. refuse an invitation, utter an apology, make a request). A sample role play instruction for a request is included below: Imagine that you are in a Spanish-speaking country of your preference. It is the last day your Spanish professor is going to lecture before reviewing for the final next week. You did not attend class for the past two weeks. Unfortunately, you really need the notes to study for the exam because your professor takes the questions straight from his lectures. However, there is really only one person whose notes you would trust to copy, your classmate Vanessa’s. Everybody else in class usually nods off, doodles on their paper, or works on an assignment for another class. You know your classmate is a diligent student and takes excellent notes. You decide to ask her for her notes even though you’ve only talked to her during group work in class and you are not friends. On the review day, you are able to catch her as she is walking out the door and you decide to ask to borrow them. What do you say? (Felix-Brasdefer 2007, p. 281)

Both role-plays and production questionnaires elicit data that primarily provide insights into L2 pragmatic production. Regarding pragmatic comprehension,

 There has been a long debate about whether speech act data collected with questionnaires reflects authentic language use or not - see Felix-Brasdefer (2010) for a detailed discussion. 33  The categorization of some data collection instruments is not straightforward, as the category of closed role play can overlap with the category of spoken production questionnaire, as FelixBrasdefer (2010, p. 47) indicates “in the closed role play, the participant responds to a role-play situation without a reply from an interlocutor (as in the oral DCT described in the previous subsection”. 32

2.1 Pragmatics

59

multiple-choice or other types of questionnaires or verbal protocols34 may be used that enable researchers to see whether and to what extent L2 learners are aware of the pragmatic norms of the L2. When working with young learners, researchers need to consider what type of data collection method can be employed based on the children’s age and proficiency level. For example, if young EFL learners are still struggling with writing in English, then it may be best to collect oral data. If young learners are not yet confident readers in their L2, then it may be best to combine the written language with illustrations that provide children with additional contextual input. The data collection methods employed by Rose (2000) and Lee (2010) for their studies reported on in Sects. 2.1.4, 2.1.5 and 2.1.8 respectively illustrate how pragmatic speech act data may be elicited from young EFL learners. Rose (2000) designed an instrument which he called Cartoon Oral Production Task (COPT). This instrument intended to elicit 30 utterance (10 apologies, 10 compliments and 10 requests) from young EFL learners in Hong Kong. As the name of the instrument already indicates, the 30 scenarios were presented in the form of a single frame cartoon (e.g. an illustration showing a boy sitting behind his desk diligently writing with his pencil in a workbook with a spare pencil next to the workbook and another boy standing next to the boy’s desk with a thought cloud depicting a pencil and a question mark). In addition to the cartoon frame, the individual scenarios also included a brief description of the situation in Chinese. Each cartoon included the main character called Siu Keung. Data for the study were collected in intact classes in the presence of a research assistant. The assistant first handed out tape recorders to all pupils and showed them how to operate them. Then, the research assistant directed the pupils’ attention to individual scenarios, read out the scenario’s description in the EFL learners’ mother tongue Cantonese and asked them to record what they would say if they were in the position of the main character Siu Keung in the cartoon. This data collection technique that was used for children aged between 7 and 11  years provided the young learners with multiple input opportunities regarding the scenarios, i.e. they were presented the prompts as illustration, as well as in spoken and in written language. In a study that was also conducted in Hong Kong and involved seven, nine and 12-year-old EFL learners, Lee (2010) combined a multiple-choice task with retrospective verbal protocols. As was the case in Rose’s (2000) study, she also employed a main character that the children were asked to identify with. In her study the character was female and called Mei Mei. The multiple-choice task included 12 scenarios representing apologies, complaints, refusals and requests. In contrast to Rose’s study, Lee provided her young learners with written materials.

 According to Taguchi and Röver (2017, p. 102) “verbal protocols, also known as verbal reports or ‘think aloud’ protocols, are introspective self-report procedures” of which two types are distinguished “concurrent verbal protocols, [in which] learners are asked to say what they are thinking while they are working on tasks, [and] retrospective verbal protocols, [in which learner] complete the task first and then report what they were thinking”.

34

60

2  Literature Review

The main characters referred to in the situations were presented in illustrations at the top of the data collection sheet and some words in English that pilot study participants had considered difficult were translated into Chinese. A sample scenario of the multiple-choice test is provided below. Context: Mei Mei’s head was hit by Fong Fong during recess. She met a teacher in the corridor. Mei Mei: Fong Fong hit me during recess. Teacher: I’m sorry to hear it. What does Mei Mei mean? a. b. c. d.

Mei Mei complains to the teacher about Fong Fong’s behavior. Mei Mei tells the teacher that she saw Fong Fong during recess. Mei Mei is glad to see Fong Fong during recess. The teacher wants to know what has happened to Mei Mei. (Lee 2010, p. 371)

The data elicitation instruments used in both studies show that traditional ILP data collection instruments may need to be adapted for young L2 learners to ensure that the instructions and descriptions are understood by the children. In addition, the authors of both studies emphasized that they included scenarios that reflected situations that children of the target age groups may encounter in everyday life. Another essential aspect that should be considered when collecting data from young learners is that the instrument(s) should be designed in a way that is motivating and captures children’s attention and interest. Regarding the former, it is important that ILP instruments designed for young children contain several items that all children will be able to complete successfully, as experiencing success is crucial for L2 learners (Dörnyei and Csizer 1998) and this also applies to completing research tasks. In order to capture children’s attention and keep them interested in completing the task, it is best if the instrument contains features that children tend to find enjoyable, such as the cartoons used in Rose’s (2000) instrument. Finally, it is important to remember that “young learners’ maturational constraints regulate what tasks should be used in assessment” (Butler 2016, p. 365). This concludes the discussion of issues that are directly related to pragmatics. In the following sections, I will focus on issues related to the broader field of teaching young EFL learners.

2.2  Concepts and Issues in ELT and SLA In the following sections, I will briefly introduce key concepts that are relevant for the present investigation. It needs to be noted, however, that due to space constraints, the issues and concepts addressed here cannot be dealt with in an exhaustive manner. Instead, they are intended to highlight important terms and concepts and to provide readers with a basic understanding of why the issues addressed are relevant for teaching and learning English in the primary school. In Sect. 2.2.1, I will address the concept of communicative competence which is often referred to in school curricula and also forms the basis of Byram’s (1997,

2.2 Concepts and Issues in ELT and SLA

61

2009) intercultural (communicative) competence framework. Before discussing intercultural competence frameworks in Sect. 2.2.3, it is necessary to briefly compare and contrast different views on culture in Sect. 2.2.2. Also relevant for the present discussion are different learning contexts which are addressed in Sect. 2.2.4. A, if not the, key theoretical hypothesis in interlanguage pragmatics is Schmidt’s (1990, 1993) noticing hypothesis, which I will introduce in Sect. 2.2.5. The chapter will then conclude with some introductory comments on teaching EFL to young learners in Sect. 2.2.6. In order to keep the length of this chapter manageable, I have taken the decision to provide background information on wider ELT and SLA issues that may be of particular interest to pre-service teachers, in-service teachers and teacher trainers (such as background on homework and special educational needs) and which primarily feature in the teachers’ survey but are less directly related to key pragmatic concerns, in Chap. 6. This means that teaching professionals who are primarily interested in the teachers’ survey can read Chap. 6 without having to frequently refer back to the literature review.

2.2.1  Communicative Competence The concept of communicative competence can be found in many school curricula (e.g. Kultusministerkonferenz 2004; Kultusministerium Sachsen-Anhalt 2007; Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Bildung und Kultus, Wissenschaft und Kunst 2014). The term itself was first introduced into the fields of SLA and ELT in the 1970s and is very much related to the communicative language teaching (CLT) approach which developed at the same time (Savignon 2008). The central idea with regard to communicative language teaching was that second or foreign language learners should be equipped with the means to actually communicate and achieve communicative goals (such as asking for information) in their L2 rather than just have a purely structural awareness of grammar and vocabulary in the target language.

Definition Savignon (1976, p. 4) provides one of the earliest conceptualizations of communicative competence and considers the term to refer to a way of describing what it is a native speaker knows which enables him [or her] to interact effectively with other native speakers. […] The native speaker knows not only how to say something but what to say and when to say it. The linguistic features of an exchange are embedded in cultural context which includes the role of the speaker in a particular context, the role of the other participants and a host of non-­ verbal communication cues such as distance, posture, gestures, facial expressions.

62

2  Literature Review

In subsequent years a number of very detailed frameworks of communicative competence were proposed (e.g. Canale and Swain 1980; Bachman and Palmer 1982; Canale 1983; Celce-Murcia et al. 1995; Celce-Murcia 2007; Bachman and Palmer 2010). These frameworks tend to address a number of different components that together result in an individual’s communicative competence, such as a good command of vocabulary and grammar,35 knowledge of registers and varieties, pragmatic competence and strategic competence (such as using synonyms or more general terms36 when the exact word in the target language is not known or cannot be recalled). I will not discuss these frameworks in detail here because several of the components included in them are targeted at either intermediate-advanced L2 learners or at older L2 learners, i.e. not children whose L1 competence is still developing. Instead, I refer to a more recent view of communicative competence that relates the concept closely to the L2 classroom and learners’ needs. Background Brown (2002, p. 13, my emphasis) writes Given that communicative competence is the goal of the language classroom, instruction needs to point toward all of its components: organizational, pragmatic, strategic, and psychomotoric. Communicative goals are best achieved by giving due attention to language use [...], to fluency and not just accuracy, to authentic language and contexts, and to students’ eventual need to apply classroom learning to heretofore unrehearsed contexts in the real world.

Brown makes a very important point, namely that the instruction in the L2 classroom should prepare EFL learners for using the foreign language in real life contexts. The goal of teaching a foreign language to L2 learners should not be to expose them to input that has little relevance for potential real-life interactions (whether in the near of far future). Rather, classroom instruction should provide input that learners can use in a wide variety of real-life contexts that they may find themselves in. Since the mid-1990s, another concept has entered the field of foreign language education and English language teaching that is – depending on how it is defined – related to communicative competence. This new concept is intercultural competence or intercultural communicative competence (ICC). I will address this concept in Sect. 2.2.3, but before doing so, I will first discuss views on culture in Sect. 2.2.2, as culture is at the core of intercultural (communicative) competence.

 Grammar and vocabulary are sometimes referred to as organizational components (e.g. in Bachman and Palmer’s 2010 framework). 36  For example, if the English translations for the German Schäferhund (German Shepherd dog / Alsatian) is not available to the L2 learner when he or she would like to use the word, the L2 learner may instead refer to a big dog or a working dog originally used for looking after sheep. 35

2.2 Concepts and Issues in ELT and SLA

63

2.2.2  Culture Freitag-Hild (2018, p. 160) notes that “[t]he idea that a foreign language cannot be taught without the culture(s) in which this language is used to communicate has generally been accepted in foreign language education” but then also adds that while there is agreement that aspects of culture(s) should be taught, there is less agreement on what culture actually is, i.e. what it encompasses. This view is shared by Jedynak (2011, p.  65) who also provides a helpful visual image of culture as being similar to an iceberg. Definition Probably the most popular explanation of the notion of culture is […] a comparison of culture to an iceberg only the tip of which is visible (language, food, appearance, etc.) whereas a large part of the iceberg is difficult to see or grasp (communication style, beliefs, values, attitudes, perceptions, etc). The items in the invisible body of the iceberg include a long list of notions from definitions of beauty or respect to patterns of group decision making, ideals governing child-raising, as well as values relating to leadership, prestige, health, love or death (Lussier et al. 200). Jedynak (2011, p. 65, my emphasis)

A somewhat different view of culture is proposed by Secru (2000), who differentiates between culture with a small c and a big c.

Definition [W]heareas small c culture is commonly understood as referring to phenomena of everyday life, popular cultural products and human behavior, […] [b]ig C Culture is conceived as manifesting itself in ideas, values, history, institutions, literature, philosophy and artistic products. Secru (2000, p. 28)

One question that needs to be asked with regard to EFL classrooms is: what aspects of culture can teachers actually cover? Much will depend on the L2 learners’ proficiency and age. It is quite obvious that it would not make sense to provide young EFL learners with information about the British Parliament for example, as national politics are likely to be of less interest to them than the writer Beatrix Potter who authored The Tales of Peter Rabbit and Jemima Puddle-Duck and who ensured by her conservationist activities that large parts of the English Lake District were preserved in such a way that the area could become an UNESCO World Heritage site in 2017. In addition to proficiency and age, another dimension that needs to be considered when evaluating which cultural elements to teach relates to which aspects of the target culture L2 learners need to be aware of most urgently when encountering an individual from that culture or when visiting a particular country. If we consider intercultural interactions, i.e. interactions involving individuals from different cultures, then a key issue is interlocutors’ ability to understand the other person and what he or she wishes to convey, as well as the ability to use language in

64

2  Literature Review

such a way that the other person can comprehend it and decode it correctly. Thus, language, communication styles and rituals that can provide insights into the values of a particular culture are an essential part of teaching culture in the EFL classroom. Another issue that needs to be addressed is how many target cultures young EFL learners ought to be exposed to and to what extent. Is it useful to mainly focus on one country, such as Great Britain, and then mainly address aspects of this culture, e.g. English, Caribbean British, Scottish by following the lives of familiar characters throughout a textbook series? Or is it a good idea to mainly focus on the British Isles but also at times venture off to potential holiday destinations, such as the United States? Or should a number of national cultures be focused on to provide children with maximum variety and maximum exposure to different ways of life? These are questions that teachers will need to consider and answer for their own individual teaching context(s). While mainly referring to a particular national context and cultures within that context may provide learners with a sense of stability and orientation, not focusing on a main context offers variety. As Sect. 3.4 will show, three of the four textbook series that I investigated are mainly referring to one context – Great Britain – while one, the Ginger series, uses a different approach. From a pragmatic point of view, it is desirable that young EFL learners know which culture uses particular expressions that are clearly marked and are not universally employed in all English-speaking cultures. For example, they need to know that the greeting howdy is mainly used in the southern and Midwestern parts of the United States and can be associated with specific stereotypical views of individuals living in rural contexts (Schreier 2007), if they are exposed to this greeting in their classroom. Therefore, this greeting should not be used as a standard form by them when talking to someone from Great Britain. Intercultural (communicative) competence focuses on L2 learners’ ability to interact with individuals from another culture in an appropriate and effective manner and links concepts of culture and cultural knowledge/skills in L2 education. I will address this competence in the following section.

2.2.3  Intercultural Competence Like communicative competence, intercultural (communicative) competence37 is also featured in several school curricula (e.g. Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen 2008; Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur 2010; Niedersächsisches Kultusministerium 2018). In addition, the importance of intercultural competence has been addressed  The word communicative is presented in brackets, since these two terms are sometimes used interchangeably in official government publications. A similar phenomenon is noted by SpencerOatey (2010, p. 189, original emphasis) who writes that “a number of different terms are used in the literature for the broad concept of intercultural competence […] including intercultural competence, […] intercultural effectiveness and intercultural communication competence”.

37

2.2 Concepts and Issues in ELT and SLA

65

on a European level by the Council of Europe that considers it an essential skill. In a recent publication by the Council of Europe, Huber et al. (2014, p. 10) state [i]n 2008, the Council of Europe’s White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue: “Living together as equals in dignity” identified several key areas where action is required to enhance intercultural dialogue to safeguard and develop human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Intercultural education was one of these areas. The White Paper viewed intercultural competence as a crucial capability which needs to be developed by every individual to enable them to participate in intercultural dialogue. However, it also noted that intercultural competence is not acquired automatically, but instead needs to be learned, practised and maintained throughout life. Educators at all levels and types of education play an essential role in facilitating the development of intercultural competence. Moreover, the report of the Group of Eminent Persons entitled “Living together  – Combining diversity and freedom in 21st century Europe” (2011) observed that educators and education authorities in all member states should aim to develop intercultural competence as a core element of school curricula, and should aim to extend it beyond formal education to non-formal settings as well.

Thus, while communicative competence is a concept of great relevance in foreign language education as it encapsulates a move towards functional and needsbased language teaching, intercultural competence tends not to be solely restricted to the area of L2 teaching and learning but is instead considered to be a life-skill that is of relevance in a wide variety of contexts. This also explains why many different definitions, conceptualisations and models of intercultural competence exist that represent the views of different disciplines (e.g. business studies, communication studies, linguistics, tourism studies) on intercultural competence (cf. Deardorff 2009, Spencer-Oatey and Franklin 2009, Schauer 2016, in press). In the area of L2 teaching and learning, two frameworks of intercultural competence are frequently referred to, Byram’s (1997, 2009) and Fantini’s (1995, 2019). Since Byram is based in Europe and made notable contributions to the Council of Europe (e.g. Byram and Planet 2000, Byram 2003), he is more widely known in this geographical region and consequently more frequently referred to in official publications by European institutions than Fantini who is based in the United States. Byram (1997, 2009) is also well-known for his distinction between intercultural competence and intercultural communicative competence. Definition According to Byram intercultural competence refers to the notion that [i]ndividuals have the ability to interact in their own language with people from another country and culture, drawing upon their knowledge about intercultural communication, their attitudes of interest in otherness, and their skills in interpreting, relating and discovering, i.e. of overcoming and enjoying intercultural contact. (Byram 1997, p. 70, my emphasis)

This means that according to his definition, intercultural competence is not something that foreign or second language teaching is mainly concerned with.

66

2  Literature Review

Instead, the fostering of intercultural competence is something that a variety of school subjects38 can cover. In contrast, intercultural communicative competence is closely related to L2 teaching and learning. Definition Byram defines intercultural communicative competence as [the] abil[ity] to interact with people from another country and culture in a foreign language. [Individuals who have this competence] are able to negotiate a mode of communication and interaction which is satisfactory to themselves and the other and they are able to act as mediator between people of different cultural origins. Their knowledge of another culture is linked to their language competence through their ability to use language appropriately – sociolinguistic and discourse competence – and their awareness of the specific meanings, values and connotations of the language. (Byram 1997, p. 71, my emphasis)

Fantini’s approach towards intercultural communicative competence is somewhat different to Byram’s since he very much relates it to an individual’s L1 culture and his or her communicative competence in their L1. He writes that [t]o understand ‘intercultural’ communicative competence (ICC), we return first to the notion of communicative competence (CC). […] CC proved to be an important notion in the field of language education because it broadened traditional views of the language field, expanding the subject to encompass more than grammar structures and vocabulary. CC embraced all of the multiple abilities required to perform as a competent and comprehensible member within any language and cultural group. Every individual, in every culture, develops CC; in other words, everyone is competent in some CC system. […] CC develops through a process of enculturation, beginning at birth. […] Native communicative competence (or CC1), then, displays the precise combination of attributes that we also need to develop (in as far as possible) to participate in any language-­ culture system. Subsequent communicative competencies (CC2, CC3, CC4, etc.) all require precisely the same abilities that made us acceptable and intelligible within our initial CC. In summary, one’s CC1 includes shared values and beliefs, language and communicative behaviors as appropriate by context, and a shared semantic system. […] [D]eveloping a new CC in another language-culture, to whatever degree and in whatever manner, constitutes ‘intercultural’ contact and an ‘intercultural’ process ensues. (Fantini 2019, pp. 29–30)

Fantini further notes that an individual’s view of culture and language is always influenced by the values and belief systems of one’s first language and culture. This

 A number of subjects that provide pupils and students with the skills needed for interpreting, relating and discovering, such as the learners’ native language subject (e.g. German, English, Spanish), as well as subjects related community relations, group dynamics, psychology, ethics, history, politics or geography for example can be employed to teach intercultural competence.

38

2.2 Concepts and Issues in ELT and SLA

67

can have an impact on how L2 learners view the norms and values encoded in typical language use by native speakers of their target language. For example, while asking about how much an interlocutor’s car cost may be considered an appropriate and uncontroversial question amongst acquaintances in one culture (as it intends to show interest and may even be intended as a compliment), it may be considered completely inappropriate in another culture (as personal questions concerning substantial sums of money may be regarded as an unsuitable topic amongst acquaintances). Fantini argues that engaging with another language and culture tends to have an impact on an individual’s first language and culture, as encountering the new language and culture enables people to compare and contrast two systems. As such, there is potential for personal growth and development that is frequently considered to be a positive result of developing intercultural competence. Considerations about appropriate and effective language use are central to an individual’s pragmatic competence – whether in his or her L1 or L2, and both terms feature in Fantini’s definition of intercultural competence. Definition ICC [intercultural communicative competence] is briefly defined as ‘a complex of abilities needed to perform effectively and appropriately when interacting with others who are linguistically and culturally different from oneself’ (Fantini and Tirmizi 2006: 12). The terms ‘effective’ and ‘appropriate’ are both equally important in this definition (and are now widely used) because they acknowledge that input is needed from two perspectives – that of self and that of other. (Fantini 2019, p. 33)

This definition shows the link between pragmatic competence and intercultural communicative competence. It also needs to be emphasized that the notion of appropriateness is also very much part of Byram’s (1997) conceptualization of intercultural competence. Thus, interlanguage pragmatic concerns are of key relevance according to both definitions.

2.2.4  Language Learning Contexts Individuals learn about the norms and conventions of a particular language and culture by receiving instruction. This process of enculturation starts very early on with regard to the first language(s)39 and culture(s) of an individual and typically happens in more than one context. One such context is the family, where more senior family members (parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, older siblings, etc.)  The brackets containing the plurals s are added, as in the case of multilingual children (i.e. children who are raised in more than one language and culture) the process of enculturation begins in more than one language.

39

68

2  Literature Review

socialize an individual into a particular culture and language (in the case of monolinguals) or into particular cultures and languages (in the case of multilinguals). Another context is the more formal institutional one, such as a nursery, pre-school or school, where learning objectives are clearly defined and specially qualified staff are tasked with helping their learners achieve these objectives and progress through key stages. With regard to young learners, it is important to first of all differentiate between multilingual/bilingual language acquisition and early L2 acquisition. According to De Houwer (2009, pp. 5–6) [b]ilingual First Language Acquisition (BFLA) is the development of language in young children who hear two languages spoken to them from birth. BFLA are learning two first languages. There is no chronological difference between the two languages in terms of when the children started to hear them. (…) BFLA also represents a different language learning context than Early Second Language Acquisition (ESLA), where MFLA [Monolingual First Language Acquisition] children’s language environments change in such a way that they start to hear a second language (L2) with some regularity (…). Often this happens through day care of pre-school.

Thus, De Houwer argues that exposure to another language in an institutional context, such as a pre-school or a creche does not result in bilingualism and should instead be seen as early second language acquisition. Ortega (2013, p. 4), however, views this slightly differently, and addresses potential overlaps: SLA as a field investigates the human capacity to learn languages once the first language […] or first languages […] have been learned and are established. […] Sometimes, however, the individuals learning an additional language are still young children when they start acquiring the L2, maybe as young as three of four years old (remember by this early age most of the essential pieces of their mother tongue may be all in place). Thus, bilingualism and SLA can overlap in the early years making it at times difficult to draw the boundaries between the two fields.

Another way of looking at learning contexts and the issue of bilingual versus early second language acquisition is to consider what kind of input L2 learners are exposed to in the different environments. Background Two different learning environments are typically distinguished in interlanguage pragmatics: the foreign language and the second language learning contexts. In a foreign language learning context, the target language is not the official language of the country the learner lives in, and learners tend to encounter the target language mostly in structured institutional contexts (e.g. English lessons in German primary schools). In a second language learning context, the target language is the official language of the country the learner lives in and L2 learners are likely to encounter the foreign language in everyday life situations as well as in institutional ones (e.g. a Japanese child living in Germany).

2.2 Concepts and Issues in ELT and SLA

69

If, for example, a child is born to Japanese parents living in Germany who only converse in Japanese at home, the child is likely to be exposed to some German before he or she starts pre-school (e.g. when visiting a doctor, accompanying the parents when they go shopping, etc.) and will then be exposed to varied input when attending pre-school (e.g. by the pre-school staff, fellow children, these children’s parents). This second language environment is input rich, because learners receive a large amount of authentic target language input from native speakers while they are in this context. In addition, if none of the individuals in this second language environment speak the child’s first language, the little Japanese native speaker will not be able to resort to his or her native language when talking with the pre-school staff. Consequently, if the young learner wishes to communicate with members of staff, he or she will need to do so in German and thus will be forced to learn the L2. In addition, the young GSL (German as a second language) learner will be exposed to German by age peers and adults and will therefore learn how German native speakers of different ages talk about the same issue. For example, while pre-school staff needing to empty their bladder may say to each other Ich geh’ mal wohin [lit. I’m going somewhere] or Ich gehe mal für kleine Königstiger [lit. I’m going for small Bengal Tigers], young children are more likely to say Ich muss mal pipi machen [I need a wee]. The considerable amount of native speaker input concerning activities and situations that are highly relevant for the young learner and also likely to be repeated frequently over the period of time the child is attending the pre-school is likely to result in a native-like acquisition of the second language if the child remains in the second language context for several years and does not return to his or her parents’ home country without subsequent40 exposure to German. In contrast, young learners in a foreign language environment may be exposed to limited input provided by non-native speakers of the target language, e.g. a German pre-school attended by children who have German as (one of) their first language(s) where one of the permanent German staff members speaks English with the children either throughout the pre-school day or in designated foreign language learning sessions. In this context, children will mainly be exposed to one speaker of the target language and are unlikely to encounter native age-peer input. Furthermore, young learners will be able to use German if they wish to communicate with the English teacher  but do not know the English words. Depending on who is tasked with teaching English (i.e. what qualifications – if any – individuals taking on this role in pre-school are required to have by the institution they work for), young EFL learners

 If (young) L2 learners are no longer exposed to the target language, they are likely to forget their L2 partially or entirely. This process of losing competence in a language is called attrition. Tomiyama’s (2008) study provides highly interesting insights into the L2 attrition of two Japanese siblings who moved with their parents from an English-speaking country back to Japan.

40

70

2  Literature Review

may be exposed to near-native authentic English input or to false pronunciation, incorrect grammar and inappropriate/unusual pragmatic strategies.41 Because the foreign language learning context tends to very much depend on the skills and competence of the L2 teaching staff, it is essential that foreign language (FL) teachers are well equipped for their role. While teaching staff in secondary education institutions will typically have studied the subjects they are teaching, this is not always the case in primary education contexts, where teachers may be expected to teach a foreign language that they never studied at university. In these contexts, it is important that teachers largely unfamiliar with aspects of foreign language teaching are supported or find ways of support. This support can be offered by subject specialist colleagues working at the same school, by in-service teacher development programmes offered by local universities or educational institutions, local/regional/state education bodies, online with materials provided by experienced teachers or institutions (such as the British Council), by subject-specific academic literature, and by well-designed textbooks and additional support materials provided by textbook publishing houses. As the final source of support also tends to be the one that is more readily available than some of the others, the analysis of pragmatic content in four frequently used textbook series in Chap. 4 of this book was conducted to examine whether textbook content offers helpful pragmatic input to young learners.

2.2.5  Noticing Hypothesis A considerable number of books exist that provide detailed background information on the various second language acquisition theories that have been proposed by linguists and psychologists (e.g. Lightbown and Spada 2013; Mitchell et al. 2013; Hummel 2014). In interlanguage pragmatics one psycholinguistic theory called noticing hypothesis is frequently referred to, as it was proposed by a scholar, Richard Schmidt, who related his thinking on L2 acquisition to pragmatic concerns, although he considers his noticing hypothesis “to apply equally to all aspects of language (lexicon, phonology, grammatical form, pragmatics)” (Schmidt 1990, p.  149). Examples from one of his studies, Schmidt (1983) that investigated the language learning process of a Japanese learner of English, were referred to in Sect. 2.1.2.

 I recently witnessed a local pre-school group accompanied by three pre-school staff, one of which appeared to be the main designated English teacher, in a local store and listened in on their conversations while waiting for our turns at the cashiers. The staff who were supposed to speak English struggled to do so, often not seeming to know the words for the basic shopping items that they intended to buy. There was frequent code-switching from English to German amongst the staff and staff and children. Many opportunities for using the language were missed and children were exposed to incorrect grammar and pronunciation.

41

2.2 Concepts and Issues in ELT and SLA

71

Schmidt (1990, 1993) argues that L2 learners need to pay attention to input and notice how features of the target language are used in order for this input to become intake and therefore available for learners to use themselves. Background [t]he data from experimental psychology clearly support a conservative hypothesis that whatever learning might result from unattended processing is insignificant compared to the results of attended processing. The data seem to me to be also compatible with two much stronger hypotheses, that attention to input is a necessary condition for any learning at all, and that what must be attended to is not input in general, but whatever features of the input play a role in the system to be learned. For the learning of pragmatics in a second language, attention to linguistic forms, functional meanings, and the relevant contextual features is required. I also claim that learners experience their learning, that attention is subjectively experienced as noticing, and that the attentional threshold for noticing is the same as the threshold for learning. Finally, I argue that, while incidental and implicit learning are both possible, consciously paying attention to the relevant features of input and attempting to analyze their significance in terms of deeper generalizations are both highly facilitative. (Schmidt 1993, pp. 35–36, my emphasis)

With regard to teaching L2 pragmatics this means that learners will benefit from frequent exposure to features that they ought to acquire. The link between Schmidt’s theory and subsequent research on teaching pragmatics is shown by Takahashi (2010, p. 392) who after reviewing studies on pragmatic instruction observes that [o]ne of the major findings that these studies have in common is that providing metapragmatic information or certain forms of explicit intervention is most effective or helpful for learners to develop pragmatic competence in L2. […] All findings clearly support Schmidt’s (1990, 1993, 1995, 2001) noticing hypothesis, which claims that learners have to notice L2 features in the input for the subsequent development to occur in the L2.

Since pragmatic conventions and norms play a major role in communicative and intercultural competence, L2 learners should be given ample opportunities to acquire pragmatic competence in their second or foreign language. In order for them to do so, they will need to be exposed to appropriate pragmatic input. Since EFL learners may not notice an L2 feature immediately, they will need to be given repeated input opportunities throughout their formal L2 instruction. This means that textbooks or other input will need to regularly and consistently feature key pragmatic aspects in all volumes of a textbook series. If this is not the case, or if the input is overemphasizing rarely used features or misrepresenting pragmatic norms of the target language, EFL teachers need to carefully consider what steps they can take to assist their learners in learning pragmatic norms that are in line with actual target language use.

72

2  Literature Review

2.2.6  Teaching EFL to Young Learners Teaching a foreign language to young learners attending primary school is very different from teaching adolescents or adults. As discussed in Sect. 2.2.4, one aspect in which EFL primary school classrooms differ from typical secondary or higher education learning contexts is that teachers may not have studied the foreign language when doing their teaching training degrees at university and therefore may find it challenging42 to teach a subject they encountered the last time they themselves were at school (see Rich 2019 for an international perspective on the training of young EFL learners’ teachers). In addition, as Elsner (2018, pp. 24–26) notes [f]rom a developmental-psychology perspective, young language learners are quite different from adolescent or adult learners. […] Young learners love roleplays, stories and competitive games. They need and want a lot of repetition, and it is important to them to frequently experience praise and success. […] [L]anguage learning in primary school follows a rather playful and holistic approach. Primary school curricula suggest the integration of picture storybooks or comics, action songs, games, rhymes and raps, in order to provide multisensory and active learning which are, next to repetition and learner orientation, widely accepted as core principles in early language classrooms (cf. Elsner 2014, 20 ff.). Children are supposed to practise the new language in cheerful but meaningful communicative situations, for example initiated through role plays or cooperative tasks that are related to children’ s real lives.

Thus, in contrast to adolescent or adult FL learners, teaching a foreign language to children should involve a multi-faceted approach that offers much variety with regard to how the target language is presented (e.g. games, songs, stories). This is essential according to Haß et al. (2016) because young learners do not yet have the attention span of older learners and therefore benefit from varied input that provides a balance between (a) phases of focused work and more relaxed phases, (b) discovery of new information and revision of already encountered features of the target language and (c) phases in which learners do not move around much or at all and phases in which movement43 is allowed or required. While textbooks can play an important role in assisting teachers and providing a structured approach to EFL teaching, introducing story or picture books44 and other materials to young learners exposes children to a broader range of learning resources and may facilitate young learners’ motivation and interest. In addition, these additional and supplementary materials can help EFL teachers address issues that are particularly relevant to their teaching context and class (e.g. new pupils joining

42  Books that target precisely this group of teachers (e.g. Strobel and Sutter 2012, 2013) show that there is a need for in-service support materials on foreign language teaching. 43  In these phases, some form of Total Physical Response (TPR) may be used by the teacher, which involves “form[s]of acting out [teacher’s] orders, enacting stories, drawing pictures in response to instructions or accompanying songs with actions” (Kirsch 2008, p. 56). 44  See Ellis and Brewster (2014) and Cameron (2001) on storytelling and picture books in EFL primary classrooms.

2.2 Concepts and Issues in ELT and SLA

73

the class; partnership/twinning programme with a school in another country) or that they consider not to be well covered in the textbooks that they are using (e.g. specific speech acts). Another important aspect in the primary EFL classroom concerns the wide range of abilities represented in primary school classes. Legutke et al. (2012, p. 50) write that primary school classrooms are constituted with heterogeneous learners who are diverse in many ways: amongst others in terms of individual competence levels, preferred ways of working, or social competences […] Teachers need to offer their learners different possibilities of language acquisition so that they may get involved in a way that corresponds to their diverse preconditions, needs and interests.

Responding to the diverse needs of learners and modifying instructional input in order to facilitate individual learners’ learning is nowadays45 often referred to as differentiation or differentiated instruction (DI). Sullivan and Weeks (2019, p. 182) define it as follows: [D]ifferentiated instruction (DI) […] respond[s] systematically to students’ varied learning needs and language skills. DI is an instructional orientation wherein ‘teachers proactively modify curricula, teaching methods, resources, learning activities, and student products to address the diverse needs of individual students and small groups of students to maximise the learning opportunity for each student in a classroom’ (Tomlinson et al. 2003, p. 121). In short, DI is a framework for tailoring curriculum and instruction to students’ readiness and interests so that students acquire desired knowledge and skills and avoid disengagement that often follows instruction misaligned to students’ present knowledge and skills (Tomlinson et al. 2003).

Differentiation may therefore result in teachers preparing special materials for those students that display a high ability in foreign language learning, as well as those that struggle with the subject. Depending on their teaching context, teachers may also cater for young learners who are not yet able to speak the official language of the country the school is based in (e.g. because they are immigrants or refugees with different native languages). Teachers may also make adjustments to their instructional materials or methods if they have children with special educational needs (SEN) in their classes (Frederickson and Cline 2009). Special educational needs may be defined slightly differently in different countries or states (see Sect. 6.8 for different approaches). Delaney (2009, p. 12) considers the following to constitute the main SEN categories: (1) cognition and learning needs, (2) communication and interaction difficulties, (3) social, emotional and behavioural difficulties (SEBD), (4) sensory impairments and (5) medical conditions. The list shows that teachers wishing to address the individual needs of several SEN learners belonging to different categories may need to educate themselves on how to best cater for their learners’ needs or seek specialist guidance and support.

 Sullivan and Weeks (2019, p.  182) note that “[a]s a general concept, DI [Differentiated Instruction] has been around for many years and discussed in a variety of terms (e.g., differentiated learning, tailoring, individualization, adapting to individual differences, universal design).

45

74

2  Literature Review

Background The field of teaching foreign languages to young learners has developed considerably since the 1990s when the first steps that lead towards the introduction of FL teaching in EU primary schools were taken in the wider European context (Kubanek 2017). While Klippel was still reporting on an increase in compulsory foreign language education in primary schools across Germanspeaking countries in 2000, foreign language education in primary schools is now compulsory in all European Union countries apart from Wales (Yagmur, Extra and Swinkels 2012). As a result, the number of books and studies published on foreign language teaching of young learners has also increased.

Unfortunately, however, the number of sources that address interlanguage pragmatic issues empirically in young EFL teaching is still rather limited and this is one of the reasons why this book was written. I am very grateful for the detailed discussions that I had with the pre-service teachers who contributed much to the development of the data collection materials when decisions on what features to include in the young L2 learners’ tasks and in the EFL teacher survey (analysed and discussed in Chaps. 6 and 7 respectively) were taken. While Chap. 6 may seem unusual in some respects, since it addresses a broader spectrum of ELT issues than pragmatic concerns, I found it very useful to also look at data that provided insights into EFL primary school teachers’ classroom realities and concerns that I have discussed in this section, e.g. varied input options, differentiation and inclusion. This more holistic approach that looks beyond speech acts will hopefully provide a more detailed picture not only of pragmatic input via textbooks and children’s books and output via the young EFL learners’ data, but also of other issues that may have an impact on how English as a foreign language is taught in primary schools and why certain aspects of the EFL teaching are focused on, while others are not deemed so important. This concludes the literature review chapter. In the next chapter, I will focus on the research methodology of the study.

References Aijmer, K. (1996). Conversational routines in English: Convention and creativity. London: Longman. Aliyoun, S. (2018). Managing hello and goodbye: Investigating openings and closings in German and Iranian EFL textbooks. Paper presented at the Teaching and Learning L2 Pragmatics Conference at University of Central Lancashire, Preston. Akhimien, E. P. (2004). The use of “How are you” in Nigerian society. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(11), 2055–2058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.02.003. Al-Gathani, S., & Röver, C. (2018). Proficiency and preference organization in second language refusals. Journal of Pragmatics, 129, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.020.

References

75

Allott, N. (2010). Key terms in pragmatics. London: Continuum/Bloomsbury. Ashford, S., Heller-Jones, R., Horner, M., & Parr, R. (2004). Green Line New 2 für Bayern. Stuttgart: Klett. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bach, K., & Harnish, R. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1982). The construct validation of some components of communicative proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 449–465. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586464. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2003). Understanding the role of grammar in the acquisition of L2 pragmatics. In A. M. Flor, A. F. Guerra, & E. U. Juan (Eds.), Pragmatic competence and foreign language teaching (pp. 25–44). Castelló de la Plana: Publicaciones de la Universitat Jaume I. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2010). Exploring the pragmatics of interlanguage pragmatics: Definition by design. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures (pp. 219–260). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic vs. grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 233– 259. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587583. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (2005). Interlanguage pragmatics: Exploring institutional talk. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B. S., Mahan-Taylor, R., Morgan, M. J., & Reynolds, D. W. (1991). Developing pragmatic awareness: closing the conversation. ELT Journal, 45(1), 4–15. Bardovi-Harlig, K., Rose, M., & Nickels, E. (2008). The use of conventional expressions of thanking, apologizing, and refusing. In M. Bowles et al. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2007 second language research forum (pp. 113–130). Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: How to do things with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Bildung und Kultus, Wissenschaft und Kunst. (2014). Lehrplan Plus Grundschule: Lehrplan für die bayerische Grundschule. München: Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Bildung und Kultus, Wissenschaft und Kunst. Becker, J. A., & Semner, P. C. (1986). The spontaneous use of thank you by pre-schoolers as a function of sex, socioeconomic status, and listener status. Language in Society, 15(4), 537–545. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500012008. Bella, S., Sifianou, M., & Tzanne, A. (2015). Teaching politeness? In B. Pizziconi & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Teaching and learning (im)politeness (pp. 23–52). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. BiesWanger, M. (2015). Variational pragmatics and responding to thanks – revisited. Multilingua, 34(4), 527–546. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2014-0106. Blum-Kulka, S. (2013). Juliane House. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 2562–2564). Blackwell Publishing. Blum-Kulka, S., Kasper, G., & House, J. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood: Ablex Publishing. Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns. Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 197–213. https://doi.org/10.1093/ applin/5.3.196. Boxer, D., & Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: The case of complaints. ELT Journal, 49(1), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/49.1.44. Brown, H.  D. (2002). English language teaching in the post-method era: Towards better diagnosis, treatment and assessment. In J.  C. Richards & W.  A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp.  9–18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

76

2  Literature Review

Butler, Y. G. (2016). Assessing young learners. In D. Tsagari & J. Banerjee (Eds.), Handbook of second language assessment (pp. 359–376). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. (Ed.). (2003). Intercultural competence. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Byram, M. (2009). Intercultural speaker and the pedagogy of foreign language education. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The Sage handbook of intercultural competence (pp.  321–332). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Byram, M., & Planet, M.  T. (2000). Social identity and the European dimension: Intercultural competence through foreign language learning. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Cambridge Academic content dictionary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/here-you-go. Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2–27). New York: Longman. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/ applin/I.1.1. Cekaite, A. (2013). Child pragmatic development. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 603–609). Malden: Wiley Blackwell. Celce-Murcia, M. (2007). Rethinking the role of communicative competence in language teaching. In E. A. Soler & M. P. Safont Jordà (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 41–57). Dordrecht: Springer. Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 5–35. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2928w4zj. Clark, E. V. (2009). First language acquisition (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cohen, A.  D. (2010). Coming to terms with pragmatics. In N.  Ishihara & A.  D. Cohen (Eds.), Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet (pp.  3–20). Harlow: Pearson. Cohen, A. D. (2018). Learning pragmatics from native and nonnative language teachers. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Cohen, A. D., & Olshstain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: The case of apology. Language Learning, 31(1), 113–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1981. tb01375.x. Coulmas, F. (1981). Poison to your soul: Thanks and apologies contrastively viewed. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine (pp. 69–92). The Hague: Mouton. Culpeper, J., Mackey, A., & Taguchi, N. (2018). Second language pragmatics: From theory to research. London: Routledge. Culpeper, J., & Gillings, M. (2018). Politeness variation in English: A north-south divide? In V. Brezina, R. Love, & K. Aijmer (Eds.), Corpus approaches to contemporary British speech: Sociolinguistic studies of the spoken BNC2014 (pp. 33–59). Abingdon: Routledge. Culpeper, J., & Schauer, G.  A. (2018). Pragmatics. In J.  Culpeper, F.  Katamba, P.  Kerswill, T. McEnery, & R. Wodak (Eds.), English language: Description, variation and use (2nd ed., pp. 146–164). Basingstoke: Palgrave/MacMillan. Crystal, D. (1985). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. Dale, P. S. (1980). Is early pragmatic development measurable? Journal of Child Language, 7(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900006991. Deardorff, D. K. (Ed.). (2009). The Sage handbook of intercultural competence. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Delaney, M. (2009). Special educational needs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

References

77

De Houwer, A. (2009). An introduction to bilingual development. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Deuchar, M. (1984). British sign language. Abingdon: Routledge. Dikin, A. J. (2018). It’s no problem to be polite: Apparent-time change in responses to thanks. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 22(2), 190–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12278. Dore, J. (1974). A pragmatic description of early language development. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 3(4), 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01068169. Dörnyei, Z., & Csizér, K. (1998). Ten commandments for motivating language learners: Results of an empirical study. Language Teaching Research, 2(3), 203–229. https://doi. org/10.1177/136216889800200303. Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2008). Internal and external mitigation in interlanguage request production: The case of Greek learners of English. Journal of Politeness Research, 4(1), 111–138. Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2011). “Please answer me as soon as possible”: Pragmatic failure in non-native speakers’ e-mail requests to faculty. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(13), 3193–3215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.006. Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2016). Variation in evaluations of the (im)politeness of emails from L2 learners and perceptions of the personality of their senders. Journal of Pragmatics, 106, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.10.001. Economidou-Kogetsidis, M., & Woodfield, H. (Eds.). (2012). Interlanguage request modification. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Edmondson, W., & House, J.  (1981). Let’s talk and talk about it. München: Urban und Schwarzenberg. Ehlers, G., Michailow-Drews, U., Tait, H., Schönau, M., Van Montagu, A., & Zeich-Pelsis, A. (2017). Bumblebee 4: Textbook. Braunschweig: Schroedel Westermann. Eisenstein, M., & Bodman, J. (1986). ‘I very appreciate’: Expressions of gratitude by native and non-native speakers of American English. Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 167–185. https://doi. org/10.1093/applin/7.2.167. Eisenstein, M., & Bodman, J.  (1993). Expressing gratitude in American English. In G.  Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 64–81). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eisenstein Ebsworth, M., Bodman, J. W., & Carpenter, M. (1995). Cross-cultural realization of greetings in American English. In S.  M. Gass & J.  Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp. 89–108). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ellis, G., & Brewster, J. (2014). Tell it again! The storytelling handbook for primary English language teachers (3rd ed.). London: British Council. Elsner, D. (2018). Institutionalized foreign language learning: Teaching English at different levels. In C. Surkamp & B. Viebrock (Eds.), Teaching English as a foreign language: An introduction (pp. 17–37). Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler. Ely, R., & Berko Gleason, J. (2006). I’m sorry I said that: Apologies in young children’s discourse. Journal of Child Language, 33(3), 599–620. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000906007446. Ervin-Tripp, S.  M. (1976). Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society, 5, 25–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/5.3.196. Eslami, Z. R. (2010). Refusals: How to develop appropriate refusal strategies. In A. M. Flor & E. U. Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 217–236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fantini, A.  E. (1995). Introduction- language, culture and world view: Exploring the nexus. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 19(2), 143–153. https://doi. org/10.1016/0147-1767(95)00025-7. Fantini, A. E. (2019). Intercultural communicative competence in educational exchange: A multinational perspective. Abingdon: Routledge. Farese, G. M. (2015). Hi vs. ciao: NSM as a tool for cross-linguistic pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 129, 140–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.01.014. Felix-Brasdefer, J.  C. (2004). Interlanguage refusals: Linguistic politeness and length of residence in the target community. Language Learning, 54(4), 587–653. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00281.x.

78

2  Literature Review

Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2007). Pragmatic development in the Spanish as a FL classroom: A cross-­ sectional study of learner requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 253–286. https://doi. org/10.1515/IP.2007.013. Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2010). Data collection methods in speech act performance: DCTs, role plays and verbal reports. In A. M. Flor & E. U. Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 41–56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2013). Interlanguage pragmatics. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 2801–2810). Blackwell Publishing. Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2015). The language of service encounters: A pragmatic-discoursive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ferguson, C. A. (1976). The structure and use of politeness formulas. Language in Society, 5(2), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006989. Fontenelle, T. (2011). Lexicography. In J.  Simpson (Ed.), Handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 53–66). London: Routledge. Fordyce, K. (2013). The differential effects of explicit and implicit instruction on EFL learners’ use of epistemic stance. Applied Linguistics, 35(1), 6–28. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams076. Fox, K. (2014). Watching the English. London: Hodder. Fraser, B. (1978). Acquiring social competence in a second language. RELC Journal, 9(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368827800900201. Fraser, B. (1990). Perspective on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 219–236. https://doi. org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90081-N. Frederickson, N., & Cline, T. (2009). Special educational needs, inclusion and diversity. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Freitag-Hild, B. (2018). Teaching culture – intercultural competence, transcultural learning, global education. In C. Surkamp & B. Viebrock (Eds.), Teaching English as a foreign language: An introduction (pp. 159–176). Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler. Girard, M., & Sionis, C. (2004). The functions of formulaic speech in the L2 class. Pragmatics, 14(1), 31–53. Glaser, K. (2014). Inductive or deductive? The impact of method of instruction on the acquisition of pragmatic competence in EFL. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Greif, E. B., & Gleason, J. B. (1980). Hi, thanks and goodbye: More routine information. Language in Society, 9(2), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500008034. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics volume 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). London: Academic Press. Grieve, A., & Seebus, I. (2008). G’day or Guten Tag? A cross-cultural study of Australian and German telephone openings. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(7), 1323–1343. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.11.005. Halenko, N., & Jones, C. (2011). Teaching pragmatic awareness of spoken requests to Chinese EAP learners in the UK: Is explicit instruction effective? System, 39(1), 240–250. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.system.2017.06.011. Hassal, T. (2003). Requests by Australian learners of Indonesia. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1903– 1928. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00115-2. Heß, F., Kieweg, W., Kuty, M., Müller-Hartmann, A., & Weisshaar, H. (2016). Fachdidaktik Englisch: Tradition, Innovation, Praxis. Stuttgart: Klett. Holtgraves, T.  M. (2002). Language as social action: Social psychology and language use. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. House, J.  (1982). Opening and closing phases in English and German dialogues. Grazer Linguistische Studien, 16, 52–82. House, J.  (2006). Communicative styles in English and German. European Journal of English Studies, 10(3), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825570600967721. House, J., & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech (pp. 157–186).

References

79

House, J., & Kasper, G. (1987). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requesting in a foreign language. In W. Lörscher & R. Schulze (Eds.), Perspectives on language in performance (pp. 1250–1288). Tübingen: Narr. Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Huber, J., Reynolds, C., Barrett, M., Byram, M., Lázár, I., Mompoint-Gaillard, P., & Philippou, S. (2014). Developing intercultural competence through education (Council of Europe Pestalozzi Series, No. 3). Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Hübscher, I., Wagener, L., & Prieto, P. (2016). Young children’s sensitivity to polite stance expressed through audiovisual prosody in requests. Speech Prosody. https://doi.org/10.21437/ SpeechProsody.2016-184. Hummel, K.  M. (2014). Introducing second language acquisition: Perspectives and practices. Malden: Wiley. James, S. L. (1978). Effect of listener age and situation on the politeness of children’s directives. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 7(4), 307–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01068112. Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. London: Routledge. Jautz, S. (2013). Thanking formulae in English: Explorations across varieties and genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Jedynak, M. (2011). The attitudes of English language teachers towards developing intercultural communicative competence. In J. Arabski & A. Wojtaszek (Eds.), Aspects of culture in second language acquisition and foreign language learning (pp. 63–76). Heidelberg: Springer. Kasper, G. (1981). Pragmatische Aspekte in der Interrimssprache. Tübingen: Narr. Kecskes, I. (2015). Intracultural communication and Intercultural communication: Are they different? International Review of Pragmatics, 7(2), 171–194. https://doi.org/10.1163/ 18773109-00702002. Kirsch, C. (2008). Teaching foreign languages in the primary school. London: Continuum. Klippel, F. (2000). English in der Grundschule: Handbuch für einen kindgemäßen Fremdsprachenunterricht. Berlin: Cornelsen. Koike, D. A. (1995). Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanish foreign language learning. In S.  M. Gass & J.  Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp.  257–284). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kondo, S. (2008). Effects on pragmatic development through awareness-raising instruction: refusals by Japanese EFL learners. In E. A. Soler & A. M. Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language Learning, teaching and testing (pp. 153–177). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kondo, S. (2010). Apologies: Raising learners’ cross-cultural awareness. In A. M. Flor & E. U. Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 145–162). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kubanek, A. (2017). 25  years of ‘new’ young learner classrooms: Insights and challenges for teacher education. In E. Wilden & R. Porsch (Eds.), The professional development of primary EFL teachers: National and international research (pp. 27–44). Münster: Waxmann. Kultusministerium Sachsen-Anhalt. (2007). Fachlehrplan Grundschule: Englisch. Halle: Landesinstitut für Schulqualität und Lehrerbildung Sachsen-Anhalt. Kultusministerkonferenz. (2004). Beschlüsse der Kultusministerkonferenz: Bildungsstandards für die erste Fremdsprache (Englisch/Französisch) für den Hauptschulabschluss. München: Luchterhand. Lai, C. -C. (2013). Investigating L2 learners’ pragmatic competence in a study abroad context: A longitudinal study focusing on Taiwanese learners of English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Lancaster University, UK. Lakoff, R. (1977). What you do with words: Politeness, pragmatics and performatives. Paper presented at the Texas Conference of Performatives, Presuppositions, and Implicatures, Arlington. Lee, C. (2010). An exploratory study of the interlanguage pragmatic comprehension of young learners of English. Pragmatics, 20(3), 343–373. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.20.3.03lee. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.

80

2  Literature Review

Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Legutke, M. K., Müller-Hartmann, A., & Ditfurth, M. S. V. (2012). Teaching English in the primary school. Stuttgart: Klett. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lightbown, P.  M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Limberg, H. (2015). Teaching how to apologize: EFL textbooks and pragmatic input. Language Teaching Research, 20(6), 700–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815590695. Limberg, H. (2016). “Always remember to say Please and Thank you”: Teaching Politeness with German EFL textbooks. In K. Bardovi-Harlig & J. Cesar Felix-Brasdefer (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 14, pp.  265–292). Honolulu: University of Hawai’I, National Foreign Language Centre. Love, R., Dembry, C., Hardie, A., Brezina, V., & McEnery, T. (2017). The Spoken BNC2014: Designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3), 319–344. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.3.02lov. MacMillan. (n.d.). MacMillan dictionary. Oxford: MacMillan. https://www.macmillandictionary. com/dictionary/british/here-you-go-are. Martínez Flor, A. (2005). A theoretical review of the speech act of suggesting: Towards a taxonomy for its use in FLT. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 18, 167–187. Martínez Flor, A. (2010). Suggestions: How social norms affect pragmatic behaviour. In A. M. Flor & E. U. Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 257–274). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Martínez Flor, A., & Soler, E. A. (2007). Developing pragmatic awareness of suggestions in the EFL classrooms: A focus on instructional effects. RCLA/CJAL, 10(1), 47–76. Martínez Flor, A., & Juan, E. U. (2010a). Pragmatics and speech act performance. In A. M. Flor & E. U. Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 3–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Martínez Flor, A., & Juan, E. U. (2010b). The teaching of speech acts in second and foreign language instructional contexts. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures (pp. 423–442). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mills, S. (2017). English politeness and class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen. (2008). Richtlinien und Lehrpläne für die Grundschule in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Frechen: Ritterbach Verlag. Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2013). Second language learning theories (3rd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge. Morris, C. W. (1938). Foundations of the theory of signs. In O. Neurath (Ed.), International encyclopedia of unified science (Vol. 1). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mullany, L., & Stockwell, P. (2010). Introducing English language. Abingdon: Routledge. Naden, T. (1980). How to greet in Bisa. Journal of Pragmatics, 4(2), 137–145. https://doi. org/10.1016/0378-2166(80)90050-8. Nguyen, M. T. T. (2011). Learning to communicate in a globalized world: To what extent do school textbooks facilitate the development of intercultural pragmatic competence. RELC Journal, 42(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0033688210390265. Niedersächsisches Kultusministerium. (2018). Kerncurriculum für die Grundschule Schuljahrgänge 3–4: Englisch. Hannover: Uni Druck. Niezgoda, K., & Roever, C. (2001). Pragmatic and grammatical awareness. In K.  R. Rose & G.  Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp.  63–79). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nilsson, J., Norrthon, S., Lindström, J., & Wide, C. (2018). Greetings as social action in Finland Swedish and Swedish Swedish service encounters – A pluricentric perspective. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(1), 57–88. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0030.

References

81

Ogiermann, E. (2008). On the culture-specificity of linguistic gender differences: The case of English and Russian apologies. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(3), 259–286. https://doi. org/10.1515/IPRG.2008.013. Ogiermann, E. (2009). Politeness and in-directness across cultures: A comparison of English, German, Polish and Russian requests. Journal of Politeness Research, 5(2), 189–216. https:// doi.org/10.1515/JPLR.2009.011. Ogiermann, E. (2010). Teaching politeness with Green Line New? In M. Engelhardt & W. Gehring (Eds.), Fremdsprachendidaktik: Neue Aspekte in Forschung und Lehre (pp.  117–134). Oldenburg: BIS Verlag. Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. D. (1983). Apology: a speech act set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 18–35). Rowley: Newbury House. Ortega, L. (2013). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Routledge. Osuka, N. (2017). Development of pragmatic routines by Japanese learners in a study abroad context. In I. Kecskes & S. Assimakopoulos (Eds.), Current issues in intercultural pragmatics (pp. 275–296). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. “no worries, int.” OED Online, Oxford University Press, June 2018. www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/246264. Accessed 15 Aug 2018. Peirce, C. S. (1905). What pragmatism is. The Monist, 15(2), 161–181. Reeder, K. (1980). The emergence of illocutionary skills. Journal of Child Language, 7(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900007005. Rich, S. (2019). Early language learning teacher education. In S.  Garton & F.  Copland (Eds.), Routledge handbook of teaching English to Young learners (pp. 81–98). Abingdon: Routledge. Rinnert, C., & Kobayashi, H. (1999). Requestive hints in Japanese and English. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1173–1201. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00027-2. Rose, K. R. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(1), 27–67. Rowland, C. (2014). Understanding child language acquisition. Abingdon: Routledge. Sadeghidizaj, S. (2014). The contribution of explicit instruction vs. Implicit instruction to the acquisition of requests and request responses by EFL Students in Iran. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Lancaster University, UK. Safont Jordà, M. P. (2008). The speech act of requesting. In E. A. Soler (Ed.), Learning how to request in an instructed language language context (pp. 41–64). Bern: Peter Lang. Salomo, D., Lieven, E., & Thomasello, M. (2013). Children’s ability to answer different types of questions. Child Language, 40(2), 469–491. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000912000050. Savignon, S.  J. (1976). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. Keynote address at the Central States Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, Detroit, Michigan, April 23, 1976. Savignon, S. J. (2008). Communicative language teaching: Linguistic theory and classroom practice. In S.  J. Savignon (Ed.), Interpreting communicative language teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher education (pp. 1–28). New Haven: Yale University Press. Searle, J. R. (1999). Mind, language and society: Philosophy in the real world. New York: Basic Books. Schauer, G. A. (2001). English / German cross-cultural differences in the use of expressions of gratitude and responses to these. Unpublished MA Dissertation submitted at the University of Nottingham, UK. Schauer, G. A. (2006). Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: Contrast and development. Language Learning, 56(2), 269–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2006.00348.x. Schauer, G. A. (2007). Finding the right words in the study abroad context: The development of German learners’ use of external modifiers in English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 193– 220. https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2007.011. Schauer, G. A. (2009). Interlanguage pragmatic development: The study abroad context. London: Continuum/Bloomsbury. Schauer, G. A. (2012). Pragmatics and grammar. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 4564–4571). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

82

2  Literature Review

Schauer, G. A. (2016). Assessing intercultural competence. In D. Tsagari & J. Banerjee (Eds.), Handbook of second language assessment (pp. 181–202). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Schauer, G. A. (in press). Measuring intercultural competence. In P. Winke & T. Brunfaut (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and language testing. New  York: Routledge. Schauer, G. A., & Adolphs, S. (2006). Expressions of gratitude in corpus and DCT data: Vocabulary, formulaic sequences, and pedagogy. System, 34(1), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. system.2005.09.003. Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation and the acquisition of communicative competence. In N.  Wolfson & E.  Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp.  237–274). Rowley: Newbury House. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129. Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, Learning and Interlanguage Pragmatics. In G.  Kasper & S.  Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp.  21–42). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schneider, K. P. (2005). No problem, you’re welcome, anytime: Responding to thanks in Ireland, England and the United States. In A. Barron & K. P. Schneider (Eds.), The pragmatics of Irish English (pp. 101–140). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Schneider, K. P., & Barron, A. (2008). Where pragmatics and dialectology meet: Introducing variational pragmatics. In A. Barron & K. P. Schneider (Eds.), Variational pragmatics: A focus on regional varieties in pluricentric languages (pp. 1–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schreier, D. (2007). Greetings as an act of identity in Tristan da Cunha English: From individual to social significance. In P. Skandera (Ed.), Phraseology and culture in English (pp. 353–374). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Sercu, L. (2000). Acquiring intercultural communicative competence from textbooks: The case of Flemish adolescent pupils learning German. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Sherzer, J. (1999). Ceremonial dialogic greetings among the Kuna Indians of Panama. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(4), 453–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00082-4. Shively, R. L. (2011). L2 pragmatic development in study abroad: A longitudinal study of Spanish service encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1818–1835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pragma.2010.10.030. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Face, (im)politeness and rapport. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory (pp. 11–47). London: Continuum. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2010). Intercultural competence and pragmatics research: Examining the interface through studies of intercultural business discourse. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures (pp. 189–218). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Spencer-Oatey, H., & Franklin, P. (2009). Intercultural interaction: A multidisciplinary approach to intercultural communication. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Strobel, J., & Sutter, A. C. (2012). English fachfremd unterrichten: Die Basis. Donauwörth: Auer Verlag. Strobel, J., & Sutter, A. C. (2013). English fachfremd unterrichten: Die Praxis. Donauwörth: Auer Verlag. Sullivan, A. L., & Weeks, M. R. (2019). Differentiated instruction for young learners. In S. Garton & F.  Copland (Eds.), Routledge handbook of teaching English to young learners (pp.  182– 197). Abingdon: Routledge. Taguchi, N., & Röver, C. (2017). Second Language Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Takahashi, S. (2010). Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures (pp. 391–422). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. (1987). Development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English. JALT Journal, 8(2), 131–155. Tomiyama, M. (2008). Age and proficiency in L2 attrition: Data from two siblings. Applied Linguistics, 30(2), 253–275. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn038.

References

83

Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur. (2010). Lehrplan für die Grundschule und für die Förderschule mit dem Bildungsgang der Grundschule: Fremdsprache. Erfurt: Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur. Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Usó Juan, E. (2007). The presentation and practice of the communicative act of requesting in textbooks: focusing on modifiers. In E. A. Soler & M. P. S. Jordà (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 223–244). Dordrecht: Springer. Usó Juan, E. (2010). Requests: A sociopragmatic approach. In A. Martínez-Flor & E. Usó-Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 237– 256). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Usó Juan, E. (2013). Effects of metapragmatic instruction on EFL learners’ production of refusals. In O. Marti-Arnandiz & P. Salazar-Campillo (Eds.), Refusals in instructional contexts and beyond (pp. 65–100). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Vollmuth, I. (2004). Englisch an der Grundschule: Wie Handreichungen den Frühbeginn sehen – eine didaktisch-methodische Analyse. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter. Wang, D., Wang, Y. C., & Tudge, J. R. H. (2015). Expressions of gratitude in children and adolescents: Insights from China and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(8), 1039–1058. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022115594140. Williams, M. (1988). Language taught for meetings and language used in meetings: Is there anything in common? Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/9.1.45. Woodfield, H. (2008). Interlanguage requests: a contrastive study. In M.  Pütz & J.  A. N.-v. Artselaer (Eds.), Developing contrastive pragmatics: Interlanguage and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 231–264). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Yagmur, K., Extra, G., & Swinkels, M. (2012). Cross-national analysis of the language across Europe results. In G. Extra & K. Jagmur (Eds.), Language rich Europe: Trends in policies and practices for multilingualism in Europe (pp. 28–74). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the British Council. Yamanaka, E., & Fordyce, K. (2010). Online collaboration for pragmatic development – Talkpoint project. In D. H. Tatsuki & N. R. Houck (Eds.), Pragmatics: Teaching speech acts (pp. 195– 208). Alexandria: TESOL Press. Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chapter 3

Methodology

Abstract  In this chapter, I will first provide some general information about the German school system and more specifically the educational context in the German state of Thuringia, since this study focuses on this context. I will then introduce the young L2 learners of English that took part in the study and represent two different L2 learning contexts: an immersion context in which English is the official language, and a typical foreign language context in which English is only spoken in designated foreign language lessons. Subsequently, I will describe the data collection techniques that were employed to elicit written and spoken data from the young learners. I will then provide background information on the EFL primary school teachers that completed the teacher survey, and on how the teacher survey was developed and distributed. Following this, the textbooks and picture books that were analysed in this study are introduced. I will then describe the different speech act frameworks that I used in this project. Keywords  Research methodology · Data collection methods · Data collection instruments · Young EFL learners · German EFL learners · Primary EFL teachers · Textbooks · Children’s books · Picturebooks · Speech acts

3.1  The German and Thuringian Education Context Germany is a federal republic which consists of 16 states. According to official statistics (Destatis 2018) 82.8 million people lived in Germany on 31st December 2017. The 16 German states differ considerably regarding the size of their area and population. For example, while the state of Bavaria covers 70.550,07 Km2 and had a population of 12,997,200 at the end of 2017, the state of Saarland only covers 2.568,69  Km2 and had a population of 994,200 at the end of 2017 (Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder ND). Thuringia covers 16.202,38 Km2 and had a population of 2,151,200 at the end of 2017. It is therefore one of the mid to smaller sized states regarding area coverage and one of the smaller states concerning its population size.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 G. A. Schauer, Teaching and Learning English in the Primary School, English Language Education 18, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23257-3_3

85

86

3 Methodology

Geographically, Thuringia is located in central Germany neighbouring the states of Bavaria, Hesse, Lower-Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and Saxony. The area that is now known as Thuringia was formerly part of the German Democratic Republic and was then not referred to as Thuringia, but instead by the names of its districts, e.g. Erfurt, Suhl and Gera (Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung). After the German re-unification Thuringia1 became one of the 16 German states. The most well-­ known cities in Thuringia are the state capital Erfurt, and the university cities of Jena, Ilmenau and Weimar. Only two universities in the state are engaged in general teacher education for the compulsory school types, Erfurt and Jena. In contrast to some of the other German states that previously belonged to the Federal Republic of Germany, not much research attention has been paid to the Thuringian EFL school context to date. There are several reasons for this: Firstly, in comparison to the former states of West Germany, the former states of East Germany focused heavily on Russian as a compulsory foreign language at schools, and EFL structures that would allow university staff and schools to cater for a high number of L2 learners first needed to be established after reunification. Secondly, because of the shortage of EFL teachers who had studied English at university and had degrees that qualified them to teach the language – as was typically the case in Western German states in 1990 – Russian and other in-service foreign language teachers had to do additional training to quickly qualify for teaching EFL in the 1990s. As a result, EFL education in Thuringia and other former eastern states underwent more rapid and drastic changes than in the former western states of Germany. This makes Thuringia today a very interesting research site, as it is a representative example for similar developments and challenges in all former eastern states of Germany with regard to compulsory education and EFL. In Germany, most aspects of school and higher education policy are decided on by the individual states. There is the Standing Conference2 of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany which brings together the ministers responsible for compulsory education on a national level and addresses common issues, but in general the individual states decide by themselves how they would like to structure their school system. In 1  Thus, because in contrast to states like Bavaria or Lower Saxony which did not undergo a namechange since the second world war, Thuringia tends to be less well-known internationally than some other parts of Germany. 2  This body is described as follows:

A decisive factor in the development of the German education system in a similar direction as from 1945 on was the cooperation of the Länder in the Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK), or Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany, which was founded in 1948. The Unification Treaty of 1990 (Einigungsvertrag) between the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic required the five Länder in eastern Germany to lay the legislative foundations for the reorganisation of education by 30 June 1991. (Secretariat of the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany 2015, p. 12)

3.2  L2 Learners of English in Primary Schools

87

Thuringia, compulsory education starts for children in the year they have reached their sixth birthday by August 1st (Thüringer Schulgesetz 2003 § 18 Schulpflicht). Primary schools comprise four grades (1–4). Once children have completed primary school, they have several different secondary school options.3 Compulsory lessons typically take place from Mondays to Fridays with one lesson lasting 45 min (Thüringer Schulordnung 2015 § 46 Unterrichtszeit). Compulsory foreign language education starts at Thuringian primary schools in year 3 and comprises 2 hours of instruction per week (Thüringer Schulordnung 2015 § 44 Abs 1 Anlage – Rahmenstundentafel). According to the rules of the primary school curriculum in Thuringia (Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur 2010, p. 27) assessment of young EFL learners’ competence in the foreign language is not done by giving a numerical grade but instead by a written comment in the learners’ reports. In addition, assessment is only supposed to focus on listening comprehension and speaking skills.

3.2  L2 Learners of English in Primary Schools In this section, I will first introduce the two young L2 learner groups that participated in this study in Sect. 3.2.1. I will then describe the data elicitation method that was used with the young learners of English in Sect. 3.2.2. This will be followed by a description of the data collection procedure in Sect. 3.2.3. The analysis of the young L2 learners’ data is presented in Chap. 7. The learner data is presented in the final analysis chapter because I thought it helpful to first of all examine and discuss the input materials (textbooks and children’s books), then address a considerable number of aspects of EFL primary school teachers’ teaching context that may determine what teaching staff can focus on in their primary EFL classrooms (e.g. Do they actually have time to address pragmatic concerns? What are the demands placed on primary school teachers today?) before moving on to the what young L2 learners can do in their L2.

3.2.1  Participants The young learner data were elicited in two schools in Thuringia: a private international school and a state primary school. In total 43 children took part in the research project. In the private international school 14 children participated in the study. In this school all4 subject lessons (e.g. maths, social studies, physical education) are taught in the English language. This school therefore represents an immersion context in which pupils attending the school are exposed to English throughout their  See Thüringer Schulordnung (2015) or Thüringer Schulgesetz (2003, § 4 – Schularten)  There is one exception and this is the subject German, which is taught in German.

3 4

88

3 Methodology

Table 3.1  Young EFL learners Group Private International

State primary group A State primary group B a

Participant number 14

Males/ Females 6/8

Average age 9,3

17

8/9

9,4

a

12

5/7

9,3

a

Native languages 11 monolingual German native speakers, 1 German/English bilingual, 1 German/ Russian bilingual, 1 English native speaker

Due to data protection guidelines this information is not available for this school

school day and thus have ample input opportunities. The majority of teachers at this school are English native speakers. The school is situated in a metropolitan area of Thuringia. In contrast to the first school which represents an immersion context, the second school is a state primary school in Thuringia therefore representing a typical EFL context. The state primary school is situated in a rural environment. Pupils at this school are only exposed to English in their two English as a foreign language lessons per week. All learners in this group began learning English in year 3 of their primary school and were in the initial months of year 4 at the time of data collection. In total, 295 pupils provided data. These learners came from two groups (henceforth called state group A and state group B). Both groups had been taught by the same teacher in year 3 and were also taught by the same teacher in year 4. Since membership of a different group in the same grade level may have an impact on learners’ output, I will treat these two groups separately in the analysis. This also has the advantage that the group sizes of the three groups are more similar. Table 3.1 provides more detailed information on the three groups. The overview shows that children in all three groups were roughly6 of the same age. The children completed two distinct task types (cf. Sect. 3.2.2): a task that primarily focused on reading and writing (henceforth called the written task) and a task that primarily focused on speaking and listening (henceforth called the spoken task). In the private international group, all children provided data for both the written and the spoken task. In the state groups, a small number of children were only able to provide data for one task type: In state primary group A, 12 learners completed the written task, but one was not able to also complete the spoken one, so that the spoken task was only completed by 11 learners from this group. In state primary group B, in contrast, the written task was completed by 15 learners and the spoken one by 17 learners, since two learners who were absent during the written data 5  Although it would of course have been ideal to have an equal number of young learners in both groups this was unfortunately not possible because the number of parents granting permission for their child to take part in this study was lower in the first than in the second school. 6  In the private international group, there were two 8-year olds and in the state primary school three children chose not to disclose their ages (one in group A and two in group respectively).

3.2  L2 Learners of English in Primary Schools

89

collection were able to take part in the spoken one. While it would have been possible to simply exclude these three learners (i.e. the one learner from state primary group A and the two learners from state primary group B) from the investigation, I wanted to honour their participation in the study and therefore also analysed their contributions.

3.2.2  Data Elicitation Method As mentioned above, data for the study were elicited with two separate tasks: one that primarily focused on eliciting written data and one which primarily focused on eliciting spoken data. Both tasks7 included basic pragmatic elements, such as greetings, leave-takings, expressions of gratitude and requests. The content (e.g. vocabulary) of the tasks was based on the Thuringian curriculum for foreign language education in primary schools and covered issues and task types that the young learners were familiar8 with. In class, children first completed three written tasks that were presented on a worksheet (hereafter W1-W3). This was followed by a data collection session which focused on L2 learners’ speaking-listening skills. These data were collected in individual one-to-one session with a research assistant, in which the children completed six different task types (henceforth S1–S6). The written tasks were designed in such a way that it was highly likely that children would be able to complete them relatively quickly, find most of the questions rather easy and therefore experience success. In addition, in order to make the written research tasks more motivating for the learners, the three tasks varied from each other, as task W1 was a matching exercise that involved matching illustrations to English words (e.g. an illustration of a cat to the word cat), task W2 involved matching English and German written words, and task W3 was an illustrated discourse completion task featuring two scenarios with mixed-sex interlocutors. In the first scenario of W3, a drawn image of a girl was accompanied by a speech bubble which contained the utterance Hello. How are you? directed at a similar-­ aged boy next to a speech bubble which contained an empty top line followed by I’m fine, in the middle line and an empty final line. In the second scenario, a female child was depicted with a speech bubble which contained Can I have the ruler, please? This utterance was directed at a male-age peer next to her who was holding a ruler. The male child had an empty speech bubble. Positioned slightly below his speech bubble was another empty speech bubble that was indicating another utterance from the girl. 7  Both tasks are included in the appendix to this chapter. Due to copyright issues, the original images used in the written task are not included and have been replaced by a written place-holder. The task script followed by the research assistant regarding the spoken task is included in its original. 8  The tasks were developed in consultation with two of my research assistants who were familiar with Thuringian primary school EFL classes and could therefore advise on frequently used task types.

90

3 Methodology

The elicitation of data that focused on speaking and listening involved six tasks. The first one, S1, resembled an interview and featured a greeting and four very easy questions. The second one, S2, involved colours and numbers. Children were shown flash cards and were asked to identify four different colours and three numbers. They were then asked to count from one to ten and tell the research assistant their favourite colour. Task S3 was based on the Total Physical Response (TPR) approach and involved children carrying out actions they were instructed to do by the research assistant that involved movements, e.g. Stand up or Clap your hands. Task S4 involved telling the researcher the English translation of 17 easy words or expressions (including six words/expressions that were of particular pragmatic interest, namely Hallo [Hello], Guten Morgen [Good Morning], Guten Tag [Hello/ Good morning/Good afternoon], Gute Nacht [Good night], Bitte [please], Danke [thank you]). Task S5 was a simple conversation task mainly focusing on requests. Here the researcher asked the child Can you give me x, please? then waited for the child to identify the object and hand it to him or her and then thanked the child. This task also included two guided elicitations where children were asked if they could ask for typical classroom objects that the teacher had positioned on a desk, such as a ruler. In addition, this task was included to provide insights into whether children would use a handing-over strategy such as here you are or here you go (cf. Sects. 3.4.2, 4.2.2 and 7.2.5). Task S6 was the goodbye task. It featured a question that asked the children for their favourite word in English, as that should enable children to talk about something that they liked and experience success towards the end of their participation in the research project. This was then followed by an expression of gratitude from the research assistant Thank you for the interview! followed by a small pause to give the child the opportunity to reply with a response to an expression of gratitude and then the leave-taking utterance Goodbye.

3.2.3  Procedure Both tasks were piloted at a primary school in a neighbouring German state at the beginning of 2017. A primary school in a neighbouring state was chosen because it was not clear how easy or difficult it would be to find a state primary school that would be happy to participate in the research project in Thuringia and I wanted to keep as many potential options open in Thuringia as possible, i.e. if only one state school in Thuringia had been willing to participate and they had already hosted the project during its piloting phase, that would not have been ideal. Thirty children from two grade 4 classes took part in the pilot study. The results of the pilot showed that the tasks were age and proficiency level appropriate and children seemed happy to do the tasks. Based on the findings from the pilot, some small details were changed. The subsequent final version of the two tasks (included in Appendix A and B of this chapter) was then used for the data collection at the private international and state school in Thuringia.

3.3  EFL Primary Teachers in Thuringia

91

Data were then elicited from the private international primary school in Thuringia in late spring of 2017 and from the state primary school in autumn of 2018. The difference in data collection times was due to a change in research assistants involved in the project and a lengthier process regarding research permissions at the state school. The details of the data collection process were agreed on with the individual schools. Data collection was completed within 2  days at the private international school and within 3  days at the state primary school. The research assistants in both schools began data collection with the written task that was completed by all children taking part in the study in a classroom. The spoken task was then done in pre-arranged and individually booked one-on-one sessions with the research assistant in a room on the school grounds. Both research assistants involved in the data collection with the children were known in their school communities and were in the final stages of their Master of Education degrees at Erfurt University and had therefore already spent a considerable amount of time in their future places of work as part of their teacher training. While learners were given 10 min to complete the written task, the time needed to complete the spoken tasks differed from learner to learner. On average, however, the young learners spent 10–15 min on the spoken tasks. Learners’ responses to the tasks were recorded and subsequently transcribed and analysed. The findings of the young L2 learners’ output regarding the written and spoken tasks are presented in Chap. 7.

3.3  EFL Primary Teachers in Thuringia In addition to the young L2 learners, in-service primary school EFL teachers also took part in this project because I thought it important to obtain data from a range of different sources and perspectives concerning the teaching of young L2 learners of English in primary schools. In this section, I will provide background information on the Thuringian primary school teachers that completed the online teacher survey in Sect. 3.3.1. I will then introduce the data collection instrument in Sect. 3.3.2. This will be followed by an explanation of the data collection procedure in Sect. 3.3.3. The analysis of the EFL primary teachers’ survey data is presented in Chap. 6.

3.3.1  Participants Twenty-seven EFL teachers in Thuringian primary schools participated in this part of the study which involved an online survey. Since all of the questions in the online survey were classified as optional,9 the number of participants who provided back9  This was done deliberately to attract as many teachers as possible and to allow them to withhold information that they felt could have identified them or their school.

92

3 Methodology

Table 3.2  Teachers’ age Age No. %a

20–29 5 19

30–39 8 30

40–49 3 11

50–59 9 33

60+ 0 0

No answer 2 7

All percentages are rounded up/down to the next full digit

a

Table 3.3  Teachers’ years of EFL teaching experience Years No. %

Less than 5 6 22

5–9 8 30

10–19 8 30

20–29 3 11

30+ 0 0

No answer 2 7

ground information on themselves differed from question to question. Of the 27 teachers, 23 were female, two were male and two did not provide information on their gender. To make it possible to obtain some data on the different geographical areas of Thuringia represented by the teachers while also offering anonymity, teachers were not asked to state the name of their school or the precise location, but rather to name the Schulamt [regional education authority] responsible for their school. There are five Schulämter in Thüringen (Freistaat Thüringen ND): North (including the districts of Nordhausen, Kyffhäuser, Eichsfeld and Unstrut-Hainich), Middle (including the districts of Sömmerda, Erfurt, City of Weimar, and Weimar Region), South (including the districts of Schmalkalden-Meiningen, Suhl, Hildburghausen, Sonneberg, and Saalfeld-Rudolstadt), East (including the districts of Altenburger Land, Greiz, Saale-Orla Kreis, Saale-Holzland Kreis, and the Cities of Jena and Gera), and West (including the districts of Gotha, Eisenach, Ilmkreis and Wartburgkreis). Six of the 25 teachers who answered this question were working in the North district, five in the middle district, six in the south district, six in the east district and two in the west district. Thus, all parts of Thuringia are represented in this survey by their EFL primary school teachers, although there are only two responses from teachers working in the western parts of Thuringia. Tables 3.2 and 3.3 present the age levels and years of EFL teaching experience of the primary EFL teachers that took part in this study. This information shows that the online survey was completed by a wide range of primary school teachers representing younger and newly qualified teachers, as well as older and more experienced ones. The fact that no teacher indicated that they were older than 60 years or had more than 30 years of EFL teaching experience is probably related to the relatively recent introduction of English as a primary school subject in Germany (cf. Sects. 2.2.6 and 3.1). Table 3.4 provides information on the degrees or qualifications the teachers in the sample held. It is important to note that teachers were asked to tick the boxes for all different types of qualifications they held. For example, the majority of teachers who had a Bachelor degree also had an MEd in Primary Education. As the Bachelor/Master degrees were only widely introduced in Germany from the year 2000 onwards (Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 2005), teachers who obtained their teaching qualification before this year tended to have different qualifications, such

3.3  EFL Primary Teachers in Thuringia

93

Table 3.4  Teachers’ degrees/qualifications Qualification No. %

BA 5 19

MEd 6 22

1. Staatsexamen 2. Staatsexamen Diplom 9 14 4 33 52 15

Other 3 11

No answer 4 15

Key: BA (Bachelor), MEd (Master of Education), 1. Staatsexamen (first state exam which is typically completed after a student has fulfilled all requirements of their university degree studies), 2. Staatsexamen (second state exam which is typically taken after a teacher has been teaching for a certain amount of time), Diplom (Diplomlehrer/-in qualification awarded in the GDR), Other (qualification not listed here) Table 3.5  Subjects studied by teachers Subjects No. %

English 16 59

German 20 74

Maths 19 70

HSK 18 67

GSL 2 7

Other 15 56

No answer 4 15

Notes: HSK refers to Heimat und Sachkunde (which can be a combination of biology, geography, history and social studies), GSL refers to German as a second language, Other subjects include (3x early childhood education, 3x art, 2x woodshop, 2x school garden, 1x French, 1x catholic religious education, 1x special needs education, 1x Ethics, 1 lower grades education)

as the Diplom (a teaching qualification that was awarded in the GDR) or a erstes Staatsexamen (first  state examination; degree programmes leading to a erstes Staatsexamen are still offered in some German states, such as Bavaria10). Table 3.5 shows the main subjects studied by the participants. Data for this question were collected in a comment box format in the questionnaire, which meant that teachers were able to key in their own answers and were not asked to tick boxes. This had an impact on the answers, as some teachers noted down their degree title or qualification, such as Pädagogik der Kindheit [Early childhood pedagogy] or Lehrer für untere Klassen [teacher for lower grades], while others listed all the subjects they had studied. The table may therefore not present a complete picture of all the subjects the teachers studied at university, but nevertheless shows that 16 of the 27 teachers that took part in this study had actually studied English at university. In a subsequent question, the teachers were asked to provide more information on whether they had any specific teaching qualification for English. The teachers who had studied English at university tended to refer to this by repeating their qualifications again or stating uni degree, while those had not studied English at university stated that they had taken courses in an evening college, attended courses offered by the Thuringian teacher development institute (Thüringer Institut für Lehrerfortbildung, Lehrplanentwicklung und Medien), obtained some additional qualification that was not further specified, or had obtained a Cambridge Certificate.

 See Ordnung der Ersten Prüfung für ein Lehramt an öffentlichen Schulen (2008) and Ordnung der Zweiten Staatsprüfung für ein Lehramt an öffentlichen Schulen (2004), the legal texts that set out the requirements for the erste und zweite Staatsexamen in Bavaria ratified by the Bayerische Staatskanzlei for more information.

10

94

3 Methodology

The teachers were also asked from which grade11 English was taught at their school. Twenty-five teachers answered this question, of whom 21 stated that English is taught from grade 3 in their school, while four stated that it was taught from grade 1  in theirs. At the primary schools that provided English lessons from grade 1, pupils received 1  hour of English lessons in grades 1 and 2 and then 2  hours in grades 3 and 4. In the schools, where English was taught from grade 3, pupils received 2 hours of English instruction in grade 3 and 4. None of the 25 teachers who answered this question taught at more than one school. The mean class size in the schools where the teachers taught were 22 pupils with the lowest number of pupils being 14 and the highest 27, thus representing very different schools and teaching conditions.

3.3.2  Instrument The questionnaire for the teachers was developed in consultation with two final year MEd Primary School students who had majored in English. In addition to the core issues that the present investigation set out to investigate, namely the teaching and learning of pragmatic competence in primary schools, the survey therefore addresses a range of issues that could provide a more detailed and intricate picture of teaching in an EFL primary school classroom. It is therefore in line with the central tenet of this monograph, namely to address the real-life concerns of pre-service and in-service teachers, while at the same paying particular attention to pragmatics which is of central importance in communicative competence and intercultural competence frameworks (cf. Sects. 2.2.1 and 2.2.3 respectively). The questionnaire addressed the following areas: 1. Components of the lesson 2. Assessment 3. Skills, knowledge and competences 4. Grouping pupils: classroom activities 5. Pragmatic routines 6. Rituals at the beginning and end of the lesson 7. Differentiation 8. Special needs 9. Homework 10. Textbooks and other materials  Foreign language instruction is compulsory in Thuringia from primary school grade 3. However, some schools provide English instruction from an earlier grade.

11

3.3  EFL Primary Teachers in Thuringia

95

1 1. Children’s books and songs 12. Teacher’s personal background12 and additional information The individual areas contained a combination of multiple-choice, yes/no, open questions and single-choice selection questions.13 A complete list with all the questions can be found in appendix C of this chapter. The questionnaire was made available online with an internet survey provider (Umfrage Online). In the next section, I will describe the development of the questionnaire and how it was made available to the teachers in more detail.

3.3.3  Procedure The development of the teacher questionnaire started in late 2016. As mentioned above, areas relevant to the teaching and learning of pragmatics were included as core components (i.e. questions included in the parts 1,2 and 6 of the final version of the questionnaire presented in Appendix C of this chapter). In addition, areas that were of special interest to the two pre-service MEd students were also added to obtain a better picture of the various aspects that in-service primary EFL teachers are faced with. A first version of the questionnaire was then piloted with two in-service primary school teachers in the neighbouring German state of Lower Saxony in early 2017. Teachers from a neighbouring state were chosen to ensure that these teachers would not also take part in the main study, since the final survey was only made available to teachers working in Thuringia. The two teachers from Lower Saxony completed a paper version of the questionnaire and, in addition to completing it, also made some comments on how it could be improved (e.g. change some wordings to make questions clearer). The questionnaire was then modified accordingly and transferred to an online format. The online version was subsequently piloted by the two MEd students, as well as two members of the public that again would not form part of the target group of EFL primary school teachers in Thuringia: two adults residing in Thuringia in the age-range 65+, one of whom was also a former primary school teacher. In addition to these four individuals, I also completed the questionnaire myself to get a better idea on how the online version looked and also to check for issues that may need further clarification. All four pilot study participants provided comments on how the online version could be improved in their view, which then formed – together with my own notes that I had made while completing the questionnaire myself – the basis for final modifications. The questionnaire was then made available online in April of 2017. A research assistant sent emails to all primary schools in Thuringia over the next weeks which explained the study and included a link to the online questionnaire. 12 13

 Responses to questions in this part of the survey provided the basis of Sect. 3.3.1.  For example, Please tick the box next to the age range that you belong to.

96

3 Methodology

The teachers then accessed the online survey and completed it. The findings of the teachers’ survey are presented in Chap. 6.

3.4  EFL Teaching Materials In the first part of this section, 3.4.1, I will provide background information on the eight textbooks representing four textbook series that are analysed in Chap. 4. In Sect. 3.4.2, I will then provide information on the children’s books that I analysed in Chap. 5.

3.4.1  Textbooks The selection of the textbooks to be analysed was based on the responses of the primary school teachers in the survey and also on the textbooks the MEd students had encountered. All books selected belong to editions that are based on English lessons starting in grade 3 of primary school. The main aim of the textbook investigation was to examine which language functions young learners are exposed to in their books and may therefore be likely to acquire. I took the decision to focus on the textbooks14 that the learners themselves had access to rather than on a combination of learners’ textbooks and teachers’ books, since following Schmidt’s (1990) noticing hypothesis (cf. Sect. 2.2.5), I wanted to be sure that the materials that I would be analysing would actually be available to young EFL learners. The only way this could be achieved would be to focus on their textbooks (often called learners’ books) only, as teachers may not follow the suggestions in their teachers’ books, whereas any written information provided in the learners’ books would be available to the learners irrespective of their teachers’ decision to cover it or not. Thus, the discussion of the speech act categories focuses on the written input that learners  – who have the learners’ book in their possession  – have access to. It excludes all additional materials that are referred to in the learners’ books, but which are not actually accessible to the learners themselves (i.e. recorded songs, stories or listening tasks, videos or other texts included in the teachers’ books). Table 3.6 provides an overview of the textbooks.

 This also means that I did not investigate any additional materials that are available for the textbooks series and can be accessed/purchased by young L2 learners (e.g. workbooks, audio cds, movies, online materials). The reason for this was that not all learners may have access to all of additional materials available, whereas if a textbook is used in class, then at the very least all learners should have access to the textbook. See also Sect. 6.10 for results on the use of additional and supplementary materials in Thuringian EFL primary classrooms.

14

3.4  EFL Teaching Materials

97

Table 3.6  Overview of EFL textbooks for young learners Year of Title Grade Publisher publication Bumblebee 3 Schroedel 2013 Bumblebee 4

Schroedel 2017

Ginger

3

Cornelsen 2013

Ginger

4

Cornelsen 2014

Playway

3

Klett

2013a

Playway

4

Klett

2013b

Sunshine

3

Cornelsen 2016

Sunshine

4

Cornelsen 2015

Authors Gisela Ehlers, Grit Kahstein, Matthias Muth, Hannelore Tait Gisela Ehlers, Ursula Michailow-Drews, Hannelore Tait, Michaela Schönau, Anna Van Montagu, Anne Zeich-Pelsis Kerstin Caspari-Grote, Ina Grandt, Ulrike Kraaz, Claudia Neuber, Christel Simon, Ines Völtz, Birgit Hollbrügge, Kerstin Caspari-Grote, Ina Grandt, Ulrike Kraaz, Claudia Neuber, Christel Simon, Ines Völtz, Birgit Hollbrügge, Günter Gerngross, Herbert Puchta, Carmen Becker Günter Gerngross, Herbert Puchta, Carmen Becker Stefanie Aschkar, Tanja Beattie, Nadine Kerler, Caroline Schröder, Birgit Hollbrügge, Ulrike Kraaz Stefanie Aschkar, Tanja Beattie, Nadine Kerler, Caroline Schröder, Maria Skejic, Birgit Hollbrügge, Ulrike Kraaz

Pages 72 79

40

43

64 64 40

47

The table shows that the four book series represent three major German textbook publishing houses: Cornelsen, Klett and Schroedel. In addition, all textbooks were co-authored with a minimum number of three authors writing a textbook for English in the primary school. However, not all textbook writers that contributed to a book for grade 4 had also contributed to the same series in grade 3 (e.g. Michaela Schönau who co-authored Bumblebee 4 but not 3; Maria Skejic who co-authored Sunshine 4 but not 3). It is further interesting to note that the books varied considerably regarding their overall length: Bumblebee 4 contained 79 pages, Playway 4 included 64 pages, Sunshine 4 comprised 47 pages and Ginger 4 contained 43 pages. Thus, Bumblebee 4 is nearly double the length of Ginger 4, and all four textbooks published by Cornelsen were markedly shorter than the ones by the other publishers. Given the differences in page numbers in the eight books, it is not surprising that the number of chapters included in the books also differs. The Bumblebee and Playway textbooks contain the most chapters (Bumblebee 3: 11; Bumblebee 4: 12; Playway 3: 11; Playway 4: 11), while Ginger and Sunshine contain markedly fewer (Ginger 3: 7; Sunshine 3: 8; Ginger 4: 8; Sunshine 4: 8). Tables 3.7 and 3.8 provide an overview of the chapter headings in the textbooks for year 3 and 4 respectively. The overview of chapter titles shows that three of the four books (Bumblebee, Playway and Sunshine) address a range of topics that are also referred to in the different curricula in the German states, such as the context of the pupils (e.g. school, shopping) and animals. Ginger, in contrast, has titles that provide little information

98

3 Methodology

Table 3.7  Overview of textbook chapters for year 3 Bumblebee 3 At school Breakfast with Ben Lisa’s new home Sports and action Open Day at Park School At the shopping Centre A visit to Sugarbush farm My busy week Emma goes on holiday All through the year Fit for 4!

Ginger 3 Welcome aboard! Orange Island Circus Island Rainbow Island Robot Island Fantasy Island Special days

Playway 3 What’s your name? Hello School Animals Clothes Family Body Weather Lunch time On the farm Special days

Sunshine Getting started Meeting friends Pets in the garden At school The second-hand shop Free-time activities In the park Special days

Table 3.8  Overview of textbook chapter for year 4 Bumblebee 4 Hello again Back to school

Ginger 4 Ginger in London Ginger goes to the USA

Playway 4 School is cool Pets and other animals Golden time Ginger goes to Canada In town At home Ginger goes to Australia Birthdays At work Ginger goes to South Africa Shopping At the zoo Ginger goes to India Free time Earth day Merry Christmas, Happy Feelings Easter and Bonfire Night Children of the world Goodbye, Ginger! Time Holidays At home All through the year Food and drink The story of the Special days leprechaun Fit for five

Sunshine 4 Welcome back A trip to London All year round Animals at the museum Keeping fit Emails from the USA A school play Special days

as to the actual issues covered in the individual chapters and instead concentrates on real or fantasy locations. The findings of the textbook analysis are presented in Chap. 4.

3.4.2  Picture Books In addition to textbook input available to young EFL learners who are exposed to textbook-based instruction in their EFL classrooms, I was also interested in other input options, namely input that had not primarily been designed for an EFL

3.4  EFL Teaching Materials

99

readership. I therefore analysed 22 picture books in addition to the eight textbooks. The children’s books were chosen because (1) they were included in question 6.715 of the teachers’ survey, or (2) they were mentioned by at least two teachers in response to question 6.8 of the teachers’ survey or (3) they were mentioned by at least one teacher in response to question 6.8 and had also been chosen by at least one MEd student in their oral exams in the summer term of 2017. In question 6.7 of the teachers’ survey, the teachers were asked whether they were using, were not using or would like to use 15 different children’s books. Of the 15 items on the list, 13 had been encountered by the two MEd students who were involved in developing the questionnaire and two had been included in a materials pool available to BA or MEd students in the summer term of 2017. In question 6.8, teachers were asked to provide information on children’s books they were using in their primary EFL classrooms. Five of the books were mentioned by at least two teachers and they were subsequently added to the list of children’s books to be analysed. In addition, two books were added to the list that were mentioned by at least one teacher and were chosen by at least one MEd student for their oral exams on teaching children’s literature in the EFL classroom in the summer term of 2017. Thus, a total number of 22 books were included in the present study which are presented in Table 3.9. Table 3.9 shows that several books of the same authors were analysed. For example, three books by Julia Donaldson and Axel Scheffler were included in the questionnaire, because the MEd students had encountered them during their teacher training. A further book by this author and illustrator team was then added, because more than two teachers mentioned that they were using it in the teachers’ survey. Similarly, Winnie the witch by Valerie Thomas and Korky Paul was included in the teacher’s survey based on the MEd students’ recommendation, and another book by the same authors, Winnie and Wilbur in winter, was subsequently added to the analysis, because one teacher had referred to it in the survey and another MEd student had chosen it for their oral exams. While this – at times – rather heavy focus on just a few authors could be considered to be disadvantageous because it prevented a wider range of authors from being included, it reflects the actual choices of in-service and pre-service EFL teaching professionals in Thuringia. It is further interesting to note that the books investigated represent children’s literature from several decades (e.g. The cat in the hat was originally published in 1957, The very hungry caterpillar was published in 1969, Have you seen my cat? was published in 1973, Winnie the witch was published in 1987, The lion who wanted to love was published in 1997, Snore was published in 2003, Azzi in between was published in 2012). This means that representatives of six decades of children’s literature are included in the sample. Like the textbooks, the children’s’ book introduced here were analysed according to ten speech act categories, which I will address in the following.

15

 See Appendix C for a complete list of questions included in the teachers’ survey.

100

3 Methodology

Table 3.9  Children’s books investigated in Chap. 5 Year of publication 2012

Author(s) Sarah Garland

Title Azzi in between

Bill Martin Jr, Eric Carle David McKee Leo Leonni

Brown bear, brown 2007 (1967) bear, what do you see? Elmer 1989 Frederick 2011 (1967)

Jonathan London, Frank Remkiewicz Eileen Browne Eric Carle Nick Sharratt

Froggy gets dressed Handa’s surprise Have you seen my cat? Ketchup on your cornflakes Monkey Puzzle

Julia Donaldson, Axel Scheffler Christine Baldacchino, Christine Malenfant Ellen Stoll Walsh Michael Rosen, Jonathan Langley Kathryn Cave, Chris Riddell Dr Seuss Eric Carle Julia Donaldson, Axel Scheffler Julia Donaldson, Axel Scheffler Giles Andreae, David Wojtowycz Julia Donaldson, Axel Scheffler Maurice Sendak

Publisher Frances Lincoln Henry Holt

Pages Sourcea 36 6.7 24

6.8

30 27

6.7 6.7

1994 (1992)

Andersen Dragonfly Books Puffin

28

6.7

1994 1997 (1973) 2006 (1994)

Walker Aladdin Scholastic

22 21 24

6.7 6.8 6.8

2017 (2000)

Macmillan

24

6.7

Groundwood

28

6.7

HMH Harper Collins Puffin

29 27

6.7 6.8

27

6.8+

Random House Puffin

61

6.7

22

6.7

2016b (2002) Macmillan

30

6.7

2016a (1999) Macmillan

26

6.7

2009 (1997)

Orchard

29

6.7

2006 (2003)

Puffin

30

6.8

Harper Collins 2016a (1996) Oxford

37

6.7

26

6.8+

2016b (1987) Oxford

26

6.7

Morris Micklewhite 2016 (2014) and the tangerine dress Mouse Paint 1989 Snore! 2003 Something else

2011 (1994)

The cat in the hat

1985 (1957)

The very hungry caterpillar The smartest giant in town The Gruffalo

2018 (1969)

The lion who wanted to love The snail and the whale Where the wild things are Valerie Thomas, Korky Winnie and Wilbur in Paul winter Valerie Thomas, Korky Winnie the witch Paul

1991 (1963)

Notes: The books are presented in alphabetical order of their titles. The year of publication includes the year of publication of the book used for the analysis, as well as the original year of publication in brackets if these differ and if this is known. a Source here provides information on why the books were included, i.e. 6.7 (book was listed in question 6.7), 6.8 (book was listed by at least two teachers in question 6.8), 6.8+ (book was mentioned by at least one teacher in question 6.8 of the teachers’ survey and also used by one MEd student in their oral exams).

3.5  Speech Act Categories

101

3.5  Speech Act Categories The main aim of the investigation of the input materials (i.e. learners’ textbooks and children’s books) is to examine which speech acts and thus language functions young learners are exposed to and may therefore acquire in English as a foreign language classrooms in German primary schools. As mentioned in the introduction and in Chap. 2, I will concentrate on ten speech acts here: requests (Sect. 3.5.1), responses to requests (Sect. 3.5.2), greetings and leave-takings (Sect. 3.5.3), thanking and responding to thanks (Sect. 3.5.4), apologies (Sect. 3.5.5), suggestions and responses to suggestions (Sect. 3.5.6) and expressing feelings – physical and mental states (Sect. 3.5.7).

3.5.1  Requests As mentioned in Sect. 2.1.4, requests are one of the most frequently investigated speech acts in interlanguage pragmatics. There are several reasons for this, such as that (a) requests are very frequently used by a wide range of interlocutors (e.g. children, teenagers, adults), (b) they occur in a large variety of contexts (private everyday life, business, diplomacy, education, law, health, etc.) and (c) making a request that is considered inappropriate or impolite can have negative consequences for the interlocutor (e.g. deterioration of the relationship with the person he or she is addressing the request to). Requests in interlanguage pragmatics are commonly investigated by looking at the request strategy the speaker or writer has chosen. In addition, further elements, such as internal and external modifiers are often examined (cf. Sect. 2.1.4). The request strategies and modifiers that I will focus on in this book are presented in Tables 3.10 and 3.12 respectively. Many of the strategies and modifiers presented here are based on request strategy and modifier frameworks by other researchers. The original sources are acknowledged in the respective notes sections below the individual tables. Since a variety of different address term types are included in the textbooks, I will analyse them in more detail. Address term modifiers do not only occur in requests, they can also feature in other speech acts, such as greetings or expressions of gratitude. I will provide an overview of all address term types that can be found as part of the 10 investigated speech acts in this book in Table 3.11, as this is more economical than providing individual tables that contain similar content for each individual speech act. Because of this, Table 3.11 also includes examples of address terms that occurred with other speech acts. Apart from the category signifier, the address term types presented in Table 3.11 are based on Leech (1999).

102

3 Methodology

Table 3.10  Overview of request strategies Strategy Imperative1

Obligation2

Wants/ Needs3 Enquiry4

Suggestory Formula5

Permission6

Ability7

Definition The most direct form of a request.

Examples Read the story. (G4, p. 6) A direct request that includes the modal verb must. You must call Dr. Simpson. (P4, p. 55) A direct request that is based on the speaker/writer using an We need your expression that includes a form of wanting or needing something. support! (B3, p. 21) This is a direct request that is produced in the form of a question How much is the chocolate and is typically used to obtain information. It can begin with a bar? (B3, wh-question word, such as where, when, who, what, which or how, or it can begin with other words that then typically generate p. 33) yes or no answers. Where’s the farm, please? (P3, p. 59) Do you like Mexican food? (G4, p. 13) Let’s talk: This request contains a linguistic structure that is typically used to make a suggestion in the language, but is employed here not as What I like about school a suggestion but rather as a request. It is therefore a (B4, p. 7) conventionally indirect request. Can I have the The focus here is on the speaker or writer as the personal pencil, pronoun I follows the modal verb (e.g. can or may) and the please? (S3, structure resembles questions asked by small children to their p. 15) mothers. It therefore clearly conveys to the listener/reader that they are in a more powerful position, as they can grant or not grant the request. Like the suggestory formula, this is also a conventionally indirect request. The structure of this conventionally indirect request is somewhat Can you help me, please? similar to the permission strategy, as it also tends to start with a (P4, p. 55) modal verb followed by a pronoun. However, here, the focus is on the interlocutors and their physical or mental ability to perform the action referred to in the request. Therefore, the structure of the ability request is modal verb + second person pronoun.

Notes: The names and publication dates that follow an upper case number in the table refer to scholars and publications that were either the first or one of the first who used a particular term: 1) Ervin-Tripp (1976), 2) Trosborg (1994), 3) House and Kasper (1987), Trosborg, (1994), 4) cf. Trosborg’s (1994, p. 167) I-inquire which is somewhat similar but does not include “yes” and “no” questions, 5) Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984); House and Kasper (1987), 6) Ervin-Tripp (1976); Schmidt and Richards (1980), 7) Trosborg (1994). The examples presented in this table were taken from the following textbooks: B3 = Bumblebee 3, B4 = Bumblebee 4, G3 = Ginger 3, G4 = Ginger 4, P3 = Playway 3, P4 = Playway 4, S3 = Sunshine 3, S4 = Sunshine 4

3.5  Speech Act Categories

103

Table 3.11  Overview of address term types Name First name

Definition Addressing someone by their first name is an informal strategy that can signify a number of different views/perceptions/ assessments, such as (a) a perceived or actual level of familiarity with the interlocutor, (b) an assessment about them sharing some identity features (e.g. age peers), (c) views about group membership norms (students, sports club members) or a particular attitude towards address terms in a company or institution (e.g. IKEA). Gender title + A title indicating a person’s gender and (in some cultures) surname marital status followed by the interlocutor’s surname is used to indicate a level of formality and/ or to index distance and respect. Professional A professional title followed by an individual’s surname is used in formal contexts or to show distance and respect. title + surname Kinship term A term indicating the relationship between the interlocutors is used, such as dad/father, mum/mother, sis/sister or granny/ grandmother in combination with the speech act. Kinship terms can be used more formally, especially if the standard versions are used (e.g. mother), or more informally, especially when the more informal or abbreviated terms are employed (e.g. sis). Endearment Terms of endearments are used to signal a close and term affectionate relationship with the interlocutor. They may, however, also be used sarcastically or in a humorous sense.

Example Can I have your ruler, Emma? (G4, p. 22)

Mr Brown, you must call the fire brigade. (P4, p. 55) Dear Captain Storm … (G4, p. 3) Hi, Mum! (S4, p. 8)

What would you like my darling? (P4, p. 65) Noble title (+ Noble titles are used as a sign of respect and distance by Prince Benny, First name) interlocutors. marry me! (P4, p. 49) Honorific Honorifics are used to signal respect, formality and social Yes, sir? (P4, distance. p.3) Category A word is used to address the interlocutor that assigns them to Hello, crocodile. (P4, Signifier a particular category, such as animals, machines, clothing p.5) items. Robot in the bathroom, wash my hair. (G3, p.28) Group noun A group noun is used to address a larger number of listeners or Hello, children! (G3, p.5) readers that are either unknown to the speaker or writer or where circumstances do not allow for all them to be addressed individually. Pronoun A pronoun can be used in a similar sense as a group noun, but Hi, everybody! may occur in more informal circumstances. (P3, p.54)

Notes: The examples presented in this table were taken from the following textbooks: B3  =  Bumblebee 3, B4  =  Bumblebee 4, G3  =  Ginger 3, G4  =  Ginger 4, P3  =  Playway 3, P4 = Playway 4, S3 = Sunshine 3, S4 = Sunshine 4

104

3 Methodology

Table 3.12  Overview of request modifiers Name Address term1

Attention getter1

Downtoner2

Past tense Modals3

Politeness Marker4

Definition A noun or noun phrase specifying a human/animal/other entity or a group is used in the close vicinity of the request to focus the interlocutor’s attention. This external modifier also makes the request appear more personal. This external modifier is employed to obtain the interlocutor’s attention. It therefore occurs at the beginning of the request. In contrast to the address term, the attention getter is a conventionalized phrase. A sentence adverbial such as just, perhaps, possibly, or maybe is used by the speaker or writer to make the request appear less forceful. This is an internal modifier. The use of past tense modals such as could instead of can make the request appear more tentative. This is an internal modifier.

Examples Can I have your ruler, Emma? (G4, p. 22)

Excuse me, how much is this book? (B3, p. 37) Just a minute. (P3, p. 48)

Could I have a banana, please? (B3, p. 10) I would like a strawberry special. (S3, p. 30) This is a lexical downgrader that is used by the speaker/ Can I have the ruler, writer to obtain the interlocutor’s cooperation. In English, please? (P3, p. 10) the lexical item conventionally used for this purpose is the word please. This is also an internal modifier.

Notes: The names and publications dates that follow an upper case number in the table refer to scholars and publications that were either the first or one of the first who used a particular term:1) loosely based on Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984), 2) Trosborg (1994), 3) Carrell and Konnecker (1981), 4) House and Kasper (1987), The examples presented in this table were taken from the following textbooks: B3  =  Bumblebee 3, B4  =  Bumblebee 4, G3  =  Ginger 3, G4  =  Ginger 4, P3 = Playway 3, P4 = Playway 4, S3 = Sunshine 3, S4 = Sunshine 4

3.5.2  Responses to Requests As discussed in Sect. 2.1.5, I will differentiate three different categories of request responses: (1) refusing a request, (2) granting a request and (3) answering a request. Categories 1 and 2 are mainly directed at requests for actions on the interlocutor’s part, i.e. requests in which the interlocutor is asked to do something. Request responses belonging to category 3 occur primarily after enquiry requests, i.e. request in which the speaker or writer wishes to obtain some information from their interlocutor, and are subdivided into three types: (a) negative answers, (b) positive answers and (c) neutral answers. Negative answers are different from request refusals in that negative answers do in fact fulfil a speaker’s or writer’s communicative goal, whereas refusals to requests mean that the speaker or writer has not achieved their aim. The following two examples illustrate the difference between these two request response categories: • •

Request (ability) A: Can you lend me your bicycle? Request response (refusal) B: No. Request (enquiry) A: Do you have a bicycle? Request response (negative answer) B: No.

3.5  Speech Act Categories

105

Table 3.13  Overview of request responses Category Refusing a request Granting a request

Answering a request

Definition The speaker or writer tells the interlocutor that they are not willing to fulfil their request. The speaker or writer informs the interlocutor that they will fulfil the request.

Examples No, no. (G3, p. 28)

Yes, of course. (P3, p. 48) Here you are. (B3, p. 5) I distinguish three different answer categories: (a) negative a) no, I don’t. (P4, p.52) answers, (b) positive answers and (c) neutral answers. Answers to requests typically occur as responses to enquiry b) Yes, I do. (P4, request types. p. 27) c) Lisa is in her room. (B3, p. 14)

Notes: The examples presented in this table were taken from the following textbooks: B3  =  Bumblebee 3, B4  =  Bumblebee 4, G3  =  Ginger 3, G4  =  Ginger 4, P3  =  Playway 3, P4 = Playway 4, S3 = Sunshine 3, S4 = Sunshine 4

An overview of the three request response categories is presented in Table 3.13. As the examples show, the lexical item in both request responses no is the same, but the request itself is rather different. In the first conversation, the speakers will not be able to borrow the bicycle they wanted to borrow, in the second conversation, the speaker received the information that they wanted to obtain. So, negative and positive answers occur after yes or no questions. Neutral answers, in contrast, typically occur after wh-questions (i.e. questions that begin with What? Why? When? Where? Which? Who or How?).

3.5.3  Greetings and Leave-Takings All L2 learners, even beginner level and/or young learners, should know how to greet someone and say goodbye (i.e. how to take leave). Surprisingly, as I mentioned in Sect. 2.1.6, not much research has been done on greetings and leave-takings in interlanguage pragmatics and as a consequence not many frameworks were developed for the analysis of greetings and leave-takings (Edmondson and House 1981, and House 1982 are notable exceptions). Table 3.14 presents an overview of the greeting and leave-taking strategies on which I will base my analysis in this book. In addition to the greeting and leave-taking strategies included in Table  3.14, speakers or writers may also use modifiers when greeting or saying goodbye to

106

3 Methodology

Table 3.14  Overview of Greeting and Leave-taking strategies Strategy Greet1

Introduction question Introduction2

Expressing pleasure Wellbeing Question3

Wellbeing Answer4

Leave-take5 Wish-Wells6

Definition A word or expression used at the beginning of a longer interaction with someone else, or as a polite recognition of someone else that does not result in a subsequent conversation (e.g. greeting a neighbour in a supermarket). A speaker asks his or her interlocutor who they are.

Examples Hello. (P3, p. 2)

What’s your name? (P3, p. 2) My name is Ron A speaker or writer provides his or her own name and (if White. I am a applicable) also further details about themselves, such as age, residence, etc. In addition, it also includes instances of nurse. I work at our hospital. (B4, a speaker introducing someone else, such as a friend the p.20) interlocutor has not met. Mrs/Mr … this is (Paula) … (P3, 15) A speaker conveys to his or her interlocutor that they have Nice to meet you. positive feelings about meeting them. (P3, 15) How are you? (P3, A speaker or writer enquires about the well-being of their p. 3) interlocutor in a conventional form. If asked by their interlocutor about their own well-being speakers will quite Great. And you? often reciprocate the question and ask their interlocutor the (P3, p.15) same. This is a response that follows a wellbeing question at the I’m OK. (S4, beginning of the conversation. The wellbeing answers that p. 12) form part of the beginning of conversation and are thus intended more as pleasantries rather than serious questions about an interlocutor’s well-being tend to be answered in a standardized form. Speakers or writers use a conventional expression to end Goodbye, ginger. the interaction with the interlocutor. (G4, p.39) The speaker or writer ends the conversation by expressing Have a nice some positive wishes. weekend. (B3, p. 45)

Notes: The names and publications dates that follow an upper case number in the table refer to scholars and publications that were either the first or one of the first who used a particular term or similar term:1) similar to Edmondson and House’s (1981) Greets, 2) similar to Edmondson and House’s (1981) Identification, it needs to be noted that questions about someone else’s name at the beginning of a conversation were only counted in the analysis of greetings and were not also included in the analysis of requests, 3) similar to Edmondson and House’s (1981) How-are-Yous, 4) This is similar to Responses to How-Are-Yous in Edmondson and House’s (1981) framework, 5) This is based on Edmondson and House’s (1981) Leave-Takes, 6) Edmondson and House’s (1981); The examples presented in this table were taken from the following textbooks: B3  =  Bumblebee 3, B4  =  Bumblebee 4, G3  =  Ginger 3, G4  =  Ginger 4, P3  =  Playway 3, P4 = Playway 4, S3 = Sunshine 3, S4 = Sunshine 4

someone. One of the most frequently employed modifiers is the address term. An overview of address term categories can be found in Table  3.11. In addition to address terms, endearment indicators may be used at the end of a written letter to show appreciation or a positive attitude towards the recipient of the letter. In English, one endearment indicator is the use of the letter x. A single or a higher number of

3.5  Speech Act Categories

107

the letter x may be used for this purpose. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (ND), an x is “used to represent a kiss, especially in the subscription to a letter”. Newer endearment indicators are positive emoticons such as  :) which is used to signify a smile.

3.5.4  Thanking and Responding to Thanks Similar to greetings and leave-takings, all L2 learners – irrespective of their proficiency level – should be able to express their gratitude to someone else for a positive act that has been done for them. Table 3.15 presents an overview of the thanking categories found in the eight textbooks. As was the case with other speech acts, modifiers can be used in thanking expressions. For example, address terms may be used by speakers or writers to make the thanking expression more personal (e.g. “Thank you, Mrs Honey.” Sunshine 4, p.31; see Table 3.11 for a detailed overview), while exclamations may be used to show appreciation and positive surprise (e.g. “Oh, thank you very much.” Playway 3, p. 54) and intensifiers may be used to increase the force of the expression of gratitude (e.g. “Oh, thank you very much.” Playway 3, p. 54). Schneider (2005, p. 103) notes that “responses to thanks follow acts of thanking. […] A response to thanks is a reactive interactional move which follows a reactive move, as the act of thanking also refers back to something else”. A number of different routines have been observed in studies examining responses to expressions of gratitude occurring in different contexts (cf. Sect. 2.1.7). What these studies have shown is that native speakers of different varieties of English (e.g. American, British, Canadian and Irish) tend to have different preferences with regard to thanking response routines. However, thanking responses including versions of Table 3.15  Thanking strategies Category Simple expression of gratitude1 Thanking + stating reason2

Definition A relatively short thanking expression simply conveying a positive sentiment and appreciation towards the person who has done something positive for the speaker or writer. A thanking expression typically followed by for which tells the interlocutor what they are being thanked for.

Thanking + refusing3

An expression of gratitude is used in combination with a refusal.

Examples Thank you. (S3, p. 31) Thanks for the umbrella. (P3, p. 41) No, thanks. (P4, p. 55)

Notes: The names and publications dates that follow an upper-case number in the table refer to scholars and publications that were either the first or one of the first who used a particular term or similar term:1) similar to Schauer and Adolphs’ (2006) basic expressions of gratitude, 2) based on Schauer and Adolphs (2006), 3) based on Schauer and Adolphs (2006), The examples presented in this table were taken from the following textbooks: B3  =  Bumblebee 3, B4  =  Bumblebee 4, G3  =  Ginger 3, G4  =  Ginger 4, P3  =  Playway 3, P4  =  Playway 4, S3 = Sunshine 3, S4 = Sunshine 4

108

3 Methodology

okay, welcome or no problem tended to be in use in all varieties. Since the aim of responses to expressions of gratitude is to “minimiz[e] the debt that the thanker has expressed toward the thanked” (Leech 2014, p. 200). I will not differentiate any strategies here, but will instead focus on pragmatic routines in the analysis of thanking responses.

3.5.5  Apologies As discussed in Sect. 2.1.8, Olshtain and Cohen (1983) distinguish five different major apology strategies, namely: (1) an expression of apology (e.g. I’m sorry, I apologize, Forgive me), (2) an explanation or account, (3) an acknowledgment of responsibility, (4) an offer of repair and (5) a promise of forbearance. They also include excuse me as an apology formula. In this study, I have coded excuse me expressions that were produced in the same turn as a request as attention getters, i.e. modifiers that are used to make the request seem less abrupt and more polite. Thus, these expressions have been included in the analysis of requests and have not been counted twice to also feature here. As mentioned in Sect. 2.1.8, since there is only one utterance that is directly related to a preceding apology in all of the eight textbooks, responses to apologies will not be focused on in the present investigation. Apologies can be accompanied by address terms to make them seem more personal. An overview of the address term types can be found in Table 3.11.

3.5.6  Suggestions and Responses to Suggestions Martínez Flor (2010, p.  262) notes that “in comparison to other directive speech acts, such as requests […], or refusals […], which have been extensively investigated in the field of interlanguage and cross-cultural pragmatics, research on suggestions has received less attention […]”. Here, I will only include the direct suggestion, the imperative (cf. Martínez-Flor 2005), and the two conventionalized suggestion routines that are represented in my data: (a) let’s routines (cf. Leech 2014, p. 137) and (b) what about (Martínez-Flor 2005, p. 175) routines. The imperative form of a verb can clearly also be a request. When coding speech acts, it is therefore very important to consider what the aim of the utterance that needs to be categorized is. As discussed in Sect. 2.1.9, requests and suggestions are quite similar because they are both directive speech acts. However, “request speech acts are performed by the speaker [or writer] in order to engage the hearer [or reader] in some future course of action that coincides with the speaker’s goal” (Safont Jordà 2008, p. 42). In contrast, “[s]uggestions are speech acts that are made presumably in the best interest of the listener [or reader], usually to help the listener [or reader] toward some goal that the latter desires or is assumed to desire. Suggestions are sometimes made in the best interest of the speaker as well” (Koike 1995, p. 260).

3.5  Speech Act Categories

109

Imperatives coded as suggestions then have to include a goal that is more or equally advantageous to the interlocutor as to the producer of the utterance. In contrast, imperatives coded as requests need to be more primarily or more advantageous to the producer of the utterance. Sometimes the difference between an imperative that is coded as a request and one that is coded as a suggestion is rather fine and may in cases be open to debate. For example, in Playway 3 on page 38, there is a task which follows two dialogues involving suggestions being made by parental figures towards children’s health issues. In this subsequent task, the task instructions are make dialogues and it is not clear who the speakers are. I coded utterances directed at the unnamed individual with health problems, e.g. Let’s go to the doctor’s or Have a cup of tea as suggestions based on the rationale that the person a speaker is disclosing their health issues to is likely to have the interests of the other person at heart, and therefore the goals of the interlocutor are more important than the goals of the individual speaker (although it is of course highly likely that, if the interlocutors are family members or have some other form of close relationship, it is also in the speaker’s interest to see the interlocutor well and in a good state of health, so that they do not have to worry about them, consequently taking care of a medical issue is in the best interest of the speaker as well). Let’s suggestions are based on a form of let followed either by the full form of us or by the contracted form ‘s. This expression is “used for suggesting that you and one or more other people do something” (Macmillan 2007, p. 864). The use of let us is considered more formal than the use of the contracted form. Similar to let’s or let us, what about is also a conventionalized standard suggestion form in English “used for making a suggestion” (Macmillan 2007, p.  1696). It is also a rather informal suggestion strategy. Both of these routines, like the imperative, can also function as requests, especially if the person or institution using let’s or what about is in a position of power over the individual addressed and the reader or hearer therefore is not really in a position to not comply with the let’s or what about utterance directed at them. In the present case, this means that I counted all non-­ optional instructions directed at learners in the textbooks as requests. Suggestions therefore only tend to be utterances in textbook dialogues included in the eight textbooks. Regarding responses to suggestions, I have coded them based on their function as either accepting or declining the suggestion using these terms instead of the terms satisfies and counters employed by Edmondson and House (1981). Suggestions can be accepted or declined directly with the help of acceptance or rejection tokens, e.g. “Yes, good idea.” (Playway 4, p. 15) or “No, let’s go…” (Playway 4, p. 15). In addition, suggestion response modifiers may be used, such as praise “Great idea!” (Sunshine 3, p.  25), repetitions “We can help you Prince Charming.” (Ginger 3, p. 30) or additional suggestions to develop the idea further, such as “Great idea. I can bring orange juice.” (Playway 4, p. 20). Since these additional suggestions are included in the suggestion response category, they are only counted in this category and are not also included in the original suggestion count.

110

3 Methodology

3.5.7  Expressing Feelings – Physical and Mental States As discussed in Sect. 2.1.10, this is a speech act category that focuses on an individual’s ability to express their mental or physical state. This new speech act type that I am proposing here could be regarded as a subcategory of assertives in Searle’s (1999) or of representatives in Fraser’s (1978) framework because producers of this speech act commit themselves to the truth of what they are saying, i.e. they are assessing their physical state or mental state and are indeed thirsty and/or hungry, or happy or sad. I am introducing this new speech act category here because (a) it covers a language function that is useful for young and/or beginner level learners and (b) the Thuringian curriculum for English as a foreign language classes in primary schools stipulates that young EFL learners should be able to communicate how they feel using simple expressions (Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur 2010). The analysis will concentrate on utterances that include I am/‘m (adjective) or I feel (adjective) or on negated forms of these utterances that do not form part of wellbeing answers in greetings or are apologies. Indirect complaints, on the other hand, will be included in the discussion of expressing feelings and states of beings, as well as utterances that are provided without context or seem to be directed at no-one in particular (i.e. utterances that could theoretically be indirect complaints as well if interlocutors were present or that may just be instances of a person thinking aloud and coming to terms with their own feelings). This concludes the methodology chapter. In Chap. 4, I will analyse the ten speech acts in the textbooks.

Appendix

111

Appendix A. Written Task Completed by the Young L2 Learners W1. Match the words and the pictures 1) Match the words and the pictures Image of a ruler

Image of a horse

Image of a dog

dog cat horse pencil ruler glue stick

Image of a pencil

Image of a cat Image of a glue stick

W2. Find the matching words 2) Find the matching words 1

Haus

summer

2

bitte

black

3

Sommer

school

4

Schule

hello

5

danke

red

6

hallo

good bye

7

rot

house

8

tschüss

please

9

schwarz

thank you

112

3 Methodology

W3. Complete 3) Complete Hello. How are you? Image of a girl

-------------I‘m fine. ------------Image of a boy Can I have the ruler, please?

---------------------------------------------

Image of a girl ---------------------------------------------

Image of a boy

B. Spoken Task Completed by the Young L2 Learners Function Pragmatics

Interviewer Good morning. What’s your name? How are you? How old are you? Do you like English?

Function Colours and Numbers

Interviewer Show different picture cards.   Red   1   Blue   5    Yellow   Orange   7 Can you count from 1 to 10, please? What is your favourite colour?

Pupil

Pupil

Appendix

113

Function TPR

Interviewer Touch your nose. Clap your hands. Stamp your feet. Touch your chair. Stand up. Turn around. Jump. Sit down.

Pupil

Function Translation

Interviewer Can you tell me the English words, please.   Bruder   Schwester   Haus   Bitte   Danke   Hund   Katze   Buch   Guten Tag   Gute Nacht    Weihnachtsmann   Mutter    Vater   Löwe   Montag   Hallo   Guten Morgen

Function Conversation

Interviewer Pupil Can you give me the ruler, please? Thank you. Can you give me the rubber, please? Thank you. Can you ask for this? (Child should formulate a request and use please) Can I have the pencil, please? Thank you. Can I have the felt tip, please? Thank you. Can you ask for this? (Child should formulate a request and use please)

Pupil

114 Function Favourite word & goodbye

3 Methodology Interviewer Pupil Which favourite words do you know in English? Thank you for the interview. (Pause – give the pupil the chance to reply to the expression of gratitude) Good bye.

C. Questions in the Teacher’s Survey Part Question 1 1.1) How important do you consider the following lesson components to be? 1.2a) Do you assess your learners? 1.2b) If so, how? 1.3) How important do you consider the following skills, knowledge and competences to be? 1.4) How frequently have you taught the features in 1.3 in the last teaching unit? 1.5a) What classroom activities /learner groupings do you use in your English lessons? 1.5b) If you use forms not listed here, which ones are they? 1.6) How frequently have you used these activities/groupings in the last unit you taught? 2 2.1) How important do you consider the teaching of politeness forms to be? 2.2) How often do you teach your pupils the following expressions? Consider the last unit you were teaching. How frequently have you – the teacher – used these expressions? 2.3) How often have your pupils used the following expressions in your last unit? 2.4) Do you use a welcome ritual? 2.5a) If so, which one? 2.5b) Please briefly describe the welcome ritual you use. 2.6) Do you use a goodbye ritual? 2.7a) If so, which one? 2.7b) Please briefly describe the goodbye ritual you use. 3 3.1) Do you use differentiation in your English lessons? 3.2) If so, which forms of differentiation do you use?

Format Items MC 10 YN O MC

1 1 7

MC

7

MC

5

O MC

1 4

SC

1

MC

17

MC

17

YN 1 SC 1 O 1 YN 1 SC 1 O 1 SC 1 MC 8 (continued)

Appendix Part Question 3.3a) Does the textbook that you use include differentiation options? 3.3b) If so, which ones? 4 4.1) Do you have special needs students in your classes? 4.2) Which opportunities for special needs teaching do you see in English lessons? 4.3a) Does the textbook that you use offer sufficient options for special needs learners? 4.3b) If so, please describe the options here. 5 5.1) Do you set homework in your English lessons? 5.2) If so, how often do you set homework? 5.3) If so, what kind of homework tasks do you set? 6 6.1a) Which textbook do you use in your English lessons? 6.1b) Edition of the textbook 6.1c) Year of publication 6.2) How satisfied are you with the textbook that you use? 6.3) Do you use supplementary material recommended by the publishing house? 6.4) How happy are you with the supplementary material offered by the publishing house? 6.5) Do you use additional material that is publicly available (e.g. children’s books, materials available on the internet) or do you design your own materials? 6.6) Do you use realia? 6.7) Do you use or would you like to use one of the following children’s books? 6.8) Which other children’s books have you already used? 6.9) Do you use children’s songs in your lessons? 7 7.1) Your age 7.2) Your gender 7.3) How many years have you been teaching English? 7.4) Which degrees do you have? 7.5) Which subjects did you study at university? 7.6) Which schools are you qualified to teach at? 7.7) Which qualifications do you have for teaching English? 7.8) From which grade is English taught at your school? 7.9) How many hours of English lessons do children at your school have? 7.10) Is there a sufficient number of English teachers at your school? 7.11) Do you teach English at more than one primary school? 7.12) What is the average class size in your English classes? 7.13) In which school district do you work? 8 8.1) Do you have any comments on the questionnaire? 8.2) Do you have any recommendations on how English lessons in primary schools could be improved?

115 Format Items SC 1 O 1 SC 1 O 1 SC

1

O YN SC MC SC O O SC MC

1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 6

SC

1

MC

4

YN MC

1 15

O YN+ SC SC SC MC O MC O O O SC SC O O O O

1 1 1 1 1 7 1 6 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1

(continued)

116 Part Question 9 9.1) Would you or your school be interested in taking part in a study involving your pupils? 9.2) If so, at which school do you work?

3 Methodology Format Items YN 1 O

1

Notes: MC (Multiple Choice), O (Open question), SC (single choice) Y/N (Yes or No question), YN+ (yes and no question, where in the case of yes, a textbook is added to allow the teacher to specify what they are doing); Items here refers to the overall number of items listed that the teachers were asked to provide answers for, e.g. in Question 1.1 the teachers were asked to evaluate 10 phases of the lesson and evaluate their importance on an 5 part Likert scale ranging from very important to not at all important

References Andrea, G., & Wojtowycz, D. (2009). The lion who wanted to love. London: Hachette. Aschkar, S., Beattie, T., Kerler, N., & Schröder, C. (2016). Sunshine: Pupil’s book 3. Berlin: Cornelsen. Aschkar, S., Beattie, T., Kerler, N., Schröder, C., & Skejic, M. (2015). Sunshine: Pupil’s book 4. Berlin: Cornelsen. Baldacchino, C., & Malenfant, I. (2016). Morris Micklewhite and the Tangerine Dress. Toronto: Groundwood Books. Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies. A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196–213. Bayerische Staatskanzlei. (2004). Ordnung der Zweiten Staatsprüfung für ein Lehramt an öffentlichen Schulen. (Lehramtsprüfungsordnung II – LPO II) Vom 28. Oktober 2004 (GVBl. S. 428). BayRS 2038-3-4-8-11-K. München: Freistaat Bayern. Bayerische Staatskanzlei. (2008). Ordnung der Ersten Prüfung für ein Lehramt an öffentlichen Schulen. (Lehramtsprüfungsordnung I  – LPO I) Vom 13. März 2008 (GVBl. S. 180) BayRS 2038-3-4-1-1-K. München: Freistaat Bayern. Browne, E. (1994). Handa’s surprise. London: Walker Books. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. (n.d.). http://www.bpb.de/nachschlagen/lexika/ handwoerterbuch-politisches-system/202065/land-freistaat-thueringen. Accessed 10 Oct 2018. Carle, E. (1997). Have you seen my cat? New York: Aladdin. Carle, E. (2018). The very hungry caterpillar. London: Puffin. Cave, K., & Riddell, C. (2011). Something else. London: Puffin. Destatis: Statistisches Bundesamt. (2018). https://www.destatis.de/DE/PresseService/Presse/ Pressemitteilungen/2018/09/PD18_347_12411.html. Accessed 10 Oct 2018. Ervin-Tripp, S. (1976). Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society, 5, 25–66. Carrell, P. L., & Konneker, B. H. (1981). Politeness: Comparing native and non-native judgement. Language Learning, 31(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1981.tb01370.x. Caspari-Grote, K., Grandt, I., Kraaz, U., Neuber, C., Simon, C., & Völtz, I. (2013). Ginger: Pupil’s book 3. Berlin: Cornelsen. Caspari-Grote, K., Grandt, I., Kraaz, U., Neuber, C., Simon, C., & Völtz, I. (2014). Ginger: Pupil’s book 4. Berlin: Cornelsen. Donaldson, J., & Scheffler, A. (2006). The snail and the whale. London: Puffin. Donaldson, J., & Scheffler, A. (2016a). The Grufallo. London: Macmillan. Donaldson, J., & Scheffler, A. (2016b). The smartest giant in town. London: Macmillan. Donaldson, J., & Scheffler, A. (2017). Monkey puzzle. London: Macmillan.

References

117

Edmondson, W., & House, J.  (1981). Let’s talk and talk about it. München: Urban und Schwarzenberg. Ehlers, G., Kahstein, G., Muth, M., & Tait, H. (2013). Bumblebee: Textbook 3. Braunschweig: Schroedel Westermann. Ehlers, G., Michailow-Drews, U., Tait, H., Schönau, M., Van Montague, A., & Zeich-Pelsis, A. (2017). Bumblebee: Textbook 4. Braunschweig: Schroedel Westermann. Freistaat Thüringen. (n.d.). https://www.thueringen.de/th2/schulaemter/. Accessed 5 May 2018. Garland, S. (2012). Azzi in between. London: Frances Lincoln. Gerngross, G., Puchta, H., & Becker, C. (2013a). Playway 3: Pupil’s book. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag. Gerngross, G., Puchta, H., & Becker, C. (2013b). Playway 4: Pupil’s book. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag. House, J.  (1982). Opening and closing phases in English and German dialogues. Grazer Linguistische Studien, 16, 52–82. House, J., & Kasper, G. (1987). Interlanguage pragmatics. Requesting in a foreign language. In W. Lörscher & R. Schulze (Eds.), Perspectives on language in performance (Vol. 2, pp. 1250– 1288). Tübingen: Narr. Koike, D. A. (1995). Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanish foreign language learning. In S.  M. Gass & J.  Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp.  257–284). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Leech, G. (1999). The distribution and function of vocatives in American and British English conversation. In H. Hasselgard and S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Out of corpora: Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson (pp. 107–120). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Leonni, L. (2011). Frederick. New York: Dragonfly. London, J., & Remkiewicz, F. (1994). Froggy gets dressed. London: Puffin. MacMillan. (2007). MacMillan English dictionary for advanced learners. Oxford: Macmillan. Martin, B. J., & Carle, E. (2007). Brown bear, brown bear, what do you see? New York: Henry Holt. Martínez Flor, A. (2005). A theoretical review of the speech act of suggesting: Towards a taxonomy for its use in FLT. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 18, 167–187. https://doi. org/10.14198/raei.2005.18.08. Martínez Flor, A. (2010). Suggestions: How social norms affect pragmatic behaviour. In A. M. Flor & E. U. Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 257–274). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. McKee, D. (1989). Elmer. London: Andersen Press. n.a. (2007). Macmillan English Dictionary for advanced learners. Oxford: Macmillan. OED Online, Oxford University Press. (n.d.). www.oed.com/view/Entry/230945. Accessed 11 Aug 2018. Rosen, M., & Langley, J. (2003). Snore. London: Harper Collins. Safont, J., & Pilar, M. (2008). The speech act of requesting. In E. A. Soler (Ed.), Learning how to request in an instructed language language context (pp. 41–64). Bern: Peter Lang. Schauer, G. A., & Adolphs, S. (2006). Expressions of gratitude in corpus and DCT data: Vocabulary, formulaic sequences, and pedagogy. System, 34(1), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. system.2005.09.003. Schneider, K. P. (2005). No problem, you’re welcome, anytime: Responding to thanks in Ireland, England and the United States. In A. Barron & K. P. Schneider (Eds.), The pragmatics of Irish English (pp. 101–140). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Schmidt, R.  W., & Richards, J.  (1980). Speech acts and second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 129–157. Sendak, M. (1991). Where the wild things are. New York: Harper Collins.

118

3 Methodology

Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. (2005). Entwicklungen in den Bachelor- und Masterstudiengängen seit Einführung der neuen Studiengangstruktur 1999–2003. Bonn: Sekretariat der Kultusministerkonferenz. Seuss, D. (1985). The cat in the hat. New York: Random House. Sharratt, N. (2006). Ketchup on your cornflakes? London: Scholastic. Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder: Gemeinsames Statistikportal. (n.d.). https://www. statistikportal.de/de/bevoelkerung/flaeche-und-bevoelkerung. Accessed 1 Nov 2018. Stoll Walsh, E. (1989). Mouse paint. Boston: HMH. Thomas, V., & Paul, K. (2016a). Winnie and Wilbur in winter. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thomas, V., & Paul, K. (2016b). Winnie and Wilbur: Winnie the witch. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thüringer Schulämter. (n.d.). https://www.thueringen.de/th2/schulaemter/. Accessed 10 May 2018. Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur. (2010). Lehrplan für die Grundschule und für die Förderschule mit dem Bildungsgang der Grundschule: Fremdsprache. Erfurt: Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur. Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Jugend und Sport. (2015). Thüringer Schulordnung. Erfurt: Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Jugend und Sport. Thüringer Schulgesetz Thüringer Schulgesetz (ThürSchulG) in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 30. April 2003. http://landesrecht.thueringen.de/jportal/portal/t/bfy/page/bsthueprod.psml/action/portlets.jw.MainAction?p1=m&eventSubmit_doNavigate=searchInSub treeTOC&showdoccase=1&doc.hl=0&doc.id=jlr-SchulGTH2003pP18&doc.part=S&toc. poskey=#focuspoint. Accessed 1 Nov 2018. Trosborg, A. (1994). Interlanguage pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Umfrage Online. (n.d.). https://www.umfrageonline.com/. Accessed 2 Feb 2017.

Chapter 4

Results: Speech Acts in Textbooks

Abstract  In this chapter, I will first examine the total number of different speech acts contained in four textbooks series (Bumblebee, Ginger, Playway, Sunshine), as this will provide some initial indications on which of the textbooks may enable young EFL learners to encounter a variety of different speech acts and thus different pragmatic functions. I will then analyse requests and responses to requests, greetings and leave-takings, expressions of gratitude and responses to expressions of gratitude, apologies, suggestions and responses to suggestions and expressions of physical and mental states. This will be followed by a summary of the findings of this chapter. Keywords  Textbook analysis · EFL textbooks · TEYL · Requests · Greetings · Leave-takings · Thanking · Apologies · Responsive speech acts · Reactive speech acts

4.1  Overview of Speech Act Instances The analysis and discussion of speech acts in this chapter focuses on four textbook series consisting of two books each: Bumblebee 3 (Ehlers et al. 2013) and Bumblebee 4 (Ehlers et al. 2017), Ginger 3 (Caspari-Grote et al. 2013) and Ginger 4 (Caspari-­ Grote 2014), Playway 3 (Gerngross, Puchta and Becker 2013a) and Playway 4 (Gerngross, Puchta and Becker 2013b), as well as Sunshine 3 (Aschkar et al. 2016) and Sunshine 4 (Aschkar et al. 2015). Figure 4.1 presents the total number of speech act categories found for the 10 speech acts under investigation (requests, responses to requests, greetings, leave-takings, expressions of gratitude, responses to expressions of gratitude, apologies, suggestions, responses to suggestions and expressions of mental or physical states) in the eight textbooks. All ten speech acts are also included as compulsory elements1 in the Thuringian curriculum for English 1  In the curriculum, the categorization system for compulsory language functions is presented in a slightly different way than in this book. For example, the category of requests as defined in this book is represented by several different categories in the curriculum, namely (1) Informationen über Personen einholen [obtaining information about another person], (2) Informationen über Gegenstände einholen [obtaining information about things], (3) sich etwas wünschen/um Erlaubnis

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 G. A. Schauer, Teaching and Learning English in the Primary School, English Language Education 18, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23257-3_4

119

120

4  Results: Speech Acts in Textbooks

Number of speech act categories in the 8 textbooks (total) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

10

10 9

10 9

9

8

Bumblebee 3 Bumblebee 4 Ginger 3 Ginger 4 Playway 3

3

Playway 4 Sunshine 3 Sunshine 4 Speech Acts Total

Fig. 4.1  Overview of speech act categories in the eight textbooks

as a foreign language in primary schools (Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur 2010). The results show that most of the textbooks contain either all 10 speech acts (Bumblebee 3, Playway 3, Playway 4) or nine out of 10 (Ginger 4, Sunshine 3, Sunshine 4). Ginger 3 contains slightly fewer with eight out of 10. Bumblebee 4 is markedly different, since this textbook only includes three out of the 10 speech act categories investigated. The low number of speech act categories included in this textbook is even more surprising, since Bumblebee 3 includes all 10 speech acts investigated. While in all other textbook series there is either an equal number of speech act categories included (10 for Playway and nine for Sunshine), or a slight increase in speech acts provided from Ginger 3 (eight) to Ginger (nine), Bumblebee is the only textbook series in which this sharp decrease of speech acts covered can be observed. A question that should be answered here is whether the total number of pages included in the textbooks had an impact on the number of speech act categories provided. After all, it could be the case that Bumblebee 4 simply has a considerably lower page count than the other seven textbooks. Table 4.1 provides an overview of the speech act categories and the page count of the individual textbooks. Table 4.1 shows clearly that  – in contrast to what might have been expected based on the low number of speech act categories included in Bumblebee 4  – Bumblebee 3 and Bumblebee 4 contain the highest number of pages of all textbooks investigated for their respective year level. This means that Bumblebee 4 includes 36 pages more than Ginger 4, 15 pages more than Playway 4 and 32 pages more than Sunshine 4. Thus, the low number of speech act categories included in bitten [wishing for sth/asking for permission], (4) jemanden um etwas bitten [asking someone for something], (5) eine Person bitten etwas zu tun [asking another person to do something] (Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur 2010, pp. 14–17).

4.1 Overview of Speech Act Instances

121

Table 4.1  Overview of speech act categories and page numbers of individual textbooks Textbook Speech act categories included Page count

B3 10 72

B4 3 79

G3 8 40

G4 9 43

P3 10 64

P4 10 64

S3 9 40

S4 9 47

Notes: B3 Bumblebee 3, B4 Bumblebee 4, G3 Ginger 3, G4 Ginger 4, P3 Playway 3, P4 Playway 4, S3 Sunshine 3, S4 Sunshine 4 Table 4.2  Occurrence of individual speech act categories in the textbooks Category Apologizing Expressing mental or physical states Greetings Leave-taking Requests Responding to requests Responding to suggestions Responding to thanks Suggestions Thanking Total

B3 3 10 9 3 236 41 1 2 3 4 312

B4 0 0 29 0 256 25 0 0 0 0 310

G3 4 7 7 0 113 11 1 0 4 3 150

G4 1 3 9 7 167 14 0 1 1 5 208

P3 5 10 67 5 341 46 5 3 14 9 505

P4 6 16 27 9 383 79 11 3 15 18 567

S3 3 5 5 2 224 15 3 0 8 6 271

S4 2 2 24 5 233 48 0 1 1 5 321

Total 24 53 177 31 1953 279 21 10 46 50 2644

Notes: B3 Bumblebee 3, B4 Bumblebee 4, G3 Ginger 3, G4 Ginger 4, P3 Playway 3, P4 Playway 4, S3 Sunshine 3, S4 Sunshine 4

Bumblebee 4 is not a result of a considerably lower amount of page count space on which to provide pragmatic functions. On the contrary, it is quite remarkable that the textbook with the largest number of pages has the poorest coverage of speech act categories. This suggests that pragmatic concerns were not focused on when Bumblebee 4 was written and approved by the publishing house. A possible explanation for why such a strikingly small number of speech act categories is included in Bumblebee 4 could be that the group of authors responsible for Bumblebee 3 and Bumblebee 4 is not identical, i.e. some authors who had contributed to Bumblebee 3 had not contributed to Bumblebee 4 (see Sect. 3.4.1 for an overview of the authors). Perhaps none of the remaining authors had an interest in pragmatic functions and therefore deliberately focused on something else, or none of the remaining authors were aware of pragmatic functions and simply had no strategy with regard to pragmatics. An alternative explanation could be that the publishing house itself got involved and provided very narrow guidelines on what should and should not be covered. While the discussion has so far centred solely on speech act categories included in the eight textbooks, I will now move on to the number of instances2 with which these speech acts occurred in the individual textbooks. Table 4.2 presents the number of individual occurrences of each speech act in each individual book. 2  I will use instances and occurrences as synonyms for the number of times a particular feature is included in a textbook.

122

4  Results: Speech Acts in Textbooks

The results reveal that the number of speech act categories covered in a textbook is not necessarily related to the total number of speech act instances young EFL learners are exposed to. For example, while Bumblebee 3 contains 10 speech act categories and Bumblebee 4 contains only three, the number of speech act instances are nearly identical (Bumblebee 3: 312; Bumblebee 4: 310). These nearly identical sums are, however, made up of very different individual speech acts: while requests saw an increase from 236 (Bumblebee 3) to 256 (Bumblebee 4) occurrences, and greetings also increased considerably from 9 (Bumblebee 3) to 29 (Bumblebee 4), there was a drop for responses to requests from 41 (Bumblebee 3) to 25 (Bumblebee 4), with apologies, expressions of mental or physical states, leave-takings, suggestions, responses to suggestions, expressions of gratitude and responses to expressions of gratitude all no longer featuring in Bumblebee 4. Although requests are certainly highly important for language learners, it does not make sense to increase learners’ exposure to them to the detriment of other speech act categories, i.e. instead of including so many requests, textbook writers responsible for Bumblebee 4 should have provided a larger range of speech act categories. The textbook series with the highest number of speech act categories and speech act occurrences is the Playway series. Whether this high number also provides young EFL learners with a helpful repertoire of strategies and routines will be addressed in the individual speech act sections in this chapter. What is interesting to note, though, is that the overall distribution of speech act occurrences across the speech act categories also varies considerably. For example, requests are the most frequently included speech act in all eight textbooks and represent 74% of all speech act instances provided in the eight textbooks. The second largest speech act category based on number of occurrences is responses to requests, which represents 11% of all speech act instances. The third most frequent speech act is greetings, which represents 7% of the total. This also shows that if these top three categories together make up 92% of all speech act occurrences, the number of instances with which the other seven speech act categories appear in the textbooks is rather small. In addition, the difference in the number of requests and responses to requests included in the eight textbooks gives rise to another interesting question, namely to what extent young EFL learners are exposed to utterances or conversations in the textbooks that reflect authentic communication and thus the extent to which they are therefore being prepared for real-life interactions in the foreign language (i.e. interactions that take place outside the classroom context and that involve interlocutors that do not also speak the EFL learners’ mother tongue). Evaluating the pragmatic content of textbooks in the mid-1990s,3 Bardovi-Harlig (1996, pp. 24–25) wrote “textbooks, even the new ones, are found lacking in at least two ways. First, it is often the case that a particular speech act, or language function is not represented at all. […] This is quite frequent. Next, other speech acts are poorly represented, that is, they are not realistic”. 3  Her evaluation of pragmatic input in L2 textbooks several years later, showed that the situation had not improved much (Bardovi-Harlig 2017).

4.1 Overview of Speech Act Instances

123

Comparison of speech act pairs in the 8 textbooks (total) 2000

1953

1800 1600 1400

Requests Responses to Requests Suggestions Responses to Suggestions Thanking Responses to Thanking Apologies Responses to Apologies

1200 1000 800 600 400

279

200 46 0

21

50

10

24

1

Fig. 4.2  Speech act instances in the textbooks – comparing speech act pairs

If we consider authentic interactions in everyday life, we notice that quite often (but not always) there is a natural second utterance type following a particular speech act. For example, if someone makes a suggestion, they would normally expect their interlocutors to react to this in some way. In the past, speech acts have frequently been investigated as independent entities in interlanguage pragmatics (but cf. Sadeghidizaj 2014 and Felix-Brasdefer 2015 for a different approach), i.e. studies have only focused on requests, apologies, suggestions, etc., but tended to not look at apologies and responses to apologies for example. Figure 4.2 illustrates the number of instances of speech act pairs4 (i.e. request and request responses, suggestions – responses to suggestions, expressions of gratitude and responses to expressions of gratitude, apologies and responses to apologies) included in the eight textbooks. The schematic illustration of the paired speech acts shows that there is not a single speech act where the number of instances in the second pair part approximates the one of the first pair part. For example, while there are a total of 50 expressions of gratitude in the eight textbooks, there are only 10 responses to expressions of 4  Greetings and leave-takings are not included here, as the typical response to a greeting is another greeting and the same also applies to leave-takings. Expressions of mental and physical states are treated as independent utterances in this investigation, since most instances are expressions that are not parts of conversations.

124

4  Results: Speech Acts in Textbooks

gratitude. This means that when learners come across requests/suggestion/thanking and apology utterances in the eight textbooks, they will not be exposed to the speech act that typically follows the first one in the majority of the cases. This is not ideal, as it provides EFL learners with only few opportunities to notice and learn routine responses to speech acts that in most cases can be quite easily learned and produced, such as no problem when being thanked. The general overview of speech act categories in the eight textbooks has thus shown the following: • Seven out of eight textbooks provide a minimum of eight different speech act categories out of the 10 categories that form the basis of this investigation. Only Bumblebee 3 and Playway 3 and 4 contain all 10 categories. • The textbook that is markedly different from the others regarding the number of speech act categories featured is Bumblebee 4 which only contains three different speech act categories. This is very surprising, since (a) Bumblebee 3 contained 10 categories and (b) the Bumblebee series is the textbook series with the highest page count. • The number of speech act occurrences differ considerably across the textbooks. The Playway series includes the largest number of speech act occurrences by far. The top 3 with regard to speech act occurrences are: Playway 4 (567 instances), Playway 3 (505 instances) and Sunshine 4 (321 instances). • The most frequently included speech act in all textbooks is the request (1953 instances). Requests represent 74% of all speech act instances included in the textbooks. The speech act in second place is responses to requests with 279 instances, which is equivalent to 11% of all speech act occurrences. The third most frequent speech act is greetings with a total of 177 instances equivalent to 7%. Since these three categories amount to 92% of the speech acts included in the textbooks, the remaining seven speech acts will feature comparatively rarely, therefore supporting Bardovi-Harlig’s (1996) critique of poor representation of speech acts in textbooks. • Figure 4.2 has shown that speech acts are in most cases not followed by a typical speech act that follows the initial speech act in natural conversation. This is problematic, since it deprives learners of input opportunities that would enable them to notice patterns in responses to speech acts and learn different routines. In the following, I will provide more detailed analyses of the individual speech acts (and their second pair parts where applicable), beginning with requests and responses to requests in Sect. 4.2.

4.2  Making and Responding to Requests Being able to ask for something that they need – be it information, an item or assistance – is an essential speech act that all L2 learners should be able to perform as soon as possible in their language learning career. Requests are the central component of the Survival English concept that I introduced in Chap. 1 and will be

125

4.2 Making and Responding to Requests

discussed in Sect. 4.2.1. Responses to requests, which will be discussed in Sect. 4.2.2, are equally important. If something has happened and assistance is needed, L2 learners have to be able to comprehend requests for information and must to be able to answer them.

4.2.1  Requests Figure 4.3 illustrates the number of request occurrences in the eight textbooks. The results show that the number of requests increases in all series from the first to the second book. This is interesting, since – as discussed above – requests are the most frequently featured speech act in all textbooks. In her critique of speech act input in textbooks, Bardovi-Harlig (1996, p.  24) addressed the number of requests that can be found in textbooks and writes “requests are plentiful in textbooks. They are perhaps the easiest to find of all the speech acts or conversational functions. Yet, they don’t occur with even as little as an attention getting“Excuse me” […].” I will come back to the presence or absence of attention getters a little later when discussing request modifiers, but it is important to note here that her critique still holds: requests feature prominently and predominantly in the eight textbooks. One reason for the large number of requests that can be found in the textbooks is that a typical textbook page contains several instructions to the learners, which of course, are requests. I will now move on to the analysis of individual request strategies (cf. Sect. 3.5.1 for detailed definitions). Table  4.3 presents the request strategies provided in the textbooks. The results show that of the 1953 requests included in the textbooks, 1491 were imperatives. Therefore 76% of all requests belonged to the most direct request category. In addition, imperatives were also the most frequently presented request Number of requests in the 8 textbooks 450 383

400 341

350 300 250

236

256 224

200 150

167 113

100 50 0

Fig. 4.3  Request instances in the eight textbooks

233

Bumblebee 3 Bumblebee 4 Ginger 3 Ginger 4 Playway 3 Playway 4 Sunshine 3 Sunshine 4

126

4  Results: Speech Acts in Textbooks

Table 4.3  Request strategies in the eight textbooks Request strategies Imperative Obligation Wants/needs Enquiry Suggestory formulae Permission Ability Total

B3 157 0 5 59 10 4 1 236

B4 173 0 1 72 8 1 1 256

G3 97 0 0 14 0 0 2 113

G4 131 0 1 30 0 2 3 167

P3 283 0 0 48 0 5 5 341

P4 290 4 0 81 2 3 3 383

S3 184 0 1 27 6 3 3 224

S4 176 1 1 51 3 0 1 233

Total 1491 5 9 382 29 18 19 1953

Notes: B3 Bumblebee 3, B4 Bumblebee 4, G3 Ginger 3, G4 Ginger 4, P3 Playway 3, P4 Playway 4, S3 Sunshine 3, S4 Sunshine 4

strategy in all eight individual textbooks (Bumblebee 3 = 67%, Bumblebee 4 = 68%, Ginger 3 = 86%, Ginger 4 = 78%, Playway 3 = 70%, Playway 4 = 76%, Sunshine 3 = 82%, Sunshine 4 = 76%). This means that young learners working with these four textbook series will be heavily exposed to imperatives when leafing through their books. This finding may not be entirely surprising to teachers working with these books, since imperatives are the typical request strategy used when providing instructions, e.g. “Listen and point” (B3, p. 55), “Talk” (G3, p. 3), “Ask a partner (P4, p. 52), and “Read the texts” (S4, p. 32). It also does not seem to be unique to textbooks published for the German market, since the second edition of the Incredibly English class book series (S, 1, 2) written by Philips et al. (2011, 2012) and published by Oxford University Press for the international market also uses imperatives for instructions directed at the learners. The category that is presented most frequently after the imperative are enquiries which represent 20% of the total amount of requests found in the eight textbooks. This strategy is the second most frequent strategy not just in the total number of occurrences across all eight books, but also in each individual book. Examples for this strategy are “Have you got a sister?” (S3, p.7) or “Where is the dog?” (B3, p. 16). Including a good number of enquiry requests in young learners’ textbooks seems very useful, as even beginner level learners should have encountered questions about themselves, their family or directions, since these are basic requests that they may have to be able to produce or respond to in emergency situations. Taken together, the two direct strategies, imperatives and enquiries amount to 96% of all requests included in the two textbooks. This, in my opinion, is a problem because it means that the basic written input young L2 learners get when reading these textbooks is that requests are usually produced with direct strategies in English. As Leech (2014, p.  134) pointed out “English has an amazing range of conveying requests and it exhibits a tendency to favour indirectness of requests more than most other languages, indirectness here being closely connected with politeness”. If we follow current second language acquisition theories, such as Schmidt’s (1990, 1993) noticing hypothesis, then L2 learners need to be frequently exposed to appropriate target language input in order for them to register and save this input so that they can subsequently employ strategies that are considered appropriate and polite, i.e. produce appropriate output.

4.2 Making and Responding to Requests

127

Table 4.4a  Request Modifiers in the eight textbooks – Overview Modifiers Address term Attention getter Downtoner Past tense modal Politeness marker Total

B3 2 1 0 12 3 18

B4 1 0 0 5 2 8

G3 3 0 0 0 1 4

G4 5 0 0 1 5 11

P3 6 4 2 0 10 22

P4 32 3 1 3 17 56

S3 6 0 0 3 6 15

S4 5 1 1 0 5 12

Total 60 9 4 24 49 146

Notes: B3 Bumblebee 3, B4 Bumblebee 4, G3 Ginger 3, G4 Ginger 4, P3 Playway 3, P4 Playway 4, S3 Sunshine 3, S4 Sunshine 4

The results in Table 4.3 show that the conventionally indirect ability and permission request strategies that are frequently used in everyday English (c.f. Aijmer 1996; Culpeper and Gillings 2018) are not included very frequently at all in the eight textbooks. Ability requests such as “Can you help me, please?” (P4, p. 55) or permission requests5 such as “Can I have your homework please?” (G4, p. 24) occur very rarely in all of the eight textbooks. Thus, to increase learners’ awareness of these conventional request strategies, EFL teachers using these books will need to think about how they can ensure that their young learners are more frequently exposed to these strategies so that the learners can acquire them. In addition to request strategies, I also looked at request modifiers included in the eight textbooks. As Table 4.4a shows, the three most frequently presented modifiers are address terms6 (41%), followed by politeness markers (34%) and past tense modals (16%). It needs to be noted, however, that in contrast to the request strategies, there is considerable variation in the inclusion of modifiers in the individual textbooks. For example, while address terms make up 57% of all modifiers in Playway 4, they only represent 11% of all modifiers included in Bumblebee 3. The analysis of the different address term types presented in Table 4.4b shows that Playway 4 does not only include the largest number of this modifiers, it also provides a very varied repertoire of different address term types ranging from first names, which are the most frequently presented address term with 17 instances, to address terms that are not included in any other textbook, such as noble titles.7  The low number of permission requests in the textbooks is particularly problematic for textbooks in use in Thuringia, since these requests are explicitly mentioned in the curriculum as compulsory elements. 6  See Table 3.11 for definitions of address term categories. 7  Since the focus of this investigation is on pragmatics, I will in general not comment on other aspects of textbook design that are also important. However, I would like to emphasize that the very good results overall of the Playway series concerning pragmatic content should not be seen as a general assessment of all other aspects of this series, since there are issues in these books that teachers and parents may find quite troubling. While the inclusion of texts in which the marriage of underage individuals as part of a storyline could be perceived in various ways and could be addressed in different and potentially useful ways in the classroom, other texts in Playway 4 in which a servant is asked to “kill Snow White and bring me her heart”(p.36), then visits a butcher’s and subsequently presents the heart on a dish to the person he works for seem needlessly brutal and disturbing. In addition, the negative portrayal of the step-mother in the same story is – while also true to the fairy tale original – something that could be unhelpful for children living in patchwork families or whose parents are in the process of separating. 5

128

4  Results: Speech Acts in Textbooks

Table 4.4b  Request Modifiers in the eight textbooks – Address terms Modifiers First name Gender title + surname Kinship term Endearment term Noble title + first name Honorific Category signifier Group noun Total

B3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2

B4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

G3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3

G4 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5

P3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 6

P4 17 2 8 1 1 1 1 1 32

S3 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6

S4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

Total 32 2 9 1 1 1 11 3 60

Notes: B3 Bumblebee 3, B4 Bumblebee 4, G3 Ginger 3, G4 Ginger 4, P3 Playway 3, P4 Playway 4, S3 Sunshine 3, S4 Sunshine 4

While the provision of first names and gender titles plus surnames are very useful and age appropriate, the inclusion of some other address terms, such as noble titles are not as important for young EFL learners’ real-life concerns. Thus, the absence of these address term types in other textbooks does not constitute a problem. What is surprising, however, is the small number of address term modifiers in some textbooks, such as Bumblebee 3 or Ginger 3, and the selection of address term types in some books. For example, it is not clear why the only address term children encounter in Ginger 3 is the category signifier robot (e.g. “Robot in the kitchen, make my toast” p. 28). This category signifier occurs three times in quick succession in Ginger 3. However, this is not the only instance of the same category signifier occurring multiple times on the same page. In Playway 3, the same happens with lion (e.g. “Lion, listen to my music.” p.18) which is repeated three times. It is unclear why the textbook writers of both books did this, as there does not seem to be a good reason for repeating either lion or robot so often, since these are neither nouns that children are going to need on an everyday basis nor are they likely to be particularly difficult for German EFL learners to understand due to the similarity of equivalent terms in German (lion  – Löwe, robot  – Roboter). The requests themselves are all imperatives, and since the young learners are exposed to many of them anyway, repeating them several times does not achieve any particular purpose either  – apart from reinforcing a direct request form that should not be reinforced. This means that both texts that include the frequent repetition of these address term types are actually counter-productive on several levels. Regarding the politeness marker please, the results show that although this modifier is included in all textbooks, the frequency with which it occurs in the individual books differs considerably. The Playway series includes the largest number of politeness markers with 17 in Playway 4 and 10 in Playway 3. The book with the third highest frequency, Sunshine 3, only includes six politeness markers. As mentioned in Sect. 2.1.4, it is important that L2 learners are able to use this modifier, as it is frequently employed by native speakers and even small children are told to say please by their English native speaker parents or care takers. Thus, young learners of English are likely to be expected to be able use this modifier. It is therefore very

4.2 Making and Responding to Requests

129

discouraging to see that politeness markers do feature so rarely in the Bumblebee series or Ginger 3. This is an area that the publishing houses should address. The third most frequently used modifier are past tense modals. Again, it is interesting to see that there is considerable variation in the number of occurrences across the eight books. The highest number of past tense modals can be found in Bumblebee 3 (12  in total representing 67% of all modifiers in this book), while Ginger 3, Playway 3 and Sunshine 4 do not include this modifier at all. The presentation of past tense modals in Bumblebee 3 is also rather varied, as both could, e.g. “Could I have a banana, please?” (p.10), and would are included and the latter is also included in its contracted form, e.g. “I’d like some tea.” (p. 9). The question that arises concerning the use of past tense modals is whether it may not be too early to present these forms, as they are associated with a different tense than the one which is mainly focused on in the young learners’ textbooks, the present tense. However, it could of course be argued that even beginner level learners may be exposed to these forms very early on if they go on holiday for example. In addition, a case could be made for positive pragmatic transfer from the German können to could and würden to would. While the near absence of downtoners in the eight textbooks is far from ideal – there are only four instances in total  – it is more worrying that simple attention getters such as Excuse me are not included systematically in the eight textbooks. Here Bardovi-Harlig’s (1996) critique is substantiated. While one attention getter is featured in Bumblebee 3 and another one in Playway 4, this is simply not sufficient for L2 learners. Thus, teachers will again have to make sure that they find other ways of providing input regarding this important request modifier when teaching their L2 learners. Textbook publishers should take care to provide more of these simple attention getters in the subsequent editions of their textbook series. It is of course important for learners to be able to formulate requests, e.g. in order to obtain help, but it is equally important that they are exposed to different types of responses to requests, which I will analyse in the next section.

4.2.2  Responding to Requests I will again begin my discussion of this speech act by providing a schematic illustration of the occurrences of responses to requests in the eight textbooks in Fig. 4.4. The results show that the number of responses to requests increases for three of the four textbook series: Playway 4 and Sunshine 4 both feature 33 more request response instances in book 4 than in book 3, while Ginger 4 includes 3 request responses more in book 4 than book 3. The Bumblebee series again displays a different development  – Bumblebee 4 includes 16 fewer request responses than Bumblebee 3. While it makes sense to increase EFL learners’ exposure to request responses with increasing level of proficiency  – as this could enable them to encounter a greater variety of request responses  – and reflects a better representation of dia-

130

4  Results: Speech Acts in Textbooks

Number of request responses in the 8 textbooks 90

79

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

48

46

41 25 11

14

15

Bumblebee 3 Bumblebee 4 Ginger 3 Ginger 4 Playway 3 Playway 4 Sunshine 3 Sunshine 4

0

Fig. 4.4  Responses to request instances in the eight textbooks

logues in the more advanced books, decreasing the number of request responses as seen in Bumblebee 4 suggests that pragmatic considerations were not part of the textbook writer team’s or the publishing house’s agenda for Bumblebee 4, which is regrettable. The findings for the different request response strategies in the eight textbooks are presented in Tables 4.5a and 4.5b. As explained in Sects. 2.1.5 and 3.5.2, I am differentiating between three major categories here: (1) Answers (which are then subdivided into positive, negative and neutral), (2) Granting a request and (3) Refusing a request. An overview of the three major categories is presented in Table 4.5a. The results show that the most frequently presented category is the answer category. In total, it represents 87% of request replies in the eight textbooks. It is not only the most frequently presented category overall, but also the most frequently presented category in each individual textbook: Bumblebee 3 (87%), Bumblebee 4 (100%), Ginger 3 (64%), Ginger 4 (86%), Playway 3 (76%), Playway 4 (86%), Sunshine 3 (87%), Sunshine 4 (98%). It is interesting, however, that the total number of answers differs considerably across the eight textbooks. While Playway 4 includes 68, Ginger 3 includes only seven. As questions and answers are a frequent part of everyday life communication, all L2 learners, even beginner level learners should be equipped with some basic response options. It would thus be helpful if publishing houses in the primary school EFL market would ensure that their textbooks include several different request response categories. The distribution of the different answer types (i.e. positive, negative, neutral) in the request responses is presented in Table 4.5b. The results reveal that the neutral type is the request response that is included most often in the textbooks. Examples for this type are: “How old are you?” “I’m 8.” (B3, p. 6) or “What’s your favourite sport?” “My favourite sport is skiing” (S4, p. 22). The difference in the total number of answer type request responses means

4.2 Making and Responding to Requests

131

Table 4.5a  Request responses in the eight textbooks – Overview Request responses Answers Granting a request Refusing a request Total

B3 36 3 2 41

B4 25 0 0 25

G3 7 1 3 11

G4 12 2 0 14

P3 35 11 0 46

P4 68 9 2 79

S3 13 2 0 15

S4 47 1 0 48

Total 243 29 7 279

Notes: B3 Bumblebee 3, B4 Bumblebee 4, G3 Ginger 3, G4 Ginger 4, P3 Playway 3, P4 Playway 4, S3 Sunshine 3, S4 Sunshine 4 Table 4.5b  Request responses in the eight textbooks – Answer types Request responses Positive answers Negative answers Neutral answers Total

B3 4 4 28 36

B4 1 0 24 25

G3 0 3 4 7

G4 4 3 5 12

P3 5 4 26 35

P4 11 15 42 68

S3 4 4 5 13

S4 7 2 38 47

Total 36 35 172 243

Notes: B3 Bumblebee 3, B4 Bumblebee 4, G3 Ginger 3, G4 Ginger 4, P3 Playway 3, P4 Playway 4, S3 Sunshine 3, S4 Sunshine 4

that when it comes to the three subcategories, there is again considerable variation with regard to the number of instances included. For example, Ginger 3 includes only four neutral answers, no positive answers and three negative answers, while Bumblebee 3 includes 28 neutral answers and four negative and positive answers. This difference in answer types provided in the individual textbooks suggests that EFL learners who have completed primary school will commence their secondary EFL education with rather varying backgrounds based on the textbook input that they have received. This means that primary EFL teachers need to consider what their textbooks have to offer and what they themselves may wish to do in their lessons to address pragmatic areas that may not be well represented in the textbook they are using. With regard to the other two request response options, refusing and granting a request, two issues are particularly interesting. The first one is the fact that several textbooks (Bumblebee 4, Ginger 4, Playway 3, Sunshine 3, Sunshine 4) do not include refusals to requests at all. This is worrying because all L2 learners should be equipped with the linguistic means to say no to a request for some kind of action on their part. In the case of young learners this is also a matter of children’s safety and a general educational approach that tells children that it is OK not to do what someone else wants, especially if they do not feel comfortable about what they are being asked to do and it involves people they do not know or actions that involve their and/or other people’s bodies that have not previously been agreed on by their legal guardians/parents or medical staff. The second issue that is particularly interesting in the non-answer request response data is that the majority of granting request items are based on the here you are formula that is used when goods are handed over (cf. also Sect. 2.1.5).

132

4  Results: Speech Acts in Textbooks

Table 4.6  Address terms in request responses in the eight textbooks Address terms First name Kinship term Noble title Honorific Total

B3 0 0 0 0 0

B4 0 0 0 0 0

G3 0 0 0 0 0

G4 0 0 0 0 0

P3 1 0 0 0 1

P4 1 1 1 0 3

S3 0 0 0 0 0

S4 0 0 0 1 1

Total 2 1 1 1 5

Notes: B3 Bumblebee 3, B4 Bumblebee 4, G3 Ginger 3, G4 Ginger 4, P3 Playway 3, P4 Playway 4, S3 Sunshine 3, S4 Sunshine 4

Twenty-one of the 29 request granting instances employ this formula, which means that here you are is used in 72% of all request grants. Examples are “Give me red” “Here you are” in a chant about different colours (P3, p. 6) or “I’d like two scoops of vanilla in a cone, please.” “Here you are.” in a service encounter with an ice-­ cream vendor (B3, p. 34). Other response that are used to grant a request involve the agreement tokens yes/yeah, of course or sure. The large number of here you are formulae in some textbooks, such as Playway, could help young L2 learners’ notice and acquire this formula (see Sects. 7.1.3 and 7.2.5 for analysis of the learner data). If this formula is considered to be of great importance for L2 learners, it should, however, be included with several repetitions in all primary level textbooks. In secondary school textbooks, this formula could then be revisited and a synonym here you go could be introduced so that the L2 learners encounter some more variety. Like requests, responses to requests can also be accompanied by an address term. Table 4.6 provides an overview of address terms accompanying this speech act in the eight textbooks. The results show that compared to requests, only very few address terms are included in the textbooks that are presented together with a request response. Four of the five address terms are included in the Playway series with one featuring in the Sunshine series. Thus, the Bumblebee and Ginger series do not contain address terms combined with responses to requests. It is interesting to note that the instance in which answers to requests contain an address term seem to be more formal, as there is only one address term indicating informality (first name), while all the others are used in more formal situations and tend to involve higher status individuals (e.g. a mirror responding to a queen “That’s Snow White, my Queen.” P4, p. 36). Thus, in contrast to requests, where address terms seem to be used to focus the interlocutor’s attention on the speaker or writer and can make the request appear more personal, the function of address terms in request responses in the textbooks seems to be somewhat different. Here, the emphasis seems to be on indicating status differences. The question that needs to be asked is whether it is important for young EFL learners to encounter noble titles and honorifics in this context. My answer would be that the absence of these request response address terms in the other textbook series is unlikely to be to the detriment of the beginner level learners working with these books.

4.3 Greetings and Leave-Takings

133

Like requests and request responses, there are other basic but essential speech acts that L2 learners should be able to comprehend and produce. Being able to greet someone and say goodbye are two of them and I will discuss these two speech acts in the following section.

4.3  Greetings and Leave-Takings Being able to greet someone and to say goodbye are essential skills any individual wishing to partake in interaction in society ought to have. Greetings fulfil two functions, they can (a) simply be polite signs that signal to another person that they have been noticed and are worthy of a (brief) verbal or non-verbal acknowledgment without the greeting resulting in a longer interaction, or (b) constitute the opening phase of a longer encounter. As Ninio and Snow (1996) point out, greetings and leave-takings are learned by children when they are aged between eight to 24 months in their first language. Thus, given that greetings and leave-taking are one of the earliest speech acts children acquire in their mother tongue and the words or expressions used to formulate a greeting or leave-taking in English are not very difficult to learn and/or produce for German native speakers, as the equivalent German terms are very similar at least with regard to greetings (e.g. Hello – Hallo, Good morning  – Guten Morgen), even young EFL learners attending German primary schools should be able to produce greetings and leave-takings. This, of course, also means that L2 learners need to encounter them in their classroom and therefore the presentation of different greeting and leave-taking formulae in primary school textbooks would be helpful.

4.3.1  Greetings Figure 4.5 presents the number of greetings included in the eight textbooks. The figure shows that in three of the four textbook series the number of greetings increases from the first to the second book: Bumblebee 4 includes 20 instances more than Bumblebee 3, Ginger 4 includes two instances more than Ginger 3 and Sunshine 4 includes 19 instances more than Sunshine 3. Interestingly, here it is the Playway series which deviates from the other three and displays the opposite development with Playway 4 including 40 fewer greetings than Playway 3. Although this may be a somewhat surprising result, it needs to be acknowledged that the number of greetings in Playway 3 was considerably higher than the number of greeting occurrences in the other textbooks (67 instances in Playway 3 compared to nine in Bumblebee 3, seven in Ginger 3 and five in Sunshine 3) and that the drop in greeting strategies has resulted in a number of greetings in Playway 4 (27 instances) that is similar to that of Bumblebee 4 (29 instances) and Sunshine 4 (24 instances).

134

4  Results: Speech Acts in Textbooks

Number of greetings in the 8 textbooks 80 67

70

Bumblebee 3 Bumblebee 4 Ginger 3 Ginger 4 Playway 3 Playway 4 Sunshine 3 Sunshine 4

60 50 40 29

30

27

24

20 10

9

7

9

5

0

Fig. 4.5  Greeting instances in the eight textbooks Table 4.7  Greeting strategies in the eight textbooks Strategy Greet Introduction question Introduction Expressing pleasure Wellbeing question Wellbeing answer Total

B3 3 1 3 0 1 1 9

B4 15 0 13 0 1 0 29

G3 5 0 2 0 0 0 7

G4 7 0 0 0 2 0 9

P3 34 4 21 1 4 3 67

P4 19 0 6 1 1 0 27

S3 4 0 0 0 1 0 5

S4 16 0 5 0 2 1 24

Total 103 5 50 2 12 5 177

Notes: B3 Bumblebee 3, B4 Bumblebee 4, G3 Ginger 3, G4 Ginger 4, P3 Playway 3, P4 Playway 4, S3 Sunshine 3, S4 Sunshine 4

Thus, looking at all of the eight books, it is actually the Ginger series that shows a marked deviation from the other three grade 4 books, as Ginger 4 only contains nine greetings. A more detailed analysis of the individual strategies that can be used as (parts of) a greeting is presented in Table 4.7. The results show that the majority of greetings consist of either a greet, e.g. “Good morning” (P4, p. 25) or “Hi” (S3, p. 9), or an introduction, e.g. “My name is Lisa” (B3, p.3) or “Mrs/Mr … this is (Paula) …” (P3, p. 15). The latter example also reveals that introductions in the textbooks are not exclusively focused on young EFL learners’ introducing themselves, but also include instances in which other people or animals are being introduced, although these introductions of others only make up a very small amount of the total introductions with five in total (one in Bumblebee 3, one in Bumblebee 4, and three in Playway 3). Introduction questions also feature relatively rarely in the textbooks, e.g. “Hi, I’m Emma. What’s your name?” (P3, p. 3) which is an introduction followed by an introduction question. Expressing pleasure items, i.e. expressions that are intended to convey to the inter-

4.3 Greetings and Leave-Takings

135

locutor that the speaker is pleased to see them, are only included with one instance each in Playway 3 and Playway 4, e.g. “Nice to meet you.” (P3, p. 15). Wellbeing questions, such as “How are you?” (B3, p. 6) are included somewhat more frequently with 12 instances in total, but again only five responses to well-­ being expressions are provided in the books (fine in B3, good in P3, great in P3, OK in P3, S4) which means that young EFL learners working with these books will only rarely encounter a routine expression to these questions. This is surprising and unhelpful. A good example for an exercise that provides L2 learners with the opportunity to see and also try out simple dialogue structures including greetings is provided on page 15 of Playway 3. I have included some of the introduction features as examples in the preceding paragraph. This role-play exercise not only enables learners to practise routine formulas in a group work set-up in class, it also gives them the opportunity to refer back to typical routines at home or at a later time in class. This is the advantage of textbook input compared to, for example, instructions written on a board or handed on worksheets or smaller slips of papers for role-plays. The discussion so far has centred on individual strategies that can be employed in greetings. Table  4.8 presents the actual greeting routines used in the eight textbooks. The results of the greeting routines found in the eight textbooks show that the most frequently included pragmatic routine is hi (40 instances) followed by hello (32 instances) and good morning (13 instances). However, it is interesting to note that none of the individual greeting routines investigated are present in all textbooks. For example, hi is not included in Bumblebee 3 and Ginger 3, and hello is not included in Sunshine 3. Since greetings are included in all eight textbooks, this means that there does not seem to be an agreement amongst publishers on which greeting routines should definitely be presented to young learners. Baker (2010) conducted an analysis of three greeting routines (good afternoon/evening/morning, hello, hi) in authentic British English interactions and found that of the three routines examined, hello was the most frequently employed Table 4.8  Greeting routines in the eight textbooks Greeting routines Dear G’day Good morning Hello Hello again Hey Hi Welcome Total

B3 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3

B4 0 1 0 6 1 0 7 0 15

G3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 5

G4 4 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 7

P3 0 0 6 12 1 1 12 2 34

P4 0 0 4 5 0 0 9 1 19

S3 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 7

S4 0 0 1 4 0 0 6 2 13

Total 7 1 13 32 2 1 40 7 103

Notes: B3 Bumblebee 3, B4 Bumblebee 4, G3 Ginger 3, G4 Ginger 4, P3 Playway 3, P4 Playway 4, S3 Sunshine 3, S4 Sunshine

136

4  Results: Speech Acts in Textbooks

one by all age groups by far, followed by hi and good afternoon/evening/morning (although the older speakers tended to use more good x routines than hi). Thus, when it comes to selecting which greeting routines young learners should be exposed to in their textbooks, all three should be provided. What is also interesting to observe in the greeting routine data is that good morning is not included in four textbooks (B3, G3, G4, S3) and that good morning is the only routine included of the three possible good x routines presented in the books that contain a good x routine, i.e. none of the books feature good afternoon or good evening. This is very much in line with Aliyoun’s (2018) findings. In his study of the first three volumes of the German Lighthouse Series and the Iranian Prospect Series (both targeted at secondary school level EFL learners), he also found that good morning was only included with four instances each in Lighthouse 1 and Prospect 1 and not included at all in the subsequent volumes for years 2 and 3. Good afternoon in contrast, was only included with two instances in Prospect 1 and not at all in the German series. This suggests that with regard to the varied inclusion of good x greeting routines, there seem to be more widespread problems in German textbook publishing. If, for example, young learners are taught with Cornelsen’s Ginger or Sunshine textbooks in primary school and then move on to Cornelsen’s Lighthouse in secondary school, there is very little opportunity for them to encounter good morning, good afternoon or good evening in their textbooks in the first 5 years of their EFL learning. While it may of course be argued that teachers could regularly begin their lessons with a routinized greeting such as Good morning boys and girls which is then echoed by the pupils Good morning, Mr/Mrs/Ms XY and thus will in fact have ample opportunity to be exposed to this strategy and will be regularly forced to perform it, the same is not the case for good afternoon and good evening. Of the latter two, good afternoon in particular is very interesting because there is no equivalent to it in standard German, such as guten Nachmitttag. Thus, transfer from L1 to L2 is not likely to happen and this strategy could in fact be included as a useful reminder of cross-cultural differences as part of the intercultural competence EFL learners ought to acquire. Greeting routines can be combined with an address term to make the greeting more personal. The following address term types were found in the textbooks: first name of the interlocutor (e.g. “Hi Emily” G4, p. 25), surname of the interlocutor preceded by the gender title (e.g. “Good morning, Mrs Brown” B3, p. 3), kinship term (e.g. “Hello, Stepmother” P4, p. 37), noble title followed by the person’s name (e.g. “Welcome, Prince Benny” P4, p. 48), professional title followed by a person’s surname (e.g. “Dear Captain Storm” G4), category signifier (e.g. “Hi, Butterfly” P3, p.41) group noun (e.g. “Hello children” B3, p. 36), pronoun (e.g. “Hi, everybody” P3, p.54). The total number of address terms included in the eight textbooks, as well as the different types of address terms provided in the books are presented in Table 4.9. The results show that all textbooks contain address terms in greetings. This is positive. The most frequently included address term is the first name which represents 48% of all address terms presented in the textbooks. This is not surprising, since child EFL learners will address age peers by their first names when

4.3 Greetings and Leave-Takings

137

Table 4.9  Address terms used in greetings in the eight textbooks Address term First name Gender title + surname Kinship term Noble title + first name Professional title [+ surname] Category signifier Group noun Pronoun Total

B3 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 3

B4 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3

G3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2

G4 5 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 7

P3 1 2 0 0 1 4 1 1 10

P4 5 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 9

S3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

S4 6 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 10

Total 22 4 5 2 2 5 5 1 46

Notes: B3 Bumblebee 3, B4 Bumblebee 4, G3 Ginger 3, G4 Ginger 4, P3 Playway 3, P4 Playway 4, S3 Sunshine 3, S4 Sunshine

g­ reeting them. However, it is a little disappointing that the number of address terms that feature a gender title and surname8 is rather small. Here, it would have been helpful to expose EFL learners to a broader set of options including Mr., Mrs., Ms. and Miss. This would also have enabled teachers to address cross-cultural differences in the use of Miss and Fräulein. While the former is still used in British English for underage or unmarried females, the latter has fallen out of use in Germany (Clyne et  al. 2009). Since address terms can be a very sensitive issue9 leading to negative perceptions of interlocutors, differences in address term use should be addressed in the foreign language classroom early on.  As the analysis of L2 learners’ greetings in Sect. 7.2.1 will show one learner used Good morning, Herr [Surname]. This indicates that at least some young learners would like to use gender title + surname when greeting an adult in English. 9  I will provide some real-life examples here to illustrate the impact of inappropriate address term use. While still working at a British university, a topic that some of my native speaking colleagues frequently raised to me concerning German speakers studying at our institution was German students’ perceived disregard for colleagues’ academic achievements. If German students addressed colleagues who had doctorates or were professors by their surname, they would often use the gender title + surname and not the academic title + surname. This was perceived to be extremely impolite and inappropriate, because in contrast to German academic titles which actually include the gender title (e.g. Frau Professorin Schauer), in British English the gender title is dropped and generally the highest title is then used (e.g. Professor Schauer or Doctor Smith) if formal address terms are employed. At many German universities, just using the gender title and not using any of the academic titles may be seen as a sign of a good relationship with academic staff (although opinions by university staff members differ with regard to how appropriate they consider the gender title only address term to be). Thus, German students at the British institution were probably just transferring their L1 norms to the L2 and were not at all successful. Some of the comments that I frequently heard were “Why can’t colleagues at German universities teach them English address term use” or even more drastic “Why can’t German colleagues teach them some manners!”. The second example was mentioned to me a little while ago by a highly proficient learner of German who had transferred his L1 norms concerning the use of address terms for unmarried females from his Eastern European native language to German and had been subjected to some unpleasant reactions by the females he addressed. This illustrates that (a) even advanced L2 learners may struggle with address terms and (b) that this is an area that can have negative real-life consequences and should therefore be addressed. Awareness raising in that respect can never start too early. See also DuFon (2010) for an overview of address term issues in L2 pragmatics. 8

138

4  Results: Speech Acts in Textbooks

While greetings are the third most frequently included speech act in the textbooks, leave-takings are presented with a much smaller number. They will be discussed in the next section.

4.3.2  Leave-Takings Figure 4.6 schematically illustrates the number of leave-takings included in the eight textbooks. The results show that this speech act is not covered in two textbooks, Bumblebee 4 and Ginger 3. Sunshine 3 features only two leave-taking expressions and Bumblebee 3 includes three. Apart from Bumblebee 4, the second books in the series comprise more leave-taking expressions than the first books – Ginger 4 includes seven more instances than Ginger 3, Playway 4 includes four more instances than Playway 3 and Sunshine 4 includes three more instances than Sunshine 3. Overall, however, the number of leave-takings is considerably lower than the number of greeting strategies provided in the textbooks, 31 and 177 respectively. This means that L2 learners will not encounter complete conversations that begin with a greeting and end with a leave-taking in most cases. The limited provision of entire conversations in textbooks and in particular the final stages that include leave-­ taking were also critiqued by Bardovi-Harlig (2001, p.  25) who wrote about the international textbooks she had analysed “[t]extbooks typically represent conversations as getting only as far as shutting down a topic and occasionally as far as a preclosing. It is often the case that a particular speech act or language function is not represented at all”. Table 4.10 presents the different leave-taking strategies included in the eight textbooks (c.f. Sects. 2.1.6 and 3.5.3 for definitions of the strategies). The leave-­ Number of leave-takings in the 8 textbooks 10

9

9 8

7

7 6

5

5 4 3

3 2

2 1 0

5

0

0

Fig. 4.6  Leave-taking instances in the eight textbooks

Bumblebee 3 Bumblebee 4 Ginger 3 Ginger 4 Playway 3 Playway 4 Sunshine 3 Sunshine 4

4.3 Greetings and Leave-Takings

139

Table 4.10  Leave-taking strategies in the eight textbooks Strategy Leave-take Wish-Wells Total

B3 1 2 3

B4 0 0 0

G3 0 0 0

G4 7 0 7

P3 5 0 5

P4 9 0 9

S3 2 0 2

S4 5 0 5

Total 29 2 31

Notes: B3 Bumblebee 3, B4 Bumblebee 4, G3 Ginger 3, G4 Ginger 4, P3 Playway 3, P4 Playway 4, S3 Sunshine 3, S4 Sunshine 4

taking strategy that is provided most frequently is the leave-take, i.e. a conventional expression that is employed to signal to the interlocutor that the interaction has come to an end. Examples are “Bye” (P4, p. 31) or “See you on Saturday” (B3, p. 21). There are only two wish-wells in the data and they both occur in Bumblebee 3 (e.g. “Have a nice holiday” p.57). Thus, learners not working with the Bumblebee series will not encounter any wish-wells at all in their primary level EFL textbooks. The question that needs to be asked is, is that a problem? My view is that if I had to choose between including a larger number of leave-takes and including wish-wells at all, I would include a larger number of leave-takes. My priority would be to ensure that learners knew both the more formal goodbye and the more informal bye, and I would also expose them to see you, so that they are not confused by its meaning and function when someone uses it towards them for the first time. Similar to greetings, leave-takings can also be accompanied by modifiers that either make the leave-take appear more personal (address terms) or that convey a positive attitude or affection towards the interlocutor (endearment indicators). The modifiers that were provided with the leave-takings in the textbooks are presented in Table 4.11. Only three textbooks include address term modifiers in their leave-takings, namely Ginger 4 (“Goodbye, Ginger” p. 39), Playway 3. (e.g. “Goodbye, children” p. 3) and Playway 4 (e.g. “Bye-bye, Snowwhite” p. 36). Interestingly, Playway 3 contains five different address term types and thus again provides L2 learners with a variety of different options for a particular pragmatic function. The number of endearment indicators is very small, with one each included in Bumblebee 3 (smiley), Playway 4 (smiley) and Sunshine 4 (x as a symbol for a kiss, c.f. Sect. 3.5.3). While encountering address terms is certainly useful for young learners’ pragmatic comprehension of the target language, the absence of endearment indicators is not something that should be held against young learners’ EFL publishing houses, as this is a pragmatic function that young learners are unlikely to encounter unless the school has set up a twinning or partnership programme with another school and young learners were to exchange emails or letters with English native speaking age peers. And in this event, teachers would need to carefully prepare targeted materials for the exchange anyway, so could easily provide specific information regarding the showing of affiliation and friendship in written communication then.

140

4  Results: Speech Acts in Textbooks

Table 4.11  Modifiers used in leave-takings in the eight textbooks Modifiers Address term (leave-taking) First name Gender title + surname Kinship term Category signifier Group noun Endearment Indicator (leave-taking) Total

B3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

B4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

G3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

G4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

P3 5 1 1 1 1 1 0 5

P4 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2

S3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

S4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Total 7 3 1 1 1 1 3 10

Notes: B3 Bumblebee 3, B4 Bumblebee 4, G3 Ginger 3, G4 Ginger 4, P3 Playway 3, P4 Playway 4, S3 Sunshine 3, S4 Sunshine 4 Table 4.12  Leave-taking routines in the eight textbooks Leave-taking routines Bye Bye-bye Cu next Mon From Goodbye Good night Love See you See you on x-day See you soon. See you. (bye) bye. Your friend Total

B3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

B4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

G3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

G4 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 7

P3 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

P4 3 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 9

S3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

S4 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5

Total 7 3 1 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 2 1 29

Notes: B3 Bumblebee 3, B4 Bumblebee 4, G3 Ginger 3, G4 Ginger 4, P3 Playway 3, P4 Playway 4, S3 Sunshine 3, S4 Sunshine 4

While the discussion so far has mainly centred on leave-taking strategies, I will now move on to the actual pragmatic leave-taking routines included in the eight textbooks. These are presented in Table 4.12. The results show that a number of different leave-taking routines are provided in the textbooks. Routines involving some form of goodbye, i.e. bye, bye-bye and goodbye, are the most frequently represented one with 14 instances in total, therefore amounting to 48% of all leave-taking routines included. Routines featuring some form of see you, i.e. Cu next Mon, See you, See you on x-day, See you soon are included with six instances thus representing 21% of the leave-taking routines. Not included in either calculation are the two instances of combined routine use in the sequences See you. (Bye) bye which nicely illustrate that in spoken English more than one routine may be used when saying farewell. The inclusion of written texts, such as emails, mobile phone messages, postcards or letters in the textbooks results in a number of greeting and leave-taking routines

4.4 Thanking and Responding to Thanks

141

that are only used in written English (in addition to routines and spellings that could be used in both written and spoken English, such as see you). For example, “Cu next Mon” is a mobile phone text message included at the beginning of Sunshine 4 (p. 8) and exposes the learners to a text-message style writing of the see you routine they have encountered in book 3  in addition to an abbreviation of a weekday. On the same page in Sunshine 4, three postcards are presented, two of which include the leave-taking routine love, while the third one does not include any leave-taking routines at all. This is actually a potentially useful learning point for young learners, as the page teaches them the norms of different writing modes (i.e. abbreviations are used in text messages but not on postcards) and that some people do not use leave-­ taking routines at all in casual written correspondence. However, as mentioned at the beginning of this section, the overall number of leave-taking routines included in the eight textbooks is rather small and this is again an area that textbook publishers should address when revising their books for future editions.

4.4  Thanking and Responding to Thanks Like greetings and leave-takings, being able to thank someone and being able to respond to being thanked are essential communicative skills that all individuals partaking in communication in a language should have (including young and/ or beginner level learners). As Greif and Gleason (1980) have shown in their study, even children as young as 2  years old are prompted by English native speaking parents to produce expressions of gratitude. In the following, I will first discuss expressions of gratitude included in the textbooks in Sect. 4.4.1 and then analyse responses to expressions of gratitude in Sect. 4.4.2.

4.4.1  Expressions of Gratitude Figure 4.7 presents the number of instances with which expressions of gratitude are included in the eight textbooks. The results show that seven out of the eight textbooks feature at least three expressions of gratitude, while Bumblebee 4 does not include any. The number of thanking instances included in the individual book varies from three (Ginger 3) to 18 (Playway 4). Apart from Playway 4, however, the other textbooks that feature expressions of gratitude all include less than 10. This means that young EFL learners working with these textbook series will not frequently be exposed to expressions of gratitude in their textbooks. The low number of thanking expressions in most textbooks (apart from Playway 4) is problematic. At the very least, beginner level L2 learners should be exposed to conversations in their textbooks that include simple expressions of gratitude where it would make sense to include them. For example, there is an interview with a zookeeper on page 31 in Bumblebee 4 which ends with the zookeeper talking about

142

4  Results: Speech Acts in Textbooks

Number of expressions of gratitude in the 8 textbooks 20

18

18 16 14 12 10

9

8 6 4 2 0

5

4

3

6

5

Bumblebee 3 Bumblebee 4 Ginger 3 Ginger 4 Playway 3 Playway 4 Sunshine 3 Sunshine 4

0

Fig. 4.7  Thanking instances in the eight textbooks

the best part of his job. Here, it would have been quite easy to add another turn from the interviewer in which she thanks the zookeeper, e.g. Thank you for the interview. Coincidentally, an expression of gratitude following an interview is included in Sunshine 4 (p. 22), which means that there are textbook writers who, when writing about similar issues, consider pragmatic skills and include pragmatic input. Thus, similar to greetings and leave-takings, many opportunities to include relevant speech acts are missed in the textbooks because conversations are not presented in their entirety. It could of course be argued that the current investigation which solely focuses on L2 learners’ textbooks and does not also investigate teachers’ books or additional materials available to the learners is limited in its scope and does not reflect the broad range of input materials young learners may be exposed to in their lessons (e.g. when listening to audio materials etc.). While this critique is justified, the aim of this part of the present investigation is to examine the input available to all young EFL learners using this book, no matter where they look at and read the book (e.g. in the classroom, at home or somewhere else entirely). Thus, even if their teachers should decide to leave out certain chapters or tasks, the question that this study wishes to answer is: are children exposed to input that equips them with pragmatic skills and enables them to navigate simple everyday life situations in the target language or not? The discussion of expressions of gratitude has so far centred on the instances with which the speech act is featured in the individual textbooks. Table 4.13 presents the thanking instances found in the eight textbooks and lists them according to whether they are (a) simple thanking expressions, (b) thanking expressions that also provide a reason or (c) thanking expressions that are combined with refusals. The results show that the most frequently provided thanking routines in the seven textbooks are simple thanking expressions which correspond to 88% of the expressions of gratitude included in the books. The simple thanking expressions are

4.4 Thanking and Responding to Thanks

143

Table 4.13  Thanking instances and routines in the eight textbooks Instances & routines Simple thanking expressions Thank you Thanks Thanking + reason Thank you for Thanks for Thanking + refusing No thanks TOTAL

B3 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 4

B4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

G3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

G4 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

P3 7 4 3 2 1 1 0 0 9

P4 16 12 4 0 0 0 2 2 18

S3 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

S4 3 3 0 2 0 2 0 0 5

Total 44 36 8 4 1 3 2 2 50

Notes: B3 Bumblebee 3, B4 Bumblebee 4, G3 Ginger 3, G4 Ginger 4, P3 Playway 3, P4 Playway 4, S3 Sunshine 3, S4 Sunshine 4

not only the most frequently included ones in total, they are also the most frequently featured ones in each individual book. In four cases (B3, G3, G4, S4), they are in fact the only thanking strategy provided in the textbooks. Interestingly, simple informal expressions of gratitude observed in studies examining English native speakers’ language use (Schauer and Adolphs 2006 and Jautz 2013, see also Sect. 2.1.7), such as cheers or ta were not included at all. I would, however, argue that leaving out informal expressions such as cheers or ta in books for young beginner level learners is not a problem as L2 learners can acquire a broader range of thanking expressions later on. Table 4.14 presents the results of the modifiers used in combination with the thanking expressions in the textbooks. The data show that three different modifier categories were found: (a) thanking and address term, (b) thanking and intensifiers and (c) exclamation and thanking. The results show that the address term is the most frequent modifier used in expressions of gratitude with 15 instances in total corresponding to 63%. It is also the only modifier that is included in all seven textbooks that contain expressions of gratitude. The address term type that is most frequently included in the textbooks is the first name which occurs with 9 instances overall (G3:1, G4:2, P3:1, P:4:4, S3:1). Other address term types are only presented very infrequently. There are only four instances of kinship terms (e.g. “Thanks you, Stepmother.” P4, p.37) of which one appears in Bumblebee 3 and three are featured in Playway 4. Even more infrequent are gender title + surname (“Thank you, Mrs Honey.” S4, p.31) and group noun (“Thank you, ladies and gentleman.” G3, p.  17), which are only included in one textbook each. Thanking expressions combined with intensifiers are only included in two textbooks, Playway 3 and Playway 4. Interestingly, this textbook series provides learners with three different options, the slightly more formal thank you very much and the somewhat more informal thanks very much and thanks a lot. While it may not be strictly necessary for young L2 learners to produce thanking expressions with an intensifier, it is nevertheless helpful to expose them to simple routines with modifi-

144

4  Results: Speech Acts in Textbooks

Table 4.14  Thanking Modifiers in the eight textbooks – Overview Modifiers Thanking + address term Thank you, address term Thanks, address term Thanking + intensifiers Thank you very much Thanks very much Thanks a lot Exclamation + thanking TOTAL

B3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

B4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

G3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

G4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

P3 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 3 6

P4 7 4 3 2 1 0 1 1 10

S3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2

S4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Total 15 10 5 4 2 1 1 5 24

Notes: B3 Bumblebee 3, B4 Bumblebee 4, G3 Ginger 3, G4 Ginger 4, P3 Playway 3, P4 Playway 4, S3 Sunshine 3, S4 Sunshine 4

ers early on. This enables them to see these expressions, but should not be accompanied with the expectation that the learners have to be able to produce them. Instead, the textbook input should be viewed as an opportunity for the learners to notice and understand them. Exclamations and thanking are included in three textbooks (Playway 3, Playway 4 and Sunshine 3) with a total of five instances. All exclamations use oh and are intended to indicate positive surprise. While it may be a step towards portraying expressions of gratitude in a manner that reflects real-life interactions, not including exclamations is unlikely to be to the detriment of young EFL learners. Since surprise is also typically vocalized with oh in German, German EFL learners would be able to decode this exclamation quite easily and would probably also be able to produce it in the foreign language. This concludes the discussion of expressions of gratitude, in Sect. 4.4.2 I will focus on the utterance that tends to frequently follow this speech act – responses to expressions of gratitude.

4.4.2  Responses to Expressions of Gratitude Figure 4.8 presents the number of thanking response instances in the eight textbooks. Since Bumblebee 4 did not include any expressions of gratitude, it is only logical that it does not feature any responses to expressions of gratitude either. However, there are a number of surprising findings associated with responses to expressions of gratitude. First, in addition to Bumblebee 4, no responses to expressions of gratitude are included in Ginger 3 and Sunshine 3. This means that in two textbook series, Ginger and Sunshine, young EFL learners will not be exposed to a single response to an expression of gratitude in their textbook throughout the whole first year of their EFL learning in grade 3. This is not good. Secondly, the number of responses to thanking are very low. In total, 50 thanking instances were found in the seven textbooks that include them. However, only 10 responses to thanks are featured in the textbooks in total. This means that in the case

4.4 Thanking and Responding to Thanks

145

Number of responses to expressions of gratitude in the 8 textbooks 4 3

3

2

Bumblebee 3 Bumblebee 4 Ginger 3 Ginger 4 Playway 3 Playway 4 Sunshine 3 Sunshine 4

3

2

0

1

1

1 0

0

0

Fig. 4.8  Responses to expressions of gratitude instances in the eight textbooks Table 4.15  Responding to thanks in the eight textbooks Routines All right That’s OK You’re welcome Total

B3 0 0 2 2

B4 0 0 0 0

G3 0 0 0 0

G4 0 0 1 1

P3 1 1 1 3

P4 2 1 0 3

S3 0 0 0 0

S4 0 0 1 1

Total 3 2 5 10

Notes: B3 Bumblebee 3, B4 Bumblebee 4, G3 Ginger 3, G4 Ginger 4, P3 Playway 3, P4 Playway 4, S3 Sunshine 3, S4 Sunshine 4

of 40 instances, there is no reply to an expression of gratitude in the textbooks. Again, this is not helpful. Table  4.15 presents the individual routines that are included as thanking responses in the textbooks. The results show that only three thanking response routines are included in the textbooks: (1) you’re welcome which is featured in four textbooks (B3, G4, P3 and S4) with five instances in total, (2) all right, which is featured in two textbooks (P3 and P4) with a total of three occurrences, and (3) that’s OK which is featured with one instance each in two textbooks (P3 and P4). As studies on English native speakers’ responding behaviour towards thanking expressions have shown (e.g. Bieswanger 2015, see also Sect. 2.1.7), native speakers do not always follow up an expression of gratitude by a response to thanking utterance. Instead, they may simply smile or nod. However, the studies on native speakers’ thanking responses have also shown that the number of no verbal responses to expressions of gratitude is considerably smaller than the number of verbal responses to expressions of gratitude. This means that not teaching responses to expressions of gratitude to EFL learners is not an option. What is debatable is whether young beginner level EFL learners need to be able to produce these responses or not.

146

4  Results: Speech Acts in Textbooks

Similar to the point I made with regard to intensifiers in thanking expressions, I would also argue here that it is helpful to expose young learners to simple thanking responses, such as That’s OK or You’re welcome, as they are relatively easy with regard to syntax and vocabulary. However, it would also be helpful to mention to beginner EFL learners that a verbal response to an expression of gratitude could just as easily replaced by a friendly smile and a nod.

4.5  Apologies According to Andrew Cohen (2018, p. 5) one of the “areas of pragmatics worthy of attention in the T[arget]L[anguage] classroom […] [is] how to apologize”. Figure 4.9 presents the number of apologies featured in the individual textbooks. The results show that seven of the eight textbooks include an apology. Interestingly, it is again Bumblebee 4 that does not feature a single one. This means that Bumblebee 4 is the only textbook analysed which does not include four (apologies, expressions of gratitude, responses to expressions of gratitude and leave-takings) of the seven speech acts investigated so far (requests, responses to requests, greetings, leave-takings, expressions of gratitude, responses to expressions of gratitude and now apologies). This is surprising given that all of the aforementioned speech acts are included in Bumblebee 3. What is also surprising is the rather small number of apologies in some textbooks. For example, Ginger 4 includes just a single apology and Sunshine 4 only features two. In addition, there is a decrease in the number of apologies provided in two textbook series Ginger and Sunshine (not counted here is Bumblebee 4 because that seems to be a very special case as addressed in the immediately preceding paragraph). Thus, apologies are not frequently focused on in the textbooks series and Number of apologies in the 8 textbooks 7 6

6 5

5 4

4 3

3

3 2

2 1

1 0

0

Fig. 4.9  Apology instances in the eight textbooks

Bumblebee 3 Bumblebee 4 Ginger 3 Ginger 4 Playway 3 Playway 4 Sunshine 3 Sunshine 4

4.5 Apologies

147

textbook writers do not seem to deem it necessary for learners to encounter them with the same frequency in their second year of learning as in their first year. This is a problem, especially since it is also a lost opportunity to teach young EFL learners something about cross-cultural differences in everyday life. As mentioned in Sect. 2.1.8, apologies occur frequently in British English10 in all kinds of rather surprising situations as Mills (2017) explains. In her chapter on apologies, she refers to a very popular book series called Very British Problems (Temple 2013) which addresses topics that are considered to be quintessentially English and pokes gentle fun at them. In the section on apologies in the aforementioned book, the author included an image of an English gentleman rubbing his head next to a wardrobe of considerable size. The accompanying words are “apologizing to furniture when you bump into it” (Temple 2013, p. 184). While this may seem a rather unlikely event, I remember one of my British MA students telling me that he once apologized to a staircase after he had tumbled down it – with several British students nodding their heads in understanding. After having lived in Britain for more than a decade, I myself got into the habit of apologizing to other shoppers in the supermarket whose cart I had nearly touched with mine, having become so used to this ritual behaviour over the years. Does this mean that I would expect young EFL learners to know all this and mirror the behaviour of British English native speakers? No, not at all. But it illustrates that there are conventions for the production of apologies in British English that do not exist in Germany and thus including few instances of apologies in textbooks that are intended to represent British English language use is not helpful and represents a missed opportunity with regard to intercultural awareness raising. I will now move on to the analysis of apologies and address term modifiers presented in Table 4.16. All apologies were based on a form of sorry. In 22 instances, the word sorry is used by itself. I’m sorry occurs only twice, once in Ginger 3 and once in Playway 3. There is not a single intensifier included in the primary EFL textbooks, such as very, so or terribly. The number of address terms included is also rather small with four in total. Three occur in Playway 4 (one first name and two kinship terms) and one is included in Sunshine 4 (gender title + surname). In his analysis of three EFL textbook series for grammar schools published by German textbook publishers, Camden Town by Table 4.16  Apologies in the eight textbooks Instances & modifiers Apologies Address term

B3 3 0

B4 0 0

G3 4 0

G4 1 0

P3 5 0

P4 6 3

S3 3 0

S4 2 1

Total 24 4

Notes: B3 Bumblebee 3, B4 Bumblebee 4, G3 Ginger 3, G4 Ginger 4, P3 Playway 3, P4 Playway 4, S3 Sunshine 3, S4 Sunshine 4

 All four textbook series clearly display an orientation towards British English by including visual signs (e.g. flags, landmark buildings, images of London, maps of British cities), traditional food choices (e.g. baked beans, fish and chips) and school uniforms.

10

148

4  Results: Speech Acts in Textbooks

Diesterweg Westermann, English G 21 by Cornelsen and Green Line by Klett, Limberg (2016) also found a very low number of intensifiers provided in the series he investigated: Camden Town included five, English G21 featured only three, and Green Line included seven. Since these series are targeted at secondary school students wishing to obtain their university entrance certificate and comprise six textbooks each, this is not a laudable result. Limberg (2016) also noted that the number of apology expressions including sorry differed considerably with regard to their number of instances. While Camden Town included only 26, English G 21 featured 70 and Green Line included 69. Thus, while Camden Town included the lowest number of apologies throughout the series, at least L2 learners working with this series will encounter somewhat more intensified apologies than learners working with English G21. Overall, however, EFL learners beginning their L2 learning with Bumblebee and then continuing on with Camden Town will be exposed to a considerably lower number of apologies than L2 learners starting out with Playway and continuing with Green Line or English G21. This means that EFL teachers working with textbook series that provide more limited pragmatic input than others will have to consider how they can supplement the areas that are poorly represented in the books to ensure that their L2 learners reach the standards required by their ministries of education and the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany.

4.6  Suggestions and Responses to Suggestions In the following, I will first analyse and discuss suggestions in Sect. 4.6.1 and then address responses to suggestions in Sect. 4.6.2.

4.6.1  Suggestions Martínez-Flor (2010, p. 262) noted that “in comparison to other directive speech acts, such as requests […], or refusals […], which have been extensively investigated in the field of interlanguage and cross-cultural pragmatics, research on suggestions has received less attention […]”. While suggestions and responses to suggestions can be of key importance to advanced L2 learners negotiating issues with native speaker advisors in higher education (e.g. Bardovi-Hartford and Harlig 1993), they may be considered to be of less importance to young beginner level EFL learners, because learners may be able to avoid making them when interacting with strangers (e.g. shopkeepers, flight attendants) in their foreign language. While this is certainly true, I decided to include suggestions and responses to suggestions in my analysis for two reasons: (1) they are included in the Thuringian

149

4.6 Suggestions and Responses to Suggestions

Number of suggestions in the 8 textbooks 16 14

14

15 Bumblebee 3 Bumblebee 4 Ginger 3 Ginger 4 Playway 3 Playway 4 Sunshine 3 Sunshine 4

12 10 8

8 6 4

4

3

2 0

0

1

1

Fig. 4.10  Suggestion instances in the eight textbooks

primary school curriculum for EFL classes (Thüringer Ministerium für Wissenschaft, Bildung und Kultur 2010) and (2) in a difficult or emergency situations even young EFL learners might encounter them11 and thus should at least be able to comprehend suggestions and respond to them. Figure 4.10 illustrates the number of suggestion instances found in the eight textbooks. The results show that suggestions are included in seven of the eight books investigated. Again, it is Bumblebee 4 which does not contain a single suggestion. It needs to be noted, however, that Ginger 4 and Sunshine 4 also only include one suggestion each. As has frequently been observed in the analysis of the preceding speech acts, the Playway series again contains the highest number of this speech act. While there is a slight increase in the number of apologies from Playway 3 to Playway 4, all other textbook series show a decrease from book 1 to book 2, therefore displaying a similar pattern as had been observed for apologies. Table 4.17 presents the results of the analysis of suggestion instances and the routines that are used to formulate suggestions. The findings show a clear preference for Let’s routines in five of the eight books (e.g. “Let’s go shopping” B3, p. 36), with the Sunshine textbooks being the ones in which What about routines (e.g. “What about meeting friends?” S3, p. 27) are more frequently presented than let’s ones. As Fig. 4.10 had also shown, the Playway series includes the largest number of suggestions. Not only that, but as the findings in Table 4.17 reveal, these textbooks also provide L2 learners with the most varied suggestion routine options. The two books include two different let routines (let’s and let me), and also feature an  For example, if young learners have lost their parents in a shopping centre or on a beach and have managed to find an official that can help them, this person may say to them Let’s take a look around and see if we can spot your parents somewhere.

11

150

4  Results: Speech Acts in Textbooks

Table 4.17  Suggestions in the eight textbooks Suggestions Let’s Let me What about Imperative Total

B3 3 0 0 0 3

B4 0 0 0 0 0

G3 4 0 0 0 4

G4 1 0 0 0 1

P3 9 0 0 5 14

P4 13 1 1 0 15

S3 2 0 6 0 8

S4 0 0 1 0 1

Total 32 1 8 5 46

Notes: B3 Bumblebee 3, B4 Bumblebee 4, G3 Ginger 3, G4 Ginger 4, P3 Playway 3, P4 Playway 4, S3 Sunshine 3, S4 Sunshine 4

Number of responses to suggestions in the 8 textbooks 12

11

10

Bumblebee 3 Bumblebee 4 Ginger 3 Ginger 4 Playway 3 Playway 4 Sunshine 3 Sunshine 4

8 6

5

4 2 0

3 1

1 0

0

0

Fig. 4.11  Responses to suggestion instances in the eight textbooks

instance of the what about routine plus five instances of the imperative. Thus, the Playway series is again demonstrating a good range of different pragmatic input options.

4.6.2  Responses to Suggestions Figure 4.11 presents the responses to suggestions included in the textbooks. The results show that only five out of eight textbooks feature responses to suggestions (Bumblebee 3, Ginger 3, Playway 3, Playway 4 and Sunshine 3). Playway 4 is therefore the only textbook of the investigated series that also contains responses to suggestions in L2 learners’ second year of learning English at primary school. Since the number of suggestions included in the other series was already rather small, it is not surprising that only very few responses to suggestions are featured in the Bumblebee 3, Ginger 3 and Sunshine 3.

4.6 Suggestions and Responses to Suggestions

151

Table 4.18a  Responses to Suggestions in the eight textbooks – Accepting a suggestion Responses to suggestions Acceptance tokens Praise Follow-up suggestion Repetition Total

B3 0 1 0 1

B4 0 0 0 0 0

G3 0 1 0 1 2

G4 0 0 0 0 0

P3 5 2 0 0 7

P4 2 7 5 0 14

S3 0 2 0 0 2

S4 0 0 0 0 0

Total 7 13 5 1 26

Notes: B3 Bumblebee 3, B4 Bumblebee 4, G3 Ginger 3, G4 Ginger 4, P3 Playway 3, P4 Playway 4, S3 Sunshine 3, S4 Sunshine 4

Table 4.18b  Responses to Suggestions in the eight textbooks – Declining a suggestion Responses to suggestions Rejection token Follow-up suggestion Total

B3 0 0 0

B4 0 0 0

G3 0 0 0

G4 0 0 0

P3 0 0 0

P4 3 1 4

S3 1 0 1

S4 0 0 0

Total 4 1 5

Notes: B3 Bumblebee 3, B4 Bumblebee 4, G3 Ginger 3, G4 Ginger 4, P3 Playway 3, P4 Playway 4, S3 Sunshine 3, S4 Sunshine 4

Of the 21 responses to suggestions included in the textbooks, 17 accept the suggestion and only 4 decline a suggestion. Tables 4.18a and 4.18b present the responses to suggestions included in the eight textbooks with the former featuring the strategies contained in the textbooks that are used accept a suggestion, and the latter including the strategies that are presented in the textbooks to decline a suggestion. Please note that some of the responses to suggestions featured more than one strategy, e.g. “Yes, good idea” (Playway 4, p. 15) which contained an acceptance token and praise. The Bumblebee and Ginger series do not feature any responses that decline a suggestion. This is unfortunate because it means that the young EFL learners working with Bumblebee or Ginger will never see a negative response to a suggestion, while those children working with Playway or Sunshine will only see a very limited number. Thus, there is still room for improvement in future editions of these textbooks. The analysis of the suggestion responses further shows that not all acceptances or rejections include an acceptance token or a rejection token. For example, there are several instances, where the suggestion is accepted solely by praising the interlocutor, e.g. “Good idea!” (Playway 4, p. 44) . While no is the only rejection token used in the textbooks, the acceptance tokens are nearly evenly split between yes (four instances) and OK (three instances). However, since the acceptance tokens were only included in the Playway Series, this again means that young learners not working with Playway will not be exposed to acceptance tokens for suggestions at all.

152

4  Results: Speech Acts in Textbooks

4.7  Expressing Physical and Mental States As discussed in Sects. 2.1.10 and 3.5.7, expressions that convey how the speaker or writer is perceiving his or her mental or physical state, have not been focused on much in interlanguage pragmatics. However, I consider these expressions to be of importance for beginner level language learners, since they enable L2 learners to convey to another person what is going on with them. In addition, the Thuringian curriculum for EFL at primary school also stipulates that young learners should be able to express how they feel.12 The relatively simple syntactic structure of these expressions (e.g. “I’m fine” B3, p.6; “I’m scared” S3, p.13; “I’m tired and I’m hungry” G4, p. 6; “I feel sick” P3, p.38) is to beginner level L2 learners’ advantage. For German learners of English, these expressions also provide teachers with the opportunity to discuss positive and negative transfer/ false friends, since some expressions can be translated from German verbatim (e.g. Ich bin müde und hungrig – I am tired and hungry), whereas others cannot (e.g. I am fine – mir geht es gut). Figure 4.12 presents the number of feeling expressions in the eight textbooks. Physical and mental state expression instances in the 8 textbooks 18

16

16 14 12 10

10

10

8

7

6

5

4 2 0

3

2

Bumblebee 3 Bumblebee 4 Ginger 3 Ginger 4 Playway 3 Playway 4 Sunshine 3 Sunshine 4

0

Fig. 4.12  Physical and mental state expression instances in the eight textbooks

 The two categories included in the curriculum that match my category of expressing physical and mental states are Gefühle/Empfindungen ausdrücken [expressing emotions/feelings] and über das eigene Befinden Auskunft geben [providing information about one’s own physical/mental state] (Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur 2010, p. 16). Since the focus here is on providing information about one’s own physical or mental state, instances in which the physical or mental state of others is described are not included. For example, in Playway 3, there is picture story in which accompanying information is provided about one of the characters next to an image showing his facial expressions and posture, e.g. “Eddie is sad” (P3, p. 54). This was not included because reporting on how third persons are or feel is not part of the curriculum for EFL in Thuringian primary schools.

12

4.7 Expressing Physical and Mental States

153

Table 4.19  Expressions of physical or mental states in the eight textbooks States Alone Not alone Angry Busy Cold Feel sick Fine Happy Hot Hungry Lost Proud Ready Sad Scared Not scared Sleepy Thirsty Tired TOTAL

B3 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 10

B4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

G3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 7

G4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3

P3 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

P4 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 1 0 4 1 0 1 1 16

S3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 5

S4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Total 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 4 1 13 5 1 1 2 5 1 1 3 5 53

Notes: B3 Bumblebee 3, B4 Bumblebee 4, G3 Ginger 3, G4 Ginger 4, P3 Playway 3, P4 Playway 4, S3 Sunshine 3, S4 Sunshine 4

The results show that expressions of physical or mental states are included in seven of the eight textbooks with Bumblebee 4 not including a single expression. As had been observed for other speech acts, such as suggestions and apologies, there is a decrease in the number of these expressions from book 1 to book 2 in three of the four textbook series (Bumblebee, Ginger and Sunshine), while there is an increase in the instances with which this speech act is featured for the Playway series. Table 4.19 presents the number of instances with which individual mental or physical states are presented in the eight textbooks. A total of 19 different mental or physical state expressions based on I am/‘m (adjective) or I feel (adjective) were found in the textbooks. The results show that Playway 4 not only includes the largest number of these expressions, but also addresses a variety of states that are also in some instances negated (e.g. alone/ not alone, busy, happy, hungry, ready, scared/not scared, thirsty and tired). In contrast, Sunshine 4 only includes two (angry and hungry). Concerning the individual physical or mental states covered, the results reveal that the textbooks mostly focus on negative states (13 different adjectives) compared to only six positive or neutral states (fine, happy, proud, ready, not alone, not scared). Thus, the representation in the textbooks is not balanced in that respect. Regarding physical states, it is being hungry that is most frequently represented (with a total of 13 instances in six textbooks), followed by tired (with a total of five

154

4  Results: Speech Acts in Textbooks

instances in three textbooks). Interestingly, thirsty is featured relatively rarely with a total of only three instances in two textbooks. The most frequently referred to mental state is being scared with a total of five instances in only two textbooks. The most frequently covered positive state is being happy with a total of four instances in three textbooks. While it may seem a little depressing that the majority of the feeling expressions are referring to negative conditions, I would argue that this is not as bad as it might seem at first glance. If we consider my notion of Survival English (cf. Chap. 1), then it is far more important for young EFL learners to be able to express being hungry and/or being scared rather than being happy or proud – although it would be better if thirsty was represented more frequently in the textbooks. What is worrying, however, is that again not all textbook series offer repetitions of expressions that the learners have encountered either in the same book or in the subsequent one: For example, none of the 10 expressions included in Bumblebee 3 are repeated in Bumblebee 4, and the same is also the case for the Ginger series. The expressions thirsty or tired included in Playway 4 are not repeated in this textbook and this raises the question of whether teachers will in fact find other ways to ensure that their L2 learners are exposed to these expressions so frequently that input can become intake.

4.8  Chapter Summary The analysis of the 10 speech acts (requests, responses to requests, greetings, leave-­ takings, expressions of gratitude, responses to expressions of gratitude, apologies, suggestions, responses to suggestions and expressions of mental or physical states) investigated in the four textbook series has shown that the majority of the textbooks contain more than eight of them: Bumblebee 3, Playway 3, Playway 4 feature all 10, Ginger 4, Sunshine 3, Sunshine 4 contain nine and Ginger 3 includes eight. Bumblebee 4 is markedly different, since this textbook only features three out of the 10 speech act categories investigated. The low number of speech acts in Bumblebee 4 cannot be attributed to a considerably lower page count, since the Bumblebee series has the highest page count of all textbook series with 72 pages for Bumblebee 3 and 79 pages for Bumblebee 4. Given that all ten speech acts investigated are included as compulsory elements in the Thuringian curriculum for EFL at primary schools, more in-depth investigations of all accompanying materials for this textbook series (e.g. audio cds, workbooks) would be needed for to determine whether the textbook series provides young EFL learners with sufficient opportunities to acquire the compulsory language functions. The textbook series with the highest number of speech act categories included and also the highest number of speech act occurrences is the Playway series. The analysis of the individual speech acts has shown that the Playway series consistently provides a varied range of speech acts, routines and modifiers. This suggests that the textbook writers and/or the publishing house paid attention to speech acts when developing this series. It needs to be re-stated here, however, that although the

4.8 Chapter Summary

155

Playway series needs to be commended for the pragmatic input options that they offer young EFL learners, teachers and the publishing house should carefully consider whether other aspects of this series are suitable for young learners (e.g. aspects of the Snow White storyline and imagery on page 36 of Playway 4). Concerning the overall speech act input according to speech act categories, the analysis has shown that the distribution of individual speech act occurrences in the eight textbooks varies considerably. Requests are the most frequently included speech act in all eight textbooks and represent 74% of all speech act instances provided in the eight textbooks. In second and third place with regard to overall frequency are responses to requests (representing 11% of all speech act instances) and greetings (representing seven % of all speech act occurrences). Together the top three account for 92% of all speech act occurrences, which means that the number of instances with which the other seven speech act categories are featured in the textbooks is rather small. The analysis has further shown that speech act pairs (e.g. request and request responses, suggestions and responses to suggestions, expressions of gratitude and responses to expressions of gratitude) are not included with the same frequency in the textbooks. This means that when learners encounter utterances in the eight textbooks that tend to be followed by a specific second speech act in natural conversation, they will frequently not be exposed to the speech act that typically follows the first. This is not ideal, since it deprives L2 learners of input opportunities that would enable them to notice patterns in responses to speech acts and learn different routines. Regarding individual speech acts, the findings have shown that the vast majority of all request strategies included in the textbooks were direct requests. In contrast, conventionally indirect requests, which are in fact very frequently used in authentic English interactions, were featured rarely. In my opinion, this is a problem because it means that the basic written input young EFL learners are exposed to when reading these textbooks is that requests are predominantly produced with direct strategies in English. In order to address this misconception and to increase L2 learners’ exposure to conventionally indirect request strategies, EFL teachers using any of the four textbook series investigated will need to think about what they can do to provide more frequent input of conventionally indirect request strategies in their classrooms. Concerning responses to requests, the analysis revealed that while all textbooks include responses to requests, which is good, there are differences concerning the reply categories included in the textbooks. Five textbooks (Bumblebee 4, Ginger 4, Playway 3, Sunshine 3, Sunshine 4) do not include any refusals to requests. This is problematic because all L2 learners should be equipped with the linguistic means to say no to a request for some kind of action on their part. While all textbooks contained greetings, which is again a positive result, the range of different greeting routines included in the textbooks differed considerably with some textbooks featuring only two (Bumblebee 3) and some six (Playway 3). The top three greeting routines with regard to total frequency are: Hi (40 instances) followed by Hello (32 instances) and good morning (13 instances). Interestingly,

156

4  Results: Speech Acts in Textbooks

good morning is not included in four textbooks (Bumblebee 4, Ginger 3, Ginger 4, Sunshine 4), while hi is not included in two textbooks (Bumblebee 3 and Ginger 3) and hello is not featured in one textbook (Sunshine 3). The number of leave-taking instances provided in the textbooks is considerably lower than the number of greetings (31 and 177 respectively). This means that learners will not encounter complete conversations that begin with a greeting and end with a leave-taking in most cases. It is disappointing that some textbooks, such as Bumblebee 3 and 4 or Sunshine 3, do not include a single variation of goodbye (e.g. bye, bye-bye, goodbye). It needs to be acknowledged, however, that some textbooks, such as Ginger 4, provide relevant input about written leave-taking routines (e.g. love, your friend). A total of 50 expressions of gratitude were included in the seven textbooks that contained them. The low number of thanking expressions in most textbooks (apart from Playway 4) is problematic. As I stated in Sect. 4.4.1, some textbooks missed out on easy opportunities to present expressions of gratitude that other textbooks made use of. The analysis of responses to expressions of gratitude revealed that none were included in three textbooks (Bumblebee 4, Ginger 3 and Sunshine 3). In addition, the number of responses to expressions of gratitude were very low. In contrast to the 50 thanking instances that were found in the seven textbooks that include them, only 10 responses to thanks were featured in the textbooks in total. This means, that in the case of 40 instances, there is no reply to an expression of gratitude in the textbooks. Only 24 apologies were included in the textbooks. While Bumblebee 4 does not feature any, Ginger Ginger 4 only includes a single apology and Sunshine 4 only features two. As I have discussed in Sect. 4.5, this is problematic, since it deprives L2 learners of a cross-cultural learning opportunity with regard to this frequently used speech act in British English. A total of 46 suggestions and 21 responses to suggestions were included in the textbooks. The number of suggestions featured in the individual books tended to vary considerably with none in Bumblebee 4, and only one each in Ginger 4 and Sunshine 4, while Playway 4 contains 15. Only five books contained responses to suggestions and again the number of instances vary: Playway 4: 11, Playway 3: 5, Sunshine 3: 3, Bumblebee 3 and Ginger 3 contained 1 each. Regarding expressions of physical or mental states, the results showed that the textbooks mostly focus on negative states (13 different adjectives) compared to only six positive or neutral states (fine, happy, proud, ready, not alone, not scared). Thus, the representation in the textbooks is not balanced in that respect. However, I would argue that this imbalance is not as bad as it might seem, as from a Survival English point of view, it is far more important for young EFL learners to be able to express being alone and/or being scared rather than being happy or proud. This concludes my discussion of speech acts in textbooks. In the next chapter, I will analyse and discuss the presence and/or absence of the same 10 speech acts investigated here in children’s books EFL teachers may use to in their classrooms.

References

157

References Aijmer, K. (1996). Conversational routines in English: Convention and creativity. London: Longman. Aliyoun, S. (2018). Managing Hello and Goodbye: Investigating openings and closings in German and Iranian EFL textbooks. Paper presented at the Teaching and Learning L2 Pragmatics Conference at University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK. Aschkar, S., Beattie, T., Kerler, N., Schröder, C., & Skejic, M. (2015). Sunshine: Pupil’s book 4. Berlin: Cornelsen. Aschkar, S., Beattie, T., Kerler, N., & Schröder, C. (2016). Sunshine: Pupil’s book 3. Berlin: Cornelsen. Baker, P. (2010). Sociolinguistics and corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning (Monograph Series) (Vol. 7, pp. 21–39). Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language, Intensive English Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence. Grounds for instruction in pragmatics. In K.  Rose & G.  Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics and language teaching (pp.  13–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2017). Acquisition of L2 pragmatics. In S. Loewsen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp.  224–245). Abingdon: Routledge. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(3), 279–304. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100012122. Bieswanger, M. (2015). Variational pragmatics and responding to thanks – revisited. Multilingua, 34(4), 527–546. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2014-0106. Caspari-Grote, K., Grandt, I., Kraaz, U., Neuber, C., Simon, C., & Völtz, I. (2013). Ginger: Pupil’s book 3. Berlin: Cornelsen. Caspari-Grote, K., Grandt, I., Kraaz, U., Neuber, C., Simon, C., & Völtz, I. (2014). Ginger: Pupil’s book 4. Berlin: Cornelsen. Clyne, M., Norrby, C., & Warren, J. (2009). Language and human relations: Styles of address in contemporary language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cohen, A. D. (2018). Learning Pragmatics from native and nonnative language teachers. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Culpeper, J., & Gillings, M. (2018). Politeness Variation in English: A North-South divide? In V. Brezina, R. Love, & K. Aijmer (Eds.), Corpus approaches to contemporary British speech: Sociolinguistic studies of the Spoken BNC2014 (pp. 33–59). Abingdon: Routledge. DuFon, M.  A. (2010). The acquisition of address in a second language. In A.  Trosborg (Ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures (pp. 309–333). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Ehlers, G., Kahstein, G., Muth, M., & Tait, H. (2013). Bumblebee: Textbook 3. Braunschweig: Schroedel Westermann. Ehlers, G., Michailow-Drews, U., Tait, H., Schönau, M., Van Montague, A., & Zeich-Pelsis, A. (2017). Bumblebee: Textbook 4. Braunschweig: Schroedel Westermann. Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2015). The language of service encounters: A pragmatic-discursive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gerngross, G., Puchta, H., & Becker, C. (2013a). Playway 3: Pupil’s book. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag. Gerngross, G., Puchta, H., & Becker, C. (2013b). Playway 4: Pupil’s book. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag. Greif, E. B., & Gleason, J. B. (1980). Hi, thanks and goodbye: More routine information. Language in Society, 9(2), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500008034.

158

4  Results: Speech Acts in Textbooks

Jautz, S. (2013). Thanking formulae in English: Explorations across varieties and genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Limberg, H. (2016). Teaching how to apologize: EFL textbooks and pragmatic input. Language Teaching Research, 20(6), 700–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815590695. Martínez Flor, A. (2010). Suggestions: How social norms affect pragmatic behaviour. In A. Martinez Flor & E. Uso Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 257–274). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mills, S. (2017). English politeness and class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ninio, A., & Snow, C.  E. (1996). Pragmatic development: Essays in developmental science. Boulder: Westview. Philips, S. (2011). Incredible English: Starter class book “S” (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Philips, S., Grainger, K., Morgan, M., & Slattery, M. (2011). Incredible English: Class book 1 (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Philips, S., Grainger, K., Morgan, M., & Slattery, M. (2012). Incredible English: Class book 2 (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sadeghidizaj, S. (2014). The contribution of explicit instruction vs. implicit instruction to the Acquisition of Requests and Request Responses by EFL Students in Iran. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Lancaster University, UK. Schauer, G. A., & Adolphs, S. (2006). Expressions of gratitude in corpus and DCT data: Vocabulary, formulaic sequences, and pedagogy. System, 34(1), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. system.2005.09.003. Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129. Schmidt, R. W. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S.  Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp.  21–42). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Temple, R. (2013). Very British problems: Making life awkward for ourselves one rainy day at a time. London: Sphere. Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur. (2010). Lehrplan für die Grundschule und für die Förderschule mit dem Bildungsgang der Grundschule: Fremdsprache. Erfurt: Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur.

Chapter 5

Results: Speech Acts in Children’s Books

Abstract  In this chapter, I will first examine the total number of the different speech acts contained in the 22 children’s books that I investigated. This will be followed by an analysis and discussion of the individual speech acts examined. I will begin with requests and responses to requests and will then address greetings and leave-takings. This will be followed by an analysis of expressions of gratitude, apologies, suggestions, and expressions of physical and mental states. I will then provide a summary of this chapter. In order to show in-service or pre-service teachers what speech act input the picturebooks may add to the speech act input provided in the textbooks, I will begin each section which focuses on a particular speech act with a quick reminder of the textbooks’ results from Chap. 4 for the same speech act. This will enable readers primarily interested in the picturebooks results to see how useful (or not) individual picturebooks are with regard to providing additional pragmatic input on specific speech acts without having to constantly consult Chap. 4 in order to compare the findings. Keywords  Pragmatics · Speech acts · Materials for young learners · Authentic materials · EFL · TEYL · TEFL

5.1  Overview of Speech Act Instances in Children’s Books In contrast to textbooks, which are specifically developed for L2 learners and should follow a structured and well-thought through approach that is in line with the curriculum, children’s books1 are not primarily written for L2 learners and also tend not to be the main input source for EFL learners. Thus, children’s books chosen for EFL classrooms ought to offer young L2 learners some additional input that is (a) relevant for the target learner group, (b) appropriate and (c) addressing issues that the teacher considers important but are not covered satisfactorily or at all in the textbook that the class is using. Children’s books may of course be used to teach a  Picturebooks and children’s books are used as synonyms in this book.

1

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 G. A. Schauer, Teaching and Learning English in the Primary School, English Language Education 18, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23257-3_5

159

160

5  Results: Speech Acts in Children’s Books

variety of different points,2 but if teachers are using a particular textbook series and notice speech act deficiencies in it, they may want to choose children’s books that help expose their learners to the speech acts that are not covered well (or at all) in their textbooks. The analysis of the speech acts included in the eight textbooks in Chap. 4 has shown that additional input regarding the speech acts of apologies, leave-takings and expressions of gratitude could be helpful, since these are some of the speech acts that are not well covered in the textbooks investigated. I will begin the analysis and discussion of the children’s books investigated in this study by providing some background information3 on the 22 books in Table 5.1, such as the number of pages the individual books contain and the number of words included in the direct utterances (i.e. utterance word count), Table 5.1 shows that most of the books are not too dissimilar with regard to overall page count. The mean page count of all books is 29 and the majority of the books are in close vicinity of that number. The lowest page count is 21 (Have you seen my cat) and the highest is 61 (The cat in the hat). However, the total page count says very little about the actual number of words included in the book, as the utterance word count results reveal. The mean word count is 201, but there is considerable variation. For example, The very hungry caterpillar only includes narrative sentences that describe what the caterpillar does, but does not include a single utterance directed at someone with a function that matches one of the speech acts investigated. Thus, since no utterances are included that match the criteria of the speech acts investigated, the utterance word count is zero and the speech act category count and the speech act instances count are also zero. Winnie the witch is a similar case. The book only includes four direct utterances and they are all the same magical incantation abracadabra. Since incantations are not the focus of this investigation, the speech act category and speech act instances scores are also zero. Due to this, neither The very hungry caterpillar nor Winnie the witch will feature in the following analyses and discussions of speech acts in children’s books. While The very hungry caterpillar may be useful for teaching numbers, food items, the days of the week or colours, and Winnie the witch may be helpful when it comes to teaching prepositions, colours or regular and irregular past tense (if the latter is considered necessary in primary school), none of the books are useful with regard to teaching interactive speech acts.4 The highest number of words in utterances were found in The cat in the hat (894) followed by Azzi in between (744) and The smartest giant in town (452). It needs to be noted, however, that 11 of the 22 books investigated contain less than 100 words 2  Issues not related to pragmatics that teachers may wish to address with the help of children’s books are, for example, cultural phenomena (such as Thanksgiving or Christmas traditions), vocabulary items (such as vegetables, animals or colours) or prepositions (such as on the table, under the chair). 3  Further information on the picturebooks, such as the names of authors, years of publications or the reason for why the individual books were included in this investigation can be found in Sect. 3.4.2. 4  Both books do, however, contain a number of assertives/representative acts/constatives (cf. Sect. 2.1.3), i.e. statements or descriptions that are not focused on in this investigation.

5.1 Overview of Speech Act Instances in Children’s Books

161

Table 5.1  Background information on children’s books investigated Title1 Azzi in between (Garland 2012) Brown bear, brown bear what do you see? (Martin & Carle 2007) Elmer (McKee 1989) Frederick (Leonni 2011) Froggy gets dressed (London and Remkiecwicz 1994) Handa’s Suprise (Browne 1994) Have you seen my cat? (Carle 1997) Ketchup on your cornflakes (Sharratt 2006) Monkey Puzzle (Donaldson and Scheffler 2017) Morris Micklewhite and the tangerine dress (Baldacchino and Malefant 2016) Mouse Paint (Walsh 1989) Snore (Rosen and Langley 2003) Something else (Cave & Riddell 2011) The cat in the hat (Seuss 1985) The very hungry caterpillar (Carle 2018) The smartest giant in town (Donaldson and Scheffler 2016b) The Gruffalo (Donaldson and Scheffler 2016a) The lion who wanted to love (Andrea and Wojtowycz 2009) The snail and the whale (Donaldson and Scheffler 2006) Where the wild things are (Sendak 1991) Winnie in winter2 (Thomas and Paul 2016a) Winnie the witch (Thomas and Paul 2016b)

Page count 36 24

Utterance word count1 744 196

30 27 28 22 21 24 24 24

84 205 97 78 93 75 441 53

29 27 27 61 22 30 26 29 30 37 26 26

29 43 149 894 0 452 445 188 86 32 34 4

Notes: 1. Utterance word count here refers to number of words included in utterances that reflect direct speech. These utterances are typically indicated by the use of quotation marks. 2. Two Winnie books were analysed: (a) Winnie and Wilbur in winter and (b) Winnie the witch. Since Winnie the witch did not contain any speech act investigated, in all future tables only Winnie and Wilbur in winter will feature. 3. The publications years provided for the individual books correspond to the editions that I was working with. For information on when the books were first published, see chapter 3

in direct speech utterances. This means that based on this difference alone, the pragmatic input opportunities for young EFL learners being exposed to a book with a very high direct speech utterance word count, such as Azzi in between, will be very different than for those children exposed to a book with a relatively low direct speech utterance word count, such as Mouse paint or Where the wild things are. To better illustrate and compare the number of speech act categories that are contained in the individual children’s books, I have included Fig. 5.1 which shows that none of the children’s books examined include all 10 speech act categories investigated. Three of the textbooks examined in Chap. 4 contained all 10 speech acts (Bumblebee 3  by Ehlers et  al. (2013), Playway 3 by Gerngross, Puchta and Becker (2013a) and Playway 4 by Gerngross, Puchta and Becker (2013b)), and with

162

5  Results: Speech Acts in Children’s Books

Speech act categories in childrens' books Azzi; 6 Brown Bear; 2 Elmer; 2 Frederick; 2 Froggy; 4 Handa; 2 Hysmc; 2 Ketchup; 1 Monkey puzzle; 3 Morris; 2 Mouse paint; 1 Snore; 3 Something else; 4 The cat; 3 The gruffallo; 5 The lion; 2 The giant; 3 The snail; 2 Wild thing; 2 Winnie winter; 1 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Notes: Azzi = Azzi in between, Brown Bear = Brown bear, brown bear what do you see?, Froggy = Froggy gets dressed, Handa = Handa’s Surprise, Hysmcat = Have you seen my cat? Ketchup = Ketchup on your cornflakes, Morris = Morris Micklewhite and the tangerine dress, The cat = The cat in the hat, The lion = The lion who wanted to love, The giant = The smartest giant in town, The snail = The snail and the whale, Wild things = Where the wild things are, Winnie winter = Winnie in winter

Fig. 5.1  Overview of speech act categories in children’s books

the exception of Bumblebee 4 by Ehlers et al. (2017), all other textbooks contained at least eight of the 10 speech acts focused on. Now, it is not surprising that – given the overall length and general aims of children’s books  – they do not include as many different speech act categories as the textbooks. However, coming back to a point that I made earlier, if children’s books are introduced into EFL classrooms,

5.1 Overview of Speech Act Instances in Children’s Books

163

they should be able to fill a gap that teachers have identified in the textbooks or address a particular issue that teachers deem relevant. Regarding the number of speech act categories covered in the individual children’s books, Azzi in between and The Gruffalo provide young EFL learners with the most variety, as they contain six and five different speech acts respectively. In shared third place are Froggy gets dressed and Something else with four different speech act categories each. The remaining 16 children’s books include three different speech act categories at most. This suggests that if EFL teachers wish to expose their learners to a variety of different speech acts, the two books in first and second position (Azzi in between and The Gruffalo) would provide L2 learners with the broadest range, with all others offering only limited input variety of speech acts covered. Whether the speech act utterances included in the children’s books are indeed appropriate and useful for young EFL learners will be addressed in more detail in the individual speech act sections in this chapter. An overview of which speech acts are featured in the individual books and how frequently the individual speech acts occur in the children’s books is presented in Table 5.2. The results reveal that – similar to the findings of the textbook analysis in Chap. 4 – requests are the most frequently included speech act in the children’s books with 175 occurrences of a total of 281 speech act instances. This means that requests account for 62% of all speech act instances in the children’s books. In comparison, requests accounted for 72% of all speech act instances in the textbooks.5 Not only are requests the most frequently featured speech act in the children’s books, this speech act is also the only one that is included in all 20 children’s books that contain at least one of the speech acts investigated in this study (i.e. excluding The very hungry caterpillar and Winnie the witch as explained above). A more detailed analysis of requests in the children’s books will be provided in Sect. 5.2.1. The speech act in second place concerning the overall number of instances is responses to requests with a total number of 54 occurrences corresponding to 19%. This speech act is in second place with regard to both the number of total occurrences and how frequently it features in different children’s books. It is included in 13 of the 20 books examined. Request responses will be analysed and discussed in more detail in Sect. 5.2.2. The third most frequently occurring speech act is greetings, which will be analysed in more detail in Sect. 5.3.1. However, in contrast to requests and responses to requests, this speech act is featured in only six children’s books with a total number of 22 instances corresponding to only 8% of the speech acts included in the books. What is interesting concerning the top three speech act occurrences in the children’s books is that they mirror the top three speech acts found in the textbooks. Thus, if young EFL learners are taught with one of the four investigated textbook series and exposed to any of the children’s books investigated, they will often encounter the same speech act categories in both book types and not benefit greatly from varied additional pragmatic input from the children’s books. 5  However, it needs to be borne in mind that this was partly due to the large number of instructions that are a typical feature of all textbooks

164

5  Results: Speech Acts in Children’s Books

Table 5.2  Occurrences of individual speech act categories in the children’s books Title Azzi1 Brown bear2 Elmer Frederick Froggy3 Handa4 Hysmcat5 Ketchup6 Monkey7 Morris8 Mouse Paint Snore Something9 The cat10 The Gruffalo11 The lion12 The giant13 The snail14 Wild things15 Winnie16 Total

Req. 22 11 2 17 11 5 10 11 13 2 2 1 4 22 16 2 17 2 4 1 175

Req. R. 5 11 0 3 3 0 9 0 1 2 0 4 2 1 7 0 5 0 1 0 54

Greet. 9 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 22

L.T. 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 7

Grat. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 5 0 0 0 9

Apol. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Sugg. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

EPMS 6 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 10

Total 44 22 6 20 17 6 19 11 15 4 2 6 11 24 34 3 27 4 5 1 281

Notes: Req. = Requests, Req R. = Request Response, Greet  =  Greeting, L.T.  =  Leave Taking, Grat.  =  Expressions of Gratitude, Apol. = Apology, Sugg.  =  Suggestion, EPMS  =  expressing physical and mental states; 1) Azzi in between 2) Brown bear, brown bear what do you see? 3) Froggy gets dressed 4) Handa’s Surprise 5) Have you seen my cat? 6) Ketchup on your cornflakes 7) Monkey Puzzle 8) Morris Micklewhite and the tangerine dress 9) Something else 10) The cat in the hat 11)The Gruffalo 12) The lion who wanted to love 13) The smartest giant in town 14)The snail and the whale 15)Where the wild things are 16)Winnie in winter

The remaining speech act categories (expressions of gratitude, leave-takings, apologies, suggestions, expressions of physical and mental states) are featured in three children’s books at the most and range from 10 instances (expressions of mental or physical states) to one instance (apologies). In contrast to the textbooks, some speech acts were not included in any of the children’s books, namely responses to expressions of gratitude and responses to suggestions. This means that the children’s books examined for this study are generally not useful when it comes to providing young learners with additional examples of speech acts that are not well covered in the textbooks. In addition, the absence of responses to speech acts and the low number of leave-­ takings show that the interactions presented in the children’s books are not reflecting authentic everyday life conversations in English that according to Edmondson and House (1981) consists of an opening sequence (typically reciprocated greetings), a main or core part, and a closing phase.

5.2 Making and Responding to Requests

165

To summarize, the general overview of speech act categories in the children’s books has shown the following: • The children’s books tend to differ considerably with regard to page count and utterance word count with two books not including any speech acts focused on in the current investigation (The very hungry caterpillar and Winnie the Witch). • In contrast to the textbooks, the children’s book feature six speech act categories at most (Azzi in between), with 18 children’s books including a maximum of four speech acts. • The top three speech acts with regard to total number of instances with which they occur in the children’s books are requests, responses to requests and greetings. This matches the top three speech act categories identified in the textbooks. Thus, L2 learners will be predominantly exposed to the same speech act categories in the textbooks and children’s books investigated. • In contrast to the textbooks, some speech act categories are not included in any of the children’s books analysed. These tend to be responsive speech acts or speech acts that occur at the end of an interaction. Thus, L2 learners will generally not encounter dialogues that resemble6 the authentic phases of an encounter in the children’s books. In the following, I will provide more detailed analyses of the individual speech acts (and their second pair parts where applicable) beginning with requests and responses to requests in Sect. 5.2.

5.2  Making and Responding to Requests The analysis of requests and request responses has shown that these are the most frequently featured speech acts in the eight textbooks investigated (cf. Sect. 4.2). The investigation of request strategies in the textbooks has further revealed that the most frequently presented request strategy is the imperative followed by enquiries, whereas other request strategies that are typically used in authentic spoken and written interaction in everyday life (Aijmer 1996), such as the permission or ability strategy, were included very rarely. Regarding responses to requests, the analysis of the textbooks showed that there were considerably fewer request responses than requests, which means that in the majority of the cases no response to a request was provided in the textbooks.

6  If EFL teachers are wishing to expose their young learners to conversations that resemble authentic English language use with regard to speech acts, most of the picturebooks analysed will not be able to provide rich input in that respect. This means that teachers will either need to use other picturebooks that provide richer pragmatic input or resort to a different type of textbook-additional material altogether, e.g. tv programmes. More research on these alternative materials for teaching pragmatics to young EFL learners is needed.

166

5  Results: Speech Acts in Children’s Books

In addition, most of the responses to requests belonged to the answer category and thus very little input concerning granting or refusing a request was provided in the textbooks. In Sect. 5.2.1, I will first discuss the requests included in the children’s books and will then address responses to requests in Sect. 5.2.2.

5.2.1  Requests Requests were included in 20 of the 22 children’s books investigated. Figure 5.2 illustrates the number of request occurrences in the children’s books. The results show that the number of request utterances provided in the individual textbooks differ considerably. Azzi in between and The cat in the hat include the highest number of requests with 22 instances each. They are followed in joined second-place by Frederick and The smartest giant in town with 17 requests and by The Gruffalo with 16 requests. The lowest number of requests were found in Winnie in winter and Snore which each contain only one request. This means that the amount of input L2 learners receive regarding requests varies considerably. The question is whether this in itself is problematic, i.e. would it be better to choose a book that contains more requests than one featuring fewer? There is no easy answer to that because requests are the most frequently covered speech act in the textbooks. Therefore, young learners encounter them regularly in their normal EFL materials. One contribution that children’s books could usefully make in the EFL classroom regarding requests would be to provide L2 learners with conventionally indirect request strategies that are typically used in authentic everyday interactions by age peers of the young learners, but are not often included in the textbooks, such as permission requests (e.g. “Can I have one of those?” Achiba 2003, p. 114). Table 5.3 presents the request strategies that were found in the children’s books. The results show that the most frequently found request strategy in the children’s books is the enquiry strategy with 104 instances corresponding to 58% of all requests presented in the books, followed by the imperative with 64 instances corresponding to 36% of all requests. This means that 94% of the requests included in the children’s books are direct requests. In contrast, the two conventionally indirect request strategies that are frequently used in English (Aijmer 1996; Leech 2014; Culpeper and Gillings 2018), permission and ability strategies, are rarely featured. While permission strategies appear with three instances (twice in Azzi in between, once in Something Else), none of the books contain any ability requests. The low number of permission and ability requests is regrettable, since these two request strategies not only feature frequently in authentic English interactions, but can also be employed in a large number of contexts and are therefore a good default choice for L2 learners. As imperatives and enquiries were also the most frequently included request strategies in the textbooks, the children’s books investigated here would not assist teachers in exposing young EFL learners to a variety of different strategies and

5.2 Making and Responding to Requests

167

Request instances in the childrens' books Azzi; 22 Brown Bear; 11 Elmer; 2 Frederick; 17 Froggy; 11 Handa; 5 Hysmc; 10 Ketchup; 11 Monkey puzzle; 13 Morris; 2 Mouse paint; 2 Snore; 1 Something else; 4 The cat; 22 The gruffallo; 16 The lion; 2 The giant; 17 The snail; 2 Wild thing; 4 Winnie winter; 1 0

5

10

15

20

25

Notes: Azzi = Azzi in between, Brown Bear = Brown bear, brown bear what do you see?, Froggy = Froggy gets dressed, Handa = Handa’s Surprise, Hysmcat = Have you seen my cat? Ketchup = Ketchup on your cornflakes, Morris = Morris Micklewhite and the tangerine dress, The cat = The cat in the hat, The lion = The lion who wanted to love, The giant = The smartest giant in town, The snail = The snail and the whale, Wild things = Where the wild things are, Winnie winter = Winnie in winter Fig. 5.2  Request instances in the children’s books

would also not provide rich input regarding conventionally indirect requests. This means that if EFL teachers would like to counter-balance the dominance of direct request strategies in the textbooks and children’s books, they will either need to look for materials that provide a richer variety or alternatively ensure that they themselves use a large number of ability or permission requests in their classroom talk.

168

5  Results: Speech Acts in Children’s Books

Table 5.3  Request strategies in the children’s books Title Azzi1 Br. Bear2 Elmer Frederick Froggy3 Handa4 Hysmcat5 Ketchup6 Monkey7 Morris8 Mouse9 Snore Someth.10 The cat11 The gruf.12 The lion13 The giant14 The snail15 Wild thg.16 Winnie17 Total

Imperative 10 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 1 17 2

Obligation 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wants/ Needs 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Suggest. Formula 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Permission 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Ability Total 0 22 0 11 0 2 0 17 0 11 0 5 0 10 0 11 0 13 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 4 0 22 0 16

2 12

0 0

0 0

0 5

0 0

0 0

0 0

2 17

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

3

0

0

0

1

0

0

4

0 64

0 2

1 4

0 104

0 1

0 3

0 0

1 178

Enquiry 9 11 0 14 7 5 10 11 8 2 0 1 2 5 14

Notes: 1) Azzi in between 2) Brown bear, brown bear what do you see? 3) Froggy gets dressed 4) Handa’s Surprise 5) Have you seen my cat? 6) Ketchup on your cornflakes 7) Monkey Puzzle 8) Morris Micklewhite and the tangerine dress 9) Mouse Paint 10) Something else 11) The cat in the hat 12) The Gruffalo 13) The lion who wanted to love 14) The smartest giant in town 15) The snail and the whale 16) Where the wild things are 17) Winnie in winter

As discussed in Sects. 2.1.4 and 4.2.1, when analysing requests, the focus should not only be on request strategies, but also on request modifiers, as the latter can make requests appear more polite if they downtone the illocutionary force of the request, or more personal, if, for example, the interlocutor’s name is mentioned. Table 5.4 presents the request modifiers found in the children’s books.7 Out of the twenty children’s books that contained requests, only eleven feature modifiers. The most frequently employed modifier in these books is the address term with 40 instances corresponding to 83% of all request modifiers. In second place with five occurrences, corresponding to 10%, is the politeness marker. The 7  This table features only those books which actually contain at least one modifier. Thus, children’s books that do not contain a single one were not included.

5.2 Making and Responding to Requests

169

Table 5.4  Request modifiers in the children’s books Title Azzi in between Brown Bear1 Frederick Froggy2 Monkey puzzle Something else The cat in the hat The Gruffalo The lion3 The giant4 Wild things4 Total

Alerter 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Address Term 10 11 6 4 5 0 0

Politeness Marker 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Downtoner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Past Tense Modal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 12 11 6 4 5 1 0

0 0 0 0 1

3 1 0 0 40

0 2 0 1 5

1 0 0 0 1

1 0 0 0 1

5 3 0 1 48

Notes: 1) Brown Bear, brown bear what do you see? 2) Froggy gets dressed 3) The lion who wanted to love 4) The smartest giant in town 5) Where the wild things are Table 5.5  Address Term use in requests in the children’s books Title First name Azzi1 5 Br. Bear2 0 Frederick 6 Froggy3 4 Monkey4 0 The Gruf.5 0 The lion6 1 Total 16

Kinship 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Endearment 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Honorific Category S. 1 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 0 0 1 18

Group noun 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2

Total 10 11 6 4 5 3 1 40

Notes: 1) Azzi in between 2) Brown Bear, brown bear what do you see? 3) Froggy gets dressed 4) Monkey puzzle 5) The Gruffalo 6) The lion who wanted to love

remaining modifiers (alerters, downtoners, and past tense modals) are only featured once. This means that young EFL learners will not only encounter a limited number of request strategies, but also a very limited set of request modifiers. In addition, the most frequently included modifier, the address term, is also the most frequently featured modifier in the textbooks. Consequently, children will be exposed to a large number of address terms in both textbooks and children’s books, but to a very limited number of other request modifiers. Particularly disappointing is the fact that the politeness marker please is only included in three picturebooks because this modifier is very frequently used in everyday English interactions (Leech 2014). As discussed in Sects. 3.4.2 and 4.2.1, address terms can be subdivided into distinct address term types, which are presented in Table 5.5.

170

5  Results: Speech Acts in Children’s Books

The results show that the most frequently employed address type is the category signifier (often relating to domestic or wild animals) with 18 instances corresponding to 45%, followed by 16 first name instances corresponding to 40%. The remaining address terms featured in the textbooks only occur once (endearment term, honorific) or twice (kinship term, group noun). The greatest variety of address terms is included in Azzi in between. Since this is also the book which includes two of the five politeness markers and two permission strategies, Azzi in between offers young EFL learners some useful pragmatic input concerning requests. Overall, however, it needs to be acknowledged that the children’s books investigated can only make very limited pragmatic input contributions regarding requests, especially concerning request features that are not included in the textbooks anyway (cf. Sect. 4.2.1).

5.2.2  Responses to Requests Responses to requests were included in 13 of the 20 children’s books investigated. Since all 20 contained requests, this means that seven did not feature any request responses. Figure  5.3 presents the number of request response instances in the children’s books that featured them. The results reveal that the number of request responses contained in the individual books vary from 11 in Brown Bear, Brown Bear what do you see? to one (Monkey Puzzle, The cat in the hat and Where the wild things are). The high number of request responses in Brown Bear, brown bear what do you see? is due to the book’s question-answer format that is repeated throughout. Have you seen my cat which is in second place with regard to the total number of request responses included is somewhat similar in that it is also based on a question-answer format: the book consists of 10 enquiry questions followed by eight negative responses and one positive response. All negative request responses are exactly the same, i.e. young learners are not exposed to any variation regarding syntax or vocabulary. The children’s book in third place regarding request response occurrences is The Gruffalo. In contrast to the Brown Bear, brown bear what do you see? and Have you seen my cat?, this book features a slightly greater variety of request responses with a heavy focus on two utterances being repeated three times in slightly modified form: one focusing on locations and food, and one focusing on physical features. Frequent repetition of key linguistic formulae and strategies are helpful for L2 learners, as multiple exposures to key input should contribute to input becoming intake (cf. Sect. 2.2.5). The fact that utterances are repeated is not problematic, but the question that needs to be asked with regard to Brown bear, brown bear what do you see? and Have you seen my cat? is whether these books will be still be of interest to young EFL learners aged 8–10 or whether these books are not perhaps more suitable for slightly younger children. The Gruffallo offers more variety regarding the content of the request responses. Particularly helpful regarding the teaching of vocabulary is the description of the

5.2 Making and Responding to Requests

171

Request response instances in the childrens' books Azzi; 5 Brown Bear; 11

Frederick; 3 Froggy; 3 Hysmcat; 9 Monkey puzzle; 1 Morris; 2 Snore; 4 Something else; 2 The cat; 1 The gruffallo; 7 The giant; 5 Wild thing; 1 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Notes: Azzi = Azzi in between, Brown Bear = Brown bear, brown bear what do you see?, Froggy = Froggy gets dressed, Hysmcat = Have you seen my cat? Ketchup = Ketchup on your cornflakes, Morris = Morris Micklewhite and the tangerine dress, The cat = The cat in the hat, The giant = The smartest giant in town, Wild things = Where the wild things are Fig. 5.3  Request response instances in the children’s books

Gruffallo’s physical features, as this includes items associated both with animals and/or humans. With regard to the other request response that is repeated three times in The Gruffallo and focuses on a description of a meal that contains the animals spoken to, teachers will need to decide whether the implied killing of interlocutors is something that they consider appropriate input for their young L2 learners. Table 5.6a presents an overview of the individual request response types (i.e. answers, granting a request, refusing a request) that were included in the children’s books. In the textbooks, the most frequent request response type was answers to requests. This is also the case here – 51 out of 54 request responses belong to the answer type. Thus, 94% of all request responses are answers. Granting of requests and refusing requests are only featured rarely in the children’s books. Table 5.6b presents the distribution of the three answer response types (positive, negative and neutral). Although it includes only five request responses, Azzi in between actually offers the best variety within the request answer group because it contains all three sub-

172

5  Results: Speech Acts in Children’s Books

Table 5.6a  Responses to requests in the children’s books – Overview Title Azzi1 Brown Bear2 Frederick Froggy3 Hysmcat4 Monkey5 Morris6 Snore Something else The cat7 The gruffallo The giant8 Wild thing9 Total

Answers 5 11 3 3 9 1 2 4 2 0 6 5 0 51

Granting a request 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

Refusing a request 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2

Total 5 11 3 3 9 1 2 4 2 1 7 5 1 54

Notes: 1) Azzi in between 2) Brown bear, brown bear what do you see? 3) Froggy gets dressed 4) Have you seen my cat? 5) Monkey Puzzle 6) Morris Micklewhite and the tangerine dress 7) The cat in the hat 8) The smartest giant in town 9) Where the wild things are

Table 5.6b  Responses to requests in the children’s books – Answer types Title Azzi1 Brown Bear2 Frederick Froggy3 Hysmcat4 Monkey5 Morris6 Snore Something else The cat7 The gruffallo The giant8 Wild thing9 Total

Positive answer 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4

Negative answer 1 0 1 0 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 11

Neutral answer 2 11 2 3 0 1 2 4 0 0 6 5 0 36

Total 5 11 3 3 9 1 2 4 2 0 6 5 0 51

Notes: 1) Azzi in between 2) Brown bear, brown bear what do you see? 3) Froggy gets dressed 4) Have you seen my cat? 5) Monkey Puzzle 6) Morris Micklewhite and the tangerine dress 7) The cat in the hat 8) The smartest giant in town 9) Where the wild things are

5.3 Greetings and Leave-takings

173

types: positive, negative and neutral answers. There are only two refusals to a request8 in the children’s books. One is featured in The cat in the hat and the other is included in Where the wild things are. The only instance in which a request is being granted is included in The Gruffallo. In the textbooks (cf. Sect. 4.2.2), 29 utterances that granted a request were included, but only seven that refused a request were featured. If EFL teachers were hoping to use one of the children’s books investigated to increase their young L2 learners’ exposure to either response type, they only have very limited choice. Regarding modifiers, only one category was found in the children’s books – the address term. This modifier featured twice and both times in Azzi in between. It involved the use of the first name of the protagonist in both instances. Thus, the number of request response modifiers is very limited. This is not surprising given the low number of request response modifiers in the textbooks and does also not appear to constitute a problem regarding the utterances that were included, i.e. based on the context, the unmodified request responses seem fine. To summarize, the results of the request response analysis have shown that not all requests presented in the children’s books are followed by a request response. This means that in several cases children will not encounter conversations that reflect authentic interactions. The analysis has further shown that nearly 50% of request responses are repetitions or near-repetitions of utterances in three books (Brown Bear, brown bear what do you see?, Have you seen my cat?, The Gruffalo) and that there is a predominant request response type, namely answers to requests, that account for 94% of all request responses. Consequently, utterances that grant or refuse requests only feature very rarely in the children’s books.

5.3  Greetings and Leave-takings Of the ten speech acts investigated in the textbooks in Chap. 4, greetings were in third position regarding their number of occurrences (177 instances) and leave-­ takings were in seventh position with a total of 31 instances. While greetings were included in all eight textbooks, leave-takings appeared in only six of them. If EFL teachers are intending to choose a picturebook with the aim of reinforcing young EFL learners’ exposure to a speech act that tends not to be well covered in textbooks, then they should probably focus more on expanding L2 learners’ leave-taking repertoire than on concentrating heavily on greetings. There are two reasons for this: (1) leave-takings are featured less frequently than greetings in the textbooks and (2) EFL teachers may have classroom rituals that involve the use of greetings at 8  Readers familiar with The Gruffalo may wonder why the utterances included in the book that refuse invitations are not mentioned here. The reason for this is that I agree with colleagues such as Edmondson and House (1981), Leech (2014) and Margutti et al. (2018) who consider invitations to be an independent speech act, i.e. not a subcategory of a request. For this reason, invitations and responses to invitations are not included in the present analysis.

174

5  Results: Speech Acts in Children’s Books

the beginning of the lesson, but may not use corresponding leave-taking rituals (cf. also Sects. 6.5 and 6.6). I will discuss the greetings found in the children’s books in Sect. 5.3.1 and the leave-takings in Sect. 5.3.2.

5.3.1  Greetings Greetings were included in six of the 22 picturebooks investigated. Figure 5.4 illustrates the number of greeting occurrences in the children’s books. The results show that Azzi in between contains the highest number of greetings with nine out of a total of 22 greetings found in the children’s books. This corresponds to 41% of all greetings in the children’s books. In joint second place are Elmer and Something else with four instances, followed by The Gruffalo with three instances. Handa’s surprise and The cat in the hat include one greeting each. It needs to be noted, however, that the greeting count does not only refer to greets, such as Good morning, but also to other greeting strategies (see Sect. 3.5.3 for definitions). The greeting strategies featured in the children’s books are presented in Table 5.7. The results reveal that 16 of the 22 greeting strategies found in the children’s books were greets. This corresponds to 73%. Greets were also the most frequently featured greeting strategy in the textbooks. Introductions, and expressions of pleasure are only rarely included. Introductions are important, because even young or beginner level learners should be able to say who they are, especially in situations in which they may require assistance. In some textbooks (e.g. Playway 3 or Bumblebee 4) learners are exposed to several introductions, while other textbooks (e.g. the

Greeting instances in the childrens' books Azzi; 9 Elmer; 4 Handa; 1 Something else; 4 The cat; 1 The gruffallo; 3 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Notes: Azzi = Azzi in between, Handa = Handa’s Surprise, The cat = The cat in the hat Fig. 5.4  Greeting instances in the children’s books

5.3 Greetings and Leave-takings

175

Table 5.7  Greeting strategies in the children’s books Title Azzi in between Elmer Handa’s surprise Something else The cat in the hat The Gruffalo Total

Greets 4 4 1 3 1 3 16

Introduction 4 0 0 0 0 0 4

Expressing Pleasure 1 0 0 1 0 0 2

Total 9 4 1 4 1 3 22

Table 5.8  Greeting routines in the children’s books Title Azzi in between Elmer Handa’s surprise Something else The cat in the hat The Gruffalo Total

Hello 3 0 1 0 0 3 7

Hi 0 0 0 2 0 0 2

Hi there 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

How do you do 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Good morning 0 4 0 0 0 0 4

Goodbye 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Total 4 4 1 3 1 3 16

Ginger series by Caspari-Grote et al. (2013, 2014) or the Sunshine series by Aschkar et al. (2016, 2015)) feature only very few. This means that primary EFL teachers working with a series in which less emphasis is placed on introductions may want to look for a children’s book that offers some input opportunities in this respect. Azzi in between is a good choice in that regard. This book is also valuable because the protagonist is herself a young learner of English who at times struggles with the English language. For example, she once uses a leave-taking routine as a greeting and is then gently and kindly corrected by an age peer and told what to say when greeting someone. This incident and others that involve her learning English could be used in the classroom to initiate discussions about speech acts and expose learners to a variety of different greeting or leave-taking routines. Table 5.8 presents the greeting routines included in the children’s books. The results show that hello is the most frequently included greeting with seven out of 16 instances, thus corresponding to 44%. Good morning is in second place with four instances, corresponding to 25%. Hello and good morning were in second and third place regarding their total number of occurrences in the textbooks. Hi, which was in first position in the textbooks, features less frequently in the children’s books. In contrast to the textbooks, no greeting routines used in written communication, such as dear, are included in the children’s books. The reason for this is that most of the children’s books do not contain letters or postcards. A card is featured in The smartest giant in town, but it presents a missed chance to teach young children some written correspondence norms, as it includes neither a greeting nor a leave-taking routine.

176

5  Results: Speech Acts in Children’s Books

Table 5.9  Address terms used in greetings in the children’s books Title Azzi in between Elmer Handa’s surprise The Gruffallo Total

First name 2 1 1 0 4

Category Signifier 0 1 0 3 4

Total 2 2 1 3 8

The picturebooks include three expressions used as greetings that are not included in the textbooks: hi there, how do you do and goodbye.9 Hi there is interesting, because it is a greeting that can be used to “attract attention or express cordiality” according to the OED (2018) and occurs in more informal spoken face-­to-­face interactions between individuals, as I have witnessed myself during the 12 years I lived in Great Britain. In addition, it is also used as a friendly greeting in child support lines (Danby, Baker and Emmison 2005) or in email communication (O’Keefe, Clancy and Adolphs 2011). Thus, exposing young EFL learners to this greeting may have merit. In contrast, how do you do is a greeting expression that young EFL learners are less likely to encounter when exposed to radio programmes, tv shows, textbooks or casual conversation in the target language. According to the Collins English dictionary (2005, p. 791), how do you do is “a formal greeting said by people who are being introduced to each other or are meeting for the first time”. Due to its formal nature, EFL learners may only rarely encounter it in teaching materials and will most likely only come across it in novels or plays written in previous centuries.10 In most TEYL teaching contexts it will therefore be better to focus more on greets that are appropriate in a wide variety of contexts, such as good morning/afternoon/ evening or hello. Thus, the analysis of greeting routines in the children’s books has shown that the books will not contribute much regarding the routines hello, hi and good morning that is not already covered in the textbooks. However, hi there could be a useful addition to learners’ (receptive) pragmatic repertoire. As in Chap. 4, I will also discuss the address terms that are included in the greeting utterances. These are presented in Table 5.9. The results show that only eight address terms were featured in the children’s books and that they were equally divided into first name and category signifier address terms. The most frequently included address term in greetings in the textbooks was the first name, so it is likely that children working with the textbooks investigated will be exposed to the fact that a greeting can be made more personal by including another person’s name. Whether category signifiers play an important role in  The incorrect use of this leave-taking strategy as a greet category was discussed above.  An overview of how the use of how do you do has changed over the centuries is provided in Grezga (2008). It should also be noted that in modern English the reply to How do you do is How do you do, i.e. the greeting is no longer considered to be a genuine question and should not be confused with how are you.

9

10

5.3 Greetings and Leave-takings

177

everyday life conversations is debatable. While young EFL learners can probably do without addressing animals with Good morning, elephant/dog/rabbit, it could be argued that the use of animal category signifiers prepares them for other non-name-­ based address terms, such as nurse or officer. This concludes the discussion of greetings in children’s books. I will now move on to leave-takings.

5.3.2  Leave-Takings In comparison to greetings, leave-takings were featured considerably less often in the textbooks investigated in Chap. 4. While greetings were included in all textbooks, leave-takings were not included in two of them. This, and the lower number of leave-takings provided in the textbooks mean that young EFL learners will be exposed to them less often and could benefit from additional exposure through children’s books. Figure  5.5 presents the leave-taking instances in the children’s books. Leave-takings are only included in three children’s books examined for this study. Thus, in 17 of the 20 books investigated no leave-taking expressions are featured. Therefore, the vast majority of the children’s books do not include conversations that begin with a greeting and end with a leave-taking utterance. However, even the three picturebooks that include leave-takings do not necessarily expose children to a clearly identifiable conversation that is book-ended by a greeting and a leave-taking phase. For example, in Froggy gets dressed, it is not clear who produces the leave-taking utterance at the end of the book. Thus, children being read these books to verbatim11 will not encounter conversations that resemble everyday life interactions in the target language.

Leave-taking instances in the childrens' books Azzi; 1 Froggy; 1 The gruffalo; 5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Notes: Azzi = Azzi in between, Froggy = Froggy gets dressed Fig. 5.5  Leave-taking instances in the children’s books  Individuals familiar with different story telling techniques in L2 classrooms will of course be aware that books are not necessarily read to pupils verbatim, i.e. word-for-word. Instead, teachers may decide to paraphrase difficult words, or include interactive tasks that could feature more speech acts than were originally included in the children’s book.

11

178

5  Results: Speech Acts in Children’s Books

Table 5.10  Leave-taking routines in the children’s books Title Azzi in between Froggy gets dressed The Gruffalo Total

Goodbye 0 0 5 5

Good night 0 1 0 1

God be with you 1 0 0 1

Total 1 1 5 7

Table 5.11  Address terms used in leave-takings in the children’s books Title Froggy gets dressed The Gruffalo Total

First name 1 0 1

Category Signifier 0 5 5

Total 1 5 6

Table 5.10 presents the leave-taking routines featured in the children’s books. While two of the three routines included in the children’s books, goodbye and good night, are standard routines that even young children are expected to produce (cf. Greif and Gleason 1980), these routines were not frequently featured in the textbooks. Therefore, exposing young EFL learners to them again could be useful. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (2014), the origins of goodbye are “probably shortened partly God be with you and partly God be with ye” (cf. also Jucker and Taavitsainen 2013). In contrast to goodbye, however, God be with you is not as frequently used in everyday interactions in English today. Whether it is worth exposing young EFL learners to this leave-taking routine depends on the aims and teaching context of the EFL classroom. Regarding address terms used in leave-­ takings, Table 5.11 shows that most of the leave-taking utterances included in the picturebooks feature an address term. The majority of the address terms used are category signifiers. Interestingly, it is always the same in The Gruffalo, namely the name of a rodent. Whether the addition of these address terms to leave-taking utterances is beneficial for L2 learners or not is not clear. While it might be helpful for them to know that address terms can be added to make leave-takings more personal, L2 learners will not be exposed to a range of different options if all of the leave-taking utterances in a book feature the same address term. In summary, the number of children’s books that feature leave-taking expressions is very small and the leave-taking utterances included in the books do not offer the L2 learners much variety. However, given that the textbooks feature few ­leave-­taking utterances and some teachers may not use farewell lesson closing routines or rituals, it may still be worth including a children’s book in a lesson that features leave-taking routines.

5.4 Expressions of Gratitude

179

5.4  Expressions of Gratitude The results of the textbook analysis on expressions of gratitude in Chap. 4 showed that seven out of eight textbooks contained them, but that the number of thanking utterances tended to be rather small (with the exception of Playway 3). Thus, it would be helpful to expose young EFL learners to a larger number of expressions of gratitude in the EFL classroom and – in theory – children’s books could usefully contribute to that. However, as Fig.  5.6 shows thanking expressions are not frequently featured in the children’s books in this study. The results reveal that expressions of gratitude were only included in two picturebooks, The smartest giant in town and The lion who wanted to love. In The smartest giant in town, the same thanking expression (thank + 2nd person pronoun) is used five times. In contrast, in The lion who wanted to love, the animals’ gratitude towards the little lion is expressed without a simple expression of gratitude and is instead conveyed by a promise to always remember the lion’s actions followed by a positive evaluation of the little lion’s character. As the data presented in Eisenstein and Bodman (1993) also indicate, expressions of gratitude do not necessarily have to contain a simple thanking expression, such as thank you. Instead, the overall function of the utterance needs to be considered. In The lion who wanted to love, the protagonist, the little lion, helps other animals and nurses them back to health. The utterance that is coded as an expression of gratitude is made by animals who have received his assistance. None of the expressions of gratitude in the picturebooks contained an address term and none were followed by a response to an expression of gratitude. Since the absence of utterances pairs that tend to typically follow each other in everyday life interactions has been criticised in several sections of this chapter already, the absence of responses to expressions of gratitude may not be surprising. To summarize, it is unfortunate, that so few expressions of gratitude are included in the children’s books. It is furthermore regrettable that the one book that contains five expressions of gratitude, The smartest giant in town, does not feature a single clearly identifiable response to an expression of gratitude. While the actions that precede and follow the thanking utterance clearly show the good character traits of

Instances of expressions of gratitude in the childrens' books The giant; 5 The lion; 1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Notes: The lion = The lion who wanted to love, The giant = The smartest giant in town Fig. 5.6  Expression of gratitude instances in the children’s books

180

5  Results: Speech Acts in Children’s Books

the giant that children may want to follow (i.e. helping others and doing so in a cheerful manner), it would have been helpful for learners to encounter conventional thanking responses in this book. However, it could be argued that children will at least see the friendly facial expression and general positive demeanour of the giant when they read this book and thus are exposed to a possible response to thanking which involves friendly body language and smiling.

5.5  Apologies The analysis of the textbooks in Chap. 4 has shown that apologies were not frequently featured in them. Therefore, children’s books could offer additional input opportunities regarding the teaching of apologies in the EFL classroom. Of the 20 picturebooks examined in this study, only one, Something else, contains a word that is typically associated with an apology. However, since it is followed by an explanation on how the protagonist of the book differs from the members of the community the protagonist lives in and therefore cannot take part in communal activities, the question is whether the word is in fact “intended to ‘set things right’” after the speaker has offended someone, which according to Olshtain and Cohen (1983, p. 10) is a key feature of apologies, or, whether it is simply a conventionalized expression not actually expressing sorrow, but instead reflecting the speaker’s cultural norms. As the writer of Something else, Kathryn Cave, is British, the use of a word commonly associated with an apology could reflect a sentiment other than sorrow over a committed offence. Explaining the use of sorry in British English, Sara Mills (2017, p.65) writes Visitors to Britain should be aware that the word ‘sorry’ is devalued currency. Trivial transgressions (fumbling for change, dropping a pen) will inevitably involve apologies, and most transactions will involve the word ‘sorry’ at some point. Just go with the flow. Don’t take the apologies seriously; be aware that sometimes the word ‘sorry’ is not an admission of guilt but an (albeit muted) accusation.

Thus, although a speaker may utter the words that are commonly associated with an apology in British English, this should not necessarily be regarded as an admission of guilt or sorrow over some preceding action. Is this differentiation regarding the speaker’s intention really important in beginner level EFL classrooms? My answer would be: yes, in the context of this particular utterance in Something else the intention of the speakers matters. In the book, the word typically associated with an apology is followed by remarks that are intended to exclude the protagonist. Teachers choosing this UNESCO award winning book for their classroom are likely to have selected this book because of its message to accept others as they are and to appreciate differences. Since the interlocutors of the character referred to as Something Else (a large group of animals with facial expressions that do not suggest feelings of affiliation) do not give the impression that they are feeling apologetic for not accepting the protagonist as he is, it is likely that children will question whether the utterance is in fact a sincere apology or not and ask their teachers.

5.6 Suggestions

181

Teachers then have the opportunity to discuss sincere apologies (i.e. apologies that express regret for having done or said something wrong), insincere apologies (i.e. words that are just uttered and include expressions that are associated with apologies but do not express the speaker’s true emotions) and apologies that may just be conventionalized behaviour but do not actually mean anything (such saying sorry when dropping one’s own pen or falling down the stairs because of one’s own fault), and how their learners feel about them. The important point here is to ensure that young EFL learners do not get a negative impression of British English native speakers and regard them as insincere because of their conventionalized apology use. If this accusation arises, teachers should point out  – with the help of examples from the learners’ own language (where this is possible) – that conventionalized expressions occur in many languages. A helpful example for German learners of English is the use of Grüß Gott (Greet God) in certain parts of German speaking countries (c.f. Culpeper and Schauer 2018), which could be seen as an imperative to go forth and greet one’s deity, but is used as a conventionalized greeting by members of the community regardless of their religious affiliation or non-affiliation. In summary, only one of the children’s books investigated contained a typical apology expression and this one did not occur in a typical context, i.e. as a clearly identifiable and unambiguous expression of sorrow following someone’s offending action. Therefore, when it comes to teaching easy, straightforward apologies none of the children’s books investigated will be able to increase young EFL learners’ exposure to them.

5.6  Suggestions The results presented in Chap. 4 revealed that suggestions were included in seven out of eight textbooks, and were more frequently featured than apologies. The majority of suggestions were based on either a version of the let’s /let us or the what about routine. Figure 5.7 shows that only three suggestions are featured in the children’s books. One each is included in Azzi in between, Monkey Puzzle and Snore.

Instances of suggestions in the childrens' books Azzi; 1 Monkey Puzzle; 1 Snore; 1 0

0,2

0,4

0,6

Note: Azzi = Azzi in between Fig. 5.7  Suggestion instances in the children’s books

0,8

1

1,2

182

5  Results: Speech Acts in Children’s Books

The suggestions in Azzi in between and Monkey Puzzle are based on a let’s routine, whereas the suggestion in Snore is based on the why don’t + pronoun routine. The last routine is interesting, because it is not covered in any of the textbooks but occurs regularly in modern everyday British English (Adolphs 2008). Thus, exposing young EFL learners to this suggestion routine could expand their suggestion repertoire and offer them a relatively easy alternative to the let’s routine. In contrast to the what about routine, which is primarily featured in the Sunshine textbook series, the why don’t  +  pronoun routine should be easier for EFL beginner level learners because it is followed by the bare infinitive, whereas the what about routine is followed by the gerund (e.g. Why don’t we go to the cinema compared to How about going to the cinema?). Overall, however, the children’s books investigated will only be of very limited help if teachers are wishing to expose their young EFL learners to a broader range or larger number of suggestions than the ones covered in the textbooks, since suggestions feature only rarely in the children’s books. In addition, none of the suggestions in the children’s books are followed by a response to a suggestion.

5.7  Expressions of Physical and Mental States Expressions of physical or mental states are included in seven of the eight textbooks analysed in Chap. 4 and feature more frequently than apologies or expressions of gratitude in the textbook data. Figure  5.8 presents the number of expressions of physical or mental states in the children’s book data. The results show that only three of the 20 children’s books contain these expressions and that the highest number of them can be found in Azzi in between. The large number of physical or mental expressions in Azzi in between is perhaps not surprising given that the story involves the main character and her family having to flee her own country and seeking refuge in an English-speaking context. In the textbook data, the most frequently featured expressions of physical or mental states were hungry, lost and tired. In addition, there were a larger number of negative

Instances of expressions of physical and mental states in the childrens' books Azzi; 6 Froggy; 2 The snail; 2 0

1

2

3

4

5

Note: Azzi = Azzi in between, Froggy = Froggy gets dressed, The snail = The snail and the whale Fig. 5.8  Expressions of physical or mental states in the children’s books

6

7

5.8 Chapter Summary

183

Table 5.12  Expressions of physical or mental states in the children’s books Title Azzi Froggy The snail Total

afraid 1 0 0 1

awake 0 1 0 1

big 0 0 1 1

frightened 1 0 0 1

happy 1 0 0 1

safe 2 0 0 2

scared 1 0 0 1

small 0 0 1 1

tired 0 1 0 1

Total 6 2 2 10

Note: Azzi = Azzi in between, Froggy = Froggy gets dressed, The snail = The snail and the whale

mental or physical states in the textbooks than positive ones. Table 5.12 presents the findings of the children’s books data. The results show that the 10 expressions of physical or mental states in the textbooks represent a wide range of states. Only being safe is featured twice. All other states are only featured once in the children’s books. All three books work with contrasts of some kind. Azzi in between contains a variety of different expressions that can be put into two groups: a) afraid-frightened-­ scared and b) happy-safe. It is noticeable that the negative mental states in Azzi in between are evened out with positive ones so that young EFL learners reading this book are exposed to an equal number of positive and negative mental state expressions. Contrasting mental or physical expressions can be usefully employed in the EFL classroom. Big and small could be used in its literal sense when describing and/or contrasting people, animals or things, whereas more advanced learners could focus on the more metaphorical meaning of feeling big or small. Expressions along the frightened-scared and happy-safe spectrum are helpful for beginner level learners and especially so with regard to my notion of Survival English (cf. Chap. 1). It is also interesting and helpful that the children’s books that feature these expressions of physical or mental states also contain intensifiers (such as so or very) that can be used to increase the illocutionary force of the utterance. This means that young EFL learners also learn about intensifiers that collocate with expressions that they have encountered in the children’s books. This can help young learners express themselves better. In summary, although only three of the 20 children’s books contained expressions of physical or mental states, the three children’s books that featured them could all be usefully employed in young learners’ EFL classrooms to teach contrasts and to enable L2 learners to convey their feelings and physical states to their interlocutors.

5.8  Chapter Summary The analysis of the children’s books has shown that of the 22 books included in the initial analysis, only 20 contained at least one of the speech acts investigated in this study. Therefore, the analysis and discussion of speech acts in this chapter

184

5  Results: Speech Acts in Children’s Books

concentrated on 20 of the 22 picturebooks (excluding The very hungry caterpillar and Winnie the witch). The picturebooks tend to differ considerably with regard to page count and utterance word count. The analysis of the children’s books has further shown that in contrast to the textbooks, the children’s books feature six speech act categories at most (Azzi in between), with 18 picturebooks including a maximum of four speech acts. The top three speech acts concerning the total number of occurrences in the children’s books were requests, responses to requests and greetings. Thus, the top three speech acts in the textbooks and the top three speech act in the picturebooks are the same. This means that L2 learners will be heavily exposed to the same speech act categories in the textbooks and children’s books investigated. The analysis of the children’s books has further shown that – in contrast to the textbooks  – some speech act categories are not included in any of the children’s books examined in this study. These tend to be responsive speech acts or speech acts that occur at the end of an interaction. Thus, L2 learners will generally not be exposed to dialogues in the children’s books that resemble the authentic phases of an interaction in everyday life. Regarding individual speech acts, the analysis showed that the most frequently included requests in the picturebooks belonged to the direct request category: imperatives and enquiries. Since these direct request strategies were also the most frequently featured ones in the textbooks, the children’s books investigated here would not help to expose young EFL learners to a broader range of request strategies and would also not provide much input regarding conventionally indirect requests. Concerning request responses, the analysis of the children’s books has shown that not all requests presented in them are followed by a request response. Thus, children will not encounter typical responses to requests in many cases. The analysis has also revealed that nearly 50% of request responses are repetitions or near-­ repetitions of utterances in three books (Brown Bear, brown bear what do you see?, Have you seen my cat? The Gruffalo). There is also a dominant request response type, answers to requests, that account for 94% of all request responses. Consequently, utterances that grant or refuse requests only feature very rarely in the children’s books. Greetings were only included in six of the 22 children’s books analysed. The results show that Azzi in between contains the highest number of greetings with nine out of a total of 22 greetings found in the children’s books and also includes the broadest range of greeting strategies. The incorrect use of a greeting routine in Azzi in between could also be helpful when teaching greeting and leave-taking routines to young EFL learners. In addition to the greeting routines included in the textbooks, the picturebooks also feature additional ones that are less often used. Leave-takings were not frequently featured in the children’s books. They were included in only three children’s books examined for this study. Thus, the vast majority of the picturebooks do not include conversations that begin with a greeting and end with a leave-taking utterance. The leave-taking utterances included in the children’s books do not offer EFL learners much variety. However, since the

References

185

textbooks feature few leave-taking utterances, it may still be worth including a picturebook in a lesson that includes leave-taking routines to increase L2 learners’ exposure to them. Expressions of gratitude were not frequently featured in the children’s books investigated in this study either. The results reveal that expressions of gratitude were only included in two books, The smartest giant in town and The lion who wanted to love. Only the former book contained a standard thanking expression. This one was, however, repeated several times and thus EFL teachers looking for a children’s book that offers a good rate of exposure to this speech act may find The smartest giant in town useful in that respect. Unfortunately, however, no instances of responses to expressions of gratitude were included in either of the two books, so EFL teachers will need to find alternative ways of exposing their L2 learners to typical responses to expression of gratitude, since they are also not frequently featured in the textbooks. Although one utterance was included in Something Else that could be considered an apology, this is not an easy and straightforward example. Therefore, teachers wishing to expose their EFL learners to additional easy and unambiguous apology expressions need to look elsewhere for relevant input. Suggestions were only included with one expression each in three children’s books: in Azzi in between, Monkey Puzzle and Snore. Thus, the 20 picturebooks investigated do not offer rich input opportunities regarding this speech act. While two of the children’s books used let’s routines for their suggestions, Snore employed the why don’t + pronoun routine, which is a helpful and relatively easy alternative for young EFL learners. Unfortunately, none of the picturebooks contained a response to a suggestion. The analysis of the expressions of physical and mental states revealed that all three children’s books that contained them (Azzi in between, Froggy gets dressed, The snail and the whale) included helpful contrasts. Azzi in between provided a good range of helpful expressions that were carefully balanced to cover both positive and negative states. None of the children’s books investigated covered all speech acts investigated and none covered all of the speech acts that they contained equally well. It should also be borne in mind that this analysis focused on the pragmatic aspects of the books and did not consider grammar, lexis or gender issues. However, based on the pragmatic analysis of the textbooks, I think Azzi in between is an interesting choice for young EFL learners, as it offers the highest number of speech acts and also includes a good range of different speech act strategies.

References Achiba, M. (2003). Learning to request in a second language: A study of child interlanguage pragmatics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Adolphs, S. (2008). Corpus and context: Investigating pragmatic functions in spoken discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

186

5  Results: Speech Acts in Children’s Books

Aijmer, K. (1996). Conversational routines in English: Convention and creativity. London: Longman. Andrea, G., & Wojtowycz, D. (2009). The lion who wanted to love. London: Hachette. Aschkar, S., Beattie, T., Kerler, N., Schröder, C., & Skejic, M. (2015). Sunshine: Pupil’s book 4. Berlin: Cornelsen. Aschkar, S., Beattie, T., Kerler, N., & Schröder, C. (2016). Sunshine: Pupil’s book 3. Berlin: Cornelsen. Baldacchino, C., & Malenfant, I. (2016). Morris Micklewhite and the Tangerine Dress. Toronto: Groundwood Books. Browne, E. (1994). Handa’s surprise. London: Walker Books. Carle, E. (1997). Have you seen my cat? New York: Aladdin. Carle, E. (2018). The very hungry caterpillar. London: Puffin. Caspari-Grote, K., Grandt, I., Kraaz, U., Neuber, C., Simon, C., & Völtz, I. (2013). Ginger: Pupil’s book 3. Berlin: Cornelsen. Caspari-Grote, K., Grandt, I., Kraaz, U., Neuber, C., Simon, C., & Völtz, I. (2014). Ginger: Pupil’s book 4. Berlin: Cornelsen. Cave, K., & Riddell, C. (2011). Something else. London: Puffin. Culpeper, J., & Gillings, M. (2018). Politeness variation in English: A North-South divide? In V. Brezina, R. Love, & K. Aijmer (Eds.), Corpus Approaches to Contemporary British Speech: Sociolinguistic Studies of the Spoken BNC2014 (pp. 33–59). Abingdon: Routledge. Culpeper, J., & Schauer, G.  A. (2018). Pragmatics. In J.  Culpeper, F.  Katamba, P.  Kerswill, T. McEnery, & R. Wodak (Eds.), English language: Description, variation and use (2nd ed., pp. 146–164). Basingstoke: Palgrave/MacMillan. Danby, S., Baker, C., & Emmison, M. (2005). Four observations in openings to Kids Help Line. In C. Baker, M. Emmison, & A. Firth (Eds.), Calling for help: Language and social interaction in telephone helplines (pp. 133–152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Donaldson, J., & Scheffler, A. (2006). The snail and the whale. London: Puffin. Donaldson, J., & Scheffler, A. (2016a). The Grufallo. London: Macmillan. Donaldson, J., & Scheffler, A. (2016b). The smartest giant in town. London: Macmillan. Donaldson, J., & Scheffler, A. (2017). Monkey Puzzle. London: Macmillan. Eisenstein, M., & Bodman, J.  (1993). Expressing gratitude in American English. In G.  Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 64–81). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Edmondson, W., & House, J.  (1981). Let’s talk and talk about it. München: Urban und Schwarzenberg. Ehlers, G., Kahstein, G., Muth, M., & Tait, H. (2013). Bumblebee: Textbook 3. Braunschweig: Schroedel Westermann. Ehlers, G., Michailow-Drews, U., Tait, H., Schönau, M., Van Montague, A., & Zeich-Pelsis, A. (2017). Bumblebee: Textbook 4. Braunschweig: Schroedel Westermann. Garland, S. (2012). Azzi in between. London: Frances Lincoln. Gerngross, G., Puchta, H., & Becker, C. (2013a). Playway 3: Pupil’s book. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag. Gerngross, G., Puchta, H., & Becker, C. (2013b). Playway 4: Pupil’s book. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag. Greif, E. B., & Gleason, J. B. (1980). Hi, thanks and goodbye: More routine information. Language in Society, 9(2), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500008034. Grezga, J.  (2008). Hal, Hail, Hello, Hi: Greetings in English language history. In A.  Jucker & I.  Taavitsainen (Eds.), A speech act history of English (pp.  165–193). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Jucker, A., & Taavitsainen, I. (2013). English historical pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Leonni, L. (2011). Frederick. New York: Dragonfly.

References

187

London, J., & Remkiewicz, F. (1994). Froggy gets dressed. London: Puffin. Margutti, P., Tainio, L., Drew, P., & Traverso, V. (2018). Invitations and responses across different languages: Observations on the feasibility and relevance of a cross-linguistic comparative perspective on the study of actions. Journal of Pragmatics, 125, 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pragma.2017.12.010. Martin, B. J., & Carle, E. (2007). Brown bear, brown bear, what do you see? New York: Henry Holt. NA. Collins English Dictionary. 2005. Glasgow: Collins. McKee, D. (1989). Elmer. London: Andersen Press. Mills, S. (2017). English Politeness and Class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O’Keefe, A., Clancy, B., & Adolphs, S. (2011). Introducing pragmatics in use. Abingdon: Routledge. Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. D. (1983). Apology: A speech act set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 18–35). Rowley, Newbury House. OED Online, Oxford University Press (2014). https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/79929. Accessed 9 Sept 2018. OED Online, Oxford University Press (2018). www.oed.com/view/Entry/200471. Accessed 9 Sept 2018. Rosen, M., & Langley, J. (2003). Snore. London: Harper Collins. Sendak, M. (1991). Where the wild things are. New York: Harper Collins. Seuss, D. (1985). The cat in the hat. New York: Random House. Sharratt, N. (2006). Ketchup on your cornflakes? London: Scholastic. Stoll Walsh, E. (1989). Mouse Paint. Boston: HMH. Thomas, V., & Paul, K. (2016a). Winnie and Wilbur in winter. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thomas, V., & Paul, K. (2016b). Winnie and Wilbur: Winnie the witch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chapter 6

Results: EFL Primary School Teachers

Abstract  This chapter addresses a wider range of issues in the field of English language teaching and teaching young learners than the two previous results chapters, which primarily focused on interlanguage pragmatics and TEYL. This approach was taken for two reasons: First, some of the findings from one area may be linked to another and I wanted to obtain (and subsequently provide to readers) a fuller picture of the EFL primary teaching context based on in-service teachers’ survey responses. Secondly, my discussions with teachers had made me aware that although they tended to value the exchange of ideas, materials and views very much, they were not always in a position to engage in conversations with colleagues from other schools and were sometimes wondering about good practice in other places. I hope that by addressing topics from different areas of primary ELT, in-service and pre-­ service teachers who may not have much opportunity to engage with others may at least be able to get some insights into what their (future) colleagues are doing, thinking about and experiencing in their classrooms. In the following, I will first analyse and discuss components of a lesson. I will then move on to assessment. This will be followed by a discussion of skills, knowledge and competence areas. Subsequently, I will address how pupils are grouped in classroom activities. This will be followed by a discussion of pragmatic routines. Subsequent to this, I will analyse and discuss rituals at the beginning and end of the lesson. I will then focus on differentiation, followed by special needs issues, and homework. Next, textbooks and other teaching materials will be addressed. This will be followed by a section on children’s books and songs. Finally, a summary of this chapter will be provided. Keywords  EFL · ELT · TEFL · TEYL · Pragmatic routines · Classroom rituals · Differentiation · SEN · Greetings · Leave-takings

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 G. A. Schauer, Teaching and Learning English in the Primary School, English Language Education 18, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23257-3_6

189

190

6  Results: EFL Primary School Teachers

6.1  Components of the Lesson In the first section of the survey, the EFL primary school teachers were asked how they evaluated different components of a lesson on a five-part Likert scale1 ranging from very important (score 1) to unimportant (score 5). The results are presented in Table 6.1. The findings show that the opening phase2 was the lesson component EFL teachers in Thuringian primary schools considered to be the most important one on average (1,37). This is not surprising, since the initial moments of a lesson are often considered to be essential (cf. Richards and Farrell 2011), and as the results of the Table 6.1  Evaluating lesson components Component Opening phase Introducing the topic Introducing new vocabulary Textbook/workbook work Revising vocabulary Checking tasks and exercises Assigning/distributing tasks/exercises Classroom management Assessment Closing phase

1 67% (18) 37% (10) 52% (14) 7% (2) 63% (17) 33% (9) 41% (11) 70% (18) 7% (2) 41% (11)

2 30% (8) 52% (14) 48% (13) 48% (13) 33% (9) 52% (14) 56% (15) 23% (6) 44% (12) 33% (9)

3 4% (1) 4% (1) – 19% (5) 4% (1) 11% (3) – 8% (2) 33% (9) 19% (5)

4 – 7% (2) – 26% (7) – 4% (1) 4% (1) – 15% (4) 4% (1)

∅ 1,37 1,81 1,48 2,63 – 1,41 – 1,85 – 1,67 – 1,38 – 2,56 4% (1) 1,96

5 – – –

Notes: 1) Very important, 2) Important, 3) Neither important nor unimportant, 4) Less important, 5) unimportant; The total percentage count may be higher than 100% in some lines, since the percentages were rounded up or down to single or double digits before the comma; This block of questions was answered by 27 teachers. However, some teachers did not rate all individual lines and therefore percentage figures for the same number of respondents may vary (cf. 18 respondents corresponding to 67% in the opening phase versus 18 respondents corresponding to 70% in classroom management)

1  The labels of the Likert scale points 4 and 5 may seem a little unusual, as one would probably expect unimportant followed by very unimportant. When developing the questionnaire, my research assistants and I discussed individual labels and decided that instead of two very distinctly negative items, such as the aforementioned ones, it would be preferable to include an option that is more negative but not completely so, in order to give teachers the opportunity to express this softer negative option rather than the two harsher ones. Our rationale was that it was perhaps more unlikely that teachers would consider any of the staples of EFL to be very unimportant and thus to include the sequence unimportant – very unimportant could (a) force teachers to tick the neither nor option even though they felt more negative and (b) probably leave us with two scales that would hardly ever be used. That the second concern was warranted is shown by the fact only one teacher ticked the unimportant option once. The inclusion of the less important option is warranted by the fact that this option was selected by several teachers. See also Likert scale labels used in Page et al. (2006) that were designed to provide the best fit for their questions and instrument. 2  In the German original version, the word used was Begrüßung (literal translation: greeting). However, I felt that it could be ambiguous to translate this into greeting phase in English as one of the speech act categories in this book is called the same. I therefore used the term opening phase.

6.1 Components of the Lesson

191

teachers’ survey in Sect. 6.6 will show, many teachers use opening rituals in their classrooms which further indicates that they place emphasis on this part of the lesson. Classroom management is in second place (1,38). Again, this is not surprising. Google books lists more than five million entries that focus on classroom management in all types of learning contexts and subjects, and as Hall (2011, p.22) points out “classroom management, that is, how teachers organize and direct learners and learning to make the most effective use of available time and resources (Thornbury 2006), is ‘the central element of every teacher’s daily professional experience’ (Wright 2005, 1)”. In third place is revising vocabulary (1,41) followed by introducing new vocabulary in fourth place (1,4). The averages indicate that the top four are in very close vicinity. Although introducing new vocabulary is in fourth place regarding the mean scores, it should be noted that this is the only lesson component considered to either be very important or important by all teachers. According to Schmitt (2000, pp. 2–3), there is no agreement on the total number of words in English as estimates vary from several hundred thousands to two million, but there is a consensus that English native speakers have a vocabulary size of about 20,000 word families3 by the time they are aged 20 – the idea is that they will learn around 1000 words families per year until then. Given that the English language has this extensive range of vocabulary, it is good that EFL teachers consider the maintenance and acquisition of vocabulary items to be important. Readers may wonder why two items were included in the teachers’ survey that address vocabulary, but none that explicitly address grammar. The main reason for this is that grammar is not explicitly focused on as an independent component in English as a foreign language education at German primary schools. Klippel (2000, p. 71) notes that Im Grundschul-Englischunterricht hat die Grammatik nur eine dienende Funktion: grammatische Phänomene werden auf dieser Schulstufe nicht mit ihren Regeln bewusst gemacht und formal eingeübt. Grundschulkinder lernen grammatische Strukturen eher wie feststehende Redewendungen, also wie Wörterverbindungen: Fragen wie Have you got a ... ? oder When’s your birthday? werden als zusammenhängende Ausdrücke gelernt. Grammar only has a subservient status in English lessons in [German] primary schools: grammatical phenomena are not explained with their rules nor are they formally focused on in exercises or tasks. Primary school learners [of English] tend to learn grammatical structures as formulaic sequences, i.e. as strings of words. Questions such as Have you got a … .? or When’s your birthday? are learned as one expression.

The central role of vocabulary in English is also confirmed by Richards (2000, p. xi) who writes that 3  Decoo (2010, p.  120) helpfully summarizes the slightly different conceptualizations of word families as follows: “[A] word family consists of a base word and all its derived and inflected forms that can be understood by a learner without having to learn each form separately” (Bauer and Nation 1993, p. 253). Laufer (2005) limits derivatives to ‘common’ ones: ‘A word family consists of a word, its inflections, and its common derivates’ (p.  325). A similar definition is given by Thornbury (2002, p. 4) and by Gardner (2007, p. 245), who speak of ‘transparent’ derivates.”

192

6  Results: EFL Primary School Teachers

lexical knowledge is central to communicative competence and to the acquisition of a second language. Vocabulary and lexical units are at the core of learning and communication. No amount of grammar or other type of linguistic knowledge can be employed in communication or discourse without the mediation of vocabulary. Indeed, vocabulary and lexical expressions can sustain a great deal of rudimentary communication without much support from other aspects of the language system.

Thus, teachers’ focus on vocabulary is understandable given that the importance of the lexicon is also emphasized in the literature. Coming back to the teachers’ evaluation of the lesson components, assigning and distributing tasks/exercises is in fifth place (1,67). However, it needs to be noted that the majority of teachers actually considered this component to be very important or important, with only one teacher scoring it as less important. One can only speculate why the one teacher felt this way, but one explanation could be that this teacher may be working according to an educational approach promoting a high level of learner autonomy in which learners self-select their tasks and exercises and are mainly working independently. Introducing the topic (1,81) and checking tasks and exercises (1,85) are in sixth and seventh place respectively. Similar to the possible explanation for the teacher not considering the setting of tasks to be important, it could be that those teachers not awarding high scores to the introduction of the topic are working in classrooms in which learners’ autonomy and task self-selection are essential. Alternatively, they may be working in contexts where a high level of differentiation is necessary so that an introduction for the whole class would not work for them. As Sect. 6.10 will show, several teachers are using computer software in their lessons and this could explain why the checking of tasks and exercises was viewed as less important by some of them (as feedback may be provided by the software). The closing phase is in eighth place (1,96) and is the only component which was considered unimportant by one EFL teacher. This is in stark contrast to the opening phase, which received the highest average score. The question is why some teachers consider the final phase of the lesson to be neither nor, less important or unimportant. Richards and Farrell (2011, p. 103) note “[t]he closing phase of a lesson is also an important part of a lesson sequence. Ideally it should leave the students feeling that they have successfully achieved a goal they set for themselves or that has been established for the lesson, and that the lesson was a worthwhile and meaningful lesson”. As Sect. 6.6 will show, while a large number of EFL teachers have an opening phase ritual, only a small number have a closing phase one. Does this mean that those teachers who do not consider the closing phase to be important are rounding off their lessons less well than those who consider it important or very important? No. It is important not to jump to conclusions and establish causal relationships. It could be that teachers are very successful in ending their lessons in motivating and beneficial ways and in transitioning to the next subject, the break or the end of the school day, while not regarding closing phases as important. However, it could also be that in the teacher training of those who did not consider closings to be

6.1 Components of the Lesson

193

important, ways of wrapping up and ending the lesson were not focused on and that some of those teachers would actually be grateful for some ideas from fellow EFL primary school teachers on that topic. If the latter applies, see Sect. 6.6 for EFL teachers’ use of closing routines in the primary school classroom. While the present study does not contain any observational data from primary EFL classrooms, classroom observation could have helped in triangulating the empirical findings provided here. The two components that were considered least important are assessment (2,56) and textbook/workbook work (2,63), which are in ninth and tenth place respectively. What is interesting is that the evaluation of teachers differs considerably regarding these two components. While in the case of assessment, teachers’ scores tend to cluster around important or neither/nor and thus indicate that the majority of the teachers are not too far apart concerning their evaluation of assessments, the same is not the case for textbook/workbook work. Here, teacher’s opinions tend to be more mixed with the majority (48%) considering textbook work to be important, but 26% viewing it as unimportant. The differences in teachers’ views about textbook/ workbook work may be explained by the fact that not all EFL teachers who took part in the study used textbooks (see Sect. 6.10 for more detailed results). In addition, a large number of teachers also employed a variety of other input materials in the classroom, which could result in the actual textbook being not as essential for them. Teachers’ views regarding assessment could be explained by the fact that young EFL learners in Thuringian primary schools do not receive numerical marks on their annual reports (Schulportal Thüringen ND). However, as Sect. 6.2 will show, different forms of evaluations are used in many classrooms, as teachers include written comments regarding English in their pupil’s reports. Interestingly, there does not appear to be a link between English assessment taking place at a teacher’s school and teacher’s beliefs about the importance of assessment, as some teachers who did not evaluate their EFL learners considered assessment to be important, whereas some teachers who employed forms of assessment considered assessment to be neither important nor unimportant or unimportant. Before moving on to the next section, I would also like to address an issue that some readers may have been wondering about when looking at the evaluations of the EFL primary teachers concerning the importance of various lesson components. The issue I am referring to here is the question of whether there is some kind of common denominator (e.g. years of teaching experience or age) among the teachers who scored some components to be less important. There is none. However, while most teachers tended to award only one or in one case two less important scores, there is one teacher who awarded three less important scores and one unimportant score. Since the same teacher also awarded several important and one very important scores, nothing in the remaining answers suggests that this teacher did not complete the survey honestly and in accordance with her true opinions. Thus, her answers simply seem to reflect a more negative stance towards some components than other teachers’.

194

6  Results: EFL Primary School Teachers

6.2  Assessment Butler (2016, p. 368) writes that [d]ue to the vulnerability of young learners, it is vital that we understand the influence of assessment on teaching and learning (washback effects) as well as its impact on the educational policies and societies at large (McKay 2006). One aspect of washback effects that needs more attention is how assessment/testing affects young learners’ motivation and the other affective domains. Although research on this topic is limited, it is undeniable that ‘young learners are extremely sensitive to criticism’ (Hild and Nikolov 2011: 57).

As Elsner’s (2018) overview of graded assessment in the German federal states shows, there are considerable differences in the German primary EFL education in that respect. Five of the 16 German states do not have graded assessment for foreign languages: Bavaria, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland and Thuringia. In the remaining German federal states, graded assessment starts either in year 3 or year 4. Although EFL primary school teachers in Thuringia may not have to enter a grade into their pupils’ yearly report, they need to provide a written evaluation. Figure  6.1 shows the percentage of EFL primary school teachers in Thuringia who employ assessment in their classrooms. The results reveal that the clear majority of the 27 EFL teachers who responded to this question used some form of assessment, as 21 of them answered yes and only six of them answered no. Table 6.2 includes the various assessment activities the EFL teachers used in their classrooms. Twenty teachers provided more detailed insights into their assessment activities. While some teachers named just one assessment activity, most teachers included more than one. The results show that a considerable variety of different assessment activities are employed by the teachers. This supports Fulcher and Owen’s (2016, p.  110) view that “classroom-based assessment activities are flexible and open”. The most frequently mentioned assessment activities are oral assessment types (including oral assessment 25%, paired dialogue assessment 5% and poster presentation 5%). The focus on oral activities is not surprising, since speaking and listen-

ASSESSMENT No 22%

Yes 78%

Fig. 6.1 Assessment

6.2 Assessment

195

Table 6.2  Assessment activities Assessment activityb Competitive games Multiple choice (match picture to word) Observations Oral assessment (talk about a picture/topic, chant/sing a song) Paired-assessment (do a dialogue) Portfoliosc Poster presentation Short testsa Short tests focusing on listening (and reading) Short written tests Summative assessmentd Vocabulary assessmenta Textbook/workbook exercises and tests (incl. Self-assessments)

Teachers 5% (1) 10% (2) 5% (1) 25% (5) 5% (1) 5% (1) 5% (1) 20% (4) 20% (4) 20% (4) 5% (1) 5% (1) 25% (5)

Notes: a Not specified in more detail b Due to space constraints, I will not be able to discuss the various assessment types and the issue of assessment of young learners in great detail. Readers interested in these areas may want to read Butler (2016), Cameron (2001), Kirsch (2008) and Pinter (2006) on the assessment of young learners or consult the Handbook of Second Language Assessment (2016) edited by Tsagari and Banerjee for detailed information about a wide range of assessment topics and issues. c Pinter (2006, p. 136) writes “[a] portfolio means a collection of student’s work and evidence of student achievement over a period of time. It can include drawings, pieces of writing, and examples of crafts or even taped oral performances. Children can be encouraged to select their best work to go into the portfolio with the help of the teacher”. d According to Kirsch (2008, p. 188) “summative assessment, or assessment of learning, usually happens at the end of a unit, year or Key Stage to sum up the learners’ achievements and to show the level of understanding or competence attained at a particular point in time”.

ing are explicitly emphasized in the curriculum for Thuringian primary schools and are given precedence over reading and writing (Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur 2010). Interestingly, listening tests (some of which  also included a reading component) were employed by only 20% of the EFL teachers. However, it needs to be noted that some assessment activities were not described in detail and could also refer to the assessment of listening comprehension (e.g. competitive games 5%, short tests 20%, summative assessment 5%). Assessment activities that are part of the textbook or workbook are used by 25% of the teachers. This indicates that these materials may play an important role in at least some EFL primary classrooms in Thuringia. Regarding the way in which assessment is communicated to the learners, the teachers made some interesting comments. Three of them explicitly addressed the

196

6  Results: EFL Primary School Teachers

absence of actual marks4 for English in the primary school. One of the teaches wrote “Oft wird von den Schülerinnen und Schülern bedauert, dass es im Englischen keine Noten gibt. [Often pupils voice regret that there are no marks for English].”, while another commented “Die Kinder wünschen sich kurze Tests, vor allem zum Hörverstehen, um eine realistische Rückmeldung zu bekommen. Es gibt Punkte, aber keine Note. Dies hilft mir auch, die Kinder einschätzen zu können und eine Dokumentation davon zu haben. [The children have indicated that they would like short tests, primarily on listening comprehension, in order to get realistic feedback. I award points, but no marks. This also helps me evaluate the children and provides me with some documentation.]”. Another teacher emphasized the importance of motivating young learners with the help of assessment, thereby supporting Fulcher and Owen’s (2016) view that assessments can be used for motivational purposes. The teacher writes that she uses “motivierendes Werten der Leistung durch Worturteil oder in Form von Anerkennung z.B. Sticker [motivating evaluation of the achievement by using a verbal evaluation or by using an indicator of recognition, such as a sticker]”. The responses of the teachers show that even in EFL teaching contexts in which no grades are used, assessment still plays a role in EFL classrooms. The comments teachers made when describing their assessment activities also showed that several were particularly interested in learners’ ability to self-assess themselves and how this can impact pupils’ learning. This means that teachers do not equate assessment with awarding grades, but have a broader and more differentiated view on what assessment can entail in the primary classroom.

6.3  Skills, Knowledge and Competence Areas In the survey, teachers were asked about their evaluation of different skill and competence areas. In the Thuringian curriculum for foreign language education in primary schools (Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur 2010), all components that were included in the survey are present. However, while speaking, listening, reading, writing and mediation5 are presented in detail over one to two pages, area studies and intercultural competence receive less space and word

4  The absence or presence of marks in school types and particular subjects has long been debated in Germany. Recently, some debates have started among teaching professionals about the impact of a no-marks policy on special needs pupils in inclusive classrooms in some German federal states. It will be interesting to see how this debate develops. 5  According to the Common European Framework (Council of Europe 2001, p. 14) “the written and/or oral activities of mediation make communication possible between persons who are unable, for whatever reason, to communicate with each other directly. Translation or interpretation, a paraphrase, summary or record, provides for a third party a (re)formulation of a source text to which this third party does not have direct access. Mediating language activities – (re)processing an existing text – occupy an important place in the normal linguistic functioning of our societies. “

6.3 Skills, Knowledge and Competence Areas

197

count. As mentioned above, the curriculum also stresses that listening and speaking skills should be prioritized over reading and writing skills. This emphasis on speaking and listening is not unique to the Thuringian curriculum,6 however. Pinter (2006, p. 65) notes that “the main emphasis in most [English for young learners] programmes [is] on the oral skills of speaking and listening” and asks rather provocatively whether “there are any good reasons why reading and writing can be introduced usefully in the TEYL curriculum”. Kirsch (2008, p. 199) acknowledges that “introducing beginners to the written word often causes concern”, but then goes on to critique that “from a linguistic point of view it is completely artificial to separate oral and written language”. Another issue that needs to be addressed here is the inclusion of knowledge of area studies [Landeskunde], as this may not be a well-known concept outside Germany and may even be interpreted in different ways within Germany. Oakley (2003, p. 268, original emphasis) summarizes the different views of areas studies as follows: (a) The study of a fixed canon of data on the history, geography, politics, economy and culture, etc. of a country (b) The study of samples from the country and the drawing of conclusions from this study. ‘Samples’ can, for example, be: –– Material from all the media (TV, radio, cinema, magazines, etc.) […] –– Study of examples of the literature and of other aspects of the culture of the country […] (c) Activities of all kinds which promote the development of empathy with the target culture. […] The study of a fixed canon of topics is the oldest and at present the most common model for the area study syllabus. The varying views on what Landeskunde actually refers to and consists of are also discussed by Freitag-Hild (2018), who emphasizes the more recent movement towards a definition that comes closer to what Oakley refers to as the “development of empathy” and corresponds to concepts of intercultural competence (cf. Sect. 2.2.3). In the survey, area studies and intercultural competence  were included as distinct components for two reasons: (1) a section in the curriculum for foreign language education in Thuringia entitled insights into other cultures refers to issues that are best covered by the traditional view of Landeskunde and (2) by including area studies, teachers might  focus more on language related aspects (i.e. such as pragmatics) rather than literature, politics and geography when evaluating intercultural competence. Table 6.3 presents the scores of the Thuringian EFL primary teachers regarding skills, knowledge and competence areas.

6  See Schmid-Schönbein (2008) for a short history of writing and reading skills in German primary school curricula.

198

6  Results: EFL Primary School Teachers

Table 6.3  Skills, knowledge and competence areas: teachers’ evaluation Teachers’ evaluation Listening skills Speaking skills Reading skills Writing skills Mediation skills Areas studies knowledge Intercultural competence

1 89% (24) 93% (25) 19% (5) 4% (1) 38% (9) 19% (5) 26% (7)

2 11 (3) 7 (2) 67% (18) 78% (21) 46% (11) 63% (17) 48% (13)

3 – – 4% (1) 7% (2) 13% (3) 11% (3) 15% (4)

4 – – 11% (3) 11% (3) 4% (1) 7% (2) 11% (3)

5 – – – – – – –

∅ 1,11 1,07 2,07 2,26 1,83 2,07 2,11

Notes: 1) Very important, 2) Important, 3) Neither important nor unimportant, 4) Less important, 5) unimportant; The total percentage count may be higher than 100% in some lines, since the percentages were rounded up or down to single or double digits before the comma

The results show that according to the EFL teachers’ mean scores, speaking skills are in first place (1,07) followed by listening skills in second place (1,11). There appears to be a general agreement among the teachers that these two skills are very important or important, as no teachers selected any of the other three options. Mediation skills are in third place (1,83). A possible explanation for this could be that as Kirchhoff (2018, p. 128) notes “[o]ver the past years, mediation tasks have become a core component in English language courses” and that the teachers have taken account of these recent developments. In joint fourth place are reading skills and area studies (2,07). Given the explicit instruction that reading should follow listening and speaking in the Thuringian curriculum, it is not surprising that the mean score is lower than for the other two skills, but what is somewhat surprising is that 23 teachers of the 27 teachers who answered this question considered it to be either very important or important. Taken together with the teachers’ evaluation of writing skills, this points towards a more holistic perception of the four skills similar to the one proposed by Kirsch (2008). Various aspects of the target countries are focused on in primary school textbooks that could form part of the traditional view of area studies. In the four textbook series (Bumblebee by Ehlers et al. 2013, 2017; Ginger by Caspari-Grote et al. 2013, 2014; Playway by Gerngross, Pucht and Becker 2013a, 2013b; Sunshine by Aschkar et al. 2015, 2016) that I investigated (cf. Chap. 3 for background information and Chap. 4 for analysis), different target culture aspects were addressed. Some examples were: English breakfast foods, sports in Great Britain and Scottish Highland games (Bumblebee 3), the Royal family and aspects of British geography (Ginger 3), typical British architecture and British money (Playway 4) and the origins of the sandwich and sights and people in New York (Sunshine 4). While some books featured more aspects of the target countries than others, most offered good opportunities to talk about traditional aspects of area studies. Thus, teachers and learners are likely to encounter these aspects frequently when they are using a textbook.

6.3 Skills, Knowledge and Competence Areas

199

Table 6.4  Skills and competence areas: actual instruction focus in the last unit Instruction focus Listening skills Speaking skills Reading skills Writing skills Mediation skills Knowledge of target country/-ies Intercultural competence

Often 96% (26) 96% (26) 41% (11) 22% (6) 48% (12) 15% (4) 4% (1)

Sometimes 4 (1) 4 (1) 44% (12) 67% (18) 40% (10) 63% (17) 63% (17)

Seldom – – 11% (3) 11% (3) 12% (3) 11% (3) 30% (8)

Never – – 4% (1) – – 11% (3) 4% (1)

∅ 1,04 1,04 1,78 1,89 1,64 2,19 2,33

Notes: The total percentage count may be higher than 100% in some lines, since the percentages were rounded up or down to single or double digits before the comma

Intercultural competence is in fifth place (2,11). One frequent problem with the concept of intercultural competence is that it can be defined in many different ways and that there is no general consensus7 of what it encompasses or not (see Sect. 2.2.3 for a discussion on different conceptualizations of intercultural competence). One of the most recent frameworks, Deardorff (2006), includes a large number of different aspects, such as effective and appropriate communication and behaviour (which is similar to pragmatic competence), empathy, cultural self-awareness and a number of other skills that should help learners achieve their desired communicative goals. Thus, while some teachers may find it easier to find a conceptualisation of intercultural competence that fits their teaching contexts, others could consider the breadth of different aspects too wide and not as crucial for their teaching context. In addition to asking the teachers about their views of the seven skills and competence areas, they were also asked whether they actually focused on the skills and areas in their last teaching unit. Table 6.4 presents the teachers’ responses to this question. This question was answered by 27 teachers. The results8 show that the two skills all teachers considered to be either very important or important, listening and reading, were also focused on in their classrooms often and in only one case sometimes. None of the other skills or competence areas were featured as frequently in the classrooms. Particularly interesting here is intercultural competence which was only focused on often in one teacher’s classroom in the last unit and occurred seldom or never in the classrooms of nine teachers in their last unit. This could point  cf. Schauer (2016, in press); see also Freitag-Hild (2018) for an overview of how intercultural competence notions have changed and developed over the years in Germany 8  It needs to be noted here that these results reflect teachers’ recollections of their own activities. While actual observation of classroom activities would make it possible to obtain more precise information on what teachers were focusing on, I would not have been able to obtain actual video or audio recorded data from as many teachers. In addition, Labov’s observer’s paradox (c.f. Hassall 2006) could also have resulted in teachers changing their normal classroom habits and foci when being observed. This needs to be borne in mind when observational data is collected, analysed and presented. While a triangulation of various data collection methods can lead to interesting insights, the benefits and limitations of the different methods should always be addressed and discussed. The self-report approach that was taken here is similar to Cohen (2018) and Richards (1990). 7

200

6  Results: EFL Primary School Teachers

towards problems with including relevant aspects of intercultural competence in the teaching context of these nine teachers.

6.4  Grouping Pupils: Classroom Activities Harmer (2007, p. 161) writes “teaching a class as a whole, getting students to work on their own, […] having them perform tasks in pairs or groups, all have their own advantages and disadvantages; each is more or less appropriate for different activities”. A variety of factors can influence how the classroom is set-up with regard to pupils’ learning activities. As Harmer points out, learners may enjoy a feeling of group cohesiveness and security in a teacher-lead whole class activity, but at the same time learners may feel uneasy to speak in front of a whole class or may dislike not being able to use the language very much during whole group activities. Group-­ work tasks could give individual learners more opportunities to actively use the language and can be motivating, but could be disliked by learners because of the noise level or if the group set up is not well organized and some pupils are domineering the activity. Richards and Farrell (2011, p. 134) point out that individual work enables learners “to work at their own pace”, while (Harmer 2007, p. 164) notes that it “is likely to be less stressful for students […] [and] can develop learner autonomy and promote skills of self-reliance”. Pair-work activities ensure that – if the pairs have been chosen well by the teacher – learners can support each other and exchange ideas when completing tasks, i.e. collaborative problem solving. Also, as Richards and Farrell (2011, p. 136) observe “it provides opportunities for sustained interaction and has long been advocated as a key means of promoting both linguistic and communicative competence”. Figure 6.2 presents the different types of classroom grouping activities that the EFL teacher employed in their primary schools. Teachers could choose multiple answers, as they may use a number of different grouping techniques in any one lesson. This question was answered by 27 teachers. The results reveal that the majority of teachers, 96%, use whole-class teaching and pair-work. Twenty-one teachers (corresponding to 78%) used individual work activities, and 17 (corresponding to 63%) employed group work activities. The one other activity mentioned was based on a rotating pair-work approach in which learners could discuss a particular issue with a variety of other learners in a set sequence. Overall, the EFL teachers’ responses indicate that they tend to use a variety of different grouping activities in their classrooms. To get a better understanding of what they did within a specific

6.4 Grouping Pupils: Classroom Activities

201

Classroom activities: grouping learners 26

30

26 21

25

17

20 15 10 1

5 0

Whole-class teaching

Individual work

Pair-work

Group-work

Others

Fig. 6.2  Classroom activities: grouping learners

Table 6.5  Grouping learners: frequency of classroom activity type(s) in the last unit Activity type Whole-class teaching Individual work Pair-work Group-work

Often 82% (22) 50% (13) 62% (16) 19% (5)

Sometimes 15% (4) 46% (12) 31% (8) 37% (10)

Seldom 4% (1) 4% (1) 8% (2) 22% (2)

Never – – – 22% (6)

∅ 1,22 1,54 1,46 2,48

Notes: The total percentage count may be higher than 100% in some lines, since the percentages were rounded up or down to single or double digits before the comma

time-frame, they were also asked what activities they had employed in their last teaching unit.9 The results are presented in Table 6.5. The results show that although whole-class teaching and pair-work were both scored as activity types that are used by a large number of teachers (96%), when looking at the activity types used in the last unit, there are notable differences in the number of teachers that employed them often. Based on this information, whole-­ class teaching seems to have been the favoured approach in the teachers’ last unit with 82% of the teachers using this activity type often. Pair-work, in contrast, was used by 62% of teachers often and sometimes by 31%. This means that questions that ask teachers whether they use a particular activity type or a set of activity types 9  Teaching unit here refers to the last topic that the teachers covered, since just asking them about the last lesson could have resulted in responses that might have been very different from what typically happens in their classrooms. A teaching unit tends to encompass a number of lessons on a particular topic.

202

6  Results: EFL Primary School Teachers

provide only limited insights. Instead, more detailed questions about particular time frames can help provide a more detailed picture.

6.5  Pragmatic Routines Pragmatic competence10 is a key area in language learning. However, since the area of pragmatics is still a relatively new field in linguistics (cf. Sect. 2.1.2), the term pragmatics might not have featured (frequently or at all) in German EFL teacher training prior to the mid-1980s. Even today, pre-service and in-service foreign language teachers may encounter pragmatic concerns more frequently under the description of effective and appropriate and/or culturally sensitive and aware language use than under the name pragmatics. One of the reasons for this is that pragmatics is very closely linked to a number of other key areas, such as communicative competence (e.g. Barron 2003, cf. also Sect. 2.2.1), intercultural competence (e.g. Schauer 2016; Taguchi 2017; cf. also Sect. 2.2.3) and also mediation (Kirchhoff 2018). Because of the fact that the term pragmatics may not be as well known by teachers, I decided to use a term in the questionnaire that is frequently used as a stand-in for pragmatics – politeness11 (cf. Schauer 2006, 2009). In the questionnaire, teachers were first asked to rate how important they considered the teaching of polite language (e.g. please, thank you, you’re welcome, hello, goodbye) to be on a five-part Likert scale. Figure 6.3 presents the results. This question was answered by 27 teachers. Seventeen of them (corresponding to 63%) considered the teaching of polite language to be very important and eight (corresponding to 30%) considered it to be important. Only two (corresponding to 7%) viewed the teaching of polite language to be less important. This is an i­ nteresting  Bialystok (1993, p.  43) writes “pragmatic competence entails a variety of abilities concerned with the use and interpretation of language in contexts. It includes speakers’ ability to use language for different purposes – to request, to instruct, to effect change. It includes listeners’ ability to get past the language and to understand the speaker’s real intentions, especially when these intentions are not directly conveyed in the forms – indirect requests, irony and sarcasm are some examples.” See also Chap. 2 for a detailed explanation of important concepts and issues in pragmatics. 11   The teachers’ survey focused only on pragmatic routines that would be considered polite in typical, everyday contexts and circumstances. It needs to be pointed out, however, that in recent years a debate has taken place in interlanguage pragmatics about the teaching of impolite routines and expressions. The rationale for teaching impolite language tends to be that learners should be aware of what constitutes impolite language in order to be able to comprehend speaker’s or writer’s intentions and to take appropriate action (e.g. recognize an insult or a threat and take steps to ensure their personal safety). In addition, there is also the argument that L2 learners should be provided with verbal strategies to express a wide range of emotions in the target language, which then includes also negative emotions. Since this book concentrates on the needs of primary EFL learners, impolite language was not focused on in the teachers’ survey, as impolite strategies and expressions are not likely to be a central concern for young beginner-level learners. For a more detailed discussion on teaching (im)politeness see the edited volume by Pizziconi and Locher (2015) on teaching and learning (im)politeness. For an overview of the topic see Félix-Brasdefer and Mugford’s (2017) handbook chapter on the issue. 10

6.5 Pragmatic Routines

203

IMPORTANCE OF TEACHING POLITE LANGUAGE Less important 7% Important 30% Very important 63%

Fig. 6.3  EFL primary teachers’ views on the importance of polite language Note: Teachers could choose between the following options: Very important; Important; Neither important nor unimportant; Less important; Unimportant

finding, as it shows that the teaching of everyday interaction routines, such as greetings, leave-takings, expressions of gratitude and responses to expressions of gratitude is perceived to be essential. Teachers’ answers to this question should be considered in view of the findings of Chaps. 4 (speech acts in textbooks) and 5 (speech acts in children’s books), as the results from these chapters showed that the textbooks did not always provide good and frequent coverage of language needed for everyday interactions, such as greetings, leave-takings and expressions of gratitude (cf. also Vollmuth 2004 for similar findings in other primary EFL textbooks used in Germany). This means that teachers may need to carefully think about what input options they can provide their learners with to help them acquire these language features. To obtain more detailed information about easy, everyday interaction features that could be discussed under the heading of polite language, teachers were asked about their use of 17 pragmatic routines12 in the last unit they were teaching. The results are presented in Table 6.6. This question was answered by 27 teachers. The results show that there are only two routines that all teachers reported to use in their classrooms: the expression of gratitude thank you (employed often by 93% of the teachers and sometimes by 7% of them) and the politeness marker please (used often by 85% of the teachers and sometimes by 15% of them). It is good to see that EFL primary school teachers report having used an expression of gratitude often in their last unit, since expressions of gratitude were not frequently included in some textbooks (e.g. Bumblebee, Ginger and Sunshine, cf.  These routines corresponded to the speech acts of greetings (4 instances), leave-takings (6 instances), expressions of gratitude (4 instances), responses to expression of gratitude (1 instance). In addition, the politeness markers please that is commonly associated with requests, and a routine here you are (cf. Sect. 2.1.5) were included. Here you are is typically used when handing over an item that the other person has requested (cf. its occurrence in the textbook data in Sect. 4.2.2). A detailed discussion of the speech acts can be found in the literature review (Chap. 2) and the methodology (Chap. 3). The speech acts are all included in the Thuringian curriculum for foreign language instruction in primary schools under the name language functions (Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur 2010, pp. 14–17).

12

204

6  Results: EFL Primary School Teachers

Table 6.6  Teachers’ use of pragmatic routines in their last teaching unit Function Greeting Greeting Greeting Request response Greeting Leave-taking Leave-taking Leave-taking Leave-taking Leave-taking Leave-taking Politeness marker Gratitude Gratitude Gratitude Gratitude Response to gratitude

Teachers’ pragmatic routine use Good morning Good afternoon Hello Here you are How are you? Bye Bye bye Goodbye Have a nice weekend See you later See you tomorrow

Often 89% (24) 8% (2) 85% (23) 54% (14) 44% (11) 38% (9) 48% (12) 77% (20) 33% (9) 8% (2) 17% (4)

Sometimes 4% (1) 25% (6) 11% (3) 31% (8) 36% (11) 33% (8) 32% (8) 15% (4) 41% (11) 28% (7) 21% (5)

Please Thank you Thank you very much Thanks Thanks a lot You’re welcome

85% (23) 93% (25) 40% (10) 36% (9) 12% (3) 46% (12)

15% (4) 7% (2) 44% (11) 36% (9) 24% (6) 23% (6)

Seldom 4% (1) 25% (6) – 15% (4) 12% (3) 13% (3) 4% (1) 8% (2) 19% (5) 24% (6) 42% (10) – – 8% (2) 8% (2) 24% (6) 19% (5)

Never 4% (1) 42% (10) 4% (1) – 8% (2) 17% (4) 16% (4) – 7% (2) 40% (10) 21% (5)

∅ 1,22 3,00 1,22 1,62 1,84 2,08 1,88 1,31 2,00 2,96 2,67

– – 8% (2) 20% (5) 40% (10) 12% (3)

1,15 1,07 1,84 2,12 2,92 1,96

Notes: The total percentage count may be higher than 100% in some lines, since the percentages were rounded up or down to single or double digits before the comma

also Sect. 4.4.1). If teachers employ this speech act in classroom interactions, then this can make up for infrequent input in the textbooks. It is interesting that there seems to be considerable variation in the use of the expression of gratitude routines that were included in the survey. While thank you was used often or sometimes by all teachers in the last unit according to their self-reports, the more informal thanks was seldom or never employed by 28% of the teachers. There are also marked differences in teachers’ reports regarding their use of intensified expressions of gratitude. While thank you very much was often or sometimes employed by 84% of the teachers, thanks a lot was employed often or sometimes by only 36%. This seems to point towards a preference for more formal expressions of gratitude routines involving thank you on the teachers’ part. While it should not constitute a problem for young EFL learners if they only use thank you when producing expressions of gratitude themselves, they should, however, be exposed to thanks early on as well. It is also encouraging that all of the EFL teachers report having used the politeness marker please either often or sometimes in their last unit. Since please is frequently used in English (Culpeper and Gillings 2018), but not very frequently included in all textbooks (cf. Sect. 4.2.1), it is helpful that the EFL teachers stated that they included this word in their classroom talk.

6.5 Pragmatic Routines

205

According to the teachers’ self-reports, the most frequently used greeting expression is good morning (used often by 89% of the teachers in the last unit), followed by hello (employed often by 85%). Good morning features rather infrequently in the textbooks (cf. Sect. 4.3.1) and it is therefore again good to see that the teachers report that they are making frequent use of this routine. What needs to be noted with regard to the greeting routines is that the majority of the teachers, i.e. 67%, reported that they seldom or never used good afternoon in their last teaching unit. This greeting is also absent from all primary EFL textbooks investigated (cf. Sect. 4.3.1) and thus young EFL learners in Thuringia are unlikely to encounter this greeting in a number of classrooms. While this is probably not going to affect them negatively, it means that an opportunity of teaching an interesting intercultural difference13 is lost and an expression explicitly suggested in the curriculum (Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur 2010, p. 14) is not addressed. Teachers’ reported use of leave-takings again suggests a preference for more formal routines over more informal ones, as goodbye was used often or sometimes by 92% of the EFL primary school teachers, whereas the percentage figures for bye bye and bye were lower (80% and 71% respectively). Similar to the point I made about more informal forms of expressions of gratitude above, the somewhat more infrequent use of the more informal leave-takings routines by the teachers should not be a problem for the young learners as long as they have encountered the informal routines and thus would comprehend them. Teachers’ reported use of the request response here you are and the response to expressions of gratitude you’re welcome are interesting. As discussed in the analysis of the textbook data, the request response here you are was frequently featured in the primary school EFL textbooks I investigated and this might have an effect on teachers’ use of this routine in the classroom. In contrast to here you are, responses to expressions of gratitude, such as you’re welcome, were very rarely included in textbooks (cf. Sect. 4.4.2). You’re welcome is the only response to an expression of gratitude suggested in the Thuringian curriculum for English in the primary school (Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur 2010, p. 17) and I had wondered if teachers – given the poor coverage of responses to expressions of gratitude in many textbooks – would therefore specifically focus on you’re welcome and include it frequently in their classrooms. The data suggests that this is not generally the case. While teachers might use alternative responses to gratitude routines, such as no problem or that’s alright, teachers’ answers here indicate that textbook publishers should indeed pay more attention to responses to expression of gratitude in their publications to do their part in ensuring that young EFL learners are frequently exposed to them. In the next question, the primary EFL teachers were asked how frequently they thought their learners had used the same routines in the same time period. These results are presented in Table 6.7. This question was answered by 26 teachers. In contrast to the teachers’ self-­ reports of their own routine use, teachers’ answers concerning the routine use of 13

 See my discussion of this greeting in Sect. 4.3.1 for more details.

206

6  Results: EFL Primary School Teachers

Table 6.7  Learners’ pragmatic routine use in the last unit (estimated by teachers) Function Greeting Greeting Greeting Response to request Greeting Leave-taking Leave-taking Leave-taking Leave-taking Leave-taking Leave-taking Politeness Marker Gratitude Gratitude Gratitude Gratitude Response to Gratitude

Learners’ pragmatic routine use Good morning Good afternoon Hello Here you are

Often 81% (21) 9% (2) 81% (21) 17% (4)

Sometimes 12% (3) 9% (2) 12% (3) 33% (8)

Seldom – 22% (5) 4% (1) 33% (8)

Never 8% (2) 61% (14) 4% (1) 17% (4)

∅ 1,35 3,35 1,31 2,50

How are you? Bye Bye bye Goodbye Have a nice weekend See you later See you tomorrow Please Thank you Thank you very much Thanks Thanks a lot You’re welcome

17% (4) 35% (8) 50% (12) 76% (19) 8% (2) – – 62% (16) 77% (20) 4% (1) 13% (3) 8% (2) 13% (3)

46% (11) 27% (6) 33% (8) 16% (4) 25% (6) 17% (4) 17% (4) 27% (7) 16% (4) 38% (9) 29% (7) 8% (2) 42% (10)

17% (4) 13% (3) 13% (3) 8% (2) 21% (5) 21% (5) 25% (6) 8% (2) 8% (2) 25% (6) 17% (4) 21% (5) 25% (6)

21% (5) 26% (6) 4% (1) – 46% (11) 63% (15) 58% (14) 4% (1) – 33% (8) 42% (10) 63% (15) 21% (5)

2,42 2,30 1,71 1,32 3,04 3,46 3,42 1,54 1,31 2,88 2,88 3,38 2,54

Notes: The total percentage count may be higher than 100% in some lines, since the percentages were rounded up or down to single or double digits before the comma

their own pupils show a broader spread of answers across the four possible response options. This indicates differences in the teachers’ and learners’ use of routines. Differences in teachers and learners’ use regarding thank you are notable – a­ ccording to the teachers, 93% of them use if often, whereas only 77% of their learners employ it often. However, what needs to be acknowledged here is that teachers can only report on the interactions that they overhear or that they themselves participate in (e.g. whole classroom activities). Thus, if there are particularly motivated learners in their classrooms that make use of every opportunity to use the language and employ pragmatic routines in pair-work or group-work tasks, teachers may not be aware of this. Nevertheless, the recollections of the teachers concerning their primary EFL pupils’ pragmatic routine use are helpful, as they suggest that teachers do in fact pay attention to pragmatic matters in their own teaching and in their learners’ target language production. In addition, the considerable number of teachers who selected never also indicates that teachers were interested in painting an honest picture of their classrooms. However, it needs to be emphasized that the data discussed here are based on teachers’ recollections and that their self-reports may be somewhat inaccurate.

6.6 Rituals at the Beginning and the End of the Lesson

207

In summary, the findings of the questions on EFL teachers’ views about the importance of teaching polite routines to their young learners of English showed that the vast majority, 93% of them, consider the teaching of everyday pragmatic routines to be important. With regard to the actual teaching of the routines in their last teaching unit, the self-report data from the teachers suggested differences14 in their own use of the respective routines in their classrooms.

6.6  Rituals at the Beginning and the End of the Lesson Schmidt (2016, pp. 94–95) argues [e]in bestimmtes Eröffnungsritual in Form einer Begrüßung ist gerade deshalb ein so wichtiger Bestandteil des Englischunterrichts, weil es direkt zum Beginn der Stunden dazu beiträgt, dass die Klasse auf die englische Sprache eingestimmt wird. […] Ebenso wichtig wie die Begrüßung ist die Verabschiedung zum Ende des Unterrichts. a specific opening ritual in the form of greeting is a particularly important part of the English lesson, because it helps learners to attune themselves to the language right at the beginning of the lesson. […] The closing phase at the end of the lesson in which people say goodbye is equally important.

I was interested in finding out if primary EFL teachers used rituals at the beginning and end of their lessons. Since 67% of the teachers considered the opening phase to be very important but only 41% perceived the closing phase to be very important (cf. Sect. 6.1), it could be assumed that this difference in the evaluation of the two phases might also be reflected in teachers’ use of rituals. The routine use of certain activities in specific phases not only provides teachers with a set structure but can also reassure and settle L2 learners as they know what to expect and what is expected of them in these phases. Schmidt (2016) emphasises that the use of routines can also help teachers who tend to use their native language in EFL classrooms, as set routines in English force them to pay attention to how much they use the target language and ensure that their learners are regularly exposed to the target language. Figure 6.4 illustrates how many of the teachers use and do not use opening and closing rituals in their classrooms. Twenty-six teachers responded to the questions about their opening and closing ritual use. The results reveal that – as had been anticipated based on the results discussed in Sect. 6.1 – the majority of the teachers (81%) used an opening ritual, but  Although his study had a broader focus and was completed by participants from many different countries, Cohen’s (2018) survey of native and non-native EFL teachers’ coverage of key pragmatic areas also indicates that teachers’ reports on how frequently they address specific speech acts in their classrooms suggested that there was variation regarding the coverage of specific speech acts in the participants’ classrooms.

14

208

6  Results: EFL Primary School Teachers

Use of rituals in the opening and closing phase

25

Yes; 21 No; 16

20 Yes; 10

15 No; 5

10 5 0

Opening

Closing

Fig. 6.4  EFL primary teachers’ use of opening and closing rituals

only the minority used a closing ritual (39%). This means that there seems to be a link between the importance teachers attach to a particular lesson component and the form in which they address it in the classroom. If teachers had responded that they used an opening and/or a closing ritual, they were then directed to the question which asked them to specify what type of ritual they used. For both, the opening and closing phase, four options had been included that teachers could choose from. In addition, the questionnaire also contained an other option to enable teachers to share their rituals that did not fit any of the suggested forms. The four options15 that were included were: communicating with a puppet (cf. Schmid-Schönbein 2008), saying rhymes (cf. Lütge 2018), singing songs16 (cf. Kirsch 2008) and playing games (cf. Maynard 2012; Schmidt 2016). The results are presented in Table 6.8. The results show that the most frequent ritual at the beginning and at the end of the lesson is singing a song with 57% and 40% respectively. Puppets, rhymes and games were less frequently used. One of the teachers who had chosen the other option for opening rituals stated that she used a rap in which she made some statements that were then echoed by her learners who were also snapping their fingers at the same time. The second teacher who had chosen other in the opening phase used a question-and-answer format in which learners’ speaker roles were assigned by a ball being thrown around by the pupils. The third teacher who selected other for opening rituals did not specify what she did. With regard to the closing rituals, one of the two teachers who chose other wrote that she used a variety of different rituals that could involve songs, rhymes or other unspecified activities. The second teacher who had chosen other for the closing rituals revealed that she played a game in  For more options and also typical English expressions that can be used in these phases see Schmidt (2016) and Slattery and Willis (2001). 16  Kirsch (2008, pp. 87–88) nicely illustrates how songs and rhymes can be used to teach typical greeting routines, which provide teachers with an easy way of bringing more speech act strategies into their EFL classrooms. 15

6.6 Rituals at the Beginning and the End of the Lesson Table 6.8  Opening and closing rituals

209 Ritual Puppet Rhyme Song Game Other

Openinga 10% (2) 14% (3) 57% (12) 5% (1) 14% (3)

Closingb 10% (1) 10% (1) 40% (4) 20% (2) 20% (2)

Notes: The total percentage count may be higher than 100% in some lines, since the percentages were rounded up or down to single or double digits before the comma a Responses were provided by 21 teachers b Responses were provided by 10 teachers

which their learners named elements on the blackboard which were then wiped away and/or unstuck to tidy up. Teachers were also given the opportunity to comment in more detail on the rituals that they used at the beginning and end of the lessons. One very interesting finding is that eight of the teachers who employed a ritual at the beginning of their lesson explicitly mentioned that the ritual involved physical activity on the learners’ part. This shows that one of the key17 strategies in teaching young learners, ­including elements that necessitate physical activity on the learners’ part, is employed in primary EFL classrooms. In summary, the results of the questions concerning the use of opening and closing rituals at the beginning and end of the lesson has shown that there are considerable differences in the number of teachers employing them. While opening rituals were used by the majority of the teachers, closing rituals were employed by the minority. Schmidt (2016) argues that both opening and closing rituals are equally important and it is interesting that teachers’ actual use of routines in these two phases differs so drastically. Since the literature available on opening and closing phases of the lessons and rituals is not extensive, further studies are needed to explore these phases of the lessons in more detail. A helpful research method in these studies could be the use of interviews, as this more interactive approach enables researchers to explore issues in more detail (cf. Deter-Philip 2017 for an interview study with EFL teachers). This would also enable researchers to focus on the link between the use of opening and closing routines and the teaching of the speech acts of greetings and leave-takings in EFL classrooms.  Wilden (2018, p. 235) notes that “body movement and physical activity are significant for successful learning. Integrating different forms of physical activity in school education has a very long tradition which is usually related to concepts such as holistic and action-oriented learning (Ganzheitlichkeit and Handlungsorientierung; cf. e.g. Bach/Timm 2013b, 16; Mayer 2013, 76, chapter 6 in this volume)”.

17

210

6  Results: EFL Primary School Teachers

Another finding concerning the use of rituals was that songs were the most frequently used type both in opening and closing phases, and that a large number of teachers commented on the use of physical activity in their routines. The latter points towards a more holistic view of language teaching and learning. Teachers’ use of songs in the EFL primary classroom will be discussed further in Sect. 6.11.

6.7  Differentiation Kolb and Raith (2018, p.  200) write on differentiation “[it] describes the use of strategies and techniques to teach group of learners with different abilities, interests and learning needs”. In the survey, the EFL primary teachers were asked whether they used differentiation in their classrooms. The results are presented in Fig. 6.5. Twenty-six teachers answered this question. While 21 of them used a form of differentiation in their classroom, five of them did not. To find out more about what strategies EFL teachers employed to differentiate according to their pupils’ needs and objectives, teachers were also asked which differentiation strategies they used in their classrooms. This question was answered by 21 teachers (i.e. those teachers who had indicated in the first question in this question block that they actually employed differentiation). As teachers may employ a variety of different differentiation strategies, they could select multiple answers. Figure 6.6 presents the results. The results show that the differentiation technique employed by 81% of the teachers is pair-work. Another strategy that also relates to learners’ groupings, group-work, is used by 52%. Interestingly, all teachers who answered that they employed group-work activities also used pair-work. This means that different grouping arrangements of learners is a central feature of differentiation for more than half of the teachers that responded to this question. Sullivan and Weeks (2018, p. 185) also emphasize the link between groupings and differentiation: D[ifferentiated] I[nstruction] often relies on flexible grouping and pacing. […] Groupings can be made to provide DI to breakout groups of students with similar needs. Alternatively, heterogenous groups can be used to capitalise on the social nature of learning via imple-

DIFFERENTIATION No 19%

Yes 81%

Fig. 6.5 Differentiation

6.7 Differentiation

211

Differentiation strategies 17

18 16 14

13 11 11

10

12

8

10 8 6

4

4

2

2 0

different via worksheets textbook

length of tasks

level of difficulty

different tasks

pair-work group-work

other

Fig. 6.6  Differentiation strategies employed by the EFL teachers Notes: Teachers had the option of choosing multiple answers

mentation of research-based paired or group learning strategies so that peers provide scaffolding.

In addition to different grouping arrangements, more than 50% of the EFL teachers also varied the level of difficulty of the activities the learners engaged in and provided different worksheets. Slightly less than 50% of the EFL teachers varied the length of tasks, while 38% set different tasks and 19% used the differentiation features offered by the textbook. The results further show that teachers tended to employ a considerable variety of differentiation strategies, as only two teachers employed a single strategy (pair-work and varying length of task respectively). Thus, 90% of the teachers used more than one differentiation strategy. In addition to the different answer options that had been provided in the questionnaire, teachers could also tick other and were then asked to describe their differentiation strategies. Two teachers made use of this option. One wrote that individual help and assistance was offered to the learners, while the other mentioned that while some learners were asked to provide answers in complete sentences, others were allowed to only write down words. I was also interested in whether the textbooks that were used at the teachers’ schools (if textbooks were used at all) provided differentiation features, as Kolb and Raith (2018) argue that many EFL textbooks do so and can thus be usefully employed for differentiation purposes. Twenty-four teachers answered this question and four of them (corresponding to 17%) stated that no textbooks were used at their school. Of the remaining 20, 14 (corresponding to 58%) stated that their textbook

212

6  Results: EFL Primary School Teachers

included differentiation options, while six (corresponding to 25%) stated that their textbook did not do so. The differentiation features mentioned were: additional materials reflecting three different levels; differences in the length, difficulty and number of tasks; and differences in the ways tasks for different levels were worded. Differentiation can also play an important role in inclusive classrooms that are attended by learners with special needs. These learners will be focused on in the next section.

6.8  Special Needs As Kormos and Kontra (2008, pp. 2–3) point out, the term special needs is not universally used and may refer to different groups in different countries: the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, representing most European countries, distinguishes between three major groups with special educational needs: students with disabilities (including sensory and motor impairment as well as mental disorders); students with difficulties, representing the group of students with learning disabilities; and those with disadvantages (meaning primarily social and economic disadvantages) (OECD 2002 – cited in Gordosné Szabó 2004). Therefore, in many countries of Europe, special educational needs (SEN) may involve all kinds of disabilities besides learning disabilities. In the United Kingdom, however, SEN refers only to learning difficulties (1996 Education Action cited in Orton 2004). In the United States this term is not even used, and students with learning difficulties are called ‘learning disabled’.

The notion that definitions of SEN vary18 is supported by Delaney (2016, p. 12), who states that “the main categories of SEN are students with cognition and learning needs; communication and interaction difficulties; social, emotional and behavioural difficulties (SEBD); sensory impairments and medical conditions”. Regarding the German context, the Nationaler Bildungsbericht [German national education report] published in 2018 by the Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung states that more than 500,000 children and teenagers were considered to have special needs in Germany in 2016. The report differentiates the following special needs areas: individuals with a medical19 condition, comprehensive special needs or no categorization, cognitive development, physical and motor development, hearing, visual impairments, learning/communication/emotional and social development,20 emotional and social development, communication, learning. Slightly different categories for SEN exist in the individual German states. According to the Ministry of Education in Thuringia (Thüringer Kultusministerium  2008, p.  7), the following special needs fields are distinguished in Thuringia: hearing, visual impairments, physical and motor  She also notes that “some definitions of SEN include students who are gifted and talented, who need extra provision because they have significantly greater ability than their peers”. In Germany, very talented individuals are often focused on in the distinct field of Begabtenförderung [programs for particularly gifted individuals], cf. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2015). 19  This is not specified further. 20  According to the report this combined area has been included since 2012. 18

213

6.8 Special Needs

PUPILS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS No 15%

No comment 4%

Yes 81%

Fig. 6.7  Pupils with special needs

development, learning, communication, emotional and social development, cognitive development. In the survey, teachers were asked whether they had any pupils with special needs in their classes. The answers are presented in Fig. 6.7. This question was answered by 26 teachers. Twenty-one teachers stated that they had a child with special needs in their classrooms, while four responded that they had not, and one teacher indicated that they did not want to answer this question. According to the Thuringian Ministry of Education (Thüringer Kultusministerium  2008), inclusive21 teaching approaches should be prioritized over special needs schools in Thuringia and pupils with special needs should be taught – as far as this is possible – with pupils that do not have special needs in public schools. This, and the number of different areas that are considered to belong to the field of special needs explain the high percentage number of teachers working with children with special needs. Teachers were also asked how – in their opinion – special needs children could be supported in English as foreign language classes in primary schools. In order to ensure that teachers could not be identified by their answers, they were not asked to specify the area of special need the child or children in their classes required support in. As a result, it is not always clear which special needs field the teachers are referring to in their answers. Table  6.9 presents a summary of the teachers’ answers provided by the 17 teachers who commented on this question. Teachers frequently provided multiple strategies that they used to address the special needs of their pupils. This illustrates that in-service teachers develop a variety of approaches and ideas that suit their own teaching contexts. If these strategies work well, they can be a valuable resource for other teachers in similar classroom contexts. The summary of teachers’ comments shows that differentiation and special needs education are linked, as EFL teachers mentioned strategies that belong to

 See the Nationaler Bildungsbericht by Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung (2018) for more detailed information on special needs education in all German federal states and numbers of SEN learners attending different types of educational institutions, and Stadler-Heer (2019) for different views on inclusion. 

21

214

6  Results: EFL Primary School Teachers

Table 6.9  Ways of supporting learners with special needs in the EFL classroom Support strategies Differentiation – easier tasks Drawing aspects of a story (everyone can draw something and work according to their ability) Emphasizing that it is enjoyable to learn something new with others Emphasizing that speaking a foreign language is fun Focusing on oral language Frequent repetitiona Frequent repetition of vocabulary Individual support Individual tasks None – behavioural problems of the child make this difficult Not necessary – children can follow English lesson Pair-work with higher ability learner Replacing written tests with oral ones Special needs teacher in classroom Support from other children (whisper correct answer) Using games Using images and pictures to promote learning Using more proficient learners as interpreters Using rhymes and songs Taking small steps in language learning, i.e. reduce pace

Teachers 35% (6) 6% (1) 6% (1) 6% (1) 12% (2) 6% (1) 6% (1) 6% (1) 6% (1) 6% (1) 12% (2) 18% (3) 6% (1) 12% (2) 6% (1) 6% (1) 6% (1) 6% (1) 12% (2) 12% (2)

Notes: Teachers could choose multiple answers This was not specified further

a

this area, such as setting easier tasks (35%) or pair-work with other learners that can scaffold the pupil with special needs (18%). The answers also show that teachers use a variety of different activities, such as drawing elements of a story, using pictures and images to promote learning and singing to make the English lessons more accessible to their learners. The use of visual images22 and songs was also recommended by Maynard (2012) as a helpful strategy for learners with special needs. Pacing and the support of a second person, ideally perhaps a trained special needs professional, were also mentioned as helpful elements that can motivate learners with special needs. The presence of a second person was also considered to be important by two teachers not only for the learners with special needs, but also  Maynard suggests that images can be used in a variety of ways. She proposes, for example, that “pictures of instruction, which can be pointed to in order to clarify meaning” (2012, p. 96) can be helpful for learners with learning difficulties.

22

6.8 Special Needs

215

for the other pupils in the classroom, as both groups could receive more targeted attention then. It needs to be noted, however, that one teacher also commented that they did not consider a second person to be necessary in the English lessons, as their special needs learners tended to enjoy the lessons and performed well in the listening and speaking activities.23 The preference for speaking and listening was then also addressed with regard to assessment by one teacher who mentioned that she simply changed written assessments to oral assessments for her learners with special needs. The answers provided by some teachers suggest that their learners with special needs might have needs in areas that can be well catered for in primary school classrooms. The answer of one teacher who mentioned that her learners had special needs in the area of their social and emotional development, however, illustrates that inclusion of some special needs areas may be more challenging than others in some respects, such as classroom management for example. This teacher commented that English lessons which focused on speaking and listening were very difficult, as the children with special needs in their classes tended not to be able to control their emotions, and had uncontrolled outbursts of frustration and anger which made it difficult for the rest of the class to concentrate and achieve their learning objectives. This raises the question to what extent primary school teachers are prepared for different special needs during their studies, and what kind of support is available for in-service teachers who are dealing with special needs that they may not know enough about or may find challenging. It also raises the question if all kinds of special needs are indeed best served by general education classrooms. For example, if children with a specific type of special need thrive on a very structured individualized teaching approach in a quiet setting, then a classroom with 20 other children may be overwhelming and detrimental for them. In addition to asking the teachers about their support strategies for their learners with special needs, teachers were also asked whether the textbook they were using provided them with sufficient support options for their special needs learners. Twenty-six teachers answered this question. Of those, four (corresponding to 15%) stated that they did not use a textbook, whereas seven (corresponding to 27%) answered that their textbook provided sufficient options. Fifty-eight percent (i.e. 15) of the teachers replied that their textbook did not offer support options for their learners with special needs. However, since only two teachers provided more information on the special needs their learners had, it is difficult to give any recommendations based on this finding. While there seems to be room for improvement concerning the catering for special needs in textbooks, further studies are needed

 This focus seemed to work well for them and so they performed much better than in other subjects where the focus was on reading and writing, i.e. skills with which they seemed to struggle.

23

216

6  Results: EFL Primary School Teachers

that help to pinpoint what textbooks could do to support a range of special needs in EFL classrooms.

6.9  Homework While homework is sometimes commented on in passing as a matter of classroom rules (e.g. Hall 2011), when describing the requirements of the teaching context (Richards and Farrell 2011), or when discussing different types of tasks that are used in the ELT classroom (Ur 2012), it is not typically addressed in the literature on EFL primary education. Informal conversations with English teachers and parents in Thuringia can easily give the impression that while homework is regularly given for Mathematics and German in primary school, homework for English is rarely to never set. To find out whether this impression was correct the EFL primary school teachers were asked if they gave homework or not. The results are presented in Fig. 6.8. This question was answered by 26 teachers. While eight of them stated that they did not set homework in their English lessons, 18 answered that they did. This was quite surprising, given that the informal discussions suggested that homework was not a typical feature of the primary EFL classroom in Thuringia. In order to obtain more detailed information on homework, teachers were also asked how frequently they set it. The results of this question are illustrated in Fig. 6.9. This question was answered by 18 teachers, i.e. those that had responded that they actually set homework for English in the previous question. None of the teachers set homework every lesson, but interestingly, only six set it very rarely. As four of them gave it once a week and eight sometimes, homework may not be such a rare occurrence for EFL primary learners after all. Given that the main emphasis in ­primary EFL classrooms in Thuringia is supposed to be on speaking rather than on writing skills, I was interested in finding out a) whether this was also reflected in the homework tasks set and b) whether teachers would set a variety of different homework tasks (including for example the learning of vocabulary, workbook or exercise sheet tasks, collecting and/or bringing in materials for specific topics or projects).

HOMEWORK No 31%

Yes 69%

Fig. 6.8  Homework: setting it or not

6.9 Homework

217

Homework

8

8

6

7 6

4

5 4 3 2

0

1 0

every lesson

once a week

sometimes

very rarely

Fig. 6.9  Homework: frequency Table 6.10 Homework

Support strategies Oral Written Learning vocabulary Bring along/collect materials Worksheet/workbook tasks Other

Teachers 55% (10) 50% (9) 17% (3) 78% (14) 44% (8) 22% (4)

Note: Teachers could choose multiple answers

Table 6.10 presents the homework tasks set by the teachers. As they may set a variety of different tasks, teachers were given the option to select multiple options and to also add further ones in a comment section (if they wished to do that, they had to select the other option first, so that their responses could be counted). This question was answered by 18 teachers. The most frequently set homework task was to collect and/or bring along materials selected by 14 teachers. This is an interesting task and may be connected to some of the activities in the textbooks for which learners may need to bring along particular items (e.g. the present your family project in Playway 3 or the weather project in Sunshine 4). The second reason why this answer is interesting is because it illustrates that the concept of homework may be broader than perhaps assumed by some and that it can also contribute to a more interdisciplinary24 approach.  The present your family project in which learners are asked to bring along photos of their family members is a nice example for a project that could lead to interdisciplinary learning, if it were slightly extended. Learners could ask their parents or guardians for photos and information of their

24

218

6  Results: EFL Primary School Teachers

In second place is homework that addresses learners’ oral skills, followed by homework that focuses on writing. This suggests that productive communicative skills are important for teachers. In fourth place is homework that is based on worksheets or workbook tasks. A reason for why this homework task is used by slightly more than 40% of the teacher could be that it provides learners with precise instructions on how to do their homework (as these instructions are printed and thus cannot be copied down incorrectly by learners). This makes it easier for learners to understand and complete their homework and means that teachers do not have to write down explicit instructions on the board or dictate them to the learners, thus this task saves them time. Homework that focuses on learning vocabulary was set by three teachers. This illustrates that the traditional homework tasks that are well known and frequently employed in secondary education are also used in some primary contexts. In the additional comments box, two teachers wrote that they asked their pupils to learn poems, rhymes and songs by heart. Kirsch (2008, p. 85) provides an overview of the many positive characteristics of exposing young learners to these input types stating that “pupils are more likely to remember the new words and structures because they are repetitive, meaningful and presented in predictable patterns and larger chunks. The internalization of sounds, words and sentence patterns brings learners a step closer to using these in other contexts”. Therefore, the memorization of poems, rhymes or songs can facilitate young EFL learners’ acquisition of the target language. Of the remaining three25 comment section answers provided by the teachers, one focused on the oral and interactive skills (practicing dialogues), one addressed a very practical concern (finishing a task not completed in the lesson) and one could be related to the activity of bringing along and collecting materials. The homework options added by the teachers again illustrate the many varied approaches towards homework that can be undertaken by teachers.

6.10  Textbooks and Other Materials Elsner (2018, p. 26) writes [a]ccording to an internal statistic of one of Germany’s biggest textbook publishers, Cornelsen, textbooks for foreign language learning are used in more than 90% of the primary classrooms. This rather high number is due to different reasons. immediate family and also of their more extended one. This could lead to the learning of family relationship vocabulary (German), places that are important to the family (touching on geography, history, local knowledge and therefore the general studies subject that includes all of these issues) and maybe even mathematics (if a family tree is drawn and the various ancestors in each level are calculated). 25  One teacher provided more than one comment in the other section. Thus, although it may look as if these comments had been made by five different teachers, a total of four teachers provided the other comments.

6.10 Textbooks and Other Materials

219

First of all, many teachers who have to teach a foreign language in primary schools, still have not been trained for this subject at university. Most primary teachers qualify for foreign language teaching by participating in further education programmes, which are usually rather short and only cover basic aspects of early foreign language instruction (cf. Enever 2011). EFL textbooks are thus a great help for unexperienced foreign language teachers with regard to course and activity design. Yet, even for highly qualified teachers, textbooks bring many advantages, as they usually provide teachers with lesson plans and ideas that are in line with the curricular expectations and therefore help standardize instruction.

This shows that textbooks play an important role in many primary EFL classrooms in Germany. Based on some conversations that my research assistants and I had with teachers and teacher trainers, we selected three textbooks series which we assumed might be used in Thuringian primary EFL classrooms (Discovery, Playway and Sunshine) and also gave the teachers the option26 to include a different textbook series. In addition, the option none was included for those teachers that worked in a context where no textbooks were used. The answers are presented in Fig. 6.10. Twenty-six teachers answered this question. While four (corresponding to 15%) of them stated that textbooks were not used at their schools, the remaining 22 answered that textbooks were used. Of these, 11 (corresponding to 42%) responded that the Playway series published by Klett was used at their school. Seven of them (corresponding to 27%) stated that the Sunshine series published by Cornelsen was used at their place of work. Surprisingly, none of them employed the Discovery series published by Westermann, which we had also included as an option. The textbook series mentioned by those teachers who had chosen the others option and

Textbook 11 12 10

7

8 4

6

4

4 2 0

0

Discovery

Playway

Sunshine

Others

None

Fig. 6.10  Textbook use in EFL primary school classes

 For this, they had to choose the other option in the survey, which lead to a comment box becoming available for them to write the names of the textbooks series in.

26

220

6  Results: EFL Primary School Teachers

Table 6.11  EFL teachers’ satisfaction with their textbook series Level of satisfaction Very satisfied Satisfied Neither satisfied nor unsatisfied Less satisfieda Not satisfied

Teachers 32% (6) 64% (12) 5% (1) 5% (1) –

Textbook series Bumblebee (1), Playway (3), Sunshine (2), Ginger (1), Playway (7), Storytime (1), Sunshine (3) Playway (1) Sunshine (1)

Notes: The total percentage count may be higher than 100% in some lines, since the percentages were rounded up or down to single or double digits before the comma. The numbers in brackets indicate how many teachers categorized their level of satisfaction with the book in that specific level a The labels of the Likert scale points 4 and 5 may seem a little unusual, as one would probably expect unsatisfied followed by very unsatisfied. When developing the questionnaire, I discussed individual labels with my research assistants and decided that instead of two very distinctly negative items, such as the aforementioned ones, it would be preferable to include an option that is more negative but not completely so, in order to give teachers the opportunity to express this softer negative option rather than the two harsher ones

provided written answers in the comment section were: Bumblebee published by Schroedel Westermann, Ginger published by Cornelsen, Sally published by Oldenbourg and Storytime published by Westermann. Ginger was mentioned by two teachers, with one of the teachers also mentioning Sally. Since no additional information was provided, it is likely that two different textbook series are in use at that teacher’s school. A study with larger numbers of participating teachers would be needed to provide better and more detailed insights into the current use of textbooks at primary schools, but what is interesting is that the results of this investigation seem to support the notion that the two publishing houses Klett and Cornelsen play an important role in EFL primary education. Teachers were also asked how satisfied they were with the textbook series that was used at their school. The results are presented in Table 6.11. This question was answered by 19 teachers. The results show that the majority of the teachers were either very satisfied (32%) or satisfied (64%) with the textbook series they were using. Unfortunately, I did not include a question that would have enabled teachers to comment on why they evaluated the textbook series in this way. This could have provided insights into why two teachers were very satisfied with the Sunshine series, while one was less satisfied. There are many possible explanations for this, such as differences in the learner groups (e.g. high versus low degree of differentiation necessary, presence or absence of learners with special needs) or differences in the teachers’ teaching focus (e.g. extent to which different skills are addressed in the textbooks, perceived usefulness of tasks included/vocabulary covered). Ur (2012, pp. 199–202) includes a helpful overview of criteria that teachers may consider when evaluating a textbook.

6.10 Textbooks and Other Materials

221

Use of (additional) materials by the textbook publishing house 23 25

16

20

12

15 10

7

5

4

5 0

textbook + workbook

audio cd

videos

individualized pc software instruction materials

others

Fig. 6.11  Use of additional materials produced by the textbook publisher

Teachers were also asked whether they used additional materials that the publishing houses made available either for free or for a charge in their classroom. Figure 6.11 presents the results. This question was answered by 23 teachers. As teachers might use a variety of different materials, they could choose multiple options. The results show that all of the teachers who responded to this question employed the audio CD that was available for their textbook. Videos were also used by a large number of the teachers (70%). This was followed by materials for individualized instruction employed by 52% of the teachers and PC software used by 30% of them. The use of the workbook may seem rather low, but this could be the result of the way the question  was phrased, as teachers had originally been asked whether they only used the workbook and textbook, assuming that teachers who selected this option would then not choose any other options. However, since all 23 participants also selected the audio CD option, it is clear that this category was not well-phrased leading to some teachers who used a variety of materials selecting it and disregarding the only, while others may not have chosen it, as they noticed the only. This means that the scores obtained for the textbook and workbook option should probably be disregarded. Four of the teachers chose the other option and commented on what other materials they were using. Two of them mentioned worksheets that could be photocopied, while two of them mentioned picture/story/vocabulary cards. In addition, two of them also stated that they were using materials for assessment purposes. The considerable number of different teaching materials used by the participants suggest that young EFL learners in Thuringia tend to be exposed to a variety of different input options. Teachers were also asked how satisfied they were with the materials made available by the publishing houses. This question was answered by 23 teachers. Seven of them (corresponding to 30%) stated that they were very satisfied and 14 (corresponding to 61%) stated that they were satisfied. Only one participant each responded that they were neither satisfied nor unsatisfied or less satisfied. Thus, the majority of teachers in the  survey were happy with the quality of the additional materials made available by the publishers.

222

6  Results: EFL Primary School Teachers

The final question regarding the use of materials concerned the teachers’ use of supplementary materials that they obtained from sources other than the textbook publisher or that they developed themselves. This question was answered by 26 participants. Twenty-one of the respondents (corresponding to 81%) stated that they used a combination of materials obtained from other sources and materials that they had designed themselves, while three (corresponding to 12%) stated that they only used materials from other sources, but did not develop their own. One teacher answered that she was only using materials that she had developed herself, while another one responded that they did not use supplementary materials. The analysis and discussion in this chapter has shown that textbooks and other materials made available by the publishers play an important role in most of the EFL primary school classrooms of the teachers who took part in this study. It also showed that many teachers employ a range of different materials in their classrooms to provide learners with varied input. In the next section, I will address the use of realia and the use of children’s books and songs.

6.11  Children’s Books and Songs Elsner (2018, p. 26) notes that “primary school curricula suggest the integration of picture storybooks or comics, action songs, games, rhymes and raps, in order to provide multi-sensory and active learning which are, next to repetition […], widely accepted as core principles in early language classrooms.” Commenting on the role of the different literature input options for young learners (e.g. plays or rhymes), Bland (2018, p.  363) writes “indeed the picturebook seems to have become the default young-learner narrative format.” Before addressing various children’s picturebooks and songs, the EFL primary school teachers were first asked whether they used realia27 in their classrooms or not. This question was answered by 26 of our teachers. While 25 of them used realia in their classroom, one of them did not. In the next question, the teachers were asked whether they used, did not use or would like to use 15 children’s picture books28 that had been included in the survey. In addition, teachers were also asked to provide information on the books that they were using in their classrooms that were not included in the survey. Fifteen teachers provided information on children’s books that they were using in their classroom that had not been mentioned. The results of this question are presented in Table 6.12.

 Although  this part  mainly focused on  children’s literature and songs, a broader definition of realia that also included foreign money, postcards and souvenirs was provided. 28  Of the 15 books on the list, 13 had been encountered by two MEd students that were involved in developing the survey in various phases of their training and two had been selected from a materials pool available to BA or MEd students in the summer term of 2017. 27

6.11 Children’s Books and Songs

223

Table 6.12  Use of children’s books by teachers Titles Azzi in between (Garland 2012) Elmer (McKee 1989) Frederick (Leonni 2011) Froggy gets dressed (London and Remkiewicz 1994) Handa’s suprise (Browne 1994) Monkey puzzle (Donaldson and Scheffler 2017) Morris Micklewhite and the tangerine dress (Baldacchino and Malefant 2016) Mouse paint (Walsh 1989) The cat in the hat (Seuss 1985) The Gruffalo (Donaldson and Scheffler 2016a) The lion who wanted to love (Andrea and Wojtowycz 2009) The smartest giant in town (Donaldson and Scheffler 2016b) The very hungry caterpillar (Carle 2018) Where the wild things are (Sendak 1991) Winnie the witch (Thomas and Paul 2016)

Use – 27% (6) 10% (2) 73% (16)

Do not use 90% (18) 41% (9) 62% (13) 14% (3)

Would like to use 10% (2) 32% (7) 29% (6) 14% (3)

5% (1) 15% (3)

80% (16) 65% (13)

15% (3) 20% (4)

–

90% (18)

10% (2)

35% (7) 20% (4) 71% (15) –

55% (11) 70% (14) 10% (2) 80% (16)

10% (2) 10% (2) 19% (4) 20% (4)

19% (4)

48% (10)

33% (7)

83% (20) – 59% (13)

17% (4) 90% (18) 23% (5)

– 10% (2) 18% (4)

Notes: The total percentage count may be higher than 100% in some lines, since the percentages were rounded up or down to single or double digits before the comma.  The publications years provided for the individual books correspond to the editions that I was working with. For information on when the books were first published, see chapter 3 

This question was answered by 24 teachers. The results show that four of the books that had been included in the picturebook options were not used by any of the teachers – Azzi in between, Morris Micklewhite and the tangerine dress, The lion who wanted to love and Where the wild things are. One possible explanation for this could be that two of the books were one of the most recently published. While Azzi in between was first published in 2012, Morris Micklewhite and the tangerine dress was first published in 2014. All other books included in the questionnaire had been out for several years with first publication dates ranging from 1957 (The cat in the hat) to 2002 (The smartest giant in town). In contrast to Azzi in between and Morris Micklewhite and the tangerine dress, The lion who wanted to love had been published in 1997 and featured a range of animals – therefore addressing one of the central issues of the curriculum (learning about animals) and also contained the message that it was beneficial to be nice to one another. Why none of the teachers used this book is thus somewhat surprising. In contrast, it is not as surprising that none of the teachers employed Where the wild things are. Although the book won the Caldecott medal awarded by American librarians and has been featured in articles on teaching literature in EFL classrooms (e.g. Reichl 2012), it actually contains

224

6  Results: EFL Primary School Teachers

very little language and may therefore not be considered to be useful by EFL primary school teachers. The children’s books that the teachers used most frequently were The very hungry caterpillar (83%), The Gruffalo (71%) and Winnie the Witch (59%). The popularity of these books was expected. The very hungry caterpillar is very well known in Germany and many children encounter the German version in their pre-school years. Thus, one argument for using this particular book is likely to be that because of the well-known story and structure, young learners can concentrate more on the actual language not wondering what is actually happening in the story. In addition, story notes, support materials and teachings ideas are available for this book (e.g. Ellis and Brewster 2014). Like The very hungry caterpillar, The Gruffallo is also well known in Germany in its German translation and has been discussed in the English language teaching literature (e.g. Bland 2013). Winnie the Witch, in contrast, is a fascinating case. This book is – like The Gruffalo – part of a series and has been translated into German29 like the other two books, but also includes a book30 in the series that contains additional materials for learners of English. Whether the additional materials available in the series were a deciding factor in teachers using this book in their classrooms is not known, but it would be an interesting issue to explore. All books included in Table 6.12 were focused on in the analysis of speech act content in children’s books, which is presented and discussed in Chap. 5. Also included in the analysis of pragmatic content in children’s books were those books included in Table 6.13 that (a) had been mentioned by at least two of the primary EFL teachers and (b) could be clearly and unambiguously identified based on the information provided. Eleven children’s books were noted down by at least two of the EFL teachers who took part in the survey. They were: Brown bear, brown bear what do you see? (331), From head to toe (2), Have you seen my cat (3), Ketchup on your cornflakes (2), Snore (4), Spot Series (2), Ten little pigs (2), The gingerbread man (3), The mitten (2), The snail and the whale (3), and Winnie in Winter (2). While six of the books could be clearly identified and thus included in the analysis of speech act content, five could not, namely: From head to toe, Spot series, Ten little pigs, The gingerbread man, The mitten. The problem with these books was that since not all of them had been accompanied by the respective author’s name, it was not possible to determine in some instances which book the teachers were referring to, as more than one book with the same title existed, or several books had been published in the series and it therefore was not clear which one(s) the teachers were using.

 In the German translation, Winnie the witch and Wilbur her cat have been given different names. To maintain the alliteration of the English original, the German characters are called Zilly, die Zauberin and her cat is called Zingaro. 30  The book is called: Winnie in Winter edition for learners of English with activities and adapted text by Paul Shipton. 31  The numbers in brackets correspond to the number of EFL teachers who mentioned the respective book in the questionnaire. 29

6.11 Children’s Books and Songs Table 6.13  Use of children’s books by teachers

225

Titles A colour of his own A Turkey for thanksgiving A walk in New York Brown bear, brown bear what do you see? Charlie and Lola: London Chicken, chips and peas Clifford’s family Dear zoo Dick Whittington Farmer duck Fish go woof Friends – Mies von Hout From head to toe Glad monster, sad monster Goldilocks Gorilla Guess how much I love you Handa’s hen Have you seen my cat? Hippos big breakfast count Hot hippo In the dark, dark wood In the jungle Jim and the beanstalk Katie in London Ketchup on your cornflakes Ketchup with everything Little cloud Mr happy My cat likes to hide in boxes Opposites Peace at last Polar bear, polar bear what do you hear? Room on the broom Rosie’s walk Something else Snore Spot series by Eric Hill The clever tortoise The elephant and the bad baby

Number of teachers 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 1 (continued)

226

6  Results: EFL Primary School Teachers

Table 6.13  (continued) Titles The gingerbread man The lion and the mouse The magic Christmas The mitten The snail and the whale The snow princess The three little pigs Ten in the bed Totem tale – a tall story from Alaska We are going on a bear hunt What colour are your knickers? What’s the time, Mr. Wolf? Winnie at the seaside Winnie in winter Witch, witch come to my party

Number of teachers 3 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

Although it would have been interesting to find out more about how EFL primary school teachers were using the individual children’s books (e.g. what aspects they focused on, whether they read the text word-for-word /paraphrased/mainly concentrated on the pictures and deviated from the storylines), the main aim of including this question had been to determine which additional books to include for the pragmatic analysis. Although a variety of sources exist that address how children’s books can be utilized in the primary school classrooms (e.g. Bland 2013; Bland and Lütge 2013; Klippel 2000; Schmid-Schönbein 2008), it would be useful to obtain deeper insights into whether and to what extent teachers focus on pragmatic and intercultural concerns when selecting and working with the books in their classrooms. This is an area where more studies are needed. The EFL primary school teachers were also asked whether they used songs in their classrooms. The use of songs can be beneficial for learning pragmatic routines, since songs can feature relevant pragmatic input (cf. Kirsch 2008, pp. 87–90, on greetings and leave-takings). Teachers were therefore asked if they sang songs in their classrooms or not. The results are presented in Fig. 6.12. The results reveal that the majority of teachers used songs in their classrooms. This is in-line with recommendations for teaching foreign languages in primary schools (e.g. Elsner 2018; Klippel 2000), as it “incroporates the language learning strategies of rhythm, rhyme and repetition, as well as reinforcing vocabulary and language structure [… and] is a tried and tested method in language learning” (Maynard 2012, p.  58). Schmid-Schönbein (2008, p.  76) agrees that songs have always been an essential part of primary education and even refers to a well-known saying in the German primary school community “Wer nicht singen will (oder kann), sollte nicht Grundschullehrer werden” [You shouldn’t become a primary school teacher, if you don’t want to or can’t sing]. The high percentage of teachers

6.11 Children’s Books and Songs

227

SONGS No 21%

Yes 79%

Fig. 6.12  Use of children’s songs in English lessons Table 6.14  Use of songs by teachers Song Bingo Head and shoulders, knees and toes Hookey Pookey I like to eat If you’re happy and you know it Jungle party Lots of spaghetti Old McDonald has a farm Textbook songs or songs that are included on the cd accompanying the textbooks Wheels on the bus Welcome back to school

Number of teachers 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 3 7 1 1

using songs is therefore not surprising. Instead, what could be considered surprising is that some teachers state they do not sing songs in their classrooms. Those teachers who had responded that they used songs in their classrooms were then asked to write down the names of the songs. These are presented in Table 6.14. Teachers could note down as many songs as they wished. This question was answered by 16 teachers. The results show that the majority of the teachers sang songs that were included in the textbook or were featured on an accompanying audio CD. Several of the teachers simply stated that they were using many different songs and then gave one example. The three most frequently named songs were Head and shoulders, knees and toes (4) and If you’re happy and you know it (4) followed by Old McDonald has a farm (3). While I had originally considered a pragmatic analysis of the songs for this book, it soon became clear that this would not be a helpful endeavour since (a) most of the song titles mentioned by the teachers did not contain much pragmatic input with regard to the speech acts that I was focusing on (cf. Sect. 3.5), (b) the songs included in the four textbook series were analysed and discussed as part of Chap. 4 anyway, and (c) many teachers

228

6  Results: EFL Primary School Teachers

stated that they were using a variety of unspecified songs, which meant that any pragmatic analysis would not provide detailed and representative insights into the additional pragmatic input young EFL learners were exposed to via these songs. Like Table 6.12, I, nevertheless, thought it useful to include Table 6.14 and briefly touch on songs, since one of the aims of this chapter is to enable primary EFL teachers to see what their colleagues in other schools are doing in their English lessons. In summary, the investigation of primary EFL teachers’ use of children’s books has shown that teachers tend to use a wide variety of different picturebooks in their classrooms. However, the results also showed that some books tend to be more frequently used, such as The very hungry caterpillar, The Gruffalo and Winnie the Witch. The question about the use of songs in primary EFL classrooms revealed that the majority of the teachers used them and sang songs included in the textbooks or materials accompanying the textbook, as well as other songs, although only a small number of teachers provided specific song titles. This was the final section in this chapter that focused on the analysis and discussion of one part of the teachers’ survey. In the next section, I will summarize the results of this chapter.

6.12  Summary Teachers evaluation of lesson components in Sect. 6.1 showed that the opening phase was the lesson component EFL teachers in Thuringian primary schools considered to be the most important one on average (1,37), followed by classroom management (1,38) and revising vocabulary (1,41). The two components that were considered least important were assessment (2,56) and textbook/workbook work (2,63). Regarding assessment, the results presented in Sect. 6.2 revealed that 78% of the teachers used some form of assessment in their classes, while 22% did not. Primary EFL teachers in Thuringia do not have to provide marks in their pupils’ reports, but instead include short statements. The responses of the teachers showed that even in EFL teaching contexts in which no grades are used, assessment still plays a role in EFL classrooms. The results regarding assessment further revealed that a variety of different assessment techniques were used in the classrooms. Participants were asked about their evaluation of skills, competence and knowledge areas in Sect. 6.3. The results showed that teachers considered speaking and listening skills to be very important (the mean scores were 1,07 and 1,11 respectively), followed by mediation skills in third place (1,83). The high importance assigned to speaking and listening not only reflects the emphasis placed on these two skills in the curriculum for foreign language education in Thuringian primary schools but is also in line with many publications on ELT and young learners. Intercultural competence was only in fifth place out of seven with a mean score of 2,11. In Sect. 6.4, teachers were asked about how they grouped their learners in their classrooms. Teachers could select multiple options. The results revealed that the majority of teachers, 96%, used whole-class teaching and pair-work, while 78% employed individual work activities, and 63% used group work activities.

6.12 Summary

229

Pragmatics was the main focus of Sect. 6.5. In the first question in this section, teachers were asked to rate how important they considered the teaching of polite language (e.g. please, thank you, you’re welcome, hello, goodbye) to be on a five-­ part Likert scale. The results revealed that 93% of the teachers considered it to be either very important (63%) or important (30%). Teachers were also asked to recall how frequently they had used specific pragmatic routines in their last teaching unit. The results showed that there were only two routines that all teachers reported to have used in their classrooms: the expression of gratitude thank you (employed often by 93% of the teachers and sometimes by seven% of them) and the politeness marker please (used often by 85% of the teachers and sometimes by 15% of them). Opening and closing rituals were examined in Sect. 6.6. The findings showed the majority of the teachers (81%) used an opening ritual, but only the minority used a closing ritual (39%). This suggests a link between the importance teachers attach to a particular lesson component (cf. Sect. 6.1) and the form in which they address it in the classroom. The focus of Sect. 6.7 was differentiation. The results revealed that while 81% of the teachers used some form of differentiation in their classroom, 19% did not do so. The findings also showed that teachers used a variety of differentiation strategies. The strategy employed by most of them, 81%, is pair-work. This is followed by varying the level of difficulty (used by 62%) and group work and providing different work sheets (employed by 52% each). The issue of special needs was addressed in Sect. 6.8. Eighty-one per cent of the teachers stated that they were teaching children with special needs. Teachers suggested a range of different strategies that they had successfully employed to cater for their pupils’ special needs in English lessons. Homework was the focus of Sect. 6.9. The question about whether teachers gave homework in their English lessons in primary schools revealed that 69% did so, but that the frequency with which they set homework and the foci of the homework tasks differed. Textbooks and teaching materials were investigated in Sect. 6.10. The results revealed that 85% of the teachers did work with a textbook. The most frequently named textbook series was Playway (used by 42% of the teachers), followed by Sunshine (employed by 27%). Children’s books and songs were focused on in Sect. 6.11. The results revealed that EFL primary school teachers used a wide range of different children’s books in their classes. However, the results also showed that some books seemed to be more popular than others, as they were used by a large number of teachers. They were: The very hungry caterpillar used by 83% of the teachers, The Gruffalo used by 71%, and Winnie the Witch used by 59%. The results further showed that the majority of teachers sang songs in their classrooms. While the songs included in the textbooks and accompanying materials were popular with some teachers, others simply responded that they used a range of different songs. This concludes my discussion of speech acts in textbooks. In the next chapter, I will present the analysis of the young L2 learners’ data.

230

6  Results: EFL Primary School Teachers

References Andrea, G., & Wojtowycz, D. (2009). The lion who wanted to love. London: Hachette. Aschkar, S., Beattie, T., Kerler, N., Schröder, C., & Skejic, M. (2015). Sunshine: Pupil’s book 4. Berlin: Cornelsen. Aschkar, S., Beattie, T., Kerler, N., & Schröder, C. (2016). Sunshine: Pupil’s book 3. Berlin: Cornelsen. Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung. (2018). Bildung in Deutschland 2018. Bielefeld: WBV. Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Baldacchino, C., & Malenfant, I. (2016). Morris Micklewhite and the tangerine dress. Toronto: Groundwood Books. Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 43–58). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bland, J. (2013). Children’s literature and learner empowerment. London: Bloomsbury. Bland, J. (2018). Learning through literature. In S. Garton & F. Copland (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of teaching English to young learners (pp. 362–384). Abingdon: Routledge. Bland, J., & Lütge, C. (Eds.). (2013). Children’s literature in second language education. London: Bloomsbury. Browne, E. (1994). Handa’s surprise. London: Walker Books. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. (2015). Begabte Kinder finden und fördern: Ein Wegweiser für Eltern, Erzieherinnen und Erzieher, Lehrerinnen und Lehrer. Berlin: Bundesregierung. Butler, Y. G. (2016). Assessing young learners. In D. Tsagari & J. Banerjee (Eds.), Handbook of second language assessment (pp. 359–376). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching English to young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carle, E. (2018). The very hungry caterpillar. London: Puffin. Caspari-Grote, K., Grandt, I., Kraaz, U., Neuber, C., Simon, C., & Völtz, I. (2013). Ginger: Pupil’s book 3. Berlin: Cornelsen. Caspari-Grote, K., Grandt, I., Kraaz, U., Neuber, C., Simon, C., & Völtz, I. (2014). Ginger: Pupil’s book 4. Berlin: Cornelsen. Cohen, A. D. (2018). Learning pragmatics from native and non-native language teachers. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Culpeper, J., & Gillings, M. (2018). Politeness variation in English: A north-south divide? In V. Brezina, R. Love, & K. Aijmer (Eds.), Corpus approaches to contemporary British speech: Sociolinguistic studies of the spoken BNC2014 (pp. 33–59). Abingdon: Routledge. Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241– 266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315306287002. Decoo, W. (2010). Systemization in foreign language teaching: Monitoring content progression. Abingdon: Routledge. Delaney, M. (2016). Special educational needs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Deter-Philip, A.-C. (2017). Teacher language in German EFL classrooms at primary level: An interview study. In E. Wilden & R. Porsch (Eds.), The professional development of primary EFL teachers (pp. 209–222). Münster: Waxmann. Donaldson, J., & Scheffler, A. (2016a). The Grufallo. London: Macmillan. Donaldson, J., & Scheffler, A. (2016b). The smartest giant in town. London: Macmillan. Donaldson, J., & Scheffler, A. (2017). Monkey Puzzle. London: Macmillan. Ehlers, G., Kahstein, G., Muth, M., & Tait, H. (2013). Bumblebee: Textbook 3. Braunschweig: Schroedel Westermann.

References

231

Ehlers, G., Michailow-Drews, U., Tait, H., Schönau, M., Van Montague, A., & Zeich-Pelsis, A. (2017). Bumblebee: Textbook 4. Braunschweig: Schroedel Westermann. Ellis, G., & Brewster, J. (2014). Tell it again! The storytelling handbook for primary English language teachers (3rd ed.). London: British Council. Elsner, D. (2018). Institutionalized foreign language learning: Teaching English at different levels. In C. Surkamp & B. Viebrock (Eds.), Teaching English as a foreign language: An introduction (pp. 17–37). Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler. Félix-Brasdefer, J.  C., & Mugford, G. (2017). (Im)politeness: Learning and teaching. In J. Culpeper, M. Haugh, & D. Z. Kádár (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (Im)politeness (pp. 489–516). London: Palgrave. Freitag-Hild, B. (2018). Teaching culture – Intercultural competence, transcultural learning, global education. In C. Surkamp & B. Viebrock (Eds.), Teaching English as a foreign language: An introduction (pp. 159–175). Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler. Fulcher, G., & Owen, N. (2016). Dealing with the demands of language testing and assessment. In G.  Hall (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of English language teaching (pp.  109–120). Abingdon: Routledge. Garland, S. (2012). Azzi in between. London: Frances Lincoln. Gerngross, G., Puchta, H., & Becker, C. (2013a). Playway 3: Pupil’s book. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag. Gerngross, G., Puchta, H., & Becker, C. (2013b). Playway 4: Pupil’s book. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag. Hall, G. (2011). Exploring English language teaching: Language in action. Abingdon: Routledge. Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (4th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education. Hassall, T. (2006). Learning to take leave in social conversations: A diary study. In M. A. DuFon & E.  Churchill (Eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts (pp.  31–58). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Kirchhoff, P. (2018). Productive competences – speaking, writing, mediating. In C. Surkamp & B. Viebrock (Eds.), Teaching English as a foreign language: An introduction (pp. 109–132). Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler. Kirsch, C. (2008). Teaching foreign languages in the primary school. London: Continuum. Klippel, F. (2000). Englisch in der Grundschule: Handbuch für einen kindgemäßen Fremdsprachenunterricht. Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor. Kolb, A., & Raith, T. (2018). Principles and methods: Focus on learners, content and tasks. In C. Surkamp & B. Viebrock (Eds.), Teaching English as a foreign language: An introduction (pp. 195–209). Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler. Kormos, J., & Kontra, E. H. (2008). Language learners with special needs: An international perspective. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Leonni, L. (2011). Frederick. New York: Dragonfly. London, J., & Remkiewicz, F. (1994). Froggy gets dressed. London: Puffin. Lütge, C. (2018). Literature and film – Approaching fictional texts and media. In C. Surkamp & B. Viebrock (Eds.), Teaching English as a foreign language: An introduction (pp. 177–194). Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler. Maynard, S. (2012). Teaching foreign languages. Abingdon: Routledge. McKee, D. (1989). Elmer. London: Andersen Press. Oakley, C. (2003). Landeskunde? Area studies? Landeswisssenschaft? In M. Legutke & M. S.-v. Ditfurth (Eds.), Kommunikativer Fremdsprachenunterricht: Rückblick nach vorn (pp.  267– 274). Tübingen: Narr. Paige, R. M., Cohen, A. D., Mikk, B. K., Chi, J. C., & Lassegard, J. P. (2006). Maximizing study abroad: A students’ guide to strategies for language and culture learning and use (2nd ed.). Minneapolis: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition. Pinter, A. (2006). Teaching young language learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pizziconi, B., & Locher, M. A. (Eds.). (2015). Teaching and learning (Im)politeness. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

232

6  Results: EFL Primary School Teachers

Reichl, S. (2012). Towards a stronger intervention: The role of literature in teacher education. In J. Hüttner, B. Mehlmauer-Larcher, S. Reichl, & B. Schiftner (Eds.), Theory and practice in EFL teacher education: Bridging the gap (pp. 124–144). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Richards, J. C. (1990). The language teaching matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. C. (2000). Series editor’s preface. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J.  C., & Farrell, T. (2011). Practice teaching: A reflective approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schauer, G. A. (2006). Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: Contrast and development. Language Learning, 56(2), 269–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2006.00348.x. Schauer, G. A. (2009). Interlanguage pragmatic development: The study abroad context. London: Continuum/Bloomsbury. Schauer, G. A. (2016). Assessing intercultural competence. In D. Tsagari & J. Banerjee (Eds.), Handbook of second language assessment (pp. 181–201). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Schauer, G. A. (in press). Measuring intercultural competence. In P. Winke & T. Brunfaut (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and language testing. New  York: Routledge. Schmid-Schönbein, G. (2008). Didaktik und Methodik für den Englischunterricht. Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor. Schmidt, J. (2016). Rituale im Englischunterricht der Grundschule. Hamburg: Persen. Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schulportal Thüringen. (N.D.). https://www.schulportal-thueringen.de/bildungbis10jahre/grundschule/englisch. Accessed 20 Sept 2018. Sendak, M. (1991). Where the wild things are. New York: Harper Collins. Seuss, D. (1985). The cat in the hat. New York: Random House. Slattery, M., & Willis, J. (2001). English for primary teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stadler-Heer, S. (2019). Inclusion. ELT Journal, 73(2), 219–222. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ ccz004. Stoll Walsh, E. (1989). Mouse Paint. Boston: HMH. Sullivan, A. L., & Weeks, M. R. (2018). Differentiated instruction for young English learners. In S. Garton & F. Copland (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of teaching English to young learners (pp. 182–197). Abingdon: Routledge. Taguchi, N. (2017). Interlanguage pragmatics: A historical sketch and future directions. In A. Barron, G. Yuego, & G. Steen (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 153– 167). Abingdon: Routledge. Thomas, V., & Paul, K. (2016). Winnie and Wilbur: Winnie the witch. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thüringer Kultusministerium. (2008). Fachliche Empfehlung zur sonderpädagogischen Förderung in Thüringen. Erfurt: Thüringer Kultusministerium. Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur. (2010). Lehrplan für die Grundschule und für die Förderschule mit dem Bildungsgang der Grundschule: Fremdsprache. Erfurt: Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur. Tsagari, D., & Banerjee, J.  (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of second language assessment. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ur, P. (2012). A course in English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vollmuth, I. (2004). Englisch an der Grundschule: Wie Handreichungen den Frühbeginn sehen. Eine methodisch-didaktische Analyse. Heidelberg: Winter. Wilden, E. (2018). Settings  – Teaching in and beyond the English language classroom. In C. Surkamp & B. Viebrock (Eds.), Teaching English as a foreign language: An introduction (pp. 233–247). Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler.

Chapter 7

Results – Young L2 Learners

Abstract  In this chapter, I will compare the output of young EFL learners attending a typical state primary school in Thuringia with that of their age peers attending an English immersion school in the same state. I will first analyse and discuss the results of three written tasks: Task 1 is a matching words and images task, task 2 is an L1-L2 word-matching task and task 3 is an illustrated discourse completion task that was employed to elicit basic speech acts. I will then analyse and discuss the results of the interactive spoken tasks the young L2 learners completed: greetings and simple interactions, colours and numbers, total physical response, translation, requests and the concluding goodbye task. This will be followed by a summary of all findings of this chapter. Keywords  Interlanguage pragmatics · Immersion contexts · EFL · EFL learners · Young EFL learners · Young L2 learners · Vocabulary · Speech acts · Data collection techniques · Data collection methods and young learners

7.1  Young L2 Learners’ Performance in the Written Task The written task consisted of three parts. The results of the first two tasks, presented in Sects. 7.1.1 and 7.1.2, focused  primarily on L2 learners’ knowledge of basic vocabulary items. However, task W2 also included some simple pragmatic routines. The third task, which will be discussed and analysed in Sect. 7.1.3, examined L2 learners’ pragmatic competence.

7.1.1  Written Task W1: Matching Words and Images In this task, the children were asked to match six words to their respective images. A representation1 of the task is presented in Fig. 7.1. 1  In the original task, actual drawn images depicting the various words represented here by image of x were presented in a circle around the words that the children should match them to. The words were arranged in a column shape in the middle of the sheet as illustrated here.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 G. A. Schauer, Teaching and Learning English in the Primary School, English Language Education 18, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23257-3_7

233

234

7  Results – Young L2 Learners Image of a ruler Image of a horse

dog cat horse pencil ruler glue stick

Image of a pencil

Image of a dog

Image of a cat Image of a glue stick

Fig. 7.1  Matching words and images

The analysis of the data showed that all children completed this task without any mistakes. As mentioned in Sect. 3.2.2, the task had deliberately been designed to be relatively easy for the young EFL learners in grade 4, as I wanted to ensure that the children experienced success early on in the research project and would ideally also find the task itself enjoyable due to the appealing illustrations that they encountered straight away when starting the task.

7.1.2  Written Task W2: Matching Words In the second written task, W2, children were asked to match nine English words to their German counterparts. A representation2 of the task is presented in Fig. 7.2. As was the case in first written task, all children attending the international primary school completed this second written task correctly. Regarding the two state primary school groups, all children from group B matched all items correctly, whereas two children from group A matched two items incorrectly. They matched the German danke [thank you] to please and bitte [please] to thank you. This is an interesting mistake, as it involves two speech act words that can occur in quick succession in an English utterance, e.g. A: B: A: B:

Can I have the book, please? Yes, sure, here you are. Thank you. You’re welcome.

2  On the original handout, the all words were written in a child-friendly font that the children could read easily and that was intended to give the task a more personal feel.

235

7.1  Young L2 Learners’ Performance in the Written Task 1

Haus

summer

2

bitte

black

3

Sommer

school

4

Schule

hello

5

danke

red

6

hallo

good bye

7

rot

house

8

tschüss

please

9

schwarz

thank you

Fig. 7.2  Find the matching words

In German, the word bitte has multiple functions: It is the German equivalent to the English politeness marker please and can therefore be used in requests. In addition, it can also be used as an expression when handing items over after a request for an item has been granted, thus being equivalent to here you are or here you go. Furthermore, bitte is also used a response to an expression of gratitude and is therefore equivalent to the English your’re welcome or it’s alright. Consequently, the German version of the English conversation in which A asks for a book could look like this: A: B: A: B:

Kann ich das Buch haben, bitte? Ja, sicher, bitte [sehr]. Danke. Bitte.

While it can only be speculated why the two children matched these two words incorrectly, one possible explanation could be that they knew that both these words occurred in sequence in conversations and by wrongly matching these two items actually indicated an awareness of terms that tend to co-occur. An alternative explanation could be that they knew all the other words and simply did not know these well enough to match them correctly. Overall, though, my predictions concerning this task proved to be accurate. The clear majority of the children were able to complete task W2 correctly and match three nouns (two referring to buildings, one referring to a season), two colour terms (black and red) and four speech act terms (hello and goodbye, please and thank you) to their counterparts in the foreign language.

236

7  Results – Young L2 Learners

7.1.3  Written Task W3: Illustrated Discourse Completion Task This task consists of two separate mixed-sex conversations between two children. As was the case in task W1, Fig. 7.3 presents a representation of the task the children were given without the actual images. I will refer to the conversation involving the greeting as W3a and to the conversation featuring the request for the ruler as W3b. In contrast to the two previous tasks, W1 and W2, which had been completed by all learners in the three groups, this is the first task in which some learners opted out. Responses were provided by 10 of the 14 members of the private international group (corresponding to 71%), nine of the 12 members of state school group A (corresponding to 75%), and 13 of the 15 members of state school group B (corresponding to 87%). Table 7.1 includes the responses to W3a, i.e. the reply to Hello. How are you? Responses such as Hello. I’m fine. Thank you and you? would have indicated that young learners could reciprocate a greeting, thank an interlocutor for enquiring after their wellbeing and return the well-being question (cf. Sect. 3.5.3 for more details on these categories). The utterances of the young learners who provided a response in W3a shows that there is variation in what the individual groups and learners produced. The analysis of the three groups’ utterances according to speech act strategies is shown in Table 7.2. The results show that greets were used by the majority of state primary group A learners (67%), but by a markedly lower number of state school group B pupils (40%) and private international (29%) pupils. Thus, the majority of state school

Hello. How are you? Image of a girl

-------------I‘m fine. ------------Image of a boy Can I have the ruler, please?

--------------------------------------------Image of a boy

Fig. 7.3  Illustrated discourse completion task

Image of a girl ---------------------------------------------

7.1  Young L2 Learners’ Performance in the Written Task

237

Table 7.1  Young L2 learners’ utterances in task W3a Learner ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Private international group State primary group A Hello. I’m fine. Thank you. Hello. I’m fine. How are you? Thank you. I’m fine, and – you? I’m fine. How are you Hello. I’m fine. How are you? I’m fine. thank you. – Hi. I’m fine. Thank you. I’m happy. I’m fine. Okay. Hello. I’m fine. and how Hello. I’m fine. How are you? are you? thanks. I’m fine. how are Hello. I’m fine. you. Goodbye. Arthur. I’m fine, thank you. Hello. I’m fine and you? – – – Hello. I’m fine and you? – Hello. I’m fine. How are you? Hello. I’m fine, Thank you. Hello. I’m fine. Good. I’m fine, how are you. –

State primary group B I’m fine, thank you. – I’m fine and you? I’m okay. I’m fine. I’m Hello. I’m fine, thank you. Hello. I’m fine. How are you? I’m okay. I’m fine. Yes, I’m fine. What’s the weather like? Hello, I’m fine. How are you? Hello, I’m fine. How are you? I’m fine. and yours? Hello, I’m fine. You? Hello, I’m fine. Good bye. I’m okay. I’m fine. –

Notes: Learners’ utterances are transcribed as originally written by the children. The expression I’m fine is presented in italics, as this part of the response was included on the learners’ task sheet − Indicates that learner did not provide a reply

Table 7.2  Young L2 learners’ strategies in task W3a Strategies Greet Wellbeing question Wellbeing answera Expression of gratitude Others

Private international 4 (29%) 5 (36%) 1 (7%) 7 (50%)

State primary group A 8 (67%) 6 (50%) 2 (17%) 0

First name (1)

0

State primary group B 6 (40%) 5 (33%) 3 (18%) 0 Weather question (1), good bye (1)

Notes: aThis refers to an additional wellbeing answer, i.e. an utterance in addition to I’m fine which was included on the task sheet

238

7  Results – Young L2 Learners

Table 7.3  Young L2 learners’ utterances in task W3b – speech bubble 1 Learner ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Private international group Of course. Here you can have it. yes of course Yes. Here you are. Yes. No I need it myself. yes of cours Yes you can here Sure I will give it to you. Jes you can Yes sur Sure. Of course you can but bring it back. Yes you may have my ruler. Jas.

State primary group A Yes. – Yes, I have the ruler. Please. Yes, here. – Yes, you can my ruler. Yes, I can a ruler, please. Yes, you can my ruler. Yes. Yes. Yes, you can my ruler. –

State primary group B Yes. Please. Yes. Please. I okay. Please. Yes, I can my ruler. Yes, here you are. Here you are. – Yes I ruler. Please. Yes. Please. Please. Please, a ruler. Please. Yes. Please. Yes. Yes, here.

Notes: Learners’ utterances are transcribed as originally written by the children − Indicates that learner did not provide a reply

group A pupils returned the greeting. In addition, 50% of state school A pupils also asked their interlocutor a wellbeing question and therefore mirrored the original greeting strategies employed by their interlocutor. In contrast, wellbeing questions were used by only 36% of the international school pupils and by 33% of the state primary group B learners. Interestingly, half of the private international group’s learners used an expression of gratitude. This was not employed by any of the state primary pupils and suggests that children in the immersion context may be exposed more frequently to expressions of gratitude in greeting than state primary school learners. I will now move on to the second illustrated discourse completion task on the task sheet, task W3b. In this task, the young learners were asked to provide two utterances: one in the speech bubble allocated to the boy who replies to the image of the girl asking for a ruler, and one in the subsequent speech bubble assigned to the girl who made the original request (cf. Fig. 7.3). I will first present the learners’ responses to the request written down in the boy’s speech bubble in Table 7.3. The results show that all pupils at the private international school provided a speech bubble response to situation W3b, while nine of the 12 pupils in state school group A (corresponding to 75%) and 14 of the 15 young learners in state school group B (corresponding to 93%) completed this part of the task. The results further reveal that all of the learners in the state school groups that completed the part

7.1  Young L2 Learners’ Performance in the Written Task

239

Table 7.4  Young L2 learners’ request granting expressions in task W3b Category Single word agreement tokens

Expressions focusing on either the speaker or the hearer

Handing over expressions Condition Please

Expressions Of course Okay Sure Yes I have the ruler I will give it to you I can [sic] a/my ruler I [sic] ruler You can You can have it You can [sic] my ruler You may have my ruler Here Here you are But bring it back Please

Private international 4 (29%) 0 3 (21%) 9 (64%) 0 1 (7%)

State primary group A 0 0 0 9 (75%) 1 (8%) 0

State primary group B 0 1 (7%) 0 9 (60%) 0 0

0

1 (8%)

1 (7%)

0 3 (21%) 1 (7%) 0

0 0 0 3 (25%)

1 (7%) 0 0 0

1 (7%)

0

0

1 (7%) 1 (7%) 1 (7%)

1 (8%) 0 0

1 (7%) 2 (13%) 0

0

2 (17%)

9 (60%)

Notes: Spelling mistakes are not focused on here – this means that all responses that are intended to be yes are counted as yes including versions of yes that are not spelled correctly (e.g. jes). Request granting expressions are presented individually, i.e. if an utterance includes two request granting expressions (e.g. yes sur), they will be presented separately here as one instance of yes and one instance of sure. The combined expression use can be seen in Table 7.3

granted3 the request, while one learner in the private international group refused it by writing No I need it myself. The different expressions that were used to grant the request are presented in Table 7.4. In the table the expressions are presented according to specific categories. The first category contains single word agreement tokens (i.e. of course, okay, sure, yes). The second category comprises expressions that either focused on the interlocutor you + x or the speaker I + x, some of which are complete sentences that explicitly grant the request. Expressions in the third category indicate the process of handing over an item (cf. Sect. 4.2.2). The single expression in the fourth category shows a condition that is placed on the interlocutor to return the item. Please is the only item in the fifth category.

3  It had been left up to the learners how they wished to respond to the scenarios, i.e. whether they decided to grant the request or not, as it was hoped that this would generate utterances that were in line with learners’ views of this situation and would not force learners to provide utterances that went against what they would do in such a situation (cf. Schauer 2018).

240

7  Results – Young L2 Learners

The results show that yes was the agreement token that was employed by the majority of all three groups (private international: 64%, state school group A: 75%, state school group B: 60%). The agreement token okay was used only once by a member of the state school B group. Interestingly, of course and sure were only employed by young learners in the private international immersion context. All three agreement tokens are typical English request responses indicating that the request is being granted (Leech 2014; Siemund 2018). Young L2 learners’ use of agreement tokens could therefore be seen as an indication for their pragmatic competence regarding the use of these tokens in English. However, it needs to be noted that the German state school group B pupil who used okay actually began his utterance with I and it is not clear whether this was simply a start to a different utterance that the learner forgot to cross out or whether I okay is in fact the intended construction, which is not grammatical. The second category, expressions focusing on the speaker or the interlocutor show that the standard expression you can which follows an agreement token such as of course or yes, is only used by three learners attending the international school. In addition, learners from the immersion context also used three other grammatically correct request responses: I can give it to you, You can have it and You may have my ruler. What is very noticeable with regard to both state school groups is that the young learners in these groups appear to have problems producing complete sentences, as the verbs and (in some cases) the personal pronouns tend to be missing, e.g. Yes you can [have] my ruler or Yes, I can [give] [you] my ruler. A possible reason for why learners in the state school struggled with these sentences may be differences in the English and German word order. The English utterance Yes, you can have my ruler is equivalent to the German Ja, du kannst mein Lineal haben [literal: Yes, you can my ruler have], and Yes, I can give you my ruler is Ja, ich kann dir mein Lineal geben [literal: Yes, I can you my ruler give]. If children were made aware of differences in English and German syntax, they may hesitate when it comes to sentences where they are unsure about how English grammar works. An alternative explanation could be that they simply did not know the words they did not include. This, however, is less likely in my opinion, since all words that were missed out (give, have, you) are high frequency items and in addition also rather similar to their German equivalents (geben, haben, du). If feeling insecure about correct English grammar is the reason for the young EFL learners’ incomplete sentences, then this points towards an issue that has not sufficiently been explored in the research to date, namely if and how the development of L2 learners’ productive grammatical and pragmatic competence is interconnected. While some studies have been conducted on adult L2 learners’ awareness of grammatically (in)correct and pragmatically (in)appropriate utterances (e.g. Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei 1998; Niezgoda and Röver 2001; Schauer 2006, 2009), very little research is available on L2 learners’ productive competence in both areas and on young EFL learners’ competence in particular (cf. also Bardovi-Harlig 2003). More research is needed that addresses the relationship between pragmatics and grammar in the early stages of L2 learning.

7.1  Young L2 Learners’ Performance in the Written Task

241

In addition, what should be explored in more detail – again especially with regard to beginner level L2 learners is – is to what extent the explicit teaching of formulaic language4 (such as the handing over expressions here you are and here you go or thanking expressions thank you ever so much) can enable even beginner level learners to produce grammatically correct and pragmatically appropriate speech acts. Handing over expressions are only used by a small number of learners (two in the private international school, one in state school group A and three in state school group B). The fact that two state school learners used here you are could indicate that their EFL primary school teacher attaches importance to this expression, which would be in-line with data from the teachers’ self-report concerning here you are as an expression used often by the majority of the teachers who took part in the survey (cf. Sect. 6.5). That the two state school learners used this expression is encouraging, since it shows that pragmatic expressions that do not have a similar sounding equivalent in young learners’ native language can be taught to young L2 learners. The final category, which focuses solely on please, is also interesting, as the use of please by two learners from state school group A and nine learners from state school group B indicates that the employment of the word is probably a result of German transfer, as the German equivalent bitte can be used to hand over items (cf. sample conversation in Sect. 7.1.2). Overall, the young L2 learners’ utterances provided in the first speech bubble of W3a indicate that most of the learners felt comfortable enough to attempt an utterance in that situation. This is encouraging, since it shows the children’s willingness5 to use the language even though they may not achieve complete grammatical correctness at this early stage of their L2 learning process. In addition, the results reveal differences in the learners’ performance in that first request response situation. While some learners did not write down an utterance, some others provided very short ones featuring only one acceptance token, while others wrote down longer and more complex constructions. This finding applies to all three groups and means that while attending an immersion school environment may provide young L2 learners with a large amount of input opportunities, it is not guaranteed that ample input will also result in ample intake and consequent production. Whether this happens or not may be very much related to individual learner differences – a much debated research field that focuses on the impact of factors such as motivation, anxiety and aptitude to name but a few (cf. Skehan 1989; Dörnyei 2005; Dörnyei and Ryan 2015). Table 7.5 presents the young L2 learners’ written utterances in the second empty speech bubble, i.e. the bubble assigned to the girl who had made the original request for the ruler. The results show that two children (state group A number 2, state 4  Formulaic language is also sometimes referred to as formulaic sequences or chunks. See Schauer and Adolphs 2006 on thanking expressions, Bardovi-Harlig 2012 for an overview of formulaic language and interlanguage pragmatics, Hestetræet 2019 on the importance of chunks when teaching vocabulary to young L2 learners. 5  See MacIntyre et al. (1989) article on willingness to communicate in an L2 for factors that make learners willing or unwilling to use a second or foreign language in different circumstances.

242

7  Results – Young L2 Learners

Table 7.5  Young L2 learners’ utterances in task W3b – speech bubble 2 Learner ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Private international group Thank you. Thank you. thank you. thank you. Ohh why! thank you thank you thank you. tak you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Could I borrow your ruler. –

State primary group A Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Please. – Thank you. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. –

State primary group B Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Notes: Learners’ utterances are transcribed as originally written by the children − Indicates that learner did not provide a reply

group B number 7) who had not provided an utterance in the first empty speech bubble (i.e. the one granting or not granting the request) now provided a response. This in itself is a very encouraging sign, as it shows that some children who did not feel comfortable or confident enough to complete the first speech bubble in this scenario were not lost to the task as a whole, but instead joined in again in the second empty bubble. The utterances provided by the young EFL learners show considerable uniformity across the three groups. Ten of the 14 international school learners (corresponding to 71%), nine of the 12 state school group A learners (corresponding to 75%) and all of the state school group B learners used thank you. This is a very good result and shows that the clear majority of children in all three groups know when an expression of gratitude is required (as we did not prompt them to provide an expression of gratitude) and are also able to produce a standard thanking expression. Furthermore, one learner in the immersion group used thank you followed by the intensifier very much, which means that in the private international group a total of 11 children used some form of thanking expression (corresponding to 79%). In addition to thank you, one child in the state school group A also used a confirmatory okay, probably to signal receipt of the ruler. Three utterances stand out in the second empty speech bubble. One is Ohh why! a complaint that follows the refused request No I need it myself. This response is in perfect alignment with the refused request and works well. One utterance that is difficult to interpret is Could I borrow your ruler? that was used by a young learner in the private international group. One possible explanation for this second request might be that the young learner was not happy with the original Can I have the ruler, please? and wanted to indicate that she would prefer a more polite option, as

7.2  Young L2 Learners’ Performance in the Spoken Task

243

according to Leech (2014) could tends to be considered more polite than can (cf. also Sect. 2.1.4). The third utterance which stands out is the use of please by one learner in state school group A. This was used by the learner who had also matched the German danke [thank you] to please and bitte [please] to thank you in task W2. Therefore, the use of please here seems to be the result of a vocabulary problem involving the four words. This case also shows the importance of using a variety of data elicitation tasks featuring similar items, as this approach can help to provide insights into the reasons for why learners use language features the way they do.

7.2  Young L2 Learners’ Performance in the Spoken Task I will first provide the results of the first spoken task which involved a greeting and typical introductory question from the researcher (e.g. how are you?) in Sect. 7.2.1. In Sect. 7.2.2, I will focus on the task involving colours and numbers. This will be followed by the Total Physical Response task in Sect. 7.2.3. In Sect. 7.2.4, I will provide the results of the oral translation tasks (i.e. the spoken task that somewhat mirrored the written matching words task I discussed in Sect. 7.1.2). Subsequent to this, I will provide the results of the conversation task that focused on conventionally indirect requests in Sect. 7.2.5. This will be followed by an analysis of the short goodbye task in Sect. 7.2.6.

7.2.1  Spoken Task S1: Greeting and Simple Interaction Task In contrast to the written tasks which were completed in the presence of other pupils from their group in a classroom setting, the spoken6 tasks were completed in one-to-­ one sessions with the respective research assistant that was familiar with the school environment and the community. The first task, S1, featured five utterances that the research assistant directed at the young learner, the greeting Good morning, and four questions, namely (a) What’s your name?, (b) How are you?, (c) How old are you?, and (d) Do you like English? Similar to task W1, the greeting and the four questions had been chosen because the research team hoped that children would be able to respond to most of these utterances with ease and therefore experience success early on in the spoken task. Table 7.6 presents the young L2 learners’ responses to the greeting Good morning that the research assistant had directed at them. 6  While the vast majority of the children took part in both the written and the spoken tasks, three children only took part in one task set. As a result, there are 12 learners in state school group A in the written tasks, but only 11 learners in the spoken one. Regarding state school group B, there are 15 learners who took part in the written study, but 17 who participated in the spoken one. While it would have been possible to simply exclude these three learners from the investigation, I wanted to honour their participation in the study and therefore also analysed their contributions.

244

7  Results – Young L2 Learners

Table 7.6  Young L2 learners’ reply to Good Morning in task S1 Learner ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Private international group Good morning Good morning Good morning – Ok Good morning ‘lo Good morning Good morning Hello – Good morning Good morning –

State primary group A Good morning Hello Good morning Good morning + namea Good morning Good morning Good morning Hello Good morning Good morning Good morning

State primary group B Good morning Good morning Good morning Hello Good morning Good morning Good morning Good morning Good morning Good morning Good morning Good morning Good morning Hello Good morning Good morning Good morning

Note: aresearch assistant’s German gender title + surname; This task was completed by 11 learners in state primary group A – one boy that had completed the written task did not take part in the spoken task

The results show that three of the private international school learners did not say anything when greeted by the research assistant. It can only be speculated why the learners did not reply. One possible explanation may be that they did not find it necessary to greet the researcher since they had already met her when they did the written task, or had greeted each other previously when passing each other on the corridor, since the research assistants were familiar with the school environment and spent some time there. A third alternative explanation could be that these children considered it not necessary to return the greeting, as they might have perceived good morning to be an official starter comment signalling that the task is going to begin7 and thus not requiring reciprocation. The results show that most of the young learners who replied to the research assistant responded with good morning, i.e. by repeating the same greeting that had been directed at them. Good morning was used by eight of the 14 private international school learners (corresponding to 57%), nine of the 11 state primary group A learners (corresponding to 81%) and 15 of the 17 state primary group B learners (corresponding to 88%). The second most frequently used greeting by all three groups was hello which was employed by two learners from each group. It needs to 7  Similar behaviour, i.e. greetings that are not reciprocated or only reciprocated by some but not by others, can sometimes be observed in committee or boardroom meetings when the chair starts the meeting with a greeting that may be met with some mumbled reciprocations, some nods, some smiles or no reactions at all.

7.2  Young L2 Learners’ Performance in the Spoken Task

245

Table 7.7  Young L2 learners’ reply to What’s your name? in task S1 Reply My name is [first name] My name is [first name]. And you? First name No answer

Private international 7 (50%) 0

State primary group A 10 (91%) 1 (9%)

State primary group B 16 (94%) 0

7 (50%) 0

0 0

1 (6%) 0

be noted, however, that one of the learners from the private international group used an abbreviated form of hello – ‘lo. Only one learner from the international group used the somewhat unexpected OK – which could suggest that he perceived good morning to be the signal for the beginning of the research task and he replied with OK to show that he was ready. Interestingly, one of the state school group A learners addressed the research assistant by name using his German gender title Herr [Mr] and his surname. This indicates that children at the beginning of their L2 learning process in the second year of their studies at primary school may wish to use appropriate terms of address in English when greeting someone, which is an interesting finding because the young EFL learners’ inability to do so in English is not surprising since gender titles + surnames are rarely featured in textbooks (cf. Sect. 4.3.1). As the utterance from this young learner suggests, formal terms of address are an area that textbook writers could focus on more. Following the greeting, the research assistants asked their first question, namely What’s your name? The young L2 learners’ responses are presented in Table 7.7. The results show that all young learners were able to respond to the question appropriately by providing their first names, which is a good sign, since coming back to my concept of Survival English, these children demonstrate that they can understand a question about themselves that could be vital and can respond to it. This is good. What is interesting is that the young L2 learners in the private international school are evenly split between using a complete sentence My name is [first name] and just providing their first names, whereas all but one of the children in the state primary use a complete sentence. This difference could suggest that the EFL teacher in the state primary placed emphasis on her learners using complete sentences, whereas in the international school a more relaxed approach may be taken, because English is the language that children use throughout the day at school. Another interesting result is the reciprocated question regarding the research assistant’s name that is posed by a learner from the state primary group A. Although I did not expect that children would return the questions they are asked in task S1, this was a very positive surprise, since it indicates that (a) children did in fact (want to) engage in a conversation with the research assistant and felt comfortable8 to do

8  This is very positive with regard to how the research assistants interacted with the children, as it suggests that the children felt comfortable enough to ask these questions.

246

7  Results – Young L2 Learners

Table 7.8  Young L2 learners’ reply to How are you? in task S1 Reply Fine I’m fine I’m fine, thank you I’m feeling fine I’m fine. And you? I’m fine. How are you? Good I’m good I’m feeling good I’m happy I’m okay No response

Private international 1 (7%) 3 (21%) 2 (14%) 1 (7%)

1 (7%) 4 (29%) 2 (14%) 0 0 0

State primary group A 0 5 (45%) 0 0 3 (27%) 1 (9%) 0 0 0 2 (18%) 0 0

State primary group B 0 11 (65%) 0 0 0 1 (6%) 0 0 0 0 3 (18%) 2 (12%)

so, and (b) children had the linguistic means to ask these questions. In the following question, the children were asked how they were. Table 7.8 presents the results. The results show that – in contrast to the first two responses by the young L2 learners to the greeting good morning and the question about their name  – the replies by the learners to this question are more varied overall. Responses that are based on fine are used by the vast majority of learners in the two state school groups, whereas learners in the private international school are evenly split with regard to their responses – with half of them using a reply including fine and half of them using a reply including good. In German, the standard response to How are you [Wie geht es dir?/Wie geht es Ihnen?] tends to be Gut, danke.9 [Good, thank you]. Since the typical German well-being answer would work if it were transferred into English, it is interesting that none of the German EFL learners in the state school used it. One explanation for this may be that expressions featuring fine may be focused on heavily in EFL classes, since the German homophone fein is used in very different contexts10 and teachers may therefore emphasize the English use of fine as a response to wellbeing questions. Another explanation may be that good as a response to How are you is actively discouraged11 by some teachers. 9  This applies to typical greetings at the beginning of a brief chat lasting only a few turns in which the actual state of one’s physical well-being is not discussed. Typically, these conversations begin with a greet [Guten Tag – lit. Good day], perhaps an expression of pleasure [Schön Sie zu sehen! Nice to see you] and then a wellbeing question with a standardized response which is then reciprocated, and perhaps some questions after the interlocutor’s family. This then may be followed by a reciprocal expression of pleasure [Schön Sie mal wieder getroffen zu haben! Nice to have met you again!] and a subsequent leave-take. 10  Contexts in which fein may be used are when referring to fabric that is very delicate and or of high quality [feiner Stoff] or when praising a child, e.g. das hast du fein gemacht! [well done!]. 11  In his book on English expressions for everyday life situations targeted at adult German learners of English as a foreign language, Stevens (2018, p. 8) writes “auch wenn es in der Schule anders gelehrt wurde: Auf How are you? darf man ruhig mit Good. antworten [even if it was taught differently at school: You are allowed to use Good. as a response to the question How are you?]”. This

7.2  Young L2 Learners’ Performance in the Spoken Task

247

Table 7.9  Young L2 learners’ reply to How old are you? in task S1 Reply x (e.g. nine) x. And you? I’m/am x I’m x years I’m x years old X years old No response

Private international 4 (29%) 0 2 (14%) 2 (14%) 4 (29%) 2 (14%) 0

State primary group A 0 1 (9%) 5 (45%) 0 3 (27%) 1 (9%) 1 (9%)

State primary group B 5 (29%) 0 7 (41%) 0 4a (24%) 0 1 (6%)

Notes: aOne of the four children in state primary B produced I’m old x years. However, since the intention is obvious, this is included in the count for I’m x years old

From a grammar perspective, it is noteworthy that only the children in the immersion context use the progressive in their responses. The data also reveal that four members of state school group A and one member of state school group B reciprocates the question, which is again a positive sign. The response I’m happy might reflect the children’s true feelings at the time and if this is indeed the case, then this could indicate that they enjoyed participating in the research project and felt happy in the atmosphere that the research assistant had created. The response I’m okay also seems very natural and appropriate in this situation. Two children from state school group B did not reply to this question and perhaps may have found the question a little difficult. Young learners’ responses to the question about their age are presented in Table  7.9. The results reveal that only two children  – one from each of the state school groups – did not reply to the question that asked for their age. All other children produced an utterance that provided their interlocutor with the relevant information. What is interesting is that the responses from the two state school groups differed in some respects. While five learners from group B just provided a number that corresponded to their age, none of the learners from group A did so. Since the participant numbers in both groups differ (11 learners in group A and 17 learners in group B), this difference in participants could be an explanation. The final question in Task S1 was Do you like English? All children from the private international school replied with yes. In the state school, the majority of learners in both groups – 10 of the 11 members of group A (corresponding to 91%) and 12 of the 17 learners in group B (71%) – also answered yes. One learner in group B and three learners in group A said no, and two learners in group B responded statement by an author who regularly writes materials for one of the major German post-secondary adult foreign language education publishers, Hueber, suggests that this is an issue that EFL teachers and publishers have come across and wanted to address directly. Interestingly, good. is included as a response to a wellbeing question in one of the EFL primary textbooks (Playway 3) but this book was not used at the school. For an overview of responses to wellbeing questions in the textbooks analysed see Sect. 4.3.1.

248

7  Results – Young L2 Learners

okay and geht so [okay]. This question had mainly been included as a simple yes/no question that we hoped the learners could easily reply to. This was the case in general. However, two of the learners in state school group B answered the question in German (i.e. the aforementioned geht so and nein instead of no). Since all learners were aware that the research assistants were in their final stages of their MEd studies and would soon be EFL teachers, it is not clear whether the answers reflect the young learners’ true feelings or whether they were being polite. In summary, the young L2 learners’ responses to the greeting and the four questions are encouraging overall, since they indicate that the majority of the young learners in the private international and state school groups would be able to reciprocate a greeting and respond to simple questions about themselves. The low number of learners who decided not to respond is also positive, as this shows that even if they are not sure how to produce certain language features correctly, young learners are willing to try and communicate, even if this means reverting back to their native language (e.g. by using the German gender title following an English greeting) in places.

7.2.2  Spoken Task S2: Colours and Numbers In this task, the research assistant showed children cards with numbers (1,5,7) and colours (red, blue, yellow, orange). In addition, the research assistant asked the children to count from one to ten and asked them about their favourite colour. This question  had been included, because the Thuringian curriculum for foreign languages in primary schools stipulates that numbers and colours should be taught (Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur 2010). In addition, task S2 was intended to be an easy task for the young learners that was hoped would be motivating for the children, as they were likely to experience success in their foreign language. The results of the three groups show that all children in all groups were able to name the colours and numbers and count from one to ten. This is a very positive result, as numbers and colours can also be of importance in Survival English (for example, when children are asked about the colour of their parents’ hair, clothing or car, or when they are asked how many family members they are looking for). Table 7.10 presents the results of the children’s favourite colours. The results show that the children in the three groups mentioned a range of colours and did not solely restrict themselves to the colours that they had just encountered in the task.

7.2  Young L2 Learners’ Performance in the Spoken Task

249

Table 7.10  Young L2 learners’ favourite colour Reply Black and white Blue Blue and green Gold Green Orange Pink Purple and pink Red Red and blue Red and green Turquoise Yellow Many Don’t have one

Private international 0 3 (21%) 1 (7%) 1 (7%) 1 (7%) 2 (14%) 0 0 2 (14%) 0 1 (7%) 1 (7%) 0 1 (7%) 1 (7%)

State primary group A 1 (9%) 3 (27%) 0 0 1 (9%) 0 2 (18%) 1 (9%) 1 (9%) 0 0 1 (9%) 1 (9%) 0 0

State primary group B 0 5 (29%) 1 (6%) 0 2 (12%) 2 (12%) 0 0 4 (24%) 1 (6%) 0 0 0 0 0

7.2.3  Spoken Task S3: Total Physical Response In this spoken task  – named Total Physical Response (TPR)12 after the teaching approach – the young L2 learners were asked to carry out the following actions: (a) Touch your nose. (b) Clap your hands. (c) Stamp your feet. (d) Touch your chair. (e) Stand up. (f) Turn around. (g) Jump. (h) Sit down. These particular actions had been chosen since the research assistants and I had considered it likely that primary school children would have encountered them in their classrooms, since (a–c) refer to actions that also explicitly mention parts of the body (and the body and its parts are recommended EFL topics in the Thuringian curriculum), and (d–h) are actions that children are likely to encounter in songs, chants, raps, games or as part of classroom management. The results showed that all private international school learners were able to carry out the actions the research assistants asked them to do. In contrast, however, learners from the state school struggled with some TPR actions. Table 7.11 presents the results of the TPR task S3.  See Hall (2011) for a general discussion of TPR and Cameron (2001) for an explanation of TPR regarding young L2 learners.

12

250

7  Results – Young L2 Learners

Table 7.11  Young L2 learners’ responses to task S3 – TPR Task ID S3a

S3b

S3c

S3d

S3e

S3f

S3g

S3h

TPR Touch your nose  Task completed correctly  Incorrect action/no action Clap your hands  Task completed correctly  Incorrect action/no action Stamp your feet  Task completed correctly  Incorrect action/no action Touch your chair  Task completed correctly  Incorrect action/no action Stand up  Task completed correctly  Incorrect action/no action Turn around  Task completed correctly  Incorrect action/no action Jump  Task completed correctly  Incorrect action/no action Sit down  Task completed correctly  Incorrect action/no action

Private international

State primary group A

State primary group B

14 (100%) 0

11 (100%) 0

13 (76%) 4 (24%)

14 (100%) 0

11 (100%) 0

17 (100%) 0

14 (100%) 0

10 (91%) 1 (9%)

16 (94%) 1 (6%)

14 (100%) 0

2 (18%) 9 (82%)

1 (6%) 16 (94%)

14 (100%) 0

11 (100%) 0

17 (100%) 0

14 (100%) 0

9 (82%) 2 (18%)

6 (35%) 11 (65%)

14 (100%) 0

10 (91%) 1 (9%)

12 (71%) 5 (29%)

14 (100%) 0

11 (100%) 0

17 (100%) 0

Notes: Only two options are presented here – either the children completed the task correctly or they did not do so, either by not doing anything, voicing that they did not understand or by doing something that the researcher had not asked for. All of these non-correct responses were noted down by the research assistant with a minus sign on the data collection sheet, as the research assistant was not able to note down the different incorrect responses since this would have taken up too much time. Since we were aware of parents’ concerns regarding the participation of their children in the research project, I had decided early on that we would not consider video recording the children, as this seemed to be an issue parents found problematic.

7.2  Young L2 Learners’ Performance in the Spoken Task

251

The results reveal that three of the eight TPR actions were performed correctly by all learners: S3b (clap your hands), S3e (stand up) and S3h (sit down). As mentioned above, children are likely to be familiar with these actions, as S3b tends to accompany music or rhyme-based teaching materials and S3e and S3h tend to be frequently used by teachers. The findings further show that the majority of learners from both state school group tended to struggle with S3d (touch your chair). After having observed that that young EFL learners had problems with this particular task, the research assistant made some enquiries in the school and discovered that the word chair had not yet been covered in the EFL classes, which explained why the majority of the children did not know what to do13. It is not clear why some of the learners struggled with actions S3a (touch your nose), S3c (stamp your feet), S3f (turn around) and S3g (jump). Overall, however, it is good that all children were able to respond to some of the TPR actions, especially S3e and S3h, as these might be encountered in a variety of situations. The fact that the word chair had not been introduced to the young EFL state school learners during their first year of learning English is somewhat surprising, as chairs form an important part of the classroom environment and may be moved around for certain activities in the classroom.

7.2.4  Spoken Task S4: Translation In the spoken translation task, the research assistants asked the children to give them the English equivalents of the German words/expressions they had told the children. The task comprised a total of 17 words/expressions,14 six of which were relevant from a pragmatic perspective. Learners’ responses to these six items are presented in Table 7.12. The results show that there were two expressions, both greetings (hello and good morning), which the children in all groups could translate into English. As was expected, the L2 learners in the private immersion context did well with regard to these simple speech act expressions, as they are likely to use them frequently on an everyday basis. Interestingly, however, two of the learners from the private international school did not respond with a general greeting like their school mates. One of the learners (an English native speaker) opted out of answering the question and one learner (a native speaker of German) replied How are you today? which 13  Interestingly, the research assistant was quickly able to note down that in some instances children snapped their fingers instead of touching their chair. 14  Regrettably, some of the recordings of non-pragmatic items of the private international school pupils are somewhat ambiguous, which is why I decided to not include them here and to instead only focus on the words that are particularly relevant from a pragmatic perspective to ensure comparability. As the complete set of data is available from the state school pupils, Table 7.19 in this chapter’s appendix provides an overview of the state school learners’ oral translations of all 17 words/expressions. The words/expressions were selected because they corresponded to the requirements of the Thuringian curriculum for foreign language education in primary schools.

252

7  Results – Young L2 Learners

Table 7.12  Young L2 learners’ responses to task S4 – Oral translation Task ID S4.4

S4.5

S4.9

S4.10

S4.16

S4.17

Translation (German – English) Bitte [please]  Correct  False Danke [thank you/thanks]  Correct  False Guten Taga [lit. good day]  Correct  False Gute Nacht [good night]  Correct  False Hallo [hello]  Correct  False Guten morgen [good morning]  Correct  False

Private international

State primary group A

State primary group B

14 (100%) 0

7 (64%) 4 (36%)

10 (59%) 7 (41%)

14 (100%) 0

10 (91%) 1 (9%)

17% (100%) 0

12 (86%) 2 (14%)

9 (81%) 2 (19%)

12 (71%) 5 (29%)

14 (100%) 0

7 (64%) 4 (36%)

11 (65%) 6 (35%)

14 (100%) 0

11 (100%) 0

17% (100%) 0

14 (100%) 0

11 (100%) 0

17% (100%) 0

Notes: athe literal translation of Guten Tag is good day. However, not all children may be familiar with this expression. While it is frequently used in Australia, in other English speaking countries Good morning/afternoon/evening are typically used. Because of this, all greets (incl. hello) were counted as correct translations here

despite representing an expression that is typically used in a greeting sequence does not correspond15 to the original expression. Regarding the state school pupils, it was somewhat unexpected to see that more than half of them struggled with the translation for bitte [please], since the majority of them had matched the two expressions correctly in Sect. 7.1.2. This suggests potential shortcomings of word matching tasks when eliciting data from young learners. Although this data collection approach might be enjoyable for the learners, the question that needs to be asked is to what extent the matched words provide insights into L2 learners’ ability to translate and/or use the words in real-life context, since a matching words task can also be completed successfully be a process of elimination or luck when guessing the words that are not yet known. However, as a general point that applies to all spoken data collection procedures involving learners – it needs to be borne in mind that this form of data collection may be perceived as stressful and exam-like by the learners – no matter how friendly and warm the person carrying out the research is. The best way to address the strengths and shortcomings of the two data collection types (written and spoken) is probably a combination of both of them when young learners are involved, as this 15

 The German equivalent of How are you today? would be Wie geht es Ihnen/dir heute?

7.2  Young L2 Learners’ Performance in the Spoken Task

253

at least provides some insights into learners’ performance in certain tasks and unexpected findings as the one just mentioned. When designing the task, it was expected that children in a non-immersion context may find it difficult to translate Guten Tag [lit. good day] and Gute Nacht [good night], because the literal translation of the former is not frequently included in textbooks (cf. Sect. 4.3.1) and the latter is a leave-taking expression that is also rarely featured in the textbooks (cf. Sect. 4.3.2). Given that children were unlikely to encounter these expressions in their teaching materials, we were interested in whether they would nevertheless be able to produce them, as this could suggest that (a) teachers had focused on them by using additional materials or (b) that they were able to translate the words verbatim. The findings show that the majority of the pupils in state school groups A and B were able to produce a correct translation. This is encouraging and suggests that their teacher places importance on learners’ ability to produce basic speech acts.

7.2.5  Spoken Task S5: Requests In this task, children were asked to respond to requests and to try and formulate requests themselves. The research assistant directed four requests at the young learners, two of which were ability16 request (Can you give me the ruler/rubber, please?, i.e. tasks S5.1 and S5.2) and two were permission requests (Can I have the pencil/felt tip, please?, i.e. tasks S5.4 and S5.5). The items that the requests focused on were classroom objects that the children were familiar with. In task S5.5 two different words were used by the research assistants because children in the private and state school were exposed to slightly different words in their school context. Therefore, the research assistant in the private international school used felt tip, whereas the research assistant in the state school used pen. In addition, the research assistants also asked the children if they could themselves formulate two requests17 concerning an item that the research assistant pointed out to them (e.g. glue stick, pencil case) – these items occurred in the middle and at the end of the request task and are coded as S5.3 and S5.6. If a child handed over an item that the research assistant had asked for, the research assistant first made a note whether the child had said18 anything (e.g. here you are) while handing over the item. The research assistant then thanked the pupil and also noted down if the child then produced a response to an expression of gratitude (e.g. you’re welcome). I will first discuss the findings from the two ability and two permission requests directed at the young learners in which they were asked to hand something over, i.e. S5.1, S5.2, S5.4, S5.5. The results of this task are presented in Table 7.13.  See Sect. 3.5.1 for details about request strategies, such as ability and permission requests.  The research assistants always used the same prompt, namely Can you ask for this? 18  This is classified as a verbal response in Table 7.13. 16 17

254

7  Results – Young L2 Learners

Table 7.13  Young L2 learners’ responses to task S5 – Request reactions I Task ID S5.1

S5.2

S5.4

S5.5

Private Request international Can you give me the ruler, please? 14 (100%)  Item handed over 0  Item not handed over/ 1(7%) wrong item  Verbal response by learner Can you give me the rubber, please? 14 (100%)  Item handed over 0  Item not handed over/ 1 (7%) wrong item  Verbal response by learner Can I have the pencil, please? 14 (100%)  Item handed over 0  Item not handed over/ 1 (7%) wrong item  Verbal response by learner Can I have the felt tip/pen, please? 14 (100%)  Item handed over 0  Item not handed over/ 0 wrong item  Verbal response by learner

State primary group A

State primary group B

11 (100%) 0 1 (9%)

14 (82%) 3 (18%) 3 (18%)

10 (91%) 1 (9%) 2 (18%)

16 (94%) 1 (6%) 2 (12%)

10 (91%) 1 (9%) 2 (18%)

16 (94%) 1 (6%) 2 (12%)

10 (91%) 1 (9%) 2 (18%)

17 (100%) 0 4 (24%)

Note: The percentages for the items handed over and items not handed over/wrong item should add up to 100%. The verbal responses by learners are calculated separately, i.e. if a learner hands over an item, he or she is counted as one in the category item handed over. If he or she then also provides a verbal response, he or she is counted again

The results show that all of the young learners in the private international school responded to the requests by handing over the correct item. In the state school groups, all of the learners in state group A handed over the correct item in S5.1, while the only item that was handed over by all learners in state group B was the pen in S5.5. In state primary group A, the wrong item was chosen by one learner in S5.2 who then subsequently did not hand over an item in S5.4, but handed over the correct item in S5.5. Another learner in state school group A who had handed all other items over correctly, then chose the wrong item in S5.5. In state primary group B, one learner handed over the wrong item twice and another learner did not hand over an item twice. This suggests that some learners in both state school groups found it more difficult to respond with the required action than others. Overall, however, it is good to see that the clear majority of learners in all groups were able to carry out the desired action and that all learners experienced success in this task at least twice, since there were at most two incorrect items chosen by any one learner.

7.2  Young L2 Learners’ Performance in the Spoken Task

255

Table 7.14  Young L2 learners’ responses to task S5 – Verbal expressions Task ID S5.1

Private international The ruler, yes

State primary group A Yes

S5.2

Sure

S5.4

Sure

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

S5.5

State primary group B Yes Here you are Please, a ruler Yes Please, a rubber Yes Here you are Here you are Yes Please, a pen Please, a pen

Interestingly, the majority of learners in all three groups did not use a verbal response when handing over the item. The verbal responses provided by the learners are presented in Table 7.14. In the private international group, all three verbal expressions employed when handing over the requested item were produced by the same learner. In state school group A, one learner said yes every time she handed over an item, while another learner said yes following three of the requests. In state primary group B, the verbal responses were also produced by the same learners and not by a variety of learners. So, here you are was produced by the same learner three times and three of the please, a [item] utterances were also produced by the same learner, as were three of the agreement tokens yes which were produced by another learner in three of the situations. Thus, the first finding regarding the use of verbal expression when reacting to a request is that a small number of learners in the three groups used a verbal expression, while the majority did not. In addition, the utterances differed across the three groups. The learner in the private international used sure twice, whereas all of the learners in state school group A employed yes. The largest variety of verbal request reactions were shown by the pupils in state primary group B, since three different replies were used in this group: yes; here you are; please, a [item]. This result is somewhat unexpected because based on the learners’ written responses in task W3, I would have expected a larger number of L2 learners to use here you are or simply here. A possible reason for the higher employment of handing over responses in task W3 could be that this task was written and children therefore had more time to think about what could fit in this context. In addition, the speech bubble which was provided following the request may have triggered a response from the children. However, there are also other possible explanations. One is that the interlocutors in tasks W3 and S5 differed – in task W3 the interlocutors were age peers of the children, i.e. individuals that were of the same status and that could be spoken to informally. In S5, the children’s interlocutors were adults who would soon be teachers themselves. This may have had an impact on learners’ verbal responses if, for

256

7  Results – Young L2 Learners

example, some of them considered here you are to be an acceptable utterance from status equal to status equal (e.g. classmate – classmate) or status higher to status lower (e.g. teacher – pupil) interlocutor, but not from status lower to status higher interlocutor (e.g. pupil – research assistant). More interlanguage pragmatic research is needed on young L2 learners’ status perceptions and differences in the written and spoken pragmatic performance of young learners to be able to better determine the more likely reasons for the young learners’ behaviour. Once the children had handed over an item, the research assistant said thank you and then made a note of the individual pupil’s reaction. Three reactions were distinguished: verbal reaction, smile and nod, or no reaction. The results are presented in Table 7.15. The results show that the majority of learners did not reply to the research assistant in all three groups. In the private international group, one learner produced you’re welcome twice. Incidentally, this had also been the learner who said sure or the ruler, yes when granting the request. This child was raised in a bilingual English-­ German speaking-family in addition to attending the international school and thus language use in the home environment may have resulted in the child verbally responding more than the other learners in the immersion school in this context. It needs to be noted, however, that the one English native speaker in this group did remain silent when handing over the requested items and also did not respond to the research assistant’s expression of gratitude. Thus, exposure to English at home does not automatically result in an increased use of the language in certain situation, such Table 7.15  Young L2 learners’ responses to task S5 – Request reactions II Task ID Request S5.1 Thank you  Verbal reaction  Smile & nod  No reaction S5.2 Thank you  Verbal reaction  Smile & nod  No reaction S5.4 Thank you  Verbal reaction  Smile & nod  No reaction S5.5 Thank you  Verbal reaction  Smile & nod  No reaction

State primary group Private international A

State primary group B

0 0 14 (100%)

1 (9%) 1 (9%) 9 (82%)

2 (12%) 0 15 (88%)

0 0 14 (100%)

1 (9%) 1 (9%) 9 (82%)

3 (18%) 0 14 (82%)

1 (7%) 0 13 (93%)

1 (9%) 1 (9%) 9 (82%)

4 (24%) 0 13 (76%)

1 (7%) 0 13 (93%)

1 (9%) 1 (9%) 9 (82%)

1 (6%) 0 16 (94%)

7.2  Young L2 Learners’ Performance in the Spoken Task

257

as the ones investigated. What also needs to be considered in that respect is an individual speaker’s willingness to communicate in their L1  in the respective circumstances. In the state school groups, there are again interesting differences. While there is one learner in group A who responds with a smile and a little nod following each expression of gratitude,19 one other learner responds with please three times and one learner replies bitte after the first expression of gratitude. In state group B, three learners use please twice, one learner employs bitte and the remaining three verbal expressions are uses of please by learners who employ a verbal expression only once. Thus, the use of verbal responses to an expression of gratitude by the researcher clearly demonstrates that this is an area that children need more instruction in, as all children attending the state primary school either respond with the German bitte or please in English, which is the literal translation of bitte. Since the textbooks that I investigated in Sect. 4.4.2 also included only few and in some cases no responses to expressions of gratitude, this result should be of interest for textbook writers and textbook publishers. As the analysis of the children’s books in Chap. 5 has shown, responses to expressions of gratitude were not included in any of the children’s books investigated. As mentioned above, in task S5, the young learners were not only asked to react to requests directed at them, but were also asked if they could themselves formulate two requests in S5.3 and S5.6. Table  7.16 presents the results of this part of the investigation. In these two task items, S5.3 and S5.6, the differences between the L2 learners’ performance in the immersion context and the state school EFL learning context were extremely noticeable. While all of the private immersion school learners were able to produce standardized conventionally indirect requests20 (e.g. May I have the ruler? Can I have the ruler, please? Can you give me the pen?), the learners in the state school struggled with multiple aspects of formulating requests. The findings in Table 7.16 show that the majority of young learners in each group was able to begin a request with a standard expression, e.g. Can I (permission strategy) or Can you (ability strategy), but in many cases the rest of the utterance then contained some kind of problem, e.g. incorrect pronouns, missing articles, missing verbs, etc. The following requests from the state school learners illustrate the most frequently featured problems. • • • • •

Can you [give me the] pencil case? Can you [I] have the pencil case? Can you [give me the] glue stick? Can you [give me the glue] stick, please? Can I please [have the] glue stick?

 For a detailed review of expressions of gratitude in English see Sect. 2.1.7.  cf. Sect. 3.5.1 for an overview of request strategies and Sect. 2.1.4 for a discussion of previous research findings on requests.

19 20

258

7  Results – Young L2 Learners

Table 7.16  Young L2 learners’ responses to task S5 – Learners’ requests Task ID S5.3

S5.6

Request Can you ask for this?  Ability request (Can you ...)  Permission request (Can I .../May I ...)  Imperative  Non-standard  No request  Politeness marker (please) Can you ask for this?  Ability request (Can you ...)  Permission request (Can I .../May I ...)  Imperative  Non-standard  No request  Politeness marker (please)

Private international

State primary group A

State primary group B

6 (43%) 8 (57%) 0 0 0 7 (50%)

0 9b (82%) 0 1 (9%) 1 (9%) 3 (27%)

3a (18%) 9b (53%) 1 (6%) 4 (24%) 0 6 (35%)

2 (14%) 12 (86%) 0 0 0 9 (64%)

0 9b (82%) 0 2 (18%) 0 4 (33%)

1 (6%) 9b (53%) 1 (6%) 6 (35%) 0 8 (47%)

Notes: Non-standard is a category that includes a number of utterances that show that the child attempted to make a request but where the strategy is not clear because words are missing (e.g. I have glue stick? Or I can you have the glue stick?) a In all three cases the verb and pronoun was missing but otherwise the request strategy resembled that of an ability request (e.g. Can you pencil case?) b Requests were categorized as permission requests when they began with Can I or May I and when the intent of the young learner was still identifiable – requests were this was not the case were ­classified as non-standard

While the intention of the EFL learners was clear in most cases, especially in this specific context, the requests show that many of them were not able to produce a grammatically correct request. This is in-line with the results of the written illustrated discourse completion task in Sect. 7.1.3, where children from the state primary groups had also displayed similar problems. I would like to emphasize at this point that it is commendable that the young EFL learners felt happy to participate in the research project and felt comfortable and confident enough to produce utterances in these tasks, as they were only a few months into their second year of learning English at school. This needs to be borne in mind. Thus, what I will be critiquing here is not the young L2 learners’ performance nor any aspects of their EFL teacher’s instruction. Instead, I think that the problems that the young learners encounter when trying to produce some speech acts in English are related to textbook input. As was the case with responses to expressions of gratitude, EFL textbooks for primary school learners often simply do not equip young EFL learners well enough with regard to conventionally indirect requests as was shown in Sect. 4.2.1. Given that the most frequent request strategy that children encounter in the textbooks that I investigated is the direct imperative, the young EFL learners from the state school did incredibly well by trying to use more indirect expressions that are more appropriate in this context. This effort and pragmatic awareness on their part needs to be acknowledged.

7.2  Young L2 Learners’ Performance in the Spoken Task

259

However, similar to the findings regarding responses to expressions of gratitude, these results and the findings from Sect. 7.1.3 should really be a wake-up call for textbook publishers and textbook writers, since they need to do their bit to help young EFL learners achieve their communicative goals and this will most probably mean that they need to focus more on pragmatics when conceptualising their textbook series. As the review of textbook studies presented in Sect. 2.1.12 has shown, problems with regard to pragmatic input have been known to exist for years in EFL textbook publishing. It is high time that the textbook writers and publishers took action and address them. When examining the L2 learners’ requests, I also looked at the presence of the politeness marker please in the three groups’ data. The results showed that the use of the politeness marker was lower in the first request item than in the second. This could be the result of a task effect, i.e. that the learners felt more comfortable with this task when they were doing it for the second time than when they were first confronted with it. Alternatively, the higher number of learners employing the politeness marker could also be a result of exposure to the research assistant’s own requests, since they always used please and learners therefore would have heard the researcher produce two requests with please prior to task S5.3 and four requests prior to S5.6. In summary, the findings of the requests task have shown that the majority of children in all three groups were able to understand conventionally indirect requests directed at them and to respond with the appropriate action. The results further showed that the majority of the L2 learners did not use verbal responses when handing over the requested items. Furthermore, the learners’ verbal responses to expressions of gratitude showed that this is an area children seem to struggle with and where more input is needed. Concerning learners’ ability to produce requests themselves, the data showed that most of them tried to produce conventionally indirect requests, which is good. However, unfortunately, learners in the state school groups were frequently not able to produce grammatically correct utterances, which is not surprising given that most requests in textbooks are imperatives. I would therefore argue that more textbook input is needed that addresses the speech acts mentioned here in order to help young learners achieve their communicative goals better.

7.2.6  Spoken Task S6: Goodbye Task S6 consisted of three components: first, the research assistants asked the children what their favourite word in English was (S6.1). They then thanked them for their participation and noted down if children replied with a response to an expression of gratitude (S6.2). Finally, researchers said goodbye and noted down whether or not the child reciprocated with a leave-taking utterance (S6.3). The question about the young learners’ favourite word in English had been included, as it had been hoped that this would enable the children to again experience

260

7  Results – Young L2 Learners

Table 7.17  Young L2 learners’ responses to task S6.1 – Favourite word Learner ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Private international dog impressive love – habab – thank you window rabbit crocodile – family green team –

State primary group A horse, dog, unicorn cat dog, please cat, lemonade hello inline skating, skateboard horse ruler Saturday, Friday yes happy, cool –

State primary group B ruler Saturday, Friday yes happy, cool ruler Saturday, Friday yes happy, cool ruler book, blue, yes, no thank you football dog, cat What’s your name? tiger one hundred brother

Notes: – indicates that learner did not provide a reply

success shortly before their participation in the research project ended. The children’s responses to the favourite word question are presented in Table 7.17. The results show that all of the learners from state school group B provided one or more favourite words, while one learner from state school group A and four learners from the private international school opted out. From a pragmatic perspective, it is interesting to see that some children also mentioned speech act expressions (e.g. thank you – private international group; hello – state primary group A; thank you – state primary group B). Whether the words or expressions that the children provided here are in fact their favourite words in English is unclear – it is also possible that some of them just mentioned a word that came to their mind when they were asked the question. Nevertheless, it is interesting to observe that children provided a variety of different words and expressions here. Regarding S6.2 and learners’ responses to the research assistant’s expression of gratitude for their participation in the research project, the results support the findings from task S5. Two children from the private international school replied you’re welcome, one child from state primary group A smiled and nodded, and in state primary group B one child said yes, another said Bitteschön and two said please. This supports the notion that children need more pragmatic input concerning responses to expressions of gratitude. The final question that I was interested in was whether the young learners would respond to the research assistant’s leave-taking utterance goodbye. Young learners’ reaction to the research assistant’s farewell are presented in Table 7.18.

7.2  Young L2 Learners’ Performance in the Spoken Task

261

Table 7.18  Young L2 learners’ responses to task S6.3 – Goodbye Learner ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Private international – Goodbye Goodbye – Bye Bye Ok. Bye – Goodbye Who’s next? Bye Bye Ok Bye

State primary group A Goodbye Tschüüsa Goodbye Goodbye Goodbye Goodbye Goodbye Ciao Goodbye Goodbye Tschüs

State primary group B Goodbye Goodbye Goodbye Tschüühüs Tschüüs Goodbye Goodbye Goodbye Goodbye Goodbye Goodbye Goodbye Goodbye Goodbye Bye Goodbye Tschüs

Notes: – indicates that learner did not provide a reply One German word for bye is tschüs of which serval different versions are in use, such as the tschüsi, tschüssi (which may be used in more informal contexts – depending on the region the s sound may be pronounced differently), or the versions included in the table which indicate a more drawn out final vocal often accompanied by a sing-song like pronounciation of the word, which indicates a friendly rapport with the interlocutor or positive disposition towards them

a

The results reveal that all of the learners in the state school groups responded to the research assistant’s leave-taking utterance. While eight of the 11 learners in state group A (corresponding to 73%) and 14 of the 17 learners in state group B (corresponding to 82%) used an appropriate English leave-taking expression, the remaining pupils from these groups chose either German (tschüs) or Italian (ciao) leave-takes, which while being appropriate do not provide insights into whether these children are able to use the English equivalents as well. Interestingly, three of the 14 learners from the private international school did no reply to the research assistant, while the remaining 11 mainly used leave-taking expressions (e.g. the slightly more formal goodbye that was also employed by all state school pupils using an English leave-taking expression or the slightly more informal bye). It is not clear why three of the private international school pupils did not return the research assistant’s farewell. One possible explanation might be that they expected to see her again later during the day because they were aware that she would be collecting further data from other pupils. This would also explain the question about who’s next from one of the children in the private international group. In the state school data, the uniformity of the English leave-taking expression is noteworthy. This homogeneous response could be mere mirroring of the researcher

262

7  Results – Young L2 Learners

assistant’s utterance or it could indicate that children in the EFL primary state school groups only know goodbye. Since the analysis of the textbooks has shown that leave-takes are rarely featured in the textbooks (cf. Sect. 4.3.2), both explanations are feasible. Overall, however, it is good to see that most of the children from both schools were able to provide favourite words and use an appropriate leave-taking expression at the end of their participation in the study.

7.3  Summary Regarding the analysis of the written data, the young L2 learners’ responses to the two matching tasks (W1 involving matching images and words and W2 involving the matching of words from the native and the target language) showed that these tasks were completed correctly by the majority of learners in all three groups. Since the two tasks had been designed to be relatively easy in order for the children to experience success early on in their participation in the research project, this was a result that was in-line with the expectations of the MEd research assistants and myself. Learners’ responses to the two pragmatic tasks in the illustrated discourse completion task, i.e. the empty speech bubbles in tasks W3a and W3b showed that a number of learners opted out from completing aspects of these tasks. Encouragingly, some learners who did not attempt to provide an utterance in the first speech bubble of W3b then provided one in the second speech bubble of W3b. While the results in the second speech bubble of W3b were rather homogeneous (most children used thank you for the ruler they had received from their interlocutor), the utterances included in the other speech bubbles of W3b and W3a displayed greater variety. Some of the state school learners’ utterances also suggested negative transfer from German (e.g. the use of please) or some unease with regard to English sentence structures (e.g. incomplete sentences missing verbs and pronouns). Differences in L2 learners’ production or willingness to provide responses in the speech bubbles may be connected to individual learner differences, such as motivation or anxiety. The first task in the spoken tasks set, S1, featured five utterances that the research assistant directed at the young learner, the greeting Good morning, and four questions, namely (a) What’s your name?, (b) How are you?, (c) How old are you? and (d) Do you like English? The results showed that three of the private international pupils did not say anything when greeted by the research assistant, while most of the young learners who replied to the research assistant responded with good morning, i.e. by repeating the same greeting that had been directed at them. Good morning

7.3 Summary

263

was used by 57% of the private international school learners, 81% of the state primary group A learners and 88% of the state primary group B learners. When asked about their name, all learners in the three groups were able to answer either by only stating their name or by using a complete sentence. The results of the wellbeing question showed that all of the children from the private international school and all from state primary group A produced a reply, whereas two learners from state school group B opted out. Two young learners opted out when asked about their age (one from each state school group). All remaining learners provided an acceptable response. The final question in Task S1 was whether the children liked English. All children from the private international school replied with yes. In the state school, the majority of learners in both groups (91% of learners from group A and 71% of learners from group A) also answered yes. The results of task S2, which focused on colours and numbers, showed that all children in all groups were able to name the colours and numbers and count from one to ten. In addition, the children were also able to name their own favourite colour. The findings of task S3, the TPR task, revealed that all private international school learners were able to carry out the actions the research assistants asked them to do. In contrast, however, learners from the state school struggled with some TPR actions. Only three of the eight TPR actions were performed correctly by all learners: S3b (clap your hands), S3e (stand up) and S3h (sit down). The results of pragmatic components of the translation task, S4, showed that there were two expressions, hello and good morning, which the children in all groups could translate into English. However, it was somewhat unexpected to see that more than half of the state school pupils struggled with the translation for bitte [please], since the majority of them had matched the two expressions correctly in Sect. 7.1.2. The findings of the conversation task focusing on conventionally indirect requests, S5, revealed that the majority of children in all three groups were able to understand conventionally indirect requests directed at them and to respond with the appropriate action. The results further showed that the majority of the L2 learners did not use verbal responses when handing over the requested items. Furthermore, the learners’ verbal responses to expressions of gratitude revealed that this is an area children seem to struggle with and where more input is needed. Regarding learners’ ability to produce requests themselves, the data showed that most of them tried to produce conventionally indirect requests, but that unfortunately learners in the state school groups were frequently not able to produce grammatically correct requests. The goodbye task, S6, showed that most of the young learners provided one or more favourite word(s) and were also able to respond to the research assistant’s goodbye by using an appropriate English leave-taking expression.

264

7  Results – Young L2 Learners

Appendix Table 7.19  Young L2 learners’ responses to task S4 – Oral translation Task ID S4.1

S4.2

S4.3

S4.4

S4.5

S4.6

S4.7

S4.8

S4.9

S4.10

S4.11

S4.12

S4.13

S4.14

Translation (German – English) State primary group A Bruder [brother]  Correct 11 (100%)  False 0 Schwester [sister]  Correct 11 (100%)  False 0 Haus [house]  Correct 7 (64%)  False 4 (36%) Bitte [please]  Correct 7 (64%)  False 4 (36%) Danke [thank you]  Correct 10 (91%)  False 1 (9%) Hund [dog]  Correct 11 (100%)  False 0 Katze [cat]  Correct 11 (100%)  False 0 Buch [book]  Correct 11 (100%)  False 0 Guten Tag [lit. Good day]  Correct 9 (81%)  False 2 (19%) Gute Nacht [good night]  Correct 7 (64%)  False 4 (36%) Weihnachtsmann [Father Christmas]  Correct 4 (36%)  False 7 (64%) Mutter [mother]  Correct 11 (100%)  False 0 Vater [father]  Correct 11 (100%)  False 0 Löwe [lion]  Correct 5 (45%)  False 6 (55%)

State primary group B 17% (100%) 0 17% (100%) 0 13 (76%) 4 (24%) 10 (59%) 7 (41%) 17% (100%) 0 15 (88%) 2 (12%) 17% (100%) 0 17% (100%) 0 12 (71%) 5 (29%) 11 (65%) 6 (35%) 7 (41%) 10 (59%) 17% (100%) 0 17% (100%) 0 4 (24%) 13 (76%) (continued)

References

265

Table 7.19 (continued) Task ID S4.15

S4.16

S4.17

Translation (German – English) Montag [Monday]  Correct  False Hallo [hello]  Correct  False Guten Morgen [good morning]  Correct  False

State primary group A

State primary group B

11 (100%) 0

16 (94%) 1 (6%)

11 (100%) 0

17% (100%) 0

11 (100%) 0

17% (100%) 0

References Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2003). Understanding the role of grammar in the acquisition of L2 pragmatics. In A. M. Flor, A. F. Guerra, & E. U. Juan (Eds.), Pragmatic competence and foreign language teaching (pp. 25–44). Castelló de la Plana: Publicaciones de la Universitat Jaume I. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2012). Formulas, routines, and conventional expressions in pragmatics research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 206–227. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0267190512000086. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic vs. grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 233– 259. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587583. Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Abingdon: Routledge. Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. Abingdon: Routledge. Hall, G. (2011). Exploring English language teaching: Language in action. Abingdon: Routledge. Hestetræet, T.  I. (2019). Vocabulary teaching for young learners. In S.  Garton & F.  Copland (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of teaching English to young learners (pp. 300–317). London: Routledge. Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. MacIntyre, P., Dörnyei, Z., Clément, R., & Noels, K.  A. (1989). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb05543.x. Niezgoda, K., & Roever, C. (2001). Pragmatic and grammatical awareness. In K.  R. Rose & G.  Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp.  63–79). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schauer, G. A. (2006). Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: Contrast and development. Language Learning, 56(2), 269–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2006.00348.x. Schauer, G. A. (2009). Interlanguage pragmatic development: The study abroad context. London: Continuum/Bloomsbury. Schauer, G. A. (2018). Foreign language pragmatic development in an instructed context – investigating input and output. Plenary held at the Teaching and Learning L2 Pragmatics Conference at University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK, 28th – 29th June 2018.

266

7  Results – Young L2 Learners

Schauer, G. A., & Adolphs, S. (2006). Expressions of gratitude in corpus and DCT data: Vocabulary, formulaic sequences, and pedagogy. System, 34(1), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. system.2005.09.003. Siemund, P. (2018). Speech acts and clause types: English in a cross-linguistic context. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning. London: Arnold. Stevens, J.  (2018). Englisch Alltagstauglich: Die wichtigsten Sätze zum Mitreden. München: Hueber. Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur. (2010). Lehrplan für die Grundschule und für die Förderschule mit dem Bildungsgang der Grundschule: Fremdsprache. Erfurt: Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur.

Chapter 8

Conclusion

Abstract  In this chapter, I will first summarize the findings of the four investigations into teaching and learning English as a foreign language in the primary school (the textbook study, the investigation of children’s books, the survey completed by EFL teachers, and the study focusing on L2 learners in different learning contexts). This will be followed by a section that addresses the limitations of the research project. Subsequent to this, I will discuss the theoretical, methodological and pedagogical implications of this project. Keywords  Interlanguage pragmatics · EFL · EFL learners · ELT · TEYL · Textbooks · Materials · Young learners

8.1  Summary of Findings In the following, I will first summarize the results of the two pragmatic input investigations, namely the textbook study and the picturebook investigation in Sects. 8.1.1 and 8.1.2 respectively. This will be followed by a summary of the findings of the survey completed by EFL primary school teachers in Sect. 8.1.3. The results of the investigation into young L2 learners’ written and spoken output in English will then be summarized in Sect. 8.1.4.

8.1.1  Textbooks In this part of the research project, I analysed eight textbooks representing four German EFL primary school textbook series: Bumblebee 3 (Ehlers et al. 2013) and 4 (Ehlers et al. 2017) published by Schroedel, Ginger 3 (Caspari-Grote et al. 2013) and 4 (Caspari-Grote et al. 2014) published by Cornelsen, Playway 3 (Gerngross, Puchta and Becker 2013a) and 4 (Gerngross, Puchta and Becker 2013b) published by Klett, and Sunshine 3 (Aschkar et al. 2016) and 4 (Aschkar et al. 2015) published by Cornelsen. In these textbooks, I investigated 10 speech acts: requests, responses © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 G. A. Schauer, Teaching and Learning English in the Primary School, English Language Education 18, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23257-3_8

267

268

8 Conclusion

to requests, greetings, leave-takings, expressions of gratitude, responses to expressions of gratitude, apologies, suggestions, responses to suggestions and expressions of mental or physical states. The results of the investigation into the number of speech acts included in the textbooks showed that the majority of the textbooks contained more than eight of them. Bumblebee 3, Playway 3, Playway 4 featured all 10, while Ginger 4, Sunshine 3, Sunshine 4 contained nine and Ginger 3 included eight. Bumblebee 4 differs considerably from the other seven, since this textbook only included three out of the 10 speech act categories examined. The low number of speech act categories featured in this textbook is surprising, since Bumblebee 3 contained all 10 speech acts investigated. While the other textbook series either contain an equal number of speech act categories in books 3 and 4, or feature a slightly higher number of speech act categories in book 4 than in book 3, Bumblebee is the only textbook series in which this sharp decrease of speech act categories can be observed. In addition, the low number of speech acts in Bumblebee 4 cannot be attributed to a considerably lower page count, since the Bumblebee series has the highest page count of all textbook series with 72 pages for Bumblebee 3 and 79 pages for Bumblebee 4. The analysis of the number of instances with which the individual speech acts are featured in the eight textbooks has shown that while one speech act, requests, is over-represented, most others are clearly under-represented: Requests are the most frequently included speech act in all eight textbooks and represent 74% of all speech act instances provided in the eight textbooks. This means that the remaining nine speech acts under investigation together only amount to 26% of the speech acts included in the textbooks. Given that the speech act categories in second and third place, responses to requests and greetings, represent 11 and 7% respectively, the top three speech act categories together account for 92% of all speech act occurrences, which means that the number of instances with which the other seven speech act categories are featured in the textbooks is very small. This suggests that textbook writers and/or publishers did not focus on including a wide range of different speech acts that are then repeated regularly to facilitate learning in the textbooks investigated. The analysis has further shown that speech act pairs (e.g. request and request responses, suggestions and responses to suggestions, expressions of gratitude and responses to expressions of gratitude) were not included with the same frequency in the textbooks. Thus, young L2 learners will frequently not be exposed to the second speech act that typically follows the first. This is not ideal, since it deprives EFL learners of input opportunities that would enable them to notice patterns in responses to speech acts. The analysis of the individual speech acts showed that the vast majority of all request strategies included in the textbooks were direct requests. As a consequence, conventionally indirect requests, which are in fact very frequently used in authentic English interactions, were featured rarely. In my view, this is a problem because young EFL learners exposed to this kind of input may get the impression that requests are predominantly produced with direct strategies in English. In order to address this misconception and to increase young EFL learners’ exposure to

8.1  Summary of Findings

269

conventionally indirect request strategies, EFL primary school teachers using any of the four textbook series examined here will need to think about what they can do to provide more frequent input of conventionally indirect request strategies in their classrooms. Concerning responses to requests, the analysis of the eight textbooks showed that while all of them included responses to requests, there are differences concerning the reply categories included in the textbooks. Five textbooks (Bumblebee 4, Ginger 4, Playway 3, Sunshine 3, Sunshine 4) did not include any refusals to requests. This is problematic because all EFL learners should be equipped with the linguistic means to say no to a request for some kind of action on their part. While all textbooks contained greetings, the range of different greeting routines included in the textbooks differed considerably with some textbooks featuring only two (Bumblebee 3) and some six (Playway 3). The number of leave-taking instances provided in the textbooks is considerably lower than the number of greetings (31 and 177 respectively). This means that young EFL learners will not encounter complete conversations that begin with a greeting and end with a leave-taking in most cases. A total of 50 expressions of gratitude were included in the seven textbooks that contained them. The low number of thanking expressions in most textbooks (apart from Playway 4) is problematic. As I have discussed in Sect. 4.4.1, some textbooks missed out on easy opportunities to present expressions of gratitude that other textbooks made use of. The analysis of responses to expressions of gratitude revealed that none were included in three textbooks (Bumblebee 4, Ginger 3 and Sunshine 3). In addition, the number of responses to expressions of gratitude are very low. In contrast to the 50 expressions of gratitude that were found in the seven textbooks that featured them, only 10 responses to expressions of gratitude were included in the textbooks in total. Consequently, 40 expressions of gratitude are not followed up with a response to an expression of gratitude. Only 24 apologies were included in the textbooks. While Bumblebee 4 did not feature any, Ginger 4 only included a single apology and Sunshine 4 only featured two. As I stated in Sect. 4.5, this is problematic, since it deprives EFL learners of a cross-cultural learning opportunity with regard to frequently used apology expressions in British English. A total of 46 suggestions and 21 responses to suggestions were included in the textbooks. The number of suggestions featured in the individual books tended to vary considerably with none in Bumblebee 4, and only one each in Ginger 4 and Sunshine 4, while Playway 4 contained 15. Only five books contained responses to suggestions and again the number of instances varied: Playway 4 featured 11, Playway 3 included five, Sunshine 3 contained three, whereas Bumblebee 3 and Ginger 3 only included one each. The results concerning expressions of physical or mental states showed that the textbooks mostly focused on negative states (13 different adjectives) compared to only six positive or neutral states (fine, happy, proud, ready, not alone, not scared). While the representation of expressions of physical and mental states is not balanced in the textbooks, I would argue that this imbalance is not as bad as it might seem, as

270

8 Conclusion

from a Survival English point of view, it is far more important for young EFL learners to be able to express being alone and/or being scared rather than being happy or proud. The speech act analysis of the individual textbooks revealed that the textbook series that featured the highest number of speech act categories and speech act occurrences is the Playway series. The analysis of the individual speech acts showed that the Playway series consistently provides a varied range of speech acts, routines and modifiers. This suggests that the textbook writers and/or the publishing house paid attention to speech acts when developing this series. It needs to be re-stated here, however, that although the Playway series needs to be commended for the pragmatic input options that it offers young EFL learners, teachers and the publishing house should carefully consider whether other aspects of this series are suitable for young learners (e.g. aspects of the Snow White storyline and imagery on page 36 of Playaway 4).

8.1.2  Children’s Books This part of the research project focused on pragmatic input opportunities provided by 22 picturebooks. I first examined whether the ten speech acts that I had also concentrated on in the textbook analysis (requests, responses to requests, greetings, leave-takings, expressions of gratitude, responses to expressions of gratitude, apologies, suggestions, responses to suggestions and expressions of mental or physical states) were included in all 22 picturebooks. The result of this initial examination was that only 20 picturebooks contained at least one of the speech acts investigated in this study. Consequently, the analysis and discussion of speech acts in picturebooks concentrated on 20 of the 22 books – excluding The very hungry caterpillar (Carle 2018) and Winnie the witch (Thomas & Paul 2016). The investigation further revealed that in contrast to the textbooks, the children’s books featured six speech act categories at most (Azzi in between by Garland 2015), with 18 children’s books including a maximum of four speech acts. The top three speech acts concerning the total number of occurrences in the children’s books were requests, responses to requests and greetings. Requests were the most frequently included speech act in the picturebooks with 175 occurrences of a total of 281 speech act instances. This means that requests account for 62% of all speech act instances in the children’s books. Responses to requests featured with a total number of 54 occurrences in the picturebooks, which corresponds to 19%. Greetings were only included in six children’s books with a total number of 22 instances corresponding to only 8%. As a result, the top three speech acts in the picturebooks represent 89% of all speech acts included in the children’s books. In addition, the top three speech acts in the textbooks and the top three speech act in the children’s books are the same. The analysis of the picturebooks has further shown that – in contrast to the textbooks – some speech act categories were not included in any of the children’s books

8.1  Summary of Findings

271

examined in this study. These tended to be responsive speech acts or speech acts that occur at the end of an interaction. Thus, young EFL learners will generally not be exposed to dialogues in the children’s books that resemble the authentic phases of everyday-life conversations. This again mirrors the results of the textbook investigation. Regarding individual speech acts, the analysis showed that the most frequently included request strategies in the children’s books belonged to the direct request category: imperatives and enquiries. Since these direct request strategies were also the most frequently featured ones in the textbooks, the children’s books investigated here would not enable young L2 learners to encounter a broader range of request strategies and would also not provide them with much input regarding conventionally indirect requests. The analysis of request responses in the picturebooks showed that not all requests presented in the children’s books were followed by a request response. In addition, the analysis revealed a dominant request response type, answers to requests, that accounted for 94% of all request responses. Consequently, utterances that grant or refuse requests only featured very rarely in the picturebooks. The results further showed that Azzi in between (Garland 2012) contained the largest number of greetings with nine out of a total of 22 greetings and also included the broadest range of greeting strategies. Leave-takings were only rarely included in the picturebooks. Only three children’s books examined for this study contained them. As a consequence, the vast majority of the children’s books did not include conversations that begin with a greeting and end with a leave-taking utterance. Expressions of gratitude were not frequently featured in the children’s books investigated in this study either. The results revealed that expressions of gratitude were only included in two books, The smartest giant in town (Donaldson and Scheffler 2016) and The lion who wanted to love (Andrea and Wojtowycz 2009). Unfortunately, however, no instances of responses to expressions of gratitude were included in either of the two picturebooks. This means that the children’s books investigated are not a suitable source of additional input with regard to these two speech acts. Concerning apologies, only one utterance – included in Something Else (Cave and Riddell 2011) – contained partially relevant input. If teachers wish to expose their young EFL learners to unambiguous apology expressions, then none of the books investigated are suitable. Only three picturebooks featured suggestions: Azzi in between (Garland 2015), Monkey Puzzle (Donaldson and Scheffler 2017) and Snore (Rosen and Langley 2003). However, since each book only included one suggestion, teachers wishing to focus on this speech act will also need to look elsewhere. Expressions of physical and mental states were featured in three picturebooks: Azzi in between, Froggy gets dressed (London & Remkiewicz 1994), The snail and the whale (Donaldson & Scheffler 2006). The analysis of this speech act revealed that all three children’s books that contained them included helpful contrasts.

272

8 Conclusion

None of the children’s books investigated covered all speech acts investigated and none covered all of the speech acts that they featured equally well. Azzi in between, however, is an interesting choice for young EFL learners, as it offers the highest number of speech acts and also includes a good range of different speech act strategies. It could therefore be usefully employed in young EFL learners’ classrooms.

8.1.3  EFL Primary School Teachers Twenty-seven EFL teachers in Thuringian primary schools participated in this part of the research project. In contrast to the two previous pragmatic input analyses that focused on ten speech acts in textbooks and picturebooks, the scope of the teacher survey was broader since I wanted to obtain deeper insights into the teaching realities and opinions of in-service primary school teachers working in Thuringia. The teacher survey therefore contained questions regarding components of a lesson, assessment, skills, knowledge and competence areas, the grouping of pupils in classroom activities, pragmatic routines, rituals at the beginning and end of the lesson, differentiation, special needs, homework, textbooks and other teaching materials, and children’s books and songs. The analysis of primary school teachers’ views concerning lesson components showed that the opening phase was the lesson component EFL teachers in Thuringian primary schools considered to be the most important one on average (1,37), followed by classroom management (1,38) and revising vocabulary (1,41). The two components that were considered least important were assessment (2,56) and textbook/workbook work (2,63). The results regarding assessment revealed that 78% of the teachers used some form of assessment in their classes, while 22% did not. Primary EFL teachers in Thuringia do not have to provide marks in their pupils’ reports, but instead include short statements. The responses of the teachers showed that even in EFL teaching contexts in which no grades are used, assessment still plays a role in EFL classrooms. The comments by the teachers further showed that a variety of different assessment techniques were employed. The results of primary school teachers’ evaluation of skills, competence and knowledge areas showed that the teachers considered speaking and listening skills to be very important (the mean scores were 1,07 and 1,11 respectively), followed by mediation skills in third place (1,83). The high importance assigned to speaking and listening not only reflects the emphasis placed on these two skills in the curriculum for foreign language education in Thuringian primary schools but is also in line with many publications on ELT and young learners. Intercultural competence was only in fifth place out of seven with a mean score of 2,11. Regarding the grouping of young learners in their classrooms the results revealed that the majority of teachers, 96%, used whole-class teaching and pair-work, while

8.1  Summary of Findings

273

78% employed individual work activities, and 63% used group work activities. Teachers could select multiple options, as they were likely to employ a variety of different grouping options in their classes. Concerning pragmatic routines, teachers were asked to rate how important they considered the teaching of polite language (e.g. please, thank you, you’re welcome, hello, goodbye) to be on a five-part Likert scale. The results revealed that 93% of the teachers considered it to be either very important (63%) or important (30%). In addition, the teachers were also asked to recall how frequently they had used specific pragmatic routines in their last teaching unit. The results showed that there were only two routines that all teachers recalled using in their classrooms: the expression of gratitude thank you (employed often by 93% of the teachers and sometimes by 7% of them) and the politeness marker please (used often by 85% of the teachers and sometimes by 15% of them). The findings regarding opening and closing rituals showed the majority of the teachers (81%) used an opening ritual, but only the minority used a closing ritual (39%). Concerning differentiation, the results revealed that while 81% of the teachers used some form of differentiation in their classroom, 19% did not do so. The findings also showed that teachers used a variety of differentiation strategies. The strategy employed by most of them, 81%, is pair-work. This is followed by varying the level of difficulty (used by 62%) and group work and providing different work sheets (employed by 52% each). Eighty-one per cent of the teachers stated that they were teaching children with special needs. The teachers provided a range of different strategies that they had successfully employed to cater for their pupils’ special needs in English lessons. The question about whether teachers set homework in their English lessons in primary schools revealed that 69% did so, but that the frequency with which they gave homework and the foci of the homework tasks differed. The results concerning the use of EFL textbooks showed that 85% of the teachers did work with a textbook. The most frequently named textbook series was Playway (used by 42% of the teachers), followed by Sunshine (employed by 27%). The results regarding the use of children’s books and songs revealed that EFL primary school teachers used a wide range of different children’s books in their classes. However, the results also showed that some books seemed to be more popular than others, as they were used by a large number of teachers (The very hungry caterpillar was used by 83% of the teachers, The Gruffalo was used by 71%, and Winnie the Witch was used by 59%). The results further revealed that the majority of teachers sang songs in their classrooms. Overall, the findings of the teacher survey showed that teaching English as a foreign language at primary school tends to involve a considerable number of aspects, such as the selection of published textbook materials and suitable other input options (such as picturebooks and songs), as well as addressing the needs of individual learners through differentiation and other strategies.

274

8 Conclusion

8.1.4  Young L2 Learners Forty-three young L2 learners from two school contexts participated in this part of the research project. Fourteen of the children attended a private international school in which English was the official language. These L2 learners therefore represent learners in an English immersion environment. The other 29 learners were in grade 4 of a state primary school in which English as a foreign language was taught from grade 3 with 2 hours a week. The state school pupils therefore represent typical EFL learners. In the state primary school, learners from two different classes participated in the study. Because of this, two groups are differentiated in the state school data that correspond to the young EFL learners’ membership in different classes. Learners in both school contexts participated in two distinct tasks: a written task and a spoken task. Each task consisted of a number of smaller tasks. The written task contained three: W1 which involved matching English words to images, W2 which involved matching English to German words and W3 which was an illustrated Discourse Completion Task. The spoken task comprised six smaller tasks: a greeting and basic interaction task (S1), a task involving colours and numbers (S2), a Total Physical Response task (S3), an oral translation tasks (S4), a request interaction task (S5), and a short goodbye task (S6). The young L2 learners’ responses to the two matching tasks, W1 and W2, showed that these tasks were completed correctly by the majority of learners in all three groups. As the two tasks had been designed to be relatively easy in order for the children to experience success early on in their participation in the research project, this was an intended and anticipated result. Learners’ responses to the two pragmatic tasks in the illustrated Discourse Completion Task W3 showed that a number of learners opted out from completing these tasks. It was encouraging to see, however, that some learners who did not attempt to provide an utterance in the first part of W3b then provided one in the second part of W3b. While the results in the second part of W3b were rather homogeneous (most children used thank you for the ruler they had received from their interlocutor), the utterances included in the other parts of W3b and W3a displayed greater variety. Some of the state school learners’ utterances also suggested negative transfer from German (e.g. the use of please) or some unease with regard to English sentence structures (e.g. incomplete sentences missing verbs and pronouns). Differences in L2 learners’ production or willingness to provide responses in the speech bubbles may be connected to individual learner differences, such as motivation or anxiety. The first task in the spoken tasks set, S1, featured five utterances that the research assistant directed at the young learner, the greeting Good morning, and four questions, namely (a) What’s your name?, (b) How are you?, (c) How old are you? and (d) Do you like English? The results showed that three of the private international pupils did not say anything when greeted by the research assistant, while most of the young learners who replied to the research assistant responded with good morning, i.e. by repeating the same greeting that had been directed at them. Good morning

8.1  Summary of Findings

275

was used by 57% of the private international school learners, 81% of the state primary group A learners and 88% of the state primary group B learners. When asked about their name, all young learners in the three groups were able to answer either by only stating their name or by using a complete sentence. The results of the wellbeing question showed that all pupils from the private international school and all from state primary group A produced a reply, whereas two learners from state school group B opted out. In addition, two young learners opted out when asked about their age (one from each state school group). All remaining learners provided an acceptable response. The final question in Task S1 was whether the children liked English. All pupils from the private international school replied with yes. In the state school, the majority of children in both groups (91% of learners from group A and 71% of learners from group A) also answered yes. The findings of task S2, which focused on colours and numbers, showed that all children in all groups were able to name the colours and numbers and count from one to ten. In addition, the children were also able to name their own favourite colour. The results of task S3, the Total Physical Response task, revealed that all private international school learners were able to carry out the actions the research assistants asked them to do. In contrast, however, learners from the state school struggled with some TPR actions. Only three of the eight TPR actions were performed correctly by all learners: S3b (clap your hands), S3e (stand up) and S3h (sit down). The results of pragmatic components of the translation task, S4, showed that there were two expressions, hello and good morning, which the children in all groups could translate into English. However, it was somewhat unexpected to see that more than half of the state school pupils struggled with the translation for bitte [please], since the majority of them had matched the two expressions correctly in in the written task. The findings of the conversation task focusing on conventionally indirect requests, S5, showed that the majority of pupils in all three groups were able to understand conventionally indirect requests directed at them and to respond with the appropriate action. The results further revealed that the majority of the L2 learners did not use verbal responses when handing over the requested items. In addition, the learners’ verbal responses to expressions of gratitude showed that this is an area the learners seemed to struggle with and where more input is needed. Regarding young L2 learners’ ability to produce requests themselves, the data showed that most of them tried to produce conventionally indirect requests, but that unfortunately learners in the state school groups were frequently not able to produce grammatically correct requests, while none of the L2 learners in the immersion context struggled with this. The goodbye task, S6, showed that most of the young learners provided one or more favourite word(s) and were also able to respond to the research assistant’s goodbye by using an appropriate English leave-taking expression. The results of the young L2 learner investigation showed that the young EFL learners can already do several things rather well in their foreign language, such as

276

8 Conclusion

comprehending and reacting to simple requests, identifying colours, translating basic expressions and counting. However, the results also revealed that young EFL learners often seemed to struggle with producing grammatically correct sentences when responding to requests or when formulating conventionally indirect requests themselves, as the placement of verbs and pronouns in the sentence seemed to be difficult for some of them. This is not surprising given the small number of conventionally indirect requests and request responses presented in teaching materials. I will address this issue further in Sect. 8.3.3.

8.2  Limitations As is the case with most if not all research projects, there are limitations that need to be addressed. The first limitation concerns the textbook materials investigated. Due to time and word count constraints, four textbook series were focused on. A larger number of textbooks could have provided more insights into the number of speech acts included in EFL primary school textbooks. In addition, I concentrated on the textbooks and did not examine the additional materials that textbook publishers make available for their textbook series and that young EFL learners might be exposed to. By comparing the textbooks published by German publishers to those published by international publishers it would have been possible to obtain better insights into whether certain results (e.g. absence of apologies or responsive speech acts) are also typical for primary EFL textbooks published elsewhere. However, this would have shifted the focus of the research project somewhat – away from a project that tried to relate all its components to a particular research site, the state of Thuringia in Germany. A somewhat different selection method for the picturebooks investigated in this study that would have limited the number of books by any one author or any one author team to one could have enabled me to examine a more diverse range of authors. One of the main limitations of the part of the project that focused on EFL teachers is that it was not possible to attend a number of EFL primary school classrooms in Thuringia to observe what teachers and learners are doing. While this could have provided interesting insights, there is also the possibility that teachers and learners may have behaved differently in the presence of a researcher than in their typically unobserved classroom interactions (cf. Labov’s 1972 observer’s paradox). Concerning the investigation of young L2 learners’ written and spoken output, it would have been interesting to also collect the data of English native-speaking age peers attending primary school in an English-speaking country. This would have made it possible to compare the L2 learners’ output to age-peer L1 output and thus could have provided insights into what similar aged children who are growing up in an English-speaking country can produce.

8.3 Implications

277

8.3  Implications I will first present the theoretical implications of this study in Sect. 8.3.1. This will be followed by a discussion of methodological implications in Sect. 8.3.2. Subsequent to this, I will address the pedagogical implications in Sect. 8.3.3.

8.3.1  Theoretical Implications The theoretical implications that I will address here refer to four main areas: (1) reactive speech acts and speech act pairs, (2) the new speech act category expressions of physical and mental states that I have introduced in this book and research participant selection in ILP, (3) first language pragmatics and (4) the study of terms of address. When reading the literature on the ten speech acts that I investigated in this study, I realized that while much attention had been paid to some of them (e.g. requests, apologies) since ILP began to establish itself, there was very limited research on others (expressions of gratitude, responses to expressions of gratitude, responses to apologies, responses to requests that were not refusals, leave-takings). From an ILP perspective this means that there is little research available that can inform foreign language teaching of these mostly reactive speech acts. This is not good and we should therefore begin to pay more attention to speech act pairs rather than to simply look at individual speech acts in isolation. I introduced the new speech act category of expressions of physical and mental states since it seemed necessary both in view of my proposed Survival English notion (cf. Chap. 1) as well as because of the requirements of the Thuringian curriculum for foreign language education at primary schools. I think that researchers working in L1 or L2 pragmatics need to focus more on school curricula and what L1 and L2 learners should be able to do in certain grades or levels according to these curricula. By relating our research more closely to the skills and competences listed in school curricula and by conducting more research studies with school-aged learners of all school types (instead of mainly focusing on university students), researchers would obtain better insights into language learners’ pragmatic development. This in turn could inform curriculum development and also help textbook publishers and writers if they are made aware of areas that they need to pay more attention to because learners struggle with them. By relating our research more closely to existing curricula, researchers in ILP may also develop new speech act categories that provide a good fit for communicative functions young FL learners have need of. Another area where more research needs to be conducted is L1 pragmatics and children’s acquisition of speech acts. While writing this book, I had numerous discussions with many individuals about what we can expect young L2 learners to

278

8 Conclusion

be able to do in their foreign language. After all, when should we expect young L2 learners to be able to perform a particular speech act, if very little information is available on when native speakers are actually able to perform the same speech act? This is a problem in ILP that only surfaces if research is being conducted with young learners. More research on L1 pragmatic competence is needed to better inform L2 pragmatic research. Terms of address are another area where not much research has been conducted in cross-cultural, interlanguage or variational pragmatics to date. Using inappropriate address terms can have a negative impact on speaker’s or writer’s relationship with their interlocutors. While children are likely to be forgiven more easily than teenagers or adults if they choose an inappropriate term of address in their foreign language, this is nevertheless an area that children should receive instruction in. As the results from the young learner investigation showed, one child wanted to address the research assistant by name, but did not know the English word for Herr [Mister], and therefore resorted to the German term. This shows that even young children may wish to use formal terms of address and should be given the means to do so.

8.3.2  Methodological Implications This study has shown that it is helpful to analyse different data sets related to the teaching and learning of speech acts in interlanguage pragmatics. The background information on the various issues the teacher survey focused on provided valuable insights into the teaching contexts of primary school EFL teachers and teachers’ use of materials which informed the selection of input materials that were focused on in this study. The analysis of input materials made it possible to better predict areas that young EFL learners may struggle with. The young L2 learner data then showed what the children were able to do well in their L2 and areas that they struggled with, which in turn could be related back to the results of the other data sets. Thus, intertwining different components of this study made it easier to design a study that addresses issues relevant for teaching professionals and researchers.

8.3.3  Pedagogical Implications The study has shown that while most children did very well with regard to colours, numbers and various vocabulary items, the young EFL learners displayed some difficulties with regard to some speech acts, such as conventionally indirect requests and responses to requests. This appears to be linked to limited input available with regard to these and other speech acts in textbooks for young learners of English as a foreign language that are published in Germany. It would therefore be helpful if textbook writers and publishing houses took a careful look at the teaching materials that they have developed and considered if they are fact doing the best that they can

8.3 Implications

279

to help young L2 learners acquire the speech acts that they need for everyday life communication or in case of an emergency (cf. my notion of Survival English in Chap. 1). It is important to emphasize here that most aspects of Survival English can be taught based on content that is already featured in many young L2 learners’ textbooks and involves vocabulary, task types and games that children are familiar with anyway. For example, in order to enable children to provide police officers or other officials with details about their parents, they need to be able to understand some basic enquiry requests (e.g. What is your father’s name? What does he look like?) and be able to respond to them (e.g. “His name is Robert Schmidt. He has brown hair and wears glasses.”). Simple dialogues that prepare young learners for emergency situations can be incorporated unobtrusively into EFL language lessons without explicitly alerting1 children to the fact that the tasks are intended to help them communicate in an emergency. For example, when reading picturebooks to young learners, teachers can point at human or animal characters in the book and ask the children “Does she have black hair?” or “What is her name?”. In the same way, textbook content (such as images or tasks) can be adapted2 to revise key speech acts. The important issue here is to frequently repeat key speech acts, such as enquiry requests and answers, so that children have a chance to remember them – even if they find themselves in a difficult situation – and are able to communicate in their L2. The teachers survey has shown that the vast majority of primary school teachers who took part in the survey used textbooks. The survey also illustrated that many of the primary school teachers looked for additional and supplementary materials for their EFL classes. However, given the complexities of primary school classrooms with regard to differentiation and special needs that many teachers have to cater for and the other subjects that most of them are also teaching as well (e.g. Maths, German), it is clear that most teachers would benefit from a good textbook that provides appropriate and frequent input of the speech acts that are included in the curriculum. Thus, when it comes to trying to improve the input opportunities that young EFL learners are exposed to regarding these speech acts, it is the task of the textbook writers and publishers to ensure that their textbooks provide high quality pragmatic input that supports teachers in providing the best possible EFL instruction that they can give.

1  While I do believe that young learners should be equipped with the linguistic means that enable them to function in an emergency using their L2, I do not think that it is necessary to alert to them to the steps that are taken in that respect by their language teachers, as this could unduly worry the children. 2  As I mentioned in Chap. 4, there are only few expressions of gratitude and responses to expressions of gratitude included in the textbooks investigated. While this is regrettable, teachers can address this and ask their learners in their native language “That person did not thank the other person here. What could she have said in English?” or “That bear has thanked the elephant but the elephant didn’t then say anything to the bear. What could the elephant have said in English?”.

280

8 Conclusion

References Andrea, G., & Wojtowycz, D. (2009). The lion who wanted to love. London: Hachette. Aschkar, S., Beattie, T., Kerler, N., Schröder, C., & Skejic, M. (2015). Sunshine: Pupil’s book 4. Berlin: Cornelsen. Aschkar, S., Beattie, T., Kerler, N., & Schröder, C. (2016). Sunshine: Pupil’s book 3. Berlin: Cornelsen. Carle, E. (2018). The very hungry caterpillar. London: Puffin. Caspari-Grote, K., Grandt, I., Kraaz, U., Neuber, C., Simon, C., & Völtz, I. (2013). Ginger: Pupil’s book 3. Berlin: Cornelsen. Caspari-Grote, K., Grandt, I., Kraaz, U., Neuber, C., Simon, C., & Völtz, I. (2014). Ginger: Pupil’s book 4. Berlin: Cornelsen. Cave, K., & Riddell, C. (2011). Something else. London: Puffin. Donaldson, J., & Scheffler, A. (2006). The snail and the whale. London: Puffin. Donaldson, J., & Scheffler, A. (2016). The smartest giant in town. London: Macmillan. Donaldson, J., & Scheffler, A. (2017). Monkey Puzzle. London: Macmillan. Ehlers, G., Kahstein, G., Muth, M., & Tait, H. (2013). Bumblebee: Textbook 3. Braunschweig: Schroedel Westermann. Ehlers, G., Michailow-Drews, U., Tait, H., Schönau, M., Van Montague, A., & Zeich-Pelsis, A. (2017). Bumblebee: Textbook 4. Braunschweig: Schroedel Westermann. Garland, S. (2012). Azzi in between. London: Frances Lincoln. Gerngross, G., Puchta, H., & Becker, C. (2013a). Playway 3: Pupil’s book. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag. Gerngross, G., Puchta, H., & Becker, C. (2013b). Playway 4: Pupil’s book. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag. Labov, W. (1972). Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society, 1(1), 97–120. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006576. London, J., & Remkiewicz, F. (1994). Froggy gets dressed. London: Puffin. Rosen, M., & Langley, J. (2003). Snore. London: Harper Collins. Thomas, V., & Paul, K. (2016). Winnie and Wilbur: Winnie the witch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.