Cover not available

Article published In: Applied Pragmatics
Vol. 6:1 (2024) ► pp.60–85

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

A simple methodology for identifying speech act tendencies

A case study of e-mail refusals

ORCiD logo with link | Oxford College of Emory University
ORCiD logo with link | Georgia State University
Published online: 18 January 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.21011.dix
Abstract
Speech act studies often compare two or more groups of speakers by analyzing how often each group uses a given strategy to realize a speech act. Since the goal of such studies is to compare groups, they often do not discuss the variation that exists within the groups and, by extension, what can be considered a speech act tendency for a given group. To illustrate within-group variation and how such variation can be interpreted to identify the speech act tendencies of a group, this study used e-mail refusals of requests written by 50 native speakers of English as a case study. Data were collected using a discourse completion task and analyzed for participants’ strategies to refuse a request. Descriptive statistics show a considerable amount of variation in this rather homogenous group of English speakers but also allow for the identification of both commonly and rarely used refusal strategies. These findings highlight the importance of considering the commonly used strategies and the rarely used strategies when attempting to empirically identify speech act tendencies for teaching and assessment purposes. Implications of the results for future research, teaching, and assessment practices are discussed.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Pragmatic variation
    • 1.2The overlooked within-group variation in speech act studies
    • 1.3The current case study
  • 2.Case study
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Data collection instrument and procedures
    • 2.3Data analysis procedures
    • 2.4Case study data
  • 3.A simple methodology for identifying speech act tendencies
  • 4.Implications for teaching and assessment
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Limitations and future directions
  • Acknowledgments
  • Note
  • References
References (37)
References
Allami, H., & Naeimi, A. (2011). A cross-linguistic study of refusals: An analysis of pragmatic competence development in Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 385–406. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2012). Variation in the pragmatic use of conventional expressions. In J. C. Felix-Brasdefer & D. Koike (Eds.), Pragmatic variation in first and second language contexts: Methodological issues (pp. 141–173). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Routines in L2 pragmatic research. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 308–321). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barron, A. (2019). Norms and variation in L2 pragmatics. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 308–321). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in refusals. In R. C. Scarcella, E. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55–73). Newbury House.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bella, S. (2014). Developing the ability to refuse: A cross-sectional study of Greek FL refusals. Journal of Pragmatics, 611, 35–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berns, M. (2015). Pedagogy and world Englishes: The legacy of Yamuna Kachru. World Englishes, 34(1), 22–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chang, Y.-Y., & Swales, J. M. (1999). Informal elements in English academic writing: Threats or opportunities for non-native speakers? In C. N. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes, and practices (pp. 145–167). [URL]
Coulmas, F. (1981). “Poison to your soul”: Thanks and apologies contrastively viewed. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech (pp. 69–92). Mouton Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, J., Mackey, A., & Taguchi, N. (2018). Second language pragmatics: From theory to research. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, T. (2022). Proscribed informality features in published research: A corpus analysis. English for Specific Purposes, 651, 63–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2017). Is academic writing becoming more informal? English for Specific Purposes, 451, 40–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2014). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackson, G. T., Lehman, B., & Grace, L. D. (2020). Awkward Annie: Impacts of playing on the edge of social norms. Proceedings of the International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games, 731, 1–8. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jucker, A. (2009). Speech act research between armchair, field and laboratory: The case of compliments. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(8), 1611–1635. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jung, E. H., & Kim, Y. J. (2008). First language transfer in pragmatic use by second language speakers. Korean Journal of Linguistics, 331, 517–543. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kursicak, L. M. (2010). The effect of individual-level variables on speech act performance. In A. Martínez-Flor & E. Usó-Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 23–39). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krulatz, A., & Dixon, T. (2020). Interlanguage speech act performance: Refusal strategies by Korean and Norwegian users of English. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10(4), 751–777. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kwon, J. (2004). Expressing refusals in Korean and American English. Multilingua, 23(4), 339–364. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, H. (2013). The influence of social situations on fluency difficulty in Korean EFL learners’ oral refusals. Journal of Pragmatics, 50(1), 168–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martí-Arnándiz, O., & Salazar-Campillo, P. (2013). Refusals in instructional contexts and beyond. Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morkus, N. (2014). Refusals in Egyptian Arabic and American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 701, 86–107. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nelson, G. L., Carson, J., Al Batal, M., & El Bakary, W. (2002). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Strategy use in Egyptian Arabic and American English refusals. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 163–189. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878–912. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Salazar-Campillo, P., Safont, M., & Codina, V. (2009). Refusal strategies: A proposal from a sociopragmatic approach. Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada, 81, 139–150.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. (2010). Variational pragmatics. In M. Fried, J. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Variation and change: Pragmatic perspectives (pp. 239–267). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Data collection in developmental L2 pragmatics research: Discourse completion test, role play, and naturalistic recording. In A. Gudmestad & A. Edmonds (Eds.), Critical reflections on data in second language acquisition (pp. 7–32). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Second language acquisition and pragmatics: An overview. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 1–14). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Learning and teaching pragmatics in the globalized world: Introduction to the special issue. The Modern Language Journal, 105(3), 615–622. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Youn, S. J., & Bogorevich, V. (2019). Assessment in L2 pragmatics. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 308–321). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue