臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

自1980年起，外語語用學研究發現語言學習者在言語行為的表現和母語人士有相當的差異。其區別可能顯現在所用的策略、用詞或是內容上。文獻中亦顯示相對於其他的言語行為諸如抱歉、請求或恭維，學生的抱怨行為較少被探討。有鑑於此，本研究有三個目的。 第一個目的為了解中國人及美國人的抱怨行為。第二個目的為比較學生及美語母語人士在抱怨行為上的差異，並進而解釋差異的源由。第三個目的則是教導學生美語抱怨的策略，同時檢視教學的成效。
本研究共有四組受試者，分別為中文母語人士、美語母語人士、高成就的學生及低成就的學生。每組各有二十位受試者，所以共有八十位受試者。為了達到第一個目的，中文母語人士及美語母語人士分別填寫語文完成測驗，這測驗共有八種情境，根據不同的上下及親疏關係來設計。資料分析發現受試者運用七種不同的策略，包括「退出」、「不責備」、 「間接抱怨」、 「間接指控」、「直接抱怨」、「修復」及 「威脅」。結果顯示美國人和中國人策略運用的分佈情形很類似，但是他們在 「間接指控」及「修復」策略上的用詞有差異。同時在「間接指控」加「間接抱怨」以及「間接抱怨」加「修復」的混合策略的內容上亦有所差異。這些差異究其原因是由於中美文化的不同所致。
為了達到第二個目的，學生亦填寫相同的語文完成測驗。他們預期會轉移中文及美語相似及差異之處。然而，研究結果顯示這種預測並不一定會發生，此乃由於學生的語言能力所致。高成就的學生傾向於正轉移策略及用詞，但負轉移其母語文化資訊。反過來說，低成就的學生不如高成就的學生會正轉移策略及用詞，但是他們亦不會負轉移其母語文化資訊。
為了達到第三個目的，教學上採取七個步驟，包括提昇認知，介紹社會情境和抱怨策略，要求學生從事語文完成測驗及角色扮演及給予課外練習等。教學結束後，學生的成績顯示他們在策略、用詞及內容方面皆有進步，但於某些方面仍無重大改變。這種情形可歸諸於教學所導致的失誤及持續的母語轉移。同時，教學似乎對於高成就的學生較有效。雖然如此，學生的自我報告對於教學皆抱持著正向的態度。他們認為教學改進了他們用美語來抱怨的能力。
除此之外，本研究亦探究語文完成測驗及角色扮演的異同之處。四位高成就的學生及四位低成就的學生被要求接受這兩項測試。研究結果以學生的表現及態度來做分析。在表現方面，結果顯示這兩種方式引導出類似的策略分布情形，但是在文法、禮貌程度等方面仍有所不同。在學生的態度方面，他們提到最主要的困難在於缺乏字彙及不熟悉情境。他們亦提到雖然語文完成驗較容易，但他們較喜歡角色扮演。
本研究的結果有下列貢獻。第一，美國人及中國人的抱怨策略分布情形也許類似，但由於文化的差異，在用詞及內容上有所差異。第二，高成就的學生較低成就的學生較常從事正語用語言轉移及負社會語用轉移。第三，學生可從教學中獲得進步。最後，學生在語文完成測驗及角色扮演的表現及態度各顯示出相似及相異之處。

The bulk of interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) research since the 1980's has intensively compared native and non-native speech act performances, and its findings have shown that learners generally deviate from target language norms in areas such as semantic formulas, sociolinguistic forms and content. However, compared with other speech acts like apologies, requests and compliments, learners’ acquisition of L2 complaint expressions has been far less investigated. Therefore, this study had three stages. First, it investigates the complaint expressions used by American and Chinese native speakers. Second, it compares Chinese EFL learners’ complaint expressions with those employed by Americans and attempts to identify the causes of learners' deviations. Based on the output of Chinese learners, this researcher lastly designed explicit instructions to improve learners' competence with American English complaint expressions. Additionally, the effectiveness of these instructions was examined with both high- and low-proficiency learners.
There were four subject groups in this study: native speakers of American English, native speakers of Chinese and high- and low-level proficiency Chinese EFL learners. Each group was composed of twenty subjects, making a total of eighty. For the first stage, the English- and Chinese-speaking groups were asked to respond to eight DCT scenarios, which were based on two variables: social power and social dominance. The performances produced by the two groups were then compared and analyzed. Six individual strategies were identified, which included opting out, indirect complaint, indirect accusation, direct complaint, request for repair and threat. The findings showed that both the Americans and the Chinese shared similar strategy distributions, but differed in the linguistic forms for indirect accusation and request for repair as well as in the content of indirect accusation + indirect complaint and indirect complaint + request for repair. These differences had mainly cultural causes.
In the second stage, the same DCT scenarios were given to the learner groups. Based on the comparisons between the American and the Chinese groups, the learners were expected to positively transfer L1-L2 similarities and negatively transfer L1-L2 differences. However, the results showed that transfer predictions did not always match actual occurrences, and the mismatches corresponded closely to L2 proficiency. Since the high-proficiency learners had more control in using L2, they tended to conduct positive transfer of strategies and linguistic forms, as well as negative transfer of sociocultural information to a greater extent. The low-proficiency group, constrained by its limited linguistic competence, positively transferred strategies and linguistic forms to a lesser extent, and their output did not contain L1 sociocultural norms as expected.
In the third stage, the L2 instructions were structured in a sequence of raising awareness, introducing social contexts and their appropriate complaint strategies, performing the DCT and role-play tasks, giving corrective feedback and wrapping up. After instruction, the learners improved their strategy use, linguistic forms and content, but were still resistant to certain aspects of the instructions. For example, they persisted in using hedged performative and will/would modals less frequently, although these forms were often used by the Americans. The resistance to instruction may have been caused by teaching-induced errors and continued L1 transfer. In addition, the instructions seemed to work more effectively with the high-proficiency learners. Nevertheless, the learners’ self-reports expressed a positive reaction to the instructions. Learners felt they improved their American English complaint-making competence.
This study was also designed to investigate the similarities and differences between the DCTs and role plays. Two pairs of learners from the high-proficiency and low-proficiency groups were asked to perform the role-playing exercises in addition to the DCTs. The objective here was to analyze learners’ L2 production and perceptions of both tasks. The data on the former was analyzed in terms of strategy use, linguistic forms and content. The results showed that although both two methods elicited similar strategy distributions, they differed in the number of strategies used within a single conversational turn, in grammatical correctness, degree of politeness and topic changing. In terms of the learners’ perceptions, the data was analyzed in terms of learner difficulty and learner preference. Learners reported that their major difficulty existed in lexical deficiency and situational unfamiliarity. They also reported that although the DCTs were easier, they liked the role plays better.
The findings of this study are the following. First, American and Chinese expressions for complaints may be similar in strategy distributions, but they differ in linguistic forms and content for cultural reasons. Second, the more proficient learners performed positive pragmalinguistic transfer and negative sociopragmatic transfer more frequently than the less proficient learners. Third, all learners benefited from the instructions, especially the higher proficiency group. Finally, the DCTs and role plays share similarities and differences in terms of the learners’ L2 productions and perceptions.

Abstract (Chinese) ……………………………………………………… i
Abstract (English)……………………………………………………….. iii
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………… v
List of Tables…………………………………………………………….. x
List of Figures………………………………………………………….... xii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Motivation……………………………………………………………..... 1
1.2 Theoretical Background………………………………………………… 2
1.3 Research Questions……………………………………………………... 5
1.4 Significance of the Study……………………………………………….. 5
1.5 Organization of the Present Study……………………………………… 6
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Issues in Pragmatics……………………………………………………. 9
2.1.1 Speech Act Theory……………………………………………….. 10
2.1.2 Politeness Model…………………………………………………. 12
2.1.3 The Act of Complaining…………………………………………. 18
2.1.3.1 The Concept of Complaining……………………………. 18
2.1.3.2 Characteristics of Complaining………………………….. 20
2.2 Issues in Interlanguage Pragmatics…………………………………….. 24
2.2.1 Research on Speech Act Interlanguage…………………………... 25
2.2.1.1 Choice of Speech Act……………………………………. 25
2.2.1.2 Semantic Content………………………………………... 26
2.2.1.3 Semantic Formulas……………………………………… 27
2.2.1.4 Sociolinguistic Forms…………………………………… 28
2.2.1.5 Utterance Length………………………………………… 28
2.2.2 Pragmatic Transfer……………………………………………….. 30
2.3 Pragmatics in Language Teaching……………………………………… 34
2.3.1 Rationale for Instruction in Pragmatics…………………………... 34
2.3.1.1 Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis………………………… 36
2.3.1.2 Swain’s Output Hypothesis…………………………….. 37
2.3.1.3 Long’s Interaction Hypothesis…………………………. 38
2.3.2 Approaches to Teaching Pragmatics……………………………… 39
2.4 Summary of Chapter 2…………………………………………………. 45
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN
3.1 Subjects……………………………………………………………….. 48
3.2 Instruments…………………………………………………………… 50
3.2.1 Rationales for Using Elicited Data……………………………... 50
3.2.2 Pre-instructional DCT…………………………………………... 55
3.2.3 Pre-instructional Role Plays…………………………………….. 57
3.2.4 Interviews with Learners about the DCT and Role Plays………. 58
3.2.5 Teaching Materials……………………………………………… 59
3.2.6 Post-instructional DCT………………………………………….. 60
3.2.7 Post-instructional role plays…………………………………….. 61
3.2.8 Learners’ Self-reports on Explicit Instruction…………………… 62
3.3 Procedures…………………………………………………………….. 63
3.3.1 Phase I: Elicitation of Complaint Behaviors Before Instruction… 64
3.3.2 Phase II: Explicit Teaching of Complaint Behaviors…………… 64
3.3.3 Phase III: Elicitation of Complaint Behaviors After Instruction.. 78
3.4 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………. 80
3.4.1 Coding scheme………………………………………………….. 80
3.4.2 Analysis for Each Research Question…………………………… 84
3.5 Summary of Chapter 3………………………………………………… 89
CHAPTER 4 COMPLAINT BEHAVIORS BY NATIVE SPEAKERS OF AMERICAN ENGLISH AND CHINESE
4.1 Distributions of the Six Individual Strategies Used by NS-A and NS-C 91
4.1.1 Quantitative Analysis……………………………………………. 91
4.1.2 Qualitative Analysis……………………………………………… 97
4.1.2.1 Indirect Accusation……………………………………… 97
4.1.2.2. Request for Repair……………………………………… 99
4.2 Distributions of the Two-strategy Patterns Used by NS-A and NS-C 101
4.2.1 Quantitative Analysis……………………………………………. 102
4.2.2 Qualitative analysis……………………………………………… 106
4.2.2.1 Indirect Accusation + Indirect Complaint (IA+IC)……... 107
4.2.2.2 Indirect complaint + Request for Repair (IC+RR)……… 108
4.3 Summary of Chapter 4…………………………………………………. 112
CHAPTER 5 COMPARISONS OF COMPLAINT BEHAVIORS BETWEEN NATIVE SPEAKERS OF AMERICAN ENGLISH AND CHINESE LEARNERS OF ENGLISH
5.1 Strategy Use in NS-A, NNS-H and NNS-L DCT Productions…………. 116
5.1.1 Distributions of the Six Individual Strategies Used by NS-A,
NNS-H and NNS-L………………………………………………. 117
5.1.1.1 Quantitative Analysis…………………………………….. 117
5.1.1.2 Qualitative Analysis……………………………………… 122
5.1.1.2.1 Indirect Accusation…………………………….. 123
5.1.1.2.2 Request for Repair……………………………… 124
5.1.2 Distributions of the Two-Strategy Patterns Used by NS-A, NNS-H
and NNS-L………………………………………………………. 128
5.1.2.1 Quantitative Analysis……………………………………. 129
5.1.2.2 Qualitative Analysis……………………………………… 133
5.1.2.2.1 Indirect Accusation + Indirect Complaint (IA+IC) 133
5.1.2.2.2 Indirect Complaint + Request for Repair (IC+RR) 134
5.2 Strategy Use in NS-A, NNS-H and NNS-L Role Play Productions…… 137
5.3 Comparisons of DCT and Role Plays………………………………….. 143
5.3.1 Learner Productions in DCT and Role Plays…………………….. 143
5.3.1.1 Strategy Use………………………………………………. 144
5.3.1.2 Linguistic Forms………………………………………….. 146
5.3.1.3 Content……………………………………………………. 149
5.3.2 Learner Perceptions of DCT and Role Plays…………………….. 152
5.3.2.1 Learner Difficulty………………………………………… 152
5.3.2.2 Learner Preference………………………………………... 156
5.4 Summary of Chapter 5………………………………………………… 159
CHAPTER 6 INSTRUCTIONAL EFFECTS ON PERFORMANCES OF COMPLAINT BEHAVIORS BY CHINESE LEARNERS OF ENGLISH
6.1 Learners’ Post-instructional DCT Productions…………………………. 163
6.1.1 Strategy Distributions Used by NNS-H and NNS-L Before and After
Instruction……………………………………………………….. 164
6.1.1.1 Quantitative Analysis……………………………………. 164
6.1.1.2 Qualitative Analysis……………………………………... 173
6.1.1.2.1 Request for Repair used by NNS-H Before and
After Instruction……………………………….. 174
6.1.1.2.2 Request for Repair used by NNS-L Before and
After Instruction………………………………. 176
6.1.2 Two-strategy Patterns Used by NNS-H and NNS-L Before and After
Instruction………………………………………………………… 180
6.1.2.1 Quantitative Analysis………………………………………. 181
6.1.2.2 Qualitative analysis………………………………………… 191
6.1.2.2.1 IC+RR in NNS-H Post-instructional DCT………. 191
6.1.2.2.2 IC+RR in NNS-L Post-instructional DCT………. 194
6.2 Learners’ Post-instructional Role Play Productions……………………. 197
6.2.1 Strategy Use………………………………………………………. 197
6.2.2 Linguistic Forms………………………………………………….. 202
6.2.3 Content……………………………………………………………. 203
6.3 Learners’ Perceptions of Explicit Teaching of Complaint Behaviors….. 207
6.3.1 General Impressions……………………………………………… 207
6.3.2 Teaching Materials……………………………………………….. 210
6.3.3 Learning Difficulty………………………………………………. 212
6.4 Summary of Chapter 6………………………………………………… 214
CHPATER 7 CONCLUSION
7.1 Main Findings of the Present Study…………………………………… 220
7.2 Implications……………………………………………………………. 225
7.2.1 Theoretical Perspectives…………………………………………. 225
7.2.2 Pedagogical Perspectives………………………………………… 228
7.3 Limitations of the Study……………………………………………….. 231
7.4 Suggestions for Future Research………………………………………. 232
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………… 233
APPENDICES
Appendix A: The Grading Criteria for the GEPT Spoken and Written Tests
(intermediate level)………………………………………….. 246
Appendix B: The Learners’ GEPT Scores (Intermediate Level)…………… 248
Appendix C: The English Version of the Pre-instructional DCT………….. 250
Appendix D: The Chinese Version of the Pre-instructional DCT…………. 253
Appendix E: The Pre-instructional Role Plays……………………………. 255
Appendix F: The Lesson of Complaints in Say It Naturally (Level 2)…….. 257
Appendix G: The Supplementary Materials for the Instruction of Complaint 273
Appendix H: The Post-instructional DCT………………………………….. 289
Appendix I: The Post-instructional Role Plays……………………………... 291
Appendix J: The Post-instructional self-report questions…………………… 293

Anderson, J. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications (2nd edition). New York: Freeman.
Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. Harvard University Press.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford
University Press.
Banerjee, J. & Carrell, P. L. (1988). Tuck in your shirt, you squid: Suggestions in ESL. Language learning, 38, 313-47.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language learning, 49, 677-713.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for
instruction in pragmatics? In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in
language teaching (pp. 13-32). Cambridge University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Griffin, R. (2005). L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL classroom. System, 33, 401-15.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Dornyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL quarterly, 32, 233-62.
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, 4-15.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B. S. (1990). Congruence in native and non-native conversations: Status balance in the academic advising session. Language learning, 40, 467-501.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B. S. (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic change. SSLA 15, 279-304.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B. S. (1996). Input in an institutional setting. SSLA 18: 171-88.
Barron, A. (2005). Variational pragmatics in the foreign language classroom. System, 33, 519-36.
Beebe, L. M. & Cummings, M. C. (1995). Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp.65-88). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Beebe, L. M. & Takahashi, T. (1989). Sociolingustic variation in face threatening speech acts. In M. Eisenstein (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage, (pp.199-218). New York: Plenum.
Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T. & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. Scarcella, E. S. Anderson & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55-75). Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Bergman, M. L. & Kasper, G. (1993). Perception and performance in native and nonnative apology. In G.. Kapser & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguge pragmatics (pp. 64-81). Oxford University Press.
Bialystock, E. (1982). On the relationship between knowing and using linguistic forms. Applied linguistics, 3, 181-206.
Bialystock, E. (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 43-58). Oxford University Press.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A
study of speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language.
Applied linguistics, 3, 29-59.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1983). Interpreting and performing speech acts in a second
language: A cross-cultural study of Hebrew and English. In N. Wolfson & E.
Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 36-55). New York:
Newbury House.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1986). Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure.
SSLA, 8, 65-119.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different?
Journal of pragmatics 11, 131-46.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1989). Playing it safe: The role of conventionality in indirectness.
In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House & G.. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics:
Reqeusts and apologies (pp. 37-70). New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Co.
Blum-Kulka, S. House, J. & Kasper, G. (1989). Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics: An introductory overview. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House and G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Co.
Bodman, J. & Eisenstein, M. (1988). May god increase your bounty: The expression of gratitude in English by native and non-native speakers. Cross currents, 15, 1-21.
Bonikowska, M. (1988). The choice of opting out. Applied linguistics 9, 169-81.
Bou-Franch, P. & Garces-Conjos, P. 2003. Teaching linguistic politeness: A
methodological proposal. IRAL 41, 1-22.
Bouton, L. (1994). Can NNS skill in interpreting implicatures in American English
be improved through explicit instruction?: A pilot study. In L. Bouton & Y.
Kuchru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning, monograph series vol. 5 (pp.
88-109). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Bouton, L. (1999). Developing nonnative speaker skills in interpreting conversational
implicatures in English: Explicit teaching can ease the process. In E. Hinkel
(Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 47-70). Cambridge University Press.
Boxer, D. (1991). A descriptive analysis of indirect complaint sequences among speakers of American English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.
Boxer, D. (1993). Social distance and speech behavior: The case of indirect complaints. Journal of pragmatics, 19, 103-125.
Boxer, D. & Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: The case of complaints. ELT journal, 49, 44-58.
Brown, R. & Ford, M. 1961. Address in American English. Journal of abnormal
and social Psychology 62, 454-62.
Brown, P. & Levinson S. 1978. Universals in language usage: Politeness
phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness, strategies in
social interaction (pp. 56-234). Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage.
Cambridge University Press.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language
pedagogy. In R. C. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and
communication (pp. 2-28). London: Longman
Canale, M. & Swain, M. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
language teaching and testing. Applied linguistics,1, 1-47.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Cohen, A. D. (1996). Investigating the production of speech act sets. In S. M.
Gass and J. New (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp. 21-44). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Cohen, A. D. (1996). Developing the ability to perform speech acts. SSLA 18, 253-67.
Cohen, A. D. & Olshtain, E., 1981. Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: The case of apology. Language learning, 31, 113-34.
Cohen, A. D. & Olshtain, E. 1993. The production of speech acts by EFL learners.
TESOL quarterly 27, 33-56.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. IRAL, 5, 161-170.
Coulmas, F. (1981). Poison to your soul: Thanks and apologies contrastively
viewed. In F. Coulmas (Ed.) Conversational routine (pp. 69-92). The Hague:
Mouton Publishers.
D’Amico-Reisner, L. (1985). An ethnolinguistic study of disapproval exchanges. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.
Edmonson, W. J. (1981). On saying you’re sorry. In F. Coulmas (Ed.) Conversational routine (pp. 273-86). The Hague: Mouton Publishers.
Edmonson, W. J. & House, J. (1991). Do learners talk too much? The waffle
phenomenon in interlanguage pragmatics. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L.
Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/second language
pedagogy research (pp. 273-86). Clevedon & Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
Eisenstein M. & Bodman, J. (1986). "I very appreciate": Expressions of gratitude
by native and non-native speakers of American English. Applied linguistics, 7, 167-79.
Eisenstein M. & Bodman, J. (1993). Expressing gratitude in American English. In
G. Kapser & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.) Interlanguge pragmatics (pp. 64-81). Oxford University Press.
Eisenstein M., Bodman, J. & Carpenter, M. (1996). Cross-cultural realization of greetings in American English. In S. M. Gass and J. New (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp. 89-108). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Eslami-Rasekh, Z. 2005. Raising the pragmatic awareness of language learners. ELT journal 59, 199-208.
Faerch, C. & G. Kasper. (1984). Pragmatic knowledge: Rules and procedures.
Applied linguistics 5, 214-25.
Flowerdew, J. (1990). Problems of speech act theory from an applied perspective.
Language learning 40, 79-105.
Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of pragmatics, 14, 219-36.
Frescura, M. A. (1993). A sociolinguistic comparison of "reactions to complaints":
Italian L1 vs. English L1, Italian L2 and Italian as a community language.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
Fukushima, S. (1990). Offers and requests: Performance by Japanese learners of
English. World Englishes, 9, 317-25.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: essays on face to face behavior. Garden
City, New York.
Golato, A. (2003). Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and
recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied linguistics, 24, 90-121.
Grant, L. & Starks, D. (2001). Screening appropriate teaching materials: Closing from textbooks and television soap operas. IRAL, 39, 39-50.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.),
Syntax and semantics, vol. 3, Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Grundy, P. (2000). Doing pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of pragmatics,
14, 237-57.
Gumperz, J. (1996). The linguistic and cultural relativity of conversational
inference. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic
relativity (pp. 374-406). Cambridge University Press.
Hall, J. K. (1999). A prosaics in interaction: The development of interactional
competence in another language. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second
language teaching and learning, 137-51. Cambridge University Press.
Hartley, L. C. (1998). A sociolinguistic analysis of face threat and face
management in potential complaint situation. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Michigan State University.
Hinkel, E. (1999). Introduction: Culture in research and second language pedagogy.
In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 1-8).
Cambridge University Press.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hill: Sage.
Holmes, J. (1988). Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied linguistics, 9, 21-44.
House, J. (1989). Politeness in English and German: The functions of please and
bitte. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural
pragmatics: requests and apologies (pp. 96-119). New Jersey: Ablex
Publishing Co.
House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language:
Routines and metapragmatic awareness. SSLA 18, 225-52.
House, J. & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In F.
Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine (pp. 157-86). The Hague: Mouton
Publishers.
Hu, H. C. (1944). The Chinese concept of face. American anthropologist, 46, 45-65.
Huang, S. F. 1987. Two studies on prototype semantics: Xiao “filial piety” and mei mianzi “loss of face”. Journal of Chinese linguistics 15, 55-89.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269-93). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Judd, E. L. (1999). Some issues in the teaching of pragmatic competence. In
E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 1-8).
Cambridge University Press.
Kasper, G. (1981). Pragmatische Aspekte in der Interimsprache. Tuebomgem: Narr.
Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second language research, 8, 203-31.
Kasper, G. (1996). Introduction: Interlanguage pragmatics in SLA. SSLA, 18, 145-8.
Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? Honolulu: University of
Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center
Kasper G. (2000). Data collection in pragmatics research. In H. Spencery-Oatey (Ed.),
Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures (pp.316-41). London and New York: Continnum
Kasper, G. (2001a). Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. In K. R. Rose
& G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 33-60). Cambridge
University Press.
Kasper, G. (2001b). Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied linguistics, 22, 502-30.
Kasper G. & Blum-Kulka, S. (1993). Interlanguage pragmatics: An introduction. In
G. Kapser and S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguge pragmatics (pp. 3-18). Oxford University Press
Kasper, G. & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. SSLA, 13, 215-47.
Kapser, G. &. Rose, K. R. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. In K. R. Rose
& G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 1-10). Cambridge
University Press.
Kasper, G. & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. SSLA,18,149-69.
Kellerman, E. (1977). The empirical evidence for the influence of the L1 in interlanguage. In A. Davis, C. Criper & A. P. R. Howatt (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp.98-122). Edinburgh University Press.
Koike, D. A. (1995). Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanish
foreign language learning. In S. M. Gass & J. New (Eds.), Speech acts across
cultures (pp. 257-84). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Koike, D. A. & Pearson, L. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence. System, 33, 481-501.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon.
Krashen, S. & Terrell, T. D. (1988). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. New York: Prentice Hall
Kuha, M. (1999). The influence of interaction and instructions of speech act data.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.
Laforest, M. (2002). Scenes of family life: Complaining in everyday conversation.
Journal of pragmatics, 34, 1595-1620.
Larsen-Freeman, D. &. Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language
acquisition. New York: Longman.
Liao, C. C. & Bresnahan, M. I. (1996). A contrastive pragmatic study on American
English and Mandarin refusal strategies. Language sciences, 18, 703-27.
Liddicoat, A. J. & Crozet, C. (2001). French interactional norms through instruction.
In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp.125-44). Cambridge University Press.
Lii-Shih, Y. H. (1999). Conversational politeness and foreign language teaching. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.
Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (2001). How languages are learned (2nd edition). Oxford University Press.
Lin, Y. H. (2005). Gender differences in the speech act of complaining in Mandarin Chinese. Paper presented at AILA 2005, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, USA.
Lin, Y. H & Chen X. L. (2006). The interlanguage of Chinese EFL requests—The direct strategies. The Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (ETL-23) (pp. 892-909). Taipei: Crane Publishing Co., LTD.
Lee, J. S. (2000). Analysis of pragmatic speech styles among Korean learners of
English: A focus on complaint-apology speech act sequences. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. Standford University.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman Publishing Co.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
Lin, Yuh-Huey. (2005). Gender differences in the speech act of complaining in Mandarin Chinese. Paper presented at AILA 2005 (The 14th World Congress of Applied Linguistics), July 24-29, 2005, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Lin, Y. H & Chen, X. L. (2006). The interlanguage of Chinese EFL requests—The direct strategies. The Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (ETL-23) (pp. 892-909). Taipei: Crane Publishing Co., LTD.
LoCastro, V. (1997). Pedagogical intervention and pragmatic competence
development. Applied language learning, 8, 75-109.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language
acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language
acquisition (pp. 413-68). New York: Academic Press.
Lustig, M. W. & Koester, J. (1993). Intercultural competence: Interpersonal communication across cultures. Harper Collins College Publishers.
Lyster, R. (1994). The effect of function--analytic teaching on aspects of French
immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied linguistics, 15,
263-87.
Ma, R. (1996). Saying “yes” for “no” and “no” for “yes”: A Chinese rule. Journal
of pragmatics, 25, 257-66.
Maeshiba, N., Yoshinaga, N., Kasper, G. & Ross, S. (1996). Transfer and proficiency
in interlanguage apologizing. In S. M. Gass and J. New (Eds.), Speech acts
across cultures (pp. 155-87). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Mao, L. R. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: "face" revisited and renewed.
Journal of pragmatics, 21, 451-86.
Martinez-Flor, A. & Fukuya, Y. J. (2005). The effects of instruction on learners’
production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. System, 33, 463-80.
Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness
phenomena in Japanese. Journal of pragmatics, 12, 403-26.
Matsumura, S. (2001). Learning the rules for offering advice: A quantitative
approach to second language socialization. Language learning, 51, 635-79.
McCarthy, M. (1998). Spoken language and applied linguistics. Cambridge
University Press.
McLean, T. (2004). Giving students a fighting chance: Pragmatics in the language classroom. TESL Canada Journal 21, 72-92.
Murphy, B. & Neu, J. (1995). My grade's too low: The speech act set of
complaining. In S. M. Gass & J. New (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp.
191-216). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Nakane, C. (1967). Personal relations in a vertical society: A theory of a
homogeneous society. Tokyo: Kodansha.
Niezgoda, K. & Rover, C. (2001). Pragmatic and grammatical awareness: A function of the learning environment? In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp.63-79). Cambridge University Press.
Ochs, E. (1979). Planned and unplanned discourse. In T. Givon (Ed.), Syntax and semantics vol. 12: Discourse and semantics. New York: Academic Press.
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer. Cambridge University Press.
Olshtain E. &. Cohen, A.D.(1983). Apology: A speech act set. In N. Wolfson & E.
Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 36-55). New York:
Newbury House.
Olshtain E. & Cohen, A.D. (1989). Speech act behavior across languages. In H. W.
Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Transfer in language production (pp. 53-67).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Olshtain E. & Cohen, A. D. (1990). The learning of complex speech act behavior.
TESL Canada journal, 7,45-65.
Olshtain E. & Cohen, A. D. (1991). Teaching speech act behavior to nonnative
speakers. In Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign
language (pp. 154-66). Boston: Heilne & Heinle Publisher.
Olshtain E. & Weinbach, L. (1987). Complaints: A study of speech act behavior
among native and non-native speakers of Hebrew. In J. Verschueren & M.
Bertucelli-Papi (Eds.), The pragmatic Perspective (pp.195-208). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Olshtain E. & Weinbach, L. (1993). Interlanguage features of the speech act of
complaining. In G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage
pragmatics (pp.108-22). New York: Oxford University Press.
Pan, Y. L. (1995). Power behind linguistic behavior: Analysis of politeness
phenomena in Chinese official settings. Journal of language and social
psychology (Dec.), 463-81.
Pavesi, M. (1984). The acquisition of relative clauses in a formal and in an informal
setting: Further evidence in support of the markedness hypothesis. In D.
Singleton & D. Little (Eds.), Language learning in formal and informal
contexts (pp. 151-63). IRAAL, Dublin.
Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different
conditions of exposure. Language learning, 33, 465-97.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G.. & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.
Rintell, E. M. &. Mitchell, C. J. (1989). Studying requests and apologies: An
inquiry into method. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-
cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 248-72). New Jersey: Ablex
Publishing Co.
Rose, K. R. (1999). Teachers and students learning about requests in Hong Kong.
In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 167-80). Cambridge University Press.
Rose, K. R. & Ng, C. (2001). Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments and
compliment responses. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in
language teaching (pp. 145-70). Cambridge University Press.
Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33, 385-99.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
Sapir, E. (1961). Culture, language, and personality. Berkley: University of
California Press.
Sasaki, M. (1998). Investigating EFL students' production of speech acts: A
comparison of production questionnaires and role plays. Journal of
pragmatics, 30, 457-84.
Savignon, S. J. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and
semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts (pp. 59-82). New York: Academic Press.
Scarcella, R. & Brunak, J. (1981). On speaking politely in a second language. Internatiaonl journal of the sociology of language, 27, 59-75.
Schauer, G. A. (2006). Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: Contrast and development. Language learning, 56, 269-318.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning.
Applied linguistics, 11, 17-46.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G.
Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21-42). Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the
role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed), Attention and
awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1-63). Honolulu; University of
Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Scotton, C. M. & Bernsten, J. (1988). Natural conversations as a model for textbook dialogue. Applied linguistics, 9, 372-84.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner.
Applied linguistics, 11, 159-68.
Shih, Y. H. (1994). What do "yes" and "no" really mean in Chinese? Georgetown
university round table on languages and linguistics, 128-49.
Soler, E. A. (2005). Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context? System, 33, 417-35.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Stevick, E. (1980). The levertov machine. In R. Scarcella and S. Krashen (Eds.),
Research in second language acquisition (pp. 28-35). Newbury House, Rowley,
Mass.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input
and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass and C. Madden
(Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-53) Rowley, Mass:
Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren't enough.
The Canada modern language review, 50,158-64.
Swain, M. (1996). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G.
Cook and B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp.
254-56). Oxford University Press.
Taguchi, N. (2002). An application of relevance theory to the analysis of L2
interpretation processes: The comprehension of indirect replies. IRAL, 40,
151-76.
Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic transferability. SSLA, 18, 189-223.
Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic
competence. In K. R. Rose and G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language
Teaching (pp. 171-99). Cambridge University Press.
Takahashi, S. (2005). Noticing in task performance and learning outcome: A qualitative analysis of instructional effects in interlanguage pragmatics. System, 33, 437-61.
Takahashi, S. (2006). Pragmalingustic awareness: Is it related to motivation and proficiency? Applied linguistics, 26, 90-120.
Takahashi, T. & Beebe, L. M. (1987). The development of pragmatic competence by
Japanese learners of English. JALT journal, 8, 131-55.
Takahashi, T. & Beebe, L. M. 1993. Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of
correction. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 138-62). Oxford University Press.
Tarone, E. (1983). On the variability of interlanguage systems. Applied linguistics,
4, 142-63.
Tateyama, Y. (2001). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines. In K. R.
Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 200-222).
Cambridge University Press.
Tateyama, Y., Kasper, G., Mui, L., Tay, H. & Thananart, O. (1997). Explicit and
implicit teaching of pragmatic routines. In L. Bouton and Y. Kuchru (Eds.),
Pragmatics and language learning, monograph series vol. 8, (pp. 163-78).
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied linguistics, 4, 91-
112.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. New
York: Longman.
Trosborg, A. (1987). Apology strategies in natives/non-natives. Journal of
Pragmatics, 11, 147-67.
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.
Wall, A. P. (1988). Say it naturally: Verbal strategies for authentic communication
(Level 2). New York: Harcourt Brace & Company
Weizman, E. (1989). Requestive hints. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper
(Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp: 71-95). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Whorf, B. (1956). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writing of Benjamin Lee
Whorf. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wildner-Bassett, M. (1984). Improving pragmatic aspects of learners’
interlanguage. Tubingen: Narr.
Wildner-Bassett, M. (1986). Teaching and learning “polite noises”: Improving
pragmatic aspects of advanced adult learners’ interlanguage. In G. Kasper
(Ed.), Learning, teaching and communication in the foreign language
classroom, (pp. 163-78). Aarhus University Press.
Wildner-Bassett, M. (1994). Intercultural pragmatics and proficiency: “Polite” noises
for cultural apprpriateness. IRAL, 32, 3-17.
Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human
interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wolfson, N. (1981). Compliments in cross-cultural perspective. TESOL quarterly,
15, 117-24.
Wolfson, N. (1983). An empirically based analysis of complimenting in American English. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp.82-95). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers.
Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. New York: Newbury House.
Wolfson N., Marmor, T. & Jones, S. (1989). Problems in the comparison of speech acts across cultures. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 174-196). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Wong, J. ( 2002). “Applying” conversation analysis in applied linguistics: Evaluating dialogue in English as a second language textbooks. IRAL, 40, 37-60.
Yoshimi, D. R. (2001). Explicit instruction and JFL learner’s use of interactional
discourse markers. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in
language teaching (pp. 223-44). Cambridge University Press.
Yu, M. C. (1999a). Universalistic and culture-specific perspectives on variation in the
acquisition of pragmatic competence in a second language. Pragmatics, 9,
281-312.
Yu, M. C. (1999b). Cross-cultural and interlanguage pragmatics: Developing
communicative competence in a second language. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Harvard University.
Yu, M. C. (2003). On the universality of face: Evidence from Chinese compliment
response behavior. Journal of pragmatics, 35, 1679-1710.
Yuan, Y. (2001). An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods: Written DCTs, oral DCTs, field notes and natural conversations. Journal of pragmatics, 33, 271-92.
Zhang, Y. Y. (1995). Strategies in Chinese requesting. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as native and target language (pp.23-68). University of Hawai’i at Manoa.