Pragmatic Analysis of Textbooks on the Basis of Speech Acts

Authors

  • Samina Ali Asghar Lecturer, University of Education, Lahore, Pakistan
  • Tayyabba Yasmin Associate Professor , University of Education, Lahore, Pakistan
  • Aniqa Rashid Assistant Professor, National University of Modern Languages Faisalabad Campus, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47067/real.v4i2.164

Keywords:

Pragmatic Analysis, Textbooks, Speech Acts, EFL Teachers

Abstract

This study investigatesfive speech acts of declaratives ,expressives, representatives, directives and commisives in three English textbooks at the level of III, IV and V published by Punjab Text Book Board Lahore in order to show whether theyareappropriate on pragmatic level for EFL learners or not. The results of the study reveal that thedistribution of all the speech acts is not equal both within each textbook andamong textbooks at all three levels. Among five speech acts, representative speech act occursthe most frequently in all textbooks while commissiveis the least used speech act. None of the books uses any speech act of declarative. This study implies that EFL teachers and materials designers shouldconsider pragmaticaspectsto improve the quality of both learning and instruction.

References

Altbach, P.G. (1991). The unchanging variable: Textbooks in comparative perspective. In P.G. Altbach, G.P. Kelly, H.G. Petrie and L. Weis (Eds.), Textbooks in American society: Politics, policy and pedagogy (pp. 237-254). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Cohen, A. D. &Olshtain, E. (1993). The production of speech acts by EFL learners’. TESOL Quarterly,27(1), 33-56.

Bentahila, A., & Davies, E. (1989). Culture and language use: A problem for foreign language teaching. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 27, 99-112.

Coulmas, F. (1981). "Poison to your soul": Thanks and apologies contrastively viewed. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication and prepatterned speech (pp. 69-91). The Hague: Mouton.

Grant, L., & Starks, D. (2001). Screening appropriate teaching materials: Closing from textbooks and television soap operas. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 39, 39-50.

Kasper, G. &Roever, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In Eli Hinkel (ed.). Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, pp. 317-334. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.

Koike, D. A. (1989). Pragmatic competence and adult L2 acquisition: Speech acts in interlanguage. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 279-289.

.Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. M. (1987). The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English. Japan Association for Language Teaching Journal, 8, 131-155.

Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91-122.

Wolfson, N. (1989a). The social dynamics of native and non-native variation in complimenting behavior. In M. Eisenstein (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation (pp. 219-236). New York: Plenum Press.

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Downloads

Published

2021-06-25

How to Cite

Asghar, S. A. ., Yasmin, T. ., & Rashid, A. . (2021). Pragmatic Analysis of Textbooks on the Basis of Speech Acts. Review of Education, Administration & LAW, 4(2), 503-507. https://doi.org/10.47067/real.v4i2.164