Advertisement

British Politeness in a Polish ESL/EFL Classroom?

  • Agata Klimczak
Chapter
Part of the Second Language Learning and Teaching book series (SLLT)

Abstract

This article explores the matter of teaching politeness in the ESL/EFL classroom. Should and can the British politeness model be taught aside from British English grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation? Do future EFL teachers share linguistic and pragmatic competence? Despite the great popularity of the British English standard, pragmatic competence vastly varies among English language teachers around Europe and therefore the pragmatic knowledge they transfer to their learners also varies. Learners are not fully prepared for intercultural communication as they do not have, among others, the awareness of different speech act realisations. The study presented in this article shows what politeness strategies future ESL/EFL teachers from Poland, Slovakia, the Netherlands, Macedonia and the UK have a preference for when apologising within familiar equal and superior-inferior relationships. It then moves on to present the theory of learning and the practice of teaching the speech act of apologising.

Keywords

Target Language Strategy Preference Communicative Competence High Statistical Significance Linguistic Competence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alcón, E. 2002. The relationship between teacher-led versus learners’ interaction and the development of pragmatics in the EFL classroom. International Journal of Educationa1 Research 37: 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin, J. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bardovi-Harling, K. 2002. Pragmatics and second language acquisition. In The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics, ed. R. B. Kaplan, 182–192. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bardovi-Harling, K. and B. S. Hartford. 1996. Input in an institutional setting. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18: 171–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beebe, L., T. Takahashi and R. Uliss-Weltz. 1990. Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In Developing communicative competence in a second language, eds. R. Scarcella, E. Anderson and S. D. Krashen, 55–73. New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  6. Boxer, D. 2003. Critical issues in developmental pragmatics. In Pragmatic competence in foreign language teaching, eds. A. Martinez-Flor, E. Uso-Juan and A. Fernandez, 45–67. Castello: Servei de Publicacions.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N. 1980. Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, A. D. 1996. Developing the ability to perform speech acts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18: 253–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, A. D. 2005. Strategies for learning and performing L2 speech acts. Intercultural Pragmatics 2: 275–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cutting, J. 2002. Pragmatics and discourse: A resource book for students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Crystal, D. 1997. The Cambridge encyclopaedia of language. (second edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Ellis, R. and C. Roberts. 1987. Two approaches for investigating second language acquisition in context. In Second language acquisition in context, ed. R. Ellis, 3–29. London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Golato, A. 2003. Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics 24: 90–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gregg, K. R.1986. Reviewed work(s): The input hypothesis: Issues and implications by Stephen D. Krashen. TESOL Quarterly 20: 116–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grundy, P. 1995. Doing pragmatics. London: Edward Norton.Google Scholar
  16. Holtgraves, T. M. 2002. Language as social action: Social psychology and language use. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Kasper, G. 2001. Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. In Pragmatics in language teaching, eds. K. R. Rose and G. Kasper, 33–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kasper, G. 2004. Speech acts on (inter)action: Repeated questions. Intercultural Pragmatics 1: 125–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kasper, G. and R. Schmidt.1996. Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18: 149–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kondo, S. 2010. Apologies: Raising learners’ cross-cultural awareness. In Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues, eds. A. Martinez-Flor and E. Uso-Juan, 145–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  21. Leech, G. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  22. Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. LoCastro, V. 2003. An introduction to pragmatics: Social action for language teachers. Michigan MI: Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lowe, V. 1998. “Unhappy” confessions in The Crucible: A pragmatic explanation. In Exploring the language of drama, eds. J. Culpeper, M. Short and P. Verdonk, 128–141. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Martinez-Flor, A and E. Uso-Juan 2010. Pragmatics and speech act performance. In Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues, eds. A. Martinez-Flor and E. Uso-Juan, 3–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  26. Nikula, T. 2002. Teacher talk reflecting pragmatic awareness: A look at EFL and content-based classroom settings. Pragmatics 12: 447–467.Google Scholar
  27. Ohta, A. S. 1994. Socializing the expression of affect: An overview of affective particle use in the Japanese as a foreign language classroom. Issues in Applied Linguistics 5: 447–467.Google Scholar
  28. Robinson, J. D. 2004. The sequential organization of “explicit” apologies in naturally occurring English. Research on Language & Social Interaction 37: 291–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Safont, M.P. 2005. Third language learners: Pragmatic production and awareness. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  30. Savignon, S. 1985. Evaluation of communicative competence: The ACTFL provisional proficiency guidelines. Modern Language Journal 59: 129–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schauer, G. A. 2009. Interlanguage pragmatic development: The study abroad context. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  32. Searle, J. R. 1975. Indirect speech acts. In Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, eds. P. Cole and J. L. Morgan, 59–82. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  33. Sifianou, M. 1999. Politeness phenomena in England and Greece. A cross-cultural perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Swain, M. 2000. French immersion research in Canada: Recent contributions to SLA and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 20: 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tateyama, Y. and G. Kasper. 2008. Talking with a classroom guest: Opportunities for learning Japanese pragmatics. In Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing, eds. E. Alcon and A. Martinez-Flor, 45–71. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  36. Thomas, J. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4: 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in interaction. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  38. Trosborg, A. 1995. Interlanguage pragmatics. Requests, complaints and apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  39. Washburn, G. N. 2001. Using situation comedies for pragmatic language teaching and learning. TESOL Journal 10: 21–26.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Agata Klimczak
    • 1
  1. 1.University of WarsawWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations