Pragmatic Representations in Iranian High School English Textbooks
الموضوعات :
Elaheh Zaferanieh
1
(English Department of the University of Isfahan)
سید محمد حسینی معصوم
2
(Department of Linguistics and Foreign Languages, Payam Noor University)
الکلمات المفتاحية: Pragmatic Representation, text books, speech acts, Language Functions,
ملخص المقالة :
Owing to the growing interest in communicative, cultural and pragmatic aspects of second language learning in recent years, the present study tried to investigate representations of pragmatic aspects of English as a foreign language in Iranian high school textbooks. Using Halliday’s (1978), and Searle’s (1976) models, different language functions and speech acts were specifically determined and examined in high school textbooks. The results indicated that there were major insufficiencies in pragmatic representations in these books. These problems were related to inadequate coverage of different speech acts and language functions, lack of authenticity in the dialogues, inappropriate simplifications and reductions, lack of grading, unsystematic presentations, providing no meta-pragmatic information, and presenting English speech acts embedded in dialogues with Iranian culture, religion, and norms. The results indicate that material developers and textbook designers need to consider these aspects to help learners to be able to learn second language more efficiently and appropriately.
References
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words, Clarendon, Oxford.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 7, 21–39.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Griffin, R. (2005). L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL classroom. System, 33, 401–415.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B.A.S., Mahan-Taylor, R, Morgan, M.J., & Reynolds, D.W. (1991). Developing pragmatic awareness in closing the conversation. ELT Journal, 45(1), 4-15.
Bouton, M. E. (1994).Context, ambiguity, and classical conditioning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 49- 53.
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, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Edwards, M., &Csizer, K. (2001). Opening and closing the conversation: How course book dialogues can be implemented in the classroom. Novelty, 8(2), 55-66.
Eslamirasekh, Z. (2005). Raising the pragmatic awareness of language learners.ELT Journal,59 (2), 199-208.
Eslami Rasekh, Z., & Noora, A. (2008).Perceived pragmatic transferability of L1 request strategies by Persian learners of English. In M. Pütz & J. Neff-van Aertselaer (Eds.), Developing contrastive pragmatics: Interlanguage and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 301-333). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Goffman, E. (1995). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. NY: Harper & Row.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1974). Language and Social Man. London: Longman (Schools Council Programme in Linguistics & English Teaching, Papers, Series II, no. 3).
Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? (Net Works No. 6). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
Kasper, G., & Roever, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language learning and teaching (pp. 317-334). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kasper, G. & Rose, K. R. (2002).Pragmatic development in a second language. Michigan: Blackwell.
Koosha, B., & Vahid Dastjerdi, H. (2012).Investigating Pragmatic Competence: The Case of Requests in Interchange Series. Asian Social Science, 8(1), 54-61.
Longcope, P. (1995). The Universality of Face in Brown and Levinson’s Politeness theory: A Japanese Perspective. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 11(1), 69-79.
McConachy, T., & Hata, K. (2013).Addressing textbook representations of pragmatics and culture. ELT Journal, 67 (3).
Moradi, A., Karbalaei, A., & Afraz, S. (2013). A Textbook Evaluation of Speech Acts and Language Functions in High School English Textbooks (I, II & III) and Interchange Series, Books I, II, And III. European Online Journal Of Natural And Social Sciences, 2(2s), pp. 323-335. Retrieved from http://european-science.com/eojnss/article/view/169
Razmjoo, A. (2007). High schools or private institutes textbooks? Which fulfill communicative language teaching principles in the Iranian context? Asian EFL Journal, 9(4) P. 1-16.
Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A.D. (1991).Teaching speech act behavior to nonnative speakers.In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 154-165. Boston, MA: Heinle&Heinle
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: CUP. 1976. A Classification of Illocutionary Acts. Language in Society, 5, 1-23.
Shoarinejad, A.A. (2008). The philosophy of education. Tehran: Amir Kabir Publications.
Soozandehfar, M. A., & Sahragard, R. (2011). A textbook evaluation of speech acts and language functions in Top-Notch Series. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(12), 1831-1838.
Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,18(2), 189-223.
Tanaka, K. (1997). Developing pragmatic competence: A learners-as-researchers approach. TESOL Journal, 6 (3), 14-18.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. New York: Longman.
Tavakoli, M. (1995). Encouragement and punishment in Iran high schools. ROSHD: Teacher Education Journal, 15 (5).
Vaezi, Z. (2008). Language learning motivation among Iranian undergraduate students. World Applied Sciences Journal, 5(1), 54-61.
