Running Head: ADDRESSING PRAGMATIC FAILURE 1

Addressing Pragmatic Failure in ESL/EFL Learners’ E-mail Requests

Xiayu Guo and Monchi Liu

Colorado State University

ADDRESSING PRAGMATIC FAILURE 2

Abstract

Nowadays, e-mail has been one of the most popular ways for communication in many

fields, but for most nonnative English speakers, they do not know how to interact via e-mail in

English appropriately. In English teaching, educators always focus on grammar and the four

skills of language learning. They overlook pragmatics. This paper illustrates how to prevent

pragmatic failure in Chinese ESL/EFL learners’ e-mail requests. First, we discussed the previous

research of expressions in the e-mail genre. Next, we provide some examples and analyze

pragmatic failure in e-mail requests. Then, we identify teaching strategies to avoid pragmatic

failure based on speech act theory, specifically requests. Finally, we attempt to offer a

curriculum about e-mail requests. The goal of the curriculum is to help students make e-mail

requests appropriately and courteously.

Introduction

E-mail is a very common type of social media used for interpersonal communication.

Many people interact with others via e-mail and they can get feedback immediately. There is

research on computer-mediated communication (CMC). The research shows that there is no

established convention for linguistic behavior in e-mail communication (Biesenbach-Lucas,

2006). In other words, e-mail communication does not have a set of well-designed requirement

and linguistic behavior guide. There is no information about what expressions that nonnative

speakers should avoid using in different e-mail contexts. Therefore, nonnative speakers have

problems with politeness. Although sometimes e-mail communication is similar to oral speaking

because they are both dynamic and interactive, participants cannot see and hear each other in e-

mail interaction. In this case, senders must pay attention to their attitude and expressions in e-

mail writing. Danet (2011) argues that when someone sends an e-mail to an authority, he/she
ADDRESSING PRAGMATIC FAILURE 3

should be more formal and polite. Otherwise, the receiver may think he/she is rude and

uneducated. Politeness considerations are important (Holmes & Stubb, 2004) and requests made

to their superiors (i.e., those people who are in a higher-status position) need more mitigation and

less directness.

Requests are face-threatening acts (Brown & Levinson, 1978). One way the speaker can

minimize the imposition is by using an indirect strategy instead of a direct one, such as activating

choice on the scale of directness. The data on requests are typically obtained through a discourse

completion test and role plays, but they don’t focus on authentic e-mail messages. Requests are

always related to power distance. The most obvious reflection of power distance is the

interaction between superiors, such as professors, and their subordinates, students. For example,

when someone emails his/her boss to require a document, it is inappropriate to say “Give me the

document” or “Can you give me the document?” Hartford and Bardovi-Harlig’s study (1996)

was one of the earliest studies on student-professor e-mail requests. The pragmatic failure is

caused by inappropriate and insufficient mitigation and degree.

Hendrick’s study (2010) investigated the influence of the use of syntactic and lexical

modifiers in e-mail requests written by Dutch learners. Chen (2001) compared Chinese and

American students in e-mail requests for appointments, recommendation letters and special

considerations. Both groups of students liked to use the structures “Can you/Could you…”. It

indicates that the expressions of politeness of nonnative speakers is very limited. “Can you” and

“could you” are correct but not suitable in some contexts. Therefore, nonnative speakers need to

be taught how to express the request correctly in pragmatics aspect.

ESL/EFL learners cannot use appropriate degree of directness because they fail to apply

speech acts theory in e-mail requests. Blum-Kulka (1984) says the pragmatic failure happens
ADDRESSING PRAGMATIC FAILURE 4

when speakers fail to understand each other’s intentions. English teachers should not only teach

students’ language, but they should teach the use of language. According to Jung (2002), the

students must develop the ability to use speech act theory in every situation.

Cohen (2005) proposed four strategies to avoid pragmatic failure when making requests.

They are retrieval strategies, rehearsal strategies, communication strategies and cover strategies,

all of which will be discussed in more detail later in this paper, while of the above-mentioned

studies connect to speech acts and e-mail interactions, we were not able to find course materials

that focus on helping students to speech acts and e-mail interactions. However, we did not find

course materials for helping students develop pragmatic competence. In China, English teaching

stresses on grammar. Students can produce correct utterances about requests, but they may fail to

produce appropriate requests to others.

Literature Review

To some extent, e-mail is the most popular social media for interpersonal communication.

Many students use e-mail to reach professors more quickly and receive answers and feedback

immediately. Student-professor interactions have a shift from face-to-face office consultations to

cyber-consultations between them (Economidou, 2011). However, research on CMC shows that

there are no established conventions for linguistic behavior in e-mail communication

(Biesenbach-Lucas, 2006). Also, there are no explicit and clear instructions in e-mail writing. As

a result, both native and nonnative speakers are faced with problems of politeness (Crystal,

2001). It has been claimed that e-mail has made professors approachable and accessible, erasing

boundaries that kept students at a healthy distance (Glater, 2006).

E-mail shares features with oral speech. Email interaction is similar to oral speech

because they are both dynamic and interactive, but email cannot be strictly defined as oral speech
ADDRESSING PRAGMATIC FAILURE 5

because participants neither hear nor see each other (Ecnomidou, 2011). Therefore, e-mail

language is a “hybrid-medium” language along the continuum between oral and written language

(Barron, 1998). For the hybrid nature of e-mail, sometimes e-mail is informal but sometimes it is

formal. Danet (2011) argues that when someone sends e-mail to an authority, he/she should be

more formal and polite. E-mail language contains simple and straightforward features and has

coordinated instead of subordinated ideas in sentences. People hardly write emails with very long

and complex sentences. Writers tend to use the straightforward and short but accurate sentences

in emails. For example, the customer service department in a company may email their clients,

“We have two solutions for solving your problem.” instead of “there are two solutions if you

want to solve your problem.”

Some studies showed that native and non-native speakers’ e-mails always show different

stylistic range. The opening of the majority of e-mails are Hi/Hello/Dear, although the highest

frequency category was for no opening device at all (Economidou, 2011). The most common

closing is the writer’s name only or expressions like best wishes/regards, love.

E-mails from students to professors’ exhibit “a wide stylistic range, from greatly formal

to overtly ceremonial” (Biesenbach-Lucas, 2006):

“-Please advise.

-Any comments?

-I would appreciate your feedback.

-I’d now like to request your approval to do a research paper on fossilization.”

(Biesenbach-Lucas, 2006:83-84).

From the example, it can be seen that some students’ e-mail requests are very direct; they

use imperative, ellipsis sentences, and use phrases like “I want” or “I like”. In student and
ADDRESSING PRAGMATIC FAILURE 6

professor e-mail interaction, these kinds of messages are at an inappropriate level of directness,

because professor is superior in school life. Students are supposed to be respectful and polite to

their professors. The expressions like “I want”, “I like”, “can you” and “as soon as possible”.

Such expressions are too subjective and they seem to urge professor to do things for you.

Many studies suggest that there is a “need to account for the rules that govern the use of

language in context” (Levinson, 1983). There is a project called “A Cross-Cultural Study of

Speech Act Realization Pattern (CCSARP)” which is guided by Blum-Kulka, & Olshtain (1984).

The goals of this project are to compare languages, the realization patterns of requests and

apologies (especially for requests), and to establish similarities and differences between native

and nonnative speakers’ realization patterns. The CCSARP project focuses on requests in eight

languages or varieties; they are Australian English, American English, British English, Canadian

French, Danish, German, Hebrew and Russian. On theoretical grounds, there are three major

levels of directness that can be expected to be manifested by requesting strategies.

1. The most direct, explicit level realized by imperatives, or performatives (Austin, 1962)

and hedged performatives (Fraser, 1975).

2. The conventionally indirect level realized by contextual preconditions necessary for

performance.

3. Nonconventional indirect level such as open-ended group of indirect strategies and to

realize the request by partial reference or reliance on contextual clues.

Requests are face-threatening acts (Brown, & Levinson, 1978). The direct and indirect

ways for making requests available to speakers is socially motivated by the need to minimize the

imposition involved in the act itself (Blum-Kulka, 1984).

In many interlanguage studies on requests, data have been obtained through a discourse
ADDRESSING PRAGMATIC FAILURE 7

completion test and role plays (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1986). But the few studies on e-mail

requests focus on the authentic e-mail messages. Interlanguage studies on e-mail show how e-

mails differ from oral discourse in the L2 (Warschauer, 1996; Chapman, 1997). Some studies

examined e-mail interactions between students and professors. Hardford and Bardovi-Harlig’s

study (1996) was one of the earliest studies on student-professor e-mail requests. This study

analyses the e-mail requests of English NSs and NNSs and investigates how students’ use

requests. The study indicates some pragmatic failure in NNS’s messages. The pragmatic failure

is caused by inappropriate and insufficient mitigation and degree. The author concludes that the

forms of e-mail requests “reflect an apparent overestimation on the part of the students of the

faculty members’ level of obligation to comply” (Hardford & Bardovi-Harlig, 1996, p.58)

Hendrick’s study (2010) investigated the influence of the use of syntactic and lexical

modifiers in e-mail requests written by Dutch learners. Results from the study suggested that the

underuse of elaborate lexico-syntactic modifier combinations (e.g. Would you mind my asking

for the document we discussed yesterday? Because I realize that we can finish the task more

smoothly with that document.) can influence perception of recipients. Hendrick (2010) found it

may reflect negatively on the sender’s personality and result in pragmatic failure. However, the

use of past tense or euphemism did not affect sender’s evaluation. A possible explanation for this

may be that the requests were preceded by extensive external modifiers that helped to increase

the politeness of the e-mail (Economidou, 2011).

In the similar study, Chen (2001) compared Chinese and American students in e-mail

requests for appointments, recommendation letters, and special considerations. The study

revealed that both groups of students preferred “Can you/Could you” and “I want/Would you

like to), but in some conditions, American students chose more lexico-syntactic modification
ADDRESSING PRAGMATIC FAILURE 8

(but not overuse), which makes requests more indirect and polite. Both Hendrick’s study and

Chen’s study show the problems of email requests for nonnative speakers. They tend to use very

complex sentences. If they avoid overusing these sentences, their expressions become direct.

Just now we mentioned the CCSARP project, and Biesenbech-Lucas (2006) applied it to

examine the degree of directness and politeness features of students’ e-mails. NNSs’ e-mails

didn’t make use of a combination of devices and were modified using past tense and “please”.

The internal modification employed by NNSs “did not show NSs apparent sensitivity and

linguistic flexibility to use different modification devices for different request types”

(Biesenbach-Lucas, 2006). Examples 1-4 (see below) illustrate instances of pragmatic failure in

ESL/EFL students e-mail requests to professors (Econimidou, 2011):

(1) Did you talk to Dr…? What did she tell you?

Will she allow me to take sociolinguistics?

Thank you.

(2) Can you please send me the completed PowerPoint material that you covered this week?

Thank you in advance.

(3) Please e-mail the syllabus of the course ENG 551 taught during the second semester because

I would like to familiarize myself with the content of its books.

(4) I couldn’t come to class because I’m sick.

The pragmatic failure above is caused by the degree of directness. ESL/EFL learners

occasionally fail to use appropriate degree of directness because they fail to apply speech act

theory in e-mail requests. This causes pragmatic failure on e-mail requests. Thomas (1983:91)

defines pragmatic failure as an instance where someone cannot understand what is meant by

what is said. Blum-Kulka (1986) says the pragmatic failure happens when speakers fail to
ADDRESSING PRAGMATIC FAILURE 9

understand each other’s intentions. The pragmatic failure derives from the size of imposition,

reference in the L2 to taboo in that culture and the power and social distance in that culture. The

pragmatic failure in e-mail requests is the third one. E-mail language depends on students and

professors social distance. Therefore, English teacher should not only teach students language

points, but they should also teach the use of language. Teachers should help students avoid

pragmatic failure. According to Jung (2002), the students must develop the following abilities in

class: ability to carry out speech acts in every situation; ability to produce and interpret non-

literal meanings; ability to be polite; ability to carry out discursive functions and use cultural

knowledge.

Teachers should apply language use strategies in class when they teach something related

to pragmatics. They include cognitive, metacognitive, social and affective strategies, but for

teaching pragmatics, some strategies are added (Cohen, 2005):

1. Retrieval strategies: For activating language information in one’s memory. For

example, retrieving the correct verbs in correct tense for making a polite request (Glahn,

1980).

2. Rehearsal strategies: For practicing L2 structures that one has learned before

(Weinstein & Mayer, 1986). For example, rehearsing the subject form for verbs for

using them in a request.

3. Communication strategies: For guiding the conversation away from problematic areas

and expressing meaning in creative ways; for creating time for them to think and

negotiate difficult parts. Communication strategies include filling the gaps by

translation from L1 and interaction strategies.

4. Cover strategies: For not looking foolish. For example, using a partially understood
ADDRESSING PRAGMATIC FAILURE 10

phrase in a sentence to keep the action going or laughing at a joke.

The challenge of strategies on teaching pragmatics is supporting learners being more

systematic in their strategies for learning and using complex speech acts. A recent concern for

defining and doing research on strategies suggests not viewing the strategies that learners use for

speech acts as separate thoughts and behaviors, but rather as chains and clusters (Macaro, 2004).

A strategy chain contains social strategies in sequence. First, a student might use two supportive

moves; such as minimizing the imposition and grounding the request by justification. Then in the

sequence would be the head act in the form of a query serving as an indirect request. In the

strategy clusters, learners deploy the strategies in an overlapping manner.

Given the difference between what NSs and NNSs do pragmatically, how the teacher can

help students close the pragmatic gap is a large problem. Speaking English well does not

necessarily mean to follow the cultural rules. The task of the teacher is to make sure that students

know what they are saying. In addition, the teacher has to take into account that pragmatic

failures can be corrected. The pragmatic failures which take place can be avoided if the non-

native speakers had had a metapragmatic capacity (Amaya, 2008). Pragmatic knowledge should

be teachable. There are many studies that prove this is so and instruction helps L2 learners in

acquiring pragmatic competence. An example is the study carried out by Eslami-Rasekh et al. in

2004 (Amaya, 2008) with 66 Iranian students of advanced English, focusing on 3 speech acts:

request, apology and complaint. The students were divided into 2 groups: the control group

received normal instruction (32 students) and another received pragmatic instruction about 30

minutes of each 2-hour class session (34 students). Before the class began, both groups were

administered a questionnaire with 26 situations about the students’ family, social and academic

life. Each situation had 4 possible answers but only one was suitable from a pragmatic point of
ADDRESSING PRAGMATIC FAILURE 11

view. Each correct answer was assigned 2 points. At the end of the course, the students were

given another questionnaire which was similar to the one made in the beginning. As a result, the

experimental group got 30 points in average before classes, but after classes, the average is 46

points. The control group got 30.7 points before classes, and 35.5 points after classes. The results

show that an explicit pragmatic instruction facilitates the development of pragmatic abilities. For

student, they need to learn to be communicatively competent from a pragmatic point of view.

According to Jung (2002), the students should develop the following abilities:

• The ability to carry out speech acts. It’s necessary for them to know how to choose the

speech act needed in different situations and suitable linguistic codification to carry out

this speech act.

• Ability to produce and interpret non-literal meanings.

• Ability to use politeness strategies. These strategies may vary from one culture to another

and it’s necessary to recognize them.

• Ability to carry out discursive functions (e.g. taking turns, pauses or silences.)

• Ability to use cultural knowledge.

Description of Pedagogical Part:

Brief Description of Classroom Setting

1. L2 learners between mid-to-high intermediate proficiency. They are all Chinese.

2. All learners are high school students.

3. The topic of curriculum is practical writing. The curriculum lasts for 16 weeks. Students

are taught how to apply speech act theories in the real context.

4. There is individual work, pair work and group work in class.

ADDRESSING PRAGMATIC FAILURE 12

5. The curriculum types are reading and writing.

Curriculum Introduction

There are 20 students in the class and all of them are Chinese high school students. They enrolled

in this EFL class with hopes for improving their pragmatic competence. Specifically, they want

to learn how to apply what they learned practically. The students are in mid-to-high intermediate

proficiency.

The goal of this course is to help students to avoid pragmatic failure in e-mail requests based on

the speech act theory. Students will have opportunities to read e-mail requests written by native

speakers and find their problems on e-mail requests. The first part of this course is about speech

act theory (5 classes); the second part is practical writing including e-mails and business letters

(5 classes); the third part is applying speech act theory in practical writing especially e-mail

requests (6 classes).
ADDRESSING PRAGMATIC FAILURE 13

Lesson Plan for Week 6

Brief Description:

1. L2 learners are between mid-intermediate to high-intermediate proficiency. The first

language is Chinese. The class lasts 40 minutes.

2. All students are Chinese high school students.

3. The topic of this class is requests in e-mails.

4. There is group work and individual work.

Pre-lesson inventory

Lesson Objectives:

Content objective:

Students are able to make requests politely.

Language objective:

Students are able to recognize the features of request sentences.

Students get to know the form of modals.

Students distinguish the contextual differences of modals.

Students are able to use modal verbs to make requests.

Teaching Materials:

Modal verbs and phrasal modals (Appendix B)

Situations in activity 1 (Appendix C)

E-mail from native speaker (Appendix D)

Equipment needed for class: laptop, doc cam

ADDRESSING PRAGMATIC FAILURE 14

Assignments to collect from students: none

Special room arrangements: movable desks and chairs

Warm-up: Brainstorm (5 min)

Purpose: This activity motivates class and activates schemata. In this activity, students can think

about how they made requests before.

Procedures:

1. I will ask students, “Did you ask others to do something for you in your life?” Students will

say, “Yes.” Then I ask, “What did you say when you ask others to do something? Please write

down these sentences. You have 3 minutes. You can discuss with partners.”

2. During the activity, I will browse in the classroom. After 3 minutes, I will collect students’

answers. They should speak out their answers. If their sentences contain modals, I will type

their sentences on the screen and ask, “Do you find the common features in your sentences?”

They may say, “They all include can, could, etc.”

3. I will highlight modals and lead students in this class.

Transition: “Words like can and could are modal verbs. Can you come up with any other modal

verbs?”

Activity 1: Situation-reading (23 min)

Purpose: In this activity, students will learn the differences between modal verbs and phrasal

modal verbs. Students will read a paragraph and make requests by modal verbs (phrases). They

don’t need to consider the politeness here.

Procedures:
ADDRESSING PRAGMATIC FAILURE 15

1. I will introduce the modal verbs and phrases to students

Modal Phrasal Modal

can, could be able to

will, shall be going to, be about to,

be to

must have to, have got to,

need to

should be supposed to

would (for past habit) used to

may, might be allowed to, be

permitted to

(Larsen-Freeman, & Celce-Murcia, 2015, p.143)

In this part, I will stress that ought to/had better are modal forms that lie somewhere between

true modals and phrasal modals. After I explain them, students should give me some

sentences with modals/phrasal modals.

2. I will introduce the use of modals to students:

social interaction: can, could, may, might, must, shall, should, will, would

ability tendency: can, could, would.

(Larsen-Freeman, & Celce-Murcia, 2015, p.142)

Then, I ask students, “Among these 12 modals, which one can be used to make requests?” If

students don’t know the word “requests”, I will explain it.

3. Students should give me answers. If they give incorrect answers, I will correct them. Then I

give them examples. For general nature requests, we can say: Will/Would/Can/Could you
ADDRESSING PRAGMATIC FAILURE 16

help me with this problem? For specific requests for permission: May/Might/Can/Could I

leave the room now?

4. Each student finds 1 to 2 partners. I will hand out some situations to each group (appendix b).

Students should make requests about situations by using modals.

5. After the group work, I will collect their answers. They will read their sentences aloud.

Transition: You did a good job in the activity. Just now, you produced some sentences with

requests. Next, I’d like you to connect what you learned with previous classes (last 2 classes).

Activity 2: E-mail from a Native Speaker (7 min)

Purpose: Students will read an e-mail from a native speaker and discuss the features of e-mail

requests language. The e-mail from a native speaker may influence students’ language use

positively.

Procedures:

1. I will give each student an e-mail written by a native speaker. I find a volunteer to read this e-

mail.

2. Students will discuss the language features of this e-mail in groups.

3. Students will find the requests in this e-mail and paraphrase them. For example, students can

change Could you please… to Would you please…

4. Students will share answers with class.

Transition and Closure (3 min)

Students review the modals they learn today quickly.

ADDRESSING PRAGMATIC FAILURE 17

Lesson Plan for Week 7

Brief Description:

1. L2 learners are between mid-intermediate to high-intermediate proficiency. The first

language is Chinese. The class lasts 40 minutes.

2. All students are Chinese high school students.

3. The topic of this class is requests.

4. There is group work and individual work.

Pre-lesson Inventory

Lesson Objectives:

1. Content objectives:

Students will be able to make e-mail requests politely.

Students will be able to remember the e-mail format.

2. Language objectives:

Students will be able to use modal verbs and phrasal modals.

Students will be able to make requests politely. For example, I would be grateful/appreciate it

if you.

Teaching Materials: e-mail from native speaker (appendix c in last class)

the other expressions of making requests (Appendix E)

situations in activity 2 (Appendix F)

Equipment needed for class: laptop, doc cam

Assignments to collect from students: none

ADDRESSING PRAGMATIC FAILURE 18

Special room arrangements: movable desks and chairs

Warm up: Brainstorm (5 min)

Purpose: Students will review the knowledge from the last class. It will refresh students’ minds

on making requests. Maybe some students were absent last class, this activity can help them

review what they missed.

Procedures:

1. Students will take out appendix c I gave them last class. I will ask “What are the requests you

find in this e-mail.” Maybe they can only find Could you therefore please send me your price

list because last class I taught the modals.

2. I will let them paraphrase this sentence with other modals, and the speak out their answers.

3. I will ask, “Can you find another request? Don’t just look at modal verbs.” There are students

who might find I would also be grateful if you could include details of delivery and postage.

Transition: “You know how to make requests with modal verbs in interrogative sentences, but

there are some other ways to make requests such as I would be grateful if… Now we will look at

these expressions.”

Activity 1: Making Requests in Various Ways (15 min)

Purpose: In this activity, students should review making requests with interrogative sentences. I

will also introduce new ways for making requests to them.

Procedures:

1. Students will review the modal verbs and phrasal modals they learned last class. When I give

modal verbs, they should respond to me with the corresponding phrasal modals.

2. I will ask students, “Can you give me some sentences for making requests that we learned?”
ADDRESSING PRAGMATIC FAILURE 19

They should give me answers.

3. I will show 4 groups of expressions (appendix a) and let them order the degree of politeness

and tell me reasons. Maybe they make mistakes, but it doesn’t matter, I can correct them and

explain these detailed expressions:

I would be grateful if you could send me … .

I would appreciate it if you could … .

Could you please send me … ?

Could you send me … , please?

Could you send me … ?

Would you send me … ?

Please send me … .
4. Students will find group members. Ideally, 3 students are in one group. One of them should

come up with a situation, the other two should make requests about this situation (like

activity 1 in last class). They should make request in various ways.

Transition: “You are familiar with making requests, and you know that our unit is Practical

Writing. So, I’d like you to make e-mail requests now.”

Activity 2: E-mail writing (15 min)

Purpose: Students will combine request and e-mail writing. They should apply what they learned

this unit in a real context.

Procedures:

1. I will ask students, “Do you remember the parts of an e-mail letter?” Students speak out their

answers, “header, header fields, e-mail address, message body, etc.”

2. I will give students 3 situations. They can choose a situation to make requests. They can

make requests by using interrogative sentences with modals, or by declarative sentences we

ADDRESSING PRAGMATIC FAILURE 20

learn this class.

3. After they finish, they exchange the e-mail with partners and do peer-review.

Transition and closure (5 min)

Students will review what they learned these two classes quickly. I will collect students’

feedback for these two classes: Do they have any questions? If they have, I will answer them.
ADDRESSING PRAGMATIC FAILURE 21

References

Amaya, L. F. (2008). Teaching culture: Is it possible to avoid pragmatic failure?. Revista

Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 21, 11-24.

Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hardford, Beverly S. (1996). At your earliest convenience’’: a study of

written student requests to faculty. In: Bouton, L. (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language

Learning, vol. 7. Urbana-Campaign: Division of English as an International Language.

University of Illinois, 55–69.

Biesenbach-Lucas, Sigrun. (2007). Students writing e-mails to faculty: An examination of e-

politeness among native and non-native speakers of English. Language Learning and

Technology. 11 (2), 59–81.

Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1986). Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic

failure. Studies in second language acquisition, 8(02), 165-179.

Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech

act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied linguistics, 5(3), 196-213.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena. In E.

Goody (Ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, p. 56-310.

Celca-Murcia, M, & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015). The Grammar Book: Form, Meaning and Use

for English Language Teachers. Boston, MA: National Graphic Learning.

Cohen, A. D. (2005). Strategies for learning and performing L2 speech acts. Intercultural

Pragmatics, 2(3), 275-301.

Dash, P. (2004). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure: A definitional analysis with implications for

classroom teaching. Asian EFL Journal, 6(3), 1-17.

ADDRESSING PRAGMATIC FAILURE 22

Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2011). “Please answer me as soon as possible”: Pragmatic failure

in non-native speakers’e-mail requests to faculty. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(13), 3193-

3215.

Jianbin, H., &Lihui, Z. (2010). A study of Chinese EFL learners’ pragmatic failure and the

implications for college English teaching. Polyglossia, 18, 41-54.

Mocaro, E. (2004). Learning Strategies in Foreign and Second Language Classrooms. London:

Continuum.

Pohl, G. (2004). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure and implications for language teaching. Second

Language Learning & Teaching, 4(2), 91-112.

Sbisà, M. (2007). How to read Austin. Pragmatics, 17(3), 463-466.

Thomas, J. (2006). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. World Englishes: Critical concepts in

linguistics, 4(2), 22
 ADDRESSING PRAGMATIC FAILURE 23

Appendices

Appendix A: Scope and Sequence

Week Title of Topic/Task Grammar/Function Language Culture/Learning Vocabulary

Unit Skills

1 Overview Biefly Students have a Reading: A general concept

of Speech introduce general understanding Get to know about speech act
Act speech act of what they will learn what speech theory
Theory theory to in this course. act is.
students.

Overview Review the Speech act theory is Reading: How do native

of Speech content in more tangible for Examples speakers apply
Act the last class students from about speech speech act theory in
Theory and give examples. act sentences and
some Speaking: paragraphs.
specific Examples
examples. discussion

2 The Three levels Students get to know Reading: The content and Locutionary
Levels of of speech act locutionary acts, Materials examples of three (compromise,
Speech theory and illocutionary acts and about three levels of speech act phonetic, phatic),
Act examples perlocutionary acts levels theory illocutionary
Theory (performative,
promise, order,
bequeath),
perlocutionary
(persuade,
convince, scare,
inspire)

Primitive Introduce Students learn nine Reading: Students should try Label, repeat,
Speech nine primitive speech acts. Read to apply theory to answer, request
Acts primitive examples of practice, but they (action and
speech acts. primitive don’t need to write answer), call,
speech acts complete paragraph. greet, protest,
Writing: practice
According to
definition
and
examples in
textbook,
students
produce their
own
examples.
 ADDRESSING PRAGMATIC FAILURE 24

3 Request How to Students learn how to Speaking: Students learn Politeness, face-
in Speech make request make requests and Students politeness theory, threatening
Act based on notice some etiquette should make face-threatening
Theory speech act ways when they make requests to (negative, positive)
theory. request. their
classmates
and teacher.
Listening:
Students
listen to
requests
from their
classmates.

Practical Introduce the Students learn some Reading: Students learn the Business letter,
Writing type and use patterns in practical Students differences between font formatting,
of practical writing. read sample practical writing and punctuation,
writing. writings. impractical writing. margins, email,
information
Students overload
distinguish
the writing
style in
practical
writing.

4 Practical Business Students learn to write Reading: Salutation,

Writing letter business letters. Students valediction,
read sample standard, open,
letters. block, semi-
Writing: block, modifier
Students semi-block
write a
business
letter.

Practical Resume After students graduate Reading: Resume, reverse

Writing from high school, they Students chronologica,
may need to find an read sample function, hybrid
internship. Resume is resume.
very important. Speaking:
Students
discuss with
classmates
and teacher
what they
can write in
resume.
Writing:
Students
don’t need to
be restricted
by format.
They can
write the
 ADDRESSING PRAGMATIC FAILURE 25

content of
resume.

5 Practical Resume Students organize their Reading: Students learn the

Writing own resumes. Students format and writing
read what style of resumes.
they wrote
last class.
Writing:
Students
organize
resumes
according to
format.

Practical E-mail E-mail is a very Reading: This class is Message header,

Writing writing popular form of Students preparation for the header fields, e-
communication and read sample next class. Students mail address,
almost everyone uses e-mails. observe language personal use
it. Students need to Speaking: features and learn
write appropriate e- Students this style.
mails. discuss the
feature of e-
mail
language.

6 Practical E-mail (The same as last Reading: Students write e-

Writing writing class) Sample e- mails with correct
mails writing style.
Writing:
Students
write e-
mails. Pay
attention to
language
style.

Practical Learn how to Students learn how to Reading: Use modal verbs to Modal verbs
Writing use modal make requests in e- Students make requests.
verbs to mails appropriately. read
make Students learn modal sentences
requests. verbs to make requests and make
(interrogative requests.
sentences). Writing:
Students
write
sentences
with modal
verbs.
 ADDRESSING PRAGMATIC FAILURE 26

7 Practical Review (The same as last Writing: E-mail formats and

Writing speech act class) Students make requests
theory (esp. Some other ways to write politely.
requests) make requests. complete e-
make e-mail mails and
requests. make
requests.
Reading:
Students
should find a
partner and
do peer
review.

Practical Note-writing Sometimes students Reading: The format of note

Writing need to write notes to Sample
others. They should notes
know the format of Writing:
notes. Write notes
with correct
format

8 Review Speech act Students can review Reading: Speech act theory The words they
theory what they learned in Students learned in the
the first 2 weeks. read first 2 weeks.
materials
about speech
act theory
Speaking:
Students
distinguish
different
levels of
speech acts
and
primitive
speech acts.

Review Practical Students review how Speaking: The words they

writing to write business Students learned in week
letters, resumes, e- discuss what 4,5,6 and 7.
mails and notes. they should
notice in
practical
writing.
ADDRESSING PRAGMATIC FAILURE 27

Appendix B

Model Verbs and Phrasal Modals

Modal Phrasal Modal

can, could be able to

will, shall be going to, be about to,

be to

must have to, have got to,

need to

should be supposed to

would (for past habit) used to

may, might be allowed to, be

permitted to

(Larsen-Freeman, & Celce-Murcia, 2015, p.143)

ADDRESSING PRAGMATIC FAILURE 28

Appendix C

Situations for Activity 1 in Lesson 6

1. You are a student and you want to apply for graduate school. You ask your professor to write

a recommendation letter for you.

2. You want to borrow a book from your classmate, but this book is valuable to him/her.

3. You are going to have a presentation tomorrow, but suddenly your laptop doesn’t work. You

want to use your friend’s laptop.

4. You are at a college ball, and you want to dance with someone.

5. You plan to have a road trip, but your car is broken. You need to borrow a car from your

friend.
ADDRESSING PRAGMATIC FAILURE 29

Appendix D

Email from a Native Speaker

Retrieved from http://speakspeak.com/resources/general-english-vocabulary/making-

requests-in-emails-and-letters

Dear Mr. Smith

I recently saw an advertisement for your new range of kitchen equipment.

I own a small retail shop selling household goods and am interested in buying some of your new

products. Could you therefore please send me your price list?

I would also be grateful if you could include details of delivery and postage.

Thank you in advance.

Best regards,

Mary.
ADDRESSING PRAGMATIC FAILURE 30

Appendix E

Expressions for Making Request

I would be grateful if you could send me … .

very polite I would appreciate if you could … .

Could you please send me … ?

polite Could you send me … , please?

Could you send me … ?

polite but direct Would you send me … ?

more direct Please send me … .

ADDRESSING PRAGMATIC FAILURE 31

Appendix F

Situations for Activity 2 in Lesson 7

1. You are sick, so you cannot come to class tomorrow to turn in your paper. You need to email

your professor and ask for an extension.

2. You have difficulty with math homework. You want to ask your classmate how to solve this

problem.

3. You are going to have a presentation tomorrow, but suddenly your laptop doesn’t work. You

want to use your friend’s laptop.