the development of pragmatic competence in request speech
TRANSCRIPT
The Development of Pragmatic Competence in Request Speech Acts of Thai Learners of English in Study Abroad
Contexts
by
Jarinthorn Phaisarnsitthikarn
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning University of Toronto
ÂĐ Copyright by Jarinthorn Phaisarnsitthikarn 2020
ii
The Development of Pragmatic Competence in Request Speech
Acts of Thai Learners of English in Study Abroad Contexts
Jarinthorn Phaisarnsitthikarn
Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning
University of Toronto
2020
Abstract
This mixed-methods study examines the effect of study abroad on the development of pragmatic
competence by Thai learners of English. Drawing on Brown and Levinsonâs (1987) politeness
theory as a theoretical framework, this study focuses on the production of speech acts of request.
Data were collected using an enhanced discourse completion test (EDCT), a bio-data
questionnaire, and semi-structured interviews. The four study groups used in this study include
two groups of Thai learners of English: one with study abroad experience and another without.
Two additional groups were used to represent the learnersâ native language (L1), Thai, and target
language (L2), English. Request data were coded based on the coding system developed by
Blum-Kulka et al. (1989). Quantitative methods were employed to analyze six aspects of
requests: request perspectives, request strategies, internal modifications, request structures,
alerters, and supportive moves. Follow-up questionnaires included in the EDCT and semi-
structured interviews provided insights into the participantsâ perceptions regarding their request
production and L2 development. The results reveal linguistic and cultural differences between
the learnersâ L1 and L2 communities. Although, in general, the linguistic features analyzed in the
requests of both learner groups tended to conform more closely to L2 norms than to the norms of
their L1, the study abroad group showed greater development toward L2 norms in terms of the
iii
variety and frequencies of various linguistic features, suggesting a positive effect of study
abroad. Data controlling for the social variables of social distance and relative power revealed
only minimal differences between the two learner groups, suggesting study abroad did not
impact the learnersâ sensitivity to these variables. Interview data showed that study abroad
learners generally held a very positive view of the impact of study abroad on their pragmatic
development, citing confidence gains resulting from the greater number of real-world
interactions as a catalyst for this development. These findings support previous research that has
demonstrated a positive effect of study abroad on L2 learnersâ pragmatic competence. Moreover,
from these findings come implications for instruction of L2 pragmatic skills as well as
recommendations for future research.
iv
Acknowledgments
Completing my PhD degree is one of the most challenging activities of my life. The best and
most difficult moments of this academic journey have been shared with many wonderful people
who helped me reach the finish line.
First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my academic advisor and
dissertation supervisor, Dr. Katherine Rehner, for her excellent dedication, expertise, thoughtful
advice, active guidance, and tremendous support in all aspects from my first day of PhD study up
to the final stages of dissertation completion. Without her, this dissertation would not have been
completed successfully.
I am very grateful to my professor and second member of my dissertation committee, Dr. Julie
Kerekes, whose classes sparked my interest in pragmatics, and who provided rigorous and
insightful feedback to help me improve my work. I would like to thank the third member of my
dissertation committee, Dr. Becky Chen, for her valuable feedback and unlimited patience in
guiding me through the statistical analysis. My sincere thanks also go to my External Examiner,
Dr. Jin Sook Lee, for her precious input and detailed feedback to help me improve the quality of
the dissertation. I would also like to thank my Internal-External Examiner, Dr. Marie-Paule Lory,
and Alternative Internal Examiner, Dr. Emmanuelle Le Pichon-Vorstman, for their questions and
support during my dissertation defense.
I wish to show my gratitude to the University of Toronto for providing a Graduate Funding
Package (2014â2017). With the generous financial support, I was able to devote all my time to
my PhD studies. Thanks also go to OISE for their wonderful staff and facilities.
I would like to send my special thanks to the following people for their help with this research
project: Dr. Nara Kitimetheekul and Mr. Palakorn Duangkate for their advice and great effort in
teaching me about statistics; all the experts at Kasetsart University for helping to validate my
data collection instruments, refine my data coding system, and ensure the reliability of the data
coding; all my friends in Thailand for supporting me directly and indirectly during the course of
my studies and the completion of this dissertation.
My special gratitude goes to my beloved family for their love and motivational support. I am
also deeply thankful to Scott, the most understanding and caring better half, who shared with me
v
the joys and sorrows of a PhD student life and who has always been there by my side. Thanks for
sharing with me your knowledge and help in polishing my drafts. I simply could not have done
this without you.
Many thanks also go to all my participants who took part in this study. Their generosity with
their time and enthusiastic participation have been invaluable for this project.
vi
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................ iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xi
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xii
List of Appendices ...................................................................................................................... xiv
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations .........................................................................................xv
Chapter 1 Introduction..................................................................................................................1
1.1 Overview ..............................................................................................................................1
1.2 Background ..........................................................................................................................2
1.2.1 English in Thailand ..................................................................................................2
1.2.2 English instruction in Thailand ................................................................................3
1.3 Rationale ..............................................................................................................................4
1.3.1 The need for pragmatic competence development ..................................................4
1.3.2 The benefits of study abroad to Thai students .........................................................5
1.4 Objectives ............................................................................................................................6
1.5 Research questions ...............................................................................................................6
1.6 Definitions of terms .............................................................................................................7
1.7 Significance of the study ......................................................................................................9
1.8 Outline of the thesis ...........................................................................................................10
1.9 Chapter summary ...............................................................................................................10
Chapter 2 Theoretical Framework .............................................................................................11
2.1 Pragmatics ..........................................................................................................................11
2.2 Pragmatic competence .......................................................................................................11
2.2.1 Interlanguage pragmatics .......................................................................................13
2.2.2 Pragmatic failure ....................................................................................................15
vii
2.3 Speech act theory ...............................................................................................................16
2.4 Speech acts of request ........................................................................................................18
2.5 Politeness ...........................................................................................................................18
2.5.1 Leechâs politeness principle ...................................................................................19
2.5.2 Brown and Levinsonâs politeness theory ...............................................................20
2.5.3 Criticisms of Brown and Levinsonâs politeness theory and alternative
frameworks ............................................................................................................23
2.6 Chapter summary ...............................................................................................................26
Chapter 3 Literature Review ......................................................................................................27
3.1 ILP research on requests ....................................................................................................28
3.1.1 The proficiency effect on pragmatic competence ..................................................28
3.1.2 Proficiency and request strategies ..........................................................................28
3.1.3 Proficiency and internal modifications ..................................................................30
3.1.4 Proficiency and external modifications .................................................................32
3.1.5 Proficiency and comprehension .............................................................................33
3.1.6 Proficiency and pragmatic transfer ........................................................................35
3.1.7 Factors influencing pragmatic transfer ..................................................................36
3.1.8 Transfer of training ................................................................................................38
3.1.9 Mediation of social identity ...................................................................................38
3.1.10 Instruction of pragmatic competence .....................................................................40
3.2 ILP studies in study abroad contexts .................................................................................42
3.3 The pragmatic development of Thai learners of English ...................................................48
3.3.1 The cultural and linguistic backgrounds of Thai speakers .....................................49
3.3.2 ILP studies on Thai learners of English .................................................................51
3.4 Gaps in the literature ..........................................................................................................55
3.5 Chapter summary ...............................................................................................................56
viii
Chapter 4 Methodology ...............................................................................................................58
4.1 Methodological approach...................................................................................................58
4.2 Participants .........................................................................................................................60
4.2.1 Study abroad group (SA) .......................................................................................60
4.2.2 At home group (AH) ..............................................................................................62
4.2.3 Native Thai speaker group (NT) ............................................................................62
4.2.4 English dominant speaker group (ED) ...................................................................63
4.3 Data collection instruments................................................................................................64
4.3.1 Biodata questionnaires ...........................................................................................65
4.3.2 Enhanced discourse completion task (EDCT) .......................................................65
4.3.3 Interviews ...............................................................................................................69
4.4 Data collection procedures .................................................................................................69
4.5 Data coding ........................................................................................................................70
4.5.1 Request perspectives ..............................................................................................71
4.5.2 Request strategies...................................................................................................72
4.5.3 Internal modifications ............................................................................................73
4.5.4 Request structures ..................................................................................................75
4.5.5 Alerters ...................................................................................................................76
4.5.6 Supportive moves...................................................................................................76
4.5.7 EDCT qualitative data............................................................................................78
4.6 Inter-rater reliability ...........................................................................................................79
4.7 Data analysis ......................................................................................................................80
4.8 Chapter summary ...............................................................................................................82
Chapter 5 Request Data Analysis and Discussion ....................................................................84
5.1 Request perspectives ..........................................................................................................84
5.1.1 Choice of request perspectives ...............................................................................84
ix
5.1.2 Relative power .......................................................................................................90
5.1.3 Social distance .......................................................................................................94
5.2 Request strategies...............................................................................................................98
5.2.1 Choice of request strategies ...................................................................................98
5.2.1.1 Directness levels ......................................................................................98
5.2.1.2 Direct strategies .....................................................................................100
5.2.1.3 Conventionally indirect strategies .........................................................102
5.2.1.4 Unconventionally indirect strategies .....................................................105
5.2.2 Relative power .....................................................................................................107
5.2.3 Social distance .....................................................................................................111
5.3 Internal modifications ......................................................................................................113
5.3.1 Choice of internal modifications ..........................................................................113
5.3.1.1 Syntactic downgraders ...........................................................................115
5.3.1.2 Lexical/phrasal downgraders .................................................................122
5.3.1.3 Upgraders ..............................................................................................129
5.3.2 Relative power .....................................................................................................131
5.3.3 Social distance .....................................................................................................134
5.4 Request structures ............................................................................................................138
5.4.1 Choice of request structures .................................................................................138
5.4.2 Relative power .....................................................................................................140
5.4.3 Social distance .....................................................................................................143
5.5 Alerters .............................................................................................................................145
5.5.1 Choice of alerters .................................................................................................145
5.5.2 Relative power .....................................................................................................152
5.5.3 Social distance .....................................................................................................157
5.6 Supportive moves.............................................................................................................160
x
5.6.1 Choice of supportive moves.................................................................................160
5.6.2 Relative power .....................................................................................................168
5.6.3 Social distance .....................................................................................................173
5.7 Chapter summary .............................................................................................................177
Chapter 6 Perception Data Analysis and Discussion ..............................................................180
6.1 Second section of the EDCT ............................................................................................180
6.2 Semi-structured interviews ..............................................................................................198
6.3 Chapter summary .............................................................................................................209
Chapter 7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................210
7.1 Summary of the findings ..................................................................................................210
7.1.1 Research question 1 .............................................................................................210
7.1.2 Research question 2 .............................................................................................216
7.1.3 Research question 3 .............................................................................................220
7.1.4 Research question 4 .............................................................................................221
7.1.5 Research question 5 .............................................................................................223
7.2 Pedagogical implications .................................................................................................224
7.3 Limitations and opportunities for future research ............................................................228
References ...................................................................................................................................232
Appendices ..................................................................................................................................255
xi
List of Tables
Table 1 EDCT Social Variable Combinations ............................................................................. 68
Table 2 Request Perspectives ....................................................................................................... 71
Table 3 Request Strategies ............................................................................................................ 72
Table 4 Internal Modifications ..................................................................................................... 74
Table 5 Request Structures ........................................................................................................... 76
Table 6 Alerters............................................................................................................................. 76
Table 7 Supportive Moves ............................................................................................................ 77
Table 8 Distribution of Request Perspectives Used in All Nine Situations ................................. 85
Table 9 Distribution of Direct Strategies Used in All Nine Situations ...................................... 101
Table 10 Distribution of Conventionally Indirect Strategies Used in All Nine Situations ........ 103
Table 11 Distribution of Unconventionally Indirect Strategies Used in All Nine Situations .... 105
Table 12 Distribution of Request Structures Used in All Nine Situations ................................. 139
Table 13 Ratings of the Degree of Imposition ........................................................................... 182
Table 14 Percentage of Participants Experiencing Similar Situations in Real Life.................. 183
xii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Distribution of request perspectives used in situations controlling for relative power. 92
Figure 2. Distribution of request perspectives used in situations controlling for social distance. 97
Figure 3. Distribution of directness of levels of request strategies. ............................................. 99
Figure 4. Distribution of request strategies used in situations controlling for relative power. .. 108
Figure 5. Distribution of request strategies used in situations controlling for social distance. .. 112
Figure 6. Mean number of internal modification types used per head act. ................................ 114
Figure 7. Mean number of syntactic downgrader types used per head act. ................................ 117
Figure 8. Mean number of lexical/phrasal downgrader types used per head act. ...................... 124
Figure 9. Mean number of upgrader types used per head act. .................................................... 130
Figure 10. Mean number of internal modification types used per head act in situations
controlling for relative power. .................................................................................................... 134
Figure 11. Mean number of internal modification types used per head act in situations
controlling for social distance. .................................................................................................... 136
Figure 12. Distribution of request structures used in situations controlling for relative power. 141
Figure 13. Distribution of request structures used in situations controlling for social distance. 144
Figure 14. Mean number of various alerter types used per request. ........................................... 146
Figure 15. Mean number of various alerter types used per request in situations controlling for
relative power.............................................................................................................................. 154
Figure 16. Mean number of various alerter types used per request in situations controlling for
social distance. ............................................................................................................................ 158
Figure 17. Mean number of supportive types used per request. ................................................. 161
Figure 18. Mean number of mitigating supportive move types used per request. ..................... 162
Figure 19. Mean number of aggravating supportive move types used per request. ................... 168
xiii
Figure 20. Mean number of mitigating supportive move types used per request in situations
controlling for relative power. .................................................................................................... 171
Figure 21. Mean number of mitigating supportive move types used per request in situations
controlling for social distance. .................................................................................................... 175
xiv
List of Appendices
Appendix A. Bio-data questionnaire for SA group participants ................................................. 255
Appendix B. Bio-data questionnaire for AH group participants ................................................ 258
Appendix C. Bio-data questionnaire for NT group participants ................................................. 261
Appendix D. Bio-data questionnaire for ED group participants................................................. 266
Appendix E. Enhanced Discourse Completion Task .................................................................. 268
Appendix F. Interview questions for SA group participants ...................................................... 286
Appendix G. Interview questions for AH group participants ..................................................... 294
Appendix H. Interview questions for NT group participants ..................................................... 300
Appendix I. Interview questions for ED group participants ....................................................... 304
xv
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
AEC ASEAN Economic Community
AH At home learner
ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
CCSARP Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project
DCT Discourse Completion Task
EDCT Enhanced Discourse Completion Task
ED English dominant speakers
EFL English as a Foreign Language
EFL learner Learner in a country where English is used as a foreign language (e.g., Japan,
China, Korea, Thailand)
ESL English as a Second Language
ESL learner Learner in a country where English is an official and dominant language
(e.g., Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, New Zealand,
and Ireland)
FTA Face-threatening act
HA Head act
IELTS The International English Language Testing System
ILP Interlanguage pragmatics
L1 First language
L2 Second language
xvi
MOE Ministry of Education
NT Native Thai speakers
ODCT Oral discourse completion test
SA Study abroad learner (including learner with study abroad experience)
SM Supportive move
SLA Second language acquisition
TOEFL Test of English as a Foreign Language
UK United Kingdom
USA United States of America
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Overview
With the current focus in the field of second language (L2) education on the development of
communicative skills, there has been a recognition of pragmatic competence, which refers to
âthe ability to communicate your intended message with all its nuances in any socio-cultural
context and to interpret the message of your interlocutor as it was intendedâ (Fraser, 2010, p. 15),
as an important component of communicative competence. In order to communicate effectively,
speakers must have not only linguistic knowledge, but also knowledge of conventions of
communication in a particular social environment. Acquiring L2 pragmatic competence is,
therefore, a complex and challenging part of the L2 acquisition (SLA) process.
Study abroad appears to be one way that many L2 learners believe to be highly effective in
improving their L2 language skills (Brown, Dewey, & Belnap, 2015; Kinginger, 2009;
Pellegrino, 1998; Yang & Rehner, 2015; Zhang, 2012). Being in the target language environment
grants learners ample opportunities to learn and use the target language with an embedded
cultural component, which is essential for developing communicative language skills, including
skills relating to pragmatic competence. The benefits of study abroad make it a popular option
among Thai learners of English, too, many of whom perceive advantages in learning English in a
native English-speaking country over the at-home context (Lertjanyakit & Bunchapattanasakda,
2015; Pimpa, 2004). While substantial research has been done to investigate the effects of the
study abroad experience on the pragmatic development of L2 learners of several languages (e.g.,
AlcÃģn-Soler, 2015; Bardovi-Harlig & DÃķrnyei, 1998; Barron, 2003; Bella, 2011; Cohen &
Shively, 2007; FÃĐlix-Brasdefer, 2004; Hassall, 2013; Khorshidi, 2013; Schauer, 2009;
Matsumura, 2001; Schauer, 2009; Taguchi, 2011; Warga & SchÃķlmberger, 2007; Yang, 2014),
no studies explore the pragmatic development of Thai learners of English in study abroad
contexts. In investigating L2 pragmatic development, many studies have investigated the request
realizations of L2 learners (e.g., Chen, 2001; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2009; Fearch & Kasper,
1989; Hill, 1997; Hendriks, 2008; Otcu & Zeyrek, 2008; Taguchi, 2005; Takahashi & Dufon,
1987; Trosborg, 1995; Tseng, 2015). Requests are of interest to studies on L2 pragmatic
development because they can be linguistically demanding for L2 learners and can differ
2
between languages (Ellis, 1994). Furthermore, the perceived appropriateness of requests
realization patterns can also differ cross-culturally (Blum-Kulka, et al., 1989). Because requests
are frequently performed in a range of situations in daily life and cannot be avoided by language
learners in the target language environment, they are particularly useful to research investigating
L2 pragmatic development in the study abroad context (Schauer, 2009). Despite the usefulness
of requests in studies investigating L2 pragmatic development, few studies have investigated the
English request realizations of Thai learners of English. Therefore, this study aims to examine
the development of the pragmatic competence of Thai learners of English in a study abroad
context through the learnersâ production of speech acts of requests.
1.2 Background
1.2.1 English in Thailand
Although the role of English as a part of education in Thailand can be traced back to the mid-
nineteenth century and the reign of King Rama III, education at that time was restricted to the
children of Thai royalty and nobles (Baker, 2008). It was not until 1921 and the passage of the
Compulsory Primary Education Act that English became a part of the educational curriculum of
all Thai children until grade 4 (Darasawang, 2007; Ministry of Education, 1998). Subsequent
changes in national education curriculum, including major reforms in 1960 and 1977, expanded
the role of English in Thai education (Darasawang, 2007).
Today, the status of English in Thailand remains that of an expanding circle nation, in which
English is used primarily as a foreign language, according to Kachruâs (1985) three concentric
circles model. Although English is not used as an official language of the country, its importance
continues to increase in a similar way to other developing countries in Asia. People need to be
able to use English to cope with the countryâs transformation from an agriculturally-based to a
semi-industrial and service-based economy, with large sectors related to tourism and
international trade. In recent years, the need for competent English speakers has been further
prompted by the establishment of greater regional economic integration among the nations of the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), of which Thailand is a member.
Since its inception in 1967, ASEAN, a political organization currently comprised of ten
countries, including Thailand, has used English as its only working language (Kirkpatrick, 2008).
3
Beginning in 2015, the ten countries of ASEAN have strengthened their economic ties by
loosening trade and work restrictions through the creation of the ASEAN Economic Community
(AEC). With this shift toward regional economic integration, Thais have experienced increased
competition with workers from other countries in the region for jobs in Thailand and abroad
(Jindapitak, 2018). This highlights the growing importance of English as a language to facilitate
communication not only globally, but regionally and locally, as well.
Responding to the need for competent English users in order for the country to gain economic
competitiveness, the Thai government has attempted to shift education policy accordingly.
Prominent among recent policies intended to improve Thai studentsâ English proficiency is the
National Education Act 1999, which mandates that all Thai students study English from first to
twelfth grade (Wongsothorn, 2000). In addition to the 12 years of their basic education, students
at the university level may be required to take additional English courses, depending on each
universityâs curriculum requirements in their undergraduate programs.
Despite the increasing importance of English skills and the educational requirements of English,
the English language ability of Thai people is still very poor. A 2014 Ministry of Education
(MOE) report shows that Thai children ranked last among AEC nations in English proficiency
(National News Bureau of Thailand, 2014). In 2010, Thailand ranked 116th
out of 163 countries
and Thai studentsâ 75 average total score on the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL)
was below the international average of 80 (Kaewmala, 2012). More recently, testing by Swiss-
based education company, English First, placed Thailand at number 64 out of 88 countries in
their 2018 English Proficiency Index, classifying Thailand as a low English proficiency country
(Bangkok Post, 2018). In terms of communication ability, although Thai students study English
from grade one, most of them still struggle to use the language to communicate after graduating.
Thailand continues to rank near the bottom in world English proficiency surveys, and the
majority of Thai university students seldom attain an acceptable level of proficiency of English
to use it functionally in the real situations (EF Education First, 2013; Prapphal, 2001).
1.2.2 English instruction in Thailand
There are several reasons for Thai studentsâ struggles with English proficiency. Many have
pointed to teaching methods as a factor that negatively impacts English education in Thailand
(Dili, 2017; Noom-Ura, 2013). Over the past several decades, the grammar-translation method
4
has been the main method used in teaching English (Choomthong, 2014; Foley, 2005;
Kitjaroonchai, 2013). Students rely on rote memorization of both grammar rules and vocabulary,
and they practice English by completing grammar drill exercises, such as gap filling with correct
verb forms or changing words into the correct tenses or word forms. Richards and Rodgers
(2001) suggest that this method can make learning become âa tedious experience of memorizing
endless lists of unusable grammar rules and vocabulary and attempting to produce perfect
translation of stilted or literacy proseâ (p. 6). This is true for Thai students, many of whom see
English learning as a matter of replacing their Thai words and linguistic rules with those of
English. As a result, they lose both interest and motivation in learning English. The focus on
memorizing grammar rules and vocabulary rather than communicative competence reflects the
role of English as a core component of both university entrance exams as well as English
standardized tests, such as the TOEIC, used to select job applicants (Cherngchawano &
Jaturapitakkul, 2014). This has a negative impact on studentsâ communication ability as they
become preoccupied with producing English sentences with correct grammar and words and
focusing on forms rather than functions.
1.3 Rationale
1.3.1 The need for pragmatic competence development
Although attaining higher levels of fluency and accuracy can improve oneâs ability to
communicate in an L2, pragmatic competence is also an important factor needed for effective
and proficient communication. Performing speech acts appropriately can be a challenging task
for L2 learners because it involves much more than using the correct linguistic form; performing
speech acts appropriately involves understanding the cultural and situational factors that
influence the appropriateness of a given speech act (Blum-Kulka, 1991; Kasper & Rose, 2002).
Fostering pragmatic competence and sensitivity to various cultural differences between
language-speaking groups will help language learners to use socially-appropriate language,
contributing to successful communication (Thomas, 1983).
5
1.3.2 The benefits of study abroad to Thai students
As it is widely believed that the best way to learn a language is to live in the target language
environment, many have pointed to the disadvantages of learning English in Thailand, where
Thai is the predominant medium of communication. In the monolingual Thai society, Thai
students lack exposure to English language input, opportunities to use English in their real life,
and situations for socialization in English, all of which make study abroad a desirable option for
Thai learners of English. Study abroad constitutes living in a target language community for an
extended period as a student. This may include time spent studying the target language in the
target language environment. This also includes the experience of learners whose experience as
students in the target language environment does not include language classes, but whose
coursework and interactions outside of the classroom are conducted in the target language. Study
abroad does not include time spent in the target language environment for periods of tourism and
employment. While working and traveling may be beneficial in terms of gaining exposure to the
target language, this type of exposure can be more limited and can involve more formulaic
interactions, such as ordering food or performing a work task, compared to the intensity and
range of social and linguistic input experienced in an academic program.
Research has shown the advantages of the study abroad context over the at-home context for
pragmatic development (e.g., AlcÃģn-Soler, 2015; Bardovi-Harlig & DÃķrnyei, 1998; FÃĐlix-
Brasdefer, 2004, Hassall, 2013; Schauer, 2009; Taguchi, 2011; Warga & SchÃķlmberger, 2007).
The opportunity to use the target language in authentic interactions is particularly important to
the development of pragmatic competence, which involves a familiarity with socio-cultural
factors through experience and observation. Studying in the target language environment allows
and often requires L2 learners to perform communicative tasks in order to navigate their daily
lives outside of the classroom. Moreover, through the communicative demands learners face in
their daily lives, they are compelled to raise their pragmatic awareness in a more meaningful way
than classroom instruction can provide. As Taguchi (2011) writes, â(L2 learners) have
opportunities to observe how people convey appropriate levels of politeness and formality in
speech acts. Being exposed to unscripted and authentic discourse in everyday interaction,
learners can also practice inferential comprehensionâ (p. 910).
6
1.4 Objectives
The main objective of this study is to better understand how the experience of study abroad
affects the pragmatic development of Thai learners of English. In order to achieve this objective,
this study examines the issue through two lenses: the learnersâ linguistic production and their
perception of how study abroad has affected their development of pragmatic competence. With
regard to the learnersâ linguistic production, this study compares the production of speech acts of
requests of learners with study abroad experience and those without study abroad experience.
Two additional study groups, one representing the learnersâ L1 and another representing the
target language, are also used to understand this development. These comparisons focus on six
aspects of requests: request perspectives, request strategies, internal modifications, request
structures, alerters, and supportive moves (for examples and descriptions of these features, see
the Data Coding section in Chapter 4). In order to better understand and contextualize the
differences observed between study groups, interviews are conducted with participants from each
group. Interviews are also used to understand how learners with study abroad experience
perceive the effect of study abroad on the development of their own pragmatic competence.
1.5 Research questions
This study is guided by five main questions, as follows:
1. How do the patterns of request structures, request perspectives, request strategies, internal
modifications, supportive moves, and alerters used by study abroad learners compare to at home
learners and to the patterns displayed by English dominant speakers and native speakers of Thai?
2. How do such patterns displayed by these same four groups of speakers compare to each other
in situations that vary according to the social factors of relative power and social distance?
3. What factors in addition to relative power and social distance do participants from each group
perceive as influencing their respective requests?
4. To what extent does each group of participants perceive differently the degree of imposition in
making requests in the given situations?
7
5. How do study abroad learners compare to at home learners with regard to how they perceive
the development of their own pragmatic competence?
1.6 Definitions of terms
Alerter describes an optional element used to initiate a request utterance. Alerters include lexical
forms such as names, salutations, and other words and short phrases used to get a hearerâs
attention and/or prepare a hearer for an ensuing request.
Discourse Completion Task (DCT) refers to a data collection tool that elicits a response by
providing a participant with a set of circumstances and asking the participant to write the exact
words that he or she would say in such a situation.
External modification is an element of a request utterance found outside a head act. They are
optional and appear in the immediate context, either before or after a head act, used to either to
mitigate or aggravate the force of a request. External modifications include supportive moves
and alerters. For example: âHey mate! My phone is almost dead. Can I use yours to call someone
really quick?â
Head act refers to a part of a request utterance that contains a reference to the speakerâs
requested action. A head act is, therefore, the core part of a request utterance. For example: âHey
mate! My phone is almost dead. Can I use yours to call someone really quick?â
Interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) deals with the study of the use and acquisition of L2 pragmatic
knowledge by nonnative speakers. This is typically analyzed by comparing the L2 language use
of nonnative speakers with that of the native speakers of the target language.
Internal modification is an optional syntactic and lexical device that is not essential to the
communication of a request but can be added by a speaker to modify a request head act by either
to mitigating or aggravating the force of the request head act. For example: âWould you mind if I
used your phone for a minute?â
Pragmalinguistic knowledge refers to the knowledge of the linguistic resources needed to
appropriately communicate intended meaning (Leech, 1983).
8
Pragmatics relates to the study of the use of language to communicate the intended meaning of a
speaker, and the interpretation of the message by a hearer. It deals with the analysis of what
people mean rather than the literal meaning of words or phrases used in an utterance. Moreover,
pragmatics is concerned with how the communication of a speakerâs intended meaning is
influenced by the context in which it occurs.
Pragmatic competence refers to the ability to communicate and interpret intended meaning
within a given context.
Pragmatic failure refers to the inability of the speaker to convey the intended meaning to the
hearer and the inability of the hearer to understand the intended meaning of the speaker (Thomas,
1983).
Pragmatic transfer refers to the influence of learnersâ L1 pragmatic knowledge and culture on
their production, comprehension, and learning of L2 pragmatic knowledge (Kasper, 1992).
Request is an attempt of a speaker to persuade a hearer to do something which will benefit the
speaker but costs something to the hearer (House & Kasper, 1987).
Request perspective describes the way a speaker refers to the agent of a head actâs requested
action. The request perspective of a requested action can be framed from the viewpoint of a
speaker, a hearer, both a hearer and speaker, or neither a speaker nor hearer. Request perspective
can be reflected in the use of pronouns such as âIâ, âyouâ, and âweâ, as well as grammatical
constructions such as passive voice.
Request strategy refers to a speakerâs choice of various structural and grammatical formulations
used in a requestâs head act. Request strategies are classified according to the level of directness
that they refer to a speakerâs desire for a hearer to perform a requested action.
Request structure refers the sequence of head act(s) and supportive move(s) used in a request
utterance.
Request utterance refers to a sequence of words relating to a speakerâs request. A request
utterance may include only a single head act, or it may comprise multiple head acts and/or any
number of supportive moves.
9
Sociopragmatic knowledge refers to the knowledge of the social or contextual factors which
determine the appropriateness of particular linguistic choices (Leech, 1983).
Speech act refers to an utterance that has a performative function beyond communicating
information. Examples of these functions include acts such as requesting, apologizing, refusing,
promising, and so forth.
Supportive move refers to a part of the request utterance that appears outside of a head act. A
supportive move can appear either before or after a head act. Multiple supportive moves can be
used in a single request utterance. They are used to modify the impact, or force, of requests. For
example: âCould I borrow some money from you? Iâll pay you back tomorrow.â
1.7 Significance of the study
As there are no previous studies that address the impact of study abroad on the pragmatic
competence of Thai learners of English, this study will address this gap in the literature.
Additionally, it will contribute to a better understanding of the development of pragmatic
competence by Thai learners of English in general. In terms of interlanguage pragmatics (ILP),
the topic of this study will link to the larger issue of how the learning environment influences
pragmatic acquisition. Finally, because there is a lack of research that examines and compares
the production of the speech act of requests between native English and Thai speakers, this study
will widen the scope of cross-cultural pragmatics by providing useful information pertaining to
linguistic (e.g., words, sentence structure) and sociopragmatic (e.g., the use of linguistic forms in
an appropriate context) differences in making requests based on differences of cultural norms
between native English and Thai speakers.
In terms of pedagogical implications for L2 teaching, the findings of this study will contribute to
knowledge about the factors that facilitate the acquisition of pragmatic competence. The findings
may provide useful insights into how pre-study abroad instruction can help to facilitate
acquisition of pragmatic competence of learners when they are in the target language
environment and how knowledge of the benefits of target language exposure might be used to
improve classroom instruction for the vast majority of Thai learners of English, who will never
have the opportunity to live in the target language environment. Learning about Thai studentsâ
perceptions of the development of their own pragmatic competence might also be important to
10
identifying the shortcomings of classroom instruction. This information will also have broader
implications for curriculum planners and policy makers in Thailand in terms of implementing the
necessary English language educational policies and curriculum to prepare Thai students to use
English effectively and appropriately in real-life situations.
1.8 Outline of the thesis
Following this initial chapter of introduction, Chapter 2 discusses the theoretical
framework for this study by reviewing the relevant concepts and theories related to pragmatics,
speech act theory, and politeness theory. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the literature related
to the broad topics of this study by reviewing relevant studies in the areas of interlanguage
pragmatics studies on speech acts of request, the impact of study abroad on the development of
pragmatic competence, and speech act studies involving Thai learners of English. Chapter 4
describes the methodology used to collect and analyze the data in this study, which includes
information about the participants, data collection instruments, procedures, and data coding.
Chapter 5 presents the findings and discussion of the elicited request data. Chapter 6 provides the
findings and discussion of the data relating to the participantsâ perception of their language use
and pragmatic development. Chapter 7 offers a conclusion by summarizing the main results of
the study in relation to the research questions and to the extant literature and explores the
pedagogical implications of the study, as well as its limitations and opportunities for further
research.
1.9 Chapter summary
This chapter has provided a background of the history and current role of English in Thailand,
including English language instruction. This has been provided to support the rationale and
objectives of this study, both of which relate to understanding, in general, the development of
pragmatic competence by Thai learners of English, and, in particular, how this development is
affected by the experience of study abroad. This chapter has also presented the studyâs research
questions and the significance of the study to the field of pragmatics as well as English language
learning and teaching in Thailand. Finally, an outline of the studyâs organization has been
included in this chapter.
11
Chapter 2 Theoretical Framework
This chapter provides an overview of pragmatics and speech acts, both of which serve as
important foundational concepts to the theoretical framework used in this study. Included in the
discussion of pragmatics are the concepts of pragmatic competence, interlanguage pragmatics
(ILP), and pragmatic failure. This is followed by an overview of speech acts in general, and
speech acts of request in particular. Finally, this chapter presents a set of theoretical frameworks
applied in pragmatic and ILP studies on request speech acts, with an emphasis on Leechâs (1983)
politeness principles and Brown and Levinsonâs (1987) concepts of politeness theory and face
threatening acts, which are used to guide the research design and data analysis in this study.
2.1 Pragmatics
Pragmatics, a subfield of linguistics, involves areas of study that include deixis, speech act
theory, conversational implicature, and conversational structure. The study of pragmatics has
been defined in a variety of ways, but one of the most widely cited definitions comes from
Crystal (1985), who described it as âthe study of language from the point of view of users,
especially of the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in social
interaction and the effects their use of language has on other participants in the act of
communicationâ (p. 240). Pragmatics is therefore focused on the intended meaning rather than
literal meaning of each word combined in an utterance. Moreover, the intended meaning is
contingent upon the context in which the communication occurs. Leech (1983) describes the
importance of pragmatics within the field of linguistics, writing, âwe cannot really understand
the nature of language itself unless we understand pragmatics: how language is used in
communicationâ (p. 1).
2.2 Pragmatic competence
Pragmatic competence describes the ability to effectively use language to communicate intended
meaning in a contextually appropriate manner and to successfully interpret intended meaning of
an interlocutorâs message. The concept of pragmatic competence is often placed in contrast with
grammatical competence, the latter of which includes knowledge of grammar, morphology,
syntax, and semantics in an abstract or decontextualized sense. Some L2 learners might be
12
considered fluent in an L2 due to their high level of grammatical competence; however, they
may still be unable to effectively communicate using language that is socially and culturally
appropriate if they lack pragmatic competence (Cook & Newson, 1996). This distinction
between different types of linguistic competences and by extension, the role of pragmatics in
research areas related to L2 use and instruction, takes its roots in the work of Hymes (1972) and
his notion of communicative competence. To Hymes (1972), communicative competence
describes a language userâs ability to use the language not only grammatically but also
appropriately to achieve communicative goals. Hymesâs formulation of communicative
competence expanded the conception of linguistic competence to include knowledge of
contextually appropriate use, which served as a basis for subsequent frameworks by Canale and
Swain (1980), Bachman (1990), and others, which situated pragmatic competence as one of
several components of overall communicative competence.
Canale and Swainâs (1980) model of communicative competence outlines three components of
language learnersâ ability to communicate in their L2. Their model distinguished grammatical
competence, which includes knowledge of grammar rules and vocabulary, from strategic
competence, which is the ability of a language learner to overcome communication breakdowns.
Although Canale and Swain use the term âsociolinguistic competenceâ to describe the third
component of communicative competence, their description of sociolinguistic competence as
knowledge of how to use language appropriately within context would also be recognizable as a
description of pragmatic competence. Similarly, Bachmanâs (1990) model of communicative
competence identifies two main components of communicative competence: organizational
competence and pragmatic competence. Organizational competence relates to both knowledge of
grammar rules as well as conventions relating to how to organize discourse. According to
Bachman, pragmatic competence relates to âthe relationship between utterances and the acts or
functions that speakers (or writers) intend to perform with these utterancesâ (Bachman, 1990, p.
89). As a result of the role of pragmatic competence in the communicative competence
framework, recommendations have been made as to the importance of pragmatics in language
learning curricula (Bardovi-Harlig & DÃķrnyei, 1998; Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper, 1989). In
addition, this framework has been instrumental in the development of the field of interlanguage
pragmatics (ILP) (AlcÃģn Soler & Martinez-Flor, 2008).
13
2.2.1 Interlanguage pragmatics
Interlanguage refers to âa language system that each learner constructs at any given point in
developmentâ (Ortega, 2009). Thus, a learnerâs interlangauge evolves with their development
and may differ from the language spoken by proficiency language users as it can contain
overgeneralizations derived from a learnerâs L1 and L2 (Richards & Schmidt, 2010). According
to Kasper (1996), âinterlanguage pragmatics is the study of nonnative speakersâ use and
acquisition of L2 pragmatic knowledgeâ (p. 145). ILP differs from cross-cultural pragmatic
research, which compares the pragmatic aspect of language use between speakers representing
two or more cultures, but not between native and nonnative speakers of a single language. The
distinction between nonnative speakersâ use and acquisition in Kasperâs definition underscores
two general approaches that have characterized ILP research: comparative and acquisitional. The
former focuses on comparing native and nonnative speakersâ use of L2 pragmatic knowledge
while the latter focuses on the learning and development process of L2 pragmatic knowledge.
Comparative studies, which focus on L2 use, have dominated the ILP research field for much of
its history, prompting calls for more scholarship that explores the developmental aspect of L2
pragmatic knowledge in order to strengthen the connection between ILP and SLA research
(Kasper & Schimdt, 1996; Bardovi-Harlig, 2001). More recently, research topics related to L2
acquisition have received greater attention in ILP research, particularly in studies that center on
the role of instruction in pragmatic development (Gu, 2011; Yang, 2018).
While the terms ânative speakerâ and ânon-native speakerâ have commonly been used in the ILP
literature, there are many practical reasons not to use this term if it is avoidable, particularly
when referring to English speakers. Generally, the term ânative English speakerâ is used to refer
to a person who speaks English as his or her first language or mother tongue; however, in recent
years the validity of the concept of ânative speakerâ has been widely debated (see Davies, 2013;
Rubdy, 2015; Selvi, 2011). One line of argument is that the native/non-native speaker dichotomy
is too rigid and does not adequately allow for the range of complex possibilities that might define
a personâs linguistic background or competence (Rampton, 1990; Rajagopalan, 1997; Jain,
2014). In fact, the designation of ânative speakerâ can include those who are bilinguals or
multilinguals, speakers of varieties of English in outer-circle countries (Kachru, 1985), such as
Singapore and India, or even former learners of the language who have become very fluent in the
target language and have a blended cultural identity. Therefore, to identify whether one is a
14
native speaker of English or not can be problematic, as English is an international language that
has been learned and used in a variety of contexts around the world. There are many highly
fluent speakers who do not speak English as their first language but who can use English at a
native-like level to communication effectively.
This study will use the terms ânative speakerâ and ânonnative speakerâ to refer to English
speakers in circumstances in which using these terms cannot be avoided, such as when
discussing previous ILP studies in Chapter 3 (Literature Review). As I will discuss in greater
detail in Chapter 4 (Methodology), this study uses more inclusive criteria for the English
speaking control group, participants of which will be referred to as âEnglish dominant speakersâ
in order to reflect the criteria based on language use and proficiency rather than place of birth or
nationality. Although the native/nonnative speaker dichotomy can be problematic (as are its
implications in the context of language learning), the terms themselves can be descriptive of the
methodological approaches and research questions of previous academic studies. Some
researchers may have intentionally used more exclusive recruitment criteria for groups designed
to include only participants who fit the conventional definition of ânative English speakerâ â
someone who has spoken English since birth or has been raised in a predominately English-
speaking environment.
Compared to its use to refer to English speakers, the term ânative speakerâ can, in most instances,
be applied without the aforementioned problems when referring to speakers of a language such
as Thai, which has comparatively few highly fluent speakers who speak the language as an
additional language. Further, languages like Thai do not have the same status as English as an
international lingua franca. Therefore, the problematic implications of the native/nonnative
speaker dichotomy are not meaningful in the other language contexts the same way that they are
in English. With this in mind, this study will use the term ânative Thai speakerâ because this
term, defined in its conventional sense, serves as an appropriate descriptor for all of the Thai
participants in the study and the vast majority of Thai speakers.
15
2.2.2 Pragmatic failure
Underlying the interest in many ILP research topics is the assumption that communication
breakdowns may occur because of learnersâ inability to understand or convey the intended
meaning of what is said. Thomas (1983) described this breakdown in communication as
âpragmatic failureâ. Although Thomasâs notion of pragmatic failure is not restricted only to
communication breakdowns involving L2 learners, it represents a common and challenging
obstacle in the L2 learning process. In order to better address the teaching and learning
challenges created by pragmatic failure, Thomas (1983) used Leechâs (1983) distinction between
the pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic components of pragmatics. Pragmalinguistic knowledge
refers to a speakerâs linguistic resources that can be used to modulate the force of an utterance,
and âincludes strategies like directness and indirectness, routines, and a large range of linguistic
forms which can intensify or soften communicative actsâ (Kasper 1997, p. 1). Sociopragmatic
knowledge, on the other hand, refers to a language userâs knowledge of âthe context factors
under which particular strategic and linguistic choices are appropriateâ (Kasper & Rose, 2002, p.
96). Thus, pragmalinguistic failure involves the misunderstanding of how linguistic encoding
relates to pragmatic force, while sociopragmatic failure involves the misjudgment of how
contextual factors relate to which linguistic resources are considered appropriate.
In the context of ILP, pragmatic failure can result from a learnerâs pragmatic transfer, which
Kasper (1992) described as âthe influence exerted by learnersâ pragmatic knowledge of
languages and cultures other than L2 on their comprehension, production and learning of L2
pragmatic informationâ (p. 207). Pragmatic transfer in ILP research typically focuses on how L2
learnersâ pragmatic knowledge of their native language influences the pragmatic aspects of their
L2 language use. Kasper (1992, 1998) described two types of transfer: positive transfer and
negative transfer. Positive transfer is when the pragmatic norms, forms, and strategies that a
learner transfers from their L1 match with those in the L2 and can therefore be transferred to the
L2. Conversely, negative transfer, also referred to as âinterferenceâ, occurs when the pragmatic
norms, forms, and strategies that a learner transfers from their L1 do not match with those in the
L2, and, therefore, cannot be transferred to the L2.
16
2.3 Speech act theory
Speech Act Theory represents a core theoretical framework used in the field of pragmatics. The
concept of speech acts developed from the work of Austin (1962), who described a performative
aspect of language, emphasizing that speech can represent not only the act of communicating
meaning but also the act of performing an action. For example, Austin proposes that by saying
the words âI doâ in the context of a wedding, âI am not reporting on a marriage: I am indulging
in itâ (Austin, 1962, p. 6). In other words, the action of speaking itself can be seen as
accomplishing something in the social reality rather than merely conveying information. By
distinguishing the performative and communicative functions of speech, Austin showed that
language use involves more than saying words: the act of speaking itself constitutes an action.
The term âspeech actâ, therefore, describes an utterance not only in terms of its meaning, but it
emphasizes the performative function of an utterance, particularly as it relates to a speakerâs
intention and the effect it has on the listener.
In order to describe how language is used to carry out actions, Austin (1962) identified three
dimensions through which speech acts can be analyzed: as locutionary acts, the production of the
actual words that the speaker uses; illocutionary acts, the act of expressing the intention or force
behind the words; and perlocutionary acts, the effect the utterances has on the hearer. To
illustrate these dimensions, Austin (1962, p. 101-102) used the example of the utterance âShoot
her!â The locution of this utterance is its stated meaning, with âshootâ referring to the action and
âherâ referring to a person. The illocution of an utterance corresponds to the speakersâ intent,
which in this case is to urge, advise, or command the listener to shoot someone. The perlocution
is the result of the utterance, for example, that a listener was persuaded or compelled to shoot
someone. LoCastro (2012) notes that while in theory speech acts comprise all three aspects, in
practice, illocutionary acts have tended to be the focus of pragmatics studies.
Searle (1975, 1979) noticed that while many speech acts directly convey the illocutionary force,
other speech acts do so indirectly. To illustrate this distinction between âdirectâ and âindirectâ
speech acts, Searle (1975) used the example of a speaker making the following proposition:
âLetâs go to the movies tonightâ (p. 61). This utterance is a direct speech act because the literal
meaning of the sentence and in particular, the meaning of âLetâsâ, directly conveys the
illocutionary force, which is to propose. On the other hand, Searle contrasted this proposal by
17
introducing the reply: âI have to study for an exam.â This reply, representing an indirect speech
act, is understood as a refusal, but not because of its literal meaning, which simply introduces a
fact about the person who is speaking. In the absence of words and forms that literally convey
the illocutionary force of the utterance, the hearer can understand the intent of the speakerâs
indirect speech act by way of âmutually shared background information, both linguistic and
nonlinguistic, together with the general powers of rationality and inference on the part of the
hearerâ (Searle, 1975, p. 60-61).
Searleâs explanation of how the intention of indirect speech acts can be understood is based in
part on Griceâs (1973) notion of the cooperative principle, which specifies rational behaviors
assumed to be present in effective communication. The cooperative principle assumes that
people are expected to make truthful (maxim of quality), informative (maxim of quantity),
relevant (maxim of relation), and clear (maxim of manner) contributions to a conversation
(Grice, 1973). Therefore, assuming the adherence to the cooperative principle, the
aforementioned example of a refusal (âI have to study for the examâ) would be understood as
such based on the expectation that the information stated relates to the context of conversation,
even if the connection is not explicitly stated.
In addition to rationality and inference as factors in indirect speech act communication, Morgan
(1978) and Searle (1975) proposed that some indirect speech acts can be easily understood
because they involve a conventionalized use of particular forms to indicate particular illocutions.
For example, the question âCan you reach for the salt?â can be clearly interpreted as a request
and not a question about the hearerâs ability to reach for the salt because of the use of the
interrogative form that uses âCan youâ has been established in English as a conventional way to
make a request (Searle, 1975). This contrasts with indirect speech acts that do not involve
conventionalized use of form to indicate illocution. For example, if a speaker says to a hearer,
âThis soup would taste much better with some saltâ, the hearer would likely be able to
understand, based on rationality and inference of contextual factors, that the statement entails
more than a statement about the taste of the soup and is instead a request for the hearer to
perform the action of passing the salt.
18
2.4 Speech acts of request
According to House and Kasper (1987), speech acts of requests are illocutionary acts through
which a speaker wants the hearer to perform an act for the benefit of the speaker and at the cost
of the hearer. Speech acts of requests represent an important and widely researched type of
speech act in the fields of interlanguage and cross-cultural pragmatics. This interest relates to the
importance of requests in everyday conversation and that the nature of requests, which involves
an imposition on the hearer, provides a useful circumstance in which to analyze the link between
an utteranceâs meaning and intent. Searle classifies requests as directive speech acts, a category
defined by the speakerâs intent for the hearer to perform an action (Searle 1975). According to
Searle (1975), requests are useful in pragmatic study because âordinary conversational
requirements of politenessâ necessitate the use of indirectness in order to achieve a desired result
(p. 64). In other words, conveying the illocutionary force of requests in a direct manner could be
considered impolite and thus, such an utterance would be less likely to achieve the desired
compliance of the hearer. From a sociolinguistic perspective, requests involve the imposition of
the speakerâs interests on the hearer, which has been described as âface threateningâ (Brown &
Levinson, 1987). Requests can be regarded as a constraint on the hearerâs freedom of action, and
for this reason, the use of politeness strategies is central to request making, as speakers seek to
mitigate the impositive effect of their requests.
2.5 Politeness
Trosborg (1995) described politeness as a âpragmatic mechanismâ, the function of which is to
facilitate a âspeakerâs intention of achieving smooth communicationâ (p. 24). From the
perspective that emphasizes politeness as serving a function in communication, several theories
and models of politeness have been applied to pragmatic research. These frameworks have been
particularly relevant in studies of speech acts that necessitate politeness, including speech acts of
requests.
Lakoff (1973, 1975), one of the first scholars to concentrate on linguistic politeness in the
pragmatics sense, described politeness as functioning âto reduce friction in personal
communicationâ (1975, p. 64). According to Lakoff, âthe pillars of our linguistic as well as non-
linguistic interactions with each other are to (1) make yourself clear (2) be politeâ (as cited in
Schauer, 2009, p. 10). However, these two principles are often in conflict with one another; that
19
is, politeness is often achieved at the expense of clarity. To Lakoff (1975), Griceâs cooperative
principle described an expectation of clarity in conversation that exists only in the absence of
situations that require politeness. Lakoff (1975) distinguished situations that require politeness as
those that involve âpersonal and interpersonal feelingsâ rather than âpure informationâ or
âinformation about the worldâ (p. 94). Thus, with Griceâs cooperative principle as a basis, Lakoff
developed her ârules of politenessâ, which describe the three rules that govern politeness in
communication: donât impose, give options, and make the listener feel good.
The first of Lakoffâs rules involves recognizing how context, including the social distance
between the speaker and hearer, affects the appropriateness of various linguistic expressions and
forms. For example, the use of passive voice is described as a linguistic device that can be used
to maintain distance and project authority (Lakoff, 1975). The second rule relates to showing the
hearer deference by giving options in conversation, which can be achieved through hedges and
tag questions that minimize the imposition or force of an utterance. The third rule concerns the
creation of solidarity between the speaker and hearer by using phrasal additions such as âI meanâ
and âyou knowâ. While these have no linguistic purpose, they serve a pragmatic purpose in that
they can be used to make an utterance more appropriate within a particular circumstance that
calls for an expression of solidarity or closeness.
Lakoffâs rules of politeness use English for illustrated purposes. However, just like Griceâs
cooperative principle, the rules themselves were intended to describe communication in a general
sense. Lakoffâs framework, therefore, adds a pragmatic element to Griceâs cooperative principle
by outlining a role for speech that is not optimally clear and by emphasizing how social context
relates to the appropriateness of the particular linguistic choices in communication.
2.5.1 Leechâs politeness principle
Like Lakoff, Leech (1983) saw the expectation for politeness as being in conflict with the
expectation for clarity in communication as proposed by Griceâs cooperative principle, with
politeness taking a paramount position over clarity. According to Leech (1983), âIt could be
argued that the (Politeness Principle) has a higher regulatory role than (the Cooperative
Principle): to maintain the social equilibrium and the friendly relations which enables us to
assume that our interlocutors are being cooperative in the first placeâ (p. 82). In order to
complement Griceâs cooperative principle, Leech put forth a set of six maxims, collectively
20
known as his politeness principle, that guide and constrain the conversation of rational people
with an effort for politeness in social interaction, which are as follows:
1. Tact Maxim: (a) Minimize cost to other; (b) Maximize benefit to other.
2. Generosity Maxim: (a) Minimize benefit to self; (b) Maximize cost to self.
3. Approbation Maxim: (a) Minimize dispraise of other; (b) Maximize praise of other.
4. Modesty Maxim: (a) Minimize praise of self; (b) Maximize dispraise of self.
5. Agreement Maxim: (a) Minimize disagreement between self and other: (b) Maximize
agreement between self and other.
6. Sympathy Maxim: (a) Minimize antipathy between self and other; (b) Maximize sympathy
between self and other. (p. 132)
Another notable aspect of Leechâs (1983) framework is its distinction between two different
types of politeness: âabsolute politenessâ and ârelative politenessâ. Relative politeness relates to
the judgment of how politeness is appropriately expressed within a particular community or
culture and within a particular context. Absolute politeness, on the other hand, describes various
degrees at which politeness can be expressed. This can involve minimizing the impoliteness of
what are seen as impolite illocutions, such as requests, or maximizing the politeness of what are
seen as polite illocutions, such as compliments. Leech proposes that minimizing impoliteness
involves the use of modifications such as indirectness, hedging, and understatement. Maximizing
politeness, on the other hand, can be achieved through language that intensifies. For example,
lexical additions can make the expression âThanksâ more polite, such as âThanks a lotâ, which
can be even further intensified as âThank you very muchâ (Leech 2014, p. 12). Leech (2014)
later clarified this distinction as one between pragmalinguistic (absolute politeness) and
sociopragmatic (relative politeness) aspects of politeness.
2.5.2 Brown and Levinsonâs politeness theory
Like the earlier works of Lakoff (1973, 1975) and Leech (1983), Brown and Levinson (1987)
proposed a universal model to describe the dynamics and functions of politeness in conversation.
Brown and Levinsonâs (1987) framework, referred to as âpoliteness theoryâ, which remains the
21
most influential model of the function of politeness in communication (LoCastro 2012), is based
on Goffmanâs (1967) concept of face, or oneâs desired public image. Brown and Levinson (1987)
defined face as âthe public self-image that every member wants for himselfâ (p. 66). Face can be
divided into two types of desires, or needs, of an individual: positive face and negative face.
Positive face refers to âthe positive and consistent image people have of themselves, and their
desire for approvalâ, while negative face is âthe basic claim to territories, personal preserves, and
rights to non-distractionâ (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 61). In this view, positive face describes
the peopleâs want for social approval, while negative face refers to their desire to maintain
personal control of their actions, free of interference.
According to Brown and Levinson (1987), some speech acts may threaten the face needs of the
speaker, the hearer, or both. These speech acts, referred to as face threatening acts (FTAs), can
be divided into two types corresponding to the two dimensions of an individualâs face needs that
are threatened: positive FTAs and negative FTAS. Positive FTAs threaten the positive face need
for oneâs self-image to be accepted and appreciated, and include speech acts that threaten to
damage the face of the hearer, such as complaints and statements of disagreement, and those that
threaten to damage the positive face needs of the speaker, such as apologies. Similarly, FTAs
also describe acts that threaten an individualâs negative face needs for unimpeded freedom of
action, or negative FTAs. Negative FTAs that threaten the negative face of the speaker include
expressions of thanks or acceptance of offers, while those threatening the negative face of the
hearer include suggestions, compliments, and warnings. Requests, the subject of this study, are
considered negative FTAs, as they are illocutionary acts through which a speaker wants the
hearer to perform an action for the speaker, which Brown and Levinson considered to be
âintrinsically impoliteâ (Schauer, 2009, p. 11).
Brown and Levinson (1987) suggested a âmeans-endsâ approach by which the individual engages
in a process that analyzes several factors in order to determine the appropriate language that will
satisfy her/his ends. First, a speaker will determine whether he/she wishes to respect the hearerâs
face needs âas a rational means to secure (the hearerâs) cooperationâ (Brown & Levinson, 1987,
p. 90). Next, a speaker must determine the extent to which he/she wishes to minimize the threat
to the hearerâs face. When considering the degree of mitigation to be used in an FTA, a speaker
considers factors related to her/his own wants, such as the desire for clarity or urgency, and the
desire not to overemphasize the threat to the hearerâs face. In order to select the appropriate
22
degree of politeness, a speaker must assess the seriousness of an FTA. This is determined by
three independent social variables:
1. Social Distance (D) of the speaker and hearer; the level of familiarity and solidarity between
two people.
2. Relative Power (P) of the speaker and hearer; the power that the hearer has over the speaker.
3. Absolute Ranking (R) of imposition in the culture; the degree to which the speaker wishes to
impose on the hearer and the degree to which the hearer accepts the imposition. (Brown &
Levinson, 1987, p. 74)
Based on an assessment of the speakerâs own interest in minimizing an FTA as well as the
FTAâs potential threat to the hearerâs face, the speaker rationally selects an appropriate strategy
as well as the particular linguistic means by which to meet these needs.
The model described by Brown and Levinson outlines four choices of general strategies that
speakers can use in order to achieve their desired ends. Within each of these strategies is a range
of linguistic choices that a speaker can manipulate in order to achieve the desired degree of
mitigation. These general strategies, referred to as politeness strategies, can be described as
follows:
1. Do the FTA bald on record (e.g., âClean the kitchen.â)
2. Do the FTA with redressive action, with either positive or negative politeness (e.g., âHey
buddy, letâs clean the kitchen.â [positive politeness]; âDo you think you might be able to clean the
kitchen sometime today?â [negative politeness])
3. Do the FTA off the record (âThe kitchen is starting to get quite dirty.â)
4. Donât do the FTA (Adapted from Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 60)
Doing the FTA act âbald on recordâ refers to using no mitigation and performing the FTA with
âmaximum efficiencyâ (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 60). This strategy entails the highest risk to
the hearerâs face, but may be the preferred strategy when the desire to protect the hearerâs face is
outweighed by the speakersâ desire for clarity or urgency. Using redressive action involves an
23
appeal to the hearerâs positive face (positive politeness) or negative face (negative politeness) in
order to minimize the FTA. Positive politeness can be implemented through linguistic devices
that seek to emphasize a mutual interest or in-group status between interlocutors or that
demonstrate the speakerâs interest in the hearerâs needs or desires. Negative politeness, on the
other hand, uses linguistic devices such as indirectness, hedges, and passive structures in order to
minimize the imposition of the FTA on the hearer. Doing the FTA off record relies heavily on
the hearerâs ability to make rational inferences to correctly interpret the intended meaning. The
final strategy is to not perform the FTA, which eliminates the potential threat other hearerâs face,
but also means the speakerâs intended message is not communicated.
2.5.3 Criticisms of Brown and Levinsonâs politeness theory and alternative
frameworks
Although Brown and Levinsonâs politeness theory continues to be a widely-used framework for
discussing the phenomenon of politeness, criticisms have challenged the validity of this
framework. Some criticisms have highlighted limitations, such as the inability for Brown and
Levinsonâs model to account for non-linguistic politeness (Fraser, 1990) or the agency of
individuals to use language creatively and flexibly (see Locastro, 2012, p. 144-145 for
discussion). However, one of the main criticisms, and certainly a very important consideration
for research within the field of ILP, relates to the cross-cultural validity of the framework. Gu
(1990), Ide (1989), Mao (1994), Matsumoto (1988), Wierzbicka (1990, 1991), Yu (1999), and
others have argued that the rational communicative behaviors purported to be universal by
Brown and Levinson (1987) reflect a culturally-specific value placed on individual agency and
rights that does not exist in more collectivist or group-oriented societies. Matsumoto (1988), for
example, proposed that the concept of negative face, in which the expectation that a rational
person wants to be unimpeded in her/his actions, does not exist in the collectivist Japanese
culture. Instead, the desire to belong and fit into oneâs group is a driving force behind rational
behavior in communication.
The relationship between indirectness and politeness has also been demonstrated to be subject to
cultural variation. For example, Ogiermann (2009b) challenged the claim of a universal
association between indirectness and politeness by showing that direct requests are often
perceived as more polite than indirect requests by German, Polish, and Russian speakers. Similar
24
observations have challenged the correlation between indirectness and politeness, including
studies involving speakers of Korean (Yu, 2011), Spanish (Felix-Brasdefer, 2005), Arabic
(Ajaaj, 2016), and Turkish (Marti, 2006). Other researchers (for example, see Economidou-
Kogetsidis, 2010; Held, 1996) have demonstrated that culturally-specific factors beyond those
identified by Brown and Levinson (social distance, relative power, and absolute ranking)
contribute to a speakerâs assessment of appropriate linguistic choices in speech acts of requests.
There have been several notable alternative frameworks since that draw from and respond to
Brown and Levinsonâs (1987) politeness theory and its criticisms. Some scholars have sought to
address the perceived Western bias of Brown and Levinsonâs model by formulating more
comprehensive theories of how culturally-specific values may affect how face threats are
perceived and the strategies used to respond to them. Ting-Toomeyâs (1985, 1988, 2005) face-
negotiation theory, for example, distinguishes cultures whose values are oriented toward
individualism from those that are oriented toward collectivism. Ting-Toomey proposes that
because this cultural dimension influences the way people view face threats, accounting for how
a culture is oriented with regard to the individualism-collectivism continuum can help to explain
why the strategies used to negotiate face threats vary across cultures. Ting-Toomeyâs framework,
therefore, can also be applied in analyses of cross-cultural communication.
Like Ting-Toomey (1985, 1988, 2005), Cupach and Imahori (1993) also use the premise that
culture influences individuals to formulate their conceptions of face as a basis for their
framework of identity management theory. According to this framework, the ability to maintain
mutual face needs with a person with a different cultural background is viewed as a type of
competence. By adding the dimension of intercultural communicative competence, which
highlights how intracultural communication can differ from intercultural communication,
identity management theory provides an alternative framework to politeness theory that focuses
on cross-cultural communication. Similarly, Holtgraveâs (1992) face management framework
also attempts to account for the role of cultural differences in cross-cultural communication by
acknowledging the role of culture in shaping how the severity of face threats is perceived and
how language is manipulated to respond to such threats.
Despite the presence of alternative frameworks and the apparent limitations and shortcomings of
Brown and Levinsonâs (1987) politeness theory, there are also arguments to be made for its
25
utility and contribution to linguistics. As Haugh and Obana (2011) pointed out, prominent critics
such as Ide (1989) and Matsumoto (1988) did not reject Brown and Levinsonâs model outright,
but rather argued that it needs to be complemented by other perspectives that can better account
for cultural variability. Of the strength of politeness theoryâs scope, Goldsmith (2008) writes,
âThe theory draws together an incredibly wide range of language features into one
comprehensive lens and also focuses our attention on the subtle features of talkâ (p. 264). Even
where politeness theory falls short of providing a universal model of politeness, it still provides a
common basis for comparison, refinements, and alternative frameworks. It could also be argued
that in light of the criticisms that regard the theory as biased toward an English-speaking
perceptive, ILP research involving English speakers may still find the framework particularly
useful.
As this study uses an EDCT as its main data collection instrument, the data do not show turn-
taking or communication between speakers but rather, language use from one side in a
hypothetical situation. Instead of demonstrating communicative competence, the data show
pragmatic knowledge and, thus, alternative frameworks that focus on negotiation of face and
turn-taking in conversation may be limited in their application to the data of this study. Pan
(2000) makes a similar observation, arguing that Brown and Levinsonâs (1987) framework might
be more suited to a âlanguage-based approachâ to politeness that focuses on the syntactic and
lexical modifications of single speech acts compared to its use in a âsociety-based approachâ,
which is a broader view of politeness that is more concerned with the role of politeness in
discourse and communication. As Ogiermann (2009a) notes of the âlanguage-based approachâ,
âalthough speech acts strategies provide a simplified view on politeness, they are an ideal unit of
analysis when it comes to cross-cultural comparisonâ (p. 21).
This studyâs use of Brown and Levinsonâs (1987) framework relates mainly to the use of the
social variables in their framework in this studyâs research design. Rather than accepting an
assumption that these variables represent all of the factors involved in request-making, the design
of this study minimizes the shortcomings of Brown and Levinsonâs (1987) politeness theory and
supplements this framework by allowing participants, in their own words, to identify other
variables that influence their language choices when making requests. An additional reason to
use this element of politeness theory is its prevalence in previous and current ILP research.
Because of the centrality of Brown and Levinsonâs framework in ILP research over the last thirty
26
years, using its social variables in this studyâs design allows the results of this study to be
compared to those of previous research.
2.6 Chapter summary
This chapter has presented a discussion of pragmatics, including the concepts of pragmatic
competence, ILP, and pragmatic failure, which are important foundational components to much
of the literature relevant to this study, which is discussed in Chapter 3. Also provided were
overviews of speech act theory in general and speech acts of request in particular as they are
relevant to the language production examined in this study. Therefore, this discussion will help
the reader understand the review of relevant literature discussed in Chapter 3 as well as the
interpretation of the studyâs findings, which is included in Chapters 5 and 6. As previously
discussed in this chapter, the concept of politeness plays a central role in understanding the
communication of speech acts, including speech acts of requests. Therefore, this chapter has also
presented a discussion of the development of theoretical frameworks relating to politeness,
focusing on the most prominent model in the field of pragmatics, Brown and Levinsonâs (1987)
politeness theory. Major criticisms of the universality of Brown and Levinsonâs politeness theory
as well as alternative politeness frameworks were also discussed, along with the justification for
the use of Brown and Levinsonâs model in this study. Because this study uses an analysis of
speech acts of request in order to understand the development of pragmatic competence by Thai
learners of English, Brown and Levinsonâs model of politeness plays a significant role in the
research design in this study, which will be discussed in Chapter 4, as well as the analysis of the
data, which is presented in Chapters 5 and 6.
27
Chapter 3 Literature Review
This chapter presents a review research in three areas of interlanguage pragmatics (ILP): ILP
studies on speech acts of requests, ILP studies on the development of pragmatic competence in
study abroad contexts, and ILP studies involving Thai learners of English.
Learnersâ production, perception, and comprehension of requests have been the subject of many
studies that explore issues related to L2 pragmatic competence. These studies involve both cross-
sectional and longitudinal research designs, as well as a range of data collection methods,
including written and oral discourse completion tasks (DCTs), role plays, authentic discourse,
and ratings and interview tasks (for an overview, see Kasper & Roever, 2005; Leech, 2014, p.
248). A range of research topics relating to requests in ILP research will be discussed, which will
focus on factors relating to the development of pragmatic competence of learners of English in
several aspects of requests. These factors include linguistic proficiency, pragmatic transfer, and
the teachability of pragmatic competence.
As for the ILP studies on the development of pragmatic competence in study abroad contexts,
unlike ILP studies on the speech act of requests, the studies included in this part of the literature
review examine pragmatic development more generally, and thus, are not limited only to speech
acts of requests. Rather than focusing on speech acts of request, this review of ILP studies on the
development of pragmatic competence in study abroad contexts focuses on factors relating to the
study abroad learning environment that may influence the development of pragmatic competence
by ESL learners.
Finally, the review of studies involving Thai learners of English focuses on how linguistic
differences between Thai and English as well as cultural differences between Thai and English
speakers affect learnersâ acquisition of pragmatic competence in English, with a particular focus
on how these differences relate to L1 pragmatic transfer. It also reviews studies that use a range
of pragmatic features in order to explore the role of proficiency, type of instruction, and exposure
to English in the acquisition of pragmatic competence by Thai learners of English.
28
3.1 ILP research on requests
3.1.1 The proficiency effect on pragmatic competence
The relationship between general language proficiency and pragmatic competence is a widely
researched issue within ILP research. The findings of these studies generally show that language
proficiency can positively affect the development of pragmatic competence, but other studies
show mixed results or no effect of proficiency on pragmatic competence. The degree to which
proficiency affects the development of pragmatic competence is dependent on the aspect of
pragmatic competence being examined (e.g., production, comprehension, mitigating devices,
directness level), as well as on contextual and individual factors relating to L2 acquisition (e.g.,
exposure to the target language environment, the learning environment, instruction, and
communicative competence).
3.1.2 Proficiency and request strategies
The results of ILP studies involving English learnersâ use of request strategies and directness
levels have been mixed in terms of demonstrating a correlation between proficiency and L2
norms in terms of the use of request strategies and levels of directness. Some research has
indicated that higher proficiency learners outperform their lower proficiency counterparts in the
production of indirect requests toward the norms of the target language. For example, PÃĐrez i
Parent (2002) examined Catalan-speaking EFL learners at three proficiency levels and found the
production of unconventionally indirect requests by higher proficiency learners was comparable
in frequency to the requests of a study group comprising native speakers of British English.
These results were obtained by using Blum-Kulka et alâs (1989) Cross-Cultural Study of Speech
Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP) coding scheme in order to analyze participantsâ written DCT
responses for six request situations. PÃĐrez i Parent interpreted the findings to be the result of
lower proficiency learners transferring conventions of their L1 as well as request strategies
modeled during explicit instruction in their English classes. These results are consistent with
those observed by Rose (2000), who used a cartoon oral production task (COPT) to elicit request
responses from Cantonese-speaking primary school EFL students who were divided by age (ages
7, 9, and 11). The results of Roseâs study showed a correlation between gains in proficiency and
a move from a reliance on direct request strategies to the use of conventionally indirect request
strategies, which represents a move toward the norms of the target language. Rose reports that
29
because the data produced by control groups completing the COPT in Cantonese also showed a
preference for conventionally indirect requests, the transfer of L1 pragmatic norms does not
appear to have been a factor. Rather, Rose suggests that these results may reflect a
developmental sequence in which direct strategies are utilized before conventionally indirect
strategies for L2 English learners in a way that is similar to the sequence observed for young L1
English learners. It should be noted that because Roseâs study involved primary school children,
it is not clear to what extent these results can be generalized to represent language learners of
other age groups. In a study investigating the role of L1 transfer in the acquisition of English
pragmatic skills, Takahashi and Dufon (1989) used role plays to compare the request strategies
of two groups of Japanese ESL learners grouped into intermediate and advanced proficiency
levels. The findings revealed development away from indirect request strategies and toward
more direct request strategies, which the authors suggest represents a move away from the norms
of the learnersâ L1, which is characterized by indirectness, toward the target norm, which is
comparatively more direct.
In contrast, other studies have shown little or no correlation between proficiency gains and
increased use of target-like request strategies and directness levels. For example, Tsengâs (2015)
study of Taiwanese EFL learnersâ requests showed no significant difference in directness level
between high-intermediate and low-intermediate proficiency learners. Tseng employed an
experimental writing task in which participants were provided with a high-imposition request
situation and asked to compose an email in order to make a request. Data were subsequently
coded using a coding scheme based on Blum-Kulka et al.âs (1989) CCSARP framework.
According to Tseng, these findings suggest that at their current stages of development, both
groups are still strongly influenced by the pragmatic norms of their L1. Tsengâs interpretation
implies an expectation that this L1 influence would become less pronounced when the learners
progress to more advanced proficiency levels. Tseng also concludes that the learnersâ preference
for directness related to their desire for conciseness and clarity. Similarly, Suâs (2010) study on
bi-directional pragmatic transfer found that the request production of Chinese EFL students
showed no significant difference in the request strategies or directness levels between two groups
differentiated by proficiency level. Suâs study used the CCSARP framework (Blum-Kulka et al.,
1989) to analyze and compare the DCT-elicited requests of intermediate and advanced
proficiency groups. In contrast to Tseng (2015), Su concludes that the similar linguistic choices
30
of the two study groups relate to both groups receiving explicit instruction modeling their
preferred strategies, which were characterized by conventional indirectness.
3.1.3 Proficiency and internal modifications
ILP research has shown that English learners tend to use fewer internal request modifications
than native English speakers (e.g., Chen, 2001; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2009; Fearch & Kasper,
1989; GÃķy, Zeyrek, & Otcu, 2012; Hill, 1997; Hendriks, 2008; Najafabadi & Paramasivam,
2012; Otcu & Zeyrek, 2008; Trosborg, 1995). Several cross-sectional studies have explored the
relationship between proficiency and learnersâ use of internal modifications. For example, GÃķy et
al. (2012) investigated the correlation between proficiency level and the frequency of internal
modifications by examining the role play performances of Turkish EFL learners. Participants
were divided into three study groups, with one group of 15 American native English speakers
acting as a control group, and two experimental groups comprising 19 Turkish EFL learners of
two proficiency levels: beginner and upper intermediate. The results showed that the higher
proficiency group used more internal modifications, both of the syntactic and lexical/phrasal
subtypes, than the lower proficiency group. However, both EFL learner groups used these
modifications considerably less than did the American native English speaker group. The
researchers suggest these findings may relate to multiple factors, including learnersâ lack of
knowledge about how linguistic forms relate to their mitigating function and how using these
forms can affect pragmatic clarity. Otcu and Zeyrek (2008) reported similar findings in their
study which compared the role play performances of Turkish ESL learners of lower intermediate
and higher intermediate proficiency to American native English speakers. The results showed
proficiency correlated to an increase in use of both syntactic and lexical/phrasal internal
modifications. However, despite this apparent development, Otcu and Zeyrekâs study showed
differences between upper intermediate ESL learners and native speakers of American English,
with upper intermediate learners producing fewer internal modifications and using a more
limited range of modifiers: tense and aspect modifications were not observed in the learner data.
In light of these findings, it is notable that the more advanced learner group overused cajolers.
The authors suggest that this supports the hypothesis of Takahashi and Beebe (1987) that L1
transfer is more likely to occur with more advanced language learners because of their greater
access to L2 linguistic resources.
31
While most studies show that English learners use fewer internal modifications than native
English speakers, a proficiency effect on the use of internal modifications has not been
consistently demonstrated. In a study using role plays to examine the pragmatic development of
Dutch EFL learners of three proficiency levels (intermediate, advanced, and high advanced) by
Trosborg (1995), for example, the results showed that the lowest proficiency group of Dutch
EFL students produced more internal modifications than their advanced counterparts. The author
suggests that these results, which were coded using Blum-Kulka et al.âs (1989) CCSARP
framework, demonstrate a non-linear development of this feature of learnersâ request-making. In
another study involving Dutch EFL learners by Hendrik (2008), no significant difference was
observed between intermediate and advanced learners in terms of the frequency of internal
modifications in their requests. Like Otcu and Zeyrek (2008), Hendrik reports the learnersâ use
of tense and aspect modifications was particularly underrepresented when compared to native
English speakers. Hendrik used an oral production DCT to compare two EFL learner groups,
which were designated as intermediate and advanced proficiency, to control groups of native
speakers of Dutch and English. Data were subsequently coded using a modified version of the
CCSARP coding manual (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989). The author notes that the data from the
native Dutch and English speaker groups suggest that syntactic downgraders play a larger role in
English requests compared to Dutch requests, which is one explanation for the learnersâ underuse
of this internal modification type.
A study by Najafabadi and Paramasivam (2012) examined the request production of Iranian EFL
learners divided into advanced, intermediate, and low proficiency groups by comparing the
requests of these groups to those of a group of American native English speakers. Request
responses were elicited using a written DCT, and the data were subsequently coded using a
modified version of the CCSARP coding scheme (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989). The findings
suggest that pragmatic development seen in the use of internal modifications was dependent on
the type of modification. Out of the three proficiency levels, only advanced learners
approximated native speakers in the frequency of conditional and understater modifications.
However, all three groups, including advanced proficiency learners, used downtowners
infrequently compared to native speakers. Although differences between learners and native
speakers were typically characterized by the learnersâ underuse of modifications, the use of the
politeness marker âpleaseâ was an exception, with development toward native speaker
32
frequencies being marked by less frequent use. Several previous studies have also reported a
preference, particularly among lower proficiency learners, for politeness markers (House &
Kasper 1987; Faerch & Kasper 1989; Barron 2003; GÃķy et al., 2012; Rose, 2000). According to
Barron (2003), this overuse is the result of the learnersâ âpragmatic overgeneralization via a
playing-it-safe strategyâ (p. 149), and âpleaseâ serves a dual function to clarify and mitigate the
illocuationary force of a request. Najafabadi and Paramasivam (2012) note that, although in their
study even the most advanced learner groupsâ requests differed from the requests of the native
speaker group, achieving complete native-speaker-like requests may not be a desirable goal for
learners, as this may not be necessary to successfully make requests, and learners may prefer to
use their distinct linguistic patterns as a way to maintain their identity.
3.1.4 Proficiency and external modifications
Although language learners tend to underuse internal modifications, the findings of many studies
indicate that there is also a tendency for language learners to overuse external modifications
(Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2009; Faerch & Kasper, 1989; Kasper, 1981; Najafabadi &
Paramasivam, 2012; Otcu & Zeyrek, 2006; Wang, 2011; Woodfield & Economidou-Kogetsidis,
2010). Commenting on this overreliance on external modifications in their study of learners of
Hebrew, which used a written DCT comprising seven request situations to compare learners of
Hebrew from various linguistic backgrounds to native speakers of Hebrew, Blum-Kulka and
Olshtain (1986) suggest that the phenomenon may relate to learnersâ lack of confidence and an
attempt to provide clarity in their message. Economidou-Kogetsidis (2009) points out that
compared to internal modifications, âexternal modifications tend to be syntactically less
demanding and pragmalinguistically less complexâ (p. 102). In terms of development, studies
that report a preference for external modifications over internal modifications appear to support
the notion that external modifications are more accessible to learners of lower proficiency levels
compared to internal modifications, which require a higher level of proficiency due to the
syntactic and pragmalingustic knowledge necessary to produce them. For example, Najafabadi
and Paramasivamâs (2012) study of Iranian EFL learners found that as learners gain proficiency,
their overreliance on external modifications is reduced as they move toward native speaker-like
frequencies.
33
Results that demonstrate learnersâ overuse of external modifications and preference for external
over internal modifications are not universal. Trosborg (1995), for instance, reported that Dutch
ESL learners underused external modifications when compared to native English speakers.
However, Trosborgâs study involved data collection by role play, which allowed for turn taking.
Over the course of a conversation, native English speakers used more supportive moves only
because they engaged in longer conversations. In contrast, the learners in Trosborgâs study used
more supportive moves per turn, but took fewer turns than native speakers. Trosborg suggests
that native speakers are more skilled at planning out a sequence of supportive moves to utilize
over the course of several turns. Trosborgâs study highlights the potential for different data
collection instruments to capture a different picture of this aspect of requesting, with turn taking
(or its absence) appearing to play a role in how supportive moves are utilized in requests. Similar
to the results observed by Najafabadi and Paramasivam (2012), the learners in Trosborgâs study
developed toward native-speaker-like frequencies of external modifications with their gains in
proficiency. However, this development was characterized by a reduction of the underuse rather
than overuse of external modifications. In their study of Turkish EFL studentsâ requests, Otcu
and Zeyrek (2008) found that learners of various proficiency levels used supportive moves at
similar frequencies to native speakers. However, despite this similarity, development was
observed in terms of the range of supportive move types employed by learners, with lower
proficiency learners relying on fewer supportive move types. Lower proficiency learnersâ use of
external modification was characterized by an absence of imposition minimizers and an
overreliance on grounders, preparators, and getting a precommitment. Similarly, when
controlling for proficiency by dividing non-native Hebrew-speaking participants into low
intermediate, high intermediate, and advanced proficiency levels, Blum-Kulka and Olshtain
(1986) found that with higher proficiency, learners used more external modifications, thus
moving away from the target-language norms. The authors attribute the low number of external
modifications of the lower proficiency group to their lack of linguistic resources rather than their
pragmatic awareness of L2 norms.
3.1.5 Proficiency and comprehension
In addition to studies that use requests to explore the relationship between proficiency and
pragmatic production, some studies have been conducted to assess the extent to which
34
proficiency affects pragmatic comprehension. Comprehension of indirect speech acts represents
a particular point of interest to researchers, as determining the illocutionary force requires that
the learner use previous knowledge of conventionalized forms or inference from contextual
factors. In their study of learnersâ comprehension of request of various directness levels, Cook
and Liddicoat (2002) observed that proficiency affects learnersâ ability to process linguistic and
contextual information. This was found by comparing the questionnaire responses of Japanese
and Chinese ESL learners grouped by proficiency level. The participants were grouped into two
proficiency levels, with a TOEFL score of 550 or IELTS score of 6.5 used as the dividing line
between higher and lower proficiency groups. Learners were asked to interpret various requests,
which varied by strategy and directness level. The findings showed that the native English
speaker group selected correct responses of all directness levels more consistently than the
learner groups. However, a proficiency effect was observed in the learnersâ interpretation of
conventionally and non-conventionally indirect requests, which Cook and Liddicoat attribute to
differences in processing strategies between high and low proficiency learners. The more indirect
the request, the more the hearer must rely on contextual information. While proficient language
users can process contextual and linguistic information automatically, lower proficiency learners
cannot effectively process contextual information because of the processing demands of
decoding linguistic input.
Similar proficiency effects were observed by Garcia (2004) in her study comparing low and high
proficiency learners to native English speakers in their abilities to recognize various
nonconventionally indirect speech acts by using a multiple choice listening task. The results
showed a significant proficiency effect in the identification of speech acts of suggestions,
corrections, and offers. However, no significance difference was observed between high and low
proficiency learnersâ identification of requests, with both groupsâ identification of
nonconventionally indirect requests comparing favorably to the native speaker group. Garcia
suggests that the fact that requests in her study included explicit reference to the agent involved
in a speech act made this speech act type easier to identify than other speech act types that did
not make such a reference. Similar results were also observed by Takahashi and Roitblat (1994),
who found that high proficiency Japanese EFL students were able to accurately interpret
meaning of conventionally indirect requests comparable to native English speakers. However,
the findings also showed that comprehension took longer for the learners when compared to
35
native speakers. The research was conducted by asking participants to read 12 short stories, half
included a sentence intended to be interpreted as a conventionally indirect request and half of the
stories including the same sentence intended to be interpreted literally. The authors interpret the
results as showing both advanced ESL learners and native speakers processing both literal and
implied meanings in a similar way.
In order to explore the proficiency effect on comprehension accuracy and speed of indirect
speech acts, Taguchi (2005) compared the comprehension of indirect requests and refusals
between high and low proficiency Japanese EFL learners. The study used a multiple choice
questionnaire and a 38-item listening track to measure the processing time and accuracy of the
EFL learners. The findings showed that compared to low proficiency learners, high proficiency
learners more accurately interpreted indirect speech acts. When comparing the learners'
comprehension speed, it was found that comprehension of non-conventionally indirect speech
acts required more time than conventionally indirect speech act, but no proficiency effect was
observed in learnersâ comprehension speed. Taguchi suggests that the absence of a proficiency
effect on the learnersâ comprehension speed may show that individual factors not related to
language skills, such as sociocultural knowledge, play a more significant role than proficiency in
the speed in pragmatic processing. Taguchi explains the correlation between higher proficiency
and greater accuracy by proposing that more proficient learners may become more skilled at
focusing their attention to the most relevant part of the information they hear.
3.1.6 Proficiency and pragmatic transfer
In addition to studies that explore the relationship between proficiency and pragmatic
competence, the transfer of pragmatic knowledge from learnersâ L1, or pragmatic transfer, has
also been the subject of research aimed at understanding the acquisition process of L2 pragmatic
competence. Studies exploring this relationship have yielded mixed results, ranging from
positive to negative to no correlation between proficiency and pragmatic transfer. In a study
using a written DCT to compare the requests of high and low proficiency Chinese EFL learners
to groups comprising native speakers of the learnersâ L1 and L2, for example, Bu (2012) found
that as L2 proficiency increases, the effect of L1 transfer is reduced in learnersâ use of direct
strategies, lexical/phrasal downgraders, and grounders. According to Bu (2012), âhigh
proficiency L2 learners are less likely to transfer their native language pragmatic norms since
36
they have enough control over L2â (p. 37). However, others have argued that learners need to
attain a minimum level of L2 proficiency before the transfer of complicated L1 strategies can
occur (see, for example, Blum-Kulka, 1982; Ellis, 1994). For example, in PÃĐrez i Parentâs (2002)
study of Catalan EFL learnersâ requests, the author reported greater evidence of L1 transfer in
the request strategies of intermediate proficiency learners compared to lower proficiency
learners. PÃĐrez i Parent attributed this finding to the fact that lower proficiency learners lack the
L2 linguistic resources necessary in order to transfer pragmatic knowledge from their L1.
The proficiency effect on L1 transfer was also tested by Takahashi (1996) in a study involving
one hundred and forty-two Japanese EFL learners divided into high and low proficiency groups.
Data were collected through a questionnaire which asked participants to rate the contextual
appropriateness of Japanese requests and the similarities in contextual appropriateness between
these requests and their English equivalents. Takahashi investigated the transfer rates of request
strategies and found neither a positive nor a negative correlation between proficiency and L1
transfer. Instead, the context of the requests, specifically, the degree of imposition, was found to
have significant roles in the learnersâ transfer of L1 request strategies. With higher imposition
requests, which required a greater degree of mitigation, learners of both proficiency groups
tended to rely on their L1 pragmalinguistic knowledge in the production of their English
requests.
3.1.7 Factors influencing pragmatic transfer
While some studies have demonstrated that learnersâ proficiency can be a significant factor in
their transfer (or avoidance of transfer) of their L1 pragmatic norms to their L2 requests, other
factors relating to the differences between learnersâ L1 and L2 pragmatic norms may also play a
role. Using Thomasâ (1983) distinction between pragmalinguistic failure and sociopragmatic
failure, pragmalinguistic transfer can be seen as a result of incorrectly mapping L1 linguistic
features onto L2 requests, while sociopragmatic transfer is the result of assessing context-
appropriate L2 language use based on social norms of the L1 context. Kasper (1992) observes:
At a sociopragmatic level, learners have been shown to display sensitivity towards
context-external factors such as interlocutors' familiarity and relative statusâĶand
37
context-internal factors such as degree of imposition, legitimacy of the requestive goal
and 'standardness' of the situation in request. (pp. 211-212)
Loutfi (2019), for example, found evidence of L1 sociopragmatic transfer in his investigation of
request strategies of Moroccan EFL learners. The learnersâ written requests in seven DCT
situations with varied levels of social distance, relative power, and degree of imposition were
compared to the responses of a group of native speakers of American English, as well as the
learnersâ responses from a translated Moroccan Arabic DCT. The researcher concludes that in
some situations, particularly those which were characterized by differences in request strategy
directness between the learnersâ L1 and L2 norms, the learnersâ request strategies were
influenced by their L1 norms. Wei (2018) also demonstrated that cultural differences between
learnersâ L1 and L2 can result in the transfer of L1 sociopragmatic norms to L2 requests. The
researchers compared the written DCT email responses of two groups of Chinese EFL learners
(low and high proficiency) to native speakers of Australian English, finding evidence of L1
sociopragmatic transfer in the high proficiency learnersâ use of formal and deferential address
terms and salutations. Wei found that the use of titles such as âDeanâ and expressions such as
âRespectedâ in the salutations of high proficiency learnersâ email requests reflected their L1
cultural norms, but not those of the target language culture.
Pragmalinguistic transfer has also been observed in the request-making of English learners. In a
study investigating the requests of Algerian EFL learners, Dendenne (2014) found the learnersâ
use of the word âpleaseâ as an external request modification was consistent with the linguistic
norms of their L1 but not those of the target language. Dendenne attributed this to an
overgeneralization based on the learnersâ L1 linguistic knowledge of the mitigating impact that
âpleaseâ has in English requests. Data in Dendenneâs study were elicited using a written DCT and
coded using an adapted version of the CCSARP (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989) coding scheme. Other
studies have demonstrated that perceptions of differences between L1 and L2 pragmalinguistic
features can result in learnersâ avoidance of L1 pragmatic transfer. Using a written DCT to elicit
data, House and Kasper (1987), for example, compared the requests of native speakers of British
English, native Dutch and German speakers, and German and Danish EFL learners, finding that
Danish EFL learners did not transfer the Danish negative marker âikkeâ to their English requests.
The researchers propose that this avoidance of transfer related to the learnersâ perception that this
marker is a linguistic feature specific to their L1. House and Kasper also propose that their
38
findings reveal learnersâ perception of the level of distance between their L1 and L2 can affect
their transfer of L1 linguistic features. The authors observed that Danish learners utilized their
L1 more freely when requesting in German than in English, which the authors attribute to a
perception by the learners that their L1 is more similar to German than it is English.
3.1.8 Transfer of training
In addition to the transfer of L1 pragmatic knowledge, learnersâ pragmatic production and
comprehension may also be negatively impacted by âtransfer of trainingâ, or the influence of the
L2 instruction learners receive in school. According to Odlin (1989), âWhile some influences
from teaching are no doubt beneficial, others can induce errors that might not otherwise occurâ
(p. 18). Mohammadi and Saâd (2014), for example, proposed that the overreliance on hearer
dominance requests by Iranian EFL students relates to their exposure to hearer dominance
request forms presented in their formal instruction. The data in Mohammadi and Saâdâs study
were collected using written DCT and coded using the CCSARP coding methods (Blum-Kulka
et al., 1989). In an analysis of a range of linguistic acts collected in face-to-face conversations
with native English speakers, Kasper (1982), for example, reported that although the cajoler âI
meanâ would transfer positively into English from its German equivalent, âich meineâ, its
avoidance by German EFL students represents a conscious avoidance resulting from explicit
instruction. Although âI meanâ and âich meineâ are functionally the same, the learners in Kaspersâ
study self-reported that they were instructed by their teachers that this phrase would be
inappropriate in English. Although Kasperâs study did not focus exclusively on requests, the
observations contain a relevance to understanding learnersâ requests production because the
findings demonstrate that transfer of training can influence learnersâ language choices. Similarly,
in Takahashi and Beebeâs (1987) study of Japanese ESL and EFL learnersâ refusal strategies, the
written DCT-elicited findings revealed the learnersâ overuse of direct strategies. The researchers
concluded that these findings can be explained by the fact that the participants had been
influenced by explicit instruction that emphasized the directness of American English speakers.
3.1.9 Mediation of social identity
When learnersâ requests deviate from the norms of the target language, it is typically viewed as
representing deficiencies in learnersâ pragmatic competence. This can potentially lead to
39
misunderstandings with serious and negative consequences in communications. According to
Economidou-Kogetsidis (2008), the social implication of these deviations âcan be unfortunate
for the learners and for intercultural communication in generalâ (p. 112). Similarly, Thomas
(1983) observes that âWhile grammatical errors may reveal a speaker to be a less proficient
language-user, pragmatic failure reflects badly on him/her as a personâ (p. 97). However,
deviations from target language norms do not necessarily mean that learners lack pragmatic
competence; learners0 may consciously choose to deviate from target language norms as a
means of mediating their social identity. Beebe observes that learners may choose not to be
native-like in their language use âbecause they may find that the reward of being fluent in the
target language is not worth the cost in lost identification and solidarity with their own native
language groupâ (as cited in Kecskes, 2003, p. 195).
Several studies have demonstrated learnersâ resistance to conforming to native-speaker-like
language use as a means of mediating their social identity. Although these studies broadly deal
with pragmatic communication and do not focus solely on speech acts of requests, their findings
contain implications for the interpretation of language learnersâ request production. For example,
in his study involving high proficiency Korean ESL learners studying in Australia, Davis (2007)
reported the learnersâ preference for North American English influenced their resistance to
adapting to Australian-English pragmatic norms. Davis attributes this to a âwidespread cultural
regard for North American formsâ commonly held in the learnersâ home country. While the
target for these learners was still a native variety of their L2, Davisâs study demonstrates that
learnersâ agency in their production of pragmatic routines may cause deviations from the target
form. A multiple choice data collection instrument as well as an interview were used in Davisâs
study. Preferences for L1 pragmatic norms have also been reported. For example, LoCastro
(2001) used focus group discussion, essay writing, and a questionnaire in her study of attitudes
of Japanese EFL learners toward L2 pragmatic norms. LoCastro reported that many learners
prefer to keep their own Japanese identities, which LoCastro interprets as âsuggesting it as
inappropriate for them to accommodate to the L2 pragmatic normsâ (p. 83). Likewise, in his
study involving English learners from Asia and the Middle East, Hinkel (1996) distributed a 29-
item questionnaire to explore awareness and perceptions of L2 pragmatic norms. Hinkel found
that despite their recognition of the pragmatic norms of native speakers of American English,
40
many learners were not willing to follow them, viewing them critically when compared to the
norms of their L1 communities.
3.1.10 Instruction of pragmatic competence
In addition to research that focuses on how proficiency gains relate to learnersâ pragmatic
development, the manner in which pragmatic competence is acquired also represents an
important area within ILP research. This area can be broadly divided into research that focuses
on the effects of pedagogical interventions and research which relates to how exposure to the
target language environment affects learnersâ pragmatic development. While this study focuses
on the effect of study abroad and, thus, more directly relates to the latter, it is important to
outline the main issues relating to the teaching of pragmatic competence as well for several
reasons. First, although learning may take place differently in the classroom and in the target
language environment, the study abroad learners in this study have received classroom
instruction prior to their time spent in the English-speaking environment. Following on this
point, understanding the broad issues and findings of research studies relating to both classroom
instruction and exposure to the target language environment can provide a complementary and
more complete view of the acquisition process of pragmatic competence. A comprehensive view
of how these two learning contexts relate is necessary for a discussion of the expected
implications and recommendations of this study.
According to Rose (2005), three lines of inquiry are central to the area of instruction in ILP
research: âthe teachability of pragmatics, the relative benefits of instruction versus exposure, and
whether different approaches to instruction yield different resultsâ (p. 385). Before considering
the question of the relative benefits of instruction versus exposure, which will be discussed in the
next section, this section will begin by examining the teachability of pragmatics and the effects
of various teaching approaches.
The results of research exploring the teachability of pragmatics have generally found that
instruction can yield positive results (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Jeon & Kaya, 2006; Olshtain &
Cohen, 1990; Rose, 2005; Taguchi, 2011; Takahashi, 2010). Research involving instruction of
various aspects of request has also demonstrated a positive effect of instruction. For example, in
a study involving 160 Spanish EFL students, Safont (2003) reported an increase in the use of
41
both internal and external modifications after instruction. Instruction in Safontâs study included
both awareness raising tasks and role play activities, and the results were measured by using a
pre and post-instruction written DCT. In a study also involving Spanish EFL students, Salazar
(2003) examined the effect of instruction on request strategies and modifications by using a pre
and post-instruction written DCT. Salazar reported that after a twenty-minute instructional
session, learners demonstrated a greater range of request strategies, with an increased use of
lexical modifications. However, Salazar also reported that a posttest conducted three weeks after
the instruction session showed that these initial gains were not retained.
Research investigating different teaching approaches to pragmatics has generally shown explicit
instruction to be favorable when compared to implicit instruction (House, 1996; Rose and Ng
Kwai-Fun, 2001; Taguchi, 2015; Tateyama, Kasper, Mui, Tay, & Thananart, 1997). In a study
comparing the results of explicit and implicit instruction of request strategies involving Chinese
EFL students, Gu (2011) reported that while both groups demonstrated some improvements,
explicit instruction was more effective in facilitating improvements in learnersâ choices of
pragmatic forms and raising their pragmatic awareness. Data were collected using a pre and post-
instruction written DTC as well as pre and post-instruction role plays. Similar results were
reported by AlcÃģn-Soler (2005) in a study involving explicit and implicit instruction of request
strategies with 132 Spanish EFL students. Participants were randomly divided into three groups
(a control group, implicit instruction group, and explicit instruction group), with all participants
completing a pre and post-instruction written test. AlcÃģn-Soler found that although both groups
improved in terms of pragmatic awareness and appropriate use of request strategies, the group
receiving explicit instruction demonstrated greater gains in these areas when compared to the
group that received implicit instruction. AlcÃģn-Soler notes that unlike other studies on the effect
of instruction on pragmatic development, which typically involve classroom instruction, this
study involves self-study and that different results could be possible with classroom instruction.
Takahashi (2001) also compared the effectiveness of implicit and explicit instruction in request
production in a study that involved weekly 90-minute instructional periods to two groups of
Japanese EFL learners. Both study groups completed pre and post-instruction written DCTs,
which were compared to the DCT data of native English speakers. Takahashi reported that
Japanese EFL learners who received explicit instruction outperformed those who received
implicit instruction in the production of target request forms; however, some gains were
42
demonstrated by learners receiving implicit instruction. In addition to the relative effects of
explicit and implicit instruction, recommendations have been made relating to the sequence of
introducing sociopragmatic and pragmalingustic information. According to Bou-Franch and
Garces-Conejos (2003), sociopragmatics should be introduced before pragmalinguistics because
âdeveloping L2 sociopragmatic knowledge will result in the improvement of the production and
interpretation of L2 pragmalinguistic strategiesâ (p.2).
Underlying the hypothesis that instruction of pragmatics is more effective than exposure to the
target language alone is the view that sees the acquisition of pragmatic competence as a
cognitive process that involves conscious recognition and processing of L2 pragmatic knowledge
(see for example, Bialystok, 1993; Schmidt, 1993). Research has consistently demonstrated that
instruction is more beneficial than exposure alone in the development of pragmatic competence
(Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Bouton, 1994; FÃĐlix-Brasdefer, 2007). While studies comparing
instruction and exposure have shown instruction to be more beneficial to learnersâ pragmatic
development, some studies have also shown exposure alone can have a positive effect (see Rose,
2005). In addition, several external factors may limit the effectiveness of classroom instruction.
In the foreign language context, instruction of pragmatics presents a particular challenge for non-
native speaking (NNS) teachers. According to Rose (1997), the complexity of pragmatic systems
makes them impossible to describe in a thorough and complete way, which represents âone of
the main problems in educating NNS teachers to deal with pragmatics in the classroomâ (p. 131).
Another problem that poses a challenge to the NNS teachers is textbooks. Although teachers can
create their own materials or bring in authentic materials to their classroom, textbooks are still
the main teaching materials in a language class and are favored by non-native English-speaking
teachers (Reves & Medgyes, 1994). According to Diepenbroek and Derwingâs (2014) study that
examined 48 popular integrated skills textbooks used in Language Instruction for Newcomers to
Canada (LINC) and ESL programs for pragmatics and fluency activities, pragmatics activities
are included in the textbooks; however, the surveyed textbooks lack consistency and scope in
coverage of pragmatics.
3.2 ILP studies in study abroad contexts
The interest of many learners in study abroad is in large part grounded in the belief that exposure
to an authentic target language environment and the increased opportunity to use the target
43
language will benefit their L2 language development (Freed, 1998). Indeed, research supports
this belief, showing that study abroad can produce positive effects in the areas of listening
comprehension (Cubillos, Chieffo, & Fan, 2008) oral fluency and accuracy (Freed, 1995; Llanes
& MuÃąoz, 2009), written proficiency (Evans & Fisher, 2005), pronunciation (Diaz-Campos,
2004), and sociolinguistic competence (Kinginger, 2008; Regan, Howard, & LemÃĐe, 2009). The
growing interest in study abroad participation by language learners mirrors an increased interest
in the topic in ILP research. Given that L2 classroom contexts can be limited in terms of
providing language learners with opportunities to encounter a wide range of L2 input, increasing
attention has been paid to the effect of study abroad on L2 learnersâ pragmatic development in
the field of ILP (e.g., AlcÃģn-Soler, 2015; Barron, 2003; Cohen & Shively, 2007; FÃĐlix-Brasdefer,
2004; Hassall, 2013; Khorshidi, 2013; Matsumura, 2001; Owen, 2002; Schauer, 2009; Taguchi,
2011; Warga & SchÃķlmberger, 2007, Yang, 2014). Similar to research investigating the effect of
study abroad on other areas of linguistic development, the findings of studies investigating
pragmatic development have generally shown a positive effect of study abroad on language
learnersâ pragmatic competence.
Some research studies (including some studies already discussed in this chapter) involve study
abroad participants, but do not address the effect of study abroad on pragmatic development.
Rather, these studies may involve ESL learners out of a matter of convenience for researchers
working in native English-speaking countries. The studies reviewed in this section will involve
research questions related to the study abroad effect, which typically are addressed by comparing
study abroad learners to at home learners or by using pre- and posttests to measure the effect of
study abroad. Key areas in ILP research on study abroad effects to be discussed in this literature
review are the extent to which the target language environment helps promote L2 learnersâ
pragmatic development and how factors such as length of stay, proficiency, and the intensity of
interactions, and program and individual variations play a role in this development.
The results of studies investigating the extent to which length of stay impacts learnersâ pragmatic
development have yielded mixed results. Several studies have demonstrated a correlation
between learnersâ length of stay in the target language environment and their pragmatic
development. For example, Khorshidi (2013) observed sustained development of Iranian study
abroad learnersâ production of English requests and apologies throughout the study abroad
period. Khorshidi tested learnersâ production of requests and apologies using a written DCT at
44
the beginning, middle, and end of a six-month study abroad period and concluded that the gains
made in the production of both speech acts were significant, suggesting that longer periods
abroad provide greater gains in pragmatic competence. In a study using role plays to investigate
the effect of length of stay on the production of refusals by native English-speaking learners of
Spanish, FÃĐlix-Brasdefer (2004) reported that learners with more than nine monthsâ experience
living in the target language environment demonstrated significant development in their use of
target refusal forms and strategies when compared to learners who spent less time in the in the
target language environment. Similarly, Olshtain and Blum-Kulka (1985) also describe length of
stay as a significant factor in their investigation of the pragmatic development of Hebrew
learners from various language backgrounds and with various time spent in the target language
environment. The results showed that learners who had spent longer than ten years in the target
language environment tended to rate the appropriateness of speech acts similarly to native
speakers, whereas those with shorter periods of time spent in the target language environment
did not display such native-like perceptions.
The results of other studies, however, suggest that while learners may gain pragmatic
competence as a result of exposure to the target language environment, length of stay is not
necessarily a significant factor in this development. In a study investigating the effect of study
abroad on Japanese ESL learnersâ use of speech acts of advice, Matsumura (2001) compared 97
Japanese university exchange students studying in Canada to 103 Japanese EFL students.
Participants completed a multiple choice questionnaire designed to assess their perception of
appropriate advice forms controlling for the variable of social status. Matsumura reported that
the study abroad group demonstrated greater gains than the at home group, and that the first few
months of study abroad represented a particularly important window in terms of the development
of learnersâ awareness of sociopragmatic norms of the target language. However, the
development observed within the first three months of the learnersâ time abroad was not matched
in later stages of their stay. Matsumura suggests that the initial gains observed in the study
abroad participantsâ pragmatic development may relate to their enthusiasm toward the
experience that may have led to interactions with native speakers.
Similar results were reported by AlcÃģn-Soler (2014), whose study used written email tasks to
investigate the effect of instruction during study abroad on upper intermediate Spanish ESL
learnersâ request mitigations while studying in England. Participants were divided into two
45
groups, with an experimental group receiving instruction on writing emails and a control group
that did not. Data collection took place in four phases throughout the learnersâ time abroad. The
results showed an immediate impact by the experimental group as demonstrated by the increased
use of request mitigators. However, these initial gains were not sustained throughout the study
abroad period, and by the end of their time abroad, the initial effect of increased use of request
mitigators disappeared. By contrast, after initially showing slow development upon arriving in
the target langue environment, the control group made gains at the end of their stay. The
researcher concludes that these findings support the hypothesis that instruction can have an
immediate effect on learnersâ development, but prolonged quality exposure to the target
language environment can produce similar effects.
In a cross-sectional study involving Iranian learners of English, Mofidi and Shoushtari (2012)
compared the production of complaints between learners with various periods of time spent in
the target language environment, ranging from one to more than twenty years. Using responses
collected from a written DCT, the researchers found no correlation between length of stay and
pragmatic competence. The benefits of short-term study abroad on learnersâ pragmatic
development support findings that suggest an importance of the initial period of exposure to the
target language environment. Hassall (2013), for example, looked at the effects of a short-term
study abroad. Data were collected using written pre and posttests, an interview, and regular dairy
keeping tasks. This study examined the development of knowledge about Indonesian address
terms by Australian study abroad participants during a short summer course and the findings
demonstrate that even in short periods spent studying abroad, pragmatic competence can be
improved considerably. The study also showed that pragmatic development can be slowed by the
process of L1 transfer and transfer of training received in prior classroom instruction.
Studies that compare the effects of length of stay to the effects of the quality of learnersâ
interactions during their stay, referred to as âintensity of interactionsâ, tend to show that the
intensity of learnersâ interactions plays a more significant role in learnersâ development than
length of stay. For example, Bella (2011) investigated the impact of length of stay and intensity
of interaction by comparing native Greek speakers to two groups of Greek learners: a group of
long-term residents with limited interaction with native speakers and another group with limited
experience living in the target language environment, but with more opportunities to interact
with native Greek speakers. Data were collected by using role plays and analyzed using Beebe et
46
al.âs (1990) coding scheme, which categorizes refusal strategies by directness level and
mitigating devices in similar way to the CCSARP coding manualâs (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989)
taxonomy of request strategies and modifiers. The results showed that while both learner groups
underused mitigating devices, such as lexical/phrasal downgraders, the group with limited
lengths of stay and more opportunities for interaction outperformed the group with longer
lengths of stay and limited opportunities for interactions, suggesting that the quality of
interactions while in the target language environment was a more significant factor than the
length of stay in the target language environment.
Similar results were reported by Bardovi-Harlig and Bastos (2011) in a study involving 122 low
intermediate to low advanced English learners from several language backgrounds studying at an
American university. Data collection involved two computer-delivered tasks: one to assess
participantsâ abilities to recognize conventional L2 expressions through a listening task and
another to assess participantsâ production of conventional L2 expressions. The participantsâ
length of stay was measured by the number of months spent in the target language environment,
while their intensity of interaction was measured by their self-reported weekly language use logs.
The researchers found that while intensity of interaction and proficiency were significant factors
in the learnersâ production of conventional expressions, length of stay had no significant effect
on either recognition or production. Bardovi-Harlig and Bastos noted that the length of stay of
most participants in their study was eight months or less, and more time in the target language
environment may be necessary to observe the effect of length of stay.
In a study of 126 English learners of various language backgrounds studying at an American
university, Xu, Case, and Wang (2009) found that while both length of stay and proficiency were
contributing factors, proficiency had a more significant impact on the learnersâ development than
did length of stay, as measured by learnersâ identification of pragmatic errors. Data collection
involved presenting the participants with 20 scenarios and DCT answers and then asking
participants to rate the correctness of the DCT answers. Eight answers were grammatically
correct but pragmatically inappropriate, eight answers were pragmatically correct but
grammatically incorrect, and four correct control answers were included. The researchers
hypothesized that the lower proficiency group may have had difficulties processing both
grammar and pragmatic components simultaneously.
47
The relationship between linguistic proficiency and gains in pragmatic competence were also
explored in Liâs (2014) study of American learners of Chinese by examining their request
realizations throughout their study abroad period in China. The participants were grouped
according to their Chinese proficiency, described by the researcher as intermediate and
advanced. Data collection was conducted with a computerized oral DCT at the beginning and
end of the participantsâ study abroad period. The requests were analyzed for appropriateness,
planning time, and rate of speech. The results showed while both groups made gains in several
areas, including the use of alerters, request strategies, internal modifications, and external
modifications, the learnersâ proficiency levels were not a significant factor in their development
of their production of requests, as both groups made comparable gains. However, the findings
also indicated that the advanced learners made greater gains in their processing ability, as
measured by speech rate. The researcher concluded by suggesting four semesters of training as
the optimal amount of instruction prior to departing for the study period.
While the results of Liâs (2014) study showed a marginal proficiency effect on pragmatic
development during the study abroad period, Matsumura (2003) found that proficiency had no
direct impact on this development in a study of 137 Japanese learners of English during their
study abroad in Canada. However, while Matsumura reported that proficiency had no direct
effect on the learnersâ pragmatic development, it did have an effect indirectly. Learners of higher
proficiency were found to be more likely to seek out opportunities to interact using the target
language and thus, proficiency was seen as contributing to advanced proficiency learnersâ
intensity of interactions during their time abroad. The data in Matsumuraâs study were collected
by multiple choice questionnaires administered in three month intervals.
In addition to proficiency, other factors related to individual variation, such as motivation and
personality, may impact pragmatic development during study abroad. For example, in a
longitudinal study of German learners of English studying in England, Schauer (2009) found that
gains in pragmatic competence varied significantly between individual learners. These results
were observed over a range of request features, including pragmalinguistic awareness and use of
request strategies and modifications. Data collection was conducted by showing participants
videos of request scenarios and asking them to assess the grammatical correctness and pragmatic
appropriateness of requests. Hassall (2015) linked the variation in learnersâ pragmatic
development during the study abroad period to their formation of L2 identity in the study abroad
48
environment. According to Hassall, within the L2 environment, learners form and understand
their identity within a new set of social norms. This process can vary individually and can affect
the learnersâ attitudes toward and investments in learning their L2. Hassallâs study, which
followed the development of two Australian learners of Indonesian during a brief study abroad
period, highlights how individual motivation and attitudes toward the target language
environment can interact with other factors such as prior knowledge of foreign languages and L2
proficiency to influence pragmatic development during the study abroad period. Similar
conclusions were reached by Isabelli-Garcia (2006), in a study on American learners of Spanish
during their study abroad period in Argentina. The researcher collected data using pre and
posttest oral proficiency assessments, diary entries, informal interviews, and social network
contact logs. Isabelli-Garcia concluded that individual variation in pragmatic gains can be
influenced by the interconnected factors of learnersâ motivations, attitudes toward the study
abroad environment, and the strength of their social networks in the study abroad environment.
3.3 The pragmatic development of Thai learners of English
The body of ILP research involving Thai learners of English is relatively small compared to that
of language learners from East Asian countries, namely Japan, Korea, and China. However,
some studies have been conducted to focus on the development and use of Thai EFL learnersâ
pragmatic knowledge involving a range of speech acts (Chiravate, 2011; Noonkong, Damnet, &
Charttrakul, 2017; Phoocharoensil, 2012; Pin-Ngern, 2015; Sirikhan & Prapphal, 2011;
Suttipanyo, 2007; Thijittang, 2010; Wannaruk, 2008; Wongwarangkul, 2000; Worathumrong &
Luksaneeyanawin, 2016). These studies often focus on issues relating to how linguistic and
cultural background differences between Thai and English affect learnersâ acquisition of English
pragmatic knowledge, including how these differences relate to L1 pragmatic transfer. As is the
case with other Asian languages and English, there are considerable linguistic differences
between Thai and English as well as significant cultural differences that characterize Thai and
English-speaking communities. This creates challenges for Thai learners of English in their
attempts to acquire pragmatic knowledge in the target language.
49
3.3.1 The cultural and linguistic backgrounds of Thai speakers
One of the most defining features of Thai culture is its hierarchical social structure (see, for
example, Kirch, 1973; Klausner, 1993; Gullette, 2014). As observed by Simpson (1997), despite
the social changes that have come with Thailandâs rapid economic development through the
1980s and 1990s, âsocial relationships among Thais are still characterized by a distinct
awareness of and attention to the protocols associated with rank and status, and corresponding
respect for the rights and obligations implicit in the hierarchyâ (p. 41). Thailandâs hierarchical
social structure is not a rigid caste system in which oneâs social position is fixed and defined by
class at birth. Rather, social status is assessed using a myriad of variables, including age
(Howard, 2007), occupation (Ockey, 2005), wealth (Vorng, 2011), educational background
(Gullette, 2014), and âaffiliation with sources of social powerâ (Simpson, 1997, p. 41). As such,
Thais can change their status through actions such as acquiring educational qualifications,
changing jobs, as well as the conspicuous adoption of lifestyle markers that signal
cosmopolitanism (Gullette, 2014; Vorng, 2011). Inherent to conceptions of this social structure
are cultural values related to loyalty, obedience, and oneâs social rights and obligations
(Simpson, 1997). These values are influenced, reinforced, and reflected by important cultural
institutions, such as Thai Buddhism, the monarchy, the national government, and public
education (Farrelly, 2016).
Within social interactions among Thais, a complex set of factors may be taken into account to
determine the relative position of each interlocutor within the social hierarchy. Thai language
plays an important role in articulating social relationships in Thai culture, as certain linguistic
features can be utilized to overtly acknowledge the relative position of interlocutors within a
given social interaction (Simpson, 1997). A prominent feature of Thai language that illustrates
the wide range of linguistic resources available to acknowledge the social relationship between
the interlocutors can be seen in the variety of speech registers used to reflect different levels of
formality and distance between speakers. Lexical choices play an important role in register
creation in Thai (Iwasaki & Ingkaphirom, 2000), perhaps due in part to the absence verb tense,
inflection, and other syntactic resources. The most formal register termed raachaasap (āļĢāļēāļāļēāļĻāļāļ),
or royal vocabulary, is based on Sanskrit, Pali, and Khmer and is used by commoners when
speaking to or about the royal family (Hoonchamlong, 1992). Also very formalized and
50
containing a vocabulary derived from Sankrit, Pali, and Khmer is a special register used by
laypeople when speaking about or to Buddhist monks. Aside from these specialized, highly
formal registers, a range of registers are used in everyday life, with a range of lexical choices
available to mark the formality and distance between speakers. This is demonstrated by the range
of words meaning âeatâ, for example, with âkinâ (āļāļ) , âthanâ (āļāļēāļ), ârap prathanâ (āļĢāļāļāļĢāļ°āļāļēāļ)
demonstrating different levels of formality from informal to formal, and âchanâ (āļāļ) and âsawoeiâ
(āđāļŠāļ§āļĒ), reserved for monks and royal family members, respectively.
The range of pronouns distinguishes Thai from English, and is another linguistic resource
available to articulate the relationship between interlocutors. Compared to English, pronouns in
Thai are more complex as their usage can reflect age, gender, status, and the relationship
between interlocutors (Smyth, 2002). Cook (1968) identified 57 personal pronouns used in Thai,
and although this list includes some Chinese loan words and specialized words used in highly
formal situations, Iwasaki & Ingkaphirom (2005) still place the number at 22 even after
excluding less commonly used personal pronouns. Not only can pronouns articulate the social
relationship between interlocutors, they can also convey politeness, both positive politeness
(showing solidarity) and negative politeness (showing deference). Although technically not
personal pronouns, Smyth (2002) observes that kinship terms and occupational titles can be used
in the same way as personal pronouns, fulfilling the same role as personal pronouns in
acknowledging the relationships between speakers. Without a comparable resource in English, it
can be a challenge for Thais in finding a different way to substitute the use of pronoun in
articulating all kinds of social relationship in communication.
Another distinctive feature in the Thai language, which does not exist in English, is the use of
particles. It is difficult to determine the number of particles because differences in the way they
are spoken, such as in tone or vowel length, can produce subtle differences in communicative
function (Smyth, 2002). Particles occur at the end of many sentences and phrases in Thai, and
can perform a variety of functions. Some particles can serve a grammatical function, such as
marking a question, while other particles have no grammar function but instead serve a
communicative purpose, such as showing formality or a speakerâs attitude. The latter type of
particle is particularly important as a resource to create register and to show the relationship
between speakers. Mood particles, for example, can perform a range of communicative
51
functions, such as indicating intention, urging, or a speakerâs evaluation of a message (Iwasaki &
Ingkaphirom, 2000). Polite particles, for example, have no lexical meaning or syntactic function,
and function primarily to show respect to the addressee. The most common polite particles,
khrap (āļāļĢāļ) and kha (āļāļ°), used by men and women, respectively, are frequently added to the end
of nearly every sentence in some situations, such as speaking to a stranger or someone of higher
status.
3.3.2 ILP studies on Thai learners of English
Several studies have used speech acts of requests as a basis to investigate the development of
Thai EFL learnersâ pragmatic competence. Chiravate (2011) conducted a study comparing 30
native speakers of American English with 60 Thai EFL learners, with the latter divided evenly
into high and low-proficiency groups. The objective of the study was to formulate an
understanding of the Thai EFL learnersâ perception of politeness in English requests. To examine
the participantsâ perception of requestsâ politeness levels, participants were asked to choose only
one politeness strategy out of six choices that they would be likely to use in twelve situations that
varied in social and psychological factors. The findings in Chiravateâs study demonstrated
differences between the politeness strategies perceived to be appropriate by both EFL learner
groups, on the one hand, and the native English speakers, on the other, with the degree of
closeness in the requester-requestee relationship having a particular influence on the differences
between the EFL learners and native English speakers. For example, while native English
speakers tended to employ a moderate politeness strategy (Can you...?) in close relationship
situations, Thai EFL learners tended to employ the most direct strategy: an imperative sentence.
The use of imperatives in these situations can be regarded as evidence of L1 influence on the
learnersâ use of politeness strategies. The researcher further explained that direct requests in Thai
society are typically used in cases of a socially close requester-requestee relationship.
In a study investigating the request production of Thai EFL learners, Suttipanyo (2007)
compared the DCT-elicited responses of 22 Thai EFL learners and 22 native speakers of
American English. The data were analyzed to determine the extent to which request strategies
and mitigating devices differed between the two groups. Suttipanyo reports that both groups
favored conventionally direct request strategies, followed by direct and non-conventionally
indirect requests. However, the strategies used by the Thai learners of English were observed to
52
be less varied than those of the native English speakers. Furthermore, the requests of Thai
learners of English were limited in their use of internal modifications when compared to native
English speakers. Other notable differences included the effect of relative power between
requester and requestee, with requests made to superiors using direct strategies much more
frequently with Thai learners of English than with native English speakers.
Like Suttipanyo (2007), Wongwarangkul (2000) used requests as the focus of a study of Thai
EFL learnersâ interlanguage pragmatics, focusing on the impact of the relative age between
requester and requestee. Unlike other studies reviewed in this section, Wongwarangkulâs study
involved learners with extensive experience using English with extensive experience working
and/or studying abroad. Fifty participants completed an oral DCT that elicited both Thai and
English responses. Wongwarangkul reported a significant influence of age on both the Thai and
English request formulation of participants, as demonstrated by the number of internal
modifications, length of utterance and the use of pronouns. Politeness toward older requestees
was characterized in particular by an increased use of politeness markers and the address term
âsirâ. Furthermore, the length of utterance was observed to be longer in situations involving
requests to older requestees when compared to those involving younger requestees.
Wongwarangkul considers the use of these patterns in the participantsâ English requests as
possibly representing L1 transfer; however, the author noted that transfer of this nature does not
necessarily represent pragmatic failure as long as the speakerâs intended message is successfully
communicated.
The speech act of apologies has been the focus of several studies involving Thai learners of
English. Pin-Ngern (2015), for example, used a written DCT to investigate the effect of
proficiency on learnersâ production of apologies in English. Participants included 20 Thai EFL
learners divided equally into high and low proficiency groups. Pin-Ngern reported no significant
proficiency effect with regard to the learnersâ choices of apology strategies or the effect of the
social variables of social distance, social status, or the degree of severity of the offense. The
researcher noted that both groups were particularly sensitive to the variable of social status,
reflected in the strategies used in situations involving an apology to a professor, which is
attributed to the Thai cultural norm of respect for teachers. However, differences were observed
between the two groups as well, with high proficiency learners demonstrate more mitigation and
greater complexity in their apologies when compared to the low proficiency learners.
53
The findings of Pin-Ngern (2015) support the conclusions of studies by Thijittang (2010) and
Bergman and Kasper (1993), who also found contextual variables had a significant effect on the
way Thai learners of English made apologies. Thijittangâs (2010) study involved the analysis of
the written DCT-elicited apologies of 160 undergraduate Thai EFL learners, the proficiency of
which was not specified. The researcher found Thai EFL learners were more sensitive to social
status when compared to the norms of native English speakers reported from previous studies.
Apologies from speakers of higher social status were less likely to contain explicit apology
strategies, instead expressing a lack of intention rather than an acceptance of blame. In contrast,
lower social status speakers were more likely to accept blame when apologizing to a person of
higher status. Social distance was also found to be a significant factor in the realization of
apologies; however, this was seen as having a comparable effect to that of native speakers of
English. Bergman and Kasper (1993) report significant differences in the way native speakers of
American English and native speakers of Thai assessed the severity of various offenses. For
example, native Thai speakers were more likely to see offenses involving a religious image as
severe whereas native speaker of American English were more likely to see offenses involving a
mistake made by a waiter or a studentâs plagiarism as serious. The researchers compared the
DCT responses of Thai EFL learners to the native English speaker groups, concluding that L1
pragmatic transfer played a role in the majority of the learnersâ response.
In a study investigating the effect of explicit instruction on Thai EFL learnersâ production of
apologies and complaints, Noonkong, Damnet, and Charttrakul (2017) elicited pre- and post-
instruction responses using a DCT, which were then rated for appropriateness by native English
speakers. Using a pragmatic consciousness-raising approach, grounded in Schmidtâs (1993)
Noticing Hypothesis, the researchers devised a twelve-hour course to introduce apology and
complain strategies favored by native speakers as well as promote pragmatic awareness of how
these strategies interact with contextual factors. The results showed significant improvement of
the learnersâ production of both speech acts. However, the researchers noted that low scores in
the assessment of the learnersâ âcorrect expressionsâ and âquality of informationâ indicate the
learnersâ may be limited by their grammatical proficiency. Furthermore, the researchers also
acknowledged that these results indicated an immediate improvement, but a delayed posttest
would offer a more reliable means of measuring lasting changes to the learnersâ pragmatic
competence.
54
Sirikhan and Prapphal (2011) investigated the relationship between proficiency and pragmatic
competence in the context of hotel front-office work. Participants were fourth-year Thai
university students undertaking internships at hotels in Thailand and were divided into high,
intermediate, and low proficiency groups. Data were collected using a closed and open item
questionnaire that elicited responses relating to eight speech acts: informing, apologizing,
handling complaints, offering, promising, requesting, thanking, and responding to compliments.
The results showed a significant proficiency effect, with high proficiency learners performing
closer to target forms with the use of lexical/phrasal modifications in particular, including
politeness markers and forms of address. To a lesser extent, the use of syntactic modifications,
such as adverbials, was influenced by learnersâ proficiency. The findings also showed that
regardless of proficiency, pragmatic failures occurred in both pragmalinguistic and
sociopragmatic aspects of the participantsâ production.
In a study focusing on Thai EFL learnersâ refusal production, Wannaruk (2008) explored the
relationships between proficiency, L1 transfer, and learnersâ use of refusal strategies and
modifications. Participants included 40 native speakers of American English, 40 native Thai
speakers, and 40 Thai EFL students, who were further divided into high intermediate,
intermediate, and low intermediate proficiency groups. The findings, from data which were
collected using a written DCT, suggest the refusals of both Thai and English speakers share
similar strategies in general. However, differences were observed in the Thai sensitivity to
refusals made to people of higher status and in the value of expressing modesty. Both of these
were observed to be a factor in L1 pragmatic transfer in the Thai EFL learner data. In addition,
Wannaruk observed that the effect of L1 transfer was influenced by proficiency, with lower
proficiency learners demonstrating a greater degree of L1 transfer.
Similar results were reported by Chantharasombat and Pongpairoj (2018) in their study of Thai
EFL learnersâ responses to negative English Yes/No questions. Participants included 14 Thai
university students divided into intermediate and upper-intermediate proficiency groups. A
written DCT form was used to elicit negative responses to negative Yes/No questions in English,
a feature which is characterized by differences in the learnersâ L1 and the target language. The
results demonstrated higher rates of L1 pragmatic transfer among lower proficiency learners,
suggesting a greater reliance on L1 pragmatic knowledge, which leads to pragmatic failure with
the target pragmatic feature.
55
The speech acts of compliments and compliment responses have also been used to investigate
various factors in Thai EFL learnersâ acquisition of pragmatic competence. Worathumrong and
Luksaneeyanawin (2016) investigated the effect of exposure to the target language on the
compliments of Thai EFL learners. Thai EFL participants were divided into high exposure and
low exposure groups. Their DCT responses were compared to those of native Thai speakers and
native speakers of American English. The high exposure group was observed to generally
conform more closely to the norms of native English speakers. However, evidence of L1 transfer
was observed in the compliments of both groups in the overuse of kinship address terms, such as
âsisterâ and âbrotherâ. The low exposure groupâs preference for hearer-oriented perspectives in
their compliments was attributed to training transfer, reflecting a greater reliance on forms
learned in the classroom for learners with low exposure learners. Proficiency was also
determined to be a factor in Thai EFL learnersâ pragmatic competence in a study investigating
compliment responses by Phoocharoensil (2012). The researcher used a DCT to elicit
compliment responses from high and low proficiency Thai EFL learners, then comparing the
responses to those of native speakers of American English. Evidence of L1 transfer was observed
in the compliment responses of low proficiency learners, while high proficiency learners were
observed to approximate the compliment response patterns of native English speakers.
3.4 Gaps in the literature
The study of requests is a very well-researched topic within the field of ILP. The studies
reviewed in this chapter involved a variety of research designs, including cross-sectional and
longitudinal designs, as well as an array of data collection methods, such as written and oral
DCTs, role plays, authentic discourse, rating tasks, and interviews. However, the extent to which
these studies contextualize the learnersâ production by using their perspectives on their own
request making is limited or nonexistent. The present study aims to implement an innovative
mixed-methods approach in order to provide greater context to the collected request data as well
as to gain insights into the participantsâ request-making processes. This methodology involves
the use of a written DCT with the addition of follow-up questions and interviews, which are
designed to gain insights into the participantsâ decision-making processes when making requests.
These data collection instruments will be discussed in detail in Chapter 4.
56
In addition to the gap in the research methods used in the ILP studies of requests, no studies have
investigated the effect of study abroad on the pragmatic development of Thai learners of English.
Many of the studies reviewed in this chapter have reported that language learnersâ L2 pragmatic
competence can be influenced by L1 pragmatic transfer. Because L1 pragmatic transfer relates to
linguistic and cultural features of language learnersâ L1, it can be expected that learners with
different L1 backgrounds are affected by L1 transfer in different ways. That is, Thai learners of
English may develop request-making strategies, influenced by Thai linguistic and cultural norms,
in a different way than learners with other L1 backgrounds. Moreover, the requests of learners of
different L1 backgrounds have been shown to be variably effected by a range of factors,
including exposure to the target language environment. Therefore, exploring how Thai learners
of English are impacted by study abroad will contribute to a more comprehensive understanding
of how L2 learners acquire request-making strategies.
In addition to addressing the gaps in the literature in ILP studies of requests, there is a lack of
research that examines and compares the production of the speech act of requests between native
English and Thai speakers. Therefore, the fact that this study will also involve the request
production of native Thai speakers (described in Chapter 4 in the participant section) will
broaden the understanding of cross-cultural pragmatics by providing useful information
pertaining to pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic differences in making requests based on
differences of linguistic and cultural norms between native English and Thai speakers.
3.5 Chapter summary
This chapter has presented a review of three areas of interlanguage pragmatic (ILP) research: ILP
studies on speech acts of requests, ILP studies on the development of pragmatic competence in
study abroad contexts, and ILP studies involving Thai learners of English. The first of these
areas, ILP studies on speech acts of requests, reflects a large body of research investigating
language learnersâ production, perception, and comprehension of requests. These studies
generally demonstrate that language proficiency can positively influence the development of
pragmatic competence. However, studies have also shown mixed results or no effect of
proficiency on pragmatic competence. In addition to research that focuses on how proficiency
gains relate to learnersâ pragmatic development, the discussion of ILP studies on speech acts of
requests has also included an overview of other factors that influence learnersâ acquisition of
57
pragmatic competence, including transfer of training and the mediation of social identity, both of
which have been demonstrated to play a role in learnersâ deviations from native speaker norms.
Finally, the effects of pedagogical intervention have been presented. The research presented in
this chapter has generally shown the positive effects of instruction on pragmatic skills, with
studies demonstrating the strengths of explicit instruction compared to implicit instruction.
This chapter has also presented a review of relevant literature investigating the development of
pragmatic competence in study abroad contexts, involving English language learners from
various cultural backgrounds. Research has demonstrated the benefits of exposure to the L2
environment on a variety of aspects of learnersâ language use, including the development of their
pragmatic competence. Several factors relating to pragmatic development during the study
abroad were discussed: length of stay, proficiency gains, quality of interactions, and individual
variation. Studies investigating the correlation between length of stay and gains in pragmatic
competence have been mixed, while quality of interaction appears to be a more significant factor.
Learnersâ proficiency has been shown to have a minimal effect on pragmatic development while
studying abroad. Gains in pragmatic competence have been shown to vary between individual
learners based on factors such as motivation, personality, and attitude.
Finally, several studies involving Thai EFL learnersâ acquisition of pragmatic competence have
been discussed in this chapter. This discussion has included studies that involve a range of
pragmatic features to investigate the role of proficiency, type of instruction, and exposure to
English in the acquisition of pragmatic competence of Thai learners of English. These studies
generally reflect the considerable linguistic and cultural differences between Thai and English-
speaking communities.
58
Chapter 4 Methodology
This chapter describes the methodology used to answer the research questions guiding this study.
Recall from Chapter 1 that these questions are as follows:
1. How do the patterns of request structures, request perspectives, request strategies, internal
modifications, supportive moves, and alerters used by study abroad learners compare to at home
learners and to the patterns displayed by English dominant speakers and native speakers of Thai?
2. How do such patterns displayed by these same four groups of speakers compare to each other
in situations that vary according to the social factors of relative power and social distance?
3. What factors in addition to relative power and social distance do participants from each group
perceive as influencing their respective requests?
4. To what extent does each group of participants perceive differently the degree of imposition in
making requests in the given situations?
5. How do study abroad learners compare to at home learners with regard to how they perceive
the development of their own pragmatic competence?
This chapter is divided into five sections. The first section describes the methodological
approach. The next section explains the selection of participants. Then, information about the
data collection instruments is presented along with a discussion of their validity and reliability.
This is followed by an outline of the data collection procedures. The last section describes the
data coding and data analysis.
4.1 Methodological approach
Although qualitative and quantitative approaches to research design are better established than a
mixed methods approach (Creswell, 2009), this study employs a mixed methods approach, which
involves collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data using both quantitative and qualitative
methods. According to Creswell and Clark (2011), âmixed methods research is practical in the
sense that the researcher is free to use all methods possible to address a research problemâ (p.
13). Thus, considering the research questions of this present study, which relate to various
59
dimensions of speech acts of request, including comparisons of the study groupsâ request
production as well as their perceptions of factors relating to this production, a combination of
quantitative and qualitative methods is appropriate.
A mixed methods approach can be advantageous because it allows for triangulation by
minimizing weaknesses of both quantitative and qualitative research and by combining their
strengths in order to enhance the overall validity of a research study. As Creswell (2009)
explains, ârecognizing that all methods have limitations, researchers felt that bias inherent in any
single method could neutralize or cancel the biases of other methodsâ (p. 14). This study uses a
triangulation of methods because it uses both quantitative and qualitative methods in the form of
an enhanced discourse completion task (EDCT) as well as semi-structured interviews. The
EDCT comprises a conventional discourse completion test (DCT) to collect and interpret data
relating to the participantsâ choices and frequencies of linguistic devices in their requests. This
data was coded and analyzed quantitatively. In addition to the conventional DCT, the EDCT also
uses qualitative methods in the form of open-ended questions in order to collect and interpret
data relating to the participantsâ perceptions and explanations of their linguistic choices. This
study also employs semi-structured interviews in order to further understand these perceptions as
well as the learnersâ perceptions relating to their own pragmatic development. Combining
different types of research methods can allow the researcher to gain a greater breadth and depth
of understanding of the topic studied than using either a quantitative or qualitative method alone.
This study employs sequential mixed methods procedures, which ârefers to an investigation in
which the phases of the research occur in a consecutive order, with one phase emerging from or
following the otherâ (Cronholm & Hjalmarsson, 2011). This study involves two phases of data
collection. The first phase of this study uses an EDCT, in which both quantitative and qualitative
data collection methods were employed. The EDCT consists of two sections, the first of which
involves eliciting request responses that are subsequently coded and analyzed quantitatively. The
second section of the EDCT involves open-ended, Likert scale, and yes-no questions relating to
the participantsâ request responses from the first section. Data produced by the open-ended
questions were analyzed qualitatively while data derived from Likert scale and yes-no questions
were analyzed quantitatively. While data collection in the first phase of this study involves an
EDCT, the second phase of this study involves qualitative inquiry consisting of semi-structured
interviews. The questions used in this phase were in part informed by the data collected from the
60
EDCT. The data obtained from semi-structured interviews are used to explore the participantsâ
perceptions about their own development of pragmatic competence and the role that the learning
environment has played in this development. Therefore, by using the data collected using the
EDCT (phase one) to shape the questions used in the semi-structured interviews (phase two), the
data from the second phase can help contextualize the data obtained from the first phase. Without
this context derived from the second phase of data collection, the inferences and interpretations
of the phase one (EDCT) data would be based primarily on the researcherâs own perspective.
4.2 Participants
This research involves a total of 136 participants recruited through a purposive sampling
technique. Purposive sampling, also referred to as judgmental sampling, is a nonrandom
sampling technique that uses the researcherâs judgment to select âindividuals or groups of
individuals that are proficient and well-informed with a phenomenon of interestâ (Etikan, Musa,
& Alkassim, 2016, p. 2). There are four groups of participants in this study and the criteria for
the selection of participants was based on factors relating to their language background, which in
some cases includes the participantsâ language learning background. The demographic
information relating to the selection criteria of each group is outlined below. It is important to
note that in order to enhance the homogeneity of the overall sample in terms of their educational
background and experience related to the contexts used in the data collection method, the initial
recruitment criteria for all participants in each group was a minimum of some university-level
education. In addition, because this study focuses on the variables of the participantsâ language
and cultural backgrounds as well as their experience with English, other variables such as gender
and age were not considered as a recruitment criterion.
4.2.1 Study abroad group (SA)
The SA group comprises 34 participants who completed a Bachelor of Arts degree in English at
a public university located in Bangkok, Thailand. After completing their bachelorâs degree in
Thailand, these participants continued their graduate studies with a masterâs degree in countries
in the inner circle of English usage (Kachru, 1985), where English is used as a primary language
(e.g., Anglophone Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Australia, New
Zealand, and Ireland). At the time of data collection of this study, the participants were
completing or had recently completed a masterâs degree in Canada (4), the United States of
61
America (9), the United Kingdom (16), Australia (4), and New Zealand (1). With the exception
of three participants, who had recently returned to Thailand at the time of data collection, all
other SA group participants were living in their study abroad location at the time of data
collection. This group of participants represents Thai learners of English who have study abroad
experience. There were 12 males and 22 females, whose ages ranged from 22 to 27 years of age.
This gender imbalance is the result of the small number of male graduates from the English
bachelorâs degree program from which participants for this study group were recruited. All of
these participants speak Thai as their mother tongue, and they are high-intermediate to advanced
English users. This proficiency level was assessed based on the participantsâ IELTS or TOEFL
scores as well as their successful completion of coursework in their degree program, with the
final three years of their curriculum comprising English courses which are designated by the
program to be at the CEFR level of B2 to C1. These participants completed their Bachelor of
Arts degree in English with a minimum GPA of 3.0, and they were able to satisfy the language
requirement upon being accepted to a masterâs degree program at universities in an English-
speaking country. All of these participants had taken an English standardized test and received a
minimum score of 6.5 overall band score for the International English Language Testing System
(IELTS) and 80 for the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). Although study abroad
group participants studied in masterâs degree programs in which English was the language of
instruction, these participants typically did not participate in ESL classes during their time
abroad.
In order to minimize the differences between study abroad group participants, it was required
that each participant had completed their bachelorâs degree between 2012- 2014. This selection
of the graduation timeframe was determined to ensure that all of the participants had experienced
the same curriculum and received comparable instruction during their bachelorâs degree studies.
In addition, in an attempt to minimize variables among participants in terms of the length of time
they had spent in the target language environment, those whose length of stay was no less than
one year but not more than two years were recruited. The average length of time the study abroad
learner participants had been living abroad (excluding any vacation time in English speaking
countries prior to their time living there during their study abroad period) was 15.3 months. Out
of the 34 participants, there were three who had already completed their degree and returned to
Thailand for no more than 6 months prior to the data collection for this study.
62
4.2.2 At home group (AH)
The AH group includes 34 English major students in the fourth year of a bachelorâs degree
program at a public university in Bangkok, which is the same university and bachelorâs degree
program in English that the participants in the SA group had previously attended before pursuing
their masterâs degrees in inner circle countries. This group of participants represents Thai
learners of English who do not have study abroad experience. There were 10 males and 24
females, whose ages ranged from 22 to 24 years of age. As with the SA group, the low number
of male students enrolled in the English bachelorâs degree program from which participants were
recruited resulted in a gender imbalance of participants in the AH group. All of these participants
speak Thai as their mother tongue, and they are high-intermediate to advanced English users.
This proficiency level was assessed based on the participantsâ successful completion of
coursework in their degree program, with the final three years of their curriculum comprising
English courses which are designated by the program to be at the CEFR level of B2 to C1. The
fact that the participants in the AH group have participated in the same bachelorâs degree
program and have experienced the same university curriculum as the participants in the study
abroad group helps ensure that the participants of these two study groups, namely SA and AH
groups, have English education backgrounds that are comparable to one another. In addition, in
order to control factors that might influence their English pragmatic knowledge and competence,
such as their learning motivation and their learning behaviors resulting from the desire to study
abroad, the participants recruited in this groups were exclusively those who expressed an
intention and high possibility of studying abroad in addition to maintaining a minimum GPA of
3.0, which is typically required to apply to study in a masterâs degree program at a university
abroad.
4.2.3 Native Thai speaker group (NT)
The NT group consists of 34 fourth-year non-English major students at a public university in
Bangkok, which is the same university as the participants in the study abroad group and AH
group. There were 15 males and 19 females, whose ages ranged from 22 to 24 years of age.
These participants speak Thai as their mother tongue. They come from different regions of
Thailand and speak different dialects at home; however, this does not affect their standard Thai
and English proficiency in any way. All of the participants have studied English as a compulsory
subject in primary school and high school for approximately 12 years prior to their bachelorâs
63
degree program. At the time of data collection, the participants were enrolled in a final
compulsory English course following two pre-requisite courses, namely Foundation English II
(equivalent to CEFR level A2) and Foundation English III (equivalent to CEFR level A2/B1).
The NT group participantsâ English language proficiency was, therefore, approximately at a low-
intermediate level, or CEFR level B1. In order to reduce bias and to ensure a representative
sample of the 34 participants, students from various faculties were recruited including students
from the Faculty of Agriculture (2), Agro-Industry (3), Economics (5), Engineering (6), Fisheries
(2), Forestry (4), Social Science (5) and Veterinary Science (7). None of the NT group
participants had traveled extensively in an English-speaking country prior to data collection. The
participants in this group produced baseline data for requests in Thai.
4.2.4 English dominant speaker group (ED)
The ED group consists of 34 highly fluent English speakers, 14 males and 20 females whose
ages ranged from 28 to 45 (only three of whom were over 35 years of age at the time of data
collection). Both the gender imbalance as well as the age range, which differs from the age
ranges of the other study groups, reflect the demographics of the potential participants showing
interest and willingness to participate in the study. As the reader will recall from the discussion
of the terms ânative speakerâ and ânonnative speakerâ presented in Chapter 2, these terms can be
problematic, particularly when used as a designation for English speakers. In addition to the
problematic nature of this dichotomy presented in this discussion, the term ânative English
speakerâ has problems specific to the needs of this study. This study seeks to learn more about
how the pragmatic competence of Thai learners of English develops when living in countries
where English is the primary language of communication. It should be noted, therefore, that
there is no one standard form of English, because the English language itself has a range of
dialects and varieties, several of which are represented in this study. There are also differences in
culture and norms of communication between English speaking communities. Among these
variations, the presence of highly fluent non-native English speakers cannot be overlooked, as all
of the predominately English-speaking, or inner-circle (Kachru, 1985), cultures represented in
this study contain large immigrant populations who are themselves proficient English speakers.
In order to account for the varieties of English and the realities of who communicates using
English in English-speaking countries, defining this study group not by participantsâ birthplace
64
or ethnic heritage, but rather by their English language use was deemed more desirable as a
means of approximating the norms of the learnersâ target language.
Therefore, the term âEnglish dominant speakersâ is used in this study to refer to those who are
best positioned to produce the baseline data for English requests. This includes those who might
speak other languages as their first language, but who identify English as the main language they
use in their day-to-day communication. However, language and culture cannot be separated, and
it cannot be ignored that the culture where one grew up can affect the way one uses English,
especially when cultures play a significant role in making linguistic choices. Therefore, to create
some balance between recognizing the varieties of English and the reality that to some extent
English-speaking cultures can be characterized by a common set of cultural norms, the
participants in the English dominant speaker group were not only selected on the basis of using
English as their predominant language, but also on the basis of having lived for 15 years or more
in inner circle countries where English is the primary language spoken. These are the same
countries where participants in the study abroad group have studied so that they can represent the
English-speaking cultures that the study abroad learners have experienced during their time spent
abroad. The ED participants are from five countries including United States of America (13),
Canada (10), the, the United Kingdom (7), Australia (3), and New Zealand (1). The participants
in this group produced baseline data for requests in English.
The decision to include a group of English-dominant speakers from the above-mentioned
countries to act as the target language norms in this study also reflects the prestige of these
varieties of English among Thai students. The value placed on these inner-circle English norms
in the Thai educational context is reflected in the teaching job market in Thailand, which is
biased toward native English-speaking teachers. This results in limitations for nonnative
speaking English teachers both in terms of the positions that are available to them, as well as in
terms of their pay (Bangkok Post, 2015). Such institutional bias toward native English-speaking
teachers can act to reinforce studentsâ perceptions that their language learning goals should be
centered on using English norms as their target.
4.3 Data collection instruments
English and Thai data collection instruments were used in this study, with the Thai version of
data collection instruments being translated from the original English versions. The English data
65
collection instruments were used with the ED group, SA group, and AH group, whereas the Thai
translated version was used with the NT group. Considering that each type of data collection
instrument has its own strengths and weaknesses, as observed in the literature review of several
empirical studies on speech act production, three types of data collection instruments were
judged to be appropriate and to be the best way to obtain necessary information to address the
research questions of the present study. The three types of data collection instruments used in
this study are a biodata questionnaire, an EDCT, and semi-structured interviews.
4.3.1 Biodata questionnaires
Biodata questionnaire forms were used to obtain relevant demographic information from each
group of participants. English biodata questionnaire forms were used for SA group participants,
AH group participants, and ED group participants. A Thai language biodata questionnaire was
used for participants in the NT group. The biodata questionnaire consists of basic questions
asking the participants to provide general demographic information such as the participantâs age,
gender, education level, and language learning experience, with some more specific questions
about residential history in relation to second language learning, language proficiency level, and
any other languages they may speak (see Appendices A-D).
4.3.2 Enhanced discourse completion task (EDCT)
After completing a biodata questionnaire, the participants in each group were asked to complete
an open-ended written EDCT (see Appendix E). The EDCT is divided into two sections: request
elicitation and a self-report on request production. The aims of the EDCT are to examine and
compare participantsâ linguistic choices in making requests in English and Thai as well as the
reasons for the selections of their linguistic choices. The EDCT was designed to take no more
than 45 minutes to complete, and the participants were asked to return the EDCT at a time
convenient to them.
The EDCT used in the study is an adapted version of the DCT, which has been used as a data
collection instrument in numerous cross-cultural and ILP studies (Kasper & Dahl, 1991). This
type of data collection device allows researchers to control and manipulate variables, such as
social power and social distance, in order to compare between study groups relatively easily
(Mackey & Gass, 2005). DCTs, therefore, will produce more stereotyped responses, but they
66
allow comparability among different groups because the contexts in which speech acts are
produced can be controlled. Written DCTs typically elicit a response by providing a set of
circumstances to a participant and asking the participant to write the exact words that he or she
would say in such a situation. Although DCTs have been demonstrated to elicit shorter responses
than those in naturally-occurring interactions (Beebe & Cummings, 1996) and do not allow for
turn taking, they can measure knowledge and thus, ââĶcan be thought of as measuring potential
for performance, as knowledge is arguably a necessary precondition for performanceâ
(McNamara & Roever, 2006, p. 67).
The adaptation that differentiates this studyâs EDCT from a standard DCT is that in addition to
the conventional DCT design, the EDCT also includes a section of follow-up questions designed
to provide greater context and insights into the participantsâ request-making process. In this
study, a Thai version of the EDCT was administered to the NT group, and this groupâs data were
used as a baseline to primarily examine differences between Thai and English request production
and perception as well as to identify possible incidences of L1 transfer in the English requests
made by Thai learners of English. The English version was administered to three groups of
participants â the AH, SA, and ED groups â in order to examine their request production and
perception. The ED groupâs data were used as a baseline to represent the target language of the
AH and SA groups.
The first section of the EDCT consists of nine different hypothetical situations designed to elicit
requests in different social contexts, each of which controls for the social variables of relative
power and social distance. Brown and Levinson (1987) identified three social variables â relative
power, social distance, and the absolute ranking of imposition â that influence the speakerâs
calculation of the level of the face threat. This calculation is then used to determine the degree of
politeness to use. However, all situations in this studyâs EDCT controlled only for the social
variables of relative power and social distance. The degree of imposition of a face-threatening
act (FTA) has the potential to be judged very differently between cultures and, therefore, this
social variable was studied in a different part of the EDCT. By doing this, the degree of
imposition involved in each situation was determined by the participants rather than the
researcher. However, situations deemed by the researcher to be extreme in terms of degree of
imposition were avoided. This was done in an effort to minimize the chance that differences in
degree of imposition would distort the analysis of the controlled social variables of relative
67
power and social distance. The participants were asked to write responses as they would produce
them verbally in real situations, using the language corresponding to their EDCT form, with NT
group participants writing their responses in Thai and the remaining three groups writing their
responses in English. There was no limit on the number of words used in each request. The
English EDCT questionnaire and the Thai translation of the questionnaire can be seen in
Appendix E.
The nine situations in the first section of the EDCT were designed to control for the social
variables of relative power and social distance by using three different degrees of each variable.
Three types of relative power are used in this study, which are defined by situations in which
participants are asked to make a request to a person in a higher position of social power relative
to the speaker (low-high), an equal position of social power (equal power), and a lower position
of social power relative to the speaker (high-low). For example, a situation involving the
participant in the role of a student making a request to a professor would be classified as low-
high relative power. Similarly, three types of social distance were used in the study,
characterized by the degree of familiarity between the two interlocutors (i.e., between the person
making the request and the person receiving the request). Social distance levels were defined as
close (involving a close friend and a family member), acquaintance (involving a classmate, a
teacher, and a server at a restaurant at which the speaker is a regular customer), and stranger
(people whom the requester does not know). These variables were systematically combined so
that each of the nine situations is characterized by a unique combination of two values (see Table
1). In other words, the relative power type of low-high was combined with each of the three
social distance types, creating three situations (low-high + close; low-high + acquaintance; low-
high + stranger). This process was repeated for equal power and high-low types of relative
power.
A potential weakness of comparing the results of nine situations in this section of the EDCT is
that responses at the beginning of the EDCT might receive a different level of attention than
those at the end. Some participants may, for example, spend more time writing a response to the
first situation than to the last situation due to their fatigue with completing the task. This could
potentially result in misleading results when comparing the data collected from situational
contexts found earlier in the EDCT to those found later in the EDCT. In order to prevent such a
68
bias, the order of the nine situations on the questionnaires was shuffled to create four different
EDCT forms.
Table 1
EDCT Social Variable Combinations
Situation Social Distance Relative Power
1. Asking a professor to give you permission for a late enrollment Stranger Low-high
2. Asking a stranger to allow you to cut in line for a taxi Stranger Equal
3. Asking a school child to move inside the train to let you enter Stranger High-low
4. Asking a professor to reconsider your exam score Acquaintance Low-high
5. Asking a classmate to lend you a cell phone Acquaintance Equal
6. Asking a server to bring the drink that you ordered Acquaintance High-low
7. Asking an older relative to lend you money Close Low-high
8. Asking a close friend to help you prepare for an exam Close Equal
9. Asking a younger sibling to do your housework Close High-low
The second section of the EDCT consists of four follow-up questions intended to contextualize
the responses from the first section of the EDCT by allowing participants to elaborate on their
perception of the situations and their responses. The second section includes one Likert scale
item, two short answer questions, and one binary yes-no question. Each of these items is paired
with each of the situations used in the first section of the EDCT. The Likert scale item asks the
participants to rate their perception of the degree of imposition of the requested action in the
situation. The short answer questions ask the participants to explain the factors that influenced
how they rated the degree of imposition, the factors that influenced their request and why they
chose to form their requests as they did. Finally, the yes-no question asks participants if they
have ever experienced situations similar to those which appear in the first section of the EDCT.
To ensure that the Thai and English EDCT forms were equivalent in meaning, the EDCT was
written in English and then translated to Thai by the researcher. A native Thai-speaking
translator, who is a fluent speaker of English, then back translated the EDCT into English. Then
a native English-speaking professor of English compared the original English version of the
EDCT to the back translated version in order to identify inconsistencies. Minor adjustments were
made following this procedure to address all possible inconsistencies.
Validity checks were performed by two native Thai-speaking professors of English, both of
whom have experience living in predominately English-speaking countries, and two native
English speakers, including one American and one British EFL teacher with experience living in
Thailand. Checks were made to ensure that the language used to describe the EDCT scenarios
was clear and natural. In addition, all scenarios were assessed to ensure that they were
69
reasonably possible in both Thai-speaking and English-speaking cultures and that the values
assigned to represent the social variables were reasonably consistent between the Thai and
English cultural contexts. In addition, the two native Thai-speaking professors of English and
two native English speakers checked the clarity of the interview questions. Finally, a pilot study
was conducted to further check the EDCTâs reliability and validity, with minor changes made
accordingly.
4.3.3 Interviews
Semi-structured interviews were conducted individually with a subset of five randomly selected
participants from each study group (see Appendices F-I). Each interview lasted approximately 60
minutes. With the three study groups whose native language is Thai â the NT, AH, and SA
groups â interviews were conducted in Thai in order to facilitate accurate and complete
communication. For the English dominant speaker group, interviews were conducted in English
for the same reason. Some interviews were conducted in person while others were done via
teleconference. The interviewer, who is the researcher, is a native-Thai speaker who is a
proficient speaker of English and who has approximately five years of experience living in
Canada and the United States. At the time of the interviews, the interviewer was 36 years of age.
The difference in age between the interviewer and interviewees was no more than 15 years. All
interviews were audio-recorded and selectively transcribed.
4.4 Data collection procedures
In order to test and refine the data collection instruments prior to their implementation in the
main study, a pilot study was conducted using three respondents who matched the criteria for
each study group. In the pilot study, three potential participants from the SA, AH, and ED groups
were asked to complete a pilot version of the English biodata questionnaires and English EDCT,
and one participant from each group was asked to participate in an individual interview.
Similarly, three potential participants from the NT group were asked to complete a pilot version
of the Thai biodata questionnaire and Thai EDCT, and one participant was asked to participate in
an individual interview. After the completion of the pilot study, some minor changes were made
in order to create the final versions of the data collection instruments, which were used in the
main study.
70
Following the pilot study, the data collection for the main study began. Data collection was
completed over two phases. In the first phase, the participants in each study group were asked to
complete the biodata questionnaire and the EDCT questionnaire. This first phase was completed
in approximately one month. The second phase began one week after the completion of the first
phase and was completed in approximately one month. In this phase, five randomly selected
participants from each study group participated in a semi-structure interview.
4.5 Data coding
The system of coding the request data elicited by the EDCT was based primarily on Blum-Kulka
et al.âs (1989) CCSARP coding manual. According to this coding system, several distinct
components can be distinguished within a single request utterance. First, each request utterance
contains at least one head act, which is the central component of the request utterance. A head
act is the part of the request utterance that most directly refers to the desired illocutionary act and
is the core component essential for realizing the request. Various aspects of the head act can be
manipulated by the speaker in order to modulate the impositive force and the degree of
politeness of a request, including the request strategy, request perspective, and syntactic and
lexical features. These aspects all serve as means by which to analyze a head act.
External to a requestâs head act(s), a request utterance can contain two other components:
supportive moves and alerters. An alerter is a word or brief phrase(s) that functions to get the
attention of the hearer and indicate the ensuing request (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989). Supportive
moves are utterances that, while outside of the head act itself, serve to complement the head act
by modulating the impositive force and the degree of politeness of the request. Both alerters and
supportive moves can be used to analyze a request. Finally, the position of a requestâs head act
relative to its supportive move(s) (if any) is also included in this studyâs coding system. All of
these components can be seen in the following example:
âHey buddy, can you lend me a dollar? I left my wallet at home.â
This request contains two alerters (âheyâ and âbuddyâ), one head act (âcan you lend me a
dollar?â), and one supportive move (âI left my wallet at home.â). The section below will describe
in more detail the coding system used in this study to analyze the EDCT requests and their
components.
71
4.5.1 Request perspectives
A speaker has choices with regard to how her/his request is oriented: from the viewpoint of the
speaker, the hearer, or both. That is to say, there is a difference between asking âCan I use your
pen?â and âCan you lend me your pen?â A speaker can also choose to frame her/his request in
such a way as to avoid naming the hearer. This may be done with passive voice or use of the
infinitive (e.g., âIs it possible to borrow your pen?â).
To identify the request perspective, the agent of requestive verb, or the verb that directly relates
to the desired action, is identified (see Table 2). This clarification is necessary to understand the
procedure in cases in which more than one verb is present. This includes cases in which the
requestive verb is not the main verb of a sentence, such as with requests that use embedded
structures. The following example from Blum-Kulka et al.âs (1989) CCSARP Coding Manual
shows a request with an embedded structure identified as speaker dominance perspective:
âDo you think I could borrow your notes from yesterday?â
Similarly, the example below from the present study shows an embedded structure with hearer
dominance perspective:
âIs there any way you would let me go in front of you?â
Although the clause contains the verb âgoâ, of which the speaker is the agent, the verb âletâ is the
requestive verb. The hearer is the agent associated with this verb and therefore, the request is
classified as using hearer dominance perspective.
Table 2
Request Perspectives
Perspective Example
Hearer dominance Could you lend me your notes from yesterday?
Speaker dominance Could I borrow your notes from yesterday?
Joint perspective Do you have some time when we could look at my exam?
Impersonal Would it be possible to borrow some money?
Following this coding method, a head act must have one (and no more than one) of the
perspectives listed below. Therefore, requests with multiple head acts will contain multiple
perspectives, with each perspective corresponding to a single head act. In other words,
72
identifying a request perspective involves categorizing each head according to its perspective
type. As a result, a request with two head acts would also contain two request perspectives: one
perspective for each head act.
4.5.2 Request strategies
The choice of request strategy reflects a speakerâs use of various structural and grammatical
formulations in a request, which affects the directness level of the request (see Table 3).
Table 3
Request Strategies
Strategy Description Example
Direct strategies
Mood derivable The grammatical mood of the locution conventionally
determines the force of a request. The prototypical form is
the imperative.
Please take care of all the housework during
my absence.
Explicit
performative
The illocutionary intent is explicitly named by the speaker
by using a relevant illocutionary verb.
Iâm asking you to do the housework for me.
Hedged performative
The illocutionary verb denoting the requestive intent is modified, e.g., by modal verbs or verbs expressing
intention.
I wanted to ask if you could do my house chores while I am gone.
Locution derivable The illocutionary intent is directly derivable from the semantic meaning of the locution.
You will have to do the chores all by yourself when I am gone.
Want statement The utterance expresses the speakerâs desire that the event
denoted in the proposition come about.
I would like you to help me do housework.
Expectation
statement
The emphasis of the utterance is centered on the possibility
of desired action occurring (rather than the speakerâs
desire for an action to take place). It is still a direct strategy, but less direct than a want statement.
I was hoping that you might reconsider my
exam.
Conventionally
indirect strategies
Suggestory formula The illocutionary intent is phrased as a suggestion by
means of framing a routine formula.
Maybe you could fill me in on what I missed
from class.
Preparatory The utterance contains reference to a preparatory condition
for the feasibility of the Request, typically one of ability,
willingness, or possibility, as conventionalized in the given language.
Can I borrow a couple of bucks?
Mitigated
preparatory
Preparatory expressions embedded within another clause. Do you think I could take this cab?
Mitigated wants Statements of want in hypothetical situations. If you have the time to help me study, I would
greatly appreciate it.
Unconventionally
indirect strategies
Strong hints The illocutionary intent is not immediately derivable from
the locution; however, the locution refers to relevant
elements of the intended illocution and/or propositional act.
(Intent: to get the hearer to bring a drink that
had been ordered).
I ordered a beer a little earlier.
Mild hints The locution contains no elements which are of immediate
relevance to the intended illocution or proposition, thus putting increased demand for context analysis and
knowledge activation on the interlocutor.
(Intent: to get the hearer to move inside the
train) Sorry.
73
âDirectnessâ refers to the âdegree to which the speakerâs illocutionary intent is apparent from the
locutionâ (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989, p. 278). This study mainly uses the CCSARP coding scheme
developed by Blum-Kulka et al. (1989), in which request strategies are broadly classified into
three major categories based on the degree of directness. These categories are subdivided into
nine request strategies. This study has modified this scheme to include three additional request
strategies based on the taxonomies used by Taguchi (2006) (mitigated preparatory and mitigated
want) and Tseng (2015) (expectation statement) in order to better capture the characteristics of
request strategies found in the collected data.
Each head act is characterized by a single request strategy. A single head act must have one (and
no more than one) request strategy. Therefore, requests with multiple head acts will contain
multiple request strategies, with each strategy corresponding to a single head act. In other words,
identifying a request strategy involves categorizing each head act according to its strategy. A
request with a single head act would contain one request strategy, and a request with two head
acts would contain two request strategies.
4.5.3 Internal modifications
The head act of a request can be modified internally to either mitigate or aggravate the
impositive force of the request, thus saving the hearerâs face or threatening it. According to
Blum-Kulka et al., (1989), internal modifications represent optional syntactic devices and lexical
additions. This studyâs classification system is based on that which is described in the CCSARP
coding manual (Blum-Kulka el al., 1989), which divides internal modifications into three broad
categories â syntactic downgraders, lexical/phrasal downgraders, and upgraders â defined by the
modification type (syntactic or lexical/phrasal) and their effect on the impositive force
(mitigating or aggravating) of the request (see Table 4). Downgraders have a mitigating effect on
the impositive force of a request while upgraders have an aggravating effect. The CCSARP
coding manual also describes the specific syntactic devices and lexical additions that constitute
these broad categories, and this was also used as the basis for classifying the internal
modifications in this study. In addition to the internal modification types identified in the
CCSARP coding manual, the description of consultative devices was taken from Blum-Kulka
and Olshtain (1984) and the categories of modal tense and polite particle were created in order to
74
better capture the internal modifications observed in this study. The following table shows a
definition and example for each type of internal modification described in this study:
Table 4
Internal Modifications
Category Description Example
Syntactic downgraders
Interrogative All question forms are coded as interrogative. Would you mind if I used your phone?
Conditional clause All conditional adverbial clauses are coded as conditional
clause. I would be deeply grateful to you if you
would allow me to take your course.
Embedded structure There is a use of either an embedded question or embedded statement noun phrase or noun clause relating
to the requestive verb.
Could you explain why I had such a low grade?
Aspect The durative aspect marker counts as mitigating only if it
can be substituted by a simple form. I am hoping that you might reconsider my
exam.
Tense Past tense forms are coded as downgrading only if they
are used with present time reference. I wanted to ask if you could go over what
Professor Sirima covered last week.
Modal tense Past modal tense forms are coded as downgrading only if
they are used with present time reference. This includes
the modals âcouldâ and âwouldâ.
Could I borrow your phone to make a quick
call?
Passive Voice Any use of passive voice is coded as passive voice. Is there any way I could be added to the
class?
Lexical/phrasal
downgraders
Politeness marker An optional element added to a request to bid for cooperative behavior.
Can I use your phone, please?
Polite particle An optional element added to a request that contains no
literal meaning, but rather is added to the end of an
utterance to convey politeness, without functioning
specifically as a bid for cooperation. Polite particles are a
common feature of Thai language and are not used exclusively in requests. There is no functional equivalent
to a polite particle in English.
Khaw kheun kawn dai mai kha
Beg board before can PART PART
Can I ask (you) to go first?
Understater Adverbial modifiers by means of which the speaker under-represents the state of affairs denoted in the
proposition.
Could you please move in a little bit more?
Hedge Adverbials used by a speaker when he or she wishes to avoid a precise propositional specification in order to
avoid the potential provocation of such precision.
When you have a chance, can I have a glass of water?
Subjectivizer Elements in which the speaker explicitly expresses his or her subjective opinion vis-Ã -vis the state of affairs
referred to in the proposition, thus lowering the assertive
force of his request.
I wonder if youâd mind explaining to me why I received such a low grade
Downtowner Sentential or propositional modifiers which are used by a
speaker in order to modulate the impact his or her request
is likely to have on the hearer.
Could you possibly help me?
Appealer Elements used by a speaker whenever he or she wishes to
appeal to his or her hearerâs benevolent understanding.
Appealers function to elicit a hearer signal, occur in a syntactically final position, and may signal turn-
availability. Tags are a common realization in English,
and in Thai the particle na is a common addition at the end of sentences that has the equivalent function of an
English tag.
Phom khaw keun taeksee khan nee na khrap
I beg board taxi car this PART PART
Iâm asking to use this taxi, OK?
75
Table 4
Internal Modifications (continued)
Category Description Example
Consultative device Elements by means of which the speaker seeks to involve
the hearer and bids for her/his cooperation, in addition to other strategy types. Frequently these devices are
ritualized formulae.
Would you mind if I took this taxi?
Upgraders
Intensifier Adverbial modifiers used by speakers to intensify certain
elements of the proposition the utterance. I really need that cab.
Time intensifier Adverbial modifiers used by speakers to intensify certain elements of the proposition the utterance with particular
reference to the time of a desired action.
Can you bring it now please!
4.5.4 Request structures
Request structure refers to the sequence of the request head act(s) and supportive move(s) within
a request. The most basic request comprises only a single head act and no supportive moves.
Following the description outlined in the CCSARP coding manual (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989), a
request containing a single head act with no supportive moves is categorized as âhead act onlyâ
(see Table 5). Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) also noted that requests without a requestive head act,
such as with unconventionally indirect requests (hints), the request can also be described as head
act only (HA only). Although various combinations of head act/supportive move sequences
could occur when multiple head acts are present in a request, a single category of âmultiple head
actâ was used to describe such requests. Following the guidelines provided by Blum-Kulka et al.
(1989) in the CCSARP coding manual, the only relevant components used to define a requestâs
structure are head acts and supportive moves; alerters were not considered when determining
request structure. According to alertersâ function of getting the attention of the hearer and
indicating the ensuing request, alerters must be positioned at the beginning of a request. The
position of supportive moves and head acts within a request sequence, on the other hand, is
flexible and varied. Therefore, when compared to alerters, the position of which is fixed at the
beginning of a request, the sequence of head acts and supportive moves is a better reflection of
how a speaker manipulates the request sequence in order to optimize the requestâs
appropriateness and effectiveness within the particular set of circumstances in which the request
is made. The table below shows each request structure used in this study, with head acts
italicized.
76
Table 5
Request Structures
Structure type Example
HA only Could I borrow your phone to make a short call?
HA+SM Would it be possible for you to lend me some money? Iâll pay you back in twenty minutes.
SM+HA I'm really sorry but I am late for a flight. Would you mind if I took this taxi?
SM+HA+SM Hey, I know you are super busy with work these, but would I be able to study with you for the exam? I fell pretty far behind while I was sick and you would be doing me a big favour.
Multiple HA My friends and I want to go on a trip for the week. I wanted to ask if you could do my house chores while I am gone. I
could pay you back and do your chores for the following week or pay you for doing the chores. Do you think you can help me out?
4.5.5 Alerters
Alerters are words or brief phrases that function to get the attention of the hearer and indicate the
ensuing request (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989) (see Table 6). It is possible for more than one alerter
to be present in a single request. The following request, for example, contains three alerters
(attention getter + title + name):
âGood morning, Professor Downs. I've just realized that I'm required to take this course for the
semester, but it is already closed for enrollment. Is there any way you could please accept me
into the course?â
Table 6
Alerters
Alerter type Example
Title / Role professor, teacher, ajaarn (professor)
Name John, Peterson
Honorific Address Sir, Madam, Miss, Mr., khun (sir/madam)
Endearment Term honey, sweetie, baby, thii rak (my dear)
Friendship Term mate, dude, buddy, phuean (friend)
Kinship Term Bro, sis, phii (older brother/sister), phaa (auntie), lung (uncle)
Pronoun you, kae (you), eng (you), mueng (you)
Attention Getter Hey, hi, excuse me, good morning, sawat dii (hello), heay (hey)
4.5.6 Supportive moves
Like internal modifications, supportive moves function to modulate the impositive force of a
request and can do so with either a mitigating or aggravating effect. Unlike internal
modifications, supportive moves are external to the head act, either preceding or following the
head act. One supportive move comprises a single utterance relating to the head act and, as such,
multiple supportive moves can be present within a single request. The boundaries of supportive
77
moves often correspond to the boundaries of sentences, and such is the case in the following
example, which shows five supportive moves:
âYou know how my friends are going out on this trip. I want to go, too. The problem is mom and
dad are giving me a hard time about the chores. I need you to do them for me. It's just an hour a
day. I promise to get you something nice in return.â
However, it is also possible that sentences containing multiple independent clauses could also
contain multiple supportive moves. After all, the EDCT is designed to capture spoken
communication and as such, matters relating to written sentence structure are not relevant; the
utterance is a more relevant unit with which to define supportive moves. For example, the final
two sentences in the previous example could be written as a single sentence, in which case, a
single sentence would contain two supportive moves:
âIt's just an hour a day and I promise to get you something nice in return.â
The supportive moves used in this study can be broadly classified as either mitigating supportive
moves or aggravating supportive moves. The classification of supportive moves is based on the
categories used in the CCSARP coding manual (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989) and Blum-Kulka and
Olshtain (1984). Several categories, which include small talk, self-introduction, thanking, giving
alternatives, apologizing, negative consequences, and urging, were also added in order to better
capture the modifications observed in this study. The following table (Table 7) provides a
definition and an example of the supportive moves used in this study, with the relevant
supportive move in italics:
Table 7
Supportive Moves
Category Description Example
Mitigating supportive
moves
Small talk The speaker engages the hearer with brief and often
formulaic talk that is not directly connected to the content
of the request, but which might have an effect of establishing a polite and friendly rapport before
introduction introducing his or her request.
Good Morning Mrs. Memery, how are you?
Would you mind reconsidering and
explaining to me about my exam?
Preparator The speaker prepares his or her hearer for the ensuing request by announcing that he or she will make a request,
by asking about the potential availability of the hearer for
carrying out the request, or by asking for the hearerâs permission to make the request.
I need to ask you for a favour. Would it be possible to borrow some money?
78
Table 7
Supportive Moves (continued)
Category Description Example
Getting
precommitment
In checking on a potential refusal before making his or
her request, a speaker tries to commit his or her hearer before telling him or her what he is letting himself or
herself in for.
Could you do me a favour? Can I use your
phone for a minute?
Grounder The speaker gives reasons, explanations, or justifications for his or her request.
I just realized that I donât have enough cash for the pizza. Do you have some cash I
could borrow?
Disarmer The speaker tries to remove any potential objections that the hearer might raise upon being confronted with the
request.
I know youâre busy, but can you bring over my drink when you have a sec?
Self-introduction The speaker gives information about himself or herself to the hearer, especially when this information establishes a
relevance for the speakerâs request.
My name is John and Iâm a fourth-year student. I was really hoping you would
consider letting me enroll in your class.
Promise of a reward To increase the likelihood of the hearerâs compliance with the speakerâs request, a reward due on fulfillment of
the request, is announced.
I was wondering when you have some time to meet and share your notes. I can treat you
to lunch or coffee.
Imposition minimizer The speaker tries to reduce the imposition placed on the hearer by his request.
Would you mind if I used your phone to make a quick call? It'll just be a second.
Sweetener By expressing exaggerated appreciation of the hearerâs
ability to comply with the request, the speaker lowers the imposition involved.
Could you help me study? You really know
this stuff.
Thanking The speaker expresses thanks or appreciation for the hearerâs presumed compliance with the request.
Is there any way youâd be willing to let me go before you? Iâd really appreciate it.
Giving alternatives The speaker introduces various ways by which the hearer
could comply with the request, ostensibly to provide convenience to the hearer.
Is there any way I can still enroll even
though I missed the official enrollment period? Or maybe there is a waiting list?
Apologizing The speaker expresses a general regret or apologies to the
hearer for the imposition caused by the request.
Iâm really sorry to bother you, but could I
borrow some money to pay for the food
delivery?
Aggravating supportive
moves
Negative
consequences
I may miss my fight if I do not get this cab.
Can I take this taxi?
Urging I want you to take care of my housework for me. Pretty please?
4.5.7 EDCT qualitative data
Of the four follow-up questions in the second part of the EDCT, two questions are open-ended
(see Appendix E). The first open-ended question (question 1) produced qualitative data which
concerned the participants' perceptions of the factors they took into accounts when making each
of their requests in section 1 of the EDCT. The second open-ended question (question 3) relates
to the reasons for the participantsâ rating of the degree of imposition for each of the requested
actions in section 1 of the EDCT.
79
Microsoft Word and Excel were used in coding the qualitative data obtained from these two
questions. These data were in the form of text. The first step in the coding process began with
preparing the data by compiling all responses to these two questions in Word document files.
Then an initial reading was undertaken to identify themes and develop a coding system.
Categories for question 1, for example, consisted of the various factors that participants indicated
impacted their choices when making requests, such as the hearerâs position as a professor, the
time constraints of the hearer, and the potential for offense. As Mackey and Gass (2005) explain,
ââĶthe schemes for qualitative coding generally emerge from the data rather than being decided
on and preimposed prior to the data being collected or coded (p. 241)â. In order to systematically
process the data and account for the identified categories, a second reading of the responses was
undertaken. This time, data were coded by highlighting the words, phrases, or sentences within
each response that related to one of the identified categories. At this time, the system of
categories was refined and amended to better reflect and include all reasons indicated by the
participants. Each highlighted component was labeled using the comment function of Microsoft
Word. After the coding was completed, DocTools ExtractData, a Microsoft Word tool that
allows users to extract comments from an active Word document, was used to transfer the coded
data to a new Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The new spreadsheet, comprising the extracted data,
included two sortable columns: one column included the text from the participantsâ responses
and the other column consisted of the labels corresponding to each response. These columns
could then be sorted according to categories, which allowed for similarly coded responses to be
grouped together and counted. Frequencies were noted and further trends were identified with
the categorized and grouped responses.
4.6 Inter-rater reliability
In order to ensure the validity of the data coding process, inter-rater reliability checks were
conducted by two raters. Inter-rater reliability is âa measure of whether two or more raters judge
the same set of data in the same wayâ (Mackey & Gass, 2005, p. 129). One rater was a native
Thai-speaking professor specializing in English-Thai translation and linguistics. The other rater
was a native English-speaking lecturer who is an advanced speaker of Thai. The coded data from
part one of the EDCT were taken from a random sample of five of the thirty-four EDCT forms
from each study group (representing 14.7% of the total EDCT forms for each group) and coded
by each rater. An agreement rate was calculated by dividing the number of observations agreed
80
upon by the total number of observations (Orwin, 1994). The result was an agreement rate of
88% between the researcher and the native-Thai speaking inter-rater and an agreement rate of
92% between the researcher and the native-English speaking inter-rater. Each instance of coding
discrepancy was discussed and nearly every case resulted in a code matching the researcherâs
initial assignment.
4.7 Data analysis
After the request response data from the first section of the EDCT were coded, both descriptive
and inferential data analyses were used. Because the data produced by section one of the EDCT
consist of both nominal and ratio-scale data, the analysis methods employed were dependent
upon the aspect of the request. Request perspective, for example, involved categorizing each
head act by its perspective type. Each head act must have one perspective and cannot have more
than one perspective; if a head act is classified as âhearer dominance, it cannot also be classified
as âspeaker dominanceâ. Therefore, the data collected for request perspective are nominal scale,
or categorical data. Similarly, each head act can also be categorized by its request strategy and
each request can be categorized by its structure. For this nominal scale data, descriptive analysis
involved calculating percentages. For request perspective and request strategy, this involves
calculating the percentages of head acts representing each category of perspective and strategy.
For request structure, the descriptive data analysis involves calculating the percentage of requests
represented by each category of request structure. Inferential statistical analysis of the nominal
scale data uses chi-square analysis, which was conducted to determine the degree of similarity
and difference between the four study groupsâ use of various request perspectives, strategies, and
structures. A chi-square test is a nonparametric test often used with nominal scale data. Chi-
square tests were initially performed to identify the degree of difference between the four study
groups. When statistically significant differences were identified, a post-hoc analysis, also using
chi-square tests, was performed in order to determine which pair-wise comparisons yielded
statistically significant differences.
While the aforementioned aspects of requests involved categorizing each head act and request
according to a single categorical type, other aspects of request involved observing frequencies of
various features within a single head act or request. For example, internal modifications are
features that can be observed multiple times or not at all within a single head act. It is possible
81
for a head act to contain multiple types of modifications and/or multiple occurrences of the same
type of modification within a head act. For example, a head act might contain two tense
modifications and one aspect modification. Therefore, the data collected for internal
modifications are ratio scale data. Likewise, the data collected for supportive moves and alerters
are also ratio scale because multiple occurrences (or no occurrences) of these features can be
observed within a single request. For ratio scale data, descriptive data analysis involved
calculating the average number of times that a particular feature is observed within the relevant
unit, which is either a head act or a request. With internal modifications, for example, this ratio
was calculated by observing the average number of each modification type per head act. For
supportive moves and alerters, the ratio was calculated by observing the average number of times
these features occurred per request. An average of each ratio is used to represent these features of
each study groupâs requests. Inferential statistical analysis of the ratio scale data was performed
by using Kruskal-Wallis and Dunnâs Tests, which were conducted to determine the degree of
similarity and difference between the four study groupsâ use of various types of internal
modifications, supportive moves, and alerters. A Kruskal-Wallis Test is a nonparametric test
used when parametric test assumptions are not met. It was determined that these assumptions
were not met after implementing the Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests, which showed that the data
were not normally distributed. Kruskal-Wallis tests were initially performed to identify the
degree of difference between the four study groups. When statistically significant differences
were identified by Kruskal-Wallis Tests, a post-hoc analysis using Dunnâs Tests was performed
in order to determine which pair-wise comparisons yielded statistically significant differences.
For both types of data, nominal scale and ratio scale, inferential data analysis involved multiple
stages of testing. After the respective inferential data analysis of the entire data set was
conducted for each type of data, the aggregated data sets controlling for the social variables of
social distance and relative power were undertaken. Because this analysis involved multiple
comparisons, a conservative alpha level of <.01 was set in order to minimize the likelihood of
false positive results (type 1 errors).
Data from the second part of the EDCT were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. The
quantitative data from the second section of the EDCT include one 5-point Likert scale item and
one yes/no question. The Likert scale item was analyzed descriptively by comparing the average
ratings given by each group. Inferential statistical analysis of the Likert scale item was also
82
conducted by comparing the average ratings given by each group and using an alpha of <.01.
When statistically significant differences were identified by Kruskal-Wallis Tests, a post-hoc
analysis using Dunnâs Tests was performed in order to determine which pair-wise comparisons
yielded statistically significant differences. The yes/no question was analyzed by comparing the
percentages of yes and no answers between the study groups. The qualitative data from the
second part of the EDCT involve open-ended short answer data, which were sorted and
categorized using keywords such as age, status, and power to determine those factors that the
participants consider when making requests and their underlying reasons for the choice of their
requests. Responses were grouped by item so that comments and observations could be in the
margins. The goal was to locate specific data during intensive analysis. Then patterns that
emerged from the data of each group were identified.
Data from the interviews were selectively transcribed (Mackey & Gass, 2005). Because the aim
of using interviews in this study is to gain insights into how the participants perceive their
English pragmatic development in relation to their learning environment rather than conduct
conversation analysis, only parts of the interview that were seen as important, relevant to the
research questions, and interesting were transcribed. After the transcriptions from the interviews
were completed, they were read repeatedly, and sorted according to the interview questions.
Patterns that emerged from the data were identified.
4.8 Chapter summary
This study aims to investigate the relationship between study abroad and the development of
pragmatic competence by Thai learners of English. In order to understand this phenomenon, this
study investigated five major research questions that involved comparing four study groups. One
study group comprised Thai learners of English with study abroad experience while another
group consisted of Thai learners of English with no study abroad experience. Two additional
study groups were used: one to represent speakers of the learnersâ native language, Thai, and
another to represent the learnersâ target language, English. Both qualitative and quantitative
research methods were used in the form of semi-structured interviews and an EDCT, which
included a standard DCT as well as a second section with follow-up questions. EDCT request
responses were coded using a coding system based primarily on Blum-Kulka et al.âs (1989)
CCSARP coding manual, and statistical analyses of this data were subsequently undertaken. The
83
purpose of using this mixed methods approach was to provide additional context and a better
understanding of the perspective of participants on their own request formations.
84
Chapter 5 Request Data Analysis and Discussion
This chapter presents the findings and discussion for the first section of the EDCT, which is the
principle data collection instrument used in this study. The data obtained from the first section of
the EDCT are quantitative data derived from coding the participantsâ request responses. The
findings and discussion of the data combined from the nine situations of the EDCT will be
divided according to the six main request aspects analyzed in this study: request perspectives,
request strategies, internal modifications, request structures, alerters, and supportive moves. For
each of these sections, a consideration of relative power and social distance is also included. This
chapter concludes with a summary of the key findings from the data from the first section of the
EDCT.
5.1 Request perspectives
5.1.1 Choice of request perspectives
Participants used a variety of request perspectives to form their requests. Table 8 captures all
four study groupsâ choices of perspectives used in all nine situations combined to see general
patterns between groups. As can be seen, hearer dominance was the most preferred perspective
for each of the four participant groups (e.g., Could you bring me the drink I ordered, please? â
AH participant). The learner groups (AH and SA) used hearer dominance at a very similar rate to
one another (64.49% and 60.68%, respectively), which is considerably more frequent than that of
the NT (48.63%) and ED (49.22%) groups, who themselves had very similar rates. Statistical
analysis by chi-square with an alpha of <.01 showed that the AH group used hearer dominance
perspective significantly more than did both the NT group, 2 (1, N = 367) = 16.612, p =<.001,
and the ED group, 2 (1, N = 365) = 15.246, p =<.001. The other learner group, SA, also used
hearer dominance perspective significantly more than did the NT group, 2 (1, N = 356) =
12.731, p =<.001, and the ED group, 2 (1, N = 354) = 15.246, p =.003. There was no significant
difference between the learner groups (AH and SA), and similarly, there was no significant
difference between the baseline language groups (NT and ED).
85
Table 8
Distribution of Request Perspectives Used in All Nine Situations
Perspectives NT
(n=329)
AH
(n=321)
SA
(n=323)
ED
(n=321)
Hearer Dominance 48.63% 64.49% 60.68% 49.22% Speaker Dominance 44.07% 30.53% 31.58% 36.14%
Joint Perspective 0.00% 0.00% 0.93% 2.80%
Impersonal 7.29% 4.98% 6.81% 11.84%
Speaker dominance was the second most used perspective by every group (e.g., Can I use your
phone to make a quick call? â ED participant). The NT group (44.07%) represented an outlier,
using it more than every other group. However, the chi-square analyses indicated the NT groupâs
more frequent use of speaker dominance perspective was only statistically significant when
compared to the AH group, 2 (1, N = 243) = 12.731, p =<.001, and the SA group,
2 (1, N =
243) = 12.731, p =.001. There were no significant differences found among comparisons
between the AH, SA, and ED groups.
Joint perspective was infrequently used (e.g., Could we go over things for the exam together? â
ED speaker), with the ED group using it the most frequently (2.80%) followed by the SA group
(0.93%). The AH and NT groups did not use this perspective at all. Analysis by chi-square
showed the ED groupâs use of joint perspective was significantly more than the NT group, 2 (1,
N = 9) = 9.354, p =.002, and the AH group, 2 (1, N = 9) = 9.128, p =.004. A similar pattern was
observed with impersonal perspective (e.g., Is it possible to take this course at this time? â SA
speaker). The ED group (11.84%) used impersonal perspective more than did any other group,
and this difference was statistically significant when compared to the AH group, 2 (1, N = 243)
= 12.731, p =.002. There were no statistically significant differences between any other groups
with this perspective.
The findings reveal a pattern in which the two learner groups (AH and SA) were very similar to
one another in terms of how often they used each type of request perspective. However, there
were considerable differences between the learner groups and the baseline language groups (NT
and ED) with respect to the use of hearer dominance and speaker dominance perspectives, which
made up the majority of the requests when combined (between 85% to 95% of each groupâs
requests). The hearer dominance perspective was used significantly more by the learner groups
than by the baseline language groups. With speaker dominance, the opposite trend was observed;
the baseline language groups used this perspective more than did the learner groups, with the
difference between both learner groups and the NT group at a level of statistical significance.
86
To some extent, both learner groups deviated from the norms of ED speakers in their use of
hearer dominance and speaker dominance perspectives. However, the data suggest that L1
transfer cannot account for these differences because the NT and ED groups used hearer
dominance at nearly the same rate. In addition, the NT group used speaker dominance more than
did the ED group while the learner groups used it less, which suggests that the learner groupsâ
underuse of speaker dominance perspective was not the result of generalizing a convention from
their L1.
An alternative explanation for the learnersâ heavy use of hearer dominance requests could be the
effects of âtraining transferâ, or the influence of explicit English instruction that the learners
received in school (Odlin, 1989). Mohammadi and Saâd (2014) concluded that the preference for
hearer dominance requests by Iranian EFL students could be explained by their exposure to
hearer dominance request forms in their initial EFL learning. This conclusion is consistent with
the findings of UsÃģ-Juanâs (2008) survey of English language teaching textbooks, which found
that requests using hearer dominance requests focusing on the hearerâs ability or willingness to
comply with the request were overused in textbook presentations of requests. Similarly, the basic
forms and expressions in making requests presented in most examples in English textbooks for
Thai EFL learners are typically hearer dominance (i.e., Can youâĶ? or Could youâĶ?).
Therefore, it may be in the current data that the Thai learners (like the Iranian learners in
Mohammadi and Saâdâs study) were relying more on using the familiar forms they learned early
and often in their English education.
This explanation is complicated, though, by the understanding of requests described by Blum-
Kulka et al. (1989), who suggested that the avoidance of naming the hearer âas the principle
performer of the action serves to soften the impact of the impositionâ (p. 203). Therefore, it is
somewhat surprising that the hearer dominance perspective was also the most used perspective
of the baseline language groups, who were presumably not limited by their fluency or familiarity
with various forms in their respective languages.
Interestingly, many of the requests that were not hearer dominance were observed in two
situations (situations 5 and 7) that involved a choice of using the verbs âborrowâ and âlendâ. In
these situations, the frequent use of âborrowâ, which produces a speaker dominance response,
was observed in every study group. According to Leech (1983), the use of âborrowâ can make a
87
request âmarginally more politeâ than a request using âlendâ because it avoids naming the hearer
(p. 134). However, Ogiermann (2009b) argues that Leechâs proposition should not be taken as a
universal, as cultures that value directness may see speaker dominance requests as manipulative.
Ogiermannâs study demonstrates the differences these cultural values have on request
perspective by showing a strong preference by English speakers for speaker dominance requests
and an overwhelming use of hearer dominance requests by Polish and Russian speakers.
While differences in Thai and English speakersâ cultural values related to directness were
observed in other aspects of the data, which will be discussed later, they did not appear to be a
factor in the choice of the verbs âborrowâ and âlendâ. This choice of âborrowâ and âlendâ
appeared in two situations: situation 5 (borrowing a cell phone from a classmate) and situation 7
(borrowing money from an older relative). The data showed that the speaker-oriented verb
âborrowâ (âyuemâ [āļĒāļĄ] in Thai) was used considerably more often than the hearer-oriented verb
âlendâ (âhai yuemâ [āđāļŦāļĒāļĄ] in Thai) by every study group, whether using the English language
EDCT (AH, SA, and ED) (see examples 1-2, showing âborrowâ and 3-4 showing âlendâ) or the
Thai language EDCT (NT) (see examples 5-6). Interestingly, the NT group used the speaker-
oriented verb âyuemâ (borrow) in all but one of the responses in situation 7.
(1) Could I borrow some money from you? (SA, situation 7)
(2) Could I please borrow some money to pay for the food? (ED, situation 7)
(3) Can you lend me a few quid and I'll pay you back tomorrow? (ED, situation 7)
(4) Can you lend me some money for pizza? (AH, situation 7)
(5) āļāļĒāļēāļāļāļ°āļāļāļĒāļĄāđāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļāļāļŦāļāļāļĒāļāļ° yak cha kho yuem ngoen khun a sak noi kha
want will ask borrow money Mr. uncle about a little (polite particle) (NT, situation
7)
(6) āļŦāļāļāļāļĒāļĄāđāļāļāļŦāļāļāļĒāđāļāđāļŦāļĄāļāļ° nu kho yuem ngoen noi dai mai kha
I ask borrow money a little can (question particle) (polite particle) (NT, situation 7)
In addition to similarities in the way these Thai and English verbs orient the request perspective,
these verbs also appear to correlate semantically. Blum-Kulka and Levenston (1987)
88
demonstrated an overgeneralization of the verbs âgiveâ and âhaveâ by Israeli ESL learners in
contrast to the native English-speaking norms of using âborrowâ and âlendâ. In contrast, the use
of âborrowâ and âlendâ correlate in meaning closely to the Thai verbs âyuemâ and âhai yuemâ. The
similarities between the Thai and English use of these verbs, both in terms of request perspective
and meaning, appear to minimize negative L1 transfer. It should be noted that in situation 7, the
verb âlendâ (and âhai yuemâ [āđāļŦāļĒāļĄ] in Thai) appears in the EDCT request prompt. Despite the
presence of this hearer-oriented verb in the request prompt, participants from all study groups
preferred the speaker-oriented verb âborrowâ (âyuemâ [āļĒāļĄ] in Thai) in this situation. The prompt
for situation 5, however, included neither âborrowâ nor âlendâ, and instead the more neutral verb
âuseâ (âchaiâ [āđāļ] in Thai) appeared in the prompt. Despite the absence of the word âborrowâ in
the prompt for situation 5, participants from all study groups still demonstrated an overwhelming
preference for this verb.
Excluding the hearer dominance perspective and focusing on the less direct, more mitigating
perspectives, it can be seen that speaker dominance was preferred by a large margin over joint
perspective and impersonal requests by every study group. It is notable, however, that the ED
group appears to show greater variety in their choices of these types of request perspectives
when compared to the other three study groups.
Initially, when considering the CCSARP coding manualâs description for the impersonal
perspective, it was expected that the ED speakers would use this perspective more than the other
study groups because passive voice is not used as much in Thai as it is in English, and its use in
Thai is normally associated specifically with negative events (Smyth, 2002). However, the use of
passive voice was extremely rare in the requests of all groups. Similarly, impersonal pronouns,
such as âsomeoneâ and âanyoneâ, which were also used in the CCSARP coding manualâs
description of impersonal perspective requests, did not appear in the collected data.
Instead of being implemented by the use of passive voice and impersonal subject pronouns, as
suggested by Blum-Kulka et al. (1989), nearly all of the impersonal perspective requests in the
data came in the form of hints by every study group. These requests tended to be characterized
by the presence of enough context that the requester could make the request easily understood
without explicitly referring to the desired action, and therefore, without mentioning the agent of
89
the desired action. For example, situation 3 involves a request to a school child to make space so
that the speaker can enter the train. In another situation, the speaker wants the server in a
restaurant to bring a drink that had already been ordered (see examples 7-8, showing hints coded
as impersonal perspective).
(7) Excuse me, sorry, I never got my Diet Coke. (ED, situation 6)
(8) āļāļĒāļāđāļĄāđāļāļ āļēāđāļĨāļĒāļāļ° phi yang mai dai nam loei na
older sibling still not receive water at all (particle) (NT, situation 6)
Explaining the use of this type of request (example 7), a participant from the ED group
explained, âIâd think (the server) probably forgot because theyâre busy and I donât want to take
up their time.â The pressure of time has been demonstrated to influence request perspectives,
prompting requests favoring clarity over indirectness (Mills, 1991). It can be concluded that, for
some speakers, referring to the desired object can be as clear and direct as referring to the desired
action in the request. Therefore, it should not be assumed that impersonal perspective is
necessarily used only in order to soften the impact of the request by making it more indirect. In
these high context situations, this type of impersonal perspective request, referring to the desired
object, might be used for the sake of fast and efficient communication.
In the restaurant situation and throughout the data, the SA and AH learner groups consistently
used impersonal requests less and hearer dominance requests more often than did the ED group
(see examples 9-10).
(9) Could you bring me a drink, please? (AH, situation 6)
(10) Would you mind bringing me a glass of water when you have free time? (SA,
situation 6)
Faerch and Kasper (1989) noted that language learners tend to âadhere to the conversational
principle of clarity, choosing explicit, transparent unambiguous means of expression rather than
implicit, opaque and ambiguous realizationsâ (p. 233).
In high context situations, the ED group showed more flexibility in their requests by formulating
their requests in ways that would be clearly understood yet that were unconventional. However,
the learner groups tended to realize these requests by âplaying it safeâ and using more
90
conventional and familiar request forms. For the learner groups, the use of conventional requests
forms (e.g., Can youâĶ?, Could youâĶ?) provides an unambiguous signal that a request is being
made. For ED group participants, such a signal was unnecessary and may actually be a less
efficient way of communicating the request in a high context situation.
As for joint perspective, the use of âweâ or âus,â which is a type of a positive politeness strategy
suggested by Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987), was rarely found in the data. It was used very
infrequently by the ED and SA groups, and not used at all by the NT and AH groups. What
might account for this phenomenon is that, while including both the hearer and speaker in an
activity can highlight solidarity, most of the contexts in the hypothetical situations in the EDCT
were not set up for an action that could be performed by both the hearer and speaker (e.g., asking
a professor to allow enrollment in a course after the deadline, asking someone to move inside the
train, borrowing a classmateâs cell phone, asking a server for the drink the requester had ordered,
borrowing money from a relative, and asking a sibling to do the housework while the speaker is
gone).
While the differences between the two learner groups were not statistically significant, the SA
groupâs use of each perspective was consistently more similar to that of the ED group than was
that of the AH group in terms of the percentages that each request perspective comprised of the
total number of requests. Compared to the AH group, the SA group demonstrated a greater
variety of use, perhaps revealing a trend of greater flexibility in their use of requests. This could
represent a positive impact, albeit a minimal impact, of the study abroad experience on the
learnersâ sociopragmatic and/or pragmalinguistic development.
5.1.2 Relative power
Figure 1 displays the perspective choices of the four study groups according to the relative power
between the speaker and hearer. As can be seen, in situations involving low-high and high-low
relative power, hearer dominance was the most used perspective by every study group. In equal
power situations, speaker dominance perspective was favored by every study group, while hearer
dominance was the second most used perspective. Aside from high-low situations, in which
impersonal perspectives was the second most used perspective by every study group, impersonal
and joint perspective request head acts were infrequently used.
91
AH group participants used hearer dominance more than any other group when controlling for all
three relative power types; however, a statistical analysis showed that there were no significant
differences between the AH groupâs use of this perspective and that of any other group. The NT
group used speaker dominance perspective more than every other group when controlling for all
three types of relative power. However, this difference was only statistically significant in high-
low situations, with the NT group using speaker dominance perspective significantly more than
the AH group, 2 (1, N = 21) = 10.399, p =.001. No statistically significant differences between
groups were observed in any power relation type with the joint and impersonal perspectives.
It was expected that the relative power of the hearer would positively correlate with the need for
greater mitigation, which might be seen in the form of a greater degree of indirectness. In terms
of request perspective, shifting the focus away from the hearerâs performance of the requested
action has been associated with the softening of a requestâs impositive force (Biesenbach-Lucas,
2007; Blum-Kulka et al., 1989). Therefore, it would be expected that there would be more hearer
dominant requests observed in high-low situations than in low-high situations. Indeed, this was
the case with all study groups. However, the fact that all study groups used hearer dominance the
least in equal power situations suggests other factors may have interacted with relative power to
influence the selection of request perspective.
The fact that all four study groups displayed this same pattern was, in itself, quite unexpected.
Social hierarchy is a central feature of Thai culture and one that distinguishes it from English-
speaking cultures (see, for example, Kirch, 1973; Klausner, 1993; Gullette, 2014). According to
Kirch (1973), âthere are virtually no social roles nor interactions among Thai that do not carry
some connotations of hierarchical difference in statusâĶâ (p. 195). It was, therefore, expected
that the variable of relative power would have a stronger effect on the perspective choice of the
NT group, and perhaps the two learner groups, than it would on the ED group. However, this
was not observed in the data relating to perspective choice.
92
Figure 1. Distribution of request perspectives used in situations controlling for relative power.
One explanation for these unexpected results could be that the NT group did not rely on
perspective to capture relative power between speaker and hearer but instead, did so through the
use of other mitigating tools in the form of honorific language, which are available in Thai and
not in English. Thai language possesses a wide range of pronouns that can indicate gender,
family relationships, and occupations â many of the factors that weigh heavily in the
construction of social hierarchy (Smyth, 2002). Pronouns can also be manipulated to show the
social status of the speaker in relation to that of the hearer, as well as the perceived intimacy of
the speaker and hearer (Vongvipanond, 1994). In addition, as discussed in the description of the
66
.96
%
84
.31
%
77
.57
%
70
.37
%
16
.07
%
2.9
4%
11
.21
%
7.4
1%
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
16
.96
%
12
.75
%
11
.21
%
22
.22
%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
NT AH SA ED
High-low
Hearer Dominance
Speaker Dominance
Joint
Impersonal
29
.63
%
47
.22
%
45
.10
%
32
.04
%
68
.52
%
52
.78
%
52
.94
%
61
.17
%
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
0.9
8%
4.8
5%
1.8
5%
0.0
0%
0.9
8%
1.9
4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
NT AH SA ED
Equal
Hearer Dominance
Speaker Dominance
Joint
Impersonal
48
.62
%
63
.06
%
58
.77
%
44
.55
%
48
.62
%
34
.23
%
31
.58
%
40
.91
%
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
1.7
5%
3.6
4%
2.7
5%
2.7
0%
7.8
9%
10
.91
%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
NT AH SA ED
Low-high
Hearer Dominance
Speaker Dominance
Joint
Impersonal
93
present studyâs coding methodology, the subject and object of a sentence are typically omissible
in Thai language, so a Thai speaker can avoid using pronouns altogether when making a request.
Thus, the inclusion and selection of a Thai pronoun in a request may reflect the speakerâs attempt
to articulate the relationship between speaker and hearer. Despite its potential importance as a
mitigating (or aggravating) tool in request-making, this characteristic of Thai language may not
be captured when coding request perspectives.
A closer look at the Thai requests shows that the pronoun choice, whether intentional or not,
acknowledged the power dynamic between the speaker and hearer in low-high situations. The
pronoun ânuâ (āļŦāļ, âIâ) appeared extensively in all low-high situations. âNuâ, literally meaning
âmouseâ, is often used to refer to young children, but can also be used, typically by females, to
convey oneâs own age and lower status to a hearer (see examples 11-12, asking a professor to
add to a class after the deadline, and 13, asking an older relative to borrow money).
(11) āļŦāļāļĢāļāļāļ§āļāļāļēāļāļēāļĢāļĒāđāļŦāļŦāļāļĨāļāđāļāļĢāļēāļĒāļ§āļāļēāļāđāļāđāļŦāļĄāļāļ° nu ropkuan achan hai nu long nai rai wicha ni dai mai kha
I bother professor give me enroll in subject this can (question particle) (polite
particle) (NT, situation 1)
(12) āļāļēāļŦāļāļāļ°āļāļāļāļāļāļēāļāļĨāļāļāļāļāļ āļāļēāļāļēāļĢāļĒāļāļ°āļāļāļāļēāļāđāļŦāļĄāļāļ° tha nu cha kho anuyat long ton ni achan cha anuyat mai kha
if I will ask permission enroll now professor will permit (question particle) (polite
particle) (NT, situation 1)
(13) āļŦāļāļāļāļĒāļĄāđāļāļāļāļāļāļēāđāļāļāļēāļĒāļāļēāļāļēāļŦāļēāļĢāļāļāļāđāļāđāļŦāļĄāļāļ° nu kho yuem ngoen khun pa pai chai kha ahan kon dai mai kha
I ask borrow money Mrs. aunt go pay fee food first can (question particle) (polite
particle) (NT, situation 7)
In addition to pronouns referring to the speakerâs lower status in low-high situations, pronouns
reflecting the hearerâs higher position were also common. University professors are highly
respected and occupy a high position in the Thai social hierarchy (Suphawong, as cited in Ockey,
2005). Two of the low-high situations involved a request to a professor, and the term âachanâ
(āļāļēāļāļēāļĢāļĒ, professor), the occupational title for university professors, was used as a pronoun in
nearly every request in place of a neutral âyouâ pronoun (e.g., 11-12). Similarly, age-based
hierarchy is an important component of the Thai family social structure (Howard, 2007). In the
94
low-high situation involving a request to an older family member, kinship terms, such as âlungâ
(āļĨāļ, âuncleâ) and âpaâ (āļāļē, âauntâ) were often used as pronouns in place of a neutral âyouâ pronoun
or the hearerâs name (e.g., 13). The use of these honorific second person pronouns can act to
soften a hearer dominance request in Thai in a way that is not possible in English.
English request perspectives can normally be characterized as having an âIâ, âyouâ, âweâ, or
impersonal orientation. In contrast, Thai speakers have flexibility when selecting pronouns as the
choice of pronouns can change the framing of the request by acknowledging the relative power
of its interlocutors. Because choice of pronouns in Thai changes how the speaker and hearerâs
roles are framed within a request, this linguistic feature performs the same function as request
perspective. An understanding of request perspective in Thai requests (and by extension, an
understanding of the language background of Thai learners of English) is incomplete without a
consideration of the use of honorific pronouns.
On the surface, the data appear to suggest a similar influence of the relative power variable
between the baseline language groups. However, a more in-depth consideration shows that the
NT group participants used other ways besides request perspective to frame the roles of the
hearer and speaker within the request in a way to show deference or politeness to those in a
higher social position. With the ability to manipulate the request with the inclusion and selection
of pronouns, the importance of request perspective as a mitigating device may be minimized for
Thai speakers. If so, it appears that this did not negatively impact the learner groupsâ abilities to
manipulate their use of request perspective in response to the various contexts involving different
levels of relative power. Despite the learner groupsâ lack of access to this important feature of
their L1 when making English requests, both learner groupsâ responses to the variable of relative
power were comparable to that of the ED group as measured by request perspective.
5.1.3 Social distance
Figure 2 presents the findings for social distance for all four study groups, showing that hearer
dominance was used in the majority of request head acts involving close social relationships,
followed by speaker dominance. The perspectives used in situations involving close relationships
were the least varied in terms of distribution between the four perspectives; hearer dominance
perspective was observed in more than 60% of the request head acts of every study group. In
95
addition, close situations were also characterized by the lack of differences between study
groups. The distribution of request perspectives was relatively similar between all study groups,
and an analysis using chi-square revealed no statistical differences between the study groups.
Situations involving acquaintances showed more variety in terms of each groupâs distribution of
request perspective, with speaker and hearer dominance representing comparable proportion of
each groupâs request perspectives. No perspective type made up a majority of any groupâs
request head acts, with the exception of the AH groupâs (55.86%) use of hearer dominance. The
AH group used hearer dominance more than every other group, but this difference was only
statistically significant when compared to the ED group, 2 (1, N = 94) = 13.733, p =<.001.
Acquaintance situations were also characterized by the greatest use of impersonal request head
acts by every group.
With requests to strangers, the NT group was an outlier, using speaker dominance perspective
considerably more than the other study groups. This difference was statistically significant when
comparing the NT group with the AH group, 2 (1, N = 97) = 14.048, p =<.001, the SA group,
2
(1, N = 99) = 12.328, p =<.001, and the ED group, 2 (1, N = 104) = 7.042, p =.008. All other
groups used hearer dominance most often, followed by speaker dominance. The greatest use of
hearer dominance was by the AH group, which used this perspective significantly more than the
NT group, 2 (1, N = 120) = 12.391, p =<.001. In addition, the SA group used hearer dominance
perspective significantly more than the NT group, 2 (1, N = 115) = 7.477, p =.006. Impersonal
request head acts were infrequently used by every group in stranger situations, and joint
perspective request head acts were not used by any study group.
Similar to the expectation of relative powerâs influence on the directness of requests, it was
expected that a greater degree of social distance would positively correlate with a greater degree
of indirectness. Taken together with the aforementioned notion that hearer dominance
perspective represents the most direct request perspective (Biesenbach-Lucas, 2007; Blum-Kulka
et al., 1989), it might be predicted that hearer dominance perspective would be observed the most
in situations involving close relationships and least in those involving requests to strangers, with
requests involving acquaintances falling somewhere in between the two. This expectation held
true, with all study groups using the most hearer dominance perspective requests in situations
characterized by close social relationships. However, the data from situations involving strangers
96
and acquaintances did not follow the expected trend with the data collected from the three groups
completing an English EDCT (the AH, SA, and ED groups). With these groups, hearer
dominance appeared at a higher rate in situations involving strangers than in those involving
acquaintances. Looking beyond the aggregated data sets to the data from individual situations
reveals that one situation involving strangers, situation 3 (asking to get on the train), is
disproportionally represented by hearer dominance perspective. This perspective represented
between 75.00% (ED) to 85.71% (SA) of the total request head acts of these groups. In this
situation, the speaker must make a request that is time sensitive â presumably the speaker has
only a few seconds to make her/his request. Therefore, the use of hearer-oriented perspective
may reflect the need for pragmatic clarity taking precedence over the desire for indirectness in
making a request to a stranger. It should also be noted that the NT groupâs use of hearer
dominance in this situation (in 70.45% of all request head acts) was consistent with this trend.
The aforementioned findings for situations involving strangers and acquaintances highlight
differences in the use of perspective between the learner groups and the ED group because in
these situations, the ED group tended to use a greater variety of request perspectives, while the
learner groups tended to rely more heavily on hearer dominance perspective requests. However,
there was also a general trend in these situations in which the SA groupâs distribution of request
perspective types conformed somewhat more closely to the ED norms than that of the AH group.
This suggests some degree of pragmatic development of the SA group participants toward ED
norms in the situations that were expected to involve a greater need for speakers to mitigate their
requests.
97
Figure 2. Distribution of request perspectives used in situations controlling for social distance.
65
.05
%
72
.82
%
75
.96
%
66
.06
%
33
.01
%
26
.21
%
22
.12
%
26
.61
%
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
0.9
6%
4.5
9%
1.9
4%
0.9
7%
0.9
6%
2.7
5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
NT AH SA ED
Close Relationship
Hearer Dominance
Speaker Dominance
Joint
Impersonal
40
.19
%
55
.86
%
46
.85
%
30
.77
%
42
.99
%
33
.14
%
40
.54
%
45
.19
%
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
1.8
0%
3.8
5%
16
.82
%
9.0
1%
10
.81
%
20
.19
%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
NT AH SA ED
Acquaintances
Hearer Dominance
Speaker Dominance
Joint
Impersonal
42
.02
% 6
5.4
2%
60
.19
%
50
.00
%
54
.62
%
29
.91
%
31
.48
%
37
.04
%
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
3.3
6%
4.6
7%
8.3
3%
12
.96
%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
NT AH SA ED
Strangers
Hearer Dominance
Speaker Dominance
Joint
Impersonal
98
5.2 Request strategies
5.2.1 Choice of request strategies
5.2.1.1 Directness levels
Figure 3 captures the directness levels present in the requests made by the four study groups. As
can be seen, conventionally indirect strategies (e.g., Can I borrow a few bucks from you for the
pizza? â AH participant) represent the majority of request strategies with every study group.
However, the NT group used this directness level considerably less than did every other study
group. Analysis by chi square (p =<.01) showed this difference between the NT group and each
of the other study groups was statistically significant when comparing the NT group to the AH
group, 2 (1, N = 444) = 73.174, p =<.001, the SA group,
2 (1, N = 452) = 84.381, p =<.001,
and the ED group, 2 (1, N = 421) = 41.216, p =<.001. The two learner groups selected
conventionally indirect strategies at rates similar to one another, but more frequently than the ED
group. This difference was only statistically significant when comparing the ED and SA groups,
with the SA group using conventionally indirect strategies significantly more than the ED group,
2 (1, N = 525) = 8.892, p =.003.
Direct strategies (e.g., Please help me study for the final test. â SA participant) were the second
most used request strategy type with three study groups: NT (38.60%), AH (9.97%), and SA
(8.36%). Direct strategies were the least used strategy type by the ED group (10.59%). However,
the ED group used direct strategies at comparable rates to both of the learner groups. There were
no statistically significant differences when comparing the ED, AH, and SA groups to one
another. While the NT group used conventionally indirect strategies significantly less than did all
other study groups, it used direct strategies conventionally more than the other three study
groups. This difference was statistically significant when comparing the NT group to the AH
group, 2 (1, N = 159) = 72.089, p =<.001, the SA group,
2 (1, N = 154) = 82.630, p =<.001,
and the ED group, 2 (1, N = 161) = 68.407, p =<.001.
Unconventionally indirect strategies (e.g., I think you forgot my drink. â AH participant) were the
least represented request strategy type in the request head acts of the NT (8.51%), AH (5.92%),
and SA (5.57%) groups. The two learner groups used this directness level slightly less than did
the NT group, and significantly less than did the ED group (12.46%). Analysis using chi square
99
showed that the ED group used unconventionally indirect strategies significantly more than both
the AH group, 2 (1, N = 59) = 8.231, p =.004, and the SA group,
2 (1, N = 58) = 9.322, p
=.002.
Figure 3. Distribution of directness of levels of request strategies.
These findings show a significant difference in the use of directness levels by ED participants
and NT participants. As we have seen, directness is more common in Thai requests than in
English requests. Both groups of learners tended to conform more closely to the norms of ED
participants than the norms of NT participants. However, there were differences between the
learner groups and the ED group, which can be characterized by a reliance on conventionally
indirect strategies and a reluctance to use unconventionally indirect strategies. Perhaps this is due
to the learnersâ familiarity with conventionally indirect forms and knowledge that these are the
forms most often used in English. Unconventionally indirect strategies often require a higher
degree of pragmatic knowledge and a greater risk of not being clear in their intended meaning.
While this difference between the learner groups and the ED group was relatively small, it is one
that did not appear to change with the study abroad experience; the learner groups consistently
chose similar directness levels to one another when aggregating the data from all situations and
when controlling for individual social variables.
The relationship between politeness and directness has been a central aspect of studies of speech
acts of requests. To Blum-Kulka (1987), conventional indirectness is the ideal strategy to achieve
politeness by balancing two basic needs: âthe need for pragmatic clarity and the need to avoid
38
.60
%
9.9
7%
8.3
6%
10
.59
%
52
.89
%
84
.11
%
86
.07
%
76
.95
%
8.5
1%
5.9
2%
5.5
7%
12
.46
%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
NT AH SA ED
Directness Level
Direct
Conventionally Indirect
Unconventionally Indirect
100
coercivenessâ (p. 131). Studies have appeared to support this assertion, widely demonstrating a
preference for conventionally indirect requests by both native English speakers as well as
learners of English (see for example, Barron, 2003; Jones & Halenko, 2014; Otcu & Zeyrek,
2008; Perez i Parent, 2002; Woodfield, 2008). As we have seen, the ED group as well as both
learner groups prefer conventionally indirect requests, which is consistent with the findings of
previous studies. However, studies of other languages besides English challenge the universality
of this convention by demonstrating that the relationship between politeness and indirectness
varies across cultures (see for example, Barron, 2008; Marti, 2005; Ogiermann, 2009b; Yu,
2011). The NT groupâs data suggest that this relationship may also be perceived differently by
Thai speakers than by English speakers. Although conventionally indirect strategies made up the
largest proportion of the NT groupâs request head acts, this preference was much less
pronounced when compared to that of the ED group. That is, the NT groupâs requests tend to be
more direct than the requests of the ED group. Some researchers have argued that the use of
conventionally indirect request strategies is particularly important to English speakersâ efforts to
mitigate a request, whereas other languages value other linguistic devices such as honorifics
(Eslami, Kim, Write, & Burlbaw, 2014) or external modifications (Gu, 2011). As the reader will
recall, a similar assertion has been made about the value placed on honorific pronouns by the NT
group in the previous section about request perspective in this chapter.
5.2.1.2 Direct strategies
Table 9 shows the use of direct strategies by the four study groups. As the table shows, for the
AH, SA, and ED groups, no single direct strategy represented more than 6% of the strategies
used of each respective group. The NT group, however, used mood derivable requests (e.g.,
Please allow me to take this course. â SA participant) and explicit performative requests (e.g., I
ask you to do the housework for me. â AH participant) with greater frequency (14.29% and
19.45%, respectively). Analysis by chi square showed that with mood derivable requests, the
differences between groups do not reach a level of statistical significance. The difference with
explicit performative was more dramatic. Notably, the AH group only used this strategy one time
and it was not used by the SA or ED groups. With explicit performative, the NT groupâs more
frequent use was statistically significant when compared to the AH group, 2 (1, N = 65) =
66.144, p =<.001, the SA group, 2 (1, N = 64) = 69.672, p =<.001, and the ED group,
2 (1, N =
64) = 69.264, p =<.001. Expectation statements (e.g., I was really hoping you would consider
101
letting me enroll in your class. â ED participant) were infrequently used by the ED group
(3.12%). However, because this strategy was not used at all by the other study groups, chi square
analysis showed there were significant differences between the ED group and the NT group, 2
(1, N = 10) = 10.409, p =.001, the AH group, 2 (1, N = 10) = 10.158, p =.001, and the SA
group, 2 (1, N = 10) = 10.221, p =.001.
Table 9
Distribution of Direct Strategies Used in All Nine Situations
Strategies NT
(n=329)
AH
(n=321)
SA
(n=323)
ED
(n=321)
Direct strategies 38.60% 9.97% 8.36% 10.59%
Mood derivable 14.29% 5.30% 3.72% 2.8%
Explicit performative 19.45% 0.31% 0 0
Hedged performative 1.22% 0.62% 1.24% 0.62%
Locution derivable 0.30% 0.62% 0.62% 0.93%
Want statement 3.34% 3.12% 2.79% 3.12%
Expectation statement 0 0 0 3.12%
One of the most notable differences between the baseline language groupsâ use of direct
strategies revealed by these findings can be seen in the use of explicit performative requests. As
Table 9 shows, this strategy was the most used direct strategy by the NT group and was not used
by the ED group. The fact that explicit performative was not used by the SA group and was used
very infrequently by the AH group suggests that the two learner groups did not transfer the
preference for this strategy from their L1 into their English requests. This can perhaps be
explained in large part by the fact that preparatory requests are prominently featured in the
presentations of requests in commercial English language teaching textbooks while explicit
performative requests are often omitted from the presentation of requests (Akutsu, 2006; Barron,
2016; UsÃģ-Juan, 2008). The use of explicit performative requests in Thai almost always involves
the illocutionary verb âkhoâ (āļāļ), which can be translated into English as illocutionary verbs such
as âbegâ, âaskâ, or ârequestâ. In a practical sense, translations between Thai and English often use
explicit performative requests containing the illocutionary verb âkhoâ as a functional equivalent
to English requests using conventionally indirect strategies, such as preparatory requests (see, for
example, Deepadung, 2009; Klinkajorn, 2014).
In addition to explicit performative, expectation statements also highlight an important difference
between the study groups. Unlike explicit performative, however, the data for expectation
statements show a difference between the two learner groups and the ED group, with only the
ED group using this type of direct strategy. This difference can perhaps be explained by the
102
connotation of âwangâ (āļŦāļ§āļ, âhopeâ) in Thai requests. Using the word âwangâ in requests in Thai
can covey a strong imposition, especially when the hearer is the one who is expected to perform
a desired action. The âhopeâ expression, in Thai, is usually used in a context where the speaker
has more power than the hearer and wants to pressure the hearer. Pragmatic transfer of this
concept may explain the absence of expectation statements in the AH and SA groupsâ data.
However, it should be noted that expectation statements made up only a small proportion of the
ED data (3.12%) and thus, the absence of this request strategy in the learner data does not
represent a major difference between the learner groups and the ED group.
Both learner groupsâ apparent preference for mood derivable requests is consistent with the
observations of Suttipanyo (2007), who observed that Thai learners of English showed a marked
preference for mood derivable requests. All of the mood derivable requests in Suttipanyoâs study
were modified with the politeness marker âpleaseâ. Similarly, the mood derivable requests in the
current study were frequently modified with âpleaseâ, as well. The learnersâ preference for such
requests could perhaps be explained in part by the fact that they consist of a relatively basic
linguistic form and are clear in meaning. It should also be noted that mood derivable requests
were observed to be much more commonly produced by NT participants than by ED
participants. Thus, L1 transfer, the relative ease of producing the linguistic form, and the clarity
of meaning may all be contributing factors to the learnersâ use of mood derivable requests.
5.2.1.3 Conventionally indirect strategies
Table 10 shows the use of conventionally indirect strategies by the four study groups. As can be
seen, preparatory was not only the most used conventionally indirect strategy of each study
group (e.g., Could I take this taxi before you? â AH participant) but was also the most used
strategy of any directness level of each study group. The NT (51.06%) and ED (49.22%) groups
used preparatory requests at very similar rates, in about half of all request head acts. The AH
(76.95%) and SA (71.21%) groups used this strategy considerably more than did the baseline
language groups. Analysis by chi square showed that the difference between the learner groups
was not statistically significant. However, there were statistically significant differences when
comparing the AH group to the NT group, 2 (1, N = 415) = 47.156, p =<.001, and the ED
group, 2 (1, N = 405) = 52.980, p =<.001. Similarly, there were also statistically significant
103
differences when comparing the SA group to the NT group, 2 (1, N = 398) = 27.810, p =<.001,
and the ED group, 2 (1, N = 388) = 32.496, p =<.001.
Table 10
Distribution of Conventionally Indirect Strategies Used in All Nine Situations
Strategies NT (n=329)
AH (n=321)
SA (n=323)
ED (n=321)
Conventionally indirect strategies 52.89% 84.11% 86.07% 76.95%
Suggestory formula 0 0.31% 0 1.25%
Preparatory 51.06% 76.95% 71.21% 49.22%
Mitigated preparatory 1.82% 6.23% 9.91% 24.30%
Mitigated wants 0 0.62% 4.95% 2.18%
Mitigated preparatory was the second most used conventionally indirect strategy by every study
group (e.g., Is there any way I can still enroll even though I missed the official enrollment
period? â ED participant). However, there were notable differences between the study groups.
This strategy was used considerably more by the ED group (24.30%) than it was by any other
group. Analysis by chi square showed the difference was statistically significant when
comparing the ED group to the NT group, 2 (1, N = 84) = 72.934, p =<.001, the AH group,
2
(1, N = 98) = 40.510, p =<.001, and the SA group, 2 (1, N = 110) = 23.545, p =<.001. The SA
group used mitigated preparatory the second most (9.91%), but there was not a statistically
significant difference when compared to the AH group. However, there was a statistically
significant difference when comparing the SA group to the NT group, 2 (1, N = 38) = 19.404, p
=<.001. The NT group used mitigated preparatory the least, and the difference was also
significant when compared to the AH group, 2 (1, N = 26) = 8.217, p =<.001.
The remaining conventionally indirect strategies, suggestory formula (e.g., Why donât you do
housework instead of me when I am on my trip? â AH participant) and mitigated wants (e.g., I
would appreciate if you could let me take this taxi. â SA participant), were used either
infrequently or not at all by every study group. The NT group did not use mitigated want
statements at all, which was significantly different when compared to the SA group, 2 (1, N =
16) = 16.707, p =<.001, and the ED group, 2 (1, N = 7) = 7.253, p =.007. The SA group (4.95%)
used the mitigated want strategy the most frequently out of the four study groups. In addition to
the statistically significant difference with the NT group, there was also a statistically significant
difference between the SA and AH groups, 2 (1, N = 18) = 11.113, p =.001. There were no
statistically significant differences between study groups with the use of suggestory formula.
104
The main difference between the Thai and English baseline language groupsâ use of
conventionally indirect strategies was that the NT participants used the preparatory strategy
nearly exclusively while the ED group used a mix of preparatory and mitigated preparatory.
Mitigated preparatory is distinguished from preparatory by the positioning of the requestive verb
in embedded structures. While this type of embedded structure is possible in Thai language, it is
not as common as it is in English (see examples 14-16).
(14) āđāļĄāļāļĢāļēāļāļ§āļēāļāļĄāļāļ°āļāļāļāļāļĢāļāđāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļāļāđāļāđāļŦāļĄāļāļĢāļ
mai sap wa phom cha kho khuen rot thaeksi khan ni pai kon dai mai khrap
not know that I will ask get in car taxi (classifier) this go before can (question
particle) (polite particle) (NT, situation 2)
(15) Would you mind if I grab this taxi first? (ED, situation 2)
(16) Is there any way I could get in that taxi? (ED, situation 2)
Despite the fact that conventionally indirect strategies made up comparable proportions of the
AH and SA groupsâ requests, a closer look at the selection of particular types of conventionally
indirect strategies shows variation between the two learner groups. With the data combined from
all nine situations, as well as most of the aggregated data controlling for the social variables, the
SA group consistently showed more use of mitigated preparatory requests than did the AH
group. The pattern may suggest some pragmatic development toward the norms of ED
participants for learners with study abroad experience, although the difference is not a substantial
one.
As we have seen, other types of conventionally indirect requests besides preparatory were very
uncommon in the requests of the NT group. This may be a contributing factor in the learner
groupsâ preference for preparatory requests. Thai and English preparatory requests also share
some common grammatical elements, which may facilitate positive L1 transfer and, in turn,
explain the learnersâ preference for this request strategy. In Thai, the grammatical construction of
preparatory requests is quite different from English in some ways, such as word order, but it
shares some common aspects which can be translatable to English, namely the use of the modal
verb âdaiâ (āđāļ), which can be translated as âcanâ (see example 17).
105
(17) āļāļāļāļāļĒāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāđāļŦāļĄ
nong khayap nit nueng dai mai
younger sibling move tiny one can (question particle) (NT, situation 2)
Other factors that are likely to contribute to the learnersâ preference for preparatory requests
include the fact that these requests are easier to produce grammatically and more familiar to the
learners from English language teaching textbooks, which commonly use the preparatory forms
of âCan youâĶ?â and âCould youâĶ?â in instruction related to requests (Akutsu, 2006; Barron,
2016; UsÃģ-Juan, 2008). Mitigating these requests by using embedded structures involves more
complex grammatical structures that require changing the word order to create noun phrases in
forming questions. In general, for study abroad learners, who have significantly more experience
outside of the classroom interacting with English dominant speakers than do non-study-abroad
learners, this type of mitigation may become more familiar and less challenging to some extent.
However, while the data show some development by the SA group in the use of preparatory and
mitigated preparatory requests, this development appears to be minimal.
5.2.1.4 Unconventionally indirect strategies
Table 11 captures the use of unconventionally indirect strategies by the four study groups. As
shown, both types of unconventionally indirect strategies, which are mild hints (Sorry. [Intent: to
get the hearer to move inside the train] â SA participant) and strong hints (I ordered a beer a
little earlier. [Intent: to get the hearer to bring a drink that had been ordered] â ED participant),
were infrequently used by every study group. Between the two, strong hints were more common
and ranged from 4.33% (SA) to 10.59% (ED) of request head acts between study groups. Mild
hints were used the most by the ED group, but represented only 1.87% of its request head acts.
Analysis by chi square showed no significant differences between all study groupsâ use of either
strong hints or mild hints.
Table 11
Distribution of Unconventionally Indirect Strategies Used in All Nine Situations
Strategies NT (n=329)
AH (n=321)
SA (n=323)
ED (n=321)
Unconventionally indirect strategies 8.51% 5.92% 5.57% 12.46%
Strong hints 7.90% 4.67% 4.33% 10.59%
Mild hints 0.61% 1.25% 1.24% 1.87%
The majority of unconventionally indirect requests, which were nearly exclusively comprised of
strong hints, came in situation 6 (asking for an ordered drink). In this situation, both baseline
106
language groups (NT and ED) used strong hints nearly twice as often as did the learner groups.
The strong hints from all study groups generally consisted of a reference to the desired object, a
drink, without referring specifically to the action the speaker desired for the hearer to perform
(see examples 18-19). Because of the context in which the role of the hearer is fixed and limited,
a reference to the object desired would be unambiguous and understood as a request for the
hearer to bring the drink. Still, consistent with previous observations of L2 learnersâ preference
for clarity (Kasper 1982), the learner groups used this request strategy much less frequently than
did those performing the request using their L1. Instead, the learner groups opted for the
conventionally indirect strategy of preparatory requests (see examples 20-21).
(18) āļāļĒāļāđāļĄāđāļāļ āļēāļāļ°āļāļĢāļ
phi yang mai dai nam a khrap
older sibling still not receive water (interjection) (polite particle) (NT, situation 6)
(19) I ordered a beer a little earlier. (ED, situation 6)
(20) Could I have a drink now? (SA, situation 6)
(21) Can you bring my drink for me as soon as possible please? (AH, situation 6)
Mild hints were used only in one situation, situation 3 (asking to get on the train). Mild hint
requests used in this situation were observed in the form of brief formulaic apologies, such as
âexcuse meâ and âsorryâ. This type of request was observed with all four study groups in this
situation. The brief utterances coded as mild hints were coded as such because they do not refer
to the requested action itself. However, with the context of the situation, the meaning of the mild
hint would be transparent to the hearer. In both Thai and English, this type of brief, formulaic
apology would be generally used to ask someone to make room or allow the speaker to pass (see
examples 22-23). The context of this situation also necessitates a brief request because of the
short period of time available while the subway door is open for the speaker to enter.
(22) āļāļāđāļāļĐāļāļ°āļāļ° kho thot na kha
ask blame (particle) (polite particle) (NT, situation 3)
(23) Excuse me. (SA, situation 3)
107
5.2.2 Relative power
Figure 4 captures the effect of relative power on the request strategies and levels of directness
employed across the four study groups. As can be seen, when controlling for the social variable
of relative power, the learner groupsâ (SA and AH) choices of request strategies were very
similar to one another.
Across all strategy types and directness levels, and when controlling for each of the three relative
power types, there was only one statistically significant difference between the two learner
groups: in low-high situations, the SA group used mitigated want statements more than did the
AH group, 2 (1, N = 8) = 8.077, p =.007. Compared to the norms of the target language, as
represented by the ED group, both learner groupsâ request strategy choices in terms of directness
levels were affected in comparable ways by the social variable of relative power. All three
groups used direct strategies slightly less in equal power situations than they did in low-high and
high-low situations. Unconventionally indirect requests were found mostly in high-low requests
by these three groups as well. Conventionally indirect strategies were favored in each of the three
relative power type by both learner groups and the ED group.
The NT group appears to have been more greatly influenced by the social variable of relative
power when compared to the other three study groups. High-low situations in particular offer a
contrast between the NT group and the other groups. The learner groups and the ED group used
conventionally indirect strategies slightly less in high-low situations than they did in low-high or
equal power situations. The NT group, however, used considerably fewer conventionally indirect
strategies (25%) in high-low situations, instead preferring direct strategies (58.04%) and in
particular, mood derivable (29.46%) and explicit performative (28.57%).
108
Figure 4. Distribution of request strategies used in situations controlling for relative power.
Preparatory was the preferred strategy of the AH, SA, and ED groups across all three relative
power types. Although the learner groups consistently used this strategy more frequently than did
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
NT AH SA ED NT AH SA ED NT AH SA ED
High-low Equal Low-high
Direct Strategies
Expectation statement
Want statement
Locution derivable
Hedged performative
Explicit performative
Mood derivable
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
NT AH SA ED NT AH SA ED NT AH SA ED
High-low Equal Low-high
Conventionally Indirect Strategies
Mitigated wants
Mitigated preparatory
Preparatory
Suggestory formula
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
NT AH SA ED NT AH SA ED NT AH SA ED
High-low Equal Low-high
Unconventionally Indirect Strategies
Mild hints
Strong hints
109
the ED group, all three groups were similar in that the effect of relative power appears to have
been minimal on the selection of this strategy. The use of mitigated preparatory, overall, the
second most used request strategy by these three groups, was more greatly affected by the social
variable of relative power. This was especially the case for the ED group, which used the
mitigated preparatory strategy in only 8.33% of request head acts in high-low situations but
42.72% of request head acts in equal power situations. While the two learner groups also used
this strategy less frequently in high-low situations than in low-high and equal power situations,
their use did not vary to the same degree as that of the ED group between relative power types,
ranging only from 0.98% (high-low) to 13.16% (low-high) with the AH group and 0% (high-
low) to 16.67% (equal power) with the SA group.
When controlling for the social variable of relative power, a trend emerged in which the NT
participants used direct strategies most frequently when requesting down (high-low) and least
frequently when requesting up (low-high). However, the learner groups do not appear to have
transferred this norm of their L1 to their English requests. Instead, like the ED group, both
learner groups preferred conventionally indirect strategies by a wide margin compared to direct
strategies in high-low situations. This contradicts the results observed by Suttipanyo (2007),
which showed Thai learners of English opting for more direct strategies in high-low situations
when compared to native English speakers, a result that Suttipanyo attributed to L1 transfer.
However, these contradicting results might be explained by the design of Suttipanyoâs high-low
situations, in which students were asked to take on the role of a professor making a request to a
student, and thus, students were asked to imagine what a professor would say rather than draw
from their own experience with making requests. The studentsâ idea of how a professor would
make a request might not accurately reflect how these requests would be realized in practice nor
reflect how the students would genuinely make requests in the types of high-low situations they
normally experienced.
It was found that most of the ED participantsâ use of conventionally indirect strategies was
characterized by greater use of preparatory requests in high-low situations compared to low-high
and equal situations. The ED group tended to use more mitigated preparatory requests in low-
high and equal power situations, with both learner groups following this same trend. However,
the SA group used mitigated preparatory requests more often than did the AH group in equal
power situations, suggesting some development toward the ED norms with greater exposure to
110
the target language environment. It is also noteworthy that the SA group used more mitigated
want requests in low-high and equal situations than did any other group. This is perhaps the
result of the SA learnersâ raised awareness of how the mitigating structures that are present in
mitigated preparatory and mitigated want requests are implemented by English speakers, or
perhaps a result of improved proficiency or confidence in using the more complex grammatical
structures found in mitigated preparatory and mitigated want requests. The notion that familiarity
with these linguistic forms and proficiency are necessary for learners of English to produce these
forms is supported by Taguchi (2006), whose study involving the requests of Japanese EFL
learners showed that mitigated preparatory and mitigated want strategies were not observed in
the data of either low or high proficiency learners. Taguchi attributed these results to the
learnersâ lack of familiarity with these forms and lack of the proficiency necessary to form these
complex structures, which the author argued would be difficult even for high proficiency
learners. Studying abroad perhaps contributed to the SA group participantsâ exposure to these
forms as well as the development of the general linguistic proficiency needed to produce these
forms.
The small number of direct requests made it somewhat difficult to identify patterns with a
reasonable degree of confidence when controlling for relative power. The aggregated data
controlling for equal power, for example, show that the groups using the English language EDCT
(AH, SA, and ED) used direct strategies in no more than 6% of request head acts. One exception
to the generally low number of direct requests when controlling for relative power can be seen in
the data of the ED group when controlling for low-high situations. With low-high situations, the
ED group used direct strategies in 17.27% of request head acts, and among these direct strategies
they preferred expectation statements (see example 24). Most of these requests came from the
two situations involving requests to professors, and as previously mentioned, this type of request
may be seen as inappropriate in Thai. The two groups of Thai learners of English did not use
expectations statements at all, which may reflect this norm of their L1.
(24) I was hoping you would allow me to study in this module. (ED, situation 1)
Unconventionally indirect requests were so infrequently used that dividing the data into the
aggregated data sets controlling for relative power resulted in a very low number of
unconventionally indirect requests in each relative power type. Therefore, it was not possible to
111
identify with any degree of certainty any patterns of the groupsâ use of unconventionally indirect
strategies in this data controlling for relative power.
5.2.3 Social distance
Figure 5, which is arranged according to directness level, captures the effect of social distance on
the strategies employed across the four study groups. As was the case when controlling for the
social variable of relative power, the data in this figure controlling for social distance also
showed that the two learner groupsâ choices of request strategies were quite similar to one
another. Analysis by chi square showed that there were no statistically significant differences
between the AH and SA groups in their use of directness levels or any individual strategy across
all three levels of social distance. The directness levels of the requests by the ED group were
quite similar to those of both learner groups in close and stranger situations. These similarities
were confirmed by chi square analysis, which showed no statistically significant differences
between the ED group and learner groups in the directness level for close and stranger situations.
However, in situations involving acquaintances, the ED group used relatively fewer
conventionally indirect and more unconventionally indirect requests. The less frequent use of
conventionally indirect strategies by the ED group was statistically significant when compared to
the SA group, 2 (1, N = 164) = 8.960, p =.003. The ED groupâs greater use of unconventionally
indirect strategies was statistically significant when compared to both the AH group, 2 (1, N =
33) = 11.707, p =.001, and the SA group, 2 (1, N = 34) = 10.235, p =.001.
The variable of social distance appears to have had a greater influence on the ED groupâs use of
preparatory than it did on that of other study groups. In situations involving acquaintances, the
ED group used preparatory much less frequently than in other social distance types, in only
22.62% of its total request head acts. In situations involving close social relationships, however,
the ED group used preparatory in 58.72% of its request head acts. By contrast, the learner
groupsâ use of preparatory did not vary much across the three social distance levels, with the AH
groupâs use of preparatory ranging only from 74.77% (stranger) to 79.61% (close) and the SA
groupâs use ranging from 65.74% (stranger) to 79.81% (close).
112
Figure 5. Distribution of request strategies used in situations controlling for social distance.
Social distance does not appear to be a strong factor in the choice of conventionally indirect
strategies for the learner groups, which is a contrast to the ED group. This difference between the
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
NT AH SA ED NT AH SA ED NT AH SA ED
Close relationship Acquaintances Strangers
Direct Strategies
Expectation statement
Want statement
Locution derivable
Hedged performative
Explicit performative
Mood derivable
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
NT AH SA ED NT AH SA ED NT AH SA ED
Close relationship Acquaintances Strangers
Conventionally Indirect Strategies
Mitigated wants
Mitigated preparatory
Preparatory
Suggestory formula
0%
10%
20%
30%
NT AH SA EDS NT AH SA ED NT AH SA EDS
Close relationship Acquaintances Strangers
Unconventionally Indirect Strategies
Mild hints
Strong hints
113
learner groups and ED group may reflect the learnersâ reliance on a familiar request form,
preparatory, while the ED participants were able to use other available types of conventionally
indirect strategies, such as mitigated preparatory. Similar to the aggregated results for relative
power, it appears that the SA group may show some development in the use of mitigated
preparatory when compared to the AH group, using this strategy slightly more than the AH
group in each of the three social distance types.
As we have seen, three groups using the English EDCT (AH, SA, and ED) used direct strategies
somewhat infrequently. When dividing the data into aggregated data sets to control for social
distance, the number of requests was very low for each social distance type with these groups.
Therefore, determining any patterns that might relate to this social variable was not feasible. The
same can be said for unconventionally indirect requests, which were used very infrequently by
every study group; the low number of requests makes it difficult to identify with any reasonable
degree of certainty any patterns when controlling for social distance.
5.3 Internal modifications
5.3.1 Choice of internal modifications
As can be seen in Figure 6, which shows the use of internal modifications by type across all
study groups, the ED group used internal modifications the most frequently (M = 2.88), followed
by the SA (M = 2.31), NT (M = 2.19), and AH (M = 1.96) groups. Inferential statistical analysis
by Kruskal-Wallis and Dunnâs tests (p =<.01) showed that the ED group used internal
modifications significantly more than did the other three study groups (p =<.001). Other
statistically significant differences were observed when comparing the NT and SA group, with
the SA group using significantly more internal modifications than did the NT group (p =<.001).
As the reader will recall from the description of the coding methods presented in Chapter 4,
internal modifications can be subdivided into three general categories: syntactic downgraders,
lexical/phrasal downgraders, and upgraders. Among these categories, the greatest differences
between groups were observed with syntactic downgraders. The baseline language groups
represented the extremes in terms of the average number of syntactic downgraders per head act,
with the ED group using 1.97 syntactic downgraders per head act and the NT group using 0.65
syntactic downgraders per head act. In between these extremes were the two learner groups, with
114
the AH group using 1.38 syntactic downgraders per head act and the SA group using 1.55. The
difference between the AH and SA groups was not statistically significant. However, the ED
group was observed to use syntactic downgraders significantly more than did every other group
(p =<.001) and the NT group was observed to use syntactic downgraders significantly less than
did every other study group (p =<.001).
Figure 6. Mean number of internal modification types used per head act.
Taken together, these findings reveal two general patterns relevant to this studyâs research
questions. First, the findings that the NT group used considerably fewer internal modifications
(and in particular, syntactic downgraders) when compared to the ED group points to a
fundamental difference between the learnersâ L1 and target language in terms of how request
head acts are mitigated. Second, the data reveal a trend in which the SA group consistently
conforms more closely to the norms of the ED group in terms of the frequencies of internal
modifications in general as well as specific types of modifications, which suggests the SA
groupâs pragmatic development was positively affected by their experience studying abroad.
These findings are also consistent with previous ILP research that has shown learners of English
from various linguistic backgrounds tend to use fewer internal request modifications than native
English speakers (e.g., Chen, 2001; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2009; Fearch & Kasper, 1989; GÃķy,
Zeyrek, & Otcu, 2012; Hill, 1997; Hendriks, 2008; Najafabadi & Paramasivam, 2012; Otcu &
Zeyrek, 2008; Trosborg, 1995). Because internal modifications represent a wide range of
syntactic and lexical forms, the factors influencing the learnersâ choices and development are
complex and varied. In order to understand the underlying factors that contribute to these
patterns, one needs to consider how the use of individual internal modification types are affected
by factors such as L1 transfer, fundamental syntactic and lexical differences between Thai and
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
NT AH SA ED
Internal Modifications
Syntactic downgraders
Phrasal and lexical downgraders
Upgraders
115
English, explicit instruction in English classes, and the grammatical complexity of certain
linguistic forms.
While the NT group used fewer syntactic downgraders than did every other study group, this
group used significantly more lexical/phrasal downgraders than did every other study group (p
=<.001), with 1.54 lexical/phrasal downgraders per head act. The AH group (M = 0.55) used
lexical/phrasal downgraders significantly less than did the ED and NT groups (p =<.001).
Upgraders were not used by the NT group and were very infrequently used by the other three
study groups. The greatest average number of lexical/phrasal upgraders per head act was
observed with the SA group, which used 0.04 lexical/phrasal upgraders per head act. The SA
group used lexical/phrasal upgraders significantly more often than did the NT group (p =.001).
5.3.1.1 Syntactic downgraders
Interrogative (e.g., Can I use your phone? â AH participant) was the most used type of syntactic
downgrader by every study group. However, the data reveal differences between the study
groups in the use of interrogative modifications. The learner groups used this type of
modification the most and at similar rates to one another. This was followed by the ED group,
which used interrogative modifications significantly less than the AH group (p =.003). The NT
group used interrogatives the least often, and when compared to the other three study groups, this
difference was statistically significant (p =<.001).
Three syntactic downgrader types â aspect (e.g., Iâm wondering if we can look at my exam
together â AH participant), tense (e.g., I wanted to ask if you could go over what Professor
Sirima covered last week. â ED participant), and modal tense (e.g., Could you please allow me to
take this course â SA participant) â are not syntactic features of the Thai language and thus, were
not observed in the NT groupâs requests. All three of these modification types were used the
most by the ED group. Modal tense was the second-most used syntactic downgrader by the
English EDCT groups (AH, SA, and ED), with the ED group (M = 0.62) using this type of
modification the most frequently. The difference was significant when comparing the ED group
to every other study group (p =<.001). The learner groups used modal tense modifications at
rates similar to one another, but significantly more than the NT group (p =<.001). Tense and
aspect modifications were both used significantly more frequently by the ED group than by the
other three study groups (p =<.001).
116
Embedded modifications (e.g., Could you explain why I had such a low grade? â ED participant)
were also used most often by the ESD group, with 0.27 embedded modifications per head act.
The difference was statistically significant when comparing the ED groupâs rate of embedded
modifications per head act with those of the other three study groups (p =<.001). The NT group
(M = 0.09) used this modification type the least, which was significantly less than the use of the
SA group (p =.003).
The NT group also used conditional clauses (e.g., I would be deeply grateful to you if you would
allow me to take your course. âEDS participant) the least often. Statistical analysis showed that
this difference was statistically significant when compared to the SA (p =.001) and ED (p =.007)
groups. Passive voice modifications (e.g., Is there any way I could be added to the class? â ED
participant) were not used by the NT or AH groups and were very infrequently used by the SA
and ED groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the study groups in
their use of passive voice modifications.
The absence of some syntactic features in Thai is one of the factors that contributed to the
comparatively fewer number of syntactic downgraders observed in the NT groupâs requests. The
difference in the use of syntactic downgraders is particularly evident between the NT and ED
groups. All seven types of syntactic downgraders identified in this study were found in the
English data (see Figure 7). However, because the Thai language has no verb inflection, three
types of syntactic downgraders â aspect, tense, and modal tense â were not possible in the Thai
language responses of the NT group. This difference between Thai and English grammar can
present challenges to Thai learners of English. Both groups of learners used syntactic
downgraders less frequently than did the ED group. However, the learners demonstrated some
pragmatic development in the L2, as can be seen from the increase of their use of syntactic
downgraders, which moved away from the NT groupâs norm. In particular, when comparing the
learner groups, the SA group conformed more closely to the norms of the ED group than did the
AH group. Although the difference in the overall rates of syntactic downgraders use between the
learner groups did not reach a level of statistical significance, a pattern that suggests the
development of the SA learnersâ pragmatic competence was observed not only with syntactic
downgraders in general, but also with all seven types of syntactic downgrader. Also contributing
to this pattern is the fact that two types of syntactic downgraders, tense and passive voice, were
used by the ED and SA groups and were not used at all by AH group.
117
Figure 7. Mean number of syntactic downgrader types used per head act.
It is notable that although the two learner groups used fewer syntactic downgraders as a whole
compared to the ED group, both learner groups used one syntactic downgrader type,
interrogatives, significantly more frequently than did the ED group. Considering that the average
number of interrogative modifications per head act used by the NT group was the lowest among
all study groups, it can be inferred that the AH and SAâs preference for interrogative was not
affected by their L1. This preference might alternatively be explained by explicit instruction of
English requests, in which the fixed expressions taught to students on how make requests were
often in a question form. Studies by Akutsu (2006), Barron (2016), and UsÃģ-Juan (2008)
reported that the preparatory request strategy using interrogative forms is one of two request
strategies (along with mood derivable) to dominate the presentation of requests in commercial
English language teaching textbooks aimed at learners at a range of proficiency levels. The focus
in Thai classrooms on the interrogative forms of requests using âCan I/youâ and âCould I/youâ
was also reported by participants in the interviews conducted in this study.
Interrogative forms were a more common feature of the learnersâ requests than those of the ED
group, but the learners tended to use less complex structures that contained fewer additional
syntactic modifications compared to the interrogative requests of the ED group. In other words,
the AH and SA groups tended to use direct questions or simple sentences while the ED group
used indirect questions or complex sentences containing other types of syntactic downgraders,
such as embedded or conditional structures (see examples 25-28). This is consistent with
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
NT AH SA ED
Syntactic Downgraders
Passives
Embedded
Conditional clauses
Modal tenses
Tenses
Aspects
Interrogatives
118
Suttipanyoâs (2007) observation that American native speakers of English used more varied and
complex interrogative forms compared to Thai learners of English, who tended to use simple
modal interrogative forms, such as âCan I/youâ and âCould I/youâ. The results of this study
showed that this difference between the two learner groups and the ED group was less
pronounced in the requests of the SA group; the SA group showed more similarity to the ED
groupâs norms than did the AH group both in terms of the number and variety of syntactic
modifications that were applied to their interrogative requests. This suggests that although the
SA learners were limited by their linguistic proficiency in using complex sentences, they were
conscious of the need to mitigate the impositive force of their requests and thus made use of
other internal modifications, such as the use of the modal verbs âcouldâ or âwouldâ, or
consultative devices that can soften their requests in the interrogative form.
(25) Is there any way you could please accept me into the course? (ED, situation 1)
(26) âĶdo you think I could ask you a few questions about class sometime before the exam?
(ED, situation 8)
(27) Can you allow me to take this courseâĶ? (AH, situation 1)
(28) Is it possible for me to enrollment at this time? (SA, situation 1)
In addition to using embedded structures at higher frequencies, the ED group also used a greater
variety of introductory phrases with embedded structures compared to the NT group (see
examples 29-30). For example, the ED data included phrases such as âIs there any way/ chance/
possibilityâ, âI was wondering ifâ, âdo you thinkâ, or âI hope thatâ. The data suggest learners with
study abroad experience were better able to approximate the ED groupâs norms both in terms of
frequency and the variety of linguistic forms used to introduce embedded structures (see example
31). AH group participants, on the other hand, tended to be more limited to introducing
embedded structures with the phrases âI would like to know/askâĶâ (see example 32).
(29) Is there any way I can still get into the course? (ED, situation 1)
(30) āđāļĄāļāļĢāļēāļāļ§āļēāļāļēāļāļēāļĢāļĒāļāļ°āļāļāļāļēāļāđāļŦāļŦāļāļĨāļāļāļ°āđāļāļĒāļāđāļāđāļŦāļĄāļāļ° mai sap wa achan cha anuyat hai nu long thabian dai mai kha
not know that professor will permit for me enroll can (question particle) (polite
particle) (NT, situation 1)
119
(31) I was wondering whether itâs possible for me to take this course now. (SA, situation
1)
(32) I would like to know the reason why I got a low grade for this exam. (AH, situation
4)
Conditional clauses are similar to embedded structures in that they too create a more
grammatically complex request by embedding the requestive verb in a subordinate clause rather
than using it as the main verb of the head act. This grammatical feature exists in both Thai and
English and was used by all study groups with a relatively similar average number per head act.
Although there was less variability between groups in the frequency of conditional clauses, the
general pattern observed in other syntactic downgrader types also held true with conditional
clauses, with the SA group conforming more closely than the AH group to the ED norms. The
collected data also reveal a significant difference between how conditional clauses are formed in
Thai and English requests. In English requests, conditional clauses typically contain the
requestive verb while the main clause conveys a hypothetical result of thanks or appreciation
(e.g., if you do the action, I will be thankful) (see example 33). In Thai requests, the conditional
clause often contains the illocutionary verb âkhoâ (āļāļ, âaskâ), with the main clause containing the
requestive verb (e.g., if I ask you, will you do the action) (see example 34). As a result, the
hypothetical condition conveyed in Thai requests reflects the action of asking while that of
English requests relates to the requested action. In terms of the grammar and sentence structure,
the difference is subtle; however, the potential impact and appropriateness of the request would
be quite different in the respective languages. It is somewhat surprising that there was no
evidence of L1 transfer of the Thai formulation of conditional clauses in the requests of the SA
and AH groups. What may explain the learnersâ recognition of the differences between their L1
and English could be the formulaic nature of these requests and the fact that conditional clauses
used in English requests are used frequently enough to be observed in media and perhaps
conversations outside of the classroom (see examples 35-36, showing the AH and SA groupsâ
uses of conditional clause modifications).
(33) I would be deeply grateful to you if you would allow me to take your course. (ED,
situation 1)
(34) āļāļēāļŦāļāļāļĒāļēāļāļāļāđāļŦāļāļēāļāļēāļĢāļĒāļĨāļāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļŦāļāđāļŦāļĄāđāļāđāļŦāļĄāļāļ°āļāļ° tha nu yak kho hai achan long du kho sop nu mai dai mai a kha
120
if I want ask for professor try look exam again can (question particle) (interjection)
(polite particle) (NT, situation 4)
(35) If you let me grab this taxi, I will be so thankful. (AH, situation 2)
(36) It would highly appreciate [sic] if you could allow me to enroll this course. (SA, situation
4)
As we have seen, modal tense was the second most used type of syntactic modifications for the
groups using the English EDCT (AH, SA, and ED). While modal tense is a common
grammatical feature in English, it does not exist in Thai. Therefore, for Thai learners of English,
the use of modal tense modifications represents not only a pragmatic difference between English
and their L1, but also a linguistic difference. In a study of Chinese learners of English, whose L1
also has no tense marking for modals, Lin (2009) observed that higher proficiency learners used
modal tense modifications more frequently than did lower proficiency learners, which
demonstrated development toward the norms of native English speakers. Similar to Linâs results,
the data from the present study showed that the learner groups underused modal tense compared
to the ED group. The SA group, presumably the more proficient of the two learner groups, used
more modal tense modifications than did the AH group, although this difference did not reach a
level of statistical significance. Linguistically, the learners demonstrated a greater understanding
and ability to use the modal verbs âcouldâ and âwouldâ, which are typically used to refer to past
events but refer to the present when used in a request. Pragmatically, the learners understood that
using modal verbs such as âcouldâ and âwouldâ can make a request more polite (see examples 37-
39). This is likely influenced by explicit instruction in the learnersâ English classes. However,
the use of modals by the SA learners were found to be different than that of the AH learners to
some extent as the SA group showed more preference for the modal verb âwouldâ than did the
AH group. In addition to the higher frequency of the modal verb âwouldâ, this modal verb was
also used in a greater variety of situations by the SA learners while the AH group did not use
âwouldâ at all in some situations. This points to the possible development of the SA learners
toward the ED norms in the use the modal tense modifications. In the situations in which the ED
and SA groups tended to use the modal verb âwouldâ, the AH learners appear to use âcanâ, which
does not have the same mitigating effect as âwouldâ or âcouldâ.
(37) Would that be possible if you could allow me to register the course? (SA, situation 1)
(38) Could you please let me go first? (SA, situation 2)
121
(39) Can I use your cell phone for a short call? (AH, situation 5)
Tense modifications are another type of syntactic modification that has similar characteristics to
modal tense, as both types of modifications involve shifting the form of a present tense verb to a
past tense verb. Using past tense in a request does not signify past action but instead signifies
counterfactuality or hypotheticality and thus, this verb tense shift softens a request. Like modal
tense, this syntactic feature does not exist in the Thai language. In accordance with expectations,
based on the absence of this feature in the learner groupsâ L1, the ED group used tense
modifications considerably more than did the learner groups (see examples 40-41). There was
minimal implementation of this modification by the SA group, and the AH group did not use it at
all (see example 42, showing the SA group using a tense modification). The fact that tense was
used by the SA learners, even though there were fewer instances than were observed with the ED
group, suggests that learners acquired this knowledge through living in the L2 environment. In
addition, it is noteworthy that tense modifications were nearly always directly connected to other
syntactic modifications, namely aspect and modal tense, which increases the grammatical
complexity of using this type of syntactic downgrader. This would perhaps have a discouraging
influence on the choices of lower proficiency learners in particular.
(40) Would you mind if I took this taxi first? (ED, situation 2)
(41) I was hoping that you might reconsider my exam. (ED, situation 4)
(42) I was wondering if it is still possible for me to enroll this course. (SA, situation 1)
As the reader will recall from the description of internal modifications presented in Chapter 4,
aspect refers to using progressive tense as a mitigating device when it is possible to use a simple
tense. From the collected data of the SA and ED groups, this type of syntactic modification
normally occurred with the use of tense modifications where the auxiliary verb âbeâ is shifted
from present tense to past tense. However, all of the AH groupâs uses of aspect were expressed
in present tense (see example 43, showing the AH groupâs use of an aspect modification, and 44,
showing the SA groupâs use of an aspect modification). The AH groupâs use of aspect in this
way might be explained by the absence of aspect and tense as features in their L1 as well as the
absence these modifications in formal instruction on requests in their English classes. Barron
(2016) observed in a survey of a commercial textbook series that initially, in lower proficiency
level textbooks, no syntactic downgraders are presented in examples of requests, while the
122
syntactic modifications presented to more advanced students are limited in scope and do not
include tense or aspect. Similarly, surveys of commercial textbooks by Akutsu (2006) and UsÃģ-
Juan (2008) reported a variety of linguistic forms are used when presenting requests, but
progressive and past tenses in requests were not reported in either of these studies. If the use of
progressive or past verb tenses is not normally explicitly taught to students in English class, the
fact that SA learners demonstrated development towards the ED norms could relate to their
experience living in the L2 environment. The SA learners demonstrated their understanding that
the use of the past progressive forms of an auxiliary verb does not signify past actions, but rather
is a way of making a request more polite.
(43) Do you mind if I am asking you for taking this taxi [sic]? (AH, situation 2)
(44) I was wondering whether itâs possible for me to take this course now. (SA, situation 1)
Although passive voice exists in both Thai and English, this syntactic modification was not used
at all by the NT group. This can be explained by the way passive voice is used in Thai, which is
more restrictive and typically used only when reporting unpleasant or unwanted circumstances
(Smyth, 2002). Interestingly, all of the passive voice structures used by the ED group were found
only in situation 1 (asking a professor for late enrollment) and they were used in a way that is
consistent with Blum-Kalka et al.âs (1989) description in the CCSARP coding manual: passive
voice can be used to avoid naming the hearer which consequently minimizes the impositive force
put on the hearer (see example 45). Although the use of passive voice was observed in the SA
participantsâ responses, it was not used to deemphasize the hearer as the agent in the same way
as it was in the requests of ED participants (see example 46). Rather, the SA group used it with
clauses that reflected their feelings of appreciation. This could be caused by a generalization of
English grammar.
(45) If there is any way an exception could be made, I would greatly appreciate it. (ED,
situation 1)
(46) It would be greatly appreciated if you could help me take the course. (SA, situation 1)
5.3.1.2 Lexical/phrasal downgraders
As we have seen, syntactic downgraders appear to be a more important feature of English
requests compared to Thai requests, which can be explained to some extent by the absence of
123
several syntactic features in Thai that exist in English. With lexical/phrasal downgraders, the
converse is true; the most frequently observed type of lexical/phrasal downgrader in Thai
requests, polite particles, have no analogous feature in English. This can, to some extent, explain
why lexical/phrasal downgraders were more frequently used by the NT group compared to the
three groups completing the English EDCT. The learner groupsâ data do not appear to reflect a
pattern of L1 transfer. Rather, the fact that Thai and English users utilize lexical/phrasal
downgraders so differently might contribute to the learnersâ awareness of ED norms and the
learnersâ ability to approximate these norms in their own requests. This development appears to
have been aided by the study abroad experience. When comparing the two learner groupsâ use of
lexical/phrasal downgraders, the SA group showed more similarity to patterns observed in the
requests of the ED group.
Figure 8 illustrates the various lexical/phrasal downgraders used by each study group. This
shows the two learner groups used politeness markers more than any other modification type.
The NT group used politeness markers at similar rates to both the AH and SA groups, while the
ED group used this modification type significantly less frequently than did the NT (p =.001), AH
(p =.001), and SA (p =<.001) groups. The NT favored polite particles (e.g., Khaw kheun kawn
dai mai kha [āļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļāļāđāļāđāļŦāļĄāļāļ°, beg board taxi car this before can PART PART/Can I
ask you to go first?] â NT participant), using 0.52 polite particles per head act, which was
significantly more when compared to the other three study groups (p =<.001). Polite particles are
not a lexical feature of English and thus, this modification type was not observed in the English
EDCT data. Consultative devices (e.g., Would you mind if I get this taxi first? â AH particpant)
were most frequently used lexical/phrasal downgrader by the ED group (M = 0.27). The ED
group used consultative devices significantly more than did the other three study groups (p
=<.001). After the ED group, the most frequent use of consultative devices came from the SA
group, which used 0.17 consultative devices per head act. The only statistically significant
difference of any internal modification when comparing the AH and SA groups came with
consultative devices, with the SA group using this type of modification significantly more
frequently than the AH group (p =.004). The SA group also used consultative devices
significantly more frequently than did the NT group (p =<.001). The AH group also used this
modification type significantly more than the NT group (p =.003).
124
Figure 8. Mean number of lexical/phrasal downgrader types used per head act.
Understaters (e.g., Could you please move inside a little bit? â SA participant) and appealers
(e.g., Phom khaw keun taeksee khan nee na khrap [āļāļĄāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļ°āļāļĢāļ, I beg board taxi car this
PART PART/Iâm asking to use this taxi, OK? â NT participant) were both types of
lexical/phrasal downgraders that were used much more often by the NT group than by the other
three study groups. The NT group used 0.41 understaters per head act, which was significantly
more than the other three study groups (p =<.001). Appealers were also used significantly more
often by the NT group when compared to the other three study groups (p =<.001), with the NT
group using 0.26 appealers per head act. Appealers were not observed in the data of the AH, SA,
or ED groups.
The remaining lexical/phrasal downgrader types were either infrequently used or absent in the
head acts of the NT, AH, and SA groups, and were used the most frequently by the ED group.
The ED group used hedges (e.g., When you have a chance, can I have a glass of water? â ED
participant) significantly more frequently than did the NT (p =<.001), AH (p =<.001), and SA (p
=.003) groups. A similar trend was observed with subjectivers (e.g., I was wondering if you
would mind going over my test results with me. â SA participant), with the ED group using this
modification significantly more frequently than the NT (p =<.001), AH (p =<.001), and SA (p
=.001) groups. Statistically significant differences were also observed with downtowners (e.g.,
Could you possibly help me? â ED participant) when comparing the ED group to the other three
study groups (p =<.001).
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
ED SA AH NT
Lexical and Phrasal Downgraders
Politeness markers
Consultative devices
Polite particles
Understaters
Hedges
Subjectivizers
Downtoners
Appealers
125
As the reader will recall from the description of lexical/phrasal modification types presented in
Chapter 4, polite particles describe a class of lexical additions that contain no literal meaning, but
rather are added to the end of an utterance to convey politeness. This is in contrast to politeness
markers, such as âpleaseâ, which function specifically as a bid for cooperation. Polite particles
are not used exclusively in requests, and in fact, are quite commonly added to the end of most
utterances in many contexts (Smyth, 2002). Because there are no natural substitutes for polite
particles in English, it is not uncommon for Thais to add Thai particles to their English
sentences, particularly in contexts such as when a Thai teacher communicates using English in
the classroom or when Thais communicate with one another in English using social media
(Promnath & Tayjasanant, 2016; Yiamkhamnuan, 2011). However, neither polite particles nor
any other indications of L1 transfer of this prominent feature of the learnersâ L1 were observed
in the learnersâ data.
Politeness markers exist in both Thai and English and were used by every study group. While a
variety of politeness markers were observed in the NT group data, only âpleaseâ was observed in
the requests of the three groups completing English EDCT. Compared to the ED group, both
groups of learners used âpleaseâ considerably more frequently. This is consistent with the
findings of several previous studies (Barron, 2003; Faerch & Kasper, 1989; House & Kasper,
1987; Faerch & Kasper, 1989; Barron, 2003), which have observed English learnersâ overuse of
the politeness marker âpleaseâ when compared to native English speakers. Barron (2003)
describes this overuse as the learnersâ âpragmatic overgeneralization via a playing-it-safe
strategyâ (p. 149), adding that âpleaseâ functions both to clarify and mitigate the illocutionary
force of a request. However, Trosborg (1995) notes that the presence of âpleaseâ in request
models provided in EFL textbooks may also contribute to this overuse of âpleaseâ by English
learners. Finally, it should also be noted that while both learner groups overused politeness
markers compared to the ED group, the learner groupsâ average numbers of politeness markers
per head act were similar to that of the NT group, suggesting that L1 transfer may also be a
contributing factor.
As we have seen, the NT group used considerably more understaters than did the other three
study groups completing the English EDCT. However, in terms of linguistic forms, the variety of
understaters was much greater in English (i.e., âjustâ, âa little bitâ, âa bitâ, âa fewâ, âa tiny bitâ,
âquickâ, âa minuteâ, âa secâ, âa shortâ, âa coupleâ, âa momentâ, âa whileâ, âshortâ, âbrieflyâ) than in
126
Thai (i.e., ânoiâ, [āļŦāļāļāļĒ, âa littleâ], ânitâ [āļāļ, âtinyâ], ânit nuengâ [āļāļāļāļ, âa bitâ], âthiâ [āļ, âone timeâ],
âpaepâ [āđāļāļ, âfor a momentâ]). Participants from both learner groups used a variety of words and
phrases in a similar way to ED participants, suggesting that the learners did not directly translate
all of their understaters from Thai. The data suggest that both learner groups were able to
approximate the ED norms of understater use, with neither L1 transfer nor study abroad
experience appearing to be a significant influence on the learnersâ use of understaters.
The consultative devices observed in the English (from the AH, SA, and ED groups) request
response data were generally used as introductory phrases of indirect questions and included
phrases such as âWould you mindâ, âDo you thinkâĶâ, âWould it be alright ifâĶâ, âIs it
possibleâĶâ, âWould it be possibleâĶâ, âIs it alright ifâĶâ, âIs there any wayâĶâ, etc. Therefore,
the phrases classified as consultative devices can occur with the interrogative and embedded
structure types of syntactic downgraders. For example, the request âCould I enroll in this
course?â which was coded as interrogative, can occur with a consultative device, as in âIs there
any way I could enroll in this course?â While these phrases are frequently used in English and
can be directly and equivalently translated into Thai, they are not common in Thai, which is
reflected by the infrequent presence of consultative devices in the NT groupâs requests.
Despite the fact that the SA group used consultative devices at frequencies closer to the norms of
the ED group than did the AH group, both learner groupsâ consultative devices used linguistic
forms that were more similar to one another than to those of the ED group. The AH and SA
groups used only a few forms, including âWould/do you mindâĶâ, âWould it be possibleâĶâ, and
âIs it possibleâĶâ, while the ED group used all of the aforementioned consultative devices. The
phrase âIs there any way/chance/possibilityâĶâ was also commonly used by the ED (28 times),
but it was not used at all by the AH group and used only 2 times by the SA group. Similarly, the
phrase âDo you thinkâĶâ was used by the ED group 14 times, but it was not used at all by either
the SA or AH group. While both learner groups tended to use less variety of linguistic forms
with their consultative devices, it is noteworthy that grammatical errors were more common in
the requests of AH group participants, particularly when using the phrase âWould you mindâĶâ
(see examples 47-48).
(47) Would you mind if youâll show me which part I made mistake [sic]â? (AH, situation 4)
127
(48) Do you mind to pay first [sic]? (AH, situation 7)
As we have seen, downtoners were used most frequently by the ED group, followed by the the
NT and SA groups. AH learners used a downtoner only 1 time in 321 head acts. English
downtoners found in the collected data include âanyâ, âpossiblyâ, âmaybeâ, and âperhapsâ, and
Thai downtoners include âpho chaâ (āļāļāļāļ°, âprobably couldâ), which could be translated literally
to âprobably couldâ. Another Thai downtoner is âpho diâ (āļāļāļ, âas it turns outâ), which has the
approximate meaning âas it turns outâ or âhappens toâ. It is notable that these phrases â âas it
turns outâ and âhappens toâ â did not appear in the ED groupâs requests, highlighting a difference
between the two languages that may in part explain the limited use of downtoners by the AH
group. As for the SA group, although this group used downtoners at a similar rate to that of the
NT group, L1 transfer does not appear to be a factor. Rather than attempting to translate Thai
downtoners into English, the SA group tended to rely heavily on the downtoner âanyâ. The lack
of variety of the SA groupâs downtoners compared to that of the ED group might be explained
by the presence of âanyâ in the expression âIs there any wayâĶâ, which the SA learners might
have observed being commonly used by English speakers in everyday interactions during their
time abroad. This could be reinforced by the learnersâ previous instruction in school of the use of
the determiner âanyâ when forming questions (see example 49, showing the ED groupâs use of a
downtowner, 50, showing the SA groupâs use of a downtoner, and 51, showing the NT groupâs
use of a downtoner).
(49) Would it be possible for you to perhaps have another look at my paper for me? (ED,
situation 4)
(50) Is there any way that I can enroll the course [sic]? (SA, situation 1)
(51) āļāļēāļāļēāļĢāļĒāļāļāļāļ°āļĄāļ§āļāļŦāļĢāļāđāļāļ°āļ āļēāļŦāļāļ§āļēāļāļ°āļĨāļāļ§āļāļēāļāđāļāļĒāļāđāļ achan pho cha mi withi rue nae nam nu wa cha long wicha ni dai yang ngai
professor probably could have method or recommend me that will enroll subject this
can how (NT, situation 1)
Although subjectivizers were used infrequently by every study group, an analsysis of this
lexical/phrasal downgrader typeâs linguistic forms highlights a possible effect of L1 transfer on
the AH groupâs requests. English subjectivizers include expressions such as âI wonder ifâĶâ, âI
was wondering ifâĶ.â, âIâm afraid thatâĶâ, and âI thinkâĶâ The linguistic forms used by the
128
English EDCT groups were similar to one another, with âwonderâ being the most commonly
used form (see examples 52-54). The use of this form is similar to the Thai linguistic form âmai
sap waâ (āđāļĄāļāļĢāļēāļāļ§āļē, âI donât know if/thatâ), which was the only subjectivizer used by the NT group
(see example 55). This subjectivizer can be literally translated to âI donât know ifâĶâ or
equivalently translated to âI wonder ifâĶâ The AH groupâs use of the expression âI donât know
ifâĶâ, therefore, might represent L1 transfer from a literal translation of the Thai phrase. This
expression was not observed in the requests of ED or SA group participants.
(52) I was wondering if I could please use your phone for a second? (ED, situation 5)
(53) I wonder if you could kindly add me into the course, please? (SA, situation 1)
(54) Excuse me, professor! I donât know if you can let me enroll the course because it does
interest me. (AH, situation 1)
(55) āđāļĄāļāļĢāļēāļāļ§āļēāļāļēāļāļēāļĢāļĒāļāļ°āļĢāļāļŦāļāđāļāļēāđāļĢāļĒāļāđāļŦāļĄāļāļ°
mai sap wa achan cha rap nu khao rian mai kha
not know that professor will accept me enter study (question particle) (polite particle)
(NT, situation 1)
In a similar way to subjectivers, hedges were not used frequently, but an analysis of their
linguistic forms used in the request responses reveal some difference between Thai and English
and some development of the SA learners. As we have seen, hedges were used only by the ED
and SA groups. This suggests that this feature is not common in Thai. The most common English
hedge found in the ED and SA groupsâ data was the phrase âwhen you have/ get a chanceâ.
While this phrase exists in Thai, it was not used at all by the NT group, which highlights a
possible cultural difference between Thai and English users in some situations. Most of the ED
and SA groupsâ hedges were used in the situation asking for a server to bring a drink that had
been ordered (situation 6). While ED participants may try to minimize the force of the request to
make it less imposing, Thais would be more likely to see this as a mistake of the server and his
or her duty to correct it. In other words, the way Thais perceive the need to mitigate a request in
this situation may be different from ED group participants. Second, the fact that the AH group
did not use hedges at all suggests that the AH group might have been influence by this different
perception of the social situation between Thai and English. The SA group, on the other hand,
might have learned and become familiar with this expression through their experience living
129
abroad. This assumption can be well supported by the linguistic forms that the SA group used,
which are similar to those used by the ED group (see examples 56-57). However, a greater
variety of hedges was observed in ED group participantsâ requests. The other English words and
phrases classified as hedges found in the collected data include âotherâ, âsomeâ, âsometimeâ,
âsomeplaceâ, âsome pointâ, and âwhen you are freeâ.
(56) Hey, man, could I grab that drink I ordered when you get a chance? (ED, situation 6)
(57) GG, can you bring me water when you get a chance, please? (SA, situation 6)
While appealers are available in both Thai and English, they were used by only the NT group.
Tags are a common realization in English. Thai appealers used by the NT group include ânaâ (āļāļ°)
ânaâ (āļāļē) âthoeâ (āđāļāļāļ°) âsiâ (āļŠ) âdiâ (āļ) which are technically classified as mood particles. As noted
by Smyth (2002), mood particles represent a major obstacle for the serious Thai language
learners. Their function is often conveyed in English purely by intonation, so they cannot easily
be translated; to complicate matters, one particle may have several variant forms, involving a
change in tone or vowel length, with each form reflecting a subtle difference. Without mood
particles, statements often sound incomplete, abrupt, or even impolite. The use of mood particles
is very common in the Thai language, but without even approximate translations for these lexical
features, the likelihood of L1 transfer is minimal. The absence of appealers from any of the
English EDCT data supports this hypothesis.
5.3.1.3 Upgraders
Finally, a greater degree of uniformity between the study groups was observed with the two
types of upgraders: intensifiers (I really need that cab. â SA participant) and time intensifiers
(Can you bring it now please! â AH participant) (see Figure 9). Neither type of upgrader was
used by the NT group while no time intensifiers were observed in the head acts of the ED group.
Although the ED group and the two learner groups did use upgraders, these internal
modifications were very infrequently used. The SA group (M = 0.04) used intensifiers more than
any other study group, which was statistically significant when compared to the NT group (p =
.001). There were no statistically significant differences between the study groups in their use of
time intensifiers.
130
The infrequent use of upgraders in the collected data could be explained by the fact that unlike
downgraders, upgraders essentially threaten the negative face of the hearer. The request
situations presented in the present studyâs EDCT elicited requests in which the speakers
attempted to mitigate the imposition of the requests rather than aggravate the impositive force of
the requests. It is notable that although upgraders are available in Thai, they were not observed in
the data, suggesting that using lexical additions to aggravate the force a request is not a common
feature of the learnersâ L1.
Figure 9. Mean number of upgrader types used per head act.
A closer look at the use of intensifiers, one of the two types of upgraders, shows that the SA
group showed more similarity to the ED group than did the AH group in terms of the linguistic
variety. The variety of intensifiers used by the SA and ED groups include âgreatlyâ, âreallyâ,
âhighlyâ, âtrulyâ, âveryâ, âdeeplyâ, and âmuchâ whereas the AH learners used only âreallyâ (see
examples 58-60). In addition, the way the AH group used intensifiers was also different from the
SA and the ED groups. The SA and ED groups used intensifiers to intensify their expression of
appreciation. On the other hand, the AH group used intensifiers only to strengthen their wish for
a particular desired outcome to occur. This difference in how intensifiers were used might also
affect the impact of the request differently; an emphasis on the requesterâs desire aggravates the
force of the request more than an emphasis on the requesterâs hypothetical gratitude should the
desired action occur.
(58) I would deeply appreciate if you could let me take this taxi, please. (SA, situation 2)
(59) I would truly appreciate the opportunity to study with you. (ED, situation 1)
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
NT AH SA ED
Upgraders
Instensifiers
Time Intensifiers
131
(60) I really want to study this course. (AH, situation 1)
As we have seen, time intensifiers, too, were used very infrequently by both learner groups.
These modifications were not observed in the data of the either the ED or the NT group. The low
frequency of use suggests these are not important modifications for any group and that the few
occurrences in the learner requests were likely not a product of L1 transfer or their observations
of English speakers. It is possible that they were used by the learners in order to provide clarity
rather than to aggravate the force of the request (see example 61-62, showing the AH and SA
groupsâ use of time intensifiers).
(61) I need to go to the airport right now. (AH, situation 2)
(62) Can I have my drink now, please? (SA, situation 6)
5.3.2 Relative power
When controlling for the variable of relative power, all four study groups used internal
modifications the least often in high-low situations. In these situations, the rate of internal
modifications per head act was similar between the four study groups; there were no statistically
significant differences. However, differences were observed in low-high and equal power
situations (see Figure 10). All groups used internal modifications the most often in low-high
situations, but this was especially pronounced with the ED group, which used internal
modifications significantly more frequently when compared to the NT (p =<.001), AH (p
=<.001), and SA groups (p =.002). In equal power situations, the ED group also used
significantly more internal modifications when compared to the other three study groups (p
=<.001). An additional difference was observed when comparing the SA group to the AH group
(p =.003) in equal power situations, with the SA group using significantly more internal
modifications.
The data for syntactic downgraders followed a similar trend to the overall use of internal
modifications when controlling for relative power, with the all four study groups using syntactic
downgraders the most often in low-high situations and the least often in high-low situations. The
aggregated data for each relative power type showed that the ED group used most syntactic
downgraders per head act, followed by the SA and AH groups. The NT group consistently used
the fewest number of syntactic downgraders with each relative power type. Among the types of
132
syntactic downgraders that appear to differ in use dependent on the social power dynamic,
interrogative modifications stand out. The use of interrogative modifications varied only
minimally with the English EDCT groups (AH, SA, and ED). However, the NT group used this
modification type much less frequently in high-low situations than it did in low-high situations.
In low-high situations, there were no statistically significant differences between study groups in
the use of interrogative modifications, but in high-low situations, the NT group used this type of
modification significantly less often than did the other three study groups (p =<.001). Embedded
structures were another type of syntactic modification that varied greatly between relative power
types. This type of modification was consistently used the most by the ED group, but all four
groups followed a similar pattern of using embedded modifications the most often in low-high
situations and the least often in high-low situations.
The use of lexical/phrasal downgraders by both learner groups varied to a lesser extent than
when compared to the baseline language groups and when controlling for the variable of relative
power. The NT group consistently used lexical/phrasal downgraders more frequently in each
relative power type than did the other three study groups. Among the types of lexical/phrasal
downgraders that varied in frequency between relative power types, understaters stood out. This
type of lexical/phrasal downgrader was infrequently used by the study groups in low-high
situations and was the most used type of lexical/phrasal downgrader by the NT group in equal (M
= 0.54) and high-low (M = 0.60) situations. Although the NT groupâs use of understaters was
more similar to that of the other three groups in low-high situations, the difference was
statistically significant in equal and high-low situations when comparing the NT group to the
other three study groups (p =<.001). The NT group also used significantly more than did the AH
(p =.007) and SA (p =.003) groups in low-high situations. An additional notable difference can
be seen in the ED groupâs use of consultative devices. The ED group used this type of
lexical/phrasal downgrader consistently more than did the other three groups and used
consultative devices the most often in equal power situations, differing significantly from the
other three groups (p =<.001).
Upgraders were not used by the NT group and when used by the other three study groups, they
were mostly used in low-high and equal power situations. Most upgraders used by the AH, SA,
and ED groups were intensifiers. Most of the time intensifiers, which were only used by the two
133
learner groups, were observed in high-low situations. When controlling for relative power, there
were no statistically significant differences between the study groups.
The data controlling for the social variable of relative power show that all study groups used
fewer internal modifications with situations characterized by high-low. However, the social
variable of relative power had a greater influence on the use of internal modifications of the ED
group compared to the other three study groups. Compared to the ED group, the learnersâ
requests appear to show their limitations in linguistic production, which resulted in more
formulaic and less linguistically varied requests. In situations requiring a higher degree of
mitigation, such as a request to a professor (situations 1 and 4), ED group participants tended to
use more elaborate and grammatically complex requests and in particular, the use of aspect
modifications and the use of embedded and conditional structures. The data show participants
from both learner groups not only used these structures less frequently when compared to ED
group participants, but when these structures were used by the learners, they were often used in
grammatically incorrect requests. The relatively small effect of relative power on the learnersâ
use of internal modifications, therefore, might relate more to their linguistic limitations rather
than socio-pragmatic failure. While the experience of studying abroad appears to aid the
development of the learnersâ use of internal modifications, the influence of the relative power on
the learnersâ requests was similar between both groups.
134
Figure 10. Mean number of internal modification types used per head act in situations controlling for relative power.
5.3.3 Social distance
When controlling for the variable of social distance, all four study groups were observed to use
internal modifications most often in situations involving requests to strangers and least often
with requests involving close relationships (see Figure 11). However, this difference appears to
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
NT AH SA ED NT AH SA ED NT AH SA ED
High-low Equal Low-high
Syntactic Downgraders
Passive
Embedded
Conditional clause
Modal tense
Tense
Aspect
Interrogative
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
NT AH SA ED NT AH SA ED NT AH SA ED
High-low Equal Low-high
Lexical and Phrasal Downgraders
Appealer
Downtoner
Subjectivizer
Hedge
Understater
Polite particle
Consultative device
Politeness marker
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
NT AH SA ED NT AH SA ED NT AH SA ED
High-low Equal Low-high
Upgraders
Time intensifier
Intensifier
135
be much less pronounced with the NT group, which used 2.294 internal modifications per head
act in stranger situations and 2.02 internal modifications per head act in close situations. By
contrast, the other three study groups used on average approximately one more internal
modification per head act in stranger situations than they did in close situations. For example, the
ED group used 3.41 internal modifications per head act in stranger situations and 2.41 internal
modifications per head act in close situations. Stranger situations were characterized by a similar
average number of internal modifications per head with the NT, AH, and SA groups. In these
situations, the ED group used internal modifications significantly more frequently than did the
NT (p =<.001), AH (p =<.001), and SA (p =.002) groups. In acquaintance situations, the AH
group was an outlier, using only 2.02 internal modifications per head act, which was
significantly fewer than the rates of the SA (p =.002) and ED (p =.001) groups. In close
situations, the baseline language groups used internal modifications at comparable rates to one
another while the learner groups showed similarities to one another. Both baseline language
groups used significantly more internal modifications per head act when compared to the learner
groups (p =<.001).
Syntactic downgraders were used by each group the most frequently in stranger situations and
the least frequently in close relationship situations. The use of interrogatives appears to vary only
minimally between the three social distance types for each group. Modal tense modifications,
however, were observed at different rates between the social distance types in the data of the AH,
SA, and ED groups. These three groups used modal tense modifications the most often in
stranger situations, ranging from 0.54 (NT) to 0.69 (ED) modal tense modifications per head act.
Analysis by Kruskal-Wallis and Dunnâs tests showed that there were no statistically significant
differences between the AH, SA, and ED groups in the use of modal tense modifications in
stranger situations. However, in acquaintance and close situations, there were greater differences
between the learner groups and the ED group in the use of this modification type. When
comparing the use of modal tense modifications of the AH (M = 0.40) and ED (M = 0.61) groups
in acquaintance situations, the ED group was observed to use this modification type more
frequently than the AH group (p =.003). The difference between the learner groups and the ED
group was even more pronounced in close situations. In close situations, the learner groups used
only 0.19 (AH) and 0.27 (SA) modal tense modifications per head act, while the ED group used
136
0.57 modal tense modifications per head act, which was significantly more than both of the
learner groups (p =<.001).
Figure 11. Mean number of internal modification types used per head act in situations controlling for social distance.
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
NT AH SA ED NT AH SA ED NT AH SA ED
Close Relationship Acquaintances Strangers
Syntactic Downgraders
Passive
Embedded
Conditional clause
Modal tense
Tense
Aspect
Interrogative
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
NT AH SA ED NT AH SA ED NT AH SA ED
Close relationship Acquaintances Strangers
Lexical and Phrasal Downgraders
Appealer
Downtoner
Subjectivizer
Hedge
Understater
Polite particle
Consultative device
Politeness marker
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
NT AH SA ED NT AH SA ED NT AH SA ED
Close relationships Acquaintances Strangers
Upgraders
Time intensifier
Intensifier
137
The use of lexical/phrasal downgraders varied only minimally between the three social distance
levels for the NT group, ranging only from 1.48 modifications per head act in close situations to
1.64 modifications per head act in acquaintance situations. There was a greater degree of
variability with the other three study groups, all of which used lexical/phrasal downgraders the
most often in stranger situations and the least often in close situations. Among the types of
lexical/phrasal downgraders that appear to be influenced by social distance, understaters stood
out. While the NT group used understaters least often in requests to strangers, the three English
EDCT groups (AH, SA, and ED) used them the most often in these situations. In stranger
situations, there were no statistically significant differences between the study groups in their use
of understaters. However, in close situations, understaters were a common feature of the NT
groupâs requests, with 0.50 understaters per head act. This was significantly more than the rates
of all three of the other study groups (p =<.001), all of which used understaters very infrequently
in these situations.
In general, upgraders were used very infrequently by the AH groups and were not used at all by
the NT group. With the SA and ED groups, these modifications were used mostly in stranger
situations. In these situations, the SA group used significantly more upgraders when compared to
the NT group (p =.004). For both the SA and the ED, most upgraders used in stranger situations
were intensifiers, while time intensifiers were infrequently used in general by these groups.
Two general trends were observed when controlling for the social variable of social distance that
appear similar to the trends observed when controlling for the social variable of relative power.
First, internal modifications were used the least by all of the study groups in situations that
would be expected to require the smallest degree of mitigation. When controlling for social
distance, Brown and Levinsonâs (1987) predictive model holds that the size of the FTA is
directly proportional to the social distance between a speaker and a hearer. That is, in close
situations, the FTA would be relatively small and thus, require fewer mitigating devices. Indeed,
the data controlling for social distance show that in close situations, the study groups used the
fewest number of internal modifications per head act. Second, as was observed with the data
controlling for relative power, the ED group appears to have been affected more by the variable
of social distance than were the other three study groups. Similar to the interpretation of this
trend in the data controlling for relative power, the fact that internal modifications used by the
learner groups consistently contained grammar errors suggests that the relatively small effect of
138
social distance on the learnersâ use of internal modifications might be a product of linguistic
limitations rather than socio-pragmatic failure.
5.4 Request structures
5.4.1 Choice of request structures
A variety of request structures were observed in the data of every study group, with no single
request structure type representing a majority of the requests of any group. The use of HA + SM
has the greatest range of difference between the baseline language groups (NT and ED). As
shown by Table 12, the NT group used this structure the most often (35.88%), and the ED group
(20.74%) used this structure the least often. Analysis by chi square (DF=1, p =<.01) showed that
this difference was statistically significant, 2 (1, N = 170) = 16.943, p =<.001. Of the two
learner groups, the SA group (25.57%) used this structure at a rate more consistent with the ED
group, while the AH group (31.37%) tended to use this structure at a rate more in line with the
NT group. The AH group used the HA + SM structure significantly more than the ED group, 2
(1, N = 158) = 8.868, p =.003, and the SA group used this structure significantly less than the NT
group, 2 (1, N = 186) = 16.707, p =.006.
The use of the SM + HA + SM structure mirrors that of the HA + SM structure, with the baseline
language groups representing the extremes. This was the most preferred structure of the ED
group (36.79%), while the NT group used it less frequently (25.25%). However, chi square
analysis showed this difference was not statistically significant. As for the structure of SM+HA,
both of the language baseline groups (NT and ED) used this structure slightly less often than did
the learner groups (AH and SA). Similar to the SM+HA+SM structure, there were no statistically
significant differences between the study groups with the use of the SM+HA structure. HA only
was the fourth most used structure with every study group, and multiple head acts was the least
used structure by every study group. There were no statistically significant differences between
study groups with the use either of these structures.
139
Table 12
Distribution of Request Structures Used in All Nine Situations
Structure NT
(n=301)
AH
(n=306)
SA
(n=305)
ED
(n=299)
HA only 11.96% 9.15% 8.20% 14.05% HA+SM 35.88% 31.37% 25.57% 20.74%
SM+HA 17.94% 23.20% 26.56% 21.74%
SM+HA+SM 25.25% 31.37% 34.10% 36.79% Multiple HA 8.97% 4.90% 5.57% 6.69%
The request structure data reveal notable differences between the NT and ED groups. First, NT
group participants had a greater tendency to open a request with a head act, followed by a
supportive move (HA+SM). Second, ED group participants favored using the more elaborate
SM+HA+SM structure. By mitigating the request with supportive moves before introducing the
head act, the SM+HA+SM structure can also be characterized as less direct than the HA+SM
structure. Request structure can reflect culturally specific communicative styles, which can in
turn be transferred by L2 learners (Al-Ali & Alawneh, 2010). The data suggest that the learnersâ
requests structures were influenced by the norms of their L1, particularly with the use of
HA+SM and SM+HA+SM structures. However, the SA group performed more closely to the
norms of ED participants and the AH group used these structures more like the NT group. With
study abroad experience, the SA group demonstrated a development of pragmatic competence
and less reliance on their knowledge of request structures taken from Thai.
The multiple head act category was described in the CCSARP coding manual (Blum-Kulka et al,
1989). However, to my knowledge, only Fukushima (1996) has used this category in an analysis
of English request structures. It is possible to imagine a number of variations within this type of
head act. For example, requests could contain two, three, or possibly more head acts. These
requests might open with a head act or could open with a supportive move. While this category
acts as a kind of catch-all for any request with more than one head act, the elaborate structure of
this type of request should not necessarily be seen as a mitigating feature in a similar way to
SM+HA+SM requests. To the contrary, the fact that the requester refers to the desired action
multiple times within a single request might be seen as an aggravating device, adding pressure on
the hearer rather than softening the request. Seen in this light, the slightly greater use of multiple
head act requests by the NT group is consistent with their tendency to favor more direct request
structures when compared with the ED group (see example 63, showing the ED groupâs use of a
multiple head act request structure with head acts italicized).
140
(63) Hello, my name isâĶ.Iâm really interested in registering to your course, but the
enrolment is already full. Can I put my name down on the waiting list? This is the last
course that I need in order to graduate. Could you please help me with the registration?
(ED group, situation 1)
The fact that both learner groups used multiple head act requests less than did the baseline
language groups might be a result of the learners opting for less complex or perhaps more
conventional request structures. Interestingly, the learner groups also used HA only requests less
than did the baseline language groups. This is consistent with Faerch and Kasperâs (1989)
assertion that â(l)earners at the intermediate and advanced level of second language acquisition
tend to be more verbose and use more words than native speakersâ (p. 120). The use of
unsupported head act requires judgment on the part of the requester that the head act is
appropriately mitigated for the situation. On the other hand, the use of multiple head acts could
perhaps include more direct and complex structuring of the request. The use of a single head act
with supportive moves might act as a more familiar formula for learners to balance the need to
appropriately mitigate a request without making the request unwieldy or difficult to form. Unlike
the pragmatic development described above with the use of other structures, namely HA+SM
and SM+HA+SM, the effect of study abroad does not appear to be significant with regard to HA
only and multiple head act requests.
5.4.2 Relative power
The data controlling for the social variable of relative power suggest this variable influences the
choices of request structure of every study group. For situations involving a high-low power
dynamic, the study groups were remarkably similar in their use of the various request structures
(see Figure 12). High-low power situations were characterized by the use of HA only, which
ranged from 23.53% (SA group) to 31.37% (NT group). This is notable because all groups used
HA only very infrequently and in the case of the AH group, not at all, in low-high and equal
power situations. High-low situations involved the most varied distribution of request structures,
with no single structure making up more than one third of any study groupâs requests. Analysis
by chi square showed that there were no significant differences between the study groupsâ uses
of request structures in high-low situations.
The data in equal power situations also demonstrated similarities between the study groups.
Equal power situations were characterized by a preference for SM+HA+SM by every group.
141
Although this request structure did not account for a majority of the requests of any group, it
represented the most used request structure of every group. The SM+HA structure was used at
very similar frequencies by each group. The greatest difference in equal power situations came
with the baseline language groupsâ use of HA+SM, with the NT group (35.29%) using this
structure the most frequently of any study group and the ED group (19.39%) using it the least
frequently. However, this difference was found not to be statistically significant. Similarly, there
were no statistically significant differences in equal power situations with the use of HA only or
multiple head act structures, which were infrequently used by every study group.
Figure 12. Distribution of request structures used in situations controlling for relative power.
31
.37
%
27
.45
%
23
.53
%
30
.39
%
29
.41
%
33
.33
%
31
.37
%
29
.41
%
10
.78
%
13
.73
%
14
.71
%
11
.76
%
19
.61
%
25
.49
%
25
.49
%
22
.55
%
8.8
2%
0.0
0%
4.9
0%
5.8
8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
NT AH SA ED
High-low
HA only
HA + SM
SM + HA
SM + HA + SM
Multiple HA
1.9
6%
0.0
0%
0.9
9%
6.1
2%
35
.29
%
33
.33
%
28
.71
%
19
.39
%
19
.61
%
24
.51
%
27
.72
%
25
.51
%
37
.25
%
36
.27
%
41
.58
%
44
.90
%
5.8
8%
5.8
8%
0.9
9%
4.0
8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
NT AH SA ED
Equal
HA only
HA + SM
SM + HA
SM + HA + SM
Multiple HA
2.0
6%
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
5.0
5%
43
.30
%
27
.45
%
16
.67
%
13
.13
%
23
.71
%
31
.37
%
37
.25
%
28
.28
%
18
.56
%
32
.35
%
35
.29
%
43
.43
%
12
.37
%
8.8
2%
10
.78
%
10
.10
%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
NT AH SA ED
Low-high
HA only
HA + SM
SM + HA
SM + HA + SM
Multiple HA
142
When controlling for relative power, the greatest differences among the four study groupsâ uses
of request structures came with low-high situations. The greatest differences came with two
structures: HA+SM and SM+HA+SM. The HA+SM structure was the most used structure by the
NT group. By comparison, this structure was used significantly less by the SA group, 2 (1, N =
59) = 16.907, p =<.001, and ED group, 2 (1, N = 55) = 22.088, p =<.001. The use of
SM+HA+SM mirrored this result, with the NT group using this structure the least out of the
study groups, and significantly less frequently than the SA group, 2 (1, N = 54) = 16.907, p
=.008, and ED group, 2 (1, N =61) = 14.145, p =<.001.
It was expected that adding complexity to the request sequence is a device that can be used to
mitigate requests. That is to say, a request structured with pre-head act and post-head act
supportive moves (SM+HA+SM) is more elaborate in its structure and therefore, represents a
greater degree of mitigation than a request containing only post-head act supportive moves
(HA+SM), for example. This expectation is consistent with the findings of Fukushima (1996),
who observed that request structures of both Japanese-speaking and British English-speaking
participants became more elaborate in high imposition requests than in low imposition requests.
Similarly, Konakahara (2011) observed that both British English speakers and Japanese speakers
favored the use of the most complex structure, SM+HA+SM, in high imposition situations.
While the present study did not control for the variable of degree of imposition, it was expected
that a similar pattern would be observed when controlling for the variables of relative power and
social distance. In a similar way to high imposition requests, it is presumed that situations
involving greater social distance and requests from a position of lower relative power would
generally correlate with more highly mitigated requests. When controlling for the variable of
relative power, the data from the ED group conformed to the expected results of the
aforementioned expectation to some extent. The ED participants showed a preference for
SM+HA+SM in both low-high and equal power situations. In contrast, the NT group used the
more direct and less elaborate HA+SM structure the most in low-high situations. With HA+SM
requests, the learner groups demonstrated a similar trend to the ED group, with the SA group
more closely conforming to the ED norms.
143
5.4.3 Social distance
As was observed when controlling for the social variable of relative power, the social variable of
social distance also appears to correlate with differences in request structure use with every
group. In situations involving requests to strangers, the four groups used a varied distribution of
request structures, with no single structure representing more than one third of the total requests
of any group (see Figure 13). For every group, the HA+SM, SM+HA, and SM+HA+SM
structures were used slightly more than HA only and multiple head act requests. Analysis by chi
square showed no statistically significant differences between the study groups in stranger
situations.
Situations involving acquaintances revealed greater differences between the study groups. The
NT (21.65%) and ED (23.00%) groups used the HA only structure more in acquaintance
situations than they did when controlling for other social distances. This was in contrast to the
AH (9.80%) and SA (8.82%) groups, which used this structure more often in requests to
strangers. However, the difference between the baseline language groups and the learner groups
was only statistically significant when comparing the ED and the SA groups, 2 (1, N = 32) =
7.612, p =.006. The NT group preferred the HA+SM structure, using it significantly more than
did the ED group, 2 (1, N =55) = 12.032, p =.001. The NT group also stood out in its infrequent
use of the SM+HA+SM structure, which was significantly less frequent when compared to the
AH group, 2 (1, N = 29) = 13.484, p =<.001, SA group,
2 (1, N = 24) = 8.509, p =.004, and ED
group, 2 (1, N = 35) = 20.804, p =<.001.
When controlling for social distance, the least varied distribution of request structures was in
situations involving close relationships. The HA only and multiple head act structures were used
very infrequently by every study group. There were also similarities between all four study
groups in the preference for SM+HA+SM, which was used in more than 40% of requests of
every study group. The most notable difference was with the HA+SM structure, which was used
by the NT group in 37.25% of requests but in only 17.65% of the ED groupâs requests. The AH
(33.33%) group implemented this structure at a frequency similar to the NT group while the SA
group (20.79%) used it with a frequency comparable to the ED group. Analysis by chi square
showed a statistically significant difference between the NT and ED groups, 2 (1, N = 56) =
144
9.846, p =.002, but there were no statistically significant differences involving the learner
groups.
Figure 13. Distribution of request structures used in situations controlling for social distance.
0.0
0%
0.9
8%
1.9
8%
5.8
8%
37
.25
%
33
.33
%
20
.79
%
17
.65
%
9.8
0%
20
.59
%
17
.82
%
15
.69
%
51
.96
%
44
.12
% 56
.44
%
54
.90
%
0.9
8%
0.9
8%
2.9
7%
5.8
8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
NT AH SA ED
Close Relationship
HA only
HA + SM
SM + HA
SM + HA + SM
Multiple HA
21
.65
%
9.8
0%
8.8
2%
23
.00
%
39
.18
%
31
.37
%
29
.41
%
17
.00
%
23
.71
%
26
.47
%
34
.31
%
26
.00
%
5.1
5%
23
.53
%
18
.63
%
30
.00
%
10
.31
%
8.8
2%
8.8
2%
4.0
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
NT AH SA ED
Acquaintances
HA only
HA + SM
SM + HA
SM + HA + SM
Multiple HA
14
.71
%
16
.67
%
13
.73
%
13
.40
%
31
.37
%
29
.41
%
26
.47
%
27
.84
%
20
.59
%
22
.55
%
27
.45
%
23
.71
%
17
.65
%
26
.47
%
27
.45
%
24
.74
%
15
.69
%
4.9
0%
4.9
0%
10
.31
%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
NT AH SA ED
Strangers
HA only
HA + SM
SM + HA
SM + HA + SM
Multiple HA
145
The results controlling for the variable of social distance did not support the expectation that
greater social distance would positively correlate with more complex and less direct request
structures. All groups favored the SM+HA+SM structure in close relationship situations and
tended to use more direct and less elaborate structures (mostly, HA+SM) with strangers. Some of
this might be attributed to the context of situation 3 (asking to get on the train), which involved
an added element of a time constraint in a situation with a request to a stranger, and which
resulted in many HA+SM requests. In this set of situations involving strangers, the groups
performed more similarly to one another than in the other situations controlling for social
distance.
5.5 Alerters
5.5.1 Choice of alerters
The total number of alerters used per request did not vary greatly between the study groups, with
each group using just over one alerter per request. The ED group used the fewest, with 1.01
alerters per request, and the AH group used the most, with 1.14 alerters per request. Analysis by
chi square showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the four study
groups in the total number of alerters per request.
Figure 14 displays the mean number of various alerter types used per request across the study
groups. As can be seen in this illustration, attention getters (e.g., âhelloâ, âhiâ) represented the
most common type of alerter for the AH, SA, and ED groups, all of which used attention getters
considerably more than did the NT group. Analysis by Dunnâs test with an alpha of <.01 showed
that there were significant differences between the NT groupâs use of attention getters when
compared to the AH group (p =<.001), the SA group (p =<.001), and the ED group (p =<.001).
For the NT group, kinship terms (e.g., âbroâ, âphiâ [āļ, âolder brother/sisterâ]) represented the most
common alerter. The NT groupâs use of kinship terms was significantly more than those of the
AH group (p =<.001), the SA group (p =<.001), and the ED group (p =<.001). Another notable
difference that distinguished the NT group from the other three groups was the use of pronouns
(e.g., you, âkaeâ [āđāļ, âyouâ]) as alerters. The NT group used 0.16 pronouns per request while this
type of alerter was not used by the other three study groups. The NT groupâs use of pronouns
was significantly different when compared to all three other study groups (p =<.001). The NT
146
group also stood out from the other three groups in their use of title/role alerters (e.g., teacher,
âachanâ [āļāļēāļāļēāļĢāļĒ, professor]), using this alerter type significantly more than the AH (p =.007), the
SA (p =.001), and the ED groups (p =<.001). While the NT group used names (e.g., âJohnâ,
âPetersonâ) as alerters less frequently than the other three groups, analysis by Dunnâs test
revealed that there was no statistically significant difference when comparing the NT and AH
groups. However, this analysis showed that the NT group used significantly fewer name alerters
when compared to the SA (p =.005) and ED (p =<.001) groups.
Figure 14. Mean number of various alerter types used per request.
When combining the data from all nine situations, the SA and ED groups used individual alerter
types at very similar rates. Analysis by Dunnâs test confirmed the similarities, showing that there
were no statistically significant differences between the SA and ED groups with any alerter type.
There were, however, some differences between the ED group and the other learner group, the
AH group. Names were the second most common type of alerter used by the both learner groups
as well as the ED group. While this alerter type was used significantly more by the ED group
when compared to the AH group (p =.009), the AH group used honorific address more
frequently when compared to the ED group (p =.001). The AH group also stood out with the use
of friendship terms (e.g., âmate, âdudeâ), using an average of 0.08 friendship terms per request,
which was significantly more than the NT (p =<.001), SA (p =.001), and ED (p =.001) groups.
Although the difference was not great enough to reach a level of statistical significance using an
alpha of <.01, it is notable that the learner groups and in particular, the AH group, used alerters
0.1
2
0.1
5
0.2
0
0.2
3
0.0
7
0.1
0
0.0
8
0.0
3
0.0
0
0.0
8
0.0
3
0.0
3
0.2
9
0.0
7
0.0
6
0.0
5 0.1
6
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.2
4
0.6
2
0.6
0
0.5
7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
NT AH SA ED
All Nine Situations
Title/ roles
Names
Honorific addresses
Friendship terms
Kinship terms
Pronouns
Attention getters
147
somewhat more frequently than the ED group. Given the similarity between the two baseline
language groups, the greater frequency of alerters used by the AH group does not appear to be a
product of L1 transfer. Instead, this use of alerters by the AH group, presumably the least
proficient group in terms of both linguistic and pragmatic development, might be explained by
the relative simplicity of form and the explicit function of alerters. Typically, alerters are either
single words or, in the case of attention getters, short fixed expressions. Faerch and Kasper
(1989) observe that lower proficiency language learners may favor mitigating their requests
internally with lexical and phrasal devices because these devices are both transparent and easier
to process than syntactic structures. In a similar way, alerters can function to show respect or
obligation by referring to the relationship between speaker and listener and thus, act as a
mitigating or coercive element to an ensuing request without adding a significant burden in terms
of linguistic production on the speaker.
These findings reveal several notable differences in the use of individual alerter types that
distinguish the NT group from the other three study groups. One of the most striking differences
between the NT group and the groups completing the English EDCT can be observed in the use
of attention getters. English attention getters observed in the request responses included âhelloâ,
âhiâ, âheyâ, âexcuse meâ, and âsorryâ. There were a number of frequently used Thai attention
getters used in Thai requests, including âsawat diâ (āļŠāļ§āļŠāļ, âhelloâ), âhoeiâ (āđāļŪāļĒ, âheyâ), and âkho
thotâ (āļāļāđāļāļĐ, âexcuse meâ/ âsorryâ), which have similar meanings and functions to their English
counterparts. However, the use of the Thai word âniâ (āļ), literally meaning âthisâ or âhereâ, was
common as an alerter and no comparable word in English was used as an alerter. Despite the NT
groupâs frequent use of âniâ as an alerter, there was no evidence of L1 transfer of this word by
either of the learner groups. Moreover, the fact that the learner groups tended to employ attention
getters at similar frequencies to the ED group, differing significantly than the norms of their L1,
also suggests neither learner group was influenced by their L1 when producing attention getters.
The NT groupâs preference for kinship terms also distinguished this group from the other three
study groups. This preference of the NT group was unsurprising, as the use of kinship terms
among Thai speakers can be widely applied in a variety of contexts, both familial and non-
familial (see examples 64-66, showing the NT groupâs use of kinship term alerters in requests to
148
non-family members), acting as a means of invoking the social relationship between
interlocutors (Kuwinpant, 2002; Howard, 2007). Thai kinship terms can be applied to family,
friends, acquaintances, and strangers and function to articulate the hierarchical social dynamics
defined by age, gender, and power that pervade in everyday social interactions (Kirsch, 1973;
Tannenbaum, 1995; Simpson, 1997). Howard (2007) observed that the model of elder-junior
relationships not only involves âdifferent rights and obligations related to power asymmetries,
but also underpinnings of family relationships, including mutual feelings of dependence, love,
and respectâ (p.205). Thus, kinship terms provide Thai speakers a device in requests that can
have both a compelling and mitigating effect due to important cultural values related to social
hierarchy and family that are quite different than those found in English-speaking cultures.
(64) āļāļāļĢāļ āļāļĄāļ āļēāļĨāļāļāļ°āļāļāđāļāļĢāļāļāļāļ āļāļĄāļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāđāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāđāļŦāļĄāļāļĢāļ
phi khrap phom kamlang cha tok khrueang bin phom kho riak thaeksi kon dai mai
khrap
Older sibling (polite particle) I in the process of will miss airplane I ask call taxi
before can (question particle) (polite particle) (NT, situation 2)
(65) āļāļāļāđ āļāļāđāļāļĐāļāļ°āļāļ° āļāļ§āļĒāđāļāļĒāļāđāļāļēāđāļāļāļēāļāđāļāļŦāļāļāļĒāđāļāđāļŦāļĄāļāļ° nong nong kho thot na kha chuai khayoep khao pai khang nai noi dai mai kha
younger sibling younger sibling apologize (particle) (polite particle) help move enter
go inside a little can (question particle) (polite particle) (NT, situation 3)
(66) āļāļāļāļāļĢāļ āļāļĒāļāđāļĄāđāļāļ āļēāđāļĨāļĒāļāļ° nong khrap phi yang mai dai nam loei na
Younger sibling (polite particle) older sibling still not receive water at all (particle)
(NT, situation 6)
Evidence for possible L1 transfer of kinship terms can be seen in situation 9 (asking a younger
sibling to do your housework). The AH and SA groups used terms such as âsisâ, âbroâ, and
âbrotherâ in 8 and 9 of their 34 respective requests while only a single kinship term, âsisâ, was
observed in the ED groupâs 34 request responses. However, differences in kinship terms used
between the learner groups and ED group appear minimal in most situations, which appears to
suggest that perhaps the learners were aware to some extent of the difference between Thai and
English with regard to kinship terms.
Interestingly, a few occurrences of the word âbroâ with strangers were observed in the request
responses of the SA group and to a lesser extent, the ED group (see examples 67-69). While the
149
use of the term âbroâ used to address non-family members has been observed to be a
characteristic of particular English-speaking communities (see Wilson, 2010, for example), it
was observed in only 1 of 299 request responses of the ED group. âBroâ is one of several address
terms referred to by Leech as âfamiliarizersâ, which can function not only as an attention getting
device, but also as a means of establishing solidarity between interlocutors (Leech, 1999). In this
way, the use of a kinship terms with non-family members in English can be comparable to the
Thai convention, albeit in a much more restricted context by native English speakers.
(67) Hey bro, would you do me a favor? Move inside a little bit, so I can get on the train.
Thanks. (SA, situation 2)
(68) Hey bro, I had been sick for a week. I need your help man. I know you have been busy
with your job. But if you have time, would you please help me study for the upcoming
exam or let me borrow your lecture? I would be appreciated man [sic] (SA, situation 8)
(69) Hey brother, my phoneâs run out of battery, can I use your phone to make a quick call?
Thanks. (ED, situation 5)
Taken on its own, the SA groupâs use of âbroâ might appear to be an unimportant or anomalous
occurrence in the data. However, when considering this alongside the learner groupsâ relatively
frequent use of honorific address alerters and friendship terms, an interesting pattern emerges of
a preference for forms of address that explicitly make reference to the social relationship
between the two interlocutors. In this way, honorific addresses and friendship terms perform a
similar function to Thai kinship terms to show deference or closeness of the speaker and hearer.
With these three categories of alerters â kinship terms, honorific address, and friendship terms â
a pattern exists in which the learner groups used these alerters more frequently than did the ED
group. Taking the data from any one of these alerter types individually shows little or no
evidence of L1 transfer. However, taken together, the learnersâ preference for these types of
alerters may represent the transfer of the Thai convention of articulating the relationship between
speaker and hearer when introducing a request.
To Leech (1999), âbroâ and other familiarizers, including terms that are classified as friendship
terms in this study, such as âmateâ and âmanâ, are similar to honorific addresses, such as âsirâ and
âmadamâ, in that they âdo not require knowledge of the name of the personâ (p.111) and thus,
can be used with strangers. While familiarizers and honorific addresses can be used to mark
relationships in very different ways, the former showing familiarity and the latter showing
150
distance and respect, both used to articulate a relationship that frames the ensuing request.
However, the use of these forms of address in English dominant environments is limited.
Regarding honorific addresses, Leech (1999) noted that in English-speaking cultures, such overt
signals of respect are restricted to particular contexts, such as service encounters. Similarly, the
term âbroâ tends to be restricted as well to particular contexts involving, among other factors,
younger males addressing other males in casual settings (Aggarwal & Aggarwal, 2017). Both
learner groups may be familiar with honorific addresses, namely âsirâ and âmadamâ, but may be
unfamiliar with when to appropriately use them to initiate a request. Similarly, the SA group may
have been exposed to the use of the term âbroâ as a form of address but might use it less
judiciously than ED group participants would.
In many ways, the differences in linguistic structures and word meaning between Thai and
English are significant enough that the transfer of the literal meaning of words is minimized. The
frequently used kinship terms ânongâ (āļāļāļ, âyounger siblingâ) and âphiâ (āļ, âolder siblingâ) refer
to relative age rather than gender of siblings and thus, are not directly translatable to âbrotherâ
and âsisterâ. Similarly, Thai contains a much wider range of pronoun choices that have more
specific meaning than the English pronouns âIâ and âyouâ (see Simpson, 1997 for example).
Included in the NT data were pronouns such as ânuâ (āļŦāļ, I) âthoeâ (āđāļāļ, âsheâ/âyouâ) ânaiâ (āļāļēāļĒ,
âyouâ) âkaeâ (āđāļ, âyouâ) âmuengâ (āļĄāļ, âyouâ), all of which have connotations of status, age, and/or
closeness of the speakers. For example, ânuâ is typically used to refer to a younger and thus,
lower status individual, and âkaeâ and âmuengâ are considered impolite terms which would cause
offense unless being used by close friends.
In many instances, no English term exists that contains the same level of specificity related to
culturally relevant information about the relationship between speaker and hearer. However, the
Thai learners of English used the English terms available to them to approximate the functions of
forms of address in their L1 (see examples 70-71). This transfer was often obscured by the
coding system because Thai and English words that function in a similar way to refer to the age,
status, and/or closeness of the interlocutors were often coded in different categories. For
example, English friendship terms such as âmateâ, âbuddyâ, and âdudeâ, along with the kinship
term âbroâ can all function to show closeness between friends in a similar way to the Thai
151
pronouns âkaeâ and âmuengâ (see example 72). Similarly, English honorific addresses such as
âsirâ and âmadamâ can show deference or respect to a stranger in a similar way as the Thai
kinship term âphiâ.
(70) Hey dude, my battery is dead and I need to make a phone call. Can I borrow your phone?
(AH, situation 5)
(71) Hey mate. Sorry to interrupt, is it okay if I can borrow your phone for sec? Mine is
dead. (SA, situation 5)
(72) āđāļ āļāļāļĒāļĄāđāļāļĢāļĻāļāļāđāļāļĢāļŦāļē(āļāļāļāļ) āđāļāļāļāļ° āđāļĢāļāļāļāļ§āļāļĄāļēāļ āļāļāļāđāļāļĄāļēāļāđāļ
kae kho yuem thora sap tho ha (chue khon) paep na rueang duan mak khop chai mak
kae
You ask borrow phone call (name person) momentarily (particle) story urgent very
thank you very you (NT, situation 5)
Rather than relying on translating the literal meaning of Thai forms of address into English, the
Thai learners of English used English forms of address that approximate the function of their
Thai counterparts. By doing this, the learners were transferring the culturally specific value
associated with referencing the relationship between speaker and hearer. It is noteworthy that
although this pattern was present in the data of both learner groups, it is more pronounced with
the AH group; SA group participantsâ use of these alerter types was consistently more in line
with the norms of ED group participants, suggesting that pragmatic development occurred as a
result of their time spent in the target language environment.
While the total numbers of honorific addresses used by the NT and learner groups were
relatively similar, the way that this alerter was used by these groups was different. From the
collected data, it was found that the AH and SA used a great number of honorific addresses in
situation 2 (asking to cut a taxi line), in which a request was made to a stranger. However, the
NT group used the honorific address term âkhunâ (āļāļ, âsirâ /âmadamâ/âMr.â/âMrs.â) the most in
situation 7 (borrowing money from an older relative). Typically, âkhunâ can be used with
strangers and is rarely used when the speaker and the hearer know each other well. However,
situation 7 involves an exception because âkhunâ can also be used preceding kinship terms to
show respect to an older relative, a convention not used in English (See examples 73-74).
152
(73) āļāļāļĨāļāļāļ° āļāļāļĨāļāļāļāļĄāđāļāļāđāļŦāļĒāļĄāļŠāļ 500 āđāļŦāļĄāļāļ° āļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļŦāļāļŠāļāļāļāļāļēāđāļŦāđāļāļēāļĄāļēāļŠāļāđāļāļāļāļāļāļŦāļāđāļĄāļĄāđāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļāļ§ āđāļĨāļĒ āđāļāļĒāļ§āļŦāļāļĢāļāđāļāļāļāļāļāđāļŦāļāļ°āļāļ° khun lung kha khun lung pho mi ngoen hai yuem sak 500 mai kha pho di ton ni nu
sang phissa hai khao ma song tae ton ni nu mai mi ngoen sot tit tua loei diao nu rip
pai kot khuen hai na kha
Mr. uncle (polite particle) Mr. uncle happen to have money for borrow about 500
(question particle) (polite particle) just now I order pizza for them come send but now I
not have cash close me at all soon I hurry go press return for (particle) (polite particle)
(74) āļāļāļāļēāļāļĢāļ āļāļĄāļāļāļĒāļĄāđāļāļāļŠāļāļŦāļāļāļĒāđāļāđāļŦāļĄāļāļĢāļ āļāļēāđāļĄāļāļĨāļāļĄāļēāđāļĨāļ§ āđāļāļĒāļ§āļāļĄāļāļ°āļĢāļāļāļāđāļāļāđāļŦ āļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļ
khun na khrap phom kho yuem ngoen sak noi dai mai khrap tha mae klap ma laeo
diao phom cha rip khuen ngoen hai khop khun khrap
Mrs. Aunt (polite particle) I ask borrow money about a little can (question particle)
(polite particle) if mother return come already soon I will hurry return money for thank
you (polite particle)
A closer look at the data shows that the learnersâ use of âsirâ was not a result of direct translation
from the Thai honorific, âkhunâ, but rather from the kinship term âphiâ. As described above,
âkhunâ is used quite differently than the English term âsirâ. While the term âphiâ carries with it
other connotations relating to family as well as relative age, which are not present in âsirâ, the
function of âsirâ as marker of deference and polite respect makes it a logical choice for Thai
learners of English in some situations.
5.5.2 Relative power
When controlling for the social variable of relative power, the data show that all groups used
alerters least often in high-low power situations. Every group used an average of less than one
alerter per request in high-low power situations, ranging from 0.83 (ED) to 0.92 (AH and SA)
alerters pre request, with no statistically significant differences between groups. The baseline
language groups both used alerters the most frequently in low-high situations, with the ED using
1.25 alerters per request and the NT group using 1.34. This was slightly more than the average
frequencies of the learner groups; however, there were no statistically significant differences
between groups. The AH group represented an outlier in the use of alerters in equal power
situations, using 1.33 alerters per request, which was significantly more than both of the baseline
language groups, the NT and ED groups (p =<.001).
As seen in Figure 15, several patterns with individual alerter types emerged when controlling for
relative power. With each study group, title/role alerters were used only in low-high situations.
153
The learner groups (AH, M = 0.38; SA, M = 0.32) used this alerter type at similar frequencies to
the ED group (M = 0.31) whereas the NT group (M = 0.63) used this alerter type significantly
more than did every other study group (p =<.001). There is an additional notable difference in
low-high situations with the use of names as alerters. While the four study groups were
comparable in their use of names as alerters in high-low and equal power situations, in low-high
situations the ED group used names more than did any other group. This difference was
statistically significant when comparing the ED group to the NT (p =<.001) and the AH (p
=<.001) groups. There was also a statistically significant difference when comparing the SA
group to the NT group (p =.001) in the use of names as alerters in low-high situations.
Honorific address was used very infrequently by all study groups in high-low situations. The NT
group (M = 0.19) used this type of alerter more than did any other group in low-high situations;
however, a statistically significant difference was found only when comparing the NT group to
the ED group (p =.001). In equal power situations, honorific address was used more by the
learner groups than by the baseline language groups. The AH group used honorific address
alerters significantly more than the NT group (p =.005) in equal power situations.
There were no friendship terms used as alerters in low-high situations by any group, and this
alerter type was infrequently used in high-low and equal power situations. However, there were
still some notable differences between the AH group and the other study groups that emerged
with the use of friendship terms. First, in equal power situations, the AH group (M = 0.16) used
this alerter type more than did every other group, with statistically significant differences when
comparing the AH group to the NT group (p =<.001) and the ED group (p =.009). The AH group
also used friendship terms more than did any other group in high-low situations, which was a
statistically significant difference when compared to the NT group (p =<.001) and SA group (p
=.007).
154
Figure 15. Mean number of various alerter types used per request in situations controlling for relative power.
The data controlling for relative power show consistent differences between the NT group and
the other three study groups in their use of the remaining three alerter types â kinship terms,
pronouns, and attention getters. With all three relative power types, attention getters were the
most used alerter type for the learner groups and the ED group. While the NT group used this
alerter type significantly less often in all three power relation types than did the other three study
0.1
8
0.1
2
0.1
6
0.2
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
0.0
1
0.0
1
0.0
0
0.0
7
0.0
1
0.0
2
0.4
7
0.0
9
0.0
9
0.0
1
0.0
5
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.2
1
0.6
4
0.6
6
0.6
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
NT AH SA ED
High-low
Title/ roles
Names
Honorific addresses
Friendship terms
Kinship terms
Pronouns
Attention getters
0.1
3 0.2
4
0.2
4
0.2
1
0.0
4 0.1
6
0.1
4
0.0
5
0.0
0
0.1
6
0.0
7
0.0
6
0.1
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
0.0
1
0.4
1
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.3
3
0.7
8
0.6
6
0.6
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
NT AH SA ED
Equal
Title/ roles
Names
Honorific addresses
Friendship terms
Kinship terms
Pronouns
Attention getters
0.6
3
0.3
8
0.3
2
0.3
1
0.0
4
0.1
1 0.2
2
0.2
9
0.1
9
0.1
3
0.1
0
0.0
3
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.3
0
0.1
2
0.0
8
0.1
2
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.1
9
0.4
4
0.4
8
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
NT AH SA ED
Low-high
Title/ roles
Names
Honorific addresses
Friendship terms
Kinship terms
Pronouns
Attention getters
155
groups (p =<.001), it used kinship terms significantly more often than did the other three study
groups (p =<.001) for each relative power type. Pronouns were not used by the learner groups or
ED group at all, and although this was also true for the NT group in low-high situations, the NT
groupâs use of pronouns in equal power and high-low situations was significantly more than that
of every other study group (p =<.001).
These findings show that some alerter types correlated to a particular relative power dynamic. A
closer look at the data reveals that some alerter types were used mostly in only one or two of the
situations within an aggregated data set, suggesting that other context-specific factors played an
important role in the selection of alerters. The use of titles, for instance, can be seen particularly
in situations 1 (asking a professor for late enrollment) and 4 (asking a professor to reconsider
your exam), both of which involved a low-high power dynamic with a request to a professor. The
use of titles in these situations highlights differences between Thai and English norms as well as
the pragmatic development of SA group participants toward the norms of the ED group.
Although it is possible to use honorific addresses such as âMr.â, âMrs.â, or âMissâ, typically
preceding a last name, to address a teacher in English, it is uncommon and inappropriate to use
their equivalent Thai terms in such as a context as speaking to a professor. The term âachanâ
(āļāļēāļāļēāļĢāļĒ), which can be translated as âprofessorâ or âteacherâ, is commonly used in Thai to address
a university-level teacher. In the requests of the NT group, âachanâ was not used in combination
with names. In Thailand, a university teacher is a highly respected occupation. It is associated
with being authoritative and knowledgeable, and its value carries over outside of the teaching
context, with acquaintances who are not students often referring to a professor as âachanâ. When
using the term âachanâ, the speaker shows respect to the hearer by acknowledging the power and
the status of the person being referred to as âachanâ (Thijittang, 2010).
In the Thai data, the term âachanâ was used as an alerter in 61 out of 63 request responses,
whereas names and honorific addresses were not used at all when referring to a professor. While
the AH and SA groups used titles much less frequently by comparison, in 39 and 33 of their 68
respective responses, the learner groups opted for the use of âsirâ in these situations and used it
much more frequently than did the ED group. Titles are commonly used in Thai, but the learners
appear to have been unsure about transferring such usage into English. Therefore, in order to
show respect and be polite with the hearer who is a professor, they generalized the use of
156
honorific addresses. The learner groupsâ use of titles appears to show a development of the
learnersâ pragmatic competence toward ED norms. Although the learners used titles less
frequently when compared to the norms of the L1, they still preferred using titles over using
names when addressing a professor. These findings contradict the observations of Li (2014), who
found that Chinese learners of English tended to favor names over titles when addressing
professors, which was a phenomenon Li attributes to the lack of specificity in titles compared to
names and the desire of the learners to be pragmatically transparent. Cultural and linguistic
norms in Thai, however, appear to have had a greater influence on the learnersâ selection of
alerters than this pragmatic consideration.
It is noteworthy that in the remaining situation controlling for low-high relative power, in which
a request is made to an older relative, a similar pattern was observed, with the ED group using
names the most and the NT group using them the least. In contrast to titles and the honorific
addresses, names do not carry any connotation of the asymmetrical power dynamic in either Thai
or English. In Thai culture, referring to this power dynamic carries important implications,
perhaps making names less important or valuable in their role as alerters in request making. In
English speaking cultures, the use of names perhaps has a connotation of friendliness or relates
to cultural values of acknowledging oneâs individual agency. As with the other low-high
situations, the SA groupâs use of names in situation 7 (borrowing money from an older relative)
was more similar to that of the ED group, and AH responses tended to conform more to those of
NT group participants.
The fact that the AH group used alerters more than did the baseline language groups in equal
power situations can to some extent be attributed to the AH groupâs greater use of friendship
terms used in situation 8 (asking a friend to study with you for an exam), which involved asking
a friend to help study for an exam. While the NT data for this situation did not contain friendship
terms, pronouns were widely used. The Thai pronouns used included âkaeâ (āđāļ, âyouâ) and
âmueangâ (āļĄāļ, âyouâ), which would be considered overly familiar and offensive to use with
anyone except friends, thus functioning in a similar way as friendship terms to establish
solidarity. The AH groupâs use of friendship terms, therefore, may show that AH participants
were influenced by their L1 cultural values and that the SA group demonstrated more
development toward the English-speaking cultural norms.
157
Although the average number of alerters per request was similar between study groups in high-
low power situations, the distribution of alerters by type reveals a noteworthy difference between
the study groups. As the reader will recall from the presentation of the statistical data, when
controlling for high-low power, the NT group was an outlier with their preference for kinship
terms. The ED groupâs use of kinship terms was minimal while the learner groups both used
them somewhat more than the ED group. For both learner groups, most of the use of kinship
terms came in situation 9 (asking a younger sibling to do your housework), which involves a
request to a younger sibling. In Thai, the kinship term ânongâ (āļāļāļ, âyounger siblingâ) was widely
used in this situation, and for the learner groups, the term âbroâ or âsisâ acted as a replacement.
5.5.3 Social distance
The variable of social distance appears to have had little impact on the use of alerters by the NT
group, which only varied in use from 1.07 alerters per request in close and stranger situations to
1.10 alerters per request in acquaintance situations. The use of alerters varied more substantially
across different levels of social distance for the other three study groups. All of the study groups
used the fewest average number of alerters per request in close situations, with no statistically
significant differences observed between the study groups. Situations with acquaintances
involved the highest average number of alerters per request for all study groups, with no
statistically significant differences observed between the study groups. The greatest differences
between the study groups came in situations with requests to strangers, in which the ED group
used only 0.89 alerters per request while the AH (M = 1.15) and SA (M = 1.19) used
significantly more when compared to the ED group (p =.002).
Title/role alerters were observed only in situations involving strangers and acquaintances
(see Figure 16). While each groupâs use of this alerter type was comparable between these two
social distance levels, the NT group used it somewhat more in requests to strangers (M = 0.33)
than they did in requests to acquaintances (M = 0.28). While analysis by Dunnâs test showed that
there were no statistically significant differences between the study groups in their use of
title/role alerters in acquaintance or close situations, the NT group used this alerter type
significantly more in stranger situations when compared to the SA (p =.004) and ED (p =.001)
groups. By contrast, names were used infrequently in requests to strangers compared to requests
of acquaintance or close social distance levels, and this alerter type was not used at all by the NT
158
group in situations involving strangers. The ED group used this alerter type more than did the
other three study groups in every social distance level, with a statistically significant difference
observed when comparing the ED and NT groupsâ uses of names in requests to strangers (p
=.002).
Figure 16. Mean number of various alerter types used per request in situations controlling for social distance.
0.2
1
0.2
4
0.2
4
0.2
8
0.1
8
0.0
1
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0 0.1
1
0.0
2
0.0
4
0.3
5
0.2
1
0.1
7
0.1
3 0
.25
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0 0.0
9
0.4
2
0.4
3
0.4
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
NT AH SA ED
Close Relationship
Title/ roles
Names
Honorific addresses
Friendship terms
Kinship terms
Pronouns
Attention getters
0.2
8
0.1
8
0.1
6
0.1
7
0.1
4
0.2
1 0.3
0
0.3
2
0.0
0
0.0
6
0.0
5
0.0
2
0.0
0 0
.12
0.0
5
0.0
4
0.2
2
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
0.2
1
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.2
6
0.7
5
0.6
4
0.7
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
NT AH SA ED
Acquaintances
Title/ roles
Names
Honorific addresses
Friendship terms
Kinship terms
Pronouns
Attention getters
0.3
3
0.2
1
0.1
7
0.1
4
0.0
0
0.0
2
0.0
7
0.0
9
0.0
4
0.2
3
0.2
0
0.0
7
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
0.0
0
0.2
9
0.0
0
0.0
1
0.0
0
0.0
2
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.3
8
0.7
0
0.7
4
0.5
8
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
NT AH SA ED
Strangers
Title/ roles
Names
Honorific addresses
Friendship terms
Kinship terms
Pronouns
Attention getters
159
The use of honorific addresses and friendship terms varied between social distance types,
revealing differences between the study groups. In particular, the NT group stood out from the
other three study groups with its use of honorific addresses. While honorific address alerters
were used very infrequently by the AH group (M = .01) and not at all by the SA and ED groups
in close situations, the NT group (M = .18) used this alerter type significantly more than did any
other study group (p =<.001). However, in stranger situations, the learner groups used honorific
address alerters more than the baseline language groups, with statistically significant differences
observed when comparing the AH group to the NT (p =<.001) and ED (p =.002) groups, and
when comparing the SA group to the NT group (p =.001). Although between all of the study
groups, a friendship term was used only one time (SA group) in stranger situations, in
acquaintance and close situations, this alerter type was used the most by the AH group, with a
statistically significant difference when comparing the AH group to the NT group (p =<.001) in
requests to acquaintances and when comparing the AH group to the NT (p =<.001) and SA (p
=.002) groups in close situations.
An analysis controlling for social distance of the remaining three alerter types â kinship terms,
pronouns, and attention getters â shows considerable differences in the way these alerters were
used by the NT group when compared to the other three study groups. Kinship terms were used
more often in close situations than in stranger or acquaintance situations by every study group.
However, when controlling for situations involving strangers and acquaintances, the NT group
consistently used this alerter type significantly more than every other study group (p =<.001). In
close situations, the NT group used kinship terms significantly more than did the SA (p =.001)
and ED (p =<.001) groups. The learner groups and ED group did not use pronoun alerters at all
in any situation. Although this alerter type was used infrequently by the NT group in stranger
situations (M = .02), it was more common in acquaintance (M = .21) and close (M = .25)
situations. In acquaintance and close situations, there was a statistically significant difference
when comparing the NT groupâs use of pronoun alerters to the other three study groups (p
=<.001), with the NT group using alerters significantly more than the other three study groups.
Finally, the greatest difference between the NT group and the other three groups came with
attention getter alerters, which were the most common alerter type for the learner groups and ED
group in all three social distance levels. This alerter type was used the most by these three groups
in stranger and acquaintance situations and the least in close situations. However, in all three
160
social distance levels, the NT group used attention getters significantly less frequently compared
to the other three study groups (p =<.001).
A notable pattern these findings reveal is that all study groups used alerters more frequently in
situations with acquaintances than in those of the close or stranger social distance level. In a
study on apology speech acts of Thai EFL students, Thittijang (2010) observed a similar
phenomenon with alerters when using a similar research design controlling for social distance,
arguing that the âemergent and relatively uncertain nature of relationship between acquaintances
is reflected in the care people take to signal solidarity and avoid confrontationâ (p. 157). The
greatest difference between the learner groups and the ED group came with the social distance
level of stranger, with both learner groups using alerters significantly more than the ED group. In
situation 2 (asking to cut a taxi line), which involved a request to a person of undefined age, the
learner groups used honorific addresses, namely âsirâ, much more frequently than did the ED
group. In a comparable situation, situation 3 (asking to get on the train), which involved a
request to a younger student, honorific addresses only appeared one time in the request responses
of the SA and ED groups. This illustrates how the students generalized the term âsirâ in order to
outwardly show polite respect to strangers of equal power, but not to someone younger and
presumably with lower relative power. This appears to indicate that both groups of learners,
particularly the AH group, were still influenced by the norms of their L1 culture, which does not
value equality in the same way that English-speaking cultures do.
5.6 Supportive moves
5.6.1 Choice of supportive moves
As shown in Figure 17, which shows the use of supportive moves by type across all study
groups, the use of supportive moves was the greatest with the SA (M = 2.80) and ED (M = 2.77)
groups, which used supportive moves at similar rates to one another. The AH group (M = 2.55)
used supportive moves slightly less often than the SA and ED groups, and NT group (M = 1.96)
used considerably fewer supportive moves per request than any other group. Analysis by Dunnâs
test (p =<.01) showed that there were statistically significant differences between the NT group
and all other study groups in the use of supportive moves, with the NT group using supportive
moves significantly less frequently than the AH, SA, and ED groups (p =<.001). Mitigating
supportive moves made up the large majority of supportive moves used by every study group,
161
and generally, the patterns described above were also observed with mitigating supportive
moves, with the NT group using significantly fewer mitigating supportive moves per request
compared to every other study group (p =<.001). In contrast, aggravating supportive moves were
used infrequently by every study group, with no statistically significant differences between
study groups.
Figure 17. Mean number of supportive types used per request.
Figure 18 presents the use of various mitigating supportive moves by type across all study
groups. As can be seen in this illustration, grounders (e.g., I just realized that I donât have
enough cash for the pizza â ED participant) were by far the most used type of supportive move
by each study group. However, the groups differed in their use of this type of supportive move.
The SA group (M = 1.54) used grounders the most, with the AH (M = 1.39) and ED (M = 1.36)
groups using it somewhat less frequently. Analysis by Dunnâs test showed that there was a
significant difference between the SA and ED groups (p =.008) in their use of grounders, with
the SA group using it more frequently. The NT group (M = 1.05) used grounders significantly
less than the AH (p =<.001), SA (p =<.001), and ED (p =.005) groups.
Imposition minimizers (e.g., It will only be a minute. â SA participant) were the second most
used type of supportive move, ranging from 0.19 per request with the ED group to 0.20 per
request with the SA group. There were no statistically significant differences between the study
groups in the use of imposition minimizers. Preparators (e.g., I need to ask you for a favour. â
ED participant) and promises of reward (e.g., Iâll buy a gift for you. â AH participant) were used
at comparable frequencies to one another, and like imposition minimizers, there were no
statistically significant differences between the study groups with the use of these supportive
move types. Small talk (How are you today? â SA group), getting precommitment (Can you do
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
NT AH SA ED
Suppotive moves
Aggravating
Mitigating
162
me a favor? â ED participant), self-introduction (Iâm a fourth-year student, majoring in English.
â AH participant), sweeteners (You really know your stuff. â ED participant), negative
consequence (I may miss my fight if I do not get this taxi. â AH participant), and urging
supportive moves (pretty please? â AH participant) were also used at similar rates with each
study group and with no statistically significant differences. However, these supportive move
types were very infrequently used by every study group. The use of disarmers (e.g., I know you
are busy. â AH participant) varied among study groups, with the ED group using them the most
frequently (M = 0.25) and the NT group using them the least frequently (0.02). The AH (M =
0.15) and SA (M = 0.17) groups used disarmers at rates similar to one another and that fell in
between the rates of the baseline language groups. The NT group used disarmers significantly
less than every other group (p =<.001), while the ED group used them significantly more than
the AH (p =.008) and SA (p =.008) groups. Giving alternatives supportive moves (e.g., Or
maybe there is a waiting list? â ED participant) also reveal differences between study groups,
with the ED group using this type of supportive move significantly more than the AH (p =.<001)
and SA (p =.001) groups. Finally, the rates of use for apologizing supportive moves (e.g., Iâm
really sorry to bother you. â ED participant) show a difference between the NT group and the
other study groups, with the NT group using apologizing supportive moves significantly less
frequently than the AH (p =.007), SA (p =.<001), and ED (p =.<001) groups.
Figure 18. Mean number of mitigating supportive move types used per request.
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
NT AH SA ED
Mitigating Supportive Moves
Apologizing
Giving alternative
Thanking
Sweetener
Imposition minimizer
Promise of reward
Self-introductions
Disarmers
Grounders
Precommitment
Preparators
Small talk
163
These findings show significant differences between Thai and English in the way supportive
moves are used. Notably, the findings show that supportive moves are more common in English
than in Thai. Thai learner of English participants, regardless of their backgrounds as SA or AH
learners, were able to approximate ED norms in terms of the overall number of supportive moves
per request. These findings are not consistent with those of many previous studies that have
shown a tendency for learners to overuse supportive moves (Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2009;
Faerch & Kasper, 1989; Wang, 2011; Otcu & Zeyrek, 2006; Woodfield & Economidou-
Kogetsidis, 2010). This phenomenon has been explained by pointing to the relative simplicity
and less syntactically demanding nature of supportive moves when compared with internal
modifications (Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2009). Indeed, while both learner groups in the present
study used supportive moves at ED-like frequencies, they both also underused internal
modifications. This shows that although the learner groups did not overuse supportive moves,
they did prefer using supportive moves to internal modifications as a means of mitigating their
requests. The fact that the learner groups and the ED group used supportive moves at similar
frequencies might also suggest that both groups of learnersâ pragmatic competence has
developed enough to approximate the ED norms with regard to the rate of use of supportive
moves. Previous studies have shown that both EFL (Najafabadi & Paramasivam, 2012) and ESL
(Trosborg, 1995) learners develop toward native-like frequencies of supportive moves after
reaching advanced proficiency levels. The reader will recall from the description of the study
groupsâ selection criteria in Chapter 4 that both learner groups are comprised of high-
intermediate to advanced learners of English.
The findings that grounders were the most common type of supportive move used in the requests
of every study group in all nine EDCT situations combined as well as in each of the nine EDCT
situations individually is consistent with other studies that have shown grounders are the most
common supportive move used by English learners (Faerch & Kasper, 1989; Woodfield, 2004;
Schauer, 2007), as well as studies by Economidou-Kogetsidis (2008, 2009), which showed that
both English learners and native English speakers used grounders more than any other type of
supportive move (see Figure 18). Although grounders were the most used type of supportive
move by every study group, they were used by the NT group significantly less than the other
three study groups, suggesting that the learnersâ patterns of use did not reflect a reliance on
transferring the norms of their L1. Interestingly, SA group participants showed a slight overuse
164
of grounders when compared to the ED group while AH group participants demonstrated ED-
like frequencies. One situation in which the learners diverged the most from the ED group is
situation 6 (asking for an ordered drink). In this situation, the AH and SA learners overused
grounders by providing background information to the hearer about the situation whereas the ED
group tended to keep their requests short and concise by stating only their actual requests (see
examples 75-77).
(75) Hey, man, could I grab that drink I ordered when you get a chance? (ED, situation 6)
(76) Hey, my drink doesnât come yet [sic]. Iâm so thirsty. Bring me my drink when it is ready
to be served. (AH, situation 6)
(77) Excuse me, Iâve ordered the drink, but I feel it takes too long time [sic]âĶ around 10-15
minutes. Could you check it for me please? (SA, situation 6)
A closer examination of the content of some supportive move types can provide additional
insights that are not apparent when looking only at the statistical findings. Despite the similar
rates of use of imposition minimizers by the four study groups, differences were found in the
how the information communicated by the groupsâ imposition minimizers functions within their
respective requests. These differences highlight contrasting cultural norms between Thai and
English users as well as evidence of L1 influence on the AH group. Imposition minimizers
included several types of approaches to minimizing the hearerâs cost of accepting the request,
such as offering to pay for the cost or attempting to minimize the time and effort of the hearer in
doing the requested action. These approaches were common in the imposition minimizers of all
study groups (see examples 78-79). A cultural difference may be seen, however, in the use of
imposition minimizers that provide the hearer a choice to refuse to do the requested action,
which was used frequently by the NT and AH groups while it was used only one time by the SA
and ED groups (see examples 80-81). Situations that NT and AH group participants tended to
use this type of phrase were situation 2 (asking to cut a taxi line) and situation 8 (asking a friend
to study with you for an exam), in which the reason for the request involved some inaction or
fault on the part of the speaker. In such cases, some NT and AH group participants showed their
willingness to accept the consequences of their actions as a way to minimize the imposition of
their requests. This also shows how the SA learners deviated from their L1 norms toward the ED
norms.
(78) It'll only be a minute. (ED, situation 5)
165
(79) I will pay back to you as soon as I can. (SA, situation 7)
(80) āļāļēāđāļāđāļĄāļŠāļ°āļāļ§āļāļāđāļĄāđāļāļāđāļĢāļāļ° tha kae mai saduak mai pen rai na
if you not convenient not is anything (particle) (NT, situation 8)
(81) If you are hurry [sic], thatâs fine. (AH, situation 2)
A similar phenomenon was observed with disarmers. Although there were no statistically
significant differences between the study groups in terms of how frequently they used disarmers,
a difference can be seen in the content of the disarmers between the ED group and the two
learner groups. While the ED groupâs disarmers tended to refer to the contextual factors
preventing the hearer from easily complying with the request, the learner groupsâ disarmers
tended to acknowledge their own role in creating the need to make a request. This was most
apparent in situation 1 (asking a professor for late enrollment), in which ED participants focused
on the norms and rules relating to the requested action while participants from the AH and SA
groups focused on how their own inaction resulted in the need to make a request (see examples
82-85, showing ED, SA, and AH groupsâ uses of disarmers).
(82) I realize the session is full this semesterâĶ (ED, situation 1)
(83) I understand that this is highly unorthodox butâĶ (ED, situation 1)
(84) It's all my fault and irresponsibility, but âĶ (SA, situation 1)
(85) I know itâs my fault that I didnât enroll on this course in time butâĶ (AH, situation 1)
In addition to examining the content of supportive moves as a means of supplementing the
statistical data, considering the linguistic forms used with supportive moves can also highlight
differences between study groups. With the use of disarmers, for example, the ED group was not
only different in terms of the content but was also distinguished by the linguistic forms present in
these supportive moves, which generally demonstrated the use of longer utterances and a greater
variety of verbs acknowledging the speakerâs awareness of the circumstances surrounding the
request. The AH and SA groups, on the other hand, relied on the use of the verb âknowâ. This
could be the result of the learnersâ limited vocabulary knowledge used in articulating their
intention or feeling.
166
Although thanking supportive moves were infrequently used by every study group and there
were no statistically significant differences between the study groups, differences in the
linguistic forms used in thanking supportive moves point to possible development associated
with SA learners. Overall, the ED group tended to use more variety of forms and more elaborate
utterances to express gratitude or appreciation (see examples 86-87). While the SA groupâs
thanking supportive moves were less varied and less complex compared to the ED groupâs, they
were noticeably more varied than those of the AH group. Unlike the AH group, the SA groupâs
thanking supportive moves contained verbs such as âappreciateâ and adverbial modifications,
such as âsoâ in âthank you so muchâ (see example 88). It is worth noting that although the SA
groupâs thanking supportive moves were more varied and complex compared to the AH groupâs,
these longer, more complex utterances also frequently contained grammatical errors, such as
âvery appreciateâ or âI would be appreciatedâ (see example 89). This may be explained by using
Schmidtâs (1993) Noticing Hypothesis, with the SA learners having noticed the phrases and
vocabulary used in the L2 environment without yet mastering the use of these forms.
(86) Iâd really appreciate it. (ED, situation 5)
(87) I would appreciate anything you could do to help. (ED, situation 1)
(88) Very appreciate you [sic]. (SA, situation 8)
(89) Thank you. (AH, situation 6)
In addition to the aforementioned statistical differences between study groups in terms of how
frequently they used apology supportive moves, the content and linguistic forms used by the
study groups were also found to be different. The apology supportive moves of all three groups
completing the English EDCT tended to be more elaborate and specific in their reference to the
offense compared to the apologies of the NT group (see example 90). Unlike thanking supportive
moves, the SA groupâs apologies tended to contain very few grammatical errors and their word
choice tended to be more similar to the apologies of the ED group. Both the ED and SA group
heavily relied on the verb âbotherâ in their apologies (see example 91, showing the SA groupâs
use of the verb âbother). By contrast, this verb was less frequently used by the AH group, which
instead favored the verb âdisturbâ (see example 92). The AH learnersâ less frequent use of the
verb âbotherâ could relate to their limited vocabulary knowledge. Like ED group participants, the
167
SA learners may recognize the conventionalized use of the verb âbotherâ in request situations. In
contrast, Thai has no equivalent word or expression that is used in such a general or
conventionalized way.
(90) Iâm really sorry to have to ask you thisâĶ (ED, situation 2)
(91) I am really sorry to bother you. (SA, situation 1)
(92) Iâm so sorry to disturb you sir. (AH, situation 2)
As the reader will recall, the remaining mitigating supportive move types â small talk,
preparators, getting precommitments, self-introductions, promises of reward, sweeteners, and
giving alternatives â were used infrequently and generally contained only minimal differences
between study groups in terms of frequency of use. Although it was infrequent, some evidence of
L1 pragmatic transfer on the part of the AH group in particular was observed in the linguistic
forms used in these supportive move types. For example, with the use of self-introduction, most
of which occurred in situation 1 (asking a professor for late enrollment), NT and AH participants
omitted their names and instead gave information about their year of study and faculty. By
contrast, SA and ED participants included their names. This could be because names were not
considered important piece of information for NT participants in this particular context or it was
not necessary that the hearer (professor) know the name of the speaker (student), and this norm
of the learnersâ L1 influenced the requests of the AH learners. Possible evidence of L1 pragmatic
transfer also can be seen in both the AH and SA groupsâ use of sweeteners in situations 8 (asking
a friend to study with you for an exam) and 9 (asking a younger sibling to do your housework),
which involved informal situations where the speaker and hearer are friends or siblings. The
linguistic features used by the NT, AH, and SA groups usually included affectionate terms such
as ânong rakâ(āļāļāļāļĢāļ, âmy beloved sisterâ), âmy dearâ, âsweetyâ, âprettyâ, or âmy hunâ while those
used by the ED group were terms that the speaker praised or expressed admiration of the hearer
such as âYou are very good at this subjectâ, âI have always greatly admired youâ, âYou are the
bestâ instead of using affectionate terms. Therefore, it is likely that both the AH and SA groups
were influenced by their L1 when using sweeteners.
Despite the infrequent use of aggravating supportive moves in the data, some differences
between the study groups emerge when focusing on their linguistic forms (see Figure 19). For
168
example, when compared to the AH group, the SA learners used more variety and more complex
linguistic forms in their urging supportive moves, such as âI hope you understand my situationâ.
Urging supportive moves used by the AH group, on the other hand, tended to be restricted to a
single word or short phrases such as âpleaseâ, âplease?â, âOK?â, âplease help meâ, âIâm begging
youâ, âcan you?â, âright?â, or âdeal?â. These phrases are easy for the learners to use due to the
simplicity of the form and the clarity of the meaning. Therefore, the presence of more complex
forms by the SA group suggests some linguistic development, differentiating it from the AH
group.
Figure 19. Mean number of aggravating supportive move types used per request.
5.6.2 Relative power
When controlling for the social variable of relative power, several patterns emerged that
demonstrated a correlation between relative power and the use of supportive moves as well as
differences between the study groups with regard to this correlation. For every study group, the
fewest supportive moves were used in high-low situations, ranging from 1.13 (NT) to 1.74 (SA)
supportive moves per request, and the most were used in low-high situations, ranging from 2.26
(NT) to 3.51 (ED) supportive moves per request (see Figure 19). Although the mean number of
supportive moves used by each group was considerably different between power relation types,
the mean of each study group relative to one another was generally consistent, with the SA and
ED groups using supportive moves at comparable rates to one another and at higher rates than
the NT and AH groups. The NT group consistently used the fewest supportive moves per request
when controlling for all three types of relative power. The difference between the NT group and
other groups was the largest in low-high situations, with the NT group using supportive moves
significantly less often than every other group (p =<.001). There were no statistically significant
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
NT AH SA ED
Aggravating Supportive Moves
Urging
Negative consequneces
169
differences, however, in the total number of supportive moves per request when comparing the
study groups in equal power and high-low situations.
In terms of the broad categories of supportive move types, mitigating and aggravating, the data
controlling for relative power reveal differences between the study groupsâ use of supportive
moves. The greatest differences between study groups can be seen in low-high situations. The
learner groups and ED group used more mitigating supportive moves in low-high situations than
they did in high-low or equal power situations. This was not the case with the NT group, which
used mitigating supportive moves more in equal power situations. In low-high situations, the
difference is statistically significant when comparing the NT groupâs use of mitigating
supporting moves to that of any other study group (p =<.001), with the NT using fewer
supportive moves per request. Although aggravating supportive moves were infrequently used in
low-high situations, the difference is notable between the baseline language groups, with the ED
group using significantly fewer aggravating supportive moves when compared to the NT group
(p =.002). In low-high situations, the AH group used aggravating supportive moves at similar
rates to the NT group. There was also a statistically significant difference when comparing the
AH group to the ED group, with the AH group using more aggravating supportive moves in low-
high situations.
While low-high situations involved the greatest differences between the study groupsâ use of
aggravating supportive moves, equal power situations involved the most frequent use of
aggravating supportive moves by each study group. However, this supportive move type was
used in comparable numbers by each study group, ranging from 0.25 (NT) to 0.36 (SA)
aggravating supportive moves per request. The learner groups and ED group used mitigating
supportive moves at comparable rates in equal power situations, somewhat less than they did in
low-high situations. The NT group used the fewest mitigating supportive moves in equal power
situations, which was different at a level of statistical significance when comparing the NT group
to the SA (p =.004) and ED groups (p =.003). High-low situations contained the fewest number
of mitigating supportive moves per request by each group, with no statistically significant
differences. There were also no statistically significant differences between groups in the use of
aggravating supportive moves in high-low situations, which were infrequently observed in the
data.
170
When examining the use of individual supportive move types controlling for different relative
power, the most-used supportive move type, grounders, was found most frequently in low-high
situations with every study group, with the NT group using grounders significantly less than the
learner groups (p =<.001) and the ED group (p =.001). All study groups used grounders the least
frequently in high-low situations. The four study groupsâ uses of grounders in high-low
situations were also found to be more uniform, with no statistically significant differences. In
equal power situations, the NT group differed from the SA (p =.001) and ED (p =.009) groups,
using grounders significantly less frequently.
Promise of reward supportive moves was used with considerably different means with different
types of relative power. With low-high situations, this supportive move type was used at a
maximum of 0.03 times per request (ED), but high-low situations, the use ranged from 0.25
(AH) to 0.33 (NT) times per request. This was consistent across all study groups. A similar trend
was observed with thanking/appreciation. Every study group used this supportive move type
considerably more in high-low situations than they did in low-high or equal power situations.
The supportive move types that involved the greatest degree of difference between the study
groups include disarmers. Disarmers were consistently used the most by the ED group while this
supportive move type was used consistently the least often by the NT group. This difference is
statistically significant when comparing the NT and ED groups in low-high (p =<.001), equal
power (p =<.001), and high-low (p =<.001) situations. The use of disarmers by the learner
groups was more similar to the NT group in low-high situations. Analysis by Dunnâs test showed
that the ED group used disarmers significantly more than did the AH (p =.003) and SA (p
=<.001) groups in low-high situations. In equal power situations, the learner groups used
disarmers at a rate similar to the ED group, with the learner groupsâ rates significantly higher
than that of the NT group (p =<.001).
171
Figure 20. Mean number of mitigating supportive move types used per request in situations controlling for relative power.
A closer look at the individual situations provides additional insights into the aforementioned
aggregated data sets controlling for relative power. For example, notable differences were
observed between the NT group and the other study groups in the use of grounders in situations 1
(asking a professor for late enrollment) and 4 (asking a professor to reconsider your exam), both
of which involved a request to a professor and are therefore, characterized by a low-high power
dynamic. In these situations, the NT group used grounders significantly less frequently than did
the other study groups. Instead, the NT group introduced negative consequences, which like
grounders, explains the reason for the request. However, negative consequences differ from
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
NT AH SA ED NT AH SA ED NT AH SA ED
High-low Equal Low-high
Mitigating Supportive Moves
Apologizing
Giving alternative
Thanking
Sweetener
Imposition minimizer
Promise of reward
Self-introduction
Disarmer
Grounder
Precommitment
Preparator
Small talk
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
NT AH SA ED NT AH SA ED NT AH SA ED
High-low Equal Low-high
Aggravating Supportive Moves
Urging
Negative consequence
172
grounders in that they have an aggravating impact rather than mitigating one. For example, in
situation 1(asking a professor for late enrollment), the grounders of the English EDCT groups
(AH, SA, and ED) tended to convey information about the speakerâs need to take the course in
order to graduate. In contrast, the NT group tended to introduce negative consequences that
focused on what would happen if the speaker were not allowed to enroll in the course. Overall,
the NT group used relatively few mitigating supportive moves in situation 1. Similarly, in
situation 4 (asking a professor to reconsider your exam), the NT group also used grounders much
less frequently than did the English EDCT groups. The English EDCT groups tended to explain
that the results were unexpected because they had prepared well and were able to provide correct
answers on the exam. The NT group, on the other hand, tended to be briefer and less specific,
communicating that they had thought they had done well on the exam. These results could be
viewed as unexpected because with an emphasis on social hierarchy in Thai society, supportive
moves used to minimize the force of the request might be expected to reflect this aspect of Thai
culture. However, giving too many reasons, or using too many grounders, could be considered by
Thais as implying disapproval of the professor grading, which could threaten the face of the
hearer. These observations are consistent with the general pattern revealed in the data that
distinguishes the NT group from the other three study groups when controlling for the variable of
relative power.
A difference in cultural norms might explain why the NT participants used relatively fewer
supportive moves or why they chose different supportive moves than the ED group. Despite
these differences between the learnersâ L1 and target languages, there is no evidence of L1
pragmatic transfer with regard to the effect of relative power when considering both the
frequency of all supportive moves combined and the frequency of individual types of supportive
moves; both learner groups used similar numbers of supportive moves when compared to ED
group participants controlling for this variable. In particular, both learner groups demonstrated a
similar pattern to the ED group in which the number of supportive moves per request positively
correlated to the relative power of the hearer, a pattern that was not observed with the NT group.
Study abroad does not appear to have affected the learnersâ sensitivity to relative power as seen
in the number of supportive moves per request.
173
5.6.3 Social distance
When controlling for the variable of social distance, supportive moves were used the most in
situations involving close relationships by every study group. Close relationship situations were
also characterized by the least variability between groups, with the number of supportive moves
per request ranging only from 2.68 (NT) to 3.32 (SA) supportive moves per request (see Figure
21). Analysis by Kruskal-Wallis test showed that there were no statistically significant
differences between the study groups in the total number of supportive moves per request in
close relationship situations.
The data from situations involving strangers and acquaintances show considerable differences
between the NT group and the other three study groups, with the NT group using fewer
supportive moves per request. Analysis by Dunnâs test showed that this difference was
statistically significant when comparing the NT group to the AH (p =.008), SA (p =<.001), and
ED (p =<.001) groups in stranger situations and also when comparing the NT group to the AH (p
=<.001), SA (p =<.001), and ED (p =.002) groups in acquaintance situations. All study groups
used the fewest supportive moves in acquaintance situations, with the learner groups and the ED
group using supportive moves at very similar rates. In stranger situations, the AH group (M =
2.45) used slightly fewer supportive moves when compared to the ED group (M = 2.88), but this
difference was not statistically significant.
Mitigating supportive moves made up the majority of supportive moves by a wide margin for
every group when controlling for each social distance level. Aggravating supportive moves were
particularly infrequently used in acquaintance situations, with mitigating supportive moves
representing nearly all of the supportive moves of every group. Every study group used
aggravating supportive moves most frequently in situations with strangers, ranging from 0.25
(ED) to 0.39 (NT) aggravating supportive moves per request. Analysis by Kruskal-Wallis test
showed there were no significant differences between the study groups when controlling for all
three types of social distance. For every study group, mitigating supportive moves appeared the
most often in requests in close situations, in which there were no statistically significant
differences between study groups. In stranger and acquaintance situations, the NT group used
fewer mitigating supportive moves per request. The NT groupâs rate of mitigating supportive
move use was significantly less than that of the AH (p =.002), SA (p =<.001), and ED (p =<.001)
174
groups in stranger situations. Similarly, there were significant differences when comparing the
NT group with the AH (p =<.001), SA (p =<.001), and ED (p =.001) groups in acquaintance
situations, with the NT group using fewer mitigating supportive moves. The learner groups and
ED group were very similar in the frequency of mitigating supportive moves per request in
acquaintance situations. Although not a statistically significant difference, the NT group (M =
2.08) used mitigating supportive moves somewhat less often in stranger situations than did the
ED group (M = 2.64).
The most used supportive move type for every group was grounder when controlling for all three
social distance levels. With the learner groups and ED groups, the number of grounders per
request varied minimally across different social distance levels. Although the study groups all
used grounders at similar rates in close situations, the NT group used significantly fewer
grounders in acquaintance situations when compared to the AH (p =.002) and SA (p =.002)
groups. In situations involving requests to strangers, with the NT group using significantly fewer
grounders than the SA (p =.001) and ED (p =.007) groups.
Disarmers also show differences between the study groups when controlling for social distance.
This supportive move type was used the most frequently in close situations, with the ED group
using disarmers the most and the learner groups using disarmers only slightly less frequently.
The NT group used disarmers significantly less than the AH (p =<.001), SA (p =.003), and ED (p
=<.001) groups in close situations. With strangers and acquaintances, the ED group also used
disarmers the most often and the NT group used this supportive move type the least often. In
stranger situations, the ED group used disarmers significantly more than the NT (p =<.001) and
AH (p =.005) groups, and in acquaintance situations, the NT group used disarmers significantly
less than the SA (p =.009) and ED (p =.001) groups. As for the learner groupsâ use of disarmers
in stranger and acquaintance situations, the AH group conformed more to the norms of the NT
group while the SA group was more comparable to the ED group.
Although the use of disarmers in close situations demonstrate differences between the NT group
and other groups, close situations generally saw comparable rates of each supportive move type
with the study groups; analysis by Kraskul-Wallis showed that there are no statistically
significant differences between groups in the use of any supportive move type in close situations
besides disarmers. Aside from the similarities between groups in close situations, this social
175
distance level was also characterized by the use of promise of reward and imposition minimizers,
which were both used considerably more by every study group in close situations than they were
in situations involving strangers or acquaintances.
Figure 21. Mean number of mitigating supportive move types used per request in situations controlling for social distance.
Although the supportive move types of promise of reward and giving alternative were not
frequently used by the ED group in stranger situations, this social distance type involved
statistically significant differences, with the ED group using significantly more promise of
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
NT AH SA EDS NT AH SA EDS NT AH SA EDS
Close relationship Acquaintances Strangers
Mitigating Supportive Moves
Apologizing
Giving alternative
Thanking
Sweetener
Imposition minimizer
Promise of reward
Self-introduction
Disarmer
Grounder
Precommitment
Preparator
Small talk
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
NT AH SA ED NT AH SA ED NT AH SA ED
Close relationship Acquaintances Strangers
Aggravating Supportive Moves
Urging
Negative consequence
176
reward supportive moves when compared to the NT (p =.001), AH (p =.001), and SA (p =.005)
groups. Similarly the ED group used significantly more giving alternative supportive moves
when compared to the NT (p =.001), AH (p =<.001), and SA (p =.001) groups. Apologizing
supportive moves were not frequently used by the learner groups or the ED group in
acquaintance situations. However, the NT group did not use apologizing at all, which was found
to be significantly different when compared to the AH (p =.006) and ED (p =.001) groups.
These findings suggest a general pattern in which social distance appears to have had a greater
influence on the use of supportive moves by the NT group than by any other study group. In
particular, situations defined by close social relationships elicited a significant increase in the
number of the NT groupâs supportive moves. Many of these supportive moves came from
situation 8 (asking a friend to study with you for an exam), in which the NT group used
considerably more preparators and imposition minimizers compared to the other three study
groups. Both learner groups were similar to each other and the ED group in their response to
different levels of social distance, suggesting study abroad had a minimal if any effect on the
learnersâ sensitivity to social distance, as measured by their use of supportive moves. Other
patterns characterizing the relationship between social distance and supportive moves can be
observed when looking beyond the aggregated data sets to how supportive moves were used in
individual situations. The ED groupâs use of disarmers in situation 1 (asking a professor for late
enrollment), for example, points to a difference in perception about how factor of social distance
relates to the requested action. ED group participants mentioned in their disarmers the fact that
they had never previously studied with the professor, but this factor was not mentioned at all by
the learners. This suggests that the ED group participants might have thought that this social
distance factor could affect the decision made by the hearer. The fact that neither learner group
did this suggests that study abroad experience did not affect the SA learnersâ use of disarmers.
Situation 1 also highlights a potential cultural difference that can be seen in the way participants
use the supportive move type of introducing negative consequences, with the NT group using
negative consequences much more frequently than the ED group. The differences between the
two baseline language groups could come from cultural differences in the way the teacher-
student relationship is perceived. Bergman and Kasper (1993) contrasted American and Thai
perceptions of this relationship, reporting that Thais perceive a closer social relationship between
teacher and student, similar to that of distant relatives. In contrast, Americans view the teacher-
177
student relationship more as a working relationship. In the cultural context that views this
relationship as a working one, the aggravating effect of introducing a negative consequence
would perhaps be more inappropriate than in the cultural context which sees a closer, family-like
relationship between student and teacher. It is evident that in situation 1, the SA learners used
this type of supportive move at a very similar rate to the ED. Moreover, the way the negative
consequences were framed was somewhat less direct than what was observed in the requests of
the NT and AH participants. The SA learner groupâs request responses, therefore, suggest that
experience with study abroad may play a role in contributing to learnersâ pragmatic awareness of
how this role is perceived differently in English-speaking cultures. After all, studying abroad
puts students into situations that directly relate to this relationship in an English-speaking context
(see examples 93-96, showing all study groupsâ use of supportive moves introducing negative
consequences).
(93) Itâs my last chance and otherwise I might be unable to graduate. (ED, situation 1)
(94) If I donât join this class, I canât graduate. (AH, situation 1)
(95) This means that I couldnât graduate in time. (SA, situation 1)
(96) āđāļĄāļāļĒāļēāļāļāļāļŦāļāļāļ°āđāļĄāļŠ āļēāđāļĢāļāļāļēāļĄāļŦāļĨāļāļŠāļāļĢāđāļāđ āđāļĨāļĒ
mai yang nan nu cha mai samret tam laksut nae nae loey
not like that I will not succeed according curriculum certain certain at all
5.7 Chapter summary
The findings of the first section of the EDCT consist of coded data representing six aspects of the
participantsâ request responses: request perspectives, request strategies, internal modifications,
request structures, alerters, and supportive moves. These data were analyzed quantitatively to
compare the study groupsâ linguistic production of requests both in terms of types and frequency
of various linguistic features. In addition to applying quantitative analysis to the coded data
derived from the request responses, the request responses were examined in order to identify and
discuss various trends with regard to the linguistic forms not captured by the coding system.
The degree of similarity between the study groups varied, depending on the aspect of the request.
However, it can be summarized that, generally, the norms of NT and ED participants are quite
178
different in several ways. The requests of NT participants tended to contain more direct features.
This is particularly evident in the data relating to request strategies, perspectives, and request
structures. ED participants modified their requests internally using syntactic features relating to
verb inflection, which are features not found in Thai. NT participants modified their requests
using lexical features, such as polite particles, which are not available in English.
Generally, when compared to the ED group, both learner groups (AH and SA) used less variety
of lexical and grammatical forms in their requests. Similarly, the coded data, which reflect the
participantsâ choices and frequencies of various linguistic features, showed that both of the
learner groups tended to differ to some extent from the ED group in every request aspect.
However, the SA group appears to show more similarities to the ED group than does the AH
group in terms of the variety of lexical and grammatical forms as well as in the choices and
frequencies of various linguistic features. It can be summarized that study abroad experience
correlates with some development toward the linguistic norms of ED participants. It is
noteworthy, however, that there is some evidence that L1 transfer played a role in influencing
both learner groupsâ requests. In addition, there is also evidence to suggest that training transfer
was an even more significant factor in the learnersâ request-making than L1 transfer.
In terms of the social variables of relative power and social distance, it can be summarized that
no single group appears to be more sensitive to these than the other groups. Although a group
may have shown a lesser or greater sensitivity to one of these social variables when looking at
one particular aspect of the request, these results did not produce a consistent trend that can
characterize a particular group as being more sensitive than another group to these social
variables. It was expected that when requesting from a lower position of relative power,
participants from all study groups would use more modifications and indirect features in order to
make their requests more polite. Frequent modifications and indirectness were also expected
with greater social distance. However, it can be concluded that no general pattern from any study
group was observed that is consistent with this expectation. The patterns that did emerge appear
to be more complex and are perhaps influenced by other contextual factors, such as time
sensitivity or the high context nature of a request. It can be summarized that these patterns reflect
differences between the baseline language groups. Although the SA group appears to show more
similarities to the ED group than does the AH group, there were generally minimal differences
179
between the SA and AH groups, suggesting a minimal effect of study abroad on the learnersâ
sensitivity to the social variables of relative power and social distance.
180
Chapter 6 Perception Data Analysis and Discussion
This chapter presents the findings and discussion of the data collected from the second section of
the EDCT and the semi-structured interviews, which are used to contextualize the requests
elicited in the first section of the EDCT. The data obtained from the second section of the EDCT
and the semi-structured interviews are concerned with the participantsâ perceptions of their own
language use and, for the learner groups, with their English pragmatic development as L2
learners. Findings are organized and discussed in two parts. The first part deals with the second
section of the EDCT, which consists of follow-up questions designed to provide insights into the
participantsâ request making processes in the elicited request responses in the first section of the
EDCT. The second part involves the semi-structured interviews aimed at understanding
participantsâ views on language use norms, politeness, and language learning. The chapter
concludes with a summary of the various interpretations presented.
6.1 Second section of the EDCT
The second section of the EDCT contains four follow-up questions, all of which apply to each of
the nine situations from the first section of the EDCT. The follow-up questions are intended to
provide context and insights into the participantsâ perspectives on their language use when
responding to the request situations in the first section of the EDCT. Before turning to a
situation-by-situation presentation and interpretation of the findings from the participantsâ
responses to these follow-up questions, let us briefly consider each of the four questions.
The objective of the first open-ended question of the EDCTâs second part was to allow the
participants to identify in their own words the relevant factors that influenced their language
choices while making requests in the first section of the EDCT. Interestingly, the desire to be
polite appeared quite frequently in the answers of all study groups in some situations. Compared
to other factors, politeness is uniquely vague and requires further interpretation. According to
Brown and Levinson (1987), the level of politeness needed in a request is derived from other
context-specific factors. That is, a speaker uses variables such as her/his social distance or
relative power to the hearer in order to determine how polite the request should be. Thus, when a
participant identifies the desire to be polite as a factor in their decision making, it begs the
181
question: what factors influenced their perception that a request should be polite? The answer
appears to be, at least in part, social distance and relative power. The desire for politeness was
quite commonly represented in the participantsâ answers in five situations, including all three
situations involving strangers, which suggests social distance was a factor connected to the need
for politeness. One of the remaining situations in which many participants identified the desire to
be polite as a factor influencing their requests was situation 4 (asking a professor to reconsider
your exam), which involved a professor, representing a low-high power dynamic. Situation 7
(borrowing money from an older relative), which also involved a low-high power dynamic, also
contained some answers from every study group related to the need to be polite. This suggests
that relative power was also a factor, with the desire for politeness associated with low-high
requests. In order to better understand how other factors were considered and how these factors
intersect with the desire to be polite, these factors will be discussed below according to each of
the nine situations from the EDCT.
According to Brown and Levinson (1987), a speaker making an FTA, such as a request, must
determine the appropriate degree of politeness by assessing three independent social variables:
relative power, social distance, and the degree of imposition (termed âabsolute ranking of
impositionâ by Brown and Levinson). In the first section of the EDCT, each hypothetical request
situation was designed to control for the first two of these social variables: relative power and
social distance. The data produced controlling for these two variables have been presented and
discussed in Chapter 5. The last of these variables, the degree of imposition, was the focus of the
second and third follow-up questions in the second half of the EDCT. The second question asked
participants to identify, using a five-point Likert scale, the perceived level of imposition for each
of the nine situations provided in the first section of the EDCT. The overall results are presented
in Table 13. Statistical analysis by Kruskal-Wallis and Dunnâs tests (p =<.01) showed that
significant differences between the study groupsâ ratings occurred only in situations 1, 6, and 9.
In situation 1 (asking a professor for late enrollment), the SA group (M = 3.65) rated the degree
of imposition as significantly higher than did the NTS group (M = 1.85). The SA group also
rated the degree of imposition as significantly higher in situation 6 (asking for an ordered drink)
when compared to the NTS group (M = 1.26). In situation 9 (asking a younger sibling to do your
housework), the rating given by the ED group (M = 2.76) was significantly higher than that
assessed by the SA (M = 1.94) and NTS groups (M = 1.97). Question three asked participants to
182
explain their rating, asking them to provide information about the factors they considered when
rating the degree of imposition for each situation. The findings related to these two follow-up
questions are presented in detailed below situation-by-situation.
Table 13
Ratings of the Degree of Imposition
Average SD
Very low
imposition
1
2 3 4
Very high
imposition
5
Situation 1
EDS 3.41 1.13 5.88% 14.71% 29.41% 32.35% 17.65%
SA 3.65 1.10 5.88% 5.88% 29.41% 35.29% 23.53%
AH 2.76 1.10 11.76% 32.35% 29.41% 20.59% 5.88% NTS 3.24 1.33 11.76% 20.59% 20.59% 26.47% 20.59%
Situation 2
EDS 3.79 1.07 2.94% 11.76% 14.71% 44.12% 26.47%
SA 3.97 1.06 2.94% 5.88% 20.59% 32.35% 38.24%
AH 3.97 0.80 0.00% 2.94% 23.53% 47.06% 26.47% NTS 3.88 1.18 2.94% 11.76% 20.59% 23.53% 41.18%
Situation 3
EDS 1.62 1.07 70.59% 8.82% 8.82% 11.76% 0.00% SA 2.15 1.11 35.29% 29.41% 23.53% 8.82% 2.94%
AH 1.74 0.99 55.88% 23.53% 11.76% 8.82% 0.00%
NTS 1.74 1.83 47.06% 35.29% 14.71% 2.94% 0.00% Situation 4
EDS 2.97 1.22 14.71% 20.59% 26.47% 29.41% 8.82%
SA 3.32 1.34 11.76% 17.65% 20.59% 26.47% 23.53% AH 3.32 0.84 0.00% 14.71% 47.06% 29.41% 8.82%
NTS 3.53 0.96 2.94% 11.76% 26.47% 47.06% 11.76% Situation 5
EDS 2.32 1.07 26.47% 32.35% 23.53% 17.65% 0.00%
SA 2.38 0.99 20.59% 35.29% 29.41% 14.71% 0.00% AH 2.21 0.95 26.47% 35.29% 29.41% 8.82% 0.00%
NTS 2.21 1.10 32.35% 29.41% 26.47% 8.82% 2.94%
Situation 6 EDS 1.56 0.99 67.65% 17.65% 8.82% 2.94% 2.94%
SA 1.85 0.89 41.18% 38.24% 14.71% 5.88% 0.00%
AH 1.56 0.82 58.82% 32.35% 2.94% 5.88% 0.00% NTS 1.26 0.51 76.47% 20.59% 2.94% 0.00% 0.00%
Situation 7
EDS 2.21 1.15 35.29% 26.47% 23.53% 11.76% 2.94% SA 2.12 0.91 29.41% 35.29% 29.41% 5.88% 0.00%
AH 2.24 1.05 29.41% 32.35% 23.53% 14.71% 0.00%
NTS 2.12 0.95 26.47% 44.12% 23.53% 2.94% 2.94% Situation 8
EDS 3.12 1.25 14.71% 14.71% 26.47% 32.35% 11.76%
SA 3.24 1.21 5.88% 26.47% 23.53% 26.47% 17.65% AH 3.50 0.99 2.94% 14.71% 23.53% 47.06% 11.76%
NTS 3.79 0.85 0.00% 8.82% 20.59% 52.94% 17.65%
Situation 9 EDS 2.76 1.30 20.59% 23.53% 26.47% 17.65% 11.76%
SA 1.94 0.98 38.24% 41.18% 8.82% 11.76% 0.00%
AH 2.53 1.13 17.65% 38.24% 23.53% 14.71% 5.88% NTS 1.97 1.06 44.12% 26.47% 17.65% 11.76% 0.00%
The final follow-up question of the EDCTâs second section asked participants whether or not
they had ever made requests in a similar situation to those which were described in the first
section of the EDCT. Participants indicated whether or not they had experienced this by selecting
âyesâ or ânoâ for each of the nine situations (see Table 14). It is possible that a participant with
previous experience making a similar request to that which was elicited by the request prompt
183
might have a different perspective on this request than a participant with no previous experience
making such a request. Therefore, patterns emerging from this data will also be considered below
in the situation-by-situation presentation.
Table 14
Percentage of Participants Experiencing Similar Situations in Real Life
Yes No Yes No
Situation 1 Situation 6
ED 38.24% 61.76% ED 94.12% 5.88%
SA 32.35% 67.65% SA 94.12% 5.88% AH 70.59% 29.41% AH 85.29% 14.71%
NT 47.06% 52.94% NT 94.12% 5.88%
Situation 2 Situation 7 ED 44.12% 55.88% ED 61.76% 38.24%
SA 11.76% 88.24% SA 47.06% 52.94%
AH 8.82% 91.18% AH 67.65% 32.35% NT 14.71% 85.29% NT 47.06% 52.94%
Situation 3 Situation 8
ED 94.12% 5.88% ED 61.76% 38.24%
SA 61.76% 38.24% SA 47.06% 52.94%
AH 67.65% 32.35% AH 64.71% 35.29% NT 61.76% 38.24% NT 41.18% 58.82%
Situation 4 Situation 9
ED 58.82% 41.18% ED 64.71% 35.29% SA 52.94% 47.06% SA 50.00% 50.00%
AH 38.24% 61.76% AH 61.76% 38.24%
NT 58.82% 41.18% NT 61.76% 38.24% Situation 5
ED 73.53% 26.47%
SA 73.53% 26.47% AH 91.18% 8.82%
NT 76.47% 23.53%
What follows is the situation-by-situation consideration of the findings emerging from the four
follow-up questions included in the second section of the EDCT.
Situation 1 (asking a professor for late enrollment)
All of the study groups often cited the formality of the situation as a factor in how they made
their requests, connecting the need for formality to the hearerâs job of being a professor. The
specific ways that the participants described how this formality would be reflected in the requests
included the avoidance of slang by some SA group participants and the use of formal vocabulary
and polite particles by NT participants. In addition to frequently mentioning the position of the
professor, the four study groups also referred to the hearerâs power as a factor in how the
requests were made. However, this factor seemed to characterize the responses of the NT, AH,
and SA groups in particular. All four groups also mentioned that this request would be an
imposition on the hearer, but this factor was more common in the responses of the ED group.
Some less frequently mentioned but notable factors include the desire for clarity due to the
184
importance of the situation, time sensitivity, and that this type of request would be a regular
occurrence for the professor.
Since this request is to a professor and person of power, the language I used was more
formal [the authorâs translation from Thai]. (AH)
The request should be formal as it is in a university setting. (ED)
I spoke more formally and didnât use slang. For example, I wouldnât use âheyâ as a
greeting [the authorâs translation from Thai]. (SA)
In terms of the degree of imposition they perceived of the request in situation 1, the two baseline
language groups rated the request similarly as having a moderate imposition. This suggests that
differences between the learnersâ L1 and L2 cultures were not a factor in their perception of the
degree of imposition. The AH group appears to be an outlier, rating the situation as having a
lower degree of imposition compared to the other three study groups. When asked about their
experience with a similar situation, it is notable that the AH group was also quite different from
the other three study groups in their experience with this situation, with a large percentage of AH
participants (70.59%) reporting experience with a similar situation. By contrast, the other three
study groups ranged from 32.35-47.06%. The AH groupâs familiarity with this type of request
might play a role in influencing their perception that this is a low imposition request; participants
who have not experienced this type of request may be more likely to view it as unusual and thus,
a higher imposition on the hearer.
Although the degree of imposition was rated similarly by the two baseline language groups, the
reasons provided by these study groups reveal some differences between them. The ED group
tended to see the imposition coming from the fact that the professor would have to make an
exception. The NT group, however, focused more on the imposition coming from the fact that it
was their own fault. Participants from both learner groups also mentioned this reason, that the
imposition comes from the fact that it was their own fault. This explanation is consistent with the
requests of the learner groups in situation 1. As the reader will recall from the discussion of the
request data for supportive moves from Chapter 5, AH and SA participants differed from the ED
group in their use of disarmers because the learner groups focused on how their own inaction
resulted in the need to make a request. In contrast, ED participants used disarmers to focus on the
185
norms and rules relating to the requested action. All study groups provided answers that reflect
the feeling that this request would be an inconvenience for the professor. Some AH participants
who rated the situation as having a low degree of imposition mentioned that adding one more
student would not make a difference in terms of the professorâs teaching load.
Itâs possible the professor will have to bend the rules. (ED)
By asking him to let me enroll, itâs asking him to work harder. (ED)
It is my fault, so I donât feel like itâs their responsibility [the authorâs translation from
Thai]. (NT)
The teacher is already teaching the class and having one more student wonât affect
much [the authorâs translation from Thai]. (AH)
Situation 2 (asking to cut a taxi line)
The ED group stood out in one important regard with this situation, namely four ED participants
(two Britons, one Canadian, and one American) chose not to make the request. All four of these
participants cited reasons related to morality or fairness as the main factor in their decisions. The
ED group also tended to cite the fact that the hearer was a stranger as a factor in their request
making. Interestingly, this was given as a reason for why the request should be polite, or formal,
by some but also why it should be informal by others. These ED participants explained that an
informal-sounding request might project friendliness that would result in a better chance of the
hearer complying with the request. It is notable that some participants felt that informality would
be ideal in this situation because formality was frequently mentioned in situation 1, which also
involved a request to a stranger. Rather than only reflecting a difference in relative power, this
difference might reflect the fact that the request in situation 2 would involve a request to a
stranger whom the speaker would likely never encounter again, whereas situation 1 involved a
request to a stranger with whom the speaker might have a future relationship. It is plausible that
individual differences between participants also played a role in these different views. This
points to the potential that additional context related to the potential future relationship between
speaker and hearer may play a role in calculation of a request to a stranger.
186
All groups frequently mentioned the urgency of the situation as a principle factor, which
participants from all study groups mentioned would lead them to minimize the lengths of their
requests. Some NT group members explained that urgency would prompt them to form a request
to elicit the sympathy of the hearer. Similarly, participants from both learner groups also
mentioned that because of the situationâs urgency, they would want the hearer to understand their
predicament. The patterns observed in the responses between the learner groups were quite
similar. In this equal power situation, the factor of relative power between the speaker and hearer
was not mentioned at all by any study group.
Because I donât know this person, I intensify my opening apology âIâm really sorryâ.
(ED)
I wouldnât make this request, since it's assuming that I have a greater need than they
do, and it's not fair for me to go first. (ED)
I made this request as short and to the point as possible [the authorâs translation from
Thai]. (SA)
Because I need to go quickly, I want to make the other person have sympathy for me [the
authorâs translation from Thai]. (NT)
Situation 2 was rated by all study groups as having a high to very high degree of imposition.
Cultural differences between Thai and English speakers do not appear to play a role in their view
of the degree of imposition in this situation. However, the participantsâ self-reported experience
with this situation distinguishes the ED group from the other three study groups. While 44.12%
of ED participants report experience with this situation, less than 15% of NT, AH, and SA
participants report having had this experience. This might be explained by the abundance of taxis
available in Thailand compared to many English-speaking countries. Typically, a taxi queue
might be found leaving an airport, but in other locations in Thailand, no formal queue is present.
Donât make your problem my problem. Only a shameless person would ask. (ED)
The other person might also need to take a flight soon [the authorâs translation from
Thai]. (SA)
187
Losing out on a taxi you have been waiting for is wasting time and its bad manners to
ask [the authorâs translation from Thai]. (NT)
Situation 3 (asking to get on the train)
With this situation, there were generally fewer differences between the study groups and more
consistent answers from the participants. It was expected that in a high-low situation, such as
situation 3, the learner groups and the NT group would cite their seniority over the hearer as a
factor because Thai culture is characterized by hierarchical social relationships (Gullette, 2014;
Kirch, 1973; Klausner, 1993). This was indeed present in the responses of these groups.
However, this was also frequently given as a response from the ED group, perhaps due to the
explicitness of this factor in the situationâs prompt. The main factor mentioned by all four study
groups was the urgency of the situation. All groups mentioned that this would limit the length of
their request and many participants also mentioned that there would be no time for formality in
their requests. Although social distance was not referred to as frequently as the relative power
between the speaker and hearer, the fact that the request was made to a stranger was also
mentioned by some participants in the ED group.
Moving inside the train is a small request and people should do it without being asked.
People should be considerate [the authorâs translation from Thai]. (AH)
The urgency and time would be the main factor, but the age of the person would also
come into my mind. I might add a bit more, like "can I squeeze in here" if the person
were old. (ED)
There's no time for an elaborate request when getting on the train during the rush hour
[the authorâs translation from Thai]. (SA)
Generally, all four study groups were similar to one another in their rating of situation 3âs degree
of imposition; all study groups rated the request as quite a low imposition. However, it is
noteworthy that 24 participants (70.59%) from the ED group rated it as having the lowest level
of imposition, a very low imposition. The ED group also stood out from the other three study
groups in terms of previous experience with this situation, with 94.12% of ED group participants
reporting some experience with a similar situation and only 61.76-67.65% of the other study
188
groups reporting such experience. Most participants cited the ease of the requested action,
emphasizing that it would only involve taking a step or moving slightly to allow room. Although
the average rating of the degree of imposition between groups was generally similar, there were
differences within groups, which might be explained by participantsâ experience with such
situations in daily life. Even if participants had experienced this type of situation before, riding
the train would perhaps be a daily occurrence for participants living in cities such as Bangkok or
Toronto. On the other hand, some participants, particularly those from smaller towns, may not
often experience this type of situation.
Itâs common to move to make room for other passengers [the authorâs translation from
Thai]. (AH)
When I lived in London, it happened to me most days when traveling on the Tube [the
authorâs translation from Thai]. (SA)
I canât imagine that moving a little bit inside the train to let another person on board
would be much of an imposition. (ED)
Situation 4 (asking a professor to reconsider your exam)
One of the most cited considerations that participants mentioned as a factor when forming their
request in this situation was that the request could potentially offend the hearer. In this situation,
the speaker received a lower grade than expected on an exam and therefore, he/she asks the
hearer, a professor, to review the exam. Many participants mentioned that they would want to
word the request carefully so as to frame the request in terms of seeking clarification rather than
asking the hearer to defend the grade. Similar to situation 1 (asking a professor for late
enrollment), the participants often mentioned the hearerâs role as a professor as an important
factor and with this, the hearerâs power in the situation. Unlike situation 1, however, the
participants rarely mentioned the need for formality. It is unclear if this relates to the fact that
situation 1 involved a stranger and this situation involved an acquaintance (a professor with
whom the participant has previously studied). With the aforementioned reasons, there were no
notable differences between the study groups. Although the study groupsâ explanations were
rather similar with this situation, some differences were present that seem to suggest differences
between Thai and English-speaking cultures. It was somewhat common for participants in the
189
NT, AH, and SA groups to mention their awareness that the professor would be busy and by
making this request, the professor would have more work. This was not mentioned by the ED
group. Instead, some ED group participants discussed the desire for clarity and directness.
Since the professor has the power, I would be careful with the way I talked with him [the
authorâs translation from Thai]. (SA)
I do not want my professors to feel insulted, so I would want to be careful that my
request wouldnât show that I believe my professor was wrong [the authorâs translation
from Thai]. (SA)
The teacher is busy and will have to spend time to look at my exam again when the
teacher might be correct [the authorâs translation from Thai]. (NT)
I'd want to be direct enough that I could achieve my goal. (ED)
Although 58.82% of participants from both the NT and ED group reported previous experience
with a similar situation, the ratings of the degree of imposition for situation 4 show some
possible differences between the assessments of these two groups. The ED group rates this
requestâs degree of imposition at slightly below moderate (M = 2.97), while the NT group rates it
as moderate to high (M = 3.53). The two learner groups produced identical average ratings (M =
3.32), falling in between the rating of the two baseline language groups. However, differences
between the study groups were not statistically significant in this situation.
Those from the ED group who rated the imposition level as low cited their right to information
about their grade or that this kind of action is the job of the professor as reasons. However, others
from the ED group rated this request as having a high degree of imposition and gave similar
reasons as other study groups. The reasons given that this would be a highly imposing request
include the feeling that this would in some way accuse the professor of making a mistake or that
it would burden the professor. The ED groupâs rating, along with their stated reason that the
request related to a right to information, suggests that a speakerâs perception of a requestâs
legitimacy may relate to their perception of that requestâs degree of imposition. This factor may
reveal differences between Thai and English-speaking cultures and explain the difference in the
rating of degree of imposition.
190
Sometimes a professor has hundreds of students and this might create more work [the
authorâs translation from Thai]. (AH)
That shows we think the professor made a mistake and that could make her lose face if
it is wrong [the authorâs translation from Thai]. (NT)
It is the professorâs job to deal with studentsâ grades and concerns. This is not an
unreasonable request on my part. (ED)
Itâs my right to ask. The professor may be at fault. (ED)
Situation 5 (borrowing a cell phone from a classmate)
Participants from all four study groups cited similar factors that they considered when forming
their requests for this situation. The main factor discussed was that the hearer is someone
familiar to the speaker. The participants consistently linked this factor to their desire for a casual
request and to avoid being overly formal. It is notable that some participants from the ED group
elaborated on this theme, suggesting that although they would make this request using casual
language, it would also need to be polite. Therefore, it can be inferred that for some of these
participants, the concept of politeness is not necessarily equated to formality. This is in contrast
to situation 1 (asking a professor for late enrollment), in which many participants explicitly
linked politeness and formality.
I would be friendly by avoiding being really formal [the authorâs translation from Thai].
(AH)
This would be a very informal request. I used some slang [the authorâs translation from
Thai]. (SA)
I made my request in a relatively casual way because this is one of my classmates and
the request doesnât seem like that big of a deal. That being said I need to always be
polite and explain to them clearly why I need to use their phone when I should have
one myself. (ED)
All study groups rated the imposition of the request in situation 5 to be low. Only one participant
(NT) from any of the study groups rated it as a very high imposition. Most participants felt that
191
this kind of request is common and that it would not be difficult for the hearer to comply with the
requested action. Some participants mentioned that time constraints or concerns for hygiene
might play a role in some situations, but otherwise, this request would not cause much
inconvenience. Consistent with these explanations that this type of request is a common
occurrence, more than 70% of participants from each group reported having some experience
with a similar situation.
This is a very common situation and I know that the other person wouldnât feel like
itâs a big request [the authorâs translation from Thai]. (AH)
If the student was not in a hurry, it probably wouldnât be inconvenient because it would
only take a minute [the authorâs translation from Thai]. (SA)
I have lent my phone to other people and also borrowed phones. Itâs not a big deal [the
authorâs translation from Thai]. (AH)
It shouldnât be much of a problem to borrow a phone from someone you know for a
moment. (ED)
Situation 6 (asking for an ordered drink)
The study groups differed in several notable ways when describing the factors they considered
when making a request in this situation. These differences appear to reflect different cultural
attitudes between Thai and English-speaking cultures toward the relationship between customer
and server in the context of a restaurant. There is also some indication that the SA group may
have been influenced by English-speaking cultural values related to this context during their time
abroad. Generally, the ED group explicitly mentioned a desire to be polite but also to show
familiarity and understanding to the server. Many ED group participants mentioned this could be
done by using brief requests and very casual language, including the use of the serverâs first
name, and showing an awareness that the server is busy. The ED group participants also
mentioned that showing an awareness of the situation would also reduce the chance of
embarrassing the server. This is reflected in the request data, with the ED group frequently using
hedge internal modifications that implicitly acknowledge the busyness of the server (e.g., When
you get a chance could you grab me my drink? â ED participant). The NT and AH groups, on the
192
other hand, tended to focus on the serverâs role and responsibility and did not mention saving the
serverâs face or showing familiarity as factors. This can be interpreted as reflecting a different
cultural view on this type of customer service relationship, which reflects a more general
difference described by various scholars (see for example, Gullette, 2014; Kirch, 1973; Klausner,
1993; Qingxue, 2003) that can be characterized by an orientation of English-speaking countries
toward egalitarianism compared to the hierarchical orientation of Thai culture. Interestingly, the
SA group cited reasons that were similar to both the ED group on the one hand and the NT and
AH group on the other. This may be explained by the fact that many of the SA group participants
have experienced working as a server during their time abroad. For college students in Thailand,
it would be uncommon to work in a restaurant, as these jobs would be more commonly taken by
less-educated workers. Employment as a restaurant server is not only common for young,
college-educated people in English-speaking countries, but it is also quite common for Thai
students studying abroad to work in a Thai restaurant.
I would just say the name of the drink I ordered rather than making it into a complete
sentence because I donât want to embarrass the wait staff for forgetting my order. (ED)
I know the server. I would probably know his/ her name, so this request would be
informal with a smile. (ED)
It is the waiter/waitressâs responsibility to serve drink. They should know what theyâre
supposed to do [the authorâs translation from Thai]. (NT)
I wanted to be polite because I knew the server was busy [the authorâs translation from
Thai]. (SA)
The average rating for the degree of imposition was lowest for each study group in this situation,
with all groups rating it as having a low to very low imposition. Participants identifying this
request as having a very low imposition comprise the majority of participants in each study
group; however, the NT group was slightly more homogenous than other groups in this regard,
with 76.47% of participants choosing this rating. The main factor that participants cited when
explaining their low rating of this request is that the hearerâs job is directly related to the
requested action. This supports the aforementioned observation discussed with situation 4
193
(asking a professor to reconsider your exam) that a requestâs perceived legitimacy relates to the
perceived degree of imposition of that request.
One trend seen especially with the learner groups and not with the baseline language groups is
that they considered the factor that the restaurant is busy. This belief might explain why some
participants from the AH and SA groups rated this situation higher than did the other two groups,
but it is unclear why this belief appears to be relevant especially to these two groups. The low
rate of imposition perceived by all four study groups might relate to the fact that a high
percentage of participants from each study group report having previous experience with a
similar situation. Because more than 85% of participants from each study group report having
experienced a similar situation, situation 6 may be interpreted as involving a common request.
Even though he or she is supposed to bring the customer a drink when it is requested,
the server is busy [the authorâs translation from Thai]. (AH)
This request is the server's job and I would not be asking if the server did not mess up
the order in the first place. (ED)
Serving orders is part of a waiter's job so it shouldn't be considered an imposition at
all [the authorâs translation from Thai]. (NT)
Situation 7 (borrowing money from an older relative)
The desire to minimize the imposition of the request was the most cited factor considered in all
of the study groupsâ explanations. Many participants explained that even though the amount of
money was relatively small, they would want to make it clear that the money would be returned
shortly. This is reflected in the participantsâ requests, in which imposition minimizer supportive
moves (e.g., I will pay you back as soon as I get home tomorrow. â ED participant) were
extensively used. Out of the nine EDCT situations, imposition minimizers were used the most by
each group in this situation. The explanations provided by all of the study groups also explicitly
mentioned the ability to be polite without being formal in their requests. This reiterates the
aforementioned observation in situation 5 (borrowing a cell phone from a classmate) that
formality does not necessarily equate to politeness. In elaborating the basis for this desire for
politeness, the NT, AH, and SA groups all referred to a desire to show respect to the hearer
194
because the hearer is a guest and an older family member. Although the ED group also discussed
a desire to be polite, this desire was not explicitly linked to either of these factors. Another small
difference between the ED group and the other study groups is that the ED group was the only
one that did not mention embarrassment in having to make this request.
I want to make it clear that I will pay them back as soon as possible. (ED)
I'd also want to make it clear that I would return their money very quickly [the authorâs
translation from Thai]. (SA)
Showing respect and being quite informal [the authorâs translation from Thai]. (AH)
It would be embarrassing to ask a relative and a guest for money [the authorâs translation
from Thai]. (NT)
All four study groups report previous experience with situation 7 at comparably moderate rates,
between 47.06-67.65%. Likewise, the four study groups rated the degree of imposition very
similarly, varying only from 2.12 to 2.24, a low level of imposition. Although all four groups
rated the degree of imposition similarly, there was a difference between Thai participants (NT,
AH, and SA) and the ED participants in how they explained their choice. The NT and the learner
groups frequently cited the fact that the hearer was a close family member as a reason to explain
their rating. Interestingly, this reason was given to explain both why this request would have a
low level of imposition and also why it was not the lowest level of imposition. This action of
lending a younger family member money was described as being consistent with an older family
memberâs role, which involves taking care of younger family members, especially with
providing food or money. However, some participants expressed reluctance to ask for this
because of a fear of implying an expectation that their older family member would feel obligated
to provide for them in this way. The ED group, on the other hand, tended to refer to the small
amount of money and the fact that the money would be paid back quickly.
The old relative is a guest and I am the host, so I should take care of the guest [the
authorâs translation from Thai]. (NT)
195
However, this is people in my family and the old relatives are usually kind and always
buy snack for kids, so it should be OK to borrow their money [the authorâs translation
from Thai]. (AH)
Family members are expected to help each other out, and in this case, Aunt Rose will
likely get some of the food [the authorâs translation from Thai]. (SA)
The amount of money would be small, and I promise to repay it. (ED)
Situation 8 (asking a friend to study with you for an exam)
The factors that the participants cited as considerations in how they formed their requests varied
little between study groups with this situation. The main factor discussed by participants in every
study group was that the speaker would want to acknowledge the potential inconvenience caused
to the hearer, particularly because the hearer is understood to be busy. In addition to expressing
understanding of the hearerâs situation, participants frequently mentioned that they would want
to frame the request in a way that would highlight the possible benefits to the hearer. As was the
case with previously discussed situations, the ED group mentioned that the familiarity between
the speaker and hearer would lead them to use more casual language. This was less common
with the NT and learner groups; however, some participants from the NT group referred to
familiarity as a consideration in how they formed their requests. This can perhaps be seen in the
NT groupâs request data, which included pronouns that are considered offensive and would be
used nearly exclusively with close friends. Some notable but somewhat infrequently cited factors
reported by participants in the ED group included the desire to express the seriousness of the
situation and the desire for clarity, which was explicitly linked to directness.
I considered the burden my friend would face in having to help me, so I feel like I would
need to explain the situation before asking for help and acknowledge how much of an
inconvenience it might be. (ED)
The language I use in this request is the same as when I talk to my close friends in
regular situation, which included words that might not be polite when used with others.
However, the tone I used in this situation will be softer than normal [the authorâs
translation from Thai]. (NT)
196
My request will be simple and show the mutual benefit of studying together [the authorâs
translation from Thai]. (SA)
Despite comparable percentages of participants from each study group reporting having
experienced a similar situation (47.06-64.71%), there were differences in the baseline language
groupsâ ratings of this situationâs degree of imposition. Although these differences were not
statistically significantly, they still may reflect a cultural difference between the learnersâ L1 and
L2 cultures. The NT groupâs average rating was 3.79, slightly below the level of high imposition,
while the ED groupâs average rating was 3.12, slightly above the level of moderate imposition.
The SA group was more similar to the ED group in their rating, and the AH group was more
similar to the NT group. This is unsurprising since the SA group is distinguished from the AH
group by the criterion of having studied in the target language culture. Therefore, some study
abroad learners may have experienced similar situations in the L2 environment. The reasons
given for these ratings varied within groups more than between groups. Generally, those who
rated the request as having a low degree of imposition cited the fact that they could help their
friend or that their friend would need to study anyway. Those who rated this situation as having a
higher degree of imposition cited their friendâs busy schedule as the reason.
My friend is very busy with school and work, so the time available for helping me is
limited [the authorâs translation from Thai]. (NT)
Itâs a win-win situation. My friend will have to study for the exam too and talking
with a friend and studying together is all very minimal in terms of requests. (ED)
I knew she was very busy; I would consider that a very high imposition [the authorâs
translation from Thai]. (SA)
Situation 9 (asking a younger sibling to do your housework)
Several factors were discussed as considerations in the participantsâ request-making process with
this situation. Participants from every study group mentioned that they would like to highlight
the benefit to the hearer of complying with the request. Participants from all study groups
explained that as the speaker, they would emphasize that they would return the favor or give
money to the hearer. Some participants from the NT, AH, and SA groups also mentioned that in
197
order to persuade the hearer to comply with the request, they would offer to give the hearer a gift
or souvenir from the trip. This was not mentioned by any of the ED participants, which might be
due to a cultural difference between Thai and English speakers. For Thai speakers, it would be
quite common and perhaps even expected that when a family member goes on even a short
vacation, he or she will bring back a small gift, which is typically in the form of sweets or food.
Another potential cultural difference relating to views on family relationships can be seen in the
somewhat common responses of the NT, AH, and SA groups that mention the speakerâs right as
an older sibling to make such a request, whereas this factor was mentioned less frequently by the
ED group. Participants from all study groups linked the familiarity with the hearer as a reason to
use informal language, and some participants also linked this to their desire to be informal but
polite. Less common, but mentioned by AH and SA group participants, was a recognition that
the hearer would comply because of his or her personality. Finally, one ED participant
mentioned that although it was asking a lot of the hearer, by using the word âfavorâ the request
could be made to feel as though it were a small request. This is notable because the word âfavorâ
is used very frequently in the English EDCT requests; however, it was only explained by one
participant.
Especially if they are a younger sibling, I would expect them to help me out [the authorâs
translation from Thai]. (AH)
I would offer to exchange a week of chores so itâs fair. (ED)
I would ask my sister what she wants from the place Iâm going to and I would find the
things that she wants. This will make her happy and feel OK to help me [the authorâs
translation from Thai]. (SA)
It is my sister, we are very good friends, I trust her, and I know she will do the favor [the
authorâs translation from Thai]. (NT)
Comparable percentages of participants from each study group reported previously experiencing
a similar situation (50-64.71%). However, differences between the baseline language groupsâ
perceived degree of imposition were present in this situation, with the ED group rating the
request as 2.76, just under a moderate level of imposition, and the NT group rated it at a low
degree of imposition, with a rating of 1.97. Interestingly, the SA groupâs rating was comparable
198
to that of the NT group while the AH groupâs was more similar to that of the ED group.
Inferential statistical analysis confirms that the ED groupâs rating of this situationâs degree of
imposition was significantly higher than those of the SA and NTS group. While the reason for
this pattern with the learner groups is unclear, it should be noted that the ratings varied greatly
within groups, particularly with the ED and AH groups. The differences between the baseline
language groups are perhaps easier to explain. The NT group cited their higher position in the
family as a reason for rating the request as having a low degree of imposition. The ED group, on
the other hand, tended to mention the amount of time or their siblingâs other obligations as
factors. The SA and AH groups both often said that it is a fair exchange since the speaker will
repay the hearer. However, it is not clear why the AH group rated this requestâs degree of
imposition higher compared to the rating of the SA group.
Itâs not a big imposition and itâs my younger sister [the authorâs translation from Thai].
(NT)
One assumes this scenario concerns children of school age, and therefore my sibling
would have less free time each day. (ED)
The job is simple, and we can exchange work at different times [the authorâs translation
from Thai]. (SA)
6.2 Semi-structured interviews
Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with five participants from each study
group. However, the focus of the discussion below will center on the interviews with participants
from the AH and SA groups in order to explore these participantsâ perceptions regarding their
own linguistic and pragmatic development. Participants from these two groups discussed their
views on their English linguistic and pragmatic development in Thailand and in the classroom in
their Thai schools, in particular. The topics of politeness and language use norms were also
discussed with participants from the two learner groups. Finally, participants from the SA group
discussed the role of study abroad in the development of their English linguistic and pragmatic
skills. Additional topics discussed with all study groups were intended to better understand the
request responses of each group as well as the cultural and linguistic differences that characterize
199
the learnersâ L1 and L2. The themes discussed with participants from all four of the study groups
included cross-cultural communication in general and request-making in particular.
Interviews with participants from the AH and SA groups reveal that the two groups of Thai
learners of English share a similar perspective on their motivation to study English. Most
participants from these two learner groups expressed a great interest in studying the language and
improving their language skills. Their underlying motivations were typically related to their
future job prospects. As either former or current English major students or graduates, all of the
participants felt that English would likely be a central component of their future career in areas
such as education and the service industry, such as employment with hotels and airlines. Four
participants from the SA group and two participants from the AH group also talked about the
opportunity to work abroad or continue their studies abroad as a motivating factor.
Although the two learner groups held many views in common with regard to their motivation
and interest in English, the ways that they framed their goals differed. Interestingly, four
participants from the SA group emphasized that their goal is not to sound like a native speaker.
They further explained that although native-speaker-like language use had been their goal prior
to studying abroad, after living in an English-speaking environment, they felt that it was not
possible to reach a native-speaker-like level of accuracy, and their current goals are to focus on
fluency and communicative ability instead. In the words of one SA group participant, âMy goal
is to speak without having to stop and search for words. Sometimes I donât know the word for
something, and I have to give a long explanation to get to my point.â The AH group, on the
other hand, characterized their goals as a desire to speak like a native speaker of English. This
goal identified by the AH group is consistent with research by Jindapitak and Teo (2012) and
Jinapitak (2014), who found that university-level Thai EFL learners viewed English spoken with
Thai pronunciation as an inferior model for learning when compared to native-English speaker
pronunciation. Methitham (2009) reported similar attitudes in a survey of teachersâ perceptions,
in which Thai English teachers perceived native English-speakers as better equipped to provide
models for language use compared their native Thai-speaking counterparts, which led these
teachers to use native-like English as a goal for learners. The AH group participantsâ goal to use
English like a native speaker, therefore, may be in part shaped by their experiences in the
classroom. With practical experience outside of the classroom, SA group participants appear to
have reassessed the value of native-speaker-like language use.
200
SA participants also discussed their view that this is not only an unrealistic goal, but an
unnecessary one as well. These participants mentioned that native English speakers would
understand their difficulty in speaking a second language and would therefore, not expect them
to speak it perfectly. In contrast to their perception of native English speakersâ attitudes toward
their errors, all of the SA learners felt as though they are more frequently judged for making
mistakes when using English in Thailand, including in their classrooms, than they were while
abroad. The SA group participants also mentioned that their perceptions changed after seeing the
success of non-native English speakers in their study abroad locations. Similarly, Rajani Na
Ayuthaya and Sitthitikul (2016) reported that after observing the successful communication of a
Chinese speaker of English in their classroom, Thai university student participants in their study
developed more realistic language learning goals and a more positive view of non-native speaker
varieties of English as legitimate.
The AH and SA groups shared a very similar perspective on the benefits and limitations of their
formal education in contributing to their language development. Both groups described a
limitation in the methods of instruction, which center on teaching grammar and the memorization
of textbooks rather than meaningful language use. These accounts are consistent with the
observations of Noom-Ura (2013), who notes that rote memorization and grammar translation
methods are common in Thai EFL classrooms despite their detrimental effect on the linguistic
development of Thai students. In addition to lacking meaningful practice, all of the SA group
participants and three of the AH group participants expressed a lack of confidence in the
material. According to one AH participant:
Very often I hear words or expressions in movies that Iâve never learned from my
textbook, and words I learned in the textbook, I donât hear in movies. I donât know if
thatâs because of the context. In the textbook, there is no context [the authorâs translation
from Thai].
The lack of real-world context was a theme discussed by several participants from these groups,
who noted that textbook exercises tend to involve filling in the blank to complete a linguistic
form rather than using their own ideas in a natural way. While this was generally seen as a
limitation in terms of developing fluency, participants felt that it did help them to develop their
accuracy, which was necessary in order to be successful on examinations.
201
With regard to their teachers, more than half of the participants from both learner groups
expressed the feeling that their teachers at the university level had more knowledge of English-
speaking cultures and the language itself when compared to their teachers at the high school
level. Three of these participants noted that their university teachersâ knowledge often came from
firsthand experience living in an English-speaking country, and these participants said that they
enjoyed listening to their university teachers relate stories about their experiences and challenges
when learning language and culture while living abroad. Butler (2007) and Medgyes (1994) have
pointed out that a shared language background with students can be an advantage for non-native
English-speaking teachers because it allows the teacher to anticipate and address problems that
learners have related to differences between their L1 and the target language. In a similar way,
non-native English-speaking teachers with firsthand experience living in the target language
culture can use their shared cultural background with their students as a basis from which to
address cultural differences between the L1 culture and target language culture. Helping
language learners understand the cultural context of the target language can be a challenge in
EFL classrooms, but it is an important component in development of learnersâ pragmatic
competence that can facilitate successful communication outside of the classroom.
All of the participants from both learner groups also noted that it is helpful that their university
teachers speak English while teaching their classes, whereas their high school teachers did not.
However, more than half of these participants also described a feeling of awkwardness or
discomfort when having to speak English to their Thai teachers or classmates. Interestingly,
these same participants described feeling comfortable when communicating in written English in
the same context. Two AH participants also noted that they often used brief English phrases with
their friends on social media or in chat applications but would not feel comfortable speaking
English to communicate with their friends. In their study of Thai university studentsâ anxieties in
English classrooms, Rajani Na Ayuthaya and Sitthitikul (2016) observed that participantsâ self-
consciousness about their accent made them reluctant to speak in their English classes. Similarly,
some AH participants in the current study explained that their discomfort in speaking related to
not knowing how to correctly pronounce or stress words that are otherwise familiar.
All of the participants from the AH and SA groups agreed that speech acts, including requests
were taught at several points in their formal education. However, this was seen as a minor aspect
of their overall curriculum. Four SA participants and three AH participants were familiar with
202
the term âpragmaticsâ from their Introduction to Linguistics class, which was a required course in
their BA curriculum, but they were unsure about the meaning or could not explain what
pragmatics is. When asked about their exposure to lessons on native English-speaking cultures,
all of the participants from these two study groups pointed out that in the English major
curriculum at their university, they were required to take a course on English varieties and
cultures of English native speakers. SA group participants generally felt that this was a helpful
course in preparing them for studying abroad in an English-speaking country. The students from
both groups expressed that they enjoyed this course and had a desire to learn more about
English-speaking cultures, but they were doubtful about how practical it would be to integrate
cultural information into their other English courses. As one SA learner said, âThe teacher has
many things they need to cover in the lesson, and I donât know how much they should put
information about culture in these lessonsâ [the authorâs translation from Thai]. This notion is
consistent with the findings of Nilmanee and Soontornwipast (2014), who reported in a survey of
university-level Thai English-language teacherâs perceptions of teaching culture in Thai EFL
classrooms that inflexibility in the curriculum and a lack of time both represented significant
challenges. The participantsâ view, therefore, appears reflect a larger issue in Thai EFL
classrooms that goes beyond the participantsâ particular degree program.
Research has demonstrated a positive effect of study abroad on language learnersâ reading
comprehension (Dewey, 2004), written production (Evans & Fisher, 2005), listening
comprehension (Cubillos, Chieffo, & Fan, 2008), and spoken production (Freed, 1995; Llanes &
MuÃąoz, 2009). When asked about the impact of their study abroad experience on their English
skills, all of the SA group participants held very positive views of the effects on their linguistic
skills. These participants felt that studying abroad had a more significant impact on their
listening and speaking skills than it did on their reading and writing skills, which is consistent
with the observation of Churchill and DuFon (2006) that study abroad learners expect to make
greater gains in listening and speaking skills compared to reading and writing skills. Two SA
participants explained that although they had to read and write in English as a part of their
university courses while studying abroad, their gains were only temporary in these areas while
they felt as though the progress made with their listening and speaking skills would be more
long-lasting. The main effect that most SA group participants expressed was that studying abroad
gave them confidence in using English. As one SA group participant said:
203
When I first came to England, I wasnât confident enough to talk to anyone, like I was
mute. When I had questions, I wouldnât ask because I was scared they wouldn't
understand me, and I wouldnât understand them. But later on, I got used to it because I
had to use English every day. I can see now that I am much more confident than I was in
the beginning [the authorâs translation from Thai].
Confidence might appear to be a component of the learnersâ English skills that would not be
reflected in the EDCT request responses. However, the learnersâ confidence with using English
might be reflected in the greater variety of linguistic forms observed with the SA group in their
request responses. This was particularly evident in the analysis of the SA groupâs internal
modifications and request strategies. With both of these request aspects, the SA groupâs requests
tended to be more varied and complex when compared with those of the AH group. However,
these more linguistically complex requests of the SA group also tended to contain grammar
errors. The SA groupâs willingness to take chances and use fewer simple, formulaic requests
might be a reflection of their confidence. Confidence might also relate to their language learning
goals focused on successful communication rather than native-speaker-like accuracy, as
previously discussed. According to Cook (2014) and Masuda (2003), goals of native-speaker-
like language use can contribute to a fear of speaking English, which can have a negative impact
on learnersâ development. The SA group might be more comfortable making mistakes because
their language learning goal relates to successful communication rather than perfection. In
striving for native-speaker-like accuracy, however, the AH group might be seen as using simple,
formulaic requests in order to play it safe and ensure correct linguistic forms with their requests.
If the feedback that EFL students receive in Thailand is perceived to be judgmental, playing it
safe would appear to be a logical general strategy for approaching communication in English.
There were several ways that SA participants described their learning process while abroad.
According to most SA participants, an impactful means of improving their pragmatic
competence was the opportunity to observe other people in the everyday contexts. According to
one SA participant, âI always listened to what people usually said in line at the supermarket or at
a restaurant, and I just said things in the same wayâ [the authorâs translation from Thai]. Three of
the participants mentioned their schoolwork as having a significant impact on their English
development, particularly from giving presentations and writing term papers. However, they did
not feel that schoolwork helped in their pragmatic development. Two SA participants felt that the
204
fact that their programs consisted of many other international students, including students from
other Asian and non-English-speaking European countries, meant that at school they were
exposed to many other cultures besides that of the local English-speaking community. These
participants expressed a perception that their classmates could not be used as a model for English
pragmatic norms because they, too, had only minimal experience living in an English-speaking
culture. It is important to note, however, that three of the SA participants also expressed the view
that non-native English speakers with experience living in an English-speaking country could be
used as a model for English pragmatic norms.
The SA group participants felt that some study abroad destinations were better than others in
terms of their exposure to English-speaking culture and opportunities to use English in daily
interactions. The perception of two SA participants is that Thai learners of English are more
likely to encounter other Thais in the UK than in other English-speaking countries, such as the
US and Canada. This was based both on their personal experience and on communicating with
their friends and former classmates who also studied abroad. According to one participant,
âThere are so many Thai people in Bournemouth (UK). The year I started school, there were
about 50-60 Thai students starting school in Bournemouthâ [the authorâs translation from Thai].
These participants felt that living abroad in the presence of a large Thai community limited their
opportunities to use English in school. Those who studied in the US and Canada felt that it was a
positive factor that they had no choice but to make friends with non-Thais because it forced them
to communicate in English. One participant who studied in the UK felt pressure to socialize with
other Thais in order not to be perceived as rejecting her community. However, all of the SA
participants felt that having Thai friends or acquaintances could also be an advantage because
these friends had a shared cultural background and could explain things about English and the
local culture using the participant's L1. Non-Thai friends were also seen as a great resource for
information about language and culture, and participants expressed that asking friends was a
comfortable and clear way to get answers to questions they encountered.
In reflecting on their decision to study abroad, participants were unanimous in their feeling of
satisfaction with the language development outcomes that came from this decision. In particular,
this outcome was tied to their knowledge of the target language culture, which allows them to
communicate in an appropriate way. Some reported that, initially, there were some hardships
which made them question this decision. A common feeling that three of the SA group
205
participants expressed was shock and dismay with their speaking and listening skills during their
initial study abroad period. One SA participant explained that she realized her English was not as
strong as she had previously thought. She had been satisfied with her IETLS test score and took
it as an indicator that she had strong English communication skills, but after arriving in the UK,
she was unable to understand even basic conversation, which she attributed partly to not being
familiar with the local accent. By the end of the study abroad period, participants felt that their
time abroad had met and exceeded their expectations. All of the SA participants stated that they
believed studying abroad would help mainly with their ability to communicate and their
confidence and reported that they were satisfied that these outcomes were achieved.
The theme of general cross-cultural communication was discussed with participants from every
study group, and some common themes were present in the perspectives across the four study
groups. One theme relates to the idea of the people from another culture using a language in an
appropriate way. Four NT participants noted that the use of polite particles in Thai was very
important, and that the language can sound very âstrongâ if this is missing. According to one NT
participant, âIf a foreigner wants to speak Thai politely, they can use khrap (āļāļĢāļ) and kha (āļāļ°) at
the end of their sentences. Sometimes you donât need to use it with friends, but if you arenât sure,
you should use these wordsâ [the authorâs translation from Thai]. All of the NT participants
expressed a positive attitude of non-Thais learning their language, describing it as âcuteâ and that
it showed their interest in understanding Thai people. If a non-native Thai speaker makes a
mistake using Thai, all of the NT participants explain that they would be understanding and not
take offense.
In line with the perceptions of NT participants, all of the ED group participants expressed
understanding that English learners may experience difficulties with communication, and this
should not be treated as an offence. One participant said that when English learners speak âit
might sound rude, but itâs not rude. Theyâre trying to their best to communicate with you.â
Another ED participant, who is from the UK but now lives in Thailand, explained his view that
when in Thailand, it is not important for Thai people to understand his culture; he should make
an attempt to understand Thai culture. However, when someone moves to his country, they
should make an attempt to understand this culture.
206
Regarding differences between communication in Thai and English-speaking cultures, two SA
participants and three AH participants said that sometimes it can feel strange to speak without
using kinship terms. Another difference observed by a AH participant is politeness in Thai is
often reflected in vocabulary, which is not necessarily the case in English. According to this
participant, âSpeaking politely in Thai is more complex than English. For example, when you
talk to an older person, you use more polite words. When you talk to a monk, you use even more
polite wordsâ [the authorâs translation from Thai]. An example discussed was the use of
vocabulary to express the verb âeatâ in Thai. With friends or someone younger in a casual
situation, the word âkinâ (āļāļ) would be common. However, this might be considered impolite to
use with someone older or a superior at work. Instead, the verb âthanâ (āļāļēāļ) would be more
appropriate. Even more formal, such as when speaking to an audience, the word ârap prathanâ
(āļĢāļāļāļĢāļ°āļāļēāļ) would be used. âWhen speaking to a monk, the appropriate word for âeatâ is âchanâ
(āļāļ), and with a member of the royal family, Thai speakers would use the word âsawoeiâ (āđāļŠāļ§āļĒ),
which is strictly forbidden to be used in other contexts. The various words for âeatâ that reflect
different levels of politeness are by no means unique or an exception in Thai. While different
registers of speech, marked by vocabulary choices, are possible to show different levels of
formality in English, too, the extent to which this characterizes Thai language is arguably far
greater. The EDCT coding system may not fully capture this feature of Thai. Although the
coding of internal modifications accounts for lexical and phrasal modifications made to requests,
the coding system generally focused on optional lexical and phrasal additions rather than word
choice.
Cultural differences between Thai and English-speaking communities were also discussed. One
SA group participant explained that it is not common in Thailand to greet people that you do not
know, but in the US, people frequently speak to strangers. According to this participant, âI was
surprised to see Americans talk to people they donât know very often. They say thank you to the
bus driver when they leave the bus. That would never happen in Bangkokâ [the authorâs
translation from Thai]. This notion of the differences between American and Thai cultures was
also mentioned by an American participant who lives in Thailand. This participant noted that
even though he is aware it is not normal to greet salesclerks when entering a convenience store
or supermarket in Thailand, he feels he is doing something rude to not do so, as it is the norm in
207
his culture. A SA group participant with experience studying in the UK expressed the belief that
it can be more challenging to learn the cultural norms of English speakers because English-
speaking cultures are more varied, whereas the Thai language community is smaller and shares
the same culture.
When focusing specifically on requests, all of the interviewed SA participants felt that their
ability to make requests improved significantly during their time abroad. One reason provided by
all of the SA group participants was that they were able to make requests very often when living
abroad, but they did not have this opportunity in Thailand. This was supported by the feelings of
four AH group participants who claimed that there was a lack of opportunity to make real
requests outside of school in Thailand. All of the SA participants added that more than only
providing opportunities to make requests, studying abroad made it necessary to make requests.
Making requests was seen as being a significant part of everyday interactions and a necessary
component of being successful and comfortable in the study abroad environment. Four the SA
participantsâ perceptions of their improvement in request making appears to be consistent with
the EDCT request data, which show the SA group conforming more closely to the norms of the
ED group when compared to the AH group. This is also consistent with previous research that
shows a positive study abroad effect on language learnersâ request production (for example, see
Barron, 2003; Owen, 2002).
Another factor that study abroad students felt helped them to improve with their request making
was that they could receive feedback when making a request. This feedback was often in the
form of positive reinforcement; when the learner made a request and the hearer complied, they
could see that the way they communicated their request was successful. However, many reported
that they experienced problems with making requests, which could be learning experiences, too.
A SA group participant who studied in the Canada experienced a problem related to directness
when communicating his desire for a member of his host family to cook a particular dish.
According to this participant:
My host mother cooked something that I really liked, and I wanted her to make it again.
But I didnât want to say it directly, so I said something like, âI really liked that meal that
you made that time.â But she never cooked it again, so I donât think she understood [the
authorâs translation from Thai].
208
While the opportunity to receive feedback, both negative and positive, was generally seen as a
benefit of exposure to the target language environment, one participant felt that receiving
negative feedback at times caused her to revert to the forms she knew before studying abroad.
This participant reported that she sometimes preferred to use familiar structures because when
trying a less familiar request structure, she was not always fully understood.
Another theme that emerged from the interviews with SA group participants was that there were
more factors affecting how they made requests in Thai than in English. These were often put into
terms relatable to the social variables controlled for in this study. One SA participant, for
example, noted that âIn Thai, we have to always think about age, but in English, I can use the
same words or the same request if itâs an older or younger personâ [the authorâs translation from
Thai]. In addition, two SA group participants were less sure about the differences between Thai
and English-speaking cultures with regard to the factor of closeness and how it affects language
use. They felt that it was important to both Thai and English-speaking cultures, but they felt
more confident in their assessment that the closeness was a very important factor in language
choices when speaking Thai. As one participant noted:
My classmate told me that I don't have to be too formal when speaking to each other, but
sometimes I was not sure whether my way of speaking was OK when speaking casually
with them. We worked together on several projects and I think we have kind of close
relationship, but not close friends. I'm not sure if my classmate and I share the same ideas
about how causal to be.
Although all of the SA group participants reported that an increase in confidence was one of the
most significant impacts of their time abroad on their general English skills, two participants also
expressed that they were not always confident making requests in English-speaking
environments. One participant explained that in restaurants in the UK, for example, she avoided
making special requests for how to prepare her meal because she was not sure if this would be
normal for British people. However, she would be very comfortable making this type of request
in Thailand, where she understands the norms in this context. Other SA group participants
mentioned that during their initial study abroad period, they felt uncomfortable making requests
to older acquaintances, such as teachers or their friendsâ parents, because these types of request
would always be marked with polite particles in Thai. Various scholars (for example, see
209
Bennui, 2017; Promnath & Tayjasanant, 2016; Yiamkhamnuan, 2011) have observed that the
inclusion of Thai polite particles in English sentences is a characteristic of the variety of English
often used in Thailand, suggesting that for native Thai speakers, English does not have an
equivalent resource to replace this feature of Thai language. With more experience, however, SA
participants became more accustomed to making requests without Thai polite particles, and as
one participant explained, âPleaseâ can be used just the same as kha (āļāļ°) (a polite particle). If I
want something, I can ask for it and say âpleaseâ at the end of the sentenceâ [the authorâs
translation from Thai].
6.3 Chapter summary
When participants were asked in the second section of the EDCT to provide their own insights
into the factors that they considered in their request making, a pattern emerged with the three
groups sharing Thai as their mother tongue (NT, AH, and SA), who described similar
perspectives. The factors identified by these three groups were often different from those of the
ED group, perhaps reflecting differences between Thai and English-speaking cultures. These
differences appear to have been most pronounced in situations involving a differential of power
and in particular, the relationship between student and professor as well as family relationships.
In contrast to the factors considered by participants when making a request, there appears to be
less evidence suggesting cultural differences when looking at the study groupsâ ratings of each
situationâs degree of imposition. With the exception of situations 6 (asking for an ordered drink)
and 8 (asking a friend to study with you for an exam), the data contain no patterns that
distinguish the SA from the AH group; study abroad appears to have had a limited role in
affecting the SA groupâs perception of the degree of imposition.
Finally, regarding their own pragmatic development, the learners with study abroad experience
had a very positive view of their experience, noting that studying abroad was most helpful by
giving opportunities to observe, speak in real world contexts, and receive feedback through
interaction. This resulted in greater confidence, cultural awareness and improved listening and
speaking skills, all of which contributed to the development of their pragmatic competence. Both
learner groups were generally positive about the role of university education in their pragmatic
development. However, they generally felt that there were significant limitations to how
pragmatic competence can be developed only in an EFL classroom.
210
Chapter 7 Conclusion
This study has investigated the relationship between study abroad and the development of
pragmatic competence by Thai learners of English. In order to understand this phenomenon, five
major research questions were proposed, each of which will be addressed below in the summary
of the findings section. The findings are also compared with findings from previous research in
order to place the findings of this study within the broader context of trends of related research.
This chapter then presents the pedagogical implications of this study. Finally, this chapter
presents a discussion of the limitations of this study as well as suggestions for future research.
7.1 Summary of the findings
7.1.1 Research question 1
How do the patterns of request structures, request perspectives, request strategies, internal
modifications, supportive moves, and alerters used by study abroad learners compare to at
home learners and to the patterns displayed by English dominant speakers and native speakers
of Thai?
Request perspectives
The learner groups used hearer dominance requests more than the ED group. In contrast, the ED
group used more variety in their selection of perspective than did the learner groups. There is
little or no evidence to suggest that this difference is a result of the learnersâ L1 transfer. Instead,
it seems that training transfer is likely to have been a factor, with participants from both of the
learner groups relying on the hearer-oriented request forms they were taught in school. This is
consistent with the observations of UsÃģ-Juan (2008), whose survey of textbooks found that
requests using hearer dominance requests focusing on the hearerâs ability or willingness to
comply with the request were overused in textbook presentation of requests. Furthermore,
Mohammadi and Saâd (2014) have also reported a preference for hearer dominance by English
learners, attributing this trend to training transfer. A small but consistent trend across various
situations in which the study abroad students conformed more to the ED norms than did the AH
group suggests a positive correlation between studying abroad and pragmatic development.
211
The frequent use of pronouns relating to social status and familiarity in Thai is notable as it
points to a mitigating tool available to Thai language speakers that relates directly to request
perspective but is not reflected in the quantitative data analysis. This supports similar
observations made by Eslami, Kim, Write, & Burlbaw (2014), who report the role of honorifics
in Korean plays a significant role in request mitigation that has no direct analogy in English.
With regard to the learnersâ pragmatic development, this mitigating function of pronouns to refer
to a requestâs speaker and/or hearer in the learnersâ L1 may have the effect of diminishing the
perceived role of perspective as a mitigating tool in their L2.
Request strategies
Direct request strategies are much more common in the requests of the NT group than in those of
the ED group. This finding is consistent with the observations of several previous studies (Ajaaj,
2016; Felix-Brasdefer, 2005; Marti, 2006; Ogiermann, 2009b; Yu, 2011) that have challenged
the claim by Brown and Levinson (1987) of a universal association between indirectness and
politeness. The results of this study also suggest that for Thai speakers, there is no apparent
association between politeness and indirectness, as measured by the directness level of request
strategies. Despite this characteristic of their L1, the learner groups did not show any signs that
this convention was transferred when they made their requests in English. In line with the results
of previous research, which has widely demonstrated a preference for conventionally indirect
requests by both native English speakers as well as learners of English (see for example, Barron,
2003; Jones & Halenko, 2014; Otcu & Zeyrek, 2008; Perez i Parent, 2002; Woodfield, 2008),
both learner groups as well as the ED group showed a preference for conventionally indirect
strategies. However, the learner groups differed from the ED group by using conventionally
indirect strategies comparatively more and unconventionally indirect strategies less. Rather than
L1 transfer, the learnersâ apparent avoidance of more ambiguous unconventionally indirect
strategies may relate more to their preferences as language learners for pragmatic clarity in their
requests. Conventionally indirect strategies also represent the strategies that learners most often
encounter in their English lessons in school. This familiarity was also likely a factor in the
learnersâ choices. While there were differences between the learners and the ED group in this
regard, the learnersâ choices conformed much more closely to the ED group than to the NT
group. The differences between the two learner groups with regard to directness level were
212
minimal, suggesting that studying abroad did not prompt changes in how Thai learners of
English used directness levels in their requests.
The choices for degree of directness of the learner groups were quite similar to one another, and
both learner groups used directness levels only marginally differently than did the ED group.
However, when looking at the particular strategies used by these three groups, more considerable
differences emerge. Notably among these differences involves the overuse of preparatory
requests by the learners, which likely relates to explicit instruction from the learnersâ English
classes and the relative grammatical simplicity of preparatory compared to other conventionally
indirect strategies. While both learner groups used considerably more preparatory requests than
did the ED group, the difference was much less pronounced with the SA group. The SA group
modified their preparatory requests, using mitigated preparatory more similarly to the ED norms.
Preparatory and mitigated preparatory represent the two most used request strategies of the ED
group, and the data relating to these two strategies represent the strongest evidence of the
development of the SA learnersâ pragmatic competence after living in an English-speaking
environment. However, in the data relating to other request strategies, there was little other
evidence suggesting pragmatic development of SA learners. The learnersâ avoidance of other
strategies used by ED, in particular strong hints and expectation statements, may be explained by
the learnersâ desire for pragmatic clarity and L1 transfer, respectively.
Internal modifications
The existence or availability of grammatical features in two languages is one of the main factors
affecting how Thai and English requests are modified. Because Thai language does not have
verb inflection or different modal forms to show tense, many of the syntactic modifications
available to English speakers are not possible in Thai. Similarly, Thai particles have no
functional equivalent or translatable forms in English. The data reflect these differences between
Thai and English, with the NT using significantly fewer syntactic modifications and significantly
more lexical/phrasal modifications when compared to the ED group. The SA groupâs use of both
syntactic and lexical/phrasal downgraders suggests some development toward ED norms after
their time studying abroad, although the SA groupâs use of these internal modification types was
still less than that of the ED group. The findings that both learner groups used fewer internal
modifications appears to be consistent with several previous studies that have demonstrated that
213
English learners tend to use fewer internal request modifications than native English speakers
(e.g., Chen, 2001; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2009; Fearch & Kasper, 1989; GÃķy, Zeyrek, & Otcu,
2012; Hill, 1997; Hendriks, 2008; Najafabadi & Paramasivam, 2012; Otcu & Zeyrek, 2008;
Trosborg, 1995).
Individual types of modifications used by the learner groups, such as the use of the
interrogative forms, modal tense modifications, and the politeness marker âpleaseâ, are likely to
reflect the effect of explicit instruction. More syntactically demanding modifications were
observed more frequently in the requests of the SA group learners than in those of AH group
learners. The reliance on the politeness marker âpleaseâ is notable in that this phenomenon was
also observed by several scholars (House & Kasper 1987; Faerch & Kasper 1989; Barron 2003;
GÃķy et al., 2012; Rose, 2000). Participants from both learner groups in this study used this
politeness marker approximately twice as often as did ED participants.
Request structures
All study groups show a fair degree of variability in their request structure choices. A closer
examination of the data reveals differences between the pragmatic norms of the learnersâ L1 and
target language relating to directness and the complexity of request structures. Compared to the
ED group, the NT group tended to favor the relatively more direct and less elaborate request
structure of HA+SM. This is further support for observations of researchers (Ajaaj, 2016; Felix-
Brasdefer, 2005; Marti, 2006; Ogiermann, 2009b; Yu, 2011) that have challenged the claim by
Brown and Levinson (1987) of a universal association between indirectness and politeness. By
comparison, the ED group used the less direct and more elaborate structures (SM+HA;
SM+HA+SM) more often than did the NT group. The learnersâ possible transfer of this
pragmatic norm of their L1 appears to lessen with the experience of study abroad. However, the
experience of study abroad does not appear to have played a role in other request structure
preferences relating to head act only and multiple head act structures of the SA group. The
learner groups both used HA only and multiple head act requests at similar rates to one another
and slightly less than baseline language groups.
214
Alerters
Overall, the alerter data suggest that translation of the learnersâ L1, particularly with titles used
to refer to professors or teachers, played a role in the learnersâ English request responses. More
significant than L1 transfer occurring from translating the literal meaning of words, however, is
the pragmatic transfer of the Thai convention of articulating the relationship â the closeness,
asymmetrical power dynamic, or both â between interlocutors when initiating the request. Thai
and English differ both in the use and meaning of words that denote these relationships. Thai
language contains a variety of pronouns that can refer to these aspects of the speakerâs
relationship to the hearer. In addition, Thai language speakers commonly use kinship terms with
non-family, which can also function to articulate the relationship of speaker and hearer.
Although their L1 and target language differ in these ways, the learners were able to use the
vocabulary available to them in English, namely honorifics, kinship terms, and friendship terms,
in order to perform this function of acknowledging the power dynamic and/or closeness between
the speaker and hearer. As mentioned above in the section discussing request perspectives, the
importance of honorifics in Thai appears to support the interpretations of previous researchers
(for example, see Eslami, Kim, Write, & Burlbaw, 2014) who argued that in some languages,
this linguistic device can play a significant role in mitigating requests. With experience studying
abroad, SA learners appear to be less reliant on these markers that explicitly refer to the social
dynamic between the interlocutors, conforming more closely to the alerter patterns of ED.
Supportive moves
When considering the frequency of supportive moves, it was found that the effects of L1 transfer
and study abroad were minimal both in the total number of supportive moves and in specific
types of supportive moves. Significant differences were observed between the baseline language
groups representing the learnersâ L1 and target language, with the ED group using more
supportive moves than the NT group. However, both learner groups were observed to use
supportive moves at rates more similar to speakers of the target language. This contrasts with the
findings of several previous studies (Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2009; Faerch & Kasper, 1989;
Kasper, 1981; Najafabadi & Paramasivam, 2012; Otcu & Zeyrek, 2006; Wang, 2011; Woodfield
& Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2010), which have reported a tendancy for English learners to
overuse supportive moves. However, the findings that participants from the AH and SA groups
215
used supportive moves at comparable frequencies to the ED group are in line with the
observations of Najafabadi and Paramasivam (2012), whose study of Iranian EFL learners
showed that as English learners gain in proficiency, an overreliance on supportive moves is
reduced as they move toward native speaker-like frequencies. The English learners represented
by both learner groups in this study represent learners at a high-intermediate to advanced
proficiency level.
A more significant indicator of the learnersâ development can be seen in the linguistic forms
used in supportive moves. SA learners were observed to use more varied, complex, and longer
supportive moves, which were more comparable to those of ED group participants, albeit with
frequent grammatical errors. In contrast, at home learnersâ supportive moves tended to be more
limited in range and less elaborate. Furthermore, AH learners favored the use of simple fixed
expressions, which was particularly evident in their thanking and urging supportive moves. In
terms of L1 transfer of linguistic form, some evidence was observed with both learner groups in
the use of sweeteners. There is also some indication that L1 transfer may be a factor in the self-
introduction supportive moves of at home learners.
In sum, both groups of learners, regardless of whether or not they had had study abroad
experience, used supportive moves in numbers similar to the ED group. This ability to adapt to
the target language norms might be explained by the relative grammatical simplicity of
supportive moves compared to internal modifications, thus making supportive moves more
accessible to language learners compared to other types of mitigating devices. Study abroad
appears to have a greater effect on linguistic forms used by the learners, with SA participants
demonstrating greater variety, complexity, and length of supportive moves comparable to those
of ED participants. These gains may be the result of greater exposure and outside of the
classroom interactions with English dominant speakers, which the learners have internalized and
used in their own supportive moves. The frequent grammatical errors in the study abroad groupâs
longer, more complex supportive moves indicate that while the learners have noticed and
attempted to use the different, more syntactically demanding forms, they have not yet mastered
them.
216
7.1.2 Research question 2
How do such patterns displayed by these same four groups of speakers compare to each other
in situations that vary according to the social factors of relative power and social distance?
Request perspectives
All study groups used hearer dominance the most in both low-high and high-low situations.
These findings for low-high power relations were not consistent with the expectation that in a
lower position of power, a speaker would make her/his request more indirect by avoiding hearer
dominance perspective. Another unexpected result is that there were only minimal differences
between the four study groups in their sensitivity to the variable of relative power. It was
expected that because Thai culture is characterized by a strong social hierarchy, the speakerâs
sensitivity to her/his relative position to the hearer would affect the use of request perspective.
One interpretation of these unexpected results could be that there are mitigating tools available in
Thai that are not available in English. In particular, Thai speakersâ choice of pronouns can reflect
the power dynamic in the relationship between speaker and hearer speaker. Therefore, if Thai
speakers, including the Thai learners of English in the AH and SA groups, are in fact sensitive to
the variable of relative power, it may not necessarily be expressed in request perspective. It is
also important to note that some situations might favor the use of particular perspective types.
For example, in situation 3 (asking to get on the train), it would seem unlikely to expect a joint
perspective request. Therefore, the aggregate data sets controlling for the social variables may to
some extent reflect the specific circumstances relating to individual situations.
Similarly, it was expected that greater social distance would correlate with less direct request
perspectives. As expected, the preference for hearer dominance perspective was greatest for all
study groups in close situations. The study groups were quite similar in close situations. In
situations involving strangers and acquaintances, the learner groups tended to rely more heavily
on hearer dominance requests while the ED group participantsâ requests were characterized by
more variety in their request perspective choices. However, in these situations, the study abroad
group conformed somewhat closer to the ED norms than did the AH group, suggesting possible
pragmatic development in the situations that were expected to involve a greater need for speakers
to mitigate their requests.
217
Request strategies
When controlling for relative power, NT participants used direct strategies least frequently when
requesting up (low-high) and most frequently when requesting down (high-low). Rather than
transferring this norm of their L1 to their English requests, the learners showed similarities to the
ED group by using conventionally indirect strategies much more frequently than direct strategies
in high-low situations. The similarities between the ED and learner groups with regard to their
sensitivity to relative power is consistent with previous findings by Jalilifar (2009), who
observed the request strategies of advanced Iranian EFL learners displayed similar sensitivity to
relative power when compared to the request strategies of native speakers of Australian English.
The ED group tended to use the mitigated strategies of mitigated wants and mitigated
preparatory more often in equal and low-high than in high-low situations. Both learner groups
also followed this trend, although the SA group conformed more closely to the ED norms than
did the AH group. While the ED group tended to use direct strategies less often in low-high
situations, the direct strategy of expectation statements was found to be an exception, with the
ED using it as a relatively common strategy in the two low-high situations involving professors.
Neither learner group used this strategy at all in these situations, reflecting the norms of their L1.
The NT group tended to use direct strategies more frequently with close social distance. Social
distance did not appear to have influenced the use of direct strategies of the other three study
groups. This finding from the three groups completing the English EDCT is consistent with the
observations of Economidou-Kogetsidis (2010), who found that neither British English nor
Greek speakersâ request directness levels were particularly influenced by the variable of social
distance. Both the findings from the three English EDCT groups as well as the NT group are in
contrast with those of Fukushima (2000), who observed in the requests of English and Japanese
speakers that direct strategies were more likely to be employed in situations in which there was a
greater social distance between the speaker and hearer than in situations in which the social
distance was small. With regard to the directness level of request strategies, the most notable
difference between the learner groups and the ED group was observed in situations involving
strangers and acquaintances. In these situations the ED group used more unconventionally
indirect strategies, but the learner groups tended not to do so. As for individual strategies, social
distance did not appear to be a strong factor in the choice of conventionally indirect strategies for
218
the learner groups. However, the ED group used considerably more preparatory requests in
requests involving close social relationships compared to those with acquaintances.
Internal modifications
All groups used fewer internal modifications in high-low and in close situations. However, both
social distance and relative power appear to have a greater influence on the ED groupâs use of
internal modifications compared to that of other three study groups. Similar findings were
reported by GÃķy, Zeyrek, & Otcu (2012), who observed that upper-intermediate Turkish EFL
learners also tended not to change their internal modifications across situations controlling for
the variables of relative power and social distance. These results were interpreted by GÃķy,
Zeyrek, & Otcu as resulting from the weakness of the learnersâ control over their pragmatic
knowledge. Similarly, the results in the present study might be explained in part by the learner
groupsâ limitations in terms of linguistic production, which resulted in more formulaic and less
linguistically varied requests. In low-high and stranger situations, ED participants tended to use
more elaborate and grammatically complex requests. Modifications of aspect and use of
embedded and conditional structures were frequently present in the ED groupâs requests in these
situations. The minimal effect of these two social variables on the learnersâ use of internal
modifications might be explained as a result of linguistic limitations rather than socio-pragmatic
failure.
Request structures
It was expected that requests made to strangers and/or to a hearer in a higher social position
would result in a greater degree of mitigation. In terms of request structure, this would be
reflected by the presence of supportive moves, particularly to begin the request utterance. When
controlling for relative power, the ED group appears to conform to this expectation, favoring the
SM+HA+SM structure. In contrast, the NT group favored the more direct and less elaborated
HA+SM structure. The learner groups showed more similarities to the ED group, with the SA
group generally conforming more closely to the ED norms when compared to the AH. When
controlling for social distance, all groups favored the SM+HA+SM structure in close relationship
situations and tended to use more direct and less elaborate structures (HA+SM) with strangers,
which was in contrast to the expected results. The study groups generally showed minimal
differences in how the social variable of social distance related to their use of request structures.
219
Alerters
Alerter types varied considerably by situation, which is reflected in the aggregated data
controlling for of relative power and social distance. The use of titles in low-high situations
demonstrates differences between the norms of the learnersâ L1 and target language: the ED
group favored honorific addresses and names while the NT group favored titles and kinship
terms. Differences between the learner groups also suggest some degree pragmatic development
of SA participants toward the norms of the ED group, as the SA group conformed more closely
to the ED norms than did the AH group. In equal power situations, the AH group stood out from
the other study groups, using alerters considerably more often. The AH groupâs frequent use of
alerters can be attributed to a large degree to its preference for friendship terms, which may
reflect the influence of an L1 cultural value placed on using forms of address to emphasize
solidarity with friends. With high-low situations, the NT group was an outlier, using kinship
terms much more frequently than the other groups. The Thai learners of English generally did
not transfer this norm of their L1 to their English requests.
When controlling for the variable of social distance, alerters were used more frequently in
requests to acquaintances than in situations involving close or stranger social distance. Similar
observations were reported in a study on apology speech acts of Thai EFL students by Thittijang
(2010), who observed alerters were used more in situations involving acquaintances than in those
characterized by close or stranger levels of social distance. A notable difference between the
learner groups and the ED group was observed with requests to strangers, in which both learner
groups used alerters significantly more than the ED group. This can be attributed to the use of
honorific address, and specifically, the learners of both the AH and SA group generalization of
the term âsirâ in order to show polite respect.
Supportive moves
Relative power had an influence on the number of supportive moves used by every study group.
The ED and learner groups used more supportive moves when making requests in low-high
situations and fewer supportive moves in high-low situations. The NT group differed from this
pattern, using the most supportive moves in equal power situations and fewer supportive moves
in low-high situation. This difference between the NT group and the other study groupsâ
supportive move use was particularly evident with the use of grounders in low-high situations.
220
Grounders were quite common and represented a large proportion of the AH, SA, and ED
groupsâ supportive moves in low-high situations. However, this was not the case with the NT
group. The data controlling for relative power show no evidence of L1 pragmatic transfer when
considering both the total number and number individual types of supportive moves, with both
learner groups using a similar numbers of supportive moves per request when compared to
English dominant speakers. Moreover, the similarity between the two learner groups suggests
study abroad did not impact the learnersâ sensitivity to relative power as seen in the number of
supportive moves per request.
The requests of the NT group appear to have been more affected by the variable of social
distance. All study groups tended to use more supportive moves in close situations. However,
this trend was more pronounced with the NT group. Overall, social distance appears to have had
an impact on the learner groups in a way more similar to the ED group than to the NT group.
However, because the learner groupsâ are similar to one another in terms of how their use of
supportive moves was affected by social distance, it suggests that study abroad had a minimal, if
any, effect on the learnersâ sensitivity to social distance, as measured by their use of supportive
moves.
7.1.3 Research question 3
What factors in addition to relative power and social distance do participants from each group
perceive as influencing their respective requests?
When asked to describe the factors they considered when making their requests, there were
several general factors that were reported by all of the study groups. One of the most common
factors cited by all study groups was the desire to be polite. According to Brown and Levinsonâs
(1987) politeness theory, the level of politeness needed in a request is derived from the speakerâs
perception of three social variables: relative power, social distance, and the degree of imposition.
Therefore, although it is notable that the desire to be polite was so often cited by all study groups
as a factor in their requests making, this leads to the question of how these variables along with
other contextual factors influenced the participantsâ perception that a desire for politeness was
needed. Some of these factors centered on the specific contextual aspects of the situation but are
generally related to the degree of imposition. For example, participants from all groups discussed
the inconvenience a request may cause the hearer, which often related to the demand on the
221
hearerâs time and sometimes was elaborated further to mention the hearerâs lack of available
time. All study groups also described the normality of a request as a factor. Most often this was
mentioned as a factor to characterize requests that were normal in daily life or involved
requesting actions that would be normal for the hearer to do, given their occupation. One factor
that was mentioned by all study groups but may be less directly related to the degree of
imposition is the consideration of putting the hearer in a defensive position when asking a
professor to reconsider and explain a low grade. Fairness was also a consideration of every study
group, although this was mentioned by the ED group with reference to requested actions that
were perceived to be unfair, whereas the AH and SA groups mentioned it with reference to the
fairness of a proposed compensation for the hearerâs cooperation. These findings are consistent
with those of previous research (Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2010; Held, 1996) that also
demonstrated other factors besides those identified by Brown and Levinson (1987) (e.g., social
distance, relative power, and degree of imposition) can contribute to a speakerâs assessment of
appropriate linguistic choices in speech acts of requests.
Although the study groups generally reported many of the same considerations when making
requests, there were also differences between the study groups. In particular, differences
emerged between the ED group, on the one hand, and the three groups sharing Thai as their
mother tongue (NT, AH, and SA), on the other. The fact that the factors described by these three
groups were often different than those described by the ED group can be interpreted as reflecting
differences between Thai and English-speaking cultures. For example, the NT, AH, and SA
groups all mentioned the fact that the hearer was a family member as a factor they considered
when making their requests. In these situations, involving requests to family members, the ED
group tended to cite the minimal resources, namely money and time, needed by the hearer to
comply with the request. One other factor that characterized the responses of ED group
participants was the fact that they had a right to make a particular request, which was not
mentioned by any other study group.
7.1.4 Research question 4
To what extent does each group of participants perceive differently the degree of imposition in
making requests in the given situations?
222
Generally, the extent of the differences between the study groupsâ perceptions of the degree of
imposition was very small. As measured by a five-point Likert scale, the range of ratings
between groups for the degree of imposition in a single request situation never varied by more
than one point. Situations 5 (borrowing a cell phone from a classmate) and 7 (borrowing money
from an older relative) were both rated very similarly by every study group as having a low
degree of imposition, with the difference between the study groupsâ average ratings never
exceeding 0.2 points. Situation 2 (asking to cut a taxi line) was also rated quite similarly by study
groups as having a high degree of imposition, with average ratings ranging from 3.79 to 3.97
between study groups.
With two situations, situations 4 (asking a professor to reconsider your exam) and 8 (asking a
friend to study with you for an exam), the baseline language groups represented the extremes,
with the NT group rating the degree of imposition higher than the ED group in both situations. In
situation 4, the average rating of the ED group was 2.97 while the NT groupâs average rating was
3.53. A similar range was observed with situation 8, with the ED group giving an average rating
of 3.12 and the NT group giving a slightly higher rating of 3.79. Although this trend could be
interpreted as possibly reflecting a difference of perceptions based on cultural differences, the
difference between these two groups was rather small. Another reason that this may not reflect a
cultural difference is that the two learner groups, who are also Thai students just as the NT
group, provided a rating somewhere in between the two extremes of the baseline language
groups. The facts that this pattern did not bear out in other situations and the baseline groups
were quite similar to one another casts further doubt on the interpretation that cultural differences
can explain differences in the ratings. For example, in situation 3 (asking to get on the train), the
NT group provided a slightly higher average rating of 2.15 compared to the other three groups,
which ranged from 1.62 to 1.74. In summary, the differences for each situation tended to be
small, and to the extent that there were differences, they do not appear to reflect a pattern that
characterizes any consistent differences between the study groups.
The absence of consistent differences in the rating of the degree of imposition across study
groups differs from the results reported by Economidou-Kogetsidis (2010), who found that
Greek and British English speakers perceived the degree of imposition differently between
several request situations. Although differences in the present study were not reflected to a large
extent in the Likert scale ratings, differences emerged when asking participants about the factors
223
they considered when making these ratings. It is notable that the data from these follow-up
questions appear to suggest cultural differences in the way participants viewed the rights and
obligations of the speaker and/or hearer as impacting the degree of imposition. Similar
observations of the apparent relationship between the perceived imposition of a request and
culturally-specific views on interlocutors rights and obligations were also made by Economidou-
Kogetsidis (2010) and Fukushima (2000).
7.1.5 Research question 5
How do study abroad learners compare to at home learners with regard to how they perceive
the development of their own pragmatic competence?
The learners with study abroad experience viewed their study abroad experience as having a
significant impact in the development of their L2 skills, including their pragmatic competence.
SA group participants described a dramatic increase in their confidence, which in turn, allowed
them to interact using the target language. This interaction was a factor in the development of
their pragmatic competence; many noted that by using English every day in real life situations,
they were able to receive authentic feedback from English dominant speakers, which allowed
them to assess and modify their subsequent interactions. SA group participants also noted that
the opportunity to observe English being spoken by others while studying abroad provided
information about the norms of authentic interaction of English dominant speakers.
The findings that SA participants viewed their study abroad experience as having a significant
impact on their L2 development is consistent with previous research that has demonstrated a
general belief among language learners that studying abroad is a highly effective means of
improving their L2 skills (Brown, Dewey, & Belnap, 2015; Kinginger, 2009; Pellegrino, 1998;
Yang & Rehner, 2015; Zhang, 2012). The findings of this study are also consistent with research
that has also highlighted the perception among Thai learners of English that there are advantages
in learning English in a native English-speaking country over the at-home context (Lertjanyakit
& Bunchapattanasakda, 2015; Pimpa, 2004). The perception of the SA learners of their own
pragmatic development is also reflected in the data, which appear to show modest gains toward
the norms of the ED group when compared to the data of the AH group. These findings, too, are
consistent with previous research that has investigated pragmatic development of study abroad
learners in a variety of language contexts and which generally report moderate gains in
224
pragmatic competence resulting from the period of study abroad (e.g., AlcÃģn-Soler, 2015;
Barron, 2003; Cohen & Shively, 2007; FÃĐlix-Brasdefer, 2004; Hassall, 2013; Khorshidi, 2013;
Matsumura, 2001; Owen, 2002; Schauer, 2009; Taguchi, 2011; Warga & SchÃķlmberger, 2007;
Yang, 2014).
When asked about their views on their pragmatic development prior to studying abroad, the SA
group participants shared a similar perspective with the AH group participants. Both groups
described their pragmatic development mostly relating to their experience in school and their
exposure to English media. Although both learner groups were generally positive about the role
of university education in their pragmatic development, they felt that there were significant
limitations to how pragmatic competence can be developed in an EFL classroom. With the
exception of a course on native speaker varieties, the cultural component of English was very
limited in their coursework. Although participants from both the AH and SA groups reported
having been taught speech acts, including requests, this was viewed as being only briefly
covered. In addition, some AH participants reported that they were not always confident in using
the linguistic forms taught in class because they differed from those they observed in English
movies. While SA group participants noted that studying abroad benefited their pragmatic
competence by giving them opportunities to observe, speak in real world contexts, and receive
feedback through interaction, the AH group participants recognized that the absence of these
opportunities in Thailand represented a major limitation to the development of their pragmatic
competence.
7.2 Pedagogical implications
The findings of this study have implications for how teachers and curriculum developers can
help learners improve their pragmatic competence. Many of these implications could aid the
development of learnersâ pragmatic competence regardless of whether or not they will have the
opportunity to study abroad. This study focuses specifically on the effect of study abroad on
pragmatic development. However, some of the benefits of study abroad, namely exposure to the
target language culture, can be applied to some extent in EFL classrooms. Cultural knowledge
facilitates comprehension and the ability to effectively communicate using a foreign language.
Culture is an important element that helps explain differences in perception of politeness and
how people in different cultures perform speech acts, including making request. However, as
225
Snodin (2016) observed, âculture is often neglected in the Thai EFL classroom or introduced in
no more than a superficial supplement to language instructionâ (p. 388). The findings of the
interview data with SA group participants in the present study confirm that students believe their
exposure to a course centered on English-speaker cultures was beneficial in helping them
understand the native English speakersâ perspectives and norms. This results in increasing their
confidence in using the language more naturally and appropriately. Therefore, more attention
should be paid to finding a way to integrate the cultural aspect of the target language into
language instruction, rather than focusing only on teaching the form and function. For learners
going abroad, pre-departure training could facilitate the learnersâ adjustment the new social and
cultural environment in the target language environment. Kinginger (2008) argues that although
study abroad has been widely demonstrated to benefit language learners of a variety of
proficiency levels, pre-departure training focusing on raising learnersâ awareness of language
learning and use is necessary to most efficiently develop their communicative skills. In addition
to raising their language learning awareness, pre-departure training could also provide insights of
learners from the same L1 culture who have experience in the study abroad destination, which
could be particularly beneficial and therefore, pre-departure training should include these
perspectives.
As seen in the findings of this study, formal instruction plays an important role in learnersâ
pragmatic knowledge and their performance. Learners tended to rely on linguistic forms they
have learned through explicit instruction in school and that they are familiar with. While the
request forms learners are taught in school would likely be enough for learners to achieve their
desired ends, there are several benefits to expanding learnersâ familiarity with alternative
linguistic forms. This can facilitate a better comprehension when learners encounter these
alternative forms, and allow learners to communicate more naturally, confidently, and
effectively. Due to the significance of explicit instruction, attention should be paid to improving
instruction of speech acts, including requests, by introducing the learners to a variety of common
linguistic forms. However, introducing linguistic forms is not enough; relevant and realistic
materials should be used to ensure the quality of the input. The findings of the interview data
show that learners from both the AH and SA groups reported that they learned a greater variety
of request expressions than that which they are comfortable using. This is because these
226
expressions were often presented in textbooks with a limited context or a context that the
learners felt was inauthentic.
While learners with the opportunity to study abroad can benefit from being in the target language
environment and observing authentic language use in daily interactions, EFL instructors can
mitigate the lack of an authentic target language environment by using authentic materials such
as reality TV shows, talk shows, vlogs where people document their real interactions. Snodin
(2016) reported that the feedback from Thai learners of English on the use of such authentic
materials in the classroom âinclude the novelty of the experience, changing perspectives,
facilitating better communication, practical and useful knowledge, fun, autonomous learning,
critical thinking and empathy towards other culturesâ (p. 387). Incorporating authentic materials
into lessons could help learners without the opportunity to study abroad to learn target speech
acts in a more meaningful context than what is available in the textbook. Discussion on cultural
related topics should be done as a follow-up activity so that students can think critically and
understand the use of the target speech acts. Sykes and Cohen (2008) observe that online and
computer-based instructional material also have the ability of facilitate L2 pragmatic
development through authentic and meaningful interactions. Despite the potential of these media,
however, the authors note that more work needs to be done in order to develop and implement
such materials, which appears to still be the case presently.
In addition to learning focused in the classroom, autonomous learning is another way that
learners can gain cultural knowledge and exposure to linguistic forms in order to improve their
pragmatic competence. Teachers should encourage students to seek input wherever possible
outside of class. One way this could be done in Thailand is by organizing activities to promote
communication between Thai learners of English and foreign English speakers, such as a social
club where Thai students and interactional students at the same school can interact. Elnadeef and
Abdala (2019) conclude that extra-circular activities such as English social clubs can benefit
English learnersâ by offering a low-risk and realistic language context. International exchange
programs are quite common in Thai universities. The SA learners in this study reported that the
confidence gained from the increased opportunities to use English while abroad helped them to
develop their pragmatic competence. Extracurricular activities can be a chance for Thai and
English-speaking students to socialize, practice using each otherâs language, and learn about
each otherâs culture in a relaxed and natural context. This promotes not only the studentsâ
227
learning but also their skills in intercultural communication, resulting in more confidence when
using English. In addition to providing benefits to the Thai learners of English, the opportunity to
interact with local university students would likely have an appeal to many exchange students,
too.
Finally, the findings of this study also have pedagogical implications regarding teacher education
and professional development. Teachers need to have both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic
knowledge of the target language. In other words, not only do teachers need to know the various
linguistic forms used to perform language functions, but they also must understand the norms of
speakers of the target language in terms of how contextual factors affect which linguistic forms
are judged most appropriate. Therefore, knowledge of the target language culture (or cultures) is
an essential component of teacher knowledge as it will allow the teachers to supplement the
presentation of language provided in textbooks by giving learners additional context related to
how language is used in real situations. This could present a challenge to non-native speaker
teachers who do not have experience in the target language culture. As reported by Nilmanee and
Soontornwipast (2014), Thai teachers âtend to carry the belief that they need to be well-equipped
with the knowledge of foreign culture, preferably first-handed experiences, in order to teach
culture effectivelyâ (p. 10). However, teacher training and professional development can
empower non-native speaking teachers by giving them the resources to help facilitate learnersâ
pragmatic development. Cohen (2015) suggests that native English speakers, too, can benefit
from professional development since despite their intuition, their understand of the target
language norms may be based on an âanecdotal, idiosyncratic, or otherwise limited and/or
inaccurate understanding of the actual target language normsâ (p. 583). Collaborative teaching
between native and non-native speaking teachers in a workplace can be beneficial to both
learners and teachers (Baniabdelrahman, 2013; Carless, 2006; Tajino & Tajino, 2000). In
addition to in-classroom collaborations, non-native English-speaking teachers and their native
English-speaking colleagues can work together by having regular workshops where teachers can
share their own cultural knowledge and perspectives on teaching pragmatics. Non-native
English-speaking teachers could benefit from native English-speaking teachersâ perspective on
their own culture while native English-speaking teachers working in an EFL context would have
a greater understanding of their studentsâ culture. This would allow them to identify and mitigate
areas in which English-speaking and studentsâ L1 culture differ. In addition to having the
228
aforementioned knowledge, teachers also need to create a supportive language-learning
environment where students are willing to take risks in learning. They need to design activities
that are meaningful to students and allow them to have enough practice in order to promote
retention of the forms and functions of expression as well as to improve accuracy and fluency.
7.3 Limitations and opportunities for future research
There are several limitations contained in this study that should be noted. First, the sample size
of each group was relatively small, with 34 participants in each group, and therefore, there may
be limitations in terms of the generalizability of the study. A study with a greater number of
participants in each study group may produce different findings. In addition, because the SA and
AH groups comprised only English major students, the results of this study may not be
generalizable to represent all Thai learners of English. The findings obtained from the study
mainly represent the performance of learners who have a high-intermediate to advanced
proficiency level with extensive formal English training. Future research could examine the
pragmatic development of Thai learners of English who have different English learning
backgrounds and English proficiency levels than the participants in this study. By recruiting
student participants from non-English majors, the research could have a larger number of
participants and would represent a larger proportion of Thai learners of English, which would
consequently enhance the generalizability of the study to the population at large.
Another limitation comes from the fact that this study is a cross-sectional study, in which the
data were collected from different groups of participants at a single point in time and therefore,
the data representing the development of their pragmatic competence should be taken with
caution. Although some criteria were put into place to control for the SA and AH groupsâ
language backgrounds, the interpretation of the development of the SA group rests on the
assumption that the data elicited from the AH group can represent the language choices of SA
participantsâ pre-study abroad. As an alternative, a longitudinal study of a single group of
participants could be worth considering. This type of longitudinal approach would allow
researchers to observe and monitor the progress of a single group of participants and thus,
determine language development with a higher degree of confidence given that the data would be
produced by a single group of participants.
229
It is recommended that future studies using a cross-sectional design to compare study abroad and
at home learners should attempt to control for the length of time the study groups are exposed to
classroom instruction and, thus, their proficiency level. This can help ensure that any gains in L2
and pragmatic competence documented in the research are the result of study abroad and not of
additional classroom exposure. In the present study, the AH group were in their final year of
their four-year bachelorâs degree program, whereas the SA group had completed their four years
of instruction as English major students plus an additional 15 months of study while aboard. This
means that the SA group had a longer exposure to English instruction, which may have been a
factor affecting their development. However, despite this limitation, the inferred gains by the SA
group in this study are consistent with previous literature that demonstrates a positive study
abroad effect (e.g., Kinginger, 2008; Regan, Howard & LemÃĐe, 2010).
To minimize the limitation of the EDCT in terms of the naturalness of the conversation,
researchers are encouraged to use other types of data collection instruments to elicit natural
request responses, such as recording the participantsâ daily conversation. The findings obtained
from natural observations could be compared with the data obtained from the EDCT situations
that consists of the same combination of social variables and that involve similar situational
contexts. For example, a request to a professor for a deadline extension, which is analyzed as a
low-high, acquaintance situation on the EDCT, could be compared with data obtained from
another data collection instrument using a similar situation characterized by the same dynamics
of social variables.
The EDCT was designed to control for the social variables of relative power and social distance
by creating aggregated data sets from three situations to represent each level of these variables
(e.g., situations 1, 2, and 3 were combined to represent situations involving strangers). However,
because the situations were quite different and contained a variety of other contextual factors,
these data sets may be limited in how well they represent their intended target variable. For
example, situation 3 (asking to get on the train), which is defined as having a social distance of
âstrangerâ and âhigh-lowâ relative power between the speaker and hearer, involved a very
significant time constraint and thus, the brief answers for this situation may skew the data to
reflect briefer, less modified responses in stranger and high-low situations. In order to better
control for the desired variables, more similar situations could be used. However, using only
similar situations might carry its own risks. For instance, the participantsâ responses might be
230
affected by their raised awareness that they are being observed, a phenomenon known as the
Hawthorne effect. For example, if the situations involve the same requested action to a stranger,
acquaintance, and a family member, the participants might become aware that these situations
are controlling for social distance, which could lead to the participants trying âto please the
researcher by giving the answers and responses they think are expectedâ (Mackey & Gass, 2005,
p. 114). In order to avoid potential problems associated with aggregated data sets, analyzing data
by situation is recommended. Doing this could better account for the complex contextual factors
that influence the participantsâ judgment of which request forms are most suitable. In addition,
other contextual variables besides relative power, social distance, and degree of imposition
should be considered, including gender, the personality of the hearers, or the normality of the
request. Furthermore, since requests can be classified into requesting for an action and requesting
for information, it would be interesting to see if these different types of request would elicit
similar results in situations with similar social variables.
Finally, the use of the CCSARP coding system produced some limitations in that its design is
primarily focused on capturing English requests. Although this coding system was modified to
better reflect the types of modifications used in Thai requests, this coding system still falls short
of reflecting the means available for Thai speakers to modify their requests. Thai pronouns, for
example, are more complex than their English counterparts and can impact politeness differently
as well. Despite this limitation, the present study contributes to what is known about how
linguistic features of Thai requests can be coded using an adaptation of the CCSARP coding
system. Therefore, future research is required to further contribute to the development of coding
methods that can reflect Thai linguistic features that are manipulated in request making.
Pragmatic development involves both teaching and learning. Therefore, a study examining
teacher perspectives on teaching pragmatics to Thai learners of English in the EFL context is
suggested. Insights from both Thai and non-Thai English teachers regarding their experiences
teaching pragmatics and obstacles in teaching L2 pragmatics can yield useful information with
pedagogical implications on how teaching pragmatics can be improved and how institutes can
promote professional development of their teachers.
Finally, this study demonstrates differences between Thai learners of English and English
dominant speakers in terms of their linguistic choices when making requests. However, the
231
differences in the perception of how these linguistic choices related to politeness by these groups
remain unexplored. It is assumed that using request strategies and modifications that are different
from those of proficient target language users could lead to misunderstandings or perceived
impoliteness. However, some differences in linguistic choices by English learners may not
necessarily be perceived as being any less polite by English dominant speakers. In order to
explore the extent to which linguistic choices relate to perceptions of politeness, the perception
of politeness attached to each request strategy and its modifications could also be explored by
asking both English learners and English dominant speakers to rate the appropriateness of
various strategies and linguistic modifications used to make requests.
232
References
Al-Ali, M. N., & Alawneh, R. (2010). Linguistic mitigating devices in American and Jordanian
studentsâ requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(2), 311-339.
AlcÃģn-Soler, E. (2005). Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context?
System, 33, 417-435.
AlcÃģn-Soler, E. (2014). Pragmatic learning and study abroad: Effects of instruction and length of
stay. System, 30, 1-13.
AlcÃģn-Soler, E. (2015). Instruction and pragmatic change during study abroad email
communication. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 34-45.
AlcÃģn-Soler, E., & Martinez-Flor, A. (2008). Introduction. In E. AlcÃģn & A. Martinez-Flor
(Eds.), Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing
(pp. 3-21). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Aggarwal, K. & Aggarwal, S. (2017). Bro: Linguistic dilemma, network intruders or medico-
social approach. Open Access Journal of Surgery, 5(3), 1-3.
Ajaaj, M. A. (2016). Politeness strategies in Arabic culture with reference to eulogy. EFL
Journal, 1, 161-173.
Akutsu, Y. (2006). Request strategies in âoral communication aâ textbooks. The Economic
Journal of Takasaki City University of Economics, 48(3), 135-149.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental consideration in language testing. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Baker, W. (2012). English as a lingua franca in Thailand: Characterisations and implications.
Englishes in Practice, 1, 18-27.
233
Bandiabdelrahman, A. (2013). Effect of team teaching and being the teacher native or non-native
on EFL studentsâ English language proficiency. African Educational Research Journal,
1, 85-95.
Bangkok Post. (2015). Right qualifications, wrong colour skin. Retrieved from
https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/special-reports/716900/right-qualifications-
wrong-colour-skin.
Bangkok Post. (2018). Thai English proficiency drops. Retrieved from
https://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/1570042/thai-english-proficiency-drops
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in
pragmatigcs. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.) Pragmatics in Language Teaching
(pp. 13-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Bastos, M. (2011). Proficiency, length of stay, and intensity of interaction,
and the acquisition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Intercultural
Pragmatics, 8(3), 347-384.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & DÃķrnyei, Z. (1998). Do pragmatic learners recognize pragmatic
violations? Pragmatic verses grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL
Quarterly, 32, 233-259.
Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in Interlangauge Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing.
Barron, A. (2008). Contrasting requests in inner circle Englishes: A study in variational
pragmatics. In M. Putz and J. N. Aertselaer (Eds.) Developing Contrastive Pragmatics:
Interlanguage and Cross-Cultural Perspectives (pp. 335-402). Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Barron, A. (2016). Developing pragmatic competence using EFL textbooks: Focus on requests.
Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal, 7(1), 2172-2179.
Beebe, L. M., & Cummings, M. C. (1996). Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire
data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu
234
(Eds.) Speech Acts across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second
Language (pp. 65â86). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bella, S. (2011). Mitigation and politeness in Greek invitation refusals: Effects of length of
residence in the target community and intensity of interaction on non-native speakersâ
performance. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1718-1740.
Bergman, M. L., & Kasper, G. (1993). Perception and performance in native and nonnative
apology. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.) Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 82-107).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence.
In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.) Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 43-57). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the
speech act performance of Hebrew second language learners. Applied Linguistics, 3(1),
29-59.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and
apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Levenston, E. A. (1987). Lexical-grammatical pragmatic indicators. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 9(2), 155-170.
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.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1986). Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic
failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8(2), 165-179.
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 implicature in American English be improved
through explicit instruction?: A pilot study. In L. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics
235
and Language Learning Monograph Series Vol. 5 (pp. 88â108). Urbana-Champaign:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Brown, J., Dewey, D. P., & Belnap, K. (2015). Student interactions during study abroad in
Jordan. In R. Mitchell, N. Tracy-Ventura, & K. McManus (Eds.), Social Interaction,
Identity and Language Learning During Residence Abroad, Eurosla Monograph Series, 4
(pp. 199-220). Amsterdam: The European Second Language Association.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language use: politeness phenomena. In E.
Goody (Ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction (pp. 56-311).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. Bu, J. (2012). A study of relationships between L1
pragmatic transfer and proficiency. English Language Teaching, 5(1), 32-43.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second
language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Carless, D. R. (2006). Good practice in team teaching in Japan, South Korea and Hong Kong.
System, 34, 341-351.
Chantrasombat, J., & Pongpairoj, N. (2018). Interlanguage pragmatics: Deviant patterns of
negative responses to English negative yes/no questions by L1 Thai speakers.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 7(3), 193-199.
Chiravate, B. (2011). Perception of politeness in English requests by Thai EFL learners. 3L:
Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 17(2), 59-71.
Choomthong, D. (2014). Preparing Thai studentsâ English for the ASEAN Economic
Community: Some pedagogical implications and trends. Language Education and
Acquisition Research Network (LEARN) Journal, 7(1), 45-57.
Chen, E. (2001). Making email requests to professors: Taiwanese vs. American students. Paper
presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics Conference, St. Louis,
Missouri.
236
Cohen, A. D. (2016). The teaching of pragmatics by native and nonnative language teachers:
What they know and what they report doing. Studies in Second Language Learning and
Teaching, 6, 561-585.
Cohen, A. D., & Shively, R. L. (2007). Acquisition of Requests and Apologies in Spanish and
French: Impact of Study Abroad and StrategyâBuilding Intervention. The Modern
Language Journal, 91(2), 189-212.
Cook, M., & Liddicoat, A. J. (2002). The development of comprehension in interlanguage
pragmatics: The case of request strategies in English. Australian Review of Applied
Linguistics, 25(1), 19-39.
Cook, J. R. (1968). Pronominal reference in Thai, Burmese, and Vietnamese. Berkeley, CA:
University of California.
Cook, V. J., & Newson, M. (1996). Chomskyâs universal grammar: an introduction (2nd ed.).
Oxford: Blackwell.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Mixed methods procedures (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research
(2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Cronholm, S., & Hjalmarsson, A. (2011). Experiences from sequential use of mixed methods.
The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 9(2), 87-95.
Crystal, D. (1985). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Cubillos, J. H., Chieffo, L., & Fan, C. (2008). The impact of short-term study abroad programs
on L2 listening comprehension skills. Foreign Language Annals, 41(1), 157-185.
Cupach, W. R. & Imahori, T. T. (1993). Identity management theory: Communication
competence in intercultural episodes and relationships. In R. L. Wiseman & J. Koester
(Eds.), Intercultural Communication Competence (pp. 112-131). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
237
Darasawang, P. (2007). English language teaching and education in Thailand: A decade of
change. In D. Prescott (Ed.), English in Southeast Asia: Varieties, Literacies and
Literatures (pp. 187-204). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Davies, A. (2013). Native speakers and native users: Loss and gain. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Davis, J. M. (2007). Resistance to L2 pragmatics in the Australian ESL context. Language
Learning, 57(4), 611-649.
Dendenne, B. (2014). Could you help me with these bags brother? My shoulders are falling:
Transfer in interlanguage requests performed by Algerian EFL learners. Journal of
Language and Linguistics Studies, 10, 29-47.
DÃaz-Campos, M. (2004). Context of learning in the acquisition of Spanish second language
phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 249-273.
Diepenbroek, L. G., & Derwing, T. M. (2014). To what extent do popular ESL textbooks
incorporate oral fluency and pragmatic development. TESL Canada Journal, 30(7), 1-20.
Dili, R. M. (2017). An assessment of the application of the 2008 Thai English language policy at
the basic education level. Paper presented at the 10th
International Conference, Chiang
Mai, Thailand.
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2008). Internal and external mitigation in interlanguage request
production: The case of Greek learners of English. Journal of Politeness Research, 4,
111-138.
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2009). Interlanguage request modification: The use of
lexical/phrasal downgraders and mitigating supportive moves. Multilingua, 28, 79-112.
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2010). Cross-cultural and situational variation in requesting
behavior: Perceptions of social situations and strategic use of request patterns. Journal of
Pragmatics, 42, 2262-2281.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
238
Elnadeef, E. A. E., & Abadala, A. H. E. H. (2019). The effectiveness of English club as free
voluntary speaking activity strategy in fostering speaking skill in Saudi Arabia context.
International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 2, 230-235.
EF Education First. (2013). EF English proficiency index, 3rd edition. Retrieved from
http://www.ef.co.uk/epi/
Eslami, Z. R., Kim, H., Write, K. L., & Burlbaw, L. M. (2014). The role of learner subjectivity
and Korean English language learnersâ pragmatic choices. Lordz Papers in Pragmatics,
10(1), 117-146.
Evans, M., & Fisher, L. (2005). Measuring gains in pupilsâ foreign language competence as a
result of participation in a school exchange visit: the case of Y9 pupils at three
comprehensive schools in the UK. Language Teaching Research, 9(2), 173-192.
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1989). Internal and external modification in interlangauge request
realization. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics:
Requests and Apologies (pp.221-247). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Farrelly, N. (2016). Being Thai: A narrow identity in a wide world. Southeast Asian Affairs,
331-344.
FÃĐlixâBrasdefer, J. C. (2004). Interlanguage refusals: Linguistic politeness and length of
residence in the target community. Language Learning, 54(4), 587-653.
FÃĐlix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2005). Indirectness and politeness in Mexican requests. In D. Eddington
(Ed.), Selected Proceedings of the 7th
Hispanic Linguistic Symposium (pp. 66-78).
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
FÃĐlix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2007). Pragmatic development in Spanish as a FL classroom: A cross-
sectional study of learner requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4, 253-286.
Foley, J. A. (2005). English in Thailand. RELC Journal, 36(2), 223-234.
Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219-236.
239
Fraser, B. (2010). Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging. In W. Mihatsch & S. Schneider
(Eds.), New Approaches to Hedging (pp. 15-34). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
Freed, B. F. (1995). What makes us think that students who study abroad become fluent. In B. F.
Freed (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context (pp. 123-148).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Freed, B. F. (1998). An overview of issues and research in language learning in a study abroad
setting. Frontiers, 4, 31-60.
Fukushima, S. (1996). Request strategies in British-English and Japanese. Language Sciences,
18(3-4), 671-688.
Fukushima, S. (2000). Requests and culture: Politeness in British-English and Japanese.
Language Sciences, 18, 671-688.
Garcia, P. (2004). Developmental differences in speech act recognition: A pragmatics awareness
study. Language Awareness, 13(2), 96-115.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction rituals. New York: Pantheon Books.
Goldsmith, D. J. (2008). Politeness theory. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging
Theory in Interpersonal Communication: Multiple Perspectives (pp. 255-268). Los
Angeles: Sage.
GÃķy, E., Zeyrek, D., & Otcu, B. (2012). Development patterns in internal modification use in
requests: A quantitative study on Turkish learners of English. In H. Woodfield & M.
Economidou-Kogetsidis (Eds.), Interlangauge Request Modification (pp. 51-87).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Grice, H. P. (1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and
Semantics (Vol. 3) (pp. 41-58). London: Academic Press.
Gu, X. (2011). The effect of explicit and implicit instruction of request strategies. Intercultural
Communication Studies, 20(1), 104-123.
240
Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 237-257.
Gullette, G. S. (2014). Rural-urban hierarchies, status boundaries, and labour mobilities in
Thailand. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40(8), 1254-1274.
Hassall, T. (2013). Pragmatic development during short-term study abroad: The case of address
terms in Indonesian. Journal of Pragmatics, 55, 1-17.
Hassal, T. (2015). Individual variation in L2 study-abroad outcomes: A case study from
Indonesian pragmatics. Multilingua, 34(1), 33-59.
Held, G. (1996). Two polite speech acts in contrastive view: Aspects of the realization of
requesting and thanking in French and Italian. In M. Hellinger & U. Ammon (Eds.),
Contrastive Sociolinguistics (pp. 363-384). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hendricks, B. (2008). Dutch English requests: A study of request performance by Dutch learners
of English. In M. Puetz & J. Neff-van Aertsaeler (Eds.), Developing Contrastive
Pragmatics: Interlangauge and Cross-Cultural Perspectives (pp. 335-354). Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Hill, T. (1997). The development of pragmatic competence in an EFL context. (Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation), Tokyo: Temple University.
Hinkel, E. (1996). When in Rome: Evaluations of L2 pragmalinguistic behaviors. Journal of
Pragmatics, 26, 51-70.
Holtgraves, T. (1992). The linguistic realization of face management: Implications for language
production and comprehension, person perception, and cross-cultural communication.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 141-159.
Hoomchamlong, Y. (1992). Some observations on /phom/ and /dichan/: Male and female first
person pronouns in Thai. In C. J. Compton and J. F. Hartmann (Eds.), Papers on Tai
Languages, Lingustics, and Literatures (pp. 186-204). Dekalb, IL: Center for Southeast
Asian Studies, Northern Illinois University.
241
House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and
metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 225-252.
House, J., & Kasper, G. (1987). Interlanguage pragmatics: requesting in a foreign language. In
W. Loerscher & R. Schulze (Eds.), Perspectives on Language in Performance (pp. 1250-
1280). Tuebingen: Narr.
Howard, K. (2007). Kinterm usage and hierarchy in Thai childrenâs peer groups. Journal of
Linguistic Anthropology, 17(2), 204-230.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). New York: Penguin.
Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms of discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic
politeness. Multilingua, 8, 223-248.
Isabelli-Garcia, C. (2006). Study abroad social networks, motivations and attitudes: Implications
for second language acquisition. In M. Dufon & E. Churchill (Eds.), Language Learners
in Study Abroad Contexts (pp. 231-285). Bristol: Multiligual Matters.
Iwasaki, S. & Horie, P. I. (2000). Creating speech register in Thai conversations. Language in
Society, 29, 519-554.
Iwasaki, S. & Horie, P. I. (2005). A reference grammar of Thai. Lingua, 117, 1497-1512.
Jain, R. (2014). Global Englishes, translinguistic identities, and translingual practices in a
community college ESL classroom: A practitioner researcher reports. TESOL Journal,
5(2), 490-522.
Jeon, E. H., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic
development. In N. John & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing Research on Language
Learning and Teaching (pp. 165-211). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
Jindapitak, N. (2018). English as an ASEAN lingua franca and the role of nativeness in English
education in Thailand: Moving toward the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC).
English Today, 1-8.
242
Jones, C., & Halenko, N. (2014). What makes a successful spoken request? Using corpus tools to
analyse learner language in a UK EAP context. Apples â Journal of Applied Language
Studies, 8(2), 23-41.
Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language
in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the World:
Teaching and Learning of Language and Literature (pp. 11â36). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kasper, G. (1982). Teaching-induced aspects of interlanguage discourse. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 4, 99-113.
Kasper, G. (1992) Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, 8(2), 203-231.
Kasper, G. (1996). Introduction: Interlangauge pragmatics in SLA. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 18, 145-148.
Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? Honolulu: University of Hawaii,
Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Retrieved from:
http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/networks/NW06/
Kasper, G. (1998). Interlanguage pragmatics. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Learning foreign and second
languages: Perspectives in research and scholarship (pp. 183-208). New York: The
Modern Language Association of America.
Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in
second language acquisition, 13(2), 215-247.
Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies of
Second Language Acquisition, 18, 149-169.
Kasper, G., & Roever, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In E. Hinkle (Ed.),
The Handbook of Research in Second Language Learning (pp. 317-334). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
243
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Keawmala (2012). Thai education failures â part 4: Dismal English language training.
Retrieved from http://asiancorrespondent.com/78647/thai-education-failures-part-4-
dismal- english-language-education/
Kecskes, I. (2003). Situation-bound utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Khorshidi, H. R. (2013). Request strategy development in Iranian study abroaders. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 2(6), 129-142.
Kinginger, C. (2008). Language learning and study abroad: Case studies of Americans in France.
Modern Language Journal, 92, 1-131.
Kinginger, C. (2009). Language learning and study abroad: A critical reading of research. New
York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2008). English as the official working language of the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations (ASEAN): Features and strategies. English Today, 24(2), 27-34.
Kirsch, A. T. (1973). The Thai Buddhist quest for merit. In J. T. McAlister (Ed.), Southeast Asia:
The Politics of National Integration (pp. 188-201). New York: Random House.
Kitjaroonchai, N. (2013). Motivation toward English language learning of students in secondary
and high schools in education service area office 4, Saraburi Province, Thailand.
International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 1(1), 22-33.
Klausner, W. (1993). Reflections on Thai Culture. Bangkok: The Siam Society.
Klinkajorn, N. (2014). Strategies for translation the speech acts of directives, rejections, and
inquiries in English dialogues into Thai. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), Bangkok,
Chulalongkorn University.
244
Konakahara, M. (2011). Requests in Japanese learnersâ English in comparison with British
English and Japanese. Bulletin of the Graduate School of Education of Waseda
University, 18(2), 245-260.
Kuwinpant, P. (2002). Thai society and culture. A paper presented to the Graduate School of
International Development, Nagoya University.
Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness: Or, minding your pâs and qâs. In C. Corum, T. Cedric
Smith-Stark, & A. Weiser (Eds.), Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting of the Chicago
Linguistic Society. Chicago Linguistic Society, (pp. 292-305). Chicago: Chicago
Linguistic Society.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and womenâs place. New York: Harper and Row.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Leech, G. (1999). The distribution and function of vocatives in American and British English
conversation. In H. Hasselgard & S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Out of Corpora: Studies in Honor
of Stig Johansson (pp. 107-118). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lertjanyakit, H. & Bunchapattanasakda, C. (2015). The determinanants of Thai students
decision-making to study in the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
International (Humanities, Social Science and Arts), 8(4), 96-112.
Li, S. (2014). The effects of different levels of linguistic proficiency on the development of L2
Chinese request production during study abroad. System, 45, 103-116.
Lin, Y. (2009). Query preparatory modals: Cross-linguistic and cross-situational variations in
request modification. System, 41, 1636-1656.
Llanes, A., & MuÃąoz, C. (2009). A short stay abroad: Does it make a difference? System, 37(3),
353-365.
245
LoCastro, V. (2001). Individual differences in second language acquisition: Attitudes, learner
subjectivity, and L2 pragmatic norms. System, 27, 69-89.
LoCastro, V. (2012). Pragmatics for language educators: A sociolinguistic perspective. New
York: Routledge.
Loutfi, A. (2019). Pragmatic transfer in Moroccan EFL learnersâ requests. Asian Journal of
Education and E-Learning, 4, 15-19.
Mao, L. R. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: âFaceâ revisited and renewed. Journal of Language
and Social Psychology, 24, 451-486.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Lawrence
Earlbaum Associates, Publishers: Mahwah, NJ.
Marti, L. (2006). Indirectness and politeness in Turkish-German bilingual and Turkish
monolingual requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1836-1869.
Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in
Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 403-426.
Matsumura, S. (2001). Learning the rules for offering advice: A quantitative approach to second
language socialization. Language Learning, 51(4), 635-679.
Matsumura, S. (2003). Modelling the relationships among interlanguage pragmatic development,
L2 proficiency, and exposure to L2. System, 24(4), 465-491.
McNamara, T. F. & Roever, C. (2006). Language Testing: The Social Dimension. Oxford, UK:
Basil Blackwell.
Mills, M. H. (1991). The performance force of the interrogative in colloquial Russian: From
direct to indirect speech acts. The Slavic and East European Journal, 35(4), 553-569.
Ministry of Education (1998). History of Thai Education. Retrieved from
http://www.moe.go.th/main2/article/e-hist01.htm
246
Mofidi, M., & Shoushtari, Z. G. (2012). A comparative study of the complaint strategies among
Iranian EFL and ESL students: The study of the effects of length of residence and amount
of contact. English Language Teaching, 5(11), 118-125.
Mohammadi. M, & Saâd, S. H. T. (2014). Native speakerâs assessment of (im)portliness of non-
native speakersâ requests. International Journal of Research Studies in Language
Learning, 3(4), 23-40.
Morgan, J. (1978). Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In P. Cole (Ed.) Syntax and
Semantics (Vol. 9) (pp. 261-280). New York: Academic Press.
National News Bureau of Thailand. (2014, October 14). Thailand ranks at bottom of English
skills survey in ASEAN. Retrieved from http://thainews.prd.go.th/website_en/
news/news_detail/WNSOC5710160010038
Najafabadi, S. A., & Paramasivam, S. (2012). Iranian EFL learnersâ interlanguage request
modifications: Use of external and internal supportive moves. Theory and Practice in
Language Studies, 2(7), 1387-1396.
Nilmanee, M., & Soontornwipast, K. (2014). Exploring factors influencing the teaching of
culture and its challenges: Teachersâ perceptions. Language Education and Acquisition
Research Network Journal, 7(2), 1-18.
Noom-ura, S. (2013). English-teaching problems in Thailand and Thai teachersâ professional
development needs. English Language Teaching, 6(11), 139-147.
Noonkong, U. R., Damnet, A., & Charttrakul, K. (2017). Enhancing Thai engineering studentsâ
complaints and apologies through pragmatic consciousness-raising approach (PCR).
Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 8(6), 92-99.
Ockey, J. (2005). Creating the Thai middle class. In M. Pinches (Ed.), Culture and Privilege in
Capitalist Asia (pp. 231-251). London: Routledge.
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-Lingustic Influence in Language Learning.
Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
247
Ogiermann, E. (2009). Politeness and in-directness across cultures: A comparison of English,
German, Polish and Russian requests. Journal of Politeness Research, 5, 189-216.
Olshtain, E., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1985). Crosscultural pragmatics and the testing of
communicative competence. Language Testing, 2(1), 16â30.
Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. (1990). The learning of complex speech act behavior. TESL Canada
Journal, 7(2), 45-65.
Orwin, R.G. (1994). Evaluating coding decisions. In H. Cooper and L.V. Hedges (Eds.), The
Handbook of Research Synthesis (pp. 150-151). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Otcu, B. & Zeyrek, D. (2006). Requesting in L2: Pragmatic development of Turkish learners of
English. In Series A: General & Theoretical Papers, LAUD 2006, Paper 680. Essen
Universitat Duisburg-Essan.
Otcu, B. & Zeyrek, D. (2008). Development in requests: A study on Turkish learners of English.
In M. Puetz & J. Neff-van Aertsaeler (Eds.), Developing Contrastive Pragmatics:
Interlangauge and Cross-Cultural Perspectives (pp. 265-299). Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Owen, J. S. (2002). Interlanguage pragmatics in Russian: A study of the effects of study abroad
and proficiency levels on request strategies. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), Bryn
Mawr, PA: Bryn Mawr College.
Pan, Y. (2000). Politeness in Chinese face-to-face interaction. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood
Publishing.
Pellegrino, V. A. (1998). Student perspective on language learning in a study abroad context.
The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 4(2), 91-120.
PÃĐrez i Parent, M. (2002). The production of requests by Catalan learners of English: Situational
and proficiency level effects. Atlantis, 24(2), 147-168.
248
Phoocharoensil, S. (2012). L2 English Compliment responses: An investigation of pragmatic
transfer. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 1(6), 276-
287.
Pin-Ngern, A. (2015). Thai EFL learnersâ apology speech act realization. Asian International
Journal of Social Sciences, 15(2), 34-55.
Pimpa, N. (2004). The relationship between Thai studentsâ choices of international education and
their families. International Education Journal, 5(3). 352-359.
Prapphal, K. (2001). English proficiency of Thai learners and directions of English teaching and
learning in Thailand. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Language Institute.
Promnath, K. & Tayasanant, C. (2016). English-Thai code-switching of teachers in ESP classes.
PASAA: Journal of Language Teaching and Learning in Thailand, 51, 97-126.
Rajagopalan, K. (1997). Linguistics and the myth of nativity: Comments on the new/non-native
Englishes. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 225-31.
Rampton, M. B. H. (1990). Displacing the ânative speakerâ: Expertise, affiliation, and
inheritance. ELT Journal, 47(2), 97-101.
Regan, V., Howard, M., & LemÃĐe, I. (2009). The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence in a
study abroad context. North York, ON: Multilingual Matters.
Reves, T. & Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native English speaking EFL/ESL teacherâs self-
image: An international survey. System, 22(3), 353-367.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching, 2nd
edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rose, K. R. (1997). Pragmatics in teacher education for nonnative-speaking teachers: A
consciousness-raising approach. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 10(2), 125-138.
Rose, K. R. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic
development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 27-67.
249
Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33, 385-
399.
Rose, K. R., & Ng Kwai-Fun, C. (2001). Inductive and deductive teaching of complaints and
compliment responses. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds), Pragmatics in Language
Teaching (pp. 145-170). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rubdy, R. (2015). Unequal Englishes, the native speaker, and decolonization in TESOL. In R.
Tupas (Ed.), Unequal Englishes: The Politics of Englishes Today (pp. 42-58). Macmillan
Publishers: London.
Safont, M. P. (2003). Instructional effects on the use of request acts modification devices by EFL
learners. In A. Martinez-Flor, E. UsÃģ-Juan, & A. Fernandez (Eds.), Pragmatic
Competence and Foreign Language Teaching (pp. 211-232). Castellon, Spain: Servei de
Publications de la Universitat Juame I.
Salazar, P. C. (2003). Pragmatic instruction in the EFL context. In A. Martinez-Flor, E. UsÃģ-
Juan, & A. Fernandez (Eds.), Pragmatic Competence and Foreign Language Teaching
(pp. 233-246). Castellon, Spain: Servei de Publications de la Universitat Juame I.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S.
Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 21-42). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1975). A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In K. Gunderson (Ed.), Language, Mind
and Knowledge (Vol. 7) (pp. 344-369). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expressions and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Selvi, A. F. (2011). The non-native speaker teacher. ELT Journal, 65(2), 189-189.
Schauer, G. (2007) Finding the right words in the study abroad context: The development of
German learnersâ use of external modifiers in English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2),
193-220.
250
Schauer, G. (2009). Interlanguage pragmatic development: The study abroad context. London:
Continuum International Publishing.
Simpson, R. C. (1997). Metapragmatic discourse and the ideology of impolite pronouns in Thai.
Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 7(1), 38-62.
Sirikhan, S., & Prapphal, K. (2011). Assessing pragmatic ability of Thai hotel management and
tourism in the context of hotel front office department. The Asian EFL Journal, 53(3),
72-94.
Smyth, D. (2002). Thai: An essential grammar. London: Routledge.
Snodin, N. (2016). Rethinking culture teaching in English language programmes in Thailand.
RELC Journal, 47(3), 387-398.
Su, I. (2010). Transfer of pragmatic competences: A bi-directional perspective. The Modern
Language Journal, 94(1), 87-102.
Suttipanyo, J. (2007). Request strategies by Thai learners of English and American exchange
students. (Unpublished Masterâs Thesis), Bangkok: Srinakharinwirote University.
Sykes, J. & Cohen, A.D. (2008). L2 Pragmatics: Six Principles for Online Materials
Development and Implementation. Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language, (11),
81-100.
Taguchi, N. (2005). Comprehending implied meaning in English as a foreign language. The
Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 543-562.
Taguchi, N. (2006). Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English.
Pragmatics, 16(4), 513-533.
Taguchi, N. (2011). Pragmatic development as a dynamic, complex pattern: General patterns and
case histories. The Modern Language Journal, 95(4), 605-627.
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and
should be going. Language Teaching, 48, 1-50.
251
Tajino, A., & Tanijo J. (2000). Native and non-native: What can they offer? ELT Journal, 54, 3-
11.
Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18,
189-223.
Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In K.
R. Rose & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 171-199).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Takahashi, S. (2010). The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance. In A.
Martinez-Flor & E. UsÃģ-Juan (Eds.), Speech Act Performance (pp. 127-142).
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
Takahashi, S., & Beebe, L. M. (1987). The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese
learners of English. JALT Journals, 8, 131-155.
Takahashi, S., & Dufon, M. A. (1989). Cross-linguistic influence in indirectness: The case of
English directives performed by native Japanese speakers. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED370439).
Takahashi, S., & Roitblat, H. L. (1994). Comprehension process of second language indirect
results. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 475-506.
Tannenbaum, N. B. (1995). Who can compete against the world? Power-protection and
Buddhism in Shan worldview. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Asian Studies.
Tateyama, Y., Kasper, G., Mui, L., Tay, H, & Thananart, O. (1997). Explicit and implicit
teaching of pragmatic routines. In L. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning
(pp. 163-178). Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language,
University of Illinois.
Thijittang, S. (2010). A study of pragmatic strategies of English of Thai university students:
Apology speech acts. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), Hobart, Australia: University
of Tasmania.
252
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91-112.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1985). Toward a theory of conflict in culture. In W. R. Gudykunst, L. Stewart,
& S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communication, Culture, and Organizational Processes (pp.
71-86). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflicts: A face-negotiation theory. In Y. Kim and W. R.
Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in Intercultural Communication (pp. 213-235). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory. In W. R.
Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about Intercultural Communication (pp. 71-92). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Tseng, C. H. (2015). âYou must let me pass, please!â: An investigation of email request
strategies by Taiwanese EFL learners. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 11-28.
UsÃģ-Juan, E. (2008). A pragmatic-focused evaluation of requests and their modification devices
in textbook conversations. In E. AlcÃģn (Ed.), Learning How to Request in an Instructed
Language Learning Context (pp. 65-90). Bern: Peter Lang AG, International Academic
Publishers.
Vongvipanond, P. (2014). Linguistic perspectives of Thai culture. Paper presented at a workshop
of the University of New Orleans, USA.
Vorng, S. (2011). Beyond the urban-rural divide: Complexities of class, status and hierarchy in
Bangkok. Asian Journal of Social Sciences, 39, 674-701.
Wang, V. X. (2011). Making requests by Chinese EFL learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing.
Wannaruk, A. (2008). Pragmatic transfer in Thai EFL refusals. Regional Language Centre
Journal, 39(3), 318-337.
253
Warga, M., & SchÃķlmberger, U. (2007). The acquisition of French apologetic behavior in a study
abroad context. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 221-251.
Wei, L. (2018). Pragmatic transfer and development: Evidence from EFL learners in China.
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
Wierzbicka, A. (1990). Cross-cultural pragmatics and different values. Australian Review of
Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 43-76.
Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112.
Wilson, N. (2010). Bros, boys, and guys: Address term function and communities of practice in a
New Zealand rugby team. New Zealand English Journal, 24, 33-54.
Wongsothorn, A. (2000). Thailand's globalisation and language policy: Effects on language
classroom practice. Anthology series-seameo regional language centre, 326-338.
Wongwarangkul, C. (2000). Analysis of the nature of interlanguage pragmatics in choice making
for request strategies by Thai EFL learners. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), East
Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
Woodfield, H. (2004). Requests in English: A study of ESL and native speakersâ responses to
written discourse completion tasks. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), Bristol:
University of Bristol.
Woodfield, H., & Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2010). âI just need more timeâ: A study of native
and non-native studentsâ requests to faculty for an extension. Multilingual, 29, 77-118.
Worathumrong, S., & Luksaneeyanawin, S. (2016). Interlanguage pragmatics study of
compliments among Thai EFL learners. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied
Linguistics, 20(1), 157-182.
Xu, W., Case, R. E., & Wang, Y. (2009), Pragmatic and grammatical competence, length of
residence, and overall L2 proficiency. System, 37, 205-216.
254
Yang, J., & Rehner, K. (2015). Learner beliefs about sociolinguistic competence: A qualitative
case study of four university second language learners. Language Learning in Higher
Education, 5(1), 157-180.
Yang, L. (2018). Pragmatic learning and teaching in L2 Chinese. In C. Ke (Ed.), The Routledge
Handbook of Chinese Second Language Acquisition (pp. 261-278). London: Routledge.
Yang, X. (2014). A case study of Chinese studentsâ second language pragmatic development
during study abroad in a UK university. In International Journal of Modern Education
Forum, 3(2), 39-45.
Yiamkhamnuan, J. (2011). The mixing of Thai and English: Communicative strategies in
internet chat rooms. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 32, 478-492.
Yu, K. (2011). Culture-specific concepts of politeness: Indirectness and politeness in English,
Hebrew, and Korean requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8, 385-409.
Yu, M. (1999). Universalistic and culture-specific perspectives on variation in the acquisition of
pragmatic competence in a second language. Pragmatics, 9(2), 281-312.
Zhang, Y. (2012). 90% Of Chinaâs super-rich want to send children abroad. International
Business Times. Retrieved from https://www.ibtimes.com/90-china%E2%80%99s-super-
rich-want-send-children-abroad-434838
255
Appendices
Appendix A. Bio-data questionnaire for SA group participants
(Distributed in English)
Bio-data Questionnaire
Directions: Please provide the following information about yourself.
1. Name: _____________________________________________________________
2. Email address: ______________________________________________________
Phone number: ______________________________________________________
3. Gender: Male Female Rather not say
4. Age: ______________________________________________________________
5. How many years have you studied English? _______________________________
6. On a scale of 1-5, how interested are you in the English language? Please circle the
number below.
7. Have you ever studied English in a private language institute?
Yes No
If yes, what course(s) did you take and for how long?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
256
8. If you are currently a student, how many hours per week do you spend practicing English
outside of class other than your regular homework activities and class assignments?
________ hour(s)
9. Have you ever been to any foreign countries where English is not the primary spoken
language? Yes No
If yes, where did you go and for how long?
_____________________________________________________________________
10. Have you ever been to or lived in any native English-speaking country before you began
your latest study abroad program? Yes No
If yes, where did you go or reside and for how long?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
11. How would you describe your English proficiency? (Please check )
Skills Excellent Good Fair Poor
Listening
Speaking
Reading
Writing
Grammar
12. What university in an English-speaking country are you studying in / have you studied
in?
University: __________________________________________
Faculty and major: ____________________________________
Country: ____________________________________________
Year in which you began your study abroad program: _________
Year in which you graduated or expect to graduate: __________
257
13. What English language proficiency score did you submit as part of the graduate school
application? Please identify and specify the score you received. (please check all that
apply)
The Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) Score _________
International English Language Testing System (IELTS) Score _________
Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) Score _________
Other (please specify) ______________________________ Score _________
258
Appendix B. Bio-data questionnaire for AH group participants
(Distributed in English)
Bio-data Questionnaire
Directions: Please provide the following information about yourself.
1. Name: ______________________________________________
2. Email address: ________________________________________
Phone number: _______________________________________
3. Gender: Male Female Rather not say
4. Age: ________________________________________________
5. University studies: Faculty ______________ Major __________ Year of study_____
6. How many years have you studied English? __________________________________
7. On a scale of 1-5, how interested are you in the English language? Please circle the
number the number below.
8. Have you ever studied English in a private language institute?
Yes No
If yes, what course(s) did you take and for how long?
_____________________________________________________________________
259
_____________________________________________________________________
How many hours per week do you spend practicing English outside of class other than
your regular homework activities and class assignments? ________ hour(s)
9. Have you ever been to any foreign countries where English is not the primary spoken
language? Yes No
If yes, where did you go and for how long?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
10. Have you ever been to or lived in any native English-speaking countries?
Yes No
If yes, where did you go or reside and for how long?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
11. Do you plan to study abroad in the future? Yes No
If yes, when and where do you plan to go and for how long?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
12. How would you describe your English proficiency? (Please check )
Skills Excellent Good Fair Poor
Listening
Speaking
Reading
Writing
Grammar
13. Have you ever taken any of the following English language proficiency tests? Please
specify the score you received. (please check all that apply)
260
The Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) Score _________
International English Language Testing System (IELTS) Score _________
Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) Score _________
Other (please specify) ______________________________ Score _________
261
Appendix C. Bio-data questionnaire for NT group participants
(Distributed in Thai â see English version below, followed by the Thai translation.)
Bio-data Questionnaire
Directions: Please provide the following information about yourself.
1. Name: ________________________________________________________________
2. Email address: _________________________________________________________
Phone number: _________________________________________________________
3. Gender: Male Female Rather not say
4. Age: _________________________________________________________________
5. University studies: Faculty ______________ Major ___________ Year of study_____
6. On a scale of 1-5, how interested are you in the English language? Please mark the box
above the number below.
7. How many years have you studied English? __________________________________
8. Have you ever studied English in a private language institute?
Yes No
If yes, what course(s) did you take and for how long?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
262
9. How many hours per week do you spend practicing English outside of class other than
your regular homework activities and class assignments? ________ hour(s)
10. Have you ever been to any foreign countries where English is not the primary spoken
language? Yes No
If yes, where did you go and for how long?
____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
11. Have you ever been to or lived in any native English-speaking countries?
Yes No
If yes, where did you go or reside and for how long?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
12. How would you describe your English proficiency? (Please check )
Skills Excellent Good Fair Poor
Listening
Speaking
Reading
Writing
Grammar
13. Have you ever taken any of the following English language proficiency tests? Please
specify the score you received. (please check all that apply)
The Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) Score _________
International English Language Testing System (IELTS) Score _________
263
Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) Score _________
Other (please specify) ______________________________ Score _________
264
(Thai Translation)
āđāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļēāļĄ
āļ āļēāļŠāļ: āļāļĢāļāļēāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĄāļĨāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļ 1. āļāļ: ________________________________________________________
2. āļāđāļĄāļĨ: ______________________________________________________
āđāļāļāļĢāđāļāļĢāļĻāļāļ: _______________________________________________
3. āđāļāļĻ: āļāļēāļĒ āļŦāļāļ āđāļĄāļĢāļ°āļ
4. āļāļēāļĒ: _____________________________________________
5. āļāļāļ°āļāļĻāļāļĐāļē: ____________________ āļ āļēāļāļ§āļāļēāđāļĨāļ°āļŠāļēāļāļēāļ§āļāļē ________________ āļāļāļ ________
6. āļāļāļŠāļāđāļāđāļāļĒāļ§āļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļĄāļēāļāđāļāđāļŦāļāļāļēāļāļĢāļ°āļāļ 1 āļāļ 5 āļāļĢāļāļēāļ āļēāđāļāļĢāļāļāļŦāļĄāļēāļĒāđāļāļāļāļāļŠāđāļŦāļĨāļĒāļĄāļāļēāļāļĨāļēāļ
7. āļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļĄāļēāđāļāļāļĢāļ°āļĒāļ°āđāļ§āļĨāļēāļāļ ____________________________
8. āļāļāđāļāļĒāđāļĢāļĒāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāđāļĢāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļŠāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ
āđāļāļĒ āđāļĄāđāļāļĒ
āļŦāļēāļāđāļāļĒ āļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļŦāļĨāļāļŠāļāļĢāļāļ°āđāļĢ āđāļĨāļ°āđāļāļāļĢāļ°āļĒāļ°āđāļ§āļĨāļēāļāļēāļāđāļāļēāđāļ
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
9. āļāļāđāļāđāļ§āļĨāļēāđāļāļēāđāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļēāļŦāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļāļāļŦāļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļāļāļāđāļŦāļāļāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļ āļēāļāļēāļĢāļāļēāļāļ§āļāļē
āļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļŦāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļāļāđ āļāļāļēāļāļēāļĢāļĒāļĄāļāļāļŦāļĄāļēāļĒ ____________āļāļ§āđāļĄāļ
10. āļāļāđāļāļĒāđāļāļāļēāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāļāļāđāļāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļĄāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļŦāļĨāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ
āđāļāļĒ āđāļĄāđāļāļĒ
265
āļŦāļēāļāđāļāļĒ āļāļāđāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāļāļ°āđāļĢ āđāļĨāļ°āđāļāļāļĢāļ°āļĒāļ°āđāļ§āļĨāļēāļāļēāļāđāļāļēāđāļ
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
11. āļāļāđāļāļĒāđāļāļŦāļĢāļāļāļēāļĻāļĒāļāļĒāđāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāļāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ
āđāļāļĒ āđāļĄāđāļāļĒ
āļŦāļēāļāđāļāļĒ āļāļāđāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāļāļ°āđāļĢ āđāļĨāļ°āđāļāļāļĢāļ°āļĒāļ°āđāļ§āļĨāļēāļāļēāļāđāļāļēāđāļ
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
12. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļāļāļĐāļ°āļāļ§āļēāļĄāļ āļēāļāļēāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāđāļāļāđāļāļāđāļĢ (āļāļĢāļāļēāļ āļēāđāļāļĢāļāļāļŦāļĄāļēāļĒ )
Skills Excellent Good Fair Poor
Listening
Speaking
Reading
Writing
Grammar
13. āļāļāđāļāļĒāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļŠāļāļāđāļāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļĄāļāļāļāļĐāļ°āļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āļāļĢāļāļēāļĢāļ°āļāļāļ°āđāļāļ
āļŠāļāļāļāļāļāđāļ (āļāļĢāļāļēāļĢāļ°āļāļāļēāļĢāļŠāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļĒāļŠāļāļ)
The Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) āļāļ°āđāļāļāļāđāļāļĢāļ _________
International English Language Testing System (IELTS) āļāļ°āđāļāļāļāđāļāļĢāļ _________
Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) āļāļ°āđāļāļāļāđāļāļĢāļ _________
āļāļāđ (āđāļāļĢāļāļĢāļ°āļ) ________________________________ āļāļ°āđāļāļāļāđāļāļĢāļ _________
266
Appendix D. Bio-data questionnaire for ED group participants
Bio-data Questionnaire
Directions: Please provide the following information about yourself.
1. Name: ________________________________________________________
2. Email address: __________________________________________________
3. Gender: Male Female Rather not say
4. Age: __________________________________________________________
5. Nationality: ____________________________________________________
6. Native language: ________________________________________________
7. In which English-speaking country/countries have you been living and for how long?
______________________________________________________________
8. If English is not your native language, how long have you been speaking English?
______________________________________________________________
9. If English is not your native language, how would you describe your English proficiency?
______________________________________________________________
10. Occupation: ____________________________________________________
11. Highest level of education completed:
High school
College / University (Bachelorâs degree)
Masterâs degree
PhD or higher
267
If other, please specify _______________________
268
Appendix E. Enhanced Discourse Completion Task
Directions:
There are 2 sections on this questionnaire.
Section 1 consists of nine different situations. Please read the description of each situation
carefully. Think of what you would say if the situations described really happened to you. Then
write the words that you would speak in each situation in the space provided. There is no specific
length or number of sentences, so you can say as much or little as you wish.
Section 2 consists of five follow-up questions relating to the given situations and your responses
in section 1. Please read the prompts carefully and respond as directed.
Please note that there are no right or wrong answers to any of the questions and your responses
will not be graded.
Section 1
Situation 1
It is the beginning of a semester and there is a course you have just realized that you need to take
in order to graduate. However, you found out that the course is already closed for enrollment.
You want the professor, with whom you have never studied, to allow you to take this course.
What do you say to the professor?
You say: _______________________________________________________________
Situation 2
You are looking for a taxi to take you to the airport. You are running late and need to get a taxi
as soon as possible so that you will not miss your flight. There is a person waiting to get a taxi
before you. There is one available taxi coming. You want that person to let you take that taxi
first. What do you say to that person?
You say: _______________________________________________________________
Situation 3
You are at a subway station waiting for a train to go to work. When your train arrives, you see
that the train is quite crowded. However, you cannot wait to catch the next train because you do
not want to be late for work. There is a high school student standing right at the door and if that
269
student moves inside a little bit, you will be able to get on the train. You want that student to
move inside. What do you say to that student?
You say: _______________________________________________________________
Situation 4
You have received a much lower grade on an exam than you had expected. You had put a lot of
effort into the class and you believe you had prepared very well for the exam and had performed
well on the exam. You want your professor to reconsider your exam and explain why you
received a low grade. What do you say to your professor?
You say: _______________________________________________________________
Situation 5
You are at your university and need to make a local phone call, but the battery on your cell
phone is dead and there are no payphones nearby. You see one of your classmates walking in
your direction. You want to use your classmateâs cell phone to make a short phone call. What do
you say to your classmate?
You say: _______________________________________________________________
Situation 6
You are at a restaurant near your house for dinner. You are a regular customer and you know the
server working there. It is quite busy at the restaurant this evening and the server forgot to bring
you the drink you ordered. You want the server to bring you your drink. What do you say to the
server?
You say: _______________________________________________________________
Situation 7
You are at home and you have ordered food for delivery. While you are waiting for your food,
you realize that you do not have enough cash to pay for the food and they do not accept credit or
debit cards. The only other person at home is your older relative who is visiting. You want your
relative to lend you some money. What do you say to your older relative?
You say: _______________________________________________________________
270
Situation 8
You were sick and did not go to school at all last week. There will be a final exam next week and
you need to catch up with the lessons. You have a close friend who is enrolled in the same
courses as you and has good knowledge of the subject. Your friend has to work part-time and is
very busy. You want your friend to help you study for the upcoming exam. What do you say to
your friend?
You say: _______________________________________________________________
Situation 9
You want to go on a trip with your friends for one week. You want your younger sibling to do
the housework that you are normally responsible for. This housework usually takes about one
hour each day. What do you say to your younger sibling?
You say: _______________________________________________________________
Section 2
Situation 1
1. What do you think influenced the way you made your request in this situation? In other
words, why did you choose to make a request in this particular way?
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
2. On a scale of 1-5, please circle the number that you think represents how much of an
imposition your request is on the person you talked to in this situation?
3. Based on your response to question 2 (rating the level of imposition), please explain what you
were considering about the situation when you made your rating.
__________________________________________________________________________
271
__________________________________________________________________________
4. Have you experienced a similar situation in your own life?
Yes No
Situation 2
1. What do you think influenced the way you made your request in this situation? In other
words, why did you choose to make a request in this particular way?
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
2. On a scale of 1-5, please circle the number that you think represents how much of an
imposition your request is on the person you talked to in this situation?
3. Based on your response to question 2 (rating the level of imposition), please explain what you
were considering about the situation when you made your rating.
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
4. Have you experienced a similar situation in your own life?
Yes No
Situation 3
1. What do you think influenced the way you made your request in this situation? In other
words, why did you choose to make a request in this particular way?
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
2. On a scale of 1-5, please circle the number that you think represents how much of an
imposition your request is on the person you talked to in this situation?
272
3. Based on your response to question 2 (rating the level of imposition), please explain what you
were considering about the situation when you made your rating.
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
4. Have you experienced a similar situation in your own life?
Yes No
Situation 4
1. What do you think influenced the way you made your request in this situation? In other
words, why did you choose to make a request in this particular way?
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
2. On a scale of 1-5, please circle the number that you think represents how much of an
imposition your request is on the person you talked to in this situation?
3. Based on your response to question 2 (rating the level of imposition), please explain what you
were considering about the situation when you made your rating.
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
4. Have you experienced a similar situation in your own life?
Yes No
273
Situation 5
1. What do you think influenced the way you made your request in this situation? In other
words, why did you choose to make a request in this particular way?
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
2. On a scale of 1-5, please circle the number that you think represents how much of an
imposition your request is on the person you talked to in this situation?
3. Based on your response to question 2 (rating the level of imposition), please explain what you
were considering about the situation when you made your rating.
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
4. Have you experienced a similar situation in your own life?
Yes No
Situation 6
1. What do you think influenced the way you made your request in this situation? In other
words, why did you choose to make a request in this particular way?
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
2. On a scale of 1-5, please circle the number that you think represents how much of an
imposition your request is on the person you talked to in this situation?
274
3. Based on your response to question 2 (rating the level of imposition), please explain what you
were considering about the situation when you made your rating.
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
4. Have you experienced a similar situation in your own life?
Yes No
Situation 7
1. What do you think influenced the way you made your request in this situation? In other
words, why did you choose to make a request in this particular way?
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
2. On a scale of 1-5, please circle the number that you think represents how much of an
imposition your request is on the person you talked to in this situation?
3. Based on your response to question 2 (rating the level of imposition), please explain what you
were considering about the situation when you made your rating.
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
4. Have you experienced a similar situation in your own life?
Yes No
Situation 8
1. What do you think influenced the way you made your request in this situation? In other
words, why did you choose to make a request in this particular way?
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
275
2. On a scale of 1-5, please circle the number that you think represents how much of an
imposition your request is on the person you talked to in this situation?
3. Based on your response to question 2 (rating the level of imposition), please explain what you
were considering about the situation when you made your rating.
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
4. Have you experienced a similar situation in your own life?
Yes No
Situation 9
1. What do you think influenced the way you made your request in this situation? In other
words, why did you choose to make a request in this particular way?
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
2. On a scale of 1-5, please circle the number that you think represents how much of an
imposition your request is on the person you talked to in this situation?
3. Based on your response to question 2 (rating the level of imposition), please explain what you
were considering about the situation when you made your rating.
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
4. Have you experienced a similar situation in your own life?
Yes No
276
(Thai Translation)
āđāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļēāļĄāļāļāļāđāļāļĄāđāļāļĄāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļēāļ āļēāļĐāļēāđāļāļĒ
āļ āļēāļŠāļ:
āđāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļēāļĄāļāđāļāļāđāļāļ 2 āļŠāļ§āļ
āļŠāļ§āļāļ 1 āļāļĢāļ°āļāļāļāđāļāļāļ§āļĒāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļēāļāđ 9 āļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļ āļāļĢāļāļēāļāļēāļāļ āļēāļāļĢāļĢāļĒāļēāļĒāļāļāļāđāļāļĨāļ°āļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĒāļēāļ
āļĨāļ°āđāļāļĒāļ āđāļĨāļ§āļāļāļ§āļēāļāļāļāļ°āļāļāļ§āļēāļāļĒāļēāļāđāļĢāļŦāļēāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāđāļŦāļĨāļēāļāļāđāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāđ āļāļēāļāļāļāđāļāļĒāļāļ āļēāļāļāļāļāļāļāļ
āļ§āļēāļāļ°āļāļāļĨāļāđāļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļāļāļ āļēāļŦāļāļāđāļŦ āđāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāđāļĄāļĄāļāļēāļĢāļ āļēāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĒāļēāļ§āļāļāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļĒāļāļŦāļĢāļāļ āļēāļāļ§āļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļĒāļ
āļāļāļāļāļ°āļāļāđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāđ āļāļāļāļāļāļāļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļ°āļāļāļĄāļēāļāļŦāļĢāļāļāļāļĒāđāļāļāļēāļĄāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢ
āļŠāļ§āļāļ 2 āļāļĢāļ°āļāļāļāđāļāļāļ§āļĒāļ āļēāļāļēāļĄ 5 āļ āļēāļāļēāļĄāļāđāļŦāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļĒāļŦāļĢāļāļāļĒāļēāļĒāļāļ§āļēāļĄāđāļāļĒāļ§āļāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļŦāļĢāļāļ āļēāļāļāļāļāļāļ
āļāļāļāļēāļāļŠāļ§āļāļ 1 āļāļāļāđāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļēāļĄ āļāļĢāļāļēāļāļēāļāļ āļēāļāļēāļĄāđāļāļĨāļ°āļāļāļāļĒāļēāļāļĨāļ°āđāļāļĒāļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļāļāļ āļēāļāļēāļĄāļāļēāļĄāļāļĢāļ°āļāđāļ§āđāļāđāļ
āļĨāļ°āļāļ
āļŦāļĄāļēāļĒāđāļŦāļ āđāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļēāļĄāļāđāļĄāļĄāļ āļēāļāļāļāļāļāļāļŦāļĢāļāļāļāļāļēāļĒāļāļ§ āđāļĨāļ°āļāļ°āđāļĄāļĄāļāļēāļĢāđāļŦāļāļ°āđāļāļāļ§āļāļāļĨ āļāļāļĄāļĨāļāđāļāļāļēāļ
āđāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļēāļĄāļāļāļ°āđāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļĻāļāļĐāļēāļ§āļāļĒāđāļāļēāļāļ āļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĒāļēāļāļĄāļēāļāļŠ āļēāļŦāļĢāļāļāļēāļĢāļĄāļŠāļ§āļāļĢāļ§āļĄāđāļāļāļēāļāļ§āļāļĒāļāļāļ
āļŠāļ§āļāļ 1
āļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļ 1
āļāļ§āļāđāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļāļāļ āļēāļāđāļĢāļĒāļ āļāļāļĄāļĢāļēāļĒāļ§āļāļēāļŦāļāļāļāļāļāļ āļēāđāļāļāļāļāļāļĨāļāļāļ°āđāļāļĒāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāđāļāļāđāļŦāļŠ āļēāđāļĢāļāļāļēāļĄāļŦāļĨāļāļŠāļāļĢ āļāļĒāļēāļāđāļĢāļāļāļēāļĄ āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĢāļēāļĒāļ§āļāļēāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§āļāļāļĢāļāļāļēāļĢāļĨāļāļāļ°āđāļāļĒāļāđāļĨāļ§ āļāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāđāļŦāļāļēāļāļēāļĢāļĒāļāļŠāļāļāļĢāļēāļĒāļ§āļāļēāļāļ āļāļāđāļāļāļāļēāļāļēāļĢāļĒāļāļāļāđāļĄāđāļāļĒāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļ§āļĒāļĄāļēāļāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļāđāļŦāļāļāļĨāļāļāļ°āđāļāļĒāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļĢāļēāļĒāļ§āļāļēāļ āļāļāļāļ°āļāļāļāļāļāļēāļāļēāļĢāļĒāļ§āļēāļāļĒāļēāļāđāļĢ āļāļ : ______________________________________________________________________
āļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļ 2
āļāļāļ āļēāļĨāļāļĢāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāđāļāļāļāđāļāļāđāļāļāļāļēāļāđāļāļĒāļāļŠāļāļēāļĄāļāļ āļāļāļ āļēāļĨāļāđāļāļŠāļēāļĒāđāļĨāļ°āļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļāđāļŦāđāļāđāļĢāļ§āļāļŠāļāđāļāļāļ§āļē
āļāļāļāļ°āđāļāđāļĄāļāļĨāļēāļāđāļāļĒāļ§āļāļāļāļāļāļāļ āļāļāļ°āđāļāļĒāļ§āļāļāļāļĄāļāđāļāļĒāļŠāļēāļĢāļāļāļŦāļāļāļĢāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāđāļāļāļāļāļĒāļāļāļāļŦāļāļēāļāļ āđāļĨāļ°āļĄ
277
āđāļāļāļāļāļēāļāļĄāļēāļŦāļāļāļāļāļāļāļ āļāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļŦāļāļāļāļĨāļāļāļāļĒāļāļĄāđāļŦāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§āļāļāļ āļāļāļāļ°āļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĨāļ
āļāļāļ§āļēāļāļĒāļēāļāđāļĢ
āļāļ : ______________________________________________________________________
āļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļ 3
āļāļāļāļĒāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļĢāļāđāļāđāļāļāļāļ āļēāļĨāļāļĢāļāļāļāļĢāļāđāļāđāļāļāđāļāļ āļēāļāļēāļ āđāļĄāļāļĢāļāđāļāļĄāļēāļāļ āļāļāđāļŦāļāļ§āļēāļ āļēāļĒāđāļāļĢāļāđāļāļĄāļāđāļāļĒāļŠāļēāļĢ
āļāļāļāļāļēāļāđāļāļ āļāļĒāļēāļāđāļĢāļāļāļēāļĄ āļāļāđāļĄāļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļāļāļāđāļāđāļāđāļāļĢāļēāļ°āļāļāđāļĄāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļāļ āļēāļāļēāļāļŠāļēāļĒ āļāļāđāļŦāļāļ§āļē
āļĄāđāļāļāļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļāļŦāļāļāļĒāļāļāļĒāļāļĢāļāļāļĢāļ°āļāļĢāļāđāļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļēāļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĒāļāđāļāļēāđāļāļāļēāļāđāļāļĢāļāđāļāđāļĨāļāļāļāļĒ āļāļāļāļāļ°
āļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļāļāđāļ āļāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļŦāđāļāļāļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĒāļāđāļāļēāđāļāļāļēāļāđāļ āļāļāļāļ°āļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļē
āļāļĒāļēāļāđāļĢ
āļāļ : ______________________________________________________________________
āļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļ 4
āļāļāđāļāļĢāļāļāļĨāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĒāļāļ§āļāļēāļŦāļāļāļāļāļāļĨāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļāļ āļēāļāļ§āļēāļāļāļāļāļēāļāļāļāđāļ§āļĄāļēāļ āļāļāđāļāļāļĒāļēāļĒāļēāļĄāļāļāđāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļ§āļāļēāļāļāļĒāļēāļ
āļĄāļēāļāđāļĨāļ°āđāļāļāļ§āļēāļāļāđāļāļāļēāļāļŦāļāļāļŠāļāđāļāļĢāļĒāļĄāļāļ§āļŠāļāļāđāļāļāļāļĒāļēāļāļāđāļĨāļ°āļ āļēāļāļāļŠāļāļāđāļāļ āļāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļŦāļāļēāļāļēāļĢāļĒāļāļŠāļāļ
āļāļāļēāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļāļāļēāļĒāļ§āļēāļ āļēāđāļĄāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļ°āđāļāļāļ āļē āļāļāļāļ°āļāļāļāļāļāļēāļāļēāļĢāļĒāļ§āļēāļāļĒāļēāļāđāļĢ
āļāļ : ______________________________________________________________________
āļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļ 5
āļāļāļāļĒāļāļĄāļŦāļēāļ§āļāļĒāļēāļĨāļĒāđāļĨāļ°āļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļāđāļāļĢāļĻāļāļ āđāļāđāļāļĢāļĻāļāļāļĄāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāđāļāļāļĢāļŦāļĄāļāđāļĨāļ°āđāļĄāļĄāđāļāļĢāļĻāļāļ
āļŠāļēāļāļēāļĢāļāļ°āļāļĒāļāļĢāđāļ§āļāļāļ āļāļāđāļŦāļāđāļāļāļāļĢāļ§āļĄāļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļŦāļāļāļ āļēāļĨāļāđāļāļāļĄāļēāļāļēāļāļāļāļāļāļĒ āļāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāļĒāļĄ
āđāļāļĢāļĻāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļāļĢāļ§āļĄāļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļāļāļ āļāļāļāļ°āļāļāļāļāđāļāļēāļ§āļēāļāļĒāļēāļāđāļĢ
āļāļ : ______________________________________________________________________
āļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļ 6
āļāļāļĄāļēāļāļēāļāļāļēāļŦāļēāļĢāđāļĒāļāļāļĢāļēāļāļāļēāļŦāļēāļĢāđāļāļĨāđ āļāļēāļ āļāļāđāļāļāļĨāļāļāļēāļāļĢāļ°āļ āļēāļĢāļēāļāļāļēāļŦāļēāļĢāļ āđāļĨāļ°āļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāđāļāļĒāļāļāļāļāļēāļ
āđāļŠāļĢāļāļāļ āļ§āļāļāļĢāļēāļāļāļēāļŦāļēāļĢāļĄāļĨāļāļāļēāđāļĒāļāļ°āđāļĨāļ°āļāļāļāļāļēāļāđāļŠāļĢāļāļĨāļĄāļ āļēāđāļāļĢāļāļāļāļĄāļāļāļāļŠāļāļĄāļēāđāļŦ āļāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļŦāļāļāļāļāļēāļ
āđāļŠāļĢāļāļ āļēāđāļāļĢāļāļāļāļĄāļāļāļāļāļāļĄāļēāđāļŦ āļāļāļāļ°āļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļāđāļŠāļĢāļāļ§āļēāļāļĒāļēāļāđāļĢ
āļāļ : ______________________________________________________________________
āļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļ 7
āļāļāļāļĒāļāļāļēāļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļāđāļāļŠāļāļāļēāļŦāļēāļĢāđāļŦāļĄāļēāļŠāļāļāļāļēāļ āļāļāļ°āļāļāļāļĢāļāļĢāļāļāļēāļŦāļēāļĢāļāļĒāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļ§āļēāļāļāđāļĄāļĄāđāļāļāļŠāļ
āļāļāļāļāļ°āļāļēāļĒ āđāļĨāļ°āļāļāļāļāļēāļāļŠāļāļāļēāļŦāļēāļĢāđāļĄāļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļāļĢāļāļ āļēāļĢāļ°āļāļ§āļĒāļāļāļĢāđāļāļĢāļāļāđāļ āļāļāđāļāļāļ§āļēāļāļēāļāļāđāļŦāļāļāļĄāļēāđāļĒāļĒāļĄ
278
āļāļĢāļāļāļāļĢāļ§āļāļāļāļāļāļāļĒāļāļāļēāļāļāļāļ°āļāļāļāļāļ āļāļāļāļāļāđāļŦāļāļēāļāļāđāļŦāļāļāļ§āļĒāđāļāļĒāļāļēāļĢāđāļŦāļāļāļĒāļĄāđāļāļāļāļēāļāļēāļŦāļēāļĢ āļāļāļāļ°āļāļāļāļ
āļāļēāļāļāđāļŦāļāļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļāļĒāļēāļāđāļĢ
āļāļ : ______________________________________________________________________
āļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļ 8
āļāļāļāļ§āļĒāđāļĨāļ°āđāļĄāđāļāđāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāđāļĨāļĒāļāļĨāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļēāļŦ āļŠāļāļāļēāļŦāļŦāļāļēāļāļ°āļĄāļāļēāļĢāļŠāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļĒāļ āļēāļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļēāļĄāđāļŦ
āļāļ āļāļāļĄāđāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļāļŦāļāļāļāļĨāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļĢāļēāļĒāļ§āļāļēāđāļāļĒāļ§āļāļāļāđāļĨāļ°āđāļĢāļĒāļāđāļāļāđāļāļ§āļāļēāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§ āđāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĒāļāļĄāļēāļāđāļāļĢāļēāļ°
āļāļāļāļ āļēāļāļēāļāļāđāļĻāļĐ āđāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļŦāđāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļĒāļāļ§āđāļŦāļŠ āļēāļŦāļĢāļāļāļēāļĢāļŠāļāļāđāļāļŠāļāļāļēāļŦāļŦāļāļē āļāļāļāļ°āļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļ
āļ§āļēāļāļĒāļēāļāđāļĢ
āļāļ : ______________________________________________________________________
āļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļ 9
āļāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļāđāļāļĒāļ§āļāļēāļāļāļāļŦāļ§āļāļāļāđāļāļāļāđ āđāļāļāđāļ§āļĨāļēāļŦāļāļāļŠāļāļāļēāļŦ āļāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļŦāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļĒāļ āļēāļāļēāļāļāļēāļāļ
āđāļāļāļŦāļāļēāļāļāļĢāļ°āļ āļēāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļ§āļāļāļāļāđāļĄāļāļĒ āļāļēāļāļāļēāļāļāļāļāļ āļēāļāļĢāļ°āļ āļēāđāļāđāļ§āļĨāļēāļāļĢāļ°āļĄāļēāļāļŦāļāļāļāļ§āđāļĄāļāļāļāļ§āļ āļāļāļāļ°
āļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļāļĒāļēāļāđāļĢ
āļāļ : ______________________________________________________________________
āļŠāļ§āļāļ 2
āļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļ 1
1. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļŠāļāđāļāļāļēāļāļāļĄāļāļāļāļāļĨāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĨāļāļāļ§āļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§ āļŦāļĢāļāļ āļēāđāļĄāļāļāļāļāđāļĨāļāļāļ§āļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļāļ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________
279
2. āļāļĢāļāļēāļ§āļāļāļĨāļĄāđāļĨāļāļāļŦāļĄāļēāļĒāđāļĨāļāļĢāļ°āļŦāļ§āļēāļ 1- 5 āļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāđāļŠāļāļāļāļāļĢāļ°āļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļāļāļ§āļāļŦāļĢāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĒāļāļĒāļēāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§
3. āļāļēāļāļ āļēāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļāļ 2 (āđāļĨāļāļāļĢāļ°āļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļāļāļ§āļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĒāļāļĒāļēāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļ) āļāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļāļēāļĒāļ§āļēāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļŠāļāđāļāļāļēāļāđāļāļĒāļ§āļāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§āļāļĄāļāļĨāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĨāļāļāļĢāļ°āļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļāļāļ§āļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĒāļāļĒāļēāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 4. āļāļāđāļāļĒāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāđāļŦāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĄāļĨāļāļĐāļāļ°āļāļĨāļēāļĒāļāļāđāļŦāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§āļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āđāļāļĒ āđāļĄāđāļāļĒ āļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļ 2
1. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļŠāļāđāļāļāļēāļāļāļĄāļāļāļāļāļĨāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĨāļāļāļ§āļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§ āļŦāļĢāļāļ āļēāđāļĄāļāļāļāļ
āđāļĨāļāļāļ§āļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļāļ
____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2. āļāļĢāļāļēāļ§āļāļāļĨāļĄāđāļĨāļāļāļŦāļĄāļēāļĒāđāļĨāļāļĢāļ°āļŦāļ§āļēāļ 1- 5 āļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāđāļŠāļāļāļāļāļĢāļ°āļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļāļāļ§āļāļŦāļĢāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĒāļāļĒāļēāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§
280
3. āļāļēāļāļ āļēāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļāļ 2 (āđāļĨāļāļāļĢāļ°āļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļāļāļ§āļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĒāļāļĒāļēāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļ) āļāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļāļēāļĒāļ§āļēāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļŠāļāđāļāļāļēāļāđāļāļĒāļ§āļāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§āļāļĄāļāļĨāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĨāļāļāļĢāļ°āļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļāļāļ§āļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĒāļāļĒāļēāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 4. āļāļāđāļāļĒāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāđāļŦāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĄāļĨāļāļĐāļāļ°āļāļĨāļēāļĒāļāļāđāļŦāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§āļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āđāļāļĒ āđāļĄāđāļāļĒ āļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļ 3
1. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļŠāļāđāļāļāļēāļāļāļĄāļāļāļāļāļĨāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĨāļāļāļ§āļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§ āļŦāļĢāļāļ āļēāđāļĄāļāļāļāļāđāļĨāļāļāļ§āļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļāļ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2. āļāļĢāļāļēāļ§āļāļāļĨāļĄāđāļĨāļāļāļŦāļĄāļēāļĒāđāļĨāļāļĢāļ°āļŦāļ§āļēāļ 1- 5 āļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāđāļŠāļāļāļāļāļĢāļ°āļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļāļāļ§āļāļŦāļĢāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĒāļāļĒāļēāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§
3. āļāļēāļāļ āļēāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļāļ 2 (āđāļĨāļāļāļĢāļ°āļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļāļāļ§āļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĒāļāļĒāļēāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļ) āļāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļāļēāļĒāļ§āļēāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļŠāļāđāļāļāļēāļāđāļāļĒāļ§āļāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§āļāļĄāļāļĨāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĨāļāļāļĢāļ°āļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļāļāļ§āļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĒāļāļĒāļēāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 4. āļāļāđāļāļĒāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāđāļŦāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĄāļĨāļāļĐāļāļ°āļāļĨāļēāļĒāļāļāđāļŦāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§āļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āđāļāļĒ āđāļĄāđāļāļĒ
281
āļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļ 4
1. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļŠāļāđāļāļāļēāļāļāļĄāļāļāļāļāļĨāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĨāļāļāļ§āļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§ āļŦāļĢāļāļ āļēāđāļĄāļāļāļāļāđāļĨāļāļāļ§āļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļāļ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2. āļāļĢāļāļēāļ§āļāļāļĨāļĄāđāļĨāļāļāļŦāļĄāļēāļĒāđāļĨāļāļĢāļ°āļŦāļ§āļēāļ 1- 5 āļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāđāļŠāļāļāļāļāļĢāļ°āļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļāļāļ§āļāļŦāļĢāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĒāļāļĒāļēāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§
3. āļāļēāļāļ āļēāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļāļ 2 (āđāļĨāļāļāļĢāļ°āļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļāļāļ§āļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĒāļāļĒāļēāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļ) āļāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļāļēāļĒāļ§āļēāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļŠāļāđāļāļāļēāļāđāļāļĒāļ§āļāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§āļāļĄāļāļĨāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĨāļāļāļĢāļ°āļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļāļāļ§āļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĒāļāļĒāļēāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 4. āļāļāđāļāļĒāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāđāļŦāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĄāļĨāļāļĐāļāļ°āļāļĨāļēāļĒāļāļāđāļŦāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§āļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āđāļāļĒ āđāļĄāđāļāļĒ
āļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļ 5
1. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļŠāļāđāļāļāļēāļāļāļĄāļāļāļāļāļĨāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĨāļāļāļ§āļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§ āļŦāļĢāļāļ āļēāđāļĄāļāļāļāļāđāļĨāļāļāļ§āļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļāļ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________
282
2. āļāļĢāļāļēāļ§āļāļāļĨāļĄāđāļĨāļāļāļŦāļĄāļēāļĒāđāļĨāļāļĢāļ°āļŦāļ§āļēāļ 1- 5 āļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāđāļŠāļāļāļāļāļĢāļ°āļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļāļāļ§āļāļŦāļĢāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĒāļāļĒāļēāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§
3. āļāļēāļāļ āļēāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļāļ 2 (āđāļĨāļāļāļĢāļ°āļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļāļāļ§āļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĒāļāļĒāļēāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļ) āļāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļāļēāļĒāļ§āļēāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļŠāļāđāļāļāļēāļāđāļāļĒāļ§āļāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§āļāļĄāļāļĨāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĨāļāļāļĢāļ°āļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļāļāļ§āļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĒāļāļĒāļēāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 4. āļāļāđāļāļĒāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāđāļŦāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĄāļĨāļāļĐāļāļ°āļāļĨāļēāļĒāļāļāđāļŦāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§āļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āđāļāļĒ āđāļĄāđāļāļĒ āļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļ 6
1. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļŠāļāđāļāļāļēāļāļāļĄāļāļāļāļāļĨāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĨāļāļāļ§āļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§ āļŦāļĢāļāļ āļēāđāļĄāļāļāļāļāđāļĨāļāļāļ§āļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļāļ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2. āļāļĢāļāļēāļ§āļāļāļĨāļĄāđāļĨāļāļāļŦāļĄāļēāļĒāđāļĨāļāļĢāļ°āļŦāļ§āļēāļ 1- 5 āļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāđāļŠāļāļāļāļāļĢāļ°āļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļāļāļ§āļāļŦāļĢāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĒāļāļĒāļēāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§
3. āļāļēāļāļ āļēāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļāļ 2 (āđāļĨāļāļāļĢāļ°āļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļāļāļ§āļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĒāļāļĒāļēāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļ) āļāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļāļēāļĒāļ§āļēāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļŠāļāđāļāļāļēāļāđāļāļĒāļ§āļāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§āļāļĄāļāļĨāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĨāļāļāļĢāļ°āļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļāļāļ§āļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĒāļāļĒāļēāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļ
283
____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 4. āļāļāđāļāļĒāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāđāļŦāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĄāļĨāļāļĐāļāļ°āļāļĨāļēāļĒāļāļāđāļŦāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§āļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āđāļāļĒ āđāļĄāđāļāļĒ āļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļ 7
1. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļŠāļāđāļāļāļēāļāļāļĄāļāļāļāļāļĨāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĨāļāļāļ§āļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§ āļŦāļĢāļāļ āļēāđāļĄāļāļāļāļāđāļĨāļāļāļ§āļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļāļ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2. āļāļĢāļāļēāļ§āļāļāļĨāļĄāđāļĨāļāļāļŦāļĄāļēāļĒāđāļĨāļāļĢāļ°āļŦāļ§āļēāļ 1- 5 āļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāđāļŠāļāļāļāļāļĢāļ°āļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļāļāļ§āļāļŦāļĢāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĒāļāļĒāļēāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§
3. āļāļēāļāļ āļēāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļāļ 2 (āđāļĨāļāļāļĢāļ°āļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļāļāļ§āļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĒāļāļĒāļēāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļ) āļāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļāļēāļĒāļ§āļēāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļŠāļāđāļāļāļēāļāđāļāļĒāļ§āļāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§āļāļĄāļāļĨāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĨāļāļāļĢāļ°āļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļāļāļ§āļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĒāļāļĒāļēāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 4. āļāļāđāļāļĒāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāđāļŦāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĄāļĨāļāļĐāļāļ°āļāļĨāļēāļĒāļāļāđāļŦāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§āļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āđāļāļĒ āđāļĄāđāļāļĒ
āļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļ 8
1. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļŠāļāđāļāļāļēāļāļāļĄāļāļāļāļāļĨāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĨāļāļāļ§āļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§ āļŦāļĢāļāļ āļēāđāļĄāļāļāļāļ
āđāļĨāļāļāļ§āļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļāļ
284
____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2. āļāļĢāļāļēāļ§āļāļāļĨāļĄāđāļĨāļāļāļŦāļĄāļēāļĒāđāļĨāļāļĢāļ°āļŦāļ§āļēāļ 1- 5 āļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāđāļŠāļāļāļāļāļĢāļ°āļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļāļāļ§āļāļŦāļĢāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĒāļāļĒāļēāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§
3. āļāļēāļāļ āļēāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļāļ 2 (āđāļĨāļāļāļĢāļ°āļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļāļāļ§āļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĒāļāļĒāļēāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļ) āļāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļāļēāļĒāļ§āļēāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļŠāļāđāļāļāļēāļāđāļāļĒāļ§āļāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§āļāļĄāļāļĨāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĨāļāļāļĢāļ°āļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļāļāļ§āļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĒāļāļĒāļēāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 4. āļāļāđāļāļĒāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāđāļŦāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĄāļĨāļāļĐāļāļ°āļāļĨāļēāļĒāļāļāđāļŦāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§āļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āđāļāļĒ āđāļĄāđāļāļĒ
āļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļ 9
1. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļŠāļāđāļāļāļēāļāļāļĄāļāļāļāļāļĨāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĨāļāļāļ§āļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§ āļŦāļĢāļāļ āļēāđāļĄāļāļāļāļāđāļĨāļāļāļ§āļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļāļ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2. āļāļĢāļāļēāļ§āļāļāļĨāļĄāđāļĨāļāļāļŦāļĄāļēāļĒāđāļĨāļāļĢāļ°āļŦāļ§āļēāļ 1- 5 āļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāđāļŠāļāļāļāļāļĢāļ°āļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļāļāļ§āļāļŦāļĢāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĒāļāļĒāļēāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§
285
3. āļāļēāļāļ āļēāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļāļ 2 (āđāļĨāļāļāļĢāļ°āļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļāļāļ§āļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĒāļāļĒāļēāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļ) āļāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļāļēāļĒāļ§āļēāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļŠāļāđāļāļāļēāļāđāļāļĒāļ§āļāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§āļāļĄāļāļĨāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĨāļāļāļĢāļ°āļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļāļāļ§āļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĒāļāļĒāļēāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 4. āļāļāđāļāļĒāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāđāļŦāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĄāļĨāļāļĐāļāļ°āļāļĨāļēāļĒāļāļāđāļŦāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļĨāļēāļ§āļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āđāļāļĒ āđāļĄāđāļāļĒ
286
Appendix F. Interview questions for SA group participants
(Conducted in Thai â see below for the English version, followed by the Thai-translated version)
Part 1: English learning history and opinions about learning English
1. When did you start learning English? Approximately, how many hours per week have
you spent learning English in class?
2. How much do you like English? What aspects of English you do like the most?
3. Is there anything you do outside of the classroom to improve your English?
4. Apart from using English in class, is there anything you do outside of class that involves
using English? (e.g., working part-time)
5. Have you ever been to countries where you had to use English to communicate (e.g.,
vacation, summer camp, English class, etc.) before you began your study abroad
program? If so, where and how long?
6. How do you feel when you speak English with native English speakers?
7. How do you feel when you speak English with non-native English speakers?
8. Do you have many English-speaking friends? If so, what is your relationship like? (e.g.,
how often do you talk to each other/ see each other/ spend time together?)
9. What factors do you think are important in cross-cultural communication using English?
10. What are your goals in learning English?
11. How interested are you in learning about English speakersâ cultures? If so, is there a
particular English-speaking culture that you are interested in? (e.g., American, British,
Canadian, etc.) Why are you interested in that particular culture?
12. How much have you learned about English speakersâ cultures in your English classes?
How was it taught?
287
13. Do you do anything that helps you to understand English speakersâ cultures? If so, what
have you done? If not, why not?
14. What do you think about English teaching in Thailand?
15. What do you think about learning English in Thailand?
Part 2: Experience learning Abroad
16. Why did you decide to further your studies abroad?
17. What country did you choose to go to? Why did you choose this country?
18. How long have you lived/ did you live in this country?
19. What advantages and disadvantages you do think studying in an English-speaking
country might have on your English language development?
20. Do you think learning English in Thailand and in an English-speaking environment can
be equally effective in improving your English language skills?
21. What English skills do you think studying in an English speaking-environment can help
improve the most compared to studying in Thailand?
22. What was your biggest challenge in terms of the language, and communication at the
beginning of your time abroad?
23. What are the challenges you have now with English after having lived abroad for some
time?
24. How do you feel about living in a different culture?
25. How much have you learned about native English speakersâ cultures after having lived
in an English-speaking country? How did you learn it/ them?
26. Do you think that English in all of English-speaking countries is the same? If not, what
differences do you perceive?
27. How would you describe your English proficiency at the beginning of your time abroad?
288
28. How would you describe your English proficiency now?
29. Can you describe how living or studying in an English-speaking environment has
impacted your English language development?
Part 3: Perceptions toward your own pragmatic development
30. Do you know what pragmatics and pragmatic competence are?
31. Have you learned in any English classes about using English appropriately in different
social situations? If so, what did you learn?
32. How would you describe your pragmatic competence in English?
33. How much do you think studying English in a classroom can help you develop
pragmatic competence in the language?
34. How much do you think you have developed English pragmatic competence from
studying in an English-speaking environment and culture?
35. During your time abroad, have you ever failed to communicate your intended messages
using English?
Part 4: Making English requests
36. Before going abroad, did you learn in class how to make requests in English? If so, what
did you learn?
37. While studying abroad, did you learn (or are you learning) in class how to make English
requests?
38. What are the differences that you perceive in the way Thai people make requests and
native English speakers make requests in their respective languages?
39. How often do you make requests in English in real life?
40. What are the typical situations in which you have to make English requests?
289
41. Do you make requests in English the same way as you do in Thai? If not,
- What factors do you take into account when making requests in Thai?
- What factors do you take into account when making requests in English?
42. How difficult is it for you to make a request in English?
43. In what type of situation do you find it most difficult to make a request in English?
44. In what type of situation do you find it most difficult to make a request in Thai?
45. Are you always successful when you make English requests?
46. Have you ever struggled when having to make English requests? If so, please describe.
47. Is there a time when your English request was not successful? If so, can you describe the
situation?
48. Have you ever chosen not to make an English request even though you wanted to make
a request? If so, what stopped you from making the request?
49. Have you had an experience when people misunderstood or misinterpreted your English
requests? If so, please describe how it happened.
50. Do you think studying abroad has helped you improve your pragmatic competence in
English better than studying in Thailand has? If so, in what ways?
51. How would you describe the quantity of your interactions in an English-speaking
community?
52. How would you describe the quality of your interactions in an English-speaking
community?
53. To what extent do you think the quantity and quality of your interactions in an English-
speaking community have affected your ability to achieve native-like pragmatic
behavior in English?
290
Part 5: Follow-up question on request responses in the EDCT (if any)
54. Can you tell me more about your request response to situation number _____ that you
chose to say (refer to the participantâs response) ?
(Thai Translation)
āļŠāļ§āļāļ 1āļāļĢāļ°āļ§āļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĒāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļĨāļ°āļāļ§āļēāļĄāļāļāđāļŦāļāđāļāļĒāļ§āļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĒāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐ 1. āļāļāđāļĢāļĄāđāļĢāļĒāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļĄāļāđāļŦāļĢ āđāļĨāļ°āļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļŦāļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļĢāļ°āļĄāļēāļāļŠāļāļāļēāļŦāļĨāļ°āļāļāļ§āđāļĄāļ 2. āļāļāļāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļĄāļēāļāđāļāđāļŦāļ āļāļēāļāđāļāļāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĄāļēāļāļāļŠāļ 3. āļāļāļ āļēāļāļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļāļāļāļŦāļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāđāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļāļāļĐāļ°āļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļāđāļŦāļĄ āļāļēāđāļ āļāļāļ āļēāļāļ°āđāļĢ 4. āļāļāļāđāļŦāļāļāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļŦāļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļ āļāļāđāļāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļāļāļŦāļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļ āļēāļāļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄ
āļāļāđ āļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ (āđāļāļ āļ āļēāļāļēāļāļāđāļĻāļĐ) 5. āļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļ°āđāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļāļāļēāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻ āļāļāđāļāļĒāđāļāļāļāļēāļāđāļāļāļēāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāļāļāđāļāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļ
āļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļŠāļēāļĢ (āđāļāļ āđāļāļāļāļāļāļ āđāļāđāļāļēāļāļēāļĒāļĪāļāļĢāļāļ āļŦāļĢāļāđāļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐ āđāļĨāļ°āļāļāđ ) āļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āļāļēāđāļāļĒ āļāļāđāļāļāđāļŦāļ āđāļĨāļ°āđāļāļāļĢāļ°āļĒāļ°āđāļ§āļĨāļēāđāļāļēāđāļŦāļĢ
6. āļāļāļĢāļŠāļāļāļĒāļēāļāđāļĢāđāļ§āļĨāļēāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļāļāļēāļ§āļāļēāļāļāļēāļāđāļāļēāļāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļē 7. āļāļāļĢāļŠāļāļāļĒāļēāļāđāļĢāđāļ§āļĨāļēāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļāļāļēāļ§āļāļēāļāļāļēāļāļāđāļĄāđāļāđāļāļēāļāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļē 8. āļāļāļĄāđāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāđāļāļēāļāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļŦāļĢāļāđāļāļāļāļāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļŦāļĨāļāđāļĒāļāļ°āđāļŦāļĄ āļāļēāļĄ āļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŠāļĄāļāļāļ
āļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļāđāļāļāļĒāļāđāļ (āđāļāļ āļāļāļāļĒāļāļāļāļāļĒāđāļŦāļĄ āļŦāļĢāļāđāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĒāđāļŦāļĄ āļŦāļĢāļāđāļāđāļ§āļĨāļēāļāļ§āļĒāļāļāļāļāļĒāđāļŦāļĄ)
9. āļāļāļāļĒāđāļāļāļēāļāļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŠ āļēāļāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļŠāļāļŠāļēāļĢāļāļēāļĄāļ§āļāļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāđāļāļĒāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļŠāļāļŠāļēāļĢ
10. āđāļāļēāļŦāļĄāļēāļĒāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĒāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļāļāļ°āđāļĢ 11. āļāļāļŠāļāđāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļĢāļ§āļāļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļāļāļāđāļāļēāļāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļĄāļēāļāļāļāļĒāđāļāđāļŦāļ āļāļēāđāļ āļāļāļŠāļāđāļāļ§āļāļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļāļāļāđāļāļēāļāļāļ
āļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļēāļāđāļāļāļēāļāļŦāļāļāđāļāļĒāđāļāļāļēāļ°āđāļāļēāļ°āļāļāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ (āđāļāļ āļāđāļĄāļĢāļāļ āļāļāļāļĪāļĐ āđāļāļāļāļēāļāļē āđāļĨāļ°āļāļāđ) āļŦāļēāļāļĄ āļ āļēāđāļĄāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāđāļāļ§āļāļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļāļ
12. āļāļāđāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļĢāđāļāļĒāļ§āļāļāļ§āļāļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļāļāļāđāļāļēāļāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāđāļāļ§āļāļēāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļĄāļēāļāļāļāļĒāđāļāļēāđāļ āđāļĨāļ°āļāļēāļāļēāļĢāļĒāļŠāļāļāļ§āļāļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļāļāļāđāļāļēāļāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļĒāļēāļāđāļĢ
13. āļāļāļ āļēāļāļ°āđāļĢāļāļāļ§āļĒāđāļŦāļāļāđāļāļēāđāļāļ§āļāļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļāļāļāđāļāļēāļāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āļāļēāļ āļē āļāļāļ āļēāļāļ°āđāļĢāļāļēāļ āļāļēāđāļĄāļ āļē āđāļāļĢāļēāļ°āđāļŦāļāđāļāļāļāļāļāđāļĄāļ āļē
14. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļāļēāļĢāļŠāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāđāļāļĒāđāļāļāļāļĒāļēāļāđāļĢāļāļēāļ
291
15. āļāļāļĄāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļāļāđāļŦāļāļāļĒāļēāļāđāļĢāđāļāļĒāļ§āļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĒāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāđāļāļĒ āļŠāļ§āļāļ 2 āļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļēāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻ
16. āļ āļēāđāļĄāļāļāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāđāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļāļāļēāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻ 17. āļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāļāļ°āđāļĢ āļ āļēāđāļĄāļāļāļāļāđāļĨāļāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāļ 18. āļāļāļāļēāļĻāļĒāļāļĒāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāļāļĄāļēāļāļēāļāđāļāļēāđāļāđāļĨāļ§ / āļāļāļāļēāļĻāļĒāļāļĒāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāļāļāļēāļāđāļāļēāđāļ 19. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļāļāđāļāđāļāļĢāļĒāļāļŦāļĢāļāļāļāđāļŠāļĒāđāļāļĢāļĒāļāļāļ°āđāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļāļāļēāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāļāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļ
āļ āļēāļĐāļēāļŦāļĨāļāļĄāļāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļēāļāļāļĐāļ°āļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļāļāļāļ 20. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĒāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāđāļāļĒāđāļĨāļ°āļāļēāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļāļĄāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāļ āļēāļāđāļāļēāđāļāļĒāļĄāļāļāđāļ
āļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļēāļāļāļĐāļ°āļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļāļāļāļ 21. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļēāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāļāļ§āļĒāļāļāļāļēāļāļāļĐāļ°āļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļēāļāđāļāļāđāļāļāļāļŠāļāđāļĄāļāđāļāļĢāļĒāļāđāļāļĒāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢ
āđāļĢāļĒāļāđāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāđāļāļĒ 22. āđāļāļāļ§āļāđāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļēāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻ āļāļ°āđāļĢāļāļāļāļāļŠāļĢāļĢāļāļāļĒāļāđāļŦāļāļāļŠāļāļŠ āļēāļŦāļĢāļāļāļāđāļāđāļĢāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāđāļĨāļ°
āļāļēāļĢāļŠāļāļŠāļēāļĢ 23. āļŦāļĨāļāļāļēāļāļāļāļāđāļāļĄāļēāļāļēāļĻāļĒāđāļāļāļēāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāđāļāļāļĢāļ°āļĒāļ°āđāļ§āļĨāļēāļŦāļāļāđāļĨāļ§ āļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļŠāļĢāļĢāļāļāļ°āđāļĢāđāļ
āđāļĢāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐ 24. āļāļāļĢāļŠāļāļāļĒāļēāļāđāļĢāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļāļāļ§āļāđāļāļ§āļāļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļāđāļāļāļāļēāļāđāļāļāļēāļāļ§āļāļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļāļāļāļāļ 25. āļāļāđāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļĢāđāļāļĒāļ§āļāļāļ§āļāļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļāļāļāđāļāļēāļāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāđāļāļĄāļēāļāļāļāļĒāđāļāļēāđāļāļŦāļĨāļāļāļēāļāļāļāļāļĄāļēāļāļĒāļāļēāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻ
āđāļĨāļ°āļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļĢāļ§āļāļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļāļāļāđāļāļēāļāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļĒāļēāļāđāļĢ 26. āļāļāļāļāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄāļ§āļēāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļĄāļĨāļāļĐāļāļ°āđāļŦāļĄāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļāđ āļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāļāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļŦāļĨāļ
āļŦāļēāļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāđāļĄāđāļŦāļĄāļāļ āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļāļ§āļēāļĄāđāļāļāļāļēāļāļāļ°āđāļĢāļāļēāļ 27. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļ§āļāđāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļāļāļēāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāđāļāļāļāļĒāļēāļāđāļĢ 28. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļāļāļĐāļ°āļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļ°āļāđāļāļāđāļāļāđāļĢ 29. āļāļĢāļāļēāļāļĢāļĢāļĒāļēāļĒāļ§āļēāļāļēāļĢāļāļēāļĻāļĒāļŦāļĢāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĒāļāđāļāļāļēāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāļāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļŦāļĨāļāļāļāļĄāļāļĨāļāļĢāļ°āļāļ
āļāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļēāļāļēāļāļāļēāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĒāļēāļāđāļĢāļāļēāļ āļŠāļ§āļāļ 3 āļāļēāļĢāļĢāļāļĢāļāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļēāļāļēāļĢāļāļēāļāļ§āļāļāļāļāļāļāļĻāļēāļŠāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļ
30. āļāļāļāļĢāļēāļāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄāļ§āļēāļ§āļāļāļāļāļāļāļĻāļēāļŠāļāļĢ (pragmatics) āđāļĨāļ°āļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļāļāļēāļāļ§āļāļāļāļāļāļāļĻāļēāļŠāļāļĢ (pragmatic competence) āļāļāļāļ°āđāļĢ
31. āļāļāđāļāļĒāđāļĢāļĒāļāđāļāļĒāļ§āļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļŦāđāļŦāļĄāļēāļ°āļŠāļĄāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļĨāļ°āļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļēāļāđāļāļēāļāļŠāļāļāļĄāđāļāļ§āļāļēāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āļāļēāđāļ āļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļ°āđāļĢāļāļēāļ
32. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļāļāļēāļāļ§āļāļāļāļāļāļāļĻāļēāļŠāļāļĢāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāđāļāļāđāļĢ
292
33. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĒāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļŦāļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļ§āļĒāđāļŦāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļāļāļēāļāļ§āļāļāļāļāļāļāļĻāļēāļŠāļāļĢāđāļāļĄāļēāļāļāļāļĒāđāļāđāļŦāļ
34. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļāļāđāļāļāļāļāļēāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļāļāļēāļāļ§āļāļāļāļāļāļāļĻāļēāļŠāļāļĢāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļĄāļēāļāļāļāļĒāđāļāđāļŦāļāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļāļāļēāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāđāļāļŠāļ āļēāļāđāļ§āļāļĨāļāļĄāđāļĨāļ°āļ§āļāļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļāļāļāđāļāļēāļāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļē
35. āđāļāļāļ§āļāļāļāļāļāļĒāļāļēāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻ āļāļāđāļāļĒāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĨāļĄāđāļŦāļĨāļ§āđāļāļāļēāļĢāļŠāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŦāļĄāļēāļĒāļāļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļāļēāļĄāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāđāļāļĒāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļŠāļāļŠāļēāļĢāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āļāļēāđāļāļĒ
āļŠāļ§āļāļ 4 āļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐ
36. āļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļ°āđāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļāļāļēāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻ āļāļāđāļāļĒāđāļĢāļĒāļāļ§āļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļ§āļāļēāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āļāļēāđāļāļĒ āļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļ°āđāļĢāļāļēāļ
37. āļāļāļ°āļāļāļāļĻāļāļĐāļēāļāļĒāļāļēāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻ āļāļāđāļāļĒāđāļĢāļĒāļāļŦāļĢāļāļ āļēāļĨāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļ§āļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļŦāļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āļāļēāđāļāļĒ āļāļēāđāļāļĒ āļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļ°āđāļĢāļāļēāļ
38. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļĒāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāđāļāļĒāđāļĨāļ°āđāļāļēāļāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļĄāļāļ§āļēāļĄāđāļāļāļāļēāļāļāļ°āđāļĢāļāļēāļ
39. āļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļāļĒāđāļāđāļŦāļāđāļāļāļ§āļāļāļĢāļ 40. āđāļāļĒāļāļāļ āļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāđāļāļāļēāļ 41. āļāļāđāļāļ§āļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļŦāļĄāļāļāļāļāļ§āļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāđāļāļĒāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ
- āļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļāļĒāđāļāļāļēāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāđāļāļĒ - āļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļāļĒāđāļāļāļēāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐ
42. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļĄāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĒāļēāļāđāļāđāļŦāļāļŠ āļēāļŦāļĢāļāļāļ 43. āđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāđāļāļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĒāļēāļāļĄāļēāļāļāļŠāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐ 44. āđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāđāļāļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĒāļēāļāļĄāļēāļāļāļŠāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāđāļāļĒ 45. āļāļāļĄāļāļāļ°āļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŠ āļēāđāļĢāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ 46. āļāļāđāļāļĒāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļāļāļŦāļēāđāļĨāļ°āļāļāļāļāļĒāļēāļĒāļēāļĄāļāļĒāļēāļāļĄāļēāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āļāļēāđāļāļĒ 47. āļāļāđāļāļĒāđāļĄāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŠ āļēāđāļĢāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļēāļāđāļŦāļĄ āļāļēāđāļāļĒ āļāļĢāļāļēāļāļĢāļĢāļĒāļēāļĒ
āļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāđāļĄāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŠ āļēāđāļĢāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļ āļĒāļāļāļ§āļāļĒāļēāļāđāļāļ 48. āđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐ āļāļāđāļāļĒāđāļĨāļāļāļāļāļ°āđāļĄāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļĄāļ§āļēāļāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļ°āļāļāļĢāļāļāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āļāļēāđāļāļĒ āļ āļēāđāļĄ
āļāļāļāļāđāļĨāļāļāļāļāļ°āđāļĄāļāļāļĢāļāļ 49. āļāļāđāļāļĒāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļĨāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļēāđāļāļ āļēāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļŦāļĢāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŦāļĄāļēāļĒāļ āļēāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļāļ
āļāļāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āļāļēāđāļāļĒ āļāļĢāļāļēāļāļĢāļĢāļĒāļēāļĒāļŠāļāļāđāļāļāļāļ
293
50. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļēāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāļāļ§āļĒāđāļŦāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļāļāļēāļāļ§āļāļāļāļāļāļāļĻāļēāļŠāļāļĢāļāļāļ§āļēāļŦāļĢāļāļĄāļēāļāļāļ§āļē āļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĒāļāđāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāđāļāļĒāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āļāļĒāļēāļāđāļĢ
51. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļāļĢāļĄāļēāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļŠāļĄāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļēāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāđāļāļāđāļāļāđāļĢ 52. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļāļāļ āļēāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļŠāļĄāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļēāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāđāļāļāđāļāļāđāļĢ
53. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļāļĢāļĄāļēāļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļāļ āļēāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļŠāļĄāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļēāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāļĄāļāļĨāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļ°āļāļĢāļĢāļĨāļāļĪāļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļāļēāļāļ§āļāļāļāļāļāļāļĻāļēāļŠāļāļĢāļāļāļāđāļāļēāļāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļĄāļēāļāļāļāļĒāđāļāđāļŦāļ
āļŠāļ§āļāļ 5 āļ āļēāļāļēāļĄāđāļāļĄāđāļāļĄāđāļāļĒāļ§āļāļāļ āļēāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāđāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļēāļĄ EDCT (āļāļēāļĄ) 54. āļāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļāļēāļĒāđāļāļĄāđāļāļĄāđāļāļĒāļ§āļāļāļ āļēāļāļāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļ _____ āļāļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļē
āļāļēāļāļāļāļ āļēāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļēāļĢāļ§āļĄāļāļēāļĢāļ§āļāļĒ .
294
Appendix G. Interview questions for AH group participants
(Conducted in Thai â see below for the English version, followed by the Thai-translated version)
Part 1: English learning history and opinions about learning English
1. When did you start learning English? Approximately, how many hours per week have
you spent learning English in class?
2. How would you describe your English proficiency?
3. How much do you like English? What aspects of English do you like the most? Why?
4. Is there anything you do outside of the classroom to improve your English?
5. Apart from using English in class, is there anything you do outside of class that involves
using English? (e.g., working part-time)
6. Have you ever been to countries where you had to use English to communicate? (e.g.,
vacation, summer camp, English class etc.) If so, where and how long?
7. How do you feel when you speak English with native English speakers?
8. How do you feel when you speak English with non-native English speakers?
9. Do you have any native-English friends? If so, what is your relationship like? (e.g., how
often do you talk to each other/ see each other/ spend time together?)
10. What factors do you think are important in cross-cultural communication using English?
11. What are your goals in learning English?
12. How interested are you in learning English speakersâ cultures? If so, is there a particular
English-speaking culture that you are interested in? (e.g., American, British, Canadian,
etc.) Why?
13. Do you do anything that helps you to understand English speakersâ cultures? If so, what
have you done? If not, why not?
295
Part 2: Experience with learning English in Thailand
14. What do you think about English teaching in Thailand?
15. What is your opinion about learning English in Thailand?
16. What advantages and disadvantages you do think studying in an English-speaking
country might have on your English language development?
17. Do you think learning English in Thailand and in an English-speaking environment can
be equally effective in improving your English language skills?
18. What English skills do you think studying in an English speaking-environment can help
improve the most compared to studying in Thailand?
19. How much have you learned about English speakersâ cultures in your English classes?
How is it taught?
20. Do you think that English in all of English-speaking countries is the same? If not, what
differences do you perceive?
Part 3: Perceptions toward your own pragmatic development
21. Do you know what pragmatics and pragmatic competence are?
22. Have you learned in any English classes about using English appropriately in different
social situations? If so, what did you learn?
23. How would you describe your pragmatic competence in English?
24. How much do you think studying English in a classroom can help you develop
pragmatic competence in the language?
25. Do you think people who study abroad can improve their English pragmatic competence
faster and more effectively than they would by studying only in Thailand? If so, why? If
not, why not?
296
Part 4: Making English requests
26. Have you learned in class how to make requests in English? If so, what did you learn?
27. What are the differences that you perceive in the way Thai people make requests and
English speakers make requests in their respective languages?
28. How often do you make requests in English in real life?
29. What are the typical situations in which you have to make English requests?
30. Do you make requests in English the same way as you do in Thai?
- What factors do you take into account when making requests in Thai?
- What factors do you take into account when making requests in English?
31. How difficult is it for you to make a request in English?
32. In what type of situation do you find it most difficult to make a request in English?
33. In what type of situation do you find it most difficult to make a request in Thai?
34. Are you always successful when you make English requests?
35. Have you ever struggled when having to make English requests? If so, please describe
how it happened.
36. Is there a time when your request was not successful? If so, can you describe the
situation?
37. Have you ever chosen not to make an English request even though you wanted to make
a request? If so, what stopped you from making the request?
38. Have you had an experience when people misunderstood or misinterpreted your English
requests? If so, please describe how it happened.
Part 5: Follow-up question on request responses in the EDCT
39. Can you tell me more about your request response to situation number _____ that you
chose to say (refer to the participantâs response) ?
297
(Thai Translation)
āļŠāļ§āļāļ 1 āļāļĢāļ°āļ§āļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĒāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļĨāļ°āļāļ§āļēāļĄāļāļāđāļŦāļāđāļāļĒāļ§āļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĒāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐ 1. āļāļāđāļĢāļĄāđāļĢāļĒāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļĄāļāđāļŦāļĢ āđāļĨāļ°āļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļŦāļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļĢāļ°āļĄāļēāļāļŠāļāļāļēāļŦāļĨāļ°āļāļāļ§āđāļĄāļ 2. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļāļĒāļēāļāđāļĢāļāļēāļ 3. āļāļāļāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļĄāļēāļāđāļāđāļŦāļ āļāļēāļāđāļāļāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĄāļēāļāļāļŠāļ 4. āļāļāļ āļēāļāļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļāļāļāļŦāļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāđāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļāļāļĐāļ°āļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļāđāļŦāļĄ āļāļēāđāļ āļāļāļ āļēāļāļ°āđāļĢ 5. āļāļāļāđāļŦāļāļāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļŦāļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļ āļāļāđāļāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļāļāļŦāļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļ āļēāļāļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄ
āļāļāđ āļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ (āđāļāļ āļ āļēāļāļēāļāļāđāļĻāļĐ) 6. āļāļāđāļāļĒāđāļāļāļāļēāļāđāļāļāļēāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāļāļāđāļāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļŠāļēāļĢāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ
(āđāļāļ āđāļāļāļāļāļāļ āđāļāđāļāļēāļāļēāļĒāļĪāļāļĢāļāļ āļŦāļĢāļāđāļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐ āđāļĨāļ°āļāļāđ ) āļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āļāļēāđāļāļĒ āļāļāđāļāļāđāļŦāļāļāļēāļ āđāļĨāļ°āđāļāļāļēāļāđāļāđāļŦāļ
7. āļāļāļĢāļŠāļāļāļĒāļēāļāđāļĢāđāļ§āļĨāļēāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļāļāļēāļ§āļāļēāļāļāļēāļāđāļāļēāļāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļē 8. āļāļāļĢāļŠāļāļāļĒāļēāļāđāļĢāđāļ§āļĨāļēāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļāļāļēāļ§āļāļēāļāļāļēāļāļāđāļĄāđāļāđāļāļēāļāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļē 9. āļāļāļĄāđāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāđāļāļēāļāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļŦāļĢāļāđāļāļāļāļāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļŦāļĨāļāļāļēāļāđāļŦāļĄ āļāļēāļĄ āļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŠāļĄāļāļāļ
āļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļāđāļāļāļĒāļāđāļ (āđāļāļ āļāļāļāļĒāļāļāļāļāļĒāđāļŦāļĄ āļŦāļĢāļāđāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĒāđāļŦāļĄ āļŦāļĢāļāđāļāđāļ§āļĨāļēāļāļ§āļĒāļāļāļāļāļĒāđāļŦāļĄ)
10. āļāļāļāļĒāđāļāļāļēāļāļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŠ āļēāļāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļŠāļāļŠāļēāļĢāļāļēāļĄāļ§āļāļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāđāļāļĒāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļŠāļāļŠāļēāļĢ
11. āđāļāļēāļŦāļĄāļēāļĒāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĒāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļāļāļ°āđāļĢ 12. āļāļāļŠāļāđāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļĢāļ§āļāļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļāļāļāđāļāļēāļāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļĄāļēāļāļāļāļĒāđāļāđāļŦāļ āđāļĨāļ°āļāļāļŠāļāđāļāļ§āļāļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļāļāļāđāļāļēāļāļāļ
āļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļēāļāđāļāļāļēāļāļŦāļāļāđāļāļĒāđāļāļāļēāļ°āđāļāļēāļ°āļāļāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ (āđāļāļ āļāđāļĄāļĢāļāļ āļāļāļāļĪāļĐ āđāļāļāļāļēāļāļē āđāļĨāļ°āļāļāđ) āļŦāļēāļāļĄ āļ āļēāđāļĄāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāđāļāļ§āļāļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļāļ āļ āļēāđāļĄāļāļāļŠāļāđāļāļ§āļāļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļāļāđ
13. āļāļāļ āļēāļāļ°āđāļĢāļāļāļ§āļĒāđāļŦāļāļāđāļāļēāđāļāļ§āļāļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļāļāļāđāļāļēāļāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āļāļēāļ āļē āļāļāļ āļēāļāļ°āđāļĢāļāļēāļ āļāļēāđāļĄāļ āļē āđāļāļĢāļēāļ°āđāļŦāļāđāļāļāļāļāļāđāļĄāļ āļē
āļŠāļ§āļāļ āļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāđāļāļĒāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĒāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļ 2
14. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļāļēāļĢāļŠāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāđāļāļĒāđāļāļāļāļĒāļēāļāđāļĢāļāļēāļ 15. āļāļāļĄāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļāļāđāļŦāļāļāļĒāļēāļāđāļĢāđāļāļĒāļ§āļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĒāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāđāļāļĒ
298
16. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļāļāđāļāđāļāļĢāļĒāļāļŦāļĢāļāļāļāđāļŠāļĒāđāļāļĢāļĒāļāļāļ°āđāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļāļāļēāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāļāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļŦāļĨāļāļĄāļāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļēāļāļāļĐāļ°āļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļāļāļāļ
17. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĒāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāđāļāļĒāđāļĨāļ°āļāļēāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļāļĄāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāļ āļēāļāđāļāļēāđāļāļĒāļĄāļāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļēāļāļāļĐāļ°āļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļāļāļāļ
18. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļēāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāļāļ§āļĒāļāļāļāļēāļāļāļĐāļ°āļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļēāļāđāļāļāđāļāļāļāļŠāļāđāļĄāļāđāļāļĢāļĒāļāđāļāļĒāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĒāļāđāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāđāļāļĒ
19. āļāļāđāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļĢāđāļāļĒāļ§āļāļāļ§āļāļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļāļāļāđāļāļēāļāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāđāļāļ§āļāļēāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļĄāļēāļāļāļāļĒāđāļāļēāđāļ āđāļĨāļ°āļāļēāļāļēāļĢāļĒāļŠāļāļāļ§āļāļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļāļāļāđāļāļēāļāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļĒāļēāļāđāļĢ
20. āļāļāļāļāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄāļ§āļēāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļĄāļĨāļāļĐāļāļ°āđāļŦāļĄāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļāđ āļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāļāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļŦāļĨāļ āļŦāļēāļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāđāļĄāđāļŦāļĄāļāļ āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļāļ§āļēāļĄāđāļāļāļāļēāļāļāļ°āđāļĢāļāļēāļ
āļŠāļ§āļāļ āļāļēāļĢāļĢāļāļĢāļāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļēāļāļēāļĢāļāļēāļāļ§āļāļāļāļāļāļāļĻāļēāļŠāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļ 3
21. āļāļāļāļĢāļēāļāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄāļ§āļēāļ§āļāļāļāļāļāļāļĻāļēāļŠāļāļĢ (pragmatics) āđāļĨāļ°āļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļāļāļēāļāļ§āļāļāļāļāļāļāļĻāļēāļŠāļāļĢ
(pragmatic competence) āļāļāļāļ°āđāļĢ
22. āļāļāđāļāļĒāđāļĢāļĒāļāđāļāļĒāļ§āļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļŦāđāļŦāļĄāļēāļ°āļŠāļĄāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļĨāļ°āļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļēāļāđāļāļēāļāļŠāļāļāļĄāđāļāļ§āļāļēāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āļāļēāđāļāļĒ āļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļ°āđāļĢāļāļēāļ
23. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļāļāļēāļāļ§āļāļāļāļāļāļāļĻāļēāļŠāļāļĢāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāđāļāļāđāļĢ 24. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĒāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļŦāļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļ§āļĒāđāļŦāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļāļāļēāļāļ§āļāļāļāļāļāļāļĻāļēāļŠāļāļĢāđāļ
āļĄāļēāļāļāļāļĒāđāļāđāļŦāļ 25. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāđāļāļĒāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļāļāļēāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļēāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļāļāļēāļāļ§āļāļāļāļāļāļāļĻāļēāļŠāļāļĢāđāļ
āļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļĢāļ§āļāđāļĢāļ§āđāļĨāļ°āļĄāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāļ āļēāļāļĄāļēāļāļāļ§āļēāđāļĄāļāđāļāļĒāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĒāļāđāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāđāļāļĒāđāļāļĒāļāļāļĒāļēāļāđāļāļĒāļ§āļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āļāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļāļēāļĒāļ āļēāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļ
āļŠāļ§āļāļ āļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐ 4
26. āļāļāđāļāļĒāđāļĢāļĒāļāļ§āļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļ§āļāļēāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āļāļēāđāļāļĒ āļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļ°āđāļĢāļāļēāļ
27. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļĒāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāđāļāļĒāđāļĨāļ°āđāļāļēāļāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļĄāļāļ§āļēāļĄāđāļāļāļāļēāļāļāļ°āđāļĢāļāļēāļ
28. āļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļāļĒāđāļāđāļŦāļāđāļāļāļ§āļāļāļĢāļ 29. āđāļāļĒāļāļāļ āļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāđāļāļāļēāļ
299
30. āļāļāđāļāļ§āļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļŦāļĄāļāļāļāļāļ§āļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāđāļāļĒāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ - āļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļāļĒāđāļāļāļēāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāđāļāļĒ - āļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļāļĒāđāļāļāļēāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐ
31. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļĄāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĒāļēāļāđāļāđāļŦāļāļŠ āļēāļŦāļĢāļāļāļ 32. āđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāđāļāļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĒāļēāļāļĄāļēāļāļāļŠāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐ 33. āđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāđāļāļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĒāļēāļāļĄāļēāļāļāļŠāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāđāļāļĒ 34. āļāļāļĄāļāļāļ°āļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŠ āļēāđāļĢāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ 35. āļāļāđāļāļĒāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāļāļŦāļēāđāļĨāļ°āļāļāļāļāļĒāļēāļĒāļēāļĄāļāļĒāļēāļāļĄāļēāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āļāļēāđāļāļĒāļāļĢāļāļē
āļāļĢāļĢāļĒāļēāļĒāđāļŦāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāļāļŦāļē 36. āļāļāđāļāļĒāđāļĄāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŠ āļēāđāļĢāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļēāļāđāļŦāļĄ āļāļēāđāļāļĒ āļāļĢāļāļēāļāļĢāļĢāļĒāļēāļĒ
āļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāđāļĄāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŠ āļēāđāļĢāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļ āļĒāļāļāļ§āļāļĒāļēāļāđāļāļ 37. āđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐ āļāļāđāļāļĒāđāļĨāļāļāļāļāļ°āđāļĄāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļĄāļ§āļēāļāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļ°āļāļāļĢāļāļāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āļāļēāđāļāļĒ āļ āļēāđāļĄ
āļāļāļāļāđāļĨāļāļāļāļāļ°āđāļĄāļāļāļĢāļāļ 38. āļāļāđāļāļĒāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļĨāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļēāđāļāļ āļēāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļŦāļĢāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŦāļĄāļēāļĒāļ āļēāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļāļ
āļāļāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āļāļēāđāļāļĒ āļāļĢāļāļēāļāļĢāļĢāļĒāļēāļĒāļŠāļāļāđāļāļāļāļ āļŠāļ§āļāļ 5 āļ āļēāļāļēāļĄāđāļāļĄāđāļāļĄāđāļāļĒāļ§āļāļāļ āļēāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāđāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļēāļĄ EDCT (āļāļēāļĄ)
39. āļāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļāļēāļĒāđāļāļĄāđāļāļĄāđāļāļĒāļ§āļāļāļ āļēāļāļāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļ _____ āļāļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļē āļāļēāļāļāļāļ āļēāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļēāļĢāļ§āļĄāļāļēāļĢāļ§āļāļĒ .
300
Appendix H. Interview questions for NT group participants
(Conducted in Thai â see below for the English version, followed by the Thai-translated version)
Part 1: Experience with the English language
1. When did you start learning English? Approximately, how many hours per week have
you spent learning English in class?
2. How would you describe your English proficiency?
3. Have you ever been to countries where you had to use English to communicate? (e.g.,
vacation, summer camp, English class etc.) If so, where did you go and for how long?
4. Do you have any English-speaking friends? If so, what is your relationship like? (e.g.,
how often do you talk to each other/ see each other/ spend time together?)
5. What factors do you think are important in cross-cultural communication using English?
Part 2: Experience in making and receiving requests
6. How often do you make requests in real life?
7. What are the typical situations in which you have to make requests?
8. How comfortable are you in making requests?
9. In what type of situation do you find it most difficult to make a request?
10. Have you ever made requests in English? If so, do you make requests the same way as
you do in Thai?
- What factors do you take into account when making requests in Thai?
- What factors do you take into account when making requests in English?
11. What are the differences that you perceive in the way Thai people make requests and
English speakers make requests in their respective languages?
12. Are you usually successful when you make requests?
301
13. Have you ever struggled when having to make requests? If so,
14. Is there a time when your request was not successful? If so, can you describe the
situation? For example,
15. Have you ever chosen not to make a request even though you wanted to make a request?
If so, what stopped you from making the request?
16. Have you had an experience when people misunderstood or misinterpreted your
requests? If so, please describe how it happened.
17. Have you had an experience when you misunderstood or misinterpreted the requests
made by other people? If so, please describe how it happened.
18. Have you ever experienced an inappropriate request made to you? If so, what was the
request and why did you think it was inappropriate?
Part 3: Follow-up question on some request responses in the EDCT
19. Can you tell me more about your request response to situation number _____ that you
chose to say (refer to the participantâs response) ?
(Thai Translation)
āļ āļēāļāļēāļĄāļŠāļĄāļ āļēāļĐāļ
āļŠāļ§āļāļ 1 āļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļēāļāļāļēāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐ
1. āļāļāđāļĢāļĄāđāļĢāļĒāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļĄāļāđāļŦāļĢ āđāļĨāļ°āļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļŦāļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļāļĢāļ°āļĄāļēāļāļŠāļāļāļēāļŦāļĨāļ°āļāļāļ§āđāļĄāļ 2. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļāļĒāļēāļāđāļĢāļāļēāļ 3. āļāļāđāļāļĒāđāļāļāļāļēāļāđāļāļāļēāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāļāļāđāļāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāļŠāļāļŠāļēāļĢāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ
(āđāļāļ āđāļāļāļāļāļāļ āđāļāđāļāļēāļāļēāļĒāļĪāļāļĢāļāļ āļŦāļĢāļāđāļāļāđāļĢāļĒāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐ āđāļĨāļ°āļāļāđ ) āļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āļāļēāđāļāļĒ āļāļāđāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĻāļāļ°āđāļĢāđāļĨāļ°āļāļāđāļāļāļēāļāđāļāđāļŦāļ
302
4. āļāļāļĄāđāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāđāļāļēāļāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļŦāļĢāļāđāļāļāļāļāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļŦāļĨāļāļāļēāļāđāļŦāļĄ āļāļēāļĄ āļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŠāļĄāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļāļāđāļāļāļĒāļāđāļ (āđāļāļ āļāļāļāļĒāļāļāļāļāļĒāđāļŦāļĄ āļŦāļĢāļāđāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĒāđāļŦāļĄ āļŦāļĢāļāđāļāđāļ§āļĨāļēāļāļ§āļĒāļāļāļāļāļĒāđāļŦāļĄ)
5. āļāļāļāļĒāđāļāļāļēāļāļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŠ āļēāļāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļŠāļāļŠāļēāļĢāļāļēāļĄāļ§āļāļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāđāļāļĒāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļŠāļāļŠāļēāļĢ
āļŠāļ§āļāļ 2 āļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļĨāļ°āđāļāļĢāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļ
6. āļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļāļāļĒāđāļāđāļŦāļāđāļāļāļ§āļāļāļĢāļ 7. āđāļāļĒāļāļāļ āļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāđāļāļāļēāļ 8. āļāļāļĢāļŠāļāļŠāļ°āļāļ§āļāđāļāļĄāļēāļāļāļāļĒāđāļāđāļŦāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļ 9. āđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāđāļāļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĒāļēāļāļĄāļēāļāļāļŠāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļ āļĒāļāļāļ§āļāļĒāļēāļāđāļāļ 10. āļāļāđāļāļĒāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļŦāļĄ āļāļēāđāļāļĒ āļāļāđāļāļ§āļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāđāļŦāļĄāļāļāļāļāļ§āļāļāļēāļĢ
āļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāđāļāļĒāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ - āļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļāļĒāđāļāļāļēāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāđāļāļĒ - āļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļāļĒāđāļāļāļēāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐ
11. āļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļĒāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāđāļāļĒāđāļĨāļ°āđāļāļēāļāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāđāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐāļĄāļāļ§āļēāļĄāđāļāļāļāļēāļāļāļ°āđāļĢāļāļēāļ
12. āļāļāļĄāļāļāļ°āļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŠ āļēāđāļĢāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ 13. āļāļāđāļāļĒāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāļāļŦāļēāđāļĨāļ°āļāļāļāļāļĒāļēāļĒāļēāļĄāļāļĒāļēāļāļĄāļēāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āļāļēāđāļāļĒ
- āđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāđāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāļāļŦāļēāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļ āļēāļĐāļēāļāļāļāļĪāļĐ - āļāļ°āđāļĢāļ āļēāđāļŦāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļĒāļāļĒāļēāļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļāļāļāļĒāļēāļĒāļēāļĄāļāļĒāļēāļāļĄāļēāļ
14. āļāļāđāļāļĒāđāļĄāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŠ āļēāđāļĢāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļēāļāđāļŦāļĄ āļāļēāđāļāļĒ āļāļĢāļāļēāļāļĢāļĢāļĒāļēāļĒāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļāđāļĄāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŠ āļēāđāļĢāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļ āļĒāļāļāļ§āļāļĒāļēāļāđāļāļ
15. āļāļāđāļāļĒāđāļĨāļāļāļāļāļ°āđāļĄāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļĄāļ§āļēāļāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļ°āļāļāļĢāļāļāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āļāļēāđāļāļĒ āļ āļēāđāļĄāļāļāļāļāđāļĨāļāļāļāļāļ°āđāļĄāļāļāļĢāļāļ
16. āļāļāđāļāļĒāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļĨāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļēāđāļāļ āļēāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļŦāļĢāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŦāļĄāļēāļĒāļ āļēāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āļāļēāđāļāļĒ āļāļĢāļāļēāļāļĢāļĢāļĒāļēāļĒāļŠāļāļāđāļāļāļāļ
17. āļāļāđāļāļĒāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāđāļāļĢāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāđāļāļāļāđāļāļēāđāļāļ āļēāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļŦāļĢāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŦāļĄāļēāļĒāļ āļēāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āļāļēāđāļāļĒ āļāļĢāļāļēāļāļĢāļĢāļĒāļēāļĒāļŠāļāļāđāļāļāļāļ
303
18. āļāļāđāļāļĒāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāļĢāļāļāļĄāļāļĄāļēāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļĒāļ āļēāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāđāļĄāđāļŦāļĄāļēāļ°āļŠāļĄāļŦāļĢāļāđāļĄ āļŦāļēāļāđāļāļĒ āļāļĢāļāļēāļāļĢāļĢāļĒāļēāļĒāļĢāļēāļĒāļĨāļ°āđāļāļĒāļāļāļāļāļ āļēāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļ āđāļĨāļ°āļāļāļāļēāļĒāļ§āļēāđāļŦāļāđāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļēāļ āļēāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāđāļĄāđāļŦāļĄāļēāļ°āļŠāļĄ
āļŠāļ§āļāļ 3 āļ āļēāļāļēāļĄāļāļāļāļēāļĄāđāļāļĒāļ§āļāļāļ āļēāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāđāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļēāļĄ EDCT (āļāļēāļĄ) 19. āļāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļāļēāļĒāđāļāļĄāđāļāļĄāđāļāļĒāļ§āļāļāļ āļēāļāļāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļ _____ āļāļāļāļāļāļāļ§āļē
āļāļēāļāļāļāļ āļēāļāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļēāļĢāļ§āļĄāļāļēāļĢāļ§āļāļĒ .
304
Appendix I. Interview questions for ED group participants
(Conducted in Thai â see below for the English version, followed by the Thai-translated version)
Part 1: Experience with languages and cultures
1. What is your native language?
2. If English is not your native language, how long have you been speaking English and
how long have you been living in an English-speaking country/ community/
environment?
3. Besides English, what other language(s), if any, can you speak?
- How long have you been speaking it/ them?
- How would you describe your proficiency in using this/these language(s)?
4. What factors do you think are important in cross-cultural communication using English?
5. How interested are you in learning about other cultures?
6. Do you do anything that helps you to understand other cultures? If so, what have you
done?
7. Do you think it is necessary for non-native English speakers to learn and know native
English speakersâ cultures in order to communicate effectively in an English-speaking
country/ community/ environment? Why or why not?
Part 2: Experience in making and receiving requests
8. How often do you make requests in real life?
9. What are the typical situations in which you have to make requests?
10. How comfortable are you in making requests?
11. In what type of situation do you find it most difficult to make a request? For example,
305
12. If you can speak more than one language, do you make requests in English the same
way as you do in the other language(s)?
- What factors do you take into account when making requests in English?
- What factors do you take into account when making requests in the other
language(s)?
13. Are you usually successful when you make requests?
14. Have you ever struggled when having to make requests?
15. Is there a time when your request was not successful? If so, can you describe the
situation? For example,
16. Have you ever chosen not to make a request even though you wanted to make a request?
If so, what stopped you from making the request?
17. Have you had an experience when you misunderstood or misinterpreted the requests
made by other people, in particular by English as a second language speaker? If so, what
happened?
18. Have you ever experienced an inappropriate request made to you? If so, what was the
request and why did you think it was inappropriate?
Part 3: Follow-up question on some request responses in the EDCT (if any)
19. Can you tell me more about your request response to situation number _____ that you
chose to say (refer to the participantâs response)