Abstract
One aim of this book is to examine if, how, and to what extent pragmatic features are included in four textbook series in Germany that are published by the major school book publishing houses Cornelsen, Klett and Schrödel, as well as in picturebooks used in primary schools, and to what extent young EFL learners attending primary school are able to use simple pragmatic features. In contrast to other subdisciplines of linguistics, such as grammar or lexicography, pragmatics is often not as well known among teaching professionals and also tends to be less focused on in publications exploring issues in English language teaching, teaching English to young learners or second language acquisition. This is very unfortunate because pragmatics is a key component of successful communication and therefore needs to be taught to second or foreign language learners to equip them with the means to achieve their communicative goals in an appropriate and efficient manner (cf. Cohen, Learning pragmatics from native and nonnative language teachers. Multilingual Matters, Bristol, 2018).
In this chapter, I will first provide a definition of pragmatics and explain some key areas of pragmatics that are relevant for this book, such as speech act theory and various speech act frameworks. I will then discuss the concepts of communicative competence, culture and intercultural competence. This will be followed by a discussion of different learning contexts, the noticing hypothesis and considerations relevant to teaching young learners of English.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
According to Huang (2007, p. 11) “an utterance is the use of a particular piece of language – be it a word, phrase, a sentence, or a sequence of sentences – by a particular speaker on a particular occasion.” Thus, examples of utterances are Help!, I’ll call you back in a minute or longer stretches of text, e.g. a text of paragraph length. It needs to be noted that the term text itself is defined as a “continuous stretch of written or spoken language” (Mullany and Stockwell 2010, p. 19).
- 2.
For empirical interlanguage pragmatic studies that address the relationship between pragmatics and grammar see Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei (1998), Niezgoda and Röver (2001) and Schauer (2006, 2012). See Bardovi-Harlig (2003) for an overview chapter that addresses interlanguage pragmatics and grammar. See Ariel (2008) for a perspective on pragmatics and grammar that is not closely connected to interlanguage pragmatics.
- 3.
The term signer here refers to users of sign language, such as American, British or German sign language, i.e. individuals that may have no or limited hearing. It is a “visual-gestural language which is used by many deaf people […] as their native language” (Deuchar 1984, p. 1).
- 4.
Another term for transfer that is sometimes used is cross-linguistic influence (cf. Jarvis and Pavlenko 2008).
- 5.
The CCSARP was a large study conducted in the 1980s by an international group of researchers that investigated how requests and apologies are performed in a variety of languages, e.g. English, French, German, Hebrew, Spanish. Although a number of articles (e.g. Blum-Kulka and Olshtain 1984) were published that presented the results of the project, the most well-known publication is the book published in 1989 entitled “Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies” edited by Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House and Gabriele Kasper.
- 6.
The linguistic field that researches the acquisition of another language that is not an individual’s first language is called second language acquisition. It needs to be noted, however, that second language acquisition (SLA) covers both second and foreign language acquisition. The difference between foreign and second language is the learning context (cf. also Sect. 2.2.4). A foreign language learning context is typically a country in which the target language (i.e. the language that the individual is learning and which is not his or her L1) is not the official language (e.g. Germany for learners of English). In contrast, a second language learning context is a context in which learners are learning the official language of that country (e.g. Great Britain for learners of English).
- 7.
These studies frequently focus on a particular proficiency level of L2 learners. L2 learners’ output is often compared to native speakers’ output.
- 8.
See 2.1.4 for a detailed discussion of request categories.
- 9.
Other core areas of pragmatics are for example implicature, politeness (cf. Sect. 2.1.11), and deixis. The latter is “a technical term from Greek […] which means pointing via language” (Yule 1996, p. 9) and tends to focus on the use of “demonstratives, first and second person pronouns, tense markers, adverbs of time and space and motion verbs” (Huang 2007, p. 133).
- 10.
This subfield of pragmatics investigates pragmatic production and perception of native speakers. Early studies on requests in first language pragmatics sometimes used the term “directives” referring to Searle’s framework instead of the term requests (cf. Ervin-Tripp 1976).
- 11.
Authentic English native speaker data refers to recordings of spoken language or written texts that researchers in linguistics have examined. Typically, these data form part of language corpora, which may be accessible to everyone or may be accessible only for a particular group of people (e.g. individuals belonging to a particular institution). These corpora include large amounts of written texts (either originally written or transcripts of spoken texts) that tend to have been partially pre-coded by linguists. Corpus websites offering public access to a corpora are https://corpus.byu.edu/ and http://corpora.lancs.ac.uk/bnc2014/signup.php (cf. Love et al. 2017). A helpful general introduction to corpus linguistics is McEnery and Hardie (2012).
- 12.
See 2.1.14 for details on how the data were collected.
- 13.
Internal modifiers can be subdivided further into upgraders (which increase the illocutionary force of the request), and downgraders (which decrease the illocutionary force of the request). Upgraders can for example be intensifiers such as really or very as in “I really need to go” or “It’s very urgent” (Schauer 2009, p. 91). Examples for downgraders are the politeness marker please and downtoners such as just or maybe as in “Just a minute” or “Could I maybe have some of them” (Schauer 2009, p. 90).
- 14.
- 15.
Responsive speech acts are speech acts that happen as a second pair part to a preceding utterance, for example, a response to a suggestion, a response to a request or a response to an expression of gratitude.
- 16.
See Sect. 2.1.14 for details about the data collection method.
- 17.
The authors of the study describe the partial immersion context of their young L2 learners as follows (Girard and Sionis 2004, p. 32): Usually, total immersion consists in giving education (i.e. the whole regular national curriculum) in a foreign language. In the present case, the children learn math and science in French in the morning and have other activities in English with a 25-year-old Welsh teacher in the afternoon. The teacher resorts to a method based on short videos and interactive role-play games. There were 15 children aged 5–7 at the beginning of the observation. All of them were French, with French-speaking parents, except for a Romanian boy, whose mother tongue was Romanian, who had already started learning English in an international school and was currently learning French.
- 18.
The researcher asked passers-by for directions in the two major cities and then thanked his interlocutors for their answers thereby hoping to elicit responses to his expressions of gratitude.
- 19.
In contrast to the other studies reviewed here, Bieswanger also included non-verbal data in his investigation. He found that 8.6 per cent of the thanking responses in Vancouver were non-verbal (i.e. nods), while the percentage of non-verbal thanking responses in New York was considerably higher with 24.2 percent.
- 20.
For example, in German the similar sounding Willkommen is only used as a greeting and consequently German EFL learners could be puzzled when they encounter you’re welcome as a response to an expression of gratitude and may wonder if their interlocutor is inviting them to continue the conversation or is intending something else.
- 21.
While suggestions may be made by individuals working for a particular company or institution in service or institutional encounters (e.g. sales representatives, hair dressers, advisors, etc.), individuals not representing an institution are less likely to make suggestions to interlocutors they are not familiar with.
- 22.
The term turn is frequently used in conversation analysis. The idea is that two people taking part in a conversation will generally take turns (i.e. swap back and forth with regard to their roles of listeners and speakers). The turn itself tends to refer to a unit of speech that a speaker produces while the interlocutor is listening.
- 23.
Institutional discourse refers to language use that is related to an institution. It can refer to written text or spoken conversations. Institutional discourse can occur between a representative of an institution (e.g. a teacher or a police officer) and a member of the public (e.g. a pupil or a lost child) or between two representatives of an institution (e.g. two teachers) (Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford 2005). Institutional discourse has certain norms that individuals familiar with the culture the institutional discourse takes place in are aware of. For example, in certain cultures teachers are addressed with a special professional title, such as sensei in Japanese or hoca in Turkish and individuals attending educational institutions (e.g. schools, universities) in these cultures would be expected to use these terms when addressing the teaching staff.
- 24.
Status is a technical term in pragmatics. Typically, two different status relationships between interlocutors are distinguished: equal status (both interlocutors have the same status, such as friends or colleagues), higher and lower status (one interlocutor is higher status, such as head of school, and one is lower status, such as trainee teacher).
- 25.
See also Schauer and Adolphs (2006) on thanking expressions in international/ESL textbooks.
- 26.
The individual sets (Lehrwerke) consisted of pupil’s books, teacher’s book, pupil’s workbooks, transparencies, audio files, software and additional material available from the publisher for a textbook series.
- 27.
The English translation for both terms is request.
- 28.
Vollmuth did not differentiate thanking routines and instead only comments that thank you/thanks were included in all instructional sets.
- 29.
Although child pragmatic development could refer to both the development of a child’s native language or native languages (as in the case of bilingual children) or second/foreign languages, it is frequently used to refer to L1 issues only. In contrast, children’s pragmatic development in their L2 is allocated to the field of second language acquisition.
- 30.
The publication date of the study already indicates why these two terms that today would seem somewhat unusual in speech act investigations are used. At the time of the publication, speech act categories were not as well established and researched as today. The requests situations in this study seem to be intended to generate what today is typically referred to as conventionally indirect requests, while the command situations were likely intended to generate imperatives or other more direct strategies.
- 31.
- 32.
There has been a long debate about whether speech act data collected with questionnaires reflects authentic language use or not - see Felix-Brasdefer (2010) for a detailed discussion.
- 33.
The categorization of some data collection instruments is not straightforward, as the category of closed role play can overlap with the category of spoken production questionnaire, as Felix-Brasdefer (2010, p. 47) indicates “in the closed role play, the participant responds to a role-play situation without a reply from an interlocutor (as in the oral DCT described in the previous subsection”.
- 34.
According to Taguchi and Röver (2017, p. 102) “verbal protocols, also known as verbal reports or ‘think aloud’ protocols, are introspective self-report procedures” of which two types are distinguished “concurrent verbal protocols, [in which] learners are asked to say what they are thinking while they are working on tasks, [and] retrospective verbal protocols, [in which learner] complete the task first and then report what they were thinking”.
- 35.
Grammar and vocabulary are sometimes referred to as organizational components (e.g. in Bachman and Palmer’s 2010 framework).
- 36.
For example, if the English translations for the German Schäferhund (German Shepherd dog / Alsatian) is not available to the L2 learner when he or she would like to use the word, the L2 learner may instead refer to a big dog or a working dog originally used for looking after sheep.
- 37.
The word communicative is presented in brackets, since these two terms are sometimes used interchangeably in official government publications. A similar phenomenon is noted by Spencer-Oatey (2010, p. 189, original emphasis) who writes that “a number of different terms are used in the literature for the broad concept of intercultural competence […] including intercultural competence, […] intercultural effectiveness and intercultural communication competence”.
- 38.
A number of subjects that provide pupils and students with the skills needed for interpreting, relating and discovering, such as the learners’ native language subject (e.g. German, English, Spanish), as well as subjects related community relations, group dynamics, psychology, ethics, history, politics or geography for example can be employed to teach intercultural competence.
- 39.
The brackets containing the plurals s are added, as in the case of multilingual children (i.e. children who are raised in more than one language and culture) the process of enculturation begins in more than one language.
- 40.
If (young) L2 learners are no longer exposed to the target language, they are likely to forget their L2 partially or entirely. This process of losing competence in a language is called attrition. Tomiyama’s (2008) study provides highly interesting insights into the L2 attrition of two Japanese siblings who moved with their parents from an English-speaking country back to Japan.
- 41.
I recently witnessed a local pre-school group accompanied by three pre-school staff, one of which appeared to be the main designated English teacher, in a local store and listened in on their conversations while waiting for our turns at the cashiers. The staff who were supposed to speak English struggled to do so, often not seeming to know the words for the basic shopping items that they intended to buy. There was frequent code-switching from English to German amongst the staff and staff and children. Many opportunities for using the language were missed and children were exposed to incorrect grammar and pronunciation.
- 42.
- 43.
In these phases, some form of Total Physical Response (TPR) may be used by the teacher, which involves “form[s]of acting out [teacher’s] orders, enacting stories, drawing pictures in response to instructions or accompanying songs with actions” (Kirsch 2008, p. 56).
- 44.
- 45.
Sullivan and Weeks (2019, p. 182) note that “[a]s a general concept, DI [Differentiated Instruction] has been around for many years and discussed in a variety of terms (e.g., differentiated learning, tailoring, individualization, adapting to individual differences, universal design).
References
Aijmer, K. (1996). Conversational routines in English: Convention and creativity. London: Longman.
Aliyoun, S. (2018). Managing hello and goodbye: Investigating openings and closings in German and Iranian EFL textbooks. Paper presented at the Teaching and Learning L2 Pragmatics Conference at University of Central Lancashire, Preston.
Akhimien, E. P. (2004). The use of “How are you” in Nigerian society. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(11), 2055–2058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.02.003.
Al-Gathani, S., & Röver, C. (2018). Proficiency and preference organization in second language refusals. Journal of Pragmatics, 129, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.020.
Allott, N. (2010). Key terms in pragmatics. London: Continuum/Bloomsbury.
Ashford, S., Heller-Jones, R., Horner, M., & Parr, R. (2004). Green Line New 2 für Bayern. Stuttgart: Klett.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bach, K., & Harnish, R. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1982). The construct validation of some components of communicative proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 449–465. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586464.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2003). Understanding the role of grammar in the acquisition of L2 pragmatics. In A. M. Flor, A. F. Guerra, & E. U. Juan (Eds.), Pragmatic competence and foreign language teaching (pp. 25–44). Castelló de la Plana: Publicaciones de la Universitat Jaume I.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2010). Exploring the pragmatics of interlanguage pragmatics: Definition by design. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures (pp. 219–260). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic vs. grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 233–259. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587583.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (2005). Interlanguage pragmatics: Exploring institutional talk. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B. S., Mahan-Taylor, R., Morgan, M. J., & Reynolds, D. W. (1991). Developing pragmatic awareness: closing the conversation. ELT Journal, 45(1), 4–15.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Rose, M., & Nickels, E. (2008). The use of conventional expressions of thanking, apologizing, and refusing. In M. Bowles et al. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2007 second language research forum (pp. 113–130). Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: How to do things with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Bildung und Kultus, Wissenschaft und Kunst. (2014). Lehrplan Plus Grundschule: Lehrplan für die bayerische Grundschule. München: Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Bildung und Kultus, Wissenschaft und Kunst.
Becker, J. A., & Semner, P. C. (1986). The spontaneous use of thank you by pre-schoolers as a function of sex, socioeconomic status, and listener status. Language in Society, 15(4), 537–545. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500012008.
Bella, S., Sifianou, M., & Tzanne, A. (2015). Teaching politeness? In B. Pizziconi & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Teaching and learning (im)politeness (pp. 23–52). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
BiesWanger, M. (2015). Variational pragmatics and responding to thanks – revisited. Multilingua, 34(4), 527–546. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2014-0106.
Blum-Kulka, S. (2013). Juliane House. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 2562–2564). Blackwell Publishing.
Blum-Kulka, S., Kasper, G., & House, J. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood: Ablex Publishing.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns. Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 197–213. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/5.3.196.
Boxer, D., & Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: The case of complaints. ELT Journal, 49(1), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/49.1.44.
Brown, H. D. (2002). English language teaching in the post-method era: Towards better diagnosis, treatment and assessment. In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 9–18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Butler, Y. G. (2016). Assessing young learners. In D. Tsagari & J. Banerjee (Eds.), Handbook of second language assessment (pp. 359–376). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M. (Ed.). (2003). Intercultural competence. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Byram, M. (2009). Intercultural speaker and the pedagogy of foreign language education. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The Sage handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 321–332). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Byram, M., & Planet, M. T. (2000). Social identity and the European dimension: Intercultural competence through foreign language learning. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Cambridge Academic content dictionary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/here-you-go.
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2–27). New York: Longman.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.1.1.
Cekaite, A. (2013). Child pragmatic development. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 603–609). Malden: Wiley Blackwell.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2007). Rethinking the role of communicative competence in language teaching. In E. A. Soler & M. P. Safont Jordà (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 41–57). Dordrecht: Springer.
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 5–35. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2928w4zj.
Clark, E. V. (2009). First language acquisition (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, A. D. (2010). Coming to terms with pragmatics. In N. Ishihara & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet (pp. 3–20). Harlow: Pearson.
Cohen, A. D. (2018). Learning pragmatics from native and nonnative language teachers. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Cohen, A. D., & Olshstain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: The case of apology. Language Learning, 31(1), 113–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1981.tb01375.x.
Coulmas, F. (1981). Poison to your soul: Thanks and apologies contrastively viewed. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine (pp. 69–92). The Hague: Mouton.
Culpeper, J., Mackey, A., & Taguchi, N. (2018). Second language pragmatics: From theory to research. London: Routledge.
Culpeper, J., & Gillings, M. (2018). Politeness variation in English: A north-south divide? In V. Brezina, R. Love, & K. Aijmer (Eds.), Corpus approaches to contemporary British speech: Sociolinguistic studies of the spoken BNC2014 (pp. 33–59). Abingdon: Routledge.
Culpeper, J., & Schauer, G. A. (2018). Pragmatics. In J. Culpeper, F. Katamba, P. Kerswill, T. McEnery, & R. Wodak (Eds.), English language: Description, variation and use (2nd ed., pp. 146–164). Basingstoke: Palgrave/MacMillan.
Crystal, D. (1985). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Dale, P. S. (1980). Is early pragmatic development measurable? Journal of Child Language, 7(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900006991.
Deardorff, D. K. (Ed.). (2009). The Sage handbook of intercultural competence. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Delaney, M. (2009). Special educational needs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
De Houwer, A. (2009). An introduction to bilingual development. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Deuchar, M. (1984). British sign language. Abingdon: Routledge.
Dikin, A. J. (2018). It’s no problem to be polite: Apparent-time change in responses to thanks. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 22(2), 190–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12278.
Dore, J. (1974). A pragmatic description of early language development. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 3(4), 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01068169.
Dörnyei, Z., & Csizér, K. (1998). Ten commandments for motivating language learners: Results of an empirical study. Language Teaching Research, 2(3), 203–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889800200303.
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2008). Internal and external mitigation in interlanguage request production: The case of Greek learners of English. Journal of Politeness Research, 4(1), 111–138.
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2011). “Please answer me as soon as possible”: Pragmatic failure in non-native speakers’ e-mail requests to faculty. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(13), 3193–3215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.006.
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2016). Variation in evaluations of the (im)politeness of emails from L2 learners and perceptions of the personality of their senders. Journal of Pragmatics, 106, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.10.001.
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M., & Woodfield, H. (Eds.). (2012). Interlanguage request modification. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Edmondson, W., & House, J. (1981). Let’s talk and talk about it. München: Urban und Schwarzenberg.
Ehlers, G., Michailow-Drews, U., Tait, H., Schönau, M., Van Montagu, A., & Zeich-Pelsis, A. (2017). Bumblebee 4: Textbook. Braunschweig: Schroedel Westermann.
Eisenstein, M., & Bodman, J. (1986). ‘I very appreciate’: Expressions of gratitude by native and non-native speakers of American English. Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 167–185. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/7.2.167.
Eisenstein, M., & Bodman, J. (1993). Expressing gratitude in American English. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 64–81). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eisenstein Ebsworth, M., Bodman, J. W., & Carpenter, M. (1995). Cross-cultural realization of greetings in American English. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp. 89–108). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ellis, G., & Brewster, J. (2014). Tell it again! The storytelling handbook for primary English language teachers (3rd ed.). London: British Council.
Elsner, D. (2018). Institutionalized foreign language learning: Teaching English at different levels. In C. Surkamp & B. Viebrock (Eds.), Teaching English as a foreign language: An introduction (pp. 17–37). Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler.
Ely, R., & Berko Gleason, J. (2006). I’m sorry I said that: Apologies in young children’s discourse. Journal of Child Language, 33(3), 599–620. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000906007446.
Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (1976). Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society, 5, 25–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/5.3.196.
Eslami, Z. R. (2010). Refusals: How to develop appropriate refusal strategies. In A. M. Flor & E. U. Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 217–236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fantini, A. E. (1995). Introduction- language, culture and world view: Exploring the nexus. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 19(2), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(95)00025-7.
Fantini, A. E. (2019). Intercultural communicative competence in educational exchange: A multinational perspective. Abingdon: Routledge.
Farese, G. M. (2015). Hi vs. ciao: NSM as a tool for cross-linguistic pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 129, 140–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.01.014.
Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2004). Interlanguage refusals: Linguistic politeness and length of residence in the target community. Language Learning, 54(4), 587–653. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00281.x.
Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2007). Pragmatic development in the Spanish as a FL classroom: A cross-sectional study of learner requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 253–286. https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2007.013.
Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2010). Data collection methods in speech act performance: DCTs, role plays and verbal reports. In A. M. Flor & E. U. Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 41–56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2013). Interlanguage pragmatics. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 2801–2810). Blackwell Publishing.
Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2015). The language of service encounters: A pragmatic-discoursive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferguson, C. A. (1976). The structure and use of politeness formulas. Language in Society, 5(2), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006989.
Fontenelle, T. (2011). Lexicography. In J. Simpson (Ed.), Handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 53–66). London: Routledge.
Fordyce, K. (2013). The differential effects of explicit and implicit instruction on EFL learners’ use of epistemic stance. Applied Linguistics, 35(1), 6–28. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams076.
Fox, K. (2014). Watching the English. London: Hodder.
Fraser, B. (1978). Acquiring social competence in a second language. RELC Journal, 9(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368827800900201.
Fraser, B. (1990). Perspective on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90081-N.
Frederickson, N., & Cline, T. (2009). Special educational needs, inclusion and diversity. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Freitag-Hild, B. (2018). Teaching culture – intercultural competence, transcultural learning, global education. In C. Surkamp & B. Viebrock (Eds.), Teaching English as a foreign language: An introduction (pp. 159–176). Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler.
Girard, M., & Sionis, C. (2004). The functions of formulaic speech in the L2 class. Pragmatics, 14(1), 31–53.
Glaser, K. (2014). Inductive or deductive? The impact of method of instruction on the acquisition of pragmatic competence in EFL. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Greif, E. B., & Gleason, J. B. (1980). Hi, thanks and goodbye: More routine information. Language in Society, 9(2), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500008034.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics volume 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). London: Academic Press.
Grieve, A., & Seebus, I. (2008). G’day or Guten Tag? A cross-cultural study of Australian and German telephone openings. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(7), 1323–1343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.11.005.
Halenko, N., & Jones, C. (2011). Teaching pragmatic awareness of spoken requests to Chinese EAP learners in the UK: Is explicit instruction effective? System, 39(1), 240–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.06.011.
Hassal, T. (2003). Requests by Australian learners of Indonesia. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1903–1928. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00115-2.
Heß, F., Kieweg, W., Kuty, M., Müller-Hartmann, A., & Weisshaar, H. (2016). Fachdidaktik Englisch: Tradition, Innovation, Praxis. Stuttgart: Klett.
Holtgraves, T. M. (2002). Language as social action: Social psychology and language use. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
House, J. (1982). Opening and closing phases in English and German dialogues. Grazer Linguistische Studien, 16, 52–82.
House, J. (2006). Communicative styles in English and German. European Journal of English Studies, 10(3), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825570600967721.
House, J., & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech (pp. 157–186).
House, J., & Kasper, G. (1987). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requesting in a foreign language. In W. Lörscher & R. Schulze (Eds.), Perspectives on language in performance (pp. 1250–1288). Tübingen: Narr.
Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huber, J., Reynolds, C., Barrett, M., Byram, M., Lázár, I., Mompoint-Gaillard, P., & Philippou, S. (2014). Developing intercultural competence through education (Council of Europe Pestalozzi Series, No. 3). Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
Hübscher, I., Wagener, L., & Prieto, P. (2016). Young children’s sensitivity to polite stance expressed through audiovisual prosody in requests. Speech Prosody. https://doi.org/10.21437/SpeechProsody.2016-184.
Hummel, K. M. (2014). Introducing second language acquisition: Perspectives and practices. Malden: Wiley.
James, S. L. (1978). Effect of listener age and situation on the politeness of children’s directives. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 7(4), 307–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01068112.
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. London: Routledge.
Jautz, S. (2013). Thanking formulae in English: Explorations across varieties and genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jedynak, M. (2011). The attitudes of English language teachers towards developing intercultural communicative competence. In J. Arabski & A. Wojtaszek (Eds.), Aspects of culture in second language acquisition and foreign language learning (pp. 63–76). Heidelberg: Springer.
Kasper, G. (1981). Pragmatische Aspekte in der Interrimssprache. Tübingen: Narr.
Kecskes, I. (2015). Intracultural communication and Intercultural communication: Are they different? International Review of Pragmatics, 7(2), 171–194. https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00702002.
Kirsch, C. (2008). Teaching foreign languages in the primary school. London: Continuum.
Klippel, F. (2000). English in der Grundschule: Handbuch für einen kindgemäßen Fremdsprachenunterricht. Berlin: Cornelsen.
Koike, D. A. (1995). Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanish foreign language learning. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp. 257–284). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kondo, S. (2008). Effects on pragmatic development through awareness-raising instruction: refusals by Japanese EFL learners. In E. A. Soler & A. M. Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language Learning, teaching and testing (pp. 153–177). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Kondo, S. (2010). Apologies: Raising learners’ cross-cultural awareness. In A. M. Flor & E. U. Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 145–162). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kubanek, A. (2017). 25 years of ‘new’ young learner classrooms: Insights and challenges for teacher education. In E. Wilden & R. Porsch (Eds.), The professional development of primary EFL teachers: National and international research (pp. 27–44). Münster: Waxmann.
Kultusministerium Sachsen-Anhalt. (2007). Fachlehrplan Grundschule: Englisch. Halle: Landesinstitut für Schulqualität und Lehrerbildung Sachsen-Anhalt.
Kultusministerkonferenz. (2004). Beschlüsse der Kultusministerkonferenz: Bildungsstandards für die erste Fremdsprache (Englisch/Französisch) für den Hauptschulabschluss. München: Luchterhand.
Lai, C. -C. (2013). Investigating L2 learners’ pragmatic competence in a study abroad context: A longitudinal study focusing on Taiwanese learners of English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Lancaster University, UK.
Lakoff, R. (1977). What you do with words: Politeness, pragmatics and performatives. Paper presented at the Texas Conference of Performatives, Presuppositions, and Implicatures, Arlington.
Lee, C. (2010). An exploratory study of the interlanguage pragmatic comprehension of young learners of English. Pragmatics, 20(3), 343–373. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.20.3.03lee.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Legutke, M. K., Müller-Hartmann, A., & Ditfurth, M. S. V. (2012). Teaching English in the primary school. Stuttgart: Klett.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Limberg, H. (2015). Teaching how to apologize: EFL textbooks and pragmatic input. Language Teaching Research, 20(6), 700–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815590695.
Limberg, H. (2016). “Always remember to say Please and Thank you”: Teaching Politeness with German EFL textbooks. In K. Bardovi-Harlig & J. Cesar Felix-Brasdefer (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 14, pp. 265–292). Honolulu: University of Hawai’I, National Foreign Language Centre.
Love, R., Dembry, C., Hardie, A., Brezina, V., & McEnery, T. (2017). The Spoken BNC2014: Designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3), 319–344. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.3.02lov.
MacMillan. (n.d.). MacMillan dictionary. Oxford: MacMillan. https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/here-you-go-are.
Martínez Flor, A. (2005). A theoretical review of the speech act of suggesting: Towards a taxonomy for its use in FLT. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 18, 167–187.
Martínez Flor, A. (2010). Suggestions: How social norms affect pragmatic behaviour. In A. M. Flor & E. U. Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 257–274). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Martínez Flor, A., & Soler, E. A. (2007). Developing pragmatic awareness of suggestions in the EFL classrooms: A focus on instructional effects. RCLA/CJAL, 10(1), 47–76.
Martínez Flor, A., & Juan, E. U. (2010a). Pragmatics and speech act performance. In A. M. Flor & E. U. Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 3–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Martínez Flor, A., & Juan, E. U. (2010b). The teaching of speech acts in second and foreign language instructional contexts. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures (pp. 423–442). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mills, S. (2017). English politeness and class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen. (2008). Richtlinien und Lehrpläne für die Grundschule in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Frechen: Ritterbach Verlag.
Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2013). Second language learning theories (3rd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.
Morris, C. W. (1938). Foundations of the theory of signs. In O. Neurath (Ed.), International encyclopedia of unified science (Vol. 1). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mullany, L., & Stockwell, P. (2010). Introducing English language. Abingdon: Routledge.
Naden, T. (1980). How to greet in Bisa. Journal of Pragmatics, 4(2), 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(80)90050-8.
Nguyen, M. T. T. (2011). Learning to communicate in a globalized world: To what extent do school textbooks facilitate the development of intercultural pragmatic competence. RELC Journal, 42(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0033688210390265.
Niedersächsisches Kultusministerium. (2018). Kerncurriculum für die Grundschule Schuljahrgänge 3–4: Englisch. Hannover: Uni Druck.
Niezgoda, K., & Roever, C. (2001). Pragmatic and grammatical awareness. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 63–79). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nilsson, J., Norrthon, S., Lindström, J., & Wide, C. (2018). Greetings as social action in Finland Swedish and Swedish Swedish service encounters – A pluricentric perspective. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(1), 57–88. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0030.
Ogiermann, E. (2008). On the culture-specificity of linguistic gender differences: The case of English and Russian apologies. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(3), 259–286. https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2008.013.
Ogiermann, E. (2009). Politeness and in-directness across cultures: A comparison of English, German, Polish and Russian requests. Journal of Politeness Research, 5(2), 189–216. https://doi.org/10.1515/JPLR.2009.011.
Ogiermann, E. (2010). Teaching politeness with Green Line New? In M. Engelhardt & W. Gehring (Eds.), Fremdsprachendidaktik: Neue Aspekte in Forschung und Lehre (pp. 117–134). Oldenburg: BIS Verlag.
Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. D. (1983). Apology: a speech act set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 18–35). Rowley: Newbury House.
Ortega, L. (2013). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Routledge.
Osuka, N. (2017). Development of pragmatic routines by Japanese learners in a study abroad context. In I. Kecskes & S. Assimakopoulos (Eds.), Current issues in intercultural pragmatics (pp. 275–296). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. “no worries, int.” OED Online, Oxford University Press, June 2018. www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/246264. Accessed 15 Aug 2018.
Peirce, C. S. (1905). What pragmatism is. The Monist, 15(2), 161–181.
Reeder, K. (1980). The emergence of illocutionary skills. Journal of Child Language, 7(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900007005.
Rich, S. (2019). Early language learning teacher education. In S. Garton & F. Copland (Eds.), Routledge handbook of teaching English to Young learners (pp. 81–98). Abingdon: Routledge.
Rinnert, C., & Kobayashi, H. (1999). Requestive hints in Japanese and English. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1173–1201. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00027-2.
Rose, K. R. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(1), 27–67.
Rowland, C. (2014). Understanding child language acquisition. Abingdon: Routledge.
Sadeghidizaj, S. (2014). The contribution of explicit instruction vs. Implicit instruction to the acquisition of requests and request responses by EFL Students in Iran. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Lancaster University, UK.
Safont Jordà, M. P. (2008). The speech act of requesting. In E. A. Soler (Ed.), Learning how to request in an instructed language language context (pp. 41–64). Bern: Peter Lang.
Salomo, D., Lieven, E., & Thomasello, M. (2013). Children’s ability to answer different types of questions. Child Language, 40(2), 469–491. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000912000050.
Savignon, S. J. (1976). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. Keynote address at the Central States Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, Detroit, Michigan, April 23, 1976.
Savignon, S. J. (2008). Communicative language teaching: Linguistic theory and classroom practice. In S. J. Savignon (Ed.), Interpreting communicative language teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher education (pp. 1–28). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1999). Mind, language and society: Philosophy in the real world. New York: Basic Books.
Schauer, G. A. (2001). English / German cross-cultural differences in the use of expressions of gratitude and responses to these. Unpublished MA Dissertation submitted at the University of Nottingham, UK.
Schauer, G. A. (2006). Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: Contrast and development. Language Learning, 56(2), 269–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2006.00348.x.
Schauer, G. A. (2007). Finding the right words in the study abroad context: The development of German learners’ use of external modifiers in English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 193–220. https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2007.011.
Schauer, G. A. (2009). Interlanguage pragmatic development: The study abroad context. London: Continuum/Bloomsbury.
Schauer, G. A. (2012). Pragmatics and grammar. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 4564–4571). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Schauer, G. A. (2016). Assessing intercultural competence. In D. Tsagari & J. Banerjee (Eds.), Handbook of second language assessment (pp. 181–202). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Schauer, G. A. (in press). Measuring intercultural competence. In P. Winke & T. Brunfaut (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and language testing. New York: Routledge.
Schauer, G. A., & Adolphs, S. (2006). Expressions of gratitude in corpus and DCT data: Vocabulary, formulaic sequences, and pedagogy. System, 34(1), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.09.003.
Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation and the acquisition of communicative competence. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 237–274). Rowley: Newbury House.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, Learning and Interlanguage Pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21–42). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schneider, K. P. (2005). No problem, you’re welcome, anytime: Responding to thanks in Ireland, England and the United States. In A. Barron & K. P. Schneider (Eds.), The pragmatics of Irish English (pp. 101–140). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Schneider, K. P., & Barron, A. (2008). Where pragmatics and dialectology meet: Introducing variational pragmatics. In A. Barron & K. P. Schneider (Eds.), Variational pragmatics: A focus on regional varieties in pluricentric languages (pp. 1–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schreier, D. (2007). Greetings as an act of identity in Tristan da Cunha English: From individual to social significance. In P. Skandera (Ed.), Phraseology and culture in English (pp. 353–374). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sercu, L. (2000). Acquiring intercultural communicative competence from textbooks: The case of Flemish adolescent pupils learning German. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
Sherzer, J. (1999). Ceremonial dialogic greetings among the Kuna Indians of Panama. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(4), 453–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00082-4.
Shively, R. L. (2011). L2 pragmatic development in study abroad: A longitudinal study of Spanish service encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1818–1835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.030.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Face, (im)politeness and rapport. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory (pp. 11–47). London: Continuum.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2010). Intercultural competence and pragmatics research: Examining the interface through studies of intercultural business discourse. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures (pp. 189–218). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Spencer-Oatey, H., & Franklin, P. (2009). Intercultural interaction: A multidisciplinary approach to intercultural communication. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Strobel, J., & Sutter, A. C. (2012). English fachfremd unterrichten: Die Basis. Donauwörth: Auer Verlag.
Strobel, J., & Sutter, A. C. (2013). English fachfremd unterrichten: Die Praxis. Donauwörth: Auer Verlag.
Sullivan, A. L., & Weeks, M. R. (2019). Differentiated instruction for young learners. In S. Garton & F. Copland (Eds.), Routledge handbook of teaching English to young learners (pp. 182–197). Abingdon: Routledge.
Taguchi, N., & Röver, C. (2017). Second Language Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Takahashi, S. (2010). Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures (pp. 391–422). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. (1987). Development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English. JALT Journal, 8(2), 131–155.
Tomiyama, M. (2008). Age and proficiency in L2 attrition: Data from two siblings. Applied Linguistics, 30(2), 253–275. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn038.
Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur. (2010). Lehrplan für die Grundschule und für die Förderschule mit dem Bildungsgang der Grundschule: Fremdsprache. Erfurt: Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur.
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Usó Juan, E. (2007). The presentation and practice of the communicative act of requesting in textbooks: focusing on modifiers. In E. A. Soler & M. P. S. Jordà (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 223–244). Dordrecht: Springer.
Usó Juan, E. (2010). Requests: A sociopragmatic approach. In A. Martínez-Flor & E. Usó-Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 237–256). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Usó Juan, E. (2013). Effects of metapragmatic instruction on EFL learners’ production of refusals. In O. Marti-Arnandiz & P. Salazar-Campillo (Eds.), Refusals in instructional contexts and beyond (pp. 65–100). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Vollmuth, I. (2004). Englisch an der Grundschule: Wie Handreichungen den Frühbeginn sehen – eine didaktisch-methodische Analyse. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.
Wang, D., Wang, Y. C., & Tudge, J. R. H. (2015). Expressions of gratitude in children and adolescents: Insights from China and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(8), 1039–1058. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022115594140.
Williams, M. (1988). Language taught for meetings and language used in meetings: Is there anything in common? Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/9.1.45.
Woodfield, H. (2008). Interlanguage requests: a contrastive study. In M. Pütz & J. A. N.-v. Artselaer (Eds.), Developing contrastive pragmatics: Interlanguage and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 231–264). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Yagmur, K., Extra, G., & Swinkels, M. (2012). Cross-national analysis of the language across Europe results. In G. Extra & K. Jagmur (Eds.), Language rich Europe: Trends in policies and practices for multilingualism in Europe (pp. 28–74). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the British Council.
Yamanaka, E., & Fordyce, K. (2010). Online collaboration for pragmatic development – Talkpoint project. In D. H. Tatsuki & N. R. Houck (Eds.), Pragmatics: Teaching speech acts (pp. 195–208). Alexandria: TESOL Press.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schauer, G.A. (2019). Literature Review. In: Teaching and Learning English in the Primary School. English Language Education, vol 18. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23257-3_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23257-3_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-23256-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-23257-3
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)