Advertisement

Methodology

  • Gila A. Schauer
Chapter
Part of the English Language Education book series (ELED, volume 18)

Abstract

In this chapter, I will first provide some general information about the German school system and more specifically the educational context in the German state of Thuringia, since this study focuses on this context. I will then introduce the young L2 learners of English that took part in the study and represent two different L2 learning contexts: an immersion context in which English is the official language, and a typical foreign language context in which English is only spoken in designated foreign language lessons. Subsequently, I will describe the data collection techniques that were employed to elicit written and spoken data from the young learners. I will then provide background information on the EFL primary school teachers that completed the teacher survey, and on how the teacher survey was developed and distributed. Following this, the textbooks and picture books that were analysed in this study are introduced. I will then describe the different speech act frameworks that I used in this project.

Keywords

Research methodology Data collection methods Data collection instruments Young EFL learners German EFL learners Primary EFL teachers Textbooks Children’s books Picturebooks Speech acts 

References

  1. Andrea, G., & Wojtowycz, D. (2009). The lion who wanted to love. London: Hachette.Google Scholar
  2. Aschkar, S., Beattie, T., Kerler, N., & Schröder, C. (2016). Sunshine: Pupil’s book 3. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
  3. Aschkar, S., Beattie, T., Kerler, N., Schröder, C., & Skejic, M. (2015). Sunshine: Pupil’s book 4. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
  4. Baldacchino, C., & Malenfant, I. (2016). Morris Micklewhite and the Tangerine Dress. Toronto: Groundwood Books.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bayerische Staatskanzlei. (2004). Ordnung der Zweiten Staatsprüfung für ein Lehramt an öffentlichen Schulen. (Lehramtsprüfungsordnung II – LPO II) Vom 28. Oktober 2004 (GVBl. S. 428). BayRS 2038-3-4-8-11-K. München: Freistaat Bayern.Google Scholar
  7. Bayerische Staatskanzlei. (2008). Ordnung der Ersten Prüfung für ein Lehramt an öffentlichen Schulen. (Lehramtsprüfungsordnung I – LPO I) Vom 13. März 2008 (GVBl. S. 180) BayRS 2038-3-4-1-1-K. München: Freistaat Bayern.Google Scholar
  8. Browne, E. (1994). Handa’s surprise. London: Walker Books.Google Scholar
  9. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. (n.d.). http://www.bpb.de/nachschlagen/lexika/handwoerterbuch-politisches-system/202065/land-freistaat-thueringen. Accessed 10 Oct 2018.
  10. Carle, E. (1997). Have you seen my cat? New York: Aladdin.Google Scholar
  11. Carle, E. (2018). The very hungry caterpillar. London: Puffin.Google Scholar
  12. Cave, K., & Riddell, C. (2011). Something else. London: Puffin.Google Scholar
  13. Destatis: Statistisches Bundesamt. (2018). https://www.destatis.de/DE/PresseService/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2018/09/PD18_347_12411.html. Accessed 10 Oct 2018.
  14. Ervin-Tripp, S. (1976). Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society, 5, 25–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carrell, P. L., & Konneker, B. H. (1981). Politeness: Comparing native and non-native judgement. Language Learning, 31(1), 17–30.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1981.tb01370.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Caspari-Grote, K., Grandt, I., Kraaz, U., Neuber, C., Simon, C., & Völtz, I. (2013). Ginger: Pupil’s book 3. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
  17. Caspari-Grote, K., Grandt, I., Kraaz, U., Neuber, C., Simon, C., & Völtz, I. (2014). Ginger: Pupil’s book 4. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
  18. Donaldson, J., & Scheffler, A. (2006). The snail and the whale. London: Puffin.Google Scholar
  19. Donaldson, J., & Scheffler, A. (2016a). The Grufallo. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Donaldson, J., & Scheffler, A. (2016b). The smartest giant in town. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Donaldson, J., & Scheffler, A. (2017). Monkey puzzle. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Edmondson, W., & House, J. (1981). Let’s talk and talk about it. München: Urban und Schwarzenberg.Google Scholar
  23. Ehlers, G., Kahstein, G., Muth, M., & Tait, H. (2013). Bumblebee: Textbook 3. Braunschweig: Schroedel Westermann.Google Scholar
  24. Ehlers, G., Michailow-Drews, U., Tait, H., Schönau, M., Van Montague, A., & Zeich-Pelsis, A. (2017). Bumblebee: Textbook 4. Braunschweig: Schroedel Westermann.Google Scholar
  25. Freistaat Thüringen. (n.d.). https://www.thueringen.de/th2/schulaemter/. Accessed 5 May 2018.
  26. Garland, S. (2012). Azzi in between. London: Frances Lincoln.Google Scholar
  27. Gerngross, G., Puchta, H., & Becker, C. (2013a). Playway 3: Pupil’s book. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag.Google Scholar
  28. Gerngross, G., Puchta, H., & Becker, C. (2013b). Playway 4: Pupil’s book. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag.Google Scholar
  29. House, J. (1982). Opening and closing phases in English and German dialogues. Grazer Linguistische Studien, 16, 52–82.Google Scholar
  30. House, J., & Kasper, G. (1987). Interlanguage pragmatics. Requesting in a foreign language. In W. Lörscher & R. Schulze (Eds.), Perspectives on language in performance (Vol. 2, pp. 1250–1288). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  31. 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.Google Scholar
  32. Leech, G. (1999). The distribution and function of vocatives in American and British English conversation. In H. Hasselgard and S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Out of corpora: Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson (pp. 107–120). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  33. Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leonni, L. (2011). Frederick. New York: Dragonfly.Google Scholar
  35. London, J., & Remkiewicz, F. (1994). Froggy gets dressed. London: Puffin.Google Scholar
  36. MacMillan. (2007). MacMillan English dictionary for advanced learners. Oxford: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  37. Martin, B. J., & Carle, E. (2007). Brown bear, brown bear, what do you see? New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
  38. 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.  https://doi.org/10.14198/raei.2005.18.08.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McKee, D. (1989). Elmer. London: Andersen Press.Google Scholar
  41. n.a. (2007). Macmillan English Dictionary for advanced learners. Oxford: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  42. OED Online, Oxford University Press. (n.d.). www.oed.com/view/Entry/230945. Accessed 11 Aug 2018.
  43. Rosen, M., & Langley, J. (2003). Snore. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  44. Safont, J., & Pilar, M. (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.Google Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.Google Scholar
  47. Schmidt, R. W., & Richards, J. (1980). Speech acts and second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 129–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sendak, M. (1991). Where the wild things are. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  49. Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. (2005). Entwicklungen in den Bachelor- und Masterstudiengängen seit Einführung der neuen Studiengangstruktur 1999–2003. Bonn: Sekretariat der Kultusministerkonferenz.Google Scholar
  50. Seuss, D. (1985). The cat in the hat. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  51. Sharratt, N. (2006). Ketchup on your cornflakes? London: Scholastic.Google Scholar
  52. Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder: Gemeinsames Statistikportal. (n.d.). https://www.statistikportal.de/de/bevoelkerung/flaeche-und-bevoelkerung. Accessed 1 Nov 2018.
  53. Stoll Walsh, E. (1989). Mouse paint. Boston: HMH.Google Scholar
  54. Thomas, V., & Paul, K. (2016a). Winnie and Wilbur in winter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Thomas, V., & Paul, K. (2016b). Winnie and Wilbur: Winnie the witch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Thüringer Schulämter. (n.d.). https://www.thueringen.de/th2/schulaemter/. Accessed 10 May 2018.
  57. 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.Google Scholar
  58. Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Jugend und Sport. (2015). Thüringer Schulordnung. Erfurt: Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Jugend und Sport.Google Scholar
  59. Trosborg, A. (1994). Interlanguage pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  60. Umfrage Online. (n.d.). https://www.umfrageonline.com/. Accessed 2 Feb 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gila A. Schauer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of ErfurtErfurtGermany

Personalised recommendations