Training Learners to Recognize Language Strategies
Taylor MEIZLISH
Nagoya University of Foreign Studies
Suggested Citation: Meizlish, T. (2024). Training Learners to Recognize Language Strategies. Nagoya University of Foreign
Studies Teacher Development Symposium 2024

Abstract
Pragmatic competence, using language effectively and appropriately, often relies on theability to choose appropriate language strategies for a particular situation. These strategies
include “disarmers,” “grounders,” and “terms of address” which serve to mitigate thepotential offense caused by face-threatening speech acts such as requests and and invitations.
As Schmidt‟s noticing hypothesis (2001) states, a feature must be first be noticed before it it
can become intake; thus, it follows that learners must first notice and recognize the functionof language strategies before they can understand and employ them. While many studies exist
that test the effect of instruction on the output of these strategies, far fewer examine theunderstanding and recall of the strategies themselves. Further, the terminology used todescribe the function of language strategies is often borrowed from the field of Linguistics,
which may make it unfamiliar and overly technical for teachers and students. This study
examines the effect of explicit pragmatic instruction and identification of language strategies
from a small corpus of “suggesting” (Meizlish, 2023). Learners‟ ability to identify strategies
and use them appropriately was assessed through a pre- and post-task Strategic Identification
Task and Discourse Completion Task.
Keywords: Pragmatics, Speech Acts, Politeness Strategies, SuggestingTraining Learners to Recognize Language Strategies
Throughout my experience of teaching speech acts in the classroom, „ve
consistently found it straightforward to present and teach “head acts.” These are the part ofthe speech act most that most closely resembles the act itself. In the case of suggesting, acommon head act be “You should…” It attempts to suggest something to the hearer. “Whydon‟t you…?” is more indirect and “Have you considered…?” even more so. The choice of
how indirect the head act should be for a particular situation depends on the context and theaddressee. Students generally find the concept of indirectness easy to grasp and apply. While
head act language forms the core of the speech act in many cases, it is rarely used without
other language. Typically accompanied by what is termed a “supporting move” or a“strategy,” this language is particularly prevalent in situations where there is a large power
disparity and social distance between speakers, especially in speech acts of high imposition(Meizlish, 2023).
The terminology for supporting moves or strategies originates in the field ofLinguistics and was created with specificity but not accessibility to learners in mind.
“Disarmers” (Blum-Kulka, 1989), which are phrases such as “I‟m sorry to bother you” or “I
don‟t mean to be rude,” attempt to disarm potential offense or resistance caused by the speechact, but this term is not readily recognizable to most learners. My experience has been thatsuch terms are difficult for students to understand and recall. If these functions are notunderstood, learners lose out on being able to associate similar phrases in the same functional
category. Semantic categories such as “colors,” “furniture,” or “companies” are essential inteaching vocabulary, and by analogy, so are the functional categories of language in teaching
pragmatics.
While some published lesson plans and intervention studies of speech instruction
continue to use more technical terminology in instructional materials, the majority opt for a
simpler set of terms. In the classroom, I have found that students understand simpler
terminology better than more technical jargon, so that is what I opt to use. However, evenusing simplified terminology, determining whether students have truly understood thefunction of the strategies studied or merely memorized the language can be challenging. It is
often assumed that simply presenting students with simplified and functionally descriptive
terminology is sufficient for understanding and uptake. In addition, most studies on languagestrategy instruction that are available focus on the output of strategies rather than on the
explicit understanding of their functions. Output is an important measurement but it does not
capture learners‟ understanding of strategies. Without this deeper understanding, learners
may struggle to recall or recognize these strategies in future contexts.
Schmidt (1993), citing data from experimental psychology, found learning from
unattended processing to be “insignificant” compared to the results of attended processing.
This hypothesis has been widely verified in the field of instructed L2 Pragmatics. Explicit
instruction of how situational factors influence the choice of language for speech acts isfound to be more effective for teaching students to produce a larger variety of appropriate
strategies than implicit instruction. However, despite instruction which highlights thefunctions of speech strategies, post-instructional assessment of learners‟ comprehension andretention of these functions is rarely conducted, typically only inferred through their output.
The hypothesis this study aims to test is whether explicit identification of strategyfunctions will aid the understanding, recall, and production of strategies in a speech act. Tworesearch questions will be addressed. First, it will be tested whether learners can identify
language strategy functions post-instruction. Pre- and post-instruction multiple choice tasks
were used to assess students‟ understanding and recall. Second, it was assessed whether
students produced more appropriate strategies post-instruction compared to a baseline ofcorpus data from native and competent speakers. Both the native speakers and students
completed the same eight-scenario Discourse Completion Task and their results werecompared.
Theoretical Background
Pragmatics
The instruction of speech act strategies comes from the field of pragmatics and thus
will be introduced here. Pragmatics can be defined as “the study of communicative action inits sociocultural context” (Kasper & Rose, 2001). More specifically, pragmatics is concernedwith (1) how context contributes to meaning, (2) how speakers act through language, and (3)how speakers manage interpersonal relationships through language. Leech (1983) firstdivided pragmatics into two components: pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics.
Pragmalinguistics
The linguistic resources speakers utilize, including directness, indirectness, and alarge range of linguistic forms which can intensify or soften communicative acts, constitutethe domain of pragmalinguistics. For example, employing directness, a speaker could say

“You should try yoga.” This statement explicitly states the intention of the hearer and would
likely be appropriate between speakers with a close relationship. Conversely, by employing
indirectness, one might say “Have you ever considered yoga?” In this instance, the speaker‟sintention--to suggest the hearer try yoga--is not explicitly stated but rather implied and would
be more suited between speakers who are not well acquainted. These phrases, which
explicitly state or imply the speaker‟s intention, are called “head acts.” Other linguistic forms,
hereafter referred to as “strategies,” such as “disarmers,” “terms of address,” and “grounders,”
are used to mitigate the force of the head act or may be used in place of one.
Sociopragmatics
The social perceptions and norms upon which speakers base their interpretation andperformance of communicative acts are the concern of sociopragmatics (Leech, 1983).
Brown & Levinson (1987) posited three factors which influence these perceptions and norms:
Power, Distance, and Imposition.
1. Power is the ability to exert control or influence over others or the relative status
difference between speakers, such as between a teacher and a student or a boss and an
employee.
2. Social distance is the degree of familiarity between speakers. The distance between
family members and long-time friends would usually be low whereas it would be highbetween new acquaintances.
3. Imposition is the degree to which a speech act interferes with the hearer‟s desire forautonomy and acceptance. Suggesting someone change careers would infringe on
their autonomy by requiring a large expenditure of time and effort. It would infringe
their need for acceptance perhaps by implying their current career choice was
misguided or that their ability or performance is lacking, hence the suggestion.
Face
The needs for autonomy and acceptance were conceptualized in the framework of“face needs.” The notion of face was drawn from Goffman (1976) and developed by Brown& Levinson (1983) who defined it as “the self-image that a person tries to protect.” Further,
they postulated that these face needs fell into two categories: “positive” and “negative.”
Positive face refers to the individual‟s need to be accepted and appreciated, while negative

face is the need to be unimpeded in one‟s time and effort by others. These needs are managed
by speakers while performing speech acts.
Speech Acts
The concept of the speech was first put forward by Austin (1962)inDoing things withwords. He proposed that language is not only used to share ideas or representations or reality
but also to accomplish actions in the world. He outlined three types of acts: locutionary,illocutionary, and perlocutionary.
•

The locutionary act is the utterance itself and semantic meaning of the words. “Why don‟t
you try yoga?” is a literally a question of why someone does not do something.

•

The illocutionary act is the intention of the words, in this case, a suggestion to dosomething.

•

The perlocutionary act is the effect or outcome of the words, in this case, the hearer trying
yoga.
The relationship between the locution and illocution is often non-literal and thelocution is a conventionalized expression. The locution ofthe speech act is composed of the“head act” and “supporting moves” or “strategies.” Head acts are the minimal unit which canrealize a speech act independently of other language and explicitly states the illocution of the
speech act (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989). In the above case, the head act is “Why don‟t you try
yoga?” Strategies or supporting moves support, modify, or mitigate a head act. Strategies are
numerous but may include “grounders,” reasons for the illocution, “disarmers,” whichattempt to disarm resistance or offense, and “preparatory moves,” which prepare the hearer
for the speech act (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989). For the above suggestion, a grounder could be,“Yoga really helps with back pain.” A disarmer could be, “I know you‟re busy, but…”
Head acts have long been placed on a spectrum of directness and taught to students
through this concept. Situations of low Power, Distance, and Imposition typically merit more
directness and the opposite is true for situations of high Power, Distance, and Imposition.
Numerous studies have evaluated the use of directness in speech acts by students, pre andpost instruction, and it is often found that students improve appropriate use of directness. For
a recent example, see Aufa (2016). Aufa found that in the post-task DCT, learners used moreconventionally indirect strategies than direct strategies compared to the pre-task DCT.
Strategies, if taught at all are often presented to students with much less structure and are
rarely evaluated post-instruction. Lesson plans may present formulaic patterns of strategies touse for speech acts for discussion and sometimes as a model for students to follow, but thereis rarely much evaluation of their use of strategies. One notable exception is Kondo (2005)
who presented learners with the results of a DCT the learners themselves completedcompared with results of American English speakers to the same DCT. The learners thencompleted the DCT again and showed significant changes in the strategies they used for“refusing.” Considering the high frequency and patterned use of strategies found in a corpus
for the speech act of suggesting (Meizlish, 2023), their importance in instruction has been
undervalued.
Hypothesis and Research Questions
This study aims to test the hypothesis that training students to explicitly identify
language strategies by function will aid their production and retention of said strategies.
Research Question 1:
Can learners be trained to identify language strategies? Five strategies were explicitly
taught and students ability to identify them was assessed post-instruction.
Research Question 2:
Does training learners to identify language strategies aid their appropriate use of thesestrategies? Learners completed a pre and post-instruction DCT which was evaluated for theiruse of strategies compared with the responses of native and competent speakers of the same
DCT.
MethodParticipants and the Research Context
Thirteen third- and fourth-year university students in an advanced English class took
part in two instructional periods. The first period consisted of explicit pragmatic instruction
and practice with the concepts of Politeness, Directness, Power, Distance, and Imposition.
The second period focused on identifying Speech Act Strategies in a naturalistic corpus.The
usual content of the class was topic-based and focused on discussion and presentation aboutsocietal issues. This content was largely unrelated to the two instructional lessons of thisstudy.
Data Collection Instruments and Procedures
Before the first instructional period, students completed two pre-instruction
diagnostic assessments via google forms; a Strategy Identification Task and a Discourse
Completion Task.Both tasks were to be completed online via google forms within one week.

After the second instructional period, students had one week to complete the post-instruction
tasks also via google forms.
Strategy Identification Task
The Strategy Identification Task consisted of five multiple choice questions which
asked the student to identify the “function” of three instances of a specific language strategy.
Presented with three language examples, students had to identify them as being either “titles,”“hints,” “reasons,” “friendliness,” and “relaxers.” The three instances of each strategy weredrawn from a suggesting corpus (Meizlish, 2023). The instances were presented out ofcontext to isolate the strategies, but this method has the drawback of not being able to use thecontext to judge the function of the strategies.
Figure 1
Strategy Identification Task for “Relaxer”

Note. Three instances of a strategy from the corpus and five choices of identifications.
Discourse Completion Task
The Discourse Completion Task consisted of eight scenarios to which the student
must respond. The scenarios were designed to elicit suggestions. These eight scenarios weredrawn from the same suggesting corpus mentioned above. Post-instruction, the same twotasks were administered again. Discourse Completion Tasks present a respondent with ascenario or line of dialogue and ask them to respond and are widely used in the field ofspeech act pragmatics. The intercoder reliability of the analysis and procedures was nottested, as all judgements and evaluations are solely those of the author.
Figure 2
DCT Situation #4

Note. A situation from the DCT.
The students‟ pre-instruction results of the strategy identification task werecompared to their post-instruction results. The students‟ pre-instruction results of the DCT
were compared with their post-instruction results and both pre- and post- results werecompared to the results of 10 University EFL instructors.
Results
Strategy Identification Task
The overall results of the strategy identification task will be presented and then eachstrategy‟s results presented individually.
Table 1Pre- and Post-Instruction Results of the Strategy Identification Task

Note. Correct identification of each strategy in the Strategy Identification Task.

Reasons
Pre-instruction results showed the correct identification, “reasons,”at 23%.Incorrect
identifications were“hints” (38%), “friendliness” (15%), “titles” (15%), and “relaxers” (8%).
Post-instruction results showed the correct identification, “reasons” at 69%.
RelaxerPre-instruction results show the correct identification, “relaxer,” at 50%. 33%
identified the examples as “friendliness” whichis another reasonable function of“relaxers.”Post-instruction resultsshowed a 100% correct identification as “relaxers.”
FriendlinessPre instruction results showed most students identifying the three examples as“reasons” (77%) and the correct identification, “friendliness,” at only 8%.Post-instruction
results showed a 50% correct identification as “friendliness.”
TitlesPre-instruction results showed the correct identification,“title,” at 54%.The otherprominent identifications, friendliness (31%) and relaxer (15%), showed are other reasonable
functions of “titles.” Post-instruction results show a moderate improvement as students
identified the three examples correctly as “titles” (69%). “Friendliness” (31%) was identified
at the same rate as the pre-task.
Hints
Pre-instruction results showedthe correct identification, “hints,” at 42%. 50% identified
them as “friendliness,” which is a reasonable function of a “hint” and shows the term“friendliness” is likely too broad. Post instruction results showed the correct identification,“hints,” at 54%. 46% of students identified the language as “reasons,” which suggests overlap
between the two terms “hints” and “reasons.”
Overall, in the pre-instruction task there is a greater range of responses while postinstruction showed an improvement in correct of identifications of all five strategies.
Discourse Completion Task
Three scenarios and their respective results from the eight scenario DCT will bepresented.
Situation #1: Low Power, Low Distance, Low Imposition
The prompt for situation #1 was:
You see your close friend on campus. He/she wants to buy a coffee but doesn't know where tobuy a coffee nearby. What would you say?

Low power was indexed by “friend,” low distance by “close,” and low imposition by “wants
to by a coffee nearby.”
Table 2Strategy Use in Situation #1, Low P/D/I,

Note. The use of strategies in situation #1 by learners pre-task, learners post-task, andteachers.
There was a slight increase in reasons (+8%) and a slight decrease in head acts (-7%)
which moved towards the teacher baseline. Titles saw a major increase (+50%), withlanguage like “Hi (name)” and “Hey (name).” “Hints” and “Friendliness” showed no change.
Situation #4: Low Power, High Distance, High Imposition
The prompt for situation #4 was:
You see a new classmate who you don't know well on campus. He/she is parking a bicycle
next to a doorway blocking the entrance. There is a bicycle parking space nearby. Whatwould you say?
Low power was indexed by “friend,” high distance by “who you don‟t know well,”and high imposition by “He/She is parking a bicycle next to a doorway blocking theentrance.”

Table 3Strategy Use in Situation #4, Mid P/D/I

Note. The use of strategies by learners pre-task, learners post-task, and teachers in situation#4.
Friendliness and relaxers moved towards the teacher baseline with an increase of 33% and(+0%) respectively. Reasons (+8%), titles (+17%), hints (-25%), and head acts (+ 25%)
moved away from the teacher baseline.
Situation #8: High Power, High Distance, High Imposition
The prompt for situation #8 was:
You are talking with your new English teacher who you are not very close with after class.
He/she is a heavy cigarette smoker. He/she looks very stressed and coughs often. You always
think he/she should quit. What would you say?
High power was indexed by “professor,” high distance by “who you are not very close with,”and high imposition by “He/She is a heavy cigarette smoker. He/she looks very stressed andcoughs often. You always think he/she should quit.”
Table 4
Strategy Use in Situation #8, High P/D/I

Note. The use of strategies by learners pre, learners post, and teachers in situation #8.
Titles (+50%), relaxers (+25%), and head acts (-9%) all moved towards the teacher
baseline while hints (+0%) and friendliness (+0%) saw no increase. Reasons (+25%) saw anincrease away from the teacher baseline.
Discussion
Strategy Identification Task
This section aims to answer Research Question 1: Can learners be trained to
identify language strategies? The rate of correct identification for each strategy will be
discussed in turn.
The “relaxer” strategy showed the highest rate of post-instruction correct
identification (100%). “Relaxers” were explained to students as statements that attempt torelax the hearer before suggesting and this instruction seemed to be extremely effective in
differentiating relaxers from friendliness. Their formulaic nature; e.g. “I don‟t want to be
rude,” “Excuse me,” and “I just wanted to say,” in addition to their nearly unvarying syntactic
position, always at or near the beginning of the suggestion, likely also contributed to theirhigh rate of post-task identification.

“Titles” showed a 69% post-instruction correct identification rate with the remaining
31% identification as “friendliness.” “Titles” were explained as expressions which address or
greet the hearer and this explanation was mostly successful in differentiating them from“friendliness.” Titles” such as “hey (name)” or “Professor (name),” can show friendliness
depending on the interlocutors‟ relationship and this likely explains why they were also
identified as friendliness.
“Friendliness” had the lowest pre-instruction correct identification rate at 8%,
seeming to indicate this was the least familiar category before instruction. “Friendliness” wasexplained to students as expressions which show common ground or concern for the hearer.
The post-instruction correct identification rate of 50% shows improvement but 42% of
students identified them as “hints.” The identification of “hints” can likely be explained byconsidering the language examples given such as “I know this is a convenient place to park.”
This utterance was part of a longer utterance which also contained an explicit suggestion thatthe hearer move their bicycle to a different parking place. In the context of a suggestion, it isunderstandable that such “friendliness” expressions could also be interpreted as “hints” andsuggests the difficulty of students to strictly distinguish the two.
“Hints” saw only a modest improvement in correct identification pre- and post-task,
from 42% to 54%, but in the post-task the remaining 46% identified them as reasons. As hints
are usually reasons plus an implication to act, such as “There is a place over there where you
can put your bike…,” compared to a pure reason, “Your bicycle is actually blocking theentrance,” this small distinction seemed difficult for students. It is reasonable to argue that thesome of the language examples that were presented as reasons to students for imply an action
even if not overtly hinted at. Pragmatically competent language users are adept atunderstanding illocution (intent) from a locution (utterance). Language learners may not findthe distinction between “reasons” and “hints” important or useful leading to its relatively
poor improvement in identification. Nonetheless, as those were the only two identifications
chosen in the post-instruction task, this does show a general understanding of the strategy.
“Reasons” saw a significant improvement in identification, improving from 23% to69%, with 8% identifying them as hints. The same 15% of students identified these reasons
as “title,” the same percentage as in the pre-task, suggesting a lack of understanding of thisstrategy or of the task itself.
In summary,“relaxers” and “titles” were very successfully recalled and differentiatedby learners from the other strategies. “Reasons” and “hints” were often conflated but weresuccessfully differentiated from the other three strategies. “Friendliness” was the hardest to
identify and differentiate and was often identified as a “hint.” In the context of a suggestion,
it could be argued their function was ambiguous or multifaceted. Overall, students showed agreatly improved ability to correctly identify strategies post-task.
Discourse Completion Task
The results of Situation #1 showed a modest improvement in the quantity of strategies
used toward the teacher baseline with a possible overuse of some strategies. Although theteachers used very few titles compared with the learners post-instruction, the language usedsuch as “hey (name)” and “Hi (name)!” are appropriate in a low P/D/I situation.
Situation #4 saw a significant increase in the use of “friendliness” and “titles” with amoderate increase in “reasons” by learners. Their 100% use of head acts is notable comparedwith only 70% by teachers, but almost all the EFL learners post-instruction used multiple
mitigating strategies, such as those taught in class, before the head act. Hints saw a decreaseas the students instead chose to directly suggest with head acts such as “maybe you could
park there,” and “I know a better place to park, I can show you!”
Situation #8 showed a significant increase in “reasons,” “titles,” and “relaxers” withno increase in “friendliness” or “hints.” The increase in “titles” and “relaxers” moved toward
the teachers‟ usage rate. The use of “friendliness” remained high (66%) close to the teachers
use at 80%. The EFL learners were not hesitant to give reasons why their teacher should notsmoke such as “it will be good for you” and “you are always coughing.” These wereclassified as “reasons” and not “hints” if they occurred before a direct suggestion, such as“Would you consider quitting smoking?” These reasons were interpreted as functioning tojustify the suggestion present rather than hint at one which was absent. In contrast, only 20%of the teachers attempted a direct suggestion. Instead, they relied on hints such as “Thatsounds like a bad cough” and “it may a good chance” without an explicit suggestion. The inclass instruction did present students with this very low occurrence of explicit suggestions inhigh P/D/I situations, and it was recommended to students not to be direct. Despite this,students mostly maintained their pre-instruction rate of direct suggestions. This is notnecessarily incorrect or inappropriate considering most students used multiple strategies tomitigate their direct suggestion.
Ishihara (2022) explains that learners may exhibit pragmatic resistance where they
“diverge from L2 norms to negotiate their linguistic or cultural uniqueness, even when they
have sufficient pragmatic linguistic control.” Kondo (2007), after having Japanese learners

and American native speakers of English complete the same DCT, then showed the results ofthe two DCTs side by side for the Japanese learners to examine and compare. The students
discussed the differences and did other pragmatic awareness raising activities. One result they
discussed was that the American native speakers used expressions of “regret” only 22% of
the time compared to the Japanese learners‟ 69%. After instruction, the learners responded to
the DCT situation again and in this assessment/post-instruction DCT, used regret 50% of thetime. This would seem to imply that even with explicit knowledge of native speaker strategy
use, the Japanese learners preferred not to mimic the native speakers, but instead asserted
their own linguistic or cultural uniqueness. Kondo herself notes that learners “retained some
culturally specific characteristics of their pragmatic behavior, which they strongly prefer, as
was shown in their use of statements of regret, such as „I‟m sorry”(p.127). This pattern ofmoving towards the native speaker strategy use but not to the same degree, was also present
in use of other strategies studied such as “gratitude” and “future (acceptance).” However, theJapanese learners did change their use to the rate of the native speakers in the strategy of“positive opinion.”
Conclusion
Research Question 1asked whether learners could be trained to identify language
strategies by function. Each of the five strategies tested in the Strategy Identification Task
showed improved correct identification with one reaching 100% correct post-task
identification. In addition, marginally correct answers such as “titles” being identified as“friendliness” were frequent in the post-task demonstrating that even learners who did notremember the correct identification exactly, identified the function of the strategy moreclosely with the correct identification.
Research Question 2 asked if learners would produce more appropriate strategies
after being trained to identify them. The overall post-instruction results of three DCT
situations showed an increase in the use of nearly allstrategies. While the learners may haveresisted, misunderstood, or disregarded some of the pragmatic norms presented to them, mostof their strategy use moved closer to the teachers‟ strategy use. This is thought to be due tothe explicit instruction they received in strategy types and rates of use.
Limitations
The categorizations of language strategies are solely those of the researcher. The same
set of three language examples for each of the five strategies in question were used in the preand post-instruction tasks so that even if the categorization of the strategies could bedisputed, the students‟ ability to identify those strategies as they were explained to them
could be evaluated. The DCT results were also evaluated and categorized solely by the
researcher although with constant reference to available coding schemes such as MartinezFlor (2005), Trosborg‟s (1995), and Li (2010). The sample size of 13 learners and 10 teachers
also limits the reliability and applicability of the results.
Future Directions
Larger sample sizes of both students and teachers would add greater validity toresults of both tasks. A larger sample size of teachers responding to the DCT would yield agreater variety of language for each strategy as well as more strategies overall. Multiple
coders would add intercoder reliability for the classification of language function andevaluation of DCT results. The choice of strategies to test students on could be madetoincrease the chance of students being able to distinguish them; using maximally contrasting
strategies rather than strategies with possible overlap such as “reasons” and “hints.”References
Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aufa, F. (2014). The use of discourse completion task (DCT) as explicit instruction on
Indonesian EFL learners' production of suggestion acts. Journal of English and
Education, 5(2), 21-43. https://doi.org/10.20885/jee.vol5.iss2.art2
Blum-Kulka, S., & House, J. (1989). Cross-cultural and situational variation inrequestivebehavior in five languages. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper(Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics (pp. 123–154). Ablex.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University
Press.
Goffman, E. (1976). On Face-Work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. In J.
E. Combs, & M. W. Mansfield (Eds.), Drama in life: The uses of communication insociety (pp. 114-136). New York: Hastings House Publishers, Inc.
Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. (2022). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language andculture meet. Routledge.
Kasper, G.,& Rose, K., (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge.
Kondo, S. (2007). Effects on pragmatic development through awareness-raising instruction:
Refusals by Japanese EFL learners. In Investigating pragmatics in foreign language
learning, teaching and testing (pp. 153-177).
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.
Li, E. S. (2010). Making suggestions: A contrastive study of young Hong Kong andAustralian students. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(3), 598- 616.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.07.014
Martínez Flor, A. (2005). A theoretical review of the speech Act of suggesting: Towards ataxonomy for its use in FLT. RevistaAlicantina de EstudiosIngleses, (18),167. https://doi.org/10.14198/raei.2005.18.08
Meizlish, T. (2023). Pragmatics and a locally-made corpora: A toolkit for teaching speechacts. Nagoya University of Foreign Studies Teacher Development Symposium.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning, and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper, &S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, R. (2001). “Attention.” In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second languageinstruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press.
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints, and apologies.
Walter de Gruyter.