Raising Pragmatic Awareness in the EFL Context

Sachiko Kondo

1.

Introduction
In order to be successful in communication, it is essential forsecond language learners to know not just grammar and text organization but also pragmatic aspects of the target language (Bachman 1990)1. ‘Pragmatic competence’ can be specifically defined as“knowledge of communicative action and how to carry it out, andthe ability to use language appropriately according to context”(Kasper 1997). Previous studies in ‘Interlanguage Pragmatics’ (Kasper and Rose 1999; Cohen 1996; Ellis 1994; Kasper and Blum-Kulka
1993) have shown that differences and similarities exist in how tocarry out communicative actions between language learners andnative speakers of target languages.
One of the controversial questions is whether ‘pragmatics’ canbe taught in the language classroom, especially in an EFL (English
as a Foreign Language)2 context. As pragmatic competence has aclose relationship with sociocultural values and beliefs of the country or the community where the target language is spoken, ESL(English as a Second Language) learners certainly have an advantage in acquiring this knowledge. ESL learners have a better chanceof having adequate and abundant input than EFL learners. Kasper(1997) and Rose and Kasper (2001) extensively discuss results ofprevious studies on pragmatic instruction and concludes that pragmatics can indeed be taught. Tateyama et al. (1997) examined theῌ 49 ῌ

effects of instruction in pragmatics and demonstrated that Japanese
pragmatic routines such as sumimasen, which is commonly used forgetting attention, apologizing, and expressing gratitude, are teachable to beginning foreign language learners. Kondo (2001) administered Oral Discourse Completion Tasks both before (pre-test) andafter (post-test) explicit pragmatic instruction. Comparison of theresults of the tests indicated the instructional effects on the development of refusal performance by Japanese EFL learners.
One of the approaches that can be used for teaching pragmatics
is awareness-raising. Rose (1994) introduced active video-viewing
activities and suggested that an approach using pragmatic consciousness-raising had the distinct advantage of providing learners
with a foundation in some of the central aspects of the role ofpragmatics, and it could be used by teachers of both native speakers
and non-native speakers. Bardovi-Harlig (1996) in her endeavor tobring pragmatics and pedagogy together, stresses the importance ofhelping learners increase their pragmatic awareness, over a teachercentered classroom where the teachers “tell” and the learners “receive” the information.

2.

The Present Study

2.1

Research Goal
The goal of the present research is to explore what kinds ofpragmatic aspects the learners become aware of through explicit
instruction in pragmatics. The content of classroom discussion thatis intended to raise pragmatic awareness in conducting ‘refusal’ inEnglish is analyzed.

ῌ 50 ῌ

2.2

Subjects
The subjects of the study were 36 Japanese learners of English

who majored in English at a junior college in Japan. They were
taught in two separate classes, and 18 students were in each class.
They were given pragmatic instruction described below as one partof their Integrated English Class, which was a required subject
intended to teach the four skills of English.

2.3

Instruction
The students received instruction on speech acts3 once a week

for 12 weeks.

Each lesson was 90 minutes long. The content of thetwelve lessons were, 1) Compliments & Response to Compliments, 2)
Thanking, 3) Interaction (Compliments & Response to Compliments
and Thanking), 4) Request, 5) Refusal, 6) Interaction (Request andRefusal), 7) Complaint, 8) Apology, 9) Interaction (Complaint and
Apology), 10) Proposal, 11) Disagreement, and 12) Interaction (Proposal and Disagreement).

2.3.1

Teaching Material

The textbook titled Heart to Heart, which was developed by theSophia University Applied Linguistics Research Group (Yoshida etal. 2000), was used for instruction. The book specifically aims toteach cross-cultural pragmatics in the English classroom in Japan.
Each lesson is organized progressively in five phases: Feeling, Doing, Thinking, Understanding and Using. These phases are organized to help students to become aware of pragmatic aspects oflanguage use by analyzing their own language use and by looking
for aspects of conducting speech acts that are in common or different between Japanese and Americans.

ῌ 51 ῌ

2.3.2

Goals of Instruction(1) Raising awareness that misunderstandings between Japaneseand Americans can be caused by differences in performing
speech acts
(2) Making learners aware of what they know already and encourage them to use their universal or transferable pragmatic
knowledge of their first language in the second language contexts(3) Teaching the appropriate linguistic forms that are likely to be
encountered in performing speech acts

2.3.3

Procedure from Speech Act Chapters

Each speech act chapter in the textbook uses the following
instructional procedure:(1) Feeling (Warm-up) phase(a) Listening to two different dialogs and answering questions(2) Doing phase(a) Discourse Completion Task and role-play on a new situation(3) Thinking phase(a) Looking at the classification of different types of a given
speech act(b) Listening to model dialogs and writing down key expressionsof each type(c) Analyzing their own speech act performance according totypes(4) Understanding phase (Cross-Cultural Communication Notes)(a) Using graphs presented in the textbook and making comparisons of speech act performances by Japanese, Americans, andῌ 52 ῌ

Japanese learners of English.
(b) Discussion in class (The target of the present analysis)(5) Using phase(a) Listening and role-play practice of the model dialogs(b) Discourse Completion Task and role-play tasks on new situations

2.3.4

Description of the Activities in the Refusal Chapter

The present study will analyze the discussion of the ‘Understanding phase’ in a refusal session. The following is a description of
the activities in the refusal lesson, which was used in the fifth weekof instruction:(1) Feeling (Warm-up) phase
The listening comprehension task in this phase is designed tohelp students to get the feeling of the speech act ‘refusal.’ The
students hear two different dialogs in a sample hypothetical refusal
situation and are asked to answer questions about what is happening and how the student feels about the two dialogs. One of the
dialogs represents a typical American way of conducting the speech
act concerned, and the other one represents how Japanese learnersof English typically respond. In this activity, students becomeaware that refusal can be expressed in different ways, and thatstudents do have certain preferences in the way it is conducted.

(2) Doing phase
The students are presented with another hypothetical refusal
situation (called situation 1) in which they are asked to respond in away similar to a discourse completion task, and to role-play theῌ 53 ῌ

situation with their classmates. The aim of this phase is to see what
each student can do with his/her present knowledge prior to any
instruction dealing with cultural differences and linguistic expressions.

(3) Thinking phase
In this phase students are asked to analyze their own speech act
performance. The textbook presents the students with various waysof refusing. These classifications (also called “speech act strategies”)
are simplified versions of ‘semantic formula’ and ‘adjuncts’ (Beebe etal. 1990)4, which are often used in the research of refusals in Interlanguage Pragmatics. With these, the learners can examine thestrategies they used in Situation 1 in the ‘Doing phase.’ An exercise
is provided here to help students understand which expression falls
into which type before they analyze their performance. The textbook says, “Most refusals include expressions stating the reason
why you are refusing. The following types of expressions can beused together with expressions stating the reason for refusing”(Yoshida et al. 2000. p. 32). Then the following five types of strategies and expressions for each strategy are introduced.

Type A: Positive Opinion

That sounds wonderful, but ...
I’d like/love to, but ...
I wish I could, but ...

Type B: Thanking

Thank you for the invitation.
Thanks, but ...

Type C: Apology

I’m sorry, but ...

Type D: Alternative

Maybe some other time.

ῌ 54 ῌ

Perhaps next time.
Type E: Direct Refusal

I can’t go.
I can’t make it.

ῌ ReasonI already have other plans.
I have to ...

(4) Understanding phase (Cross-Cultural Communication Notes)
In this phase the students are encouraged to discover the characteristic differences that exist in Japanese and American English
when various speech acts are performed. The data presented here in
the form of a graph (Figure 1) come from the following three groupsof college students who filled out Discourse Completion Tasks forsituation 1.

1) 50 Americans speaking English (A)2) 50 Japanese learners of English speaking English (JE)
3) 50 Japanese speaking Japanese (J)῍Situation 1῎
A friend of yours, Jennifer, asks you to go on a ski trip with
her and her friends next weekend, but you don’t feel likegoing because you don’t like some of the people who aregoing.

Then comes the discussion part, which is the target of thepresent study. Students are asked to look at the graph (Figure 1),compare these three groups and discuss in Japanese similarities anddifferences among the three groups in their way of conducting

῏ 55 ῏speech acts. The important point in this phase is that the task isdesigned so that the students can be involved in active thinking
instead of passively reading descriptions on cultural differences.
Analyzing the graph also has the merit of helping the students toavoid extreme stereotyping, as the graphs show certain tendencies
rather than simple black and white differences.
After discussion in small groups, group leaders are asked toshare what they talked about with the rest of the class.

Figure 1(From Yoshida et al., 2000, p. 34)(5) Using phase
The aim of this phase is to provide sufficient spoken activity
based on the knowledge students have acquired up to this point.
The students will practice some model dialogs and create their own
dialogs in English in new situations.

2.4

Data Acquisition
The classroom discussions in the Understanding phase, con-ducted in Japanese, was audio-taped. First a tape recorder wasῌ 56 ῌ

placed in one of the discussion groups. Next, all the presentations byeach group leader on the content of their group discussion wereaudio-taped. The same procedure was followed in both classes.
The recordings were transcribed for analysis.

2.5

Result and Discussion
Usually students start out their discussion by talking about

what they saw in the graph. They talk about the frequency ofspeech act strategies used by Americans speaking English, Japaneselearners of English speaking English, and Japanese speaking Japanese. Almost all the groups mentioned that Americans use thestrategies of ‘Positive Opinion,’ ‘Thanking,’ and ‘Alternative’ more
frequently than Japanese speaking English and Japanese speaking
Japanese. They mention that, on the other hand, Japanese use an‘Apology’ strategy much more often than Americans do. The following excerpt from the discussion of one group, especially lines 1, 2,
and 3, which are at the very beginning of their discussion, illustrates the point. (Examples from ῌ1῍ to ῌ8῍ were translated fromJapanese by the author of the paper. The letters in bold are thepragmatic aspects that are the points of analysis.)
ῌ1῍

2Americans use strategies such as ῌThanking῍ and ῌPositive
Strategy
Opinion῍ often. On the other hand Japanese like to apolo-

3

gize
gize.

1

4

S1:

S2:

We apologize. That’s right.

῎ 57 ῎5S3:

9And Americans make various comments. Americans use
Length of Utterance
Strategy
variousarious strategies first to make a listener feel comfortable,
comfortable
Politenessand then refuse. They make long comments first.
first
Length of Utterance
On the other hand, Japanese apologize first. This makes the
Politenesslistener feel disappointed.
disappointed

10 S4:

That’s right.

6
7
8

In this part, the students talk about one pragmatic aspect, that is,
the Length of Utterance. Grice (1975) in his pragmatic theory of‘Cooperative Principle’ lists four maxims of conversation that eachparticipant in conversations should adhere to, which are the maxims of quality, quantity, relevance, and manner. An inappropriate
length of utterance can be a violation of a maxim of ‘quantity’ or/and ‘manner5.’ Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1986), in their study ofrelationship between length of utterance and pragmatic failure,suggest that cultures might differ in the way they judge adherence
to those maxims presented by Grice, and therefore they are subject
to cultural variation. In line 5 ῌS3῍ says “Americans make various
comments” and again in line 7 “they make long comments first.”
By her use of terms like “comfortable (line 6)” and “disappointed(line 9),” ῌS3῍ is aware that the length of utterance has something to
do with attending to the ‘face’6 (Brown and Levinson 1987) of aninterlocutor. They realize that the longer utterance and the use ofvarious speech act strategies are politeness strategies for Americans
and what Japanese learners say might sound impolite to the Americans.

῎ 58 ῎The next excerpt indicates that these students have becomeaware that Japanese learners do not know English refusal strategies.
ῌ2῍
1

S1:

Japanese learners know few refusal expressions. They
Lack of Knowledgeknow only “I’m sorry.”

3

S4:

4

S2:

That’s right. And it sounds somehow cold.
cold
PolitenessJapanese learners use ῌDirect῍ strategy. They say, “I can’t”

2

5

directly, because “I’m sorry” is the only expression theyLack of Knowledge
know
know.

6

Both ῌS1῍ (line 1) and ῌS2῍ (lines 5 and 6) agree that one of thereasons why Japanese learners do not use various refusal strategies
is their Lack of Knowledge about American English refusals. Again,
the possibility of threatening others’ face by being impolite isbrought up here by ῌS4῍.
Another pragmatic aspect brought up in their discussions was
Pragmatic Transfer, an influence from learners’ native language andculture on their interlanguage pragmatic knowledge and performance (Kasper and Blum-Kulka 1993). The following excerpt illustrates the point.
ῌ3῍
1

S1:

Japanese learners don’t say “thank you.” They just say, “I’m
Strategy

῎ 59 ῎2sorry.”

3 S2:
4

S1:

Even in Japanese we don’t say “arigato (thank you).”
Pragmatic Transfer
No, we don’t say that.

5

S4:

We don’t say “arigato (thank you).”

6 S3:
7

I wonder if Americans who speak Japanese say “arigato” inPragmatic Transfer
refusal situations
situations.

8

S1:

I wonder if it is so.

9

S3:This book doesn’t tell us about that.

10 S1:

I think it would be interesting to see the same kind of data11

taken from American learners of Japanese. We can request

12

Ms. Kondo to have research on Americans who speak

13

Japanese. It’s our request to Ms. Kondo.

ῌS1῍ brings up on lines 1 and 2 that Japanese learners of English do
not say “thank you.” Following it ῌS2῍ points out in line 3 thatJapanese speaking Japanese do not say “arigato (thank you)” either,suggesting the possibility of pragmatic transfer from the native
language. They expand their discussion further and talk about thereverse possibility that Americans might transfer their native language behavior in refusal in speaking Japanese (lines 6 - 13).
The discussion on “thanking” strategy continues and it provokes awareness of still other pragmatic aspects. The following
comes directly after their discussion in ῌ3῍.

῎ 60 ῎

ῌ4῍
1 S4:
2

We don’t say “arigato” much even in Japanese, so we can’t
Pragmatic Transfer
say it in English.
English3

We just say “Gomen, gomen. (I’m sorry, I’m sorry.)”

4

S3:

That’s all we say.

5

S2:

6

S3:

It sounds blunt.
blunt
PolitenessBut it would sound strange if we say “arigato” in Japanese
Appropriatenessrefusal.

7
8

S1:

9
10 S3:

If we hear “arigato”, we feel that the person is accepting, not
Misunderstanding
refusing
refusing.
So these expressions are different among cultures.
cultures
CultureIn discussion ῌ3῍ the students bring up the fact that Japanese do not
say “thank you” either in English or Japanese. Then ῌS4῍ in line 1
uses a discourse marker ‘so’ to mark a causal relation between
Japanese behavior when speaking in their native language andEnglish, and confirms that it is a Pragmatic Transfer from Japanese.
ῌS3῍ (line 6) adds that saying “arigato” in Japanese refusal is not
Appropriate and ῌS1῍ (lines 8 and 9) follows that such inappropriate
use can cause Misunderstandings. ῌS3῍ (line 10) concludes this discussion by saying that these pragmatic features are Culture-specific.
It was repeatedly mentioned by the students in class thatJapanese use an ‘apology’ strategy often both in Japanese andEnglish. The following excerpt shows an analysis of why Japanese῎ 61 ῎prefer this strategy.
῍5῎
1

S3:

Japanese learners like to use ῍Apology῎ strategy most
most.
Strategy
They are obedient.
obedient

S1:

Are they obedientῌ23

῍S3῎ (lines 1 and 2) says sunaodane (“They are obedient.”) to explain
why Japanese learners prefer apology. She probably feels that inJapanese culture it is valued to be obedient, and that is the reason
why the Japanese say “I’m sorry” often. The previous studies on
apologies (Kumatoridani 1993; Kumagai 1993; Kondo 1997) support
this view suggesting that the Japanese preference for the expression “I’m sorry” is to keep harmony with an interlocutor by humbling themselves. Japanese prefer to take this humble approachrather than to take a rational explanatory approach to restore
relationship with an interlocutor. ῍S1῎ questions this analysis bysaying “Are they obedientῌ”, but unfortunately the discussion on
this point ends here and the students do not expand it further.
After group discussions, the leader of each group was asked topresent the summary of the discussion in their group. One of thepoints brought up in this section was semantic Content of speech
act strategies. The following is an example.
῍6῎
In Japanese we often say, Gomen ne, kyowa yoji ga arunnda

῏ 62 ῏keredo.... (“Sorry, I have something to do today, so...”) We
often do not complete a sentence and avoid expressions ofῌDirect Refusal῍. We tend not to give concrete reasons forContent
refusal.
refusalFirst of all, this group expressed their awareness that Japaneserefusal is different in that they use a strategy of not completing asentence, thus avoiding direct refusal expressions. Besides, they
point out that the reasons Japanese give are not concrete. This
analysis is consistent with the findings of previous studies onrefusals of Japanese learners. Both Beebe et al. (1990) and Kondo(2000) point out that Japanese give formulaic non-specific reasonsin refusals and that is transferred when they are speaking English.
The following comments by another student provide a different
perspective.
ῌ7῍
Sometimes Japanese use vague expressions in consideraPolitenesstion of the hearer’s feelings.
feelings Japanese learners of English(JE) cannot give concrete explanations of the reasons forContent
their refusals, because their English ability is limited
limited.
Limitation of Linguistic Ability

The group leader mentions that the Japanese use vague expressions
as a politeness strategy, which suggests that probably a transferfrom Japanese language is at play. In addition to this analysis, she

῎ 63 ῎provides another reason for their non-specific explanations or excuses in refusal, saying that they might be caused by the Limitationof their Linguistic Ability. The limitation of ability in formal aspectsof language, such as vocabulary and grammar, obviously prevent
learners from performing various speech act strategies.
Another group leader talks about the Illocutionary Force of
certain expressions. An Illocutionary Force is a ‘conventional communicative force’ achieved in saying something (Austin 1962)7.
ῌ8῍I think both Americans and Japanese want to express their
thanks to the invitations, but they have different ways of
Illocutionary Force
expressing it.
it Americans say “thank you” or “I’d love to.”On the other hand, Japanese say “I’m sorry”. Basically their
feelings are the same.

The group leader explains that the Illocutionary Force that Japaneselearners are trying to convey by “I’m sorry” is probably the same aswhat Americans are trying to do so by “thank you” and “I’d love to.”The point is that the underlying speakers’ intent is the same,
whereas they have different conventional realizations. This is aninteresting analysis because there have been relatively rich studies
focusing on multi-functionality of the Japanese expression sumimasen (Coulmas 1981; Kimura 1994; Tateyama 2001). Sumimasen isususally translated as “I’m sorry” in English. However, the expression has functions of both apologizing and thanking. Such compli-

῎ 64 ῎cations between certain expressions and illocutionary force they
have make communication difficult when we speak in a second
language.

3.

Conclusion
The present study has attempted to analyze what kinds ofpragmatic awareness can be raised in the EFL context using an
instructional method that was specifically developed for raising
pragmatic awareness.
In order to raise pragmatic awareness, the learners were presented with a hypothetical refusal situation and speech act strategies that can be used in the situation. Then they were asked toanalyze their own speech act performance and data taken fromdifferent cultural groups and learners (Americans speaking English,
Japanese speaking English, and Japanese speaking Japanese). The
content of the class discussions that followed revealed that thepresent instructional procedure raised students’ pragmatic awareness on the following points:

1. Pragmatic awareness was raised concerning the use ofdifferent refusal strategies among Japanese speaking Japanese, Japanese learners of English speaking English, andAmericans speaking English.

2. Awareness was raised that both Japanese and Americans
attend to the ‘face’ of an interlocutor and use ‘politeness’
strategies in refusals.

3. The lack of pragmatic knowledge about American English

ῌ 65 ῌ

refusals by Japanese learners of English can be reflected intheir choice of strategies when they speak in English.

4. There can be pragmatic transfer from native languages in
the choice of strategies (semantic formula) and in the semantic content of speech act strategies.

5. There can be strategies that are inappropriate and mightcause misunderstandings in refusal situations.

6. The limitation of the linguistic ability of Japanese learners
may have contributed to the difference in strategy choices
and to the non-specific content of refusal reasons.

7. Pragmatic awareness was raised concerning the use ofdifferent expressions for the same feelings and the difficulty of understanding illocutionary force of utterances insecond languages.

The findings of the present study show that learners can become linguists and discoverers themselves. They were actively
involved in analyzing, thinking, and reflecting on their own speech
performance. As a result, they became aware of varieties of pragmatic aspects.
Teaching pragmatics is a complex undertaking indeed. Appropriate use of language is intricately connected with cultural values,
situations, interlocutors, and other variables. Just teaching formulaic phrases or forcing learners into “the target norm” is not likely toenhance pragmatic ability. On the other hand, it seems that anῌ 66 ῌ

awareness-raising approach can sensitize learners to cultural differences and different variables involved in language use. Hopefully,
learners will be able to apply the pragmatic awareness acquired inclass in whatever setting they may encounter in the future.

Acknowledgements
I would like to express my appreciation to the students of Akenohoshi Women’s Junior College for their cooperation in this study.
The college closed its 31-year-history in March 2003. My gratitude
also goes to Dr. Gwen T. Joy for her valuable comments to improve
this paper.

Notesῌῌῌῌῌῌῌῌῌῌῌῌῌ
1

Bachman’s model (1990) of ‘language competence’ is subdivided

into ‘organizational competence’ and ‘pragmatic competence’. Organizational competence comprises ‘grammatical competence’ and‘textual competence.’ Pragmatic competence subdivides into ‘illocutionary competence’ and ‘sociolinguistic competence.’ The phrase‘pragmatic aspects’ in the present paper refers to concepts related to‘pragmatic competence.’2

EFL (English as a foreign language) learners are those who learn

English mainly in school and have little contact with English outside of the classroom. Japanese students learning English in Japanare examples of EFL learners. On the other hand, ESL (English as asecond language) learners are those who study English where English is used in daily lives.

ῌ 67 ῌ

3

The basic notion of ‘speech act’ has been introduced by two
philosophers, Austin (1962) and Searle (1969), based on the belief

that language is used to perform actions. In the field of ‘Interlanguage Pragmatics,’ various speech acts, such as apology, requests,
refusals, and compliments, have been studied.
4

Beebe et al. (1990) break down refusal responses into semantic

formulas (those expressions which can be used to perform a refusal)
and adjuncts (expressions which accompany a refusal).
5

Grice (1975) lists “Be brief (avoid prolixity)” as one of the submax-

ims of manner.
6

Brown and Levinson (1987) define ‘face’ as the public self-image

that every member wants to claim for himself. Certain kinds of acts
intrinsically threaten face, and they are called face-threatening acts
(FTAs). Refusal is a FTA which threatens especially the hearer’s
face, and politeness strategies need to be used to minimize FTAs.
7

Austin (1962) subcategorizes speech acts into the following threecomponent acts:
i. locutionary act ------------ the production of sounds and words
with meanings
ii. illocutionary act ---------- the issuing of an utterance with conventional

communicative

force

achieved “in saying something”
iii. perlocutionary act ----- the actual effect achieved “by saying
something”
The intention of the speaker behind the utterance is called ‘illocu-

ῌ 68 ῌ

tionary force.’ For example, when X says to Y “are you hungryῌ”, X
may intend the question as a request for Y to make X a sandwich.

REFERENCES
Austin, J. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Bachman, L. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. 1996. Pragmatics and Language Teaching: Bringing Pragmatics and Pedagogy Together. In L.F. Buton (ed.),Pragmatics and Language Learning, 7, 21-39. Univ. of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign.

Beebe, L. M., T. Takahashi, and R. Uliss-Weltz. 1990. Pragmatictransfer in ESL refusals. In S. D. Krashen, R. Scarcella and
E. Andersen (eds.), On the Development of Communicative
Competence in a Second Language, 55-73. Cambridge, MA:
Newbury House.

Blum-Kulka, S. and E. Olshtain. 1986. Too many words: Length ofutterance and pragmatic failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition Vol. 8, 165-180.

Brown, P. and S.C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in
Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, A. D. 1996. Speech Acts. In S. L. McKay and N. H. Hornberger

῍ 69 ῍(eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching, 383-420.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Coulmas, F. 1981. ‘Poison to your soul’: Thanks and apologies contrastively viewed. In F. Coulmas (ed.), Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations
and Prepatterned Speech, 69-91. The Hague: Mouton.

Ellis, R. 1994. Pragmatic aspects of learner language. In The Study ofSecond Language Acquisition, 159-190. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Grice, P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan(eds.), Syntax and Semantics (vol. 3: Speech Acts), 41-58. New
York: Academic Press.
Kasper, G. 1997. Can pragmatic competence be taught῍ (NetWork ῌ6) ῎HTML document http://www.lll.hawaii.edu/nflrc/Netwww.lll.hawaii.edu/nflrc/NetWorks/NW6/῏. Honolulu: Univ. of Hawaii, Second LanWorks/
guage Teaching & Curriculum Center. Accessed October 1,
2003.

Kasper, G. and S. Blum-Kulka. (eds.) 1993. Interlanguage Pragmatics.
Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Kasper, G. and K.R. Rose. 1999. Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 19, 81-104.

Kimura, K. 1994. The Multiple Functions of Sumimasen. Issues inῐ 70 ῐ

Applied Linguistics, Vol.5 No.2, 279-302.

Kondo, S. 1997. The development of pragmatic competence byJapanese learners of English: Longitudinal study on Interlanguage Apologies. Sophia Linguistica, 41. 265-284.

Kondo, S. 2000. Interlanguage refusals: Facework by Japanese EFL
learnersandAmericans.

PublicationsofAkenohoshi

Women’s Junior College, 18, 47-62.

Kondo, S. 2001. Instructional Effects on Pragmatic Development:
Refusal by Japanese EFL Learners. Publications of Akenohoshi Women’s Junior College, 19, 33-51.

Kumagai, T. 1993. Remedial Interactions as Face-Management: The
Case of Japanese and Americans. In honor of Tokuichiro
Matsuda: Papers contributed on the occasion of his sixtiethbirthday. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.

Kumatoridani, T. 1993. Hatsuwa kooi taishoo kenkyuu no tame no
toogoteki apurouchi: Nichi-eigo no wabi o rei ni ῌAn integrative approach to contrastive speech-act analysis: A case of
apologies in Japanese and English῍. Nihongo Kyooiku. 79,
26-40

Rose, K.R. 1994. Pragmatic Consciousness-Raising in an EFL Context. In L.F. Buton & Y. Kachru (eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning Monograph Series, 5, 52-63. Univ. of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign.

῎ 71 ῎Rose, K.R. and G. Kasper (eds.) 2001. Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tateyama, Y. 2001. Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic
routines: Japanese sumimasen. In K.R. Rose & G. Kasper(eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tateyama, Y., G. Kasper, L. Mui, H. Tay, and O. Thananart. 1997.
Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatics routines. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 8, 163-177. Univ. of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign.

Yoshida, K., M. Kamiya, S. Kondo, and R. Tokiwa. 2000. Heart toHeart: Overcoming Barriers in Cross-Cultural Communication.
Macmillan Languagehouse.

ῌ 72 ῌ