Speech Act Data and the Teaching of English Speaking toJapanese Students
Reiko Onoof CCSARP, the team members of the projectIntroduction
It is reported that, of the four English

conducted their own research focusing on theskills, the one which Japanese students wantspeech act realization of particular languages

to learn the most and the one which they

and/or native and nonnative varieties of thethink they are the weakest in, is bothsame language.

speaking (Tsuchiya and Hirono, 2000).

This

example, examined whether conventional

paper, therefore, investigates the reasonsindirectness in request had the same value

why Japanese students are not good at

across languages and cultures by looking at

speaking English and suggests effective ways

Australianof teaching it.

French, and Argentinean Spanish.

Speaking ability in this study

Blum-Kulka (1989), forEnglish,Hebrew,

Canadian
Resultsrefers to communicative competence, whichshowed that conventional indirectness wasinvolves sociocultural ability, the speaker’s

the most frequently used request strategy inability to choose appropriate speech act

all the languages examined and that all thesestrategies

languagesinacertainsituation,

andsharedbasic

properties

ofsociolinguistic ability, the speaker’s skill toconventional indirectness.

However, results

select appropriate linguistic forms to realize

also revealed cross-linguistic differences inthe speech act strategies chosen by thefactors such as a choice of perspective (i.e.

speaker (Cohen, 1996).

speaker oriented, hearer oriented, etc.) andthe use of downgraders. 1

1. CCSARP and Second Language Teaching
Since speech act theory was proposed byBlum-Kulka(1989), therefore, pointed out that “theuniversalityofconventional

indirectness

philosophers such as Austin (1962) andshould be regarded as a matter of shared

Searle (1969), a number of cross-cultural

pragmatic properties, rather than as aspeech act studies have been carried out inmatter of cross-linguistic equivalence in form

an attempt to apply their findings to second

andlanguageteaching.

influential

studies

Cross-Cultural

Speech

(37)

and

that

“pragmatic

of

the

most

adjustments” (65) between two codes were

them

is

the

called for in learning or using a second

Oneofusage”

Act

Realization

language,

as

well

as

in

translating

Project, or CCSARP (Blum-Kulka, House,

conventional indirect strategies from one

and

makes

language into another, so as not to cause across-linguistic comparisons of two kinds ofserious breakdown of communication or

Kasper,1989),

which

speech act behavior, requests and apologies,
by means of a discourse completion test, or a
DCT, with 16 situations designed to elicit
these speech acts.

Within the framework

Syntactic downgraders include negation (e.g. Can’t
you . . ?), aspect (e.g. I’m wondering if . . . ), tense (e.g.
I was wondering if . . .) etc. and lexical and phrasal
downgraders contain politeness marker (e.g. please),
downtoner (e.g. Could you possibly . . ?) etc (SeeBlum-Kulka, et al, 1989).
1－ 21 －

“pragmatic

failure”(65).

RintellandProfessor/

Mitchell (1989) compared the responses of

EXTENSION:

both native and nonnative speakers ofClassmate

English elicited by means of a written DCT

DICTIONARY:

ask the professor to give heran extension of homework/with those obtained by means of a role play

ask a classmate sitting next
to

her

to

lend

her

a

dictionary during classmethod to see if there were any differences
between written and oral speech act data.

The description of Professor / REPETITION,

They found that the oral responses offor example, was as follows:

nonnative speakers of English were longer
than their written responses, the former

Professor / REPETITION:

containing

During class, the professor asks you a question,

more

and

longersupportive

moves, 2 hesitations, and repetiton.

Since

the meaning of which you don’t understand verysuch a difference was not found in thewell.

responses of native speakers of English, they

What would you say?

considered that the difference in length(See Appendix for the other three situations.)

You want her to repeat the question.

between written and oral responses ofnonnative speakers of English was due toAs mentioned above, I administered six

their lack of fluency and of confidence inkinds of DCTs, which included three oral

appropriateness when using English.

DCTs and three written ones.

For this

paper, I used four kinds of them, all three
2. Methodoral DCTs and one of the written ones, since

In order to understand English speaking

my primary concern in this paper was toability of Japanese students, I used six kinds

investigate

of DCTs, each of which contained the same

Japanese students.

academic

types and participants.

DCT 1 and DCT 2

wereEnglishsituations

requests and apologies.

intendedtoelicitThe questionnaires

Englishconducted

speaking

abilityofTable 1 shows DCT
inalthoughincluded ten situations which students wereJapanese was used for test instructions.

likely to experience at university or college.

The only difference between DCTs 1 and 2

For this paper, I chose four of them, which

was that DCT 1 was an oral test, while DCT

are listed below.

2 was a written one. DCT 3 was a Japanese

These situations were

aimed to elicit requests.

version of DCT 1, that is, the language used
for both test instructions and responses in

Professor/

REPETITION:Classmate
REPETITION:/

ask the professor to repeat

DCT 3 was Japanese.

the question in class

I also administeredan oral DCT to native speakers of English to

ask the partner to repeat

compare the data of Japanese participants tothe question in pair workthat of native speakers of English.

This test,

DCT 5, was the same as DCT 1 except that
Mitigating supportive moves include preparator(e.g. I’d like to ask you something . . ), grounder(reasons, explanations, or justifications for the
speaker’s request, either preceding or following it)
etc (See Blum-Kulka et al, 1989).

2

test instructions were made in English in
DCT 5.

－ 22 －

Table 1

DCT Types and Participants

DCT Types
DCT

Oral/Written

Participants

Language used for

Language used forGroup

Nativetest instructions

responses

Name

Language

No.

Number

DCT 1

oral

Japanese

EnglishJLE

Japanese

30

DCT 2

writtenJapanese

EnglishJLE-w

Japanese

20

DCT 3

oral

JapaneseJapanese

NSJJ

Japanese

17

DCT 5

oral

EnglishEnglishNSE

English24

DCT = discourse-completion test; JLE = Japanese learners of English taking an oral DCT; JLE-w = Japaneselearners of English taking a written DCT; NSJJ = native speakers of Japanese taking an oral DCT in Japanese;
NSE = native speakers of English taking an oral DCT

The Japanese participants were 67 female

English responses to DCT 1 were comparedato Japanese oral responses to DCT 3

They were(administered to NSJJ) to see how different

divided into three groups, JLE (Japanesethe performance in the target language waslearners of English taking DCT 1, the oralfrom that in the native language.

test), JLE-w (Japanese learners of English

alltaking DCT 2, the written test), and NSJJ

participants were compared to oral responses(native speakers of Japanese taking DCT 3,

by native speakers of English, or NSE,

the

and

consisting of 24 undergraduate students (8JLE consisted offemale students and 16 male students) at a

30 participants; JLE-w, 20; and NSJJ, 17.

college in Swarthmore, the United States.

DCT 1 was administered at a language

They completed DCT 5 orally at a language

laboratory to the JLE group, whose members

laboratory.

were asked to listen to the tape-recordedAll

first-year

undergraduate

students

women’s college in Kobe, Japan.

Japaneseversionresponding in Japanese).

of

DCT

at

1,

the

responses

thebyresponses

the

were

Finally,
Japaneseanalyzeddescriptions of the situations and say what

according to the CCSARP Coding Manual,

they would have said in English in each

which had been developed to analyze speechsituationa

act data in CCSARP (Cross-Cultural Speech

I regarded the

Act Realization Project) (Blum-Kulka et al,extemporaneously

thirty-second time limit.

withinresponses to this DCT, namely DCT 1, as1989) (See Section 1).

data representing English speaking ability of

responses in English by JLE and JLE-w wereJapanese students.

These responses were

evaluated by three native speakers of English

then compared to written responses fromand all of those in Japanese by NSJJ were

DCT 2 (administered to JLE-w) to examine if

evaluatedbythere were any differences between oral

Japanese.

Both the native speakers of

responses made extempore and written ones

English and those of Japanese had either MA

formulated using ample time.

or PhD degrees.

Next the－ 23 －

three

In addition, all of thenativespeakersof3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Reasons for JLE’s use of direct strategies
situations.

Based on the CCSARP Coding Manual

Note that the data of JLE(Blum-Kulka et al, 1989) and Rose and Ono(Japanese learners of English) and that of(1995), I categorized request strategies used

NSE (native speakers of English) are in bold

for

of

Gothic type since my main focus is on

directness, or “the degree to which thecomparing the request strategies chosen by

speaker’s illocutionary intent is apparent

JLE when using English to those employed by

from

NSE.

the

responses

thelocution”

into

three

levels(Blum-Kulka

et

al,

Overall, there was one big difference

1989:278): direct, as in “(Please) repeat the

between the data of JLE and that of NSE,

conventionally indirect, as inthat is, while NSE overwhelmingly chosequestion”;

andconventionally indirect strategies for all thenonconventionally indirect, or hint, as in “I

situations, JLE selected direct strategies as

don’t quite understand your question.”well as conventionally indirect ones for every“Couldyou(please)repeatthat?”;

situation.

Brown and Levinson (1987/1978) point

For Professor / REPETITION,

out that a request is a speech act which

while 91.7% of NSE employed conventionallythreatens the hearer’s negative face and thatindirect strategies, 41.4% of JLE chose direct

one of the strategies to minimize thisstrategies and 27.6%, conventionally indirect

face-threatening act (i.e. negative politenessones.

strategies) is using conventionally indirect

requests made by NSE were conventionallystrategies in the request.

Leech (1983)

indirect, whereas a half of the requests mademaintains that the higher the degree of

by JLE were conventionally indirect, arequest indirectness is, the easier the hearer

quarter of them being direct.

can say “No” to the speaker making a request/ REPETITION, while 75% of NSE choseof the hearer, and that the speaker’s attemptconventionally indirect strategies (only 4.2%,

to make the hearer say “No” easily minimizes

direct strategies, and 20.8%, others), 63.3% of

the hearer’s imposition and thus raises theJLEdegree of negative politeness.

conventionally indirect ones, and 16.7%,

For example,

For Professor / EXTENSION, all theuseddirectFor Classmate

strategies,20%,

it is easier for the hearer to say “No” to “Canothers.

And for Classmate / DICTIONARY,

you answer the phone?” or “Could you

95.8%

of

possibly answer the phone?” than to “Answer

indirect strategies (and 4.2%, hint); 53.1%

the phone” or “I want you to answer theand 46.9% of JLE, on the other hand, selected

phone.” The former involves conventionallyconventionally indirect strategies and direct

indirect strategies whereas the latter, directones respectively.

NSE

employed

conventionallyindirect

One of the reasons why JLE used direct

strategies, therefore, are generally consideredstrategies where almost all NSE choseto be more polite request strategies thanconventionally indirect ones may be that

direct ones.

English sentences realizing conventionallystrategies.

Conventionally

Table 2 shows the frequency distribution

indirect strategies were so difficult for JLE toof request strategies used for all the four

make that they had no choice but to use direct－ 24 －

strategies.

Especially for Professor / EXTENSION, where

Typical conventionally indirectwiththe hearer (i.e. the professor) is dominant, notmodals such as “Could you do X?” and “Would

only all NSE but also 94.1% of NSJJ (native

it be all right if I did X?”, whereas a typicalspeakers of Japanese responding in Japanese)form of direct requests is the imperative suchselected conventionally indirect strategies;

as “(Please) do X,” which is simpler than the

however, 25% of JLE, and 20% of even JLE-w

interrogative with modals.

The data of(Japanese learners of English taking theProfessor / EXTENSION and Classmate /written DCT), who had ample time to

DICTIONARY

formulate requests, chose direct strategies.

requests

involvethecaninterrogative

support
Table 2

thisreason.

Percentage Frequency of Request Strategies for All Situations
Request Strategies

Situations

Professor / REPETITION

Professor / EXTENSIONClassmate / REPETITIONClassmate / DICTIONARY

ConventionallyIndirect

DirectGroups

Hint

Others

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

JLE

n=29

41.4

12

27.6

8

6.9

2

24.1

7

JLE-w

n=21

71.4

15

28.6

6

0

0

0

0

NSJJ

n=17

64.7

11

35.3

6

0

0

0

0

NSE

n=24

0

0

91.7

22

0

0

8.3

2

JLE

n=16

25

4

50

8

0

0

25

4

JLE-w

n=15

20

3

73.3

11

6.7

1

0

0

NSJJ

n=17

0

0

94.1

16

5.9

1

0

0

NSE

n=24

0

0

100

24

0

0

0

0

JLE

n=30

63.3

19

20

6

0

0

16.7

5

JLE-w

n=19

63.2

12

26.3

5

0

0

10.5

2

NSJJ

n=22

31.8

7

40.9

9

0

0

27.3

6

NSE

n=24

4.2

1

75

18

0

0

20.8

5

JLE

n=32

46.9

15

53.1

17

0

0

0

0

JLE-w

n=20

55

11

45

9

0

0

0

0

NSJJ

n=17

23.5

4

76.5

13

0

0

0

0

NSE

n=24

0

0

95.8

23

4.2

1

0

0

JLE = Japanese learners of English; JLE-w = Japanese learners of English taking a written DCTNSJJ = native speakers of Japanese responding in Japanese; NSE = native speakers of English

JLE’s tendency to choose direct strategies

41.4% of JLE and 71.4% of JLE-w but also

may also have been influenced by their native

64.7% of NSJJ made direct requests.

language,

Classmate / REPETETION, where 75% ofJapanese.

For

Professor/

REPETITION, where 91.7% of NSE chose

NSE

conventionally indirect requests, not only

strategies (and only 4.2% of them chose direct－ 25 －

employed

conventionallyFor

indirectones), about 63% of both JLE and JLE-w

previous

selected direct strategies.

strategies are generally considered to be more

NSJJ

applied

Although 40.9% ofconventionallysection,conventionallyindirect

polite request strategies than direct ones, I

indirectwondered why NSJJ had employed direct

strategies, 31.8% still used direct ones.

strategies to ask the professor, who had
3.2. Polite vs. plain forms of requests inhigher social status than them, for repetition

Japaneseof her question in spite of the fact that they

In section 3.1., I provided the two possible

had favored conventionally indirect strategies

reasons why JLE used direct strategies far

to ask the classmate, whose status had been

more frequently than NSE for all theequal to theirs, for repetition of her question.

One of them was that direct

In order to find the answer to this question,

requests were syntactically easier for JLE to

I investigated how both direct requests andmake than conventionally indirect ones, theconventionally indirect ones in Japaneseother being that their native language,

made by NSJJ for Professor / REPETITION

Japanese, influenced them to choose direct

had been evaluated by the three educatedstrategies.

native speakers of Japanese.

situations.

In this section, I will focus my

The evaluators

attention on the latter, the influence ofwere provided the list of randomly orderedJapanese.

requests made by NSJJ and were asked to

As discussed in 3.1., JLE’s tendency to use

rate each request on a scale of 1 to 5 in terms

direct strategies for Professor / REPETITION

of (a) sociolinguistic appropriateness (e.g. “X

was due to the influence of their nativeshite kudasai” [Please do X] vs. “X shite

language,

Japanese,

preferred

directbecause

NSJJ

also

kudasai masuka?” [Could you please do X?])

strategies(64.7%)

toand (b) linguistic acceptability (i.e. to whatconventionally indirect ones (35.3%) when

extentmakingForsyntactically and semantically acceptable).

Classmate / REPETITION, the same kind of

Score 5 showed sociolinguistically the mostrequest situation, however, NSJJ preferredappropriate

conventionally indirect strategies (40.9%) to

acceptable, and 1, the least appropriate anddirect ones (31.8%).

the least acceptable.

requestsinJapanese.

Since, as I stated in the
Table 3theirrequests

andarelinguisticallylexically,

the

most

Evaluation of Requests by NSJJ for Professor / REPETITION
Socio. (5)Ling. (5)Total Scores (10)Conventionally Indirect requests

n=6

3.89

3.78

7.67

Direct requests

n=11

4.00

4.24

8.24

Socio. = Sociolinguistic appropriateness; Ling. = Linguistic acceptability
Figures in parentheses = highest scores

Table 3 shows the results of the evaluation

REPETITION.

of Japanese conventionally indirect and direct

directrequests

evaluated

by

NSJJ

for

Professor/－ 26 －

Here I wondered again why

requests
than

had

been

more

conventionallyhighlyindirectrequests (8.24 vs. 7.67 points).

conventionally indirect requests in Japanese;

I looked ateach of the conventionally indirect and direct

one was polite, the other being plain.

Whenrequests, therefore, and found two points.

I divided NSJJ’s conventionally indirect

First, the direct requests made by NSJJ wererequests into two, those with polite forms andrather polite because 63.6% of them ended

those without them (i.e. plain forms), then thewith kudasai, as in “mô ichido itte kudasai”

results turned out to be different from the(‘Please repeat that’), which indicated a polite

ones in Table 3.

A revised version of thekudasai is the polite imperative

results is shown in Table 4, in which theform of kudasaru, the honorific form of kureru

conventionally indirect requests with polite[‘give (me)’], and is used as an auxiliary.

forms

request.

The(<Polite>)

are

the

most

highlyrest of the direct requests (36.4%) included

evaluated (8.33 points), the direct requests

onegaishimasu,

follow

as

“mô

in

ichido

them

(8.24

points),andtheonegaishimasu” (‘Once more, please’), whichconventionally indirect requests with plain

also showed a polite request.

forms (<Plain>) are evaluated the lowest

Second, not all(7.00 points).

conventionally indirect requests in Japanese
were polite.

That is, there were two kinds ofTable 4

Evaluation of Requests by NSJJ for Professor / REPETITION <Revised>

Requests

ExamplesConventionally Indirect

mô ichido itte itadake-masen ka?

<Polite>‘Could you please repeat that?’

Conventionally Indirect

mô ichido itte morae-masen ka?

Socio. (5)Ling. (5)Total Scores (10)

n=3

4.33

4

8.33

n=3

3.44

3.56

7.00

n=11

4.00

4.24

8.24

‘Could you repeat that?’<Plain>mô ichido itte kudasai.

Direct‘Please repeat that.’
Socio. = Sociolinguistic appropriateness; Ling. = Linguistic acceptability ; Figures in parentheses = highest scores

The results shown in Table 4 imply that,you please repeat that?’), or humble forms

in Japanese, requests with direct strategies

such as itadake-masu/masen ka,4 as in “môcan be used to express a certain level ofichido itte itadake-masu ka?” (‘Could you

politeness, while requests with conventionallyplease repeat that?’), then they are polite andindirect strategies are not always appropriate

thus appropriate for situations such as

to show politeness.

Professor / REPETITION.

If conventionally indirect

If, however,requests take polite forms, either honorificconventionally indirect requests are in plain

forms such as kudasai masu/masen ka,3 as informs such as kure masu/masen ka, 5 as in“mô ichido itte kudasai masen ka?” (‘Could“mô ichido itte kure masen ka?” (‘Could you
repeat that?’), and morae-masu/masen ka, 63

masu: formal auxiliary; masen: negative of masu;ka:sentence-final

interrogative

particle

indicating

the4

itadake-: humble form of morae- (See Note 6)

5

kure: imperative form of kureru

6morae-: auxiliary following the te-form of verbs－ 27 －

as in “mô ichido itte morae-masu ka?”, thenindirect requests and two types of direct ones

they may not be as appropriate as direct

in Japanese.

requests with kudasai, as in “mô ichio itteexamples of the plain forms of conventionallykudasai.”

indirect requests, “mô ichido itte kure-hen?”(See e.g. Makino and Tsutsui,

Note that the last two(hen: nai ‘not’ in Kansai dialect) and “mô1989, 1995 for Japanese grammar.)
Table 5 summarizes the relationshipichido itte kureru?”, and the plain direct

between request strategies and politeness inrequest, “mô ichido itte” (‘Repeat that’), areJapanese for Professor / REPETITION andinformal requests made for Classmate /Classmate / REPETITION.

REPETITION.

As shown in thistable, there are two types of conventionally
Table 5

Relationship between Request Strategies and Degree of Politeness in Japanesefor Professor / REPETITION and Classmate / REPETITION

more(I) get / receive (from someone)

polite(someone) gives (me)Polite /Request Strategies

Plain

Translation

itadake-masen ka?

kudasai masen ka?

Conventionally Indirect࠸ࡓࡔࡅࡲࡏࢇ࠿ࠋ

ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࡲࡏࢇ࠿ࠋ

‘Could you please repeat

itadake-masu ka?

humble࠸ࡓࡔࡅࡲࡍ࠿ࠋ

kudasai masu ka?
ࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࡲࡍ࠿ࠋ

honorific

politethat?’

form

kudasai.

Directࡃࡔࡉ࠸ࠋ‘Please repeat that.’

mô ichido itte

morae-masen ka?

kure masen ka?

Conventionally Indirect[more once say]ࡶࡽ࠼ࡲࡏࢇ࠿ࠋ

ࡃࢀࡲࡏࢇ࠿ࠋ

‘Could you repeat that?’ࡶ࠺୍ᗘゝࡗ࡚

morae-masu ka?

kure masu ka?

ࡶࡽ࠼ࡲࡍ࠿ࠋ

ࡃࢀࡲࡍ࠿ࠋ

‘kure hen? (= kure nai?)

plainࡃࢀ࡬ࢇࠋ㸦= ࡃࢀ࡞࠸ࠋ㸧form

Can you repeat that?’kureru?
ࡃࢀࡿࠋ

lessDirectpolite‘Repeat that.’

The fact that there are two types ofwhere a high degree of politeness is required.

conventionally indirect requests and two types

In some situations, however, direct requests

of direct ones in Japanese then may account for

can be more polite and thus more appropriate

JLE’s tendency to use direct strategies where

to use than conventionally indirect requests if

almostthe former include polite forms but the latter

all

NSE

indirect strategies.

employed

conventionally

In Japanese, as described

does not.

This can explain why 64.7% of NSJJ

in Table 5, conventionally indirect requests

chosewith polite forms are the most appropriate

REPETITION－ 28 －

directstrategies
and

40.9%

for
of

Professor
them

/

used

conventionallyindirectstrategies

for

Acts

and

supportive

moves(reasons,

When using

explanations, etc) had been rated more highlyEnglish, however, JLE should have known that,than those consisting solely of Head Acts.

for Professor / REPETITION, for instance,

That is, for Professor / EXTENSION, forconventionally indirect requests such as “Could

instance, requests such as “Excuse me, I did myyou please repeat that?” were more appropriate

homework, but my computer printer was

and were used much more frequently thanbroken, so I couldn’t print my homework.

direct requests such as “Please repeat that.”

can I bring my homework tomorrow?” wereClassmate / REPETITION.

So

rated much more highly than requests without
3.3. Application of the findings to teaching of

any supportive moves such as “May I bring theEnglish speaking to Japanese students

paper tomorrow?”

This suggests that whenteaching

speaking

The results of this study have revealed that

EnglishtoJapanese

JLE tend to transfer their norms of Japanese to

students, teachers should make them realize

their target language, English, when using it.

that the learning of English speaking does not

This may sometimes cause “pragmatic failure,”mean memorizing and saying many single

however (Blum-Kulka, 1989:65).

In theEnglish expressions but involves learningteaching of English speaking to Japanesemany sets of English expressions on a discourse

students,

level and using them appropriately according totherefore,

itissuggestedthat

teachers help their students with “pragmaticsocial contexts and/or situations.

adjustments” (Blum-Kulka, 1989:65) between
English and Japanese by showing them thatConclusion

there are some differences between the two

In this paper, I have investigated thelanguages in realizing speech acts and making

reasons why Japanese students often violatethem aware that the relationship between

pragmatic norms while speaking English andpoliteness and indirectness is not universal but

attempted to find effective ways of correcting

varies from language to language and/or

their errors.

culture to culture.

DCTs to elicit requests in English from both

By conducting three kinds of

It should be noted in addition that, inJapanese and American students and one DCT

making requests in their target language, forto elicit requests in Japanese from Japaneseexample, learners may not be able to attainstudents, I have found that Japanese students‘pragmatic success’ if they only use a Head Act,

tend to transfer their norms of Japanese to

the minimal unit required to realize a request.

English when making requests in English.

Although conventionally indirect strategies arehaveconsidered to be more polite than directteachers help their Japanese students withstrategies in English, using only Head Acts

“pragmatic adjustments” between English andrealizing the former will not always be

Japanese and that they encourage theirsufficient. When looking at JLE’s responses instudents to learn many sets of English

English and evaluation scores given to them byexpressions on a discourse level and use them

the three educated native speakers of English,

appropriately.

I found that the requests including both Head

－ 29 －

suggested,

therefore,

that

I

EnglishFor future studies, ‘refusals’, another kind

Makino, S., and Tsutsui, M. (1989).

of speech acts, should be researched for better

Basic Japanese Grammar.

understanding of English speaking ability ofTimes.

Japanese students and more effective ways ofTokyo: The Japan

Makino, S., and Tsutsui, M. (1995).

the teaching of English speaking to them.

A Dictionary of

A Dictionary ofIntermediate Japanese Grammar.

Tokyo: The

Japan Times.
Rintell, E. M., and Mitchell, C. J. (1989). Studying
This paper is based on the oral presentation with therequests and apologies: An inquiry into method.

same title by Reiko Ono and Yoshiko Jo for the Ninth

In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, and G. Kasper (eds.),

International Conference on World Englishes held at

Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies.

the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, U.S.A.

(pp. 248-272).

from October 17th to 20th, 2002.

Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Rose, K. R., and Ono, R. (1995). Eliciting speech act
data in Japanese: The effect of questionnaire type.

Language Learning, 45, 191-223.

References
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words.

Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the

Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, England:

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1989).

Playing it safe: The role ofconventionality in indirectness.

In S. Blum-Kulka,

Cambridge University Press.
Tsuchiya, A., and Hirono, T. (2000).

shin eigo-ka

House, J. and Kasper, G (eds.), Cross-cultural

kyoikuho nyumon. [Introduction to new method of

Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. (pp. 36-70).

English teaching].

Tokyo: Kenkyusha.

Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Appendix: Descriptions of the Three Situations

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., and Kasper, G. (1989).
Investigating

cross-cultural

introductory overview.
House,

andG.

pragmatics:

An

In S. Blum-Kulka, J.

Kasper(eds.),

Cross-cultural

Classmate / REPETITION:
You are working on a task with a partner duringclass.

Your partner asks you a question, but you

Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. (pp. 1-34).

don’t understand what she is asking.

Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

to repeat the question.

Brown, P., and Levinson, S. C. (1987).

Politeness:

You want her

What would you say?

Professor / EXTENSION:

Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge:

You did your homework assignment due today using

Cambridge University Press. First published 1978

your computer, but you cannot hand it in because

as part of Esther N. Goody (ed.): Questions andyour printer didn’t work and so you couldn’t print it

Politeness.

out.

Cohen, A. D. (1996). Speech acts. In S. L. McKay and N.
H.

Hornberger(eds.),

Sociolinguistics

andYou want the professor to give you an

extension until tomorrow. What would you say?
Classmate / DICTIONARY:

Language Teaching. (pp. 383-420). Cambridge:

You are doing exercises by yourself during class as

Cambridge University Press.

other students are.

Leech, G. N. (1983).
London: Longman.

Principles of Pragmatics.

In the exercises, you find adifficult word, which you want to look up in adictionary.

Since you didn’t bring one with you, youwant a classmate sitting next to you to lend hers toyou.

－ 30 －

What would you say?