Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching

Volume 16 (2025) Issue 2

Exploring Interlanguage Pragmatics: 

An Analysis of Italian Pragmatic Markers in

 Learner Corpora

Katerina Florou (National and Kapodistrian University of Athens) & Dimitris Bilianos (National and Kapodistrian University of Athens)

Abstract

This study examines the use of the Italian pragmatic markers quindi, allora, and dunque in learner and native speaker corpora. While pragmatic markers in English have been extensively studied, Italian remains relatively underexplored, particularly in learner corpora research. To address this gap, we compare the frequency and functions of these markers in the UniC learner corpus, containing essays by Greek learners of Italian (B2-C1 level), and the native speakers’ Coris Corpus. Using a form-to-function methodology, we categorise their usage as semantic markers or as pragmatic devices facilitating cohesion and discourse structuring. The results indicate notable discrepancies between learners and native speakers. Greek learners predominantly use quindi in its semantic function, aligning with grammatical conventions, whereas native speakers employ it more flexibly in pragmatic contexts. Allora appears frequently as a discourse-sustaining marker in native speech but is underused by learners, who associate it more with its temporal meaning. Dunque is rarely utilised by learners, while native speakers use it across various pragmatic functions. Statistical analyses reveal significant differences in distribution, suggesting L1 influence and restricted exposure to natural discourse. This research enhances our understanding of interlanguage pragmatics in Italian, demonstrating how L1 transfer and instructional focus shape learners' pragmatic competence. The findings inform language teaching by highlighting the need for greater emphasis on pragmatic markers in Italian instruction. Enhanced exposure to authentic usage patterns can facilitate learners' development of discourse competence, improving their ability to engage in fluid and natural interactions.

Keywords: Pragmatic markers, learner corpus research, interlanguage studies

1   Introduction

This study addresses a significant research gap by exploring the pragmatic use of Italian markers in learner corpora, particularly focusing on Greek learners of Italian. Although prior research has explored pragmatic markers in English and other major languages, this study is among the first to systematically examine their usage in Italian from a learner corpus perspective, thus offering new insights into L2 Italian pragmatics.

The study of a foreign language requires an examination and analysis of communication, which extends beyond a purely grammatical perspective. This includes the analysis and interpretation of a learner’s interlanguage from a pragmatic standpoint, especially when the language in question has not been extensively studied as a foreign language. In global research, pragmatic studies, particularly those focusing on pragmatic markers, rely heavily on corpus data, primarily from spoken language. Such data facilitate the analysis of their distribution across various communicative contexts and text types (Aijmer, 2004).

This study builds on past research on pragmatic markers in corpora and compares the usage of three Italian language markers in two corpora: one composed of native speakers and one of learners. The results will provide insights into both the interlanguage of learners and the frequency and quality of pragmatic marker usage by both groups, i.e. learners and native speakers.

Research in the field has utilised various corpora, such as the London-Lund Corpus (Aijmer, 2002; Paradis, 2003; Stenstrom, 1990a; Stenstrom, 1990b; Svartvik, 1980) and the Bergen Corpus of London Teenager Language (COLT) (Andersen, 2001; Stenstrom & Andersen, 1996), to study pragmatic markers in spoken discourse. Similarly, the MICASE corpus (Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English) has been used to investigate the use of hedges (Mauranen, 1994), while Van Bogaert (2009) analysed spoken data from the International Corpus of English-Great Britain (ICE-GB). The defining characteristic of corpus-based pragmatic analysis is that it begins with the identification of a specific linguistic form before analysing its function (O’ O’Keeffe, 2018). This form-to-function methodology allows for a detailed study of linguistic elements, such as pragmatic markers, in relation to their frequency, function, and position within a sentence and discourse. This approach can be applied to corpora of native speakers, parallel corpora and learners' corpora, thereby enhancing the accuracy of linguistic analysis.

Smaller-scale studies have also utilised spoken data from authentic conversations. For example, in Kevoe-Feldman, Robinson, and Mandelbaum’s (Kevoe-Feldman et al., 2011) research, data were drawn from recordings of 193 telephone conversations between customer service representatives and customers contacting an electronics company. Their study contributed to understanding how pragmatic factors shape participants’ perceptions of what constitutes a possibly complete speech unit and acceptable turn-taking points. Vaughan & Clancy (2013) argued that smaller, carefully collected, and context-specific corpora – both spoken and written – are particularly significant for pragmatic research. Many pragmatic features, such as deixis and discourse markers, play a fundamental role in communication. These features are often realised linguistically in short discourse units that appear frequently across corpora.

The availability of historical corpora, such as A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760 (Kytö & Walker, 2006) has enabled studies on the historical evolution of pragmatic markers in English. This corpus includes dialogues from trials, depositions, plays, instructional texts, and prose, facilitating research on topics like the use of hedges in historical contexts (Culpeper & Kytö, 1999).

Additionally, cross-linguistic studies of pragmatic markers use parallel corpora to allow comparisons between different languages and the identification of equivalent expressions. Such studies have compared English with languages like Swedish and Dutch (Aijmer & Simon-Simon-Vandenbergen, 2003; Simon-Simon-Vandenbergen & Aijmer, 2002/2003).

The development of multimodal corpora has further expanded research perspectives on pragmatic markers, enabling the simultaneous analysis of linguistic and non-linguistic elements. Studies of this type have examined the relationship between gestures and verbal strategies employed in active listening, such as feedback mechanisms designed to enhance interaction in spoken discourse (Knight & Adolphs, 2007).

To refine the research questions further, special attention must be given to the area of comparative analysis, which includes corpora of non-native speakers (learner corpora). These corpora provide insight into the use of pragmatic markers by learners of English as a foreign language. Extensive research in this domain was conducted by Vyatkina & Cunningham (2015). A recent study by Huschova (2021) examined the use of the modal verbs can and could in speech acts produced by learners of English. Her study aimed to analyse syntactic patterns, semantic properties, and pragmatic functions using the Spoken English Corpus of Czech learners. Findings indicated that modal verbs are frequently used as modification mechanisms in indirect speech acts, particularly in conventionalised imperative expressions.

Other studies leveraging learner corpora include Corsetti & Perna (2017), who analysed English adverbs in spoken discourse produced by Brazilian learners of English, focusing on pragmatic aspects and their alignment with CEFR descriptors. Additionally, Buysse (2012, 2017, and 2020) investigated pragmatic markers such as in fact and actually using the LINDSEI corpus, while Gilquin (Gilquin, 2008) studied hesitation markers, and Hasselgren (2002) compared the English pragmatic markers well, sort of, and a bit in a corpus of native speakers and a learner corpus of Swedish-speaking learners. Aijmer (2004) also conducted extensive research on pragmatic markers in spoken learner corpora.

Few studies have explored pragmatic markers in Italian through the use of corpora. These studies have examined syntax, semantics, and usage by native and non-native speakers. Bellato & Sartori (2023) analysed the use of conjunctions and relative adverbs among secondary school students and proposed a guided approach to improve understanding. Branciforti & Duso (2023) examined the distinction between subordinating and coordinating conjunctions in school grammar, emphasising students' challenges in distinguishing between syntactic and textual structures. Ghezzi (2022) investigated three Italian pragmatic markers (un po', così, cioè) in corpora, while an earlier study with Molinelli (2014) examined the markers guarda, prego, and dai to emphasise their role in interaction-based discourse. 

Finally, De Cristofaro, Badan, & Belletti (2024) compared the use of pragmatic markers in Italian as a first (L1) and second language (L2), focusing on their syntactic positioning within sentences. Their findings showed that L1 speakers use pragmatic markers more frequently than L2 learners. Despite having the correct syntax, L2 learners often produce forms that are pragmatically inappropriate due to interference from their L1. This study adopted a cartographic approach and revealed that these markers occupy specific syntactic positions linked to modality. This offers new insights into the syntax-pragmatics interface in second language acquisition.

Overall, research on Italian as a second or foreign language remains limited in terms of pragmatic markers studied through learner corpora.

2    Research Questions

This study seeks to fill a notable gap in the field of interlanguage pragmatics by focusing on Italian, a language that remains underrepresented in learner corpus research. Specifically, we aim to understand how Greek learners of Italian use pragmatic markers compared to native speakers, thereby shedding light on cross-linguistic influence and interlanguage development.

The study of pragmatic markers has been one of the most productive areas in corpus-based research on second language (L2) pragmatics. In particular, numerous studies – primarily in English – have compared the use of pragmatic markers by native (L1) and non-native (L2) speakers, revealing that L2 learners tend to use these markers less frequently or with less variety than native speakers in similar contexts (Aijmer, 2004; Gilquin, 2008). This finding, combined with the observation that words with pragmatic functions are often interpreted purely semantically and the fact that very few studies have examined learner corpora for Italian, leads us to formulate the following research questions for a study comparing learner and native speaker corpora: 

1. What are the frequencies of quindi, allora, and dunque in the learner corpus and the native speaker corpus?
2. To what extent do non-native speakers use these discourse markers pragmatically (e.g., as cohesion markers, silence fillers) compared to native speakers?
3. Are there instances of overuse or underuse of specific markers in the learner corpus?
4. How does the learners’ respective native language (L1) influence their use of these discourse markers?

3   Corpora and Data 

3.1 Learner Corpus 

UniC is a learner corpus that includes written productions of non-native speakers of Italian with different levels of linguistic proficiency, ranging from B2 to C1 (according to the Common European Framework). Each sub-corpus represents a small collection of texts developed over the course of an academic year as part of a larger corpus, UniC (University Corpus). UniC was created primarily for studies on Greek learners of Italian as a foreign language and their interlanguage development (Florou, 2024). The dataset under consideration consists of essays written by university students across four different academic years. These essays were produced at an institution of higher education in a supervised environment, thereby ensuring that the style of writing is purely human:

Table 1: University Corpus and Sub-Corpora

All texts were saved in plain format so as to maintain consistency across all university years. The texts from the years 2021 and 2022 were designated by the name of each learner, whereas text files from 2023 were labelled sequentially. (e.g., 001.txt, 002.txt), while those from 2024 included the year in their filenames (e.g., 2024-001.txt). This labeling system facilitated easy differentiation between the four datasets.

3.2 Native Speakers’ Corpus

The Coris Corpus is a corpus of data from authentic conversations of native Italian speakers. As described by the pioneers of the project, it is a corpus of written Italian – CORIS – that has been under construction at the Centre for Theoretical and Applied Linguistics of Bologna University (CILTA) since 1998. The project aims to create a representative and sizeable general reference corpus of contemporary Italian, designed to be easily accessible and user-friendly. The Coris Corpus contains 80 million running words and it is updated every two years by means of a built-in monitor corpus (Rossini Favretti, 2000). It consists of a compilation of authentic texts in electronic form, which have been selected on the basis of their representativeness of written Italian. It is aimed at a broad spectrum of potential users, from Italian language scholars to Italian and foreign learners engaged in linguistic analysis based on authentic data and, in a wider perspective, all those interested in intra- and/or interlinguistic analysis. In addition to the established model, a dynamic model (CODIS) has been developed. This model facilitates the selection of sub-corpora relevant to specific research objectives, as well as the dimensions of each sub-corpus, with the intention of adapting the corpus structure to diverse comparative requirements. Several tools have been developed, both for corpus access and for corpus POS tagging and lemmatization (Rossini Favretti, 2000; Rossini Favretti et al., 2002). In this corpus we identify five sub corpora: press, fiction, academic prose, legal and administrative prose, miscellanea, and ephemera in a total of about 165 million words up to 2021.

3.3 Size and Genre

It is important to acknowledge potential methodological limitations due to differences in writing conditions and genres between the two corpora. Learner texts were produced in supervised academic settings; by contrast, the native texts were drawn from written discourse that had occurred in natural settings. These differences could introduce biases that affect the comparability of discourse features such as pragmatic marker usage.

Given that the size of UniC is fixed (105,249 words), as well as the time period of text collection, adjustments are necessary to ensure that the two corpora are as comparable as possible. From UniC, we will use the first three sub-corpora (2021-2023), since the fourth one has not yet been fully completed in terms of resource collection and recording. The total of these sub-corpora is approximately 100,000 words. Similarly, from the Coris Corpus, we will select the subset of texts collected during the latest period 2017-2020, focusing on the text type Miscellanea. It is posited that learners' texts, in which a memory or experience is described, do not belong to a specific text type (e.g., academic writing, correspondence, or business reports).

The Miscellanea sub-corpus for the selected period contains 1,400,000 words (Tamburini, 2022). Despite the disparity in size between the two corpora, it is possible to apply normalization procedures during the analysis of the results in order to balance the differences. Consequently, the results obtained from the search in the learner corpus and the native speakers' corpus will be derived from equivalent data, aligned in terms of size, text type, temporal dimension of language, and discourse form, which, in both cases, is written.

4   Results

4.1 Data Analysis

The Coris Corpus has a search platform with a very user-friendly interface for both users and researchers. However, the search results had to be recorded immediately and processed in an Excel spreadsheet, as unfortunately, there is no option to download them to a device or save them as they are. The data from the learner corpus UniC were processed using the AntConc tool (Anthony, 2014) to search for occurrences of pragmatic markers, count them, and evaluate them within their context.

The first step after uploading the data is the automatic extraction of all instances through keyword search. In the case of allora, 55 occurrences were found in UniC, but 34 of these had allora meaning ‘then’, i.e., as a temporal connector, e.g., Da allora ho cominciato a frequentarli (008.txt). In the Coris Corpus, there were 189 occurrences, but 60 of these were with allora as a temporal connector or even an adjective, e.g., la lettera che fu scritta dall' allora sindaco di Firenze (MONITOR2017_20:6586803). For the case of quindi, there were 91 occurrences in UniC and 748 in the Coris Corpus, while for dunque, there were 4 occurrences in UniC and 211 in the Coris Corpus. The table below presents the normalised results after removing the temporal use of the marker allora:

Table 2: University Corpus and Sub-Corpora

4.2. Categorisation of the Use

While the quantitative data provide a broad overview of usage trends, the qualitative analysis reveals specific learner difficulties. For instance, learners tend to misuse quindi in contexts that require more nuanced discourse functions. Native speaker examples often display layered pragmatic intent, combining coherence and interpersonal strategies, which are largely absent in learner usage. This suggests a gap in both pragmatic awareness and instructional focus.

The categorisation proposed here builds upon Redeker’s (1990) discourse coherence models and on the semantic versus pragmatic source of coherence. It was then partially confirmed by Carter & McCarthy (2006), who distinguished between conjunctions and pragmatic markers. They defined conjunctions as items used to mark logical relationships between words, phrases, clauses, and sentences. Neary-Sundquist (2013) applied this categorisation to English connectors by examining a learner corpus.

Gonzalez (2005) presents a protocol for distinguishing pragmatic markers. First, they are divided into semantic and pragmatic markers. In this distinction, semantic markers indicate logico-semantic, argumentative relations and have referential meaning and a function as conjunctions. In contrast, pragmatic markers can be categorised into two distinct types. Firstly, rhetorical markers are sequential and inferential in nature, serving to guide the speaker's intentions and convey illocutionary force. Secondly, structural markers provide a foundation for maintaining the coherence of the discourse network (Gonzalez, 2005).

A third category of markers as inferential components is also identified, which refers to the macro-function of the marker and is more relevant to spoken language. This third category is deemed unsuitable for use in the categorization of this study. Another category is included, which usually does not concern conjunctions but rather adverbs, adjectives, or other parts of speech: components of intensification (Fiorentini & Sansò, 2017; Pan, 2022). According to Biber (1991), intensifiers are commonly used to modify the semantic force of a word, pushing it either upwards, downwards, or somewhere in between, depending on the language user’s intention in social communication.

A classification system was thus devised for the purpose of analysing and comparing the use of markers in learners' interlanguage and the language of native speakers, as well as every occurrence of quindi, allora, and dunque:

Table 3: Categories of Markers

The subsequent table provides an overview of the utilisation of markers in the context of UniC:

Table 4: Uses of Markers in the UniC

The use of quindi as a logical connector predominates, while, on the other hand, allora appears primarily in its pragmatic function. The subsequent corpus samples demonstrate that specific usages of these markers are accompanied by particular marks of punctuation or collocations:

Semantic use:

I soldi che mi avevano prestato erano molto buoni, allora ho accettato. (Kali2.txt) 

Fortunatamente, Covid non esiste più, quindi è arrivato il momento... (010.txt) 

I risultati sarebbero pronti in tre giorni e dunque, l’unica cosa che potevamo fare era aspettare (SERRH.txt)

Pragmatic use 1:

Non sono mai venuta! Bene, allora devi venire! (GIATSI.txt) 

Concludendo quindi, vorrei dire che sono tornata (BASILEIOY.txt) 

Pragmatic use 2:

Allora perché incontrare il mio cane è stato un momento così importante? (SDRAK.txt) 

Quindi, sarebbe molto faticoso e richiederebbe molto tempo, allora non potrei studiare...(TZANID.txt)

Intensified use:

-Allora, suggerite! -Andiamo in Thailandia. (DIMOU.txt) 

Dunque un disastro! (022.txt) 

In the overall table of the Coris Corpus regarding the use of markers, the distribution of uses per marker varies: 

Table 5: Uses of the Markers in the Coris Corpus

Here, we observe that in some cases, learners align with native speakers. The most significant point is the overall use of dunque. While Greek learners of Italian use it considerably less, we see that in the Coris Corpus, it is extensively used across all categories, though not in a balanced manner.

The following discourse examples provide a clearer understanding of how native speakers use these markers:

Semantic use:

"Che piacere ... ma allora, vuol dire che nella nostra famiglia nasceranno altri bambini (MONITOR2017_20: 6582355)

...sono tarate in partenza, quindi le regole del gioco è come se fossero falsate. (MONITOR2017_20: 6570441)

...ha dunque come obiettivo primario quello di celebrare le potenzialità e la versatilità di un prodotto, (MONITOR2017_20: 6579268)

Pragmatic use 1:

Ecco che allora non si può dire qual è la più buona (MONITOR2017_20: 6571843)

Di conseguenza, quindi, metterei tra parentesi anche questo " odio " generazionale. (MONITOR2017_20: 6570447)

Nonostante, dunque, un gioco non certo entusiasmante, la corazzata di Allegri continua a sorreggersi su una cattiveria,.. (MONITOR2017_20: 6584761)

Pragmatic use 2:

Perché, allora, non provare a seguire un ' alimentazione che contenga con maggior frequenza quegli alimenti... (MONITOR2017_20: 6592452)

E quindi brodetti , paste all ' uovo , passatelli , salumi , arrosti e grigliate di pesce e di carne... (MONITOR2017_20: 6580643)

Vediamo, dunque, ci vuole solamente l ' inserimento di nuove tecnologie... (MONITOR2017_20: 6580720)

Intensified use:

Chi le fu vicino allora? (MONITOR2017_20: 6595812)

Ma quindi quanto sono sicuri i pagamenti digitali ? (MONITOR2017_20: 6575939)

Via dunque lo stereotipo della bambola magra...(MONITOR2017_20: 6593829)

4.3. Comparison of the Two Corpora

To enable a valid comparison between the two corpora, we first normalised the frequencies per 100,000 words, as there were significant differences in corpus size. The learners’ corpus is already approximately 100,000 words in length, meaning its normalided frequency was calculated as follows: (Raw Count / 100000) × 100000 = Raw Count)

For the other corpus, which consists of 1,400,000 words, the normalisation was performed using the formula: (Raw Count / 1400000) × 100000. 

Thus, after normalising the frequencies per 100,000 words, we obtained the following results:

Table 6: UniC Normalised Frequencies

Table 7: Coris Corpus Normalised Frequencies

4.4 Key Findings

An analysis of the corpora reveals distinct differences in how learners and native speakers use common Italian discourse markers:

1. Quindi is significantly overused by learners (68.0 vs. 2.4 per 100,000 words in semantic use).
2. Allora is much more frequent in pragmatic functions for learners compared to native speakers.
3. Dunque is barely used by learners, but native speakers use it more variably.
4. Intensified use is generally low across both corpora.

4.5 Statistical Analysis

In order to validate the aforementioned key findings, it is necessary to employ quantitative techniques, such as:

• The chi-squared test (Chi2) is a statistical procedure that calculates the difference between observed and expected word usage frequencies between learners and native speakers. The result of this calculation is a chi-squared statistic, which is a number that measures how different the actual word usage is from what would have been expected if there were no real difference between learners and native speakers.
• P value, which is used to measure the probability. This coefficient indicates the probability of observing the same word usage patterns (or more pronounced patterns) in the absence of any discernible distinction between learners and native speakers.

Table 8: Statistical Indexes

Chi-squared statistic (52.68): A higher chi-squared value indicates a greater disparity between the observed word usage and the expected usage under the assumption of no difference. In this case, a value of 52.68 suggests a significant difference in how learners and native speakers use these words.

P-value (1.36e-09): A very small p-value (such as the one observed here, which is effectively zero) implies that the likelihood of these differences occurring purely by chance is extremely low. In this study, the p-value provides strong evidence of a genuine difference in word usage between learners and native speakers.

5   Conclusions and Applications

These findings contribute to both theoretical and pedagogical domains. Theoretically, the study enhances our understanding of the syntax-pragmatics interface in L2 Italian, demonstrating how L1 influences shape discourse structuring. Pedagogically, the results advocate for a curriculum that integrates exposure to authentic discourse and explicit instruction on pragmatic marker usage.

The aim of this study was to utilise NS Corpora and Learner Corpora in order to investigate pragmatic markers that may or may not pose a challenge for Greek learners of Italian. The overuse or underuse of certain hedges in pragmatic use is not a straightforward task. This is primarily because there is no automated annotation for pragmatic markers (Biber, 1991). Such an analysis requires the involvement of at least two researchers or one researcher along with a proficient speaker of the target language – in this case, Italian.

However, this is not the sole challenge. Beyond the fact that pragmatic uses are more evident in spoken corpora, they also require extensive data. In a small corpus – of around 100,000 words –, reliability and representativeness are at risk (Vaughan & Clancy, 2013), as is the ability to compare findings with large native speaker corpora.

Nevertheless, it is evident that significant differences were observed between the two corpora. Notably, the annotation of the native speaker corpus was relatively straightforward, considering that the pragmatic or non-pragmatic use of a marker often coincided with the textual structure. Certain patterns were identified, primarily among native speakers and, to a lesser extent, among learners, in relation to punctuation and the placement of markers within sentences. Specifically, two commas often frame quindi and dunque, while allora appears less frequently in this structure when used in a purely pragmatic function. Additionally, a comma is observed before quindi when introducing a conclusive clause, indicating its semantic function.

Non-native speakers, for the most part, adopt specific patterns regarding their most frequently used markers. They tend to use quindi primarily in its semantic function rather than as a pragmatic marker, strictly following grammatical rules. Regarding the learning process, it is hypothesised that quindi has been established in learners’ minds as the equivalent of the Greek ώστε (‘so that’), which explains its predominant use in conclusive statements.

Allora appears less frequently as a marker of sustaining or intensifying discourse in the learner corpus. For learners, its acceptable use is to connect ideas and contribute to text cohesion. Notably, learners follow the rule by using allora not only as a pragmatic marker but also as a temporal adverb, though less frequently as a conclusive conjunction. It is likely that they associate allora with the Greek τότε (‘then’). These observations are not entirely novel when considering language acquisition processes. Corsetti & Perna's (2017) research posits that learners who are first exposed to a foreign language and subsequently trained in it exhibit divergent learning outcomes compared to those who are first trained and only later exposed to it. Given that Greek learners follow the latter path, it is likely that they rely more on rules and stereotypical patterns of assimilation.

This phenomenon has been previously described by Hasselgren (1994) as the Lexical Teddy Bear effect, referring to the overuse of certain words that provide a sense of security to learners. Conversely, dunque appears less frequently among non-native speakers due to its more formal nature and lacks the range of uses observed among native speakers. In fact, dunque is not typically emphasised in language instruction, leading to either a fixed single usage or underuse, a trend that has also been noted in research on other languages, such as English (Trillo, 2002).

Another observation that may be linked to the learners’ native language, Greek, is the position of quindi and allora within the sentence when they function as discourse markers used for bridging speech. They are typically found at the beginning of a clause or sentence. In Greek, the equivalents λοιπόν (‘well’) or τότε (‘then’) appear in the same position with the same function, particularly in spoken and written discourse (Georgakopoulou & Goutsos, 1998).

The findings of the present study have the potential to contribute valuable pedagogical recommendations for the teaching of pragmatic markers to learners of Italian as a foreign language. It is hypothesised that increased exposure to Italian, and its authentic communicative environment, could enhance learners' pragmatic awareness. A secondary significant implication pertains to Italian language instructors, particularly in relation to the teaching strategies they employ in the classroom and the curriculum design they develop.

Acknowledgements 

We would like to extend our gratitude to the students of our department, as well as to the Laboratory of Linguistic Analysis and Computational Processing of Romance Languages, for their invaluable assistance in developing a learner corpus. We would like to express our profound gratitude to our Italian colleagues for their invaluable contribution to the corpus annotation.

References

Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. John Benjamins.

Aijmer, K. (2004). Pragmatic markers in spoken interlanguage. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 3(1), 159–172.

Aijmer, K., & Simon-Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. (2003). Well in English, Swedish and Dutch. Linguistics, 41(6), 1123–1161.

Andersen, G. (2001). Pragmatic markers and sociolinguistic variation. John Benjamins.

Anthony, L. (2014). AntConc (Version 3.4.3) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University.

Archer, D., Aijmer, K., & Wichmann, A. (2013). Pragmatics: An advanced resource book for students. Routledge.

Bellato, A., & Sartori, M. (2023). Verso la scoperta guidata: Congiunzioni e avverbi anaforici, coordinazione e giustapposizione. Italiano LinguaDue, 15(2), 500-515.

Biber, D. (1991). Variation across speech and writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Branciforti, G., & Duso, E. M. (2023). Frase o testo? Congiunzioni e avverbi anaforici nelle grammatiche scolastiche. Italiano LinguaDue, 15(2), 447-474.

Buysse, L. (2012). So as a multifunctional discourse marker in native and learner speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(13), 1764-1782.

Buysse, L. (2017). The pragmatic marker you know in learner Englishes. Journal of Pragmatics, 121, 40-57.

Buysse, L. (2020). ‘It was a bit stressy as well actually’. The pragmatic markers actually and in fact in spoken learner English. Journal of Pragmatics, 156, 28-40.

Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide. Spoken and written English. Grammar and usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Corsetti, C. R., & Perna, C. L. (2017). A corpus-based study of pragmatic markers at CEFR level B1. Letras de Hoje, 52(3), 302-309.

Culpeper, J., & Kytö, M. (1999). Modifying pragmatic force: Hedges in a corpus of Early Modern English dialogues. In A. Jucker, G. Fritz, & F. Lebsanft (Eds.), Historical dialogue analysis (pp. 293–312). John Benjamins

De Cristofaro, E., Badan, L., & Belletti, A. (2024). Discourse markers in L1 and L2 Italian: A cartographic analysis of the sentence-internal position. Second Language Research, 40(3), 643-673.

Fiorentini, I., & Sansò, A. (2017). Intensifiers between grammar and pragmatics. In Exploring Intensification: Synchronic, diachronic and cross-linguistic perspectives (Vol. 189, pp. 173).

Florou, K. (2024). The effect of English as a second foreign language on learning Italian as a third foreign language: A learner corpus-based research in written speech. International Journal of Language and Literary Studies, 6(3), 407-419.

Georgakopoulou, Alexandra & Goutsos, Dionysis. "Conjunctions versus discourse markers in Greek: the interaction of frequency, position, and functions in context" Linguistics, vol. 36, no. 5, 1998, pp. 887-918. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1998.36.5.887

Ghezzi, C. (2022). Vagueness markers in Italian: Age variation and pragmatic change. Milan:  Franco Angeli, 344.

Ghezzi, C., & Molinelli, P. (2014). Italian guarda, prego, dai: Pragmatic markers and the left and right periphery. In A. Jucker, G. Fritz, & F. Lebsanft (Eds.), Discourse Functions at the Left and Right Periphery (pp. 117-150). Brill.

Gilquin, G. (2008). Hesitation markers among EFL learners: Pragmatic deficiency or difference. Pragmatics and corpus linguistics: A mutualistic entente (Vol. 2, pp. 119-149).

González, M. (2005). Pragmatic markers and discourse coherence relations in English and Catalan oral narrative. Discourse Studies, 7(1), 53-86.

Hasselgren, A. (1994). Lexical teddy bears and advanced learners: A study into the ways Norwegian students cope with English vocabulary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 237-258.

Huschová, P. (2021). Modalized speech acts in a spoken learner corpus: The case of and. Topics in Linguistics, 22(1), 27-37.

Kevoe-Feldman, H., Robinson, J. D., & Mandelbaum, J. (2011). Extending the notion of pragmatic completion: The case of the responsive compound action unit. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(15), 3844-3859.

Knight, D., & Adolphs, S. (2007). Multi-modal corpus pragmatics: The case of active listenership. In J. Romero-Trillo (Eds.), Corpus and pragmatics: A mutualistic entente (pp. 175–190). Mouton de Gruyter.

Kytö, M., & Walker, T. (2006). Guide to a Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760. Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 130. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.

Mauranen, A. (1994). They’re a little bit different…Observations on hedges in academic talk. In K. Aijmer & A.-B. Stenström (Eds.), Discourse patterns in spoken and written corpora (pp. 173–197). John Benjamins.

Neary-Sundquist, C. (2013). The development of cohesion in a learner corpus. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 109-130.

O’Keeffe, A. (2018). Corpus-based function-to-form approaches. In Methods in pragmatics (pp. 587).

Pan, Y. (2022). Intensification for discursive evaluation: A corpus-pragmatic view. Text & Talk, 42(3), 391-417.

Paradis, C. (2003). Between epistemic modality and degree: The case of really. Topics in English Linguistics, 44, 191-222.

Redeker, G. (1990). Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(3), 367-381.

Rossini Favretti, R. (2000). Progettazione e costruzione di un corpus di italiano scritto: CORIS/CODIS. In R. Rossini Favretti (Eds.), Linguistica e informatica. Multimedialità, corpora e percorsi di apprendimento (pp. 39-56). Bulzoni.

Rossini Favretti, R., Tamburini, F., & De Santis, C. (2002). A corpus of written Italian: A defined and a dynamic model. In A. Wilson, P. Rayson, & T. McEnery (Eds.), A Rainbow of Corpora: Corpus Linguistics and the Languages of the World (pp. 39-56). Lincom-Europa.

Simon-Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M., & Aijmer, K. (2002/2003). The expectation marker of course. Languages in Contrast, 41(1), 13–43.

Stenström, A.-B. (1990a). Pauses in monologue and dialogue. In J. Svartvik (Eds.), The London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English: Description and research (pp. 211–252). Lund University Press.

Stenström, A.-B. (1990b). Lexical items peculiar to spoken language. In J. Svartvik (Eds.), The London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English: Description and research (pp. 137–175). Lund University Press.

Stenström, A.-B., & Andersen, G. (1996). More trends in teenage talk: A corpus-based investigation of the discourse items cos and innit. In C.E. Percy, C.F. Meyer, & I. Lancashire (Eds.), Synchronic corpus linguistics (pp. 177–190). Rodopi.

Svartvik, J. (1980). ‘Well’ in conversation. In S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, J. Svartvik, & V. Adams (Eds.), Studies in English linguistics for Randolph Quirk (pp. 167–177). Longman.

Tamburini, F. (2022). I corpora del FICLIT, Università di Bologna: CORIS/CODIS, BoLC e DiaCORIS. In Corpora e Studi Linguistici. Atti del LIV Congresso Internazionale di Studi della Società di Linguistica Italiana (pp. 189-197). Società di Linguistica Italiana.

Trillo, J. R. (2002). The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(6), 769-784.

Van Bogaert, J. (2009). A reassessment of the syntactic classification of pragmatic expressions: The positions of you know and I think with special attention to you know as a marker of metalinguistic awareness. In A. Renouf & A. Kehoe (Eds.), Corpus linguistics: Refinements and reassessments. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Vaughan, E., & Clancy, B. (2013). Small corpora and pragmatics. In Yearbook of corpus linguistics and pragmatics 2013: New domains and methodologies (pp. 53-73). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Vyatkina, N., & Cunningham, D. J. (2015). Learner corpora and pragmatics. In Granger, S., Gilquin, G. & Meunir, F., The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research (pp. 281-306). Canbridge: Cambridge University Press.

Authors:

Dr Katerina Florou

Assistant Professor of Corpus Linguistics

Department of Italian Language and Literature

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens

GREECE

Email: katiflorou@gmail.com kathyflorou@ill.uoa.gr

Orcid ID: https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3062-5728 

Dimitris Bilianos

Researcher in Computational Linguistics

Department of Italian Language and Literature

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens

GREECE

Email: dbilianos@ill.uoa.gr 

Orcid ID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-6819-9726 

Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching

Volume 14 (2023) Issue 1

Key Stage 3 ELT Coursebook Speech Acts

Liam D. Wilson (Hong Kong S.A.R.)

Abstract

The area of pragmatics is an important aspect of the languages that we use in our everyday lives. Speech acts are central to this, and they are often initially presented to language learners in the coursebooks (or textbooks) they read and use during their schooling. This investigation analysed which speech acts were targeted for instruction in junior secondary 3 English language coursebooks used in Hong Kong as learners complete Key Stage 3. The pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic information presented in these coursebooks was also examined. It was found that certain speech acts (such as advice) were featured far more frequently than others (such as requests). There is also potential for improvement for future coursebooks when it comes to the pragmalinguistic (such as presenting speech acts as part of model dialogues) and sociopragmatic information (such as presenting speech acts being used in situations involving power distance or level of imposition). Therefore, this research contributes valuable findings regarding the speech acts in ELT coursebooks to the field of second language pragmatics.

Keywords: Speech acts, pragmalinguistic, sociopragmatic, ELT, coursebooks, key stage 3

1   Introduction

The primary area of investigation in this research is the speech acts that are targeted for instruction in English Language Teaching (ELT) coursebooks (or textbooks). The secondary area is the pragmalinguistic description presented, and the third is the sociopragmatic description. Since reading the content of coursebooks is often one of the main ways in which learners observe model examples of their target language, this study focused on coursebooks which are commonly used as learners complete Key Stage 3 at the junior secondary 3 level in Hong Kong. 

1.1 Theoretical Background

Austin and Searle pioneered speech act theory in the 1960s and 1970s (Paltridge 2012). This theory was centred on the idea that language can be used to achieve practical goals. A crucial aspect of speech act theory is the idea of felicity conditions, the idea that if we want our speech acts to be successful in achieving their goals, certain conditions must be met (Austin 1962). These conditions include the interlocutors involved, the context, the timing, and the intention of the person using the speech act (Paltridge 2012).

The theoretical rationale for this study also involves interactionist approaches, particularly the noticing hypothesis, which relates to how learners acquire L2 pragmatics. Schmidt’s (1993) noticing hypothesis is vital to the concept of teaching and learning how to use speech acts using ELT coursebooks. The noticing hypothesis (Schmidt 1993) 

… emphasizes the role of awareness and consciousness in promoting the entry of declarative knowledge into learners’ systems. Hence, the initial phase of input selection and attentional condition is the primary concern of the noticing hypothesis. (Taguchi & Roever 2017: 100)

All linguists are in agreement that some input, such as speech acts presented and targeted for instruction in ELT coursebooks, is needed in order for learners to acquire a second language. According to the noticing hypothesis (Schmidt 1990), the coursebooks analysed in this investigation provide this type of viable source of input. However, this input must be used by the learners, thereby becoming intake, but all of this can only eventuate if the input is noticed first (Schmidt 1993). When considering the area of pragmatics, Schmidt (1993) pointed out that input can only become intake by noticing if learners are aware of, not merely the linguistic forms, but also functional meanings and specific requirements of each individual context (cited in Taguchi & Roever 2017: 53). Even with enhancement, merely exposing learners to input is not likely to lead to the effective acquisition of pragmatic knowledge, as even the appropriate linguistic realisations can be unclear to learners because of sociolinguistic details which can be challenging to grasp (Kasper & Blum-Kulka 1993: 35). Even though noticing is not enough to make this happen by itself, we need noticing to occur to have any chance of input becoming intake (Schmidt 1995, cited in Taguchi & Roever, 2017: 56) Consequently, the 

… primary concern of the noticing hypothesis is the initial phase of input selection and the attentional condition required for its selection. (Taguchi & Roever 2017: 53) 

When educators choose ELT coursebooks that they deem to be suitable for their learners, this is an obvious example of this input selection. Furthermore, Schmidt went on to add that we need to pay attention to any vital pragmalinguistic or sociopragmatic information if we want to learn pragmatics effectively (Kasper & Blum-Kulka 1993: 35).

The learning of pragmatics can begin with the noticing of pragmalinguistic forms as input and then progress to understanding where learners relate those forms to their functions and related sociopragmatic elements (Taguchi & Roever 2017: 58). To learn pragmatics in an additional language, 

… attention to linguistic forms, functional meanings, and the relevant contextual features is required. (Schmidt quoted in Kasper & Blum-Kulka 1993: 35)

2 Literature Review

2.1 Pragmatics

Crystal’s (1997) definition of pragmatics was 

the study of language from the point of view of users, especially the choices they make … and the effects their use of language has on other participants. (quoted in Siegel et al. 2018: 1) 

Studies such as that of Economidou-Kogetsidis (2015) have found that a lack of pragmatic awareness, and the possible resulting pragmatic failure, is a common issue when it comes to using English for important purposes, such as emailing university instructors to make requests. The need for explicit instruction to improve levels of pragmatic awareness has been identified (Bouton 1993). Instructed pragmatics is the study of speech act development in instructional contexts (Flowerdew 2012: 87f). Interlanguage pragmatics involves the ways that students learn to use additional languages (Roever 2014: 295).

2.2 Speech Acts

In keeping with speech act theory, speech acts involve 

… the functional, or communicative, value of utterances, with language used to perform actions…” such as requesting, inviting, or offering. (Flowerdew 2012: 79) 

With speech acts, we must consider the locutionary act, the illocutionary act and the perlocutionary act (Austin 1962). The locutionary act is the literal meaning of the words used, the illocutionary act involves the speaker’s reason or intention for using a speech act, and the perlocutionary act refers to the effect a speech act can have on the thoughts or actions of others (Paltridge 2012: 40)). 

Following the work of Austin (1962), Searle (1976) developed five categories for speech acts (Flowerdew 2012). Representatives are generally used to describe or give opinions regarding the state of the world. Directives attempt to encourage the hearer to do something, through speech acts such as suggesting, advising, or requesting. Commissives are used to express the speaker’s commitment to doing something, like offering or promising. Expressives are used to show the feelings of the speaker, such as thanking to show appreciation or apologising to show regret and/or sympathy. Declarations use first-person singular/plural subjects and the verb which names the action of their speech act to declare a change in a certain state of affairs (Flowerdew 2012: 84).

2.2.1 Pragmalinguistic Knowledge

Pragmalinguistic knowledge involves the actual grammar and vocabulary needed to perform speech acts (Flowerdew 2012: 86). This is in keeping with the noticing hypothesis, as the grammatical form of the input must be consciously noticed in order to acquire the ability to use necessary grammar (Schmidt 1993; 26). Realisation patterns are the actual wording used to exercise strategies (Flowerdew 2012: 84ff). This can involve selecting appropriate modal verbs when attempting the speech act of requests (Can you …? / Could you …?) or small details such as the titles (Ms., Dr.) used to address others. Pragmalinguistic failure is frequently caused by the speaker translating the speech act from their first language (Lee 2018: 5). 

The linguistic realisations used to perform speech acts can be direct, where the wording is commonly associated with that specific speech act, or indirect (Searle 1976: 60). Conventionally indirect speech acts use linguistic realisations commonly associated with a second speech act to perform the first. Non-conventionally indirect speech acts can be very subtle hints at which speech act the speaker is actually trying to perform. Not only non-conventionalised phrases but also conventionalised phrases can be confusing for learners, as the same ones can be used to perform different speech acts (Flowerdew 2012: 82).

2.2.2 Sociopragmatic Knowledge

Sociopragmatic knowledge is the other type of knowledge required to perform speech acts effectively, and this involves the ability to choose appropriate strategies to achieve a pragmatic goal (Flowerdew 2012: 86). Some learners might be able to control their grammar and vocabulary quite proficiently but may struggle with pragmatic uses of it, like those expressed through speech acts (Cohen 1996). As suggested by meaning-based theories and the noticing hypothesis, even if English grammar is used flawlessly, if appropriate expressions are not used in certain contexts, it might not necessarily lead to felicitous communication. This involves factors such as being aware of the relationships between interlocutors. L2 learners must be able to achieve their goals appropriately as social actors who are aware of sociocultural factors (Economidou-Kogetsidis 2015: 416). L2 learners might want to know more about how native English speakers expect certain speech acts to be performed, especially as this can have a huge effect on their lives (Nguyen & Basturkmen 2021: 148).

2.3 ELT Coursebooks

ELT coursebooks which are read and used in schools can be the source of some learners’ first-ever insights into any aspects of English-speaking societies (McKay 2018). The varying norms in different languages and cultures are an important reason why pragmatics, including speech acts, should be a key focus of coursebook improvement (Limberg 2016: 705f). However, a lot of ELT coursebooks seem to focus more on pragmalinguistic knowledge than sociopragmatic, and this situation should be improved (Boxer & Pickering 1995). 

Coursebooks usually feature some speech acts, but oftentimes, certain other speech acts or language functions are not included, at all (Bardovi-Harlig 2001). Prior research has suggested that ELT coursebooks often fail to provide enough sociopragmatic information, including when or why we should use a certain speech act and which linguistic realisations would be most appropriate (Nguyen 2011). Cohen (1996) found that ELT coursebooks tended to focus on one main linguistic realisation for each speech act. If alternatives were included at all, sociopragmatic information on when to use each expression was not evident. In other studies involving speech acts in ELT coursebooks, Diepenbroek & Derwing (2013) and Ulum (2015) found that some of the coursebooks they analysed included speech acts frequently, but that again there was often a lack of context and information presented regarding when to use which expressions.

2.4 The Hong Kong Context

Cantonese is the first language of the majority of the citizens of Hong Kong. Clearly, there are major differences between Cantonese and English, so optimal presentation of speech acts in ELT coursebooks is vital. During a large-scale project on the authenticity of the content of coursebooks in Hong Kong, Cheng et al. (2007, 2010) found potential areas for improvement, including an over-emphasis on the importance of the speech act of complaints (Lam et al. 2014: 70f). Managers at an airline were also found to realise some directive speech acts in different ways, depending on whether they were of either Chinese or Western descent (Lam et al. 2014). This further suggests the importance of effective coursebooks for learners of English, whether they are from Hong Kong or elsewhere. A prior study (Wilson, 2023) analysed speech acts in textbooks used both at secondary school and primary 6 levels and found that there was limited variety in the different speech acts targeted for instruction, as well as a general lack of pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic information included.

2.5 Aims and Research Questions

Coursebooks are certainly useful for ELT, but the need for some improvement of the content of many of them has been noted. Furthermore, the effective use of speech acts in English is often vital for learners in their studies and future careers. Students often struggle with pragmatics and using appropriate or clear speech acts, such as requests. It is possible that the inadequate presentation of speech acts in coursebooks used in their prior studies may have contributed to this type of pragmatic failure.

Within the field of pragmatics, there have been some studies on the use of speech acts (Basturkmen & Nguyen 2017, Ren & Han 2016). However, more research is needed into the presentation of speech acts in a wider range of ELT coursebooks (Jalilian & Roohani 2016). It is a common practice for studies to try to follow up on previous ones by observing any changes over time or by noting any variation in different contexts or on different levels. Therefore, this study aims to supplement the previous research on speech acts, this time in textbooks commonly used at the level of junior secondary 3 in schools in Hong Kong.

To deepen our understanding of speech acts in Hong Kong ELT coursebooks, this qualitative and quantitative study examines the following research questions (RQ):

RQ 1: Which speech acts are targeted for instruction in Hong Kong junior secondary 3 ELT coursebooks?

RQ 2: What type of pragmalinguistic description do these coursebooks present?

RQ 3: What type of sociopragmatic description do these coursebooks present?

3   Methodology

This section includes information regarding the research design, data collection instruments, and the analysis of the materials. This study has an exploratory approach. First of all, the coursebooks were selected. Content analysis “is widely used as a device for extracting numerical data from word-based data” (Cohen et al. 2011: 563), so this investigation used relational content analysis. This analysis began with an initial review of the data, and the unit of analysis being decided upon.

3.1 Data Collection Instruments

As stated above, the first step in the methodology was the coursebook selection. As the focus of this study was coursebooks which are commonly used in public schools in Hong Kong at the junior secondary 3 level, six different titles (List of Coursebooks in the References) from the Hong Kong Education Bureau’s recommended textbooks list for the 2022/2023 school year were chosen. All of the coursebooks focused on integrating all four major language skills (speaking, listening, reading, and writing). 

The coursebooks chosen were all published by Pearson (Hong Kong), which had previously purchased Longman, and Oxford University Press (OUP) China, as their textbooks have traditionally been found to be in use in local schools in Hong Kong (Chan 2021: 735). The coursebooks examined were:

A) Longman Activate (2012)

B) Longman Elect (2012)

C) Longman English Edge (2017)

D) Longman English Spark (2017)

E) New Treasure Plus (2010) (OUP)

F) Oxford English (2010)

Each of the coursebooks had 8 units / chapters / modules split over two books / volumes (3A and 3B). The speech acts targeted for instruction were found mainly in the Grammar, Language (Focus) / Text Analysis, and Task / Integrated Tasks / Practice sections of the coursebooks.

3.2 Analysis

The first task of the data collection was to check the number of pages in each textbook. The data from the textbooks were compared to see if the textbooks had similar formats and structures. The unit of analysis was chosen as the speech acts specifically targeted for instruction in each unit / module / chapter of the coursebooks, usually in the Grammar, Language (Focus) / Text Analysis and Task / Integrated Tasks / Practice sections. A coding scheme from a previous study (Wilson 2023) was reused. The third and fourth units / chapters / modules of the coursebooks were chosen at random and analysed in further detail using pragmatic analysis to examine the pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic information which was presented. 

With regard to RQ1 (Which speech acts are targeted for instruction in Hong Kong junior secondary 3 ELT coursebooks?), each speech act (based on Searle’s 1976 model of speech acts) which was explicitly targeted for instruction was recorded. The data were categorised according to definitions of types of speech acts based on commonly accepted categories of speech acts / strategies with reasoning. To give an example, in Unit 1 of Longman English Edge 3A (2017: 1-20), the speech act of advice (a directive speech act) was explicitly targeted for instruction, as a text giving advice on how to be happy and an “advice column” advising how to deal with stress were presented. Furthermore, specific linguistic realisations using modal verbs (such as in “You should count your blessings”) were presented for “giving advice” in the Language section, and accordingly, learners were instructed to “give some advice”. In the Task section, a “letter of advice” was modelled and learners were instructed to “write a letter of advice” of their own. In Unit 2 of the same coursebook (2017: 21-40), suggestions (such as “You could share your favourite ads …”) were clearly targeted.

With respect to RQ2 (What type of pragmalinguistic description do these coursebooks present?), the third and fourth units of each coursebook were analysed in detail to observe the pragmalinguistic information included. The details were recorded for a range of categories and total counts were calculated. These categories the question of whether

• the information included focused on producing the speech act in the spoken or the written form (or both), 

• specific lexical realisations were presented for the speech act, 

• grammatical formulas were included to complement them, 

• the speech acts presented were direct, conventionalised indirect, or non-conventionalised indirect, 

• the speech acts were presented as part of model dialogues or merely as discrete items, and 

• whether the coursebooks included information on the structure or layout of written texts (including the placement of the speech acts within them).

Regarding RQ3 (What type of sociopragmatic description do these coursebooks present?), the sociopragmatic information was identified and recorded, again from Units 3 and 4 of the coursebooks. This information consisted of: 

• the number of different contexts used to present the speech acts in

• the rank of imposition involved (high, low, or none)

• the level of power distance (high, low, or none)

• the level of social distance (high, mid, or low), and 

• any information included regarding whether the interlocutors presented were meant to represent native English speakers or not. 

The totals for each category were calculated. 

Descriptive statistical analysis was used to convert the qualitative data into quantitative data. Totals for each category were calculated and percentages were formulated. The results of this research with an exploratory approach are presented in the next section.

4   Results

This section contains the results of the analysis performed in answering the three research questions. Figures have been used to present the most significant of the findings.

4.1 Speech Acts Targeted for Instruction

First of all, in this selection of coursebooks, not all of the units focused specifically on speech acts. In those which did, a total of 15 different speech acts were targeted for instruction. Of these, eleven were targeted more than once. As shown in Figure 1 below, the speech acts which were targeted most frequently were advice (seven times), suggestion (six), and persuasion (five). These speech acts were followed by prediction (four times) and regret / reproach (three times):

Figure 1: Most-frequently Targeted Speech Acts

On the other hand, speech acts which were found to be targeted frequently in coursebooks for other levels (Wilson 2023) were not included in this selection. To give examples, the speech acts of thanking and request were not evident here. Similarly to Wilson’s (2023) previous findings on other levels, the speech acts offer and invitation were again not found to be targeted. 

As can be seen in Table 1 (Appendix 1 and List of Coursebooks), the total number of speech acts that each coursebook targeted ranged from between two in Longman Activate to the twelve different speech acts in Oxford English, with an average of 7.2 speech acts per coursebook:

Title	Ad	Su	(D)A	Ps	Po	W	Ca	Ce	Rg	Rc	O	Pd	EP	EDP	As	TOTALS	SAs
A	1											1				2	2
B	1				1							1				3	3
C	1	2		3					1			1				8	5
D	1	2		2					1		1	1				8	6
E	2	1				1		1	1	1					1	8	7
F	1	1	1		1	1	1	1		1	1		1	1	1	12	12
	7	6	1	5	2	2	1	2	3	2	2	4	1	1	2	41	15

Table 1: Speech Acts Targeted by Textbook Title

As Figure 2 below shows, there were more than twice as many instances of directives being targeted than the other categories combined. Oxford English (2010) featured the widest variety of directives (five distinct speech acts), by far the most expressives (five), and multiple representatives (Table 2; Appendix 1 for details). Commissives and declarations were not targeted at all in this selection of coursebooks:

Figure 2. Most-frequently Targeted Speech Acts by Category

Title	Directives	Expressives	Representatives	Commissives	Declarations	TOTALS
A	1		1			2
B	2		1			3
C	6	1	1			8
D	5	1	2			8
E	5	3				8
F	5	5	2			12
	24	10	7	0	0	41

Table 2: Speech Act Categories Targeted by Textbook Title

4.2 Pragmatic Description Provided in the Coursebooks 

In some cases, Units 3 or 4 of the coursebooks did not specifically focus on speech acts. Of the units which did, the majority focused on having the learners use the respective speech acts in writing (Figure 3 below). All of the units which required the learners to produce speech acts in writing added information on the layout and structure of the texts they were required to write, including the placement of the speech act(s) within that text:

Figure 3: Units requesting learners to produce Speech Acts in Writing / Speaking

All of the units included linguistic realisations for the speech acts that they targeted for instruction. However, as shown in Figure 4 below, less than a third of them included grammatical formulas to complement these:

Figure 4: Grammatical Formulae

To give an example, whereas Unit 4 of Longman English Edge 3A (2017: 70-74) included a variety of modal verbs and adverbs for learners to use to make predictions, Unit 3 (2017: 41-60) did not include any explanations of grammar that they could use to formulate their own ways to persuade people.

There were slightly more instances in which direct speech acts were presented than those in which conventionalised indirect speech acts figured (Figure 5 below). However, non-conventionalised indirect speech acts were not evident in this selection of coursebooks. More than one third of the units contained both direct and conventionalised indirect speech acts:

Figure 5: Direct and Indirect Speech Act Strategies

As shown in Figure 6 below, a mere 15% of the speech acts were shown as part of model dialogues. The remainder were presented as discrete items without responses. For example, in Unit 3 of Longman English Edge 3A (2017: 55-58), learners were instructed to write a blog entry which would persuade readers to help solve a problem, but there were no opportunities for anyone to respond to these attempts at persuasion. Therefore, the speech act of persuasion was merely presented as a discrete item:

Figure 6: Presentation of Speech Acts

All the units which instructed the learners to use speech acts in written texts included information regarding the layout and structure of the texts, often including where and how exactly to include the speech acts in the texts.

4.3 Sociopragmatic Description Provided in the Coursebooks 

Sociopragmatic information is also very important when learners need to perform speech acts in English effectively (Flowerdew 2012: 86). All of the units analysed which focused on speech acts included clear contexts for the speech acts presented, but 93% of these only showed them in a single setting (Figure 7). To give an example, in Unit 4 of Longman English Edge 3A (2017: 70-74), the speech act of predictions was presented in the setting of people making guesses about life on Earth in the distant future but not in any other context (such as predicting how the weather will be on the following day, for example):

Figure 7: Number of Settings Presenting Speech Acts

When we use speech acts in our daily lives, we often need to consider issues of power distance and level / rank of imposition to ensure that we perform them appropriately. Failure to do so could potentially have a life-changing effect. However, the majority of the units presented their speech acts in situations that did not involve power distance (Figure 8) or imposition (Figure 9). This could leave learners without enough understanding of exactly how they should perform certain speech acts in particular situations:

Figure 8: Degree of Power Distance between Interlocutors

Figure 9: Level of Imposition

As Figure 10 below shows, there was also a tendency to use situations which only involved low degrees of social distance. Many of the contexts involved the learners using speech acts with each other, and therefore, there was no power distance involved. However, in Unit 3 of Longman English Edge 3A (2017: 55-58), the learners were instructed to write blog entries, which could supposedly be read by anyone on the internet. Therefore, the use of persuasion in those blog entries potentially involved high degrees of both power and social distance. Given that the learners were also encouraged to try and persuade readers to make major changes to their lifestyles, this unit also involved high levels of imposition. On the other hand, in Unit 4 (2017: 75-78) of the same coursebook, the learners were instructed to write feature articles for the school magazine. Therefore, this context involved low degrees of social distance. As the speech act targeted was prediction, there was no level of imposition displayed in Unit 4:

Figure 10: Degree of Social Distance between Interlocutors

In terms of cross-cultural issues, there were no cases in which all of the interlocutors featured in the units were clearly supposed to only represent native English speakers. Some of the interlocutors were clearly representing local Hong Kong students who were likely to be non-native English speakers.

5   Discussion

5.1 Speech Acts Targeted for Instruction 

As a place that Kachru (1985: 12) would describe as part of the Outer Circle (where English is one of the official languages), Hong Kong has served as an interesting setting for this study. Even though most of the citizens in Hong Kong speak Cantonese or have other L1s with little in common with the English language, English remains crucial in the region in the domains of government, law, business, and education, partly due to Hong Kong’s history of colonisation (McKay 2018).

In comparison to a previous study on coursebooks for senior secondary and primary 6 levels (Wilson 2023), this study involved fewer coursebook titles (six as opposed to 10), and each title had fewer units (eight each as opposed to an average of twelve). However, the average number of speech acts targeted in each coursebook title was only slightly lower (7.2 as opposed to 7.3). Therefore, in general, it was more common for speech acts to be presented for explicit instruction in the units of this selection of coursebooks than in the coursebooks in the previous study (ibid.). In total, this selection of coursebooks targeted 15 different speech acts. As in the earlier study (ibid.), the speech acts of offer and invitation were again not evident. In both studies, the coursebooks at times tended to concentrate on grammar points or activities which were mainly focused on meeting the requirements of the local syllabus. These included presenting information on using reported speech or (present or past) participle phrases (such as Not knowing how to drive, … or Divided into pairs, …). It is not clear how useful these types of activities would be for performing tasks outside of the classroom in learners’ everyday lives. In contrast to the study of Lam et al. (2014), the speech act of complaint (or responding to it) was only targeted in one unit in this selection of coursebooks. This may be because these speech acts are less relevant to junior secondary 3 students than they are to adult learners.

In terms of Searle’s (1976) five categories of speech acts, directives made up more than half of the speech acts targeted for instruction. This was similar to Ulum’s study (2015) on speech acts in ELT textbooks, where it was also found that directives were featured heavily. Reflecting the findings from Wilson’s earlier study (2023), the directive speech acts of advice, suggestion, and persuasion were again the ones most frequently presented. The Oxford English textbook targeted a total of 12 distinct speech acts for instruction made up of five directives, five expressives, and two representatives.

5.3 Pragmalinguistic Description

In all of the units which targeted speech acts for instruction, linguistic realisations were presented, but in 69% of these units, there was no information regarding the grammatical formulas that learners could use to create their own sentences to perform the speech acts. This was identical to the findings of the previous study on other levels (Wilson 2023). In some cases, the necessary grammar may possibly have been taught at earlier levels. However, this suggests that learners may have been expected to mainly just memorise set expressions rather than truly comprehend the grammar needed to formulate personalised expressions.

There were quite a lot of instances of conventionalised indirect speech acts being presented, but no instances of non-conventionalised indirect ones. This was the major difference in comparison to the previous study (ibid.), with a higher percentage of conventionalised indirect speech acts in this study and a higher percentage of non-conventionalised indirect ones in the previous study. This could be due to the different levels of textbooks (junior secondary 3) used in this investigation.

Learners need to realise how they should lead up to a speech act and certainly how people should respond to them. However, 85% of the speech acts in this investigation were only presented as discrete items, without any useful responses to these speech acts or any additional dialogue being included. This is in sharp contrast to the previous study on coursebooks for other levels, where, in more than half of the units, the speech acts were presented as part of model dialogues (ibid.).

5.4 Sociopragmatic Description

In general, the findings regarding sociopragmatic description compared unfavourably to those of the prior study on other levels (ibid.). The vast majority of the units which targeted speech acts for instruction only presented the speech acts in a single setting or single context. Presenting them in multiple contexts could have shown learners the differences in the ways speech acts can be performed.

Furthermore, most of these contexts included low degrees of social distance and no degree of power distance or level of imposition. This finding suggests that the coursebook writers focused more on purely linguistic input than on the various sociopragmatic factors, such as context, power distance, and level of imposition (Crandall & Basturkmen 2004). This could greatly hinder learners if they need to use the speech acts in contexts which involve high levels of power distance, social distance, or imposition.

5.5 Limitations of the Study

In this study, a range of only six different coursebook titles (with two separate volumes for each) were analysed. On top of that, some of the coursebooks were very similar to each other in terms of their content and the way they were organised. This relatively small sample size may, at least partly, explain some of the differences found between this selection of junior secondary 3 coursebooks and those analysed in the previous study of coursebooks used at other levels (Wilson, 2023). 

5.6 Implications for Coursebook Writers and Publishers

It appears that there are improvements that could be made to the way ELT coursebooks are written. If only a smaller selection of expressions is included for any particular speech act, this may lead learners to believe that the ways we can express these speech acts are quite limited. Therefore, coursebook writers should include a variety of linguistic realisations for speech acts, plus sociopragmatic information regarding when to use each one.

Using corpus data to help make the presentation of speech acts as realistic and relevant as possible is one possible way writers could improve their coursebooks in the future (Nguyen 2011). If coursebooks are written based on empirical research, pragmatic knowledge can be shared in a more logical and appropriate fashion (Cohen 2008).

5.7 Pedagogical Implications

It is common for many instructors to tend to make their coursebooks the central part of their lessons (Wette & Barkhuizen 2009). This line of thinking is prevalent among many local teachers in Hong Kong (Wong 2017). Therefore, it is crucial that appropriate coursebooks are selected and used effectively. However, if optimal coursebooks are not available, teachers need to use alternative methods of teaching the effective use of speech acts, such as teaching them explicitly, including the necessary pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic information. The author has personally encountered various learners of English in Hong Kong who seem to be under the impression that certain modal verbs are exclusively associated with particular speech acts. For example, learners have expressed their belief that the modal should is exclusively used for (and even that it is the only way of) giving advice. Therefore, it is necessary for teachers to provide further information regarding speech acts and the different ways they can be performed. Explicit teaching of pragmalinguistic forms of the target language tends to be more efficient than focusing on input alone (Schmidt 1993).

6 Conclusion

The selection of coursebooks analysed in this paper was found to have a reasonably high rate of targeting speech acts for instruction. However, there was a tendency to present certain speech acts (such as advice or suggestion) much more frequently than others (such as complaint or expressing preference). Other speech acts (such as thanking or request), however, were not included at all. In comparison to a previous study on coursebooks for levels other than those analysed here (Wilson 2023), there was a reasonably high rate of conventionalised indirect speech acts targeted in these junior secondary 3 coursebooks. However, the rate of presenting the speech acts as part of model dialogues was particularly low. In general, the number of settings used in the coursebooks was very limited, and there were few which incorporated the concepts of power distance or levels of imposition.

The writers of junior secondary 3 coursebooks may consider these issues when writing future editions. Teachers will seemingly need to continue to adapt their teaching to ensure that their learners improve their abilities to use speech acts in English. If there is a concerted effort to improve the way speech acts are presented to language learners, then progress in this field can continue to be made. 

Appendix 

Coding Scheme 

Code	Definition	Examples/Details/Descriptions
SA	Speech act: Explicit presentation of a speech act clearly targeted for instruction	“You should stay positive.”  Coursebook D, 3A (2017: 10)
Ad	Advice	“You should read some film reviews …” Coursebook F, 3A (2010: 54)
As	Asking for clarification	“Could you explain a little more about …?”  F, 3A (2010: 62)
Ca	Complaints	“I’m disappointed that there’s so much disrespect at my school.” F, 3A (2010: 40)
Ce	Compliments	“You acted really well in this film.”  F, 3A (2010: 62)
(D)A	(Dis-)Agreement	“I think so too.” / “I’m not so sure about that.”  F, 3A (2010: 40)
EDP	Expressing (Dis-) Pleasure	“I was so angry when that guy pushed me.”  F, 3A (2010: 40)
EP	Expressing preferences	“Normally, I would prefer handling this myself to getting you involved.” F, 3B (2010: 55)
O	Opining	“In my opinion, studying abroad is a good way to learn about other cultures.” D, 3B (2017: 72)
Ps	Persuasion	“Evidently this project is a great success”  C, 3A (2017: 50)
Pd	Predictions	“By 2100, many big cities will have merged into one gigantic urban area.” C, 3A (2017: 70)
Po	Proposals	“It is proposed that the musical … be introduced to Macau.” B, 3B (2012: 21)
Rc	Recommendations	“I recommend that you see this play.”  E, 3B (2010: 19)
Rg	Regret / Reproach	“I regret to inform you that the mission has failed.” F, 3B (2010: 36)
Sg	Suggestions	“Why don’t we create an advert by ourselves?”  C, 3A (2017: 30)
W	Wishes	“I wish I had seen Neil Armstrong’s landing …”  F, 3B (2010: 33)

Cv	Commissives	Offering; promises
Dec	Declarations	Baptising; marrying
Dir	Directives	Requests; suggestions
Ex	Expressives	Apologising; thanking
Rp	Representatives	Predictions; opining
SW	Both speaking and writing focus	Unit had learners produce SA both while speaking and writing
S	Speaking focus	Unit had learners produce SA while speaking
W	Writing focus	Unit had learners produce SA while writing

GF	Grammatical formula	“… we can use the future perfect (will + have + past participle).” C, 3A (2017: 70)
LE	Lexical expression	“You could share your favourite adverts with us.” D, 3A (2017: 30)

DSA	Direct speech act	“You should count your blessings.”  C, 3A (2017: 10)
CISA	Conventionally indirect SA	“If I were you, I would avoid landing at Australia’s Shark Bay Airport.”  E, 3A (2010: 76)
NISA	Non-conventionally indirect SA	“Hunters will keep killing elephants unless we stop buying ivory.” (Gray 2009: 31)

DI	Discrete item	“By the time the Earth runs out of resources, we will have built space cities.” C, 3A (2017: 70)
MD	Model dialogue	A: “What about having a workshop on film production?” B: “That’s a wonderful idea!” E, 3A (2010: 61)

IOSL	Information on structure / layout	“In the body, each paragraph presents one main prediction …”  C, 3A, (2017: 77)
NOS	Number of settings	Making suggestions to a visitor to Hong Kong. Making suggestions regarding a parent who hates Facebook. (two)

PD	Power distance	High  –  Making suggestions to the school principal Low   –  Giving advice to a neighbour who is older than                you None –  Making suggestions to classmates
SD	Social distance	High –  Giving advice to strangers on the internet via blogs Mid   –  Making suggestions to students overseas that the               interlocutors already know quite well Low  –  Making suggestions to classmates

LOI

Level of imposition

High –  Suggestions for people to donate money Low  –  Proposals to the principal regarding a new school               magazine which has already been approved None – Predictions which require nothing of the hearer

NNES	Non-native English speaker interlocutors	Dr. Li, Mrs. Lau
B	Both non-native & native English speakers	Alison Tam/Harry King
U	Unclear	Grandma, Karen

References

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. London: Oxford University Press.

Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen (2001). Evaluating the Empirical Evidence: Grounds for Instruction in Pragmatics? In: Rose, Kenneth R. & Gabriele Kasper (eds.). Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1-11.

Basturkmen, Helen & Thi T. M. Nguyen (2017). Teaching Pragmatics. In: Barron, Anne, Yueguo Guo & Gerard Steen (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. London, England: Routledge, 563-574.

Bouton, Lawrence F. (1993). Conversational Implicature in a Second Language: Learned Slowly when not Explicitly Taught. In: Journal of Pragmatics 22, 157-167.

Boxer, Diana & Lucy Pickering (1995). Problems in the Presentation of Speech Acts in ELT Materials: The Case of Complaints. In: ELT Journal 49 (1), 44-58.

Chan, Jim Y. H. (2021). Four Decades of ELT Development in Hong Kong: Impact of Global Theories on the Changing Curricula and Textbooks. In: Language Teaching Research 25 (5), 729-753.

Cheng, Winnie & Martin Warren (2007). Checking Understandings: Comparing Textbooks and a Corpus of Spoken English in Hong Kong. In: Language Awareness 16 (3), 190-207.

Cheng, Winnie & Pang Cheng (2010). Correcting Others and Self-correction in Business and Professional Discourse and Textbooks. In: Trosborg, Anna (ed.). Pragmatics across Languages and Cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 443-466.

Cohen, Andrew D. (1996). Developing the Ability to Use Speech Acts. In: Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 253-267.

Cohen, Andrew D. (2008). Teaching and Assessing L2 Pragmatics: What Can We Expect from Learners? In: Language Teaching 41 (2), 213-235.

Cohen, Louis, Lawrence Manion & Keith Morrison (2011). Research Methods in Education. Abingdon, England: Routledge.

Compernolle, Remi A. van (2014). Sociocultural Theory and Instructed L2 Pragmatics. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Crandall, Elizabeth & Helen Basturkmen (2004). Evaluating Pragmatics-focused Materials. In: ELT Journal 58 (1), 38-49.

Diepenbroek, Lori G. & Tracey M. Derwing (2013). To What Extent Do Popular ESL Textbooks Incorporate Oral Fluency and Pragmatic Development? In: TESL Canada Journal 30 (7), 1-20.

Economidou-Kogetsidis, Maria (2015). Teaching Email Politeness in the EFL/ESL Classroom. In: ELT Journal 69(4), 415-424.

Flowerdew, John (2012). Discourse in English Language Education. London: Routledge.

Gray, Chris, Rachel Jones, Ella Hall, & Thomas Gordon. (2009). Primary Longman Elect. Hong Kong: Pearson Education Asia.

Jalilian, Mahdieh & Ali Roohani (2016). Evaluating Speech Acts in ELT Textbooks: The Case of Compliments and Complaints in the Touchstone Series. In: IJRELT, 101-114.

Kachru, Braj (1985). The Alchemy of English. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Kasper, Gabriele & Shoshana Blum-Kulka. (1993). Interlanguage Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lam, Phoenix W. Y., Winnie Cheng & Kenneth C. C. Kong. (2014). Learning English through Workplace Communication: An Evaluation of Existing Resources in Hong Kong. In: English for Specific Purposes 34, 68-78.

Lee, Cynthia (2018). Researching and Teaching Second Language Speech Acts in the Chinese Context. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.

Limberg, Holger (2016). Teaching How to Apologize: EFL Textbooks and Pragmatic Input. In: Language Teaching Research 20 (6), 700-718.

Lin, Ming-Fang, Miao-Hsia Chang, and Yu-Fang Wang (2019). “How Dare You Have Another Relationship!”: An Analysis of Cross-cultural and Interlanguage Corrections. In: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 59 (4), 449-489.

McKay, Sandra Lee (2018). English as an International Language: What It Is and What It Means for Pedagogy. In: RELC Journal 49(1), 9-23.

Nguyen, Thi T. M. (2011). Learning to Communicate in a Globalized World: To Extent Do School Textbooks Facilitate the Development of Intercultural Pragmatic Competence? In: RELC Journal 42 (1), 17-30.

Nguyen, Thi T. M. & Helen Basturkmen (2021). Pragmatic Teaching Materials in EIL. In: Tajeddin, Z. & Minoo Alemi (eds.). Pragmatics Pedagogy in English as an International Language. Oxford: Routledge, 136-154.

Paltridge, Brian (2012). Discourse Analysis. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Ren, Wei & Zhengrui Han (2016). The Representation of Pragmatic Knowledge in Recent ELT Textbooks. In: ELT Journal 70 (4), 424-434. (DOI: 10.1093/elt/ccw010; ; 18-09-2023).

Roever, Carsten (2014). Research Pragmatics. In: Paltridge, Brian & Aek Phakiti (eds.). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: A Practical Resource. London, England: Bloomsbury, 295-306.

Schmidt, Richard W. (1990). The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning. In: Applied Linguistics 11 (2), 129–158.

Schmidt, Richard W. (1993). Consciousness, Learning and Interlanguage Pragmatics. In: Kasper, Gabriele & Shoshana Blum-Kulka (eds.). Interlanguage Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press, 21-42.

Searle, John R. (1975). Indirect Speech Acts. In: Cole, Peter & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.). Syntax and Semantics Volume 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 59–82.

Searle, John R. (1976). A Classification of Illocutionary Acts. In: Language in Society 5 (1), 1-23.

Seigel, Joseph, James Broadbridge & Mark Firth (2018). Saying It Just Right: Teaching for Pragmatic Success in ELT. In: ELT Journal, 1-10.

Taguchi, Naoko & Carsten Roever (2017). Second Language Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ulum, Omer G. (2015). Pragmatic Elements in EFL Course Books. In: Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Science, 93-106.

Wette, Rosemary & Gary Barkhuizen. (2009). Teaching the Book and Educating the Person: Challenges for University English Language Teachers in China. In: Asia Pacific Journal of Education 29 (2), 195-212. (DOI: 10.1080/02188790902857180; ; 18-09-2023).

Wilson, Liam D. (2023). Investigating the Coverage of Speech Acts in Hong Kong ELT Textbooks. In: Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching [e-FLT] 20 (1), 50-73. (DOI: 10.56040/lmdw2014; 18-09-2023).

List of Coursebooks

(E) Hardingham Cole, Jennifer & Jennifer Neale (2010). New Treasure Plus. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press (China).

(B) Harfitt, Gary, John Potter, Sarah Rigby, & Kitty Wong (2012). Longman Elect (2nd ed.). Hong Kong: Longman Hong Kong Education; Pearson Education Asia.

(F) Hughes, Daisy & Mabel Woo (2010). Oxford English. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press (China).

(A) Nelson, Jo Ann, John Potter, Sarah Rigby, & Kitty Wong (2012). Longman Activate. Hong Kong: Longman Hong Kong Education; Pearson Education Asia.

(C) Potter, John, Sarah Rigby, & Kitty Wong (2017). Longman English Edge. Hong Kong: Longman Hong Kong Education; Pearson Education Asia.

(D) Potter, John, Sarah Rigby, & Kitty Wong (2017). Longman English Spark. Hong Kong: Longman Hong Kong Education; Pearson Education Asia.

Author:

Liam D. Wilson

Assistant Lecturer

The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Sha Tin

Hong Kong S.A.R.

Email: mr.liam.wilson@gmail.com