The Economic Journal of Takasaki City University of Economics vol.48 No.3 2006 pp.

135∼149

Request Strategies in ‘Oral Communication A’ textbooks

Yuka AKUTSU

Summary

This study investigated request strategies appeared in Oral Communication A textbooks

quantitatively using a directness scale adopted from a study by Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper,
G. (1989b). The purpose of the study is to see if the textbooks have enough amount of presentation,
and if the distribution of the sentences in the scale is appropriate as model materials. The result
showed that textbooks used too many direct strategies, variations, and sentences. The most direct
level of strategies (mood derivables) and the most direct level of variations (imperative) were
presented by far the most, both in numbers and the proportion. On the other hand, indirect
strategies and variations seemed fewer than they should be. Although query preparatory sentences
were presented much, the most indirect formulas researched (“I’d appreciate” and “Do you mind
if?”) were not introduced in many of the textbooks. Some problems in the distribution were also
found. These results revealed that there is much room for improvement in the textbooks in terms of
acquisition of speech act of request.

1. Introduction

Communicative competence comprises pragmatic competence, and it is difficult for a learner

of a language to participate in the target language community successfully without the competence.
Studies in interlanguage pragmatics and acquisition of pragmatic competence have shown that
pragmatic knowledge and skills can be taught to some extent. On the other hand, they have shown
that it should be taught explicitly to be acquired effectively, and improvement in other language
skills such as reading or listening do not necessarily guarantees improvement in pragmatic skills. It
is necessary for a language learner to have opportunities to be exposed to enough pragmatic
strategies and situations and that in appropriate manners to acquire the competence.
This study investigated request strategies appeared in Oral Communication A textbooks
quantitatively, using a direct/indirect scale adopted from a study by Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., &
− 135 −
 The Economic Journal of Takasaki City University of Economics vol.48 No.3 2006

Kasper, G. (1989b). In Akutsu (2001), the frequency of pragmatic formulas appeared in the previous
version of Oral Communication A textbooks was investigated regarding ten speech act situations;
request, refusal, apology, suggestion, gratitude, invitation, disagreement, complement, complaint,
and correction. The purpose of the study was to see how much the speech act situations were
presented in each textbook, and how effectively they were presented in terms of acquisition
enhancement. The results showed that there were large differences among the textbooks
regarding the amount of speech act situations, sentences, and the ways of presentation, and the
author pointed out that there was much room for improvement in terms of the presentation suitable
for acquisition of pragmatic skills.
Although analysis into the nature or the quality of formulas was not performed in the study
above, during the examination, it was noticed that there was a characteristic tendency in request
strategies in the textbooks: high frequency of direct strategies. It seemed to contradict the results
from the previous studies on request strategies used by native speakers (NSs) of English. In many
studies including Tanaka & Kawade (1987) and House & Kasper (1987), it was shown that NSs
normally use indirect strategies to make a request with very few exceptions. If the contradiction is
verified, it may suggest a problem for high school English learners because in reality, their almost
sole source of material for oral communication is the textbook they are provided in the current
English education system in Japan. This study will investigate the amount, variations, and
characteristics of request sentences in Oral Communication A textbooks.

2. Background of this study

2. 1. Studies on textbooks
The prior studies on textbooks suggest that there is much room for improvement for both
Japanese textbooks of English and ESL textbooks. Akutsu (2001) which was mentioned earlier
investigated Oral Communication A textbooks regarding speech acts presentations
quantitatively. Oral Communication A was one of the three subjects in Oral communication
course in high school English curriculum. The course was started in 1994 to foster
communicative competence, and one of the main goals for the subject is to provide the
students with English skills to “respond appropriately according to the situation or purpose”
according to its contents, or “naiyo”, described by Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology. As the subject is the only one which is explicitly allotted to speaking
aspect of oral communication, it is obviously important to include realistic and practical model
conversations in the textbooks so that the learners can understand how to talk appropriately
− 136 −
 Request Strategies in Oral ‘Communication A’ textbooks（AKUTSU）

in a given situation.
In the study, the sentences used in each speech act situation were counted and checked if
they appeared in concrete contexts; if readers could tell who were using the sentences. The
variations used in each speech act were also counted to see how many different formulas were
presented for each speech act. The study revealed that presentation of speech acts differed
greatly among textbooks. First, the number of speech act situations dealt in each textbook
ranged from six to nine among the ten speech acts researched - request, refusal, apology,
suggestion, gratitude, invitation, disagreement, complement, complaint, and correction. Most
of the 17 textbooks covered request, refusal, apology, suggestion gratitude, and invitation,
about half offered disagreement and complement, and few presented complaint and correction.
The total number of sentences used as speech acts were also different; from the least 51 to the
most 215. Also, there was a large difference in providing information about the interlocutors
using the sentences as well. Three textbooks provided the information all the time while
seven textbooks lacked it in more than 30% of the cases, one of them more than half. As
shown in the previous studies, information about interlocutors is one of the necessary
conditions for effective input which leads to acquisition (e.g., Schmidt (1996)). The study also
pointed out that some information in the textbooks could easily result in teaching-induced
failures without proper instruction from the teachers. The study showed that although all the
textbooks had been authorized by the Ministry, there are differences in them in terms of
speech act materials, and that there may be some problematic presentations, too.
ESL textbooks have been examined by many researchers, and as a whole, the researchers
claimed that the presentations and the contents, including pragmatic strategies, had some
problems from acquisition-of-pragmatic point of view (Scotton and Bernsten, 1988; Bardovi-
Harlig, Hartford, Mahn-Taylor, Morgan, and Reynolds, 1991; Bouton, 1996). The first problem
pointed out was that the amount and contents of pragmatic strategies are not satisfactory.
Bardovi-Harlig et al. (1991) examined the presentation of closings in 20 ESL textbooks and
found that very few included complete closings on a constant basis. The other problem is that
the ways of presentation are not appropriate for acquisition. After reviewing the studies, they
went as far as to say, “in general, textbooks cannot be counted on as a reliable source of
pragmatic input for classroom language learners” (in Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; p25). Candall and
Basturkmen who reviewed several major English for Academic Purposes textbooks pointed
out that the conventional approach to improve pragmatic competence in many speaking
textbooks is ‘present learners with lists of “useful expressions” for various speech acts’, and
also noted that those lists typically present ‘explicit realizations of speech acts rather than
− 137 −
 The Economic Journal of Takasaki City University of Economics vol.48 No.3 2006

subtle and indirect ones,’ and ‘usually neglects to who when and for what purposes it is
appropriate to make a speech act, and which expressions would be appropriate in a particular
situation’ (in Candall and Basturkmen、2005; p38-39).

2. 2. Request strategies by NSs and NNSs

According to the previous studies on contrastive analysis of request strategies used by
NSs and NNSs, one of the characteristics of NNSs’ strategies was that they choose more
direct strategies than NSs do. Tanaka and Kawade (1982) investigated perception of politeness
by native speakers of English and advanced learners of English whose native tongue is
Japanese. One of the findings was that learners tend to choose “less polite strategies in certain
situations.” In the study, they found that 14.2% of advanced learners selected rather direct
expressions or least polite strategies such as “I want to borrow your car” or “Lend me your
pen” when speaking to his/her father and his/her girl/boy friend. Few native speakers (5.2%)
chose those strategies. As a whole, the studies suggested that even advanced learners’
strategies were different from those by NSs, and it could be considered inappropriate in some
situations.
House and Kasper (1987) investigated request realization strategies by 200 German and
200 Danish learners of English. The data were examined along three dimensions: directness
level, internal modification, and external modification. They found that the learners used much
more direct formulas, including mood directive (Do X), than native speakers of English did. On
the other hand, NSs used the second most indirect form, query preparatory (Could you do X?),
almost all the time (92%)

2. 3. Requests in classroom settings

Yates (2005) investigated and compared the directives and mitigation styles used by two
groups of novice teachers; one with 9 people with Anglo-Australian background and the other
with 9 people with Peoples Republic of China background. She collected the data of directives
used in two class sessions, and compared them by group (Australian and Chinese, and male
and female). The classes include ESL, business, math, music, science, and swimming. She
found that in general, the groups’ data differed in the use of mitigation styles and directives.
Although the paper’s primary focus was to discuss the individual differences among the
participants, it also revealed that there were some characteristic tendencies for each group.
She introduced some examples that the Chinese background teachers used very direct
strategies to the students, and in some cases, Chinese teachers’ direct styles brought
− 138 −
 Request Strategies in Oral ‘Communication A’ textbooks（AKUTSU）

unfavorable reactions from the students. She suggested that although lack of English
proficiency might have something to do with the style, their cultural background which sees
teachers as authority figures may have affected the style negatively.

3. Research Questions

This paper will analyze the requestive expressions in Oral Communication A textbooks
published in 2002 in terms of the amount and characteristics in the distributions of the strategies,
linguistic forms, and the sentences. The following were looked into to see if the textbooks have
enough amount of presentation, and if the distribution of the sentences is appropriate as model
materials, reflecting the frequency or pattern of the target language community.
<The amount>
( i ) the total number of request sentences
a. in all the textbooks
b. in each textbook
(ii) the amount of request strategies
a. the number of textbooks including each strategy
b. the number of strategies in each textbook
(iii) the amount of linguistic forms (variations) and the sentences
a. the number of textbooks including each variation
b. the number of variations in each textbook
c. the number of sentences of each variation in each textbook
<The distribution>
( i ) distribution of sentences of direct strategies and conventionally indirect strategies
(ii) distribution of strategies and sentences
a. distribution of strategies across the textbooks
b. distribution of strategies in each textbook
c. distribution of variations across the textbooks
d. distribution of variations and in each textbook

4. Method

First, all the sentences of request in Oral Communication A textbooks were picked up, and the
total number of request sentences in each textbook was counted. Expressions with illocutionary
− 139 −
 The Economic Journal of Takasaki City University of Economics vol.48 No.3 2006

force of request were chosen; for instance, a sentence “I’m sorry” was counted as a request if the
meaning in the context was to ask the interlocutor to repeat him/herself. If it was used as an
apology, it was not included.
Second, all the sentences were categorized according to the linguistic forms into a scale
described below, and the number of the sentences in each category (strategy) and subcategory
(linguistic form: variation) were counted. The number of textbooks dealing with each strategy or
linguistic form shows how much the textbooks as a whole deal with speech act of request while the
number of strategies or sentences in each textbook tells each textbook’s attitude.
The scale used in this study was adapted from CCSARP, a study by Blum-Kulka, S., House, J.,
& Kasper, G. (1989b: 18), and adjusted as described later in this section. The original scale was made
based on degrees of requestive transparency. They identified the request sentences with
grammatical indicators signaling the illocutionary force. They categorized request strategies into
three types, ‘direct strategies’, ‘conventionally indirect strategies’, and ‘hints’ according to the
strategies’ illocutionary transparencies. ‘Direct strategies’ are most transparent or ‘direct’, and
mood derivables (Do X), performatives (I ask you to do X), hedged performatives (I would like to
ask you to do X), obligation statements (you will have to do X), and want statements (I want X) are
included in this order of directness as its subcategories. The strategies in the next level of
directness are called ‘conventionally indirect strategies’, and they derive their illocutionary
transparency form the semantic content or conventional usage. The strategies in this category
include suggestory (how about -?), stating preparatory (I’ll have…), and query preparatory (could
you -?). Most indirect level of strategies are ‘hints’, and the requestive force comes from its
context. ‘Hints’ are divided into two types; strong hints and mild hints.
Chart 1. shows the scale used in this study. Several changes were made to the CCSARP scale
so that it fits better to this study. First, the original scale divided the strategies into three, direct
strategies, conventionally indirect strategies, and hints. However, hints were omitted in the scale
here because there were no hint strategies found in the textbooks. Also, performatives and hedged
performatives were omitted form the chart for the same reason. Second, one or more sub-
subcategories, or ‘variations’, were added to each category (strategy) to show distribution of the
linguistic forms used, as shown in the chart 1. A total of 16 sub-categories (linguistic forms:
variations) were added. Some of the different linguistic forms in different directness levels were
categorized as one to comply with Blum-Kulka’s scale of strategies; imperative and you must,
should and had better, how about, let’s, what about, and shall we, could you and would you, can I
and could I. The higher a strategy or a linguistic form is in the chart, the more transparent the
force is, and therefore, more direct.
− 140 −
 Request Strategies in Oral ‘Communication A’ textbooks（AKUTSU）

strategy linguistic form(variation)

imperative/you must
mood deribvables imperative + please

direct
imperative + will you?
obligation statements should/had better
want/need/I'd like
want statements
I'd like you to
why don't you
suggestory
How about/Let's/What about/shall we?
conventionally indirect

I'll have
stating preparatory
I'd appreciate
Will you?
Can you?
May I?
query preparatory
Could you?/Would You?
Can I?/Could I?
Do you mind?

<chart 1. Scale>

5. Data and Analysis

5. 1. Amount of request
5. 1. 1 The total number of request sentences
The total number of request sentences appeared in the 15 textbooks was 1325. The
number in each textbook differed much, from the least 44 to the most 157, and the average was
88.3 as shown in the chart 2. The difference between the most and the least is almost as much
as three times. Though the number alone cannot be interpreted as small, it may not be too
many as the total number includes repetitive appearances of each expression in “exercises” or
“review” sections.
5. 1. 2. The amount of request strategies
a. The number of textbooks including each strategy
Out of the six strategies (mood derivables, obligation statements, want statements,
suggestory, stating preparatory, and query preparatory) researched, all of the fifteen
textbooks introduced mood derivables and query preparatory. Most introduced want
statements (14 textbooks) and suggestory (12). Only seven presented obligation statements,
and eight included stating preparatory.
b. The number of strategies in each textbook
The average number of strategies in each textbook was 4.7 out of six. Four textbooks
included all six, while two textbooks introduced only three strategies.

− 141 −
 The Economic Journal of Takasaki City University of Economics vol.48 No.3 2006

5. 1. 3. The amount of linguistic forms(variations) and the sentences

a. The number of textbooks including each variation
No textbook introduced all 16 variations (imperative/you must, imperative + please,
imperative + will you?, should/had better, want/need/I’d like, I’d like you to, Why don’t
you?, How about/Let’s/What about/Shall we?, I’ll have, I’d appreciate, Will you?, Can you?,
May I?, Could you/Would you?, Can I/Could I?, Do you mind?). 14 textbooks introduced
“imperative + please”, “want/need/I’d like”, and “Could you/Would you?.” On the other
hand, the least variation presented was “imperative + will you?”, and only one textbook, and
a total of one sentence appeared in the 15 textbooks. “I would appreciate” was dealt in only
two textbooks and “Do you mind?” appeared in four textbooks. All these three are very
commonly used in daily situations, and especially, “I’d appreciate” and “Do you mind?” are
obviously important expressions in making polite requests. The small number seems to be
problematic.
b. The number of variations in each textbook
The number of variations of strategies in each textbook ranged from the least six to the
most 15 out of the 16 variations researched, and the average was 10.0. As the variations
were not at all difficult or rare, the number seems to be too small again.
c. The number of sentences of each variation
The variation with the most sentences was “imperatives/you must”, and 541 sentences
were presented in total. “Could you/Would you?” (172 sentences), and “How
about/Let’s/What about/Shall we” (123) followed “imperatives/you must.” The variations
with the least number of sentences were “I would appreciate” (six sentences in total), “I’d
like you to ” (nine sentences), and “Do you mind” (16 sentences).

− 142 −
 direct Conventionary Indirect
Chart 2 Amount obligation want stating
mood derivables suggestory query preparatory

strategies total
statements statements preparatory
how about/ let's/ what
direct total

query preparatory
preparatory total

Can I?/ Could I?

mood directive

suggestory total

conventionary
imperatives +

imperatives +

why don't you

Do you mind?
I'd like you to

indirect total
imperatives/

Could you?/
Would you?
about/ shall we
should/had

should/had

want need/
better total

appreciate
want total

Will you?

Can you?
you must

will you?

I'll have
I would

May I?
I'd like

stating
please

better
total

total
Request Strategies in Oral ‘Communication A’ textbooks（AKUTSU）

birdland 27 9 0 36 5 5 4 0 4 45 8 12 20 0 0 0 1 2 7 15 0 0 25 45 90
birdland % 30.0 10.0 0.0 40.0 5.6 5.5 4.4 0.0 4.4 50.0 8.9 13.3 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 2.2 7.8 16.7 0.0 0.0 27.8 50.0 100.0
crown 85 8 0 93 1 1 6 0 6 100 11 12 23 0 0 0 5 10 0 14 5 0 34 57 157
crown% 54.1 5.1 0.0 59.2 0.6 0.6 3.8 0.0 3.8 63.7 7.0 7.6 14.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 6.4 0.0 8.9 3.2 0.0 21.7 36.3 100.0
departure 24 9 0 33 0 0 4 0 4 37 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 5 5 1 0 13 15 52
departure% 46.2 17.3 0.0 63.5 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 7.7 71.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 3.8 0.0 3.8 9.6 9.6 1.9 0.0 25.0 28.8 100.0
echo 41 6 0 47 4 4 1 0 1 52 7 10 17 1 0 1 1 10 3 13 2 0 29 47 99
echo% 41.4 6.1 0.0 47.5 4.0 3.9 1.0 0.0 1.0 52.5 7.1 10.1 17.2 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 10.1 3.0 13.1 2.0 0.0 29.3 47.5 100.0
English Street 22 6 0 28 2 2 2 0 2 32 1 8 9 7 1 8 1 4 4 10 10 0 29 46 78
English Street% 28.2 7.7 0.0 35.9 2.6 2.6 2.6 0.0 2.6 41.0 1.3 10.3 11.5 9.0 1.3 10.3 1.3 5.1 5.1 12.8 12.8 0.0 37.2 59.0 100.0

− 143 −
evergreen 37 7 0 44 0 0 9 1 10 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 17 4 21 9 9 68 68 122
evergreen% 30.3 5.7 0.0 36.1 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.8 8.2 44.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 13.9 3.3 17.2 7.4 7.4 55.7 55.7 100.0
expressways 37 13 1 51 3 3 4 1 5 59 4 12 16 1 5 6 2 10 4 6 3 0 25 47 106
expressways% 34.9 12.3 0.9 48.1 2.8 2.8 3.8 0.9 4.7 55.7 3.8 11.3 15.1 0.9 4.7 5.7 1.9 9.4 3.8 5.7 2.8 0.0 23.6 44.3 100.0
interact 15 7 0 22 0 0 2 0 2 24 2 9 11 1 0 1 0 2 0 4 0 0 6 18 42
interact% 35.7 16.7 0.0 52.4 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 4.8 57.1 4.8 21.4 26.2 2.4 0.0 2.4 0.0 4.8 0.0 9.5 0.0 0.0 14.3 42.9 100.0
mainstream 38 0 0 38 3 3 4 4 8 49 4 6 10 0 0 0 3 0 0 24 0 3 30 40 89
mainstream% 42.7 0.0 0.0 42.7 3.4 3.4 4.5 4.5 9.0 55.1 4.5 6.7 11.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 27.0 0.0 3.4 33.7 44.9 100.0
new start 60 8 0 68 1 1 12 2 14 83 0 13 13 1 0 1 7 7 6 23 6 3 52 66 149
new start% 40.3 5.4 0.0 45.6 0.7 0.7 8.1 1.3 9.4 55.7 0.0 8.7 8.7 0.7 0.0 0.7 4.7 4.7 4.0 15.4 4.0 2.0 34.9 44.3 100.0
On Air 29 2 0 31 0 0 2 0 2 33 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 10 10 0 0 20 22 55
On Air% 52.7 3.6 0.0 56.4 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 3.6 60.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 18.2 18.2 0.0 0.0 36.4 40.0 100.0
progressive 22 7 0 29 0 0 1 0 1 30 0 24 24 0 0 0 0 3 2 19 8 1 33 57 87
progressive% 25.3 8.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.1 34.5 0.0 27.6 27.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 2.3 21.8 9.2 1.1 37.9 65.5 100.0
select 27 7 0 34 0 0 3 0 3 37 0 4 4 0 0 0 7 1 8 0 0 0 16 20 57

<Chart 2. Amount>
select% 47.4 12.3 0.0 59.6 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 5.3 64.9 0.0 7.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.3 1.8 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.1 35.1 100.0
speak to the world 46 4 0 50 0 0 1 1 2 52 0 2 2 1 0 1 2 2 1 2 1 0 8 11 63
speak to the world% 73.0 6.3 0.0 79.4 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.6 3.2 82.5 0.0 3.2 3.2 1.6 0.0 1.6 3.2 3.2 1.6 3.2 1.6 0.0 12.7 17.5 100.0
talk up 31 8 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 39 9 11 20 0 0 0 6 2 3 6 3 0 20 40 79
talk up% 39.2 10.1 0.0 49.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.4 11.4 13.9 25.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 2.5 3.8 7.6 3.8 0.0 25.3 50.6 100.0
表現計集計 541 101 1 643 19 19 55 9 64 726 46 123 169 16 6 22 43 72 57 172 48 16 408 599 1325
40.8 7.6 0.1 48.5 1.4 1.4 4.2 0.7 4.8 54.8 3.5 9.3 12.8 1.2 0.5 1.7 3.2 5.4 4.3 13.0 3.6 1.2 30.8 45.2 100.0
ave. 36.1 6.7 0.1 42.9 1.3 1.3 3.7 0.6 4.3 48.4 3.1 8.2 11.3 1.1 0.4 1.5 2.9 4.8 3.8 11.5 3.2 1.1 27.2 39.9 88.3
 The Economic Journal of Takasaki City University of Economics vol.48 No.3 2006

5. 2. The distribution of request

5. 2. 1. Distribution of sentences in direct/indirect strategies
As a whole, direct strategy sentences were used more than indirect ones. Only four
textbooks presented indirect strategy sentences more than direct ones. Within the 1325
request sentences, 726 (54.7%) were categorized as direct strategies, and 599 (45.3%) as
conventionally indirect strategies.

imperative/you must 541（40.8%)

643
mood derivables imperative + please 101（7.6%）
（48.5%）
imperative + will you? 1（0.1%）
diect
726 (55.4%) 19
obligation statements should/had better 19（1.4%）
（1.4%）

64 want/need/I'd like 55（4.2%）

want ststements
（4.8%） I'd like you to 9（0.7%）

169 why don't you 46（3.5%）

suggestory
（12.6%） How about/Let's/What about/Shall we? 123（9.3%）

22 I'll have 16（1.2%）

stating preparatory
（1.6%） I'd appreciate 6（0.5%）
conventionally
Will you? 43（3.2%）
indirect
Can you? 72（5.4%）
599 (44.6%)
408 May I? 57（4.3%）
query preparatory
（30.4%） Could you?/Would You? 172（13.0%）
Can I?/Could I? 48（3.6%）
Do you mind? 16（1.2%）

<Chart 3. Distribution>

5. 2. 2. Distribution of strategies and sentences

a. Distribution of strategies across the textbooks
Among the direct strategies, mood derivables were used by far the most, a total of 643
sentences (48.5% of total request sentences), followed by want statements with 64 sentences
(4.8%). Within the 599 conventionally indirect strategy sentences, query preparatory
sentences were the most; 408 (30.8%), followed by suggestory with 169 sentences (12.8%).
96.9% of the request strategy sentences were composed of these four strategies.
Within the 726 direct strategy sentences, mood derivables sentences composed 88.5%
(643 sentences), and want statement occupied 8.8% (64 sentences). Within the 599
conventionally indirect strategy sentences, query preparatory composed 68.1% (408
sentences), and suggestory 28.2% (169 sentences).
− 144 −
 Request Strategies in Oral ‘Communication A’ textbooks（AKUTSU）

b. Distribution of strategies in each textbook

All the textbooks had mood derivables by far the most, ranging from the least 33.3% (29
out of 87) to the most 79.4% (50 out of 63) of request sentences in each textbook. The average
was 48.5% (42.9 out of 88.3) of the total request sentences. The second most strategy was
query preparatory in all of the textbooks except one, which had suggestory more. The
average percentage of query preparatory was 30.8% (27.2 out of 88.3), and suggestory was
12.8% (11.3 out of 88.3).
c. Distribution of variations across the textbooks
Among the 16 strategies and the total of 1325 sentences, “imperative” sentences
occupied 541 (40.8％ of the total sentences). The next most used linguistics forms were
“imperative + please” with 101 sentences (15.7%), followed by 172 (13.0%) of “Could you/
Would you”, and “How bout/Let’s/What about/Shall we?” with 123 sentences (9.3%). The
total of these four composed 78.8% of all the request sentences.
d. Distribution of variations in each textbook
14 textbooks had “imperative” the most, ranging from 73.0% to 28.2% of the total
sentences. One textbook had “How about/Let’s/What about/Shall we” more than
“imperative”, with 27.6% of the sentences. The second most strategies were not so
unanimous among the textbooks; seven textbooks had “Could you/Would you?” second most
(27%-8.9%), three had “imperative + please” (17.3-6.3%), another three had “How
about/Let’s/What about/Shall we” (21.4-13.3%), and two had “May I” (18.2 and 14.0%) as the
second most variation.
Most textbooks (12) distribute a large portion of the sentences to the most and the second
most variations; the total of the two variations exceeded 50% of the total request sentences in
each textbook. In one textbook, “imperative” occupied 73% of the total, and “imperative +
please” (the second most) 6.3%; only about 20% of the sentences was given to the other
variations. The average percentage of the portion of the most plus the second most variations
was 57.7%.

6. Discussion

6. 1. The amount
The total number may seem to be not so small, but as pointed out before, many of them
appeared in review sections without any context. Also, many of the strategies or linguistic forms
were not presented at all or presented very few in number. Especially, the fact that very important
− 145 −
 The Economic Journal of Takasaki City University of Economics vol.48 No.3 2006

forms such as “Do you mind?” or “I’d appreciate” were not included in most of the textbooks could
be a big problem. It is true that these forms require more advanced grammatical knowledge, but
they were both supposed to be covered in the high school grammar course. It should not be too
difficult for them.
On the other hand, the large number of query preparatory and “Could you/Could you..?”
concurred with the NSs’ data that “Could you/Could you?” are very frequently used in most of
request sentences, and it can be considered as realistic. However, there were several problems in
the presentation again. First, one textbook did not include “Could you/Would you?” variation at all.
The variation is obviously one of the most important formulas in request as shown in the previous
studies, and lack of these poses a big problem. Second, the number of “Could you/Would you?” was
sometimes fewer than the other query preparatories, such as “Will you?” or “Can you?”, which are
more direct than “Could you/Would you?” and used less often by NSs. Also, the choice of the
variations seemed rather arbitrary because in many cases, there were no clear reasons found in the
contexts for the choice. The degree of imposition or the relationship of the interlocutors sometimes
did seem to have influence on the choice, but far from always. Most often, the readers cannot tell
those pieces of information from the context anyway because context is not provided at all. The
possibility that the students believe these variations are interchangeable seemed very high. Since
the differences in illocutionary forces in query preparatory variations may difficult to understand
for Japanese learners of English, the presentations as if they are interchangeable are all the more
problematic.
The amount in each textbook differed much, and that seems to show the attitude and interest
of each textbook toward teaching of pragmatic skills. Although not a single textbook presented all
the variations or linguistic formulas, some presented most of them. Another several textbooks had
conventionally indirect sentences much more than direct ones. However, as a whole, the amount
did not seem to be enough for effective acquisition of request expressions. Each textbook seems to
have its way of dealing with request strategies and sentences, and this may not benefit the students
because the textbook is likely to be the only source of information for them and they may not have
any other chances to learn those expressions in other courses. All the textbooks should, at least,
include the very basic strategies and linguistic forms such as the ones in this study.

6. 2. Distribution
The huge percentage of mood directive strategies and especially “imperatives” in them stood
out in the data. One of the reasons for the outstanding number may be “Classroom English” unit
which nine of the 15 textbooks had. The unit usually listed “useful expressions” for classroom
− 146 −
 Request Strategies in Oral ‘Communication A’ textbooks（AKUTSU）

communication, typically conversations from a teacher to students and from students to a teacher.
The expressions were often requests and in most of the expressions of request from a teacher to
students were mood derivables, and many of those were imperatives (see chart 4. Classroom
English).
This imbalanced presentation seems to lead to both pragmalinguistic failures and
sociopragmatic failures. The small proportion of the other request strategies may bring about
pragmalinguistic failures. If they do not learn enough request strategies, they cannot tell the
difference of pragmatic force in each request strategy, and therefore, they might use the most
familiar request strategies, that is, mood derivables, when making requests. Sociopragmatic
failures may occur because presentations like this signal that teachers (higher status people)
normally use mood derivables or “imperatives” to students (lower status people) when making
requests. This tendency concurs with the study by Yates that Chinese background teachers,
authority figures, use many directives in classrooms. The huge proportion of the direct strategies
in Classroom English also seemed to reflect the Japanese culture, and there is a high possibility
that this cultural norm is understood as transferable.
imperatives in Classroom English
（CE） Imperatives in TS in CE
(c)/(a) = % of im in CE in
all of the ims in the book
Classroom English(CE)
(a)total # of imoerative

(c)/(b)=% of ims in CE

(e)/(d)=% of ims in TS
teaher→students(TS)
(b)# of sentences in

(C)# of ims in CE

(e)# of ims in TS
sentences in CE
(ims) sentences

sentences
(d)# of

birdland 27 15 8 29.6 53.3 7 5 71.4

crown 85 53 28 32.9 52.8 48 28 58.3
departure 24 26 12 50.0 46.2 18 12 66.7
Echo 41 13 9 22.0 69.2 11 9 81.8
English Street 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
evergreen 37 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
expressways 37 19 0 0 0 0 0 0
interact 15 7 2 13.3 28.6 5 2 40.0
mainstream 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
new start 60 8 0 0 0 8 0 0
On Air 29 17 9 31.0 52.9 9 8 88.9
progressive 22 17 12 54.5 70.6 12 11 91.7
select 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
speak to the world 46 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
talk up 31 7 4 12.9 57.1 5 4 80.0

<Chart 4. Classroom English>

− 147 −
 The Economic Journal of Takasaki City University of Economics vol.48 No.3 2006

7. Conclusion

The textbooks used too many direct strategies, variations, and sentences. The most direct level
of strategies (mood derivables) and the most direct level of variations (“imperatives”) were
presented by far the most, and the amount and the proportion of them were outstanding.
On the other hand, indirect strategies and variations seemed fewer than they should be. The
most indirect formulas researched (“I’d appreciate” and “Do you mind?”) were not introduced in
many of the textbooks. Also, in spite of the fact that they included many query preparatory
sentences, which concur with the data of NSs, very important and common formula, such as
“Would you/Could you?” was not included in a textbook, and some of the presentation could be
misleading. Considering the results from the other studies on Japanese speaking English learners
which suggest their English tended to be too direct, these characteristics of the textbooks should
be paid more attentions and improved quickly.
（Full–Time Lecturer, The Faculty of Economics, Takasaki City University of Economics）
References
Akutsu, Y. (2001). Examining Speech Acts in “Oral Communication A” Textbooks (1). Kyoai Ronsyu, 13, 163-
178
Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. S. Scarcella,
E. Andersen, & S.C. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55-
73). New York: Newbury House.
Bergman, M. L., & Kasper, G. (1993). Perception and performance in native and nonnative apology. In G.
Kasper, & S. Blum- Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics. (pp. 82-107). New York: Oxford university
Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B., Mahan-Taylor, R., Morgan, M., and Reynolds, D.(1991). Developing
pragmatics awareness: Closing the conversation. ELT Journal, 45, 4-15.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (eds) (1989b). Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics: An
introductory overview. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House and G. Kasper(eds). Cross-cultural Pragmatics:
Requests and Apologies (pp.1-34). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bouton, L. (1996). Pragmatics and language learning. In L. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics ns language learning,
monograph series vol. 7 (pp.1-20). Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language,
University of Urbana-Champaign.
Boxer, D. & Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: The case of
complaints. ELT Journal, 49. 44-58
Bialystok, E., (1993). Symbolic Representation and Attentional Control in Pragmatic Competence. In G.
Kasper S. & Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics. (pp.43-57). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Cohen, A. D. (1996). Investigating the production of speech act sets. In S. M. Gass, & J. Neu (Eds). Speech
act across cultures (pp21-44). New York : Morton de Gruyter.
Cohen, A. D. & Tarone, E. (1994). Describing and teaching speech act behavior: Stating and changing an
opinion. In L. Barbara, & M. Scott (Eds.), Reflections on language learning (pp. 110-121). Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
House, J. & Kasper, G.(1987). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requesting in a foreign language. In W. Loerscher,

− 148 −
 Request Strategies in Oral ‘Communication A’ textbooks（AKUTSU）

& R. Scheulze (eds.), Perspectives on language in performance (pp. 1250-1288). Tubingen: Narr.
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1989). Internal and external modification in interlanguage request realization. In
Blum-Kulka & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 221-247).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
House, J. & Kasper, G. (1987). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requesting in a foreign language. In W. Loerscher
& R. Scheulze (eds.), Perspectives on language in performance (pp. 1250-1288). Tubingen: Narr.
Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, 8, 203-231.
Kasper, G. (1996). Introduction: interlanguage pragmatics in SLA. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 18, 145-148.
Maeshiba, N., Yoshinaga, N. Kasper, G., & Ross, S. (1996). Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage
apologizing. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds). Speech act across cultures (pp21-44). New York: Morton de
Gruyter.
Robinson, M. (1991). Introspective methodology in interlanguage pragmatics research. In G. Casper (Ed.),
Pragmatics of Japanese as native and target language. (technical Rep., Vol. 3, pp. 29-84). Honolulu:
University of Hawaii, Second language teaching and curriculum center.
Schmidt, R. W. (1993). Consciousness, learning, and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-
Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics. (pp.21-42). New York: Oxford University Press
Scotton, C., and Bernsten, J. (1988). Natural conversations as a model for textbook dialogue. Applied
Linguistics, 9, 213-243
Takahashi, T. & Beebe, L. M. (1993). Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of correction. In G. Kasper
& S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics. (pp.138-157). New York: Oxford University Press.
Tanaka, S., & Kawade, S. (1982). Politeness strategies and second language acquisition. Studies in second
language acquisition, 5, 18-33.
Thomas. J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: an introduction to pragmatics. New York: Longman
Thomas. J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91-109.
文部省．1989． 「高等学校指導書 外国語編」
検定教科書．Birdland. 京都：文英堂
検定教科書．The Crown Oral communication A. 東京：三省堂
検定教科書．Departure Oral communication A. 東京：大修館
検定教科書．Echo English course Oral communication A. 東京：三友社
検定教科書．English Street Oral communication A. 広島：第一学習社
検定教科書．Evergreen Communication A. 広島：第一学習社
検定教科書．Expressways Oral communication A. 東京：開隆堂
検定教科書．Interact Oral communication A. 東京：桐原書店
検定教科書．New Start English Communication A. 東京：旺文社
検定教科書．Mainstream. 大阪：増進堂
検定教科書．On Air Oral communication A. 東京：開拓社
検定教科書．Progressive Oral communication A. 東京：尚学図書
検定教科書．Speak to the world Oral communication A. 東京： 教育出版
検定教科書．Select Oral communication A. 東京：三省堂
検定教科書．TALK UP Oral communication A. 大阪：振興出版社啓林館

− 149 −