Mizushima, L., & Watari, Y. “Do English education in Japanese high schools provide sufficient pragmatic instruction?: A quantitative and qualitative study of English textbooks and teachers." at the 14th International Pragmatics Conference (The University of Antwerp, Belgium, Jul. 26-31)

1. Contextuality Interactiveness Discourse/ Sequence
Metapragmatic
Instruction
Total Score
n M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
PS 564 0.67 0.51 1.31 0.75 0.85 0.41 1.02 0.14 3.85 1.44
BD 638 0.65 0.89 0.92 0.81 0.89 0.70 1.02 0.16 3.48 2.09
NF 380 0.77 0.89 0.82 0.89 0.67 0.71 1.03 0.17 3.28 2.36
VQ (S) 536 0.63 0.93 0.86 0.87 0.75 0.91 1.01 0.14 3.26 2.63
VQ (A) 679 0.54 0.89 0.79 0.84 0.68 0.85 1.02 0.15 3.03 2.48
VV 248 0.40 0.57 0.59 0.61 0.36 0.52 1.01 0.09 2.35 1.54
MW 343 0.10 0.45 0.22 0.47 0.20 0.46 1.02 0.15 1.55 1.22
CR 334 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.35 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.15 0.35
Total 3722 0.52 0.79 0.78 0.83 0.62 0.72 1.02 0.14 2.94 2.18
283
276
190
332
118
243
234
100
51
58
68
166
114
123
219
191
9
122
181
16
170
185
273
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
CR
MW
NF
VQ(A)
VV
VQ(S)
BD
PS
Do English education in Japanese high schools
provide sufficient pragmatic instruction?
A quantitative and qualitative study of English textbooks and teachers
MIZUSHIMA, Lisa Sapporo Gakuin University <lisa@sgu.ac.jp>
WATARI, Yoichi Shizuoka University <eywatar@ipc.shizuoka.ac.jp>
Introduction
According to the new course of study by the Japanese Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT, 2009), the main objective of
foreign language education is “to develop students’ communication abilities.”
For decades, however, many interlanguage pragmatic studies have pointed out
the lack of pragmatic ability of Japanese EFL learners.
Following the previous studies (LoCastro, 2003; McGroarty & Taguchi, 2005;
Shimizu, Fukasawa, & Yonekura, 2007, 2008), this study aims to understand and
assess the current situation of pragmatic instruction in high school education.
Method
The analysis is built on the quantitative and qualitative data from (1) eight of
the most widely used textbooks, and (2) the survey questionnaire for Japanese
teachers of English and teacher candidates (productive/receptive questions
via Google Form from May 16 to June 12, 2015).
(1) Textbook Analysis
l 8 high school textbooks (82.8% share in total)
l 3,722 sentences (M = 465.25, SD = 148.71), excluding exercises
l Classification of language functions (MEXT, 2009)
l Evaluation of sentences and rating scales
(2) Survey questionnaire
l 19 Japanese teachers of English (junior high school/high school/university/ other),
and 14 students (undergraduate/graduate) as teacher candidates
l Teachers’career experience ranges from less than 5 years (42%) to over 20 years
(21%)
l Productive (DCT) questions (adapted from Wakiyama, 1990)
l Receptive questions
14th International Pragmatics Conference, Antwerp, Belgium, 30 July 2015, Abstract: p. 576
a. Facilitating communication
b. Expressing emotions
c. Transmitting information
d. Expressing opinions and intentions
e. Instigating action
• Contextuality: 0-2pt
• Interactiveness: 0-2pt
• Discourse/sequence: 0-2pt
• Metapragmatic instruction: 0-2pt
5
5
42
38
11
43
15
22
7
27
66
65
22
60
24
44
257
243
366
272
158
354
251
284
20
22
113
78
27
65
45
88
45
46
92
83
30
116
45
126
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
CR
MW
VQ(A)
VQ(S)
VV
BD
NF
PS
A B C D E
334
325
500
366
161
404
205
194
76
52
58
360
18
179
170
11
182
117
10
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
CR
MW
VQ(A)
VQ(S)
VV
BD
NF
PS
334
282
164
391
305
180
195
94
52
79
120
61
147
321
458
9
5
168
170
53
122
12
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
CR
MW
VV
VQ(A)
VQ(S)
NF
BD
PS
0 pt 1 pt 2 pt
Figure 1. Language functions
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Pragmatic Evaluation
Figure 2. Contextuality
Figure 3. Interactiveness
Figure 4. Discourse/Sequence Figure 5. Metapragmatic instruction
Giving appropriate contexts for each of the following sentences/utterances
(excerpts from the textbooks)
Q4. “May I have another chocolate?”
Q5. “I would be glad if you would give me a reply.”
Q6. “Don’t touch the paintings.”
Results & Discussion
Q1. Asking a secretary to do an overtime work
Q2. Asking somebody to call a police
Q3. Suggesting a colleague to change a restaurant to a less crowded one
(2) Survey questionnaire
l Productive (DCT) questions
Q1 (Expected level of politeness – softened, indirect)
Result: While 13 out of 19 teachers (4 out of 6 JH/H school teachers) made
appropriately softened requests, 12 out of 14 students made direct
requests.
Q2 (Expected level of politeness – direct)
Result: 15 out of 19 teachers (5 out of 6 JH/H school teachers) and 9 out of
14 students made appropriately direct requests, but the rest of the
answers were unnecessarily redundant.
Q3 (Expected level of politeness – softened)
Result: 8 out of 19 teachers (5 out of 6 JH/H school teachers) and 9 out of
14 students made inappropriately direct, strong suggestions.
l Receptive questions
Q4 Result: While 15 out of 19 teachers (5 out of 6 JH/H school teachers)
imagined S and H were in an intimate relationship, 11 out of 14
students assumed more socially-distant relationship.
Q5 Result: 15 out of 19 teachers (all JH/H school teachers) and 7 out of 12
students assumed the relationships of S and H as socially-distant,
and H was in a higher status than S.
Q6 Result: Almost all teachers and 11 out of 14 students described a scene
where H was about to touch a painting, and S with a higher status or
power was giving a warning to H.
Following the results of textbook analysis (1), we could conclude that the
English textbooks used in most Japanese high schools have not provided
adequate coverage of pragmatic information. Furthermore, the results of
survey questionnaire (2) indicate that although as teachers get more
experienced they tend to have better pragmatic considerations, their
pragmatic knowledge needs to be supported somehow. We insist that raising
teachers’ awareness will lead to the development of students’ pragmatic
competence.
(1) Textbook Analysis
The data indicates that the
expressions offered in the textbooks
are often presented without language-
use context, and their function is
limited to “transmitting information.”
It is also revealed that these
textbooks do not provide sufficient
explanation of the sociopragmatic
appropriateness of the selected
semantic formulas.
1
1
1
526
553
621
334
246
664
335
369
9
10
16
2
15
8
11
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
VQ(S)
PS
BD
CR
VV
VQ(A)
MW
NF
0 pt 1 pt 2 pt