Process of EFL Learners’ Politeness Markers Development: A Sociocultural Perspective


Assistant Professor of TEFL; University of Qom


In spite of the crucial function of the politeness markers in the appropriate communication of the language learners, teachability of these markers has not received due attention in the pragmatic studies. Drawing upon House and Kasper’s (1981) influential taxonomy of politeness markers, the present study addressed teachability as well as the underlying process or microgenetic development of these markers in an EFL context. A population of 56 undergraduate participants underwent instruction through consciousness-raising (C-R) tasks for nine sessions. The data were obtained through repeated measurements during the first, third, fifth, seventh, and ninth sessions. The findings highlighted the effectiveness of the politeness markers instruction and suggested that the learners’ heavy reliance on some structures like “please” and consultative devices such as “willingness” and “ability” structures at early stages of data collection was mostly due to their unawareness of other politeness structures. This reliance decreased over time and was replaced by “play-downs” especially “progressive aspect + past tense” structure in the course of the instruction.Likewise, a wider range of simple politeness markers such as hedges, understaters, and downtoners which were absent in the learners’ early data increased steadily in their subsequent data. The findings highlight the acquisitional difficulty of pragmatic features and provide researchers, practitioners as well as language learners with information concerning the acquisitional sequence and order of pragmatic features in an EFL instructional context.


Article Title [Persian]

بررسی فرآیند توسعه تدریجی نشانگرهای ادب‌ورزی زبان آموزان ایرانی بر اساس دیدگاه اجتماعی-فرهنگی

Authors [Persian]

  • رسول محمد حسین پور
  • رضا باقری نویسی
استادیار دانشگاه قم
Abstract [Persian]

علی رغم نقش مهم نشانگرهای ادب ورزی در برقراری ارتباط مناسب زبان آموزان، تدریس پذیری این نشانگرها در مطالعات منظور شناسی مورد توجه کافی قرار نگرفته است. در این مقاله به بررسی تدریس پذیری و فرایند تدریجی توسعه نشانه گر های ادب ورزی زبان آموزان ایرانی  بر اساس طبقه بندی هاوس و کاسپر (1981) پرداخته است. ۵۶ دانشجوی کارشناسی زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی از طریق فعالیت های آگاهی برانگیز برای ۹ جلسه آموزش داده شدند. داده ها از طریق اندازه گیری های مکرر در جلسات اول، سوم، پنجم، هفتم و نهم بدست آمدند. یافته ها بر اثربخشی آموزش نشانگرهای ادب ورزی تاکید داشته ودر عین حال به این نکته اشاره دارند که وابستگی شدید زبان آموزان به برخی از ساختارها از قبیل "لطفا" و برخی ابزارهای مشورتی مانند ساختارهای "تمایل" و "توانایی" در مراحل اولیه جمع آوری داده ها عمدتا از عدم آگاهی آنها نشات گرفته است. این وابستگی در طول زمان کاهش یافته و در طول دوره آموزش به جای «PLAYDOWNS » به طور اخص «جنبه پیشرونده + ساختار گذشته» جایگزین گردیدند. به علاوه، دامنه ای وسیع از نشانگرهای ادب ورزی ساده مانند (UNDERSTATERS AND DOWNTONERS) که در داده های اولیه زبان آموزان وجود نداشتند  به طور پیوسته و مداوم افزایش یافتند. یافته ها بر سختی فرایند اکتساب ، یاد گیری و توسعه تدریجی  خصیصه های منظور شناسی تاکید دارند. محققان، مدرسان و همچنین زبان آموزان می بایست با اطلاعات مربوط به توالی و ترتیب اکتساب و یادگیری خصیصه های منظور شناسی در محیط آموزشی یادگیری زبان خارجی آشنا گردند.

Keywords [Persian]

  • منظور شناسی
  • نشانگرهای ادب ورزی
  • توسعه تدریجی
  • آگاهی برانگیزی
Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in interaction. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Calais, G. (2008). Microgenetic analysis of learning: Measuring change as it occurs. National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal, 21(3), 1-7.

Chang, W. L. (2008). Australian and Chinese perceptions of (im)politeness in an intercultural apology. Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication, 1(2), 59-74.

Crystal, D., & Davy, D. (1975). Advanced conversational English. London, UK: Longman.

Dufon, M. A. (2008). Language socialization theory and the acquisition of pragmatics in the foreign language classroom. In E. Alcon-Soler, & A. Martinez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 25-44). New York, New York: Multilingual Matters.

Edmondson, W. (1977). A pedagogic grammar of the English verb: A handbook for the German secondary teacher of English. Tübingen, Germany: Narr.

Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2012). E-mail requests to faculty: E-politeness and internal modification. In M. Economidou-Kogetsidis & H. Woodfield (Eds.), Interlanguage request modification (pp. 87-118). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor.

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). London: Academic Press.

Hendriks, B. (2008). Dutch English requests: A study of request performance by Dutch learners of English. In M. Puetz, & J. N. Aertselaer (Eds.), Contrastive pragmatics: Interlanguage and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 335-354). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Holmes, J. (2000). Politeness, power and provocation: How humor functions in the workplace. Discourse Studies, 2(2), 159-85.

Holmes, J. (2006). Politeness strategies as linguistic variables. In J. L. Mey (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics (711-723). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Ltd.

House, J., & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine (pp. 157-186). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Jalilifar, A. (2009). Request strategies: Cross-sectional study of Iranian EFL learners and Australian native speakers. English Language Teaching, 2(1), 46- 61.

Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? (NetWork #6) [HTML document]. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Retrieved October 25, 2014 from

Kasper, G., & Roever, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 317-334). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Theories of second language pragmatic development. Language Learning, 52(Supplement 1), 13-52.

Kinginger, C., & Belz, J. A. (2005). Socio-cultural perspectives on pragmatic development in foreign language learning: Microgenetic case studies from telecollaboration and residence abroad. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(4), 369- 421. Retrieved from

Knupsky, A. C., & Nagy-Bell, N. M. (2011). Dear professor: The influence of recipient sex and status on personalization and politeness in e-mail. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 30(1), 103–113.

Lakoff, R. (1977). What you can do with words: Politeness, pragmatics, and performatives. In A. Rogers, B. Wall, & J. Murphy (Eds.), Proceedings of the Texas conference of performatives, presuppositions and implicatures (pp. 79-105.). Arlington, Texas: Center of Applied Linguistics.

Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Lavelli, M., Pantoja, A., Hsu, H., Messinger, D., & Fogel, A. (2004). Using microgenetic designs to study change processes. In D. M. Teti (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in developmental psychology (pp. 40-65). Baltimore, Maryland: Blackwell Publishers.

Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman.

Martinez-Flor, A. (2012). Examining EFL learners’ long-term instructional effects when mitigating requests. In M. Economidou-Kogetsidis, & H. Woodfield (Eds.), Interlanguage request modification (pp. 243-274). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Niezgoda, K., & Roever, C. (2001). Pragmatic and grammatical awareness. In K. R. Rose, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 63-79). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ohta, A. S. (2005). Interlanguage pragmatics in the zone of proximal development. System, 33(3), 503-517.

Otcu, B., & Zeyrek, D. (2006). Requesting in L2: Pragmatic development of Turkish learners of English. Paper presented at the 31st Intercultural Pragmatics LAUD Symposium. Inter-cultural pragmatics: Linguistic, social and cognitive approaches. Landau/Pfalz, Germany.

Pan, P. C. (2012). Interlanguage requests in institutional e-mail discourse: A study in Hong Kong. In M. Economidou-Kogetsidis & H. Woodfield (Eds.), Interlanguage request modification (pp. 119-161). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Safont-Jorda, M. P., & Alcon-Soler, E. (2012). Teachability of request act peripheral modification devices in third language learning contexts. In M. Economidou-Kogetsidis, & H. Woodfield (Eds.), Interlanguage request modification (pp. 275-313). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Sasaki, M. (1998). Investigating EFL students’ production of speech acts: A comparison of production questionnaires and role plays. Journal of Pragmatics 30(4), 457-484.

Schauer, G. A. (2009). Interlanguage pragmatic development: The study abroad context. London: Continuum.

Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1-63). Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

Siegler, R. S. (2006). Microgenetic analyses of learning. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.), D. Kuhn, & R. S. Siegler (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Volume 2: Cognition, perception, and language (6th ed.) (pp. 464-510). Hoboken, New Jersy: Wiley.

Taguchi, N. (2006). Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English. Pragmatics, 16(4), 513-533.

Tajeddin, Z., & Pezeshki, M. (2014). Acquisition of politeness markers in an EFL context: Impact of input enhancement and output tasks. RELC Journal, 45(3), 269-286.

Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In K. R. Rose, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 171-199). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Van Compernolle, R. A. (2011). Developing second language sociopragmatic knowledge through concept-based instruction: A microgenetic case study. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(13), 3267-3283.

Van Compernolle, R. A., & Williams, L. (2012). Promoting sociolinguistic competence in the classroom zone of proximal development. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 39-60.

Vygotsky, L. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky volume I: Thinking and speaking. New York, New York: Plenum Press.

Watts, R. J. (2003). Key topics in sociolinguistics: Politeness. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Woodfield, H. (2008). Interlanguage requests in English: A contrastive study. In M. Puetz, & J. N. Aertselaer (Eds.), Contrastive pragmatics: Interlanguage and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 231-264). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

Woodfield, H. (2012). I think maybe I want to lend the notes from you: Development of request modification in graduate learners. In M. Economidou- Kogetsidis, & H. Woodfield (Eds.), Interlanguage request modification (pp. 9- 49). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.