Intermediate learners understanding of english questions for different communicative purpposes an investigation at vietnam australia international english school m a 60 14 10

TRẦN THỊ THÚY VÂN INTERMEDIATE LEARNERS’ UNDESTANDING OF ENGLISH QUESTIONS FOR DIFFERENT COMMUNICATIVE PURPOSES: AN INVESTIGATION AT VIETNAM-AUSTRALIA INTERNATIONAL ENGLISH SCHOOL A

TRẦN THỊ THÚY VÂN

INTERMEDIATE LEARNERS’ UNDESTANDING OF

ENGLISH QUESTIONS FOR DIFFERENT

COMMUNICATIVE PURPOSES: AN

INVESTIGATION AT VIETNAM-AUSTRALIA INTERNATIONAL ENGLISH SCHOOL

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ART

(TESOL)

SUPERVISOR: NGUYỄN HOÀNG TUẤN, Ph.D

HO CHI MINH CITY - 2010

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

I certify my authorship of the thesis submitted today entitled:

INTERMEDIATE LEARNERS’ UNDERSTANDING OF ENGLISH QUESTIONS FOR DIFFERENT COMMUNICATIVE

PURPOSES: AN INVESTIGATION AT VIET

NAM-AUSTRALIA INTERNATIONAL ENGLISH SCHOOL

In terms of the statement of Requirement for Theses in Master’s Programs

issued by the High Degree Committee

Ho Chi Minh City, April 2010

TRẦN THỊ THÚY VÂN

RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS

I hereby state that I, TRẦN THỊ THÚY VÂN, being the candidate for the degree of Master of TESOL, accept the requirements of the University relating to the retention and the use of Master’s Theses deposited in the Library

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my thesis deposited

in the Library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the Library for care, loan or reproduction of theses

Ho Chi Minh City, April 2010

TRẦN THỊ THÚY VÂN

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my thesis supervisor,

Dr Nguyễn Hoàng Tuấn, for his valuable assistance, guidance, encouragement and comments during the time of implementing the thesis Without his help, I could not have finished this thesis

I am deeply grateful to Ms Nguyễn Thị Kiều Thu - Dean of the Department

of English Linguistics and Literature, Ho Chi Minh City University of Social Sciences and Humanities and Mr Trương Hớn Huy - Deputy Dean of the Department of English Linguistics and Literature, for their valuable advice in carrying out the methodology of the research for the thesis

I own many thanks to all of my teachers for their dedication and helpful instruction during the course My sincere thanks to all the teachers and learners at Vietnam-Australia International English School who made meaningful contribution

in the collection of data for my research

Last but not least, I would like to thank my family and my friends for their love, encouragement, understanding and moral support

ABSTRACT

Question, besides the basic function of asking for information, can be used to perform other communicative purposes just as other sentence types do Although intermediate Vietnamese learners of English (VlsE) at Vietnam-Australia International English School (VAS) have acquired the general knowledge of the English language, they still have troubles in using English questions for different communicative purposes and responding to them appropriately

This thesis aims at (1) exploring how Intermediate-level VlsE at VAS use English questions for different communicative purposes; (2) investigating their awareness of the speaker’s intention in asking question and (3) offering some recommendations for raising learners’ pragmatic awareness of the communicative functions of English questions in communication In order to achieve these objectives, a survey was carried out by using a questionnaire delivered to 128 intermediate-level VlsE at VAS

The results of the study show that the majority of the learner subjects could not recognize other communicative functions of English questions besides the function of asking for information Most of them could not interpret the intention of the speakers in asking questions properly and they responded to questions inappropriately

From the findings of the study, the thesis recommends that teachers should

incorporate teaching the pragmatic functions of English questions in teaching Besides, the supplementing of authentic materials and other teaching materials including language functions is necessary With regard to learners, the study recommends that learners should be aware of the different speech acts realizations

of English questions in communication and compare the use of questions in their mother tongue with that of English to avoid the interference of their mother tongue

to the target language in communication

LIST OF ABBRIVIATIONS

VAS : Viet Nam- Australia International English School VlsE : Vietnamese learners of English

DSA : Direct Speech Act

ISA : Indirect Speech Act

ODCT : Oral Discourse Completion Task

DRPT : Discourse Role Play Task

DSAT : Discourse Self-Assessment Task

RPSA : Role Play Self-Assessment

WDCT : Written Discourse Completion Task

MDCT : Multiple Choice Discourse Completion Task

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Certificate of originality i

Retention and use of the thesis ii

Acknowledgements iii

Abstract iv

List of Abbreviations v

Table of contents vi

List of figures xi

List of tables xii

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 The rationale of the study 1

1.1.1 Description of Vietnam-Australia International English School 3

1.1.2 Description of the syllabus for Intermediate learners of English at VAS 4

1.2 Statement of Purpose 5

1.3 Significance of the study 5

1.4 Definition of terms 5

1.5 Organization of the study 6

Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 7

2.1 Issues relating to questioning in communication 7

2.1.1 Speech acts 7

2.1.2 Felicity Conditions 9

2.1.3 Classification of Speech Act 10

2.1.4 Direct and Indirect Speech Act 12

2.1.5 Cooperative Principle 14

2.1.6 Politeness 15

2.2 The typology of questions 16

2.2.1 The typology of questions in English syntax 16

2.2.2 The typology of questions in the cognitive domain 19

2.3 The pragmatic functions of English questions in communication 21

2.3.1 Question as Assertion 22

2.3.2 Question as Command 22

2.3.3 Question as Exclamation 22

2.3.4 Question as Greeting 22

2.3.5 Question as Informing 23

2.3.6 Question as Invitation 23

2.3.7 Question as Offer 24

2.3.8 Question as Promise 24

2.3.9 Question as Request 24

2.3.10 Question as Statement 25

2.3.11 Question as an Equivalence to a Negative Statement 25

2.3.12 Question as Suggestion 26

2.3.13 Question as Warning 26

2.3.14 Question as Combination of Illocutionary Acts 26

2.3.15 Other illocutionary acts of questions 27

2.6 Summary 28

Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY 29

3.1 Research questions 29

3.2 Research design 29

3.2.1 Subjects of the study 29

3.2.1.1 Characteristics of the subjects 30

3.2.2 Data collection method 30

3.2.2.1 The pilot study of the questionnaire 33

3.2.2.2 The Questionnaire 35

3.2.3 Data collection procedures 39

3.3 Summary 39

Chapter 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 41

4.1 Data analysis 41

4.1.1 Learners’ responses to the questionnaire 41

4.1.1.1 Learners’ overall knowledge of the use of English

questions for different communicative purposes 41

4.1.1.2 Learners’ use of English question for different communicative purposes 42

4.1.1.2.1 Learners’ use of English question in Requesting 43

4.1.1.2.2 Learners’ use of English question in Offering 45

4.1.1.2.3 Learners’ use of English question in Greeting 47

4.1.1.2.4 Learners’ use of English question in Exclaiming 48

4.1.1.3 Learners’ choice of using English questions in speech acts performance 50

4.1.1.3.1 Learners’ choice of using English questions in Suggesting 50

4.1.1.3.2 Learners’ choice of using English questions in Warning 51

4.1.1.3.3 Learners’ choice of using English questions in Promising 52

4.1.1.4 Learners’ awareness of the speakers’ intention in asking questions 53

4.1.1.5 Learners’ responses to English questions 58

4.2 Findings 63

4.2.1 Learners’ use of English questions for different communicative purposes 63

4.2.2 Learners’ awareness of the speaker’s intention in asking question 65

4.3 Summary 67

Chapter 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 68

5.1 Recommendations 68

5.1.1 Recommendations to teachers 68

5.1.1.1 Encouraging learners’ questions in class 69

5.1.1.2 Incorporating teaching the pragmatic functions of English questions 70

5.1.1.3 Sensitizing learners to cultural differences between Vietnamese and English question 70

5.1.1.4 Teaching the communicative functions of questions in contexts 71

5.1.1.5 Exposing learners to questions in real-life communication 71

5.1.1.6 Combining teaching and testing the communicative functions of English questions 72

5.1.1.7 Strategies for teaching learners to use English questions

for different communicative purposes 72

5.1.2 Recommendations to learners 74

5.1.2.1 Awareness of the target culture 74

5.1.2.2 Awareness of the pragmatic aspects of the target language 74

5.2.2.3 Awareness of the different speech acts realizations of English question 75

5.1.3 Recommendations about materials 75

5.1.3.1 Awareness of Authentic Language Use 76

5.1.3.2 Supplement of teaching materials 77

5.2 Conclusions 78

5.3 Limitations of the study and Recommendation for further research 79

5.4 Summary 80

REFERENCES: 81

APPENDIX 1: 85

The syllabus for intermediate (level A) course APPENDIX 2: 88

Questionnaire for Vietnamese learners of English APPENDIX 3: 93

Questionnaire for Vietnamese learners of English (Questionnaire for pilot study) APPENDIX 4 97

Questionnaire for native speakers of English (Questionnaire for pilot study) APPENDIX 5 101

Teaching the communicative functions of English questions: Requests and

Permission

LIST OF FIGURES

Chapter 4

Figure 4.1 Learners’ perception of the communicative functions of English

question 41 Figure 4.2 Learners’ awareness of the speaker’s intention in asking:

“Are you still watching TV?” 54

Figure 4.3 Learners’ awareness of the speaker’s intention in asking:

“Is it right to cheat in any exam?” 55

Figure 4.4 Learners’ awareness of the speaker’s intention in asking:

“Did you know that John had an accident?” 56

Figure 4.5 Learners’ awareness of the speaker’s intention in asking:

“Hi, what time is it now?” 57

LIST OF TABLES

Chapter 4

Table 4.1 Learners’ performance in Requesting 44

Table 4.2 Learners’ performance in Offering 45

Table 4.3 Learners’ performance in Greeting 47

Table 4.4 Learners performance in Exclaiming 49

Table 4.5 Learners’ performance in Suggesting 50

Table 4.6 Learners’ performance in Warning 51

Table 4.7 Learners’ performance in Promising 52

Table 4.8 Learners’ responses to Request for time 59

Table 4.9 Learners’ responses to Complaint 60

Table 4.10 Learners’ responses to Offer 61

Table 4.11 Learners’ responses to Suggestion 62

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

This study investigates how intermediate Vietnamese learners of English (Abbreviated to VLsE) at Vietnam-Australia International English School (Abbreviated to VAS) use of English questions for different communicative purposes and brings some recommendations to teachers and learners in order to raise learners’ awareness of the communicative functions of English questions This chapter will provide the rationale of the study in section 1.1, the statement of purpose in section 1.2, the significance of the study in section 1.3, the definitions of terms in section 1.4 and the organization of the study in section 1.5

1.1 The rationale of the study

Questioning is one of the speech acts that is commonly used in communication

A question is an important factor that creates interaction between interlocutors in communication Normally, in asking question, the questioner wants the hearer to provide some piece of information that he or she wishes to know from the hearer In most of the languages in the world, the function of a question is asking for information However, in communication, questions do not play that function in all cases In some situations, questions can be used to perform other speech acts such

as offering, requesting, suggesting, complaining, inviting, greeting, exclaiming and

so on (Downing A and Locke P, 1995:191-1992) The use of questions to perform other communicative acts is a natural feature of communication that is called, according to Searle (1975:265-267), indirect speech act For example, in English, a

speaker may utter the sentence ‘Can you reach the salt?’ and means not merely a

question but as a request to pass the salt There are cases in which questions are used to perform different indirect speech acts The main reason for the employment

of questions in these cases is politeness (Lakoff, 1973a; Brown & Levinson, 1978;

Clark & Schunk, Note 2) The indirect speech acts realizations of questions1 in English appear to be natural characteristics in communication of native speakers For that reason, learners of English should be aware of the functions of English questions for different communicative purposes in order to avoid breakdowns in communication

In the teaching and learning of English nowadays, for many learners of English, the function of English question is merely asking for information Other communicative functions of English question seem to be overlooked by teachers and learners In addition, in classroom situations, questions are usually made by teachers for checking learners’ comprehension Learners are the ones who are supposed to respond to the teacher’s questions They rarely have the opportunity to ask questions in class Research indicates that little provision is made in schools for student questions The typical student asks appropriately one question per month (Fahey, 1942:337-357) It is little wonder that high rates of teacher questioning tend

to be associated with low rates of student questions and student declarations Consequently, learners are very poor at using question even for asking for information (Abbot, 1980:5)

Learners’ lack of using English question in their English learning explains for their lack of awareness of the pragmatic functions of English questions in communication Being unconscious of these functions, many learners of English often fail to employ questions for different communicative purposes Moreover, in their communication with native speakers of English, when learners receive questions from the speakers, they have a tendency to respond to them linguistically, basing on the literal meaning of the questions As a result, breakdowns in communication happen and they hinder learners from achieving communicative competence

1 In this study, the indirect speech acts realizations of English question in some cases will be called the

communicative functions of English question or the pragmatic functions of English question

In the teaching and learning English in Vietnam at present, things are much the same Many Vietnamese teachers of English still value the grammatical correctness of utterances over the appropriateness of utterances in actual communication (Ha Cam Tam, 1998:2) so in their teaching English questions to learners, they focus on teaching learners how to make correct questions rather than teaching them how to use questions appropriately in contexts It results in the fact that VLsE are bad at using questions and responding to them appropriately From this reality, raising learners’ pragmatic awareness of the communicative functions

of English questions is of great importance in teaching English for communication

To address this issue, an investigation into intermediate learners’ use of English questions for different communicative purposes at VAS is necessary to find out their ability of using English questions for different communicative purposes and to suggest some recommendations in raising learners’ awareness of the communicative functions of English questions so that they can avoid failure in communication in English

1.1.1 Description of Vietnam-Australia International English School

Vietnam-Australia International English School was founded in the educational co-operation program between Vietnamese teachers of English and teachers from Melbourne University, Australia VAS offers classes of General English of different levels and IELTS/TOEFL/TOEIC training for Vietnamese learners of English For classes of General English, VAS focuses mainly on improving speaking and listening skills for learners but not at the expense of grammar, reading and writing When enrolling, all learners at VAS are required to take a placement test in order to be put in small classes of their appropriate level As

a result, the learners in each class are roughly of the same level

1.1.2 Description of the syllabus for Intermediate learners of General English

at VAS

 The intermediate course book

There are two levels for Intermediate course; they are level A and B Level A

is for low Intermediate learners who have finished the Pre-intermediate level When learners have finished level A, they will do level B The course books for

intermediate level are New English File Intermediate MultiPack A and New English

File Intermediate MultiPack B (by Oxenden & Latham-Koenig) for level A and

level B respectively In each book, all three elements – Grammar, Vocabulary and Pronunciation are given equal importance for learners’ acquisition of the English language

 The syllabus for intermediate level

VAS Intermediate course is divided into two levels (A and B) and each of which lasts twelve weeks with totally thirty-six class meetings The duration of each class meeting is ninety minutes (two periods) Level A covers three units consisting

of nine in-class lessons Level B covers four units consisting of twelve in-class lessons This study focuses on low intermediate learners’ use of English questions for different communicative purposes so only the syllabus for low intermediate (level A) course is presented The grammar focus of level A includes English tenses, comparison of adjectives and modal verbs The vocabulary focus includes common vocabularies such as foods and restaurants, sport, family, money, transport

and travel, some adjectives ending in –ed and -ing, and vocabularies for describing

people The pronunciation focus covers the contrasting between some strong and weak sounds, the practicing of prefixes and suffixes, of stress in sentences and in compound nouns The details of the syllabus will be reflected in Appendix 1

1.2 Statement of Purpose

The objectives of this paper are:

1) to explore how Intermediate-level Vietnamese learners of English at Vietnam-Australia International English School use English questions for different communicative purposes

2) to investigate learners’ awareness of the speaker’s intention in asking question

3) to offer some recommendations for raising learners’ pragmatic awareness of the functions of English questions in communication

1.3 Significance of the study

This study is significant in three aspects Firstly, the communicative functions of English questions play important roles in learners’ interpretation and production of speech acts Using questions for different communicative purposes, interpreting properly the intention of the speaker in asking questions and responding

to questions appropriately contribute a great deal to learners’ success in communication An investigation on how learners use English questions for different communicative purposes is necessary in the teaching and learning English

at VAS Secondly, this study is important not only for intermediate learners of English at VAS but also for Vietnamese learners of English Thirdly, basing on the results of the study, some recommendations will be suggested in teaching and learning the pragmatic functions of English questions in communication with the hope that learners will be confident in using, interpreting questions and responding

to them appropriately in communication The following section will define several terms relating to the pragmatic functions of English questions in communication

1.4 Definitions of Term

Context: All the factors and elements that are nonlinguistic and nontextual, but which affect spoken or written communicative interaction (Celce & Olshtain 2000: 236)

Direct speech acts: Speech acts where a direct relationship exists between the structure and communicative functions of an utterance (Yule.G, 1996:129) Indirect speech acts: Speech acts where an indirect relationship exists between the structure and communicative functions of an utterance (Yule.G, 1996: 131)

Face: The positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line other assume he has taken during a particular contact (Goffman, 1967:5) Illocutionary act or force: The communicative force of an utterance (Yule.G, 1996: 48)

Politeness: Showing awareness of another person’s public self image face want (Yule.G, 1996: 132)

Speech acts: An utterance seen in terms of its propositions (meanings) and functions The propositional meaning is known as locutionary force, and the functional meaning is known as the illocutionary force (Nunan.D, 1999:314)

1.5 Organization of the study

The study consists of five chapters Chapter One gives an introduction of the thesis Chapter Two presents the review of literature and researches relevant to the study Chapter Three describes the methodology applied for the research Chapter Four discusses and analyzes the findings with an emphasis on the pragmatic functions of English questions Finally, Chapter Five draws the Conclusion as well

as Recommendations for the teaching of speech acts performance via questions to learners

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter focuses on the following main ideas: (1) Issues relating to questioning to in communication, (2) The typology of questions in English language, (3) The pragmatic functions of English questions in communication

2.1 Issues relating to questioning in communication

Questioning is a speech act The use of question is a common practice in most daily human conversations By using questions, speakers can perform different communicative acts The performance of speech acts through questions in communication relates to some issues such as Speech act, Felicity Conditions, Classification of Speech acts, Direct and Indirect Speech act, Cooperative Principle, Politeness These issues are discussed as follows

2.1.1 Speech act

The theory of speech acts was developed by philosopher John Austin in an attempt to explain how particular utterances operate within natural language According to Austin (1962:5 ) words do not only provide information and facts, but

also carry actions For him, there is a difference between ‘I see a boy’ (1) and ‘I

promise that I will come tomorrow’ (2) In example (1), the speaker provides

information about what is in sight and nothing more In example (2), however, the speaker gives information about plans for tomorrow and offers a promise The

phrase ‘I promise ’ operates differently because of the force contained within the

words Austin (Ibid:6) classified these special types of ‘force-words’ as performatives which contrast with normal statements and assertions like in (1) In other words, by using performatives, the speaker is performing utterances In his point of view, Austin posited that there were rules for using the performatives so

that the force of utterance would be valid and the first rule is the use of the first

person in performatives For him, the force of saying (3) “She promises to be here”

cannot function as a performative because the speaker has no control over another person in order to fulfill the promise Another rule applying to performatives is that

of authority If someone shouts from the crowd, (4) ‘You’re out!’ at a football

game, the force of that performative is unfulfilled because of the lack of authority in the speaker In that situation, only the referee can say these words to fulfill the

speech act Austin called these conditions felicity conditions for performatives

After further studies, Austin realized that speech acts must be explained by dividing them in separate categories because one could not always distinguish between a true performative and other utterances He then restructured his performatives into three kinds of acts

The first type is the locutionary act Locutionary acts are “acts of saying

something” (Ibid:94) A locutionary act is simply the act of uttering a series of sounds that have meaning by the speaker and understood by the hearer

Austin suggested that a person does not customarily say things without a

purpose and that purpose in uttering an utterance is the illocutionary act – the

second type of speech act - Illocutionary acts are “acts that are performed in saying something as opposed to acts of saying something” (Ibid:99) A locutionary act

makes sense but an illocutionary act must have force; that is, it must convey to the

hearer the intention or purpose of the speaker on the hearer

Lastly, speech acts can be classified as perlocutionary acts Perlocutionary acts are acts of “saying something [that] will produce certain consequential effects

upon the feelings, thoughts, or actions of the audience” (Ibid:101) This type of act refers to the hearer’s recognition of and response to the illocutionary act

In short, a locutionary act has meaning, an illocutionary act has meaning and force, and a perlocutionary act has meaning, force, and consequences

According to Peccei (1999:44), different locutions can have the same illocutionary force and similarly; the same locution can have different illocutionary forces depending on the context In order to interpret the speaker’s intention in uttering an utterance, the hearer has to base on the context of the utterance Among the three acts, the illocutionary act is regarded as the most important, as it is actually what the speaker wants to achieve through the action of uttering the

sentence Yule (1996:49) claims that the term speech act is generally interpreted quite narrowly to mean only the illocutionary force of an utterance Adopting his point of view, the term speech acts performance of English questions in this study will be narrowly understood as the illocutionary forces/acts of English questions

2.1.2 Felicity Conditions

The theory of speech acts was further developed by Searle (1969, 1979) Under Searle’s point of view, the theory of speech acts starts with the assumption that the minimal unit of human communication is not a sentence, but rather the performance of certain kinds of acts Basing on Austin’s felicity conditions, Searle (cited in Alan Cruse D, 2000:343-344) developed a set of conditions to assist in understanding speech acts, as well as explaining how to make them felicitous The

first condition is the propositional content This can be compared to Austin’s

locutionary act because this entails meaning of the utterance itself based on context

So in the utterance (5) “I warn you not to go”, the propositional content is the

speaker’s providing a warning that refers to a future event For this condition to be felicitous, it must be appropriate for the given context and must be intended for the

hearer’s future The utterance (6) “I warned you not to go” would not be felicitous

because the speech event has already occurred In other words, the property of propositional content intended for a warning must be in the present tense and in the first person; other wise, an utterance like in (6) would only be a statement of a previous speech act The second type of Searle’s felicity conditions is the

preparatory condition This condition must be applied to the intention of the

speaker The preparatory condition for the warning utterance in (5) would mean that the speaker thinks that in the future, a certain event will occur and it is not in the hearer’s best interest for him to go The third type of felicity condition is the

sincerity condition which also applies to the intention and feeling of the speaker

For this condition to be felicitous, when saying (5) the speaker must believe that the future event is not in the hearer’s best interest

Finally, the last type of felicity condition is the essential condition This

condition is most transparent because it serves as an attempt for the speaker to show that the future event is not in the best interest of the hearer This last condition is essential because this is where the force of the utterance lies It also combines the first three conditions, which are basic intentions of the speaker, and transforms them

into an act of warning, or promising, or betting, etc Hence, by analyzing the

essential condition, the effect of the communicative utterance can be seen

2.1.3 Classification of Speech Act

Austin (1962:151-163) distinguished five general classes of illocutionary force They are Verdictives, Exercitives, Commissives, Behabititives, and Expositives They are explained as follows

- Verdictive consists in the delivering of a finding, official or unofficial, upon evidence or reasons as to value or facts, so far as these are distinguishable It is

exercise of judgment Examples of verdictive are acquit, convict, reckon, find (as a

matter of fact), understand, rate, etc

- Excercitive is the giving of a decision in favour of or against a certain course of action, or advocacy of it It is an assertion of influence or exercising of power

Examples of excercitive are appoint, dismiss, order, sentence, press, recommend,

etc

- Commisisve commits the speaker to a certain course of action It is an assuming of

an obligation or declaring of an intention Examples of commisisve are promise,

undertake, bind myself, mean to, swear, etc

- Behabitive includes the notion of reaction to other people’s behavior and fortunes and of attitudes and expressions of attitudes to someone else’s past conduct or imminent conduct Behabitive is the adopting of an attitude Examples of behabitive

are thank, apologize, compliment, complain, welcome, bless, challenge, etc

- Expositive is used in acts of exposition involving the expounding of views, the conducting of arguments, and the clarifying of usages and of references It is the clarifying of reasons, arguments, and communications Examples of expositive are

affirm, deny, remark, inform, answer, report, agree, argue, correct, turn to, interpret, explain, understand, etc

Austin’s classification of illocutionary forces did not make him satisfied (Ibid:151) and that caused Searle to make his contribution to the classification of speech acts According to Searle (1981, cited in To Minh Thanh, 2007:147-150), there are five main kinds of speech acts:

- Representatives: are the speech acts that describe a state of affairs in the world

(asserting, stating, claiming, affirming, making hypotheses, describing, predicting,

reporting, etc.) Representatives can generally be characterized as being true or

false, e.g (Tom: “Where are you from?”)

David: “I am from Canada.” (7)

According to To Minh Thanh, “I am from Canada.” is a Representative (Ibid:147)

- Directives: are the speech acts that that intend to get the listener to carry out an

action (commanding, requesting, begging, warning, challenging, inviting,

suggesting, giving advice, etc.) These directives may be expressed in different

forms like question form or command form For examples, (8) “Would you mind

passing the salt?” and (9) “Pass the salt” In either case, the speaker wants the

hearer to pass the salt

- Commissives: are the speech acts that commit the speaker to a course of action

(promising, vowing, threatening, offering, etc.) i.e (10) “If you don’t stop fighting,

I’ll call the police.”

- Expressives: are the speech acts that indicate the speaker’s psychological state(s),

feeling(s), or attitude(s) about something (greeting, apologizing, complaining,

thanking, etc.) For example: (11) “Thanks”, (12) “I’m so sorry”, (13) “This beer is disgusting.” These expressives must be context dependent because the illocutionary

and perlocutionary acts may be interpreted differently in alternative environments

- Declaratives: are the speech acts that bring about or change the state of affair they

name In other words, declaratives in themselves change the world (dismissing,

sentencing, naming, announcing marriage, etc.) This kind of speech act is quite

special that they can only ‘count’ if the speaker has the appropriate authority to

perform these acts, for example, (14) “I hereby pronounce you man and wife” in

turn officially causes the couple to be wed, and can take effect only if said by a priest or someone who carries authority to wed individuals

The typology of speech acts by Searle can be seen as the basic theory for studies relating to speech acts However, Leech (1983:206) says that beside the five basic types of speech acts above, there is an extra category to deal with requests for

information, which are called Rogatives In other words, Rogative is a subtype of directive in the form of a question For example, (15) “Where are you from?” In

uttering (15), the speaker directly asks the hearer for some information on his /her nationality or origin

According to Yule (1996: 54), beside the classification of speech acts under the system of functions, a different approach to distinguish types of speech acts can

be made on the basic of structure This issue will be discussed in the next section

2.1.4 Direct and Indirect Speech Act

When discussed about speech acts, Yule (Ibid:54-55) says, “there is an easily recognized relationship between the three structural forms (declarative, interrogative, imperative) and the three general communicative functions (statement, question, command/request)” In his point of view, when there is a direct relationship between a structure and a function, we have a direct speech act

(DSA) For example, (16) “ It’s cold outside.” is a declarative It is used to make a

statement and functions as a direct speech act With regard to Indirect speech act, Yule (Ibid) says that whenever there is an indirect relationship between a structure

and a function, we have an indirect speech act (ISA) For example, (17) “Do you

have to stand in front of the TV?” is not being used only as a question but as an

indirect request In asking such question, the speaker wants the addressee not to stand in front of the TV

When discussing about DSA and ISA, Searle (1975: 59) says that the simplest cases of meaning are those in which the speaker utters a sentences and

means exactly what he says In these cases, if there is a direct correlation in the

utterance type and the function, a DSA appears Therefore, the utterances (18) “I

apologize” and (19) “Give me your jacket!” would be DSAs because the type and

function are related In (18) the expressive is given and expresses an apology In (19) the directive is used to order or to direct someone to give a jacket This is

contrasted with the statement (20) “I am a little cold” where the type of act

(declarative) carries the function stating for the purpose of getting the jacket In uttering this utterance, the speaker is producing an ISA

Although speech acts may be direct, ‘the majority in everyday conversation are indirect’ (Dörnyei and Thurrell, 1992: 80) It is the ISA that causes difficulties

to English learners in communication because language learners can easily misunderstand ISA and take what has been said at its face value The conveying and interpreting of meaning of the hidden utterance requires learners’ knowledge of English pragmatic rules as well as socio-cultural values

Downing A and Lock P (1995:167) explain that the motivation for using indirect illocutionary act is that of tact, or politeness and that by expressing the intended meaning in an indirect form, the speaker allows the hearer to arrive at the

correct interpretation For example, the question in (21) “Have you come by car

today?” may lead the hearer to infer that the speaker is politely requesting to be

given a lift

In ISA, the forms differ from the functions Usually in these cases, the ISA carries meaning in the utterance, but the intended force in the speech act has a secondary meaning also As Searle (1975:59) states, “the speaker utters a sentence, means what he says, but also means something more.” The classic example (22)

“Can you pass the salt?” is clearly a case for ISA The literal meaning of (22) refers

to the ability of the hearer to pass the salt physically, while the intended meaning or perlocutionary effect of the utterance is for the hearer to pass the salt Searle (Ibid:60) describes ISAs as “cases where one illocutionary act is performed indirectly by way of performing another.” He explains that in ISAs, the speaker

communicates to the hearer more than he actually says by way of relying on their mutually shared background information, together with the general powers of rationality and inference on the part of the hearer This requires the theory of speech acts, certain general principles of cooperative conversation, and mutually shared factual background information The next section discusses the Cooperative Principle

2.1.5 Cooperative Principle

The Cooperative principle, developed by Grice (1975:45), was derived from

a philosophical point of view and the analysis of implicature For Grice, within an utterance, there are two types of meaning: “what is said and what is implied” The literal meaning for an utterance would contain truth-value The implied meaning is derived from another source, far beyond the literal meaning of the utterance For

example, if John asks Tom (23) “Can you tell me the time?” and Tom responds, (24)

“Well, the mail hasn’t run yet”, an implicature has occurred From the response, we

can infer that Tom is answering John based on mutual knowledge of when the mail generally runs, perhaps at noon So in Tom saying (23), John receives an answer The implicature is drawn, to some degree, is based on cooperative efforts of both participants

Implicature can only be derived and processed with a clear understanding of the maxims of cooperative communicative behavior among participants Grice (Ibid:47) attempted to explain how people participate in conversation based on a set

of assumptions he formulated that are called maxims of conversation These maxims instantiate a more general cooperative principle - “make your contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of talk exchange in which you are engaged.” There are four maxims: quantity, quality, relevance, and manner In other words, speakers should say just enough, provide truth, be relevant, and present the information in the best possible way for the hearer When participants obey the cooperative principle, general implicatures can be drawn because both parties are aware of the inference

2.1.6 Politeness

Politeness is a popular notion in studying pragmatics According to Thomas (1995:149), “in the past twenty five years within pragmatics, there has been a great deal of interest in politeness to such an extent that politeness theory could almost be seen as a sub-discipline of pragmatics.”

Politeness is defined as “a fixed concept, as in the idea of ‘polite social behavior’, or etiquette, within a culture” (Yule G, 1996:60) There are several ways

to think of politeness These might involve ideas like being tactful, modest and nice

to other people In the study of linguistic politeness, the most relevant concept is

‘face’ by Goffman (1967:5) Face, in pragmatics, is one’s public self-image This

is the emotional and social sense of self that every person has and expects every one

to recognize Yule (1996:134) says, “Politeness is showing awareness of another person’s face” In an attempt to define how people interact in terms of face, Goffman (1967:11) suggested that in general, people cooper at maintaining each other’s face

Politeness strategies have been postulated from the concept of face threatening and face saving where participants in conversation avoid face-threatening acts in order to protect and save face of self and others This assumes that both parties are cooperating and feel the social duty to maintain face If the speaker says something that represents a threat to the hearer’s self-image, that is called a face threatening act For example, the use of a DSA to order someone to do

something, (25) “Give me that paper!” shows that the speaker has more social

power than the hearer does If the speaker does not actually have that social power, then he/she is performing a face-threatening act An ISA, in the form of a question

(26) “Could you pass me that salt, please?” removes the assumption of social

power The speaker appears to be asking about ability This makes his/her request less threatening to the other person’s sense of self Whenever one says something that lessens the possible threat to another’s face, it is a case of a face - saving act

In order to lessen the force of the imposition, all languages seem to have conventionalized less direct (or indirect) realization of such speech acts Instead of

saying to the hearer, (27) “Close the door”; the speaker might prefer an indirect version For example, (28) “It’s cold in here” However, an indirect speech act is

often harder to interpret so speakers of languages often make indirect requests that

are nonetheless unambiguous such as (29)“ Could you open the door?” or (30)“ Do

you want to open the door?” The former is more polite and formal; the later is more

causal and familiar Being conventionally recognized as request forms, such questions should not be responded literally but accordingly to their illocutionary forces

2.2 The typologies of questions in English

All questions, at least in their prototypical uses, express ignorance on some point, and aim at eliciting a response from a hearer, which will remove the ignorance (D Alan Cruse, 2000:338) A brief description of English questions is necessary for a better understanding the use of English questions for different communicative purposes This section presents the typology of questions in English syntax and the typology of questions in the cognitive domain; the Bloom’s taxonomy

2.2.1 The typology of questions in English syntax

Scholars on syntax have identified some types of questions in English They are as follows

(a) Yes-no Questions, otherwise known as Polar Questions

(b) W-H questions or Non- Polar Questions

(c) Alternative Questions

(d) Tag Questions

(e) Rhetorical Questions

(Downing A and Lock P, 1995: 186-192)

Yes-no Questions or Polar Questions can be described as questions that allow for an affirmative (yes) or negative (no) reply According to Aremo

(1997:342), in a typical Yes-no question, the operator is moved before the subject and is pronounced with a rising intonation Eggins (1993: 173) puts this in another way – “the structure of the polar question involves the positioning of the finite

before the subject”, for example (31), “Are they coming tonight?” In this example, the operator or the finite verb are, is fronted, while the subject they is placed next to

it The rising intonation is indicated by the question mark In a Yes-no question, clear constraints are on the interpretation of the utterance which follows Hearers therefore will try and interpret whatever follows the question as meaning either

“yes” or “no” According to Stubbs, (1983: 105), this is not to say that only the forms “yes “ and “no” can occur; but that whatever does occur is already pre-

classified as meaning either “yes” or “no” For instance, an answer such as (32) “I

don’t think so” can be interpreted as negative

W-H Questions or Non Polar questions are questions formed with one of the

closed class of interrogative pronouns (who, what, where, when, why and how) Quirk et al (1985: 806) maintains that W-H questions typically expect a reply from

an open range of replies It may appear that W-H questions are syntactically constrained in the sense that a Where- interrogative is normally followed by a place adverbial and a When- interrogative , by a time adverbial, as in (33):

“Where is my book?” A: “On the table” / “* 1 At five o’clock”

and in (34): “When is daddy coming?” A: “At five o’clock” / “*On the table”

It is easy to identify counter examples where there are no such constraints, for

example (35): “Where is John?” A: “He’s not well today.”

The answer in (35) can still be interpreted as “At home”, but using the latter “might

be conversationally inappropriate on its own, since some reasons might be required” (Stubbs, 1983: 108)

Alternative Questions are a special kind of Yes-no question in the sense that the structure is like that of a yes-no question (the subject follows the operator or the finite verb) They differ only in the fact that they possess two or more alternative

1

The asterisk (*) means that the answer is wrong

answers In alternative questions, there is a presupposition of the truth-value of only

one of the propositions, for example, (36) “Will you have tea or coffee?”

Tag Questions are a type of question in which the interrogative structure is left to the end of the sentence where the operator is ‘tagged on’ to the pronoun subject and the question expects a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer The central purpose of a tag

question is to seek confirmation, for example, (37) “He came late, didn’t he?”

Kersti and Burridge (2001) identified other functions of tag questions:

- regulating conversational interaction and politeness, for instance, a parent may say

to a child who misbehaves in the presence of visitors

(38) “You don’t do that, do you?”

- indicating interest in participation in an ongoing discourse

(39) “I guess I can come in now, can’t I?”

- seeking empathy form listener(s)

(40) “I am not as bad as he portrayed me, am I?”

Rhetorical Question is common in formal speeches of persuasion made by public speakers, politicians and poets It resembles questions in structure, but is

really used for making emphatic statements Quirk et al (1985: 1478) assert that “in

communicative effect, it (rhetorical question) is similar to tag question since it seeks confirmation of what the speaker has explicitly assumed (by preceding declarative)

to be agreed as truth.” In a rhetorical question, the speaker does not expect an answer For examples

(41) “Is there anybody here ready to die?”

Sometimes, rhetorical questions reflect how the speaker thinks, i.e., his internal

reflection and at the same time, it directs the hearer’s mind to the points being made

(42) “How shall I put it now?”

(43) “But, where was I?”

2.2.2 The typology of questions in the cognitive domain

In the cognitive domain, one of the most influential works is the taxonomy of

questions in by Benjamin Bloom et al (1956)1 According to Bloom’s Taxonomy, human thinking skills can be broken down into six categories or levels; they are Knowledge questions, Comprehension questions, Application questions, Analysis questions, Synthesis questions and Evaluation questions In each level, question functions differently

The functions of questions on the Knowledge level is to draw out factual

answers, to test students' recall and recognition These questions start with Who,

What, Where, How, etc For example (44), “Who wrote Hamlet?” To answer a

question on the Knowledge level, the student must simply remember facts, observations, and definition that have been learned previously (Sadker M and Sadker D, 1994: 119)

Questions on the second level - Comprehension - encourage students to

translate, interpret, and extrapolate Typical question of this type is “What

does mean?” For example (45), “What do you think Hamlet mean when he asks

‘To be or not to be: that is the question’?” To answer a question on the

Comprehension level, the student must go beyond recall of information and demonstrate that he or she has sufficient understanding to organize and arrange material mentally (Ibid:122)

Questions on the third level - Application - ask students to apply previous learned information to reach an answer to a problem This type of question is at a higher level than those mentioned above In mathematics, application questions are

quite common For example (46), “ If John works three hours a day to mow the

lawn, and it takes Alice only two hours, how many hours would it take for them to mow the lawn together?” (Ibid:124) Typical question of this type are “How is .related to ?”, “How does explain ?”

1

http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/bloom.html

Questions on the fourth level – Analysis - ask students to analyze information to support a particular conclusion, inference, or generalization For

example (47), “After studying the French, American and Russian revolutions, what

can you conclude about the causes of the revolution?” Analysis questions are

higher order questions They are important because they foster critical thinking in students They not only help students learn what happened but also help them search for the reasons behind what happened (Ibid:126) Typical question of this

type are “What are the parts or features of .?”, “What evidence can you list

for ?”

Questions on the fifth level - Synthesis – are higher order questions They

ask students to produce original communication, to make predictions or to solve

problems For example (48), “How would life be different if the courts did not

exist?” Synthesis questions allow a variety of creative answers so they help to

develop the creative abilities of students (Ibid:128) Typical question of this type

are “What would you predict/infer from ?”, “What solutions would you suggest

for ?”

The last level of question is Evaluation Like Analysis and Synthesis, Evaluation is a high order mental process Evaluation questions require students to judge the merit of an idea, a solution to a problem or an aesthetic work For

example (49), “Should young children be allowed to read any book they want, no

matter what it is about?” In evaluation questions, some standard must be used

Different standard are quite acceptable, and they naturally result in different

answers (Ibid:128) Typical question of this type are “Do you agree that ?”,

“What do you think about ?”

The six levels of questions in Bloom taxonomy play very important roles in developing learners’ critical thinking in the cognitive domain In the communicative domain, the ability to use questions for different communicative purposes, the proper interpretation of the speaker’s intention in asking question and the appropriate responses to questions will determine the success of communication

The next section presents the various functions of English questions in communication

2.3 The pragmatic functions of English questions in communication

which he or she believes the hearer knows The vast majority interrogatives in daily use fulfill this function; however, it is not the only one Other types of illocutionary forces are also possible ” (Downing A and Locke P, 1995:191)

Asking question is a natural feature in communication Questions do not stand alone but are rather one step in larger conversations To ask a question is a speech act In order to accomplish their purposes in communication, people can perform intended actions while asking Question has force: in asking a question, the questioner expects that the person being questioned will respond to the question

The DSA of English questions is one which aims to seek information from the hearer This is the typical illocutionary act associated with questions This is very simple for language learners to recognize because there is a direct relationship between the question structure and its function However, in real-life communication, there are many other acts which are performed indirectly by mean

of using questions It is the ISAs of English questions that are concerned with in this study because their deep layers of meaning underlying the surface forms of questions are difficult for language learners to recognize

According to Hufford and Heasly (1983:241), questions, when uttered, clearly performed acts, just as declarative sentences do When discussing about indirect speech acts, C Raymond Perrault and James F Allen (1980: 170) say that questions, beside their basic function as asking for information, can be used to makerequest, inform, warning and promise

The ISAs of English questions make them become powerful tools to express one’s politeness in making different speech acts In many cases, it sounds more polite when the speakers’ intentions are hidden under the form of questions The

following is a collection of ISAs of English questions from different linguists and these ISAs of English questions will be classified according to Searle’s classification of speech acts in 2.1.3

2.3.1 Question as Assertion

Ex (50) “ Is it right to condone robbery?”

According to To Minh Thanh (2004:73), the above example is a case of an indirect assertion against robbery though it is in the form of a Yes/No question Basing on the classification of speech act by Searle, this question functions as a Representative

2.3.2 Question as Command

Commands in the question forms often call for acquiescence or the verbal respond of carrying out the order (Downing A and Lock P, 1995:191-192)

non-By uttering (51), “Must you make so much noise?” the speaker implicitly

commands the hearer to stop making noise This question is a Directive

2.3.4 Question as Greeting

Greeting is an Expressive A question can be a greeting or an introduction However, the number of questions can perform this function is fairly limited

Ex (55) “How are you?”

(56) “How are you doing?”

(57) “How have you been?”

(58) “How do you do?”

(Tillitt B and Bruder.M.N, 1989:6)

According to Jones L, (1987:6), it is often difficult to make contact with

stranger who speaks another language and questions can be useful ways of starting

a conversation with a stranger

Ex (59) “What a nice day, isn’t it?”

(60) “Dreadful weather, don’t you think?”

(61) “Excuse me, is any body sitting here?”

(62) “Excuse me, haven’t we met somewhere before?”

(63) “Excuse me, haven’t you got a light by any change?”

(64) “Excuse me, can you tell me the time?”

2.3.5 Question as Informing

C Raymond Perrault and James F Allen (1980:170) say that questions can

be used to inform someone about something Ex (65) “Do you know that Sam got

married?" In uttering (65), the speaker indirectly informs about Sam’s marriage

This is a Representative

2.3.6 Question as Invitation

Ex (66) “Are you free on Saturday?”

(67) “ Would you like to come to my dinner party?”

(68) “How about dinner?”

(69) “How about coffee?”

(Tillitt B and Bruder.M.N, 1989:29)

English invitations bear their own socio-cultural characteristics in the way that they can be expressed through questions Vietnamese students are certainly unfamiliar to this way because in Vietnamese, invitations must be affirmatives The following are examples of invitations through English questions

Ex (70) “Why don’t you help your self?”

(Downing A and Lock P, 1995:191-192)

(71) A: “Would you like a cup of coffee?”

Ex (72) “Will you have some more ice-cream?”

When questions function as Offers, they can be accepted by Yes, please or

Oh, thanks or refused by No, thank (Downing A and Lock P, 1995:191-192) The

question in (72) is a Commissive

2.3.8 Question as Promise

According to C Raymond Perrault and James F Allen (1980:170), the act of promising can be shown under the form of a question

Ex (73) "Would I miss your party?"

By asking a question in (73), the speaker indirectly promises to come to the hearer’s party This is a Commissive

2.3.9 Question as Request

As said earlier, request is a face-threatening act Therefore, questions are often exploited to perform polite indirect requests As they perform requests, they

are Directives The request function of questions can be realized through the

following examples

Ex (74) “Won’t you come in?”

This is not merely a Yes/No question, it is an indirect request made in a very

concerned manner (To Minh Thanh , 2004:73)

Ex (75) “ Can you pass me that hammer?”

(76) “Would you mind signing here?”

These are the most common formula of requests They can be responded to

by a standard phrase: Not at all/ Certainly / Sure Of these “certainly” and “sure”

clearly respond to the pragmatic meaning of “request” rather than to the sentence

meaning, since they are not to be taken as certainly/sure I mind signing Like

command, request can be replied by verbal or verbal response Some

non-formula requests can be done through questions and these questions really need

contexts to be correctly interpreted (Downing A and Lock P, 1995:191-192)

2.3.10 Question as Statement

Ex Student: “I’ve just asked my neighbor for a correction pen.”

(77) Teacher: “Is it right to cheat in any exam?” (To Minh Thanh, 2004:73)

By making a Yes/No question in (77), the answer of which must be ‘no’, the

teacher indirectly states that cheating is not accepted in exams This is a

Representative

2.3.11 Question as an Equivalence to a Negative Statement

The questions in (78) “Do you expect me to wait here all day?” and (79)

“What wouldn’t I do for an opportunity like that” can be respectively interpreted as

“You can’t expect me to wait here all day” and “There is nothing I wouldn’t do for

an opportunity like that” These are often described as ‘rhetorical questions’

because the answer is obviously unnecessary As they are understood as negative

statements, they are Representatives However, in their emotive content, they are

similar to exclamatives and like exclamatives; they depend on the context of situation or on the preceding discourse for their interpretation, signaled here

anaphorically by here and like that (Downing A and Lock P, 1995:191-192)

2.3.12 Question as Suggestion

A popular way to make suggestions in English is with the employment of

questions with the most common structure as “Why don’t….”

Ex (80) “Why don’t you apply for that job?”

(Downing A and Lock P, 1995:191-192)

Some other polar questions (Yes/No questions) can also be employed to make suggestions For example, when people are arranging an appointment, they

can make suggestion such as (81) “Is Sunday any good for you?” or (82) “Are you

free on Sunday?” Suggestions are responded to by many different ways Examples

(80), (81) and (82) are Directives

2.3.13 Question as Warning

According to Searle’s (1981), warning is a Directive The act of warning

expressed through question often goes side by side with context The example (83)

“Did you see the bear behind you?” can be understood as a warning By

performing the act of warning, the speaker expects the hearer to do something more carefully (C Raymond Perrault and James F Allen, 1980:170)

2.3.14 Question as Combination of Illocutionary Acts

Downing A and Lock P (1995:192) state that many questions can combine

more than one illocutionary acts In example (84), the question “Why don’t you

help yourself?” in the right context can be an invitation and a suggestion, and the

question (85) “Why don’t you apply for a job?” can combines suggestion with

advice (86) “Why don’t you stop making all this noise?” can be a request and a command as well In a similar way, (87) “Are you still watching TV?” can be a

combination of a complaint and a request Levinson (1983: 290) gives the following

examples: