A Corpus-based Study of the Speech Act of “Comforting”:
Naturalness and Appropriateness for English Language Teaching
Thurs. 21st Aug. 2008 [9:30-10:00]
@ PAAL 2008
Toshihiko Suzuki
Waseda University, Japan
Email: toshisuz@hotmail.com
1. Purposes of this study
This presentation demonstrates the following:
(1) the effectiveness of English speech act corpora for CLT (Communicative Language Teaching) in
teaching ‘natural’ and ‘appropriate’ expressions in particular contexts;
(2) lexical features and discourse strategies (i.e. semantic formulae) of the target speech act ‘comforting’,
performed by English native speakers.
2. Significance of developing “pragmatic competence” (cf. Bachman, 1990)
x The most compelling evidence that instruction in pragmatics is necessary comes from learners
whose L2 proficiency is advanced …
x Turning to production, candidates for pedagogic intervention can be sorted in four groups: (1) choice
of communicative acts, (2) the strategies by which an act is realized, (3) its content, and (4) its
linguistic form.
Kasper, G. (1997)
3. Pragmatics & SLA / TEFL
x Interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) (Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993) “a second-generation hybrid of SLA
& pragmatics”
x Pragmatics in Language Teaching (Rose & Kasper, 2001):
(I)n many second and foreign language teaching contexts, curricula and materials developed in
recent years include strong pragmatic components or even adopt a pragmatic approach as their
organizing principle.
4. Pragmatics & CLT
Nunan (1991) defines the principles or features of CLT (Communicative Language Teaching) or
“Communicative Approach” as follows:
(1) An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language.
(2) The introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation.
1/8
(3) The provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not only on language but also on the Learning
Management process.
(4) An enhancement of the learner’s own personal experiences as important contributing elements to
classroom learning.
(5) An attempt to link classroom language learning with language activities outside the classroom.
5. Speech act of “comforting”
x ‘ Comforting’ is supposed to be an FEA (face-enhancing act) for the hearer (H) (cf.
Kerbat-Orecchioni, 1997: 14), because the speaker (S) undertakes in this speech act to show sympathy
for and soothe H’s sad or hurt feelings, to encourage him/her, to show S’s willingness to help H, etc.
x ‘Comforting’ is also assumed to belong to Searle’s EXPRESSIVE (cf. 1979:15) and Leech’s
CONVIVIAL (cf. 1983:104) because of its FEA nature.
x One notable feature of this speech act, through the analysis of discourse strategies of the data, is that it
is a composite of several different sub-speech acts such as ‘showing sympathy’, ‘giving advice’,
‘encouraging’, etc. – to ‘comfort’ H. (Perlocutionary speech act)
6. Research background
This research has been carried out with the support of the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research awarded
by JSPS (Japan Society for the Promotion of Scientific Research) [Subject num.: 18820028].
Specification of Date and Informants:
x This research was carried out in (1) February-March & (2) September 2007 in Missouri, U.S.A. with
161 undergraduate students of the Southeast Missouri State University.
Procedure of data collection:
x Two types of DCTs (discourse completion tests) and the role-play
x DCT 1 requested one group of informants to write what they really said in the past or would say to
perform the target English speech acts.
x DCT 2 requested the other group to write up real or imaginary conversations between S and H.
x Both types asked them to record situations that they remembered or could think of when they
perform(ed) the speech acts.
x Besides these studies with questionnaires, some informants volunteered for a role-play for the
collection of audio-visual data.
2/8
7. Situation
N Type Classification Num %
1 A Accident 2 1.44%
2 B Breakup 44 31.65%
3 C Death 46 33.09%
4 D Difficult situation 17 12.23%
5 E Failure in test 7 5.04%
6 F Sickness/Injury 9 6.47%
7 G Unfavourable event 14 10.07%
Total 139
8. Lexical strategies - Wordlist
N Word Freq. % Texts N Word Freq. % Texts
1 YOU 201 6.9816 7 23 IF 28 0.9726 6
2 I 121 4.2028 7 24 DON 27 0.9378 7
3 TO 88 3.0566 7 25 IN 27 0.9378 7
4 IT 80 2.7787 7 26 JUST 27 0.9378 7
5 BE 58 2.0146 7 27 NEED 27 0.9378 6
6 ‘S 55 1.9104 7 28 SO 26 0.9031 7
7 WILL 51 1.7714 7 29 THERE 26 0.9031 7
8 YOUR 45 1.563 7 30 OK 25 0.8684 7
9 SORRY 43 1.4936 7 31 ME 24 0.8336 7
10 A 42 1.4588 7 32 AM 23 0.7989 6
11 ‘T 41 1.4241 7 33 ANYTHING 23 0.7989 6
12 ARE 40 1.3894 7 34 HERE 23 0.7989 6
13 BETTER 40 1.3894 7 35 THE 21 0.7294 5
14 FOR 38 1.3199 7 36 GET 20 0.6947 5
15 IS 38 1.3199 7 37 THAT 20 0.6947 6
16 OKAY 38 1.3199 7 38 WHAT 20 0.6947 6
17 ABOUT 37 1.2852 7 39 GOING 19 0.66 7
18 ‘M 37 1.2852 7 40 HEY 19 0.66 4
19 DO 31 1.0768 7 41 HIM 19 0.66 7
20 KNOW 30 1.042 7 42 ‘LL 18 0.6252 4
21 AND 28 0.9726 6 43 HE 18 0.6252 6
22 CAN 28 0.9726 7 44 OF 18 0.6252 5
3/8
9. [Selected] Lexical & grammatical strategies (collocations/chunks/structure)
ANYTHING
1) Can I do anything to help you get feeling better?
2) is there anything I can do to make you feel better?
3) if you need anything just let me know.
4) If there is anything I can do, just let me know.
5) Is there anything I can do to help?
BE
1) Its gonna be OK everything works out in the long run, I promise.
2) I will be here for you always when you need to talk or just want to hang out.
3) It’s gonna be alright, I promise.
4) You are going to be okay.
5) but it’s going to be okay.
BETTER
1) Things always happen for a reason and maybe you are better off this way.
2) You can do so much better!
3) and your grandmother is in a better place now.
4) You can find a way better boyfriend.
5) I hope you feel better.
OKAY
1) everything will be okay!
2) Its okay
3) Are you okay?
4) Molly it is okay baby
5) It’s going to be okay.
SORRY
1) I am sorry to hear about your dog.
2) Sorry about your dog.
3) I am really sorry about the lost in your family.
4) I am so sorry to hear about your dieing.
5) I’m really sorry to hear about your sister.
4/8
10. Conversation/Discourse strategies – strategy classification
N Type Type description Freq % (1) % (2)
1 P soother 91 17.27% 21.26%
2 A addressing (voc/intj/etc) 74 14.04%
3 F encouragement 73 13.85% 17.06%
4 R sympathy 60 11.39% 14.02%
5 B advice 53 10.06% 12.38%
6 K offer of support 51 9.68% 11.92%
7 H enquiry about situation 37 7.02% 8.64%
8 I interjection 25 4.74%
9 L praise of H 15 2.85% 3.50%
10 E criticism of H's opponent 10 1.90% 2.34%
11 S wish for betterment 9 1.71% 2.10%
12 G enquiry about H's need 7 1.33% 1.64%
13 Q suggestion 7 1.33% 1.64%
14 M reinforcement of encouragement 5 0.95% 1.17%
15 O reinforcement of s's support 3 0.57% 0.70%
16 D comment of H's situation 2 0.38% 0.47%
17 J offer of solution 2 0.38% 0.47%
18 N reinforcement of S's offer of support 2 0.38% 0.47%
19 C clearance of H's guilt 1 0.19% 0.23%
Total 1 527
Total 2 (without A, I) 428
5/8
11. Semantic formulas (Combination of discourse strategies)
N Combination Freq. N Combination Freq.
1 KR 11 13 ABFP 2
2 P 8 14 AEFP 2
3 R 7 15 AFH 2
4 AKR 6 16 AFP 2
5 BF 5 17 AP 2
6 BFP 4 18 APR 2
7 ABP 3 19 BIP 2
8 FKP 3 20 BP 2
9 FP 3 21 FK 2
10 FR 3 22 FM 2
11 HK 3 23 FQ 2
12 HS 3 24 PR 2
12. Conclusion & future directions
x The results of the data analysis above are to contribute to the production of ELT materials pursuing
CLT.
x Both instructors and learners can study lexical, grammatical and discourse strategies of the U.S.
university undergraduates as a model of the target language.
x The analysis of ‘responses’ (positive, negative and others) and that of prosody and kinesics will
provide more information on the actual use of this speech act. (in progress)
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to the following people and institutions for their kind support for this
research project: Prof. Geoffrey Leech (Lancaster Univ, UK); Dr. Adelaide Heidi Parsons (Southeast
Missouri State Univ, USA); Dr. David Price (SEMO), Dr. John Campbell (SEMO); SEMO students who
participated in this research; Ms. Hinako Masuda (Sophia Univ, JP); Ms. Yumiko Ueshima (Sophia Univ,
JP); Mr. Hiroaki Kato (Aoyama-gakuin Univ, JP); Ms. Keiko Naritomi (Waseda Univ, JP); JSPS (Japan
Society for the Promotion of Scientific Research).
6/8
References
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? (NetWork #6) [HTML document]. Honolulu:
University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Retrieved [2006/07/23] from
the World Wide Web: http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW06/
Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. (eds.) (1993). Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1997). “A multilevel approach in the study of talk-in-interaction”. Pragmatics 7(1):
1-20.
Leech, G.N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Nunan, D. (1991). “Communicative task and the language curriculum”. TESOL Quarterly 25.
Rose, K. & G. Kasper (2001). “Pragmatics in language teaching”. In Rose, K. & G. Kasper (eds.) Pragmatics
in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J.R. (1979). Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7/8
The lecturer of this presentation (Toshihiko Suzuki, Waseda University, Japan) is looking
for overseas / domestic university instructors who can cooperate with him in the TEFL /
Cross-Cultural Communication project, utilizing the English Speech Act Corpora
(SAC) introduced in this presentation as teaching materials. The project on the Japan side
will be carried out in his once-a-week class starting from April 2009 through January
2010 through the Internet-based Waseda CCDL (Cross-Cultural Distance Learning),
including Videoconferences, PC-based Video & Text Chat, etc. (for more details,
please refer to [ http://www.waseda.jp/dlc/CCDL_en/ ] ). The researchers will jointly (1)
create teaching materials for cross-cultural communication in English with suitable
syllabuses; (2) set up research hypotheses and the procedure; (3) manage the
cross-cultural exchange via the CCDL; (4) collect and analyze students’ data; (5) present
the results of the data analysis in academic presentations and publications. It is desired
that the researcher who joins this project has ample knowledge in / is willing to pursue
the related fields (Pragmatics, Cross-cultural communication, TEFL, SLA, etc.)
If you are interested in this project and would like to know more about this project,
please contact the presenter via email ( toshisuz@hotmail.com ) or talk to him during the
PAAL 2008 conference.
With best wishes,
Toshihiko Suzuki, Ph.D.
Waseda University, Japan
8/8
