Pragmatic Content in B1-Level National And International EFL Textbooks in Türkiye

Year 2025, Issue: 64, 1671 - 1700, 30.06.2025

Bilal Ünal , Emrah Ekmekçi

https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1557382

Abstract

EFL students must be familiar with pragmatics in order to use English effectively and successfully interact with native English speakers. Therefore, their instructional resources, including textbooks and class exercises, should include pragmatic content. Accordingly, a mixed-methods approach was adopted in this study to analyze and compare two pragmatic components, notably situation-bound utterances and speech acts, in national and international B1-level English textbooks used in Türkiye. Frequency analysis was employed to analyze the quantitative data and SPSS 20, while the qualitative data was analyzed using deductive content analysis on the selected textbooks. Also, using Kecskés’ (2003) categorization of situation-bound utterances and Searle's (1976) categorization of speech acts, the situation-bound utterances and speech acts in the relevant English textbooks have been examined respectively. The results revealed statistically insignificant differences regarding the chosen pragmatic components between the two textbooks (p>0.05). Additionally, neither of the textbooks was found to include all selected pragmatic components. Finally, several recommendations for teachers, material developers, and educational material writers were given.

Keywords

Mixed-methods design , EFL students , textbook evaluation , English textbooks , pragmatics

Ethical Statement

As this study is not an experimental one, it is not subject to ethics committee approval.

Thanks

I would like to thank my Mom and Dad who have always been there for me, and dear Prof. Dr. Emrah EKMEKÇİ who never ceases to help me...

Türkiye'deki B1 Düzeyi Yerel ve Uluslararası İngilizce Ders Kitaplarındaki Edimbilimsel içerik Üzerine Bir Araştırma

Abstract

İngilizceyi etkili bir şekilde kullanmak ve anadili İngilizce olan kişilerle başarılı bir şekilde iletişim kurabilmek için İngilizceyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen öğrencilerin edimbilime aşina olmaları gerekir. Bu nedenle, ders kitapları ve ders içi etkinlikler de dahil olmak üzere öğretim kaynakları edimbilimsel içerik içermelidir. Bu doğrultuda, bu çalışmada, Türkiye'de kullanılan ulusal ve uluslararası B1 seviyesi İngilizce ders kitaplarındaki iki edimbilimsel öğeyi, bilhassa duruma bağlı sözce ve söz eylemlerini inceleyip karşılaştırmak için karma yöntem yaklaşımı uygulanmıştır. Nicel verileri analiz etmek için frekans analizi ve SPSS 20 kullanılırken, nitel veriler seçilen ders kitapları üzerinde tümdengelimli içerik analizi kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Ayrıca, Kecskés'in (2003) duruma bağlı sözce sınıflandırması ve Searle'ün (1976) söz eylemi sınıflandırması kullanılarak, ilgili İngilizce ders kitaplarındaki duruma bağlı sözce ve söz eylemleri sırasıyla incelenmiştir. Sonuçlar, iki ders kitabı arasında seçilen edimbilimsel öğeler açısından istatistiksel olarak önemli olmayan farklılıklar ortaya koymuştur (p>0.05). Ayrıca, her iki ders kitabının da seçilen tüm edimbilimsel unsurları içermediği bulunmuştur. Son olarak, öğretmenler, materyal geliştiricileri ve eğitim materyali yazarları için çeşitli tavsiyeler verilmiştir.

Keywords

Karma Araştırma Yöntemi , İngilizceyi Yabancı Dil Olarak Öğrenen Öğrenciler , Kitap inceleme , İngilizce Ders Kitapları , Edimbilim

Ethical Statement

Çalışma deneysel bir çalışma olmamasından dolayı etik kurul iznine tabi değildir.

Thanks

Her zaman yanımda olan anneme ve babama, ve yardımlarını hiç esirgemeyen Sayın Prof. Dr. Emrah EKMEKÇİ hocama sonsuz teşekkürlerimi sunuyorum...

References

• Akdağ, E., Baydar Ertopcu, F., Kaya, T., Umur Özadalı, S., & Uyanık Bektaş, K. (2018). Secondary education silver lining 11 student’s book. 1st ed. Edited by Kenan Dikilitaş. MEB.
• Aksoyalp, Y., & Toprak, T.E. (2015). Incorporating pragmatics in English language teaching: To what extent do EFL coursebooks address speech acts? International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 4, 125-133. 10.2139/ssrn.3624329.
• Alfghe, A., & Mohammadzadeh, B. (2021). Realisation of the speech act of request, suggestion and apology by Libyan EFL learners. SAGE Open, 11(4). 10.1177/21582440211050378.
• Alhadi Ali Ahmed, F., Mohammadzadeh, B., & Mazlum, F. (2023). An in-depth analysis of the representation of speech acts and language functions in Libyan public high school English textbooks. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1056745.
• Almehaidly, N. (2024). Pragmatics in the Saudi EFL classroom: Investigating textbook content and teachers’ perceptions and practices. Cambridge Educational Research e-Journal, 11, 207-221. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.114532.
• Asghar, S. A., Jilani, B., & Mahmood, M. A. (2024). Pragmatic competence through speech acts: An evaluation of secondary English textbooks in Pakistan. Journal of Applied Linguistics and TESOL (JALT), 7(4), 1149-1159.
• Austin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words. Harvard University Press.
• Bababayli, I., & Kızıltan, N. (2020). A comparative sociopragmatic analysis of the dialogues in Turkish and Azerbaijani B1-B2 EFL textbooks. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(3), 1500-1522. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.803869.
• Baird, C., Wagner, D., Healy, T., & Johnson, K. (1999). Risk assessment in child protective services: Consensus and actuarial model reliability. Child Welfare, 26, 723–748. http://www.jstor.org/stable/45400189.
• Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (1991). Saying “No”: Native and nonnative rejections in English. In Bouton, L. & Kachru, Y. (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (2nd ed., 41–57). Monograph.
• Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49, 677–713. 10.1111/0023-8333.00105.
• Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Pragmatics and second language acquisition. In R.B. Kaplan (Ed.) Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 182–192). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203808184.ch9.
• Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Mahan-Taylor, R. (2003). Teaching pragmatics. U.S. Department of State Office of English Language Programs.
• Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Griffin, R. (2005). L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL classroom. System, 33(3), 401-415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.06.004.
• Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013). Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63, 68- 86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00738.x.
• Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. Scarcella, E. Andersen, and S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55-73). Newbury House.
• Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 43–59). Oxford University Press.
• Birner, B. J. (2012). Introduction to pragmatics. John Wiley & Sons.
• Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Ablex.
• Bostancı, T. (2017). The use of formulaic language in Asian and European EFL contexts: a corpus based study [Unpublished Master's thesis, Bilkent University].
• Boxer, D., & Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: The case of complaints. ELT Journal, 49(1), 44-58. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/49.1.44.
• Chemezov, Y. R., & Gural, S. K. (2015). Difficulties in interpretation of situation-bound utterances by Russian EFL students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 200, 174-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.042.
• Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104.
• Cohen, A. D. (2008). Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: What can we expect from learners? Language Teaching, 41(2), 213-235. 10.1017/s0261444807004880.
• Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed). Sage Publications.
• Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge University Press.
• Cutting, J. (2002) Pragmatics and discourse: A resource book for students. Routledge.
• Deda, N. (2013). The role of pragmatics in English language teaching: Pragmatic competence. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 2(4), 63-63. 10.5901/ajis.2012.v2n4p63.
• Delen, B., & Tavil, Z. M. (2010). Evaluation of four coursebooks in terms of three speech acts: Requests, refusals and complaints. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 692-697.
• Diepenbroek, L. G., & Derwing, T. M. (2013). To what extent do popular ESL textbooks incorporate oral fluency and pragmatic development. TESL Canada Journal, 30(7), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v30i7.1149.
• Farashaiyan, A., Tan, K. H., & Shahragard, R. (2018). An evaluation of the pragmatics in the "Cutting Edge"intermediate textbooks. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature, 24(4), 158-170. https://doi.org/10.17576/3l-2018-2404-12.
• Fleiss, J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 378–382. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031619.
• Garinger, D. (2002). Textbook selection for the ESL classroom. Center for Applied Linguistics Digest, 2(10), 99-102.
• Gholami, J. (2015). Is there room for pragmatic knowledge in English books in Iranian high schools? English Language Teaching, 8(4), 39-51. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n4p39.
• Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 3, speech acts (pp. 41-58). Academic Press.
• Gündoğdu, H. N. (2008). Using situation-bound utterances as supplementary materials to improve students’ speaking skills at Abant İzzet Baysal University preparatory school [Unpublished Master's thesis, Gazi University].
• Han, T., & Burgucu-Tazegul, A. (2016). Realization of speech acts of refusals and pragmatic competence by Turkish EFL learners. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 16(1), 161-178.
• Harmer, J. (2007). How to teach English. Pearson Longman.
• Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford University Press.
• Hidayah, N., Ohorella, H. M., Saeni, S. P. R., & Yulianingsih, L. (2025). Pragmatic analysis of directive speech acts in English learning book. JOLIES: Journal of Linguistic and English Studies, 2(1), 40-47.
• Howell, D. C. (2010). Statistical methods for psychology (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Inawati, I. (2016). The pragmatics of greetings reflected in the textbooks for teaching English as a foreign language in Indonesia. Ahmad Dahlan Journal of English Studies (ADJES), 3(2), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.26555/adjes.v3i2.4984.
• Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
• Ishihara, N. (2013). Teacher-based assessment of L2 Japanese pragmatics: Classroom applications. In Ross, S., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). Assessing second language pragmatics (pp. 124-148). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
• Jakupčević, E., & Ćavar Portolan, M. (2024). An analysis of pragmatic content in EFL textbooks for young learners in Croatia. Language Teaching Research, 28(1), 114-137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820986936.
• Jiang, X. (2006). Suggestions: What should ESL students know? System, 34(1), 36-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.02.003.
• Kang, H. A., & Poertner, J. (2006). Inter-rater reliability of the Illinois structured decision support protocol. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30(6), 679-689. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.12.004.
• Kaplan, S. (2019). University preparatory school students` awareness about grammar and pragmatics [Unpublished Master's thesis, Yeditepe University].
• Kasper, G. & K. Rose (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Kecskes, I. (2003). Situation-bound utterances in L1 and L2. Mouton de Gruyter.
• Kecskes, I., Obdalova, O., Minakova, L., & Soboleva, A. (2018). A study of the perception of situation-bound utterances as culture-specific pragmatic units by Russian learners of English. System, 76, 219-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.06.002.
• Krippendorff, K. (2003). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
• Kyngäs, H., Mikkonen, K., and Kääriäinen, M. (2020). The application of content analysis in nursing science research. Springer.
• Latham-Koenig, C., & Oxenden, C. (2013). English file intermediate. Oxford University Press.
• Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.
• Limberg, H. (2016). Teaching how to apologize: EFL textbooks and pragmatic input. Language Teaching Research, 20(6), 700-718. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815590695.
• McConachy, T., & Hata, K. (2013). Addressing textbook representations of pragmatics and culture. ELT Journal, 67(3), 294-301.
• Meihami, H., & Khanlarzadeh, M. (2015). Pragmatic content in global and local ELT Textbooks. SAGE Open, 5(4). 10.1177/2158244015615168.
• Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics: An introduction. Blackwell.
• Ministry of National Education. (2018a). English language teaching program for primary and secondary schools grades 2-8. https://www.meb.gov.tr.
• Ministry of National Education. (2018b). High school English curriculum (9th-12th grades). https://www.meb.gov.tr.
• Mitchell, L. A., Mitchell, P. J., & Vozdvizhenskiy, V. V. (2015). The role of actual situational contexts in the interpretation of situation-bound utterances. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 200, 313-317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.071.
• Mohammad-Bagheri, M. (2015). The status of pragmatics among Iranian EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 8(4), 67-79.
• Morris, C. W. (1938). Foundations of the theory of signs. In Otto Neurath (ed.) International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. University of Chicago Press, 1–59.
• Mukhroji, M., Nurkamto, J., Subroto, H. E., & Tardjana, S. S. (2019). Pragmatic forces in the speech acts of EFL speakers at Kampung inggris, Indonesia. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 10(1), 38-60. https://doi.org/10.2991/conaplin-18.2019.281.
• Namaziandost, E., Hashemifardnia, A., & Hosseini, S. E. (2018). A survey of high schools English textbooks in terms of using varying types of speech acts. Applied Linguistics Research Journal, 3(4), 24-32. 10.14744/alrj.2019.74429.
• O'Keeffe, A., Clancy, B., & Adolphs, S. (2020). Introducing pragmatics in use (2nd ed.). Routledge.
• Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. D. (1983). Apology: A speech act set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 18-35). Newbury House.
• Özet, M.N. (2019). Developing pragmatic competence of B level tertiary students in English preparatory classes [Unpublished Master’s thesis, Hacettepe University].
• Preiffer, K. (2014). The effect of L1 on L2 formulaic expression production [Unpublished PhD dissertation, Bilkent University].
• Ren, W., & Han, Z. (2016). The representation of pragmatic knowledge in recent ELT textbooks. ELT Journal, 70(4), 424-434. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccw010.
• Rui, N., & Feldman, J. M. (2012). IRR (inter-rater reliability) of a COP (classroom observation protocol) - A critical appraisal. US-China Education Review B, 3, 305–315.
• Sanal, M., & Ortactepe, D. (2019). Conceptual socialization in EFL contexts: A case study on Turkish EFL learners’ request speech acts realization. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(1), 376-399. 10.17263/jlls.547766.
• Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23. 10.1017/S0047404500006837.
• Siddiqa, A., & Whyte, S. (2021). Classroom learning of English L2 requests: Input and interactional opportunities in French secondary schools. Language Teaching Research, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211064932.
• Soozandehfar, S. M. A., & Sahragard, R. (2011). A textbook evaluation of speech acts and language functions in Top-Notch series. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(12), 1831-1838. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.1.12.1831-1838.
• Şenel, M. (2021). Investigating the use of speech act of suggestions of Turkish ELT students. IJELTAL (Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics), 6(1), 27-43. https://doi.org/10.21093/ijeltal.v6i1.852.
• Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1–50. 10.1017/s0261444814000263.
• Tajeddin, Z., & Malmir, A. (2024). Learners’ use of pragmatic learning strategies across language learning experience and gender: An investigation framed by Rebecca Oxford’s taxonomy of learning strategies. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 41, 99–115. 10.32038/ltrq.2024.41.08.
• Tavares, P. O. (2014). Pragmatics in EFL teaching: how speech acts are addressed in a Brazilian textbook series. BELT-Brazilian English Language Teaching Journal, 5(1), 30-39. https://doi.org/10.15448/2178-3640.2014.1.18071.
• Ton Nu, A. T. (2018). How EFL textbooks accommodate pragmatics: An investigation into a newly published textbook series for Vietnamese upper-secondary school students. English Australia Journal, 33(2), 37-42. https://www.englishaustralia.com.au/documents/item/208.
• Tran, T. M. T., & Yeh, A. (2020). Keeping it real: Vietnamese-English pragmatic representations in EFL textbook. International Journal of Language and Literary Studies, 2(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.36892/ijlls.v2i1.105.
• Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies. Mouton de Gruyter.
• Ulum, Ö. G. (2015). Pragmatic elements in EFL coursebooks. Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Science. 93-106.
• Vaezi, R., Tabatabaei, S., & Bakhtiarvand, M. (2014). A comparative study of speech-acts in the textbooks by native and non-native speakers: A pragmatic analysis of new Interchange series vs. locally-made EFL textbooks. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 4(1), 167-180. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.1.167-180.
• Vellenga, H. (2004). Learning pragmatics from ESL & EFL textbooks: How likely? TESL-EJ, 8(2), 3–18.
• Washburn, G. N. (2001). Using situation comedies for pragmatic language teaching and learning. TESOL Journal, 10(4), 21-26. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1949-3533.2001.tb00045.x.
• Yıldırım, M. (2015). EFL students’ perceptions of pragmatics and their level of pragmatic competence [Unpublished Master's thesis, Çağ University].
• Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
• Zhiqi, G., & Hui, J. (2017). Situation-bound utterances and formulaic competence: The case of Chinese learners of English as a foreign language. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 40(3), 281-297. https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2017-0016.
• Zhou, H., & Zeng, W. (2023). A pragmatic study on primary school English textbooks in mainland China. Advances in Social Development and Education Research, 1(1), 93-106.
• Zulfa, M., & Haryanti, R. P. (2023). Assessing the realization of speech acts in the conversation section of Interactive English 1 textbook. English Education Journal, 13(2), 170-180.