A cross – cultural perspective of speech acts and its application to efl classrooms

AGU International Journal of Sciences – 2019, Vol. 7 (1), 53 – 59 
53 
A CROSS – CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE OF SPEECH ACTS AND ITS APPLICATION 
TO EFL CLASSROOMS 
Nguyen Thi Nhat Minh1 
1An Giang University, VNU - HCM 
Information: 
Received: 16/01/2019 
Accepted: 02/05/2019 
Published: 11/2019 
Keywords: 
Cross-cultural perspective, 
illocutionary force, 
performative verbs, speech 
acts, utterances 
ABSTRACT 
Speech acts, the actions performed by utterances, play an important role in 
communication, particularly verbally. Speech act performance requires not 
only knowledge of the language, but also knowledge about the appropriate 
use of that language in a certain situation within a particular culture. As a 
result, cultural awareness constitutes an integral part of this important area 
of pragmatics. This study provides some insights into the use of speech acts 
by Vietnamese EFL learners from a cross-cultural perspective. It is 
suggested that the influence of culture has resulted in students’ common 
failures to understand and perform English speech acts. To minimize this 
kind of pragmatic failure, it is recommended that EFL teachers raise 
students’ awareness of some cultural issues in cross-cultural 
communication. Furthermore, it is necessary to incorporate speech acts into 
English language teaching with authentic input and lifelike communicative 
activities. 
1. INTRODUCTION 
In order to achieve successful communication 
in a foreign language, people are required to 
understand what the speaker is saying and know 
how to respond appropriately. In 
communication, people not only say things 
containing grammatical structures and words, 
but also perform actions via those utterances, 
namely speech acts. However, for most 
language learners, it is difficult to understand 
the intended meaning communicated by speech 
acts, or to produce a speech act appropriately in 
the target language because of the close tie 
between speech acts and culture. This paper 
aims to present an overview of speech act 
theory, to examine speech acts from a cross-
cultural perspective, and to explore some 
pedagogical issues related to common 
pragmatic failure in terms of performance of 
English speech from which teachers of English 
can get some useful tools for their teaching. 
2. AN OVERVIEW OF SPEECH ACT 
THEORY 
Since introduced by Austin (1962) and further 
developed by Searle (1969), the theory of 
speech acts has been growing over time with 
the contribution of numerous scholars. Within 
its scope, this paper presents some basic 
concepts of speech acts, including definition of 
speech acts, the performative hypothesis and 
speech act taxonomy. 
AGU International Journal of Sciences – 2019, Vol. 7 (1), 53 – 59 
54 
2.1 Definition of speech acts and three 
related acts 
Yule (1996) defined speech acts as the actions 
performed by utterances, and in English, these 
actions are generally labelled as apology, 
complaint, compliment, invitation, promise, or 
request, for instance, “Raise your hand!” 
(request), “I’ll call you tonight,” (promise), 
“The tea is too cold.” (complaint) (p.48) 
Cohen (2006) offered a similar definition that 
speech acts are often (but not always) patterned, 
routinized utterances that speakers use to 
perform language functions, such as thanking, 
complimenting, requesting, refusing, 
apologizing, and complaining. 
Austin (1962) proposed the original distinction 
between the different aspects of a speech act 
into locutionary, illocutionary and 
perlocutionary. His classification was then 
developed and exemplified by Yule (1996) as 
follows. 
A Locutionary act is the basic act of forming 
the sounds and words to create a meaningful 
utterance in a language. For example, in 
English language, uttering ‘Aha mokofa’ may 
be considered a failure to produce a locutionary 
act whereas ‘I’ve just made some coffee’ is a 
success. 
Most well-formed utterances are produced with 
some kind of purpose. The sentence ‘I’ve just 
made some coffee” might be uttered to make a 
statement, an offer, an explanation or for some 
other communicative purpose. This is called the 
illocutionary act - the communicative force or 
intention of an utterance 
A Perlocutionary act is the intended effect an 
utterance has on the hearer. Depending on the 
circumstances, the sentence ‘I’ve just made 
some coffee’ will be uttered on the assumption 
that the hearer will recognize it as an 
explanation for a wonderful smell or an offer to 
drink some coffee. (Yule, 1996, pp.48-49) 
Yule (1996) also emphasized that of these three 
dimensions, the most worthy discussed item is 
illocutionary force. Indeed, the term “speech 
acts” is generally interpreted narrowly to mean 
only the illocutionary force of an utterance. 
However, it is quite problematic that the same 
utterance can potentially have different 
illocutionary forces, for example, ‘I’ll see you 
later’ can be interpreted as a promise or a 
warning. How can speakers assume that the 
intended illocutionary force will be recognized 
by the hearer? That question has been addressed 
by considering the Illocutionary Force 
Indicating Devices (IFIDs).. 
IFIDs means an indication in the speaker’s 
utterance of the communicative force of that 
utterance. The most obvious device for 
indicating the illocutionary force is a 
performative verb which explicitly names the 
illocutionary act being performed. 
Nevertheless, in some cases there is no 
performative verb to be identified, so IFIDs 
which can be identified are word order and 
intonation. For instance, “You’re going!” (I tell 
you that you are going); “You are going?” (I 
request confirmation about whether you are 
going); “Are you going?” (I ask you if you are 
going). (Yule, 1996, p.50) 
2.2 The performative hypothesis 
Another element of speech act theory is the 
performative hypothesis. This is the assumption 
first proposed by Ross (1970) that underlying 
every utterance (U), there is a clause containing 
a performative verb (Vp) which makes the 
illocutionary force more explicit. The basic 
structure of the underlying clause is I (hereby) 
Vp you (that) U. 
Yule (1996) provided a closer look at the 
advantages and disadvantages of this 
hypothesis. He pointed out that this hypothesis 
helps to make clear what elements are involved 
in the production and interpretation of 
AGU International Journal of Sciences – 2019, Vol. 7 (1), 53 – 59 
55 
utterances. For example, comparing the two 
utterances below, we can see that the 
underlying clause in utterance [b] make the 
illocutionary force more explicit than in 
utterance [b] 
a. Clean up the mess! 
b. I hereby order you that you clean up this 
mess. (Yule, 1996, p.51) 
However, there are some disadvantages to the 
performative hypothesis. The first one is that a 
explicit performative version has a much more 
serious impact than an implicit version as in the 
following utterances: 
The work was done by Emily. 
I hereby tell you that the work was done by 
Emily. 
Another disadvantage is that it is difficult to 
know exactly what a performative verb might 
be for some utterances. For example, both the 
speaker and the hearer can recognize the 
utterance in ‘You are dumber than a rock’ as an 
insult, it would be strange to have an explicit 
version as ‘I hereby insult that you are dumper 
than a rock.’ (Yule, 1996, p.52) 
2.3 Speech act taxonomy 
Instead of listing the all possible explicit 
performatives, there are various attempts to 
classify speech acts. Searle (1975) categorized 
speech acts into five types of functions. 
Representatives (assertion, description, 
statement) is stating what is believed or known. 
Directives (command, order, request, 
suggestion) is getting the hearer to do 
something. Commissives (promise, threat, 
refusal, pledge) is committing the speaker to 
some future actions. Expressives (thanks, 
apology, praise) is expressing feelings or 
attitudes. Declarations (declaring, firing from 
employment, ordering) is bringing about a 
change. 
A different approach is based on structure to 
classify speech act as direct or indirect. In 
English, there are three basic structural forms 
(declarative, interrogative, imperative) and 
three general communicative functions 
(statement, question, request). We will have a 
direct speech act when there is a direct 
relationship between a structure and a function, 
for instance, a declarative used to make a 
statement. On the other hand, when the 
relationship between structural form and 
function is indirect, e.g. an interrogative used to 
make a request, we will have an indirect speech 
act. (Yule, 1996) 
In light of this approach, one utterance can be 
used to have two different functions. For 
example, with the utterance ‘It is cold outside’, 
if the speaker describes the weather to the 
hearer, the declarative is a statement. But if this 
utterance is used to ask the hearer to close the 
door, the declarative performed is to make a 
request. 
On the other hand, different structures can be 
used to accomplish the same basic function. For 
example, when the speaker wants the addressee 
not to stand in front of the TV, he may produce 
the following utterances 
Move out of the way! 
You’re standing in front of the TV. 
Do you have to stand in front of the TV? 
(Yule, 1996, p.55) 
It is evident that although the three utterances 
are of different structural forms, their basic 
function in this situation is a command. 
However, in some situations, a hearer, still fails 
to identify the indirectness of a speech act, as in 
a famous example by Blum-Kulka (1983) cited 
in Locastro (2003, p.242) 
Child: Can you fix the needle? 
Adult: I’m busy. 
Child: I just wanted to know if you can fix it. 
AGU International Journal of Sciences – 2019, Vol. 7 (1), 53 – 59 
56 
3. THE APPLICATION OF CROSS-
CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES OF 
SPEECH ACTS TO TEACHING 
ENGLISH IN THE VIETNAMESE 
CONTEXT 
3.1 The importance of speech acts in EFL 
setting 
According to the contemporary pedagogical 
tendency, the major duty of a teacher of foreign 
languages is to help learners develop their 
communicative competence. In fact, 
achievement of successful communication in a 
foreign language calls for many factors beyond 
linguistic competence. This fact can account 
for the paradox that even EFL learners with 
good mastery of English syntax and vocabulary 
fail to use English appropriately. It is pragmatic 
failure that leads to their communication 
breakdown, especially in cross-cultural 
contexts. 
In oral communication each utterance serves a 
specific function. It is obvious that these 
utterances, namely speech acts, play a dominant 
role in daily conversations. However, they seem 
to be a hard task for most foreign language 
learners to understand and to perform. Their 
difficulties mostly spring from inadequate 
mastery of the conversational norms involved 
in the production of speech acts. This arouses a 
practical need for the integration of speech acts 
into English language teaching. 
3.2 The influences of culture on the 
Vietnamese performance of English 
speech acts 
Theoretically, communicative, or pragmatic, 
competence is the ability to use language forms 
in a wide range of environments, factoring in 
the relationships between the speakers involved 
and the social and cultural context of the 
situation (Lightbown & Spada, 1999; Gass & 
Selinker, 2001). For this reason, it is hard for 
non-native speakers to speak appropriately. 
Many speakers, in addition, seem to translate 
from the source language to the target one when 
they speak, which raises problems when 
transferring and recognizing speech acts from 
one language to another. 
Nguyen (1999) found that because of the 
influence of culture, the Vietnamese tend to be 
overtly modest, particularly in spoken language. 
In fact, we do not want to show off our ability, 
we’re shy. As a result, Asian people in general 
and the Vietnamese in particular are usually not 
as successful in interviews as Westerners. The 
Anglo-American interview style, for example, 
requires candidates to sell themselves, whereas 
an interviewee from a different sociocultural 
background may shy away from such 
presentation (Roberts, Davies & Jupp, 1992). 
Therefore, we do not understand an 
interviewer’s intention in the question “Do you 
think you can do it?” which requires the 
interviewees to talk about their capability or 
their plans to do it. Consequently, many 
interviewees mistakenly use short answers like 
“Yes, I do”, which makes interviewers unclear 
and unsatisfied (Nguyen, 1999) 
As Locastro (2012) remarked, every culture has 
characteristic speech acts that reflect its norms 
and values. The Vietnamese also tend to be 
modest in dealing with compliments. In her 
research, Tran (2006) found that the 
Vietnamese often accept the compliment in a 
downgrade or disagreement way, which is a 
sharp contrast to English native speakers. For 
example: 
- English situation 
A: You look great! 
B: Thank you. 
- Vietnamese situation 
A: Cái áo bồ mặc đẹp thiệt đó! [What a 
beautiful dress you’re wearing!] 
AGU International Journal of Sciences – 2019, Vol. 7 (1), 53 – 59 
57 
B: Đẹp gì mà đẹp. Đồ cũ lắm rồi. [It’s not 
beautiful. It’s very old.] (Tran, 2006, 
p.12) 
3.3 Common pragmatic failure in 
understanding and performance of 
English speech acts in reality 
Understanding the intended meaning imparted 
by a speech act is not a simple task at all. In 
many cases the hearer cannot figure out or 
might even misunderstand the speaker’s 
intention, which might lead to communication 
breakdowns. For example: 
A: Can you repair the leaky faucet? 
B: Yes, I can., would you like me to fix it? 
Here the hearer interprets the speaker’s 
utterance as a normal Yes / No question which 
asks about his ability to do the action while A is 
actually making a request. B’s misinterpretation 
is due to his oversimplification of the use of 
Yes / No questions. 
Failure to understand speech acts also arises 
from learners’ tendency to transfer speech act 
strategies and conventions from the source 
language to the target language. Pragmatically, 
it is noticeable that something that works in 
English might not keep the same meaning when 
translated into another language. For instance, 
Vietnamese learners often translate the 
expression ‘I couldn’t agree with you more’ 
into ‘Tôi không thể đồng ý với bạn hơn nữa’ 
which expresses a strong disagreement. In fact, 
the meaning of this utterance is similar to ‘I 
completely agree with you’, which is 
completely opposite to their interpretation. 
Thus misleading translation may result in 
serious misunderstanding. 
In an attempt to conduct daily conversations, 
Vietnamese EFL learners may find it 
challenging to produce speech acts using 
appropriate language and manner in the target 
language. Follows are some common cases of 
pragmatic failure in students’ performance of 
speech acts. 
For most students, the frequent way of greeting 
the teacher as he or she enters the classroom is 
“Good morning / Good afternoon, Teacher”. 
The most commonly used form of addressing a 
teacher in Vietnam is “Thầy / Cô” (Teacher) 
and the Vietnamese avoid calling the name of 
the superior for the reason of respect. However, 
the word “teacher” cannot be used as a form of 
addressing in English language. Native English 
speakers often address their teacher by the title 
Mr. / Mrs. / Miss / Ms. followed by their 
surname. Therefore, a native English teacher 
may feel a bit puzzled when addressed with the 
word “Teacher” only. 
In another situation, if a native speaker of 
English remarks to a Vietnamese interlocutor 
“Your English is excellent!”, a possible 
response to his compliment would be “ No, my 
English is still poor” because it is natural and 
advisable for the Vietnamese to accept 
compliments in downgrade or disagreement 
ways for the sake of modesty. In contrast, 
native English speakers are used to saying 
“Thanks, I try my best” in response to 
compliments. As a result, the Vietnamese 
response may put the interlocutor at a loss to 
keep on the conversation. 
In cross-cultural communication when a 
Vietnamese speaker tries to translate an 
utterance with a certain illocutionary act into 
English, embarrassment occasionally occurs 
because there may be various kinds of 
interpretations. For example, the Vietnamese 
usually greet each other with some informal 
utterances such as “Đang đi đâu đó?” (Where 
are you going?) or “Ăn cơm chưa?” (Have you 
eaten?). However, if someone asks an 
American or English friend the same questions, 
he or she may feel confused with such inquiries 
because the original illocutionary act of 
greeting of these utterances is diminished in the 
AGU International Journal of Sciences – 2019, Vol. 7 (1), 53 – 59 
58 
English context. The hearer would instead 
interpret them as intrusion of their personal 
privacy. In a similar way, other questions 
related to salaries, marital status or female ages 
are considered impolite and rude to English 
native speakers although they are considered a 
good way to express the speaker’s care and 
attention to the interlocutor in the Vietnamese 
context.. 
3.4 Pedagogical implications for 
incorporation of speech acts into 
teaching English as a foreign language 
From the above examples, it can be recognized 
that cultural barriers pose major hindrances to 
the realization of speech acts in daily 
communication, particularly in cross-cultural 
situations. As a result, infusion of culture 
should be considered an inherent part of 
language teaching and learning. Yet, it does not 
mean that teachers try to incorporate all cultural 
features in English lessons. Attention should 
instead be paid to the cultural issues that 
strongly influence verbal exchanges, e.g. who 
can say what to whom, how, when, why, under 
what circumstance and in what context. 
In implementing this strategy, distinction 
between the two cultures should be made so 
that students are aware that what can be 
appropriate in Vietnamese language may be 
inappropriate in English language. For instance, 
when visiting a sick person, native speakers of 
English usually express their sympathy by 
saying something like “I’m sorry you’re not 
feeling well. I hope you’ll feel better soon.” 
Meanwhile, the Vietnamese in the same 
situation would express their solicitude for the 
sick person by giving so many pieces of advice 
like “Drink plenty of water.” “Take this kind of 
medicine.” or “Eat more vegetables.” Such 
kinds of concern only arouse Westerners’ 
misunderstanding of being looked upon as 
naïve children. This is because westerners do 
emphasize self-reliance and independence, so 
they are not used to being told what to do, when 
and how to do it. <= not really true. 
Moreover, it is apparent that speech acts are 
mostly conducted in real-life interactions which 
entail freedom and unpredictability. Hence it is 
necessary for English language teachers to 
create a language environment in the classroom 
which inspires students to communicate in 
lifelike situations. This strategy can be realized 
through some communicative activities in 
which there exists an information gap such as 
role-play cards. This kind of activity puts 
students in a specific context to perform a 
conversation. Students are provided with clear 
and detailed instructions but they still have the 
choice of what to say and how to say i