Keywords: Interlanguage pragmatics, development, politeness, EFL, young beginning learners, France

 Bardovi-Harlig, 1999). Although there is now a solid body of research in this area, most studies have focused on adult learners (Kasper & Rose, 1999) using written discourse completion tasks (see e.g.,

Résumé

Titre de la thèse: La politesse dans un contexte d'apprentissage, par des francophones, de l'anglais langue étrangère : enjeux pragmatiques, interlangue et acquisition de stratégies Cette étude de pragmatique interlangue (PIL) examine des données empiriques sur les apprenants de l'anglais langue étrangère au collège et au lycée français, afin de contribuer à la compréhension du développement de la politesse en langue seconde (L2). En effet, avec l'augmentation des interactions plurilingues à travers le monde, la sensibilisation à ce qui est considéré comme poli ou impoli est désormais indispensable. Toutefois, l'acquisition de la compétence pragmatique en langue étrangère étant généralement difficile et les observations selon lesquelles les apprenants d'un bon niveau peuvent présenter des écarts par rapport aux normes pragmatiques, attestent de la nécessité de mener des recherches plus approfondies dans ce domaine [START_REF] Kasper | Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics[END_REF]Bardovi-Harlig, 1999). Bien qu'il existe à ce jour un nombre important de travaux de recherche portant sur ce domaine, la plupart d'entre eux se sont centrés uniquement sur le cas d'apprenants adultes [START_REF] Kasper | Pragmatics and SLA[END_REF] en utilisant des taches écrites de complétion du discours ("written discourse completion tasks") (e.g., [START_REF] Hill | The development of pragmatic competence in an EFL context[END_REF][START_REF] Jebahi | Tunisian university students' choice of apology strategies in a discourse completion task[END_REF], afin d'expliciter des connaissances pragmatiques (Bardovi-Harlig, 1999, 2013).

Dès lors, ce travail de thèse vise à développer recherche en PIL en utilisant des méthodes mixtes de collecte de données auprès d'un large échantillon de jeunes apprenants débutants. Ces méthodes comprennent notamment : une tâche production orale en utilisant des dessins animés ("cartoon oral production task"), des jeux de rôle ouverts et des données naturalistes recueillies via des enregistrements vidéo en classe. Au total, 240 collégiens et lycéens (âgés de 11 à 18 ans) de trois niveaux différents ont participé à cette étude afin de mettre en évidence le développement des compétences en PIL avec la maitrise de la langue. Afin de compléter les v résultats, des données secondaires ont également été recueillies par l'analyse d'enregistrements vidéo de classe et l'examen des manuels scolaires et des entretiens avec les enseignants.

L'analyse des requêtes est fondée sur le cadre de catégorisation des requêtes développé par [START_REF] Blum-Kulka | Playing it Safe: The Role of Conventionality in Indirectness[END_REF]. Ce cadre de catégorisation permet de rendre compte des dimensions pragmalinguistiques et sociopragmatiques des requêtes interculturelles.

Pour conclure, cette étude a permis de mettre en évidence que le développement des compétences pragmatiques en L2 est caractérisé presque exclusivement par l'augmentation de la fréquence des stratégies pragmalinguistiques à la fin du lycée. L'éventail des stratégies utilisées ou les caractéristiques sociopragmatiques reflètent ce développement dans une moindre mesure, et ce quelle que soit la méthode de récolte de données. Les données d'un autre groupe en L1 (français) ont révélé un développement similaire, suggérant que le transfert de la L1 pourrait expliquer le développement de la L2 (anglais) observé dans cette étude, d'autant plus que l'analyse des données secondaires a révélé peu d'intérêt sur les PIL dans les programmes d'enseignement.

Mots-clés: Pragmatique, interlangue, anglais langue étrangère, développement, politesse, jeunes apprenants débutants, France.

There are many people I would like to extend my gratitude for their support during this whole journey of doctoral studies. First, I would like to express my gratitude to my thesis committee for their support. I would also like to express my gratitude to my thesis advisor, Dr. Shona WHYTE for her guidance. Throughout the process of conceptualizing, data collection, and writing of this thesis, she has provided insightful suggestions and critical feedback which prompted me to think from different perspectives. Her invaluable and detailed comments helped me in making decisions, clarifying, and better articulating my ideas. Thanks for encouraging me to present my work in several conferences and guiding me in this regard.

I owe special debt to Prof. Jean-Marie Marie for his help during the preparation of my dissertation. His assistance during the conceptualization of thesis and the data collection is invaluable. I would also like to extend my gratitude to Prof. Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig for her guidance and valuable suggestions in early stages of this thesis. This dissertation would not have been possible without the co-operation of French upper and lower secondary schools, teachers, learners, research assistants, and several university students who agreed to participate in the study and help in data collection on which this thesis is grounded.

The Erasmus Mundus Mobility with Asia (EMMA) programme supported my doctoral studies financially; their contribution is hereby gratefully acknowledged. Thanks are also due to my laboratory BCL for supporting me financially for presenting my work in various conferences.

Many thanks to my friends, colleagues, and everyone who have offered moral support and advice during this journey, especially my friend, Marwa Ibrahim. 3.8 Frequency of the use of multimedia resources at each level under study Table 3.9 Frequency of reading English materials other than course work Table 3.10 Number of learners with English parent(s) Table 3.11 Number of learners using French and/or English at home Table 3.12 Division of learners by the frequency of languages spoken in their homes Table 3.13 Frequency of opportunities for practice English in different settings by level Pragmatics is a significant component of communicative competence in any language. Each language has its own set of sociolinguistic norms that are systematically practiced in that community. These behavioural and linguistic norms are generally expected from people of that community and their absence is likely to cause disruptions in communication. Therefore, it is important for second language learners to learn these norms along with other language skills.

List of tables

List of figures

The need to learn appropriate L2 pragmatic norms has further escalated with an increase in global multilingual networks in recent years. However, this important dimension of L2 competence has received relatively lesser attention in research, mainly because pragmatics itself gained recognition as an important component of communicative competence fairly recently.

Before the 1970s, "pragmatics was not involved in early SLA [second language acquisition] debates centring around the contrastive analysis hypothesis, creative construction and so forth" (Kasper, 1992, p. 204). Later, it has been recognized that "pragmatic competence is not extra or ornamental" (Kasper, 1997, para. 5), but in fact, it is an essential competence that interrelates with overall communicative and organizational competence. The present study, therefore, seeks to contribute to the study of second language pragmatics by examining the acquisition of interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) by young learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) in France.

Even though pragmatics is relatively new in the field of linguistics, its concepts date as far back as the early 1900s. According to [START_REF] Crystal | la pragmatique est définie comme : L'étude de la langue du point de vue des utilisateurs, en particulier des choix qu'ils font, des contraintes qu'ils rencontrent dans l'utilisation de la langue lors de l'interaction sociale et les effets de leur utilisation de la langue produits sur d'autres participants dans l'acte de communication[END_REF], adopted from Kasper & Rose, 2002;[START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | Developing L2 Pragmatics[END_REF] pragmatics is;

The study of language from the point of view of users, especially of the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in social interaction and the effects their use of language has on other participants in the act of communication. (p. 301, emphasis added)

Terms "choices" and "constraints" in this definition reflect a commonly held subdivision of pragmatics into pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics [START_REF] Leech | Principles of pragmatics[END_REF]Thomas, 1983).

Pragmalinguistics explores the linguistic dimension of pragmatics and focuses on "the particular resources which a given language provides for conveying particular illocutions" (Leech, 1983, p. 11). Sociopragmatics, on the other hand, is concerned with the "sociological interface of pragmatics" (Leech, 1983, p. 10). It refers to an understanding of appropriate social behaviour underlying the interlocutors' implementation and interpretation of the communicative action.

Sociopragmatics mediates linguistic choices of participants in performing communicative acts in relation to sociocultural constraints / norms [START_REF] Van-Compernolle | Sociocultural Theory and L2 Instructional Pragmatics[END_REF][START_REF] Rose | Teachers and students learning about requests in Hong Kong[END_REF].

Why Learn Interlanguage Pragmatics?

As the study of interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) emerged as an independent domain only recently, little research has been done in this area as compared to interlanguage grammar and phonology etc. The need for examining L2 learners' pragmatic development is felt on account of a number of reasons which will be illustrated in this section. However, before establishing the need for examining learners' ILP development, it is important to note the difference between pragmatics and ILP. [START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | Developing L2 Pragmatics[END_REF] highlights this difference by explaining that pragmatics is "the study of how-to-say-what-to-whom-when" (p. 68), whereas ILP is "the study of how learners come to know how-to-say-what-to-whom-when" (Bardovi-Harlig, 2013, p.68-69, emphasis added). In other words, pragmatics looks at the use of language in context in general whereas ILP focuses on second language learners' pragmatic competence and acquisition.

The need for examining L2 learners' ILP development was felt strongly when [START_REF] Schmidt | Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics[END_REF] hypothesized that input becomes intake only when learners notice target language features. This view claimed that factors such as proficiency and learning context can help learners in acquiring some L2 pragmatic elements, yet there is a chance that learners do not notice several other pragmatic features of the target language, if they are left on their own.

Without proper guidance, learners may fail to realize that many linguistic conventions of their culture are different from the target language culture [START_REF] Beebe | Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals[END_REF][START_REF] Garcia | Apologizing in English: Politeness strategies used by native and non-native speakers[END_REF][START_REF] Trosborg | Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints, and Apologies[END_REF]Wierzbicka;[START_REF] Wierzbicka | Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts[END_REF], 2003).

Another trigger for examining learners' ILP development was the finding of a number of ILP studies that even advanced leaners failed to approximate native-like pragmatic norms [START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic vs. grammatical awareness in instructed l2 learning[END_REF][START_REF] Kasper | Teaching-induced aspects of interlanguage discourse[END_REF][START_REF] Blum-Kulka | Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language[END_REF]Thomas, 1983;[START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics[END_REF][START_REF] Kasper | Pragmatics in language teaching[END_REF]Bardovi-Harlig & Mahan-Taylor, 2003;[START_REF] Rose | On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics[END_REF][START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL classroom[END_REF].

Some ILP studies such as [START_REF] Màrquez-Reiter | Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay[END_REF] and [START_REF] Trosborg | Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints, and Apologies[END_REF] show that sociocultural factors including social power/status, distance between interlocutors, and the imposition of utterances [START_REF] Brown | Politeness: Some Universals in language Use[END_REF] may significantly affect the choice of strategies in different cultures. The unawareness of specific social conventions can lead to misunderstandings, which can make a speaker look abrupt or even rude and unsympathetic on several occasions (Bardovi-Harlig & Mahan-Taylor, 2003). [START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics[END_REF] argues that these violations leave many negative repercussions on interpersonal relations because interlocutors are less likely to make allowances for pragmatic errors as opposed to grammatical or vocabulary errors.

Learners' advanced grammar and vocabulary gives the impression that pragmatic violations are committed intentionally. Pragmatic errors are "often interpreted on a social or personal level rather than a result of the language learning process" (Bardovi-Harlig & Mahan-Taylor, 2003, p.3). Thus, it is important that learners master both socio-cultural as well as lexico-grammatical features of the given L2. But, the extent to which they are successful in this attempt needs to be explored in ILP research.

Furthermore, intervention studies have also found that classroom materials generally lack authentic pragmatic information [START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | Developing Corpus-Based Materials to Teach Pragmatic Routines[END_REF][START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics[END_REF][START_REF] Cohen | ce qui révèle l'accès limité des apprenants aux possibilités d'apprentissage PIL. Dans ce contexte[END_REF], which shows learners' limited access to opportunities for learning ILP. In this context, it is important to examine how learners cope with these difficulties and how far they are successful in developing their L2 pragmatic knowledge. For all above-mentioned reasons, it can be argued that there is a clear need for examining L2 learners' pragmatic development and taking measures to improve their ILP knowledge.

Objectives of the Study

Considering the evident need for learning L2 pragmatics, a number of studies have examined L2 learners' ILP development (see section 2.7.2 for a list of ILP studies on requests). These studies produced valuable results concerning L2 learners' pragmatic development but they frequently focused on adult L2 learners and second language setting. Likewise, they frequently relied on elicited data. The few longitudinal studies which used naturalistic data [START_REF] Achiba | Learning to Request in a Second Language: Child Interlanguage Pragmatics[END_REF][START_REF] Safont-Jordà | Early requestive development in consecutive third language learning[END_REF]2013;[START_REF] Ellis | Learning to communicate in the classroom: A study of two language learners' requests[END_REF] included a small number of participants, which somehow restricted the generalisation of their findings. Likewise, none of these acquisitional studies, to the best of our knowledge, have also investigated opportunities of L2 pragmatic development in learners' textbooks and classroom activities. The present study aims to address these issues by investigating ILP development of young beginning learners of English in a foreign language setting: French secondary schools. While focusing on L2 requests, this study provides a comprehensive description of learners' L2 request strategies when making low and high imposition requests to persons of equal and higher status, which allows an examination of learners' pragmalinguistic as well as sociopragmatic competence. This study takes a crosssectional approach and examines the L2 pragmatic development of three levels of learners in lower and upper secondary schools in France. Unlike previous studies, this study uses data from different sources and triangulates both naturalistic and elicited data to examine the extent of learners' knowledge about the use of politeness strategies in L2 requests, both on utterance and discourse level.

This study also compares interlanguage data with L1 French data to account for possible instances of pragmatic transfer or sociocultural inappropriateness in learner data. L1 pragmatic transfer will be analysed in the frequency as well as the content of request strategies. Further investigation will be done to find the extent of input opportunities in L2 classrooms and textbooks to learn L2 pragmatics. Likewise, this analysis aims to find out if learners use these opportunities or create others to learn L2 pragmatics.

The choice of speech act, request, for the present analysis is justified on several grounds.

First, the wide focus of ILP research on requests provides a firm structure upon which new research perspectives can be based [START_REF] Achiba | Learning to Request in a Second Language: Child Interlanguage Pragmatics[END_REF]. Second, it allows a comparison with other research that has previously focused on this area. Third, requests occur very frequently in daily conversations with people, which makes them important to master in order to maintain healthy social relations [START_REF] Achiba | Learning to Request in a Second Language: Child Interlanguage Pragmatics[END_REF]. Because requests make the hearer do something for the speaker (as a favour), it may come across as face-threatening for the hearer [START_REF] Brown | Politeness: Some Universals in language Use[END_REF].

Therefore, speakers may need to use several strategies and modifiers to soften the imposition of requests. It is then critical for each party to be knowledgeable in terms of each other's cultural norms to successfully communicate. Socio-cultural factors such as status, power, distance, and many other factors, are found to influence one's response to various types of requests. In the worst case, lack of knowledge about these factors can result in misunderstandings and confusions in conversation. It is assumed that an investigation of requests can potentially provide insights into second language learners' pragmatic abilities.

The present study is organized as follows. Chapter two provides a review of speech act and politeness theories, and also presents relevant findings of previous research in ILP. Later, findings of research on L1 English and L1 French requests are compared in order to highlight similarities and differences between English and French requests. This chapter ends with a detailed description of findings, participants, and methods of studies focusing on L2 requests.

Chapter three describes the research design employed to gather and examine data. Chapter four presents the analysis and results of the study. Finally, Chapter five presents the discussion of each research question and ends with conclusions of the study.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

This chapter provides a detailed background of theories and studies which motivated the present study. As the focus of this research is on the acquisition of L2 politeness strategies in the speech act of request by EFL learners in France, sections 2.1 to 2.3 provide a detailed introduction to pragmatics, speech act, and politeness theories. Section 2.4 sheds light on main areas of interest in ILP research and relevant findings. This section provides a rationale for the choice of a developmental design for the present study as it shows how second language (L2) acquisition and development have received little attention in early ILP research. Section 2.5 focuses on the speech act of request and examines the relationship between indirectness and politeness as

shown by previous empirical research on requests. It is important to discuss this relationship because the present study assumes a positive correlation between indirectness and politeness, which seems justified in western educational settings, at least. This section also compares studies examining L1 English and L1 French requests to find similarities and differences in these languages. Furthermore, findings of ILP studies focusing on L2 learners' requests are discussed in section 2.6 and their methodological choices and implications are discussed in section 2.7.

Pragmatic Competence

The aim of this study is to examine French EFL learners' L2 pragmatic competence and development over time. Hence, it is important to define the term "pragmatic competence" first.

Since the explicit interest in pragmatic competence emerged relatively recently in linguistics, it is important to start with a broader notion, that is, communicative competence.

Communicative competence.

The notion of communicative competence was developed by Dell [START_REF] Hymes | Models of the interaction of language and social setting[END_REF]1972) as a backlash to Noam [START_REF] Chomsky | Syntactic Structure[END_REF][START_REF] Chomsky | Aspects of the Theory of Syntax[END_REF] theory of linguistic competence and performance.

The exclusive focus of Chomsky's theory on grammar at the expense of sociocultural dynamics led to a general discontent in scholarly circles. In this regard, Hymes argued that the linguistic competence should not be the only goal of education but it should also take sociocultural parameters into account because they are equally important for an appropriate language use.

Hymes' breakthrough brought about a noticeable shift in the contemporary focus on the knowledge of language without reference to the use of language in context. At approximately the same time, the existing grammar translation and audio-lingual teaching approaches within applied linguistics were also being questioned. Therefore, Hymes' notion of communicative competence was immediately recognized. His perspective on sociolinguistic competence was carried over and expanded in several communicative models [START_REF] Bachman | Fundamental Considerations in Language Teaching and Testing[END_REF][START_REF] Bachman | Language Testing in Practice: Designing and Developing Useful Language Tests[END_REF][START_REF] Canale | Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to Second language teaching and testing[END_REF][START_REF] Canale | From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy[END_REF][START_REF] Celce-Murcia | A pedagogical framework for communicative competence: A Pedagogically motivated model with content specifications[END_REF][START_REF] Celce-Murcia | Rethinking the role of communicative competence in Language Teaching[END_REF]. Among these, Canale and Swain's model of communicative competence is widely recognized, in which pragmatics has been embedded within sociolinguistic competence. This model consists of four subcomponents:

-grammatical competence which refers to the knowledge of lexical items, morphology, phonology, syntax, and semantics.

-sociolinguistic competence such as the knowledge of the appropriateness of form in context according to the subject, the relationship, the role, and the setting.

-discourse competence refers to the mastery of cohesiveness in the form (e.g., pronouns, conjunctions) and the coherence in meaning, that is, the connection between literal meanings and communicative functions.

-strategic competence such as the use of verbal or non-verbal devices to enhance the effectiveness of communication.

Although pragmatic competence has been embedded in these models as part of sociolinguistic competence, it is explicitly recognized only in [START_REF] Bachman | Fundamental Considerations in Language Teaching and Testing[END_REF] model of language ability.

Pragmatic competence.

According to [START_REF] Bialystok | Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence[END_REF], pragmatic competence refers to "a variety of abilities concerned with the use and interpretation of language in contexts" (p. 43). The "variety of abilities" in Bialystok's definition refer to the speaker's ability to use the language to perform different communicative functions, the listener's ability to interpret the speaker's intentions correctly, and the shared expertise of both interlocutors with regard to rules of language (e.g., syntactic and grammatical). By means of these three competencies, speakers can construct a successful discourse and can even interpret the nonliteral forms of language, which includes indirectness, irony, sarcasm, and metaphors.

Within second language studies, the communicative functions that pragmatics encompasses include speech acts, conversational structure/management, conversational implicatures, discourse organization, and address terms (Bardovi-Harlig & Mahan-Taylor, 2003).

Among these, speech acts are one of the major components of pragmatics [START_REF] Levinson | Pragmatics (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics)[END_REF] and are frequently explored in ILP research. In line with previous research, the present study took a speech act approach to investigate the pragmatic competence of French EFL learners while focusing on requests. Thus, the following section presents the speech act theory, its connections with pragmatics, and its relevance for the present study in detail.

Speech Act Theory

In this section, a brief introduction to [START_REF] Austin | How to do things with words[END_REF] and [START_REF] Searle | Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language[END_REF] speech act theories is provided because these theories greatly influenced the field of pragmatics and provided a fundamental understanding of the speech act theory. Three types of communicative acts identified in speech act theory are also introduced in this section: locutionary acts, illocutionary acts, and perlocutionary acts. Among these, the illocutionary act has received the most research attention because it contains the actual/hidden meaning of the utterance. Since several types of locutions (e.g., direct or indirect) can be used to convey the illocutionary force/intent, an introduction to different types of locutions (direct, conventionally indirect, nonconventionally indirect) is provided in this section which can be used to convey the illocutionary force of requests.

Speech act theory was first presented by Austin in a series of lectures in 1955 called How to Do Things with Words, which were published posthumously in 1962. [START_REF] Austin | How to do things with words[END_REF] argues that "to say something is to do something" (Austin 1962, p. 123). John [START_REF] Searle | Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language[END_REF][START_REF] Searle | Indirect speech acts[END_REF] reinforces this theory by explaining that we perform acts with words. He argues that regardless of what we say, we are always "doing things with words". He claims that language is a rulegoverned intentional behaviour and "speaking a language is performing speech acts, acts such as making statements, giving commands, asking questions, making promises and so on" (p. 16). For example, by saying "sorry" we apologize to someone or by saying "can you open the window?"

we make a request. Likewise, when we say, "you look so pretty" we compliment someone.

Although there is a possibility that the meaning of an utterance may vary from one context to another. [START_REF] Austin | How to do things with words[END_REF] further explains that while producing an utterance, a speaker performs three types of acts:

the locutionary act which conveys meaning (formulating phonemes, morphemes etc.)

the illocutionary act which conveys a particular force (intended meaning such as a request, an apology)

the perlocutionary act which achieves an objective or certain effects (the effect on the hearer to get the hearer to act on something according to the speaker's desire)

Stated differently, when a speaker produces an utterance using words (locutionary act) such as "you look pretty", s/he simultaneously performs an act (illocutionary act) such as compliment someone, with an intention to have an effect (perlocution) on actions, thoughts or beliefs of the addressee [START_REF] Barron | Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context[END_REF]. However, among these, illocutionary acts have received the most attention in speech act research. Consequently, the term speech act itself has begun to mean an illocutionary act [START_REF] Barron | Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context[END_REF][START_REF] Yule | Pragmatics[END_REF][START_REF] Searle | Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language[END_REF]. [START_REF] Searle | Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language[END_REF] underlines the fact that illocutionary and perlocutionary acts are correlated.

For example, by warning someone the speaker may "scare or alarm" him and by making a request to someone the speaker may get him "to do something" (Searle 1969, p.25, italics original). [START_REF] Searle | Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language[END_REF] also points out that it is not always easy to determine which speech act is performed by means of an utterance (or a set of utterances). For example, if the function/meaning of an utterance/form is identified literally without further processing, it is considered a direct speech act [START_REF] Searle | Indirect speech acts[END_REF]. Conversely, the interpretation of language structures such as "can you reach the salt?" is not so simple (Searle, 1975, p.60). On the surface, it is a question but it also serves as a request to pass the salt. Such language structures are hard to understand and fall into the category of indirect speech acts.

However, in different speech communities, certain indirect structures are practiced so repeatedly that they become conventionalized and can be interpreted without involving further cognitive processing. Some of these conventional ways include the use of illocutionary-forceindicating-devices (IFIDs) such as the use of performative verbs (e.g., I'm asking you to be quiet), intonation, word order, and stress. These IFIDs help the hearer to infer the illocutionary force of the utterance. However, these indirect utterances can be contrasted with utterances which are indirect but are not conventional. Such speech acts are termed as nonconventionally indirect speech acts and are frequently realized by means of hints [START_REF] Barron | Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context[END_REF][START_REF] Weizman | Requestive Hints[END_REF]. For example;

Example 2.1: "It is cold in here."

Example 2.2: "Do you have any money on you?" (Weizman, 1989, p.73)

It appears that example (2.1) is a simple statement whereas example (2.2) looks like a question for information. However, the statement in example 2.1 is used 'as a request to close the window' and the question in example 2.2 is used 'as a request for a loan'. The illocutionary force of locutions in examples 2.1 and 2.2 can be interpreted successfully only if a sophisticated inference mechanism is employed. Such locutions are identified as nonconventionally indirect requests. The nonconventional form of these requests is intentionally employed by the speaker to create a gap between the utterance and the speaker meaning [START_REF] Weizman | Requestive Hints[END_REF]. By means of this gap, the speaker allows both the speaker and the addressee to opt out. Nonconventional indirectness corresponds to Brown and Levinson's (1989) "off-record" politeness strategy.

Nonconventionally indirect requests, or the requestive hints, are considered the most indirect form of requests.

The above discussion provides a basic understanding of the encoding and decoding mechanism of requests. Requests can be made with direct and indirect locutions with varying degrees of clarity. However, it is important to know the potential trigger for using different degrees of directness in conversation. Among several possible factors, politeness is a major factor that affects the choice of directness in requests. Other than the use of indirectness in requests, the dimension of politeness is also examined in this study. In line with previous work on politeness [START_REF] Lakoff | The logic of politeness: Or minding your P's and Q's[END_REF][START_REF] Leech | Principles of pragmatics[END_REF][START_REF] Brown | Politeness: Some Universals in language Use[END_REF], it is anticipated that politeness would have a strong effect on learners' choice of directness in L2 requests. The following section will introduce different theories of politeness which shed light on the relationship between directness and politeness.

Politeness Theory

Since the early 1970s, politeness has been vigorously studied from various angles to explain the interactional conventions of language use, both cross-cultural and universal [START_REF] Barron | Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context[END_REF]. The discussion on politeness theories will begin with Grice because several following theories of politeness are based on Grice's framework of politeness. Other theories discussed in this section include Lakoff's rules of politeness, Leech's principles of politeness, and Brown and Levinson's model of politeness. These theories have different perspectives on the relationship between directness and politeness which are relevant as the present study also examines the relationship between indirectness and politeness in L2 requests. [START_REF] Brown | Politeness: Some Universals in language Use[END_REF] universal framework of politeness is discussed in more detail because this theory is so far the only theory that provides a systematic and detailed evaluative framework which can be applied to different languages and contexts to study politeness, at least in western settings. The present study also applies Brown and Levinson's theory in the interpretation of findings.

Definitions of politeness.

Politeness is a social phenomenon that can be demonstrated by means of language, manners, and etiquettes or behaviours. Politeness is considered indispensable for a successful social interaction [START_REF] Leech | The pragmatics of politeness[END_REF]. However, the definition of politeness has always been problematic. [START_REF] Watts | Politeness[END_REF] presents some lay notions of politeness by means of which people may define politeness in general as a correct appropriate behaviour, considerateness, and self-effacement. However, a surprising amount of disagreement can be found on specific details of politeness.

Early theories view politeness as a conflict avoidance strategy which functions as a linguistic tool in maintaining healthy relationships among interlocutors during social interaction [START_REF] Fraser | Perspectives on politeness[END_REF]. [START_REF] Leech | Explorations in Semantics and Pragmatics[END_REF], for example, defines politeness as a tool for "strategic conflict avoidance" (p.19). [START_REF] Lakoff | Talking Power: The politics of language in our lives[END_REF] views politeness as "a system of interpersonal relations designed to facilitate interaction by minimizing the potential for conflict and confrontation inherent in all human interchange" (p. 34). Similarly, for [START_REF] Brown | Politeness: Some Universals in language Use[END_REF], politeness is a means of avoiding antagonism between interlocutors in face-threatening situations (Kasper, 1990, p. 194). In contrast, later scholars view politeness as a "politic behaviour" [START_REF] Watts | Politeness[END_REF] which takes both speaker's and hearer's needs into account during social interactions unlike previous theories which focused on hearer's needs only.

As the focus of this study is on requests, which is a face-threatening speech act [START_REF] Brown | Politeness: Some Universals in language Use[END_REF], politeness in this study is viewed as a mitigating strategy or a softening device which is used to avoid the face-loss between speakers during conversational exchanges.

Grice's conversational maxims.

Grice (1975) made a substantial contribution to the study of pragmatics through his Cooperative Principle (CP) and conversational maxims. His work explains how people use language successfully by encoding meaning in utterances while relying on the interpretation skills of their interlocutors [START_REF] Félix-Brasdefer | Refusals in Spanish and English: A Cross-Cultural Study of Politeness Strategies among Speakers of Mexican Spanish, American English, and American Learners of Spanish as a Foreign Language[END_REF]. Grice observed that the participants in conversational exchanges observe a cooperative principle that is mutually recognized and expected by each interlocutor. Based on this observation, [START_REF] Grice | Logic and Conversation[END_REF] proposed his Cooperative Principle (CP):

"make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged" (p. 45). Assuming the existence of these principles, interlocutors make various inferences during conversational exchanges and maintain a general air of cooperation by recurrent negotiation. [START_REF] Grice | Logic and Conversation[END_REF] further explains his Cooperative Principle by proposing four maxims which govern any conversational exchange;

i.

Quantity: Make your contribution as informative as is required.

Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

ii.

Quality:

Do not say what you believe to be false.

Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

iii.

Relation: Be relevant.

iv.

Manner: a) Avoid obscurity of expression, b) avoid ambiguity, c) be brief, d) be orderly. (Grice, 1975, p. 45-46) However, later scholars have contended that CP fails to provide an explanation for how people use indirectness in social interaction since it clearly violates CP. Hence, if the CP is the criterion for successful social interaction, what motivates people to use indirectness and how do they use it without sounding non-cooperative? Later theorists have attempted to answer this question, beginning with [START_REF] Lakoff | The logic of politeness: Or minding your P's and Q's[END_REF].

Lakoff's rules of politeness

Lakoff (1973) is called "the mother of modern politeness theory" (Eelen, 2001, p. 2) as she is one of the earliest scholars who attempted to explain the theory of politeness from a pragmatic point of view. As a response to Grice's principles of communicative cooperation she presented her rules of politeness. Grice claimed that people are inherently cooperative, which motivates them to provide maximum information with optimal clarity during any social interaction.

However, evidence shows that CP does not always operate in natural conversation because people also use ambiguous and indirect expressions that cannot be explained with CP. [START_REF] Lakoff | The logic of politeness: Or minding your P's and Q's[END_REF] explains the incentive behind using indirectness in interaction by arguing that in the majority of social interactions, politeness is the reason for using indirectness.

Lakoff also considers politeness as a key element of her universal rules of pragmatic competence: a) be clear and b) be polite. Following Grice, Lakoff (1973) claims that clarity is crucial for effective communication, but speakers need to be polite as well. She specifies her rules of politeness with three sub-categories including a) don't impose, b) give options, and c) make A feel goodbe friendly (Lakoff, 1973, p. 298). These rules are accounted for in social interactions when the purpose of communication is not only to convey information but also to establish a good relationship with interlocutors [START_REF] Axia | Linguistic Politeness at Different Age Levels[END_REF]. Lakoff claims universality for her rules, assuming that following these rules, politeness can be displayed in any cultural or linguistic context. However, there is little evidence to suggest whether her rules apply in sociocultural settings other than North American contexts that [START_REF] Lakoff | The logic of politeness: Or minding your P's and Q's[END_REF] studied. [START_REF] Leech | Principles of pragmatics[END_REF] continued Lakoff's work on politeness and attempted to shed light on the relationship between indirectness and politeness.

Leech's politeness principle.

Like Lakoff, Leech also took Gricean Conversational Maxim approach to account for politeness in conversation. [START_REF] Leech | Principles of pragmatics[END_REF] presented his Politeness Principle (PP) as an "essential complement" (p. 80) to Grice's Cooperative Principle (CP). He argued that CP fails to provide an evidence of "real language use" (p.80) as CP assumes that people use clear and unambiguous language to be cooperative. In reality, people may want to use indirect ways to convey meaning and still be seen as cooperative. For example;

Example 2.3: "Answer the phone."

Example 2.4: "Could you please answer the phone?"

In both examples, the speaker wants the addressee to answer the phone. Example 2.3 clearly indicates the illocutionary intent (request) and fulfils the criteria for CP because the meaning is evident from the locution/utterance. In contrast, the locution in example 2.4 does not convey the meaning as clearly as example 2.3, because it has an interrogative form which makes it look like a question rather than a request. Example 2.4 violates the maxim of manner because the locution (utterance) in this example is not directly related to the illocutionary force (request). Thus, if CP is the criterion for cooperation in conversation, the speaker in example 2.4 will sound noncooperative and may potentially offend the hearer. But instead, in real-life talk exchanges example 2.4 may sound politer than example 2.3, which is contrary to CP's claim.

Leech's Politeness principle (PP) explains that people may want to be indirect and ambiguous on purpose to avoid an impingement on their interlocutors' freedom of action.

Therefore, the purpose of PP is "to maintain the social equilibrium and the friendly relations which enable us to assume that our interlocutors are being cooperative in the first place" (p. 80). [START_REF] Leech | Principles of pragmatics[END_REF] offers PP as a way of rescuing CP and accounting for indirectness and ambiguity in conversation. He argues that it is only through a combination of CP and PP that a thorough pragmatic interpretation can be achieved. CP explains how people use conversational rules in social interaction and PP explains how people can violate those rules and still be cooperative.

Even though Leech's contribution is recognized as an important theoretical framework of politeness, it has also received some criticism by later scholars [START_REF] Brown | Politeness: Some Universals in language Use[END_REF][START_REF] Fraser | Perspectives on politeness[END_REF], mainly because of claims of universality despite its little empirical evidence. This problem was addressed to a certain extent in Brown and Levinson's theory (1987) in which empirical evidence from three different languages was provided. As mentioned earlier, Brown and Levinson's theory is the only evaluative framework which can be applied systematically to other languages and cultures, especially in western settings. Even though it is beyond the scope of the present study, interested readers can refer to [START_REF] Gudykunst | The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self construals, and individual values on communication styles across cultures[END_REF], [START_REF] Gu | Politeness phenomena in Modern Chinese[END_REF][START_REF] Mao | Beyond politeness theory: "Face" revisited and renewed[END_REF] for a contrastive view on eastern notions of politeness.

Brown & Levinson's universal theory of politeness.

Of all early work on politeness, [START_REF] Brown | Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena[END_REF], 1987) theory is the most influential.

This theory has been discussed, criticized, and applied in research so frequently that the reference "Brown & Levinson" has come to be synonymous with the study of politeness itself (Eelen, 2001, p. 3).

The concept of face.

Central to [START_REF] Brown | Politeness: Some Universals in language Use[END_REF] theory is the concept of face which originated in [START_REF] Goffman | Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face to Face Behavior[END_REF] work and is defined as "the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself" (Brown & Levinson,p. 61). Face is concerned with emotions which can be boosted, maintained, or lost in sensitive situations [START_REF] Brown | Politeness: Some Universals in language Use[END_REF]. Brown and

Levinson argue that there are two types of face: positive face and negative face, each type of face has different face wants which each person wishes to be fulfilled by people. Positive face represents the "desire to be ratified, understood, approved of, liked or admired" (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 62). In contrast, negative face refers to "the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distractioni.e. to freedom of action" (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 61).

Although maintenance of face is important but it is not obligatory, people can act against their interlocutors' face wants. Some language functions or speech acts are inherently facethreatening, that is, they "run contrary to face wants of the addressee" (p. 65) such as requests, orders, and threats. These speech acts generally constrain and, to some degree, put pressure on the hearer to do something for the speaker.

Redressive politeness strategies.

Assuming the universal concern for face, speakers are expected to employ an array of politeness strategies to alleviate antagonism in face-threatening speech acts. [START_REF] Brown | Politeness: Some Universals in language Use[END_REF] categorize these redressive strategies into five types: bald-on-record, positive politeness, negative politeness, off-record, and don't do the FTA [face threatening act]. These strategies are discussed below.

a) Bald-on-Record

When a speaker performs an act baldly on-record, s/he does it in the most "direct, clear, unambiguous and concise way possible (for example, for a request, saying 'Do X'!)" (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 69). This strategy is considered the least polite and speakers generally use this strategy in situations such as the following; a) urgency or desperation, e.g., "Watch out!", "Your pants are on Fire!" (p. 96) b) the speaker (S) is powerful or has higher status than the hearer (H), e.g., "Bring my wine

Jeeves" (p. 97)

b) Positive Politeness

Positive politeness redress is used to satisfy H's positive face wants such as to be appreciated, approved, and liked by others. Some common observable examples of positive politeness include an assertion of mutual friendship, the use of intimate language (e.g., "buddy", "my friend"), seeking common ground, or treating the hearer like a friend who is valued and appreciated. Some other strategies that can be used to display positive politeness are presented below;

c) Negative Politeness

Negative politeness is mainly "avoidance-based" (p.70) and is used to satisfy hearer's negative face wants such as freedom of action. While using this strategy, speakers minimize imposition by showing restraint and formality. Western cultures predominantly use negative politeness to minimize face-threat in talk exchanges [START_REF] Brown | Politeness: Some Universals in language Use[END_REF].

d) Off-Record Strategy

Unlike on-record strategies, off-record strategy is employed in such a way that "it is not possible to attribute only one clear communicative intention to the act" (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 211). By keeping the intention equivocal, the speaker avoids being held responsible for committing an FTA if the hearer recognizes the communicative intent and takes it as an offense.

This strategy corresponds to nonconventional indirectness in [START_REF] Blum-Kulka | Playing it Safe: The Role of Conventionality in Indirectness[END_REF] classification of requests. The comprehension of off-record utterances involves the identification of trigger, which calls for some inference. One possible trigger for inference can be a violation of Gricean maxims (1975), for example; a) Violation of relevance maxim e.g., "This soup's a bit bland" (p. 215) may mean "pass the salt".

b) Violation of manner maxim e.g., "John's a pretty sharp/smooth cookie" (p. 225) may serve as a compliment or insult for John.

Social parameters in the selection of politeness strategy.

Brown and Levinson (1987, p. 74) argue that the choice of politeness strategies depends on the seriousness of an FTA which can be determined by assessing three sociological variables in any talk exchange, for example;

(i)

Social distance (D), which refers to the degree of familiarity between interlocutors (ii)

Relative power (P), which refers to the relative degree of power S holds over H.

(iii) Absolute rank of Imposition (R) of an utterance refers to the magnitude of the speaker's desire in terms of the expenditure of goods or services by the hearer. R varies in different speech acts and is affected by various culturally specific factors.

According to [START_REF] Brown | Politeness: Some Universals in language Use[END_REF], speakers determine the seriousness or weightiness of a particular face-threatening act (FTA) by assessing the weightiness of P, D, and R and then choose the appropriate level of politeness while performing an FTA. (Ogiermann, 2009, p. 20).

Similarly, cultures also differ along dimensions of social variables such as power, distance, and rank of imposition which influence the choice of communicative styles. One of the major objectives of this study is to examine how these variables influence speech act data. Likewise, this study also explores if L2 learners of English show a negative politeness orientation in their requests as is shown in English language [START_REF] Sifianou | Politeness phenomena in English and Greece[END_REF][START_REF] Ogiermann | Politeness and in-directness across cultures: A comparison of English, German, Polish and Russian requests[END_REF][START_REF] Farahat | Politeness phenomena in Palestinian Arabic and Australian English: A cross-cultural study of selected contemporary plays[END_REF].

Likewise, Brown and Levinson's theory is also important for the present study because the speech act data in this study is classified according to [START_REF] Blum-Kulka | Playing it Safe: The Role of Conventionality in Indirectness[END_REF] request categorisation which is based on [START_REF] Brown | Politeness: Some Universals in language Use[END_REF] theory of politeness.

This section has presented the theoretical framework used in the present study. The speech act and politeness theories are reviewed in detail which are employed in the interpretation of speech act data. The next section, however, provides the empirical findings of ILP studies which provide the necessary background for the present study. First, general trends in ILP research with regard to speech acts, participants, methods, and findings are presented. Following sections specifically focus on the speech act of request and report on previous findings concerning the development of L2 requests.

Interlanguage Pragmatics

The term 'interlanguage' was first introduced by [START_REF] Selinker | Language transfer[END_REF][START_REF] Selinker | Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching[END_REF]. He explained that interlanguage is a separate linguistic system that is produced by second language learners when they attempt to use a second language (L2). [START_REF] Selinker | Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching[END_REF] said that interlanguage is not "identical to the hypothesized corresponding set of utterances which would have been produced by a native speaker of a TL" (p. 214). In other words, learners' interlanguage is influenced by their L1 in certain aspects. This view assumes that second language learners bring certain "baggage" of L1 socio-linguistic norms and transfer this to their L2. However, divergence from second language rules or norms varies from one learner to another depending on various factors such as proficiency, age, context, and idiosyncratic aspects.

Interlanguage pragmatics (ILP), on the other hand, is the study of second language learners' pragmatic competence and development. [START_REF] Kasper | Research Methods in Interlanguage Pragmatics[END_REF] refer to ILP as "nonnative speakers' (NNSs') comprehension and production of speech acts, and how their L2-related speech act knowledge is acquired" (p. 216). They further explain that ILP looks at child or adult non-native speakers' L2. The non-native speakers' L1 pragmatics, however, is outside the scope of ILP. Later definitions have also emphasized non-native speakers' use, comprehension, and acquisition of L2 pragmatics. For example, Kasper (1992, p. 203) defines ILP as "the branch of second language research which studies how non-native speakers (NNS) understand and carry out linguistic action in a target language, and how they acquire L2 pragmatic knowledge". [START_REF] Kasper | Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics[END_REF]

Issues in ILP research.

Most of early research in ILP assumed that the acquisition of L2 pragmatics is not as easy for learners as their L1 pragmatics [START_REF] Blum-Kulka | Playing it Safe: The Role of Conventionality in Indirectness[END_REF]. Therefore, most of the early research in ILP focused on native and non-native speakers' comparisons [START_REF] Blum-Kulka | Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language[END_REF], 1983;[START_REF] Cohen | Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: The case of apology[END_REF]Einsenstein & Bodman, 1986;[START_REF] Fraser | The association of deference with linguistic form[END_REF][START_REF] House | Politeness markers in English and German[END_REF][START_REF] Olshtain | Apology: A speech-act set[END_REF][START_REF] Olshtain | Complaints: A study of speech act behaviour among native and nonnative speakers of Hebrew[END_REF][START_REF] Tannen | Indirectness and discourse: ethnicity as conversational style[END_REF][START_REF] Trosborg | Complaint strategies in non-native/native speakers of English[END_REF][START_REF] Walters | Variation in the requesting behavior of bilingual children[END_REF]see Trosborg, 1995 for review). This research showed the extent to which nonnative speakers differed from native speakers and focused on the use while paying little attention to the acquisition of L2 pragmatic knowledge, which several researchers consider a limitation (Bardovi-Harlig, 1999;[START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | Developing L2 Pragmatics[END_REF][START_REF] Kasper | Research Methods in Interlanguage Pragmatics[END_REF][START_REF] Kasper | Pragmatic transfer[END_REF][START_REF] Kasper | Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics[END_REF][START_REF] Kasper | Pragmatics and SLA[END_REF]. [START_REF] Barron | Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context[END_REF] argues that the interest in use and comparison of native and non-native speakers derives from one of the parent disciplines of ILP:

cross-cultural pragmatics. This focus weakened ILP's link with its other parent discipline:

second language acquisition (SLA). Bardovi-Harlig (1999) formulated this problem thus: "not only was interlanguage pragmatics not fundamentally acquisitional, but it was, in fact, fundamentally not acquisitional" (p. 679).

Acquisitional aspects needed more attention in ILP because the focus on use only explained which pragmatic skills learners possessed and which skills remained to be learnt. We also need to account for how ILP knowledge could be acquired, what difficulties learners might face in this process, and how they could overcome their learning difficulties. Some early studies, though small-scale, did pay attention to acquisitional aspects of L2 pragmatics [START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic change[END_REF][START_REF] Billmyer | I really like your lifestyle": ESL learners learning how to compliment[END_REF][START_REF] Bouton | The interpretation of implicature in English by NNS: Does it come automatically--without being explicitly taught[END_REF][START_REF] Ellis | Learning to communicate in the classroom: A study of two language learners' requests[END_REF][START_REF] Olshtain | Degree of approximation: Nonnative reactions to native speech act behavior[END_REF][START_REF] Robinson | Introspective methodology in interlanguage pragmat-ics research[END_REF][START_REF] Sawyer | The development of pragmatics in Japanese as a second language: The sentence-final particle ne[END_REF][START_REF] Scarcella | On speaking politely in a second language[END_REF][START_REF] Schmidt | Interaction, acculturation and the acquisition of communicative competence[END_REF][START_REF] Takahashi | The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English[END_REF][START_REF] Trosborg | Apology strategies in natives/non-natives[END_REF]. But findings of these studies were limited in scope due to different methodological problems.

Developmental focus in ILP research.

Following calls for acquisitional research (Bardovi-Harlig, 1999;[START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | Pragmatics and second language acquisition[END_REF][START_REF] Kasper | Pragmatics and SLA[END_REF]2002;[START_REF] Kasper | Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics[END_REF], the number of studies focusing on acquisitional issues increased, which gained momentum in the beginning of 21th century (e.g., [START_REF] Achiba | Learning to Request in a Second Language: Child Interlanguage Pragmatics[END_REF][START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic vs. grammatical awareness in instructed l2 learning[END_REF][START_REF] Barron | Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context[END_REF][START_REF] Félix-Brasdefer | Declining an invitation: A cross-cultural study of pragmatic strategies in American English and Latin American Spanish[END_REF], 2004;[START_REF] Hassall | Requests by Australian learners of Indonesian[END_REF][START_REF] Hill | The development of pragmatic competence in an EFL context[END_REF][START_REF] Rose | An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development[END_REF][START_REF] Rose | Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase 2[END_REF][START_REF] Salsbury | Oppositional talk and the acquisition of modality in L2 English[END_REF], 2001;Schauer, 2006a[START_REF] Schauer | The development of ESL learners' pragmatic competence: A longitudinal investigation of awareness and production[END_REF][START_REF] Taguchi | Development of speed and accuracy in pragmatic comprehension of English as a foreign language[END_REF][START_REF] Trosborg | Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints, and Apologies[END_REF]Warga, 2004). The role of these studies in bridging the gap between ILP and SLA has been significant. These studies explored the acquisition of a range of pragmatic functions (e.g., speech acts, politeness) and factors which influence the acquisition of these functions (e.g., proficiency, age, context, and idiosyncratic aspects). Among these, L1 transfer, proficiency, and learning context are particularly relevant for the present study. Thus, this section presents findings of ILP studies which focused on these areas.

L1 influence.

The study of transfer is the only area that consistently linked early ILP research with SLA [START_REF] Kasper | Pragmatic transfer[END_REF]. Thomas (1993) defines pragmatic transfer as the transmission of strategies "from the mother tongue to the target language of utterances which are semantically or syntactically equivalent, but which because of different 'interpretive bias', tend to convey a different pragmatic force in the target language" (Thomas, 1993, p. 101). It has been an unchallenged assumption that L2 learners' comprehension, production and learning is influenced by their L1 cultural and linguistic knowledge [START_REF] Kasper | Pragmatic transfer[END_REF]. Therefore, when they communicate in L2, it is very likely that they make linguistic choices or employ inferential conventions that are only suitable for their L1, which can lead to breakdowns in communication (Thomas, 1983). For example, an inappropriate use of strategy or modifiers might make a request sound like a command. Acceptance of a compliment might make one look haughty in a context in which rejection of compliments is the norm.

Unlike Thomas, who considered transfer as a negative trait of L2 learners' pragmatic development, [START_REF] Kasper | Pragmatic transfer[END_REF] advocated that transfer should be viewed as a neutral concept. She introduced the term 'positive transfer' as opposed to 'negative transfer'. Kasper argues that all kinds of transfer cannot be bad. The correspondence in L1 and L2 norms can facilitate learners'

L2 pragmatic development because they can translate L1 norms to their L2. [START_REF] Kasper | Pragmatic transfer[END_REF] reported several studies that found positive transfer in their research.

Blum-Kulka ( 1982) is one such study that reported that Anglo-Canadian learners of Hebrew successfully transferred their L1 (English) forms for making conventionally indirect requests in their L2 (Hebrew) such as "can you", "why not", and "do you mind". [START_REF] House | Interlanguage pragmatics: requesting in a foreign language[END_REF] and [START_REF] Faerch | Internal and External Modification in Interlanguage Request Realization[END_REF] also reported positive transfer in requests of Danish and German learners of English especially with regard to the use of past tense modal forms. However, various studies can be identified in ILP literature that provide evidence of negative pragmatic transfer as well. For example, [START_REF] Beebe | Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals[END_REF] found negative L1 transfer in L2 refusals of Japanese learners of English. [START_REF] Takahashi | Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of correction[END_REF] reported L1 transfer in L2 corrections of adult Japanese learners' of English, whereas [START_REF] Garcia | Apologizing in English: Politeness strategies used by native and non-native speakers[END_REF] reported L1 transfer in L2 requests and disagreements of Venezuelan learners of English.

Findings of some ILP studies suggest that the learning context may have a significant effect on the decrease of negative L1 transfer. [START_REF] Barron | Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context[END_REF] reported a decrease in transfer in his learners' requests at the end of the study abroad. Barron investigated the acquisition of requests, offers, and refusals by Irish learners of German using a discourse completion task (DCT) which is a written test. DCT consists of detailed scenario descriptions and blank lines for learners' responses. Findings of the pre-departure test showed that, unlike native speakers of English, learners' use of downgraders (both syntactic and lexical) in requests and offers was very limited. They also transferred various mitigating strategies from their L1 (English) to their L2 (German), especially in requests. However, post-tests after ten months abroad revealed a decrease in L1 transfer which shows positive effects of stay-abroad on learners' ILP development. Although, learners continued using some downgraders in non-nativelike manner even in post-tests.

Similar findings were reported in [START_REF] Barron | Learning to upgrade in a study abroad context[END_REF] who examined the acquisition of upgraders in refusals by Irish learners of German. Findings showed that unlike native speakers of German, learners used upgraders extensively in refusal sequences and ritual reoffers prior to their stay abroad, exhibiting L1 transfer to their interlanguage. However, after a stay of ten months in target language community, learners used less ritual reoffers and began to use more upgraders in their initial refusals instead of refusal sequences which suggested targetlike trend in their L2 use.

Another question that has given rise to a considerable debate in ILP literature is about how proficiency affects pragmatic transfer from L1. [START_REF] Takahashi | The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English[END_REF] hypothesized that the more advanced learners' linguistic skills, the greater the likelihood of transfer of L1 pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic conventions to their interlanguage. The logic behind this assumption is that an increased grammatical ability enhances learners' capacity to transfer both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic L1 norms to L2. Takahashi and Beebe's own study did not support this hypothesis [START_REF] Kasper | Pragmatic transfer[END_REF], but other studies found some supporting evidence in this regard. [START_REF] Maeshiba | Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage apologizing[END_REF] found that advanced Japanese learners of English showed more pragmatic transfer in apology strategies than intermediate learners. While [START_REF] Olshtain | Speech act behavior across languages[END_REF] attributed their learners' failure to transfer L1 apology norms to a lack of L2 linguistic proficiency, other studies also supported this position [START_REF] Sabaté-I-Dalmau | Acquisitional patterns in L2 apologies by Catalan learners of English[END_REF][START_REF] Warga | The acquisition of French apologetic behavior in a study abroad context[END_REF] and found that the higher proficiency group exhibited sociopragmatic transfer, whereas lower proficiency groups evidenced more pragmalinguistic transfer [START_REF] Sabaté-I-Dalmau | Acquisitional patterns in L2 apologies by Catalan learners of English[END_REF].

A conflicting finding is reported in [START_REF] Hill | The development of pragmatic competence in an EFL context[END_REF] who reported a decrease in L1 transfer to learners' interlanguage with an increase in proficiency. [START_REF] Hill | The development of pragmatic competence in an EFL context[END_REF] Not only did ILP studies focus on effects of proficiency on a decrease of L1 pragmatic transfer, but they also focused on the influence of proficiency on the acquisition of several other L2 pragmatic features. Findings of the studies that explored the link between proficiency and pragmatic development are presented below.

Proficiency.

The nature of the relationship between grammatical proficiency and pragmatic development has triggered a debate in ILP research (Bardovi-Harlig, 1999, 2000;Kasper, 2001aKasper, , 2001b;;[START_REF] Kasper | Pragmatic Development in a Second Language[END_REF]. According to one view, grammatical and pragmatic competence are independent of each other, which implies that pragmatics precedes grammar in the process of L2 acquisition. In this view, inaccurate grammar might influence the effectiveness of conversation but it may not necessarily cause a pragmalinguistic error [START_REF] Olshtain | Degree of approximation: Nonnative reactions to native speech act behavior[END_REF]. The other view claims that grammar precedes pragmatics and a weak command of grammar can constrain the acquisition of L2 pragmatics [START_REF] Salsbury | I know you mean, but I don't think so:' Disagreements in L2 English[END_REF][START_REF] Trosborg | Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints, and Apologies[END_REF]. Findings of studies which attempted to clarify this relationship are presented below. [START_REF] Scarcella | On speaking politely in a second language[END_REF] studied the use of politeness in requests and invitations by Arabic learners of English at two proficiency levels, using role-plays. Results showed more nativelike performances among more proficient learners, suggesting the expansion of their pragmatic repertoires as their grammatical proficiency increased. Similar findings were reported by [START_REF] Trosborg | Apology strategies in natives/non-natives[END_REF] who examined the use of apology strategies by three levels of Danish learners of English and compared learners' use of strategies with native speakers of English and Danish.

Again, this study reported a correlation between high proficiency and closer approximation to target norms. For example, compared to L1 Danish speakers, L1 English speakers used fewer modality markers like downtoners, hedges, and intensifiers. More proficient L2 learners of English showed nativelike lower production of modality markers than less advanced learners, providing clear evidence of pragmatic development.

More targetlike performance with increased grammatical proficiency was also reported by [START_REF] Koike | Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanish foreign language learning[END_REF]. Focusing on the interpretation of suggestions, [START_REF] Koike | Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanish foreign language learning[END_REF] investigated the listening comprehension of English learners of Spanish. The audio-visual task in this study involved two main jobs, a) identifying the illocutionary force of utterances in video monologues and b) rating speakers' production in terms of personal characteristics. Analysis revealed that the lower proficiency students were less successful in both tasks than the advanced group, although results were "non-linear" (Barron & Warga, 2007, p.120) as the first-year students scored closer to third-year than the second-year students.

"Non-linear"2 pragmatic development is also reported by Sabaté i Dalmau and Curell i Gotor (2007) who examined stages of L2 apology development, using a discourse completion task (DCT). This study supports the hypothesis that L2 learners' proficiency affects their ILP development positively, but proficiency alone cannot guarantee targetlike performance.

Participants in this study include native speakers of English, Catalan, and three groups of Catalan learners of English: intermediate, advanced, and proficient learners. Findings showed that pragmalinguistic devices used by the most proficient group were closer to the targetlike use, whereas lower proficiency groups were not as successful. However, learner data contained some non-targetlike features, even in the high proficiency group. Learners, especially at intermediate level, overused "excuse me" in their apologies compared to native speakers of English (L2).

Just as some studies have evidenced a positive influence of learners' proficiency on their pragmatic development, findings of other studies have shown a restricted pragmatic development due to learners' weak grammatical skills. For example, [START_REF] Salsbury | I know you mean, but I don't think so:' Disagreements in L2 English[END_REF] used naturalistic data to examine the pragmatic development of ESL learners concerning expressions of disagreements. Findings showed that learners' expressions of disagreements were constrained by their little knowledge of modal expressions.

These studies suggest that increased grammatical proficiency has a positive effect on pragmatic development, but also show that learners may show progress in some pragmatic aspects but not in others, and advanced learners may still face difficulties in approximating nativelike pragmatic norms. [START_REF] Schmidt | Interaction, acculturation and the acquisition of communicative competence[END_REF] provided counter-evidence in his study of an adult Japanese learner of English, Wes, who showed considerable pragmatic development before acquiring appropriate grammatical rules. Schmidt's findings showed that restricted grammar doesn't necessarily prevent learners' pragmatic competence from developing. Further support for Schmidt's findings is found in Koike's study which examined requests, apologies, and commands by adult English learners of Spanish, who were at a beginning level. [START_REF] Koike | Pragmatic Competence and Adult L2 Acquisition: Speech Acts in Interlanguage[END_REF] reported that learners' L2 pragmatic abilities were more advanced than their grammatical skills.

Keeping in view findings of studies which took different positions about the relationship between proficiency and grammar, [START_REF] Kasper | Pragmatic Development in a Second Language[END_REF] argue that 'pragmatics precedes grammar' order seems to be a characteristic of early pragmatic development. In contrast, the reverse order seems to be true for advanced learners who possess a good command of L2 grammar but lack knowledge of contextually appropriate use of language.

However, proficiency is not the only factor to account for L2 pragmatic development.

Learning context may also have a powerful effect in this regard (Bardovi-Harlig, 1999). Findings of studies which explored effects of different learning contexts on learners' ILP development are presented below.

L2 Input/learning context.

Learning contexts most commonly examined in ILP research are second language and foreign language settings. The term "second language" (SL) refers to learning a language in target language community. In contrast, the term "foreign language" (FL) refers to learning a language in learners' community, where the target language is not spoken as the native language. Other lines of studies also compared study-abroad learners' pragmatic development with foreign language learners.

It is generally assumed that studying abroad provides abundant opportunities for learning and practicing L2 pragmatics as compared to at-home study. In a second language setting, not only can learners observe the encoding and decoding of meaning in L2 by native speakers, but they can also participate in unscripted and authentic discourse (Taguchi, 2011a). Foreign language learners, on the other hand, do not have such opportunities. [START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic vs. grammatical awareness in instructed l2 learning[END_REF] further reported the advantages of studying abroad by arguing that;

ESL [English as second language] learners, by virtue of living in the host environment, have an increased potential for interaction in the L2; the increased availability of input may give learners additional opportunities for noticing, and this in turn may contribute to greater opportunities for noticing, and this in turn may contribute to greater opportunities for acquisition (p.236). [START_REF] Olshtain | Degree of approximation: Nonnative reactions to native speech act behavior[END_REF] was one of the earliest studies that found positive effects of study abroad on L2 learners' perception of pragmatic appropriateness in requests and apologies, with an increased acceptance of L2 (German) pragmatic norms such as directness and positive politeness.

The positive influence of long residence in an L2 setting was confirmed by [START_REF] Bouton | The interpretation of implicature in English by NNS: Does it come automatically--without being explicitly taught[END_REF]. Using a multiple-choice written test, [START_REF] Bouton | The interpretation of implicature in English by NNS: Does it come automatically--without being explicitly taught[END_REF] examined the comprehension of different types of implicatures by thirty L2 learners of English from various backgrounds.

Findings suggested that after a period of four and a half years of residence in the target setting, L2 learners' comprehension of relevance-based implicatures became nativelike. However, learners still showed evidence of struggle with some formulaic implicatures such as "Is the Pope Catholic?" In another study, [START_REF] Bouton | Conversational implicature in the second language: Learned slowly when not deliberately taught[END_REF] analysed the comprehension of implicatures by another group of ESL learners after a seventeen month stay in the target language setting.

Findings of this study did not reveal any significant evidence of development unlike his previous study, mainly due to the difference in length of residence in each study.

Some ILP studies have compared the L2 pragmatic development of second language (SL) learners with foreign language (FL) learners and found better pragmatic performance by SL learners than FL learners. [START_REF] Takahashi | The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English[END_REF] is one of the earliest studies which conducted such a comparison. This study focused on refusal production by Japanese learners of English in SL and FL contexts. The DCT data showed that ESL learners approximated nativelike norms more than their EFL counterparts. Further analysis of the study revealed an indication of transfer by both groups but it occurred more with EFL learners.

Takahashi and Beebe's findings were supported by [START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic vs. grammatical awareness in instructed l2 learning[END_REF] study which reported categorical differences in EFL and ESL learners' performances. This seminal study focused on pragmatic infelicities in requests, suggestions, apologies, and refusals by Hungarian learners of English as second (EFL) and foreign language (ESL). Videotaped scenarios were used to examine learners' ability to judge the appropriateness of several utterances. In case learners judged utterances to be inappropriate they had to rate the severity of the offense. Findings showed that the ESL learners scored higher on the appropriateness scale than the EFL learners. On the imposition scale, ESL learners judged pragmatic errors as more severe than grammatical errors whereas EFL learners considered grammatical errors to constitute more severe problems. The teachers, on the other hand, both in EFL and ESL settings, identified more grammatical than pragmatic errors. Although ESL teachers rated pragmatic errors as more serious than grammatical errors. As we might expect, ESL learners showed a greater understanding of pragmatic errors because they had access to various naturalistic opportunities to learn L2 pragmatics. EFL learners, on the other hand, lacked these opportunities which might explain their lack of L2 pragmatic knowledge.

Replicating [START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic vs. grammatical awareness in instructed l2 learning[END_REF] In a follow-up study, [START_REF] Matsumura | Exploring the aftereffects of study abroad on interlanguage pragmatic development[END_REF] examined after-effects of study-abroad by fifteen Japanese learners of English who spent a year in Canada. Using the same metapragmatic assessment test [START_REF] Matsumura | Learning the rules for offering advice: A quantitative approach to second language socialization[END_REF], data were collected three times over one year, which revealed learners' divergence from L2 norms they acquired during their stay abroad. When using English with Japanese professors, participants initially displayed target community norms of directness immediately following their return, but over time they reverted to L1 (Japanese)

norms by hedging and opting out in advice to higher status interlocutors. The follow-up interviews revealed that learners' perception about student-teacher relationship was affected by their study abroad because they found their professors friendly. But they reverted to the formal student-teacher relationship as soon as they came back to Japan. They only displayed targetlike norms when they interacted with international students or their Canadian friends. These findings indicate that the prevalent norms in the context in which learners live are likely to affect their pragmatic choices. This can be an explanation for foreign language learners' greater L1 transfer to their interlanguage.

Findings of these studies suggest that ESL learners generally show greater pragmatic development than their EFL counterparts because ESL learners receive more L2 input. However, learners in both settings, despite high proficiency, do not approximate target pragmatic norms completely. Thus, despite advances in ILP research, many questions regarding the process of pragmatic development remain open. [START_REF] Kasper | Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics[END_REF] recommended that the ILP research should focus on the process and the route of L2 pragmatic development, that is, how different pragmatic features unfold in learners' repertoires [START_REF] Kasper | Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics[END_REF]. For these purposes, it is important that studies shift their focus to younger learners to address changes in learners' performance from the early stages of ILP development. Moreover, since EFL learners have relatively fewer opportunities to practice L2, it is interesting to see how these learners compensate for the lack of opportunities and the extent to which they are successful in approximating target language norms. The present study contributes in this literature by focusing on younger beginning learners in a foreign language setting to examine the extent of opportunities available to learn L2 requests. Requests are the focus of this study, hence, following sections explore the request strategies in learners' L1 (French), L2 (English), and their interlanguage, as reported in previous studies on requests.

Request: The Speech Act in Focus

This section introduces the speech act in focusrequestwith a focus on the type of requests and strategies used to realize them. The connection between politeness and indirectness in English requests is also observed by examining findings of cross-cultural research on requests because the present study assumes a close connection between politeness and indirectness in English requests. Later, specific findings of studies focusing on L1 English and L1 French requests concerning the use of certain request strategies and modifiers are presented to find similarities and differences in French and English requests and to highlight areas which might be challenging for French EFL learners in request realization. [START_REF] Searle | A classification of illocutionary acts[END_REF] characterizes illocutionary acts in five categories: representatives, directives, commissives, expressives, and declaratives. Among these, directives are of special relevance here as requests falls into this category, which is the major focus of the present study. [START_REF] Searle | A classification of illocutionary acts[END_REF] defined directive acts as an attempt "by the speaker to get the hearer to do something" (Searle, 1976, p.11). Although he places other verbs such as order, beg, invite, advise into the same category, requests have received the most attention in ILP research and the term request has even begun to be used interchangeably with directives.

Several other theorists have also attempted to classify requests. Some consider requests as a subcategory of directives [START_REF] Schmidt | Interaction, acculturation and the acquisition of communicative competence[END_REF]. Others equate requests with directives [START_REF] Gordon | The structure of children's requests[END_REF], or consider directives as a subtype of requests (see Achiba, 2003, p. 5-6 for details). This study adopts Searle's definition of requests as a speaker's attempt to get the hearer to do something. Márquez-Reiter (2000) identified four types of requests: requests for action, requests for information, requests for attention, and requests for sympathy. One common characteristic shared between these requests is that the speaker wants the hearer to do something for him/her.

The difference, however, is observed in the degree of intensity depending on the context of utterances [START_REF] Searle | A classification of illocutionary acts[END_REF]. Among these, requests of action seem more imposing and facethreatening as the hearer must render a favour to the speaker as a response to the request, which may involve physical effort or exchange of goods. Therefore, requests of action have attracted the most attention in ILP literature.

As the risk of imposition is high in requests, speakers use several strategies and modifiers to make their requests less face-threatening. For example, speakers can use endearing terms (e.g., "buddy", "my friend"), small talk, supportive moves (reasons & explanations), and downgraders (e.g., "a little", "a bit") to achieve their goals. Also, speakers use various degrees of directness to make requests more convincing.

Speech act theory proposes that requests can be categorised into two overarching categories: direct and indirect requests. [START_REF] Blum-Kulka | Indirectness and politeness in requests: same or different[END_REF] explains that direct and indirect requests are the two opposite poles of explicitness. According to her, "the request patterns considered as the most direct or transparent are the ones in which requestive force is either marked syntactically, or indicated explicitly" (p. 134). In other words, direct requests are clearly identifiable from the utterance and they require very little inference to successfully interpret the meaning (e.g., "move your car" or "I'm asking you to move your car"). Indirect requests, on the other hand, require more intricate processing by the hearer to interpret the illocutionary force of the utterance. The characteristic of indirect requests is that "the speaker communicates to the hearer more than he actually says by way of relying on their mutually shared background information" (Searle, 1975, p. 60). Hence, the meaning in indirect requests is generally beyond the literal meaning of the utterance. For example, the use of a rhetorical question ("can you open the window?") or an assertion ("it is too hot in here") is a typical way of making an indirect request in English.

Another distinction between direct and indirect utterances concerns sentence versus speaker meaning [START_REF] Grice | Utterer's meaning, sentence-meaning and word-meaning[END_REF][START_REF] Holtgraves | Styles of language use: individual and cultural variability in conversational indirectness[END_REF]. When the propositional content (or sentence meaning) of an utterance is consistent with the speaker's intent (or speaker meaning), we speak of direct meaning. Indirect meaning occurs when "communicative meaning (speaker meaning as well as other possible meanings) is not isomorphic with sentence meaning" (Holtgraves, 1997, p. 626). This view negates Searle's claim that only limited things can be done with utterances [START_REF] Searle | A classification of illocutionary acts[END_REF]. The use of indirectness suggests that an infinite number of speaker meanings can be conveyed via a limited number of utterances. Perhaps for this reason, indirectness has become a focus of recent politeness research.

Indirectness and politeness.

Motives for indirectness in speech are manifold but it has been repeatedly suggested that "politeness is the chief motivation for indirectness" (Searle, 1975, p. 64). This claim is supported by many early scholars [START_REF] Clark | Responding to indirect speech acts[END_REF]Brown & Levinson,1987;[START_REF] Lakoff | The logic of politeness: Or minding your P's and Q's[END_REF][START_REF] Lakoff | Talking Power: The politics of language in our lives[END_REF][START_REF] Leech | Principles of pragmatics[END_REF]. [START_REF] Leech | Principles of pragmatics[END_REF] and [START_REF] Brown | Politeness: Some Universals in language Use[END_REF] propose that there is a positive correlation between indirectness and politeness; thus, a greater degree of indirectness increases the level of politeness. [START_REF] Brown | Politeness: Some Universals in language Use[END_REF] cast the net so wide that the prime "raison d'être" (p. 142)

for indirectness is to serve its politeness function. They argue that indirectness gives an "out" (p.

132) to the addressee, increases optionality, and functions as a hedge on the illocutionary force, and makes it polite.

Later research challenged this view by arguing that there can be many other reasons for employing indirectness in directives [START_REF] Held | Politeness in Linguistic research[END_REF][START_REF] Locher | Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication[END_REF]. [START_REF] Blum-Kulka | Playing it Safe: The Role of Conventionality in Indirectness[END_REF] in this regard comment that directness is related to politeness but "by no means coextensive with, politeness" (p. 278). Other scholars argue that indirectness or more precisely, "conventional indirectness" is a culturally relative concept [START_REF] Grainger | Indirectness in Zimbabwean English: A study of intercultural communication in the UK[END_REF]. Conventionalized expressions considered polite/appropriate in one speech community may not correspond to norms of another linguistic community. For example, [START_REF] Christie | Relevance theory and politeness[END_REF] shows that the use of the "can you" formula is considered polite in English and Spanish requests, but it may sound odd or redundant in Russian or Polish, if it is already evident that the hearer is capable of realizing the requestive act.

However, it is also true that indirectness is not the only way to show politeness.

Politeness can also be demonstrated via direct utterances [START_REF] Grainger | Directness and Indirectness Across Cultures[END_REF]. This view challenges the assumption that all directness is impolite. [START_REF] Pinto | Are Americans insincere? Interactional style and politeness in everyday America[END_REF] contends that cultures (e.g., Polish or Russian) where direct strategies are preferred [START_REF] Rathmayr | Pragmatische und sprachlich konzeptualisierte Charakteristika russischer direktiver Sprechakte[END_REF] may consider

English indirectness less polite (see also [START_REF] Ogiermann | Politeness and in-directness across cultures: A comparison of English, German, Polish and Russian requests[END_REF], since it is judged to increase the "interpretative demands on the hearer" (Blum-Kulka, 1987, p. 133). Evidence also suggests that direct strategies may be appropriate even in English, particularly in communication between close friends or family, because the use of indirectness in these contexts may create unnecessary distance and formality [START_REF] Grainger | Directness and Indirectness Across Cultures[END_REF].

Therefore, it appears that the relationship between (in)directness and (im)politeness is quite complex and it needs thorough understanding to avoid involuntary mistakes. Several crosscultural studies have attempted to examine the relationship between indirectness and politeness.

Findings of studies focusing on English requests which contribute to our understanding of the link between indirectness and politeness in English are discussed below. It is important to discuss these findings because English is the target language of L2 learners in the present study and this study assumes a close connection between indirectness and politeness in English requests based on findings of previous studies discussed below.

Requests in English.

Sifianou (1992) applied [START_REF] Brown | Politeness: Some Universals in language Use[END_REF] [START_REF] Clark | Responding to indirect speech acts[END_REF]Thomas, 1983;[START_REF] Weizman | Interlanguage requestive hints[END_REF], and may even appear manipulative [START_REF] Holtgraves | Styles of language use: individual and cultural variability in conversational indirectness[END_REF][START_REF] Lakoff | Women's language[END_REF][START_REF] Pinker | The evolutionary social psychology of off-record indirect speech acts[END_REF]. Besides, hints involve a "treasure hunt" (Pinker, 2007, p. 443) making it difficult for hearers to interpret the meaning felicitously [START_REF] Holtgraves | Communication in context: The effects of speaker status on the comprehension of indirect requests[END_REF]. Therefore, in many languages including English, hints are not always considered the politest strategy.

In a more recent study, [START_REF] Yu | Culture-specific concepts of politeness: Indirectness and politeness in English, Hebrew, and Korean requests[END_REF] compared English, Hebrew, and Korean requests and found that there is a significant correlation between English indirectness and politeness. Direct strategies were considered the least polite whereas conventionally indirect strategies were considered the politest strategies. But nonconventional indirectness or hints were judged as less polite than conventional indirectness, which is contrary to Brown & Levinson's theory as they consider off-record politeness (e.g., hints) politer than negative politeness (e.g., conventional indirectness).

Findings of these studies suggest that the use and interpretation of different (in)directness strategies is culturally determined. However, there is substantial evidence in cross-cultural pragmatic research that indirectness is closely related to politeness [START_REF] Blum-Kulka | Playing it Safe: The Role of Conventionality in Indirectness[END_REF], at least in English. However, contrary to previous belief [START_REF] Brown | Politeness: Some Universals in language Use[END_REF], speakers of several languages including English consider conventionally indirect strategies politer than nonconventionally indirect strategies or hints. As the present study focuses on the acquisition of politeness strategies by French learners of English, it is also important to examine the preferred request strategies in French to see if there are any differences in English and French requests.

Only a few studies have investigated the use of request strategies by native speakers of French;

findings of these studies are presented below.

Requests in French.

As [START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | Exploring the pragmatics of interlanguage pragmatics: Definition by design[END_REF] points out, most of the cross-cultural and interlanguage pragmatic studies have focused on English language. Despite the scarcity of research on French as a native language, the studies which focused on this area have some potential to shed light on strategy preferences in French requests. [START_REF] Van-Mulken | Politeness markers in French and Dutch requests[END_REF]

Interlanguage pragmatic studies on requests

This section is dedicated to review ILP studies examining L2 requests: the speech act in focus in the present study.

Methods in ILP research.

The choice of suitable methods to examine research questions has been a fundamental issue in ILP research because methods may vary on the scale of authenticity, reliability, comparability, and time consumption. Even though naturalistic methods are considered to be the most useful form of data [START_REF] Kasper | Data collection in pragmatics research[END_REF], ILP studies have also used elicitation methods because of their lower time consumption and larger data production. Since there are advantages and drawbacks to each, Bardovi-Harlig (1999b) suggested that instead of taking the best-method approach, researchers should customize "the research design to fit the question" (p. 238). In other words, the validity of research methods should be determined with respect to their potential to answer questions of the research [START_REF] Kasper | Research Methods in Interlanguage Pragmatics[END_REF][START_REF] Rose | An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development[END_REF]. In the following, different methods used in ILP research are introduced (section 2.7.1.1). Later, findings several studies comparing different ILP methods are presented to examine merits and demerits of different methods (section 2.7.1.2).

Types of tasks.

As shown in table 2.1 above, most of the ILP studies on the development of L2 requests employed discourse completion tasks [START_REF] Barron | Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context[END_REF][START_REF] Blum-Kulka | Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure[END_REF][START_REF] Faerch | Internal and External Modification in Interlanguage Request Realization[END_REF][START_REF] Blum-Kulka | Playing it Safe: The Role of Conventionality in Indirectness[END_REF][START_REF] Hill | The development of pragmatic competence in an EFL context[END_REF][START_REF] Bella | Pragmatic development in a foreign language: A study of Greek FL requests[END_REF] and role plays [START_REF] Barron | Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context[END_REF]Scarcella,1979;[START_REF] Trosborg | Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints, and Apologies[END_REF][START_REF] Hassall | Requests by Australian learners of Indonesian[END_REF][START_REF] Félix-Brasdefer | Pragmatic development in the Spanish as a FL classroom: A crosssectional study of learner requests[END_REF][START_REF] Al-Gahtani | Hi doctor, give me handouts": low-proficiency learners and requests[END_REF][START_REF] Roever | The development of ESL proficiency and pragmatic performance[END_REF][START_REF] Walters | Grammar, meaning, and sociocultural appropriateness in second language acquisition[END_REF][START_REF] Walters | Variation in the requesting behavior of bilingual children[END_REF]. Naturalistic data, on the other hand, is used only in a few studies, which opted for longitudinal design [START_REF] Schmidt | Interaction, acculturation and the acquisition of communicative competence[END_REF][START_REF] Ellis | Learning to communicate in the classroom: A study of two language learners' requests[END_REF][START_REF] Achiba | Learning to Request in a Second Language: Child Interlanguage Pragmatics[END_REF][START_REF] Safont-Jordà | Early requestive development in consecutive third language learning[END_REF], 2013; see section 2.7.2.1).

There are two types of discourse completion tasks (henceforth DCTs): written DCTs and oral DCTs. In both types of tasks, the description of the situation is provided to participants and they are asked to respond in writing, or record their responses in the given devices (tape recorders etc.). Here is an example of a DCT used in [START_REF] Barron | Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context[END_REF]:

Situation:
You're studying German at university. You missed a class the day before yesterday, so you'd like to borrow some notes. YOU ASK A FRIEND FOR HIS/HERS.

You start.

DCTs are frequently used in ILP research because they offer several advantages including comparability of data, collection of large samples, and high level of control over social variables: distance, power, and rank of imposition.

An improved version of DCT is introduced by [START_REF] Rose | An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development[END_REF] in the form of cartoon oral production task (COPT). COPT is more relevant for the present study because [START_REF] Rose | An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development[END_REF] used

COPT to examine speech act patterns of young beginning learners of English as a foreign language in Hong Kong. The difference between DCT and COPT is that not only does COPT Authentic discourse, on the other hand, is collected using field notes or audio/video recordings. Naturally occurring speech is considered the richest source of data because it allows the examination of language in use ( [START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | Developing L2 Pragmatics[END_REF][START_REF] Kasper | Research Methods in Interlanguage Pragmatics[END_REF]. However, only a few studies in ILP research have used authentic data to examine L2 learners' pragmatic development [START_REF] Achiba | Learning to Request in a Second Language: Child Interlanguage Pragmatics[END_REF][START_REF] Ellis | Learning to communicate in the classroom: A study of two language learners' requests[END_REF][START_REF] Safont-Jordà | Early requestive development in consecutive third language learning[END_REF][START_REF] Safont-Jordà | Early stages of trilingual pragmatic development. A longitudinal study of requests in Catalan, Spanish and English[END_REF][START_REF] Schmidt | Interaction, acculturation and the acquisition of communicative competence[END_REF] due to its limitations concerning the difficulty to collect sufficient amount of comparable data in limited time [START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | Institutional discourse and interlanguage pragmatics[END_REF]Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford,1990) and the lack of control over several variables.

However, a promising substitute can be found in the form of an institutional setting (e.g., academic setting), which not only allows comparability of data but also a control over several variables (power, distance, imposition), because the distribution of roles in institutional setting is generally even. While highlighting merits of institutional discourse, [START_REF] Rose | An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development[END_REF] adds that "compared to interpersonal conversation, institutional talk has the advantage of being more highly structured, routinized, and recurrent" (p. 318). Although, it might be difficult to gain access to the research site while investigating institutional setting, especially if video recordings are involved.

Comparison of tasks in ILP research.

A number of ILP studies have compared these methods and highlighted different characteristics of each methods. Table 2.2 below displays the list of these comparative studies in chronological order. Some of these studies compared written DCTs with oral DCTs, others compared written/oral DCTs with role plays and/or field notes to find methods which produced data similar to naturalistic talk. Participants in these studies include native speakers and/or learners of English as second or foreign language. Findings of these studies are presented below. [START_REF] Rintell | Studying requests and apologies: An inquiry into method[END_REF]. [START_REF] Martínez-Flor | Task effects on EFL learners' production of suggestions: A focus on elicited phone messages and emails[END_REF], however, reported contrastive findings with written data more elaborate and longer than oral data. The major difference, however, could be the learning context [START_REF] Martínez-Flor | Learners' production of refusals: Interactive written DCT versus oral role-play[END_REF]. Oral data was richer and more appropriate in ESL studies in which participants were either native speakers or second language learners, whereas written data was more detailed in EFL context in which learners generally have fewer opportunities to practice spoken English [START_REF] Martínez-Flor | Learners' production of refusals: Interactive written DCT versus oral role-play[END_REF]. The comparison of both written and oral DCTs with authentic talk and field notes revealed that DCTs lacked interaction, yet oral DCTs approximated more closely to natural speech than written DCTs [START_REF] Yuan | An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods: Written DCTs, oral DCTs, field notes, and natural conversations[END_REF].

Several other scholars have also considered written DCTs as less promising [START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | Developing L2 Pragmatics[END_REF][START_REF] Cohen | Acquisition of requests and apologies in Spanish and French: Impact of study abroad and strategy-building intervention[END_REF]Marti ńez-Flor, 2013), mainly because DCT responses fail to represent features of face-to-face interaction (turn-taking mechanisms, hesitations, repetitions etc.). In contrast, if the focus of the study is to explore L2 learners' knowledge about the use of speech acts, carefully designed oral DCTs can be successfully used in ILP research [START_REF] Kasper | Pragmatic Development in a Second Language[END_REF][START_REF] Rose | Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase 2[END_REF]. According to [START_REF] Rose | Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase 2[END_REF], an oral DCT can measure "the changes in knowledge and attitudes across groups that might be indicative of development" (p. 2347).

Several studies have attempted to improve the effectiveness of oral DCTs to examine L2 learners' pragmatic knowledge. For example, [START_REF] Rose | An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development[END_REF] used cartoons with oral DCTs, [START_REF] Nickels | Interlanguage pragmatics and the effects of setting[END_REF] and Schauer (2007) used pictures, and[START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | Conventional Expressions as a Pragmalinguistic Resource: Recognition and Production of Conventional Expressions in L2 Pragmatics[END_REF] used computerized aural turns to increase the naturalness of oral DCTs (see also [START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | Proficiency, length of stay, and intensity of interaction, and the acquisition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics[END_REF].

The modification in the design of COPT retains several advantages that DCT offers while reducing its demerits [START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | Developing L2 Pragmatics[END_REF]. Among these, [START_REF] Rose | An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development[END_REF] cartoon oral production task (COPT) is more relevant because this method is especially designed to elicit responses from younger beginning learners. Another characteristic of COPT is that, unlike other methods, the scenarios in this method are based on real life situations.

A few studies have also compared role plays with other research methods to examine their effectiveness. Findings revealed that role play responses were longer than DCTs because role plays involved turn-taking, repetitions, and negotiation segments [START_REF] Sasaki | Investigating EFL students' production of speech acts: A comparison of production questionnaires and role plays[END_REF]Safont-Jordá, 2005;[START_REF] Salazar-Campillo | Task analysis on mitigation in the speech act of requesting: discourse completion task and role play[END_REF]. However, learners produced more appropriate speech act strategies in written DCTs than role plays because participants had more time to think in DCTs [START_REF] Martínez-Flor | Learners' production of refusals: Interactive written DCT versus oral role-play[END_REF]. However, the comparison of role plays, DCTs, and field notes revealed that role play responses were longer and more complex than DCTs but shorter and less complex than field notes [START_REF] Eisenstein | Expressing gratitude in American English[END_REF]. But there were many similarities in the use of words and expressions across methods.

Role play responses may not approximate natural conversation completely because they have a planning stage [START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | Institutional discourse and interlanguage pragmatics[END_REF]. Counterevidence shows that the first few turns may be pre-planned but subsequent turns have the potential to display characteristics of natural discourse [START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | Developing L2 Pragmatics[END_REF]. Thus, role plays can be an effective source of data collection to examine learners' ILP knowledge as well as the use of this knowledge to a certain extent.

The two studies which compared authentic data with DCTs and role plays [START_REF] Eisenstein | Expressing gratitude in American English[END_REF][START_REF] Yuan | An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods: Written DCTs, oral DCTs, field notes, and natural conversations[END_REF] found that authentic data was more interactive and complex than other methods. The major advantage of this method is that it is consequential and motivated by the speaker's interpersonal and transactional goals, rather than the researcher's [START_REF] Kasper | Data collection in pragmatics research[END_REF].

Overall, authentic discourse is the most favoured method in ILP research. Written DCTs, in contrast, are less favoured because they lack consequentiality and use written medium to represent oral communication. Improved versions of oral DCTs (e.g., COPT), however, can be successfully used if the focus of the research is to examine L2 pragmatic knowledge and development, rather than language in use. Role plays, on the other hand, are considered to be the closest approximation of authentic discourse [START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | Developing L2 Pragmatics[END_REF][START_REF] Cohen | Assessing speech acts in a second language[END_REF][START_REF] Kasper | Data collection in pragmatics research[END_REF]. Role plays have the potential to "represent oral production, full operation of the turntaking mechanism, impromptu planning decisions contingent on interlocutor input, and hence, negotiation of global and local goals, including negotiation of meaning" (Kasper & Dahl, 1991, p. 228). Moreover, variables "power", "distance", and "rank of imposition" can be controlled in role plays by specifying the context and roles of interlocutors. In the following section, findings of studies on L2 requests (see table 2.1 above) are presented in detail.

Main findings: ILP development in L2 requests.

In this section, major findings of ILP research on requests are presented in detail. This discussion mainly concerns stages of L2 pragmatic development and non-nativelike patterns in both adult and younger beginning learners' L2 requests.

Stages of development.

Different learners may take different routes of pragmatic development [START_REF] Kasper | Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics[END_REF][START_REF] Barron | Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context[END_REF] and it is difficult to establish a fixed order of development. Some ILP studies have, however, found similar stages of development [START_REF] Schmidt | Interaction, acculturation and the acquisition of communicative competence[END_REF][START_REF] Ellis | Learning to communicate in the classroom: A study of two language learners' requests[END_REF][START_REF] Achiba | Learning to Request in a Second Language: Child Interlanguage Pragmatics[END_REF], which are summarised by Kasper and Rose (2002, p. 140) as follows:

1. Pre-basic stage: learners use highly context-dependent expressions with no syntax and relational goals.

2. Formulaic stage: learners rely on unanalysed formulas/routines and imperatives.

3. Unpacking: learners show a creative use of routines with a use of conventional indirectness.

4. Pragmatic expansion: learners expand their pragmalinguistic repertoire with an increase of mitigation and complex syntax.

5. Fine tuning: learners use fine-tuned or sophisticated request forms with social goals. [START_REF] Schmidt | Interaction, acculturation and the acquisition of communicative competence[END_REF] Unlike these studies, [START_REF] Achiba | Learning to Request in a Second Language: Child Interlanguage Pragmatics[END_REF] focused on an absolute beginner, and found similar stages of ILP development previously reported by [START_REF] Schmidt | Interaction, acculturation and the acquisition of communicative competence[END_REF] and [START_REF] Ellis | Learning to communicate in the classroom: A study of two language learners' requests[END_REF], with the addition of two more stages (pragmatic expansion and fine tuning). The participant in the study was the daughter of the researcher, Yao, who was a 7-year old Japanese learner of English.

Achiba traced Yao's request development using audio and video recordings during their 17month stay in Australia. [START_REF] Kasper | Pragmatic Development in a Second Language[END_REF] identified four stages of development in

Achiba's study because Yao skipped the pre-basic stage and went straight to formulaic stage.

During this stage (first 12 weeks in Australia), Yao frequently made use of imperatives such as "hang on" and "let's play the game" (Achiba, 2003, p. 48-49) Even though other learners may not show the exact same order of development as shown in [START_REF] Schmidt | Interaction, acculturation and the acquisition of communicative competence[END_REF], [START_REF] Ellis | Learning to communicate in the classroom: A study of two language learners' requests[END_REF], [START_REF] Achiba | Learning to Request in a Second Language: Child Interlanguage Pragmatics[END_REF] and [START_REF] Roever | The development of ESL proficiency and pragmatic performance[END_REF], it is likely that other learners may also go through similar stages of development. However, the abovedescribed order of development only predicts learners' pragmalinguistic development. The order of sociopragmatic development is still unknown in ILP research.

It is also important to note that all learners may not reach the high stages of L2 pragmatic development such as pragmatic expansion and fine tuning, due to differential learning experiences and input opportunities. Findings of these studies also suggested that despite evident development, learners still showed linguistic problems. For example, learners in [START_REF] Schmidt | Interaction, acculturation and the acquisition of communicative competence[END_REF] and [START_REF] Ellis | Learning to communicate in the classroom: A study of two language learners' requests[END_REF] preferred direct strategy even at the end of the study. This finding has been recurrently reported in many other ILP studies which are presented in detail below.

Non-nativelike patterns in L2 requests.

As shown in table 2.1 above, a number of studies have examined L2 learners' ILP development.

Findings of these studies suggested that the increase in proficiency or the length of residence in L2 setting increased learners' approximation to target language norms. [START_REF] Hill | The development of pragmatic competence in an EFL context[END_REF][START_REF] Hassall | Requests by Australian learners of Indonesian[END_REF][START_REF] Roever | The development of ESL proficiency and pragmatic performance[END_REF][START_REF] Rose | An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development[END_REF][START_REF] Rose | Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase 2[END_REF]. However, even advanced learners' requests indicated many non-nativelike patterns, including the underuse [START_REF] Trosborg | Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints, and Apologies[END_REF] or overuse of some linguistic features [START_REF] Taguchi | Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English[END_REF][START_REF] Trosborg | Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints, and Apologies[END_REF][START_REF] Hassall | Requests by Australian learners of Indonesian[END_REF]. Findings of these studies are relevant to the present study because they highlight aspects of L2 pragmatics which pose difficulties to L2 learners. Some of these problems and their potential causes are also investigated in the present study.

Taghuchi ( 2006) is one such study which found that learners did not approximate nativelike linguistic norms completely even at higher proficiency levels. Focusing on an EFL immersion setting, Taguchi analysed the appropriateness of requests by Japanese college students at two proficiency levels: beginning and upper intermediate. Using role plays and rating scales, the appropriateness of requests was measured in terms of familiarity with L2 social conventions and the use of nativelike request strategies. Role play data showed that compared to lower proficiency group, higher proficiency group used nativelike conventionally indirect strategy frequently, although with limited sociopragmatic awareness. Lower proficiency group, on the other hand, relied heavily on nonconventional indirectness such as "hints" in high imposition requests to higher in power addressees. Thus, higher proficiency learners' requests were marked better on appropriateness scale than the lower proficiency level. However, the analysis of baseline data showed that native (English) speakers used mitigated conventionally indirect strategies (e.g., "I'm wondering if' + clause") in an embedded structure frequently. But this feature was nearly absent in all learners' data.

These findings were corroborated in [START_REF] Taguchi | Pragmatic Development as a Dynamic, Complex Process: General Patterns and Case Histories[END_REF] which focused on another EFL groups' L2 request development. Data were collected using a speaking task administered three times over an academic year. Findings showed that learners showed a preference for conventionally indirect strategy in their requests overtime but they generally realized this strategy by means of "preparatory questions" such as "could you + verb". However, they did not use nativelike complex embedded formula or bi-clausal structures with a mitigated preparatory (e.g., "I'm wondering if + clause"). Taguchi (2011b) also investigated learners' sociopragmatic development and found that learners produced low imposition requests ("asking a friend for a pen") with greater ease and speed as compared to high imposition requests ("asking the teacher for an extension of a paper"), because they lacked higher pragmalinguistic skills-a threshold that they were not yet able to cross [START_REF] Taguchi | Pragmatic Development as a Dynamic, Complex Process: General Patterns and Case Histories[END_REF].

A lack of approximation to nativelike norms was also found in request modification of ESL learners in [START_REF] Schauer | Finding the right words in the study abroad context: The development of German learners' use of external modifiers in English[END_REF], except for two participants who used a full range of nativelike modifiers at the end of their stay abroad. Schauer collected data three times over one academic year using an electronically delivered DCT. The first evaluation revealed that all learners used alerters ("Professor") and grounders ("I couldn't find any article on my essay," p. 204), but only half of them used disarmers ("I know it's quite lengthy but…" p. 204) and imposition minimizers ("You get them back pretty fast, I promise," p. 204). The second evaluation suggested an expansion of learners' repertoire with the inclusion of other modifiers (sweetener, appreciator) but this development was not evident in all learners' production. Similarly, in the last evaluation at the end of the year, two learners used the full range of nativelike modifiers including small talk ("good to meet you here", p. 206) and considerator ("I hope you don't mind", p. 206), although the same level of development was not found in other learners' data. [START_REF] Schauer | Finding the right words in the study abroad context: The development of German learners' use of external modifiers in English[END_REF] explained that the differential development of various learners' pragmatic competence might be affected by several individual factors such as motivation, experience with native speakers, and exposure to L2. Regarding learners' sociopragmatic development, [START_REF] Schauer | Finding the right words in the study abroad context: The development of German learners' use of external modifiers in English[END_REF] found that learners demonstrated some knowledge about the impact of status and imposition on the modification of requests, but in other instances, learners overused some modifiers compared to NSs, evidencing a tendency away from native speaker use. analysed EFL learners' request performance using role plays. Findings of both studies suggested visible differences in learners' perspective choices as compared to native speakers. Native speakers in both studies used speaker dominant perspective most frequently (72%, 74.7% respectively). They also showed a preference for impersonal perspective in [START_REF] Woodfield | I just need more time': A study of native and non-native students' requests to faculty for an extension[END_REF]. Learners, on the other hand, did not use impersonal and joint perspective at all. They showed nativelike tendency of using speaker dominant perspective (69%, 42.4% respectively) in their requests. However, despite progress, their use of speaker dominant perspective remained limited.

Hill (1997) also found some regressive patterns in L2 learners' requests in the form of overuse of some strategies. Participants in Hill's study included Japanese EFL learners at three proficiency levels: beginning, intermediate, and advanced. Analysis of DCT data showed that learners' use of direct strategies decreased and their use of conventionally indirect strategies increased with an increase of their proficiency, reaching almost NS levels. However, the examination of data at micro level showed regressive patterns. Learners overused some substrategies of conventional indirectness (willingness questions: "Will you…" or "Would you…"), which were not as commonly used by NSs. Native speakers, in contrast, used ability questions ("Can you…?" or "Could you…?") more frequently. Similar regressive patterns were found in request modification, with the excessive use of syntactic downgraders (interrogatives, conditionals) and the underuse of lexical or phrasal downgraders ("please", "a little", "just"), which were preferred by native English speakers. Concerning [START_REF] Hill | The development of pragmatic competence in an EFL context[END_REF] findings, [START_REF] Kasper | Pragmatic Development in a Second Language[END_REF] pointed out that if the analysis is conducted only on a macro level and not on a micro level, results may be misleading.

A lack of correspondence between learners' macro and micro level use of strategies in L2 requests is also found in [START_REF] Hassall | Requests by Australian learners of Indonesian[END_REF]. Hassall examined the request performance of intermediate level Australian learners of Bahasa Indonesia using an interactive role play.

Learners showed nativelike preference for conventional indirectness in their requests at macrolevel, but differences were observed at micro-level. Learners showed a preference for want statements in direct requests instead of nativelike imperatives and performatives, which might be caused by L1 transfer because imperatives were generally avoided in English [START_REF] Wierzbicka | Cross Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction[END_REF]. Learners also showed non-nativelike patterns by using hints more often than NSs and by using modals which were not preferred by native speakers.

The lack of approximation to nativelike norms was also found in [START_REF] Trosborg | Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints, and Apologies[END_REF] with respect to the use of some sub-strategies of directness, despite the increase in learners' proficiency. Trosborg examined ILP development of three levels of adult Danish learners of English focusing on requests, complaints, and apologies using role plays. Findings showed that there was a general preference for conventional indirectness across all levels like native speakers, which indicated ILP development. However, learners at level 1 and level 2 demonstrated an overuse of speaker-based conventional indirectness (statements of needs and desires e.g., "I need some money please") indicating non-native like patterns. Problems were also observed in the use of hints and direct strategies particularly in level 2 and level 3 learners' requests, with an underuse of hints and an overuse of direct strategies (statements of obligation and imperatives) compared to English speakers.

Compared to [START_REF] Trosborg | Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints, and Apologies[END_REF] who found problems in learners' use of request strategies, [START_REF] Barron | Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context[END_REF] reported learner difficulties concerning the use of lexical and syntactic modifiers. [START_REF] Barron | Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context[END_REF] examined the ILP development of adult Irish learners of German who spent a year in Germany and compared their data with L1 English and L2 German requests. DCT and role play data showed that learners' use of syntactic downgraders was less frequent than by native speakers of German and it did not increase over time. This pattern was not influenced by L1

English because native speakers used syntactic downgraders frequently. However, at the end of the study, learners' requests became more complex compared to native speakers' requests, mainly due to learners' increased use of "easy to use" syntactic and lexical modifiers (Barron, 2003, p. 235).

The overuse of request modifiers was also reported by [START_REF] Faerch | Internal and External Modification in Interlanguage Request Realization[END_REF] who investigated the request modification of Danish learners of German and English, using a discourse completion task. The German interlanguage data showed that learners used overcomplex requests containing many syntactic downgraders, which could be a result of L1 (Danish) transfer, and which could lead to pragmatic failure because the use of "interrogative + negation" structure carried a reproachful meaning in L2 German. Learners of English, in contrast, overused supportive moves. With regard to lexical downgraders, both learner groups overused politeness markers such as "please" or "bitte".

The overuse of politeness markers was also reported by [START_REF] Scarcella | On speaking politely in a second language[END_REF] who examined the ILP development of adult Arabic learners of American English at beginning and advanced levels. [START_REF] Scarcella | On speaking politely in a second language[END_REF] argued that learners overused modifiers in direct requests to compensate for their inability to use appropriate indirect forms, thus following "the more the better" principle. [START_REF] Faerch | Internal and External Modification in Interlanguage Request Realization[END_REF] remark that this stage of learners' development is "well beyond the threshold level of communicative competence but still a long way before nearnativeness" (p. 245). Other than pragmalinguistic difficulties, [START_REF] Scarcella | On speaking politely in a second language[END_REF] also found sociopragmatic problems in L2 learners' requests. Role play data revealed that learners at both beginning and advanced levels indicated a lack of awareness about the impact of social factors (status, familiarity) on the realization of requests. The only situational variation observed was the advanced learners' use of declarative sentences for superiors such as "You can't bring your wife and your children to this party" (p. 284), which was contrary to native speakers' use of declarative sentences for familiars only.

Regressive patterns of development were also reported in [START_REF] Takahashi | Cross-Linguistic Influence in Indirectness: The Case of English Directives Performed by Native Japanese Speakers[END_REF] who investigated the development of request strategies by Japanese ESL learners. Role plays and follow-up interviews revealed that learners' requests became more direct as their proficiency increased. Examination of L1 Japanese and L2 English data showed that the use of direct utterances was common in Japanese but speakers mitigated their direct requests with honorific auxiliary verbs in Japanese to indicate politeness. Since there are no honorific auxiliary verbs in English, learners' bare utterances seemed more direct and imposing.

Overall, these findings suggest that L2 learners showed only marginal ILP development.

Problems were observed even in advanced learners' L2 requests, both on pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic levels. L1 transfer and the lack of opportunities to learn L2 pragmatics could be some of the major reasons for learners' limited ILP development. Another common feature of studies reviewed in this section is that they are focused on adult learners exclusively. It appears that learners' age might have a significant impact on their pragmatic development.

According to [START_REF] Kasper | Pragmatic Development in a Second Language[END_REF], a focus on young beginning learners would benefit ILP research by contributing to our understanding of the correlation between proficiency and ILP development. Bardovi-Harlig & Mahan-Taylor (2003) claim that "there is no reason to wait to introduce learners to the pragmatics of a second language. In fact, the imbalance between grammatical and pragmatic development may be ameliorated by early attention to pragmatics in instruction" (p. 7). Thus, it is important that the focus of the research shifts to younger beginning learners which can benefit L2 pedagogy and expedite L2 pragmatic development. The few studies which examined young beginning learners' L2 request development to-date are presented in the following section.

Young beginning learners.

This interest in young beginning learners' L2 pragmatic development is entrenched in [START_REF] Bialystok | Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of second-language use[END_REF][START_REF] Bialystok | Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence[END_REF] claim that the acquisitional process of the second language may not be the same for young and adult learners. Bialystok argues that compared to young L2 learners, the discourse and linguistic skills of adult learners are already developed in their L1. These skills enable them to control, analyze, and integrate linguistic and contextual information from multiple resources [START_REF] Lee | An exploratory study of the interlanguage pragmatic comprehension of young learners of English[END_REF] and transfer them to L2 if needed. Young learners, on the other hand, do not possess the same level of expertise in sociolinguistic aspects. Young learners rely heavily on a formulaic system (both in L1 & L2) because their rule-based system is less resourceful and their metalinguistic ability is still in burgeoning state [START_REF] Mckay | Assessing Young Language Learners[END_REF]. Thus, the research on young learners can render findings that can contribute in understanding the process of L2 pragmatic development. [START_REF] Walters | Grammar, meaning, and sociocultural appropriateness in second language acquisition[END_REF] is among the few studies which examined young learners' (age: 6 to 15 years) L2 sociopragmatic development. Walters used role plays in which children had to make requests on behalf of one puppet to another. Findings showed that learners' request forms were mostly ungrammatical but they were successful in attaining sociocultural goal: politeness ("Can you tell me where is the can opener, please?" p. 341). In some instances, requests were wellformed but learners failed to demonstrate politeness in nativelike manner ("May you write your name on the paper?" p. 342). [START_REF] Walters | Variation in the requesting behavior of bilingual children[END_REF] conducted another study to trace the sociopragmatic development of another group of young beginning learners of English (ages 7;7 to 11;4 years).

The situational variation in this study was measured with respect to the impact of social parameters including age, sex, setting, and race of the addressee on learners' requests. Role play findings showed that the sex of the addressee and the setting had a notable effect on learners' requests: they used more deferential requests while addressing female puppets but less deferential strategies while talking to male puppets. However, they did not show any variation according to the race or age of the addressee. [START_REF] Walters | Variation in the requesting behavior of bilingual children[END_REF] explained that the assessment of the social factors and the choice of an appropriate request strategy was a complex task, which was hard for young learners to tackle at the same time.

Rose (2000) also found marginal L2 sociopragmatic development in young L2 learners' requests. However, ample evidence of pragmalinguistic development has been found in this study. Participants in the study include Cantonese EFL learners at three proficiency levels (aged:

7,9,11 years). An innovative method, cartoon oral production task (COPT) was used to elicit requests, apologies, and compliment responses. Rose's findings showed that learners pragmalinguistic skills developed perceptibly with an increase in proficiency. The use of direct strategies and hints in requests was more frequent in the youngest group, but it decreased in older groups. Older learners used conventional indirectness more frequently. Greater development was found in the higher proficiency group with regard to the use of alerters and supportive moves.

The analysis of L1 baseline data revealed that a great majority of learners, even at lower levels, preferred conventional indirectness (up to 92%) in Cantonese, and the use of supportive moves also occurred evenly in Cantonese across levels, which showed that learners could transfer their L1 knowledge to their L2 concerning request strategy and modification (i.e., supportive moves).

But their limited pragmalinguistic knowledge did not allow them to do so. Concerning learners' sociopragmatic development, no significant variation in the distribution of request strategy or modifiers was found at all levels. Based on these findings, [START_REF] Rose | An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development[END_REF] argues that pragmalinguistic development may precede sociopragmatic development in beginning stages of ILP development.

In a follow-up study, [START_REF] Rose | Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase 2[END_REF] investigated the pragmatic development of three older groups of EFL learners (aged 13, 15, 17 years), using an improved version of cartoon oral production task. Findings showed that learners at all levels preferred conventional indirectness in requests (about 92%) unlike [START_REF] Rose | An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development[END_REF] in which the higher proficiency group used conventional indirectness more frequently than lower levels. Older groups' greater development was also found in [START_REF] Rose | Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase 2[END_REF] with respect to the use of a variety of modals ("can", "may" "could", "would", "would you mind") compared to lower level learners ("can", "may"). The examination of learners' sociopragmatic development revealed that learners indicated some level of sociopragmatic development by using higher frequency of alerters and supportive moves in high imposition and hearer-dominant requests.

Safont-Jordà (2011) also found the increased use of conventionally indirect strategies in an absolute beginner's requests. This study not only examined learners' pragmatic development in English (L3) but also examined its effect on learners' L1 Cantonese and on L2 Spanish. The These findings show that learners indicated ample evidence of pragmalinguistic development even at a young age, but they showed little development concerning L2 sociopragmatic knowledge. These findings are revealing but more evidence is needed from a larger group of participants and multiple methods including naturalistic data. A research design with improved methods will not only produce richer and more reliable findings accounting for learners' L2 pragmatic development, but it will also reveal learners' difficulties concerning ILP development which would be beneficial for L2 pedagogy.

Research Questions

Findings of ILP studies on requests presented in this section indicate that learners showed clear pragmalinguistic gains, especially with respect to request strategy and modification. However, most of these studies also reported that learners did not reach native speaker levels of appropriateness. They showed a tendency towards nativelike use of conventional indirectness and some modifiers, but even advanced learners overused/underused some request strategies and modifiers (e.g., "please"). Similarly, mitigated request strategies and some modifiers that require more complex linguistic skills were frequently absent from L2 learners' requests.

Concerning L2 learners' sociopragmatic development, only a weak evidence of development is found in both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. The comparison between ESL and EFL learners revealed that ESL learners showed relatively better sociopragmatic awareness than EFL learners. However, proficiency had a little effect on learners' L2 sociopragmatic development.

ILP studies have also attempted to identify the order of L2 pragmatic development. Five stages of pragmalinguistic development have been identified [START_REF] Kasper | Pragmatic Development in a Second Language[END_REF], which are subject to variation in different learners (section 2.7.1). But no specific order of sociopragmatic development has yet been identified.

However, most of the ILP studies have focused on adult learners with little attention to younger beginning learners' ILP development. It is argued that the process of younger and older learners' pragmatic development may be significantly different [START_REF] Bialystok | Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of second-language use[END_REF][START_REF] Bialystok | Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence[END_REF].

Likewise, a focus on younger learners' ILP development has a potential to contribute in our understanding of the correlation between proficiency and ILP development.

On methodological front, most of the ILP studies relied on elicited data alone. Some longitudinal studies, however, have used naturalistic data but the number of participants in these studies is very small, which restricts the generalisability of their findings. Likewise, none of these acquisitional studies, to the best of my knowledge, have investigated opportunities for L2 pragmatic development in L2 learners' textbooks and classroom activities. The evaluation of opportunities in foreign language classrooms is important as it is a major, and in some instances the only, source of input for foreign language learners.

Keeping the issued in ILP research in view, the present study aims to contribute in this research by addressing some of these issues. This study takes a cross-sectional approach to examine the acquisition of politeness in requests by young learners of English in French secondary schools, by means of multiple methods including both elicited and naturalistic data.

This study also evaluates classroom activities and textbooks to examine the extent of input opportunities available to learn L2 pragmatics in EFL classrooms in France. The research questions which the present study addresses include;

1. How well are French learners of English able to formulate requests?

2. Is there any evidence of development over time?

3. What kind of input do EFL learners receive in French secondary schools?

4. What opportunities do they have for production? Do they use these opportunities? Do they create others?

Keeping in view merits and demerits of different methods used in ILP research, a mixed methodology approach is taken in the present study to answer the research questions of the study.

Procedures of different methods employed in the study are described in the following chapter in detail.

Chapter 3: Method

This chapter presents a detailed account of methods employed in the present study to answer the research questions which explore the use and development of L2 requests by L2 learners, input in foreign language classrooms, and opportunities for learning, producing, and practicing L2

requests. The chapter begins with the introduction to [START_REF] Rose | An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development[END_REF][START_REF] Rose | Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase 2[END_REF] studies which are replicated in the present study, and goes on to introduce extensions of Rose's work. Section 3.2 presents the research design of the study and the type of methods used to collect primary and secondary data. In section 3.3, procedures of instrument development are presented in detail. In section 3.4, procedures of data collection are presented in the order in which data were collected.

Replication Study: Requests in EFL

The present study replicates and extends [START_REF] Rose | An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development[END_REF][START_REF] Rose | Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase 2[END_REF] investigation of young beginning learners' L2 pragmatic development. As mentioned in Chapter II (see section 2.7.3), so far only a small number of studies have examined young learners' ILP development and [START_REF] Rose | An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development[END_REF][START_REF] Rose | Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase 2[END_REF] work is an exception. Rose used a novel instrument, cartoon oral production task (COPT), to elicit requests [START_REF] Rose | An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development[END_REF][START_REF] Rose | Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase 2[END_REF], apologies, and compliments [START_REF] Rose | An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development[END_REF]. This method was first used by [START_REF] Rose | An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development[END_REF] and its viability was confirmed in [START_REF] Rose | Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase 2[END_REF] which further refined it by using empirically validated scenarios. The COPT involved cartoon illustrations with brief captions to describe scenarios. Participants were instructed to imagine what the cartoon character would say in the given situations and then record their responses via tape recorders. [START_REF] Rose | An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development[END_REF][START_REF] Rose | Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase 2[END_REF] findings provided ample evidence of pragmalinguistic development with a movement towards indirectness and increased frequency of request modifiers with level, but only a little evidence of sociopragmatic development was found.

However, [START_REF] Rose | An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development[END_REF][START_REF] Rose | Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase 2[END_REF] studies had some limitations and the most prominent among them were that the number of participants in these studies was somewhat small and the data were collected via one method only. Likewise, Rose did not investigate the potential causes for learners' limited ILP development. Instead, Rose encouraged future research to explore the causes underlying the findings, especially concerning learners' sociopragmatic development.

Rose also suggested triangulation of methods in future research to explore instrument effects on findings because some methods might inhibit the display of certain pragmatic features.

Thus, the present study replicates [START_REF] Rose | An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development[END_REF][START_REF] Rose | Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase 2[END_REF] by examining young EFL learners' pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic development in a different setting: French secondary schools with a greater number of participants and a range of methods: the COPT, role plays, and naturalistic data. This study also extends Rose's work by examining the extent of opportunities available in classroom activities and textbooks for learning ILP knowledge. Thus, the first two research questions in the present study concern the replication of [START_REF] Rose | Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase 2[END_REF][START_REF] Rose | An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development[END_REF], whereas the following two research questions are an extension of [START_REF] Rose | Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase 2[END_REF][START_REF] Rose | An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development[END_REF].

The present study chose state schools in France as a research site because the compulsory education sector has received lesser attention using well-studied speech acts in ILP research.

Moreover, L2 classrooms are a major (and in some cases the only) source for learning foreign languages, because opportunities for practicing foreign languages outside the classroom are generally very small. Therefore, this study pays special attention to input and production opportunities for learning L2 pragmatics in foreign language classrooms in French secondary schools. A number of secondary school teachers were contacted via snowball sampling to participate in the study. Teachers were provided with a detailed account of the study including the aim of the study, methods, and duration of data collection procedures. Teachers who accepted the offer to participate in the study signed permission letters (see appendix 10) allowing access to their classes for a specific time frame. Permissions were also sought from principals of the schools, learners, and learners' parents via formal authorisation letters (see appendix 11 & 12) which included a brief description of the study and methods. Since methods included film recording of classroom activities, finding volunteers for the study was no mean feat.

Research Design

The present study adopts a cross-sectional design to examine the pragmatic development of EFL learners at three levels in French secondary schools: sixième (11-12 years), troisième (14-15 years), and terminale (17-18 years). In the French school system, sixième refers to the first year of lower secondary school, troisième refers to the fourth and last year of lower secondary school, and terminale refers to the last year of upper secondary school. These groups will henceforth be referred to as level 1 (sixième), level 2 (troisième), and level 3 (terminale). According to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFRL), EFL learners are expected to reach A2 level by the end of lower secondary school and B2 level at the end of upper secondary school.

Since learners' proficiency skills at a given level may vary, a cloze test is used as a proficiency measure to check whether learners possess synchronous linguistic skills at a particular level. Mean scores of learners' proficiency are also compared across levels to examine whether learners' overall grammatical proficiency increased with level. Moreover, demographic data is collected, which provided background information concerning learners' exposure to L2, native speakers, and access to other sources of learning L2: books, TV, the internet, and the length of residence in L2 communities.

Since the primary goal of the study was to investigate L2 learners' pragmatic development across levels, a triangulation of three methods was employed: 1) the COPT, 2) role plays, and 3) authentic data. Primary data provided both authentic and elicited examples of L2 requests to examine French EFL learners' ILP development. Naturalistic data (filming of classroom activities) also provided a glimpse of the available opportunities for learning interlanguage pragmatics in L2 classrooms. In order to have a deeper understanding regarding the opportunities for learning L2 pragmatics, three additional methods were used: 4) participant interviews, 5) textbook analysis, and 6) French COPT.

Instrument Development

Following Rose, instruments used to collect data were developed in several steps to ensure their validity and reliability. Procedures involved in the construction of these instruments are explained in detail below.

Proficiency test.

A cloze test was used to examine the proficiency level of second language learners [START_REF] Atiken | Using Cloze Procedure as an Overall Language Proficiency Test[END_REF]. A cloze procedure is developed by "deleting words from prose" (Oller, 1972, p. 151) and it is considered a "powerful and economical measure of English-language proficiency" (Stubbs & Tucker, 1974, p. 241). However, the word-deletion rate in cloze tests has been a matter of debate. [START_REF] Alderson | The cloze procedure and proficiency in English as a foreign language[END_REF] argued that changes in deletion-rate sometimes resulted in significant differences between tests. Several authors have suggested different rates of word-deletion, for example, [START_REF] Atiken | Using Cloze Procedure as an Overall Language Proficiency Test[END_REF] suggested deleting every 7 th word, [START_REF] Stubbs | The Cloze Test as a Measure of English Proficiency[END_REF] recommended the 5 th word, [START_REF] Abraham | The meaning of cloze test scores: An item difficulty perspective[END_REF] suggested the 11 th word, and [START_REF] Kobayashi | Cloze tests revisited: exploring item characteristics with special attention to scoring methods[END_REF] every 13 th word. Therefore, in the present study, two sets of passages were chosen from secondary school textbooks (6ème, 4ème, and terminale) with different themes (test A: "sports", test B: "space missions"), so that the selected topics and passages were not too difficult for them to understand. The original intention was to choose one of these passages to include in the final test, but due to the disagreement in literature about the word-deletion rate [START_REF] Alderson | The cloze procedure and proficiency in English as a foreign language[END_REF][START_REF] Kobayashi | Cloze tests revisited: exploring item characteristics with special attention to scoring methods[END_REF], two more versions of tests were formulated based on the two selected passages, with the deletion rate being every 5 th and 8 th word. Overall, four tests were piloted in eight different classes involving a total of 189 participants. Table 3.1 displays the number of learners who took part in each cloze test. None of these learners participated any further in data collection. In order to compare the test results across levels, one-way ANOVA (Analysis of variance) test was used because this test allows the examining the significance of difference among three or more groups. Results showed that the p-value corresponding to the F-statistic of the one-way ANOVA was lower than 0.05 (P=3.2196e-155 ), suggesting that one or more treatments were significantly different (p<0.05). Therefore, the post-hoc Tukey HSD (honest significant difference) test was conducted to examine which of the pairs of treatments were significantly different from each other. Table 3.

below displays p-values of different tests across

different pairs in the post-hoc Tukey HSD test. Findings showed that all cloze tests showed a significant difference (p<0.05) between level 1 and level 2, level 1 and level 3, and level 2 and level 3. Since each test demonstrated significant difference across levels under study, cloze test A was selected randomly for further use in the study (see appendix 1). All participants who took part in the COPT also took the cloze test. This test was scheduled for the same day as the COPT in each participant class. During the cloze test, instructions were given in French by a research assistant and learners were asked to fill in the blanks using contextually appropriate words. Table 3.4 below displays results of the test in which 111 learners took part at level 1, 73 at level 2, and 71 at level 3. Learners' mean scores showed that their proficiency increased with level, especially from level 2 to level 3. However, as expected, the high standard deviation particularly at level 2 and level 3 showed that the participant groups had a wide range of proficiency. The one-way ANOVA test was also employed to see if there was a significant difference between different levels. The p-value corresponding to the F-statistic of one-way ANOVA was calculated as 1.1102e-166 which was lower than 0.05, suggesting that one or more treatments were significantly different. To examine differences across levels, the post-hoc Tukey HSD was used.

As shown in table 3.5 below, this test showed that the difference across levels was significant.

Background questionnaire.

Following [START_REF] Rose | Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase 2[END_REF], a demographic questionnaire (see appendix 2) was also used in this study to find the extent of learners' exposure to the foreign language (L2) outside classroom setting.

Learners were asked questions about the number of years they had been learning English, languages they spoke at home, the frequency with which they read or used English multimedia or online resources and, if applicable, the length of residence in any English-speaking country.

The demographic questionnaire was conducted in each participant class. However, the number of participants in this questionnaire was somewhat low because this questionnaire was conducted at the end of filming sessions (between May and July 2015) when learners were free to skip classes to prepare for impending exams. Findings of the background questionnaire are presented below in detail.

Table 3.6 shows the division of participants by their place of birth. This information was collected to increase the homogeneity of data by eliminating data of participants who were not born in France and started school elsewhere. As shown in table 3.6, a great majority of learners at level 1 were born in France (n=95) with an exception of six learners. Since all except one learner started school in France, only one7 learner's data was eliminated. Likewise, at level 2, among 67 learners, only 5 learners were not born in France but they moved to France before the age of 5 and started primary school in France. Thus, all learners' data was retained at level 2. At level 3, 54 learners took part in this questionnaire and only five reported having born in a country other than France. Four among these learners started primary school in their country of birth, therefore, their data was removed to avoid any effect on results. Table 3.7 shows the number of years learners spent while learning English. Most of the learners at level 1 and level 2 spent four to six years in schools while learning English. In contrast, learners at level 3 spent seven to twelve years. Some learners at all levels started learning English in elementary schools whereas others started English in lower secondary schools. Concerning the use of multimedia resources (English TV series / movies / videos etc.), table 3.8 below shows that the use of English multimedia resources was lowest at level 1 since 54% learners did not use such resources at all. The use of multimedia resources increased at level 2 with 30% watching English movies/videos for less than an hour, 21% for an hour, and 15% for more than an hour per day. Level 3 learners, on the other hand, showed a higher tendency to watch English movies/videos, with 17% watching English series or films for less than an hour, 26% for about an hour, and 26% for more than an hour per day. Table 3.9 displays the frequency with which learners at different levels used written English materials other than the course work. The use of recreational and other reading materials was low at level 1 and level 2. Some increase in this regard was found at level 3 with 22% using such materials frequently compared to 7% and 4% at level 1 and 2. Learners also reported using other languages at home but those findings are not directly relevant to the study, therefore, those findings are not reported here. The overall findings show that French is a preferred language at almost all participants' homes. A small proportion of learners also used English at home: 16% of total learners at level 1, 13% at level 2, and 15% at level 3. As shown in table 3.12 below, further examination showed that English was more frequently used in only four learners' homes (two at level 1, two at level 2) than other languages spoken in their homes. All the other learners reported using French or other languages more frequently at home.

Table 3.12 Division of learners by the frequency of languages spoken in their homes

Language more frequently practiced at home

Level French (n) % English (n) % Italian (n) % Arabic (n) % Other (n) % 1 80 80% 2 2% 1 1% 5 5% 12 12% 2 59 88% 2 3% 2 3% 1 1% 3 5% 3 52 96% 0 0% 1 2% 0 0% 1 2%
As shown in table 3.13, most of the learners at all levels practiced English at school with teachers. Thus, classroom appears to be a major source for learning and practicing English for learners in the study. Some learners also practiced English at home with family and friends, although the intensity/frequency of their practice might vary from learner to learner. None of the learners reported taking help from an English-speaking domestic helper.

Concerning learners' travel and residence in an L2 setting, table 3.14 shows that the percentage of learners who had travelled to an English-speaking country was lowest at level 1.

The frequency of visits to L2 community increased with level. The length of stay in an English

speaking-country at level 1 ranged between one to two weeks, with one exception8 . In contrast, level 2 and level 3 learners' length of stay in an L2 setting ranged between one to four weeks.

Cartoon oral production task (COPT).

Following [START_REF] Rose | Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase 2[END_REF], the COPT in the present study was developed in three stages; Procedures of each of these steps are explained below.

Exemplar generation.

The exemplar generation task was used to collect real-life examples of requests in a variety of contexts by learners at the three levels under study. This task (see appendix 3) was written in As sample requests in exemplar generation task were produced in French, two bilingual speakers assisted in translating French data into English. Analysis showed that out of 532 requests, 248 referred to school context whereas the remainder were from domestic or other settings. Since the focus was on the school setting, the 248 school scenarios were retained. Further analysis was done to eliminate repetitive, ambivalent, and homogeneous requests yielding 85 unique requests.

Examples include;

 I asked my friend to drive me home.

 Can you open the blinds please?

 Can I go to the bin?

Before the selection of scenarios for COPT, following [START_REF] Rose | Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase 2[END_REF], a metapragmatic assessment of the 85 unique requests was done to determine the likelihood of occurrence of requests, to find requests which could be applicable to all levels under study, and to control the level of imposition in COPT. Procedures involved in the metapragmatic assessment of the selected requests are described below.

Metapragmatic assessment.

Metapragmatic assessment was conducted to examine the imposition and the likelihood of occurrence of the 85 unique requests selected for further analysis. The imposition of requests was tested because the degree of imposition could vary from one context to another and could significantly affect the request strategies. Likewise, the likelihood of occurrence was also examined to find the scenarios that were more likely to occur in school setting and to eliminate the infrequent suggestions. Following [START_REF] Rose | Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase 2[END_REF], it was decided that only those requests which passed the criterion of 70% of likelihood, would be considered eligible for COPT.

To constrain the study, only two variables, "status" and "imposition" were included.

Scenarios in this test were either addressed to the teacher or the classmate. It was assumed that the teacher was more powerful in classroom than learners, whereas all learners were on equal level in terms of power, with relatively low social distance between them.

The metapragmatic assessment was done by dividing the 85 unique requests into two tests (see appendix 4 & 5) to moderate the length of the test as recommended by [START_REF] Kasper | Research Methods in Interlanguage Pragmatics[END_REF]. Test A included only requests addressed to the teacher while Test B included requests to the classmate.

Requests were rephrased in a congruous manner in which a learner, "Alex", made requests to the teacher or to the classmate. These requests were then translated into French by a bilingual speaker because the test was aimed to be written and administered in French. The rating scales in the metapragmatic assessment tests were dichotomous: participants could respond as "yes" or "no" on the likelihood scale and as "big" or "small" on the imposition scale.

Seven teachers and 144 learners volunteered to participate in this test (sixième = 43, troisième = 51, terminale = 50), half of whom took test A and the others took test B. Thirty minutes were allocated for this test and instructions were given in French by the teacher. Learners had to judge whether Alex's requests were likely to happen in their school setting and they also had to assess the degree of imposition of the given requests. Participants could opt out if they did not know the response for a specific item.

According to the results, 69 requests were marked by more than 70% participants as being likely to occur in classroom setting whereas 16 requests (11 from test A and 5 from test B) did not reach the 70% criterion. However, out of the 69 requests, only 12 requests were marked as "high imposition" requests, 8 high imposition requests were addressed to the teacher and the other 4

were addressed to a classmate.

Selection of scenarios for COPT

Since the aim of the COPT was to examine the pragmatic competence of L2 learners in a variety of contexts, while not overtaxing them with a lengthy questionnaire [START_REF] Kasper | Research Methods in Interlanguage Pragmatics[END_REF], it was decided to include 10 requests in each of two versions of the COPT balancing addressees and level of imposition, with an addition of two distractors (see appendices 6 & 7). The choice of the request scenarios was made systematically by keeping several factors into view such as the variety of contexts, the imposition, and the comparability of requests across different addressees. For each COPT, 5 requests were addressed to a teacher and the other 5 were addressed to a classmate.

Among the overall requests addressed to teachers and classmates, about half requests were big (high imposition) and the other half were small. Table 3.16 displays the 20 request scenarios selected for the final COPT questionnaire, with details about the percentage of likelihood of occurrence of requests and the imposition of requests (big requests are highlighted in bold) as marked by learners. Some percentages in the imposition columns do not add up to 100% because a few learners opted out.

Role plays.

The present study used role plays to complement COPT data and examine any aspects of L2 requests that might not be visible in COPT data including the negotiation of requests, the repetition, or level of insistence of requests. Eight role play scenarios were selected from the COPT and divided into two groups (Group A, Group B) containing 4 requests in each group with the addition of a distractor (see appendix 8 & 9).

Role play Group A scenarios were taken from COPT B and role play Group B scenarios were taken from COPT A so that learners would have a variety of scenarios to respond to in role plays. Table 3.17 below displays the request scenarios selected for role plays. In each group, two request scenarios were addressed to the teacher and the other two were addressed to a classmate with different imposition values, so that the sociopragmatic aspects of learners' L2 could also be examined.

Classroom film protocol.

The aim of using classroom films was two-fold: a) to collect naturally occurring examples of requests to complement the COPT and role play data and b) to examine opportunities of learning L2 pragmatics in L2 classrooms in France. They were requested to present their three best speaking activities so that participants could have maximum opportunity to participate in class.

Although the teachers were aware of the focus of the research on L2 pragmatics in general, they

were not informed about the precise focus of the study-politeness in L2 requests.

Teacher interviews.

Semi-structured audio-taped interviews of teachers who agreed to participate in classroom filming were also planned (once filming data was collected) to get an emic view of reasons they chose certain activities for filming and difficulties they faced in this regard. A number of questions were included in the interview questionnaires regarding the institutions where they received teacher training, their teaching experience in the country and abroad, their age, teaching techniques, and methods they employ for choosing teaching materials to teach English to L2 learners (see appendices 13 &14).

Textbooks.

The present study also analysed textbooks used in classes under study in order to find opportunities for learning L2 pragmatics in textbooks. Information about the choice and frequency of the use of textbooks was sought in teacher interviews. Additional information was collected via an online survey in which 17 teachers participated. Based on interviews and textbook surveys, the textbooks which were frequently used in 6ème (level 1), 3ème (level 2), and terminale were selected for a pragmatic analysis. Table 3.18 below shows the names of textbooks selected for the quantitative analysis.

French COPT.

French COPT was conducted to examine effects of L1 (French) transfer to learners' L2 (English) requests. The French COPT was identical to English COPT except that the French COPT was written in French (see appendices 6 & 7) and it was aimed to collect learners' responses in French.

So far, the process of construction and/or protocols of each instrument have been explained. In the following section, procedures of data collection using all the above-mentioned instruments are described in detail.

Data Collection

Data for the present study were collected between February 2015 and June 2015. Class films were made at intervals of 1 week to 1 month (3 sessions), role plays and COPT were conducted on the same day or within a week (role plays were not permitted by the teacher in one class at level 1), interviews were conducted two to six weeks later than last classroom filming. Each class was filmed for three hours (except one class with two hours filming) containing several classroom activities. The total number of classes which took part in the study was 13, of which 5

were at level 1, 3 at level 2, and 5 at level 3. Initially, it was planned to collect data from three classes at each level. But more volunteers were found via snowball sampling at level 1 and level 3 and more data were collected.

Data collection began with classroom filming and later the COPT, role plays, and teacher interviews were conducted. Procedures of data collection and details of resultant data are presented below.

Primary data.

As noted earlier, primary data in the present study consists of classroom filming, the COPT and role plays. Since the participation in the present study was voluntary, participants in classroom filming were asked to further participate in the COPT. Later, more volunteers were sought from the group of learners who took part in the COPT to participate in role plays to allow the triangulation of data. The background information about participants in the study was also collected using a proficiency and a background questionnaire.

Classroom filming.

The objective with class filming was to record naturally-occurring examples of requests and to investigate the opportunities for learning L2 pragmatics. Teachers reported that speaking activities were generally planned once a week, hence, schedules were drawn accordingly.

On the day of filming, the researcher arrived at the site with two cameras and an audiorecording device. In the beginning of the first filming session, the teacher introduced the researcher to pupils who asked some basic introductory questions about the project and the researcher herself, which was considered (by the teachers) as an opportunity for learners to practice their English.

Later, seating arrangements were made for the pupils who did not want to be filmed. Cameras were installed at two different angles but only those pupils who were willing to participate were filmed. Other pupils, however, were not excluded from class, they were encouraged to participate equally. The researcher usually sat in the back of the class after fixing the cameras in different locations in classrooms, observed the activity, and took notes and handouts (if provided).

Table 3.19 below shows the number of classes filmed, the number of participants in filming, the number of hours filmed, and the number of authentic requests found at each level. Learners at all levels produced a total of 126 authentic requests and more than half occurred at level 1, perhaps because level 1 learners were repeatedly reminded by teachers to speak English in class.

COPT procedures.

At the end of the third filming session, volunteers were sought for the COPT scheduled during regular class time. Learners were informed that the purpose of the COPT was to examine their L2 speaking skills and the task was not graded. Each class was divided into two equal groups (group A & B) and seated in two adjacent rooms, one group completed the COPT first while the other took the cloze test, then switched tasks.

Because COPT involved the use of iPods, two bilingual French and English speakers (a class teacher and a master's student at UNS 10 ) assisted the researcher in data collection. At the start of the activity, the COPT questionnaires, iPods, and a user guide for iPods was distributed and the research assistants gave instructions (both for COPT and iPod use) in French, which took about 10 minutes. Participants had 18-20 minutes to respond to 12 scenarios in each COPT. They could opt out if they did not know the response to a scenario by simply indicating the item number in the recording and saying, "I don't know" or "je ne sais pas". Initially, it was intended that the research assistant would explain each scenario one by one and data would be collected in lockstep like in [START_REF] Rose | An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development[END_REF]. But this could not be achieved in the present study because some level 1 learners took slightly longer to start the activity, either because they did not understand the use of iPods, were hesitant/shy to speak in English, or were distracted by the novelty of the task. Thus, pupils who understood the task and wanted to start the activity immediately were permitted to do so. Compared to level 1, data collection was easier at levels 2 and 3 because these participants were already familiar with the use of iPods. Overall, this procedure did not pose many problems as the majority of participants were able to complete the task with little or no difficulty.

10 University of Nice Sophia-Antipolis

As shown in table 3.20 below, a total of 243 learners took part in COPT, and produced a total of 1712 requests. Despite a high rate of opting out at level 1, after the elimination of ambiguous requests and the ones which were not attempted, the total number of well-formed requests produced at each level were comparable: 584 requests at level 1, 531 requests at level 2, and 597 at level 3.

Role play procedures.

Volunteers for video-taped role plays were sought among participants who took part in COPT earlier. Role plays were organized either on the same day when COPT was conducted or during the following week according to the availability of learners/teachers. Role plays were conducted either in classrooms or in small study rooms in the school libraries.

While conducting role plays, learners were provided the cartoon scenarios and they were given a few minutes to understand the scenarios. Once participants were ready, role plays were conducted with an interlocutor. Overall, one hour was assigned for this task and each participant took roughly 15 minutes to take part in all five role plays. Time constraints were not strictly applied to allow a natural flow of conversation.

Five different interlocutors who were (native) English speakers participated in six different classes. In other 6 classes, the researcher herself had to act as an interlocutor because no other volunteer native speaker could be found. Role plays were conducted in 12 out of 13 participant classes, since a teacher at level 1 claimed that learners' proficiency level was too low to engage in a dialogue in English.

As shown in table 3.21 below, overall 41 learners took part in role plays. Role play data were obtained using eight request scenarios, which produced 160 role plays. Table 3.21 also shows the number of learners who responded for each scenario. Each participant responded to four request scenarios and one distractor, though two participants at level 3 (1 in group A, 1 in group B) could only respond for two scenarios due to the shortage of time. Since the role play scenarios were divided into two groups, participants were assigned role play situations drawn from contexts not addressed in their version of the COPT. The number of responses across scenarios could also not be controlled because participation in role plays was voluntary and the choice of scenarios was further based on the COPT they had taken before.

The primary data collection ended with the completion of the role play activity. Later, teachers who participated in data collection (filming, COPT, role plays) were contacted for video-stimulated semi-structured interviews to get their views about classroom films and other tasks conducted in their classes. Details of these interviews and other secondary data used in the present study are presented below.

Secondary data.

Secondary data in the present study consists of participant interviews, textbook analysis, and the French COPT. Data collection procedures of these methods are given below.

Video-stimulated semi-structured interviews.

All teachers who took part in classroom filming were requested to participate in video-stimulated semi-structured interviews, which were audio-taped. Overall, ten teachers took part in interviews (since some teachers taught more than one of the total 13 participant classes) which took about 30-40 minutes including video viewing of extracts.

Before starting the interview, teachers were provided with a brief background questionnaire (see appendix 13). Later, they were shown some extracts of video-recordings of their classes, summarising the three lessons in their classes to remind them the activities they designed for filming sessions. During the interview (see appendix 14), teachers were asked the reasons for choosing particular activities for filming, teaching strategies, and materials development techniques. Teachers gave detailed answers to all questions which are discussed in chapter 5.

Textbooks.

The selected L2 English textbooks were analysed thoroughly (page per page) in order to identify activities containing any metapragmatic input regarding L2 requests, which could be a potential source for learning L2 pragmatics. Three types of data were collected during textbook analysis.

First, those activities were identified which contained explicit metapragmatic input concerning L2 requests. Second, activities (including texts, tasks, exercises, or transcriptions of audio documents etc.) which focused on L2 requests but did not contain any explicit metapragmatic input were considered. Finally, activities which focused on other linguistic functions (tenses, story writing etc.) but contained incidental requests were also included in the analysis.

The number of each type of activities was counted to find textbooks which provided a higher number of explicit/implicit metapragmatic activities. The frequency of metapragmatic input in textbooks at a particular level was compared with other levels to examine the extent of input at a particular level. Moreover, the requests found in the textbooks at specific levels were analysed to find the type of request strategies learners might find at each level. Activities with explicit metapragmatic input were further analysed to find the type of metapragmatic input provided in textbooks.

French COPT.

The French COPT was conducted on similar lines as the English COPT (see section 3.4.1.4).

First, learners were provided with COPT questionnaires, iPods, and iPod user-guides by bilingual assistants and instructions were given. Later, learners were divided into two groups and one group was taken to the adjacent classroom for the task because the number of iPods was limited. The rest of learners remained in class and did the regular classwork. After 30 minutes, activities were switched between groups. As shown in table 3.22, the total number of participants in the French COPT was 74. After eliminating the missing or ambiguous responses, a total of 707 French requests were produced. None of these participants took part any further in the study.

In this chapter, procedures of design, construction, and execution of different methods are explained in detail. The analysis of resultant data and findings for each of these methods are presented in the following chapter.

Chapter 4: Analysis and Results

This chapter presents the analysis and results for both primary and secondary data collected in the methods: the analysis of classroom activities and the textbooks analysis. The objective is to examine the extent of opportunities learners have in their classrooms to learn L2 pragmatics.

Analytical Framework for L2 Requests

Results for primary data (oral production, free production, and classroom requests) are presented in this section. Primary data is analysed for learners' pragmalinguistic as well as sociopragmatic competence and development. The analysis is based on the taxonomy of requests which was developed in the CCSAR project by [START_REF] Blum-Kulka | Playing it Safe: The Role of Conventionality in Indirectness[END_REF] after an extensive study of five languages (English, French, Danish, German, and Hebrew). This framework of analysis is used in a number of other ILP studies on requests (e.g., [START_REF] Rose | An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development[END_REF][START_REF] Rose | Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase 2[END_REF], which facilitates the comparison of the present study with previous ILP research.

The classification system of Blum-Kulka et al. ( 1989) consists of three components: alerters, head act, and supportive moves. The head act is the core of the request. Alerters and supportive moves, on the other hand, are optional additions to the request. Each head act has two obligatory parts: the request perspective and the request strategy. Some internal modifiers can also be added optionally to the head act, e.g., downgraders and upgraders.

In the present study, all types of request data (oral production, free production, classroom (1989) which was not included in the analysis was "mode" because the analysis of "mode" involved an examination of irony and related phenomena which was beyond the scope of this study. When two head acts were found in a request sequence, each head act was analysed separately for the request perspective and the request strategy. The overall frequency of internal and external modifiers in a request sequence was also counted: if an element occurred more than once, its frequency was coded accordingly.

Although it is generally a standard practice in ILP research to employ more than one person for coding and reporting interrater reliability, learners in the present study used a narrow range of strategies in L2 requests, which made the need for a second rater unnecessary. For example, about 76% requests at level 1, 82% at level 2 and 90% at level 3 in oral production data were realized by means of conventionally indirect strategies. Moreover, "can" was used in 99% of conventionally indirect requests at level 1, 97.5% at level 2, and 81.5% at level 3. Therefore, the coding was mostly unproblematic in the study. In a few instances, when complications were faced regarding coding decisions (e.g., coding the element which occurred twice in a request sequence), difficulties were resolved through discussion with a second, experienced rater.

Moreover, in order to confirm the coding quality, a number of masters' students were trained to code the requests according to [START_REF] Blum-Kulka | Playing it Safe: The Role of Conventionality in Indirectness[END_REF] framework. These participants were given some data to code which was later compared with the researcher's coding. Slight differences noted in this comparison were discussed and negotiated. Taking these factors into account, the lack of multiple raters might not appear to be a serious problem, since the nature of this study is exploratory.

The same coding principles were applied to all types of interlanguage data: oral production, free production, and classroom requests. The analysis of learners' pragmalinguistic development will shed light on the extent of learners' knowledge about the use of different request strategies and modifiers. The examination of sociopragmatic development, on the other hand, will reveal learners' awareness about the manipulation of different linguistic devices according to the context.

Pragmalinguistic Development

Pragmalinguistic knowledge enables speakers to choose appropriate linguistic strategies from a range of linguistic resources. As noted earlier, in the present study, learners' pragmalinguistic development is measured by investigating their use of request strategies and modification in different conditions: oral production (COPT), free production (role plays), and classroom requests (authentic data). Statistical significance using one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey HSD test is also presented for oral production and free production data based on results of the total scenarios for each measure (request perspectives, strategies, internal and external modification, and modals). However, statistical significance of results for authentic data is not presented because the number of scenarios and responses for each type of scenarios were not controlled in this data.

Analysis of request perspectives in different conditions.

The request perspective is one of the several dimensions for which requests are analysed in the present study. According to [START_REF] Blum-Kulka | Playing it Safe: The Role of Conventionality in Indirectness[END_REF], requests can be realized by means of one of the four possible perspectives: "hearer dominant", "speaker dominant", "speaker and hearer dominant", and "impersonal" perspective (see table 4.1 for examples). The correct choice of perspective plays an important role in lightening the imposition of the request. For example, the request "can I borrow the notes?" has a different effect on the addressee as compared to "can you lend me the notes?" For instance, "can I" structure lends a permission-seeking force to the request which might be politer than using "can you" structure in some cases. Likewise, by using the viewpoint of both participants (e.g., "we") the speaker "calls upon the cooperative assumptions and thereby redress[es] FTA12 " (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 127). Moreover, a deliberate avoidance of the hearer's reference (as in impersonal perspective) might reduce the perceived coerciveness of the request. Findings regarding the use of request perspective in L2 learners' requests in different conditions are presented below.

Oral production.

Table 4.2 displays the distribution of the request perspective in COPT data per request by level.

Findings showed that learners at all levels indicated a general preference for hearer dominant perspectives (e.g., "Could you lend me some money, please?" (#12, Level 3, Item 8). Learners at level 1 used this perspective in 65% of requests, level 2 learners in 61% of requests, and level 3 learners in 70% of requests. exhibited some awareness about the use of impersonal perspective in L2 requests ("Is it possible to put the test another day please?" #10, level 3, Item 3), but the frequency of this perspective was limited (6% at level 1, 7% at level 2, 5% at level 3).

Results across levels were also compared using one-way ANOVA test to examine the statistical significance of differences across levels. Table 4.3 displays the p-values of different request perspectives across levels. Findings showed that the overall differences among all three levels were not statistically significant. Results of this test, however, showed that despite sizeable differences across levels, no significant difference was observed at any level.

Classroom requests.

Table 4.7 displays the distribution of request perspectives in authentic classroom requests by level. Findings showed that the speaker dominant perspective (e.g., "Can I come to the board please?" Item 18, level 1, authentic request) was predominantly used by learners at level 1 and level 2 with a frequency of 56% and 60%. Learners at level 3 also realized 40% of their requests With regard to the use of Speaker and Hearer dominant perspective (Miss can we go?

Item 14, level 3, authentic requests), table 4.7 shows that learners at level 1 and level 2 did not use this perspective at all. In contrast, learners at level 3 showed some development by using this perspective in 7% of requests. Likewise, use of the impersonal perspective (e.g., "Is it possible to uh put uh, your bag…" #Item 28, level 3) was also limited at all levels (9% at level 1, 10% at level 2, and 13% at level 3).

Comparison of findings across methods: use of request perspectives

In this section, the use of different request perspectives is compared across levels and methods to examine the evidence of development with proficiency. Figure 4.1 displays the distribution of request perspectives at level 1. Findings revealed that learners preferred hearer dominant perspective in requests, as shown in oral production (COPT) and free production (role plays) data. They only showed preference for speaker dominant perspective in classroom requests. In contrast, all types of data confirmed that the use of the speaker and hearer dominant perspective and the impersonal perspective was limited in level 1 learners' requests.

Distribution of request perspectives in L2 requests across method at level 1

The distribution of request perspectives in level 2 learners' requests is displayed in Figure 4.2 below. These findings revealed that level 2 learners also showed a preference for the hearer dominant perspective in COPT and role plays. Like level 1, level 2 learners also used the hearer dominant perspective less frequently in classroom requests but they used the speaker dominant perspective predominantly in classroom requests. With regard to the speaker and hearer perspective and the impersonal perspective, there was no change between levels 1 and 2 on this parameter.

Oral production.

Table 4.9 displays a distribution of request strategies in oral production data per request by level.

Findings suggested an overwhelming preference for conventionally indirect requests ("Can I have a paper please?", #29, level 2, Item 1) at all levels. Learners at level 1 used conventional indirectness in 76% of requests compared to level 2 and level 3 learners who used this strategy in 82% and 90% requests respectively. As table 4.9 above shows, the direct strategy ("Give me a paper.", #1, Level 2, Item 1) was least preferred by learners at all levels. Learners at level 1 used the direct strategy slightly more frequently than higher levels. A significant decrease in the use of direct strategy is observed with the increase in proficiency. The use of nonconventionally indirect requests or hints ("I don't understand please" Intent: explain the lesson, #22, Level 2, Item 7), however, appeared to be restricted at all levels since only 2% requests overall were realized by means of this strategy.

A micro-level analysis of oral production data showed that out of several request strategies presented in [START_REF] Blum-Kulka | Playing it Safe: The Role of Conventionality in Indirectness[END_REF], learners used only a few strategies. They used Preparatory Strategy to be conventionally indirect ("Can I have a paper please?" #29, Level 2, Item 1), Mood derivable strategy to be direct ("Give me a paper" #1, Level 2, Item 1) with some exceptions when learners at level 1 and level 2 also used Want Statements ("I want to go the toilet." Level1, #27A, item 5) to be direct. Likewise, Strong Hint was the only strategy learners used to be nonconventionally indirect at all levels ("I don't understand please" Intent: Explain the lesson, #22, Level 2, Item 7). Thus, out of the nine request strategies, only three strategies were frequently used by learners: Mood derivable, Preparatory strategy, and Strong hints.

Statistical analyses of results across levels using one-way ANOVA test revealed that there were major differences across levels concerning the use of direct and conventionally indirect strategies but none of the differences were statistically significant (see table 4.10 below).

Free production.

Table 4.11 displays the distribution of request strategies in free production data per head act by level. The preference for conventionally indirect strategies, observed in oral production data, was also found in free production data. Differences in oral production and free production data however, were noted in terms of frequency of this strategy. In oral production data (see table 4.9 above), the frequency of conventional indirectness increased with proficiency, but not in free production data. As shown in table 4.11 below, findings showed that learners realized about 74%

of their requests via conventionally indirect strategies at level 1. Level 2 learners showed an

Classroom requests.

Evidence is also sought from authentic data to examine whether learners showed pragmatic development in the use of request strategy in classroom requests from level 1 to level 3. Findings showed that the conventionally indirect strategy was commonly used at level 1 (74%), but it decreased at level 2 (55%) and level 3 (40%). Regarding the use of direct strategy, findings showed that level 1 learners used this strategy in 12% of their requests. Moreover, the use of this strategy increased at level 2 with a frequency of 25%. However, no further increase in the use of direct strategy was found at level 3 (25%). An example of direct strategy in authentic data is shown below: Table 4.13 also shows that the use of the nonconventionally indirect strategy increased as learners' proficiency increased. That is, learners at level 1 realized 14% of their requests using nonconventionally indirect strategies. Level 2 learners showed an increase by using this strategy in 20% of requests, whereas level 3 learners evidenced a further increase with a frequency of 35%.

The micro-analysis of data showed that most of the direct requests at all levels were realized by means of the Mood Derivable strategy (e.g., "Speak up please"). Only one instance is observed at level 2 in which a learner used an Explicit Performative to make a direct request ("Teacher I have demander (asked) the, the paper" Level 2, Item 1, Authentic request). Likewise, all conventionally indirect strategies were realized by means of the Preparatory Strategy ("Can I come to the board please?"). Findings revealed that all nonconventionally indirect requests were realized with Strong Hints such as "I don't have a paper" (Intent: Give me a paper).

Comparison of findings across methods: use of request strategies.

In this section, the use of request strategies in L2 requests is compared to examine patterns of development across levels. Figure 4.4 displays the distribution of request strategies at level 1.

Findings of all types of data confirmed that the conventionally indirect strategy occurred most frequently in level 1 learners' requests. Use of the direct strategy, in contrast, occurred less frequently, although the frequency of the direct strategy was slightly higher in oral production data (COPT) than other types of data. With regard to the use of the nonconventionally indirect strategy, findings showed that the use of this strategy was uncommon at level 1, which was evident in all types of data. However, the use of this strategy was even lower in oral production revealed that learners at level 2 showed a higher preference for conventionally indirect strategies than level 1 learners. The use of direct strategies, however, was slightly higher at level 2 than level 1, as shown in free production (role plays) and classroom requests. Compared to level 1, the use of nonconventionally indirect strategies at level 2 was lower in oral production and free production data whereas it was higher at level 2 in classroom requests.

Figure 4.6 displays the distribution of request strategies at level 3. Findings showed that compared to level 1 and level 2, learners at level 3 showed a higher tendency of using conventionally indirect requests in oral production data whereas they showed a lower use of conventional indirectness in free production data and classroom requests. All types of data confirmed that the use of direct strategies was limited at level 3 like other two levels, but the use of nonconventionally strategy was higher at level 3, compared to other levels.

Analysis of internal modification in L2 requests in different conditions.

This section explores another dimension which is optionally added to the request for modulating the face-threat: internal modification. Internal modifiers are classified under two broad

Oral production.

Table 4.15 below displays the frequency of internal modifiers in oral production data per request by level. Since the use of these modifiers is optional, the percentage of these modifiers does not add up to 100%. Findings showed that compared to syntactic downgraders and upgraders, learners preferred lexical downgraders ("Um sorry miss, can you just move, uh just a little notch to the left please?" #2, Level 3, Item 9). Level 1 learners used lexical downgraders in about 61% of requests, level 2 learners showed an increase by using these modifiers in 67% of requests.

Further development is noted in the use of lexical downgraders at level 3 with a use of lexical Since lexical modifiers were increasingly used by learners at all levels, further analysis was conducted to examine the range of lexical modifiers in learners' requests at each level. Table 4.17 below displays the subdivision of lexical modifiers into two categories a) Politeness

Markers and b) Understaters. Findings showed that learners relied heavily on Politeness Markers (e.g., "please") compared to other lexical modifiers such as Understaters (e.g. "just", "a little", "a few"). About 100% of lexical modifiers at level 1 and level 2 were realised by means of Politeness Markers. Some development was found at level 3 where 5% of lexical modifiers were realized via modifiers other than Politeness Markers (e.g., "just"). However, learners even at level 3 showed a reliance on Politeness Markers.

Free production.

Table 4.18 displays the frequency of internal modifiers in free production data (role plays) per head act by level. Internal modifiers found in role play interactions include lexical downgraders and upgraders, but no evidence of syntactic downgraders was found in this data. Findings showed that a high frequency of lexical modifiers15 was found in role plays. Learners at level 1 used lexical downgraders in about 57% of requests, which increased at level 2 (82%) and doubled at level 3 with a frequency of 140%, because learners used more than one lexical With regard to the use of upgraders, table 4.18 above shows that the use of upgraders (e.g., "really") was restricted at level 1 and level 2. In contrast, significant development was found at level 3 with an unprecedented increase of upgraders (22%).

Table 4.19 below shows results (p-values) of the statistical analysis of the use of internal modifiers across levels. Findings showed that the measure on which learners differed significantly was the use of upgraders in requests. Further analysis using the post-hoc Tukey HSD test showed that a significant difference between level 3 and other two levels was found concerning the use of upgraders, due to the high use of upgraders at level 3 (see table 4.20 below). The microanalysis of lexical and phrasal downgraders in authentic data also showed that most of the lexical modifiers were realized by means of Politeness Markers. Table 4.22 displays the distribution of lexical or phrasal downgraders into subcategories per request by level.

Findings showed that almost 96% of lexical and phrasal downgraders at level 1 consisted of Politeness Markers ("please"). However, about 100% of lexical modifiers at level 2 consisted of Politeness Markers, which reflected no development concerning the range of lexical modifiers at level 2. Some variation in the use of lexical modifiers was found at level 3 with an increase of Understaters (e.g., "Zoom little please") which were used in about 27% of requests at this level.

Comparison of findings across methods: use of internal modifiers.

In this section, the use of internal modifiers (lexical & phrasal downgraders, syntactic downgraders, and upgraders) is compared across levels to find the evidence of development with the increase in proficiency. Figure 4.7 displays the frequency of internal modifiers across methods at level 1. Findings showed that learners at level 1 used lexical and phrasal downgraders with a high frequency, although the frequency across methods varied significantly. In contrast, level 1 learners showed no significant use of syntactic downgraders and upgraders.

Level 2 learners showed a similar tendency regarding the use of internal modifiers. showed that compared to level 1, level 2 learners used a higher frequency of lexical and phrasal downgraders, as evidenced in oral production and free production data. In contrast, learners at level 2 used lesser lexical and phrasal downgraders in classroom requests. Concerning the use of syntactic downgraders and upgraders at level 2, all types of data (oral production, free production, and authentic data) confirmed that learners showed no evidence of development in this regard.

Frequency of internal modifiers at level 2 per request by method

Further increase in the use of lexical and phrasal downgraders was found in level 3 learners' requests. Figure 4.9 displays the frequency of internal modification in level 3 learners' requests in different types of data. Findings showed that level 3 learners used a higher frequency of lexical and phrasal downgraders compared to level 1 and level 2 learners, especially in oral production and free production data. However, even level 3 learners showed no significant development in the use of syntactic downgraders. A little development can be observed at level 3 with regard to the use of upgraders as shown in free production data.

So far, learners' development concerning the use of internal modification is presented. In the following, learners' use of external modifiers at all three levels is presented in detail.

Analysis of external modification in different conditions.

The external modifiers which are optionally added to requests to mitigate the face-threat include 4.9 Frequency of internal modifiers at level 3 per request by method alerters and supportive moves. [START_REF] Blum-Kulka | Playing it Safe: The Role of Conventionality in Indirectness[END_REF] define an alerter as "an opening element preceding the actual request" (p. 276). Some alerters identified by Blum-Kulka et al.

(1989) are also found in the present study;

A supportive move is defined as "a unit external to the request, which modifies its impact

Oral production.

Table 4.25 displays the frequency of external modifiers in COPT data per request by level.

Findings showed that learners' use of external modifiers increased with proficiency. The development regarding the use of alerters, however, was more noteworthy than supportive moves. At level 1, learners used alerters in only 12% of requests whereas at level 2 in 27% requests. A greater development was found at level 3 with three times as many alerters as level 2:

83%. Level 3 learners also showed greater development concerning the use of supportive moves, though with much lower frequency than alerters. Level 1 learners used supportive moves in only 4% of their requests, level 2 learners in 13% requests, whereas level 3 learners in 39% of requests. These findings suggest that level 2 learners showed some progress in the use of alerters and supportive moves compared to level 1 learners. In contrast, the developmental leap from level 2 to level 3 was more prominent.

Further analysis of alerters and supportive moves revealed that most of the alerters, especially at level 1 consisted of Titles or Roles (71%) such as "Miss" and "Teacher". Level 2 and level 3 learners, however, showed a lower reliance on Titles or Roles with a frequency of 47% and 41% respectively. Attention Getters (e.g., "excuse me") were the second most frequent alerters in the data, learners at level 1 used these alerters in 16% of their requests, level 2 and level 3 learners, in contrast, showed a slight increase by using these alerters in 24% and 35% of their requests respectively.

Table 4.26 displays p-values comparing the frequency of alerters and supportive moves at all levels via one-way ANOVA test. Findings showed that there was a significant difference among the three levels concerning the use of alerters and supportive moves (p<0.05). Further statistical analysis using the post-hoc Tukey HSD test showed that the significant difference in the use of alerters and supportive moves was found in level 3 learners' requests compared to both lower levels (see table 4.27). The micro-analysis of supportive moves revealed that learners at all levels used

Grounders (e.g., reasons/explanations) as the most frequent supportive moves. About 95% of supportive moves at level 1 and level 2 consisted of Grounders whereas 87% of supportive moves at level 3 were realized via Grounders. Other than Grounders, level 1 learners also used Gratitude (5%) whereas level 2 learners used Gratitude (4%) as well as Apologies (1.4%). Level 3 learners, in contrast, showed a higher variation in the use of supportive moves by using Preparators (.4%), Promises of Reward (1%), Imposition minimizers (.4%), Insults (.4%), Gratitude (9%), and Apologies (2%) other than Grounders (87%) (see table 4.24 for examples).

These findings suggest an onset of the expansion of pragmalinguistic repertoire at level 3.

Free production.

Like oral production, free production (role plays) findings also suggested an increase in the use of alerters and supportive moves with proficiency, although the frequency of alerters and supportive moves in free production data (see table 4.28) was much higher than oral production data (table 4.25). Table 4.28 below displays the frequency of external modifiers in oral production data per request sequence by level. Findings showed that level 1 learners used alerters in 53% of their requests, level 2 learners, on the other hand, used alerters in 80% of their requests, whereas level 3 learners' frequency of alerters was 131%, because they used more than one alerters in several requests.

As shown in table 4.28, the use of supportive moves was prominent because level 1 learners also used a high frequency of supportive moves in this data with a frequency of 143%.

The use of supportive moves almost doubled at level 2 (268%) and it further increased at level 3 (354%), indicating that the average number of supportive moves at level 3 was up to three to four supportive moves per role play sequence. It is assumed that the presence of the interlocutor must have also had a significant effect on the high frequency of supportive moves in role play interactions.

Further analysis of free production data was done to examine if learners showed familiarity with variant forms of external modifiers. The microanalysis of alerters revealed that the distribution of subcategories of alerters was comparable across levels. Most of the alerters at all levels consisted of titles or roles: 47% at level 1, 41% at level 2, and 40% at level 3. A frequent use of attention getters (e.g., "excuse me") was also found at all levels, that is, 26% at level 1, 31% at level 2, and 28% at level 3. Apologies emerged as the third most frequent Alerters with a frequency of 16% at level 1, 16% at level 2 and 17% at level 3. Other alerters included First name (11% at level 1, 12 at level 2, and 10% at level 3) and Endearment terms (e.g., "mate", 5% at level 3 only).

The statistical analysis of learners' use of external modifiers revealed that differences among the three levels under study were not significant (see table 4.29 below). The microanalysis of supportive moves revealed that Grounders were predominantly used as supportive moves at all levels (e.g., "Sarah sorry but I was sick yesterday and, it's possible to use your, notes please?" #16, Level 3, Item 2). However, the dependence on Grounders slightly lowered with proficiency, that is, level 1 learners used Grounders in 78% of the overall supportive moves they used, as compared to level 2 and level 3 learners who used Grounders in 70% and 65% of their supportive moves, respectively. Higher level learners showed a greater use of Gratitude (9% in level 1, 17% in level 2, and 22 in level 3). The use of Promise of reward and Apologies were also found but it was limited at all levels.

Classroom requests.

Unlike COPT and role plays, findings of classroom requests revealed that the use of alerters decreased with increasing proficiency. Table 4.30 displays the frequency of alerters and supportive moves per request by level. Results showed that level 1 learners used alerters in 70%

of their requests. The use of alerters decreased slightly at level 2 (60%) and it further decreased at level 3 (23%). The decrease in the use of alerters from level 1 to level 2 was notable but the decrease from level 2 to level 3 was more prominent.

As shown in table 4.30 below, findings regarding the use of supportive moves revealed an opposite trend. The use of supportive moves was almost non-existent at level 1 (1%) and level 2 (5%), but level 3 learners showed some development by using supportive moves in 28% of their requests. Overall, compared to oral production and free production, the use of supportive moves in classroom requests remained restricted even at level 3. Since the number of supportive moves across levels was small, the micro-analysis only focused on alerters to examine learners' range of alerters in L2 requests. Findings showed that most of the alerters, especially at level 2 and level 3, consisted of Titles or Roles. In contrast, Level 1 learners showed a greater variation because they also used addressees' First Names as alerters frequently, other than Titles or Roles. They used a little percentage of Attention getters (4%). The use of Titles or Roles almost doubled at level 2 (84%) and it further increased at level 3 (90%). A limited use of First name and Apologies was observed at level 2 with a frequency of 8% each. A limited use of Attention getters and Apologies was found at level 3 with a frequency of 8% and 2% respectively. As the number of requests addressed to teacher and classmates was not even across levels in authentic requests, it might be the main reason for an increased use of

Titles or Roles at level 2 and level 3.

Comparison of findings across methods: Use of External modifiers.

In this section, the use of external modifiers (alerters and supportive moves) in L2 learners' requests is compared across levels and methods (oral production, free production, and authentic data) to examine the evidence of ILP development with the increase in proficiency. Level 2 learners' frequency of external modifiers was also differential across methods.

Figure 4.11 displays the frequency of external modifiers (alerters and supportive moves) at level 2 per request by method. Findings showed that level 2 learners used a higher frequency of alerters than level 1 learners, as evidenced in oral production and free production data.

Concerning the use of supportive moves at level 2, learners at this level showed similar tendencies as were found in level 1, that is, learners' use of supportive moves was very limited in

Frequency of external modifiers at level 1 per request by method

oral production and classroom requests data, but they used a remarkably high frequency of supportive moves in free production data. However, the frequency of supportive moves at level 2 was much higher than level 1, showing substantial development at level 2.

Figure 4.12 displays the frequency of external modifiers at level 3 per request by level.

Findings showed that level 3 learners used a higher frequency of alerters than both level 1 and level 2 learners, as shown in oral production and free production data. Regarding the use of supportive moves, level 3 learners also showed a higher tendency of using supportive moves than level 1 and level 2 learners in all methods, especially in free production data.

Frequency of external modifiers at level 3 per request by method

Main findings of this part of analysis include the use of alerters increased with proficiency in elicited data (oral production, free production). However, opposite trend was observed in classroom requests with increased proficiency. Concerning the use of supportive moves, all types of data showed that the frequency of supportive moves increased with level/proficiency. The increase in the use of supportive moves from level 1 to level 2 was notable but it was more remarkable between level 2 and level 3, especially in oral production and free production data. In the following, we are going to present findings regarding the use and development of modals across levels.

Analysis of the use of modals in different conditions.

Learners in the present study used modals exclusively in conventionally indirect requests which were mostly produced in interrogative form such as "Can I go to the bin please?" (Level 3, #18B, item 13). The modals identified in different types of data include "can", "could", "may", and "would". Findings regarding the use of these modals in different conditions of requests are presented below.

Oral production.

Table 4.31 displays the distribution of modals across conventionally indirect requests in COPT data per request by level. Findings showed that "can" is frequently used by learners at all levels, accounting for almost 92% of conventionally indirect requests overall (e.g., "Can you give me a paper please?" #8, Level 1, Item 1). The highest percentage of the use of "can" is found at level 1 (99%), which suggests that level 1 learners evidenced the least variation in their choice of modals in oral production data. An overwhelming reliance on "can" is also found at level 2 because they also realized about 98% of their conventionally indirect requests with "can". Learners at level 3, on the other hand, showed some development by using a greater variety of modals such as "could" (e.g., "Excuse me mam, could you please um step to the left a little?" #17, Level 3, Item 9), "may" ("Sorry miss, may I go to the toilet please?" #31, Level 2, Item 5), and "would" ("I'm sorry miss. Would you allow me to go to the toilet?" #9, Level 3, Item 5). However, with the exception of "could", which was used in about 13% of conventionally indirect requests at level 3, the use of other modals at this level was limited.

The statistical analysis using one-way ANOVA test revealed that differences across levels were significant concerning the use of "could" (see table 4.32 below). reliance on "can" with a frequency of 95%. Level 2 learners used "can" in 84% of their requests, but their reliance on "can" slightly lowered with the emergence of "could" which was used in about 11% of conventionally indirect requests at this level. In contrast, learners at level 3 showed a greater variation by using modals including "could", "would", "may", and "might" other than "can" in their requests. Nevertheless, it is important to note that modals "would," "may," and "might" occurred only once in level 3 learners' data.

(n) % Could (n) % Would (n) % May (n) % Might (n) % other structure (n) % Total CI requests (n) 1 61 95 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 3 5 % 64 2 37 84 % 5 11 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 2 5 % 44 3 32 86 % 2 5 % 1 3 % 1 3 % 1 3 % 0 0 % 37
The comparison of learners' progress across levels using one-way ANOVA test showed that learners showed major differences across levels in the use of both "can" as well as "could", but the difference in the use of "can" across levels was statistically significant. The post-hoc Tukey HSD test revealed that the level which differed significantly from others concerning the use of "can" was level 1 compared to both level 2 and level 3 (see table 4.36 below).

Classroom requests.

Table 4.37 below displays the distribution of modals in classroom requests (authentic data) per conventionally indirect request by level. Findings showed that learners at all levels relied heavily on "can" (e.g., "can you get me some money? I bring it back tomorrow. I need it." #6, Level 3, Item 8). About 100% of conventionally indirect requests were realized with "can" at level 1, 91% at level 2, and 94% at level 3. No other modal was found in this data. The rest of the conventionally indirect requests at level 2 and level 3 were realized with other structures such as the interrogative structure with syntactic downgrading function (e.g., "I have authorisation to go to the nurse please?" Level 2, #15B, item 15). So far, findings regarding the use of modals are presented separately in each dataset (oral production, free production, and classroom requests). In the following section, the use of different modals in conventionally indirect requests is compared across levels and methods in detail.

Comparison of findings across levels: use of modals.

Figure 4.13 below displays the distribution of modals at level 1. Findings showed that the only modal that level 1 learners used in their requests was "can". All types of data (oral production, free production, classroom requests) confirm these findings.

Distribution of modals across methods at level 1

Concerning the use of modals at level 2, figure 4.14 below displays the distribution of modals in conventionally indirect requests at level 2. Findings showed that "can" remained the most frequent modal at level 2 as well. These learners showed some development by using "could" in some of their requests in free production data. However, the use of "could"

Distribution of modals across methods at level 2

was deficient at this level. In comparison, findings at level 3 showed some development with the increase in variety of modals at this level. As shown in figure 4.15 below, level 3 learners also relied heavily on "can" but they showed a limited use of a variety of modals, which shows an unprecedented development in this regard. So far, the analysis has concerned learners' pragmalinguistic development. Findings showed some evidence of development across levels in the use of request strategies, perspectives, internal and external modifiers, but little development was found concerning the use of syntactic downgraders, upgraders, and the variety of modals. Now we turn to learners' sociopragmatic development.

Distribution of modals across methods at level 3

Sociopragmatic Development

In this study, learners' sociopragmatic development is measured by examining their awareness / sensitivity to several variables including the status of addressees and the imposition of requests, and how this awareness/sensitivity affects their choice of linguistic choices. In this section, findings of oral production, free production, and classroom requests are analysed to examine learners' sociopragmatic development concerning their choice of request perspectives, request strategies, request modification, and modals. The analysis is based on Blum-Kulka et al. 's (1987) categorisation of requests.

As noted in chapter 3, requests in each type of data were addressed to the teacher (higher status than the speaker) or the classmate (equal status as the speaker). The imposition of requests was controlled in oral production and free production data. The imposition of classroom requests, however, could not be controlled. Thus, findings of oral production and free production data are analysed for effects of both dominance and imposition on the choice of request modifiers and strategies in L2 requests, whereas classroom requests are analysed for dominance only.

In the following, results are presented for request perspectives, request strategies, internal modification, external modification, and modals in different conditions of requests: oral production, free production, and classroom requests. In each section, findings are presented for the influence of high/low status and high/low imposition on learners' L2 requests.

Situational variations in request perspectives in different conditions.

In this section, findings of different types of request data are presented to examine learners' awareness about effects of situational variation on the choice and the manipulation of request perspectives in L2 requests.

Oral production.

Table 4.38 displays the distribution of request perspectives by dominance in oral production data by level along with p-values comparing learners' performance in requests to higher and equal status addressees. Findings showed that learners at all levels showed a visible preference for the hearer dominant perspective (see table 4.1 above for examples) in requests to equal status addressees (77% at level 1, 74% at level 2, 84% at level 3) as compared to requests to higher status addressees (55% at level in, 49% at level 2, 56% at level 3). Similarly, concerning the use of the speaker dominant perspective, learners at all levels used a relatively higher frequency of this perspective in requests to higher in status addressees (40% at level 1, 39% at level 2, 33% at level 3) than equal status addressees (16% at level 1, 21% at level 2, 12% at level 30). With regard to the use of the speaker and hearer dominant perspective, findings showed that only level 2 and level 3 learners used this perspective, especially in requests to higher status addressees.

However, no major situational variation was noted regarding the use of the impersonal perspective at all levels. The p-values using the t-tests across requests to higher and equal status addressees also showed no significant variation in the use of different perspectives at all levels. Further statistical analysis using one-way ANOVA test was done to find whether there were some significant differences across levels concerning the use of different perspectives in requests to higher and equal status addressees. Findings showed that differences among levels were not significant (see table 4.39 below). As shown in table 4.40 below, the comparison of different pairs of levels using the posthoc Tukey HSD test further showed that differences between different pairs of levels were not significant concerning the use of request perspectives in requests to addressees with varying social status. Analysis of request perspectives is also done for the imposition of requests. Table 4.41 displays the distribution of request perspectives in oral production data (COPT) by imposition and level. The p-values using t-tests are also displayed in table 4.41, comparing the use of specific request perspectives in high and low imposition requests at all levels. Findings showed that learners (at all levels) did not show any variation in high and low imposition requests concerning the use of the hearer dominant and the speaker and hearer dominant perspective.

However, learners at all levels used a slightly higher frequency of the speaker dominant perspective in low imposition requests compared to high imposition requests: compare 23% with 33% at level 1, 21% with 38% at level 2, and 15% with 28% at level 3 in high and low imposition requests respectively. However, learners at all levels used a somewhat higher frequency of the impersonal perspective in high imposition requests (11% at level 1, 15 % at level 2, 10% at level 3) than low imposition requests (3% at level 1, 1% at level 2, 1% level 3).

Interestingly, learners at all levels chose similar perspectives in their requests in different contexts. The p-values across high and low imposition requests showed that the difference in use of diverse perspectives was not statistically significant. The statistical analyses using one-way ANOVA indicated that the use of different perspectives in high and low imposition requests across levels was not significant (see table 4.42). So far, learners' sociopragmatic development across levels is presented in oral production data. In the following, findings of free production data are presented on the same lines.

Free production.

In this section, the use of request perspectives is analysed in free production (role play) data by dominance and imposition. Table 4.43 displays the distribution of request perspectives in free production data by dominance per request by level. Findings showed that level 1 and level 2 learners used the hearer dominant perspective more frequently in requests to higher status Free production data is also analysed for effects of imposition on the choice of request perspectives in L2 requests. Table 4.45 displays the distribution of request perspectives across levels by imposition. Findings showed that the use of the hearer dominant perspective was comparable across high and low imposition requests at all levels (76% in high and 71% in low imposition at level 1, 79% in both high and low imposition requests at level 2, and 59% in high and 58% in low imposition requests at level 3). Little variation, however, was found in the use of speaker dominant requests in which leaners at all levels used slightly higher frequency of speaker dominant perspectives in low imposition requests compared to high imposition requests. levels in the use of request perspectives in high and low imposition requests were overall not significant.

Request perspectives: classroom requests.

In this section, the use of request perspectives is examined in classroom requests to investigate the effect of addressee's status on the use of perspectives in authentic requests. The impact of imposition, however, could not be examined because the imposition of classroom requests could not be assessed empirically unlike scenarios in oral production and free production data.

Table 4.47 displays the distribution of request perspectives by dominance in classroom requests by level. Findings showed a substantial variation in the use of request perspectives in different contexts. However, t-tests could not be conducted for this data because the number of requests addressed to higher and equal status addressees were not controlled. Findings showed that learners at all levels used the hearer dominant perspective with small frequency in requests to higher in status addressees (5% at level 1, 13.3% at level 2, 23% at level 3). However, they used this perspective very frequently in requests to equal status addressees (73% at level 1, 60% at level 2, and 60% at level 2). A relative increase in the use of speaker dominant perspectives was found in requests to higher status addressees at all levels (87.5% at level 1, 73.4% at level 2, and 40% at level 3), as compared to requests to equal status addressees (8% at level 1, 20% at level 2, 20% at level 3). With respect to the use of the impersonal perspective, level 1 and level 2 learners used a higher percentage in requests to equal status addressees. However, level 3 learners used the impersonal perspective more frequently in requests to higher status addressees.

Comparison of findings across methods: request perspectives.

In this section, the use of request perspectives in different contexts and methods is compared across levels. Figures 4.16 and 4.17 display the distribution of request perspectives in requests to higher and equal status addressees respectively, at level 1. Findings showed that level 1 learners showed preference for the hearer dominant perspective in requests to higher as well as equal status addressees, though with greater frequency in equal status requests. Concerning the use of the speaker dominant perspective, learners used a relatively higher frequency in requests to higher status addressees. With regard to the use of the speaker and hearer and the impersonal perspective, learners showed no significant variation in requests to higher and equal status addressees.

Figures 4.18 and 4.19 display the distribution of request perspectives in requests to higher and equal status addressees, at level 2. Findings revealed that level 2 learners showed similar patterns of development as were found at level 1 concerning the use of request perspectives in both types of requests (addressed to higher and equal status addressees). Learners used the hearer dominant perspective more frequently in requests to equal status addressees, as compared to requests to equal status addressees. Likewise, level 2 learners' use of the speaker dominant perspective was greater in requests to higher status addressees. Although, the use of the impersonal perspective was low in both types of requests, learners used slightly higher frequency

55% 74% 5% 40% 22% 88% 0% 2% 0% 5% 2% 7% O R A L P R O D U C T I O N ( N = 317) F R E E P R O D U C T I O N ( N = 42) C L A S S R O O M R E Q U E S T S ( N = 40)

R E Q U E S T P E R S P E C T I V E S : R E Q U E S T S T O H I G H E R S T A T U S A T L E V E L 1

Hearer dominant Speaker dominant

S & H dominant Impersonal 77% 73% 73% 16% 17% 8% 0% 4% 0% 7% 4% 19% 0% 2% 0% O R A L P R O D U C T I O N ( N = 267) F R E E P R O D U C T I O N ( N = 45) C L A S S R O O M R E Q U E S T S ( N = 26)

R E Q U E S T P E R S P E C T I V E S : R E Q U E S T S T O E Q U A L S T A T U S A T L E V E L 1

Hearer of impersonal perspectives in requests to equal status addressees. However, the use of the speaker and hearer dominant perspective was too restricted at this level to merit any discussion.

Figures 4.20 and 4.21 display the distribution of request perspectives in level 3 learners' requests to higher and equal status addressees respectively. Findings showed that level 3 learners also used the hearer dominant perspective more frequently in requests to equal status addressees.

In contrast, the use of speaker dominant, impersonal, and speaker and hearer dominant perspectives were relatively higher in requests to higher status addresses.

Overall, findings revealed that all levels indicated similar trends in the choice of request perspectives by frequently using hearer dominant perspective in all types of requests. Learners showed higher variation in the choice of request perspectives in requests to higher status addressees across methods, especially at level 3.

49% 75% 13% 39% 21% 74% 3% 0% 0% 9% 0% 13% 0% 4% 0% O R A L P R O D U C T I O N ( N = 286) F R E E P R O D U C T I O N ( N = 28) C L A S S R O O M R E Q U E S T S ( N = 15)

R E Q U E S T P E R S P E C T I V E : R E Q U E S T S T O H I G H E R S T A T U S A T L E V E L 2

Hearer dominant Speaker dominant

S & H dominant Imersonal Unclear 74% 83% 60% 21% 17% 20% 5% 0% 20% O R A L P R O D U C T I O N ( N = 245) F R E E P R O D U C T I O N ( N = 24) C L A S S R O O M R E Q U E S T S ( N = 5 )

R E Q U E S T P E R S P E C T I V E : R E Q U E S T S T O E Q U A L S T A T U S : L E V E L 2

Hearer

O R A L P R O D U C T I O N ( N = 297) F R E E P R O D U C T I O N ( N = 27) C L A S S R O O M R E Q U E S T S ( N = 35)

R E Q U E S T P E R S P E C T I V E : R E Q U E S T S T O H I G H E R S T A T U S A T L E V E L 3

Hearer dominant Speaker dominant

S & H dominant Imersonal 84% 61% 60% 12% 30% 20% 0% 3% 0% 4% 6% 20% O R A L P R O D U C T I O N ( N = 300) F R E E P R O D U C T I O N ( N = 33) C L A S S R O O M R E Q U E S T S ( N = 5 )

R E Q U E S T P E R S P E C T I V E : R E Q U E S T S T O E Q U A L S T A T U S A T L E V E L 3

Hearer dominant Speaker dominant

S & H dominant Imersonal

Figure 4.20 request perspective in requests to higher status at level 3

66% 76% 23% 16% 0% 0% 11% 8% O R A L P R O D U C T I O N ( N = 265) F R E E P R O D U C T I O N ( N = 27)

R E Q U E S T P E R S P E C T I V E : H I G H I M P O S I T I O N R E Q U E S T S A T L E V E L 1

Hearer dominant

Speaker dominant (oral productions, free production, and classroom requests) at level 1. Findings showed that level 1 learners used the hearer dominant perspective both in high and low imposition requests, although with slightly higher frequency in high imposition requests. In contrast, the use of the speaker dominant perspective was slightly more frequent in low imposition requests. The use of speaker and hearer dominant perspective, on the other hand, was rare in both high and low imposition requests. However, the use of the impersonal perspective was more frequent in high imposition requests. imposition requests respectively at level 2. Findings indicated that level 2 learners showed no significant variation in the use of the hearer dominant perspective in high and low imposition requests. However, they used the speaker dominant perspective relatively more frequently in high imposition requests. Similarly, the use of the impersonal perspective was also found in high imposition requests only. However, the use of speaker and hearer dominant perspectives at this level was very limited.

S & H dominant Imersonal 64% 71% 33% 21% 0% 4% 3% 0% 0% 4% O R A L P R O D U C T I O N ( N = 332) F R E E P R O D U C T I O N ( N = 23)

R E Q U E S T P E R S P E C T I V E : L O W I M P O S I T I O N R E Q U E S T S A T L E V E L 1

60% 79% 38% 21% 1% 0% 1% 0% O R A L P R O D U C T I O N ( N = 332) F R E E P R O D U C T I O N ( N = 23)

R E Q U E S T P E R S P E C T I V E : L O W I M P O S I T I O N R E Q U E S T S A T L E V E L 2

Hearer dominant Speaker dominant

S & H dominant Imersonal 61% 79% 21% 14% 3% 0% 15% 0% 0% 7% O R A L P R O D U C T I O N ( N = 265) F R E E P R O D U C T I O N ( N = 27)

R E Q U E S T P E R S P E C T I V E : H I G H I M P O S I T I O N R E Q U E S T S A T L E V E L 2

Hearer dominant

Speaker dominant

S & H dominant Imersonal

Unclear concerning the use of request perspectives at level 3. Findings showed that the use of the hearer dominant perspective was comparable in both high and low imposition requests, like level 2. The use of the speaker dominant perspective, in contrast, was higher in low imposition requests.

Learners also used a greater frequency of impersonal, and speaker and hearer dominant perspectives in high imposition requests.

Overall findings presented in this section indicated that learners at all levels showed a little variation across high and low imposition requests concerning the choice of request perspectives. They employed hearer dominant perspective in majority of requests and showed a little difference across methods and levels. So far, learners' sociopragmatic development concerning the choice of request perspectives has been examined across levels using multiple methods. In the following, learners' progress with regard to their choice of request strategies is investigated in detail.

71% 59% 15% 26% 4% 11% 10% 4% O R A L P R O D U C T I O N ( N = 265) F R E E P R O D U C T I O N ( N = 27)

R E Q U E S T P E R S P E C T I V E : H I G H I M P O S I T I O N R E Q U E S T S A T L E V E L 3

Hearer dominant

Speaker dominant

S & H dominant Imersonal 69% 58% 28% 36% 2% 0% 1% 6% O R A L P R O D U C T I O N ( N = 332) F R E E P R O D U C T I O N ( N = 23)

R E Q U E S T P E R S P E C T I V E : L O W I M P O S I T I O N R E Q U E S T S A T L E V E L 3

Hearer dominant

Speaker dominant infrequent at all levels, learners used a slightly higher percentage of this strategy in requests to equal status addressees. The statistical analysis using t-tests indicated that the difference in the choice of strategies across requests to higher and equal status addressees at all levels was not significant, except at level 3 in the use of nonconventionally indirect requests.

S & H dominant Imersonal

In order to examine learners' sociopragmatic development across levels, learners' performance was compared both in requests to higher and equal status addressees. As shown in table 4.49 below, findings of one-way ANOVA test indicated that differences across levels in the choice of requests strategies were not significant. Oral production data is also analysed for effects of imposition on the choice of request strategies in L2 requests. Table 4.50 displays the distribution of request strategies in oral production data by imposition per request by level. Findings showed that learners used direct strategies ("Give me a paper." Level 2, #1A, item 1) more frequently in high imposition requests at all levels: compare 33% in high imposition requests with 14% in low imposition requests at level 1, 28% with 6% at level 2, and 14% with 1% at level 3. Even though the use of the conventionally indirect strategy was the most frequent at all levels, but learners at all levels showed a relatively higher tendency of using the conventionally indirect strategy ("Can you give me money please?" (Level 3, #23A, item 8) in low imposition requests: compare 65% in high imposition requests as compared to 84% in low imposition request at level 1, 70% compared to 92% at level 2, and 83% with 95% at level 3. However, learners at all levels showed no substantial variation in the use of nonconventionally indirect strategy in low and high imposition requests. The statistical analysis using t-tests indicated that learners' use of specific requests strategies in high and low imposition requests were not significant. In order to compare learners' performance in high and low imposition requests across levels, one-way ANOVA test was conducted. As shown in table 4.51 below, findings showed that learners evidenced a little difference across levels except in low imposition requests in which the difference across levels was significant. Overall, findings of oral production data indicated that the differences across levels in the use of request strategies by dominance as well as by imposition were mostly not significant. In the following, learners' use of request strategies in different contexts (high/low imposition requests to higher/equal status addressees) across levels is examined in free production data.

Request strategies: free production.

Table 4.53 below displays the distribution of request strategies in free production data by dominance. Findings showed that learners exhibited a little variation in the use of direct strategies in requests to both high and equal status addressees (compare 10% to higher status with 9% to equal status at level 1, 14% with 8% at level 2, and 11% with 12% at level 3).

Concerning the use of conventionally indirect strategies, findings showed that learners used a slightly higher percentage of conventionally indirect strategy in requests to equal status addressees (76% at level 1, 79% at level 2, 67% at level 3) as compared to higher status addressees (71% at level 1, 79% at level 2, 56% at level 3). With respect to the use of nonconventionally indirect requests, learners at all levels used a higher percentage of this strategy in requests to higher status addressees than requests to equal status addressees. The comparison of learners' performance across levels using one-way ANOVA test showed that the difference across levels in the use of request strategies (direct, conventionally indirect, nonconventionally indirect) in requests to higher and equal status addressees was not significant (see table 4.54 below). Table 4.55 displays the distribution of request strategies by imposition in free production data per request by level. Findings showed that the use of direct strategy was relatively greater in high imposition requests at all levels as compared to low imposition requests, especially at level 1 (16% compared to 4%) and level 3 (18.5% compared to 6%). However, the use of the conventionally indirect strategy was comparable in high and low imposition requests at all levels.

Regarding the use of nonconventionally indirect strategy, findings showed that learners used a higher percentage of this strategy in low imposition requests (23% at level 1, 5% at level 2, 33% at level 3) compared to high imposition requests (10% at level 1, 0% at level 2, and 18.5% at level 3). Results of t-tests (p-values) showed that the difference in the choice of request strategies in high and low imposition requests was not significant, at any level. As shown in table 4.56 below, comparison of the use of request strategies in low and high imposition requests across levels using one-way ANOVA test also revealed that the difference across levels was not significant. In this section, findings regarding the use of request strategies in different conditions (low/high imposition requests to equal/higher status addressees) in free production data are presented. Overall, findings indicated that learners showed a notable variation in the use of different strategies across levels but most of the differences were not statistically significant. The use of request strategies is further examined in authentic data in the following.

Request strategies: classroom requests.

In this section, findings regarding learners' use of strategies in high/low imposition requests to higher/equal status addressees is examined in authentic data. Table 4.57 below displays the distribution of request strategies by dominance in classroom requests by level. Findings showed that learners used a remarkably higher percentage of direct strategies in requests to equal status addressees (15.5% at level 1, 60% at level 2, 60% at level 3) compared to higher status addressees (10% at level 1, 13.3% at level 2, 20% at level 3). However, the use of conventionally indirect strategies was relatively more frequent in requests to higher status addressees (82.5% at level 1, 60% at level 2, 46% at level 3) than equal status addressees (61.5% at level 1, 40% at level 2, 0% at level 3) at all levels. Surprisingly, learners at level 3 did not use the conventionally indirect strategy at all in requests to equal status addressees. Regarding the use of nonconventionally indirect strategies, level 1 and level 3 learners used a higher percentage of this strategy in requests to equal status addressees (7.5% vs. 23% at level 1, 34% vs. 40% at level 2), as compared to level 2 learners who used a higher percentage of nonconventional indirectness in requests to higher status addressees (26% vs. 0%). The statistical analysis of authentic data was not performed due to the lack of control over the type of scenarios involved in authentic requests.

Comparison of findings across methods: request strategies.

In this section, the use of request strategies in different social situations and elicitation methods is compared across levels. Figures 4.28 and 4.29 below display the distribution of request strategies in requests to higher and equal status addressees respectively, at level 1. Findings showed that level 1 learners used conventionally indirect requests frequently in both types of requests: requests to higher and equal status addressees. These learners showed only a little variation in the choice of request strategies by using direct and nonconventionally indirect strategies with a slightly higher frequency in requests to equal status addressees as compared to requests to higher status addressees. Compared to level 1, findings revealed that level 2 learners showed a little more variation in the choice of request strategies in requests to higher status addressees compared to requests to equal status addressees. Even though conventionally indirect requests remained a preferred choice by level 2 learners in both types of requests but they used a small frequency of conventionally indirect strategy in requests to higher status addressees (as shown in free production and classroom requests). However, they did not use this strategy in requests to equal status addressees with as much frequency. Rather, they used the direct strategy more frequently in requests to equal status addressees. However, these differences in the choice of request strategies across different contexts at this level were not statistically significant.

Figures 4.32 and 4.33 display the distribution of request strategies in requests to higher and equal status addressees respectively, at level 3. Findings showed that conventionally indirect strategies were predominantly used at level 3 as well, in both types of requests under study: requests to higher and to equal status addressees. However, as expected, level 3 learners showed a much higher variation in the choice of request strategies than level 1 and level 2 learners across different elicitation methods, especially in role plays and classroom requests. In oral production data, in contrast, learners showed very similar tendencies which were found in both lower levels.

Overall, findings indicated that learners at all levels used conventionally indirect strategies predominantly in both types of requests: requests to higher and equal status addressees.

However, learners at all levels showed one major variation in the use of strategies by using a slightly higher frequency of direct strategy in requests to equal status addressees than in requests to higher status addressees.

In the following, learners' performance in high and low imposition requests across levels and elicitation methods is compared. Figures 4.34 and 4.35 display the distribution of request strategies in high and low imposition requests in different conditions (oral productions, free production, classroom requests) at level 1. Findings showed that level 1 learners showed similar patterns in the choice of request strategies across methods: oral production, free production.

Even though they used conventionally indirect strategies most frequently in all types of requests and in all elicitation methods, a relatively higher frequency of direct strategies in high imposition requests was found at level 1 as compared to low imposition requests. elicitation methods. However, these learners also used a slightly higher frequency of direct strategies in high imposition requests compared to low imposition requests which might have been affected by the type of request scenarios used in the study. Like level 1, learners at level 3 used a slightly higher frequency of nonconventionally indirect requests in low imposition requests as compared to high imposition requests.

Major findings discussed in this section indicate that learners at all levels make similar sociopragmatic choices by using conventionally indirect strategies frequently in both high and low imposition requests. Likewise, learners at all levels used a somewhat higher frequency of direct strategies in high imposition requests as compared to low imposition requests.

So far, learners' sociopragmatic development with proficiency has been discussed with regard to their use of request perspectives and strategies. In the following, learners' sociopragmatic development is examined concerning their use of request modification. Concerning the use of internal modifiers with respect to the imposition of requests, table 4.60 displays the frequency of downgraders and upgraders in oral production data by imposition per request by level. Findings showed that learners evidenced some variation in the use of lexical and phrasal modifiers in high and low imposition requests, especially at level 2 (57% in high, 64% in low imposition) and level 3 (60% in high, 74% in low imposition). Data showed that learners at all levels used a relatively higher frequency of lexical modifiers in low imposition requests compared to high imposition requests. However, as shown by p-values in table 4.60 below, no significant difference in the use of internal modifiers across high and low imposition requests was found at any level. In this section, findings regarding learners' use of internal modifiers is examined in oral production data by dominance as well as by imposition. Findings showed that learners at all three levels under study showed similar choices of modifiers in different scenarios. Moreover, differences across levels concerning the choice of internal modifiers in high/low imposition requests to higher/equal status addressees were found to be of no major statistical significance. In the following, similar investigation is done in free production data.

Internal modifiers: free production

Table 4.62 displays the frequency of internal modifiers by dominance in free production data per request by level. Findings showed that learners at all levels used a considerably high frequency of lexical and phrasal downgraders (e.g., "please") in requests to higher in status addressees.

Level 1 learners used lexical downgraders in 80% of requests addressed to higher status addressees compared to 64% in requests addressed to equal status addressees. Level 2 learners used a much higher percentage of lexical modifiers in requests to higher status addressees: 208%

(by using more than one modifier per request to higher status addressees) compared to 64% in requests to equal status addressees. In contrast, level 3 learners used a high frequency of lexical modifiers in both types of requests: 181% in requests to higher and 170% in requests to equal status addressees. Concerning the use of syntactic downgraders no significant variation regarding the effect of status/dominance on requests is found at any level. However, level 3 learners showed notable progress in the use of upgraders (e.g., "really") by using upgraders in 52% of requests to higher status addressees compared to 93% in requests to equal status addressees. The p-values calculated via t-tests showed that differences found across requests to higher and equal status addressees were not statistically significant. The comparison of learners' performance across all three levels using one-way ANOVA test showed that learners did not show significant variance across levels in the use of internal modifiers in requests to higher and equal status addressees, except in the use of upgraders in requests to equal status addressees (see table 4.63 below). In order to examine the impact of imposition on the choice of request modifiers, free production data is also analysed for the effect of imposition. Table 4.65 displays the frequency of downgraders and upgraders by dominance in free production data per request by level. Findings indicated that learners at all levels showed variant tendencies regarding the use of lexical and phrasal downgraders in low and high imposition requests. Level 1 learners used relatively more lexical modifiers in low imposition requests (79% in low compared to 60% in high imposition)

whereas level 2 used a high frequency of lexical downgraders in both types of requests:107% in low and 108% in high imposition requests. Level 3 learners, in contrast, used a much more lexical downgraders in high imposition requests (compare 233% in high with 130% in low imposition). The analysis of syntactic downgraders and upgraders showed that level 1 and level 2 learners displayed no significant variation since the use of these modifiers was limited at level 1 and level 2. Level 3 learners, on the other hand, showed some variation by using upgraders in 109% of high imposition requests compared to 48% in low imposition requests. Despite some variation in the frequency of internal modifiers in high and low imposition requests at different levels, t-test results showed that differences across high and low imposition requests were not significant at any level (see p-values in table 4.65). As shown in table 4.66 below, in order to compare learners' performance across levels in high and low imposition requests, one-way ANOVA test was conducted which indicated that learners across levels differed significantly only in the use of upgraders in low imposition requests. In this section, findings regarding the use of internal modifiers in high/low imposition requests to higher/equal status addressees is examined in free production data. In order to examine learners' use of internal modifiers in an authentic setting, classroom requests are examined on similar lines, although without statistical analysis due to a lack of control over the amount of data and types of request scenarios at different levels under study.

Internal modifiers: classroom requests.

Like free production data, findings of classroom requests also indicated that learners at different levels showed differential tendencies for using modifiers in their requests to higher and equal status addressees. Table 4.68 displays the frequency of downgraders and upgraders by dominance in classroom requests by level. Findings showed that level 1 and level 2 learners used more lexical downgraders in requests to higher status addressees (40% to high with 31% to equal status at level 1, 31% to high with 20% to equal status addressees at level 3). Level 2 learners, in comparison, used more lexical downgraders in requests to equal status addressees (13% to high with 20% to equal status at level 20). Since the use of syntactic downgraders and upgraders was rare, especially at level 1 and 2, no significant variation is found at these two levels in this regard. Level 3 learners, on the other hand, showed some variation in the use of upgraders by using 6% in requests to higher status addressees compared to 20% in requests to equal status addressees. learners at level 1 indicated a major variation in the use of lexical downgraders in free production data by using a higher frequency of these modifiers in requests to higher status addressees.

Like level 1, level 2 learners also showed situational variation in the use of lexical modifiers in free production data. Figures 4.42 and 4.43 display the frequency of internal modifiers in requests to higher and equal status addressees respectively, at level 2. These learners used a higher frequency of lexical modifiers in requests to higher status addressees compared to equal status addressees in free production data. However, they did not show any notable variation in the use of other modifiers.

As shown in figures 4.44 and 4.45, learners at level 3 showed a major variation across requests to higher and equal status addressees by using more upgraders in requests to equal status addressees as compared to in requests to higher status addressees, especially in free production data. Overall findings in this section indicated that level 1 and level 2 learners showed variation in the use of internal modifiers across requests to higher and equal status addressees in free production data by using a higher percentage of lexical modifiers in requests to higher status addressees. Level 3 learners on the other hand, showed major variation in the use of upgraders in free production data. However, learners at all levels showed little or no variation in the use of internal modifiers concerning the status of addressees in oral production and authentic data.

In the following, learners' performance regarding the use of internal modifiers is compared in high and low imposition requests across levels and elicitation methods. learners used a higher frequency of lexical modifiers in high imposition requests in free production data unlike level 1 and level 2 learners. However, they used a higher frequency of upgraders in low imposition requests compared to high imposition requests.

Overall, findings in this section indicated that learners used a higher frequency of several modifiers with the increase in proficiency in different types of requests. However, they showed little variation in the use of internal modifiers across requests with variant degrees of imposition and different addressees. The following section sheds light on learners' sociopragmatic development concerning the use of external modifiers (e.g., supportive moves) in L2 requests in different contexts.

Situational variations in external modification in different conditions.

In this section, the use of external modifiers in different contexts is compared across different elicitation methods to find the evidence of learners' sociopragmatic development with the increase in proficiency/level. 4.76 displays the comparison of learners' performance at different proficiency levels using one-way ANOVA test which showed that different levels under study did not vary significantly in the use of external modifiers in free production data. In the following, results regarding the impact of imposition on external modifiers are presented (see table 4.77). Findings showed that learners at level 1 used more alerters in low imposition requests (60%) as compared to high imposition requests (43%). Level 2 learners, on the other hand, used more than twice as many alerters in low imposition requests (183%) compared to high imposition requests (71%). In contrast, level 3 learners used relatively greater frequency of alerters in high imposition requests (152%) as opposed to low imposition requests (115%). Regarding the use of supportive moves, findings showed that learners at level 1 and level 3 used more supportive moves in high imposition requests (180% compared to 117% at level 1, 400% compared to 318% at level 2) whereas learners at level 2 used more supportive moves in low imposition requests (271%) as compared to high imposition requests (258%).

However, differences in the frequency of external modifiers in high imposition requests compared to low imposition requests were not significant at any level (see table 4.77 below). Table 4.78 displays results of one-way ANOVA test comparing all three levels of learners' performance in low and high imposition requests concerning the use of external modifier. Findings showed that overall differences across levels were not significant.

External modification: classroom requests

Like free production, participants at different levels showed differential tendencies in the use of alerters and supportive moves in classroom requests as well. Table 4.79 displays the frequency of external modifiers in classroom requests per request sequence by level. Findings showed that level 1 learners used more alerters in requests to equal status addressees (compare 92% in higher with 55% in equal status). Level 2 and level 3 learners, on the other hand, used more alerters in requests to higher status addressees (73% at level 2, 26% at level 3) than equal status addressees (20% at level 2, 0% at level 3). With regard to the use of supportive moves, level 1 learners used no supportive moves in requests to higher status addressees. However, they used a small frequency (4%) of supportive moves in requests to equal status addressees. Level 2 learners on the other hand used a small frequency of supportive moves in requests to high status but no supportive moves in requests to equal status addressees. In comparison, level 3 learners used a slightly greater frequency of supportive moves in requests to equal status (40%) as compared to higher status addressees (26%). In the following section, learners' use of external modifiers in different types of requests are triangulated across elicitation methods followed by a summary of findings.

Comparison of findings: external modification.

Figures 4.52 and 4.53 below display the frequency of external modifiers (alerters and supportive moves) in requests to higher and equal status addressees at level 1. Findings revealed that level 1 learners used a higher frequency of supportive moves in requests to equal status addressees as compared to higher status addressees, especially in free production data. However, learners' overall use of supportive moves was almost absent in oral production and authentic data. Concerning alerters, level 1 learners showed differential findings across methods by using a higher frequency of alerters in requests to higher status addressees in both oral production and free production data. However, they used a higher frequency of alerters in requests to equal status addressees in authentic data.

Compared to level 1, findings across elicitation methods were relatively less differential at level 2. As shown in figures 4.54 and 4.55, level 2 learners used a higher frequency of alerters in requests to higher status addressees but they used lesser supportive moves in requests to higher status addressees as compared to requests to equal status addressees.

Level 3 learners showed similar tendencies in the choice of alerters and supportive moves in requests to different addressees like level 2 learners. Figures 4.56 and 4.57 show that the use of alerters was relatively higher in level 3 learners' requests to higher status addressees.

However, they used more supportive moves in requests to equal status addressees. It is important to note that they used supportive moves recurrently in requests to higher status addressees (in free production data) although less frequently in requests to equal status addressees. Overall findings concerning the use of external modifiers in requests to varying addressees revealed that learners used more alerters in requests to higher status addressees and more supportive moves in requests to equal status addressees as their proficiency increased.

However, learners showed little variation across levels in free production data. The only significant difference was found in oral production data at level 3 which indicated major increase in the use of external modifiers at level 3 as compared to other levels.

Situational variations in the use of modals in different conditions.

In this section, learners' sociopragmatic development in the use of modals across levels is examined in different elicitation methods: oral production, free production, and authentic data.

Modals found in different types of data include "can", "could", "may", "would", and might. It is important to note that the analysis in this section consists of conventionally indirect requests, because modals were exclusively used in these requests.

Modals: oral production.

Table 4.80 displays the distribution of modals in conventionally indirect requests in oral production data by dominance. Findings showed that learners at all levels evidenced little or no variation in the use of modals across requests to higher and equal status addressees. Level 1 and level 2 learners used "can" in almost all types of requests (99% in requests to both higher and equal addressees at level 1, 96% to higher and 99% in equal status at level 2). However, level 3 learners used "could" with a greater frequency but they did not show significant variance in requests to different status addressees. The p-values using t-tests indicated that differences in the use of modals across requests to higher and equal status addressees were not significant at any level. performance concerning the use of modals in requests to higher and equal status addressees.

Findings showed that significant differences were found across levels in the use of modals in both types of requests across levels under study. As shown in table 4.82 below, further analysis using post-hoc Tukey HSD test revealed that level 3 learners differed significantly from other levels. Factors that made this level different include the relative lower use of "can" and the increased use of "could" in both types of requests (to higher and equal status) as compared to other two levels. Even though learners did not show major differences at each level in the use of modals in requests with varying imposition, significant differences across levels were found in the use of the modal "could" in both high and low imposition requests. Examine results of one-way ANOVA test regarding the use of modals in table 4.84 below.

Imposition 29 Conventionally indirect requests

Modals: free production.

Table 4.86 displays the distribution of modals in conventionally indirect requests in free production data by level. Like oral production data, free production data also showed that learners at all levels used "can" frequently with little variation across requests to varying addressees. Level 1 learners used "can" in 100% of their requests to equal status and 93% of requests to higher status addressees. Level 2 learners, on the other hand, used "can" in 86% requests to higher status and 77% requests to equal status, whereas level 3 learners used "can" in 86% requests to higher and 82% requests to equal status addressees. Regarding the use of "could", level 2 learners showed some variation by using "could" in 9% requests to equal status addressees compared to 14% requests to higher status addressees. However, differences in the choice of modals across requests to higher and equal status addressees were not significant at any level. Comparisons across levels using one-way ANOVA test showed that the only significant difference was found in the use of "can" in requests to equal status addressees (see table 4.87 below). In order to examine which level differed significantly from others, further analysis using post-hoc Tukey HSD test was conducted. As shown in table 4.88 below, findings indicated that the only significant difference was found between level 1 and level 2 in the use of "can" in requests to equal status addressees (p<0.05), because level 2 learners used "can" less frequently in requests to equal status addressees (and used "could" more frequently) as compared to level 1 learners. Concerning the use of modals in high and low imposition requests at all levels, table 4.89 below displays the distribution of modals in free production data by imposition. Findings showed that learners at all levels evidenced differential trends in the use of modals across high and low imposition requests. Level 1 and level 3 learners used "can" more frequently in low imposition requests (level 1: 93% and level 3: 76% in high imposition respectively compared to 100% at level 1 and 95% at level 2 in low imposition requests) whereas level 2 learners used "can" more often in high imposition requests (92% compared to 78%). Overall, no significant variation was found in the use of "can" and "could" in high and low imposition requests except at level 3 but values across high and low imposition requests were too low to show a revealing statistical difference. Similarly, the statistical analysis was not conducted for other modals ("would", "may", "might") because values were too restricted to allow a consequential analysis.

Table 4.90 below displays results for one-way ANVOA test comparing all three levels under study concerning the use of modals in high and low imposition requests. Findings indicated that learners only showed significant differences in the use of "could" in low imposition requests. However, as shown in table 4.91 below, results of post-hoc Tukey HSD test revealed that none of the levels could be singled out as being significantly different from others. However, both level 1 and level 3 learners differed visibly from level 1 concerning the use of "could" in low imposition requests because the use of "could" was almost absent at level 1 compared to level 2 and level 3.

Modals: classroom requests.

Findings regarding the use of modals in classroom requests addressed to different status addresses are presented in table 4.92 below. Findings showed that learners at all levels used "can" in about 100% of both types of requests: requests to higher and equal status addressees. Since values in authentic data were low, statistical analyses comparing learners' performance in requests to higher and equal status addressees were not conducted. Similarly, the comparison across levels was not conducted due to the lack of control over the type and the number of requests in different conditions. In the following section, results of all elicitation methods concerning the use of modals are summarised using several illustrations.

Comparison of findings: use of modals.

Figures 4.64 and 4.65 below display the frequency of modals "can" and "could" in requests to higher and equal status addressees at level 1. Findings revealed that level 1 learners used the modal "can" in both types of requests frequently, with a little evidence of the use of "could" in requests to higher status addressees whereas their use of "could" was almost absent in requests to equal status addressees.

Figures 4.66 and 4.67 display that level 2 learners also preferred using "can" frequently in requests to both types of addressees: higher and equal status. These learners' use of "could" was uncommon in both types of requests, but they used a slightly high frequency of "could" in requests to equal status addressees. and4.69 display that level 3 learners also used the modal "can" predominantly in request to higher as well as to equal status addresses, like level 1 and level 2.

However, level 3 learners also did not show significant difference in the use of modal "could" in requests to different addressees.

Overall, findings regarding the effect of social status on learners' requests indicated that learners at all levels used "can" frequently in requests to both higher and equal status addressees. Moreover, they showed no significant variation in the use of "could" across different request conditions. In the following, findings regarding learners' performance in requests with varying degrees of imposition at different levels are presented. frequently in both high and low imposition requests. However, they used "could" almost exclusively in high imposition requests, although with a low frequency.

Figures 4.72 and 4.73 display level 2 learners' use of modals in high and low imposition requests respectively. Findings showed that these learners also used "can" frequently in both high and low imposition requests. They used a slightly higher frequency of "could" in requests to equal status addressees in free production data. However, differences in the use of modals across high and low imposition requests were not significant. Learners at level 3, also showed little variation across high and low imposition requests in the use of "can" and "could", as shown in figures 4.74 and 4.75. Level 3 learners' use of "can" was comparable across high and low imposition requests in oral production data. Likewise, their use of "could" was also comparable across high and low imposition requests in oral production data but they used "could" only in high imposition requests in free production data. Findings regarding the use of modals across high and low imposition requests indicate that learners at all levels preferred using "can" in all types of requests. Their use of the modal "could" was generally low but mostly comparable across high and low imposition requests.

Summary

This section summarises results for the first two research questions which examined learners' Concerning the use of request perspectives, results showed that learners at all levels relied heavily on the hearer dominant perspective ("Can you give me a sheet of paper, please?") (level 1: 65%, level 2: 61%, level 3: 70%; see tables 4.2 & 4.5). The use of the speaker dominant perspective ("Can I go to the toilet?") was also used by learners but it was much less common at all levels (level 1: 29%, level 2: 31%, level 3: 22%; tables 4.2 & 4.5). The use of other request perspectives (e.g., speaker and hearer dominant, impersonal), however, was restricted at all levels. With regard to the use of request strategies, learners at all levels showed a preference for conventionally indirect requests (e.g., "Can you give me some money please?"). They used this strategy in 83% of requests overall (see table 4.9). The use of this strategy increased with level (see tables 4.9, 4.11, & 4.13). In contrast, the use of the direct strategy ("Give me a paper") was limited at all levels (overall 15%; see table 4.9), and its frequency was inversely related to level/proficiency. However, no progress in the use of nonconventionally indirect requests or hints was found with the increase in level (see tables 4.9, 4.11, & 4.13. Internal modifiers that learners used frequently consisted of lexical and phrasal downgraders (e.g., "please", "a little").

The frequency of internal modifiers increased markedly with the increase in level (level 1: 57%, level 2: 82%, level 3:140%; table 4.18). However, similar development in the variety of internal modifiers was not observed since the use of other internal modifiers (e.g., upgraders, syntactic downgraders) remained limited (see table 4.17). Like internal modifiers, the frequency of external modifiers (alerters and supportive moves) increased significantly with level (alerters: level 1: 12%, level 2: 27%, level 3: 83%; supportive moves: level 1: 4%, level 2: 13%, level 3: 39%; tables 4.25 & 4.28). Nevertheless, they over-relied on address terms (alerters) and grounders/giving explanations (supportive moves). Limitation in learners' pragmalinguistic repertoire was also evident in their use of modals. Learners at all levels used "can" overwhelmingly (level 1: 99%, level 2: 97.5%, level 3: 81.5%; table 4.31), whereas their use of other modals (e.g., "could", "would", "might") remained limited (tables 4.34 & 4.37).

Overall, findings suggest that learners' pragmalinguistic repertoire improved with the increase in proficiency. They used several strategies and modifiers with greater frequency at higher levels. However, major advances in this regard were found in the form of an increase in frequency but not variety of strategies, modifiers, and modals. Learners, even at the higher levels in the study, showed an overreliance on certain elements by using them recurrently in the many different request scenarios used in the study.

Results also suggested that learners' sociopragmatic skills remained limited, since they showed no significant variation (with a few exceptions at level 3) in the choice of different strategies in high/low imposition requests to higher/equal status addressees. For instance, they showed a preference for hearer dominant perspective in requests to both higher (level 1: 74%, level 2: 75%, level 3: 56%) and equal status addressees (level 1: 73%, level 2: 83%, level 3: 61%) with little variation (see table 4.43). Likewise, their use of request perspectives was also comparable across high (level 1: 66%, level 2: 61%, level 3: 71%) and low imposition requests (level 1: 64%, level 2: 60%, level 3: 69%) with little or no variation (see tables 4.41 & 4.45).

Concerning the use of request strategies, learners at all levels preferred conventionally indirect strategy in requests to both equal (level 1: 69%, level 2: 79%, level 3: 86%) and higher status addressees (level 1: 82%, level 2: 85%, level 3: 94%; tables 4.48 & 4.53). However, some variation was found in the greater use of direct strategies in high imposition requests (level 1: 33%, level 2: 28%, level 3: 14%) compared to low imposition requests (level 1: 14%, level 2: 6%, level 3: 1%; table 4.50. This pattern may not suggest development towards more targetlike production, given that higher imposition requests generally need to be softened with indirect strategies. Of course, interlanguage development does not always occur smoothly, and learners may temporarily exhibit less targetlike behaviour as new forms are integrated in the developing grammar [START_REF] Rose | Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase 2[END_REF][START_REF] Hassall | Requests by Australian learners of Indonesian[END_REF]. Learners at all levels showed some development in the use of internal modifiers by using lexical downgraders more frequently in requests to higher status addressees (level 1: 80%, level 2: 208%, level 3: 181%) compared to equal status addressees (level 1: 64%, level 2: 64%, level 3: 170%, see table 4.62). Likewise, regarding external modifiers, learners at all levels used more alerters in requests to higher status addressees (level 1:

19%, level 2: 30%, level 3: 101%) as compared to lower status (level 1: 5%, level 2: 23%, level 3: 65%, see table 4.69). However, they used supportive moves more frequently in requests to equal status addressees (level 1: 5%, level 2: 17%, level 3: 50%) than requests to equal status addressees (level 1: 2%, level 2: 10%, level 3: 27%, see table 4.69). Regarding imposition, learners showed some progress by using a higher frequency of alerters and supportive moves in high imposition requests (level 1: 43%, level 2: 183%, level 3: 152%) compared to low imposition requests (level 1: 60%, level 2: 71%, level 3: 115%, see table 4.77). Since learners' use of modals was limited to "can", no sociopragmatic development on this measure was found across levels (see tables 4.80 & 4.83 for the effect of status and 4.86 & 4.89 for imposition on learner requests).

Thus, results of these analyses indicated that learners even at higher levels seemed to lack variety at all levels of pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic competence. Several factors may have contributed to learners' limited progress including L1 influence and/or limited L2 input and interactional opportunities. The second part of analysis, therefore, seeks explanations for these findings and provides answers to the last two research questions: a) "What kind of input do classroom learners get in France?" 2) "What opportunities do they have for production? Do they use these opportunities? Do they create others?" Answers to these questions are provided by analysing the extent of opportunities for learning L2 pragmatics in a) L2 English textbooks and b) authentic classroom activities.

Opportunities for Learning L2 Pragmatics: Textbook Analysis

The aim of textbook analysis was to find activities/tasks containing any metapragmatic input concerning L2 English requests because these activities could be a potential source for learning L2 pragmatics for learners. All relevant activities in selected textbooks were recorded by means of a page by page analysis which included several types of activities/tasks: activity descriptions/ instructions, exercises, text documents, transcriptions, and grammar sections in lessons were covered in the analysis. It was aimed to find three types of data. First and foremost were those activities which contained explicit metapragmatic input concerning L2 requests (see example 4.1 below).

questionable unless the teacher highlights them. For each type of activity, the page number and the topic was also recorded.

Since each type of activities considered in analysis contained one or more instances of requests, the total number of requests exceeded the number of activities analysed. All types of requests were further examined for strategy distribution using Blum-Kulka et al.'s (1989, CCSARP) categorisation of request strategies: direct (e.g., "open the window"), conventionally indirect (e.g., "can you open the window?"), and nonconventionally indirect requests (e.g., "It is quite cold in here. Hint: Close the window").

Other than counting activities containing L2 pragmatic input in L2 textbooks, the total number of the activities/tasks in textbooks was also estimated in order to find the percentage of activities containing L2 pragmatic input. However, due to shortage of time, activities were counted in first few lessons only (ranging from 35 to 55 pages) to establish an average number of activities per lesson. Based on the average number of activities per lesson an estimated number of activities was determined in the entire textbook (see appendix 18). Such analysis is done for all the textbooks under analysis at all levels. Findings for analysis of textbooks at all levels are presented in detail below.

L2 pragmatic input in textbooks at Level 1.

The textbook analysis at level 1 revealed that L2 requests were part of a large number of activities in L2 textbooks. Table 4.2.1 below displays the frequency of different types of activities containing L2 requests per textbook. The percentage of activities containing L2 pragmatics in textbooks was also estimated (see appendix 18 for more details). The textbook which contained the highest number of such activities was "Making friends" (n=31) followed by "New Enjoy" (n=28), and "Welcome" (n=22). With regard to the percentage of activities containing L2 pragmatics, "New Enjoy" stands out because it contained some kind of pragmatic input in about 14.5% of activities in the textbook. However, the total number of activities containing explicit metapragmatic input regarding requests was limited in all textbooks (n=9), ranging from 1 ("Step in", "Welcome", "Connect") to 3 activities ("Making friends", "New Enjoy"), which accounted for only 1% to 1.5% of activities in the textbooks. Compared to explicit metapragmatic input, 34 such activities were found in all textbooks which implicitly focused on requests, accounting for 3% to 5% of the total activities found in the textbooks.

Concerning the incidental occurrence of requests, an overall of 65 activities were identified at level 1 containing requests. Such incidences were more prominent in "Welcome" (n=19), "Making friends" (n=16), and "New Enjoy" (n=16) compared to "Step in" (n=9) and "Connect" (n=5) (see table 4.2.1 above).

31 See appendix 18 for the procedure of calculating total activities in textbooks Further analysis was conducted a) to find the total number of requests in activities34 containing L2 pragmatic input and b) to categorise the requests by strategy type. Table 4.2.2 displays the number of requests and the distribution of requests by strategy types. Findings showed that out of 108 activities containing L2 requests at level 1, a total of 242 sample requests were found. The number of requests in activities with explicit and implicit focus on requests was not separated because the aim was to have general information about the type of request strategies used in requests, which may or may not be salient in textbooks. The highest frequency of L2 requests was identified in "New enjoy" (n=68) followed by "Making friends" (n=53) and "

Step in" (n=57) with somewhat lower frequency. In contrast, the lowest number of requests was found in "Connect" (n=18).

Regarding the use of request strategies, findings indicated that the direct strategy was most frequently used in the given requests at level 1. The use of nonconventionally indirect strategy, however, was much less frequent. About half of the requests in "Making friends" and "Welcome" were direct, whereas the direct strategies were two times greater in "New enjoy" than the conventionally indirect strategy in this textbook. Moreover, the use of direct strategy in "

Step in" was three times greater than conventionally indirect requests and in "Connect" direct requests were five times more frequent than conventionally indirect requests (see table 4.2.2).

The use of nonconventionally indirect requests, in contrast, was much less evident with six examples overall in all textbooks. Exceptionally, "Making friends" and "Step in" also included five exercises/tasks each in which learners had to produce some kind of requests. However, no learner data for these exercises was available. An example of such an exercise is shown below; Results reported in this section indicate that L2 textbooks provide only a limited range of opportunities for learning L2 pragmatics. However, the number of activities containing explicit metapragmatic opportunities are even more restricted. These findings show that limited metapragmatic input in textbooks can be a major cause of level 1 learners' limited pragmatic skills as indicated earlier in the analysis (sections 4.2, 4.3). Likewise, the frequent use of "direct requests" in textbooks also reflected level 1 learners' increased use of direct strategies in elicited data (COPT). In the following section, results for textbooks at level 2 are presented in detail.

L2 pragmatic input in textbooks at Level 2.

The analysis of textbooks at level 2 showed that the number of activities containing L2 requests at level 2 was much lower than the number of activities at level 1 (level 1=108, level 2=56).

However, like level 1, the number of activities which explicitly focused on L2 requests was very small (level 1=9, level 2=7). The number of activities with implicit metapragmatic input about requests was also quite restricted at level 2 (n=9).

As expected, the number of activities with incidental occurrence of requests was much higher (n=40) than the activities with explicit or implicit focus on L2 requests, although lower than level 1 (n=65). The percentages revealed that the activities with explicit metapragmatic input only accounted for 0% to 1% of total activities in textbooks. Likewise, textbooks included only 0.3% to 1.5% activities with implicit input and 1.6% to 4.6% with incidental requests.

These findings show that L2 metapragmatic input was almost absent in all textbooks at level 2 under study. were used much less frequently (37 out of 106). The only textbook in which the number of conventionally indirect requests was higher (n=16) than direct requests (=3) was "Join the team" as opposed to other textbooks at level 2. The use of nonconventionally indirect strategies, however, was almost absent from textbooks.

The analysis of textbooks at level 2 also revealed that L2 metapragmatic input was almost absent from the textbooks. Analysis of requests containing requests showed that majority of requests found in textbooks were realized by means of direct strategies. Findings explained level 2 learners' limited knowledge about the variety of request strategies and their appropriate use in different contexts. So far, findings of textbook analysis are reported only for level 1 and level 2.

In the following, results are presented for textbook analysis at level 3.

As displayed in table 4.2.6 below, further analysis of data at level 3 showed that out of 42 activities containing L2 requests, a total of 77 requests were identified with a highest frequency of requests in "Meeting point" (n=27) and the lowest in "Full impact" (n=8). Concerning the use of request strategies, like level 1 and level 2, a great majority of requests at level 3 were also realized by means of direct strategy whereas the occurrence of conventionally indirect strategy was markedly uncommon. The use of nonconventionally indirect requests, on the other hand, barely occurred with some exceptional examples in "Meeting Point" (n=2), Analysis of level 3 textbooks also suggested that the number of L2 pragmatic input related to L2 requests was restricted. However, most of the activities included incidental requests but the activities with implicit/explicit metapragmatic input was almost absent in most of the activities.

It is important to note that the number of activities with L2 requests were in level 3 textbooks were even lower than textbooks at level 1 and level 2. These findings suggest that most of the metapragmatic input regarding L2 requests is provided in lower level textbooks which might explain that textbooks might contribute considerably in learners' limited knowledge about the variety of request strategies at level 3.

Activities with explicit metapragmatic input found in all textbooks were further analysed to examine the type of explicit input provided at each level. Table 4.2.7 below displays the division of these activities by type of input. Findings showed that most of the explicit metapragmatic input found at level 1 and level 2 consisted of an explanation of the use of modals, which was limited to "can", "could", and "may". Modals were mostly presented as a source for asking or giving "permissions". Requests, however, were not associated with modals explicitly. For example;

Example 4.6 ( Level 1,New Enjoy,p.154) Other than the introduction to modals, metapragmatic input about requests was also found regarding some specific requests (e.g., asking someone to repeat what s/he said earlier).

However, the frequency of such input was limited at all levels. Examine example 4.7 below for instance;

Example 4.7 (Level 3,Password,p.151) Overall, findings showed that the metapragmatic input presented in textbooks was limited to the explanation of modals and specific request expressions. But no contextual information was presented about the variation in request strategies according to the degree of imposition of requests or the status of addressees. The only metapragmatic input in this regard was found in the form of the difference between the use of "can" and "could". "Could" was presented as a politer substitute of "can" (e.g., Level 2, New Enjoy, p.154).

In this section, results for metapragmatic input opportunities in L2 textbooks at different levels are presented in detail. Findings indicated that textbooks provided little or no explicit metapragmatic input about L2 requests. Even though a number of incidental requests were found in textbooks which might be helpful for learners, but textbooks provided no metapragmatic input about pragmalinguistic variations of linguistic strategies or sociopragmatic skills which were crucial for making appropriate requests. Since teachers can modify textbook materials and design their own materials incorporating several authentic materials, it would be revealing to examine classroom activities to find the extent of pragmatic input learners may have in their L2 classrooms. Likewise, instances of impromptu L2 pragmatic input, if any, can also be traced by analysing classroom activities. The following section, thus, provides an analysis of classroom films for the examination of L2 pragmatic input opportunities in L2 classrooms in France.

4.5

Opportunities for Learning L2 pragmatics: Classroom Films L2 pragmatic input in this analysis was operationalised as any explicit input, both spontaneous and planned, in L2 classroom setting by means of which L2 English requests were taught to learners. This metapragmatic input could be as simple as providing English translation of a spontaneous request made originally in French by learners or providing structured metapragmatic information to learners about the manipulation of linguistic expressions in different contexts. In this analysis, the input from teachers to learners as well as learners to learners was considered. Even though examples of metapragmatic input about requests from teachers to learners were limited, examples of metapragmatic input from learners to learners were even more restricted, at least during the filming sessions. An example of metapragmatic input from a teacher to a learner in an L2 classroom is shown below; In the following, findings regarding input opportunities in L2 classrooms are presented by level. Table 4.2.8 displays the number of opportunities for learning L2 pragmatics at level 1.

Instances of planned metapragmatic input (n) L1-A 3 0 0 L1-B 3 1 0 L1-C 3 0 0 L1-D 3 0 0 L1-E 2 4 1 Total 14 5 1
The number of examples containing L2 pragmatic input is reported separately for each class at level 1 to examine whether L2 input was provided in all classes at level 1. Findings showed that spontaneous metapragmatic input was provided in only two (L1-B and L1-E) of the five classes.

In L1-B class, only one instance of pragmatic input was found during the three hours of observation, whereas four instances of pragmatic input were found in class L1-E during two hours of observation (see example 4.8 above).

So far as the planned metapragmatic input in L2 classrooms is concerned, as shown in table 4.2.8 above, only one teacher organized an activity in which requests were incorporated as part of the activity (an exercise on past tense). In this activity, learners had to share their responses to a fill-in-the-blank exercise turn by turn. The teacher selected the first participant for the first blank and this participant requested another pupil to share his/her answer for the next

Instances of spontaneous L2 pragmatic input (n) Instances of planned metapragmatic input (n) L3-A 4 0 0 L3-B 3 1 0 L3-C 3 1 0 L3-D 3 1 0 L3-E 3 0 0 Total 16 3 0
So far, opportunities for learning L2 pragmatics in L2 textbooks and L2 classrooms have been examined, showing that L2 pragmatics generally receives limited attention in L2 textbooks and classroom activities. However, it remains to analyse the type of input learners generally receive in their classrooms. Therefore, classroom films were further analysed to examine the general trends in L2 English classrooms in France, findings of this analysis are discussed in the following section.

Type of Input in Classroom Activities: Analysis of Film Data

Classroom activities conducted at each level during filming sessions were classified into several categories including: a) step by step description of activities (see appendices 15, 16, and 17) b) specific objectives of each activity (e.g., learning past tense, conditional sentences, web-quest, learning history/culture of different L2 settings etc.), c) general type of activities (speaking, listening, reading, writing), and d) the overall focus of activities (grammar, vocabulary, pragmatics, culture etc.). Since teachers were requested to conduct speaking activities in their classes, teachers at all levels used speaking activities increasingly. Table 4.2.11 below shows the hours of filming, the total activities conducted at each level, and the major skills addressed in activities. Other than speaking, most of the activities at all levels also dealt with one or more than one communicative skills: listening, reading, reading, writing, and drawing. The analysis of classroom activities at level 1 (see appendix 15 for a detailed summary of activities) showed that during three hours of filming in each class, teachers organised seven to twelves activities (one to six activities/exercises per class). Specific objectives of activities at level 1 included learning different parts of speech (e.g., pronouns, prepositions, adjectives), tenses, and vocabulary in general (e.g., vocabulary about house, colours, clothes) regarding specific functions (e.g., asking directions). Textbooks were widely used in all classes filmed at level 1.

Unlike level 1 in which numerous short activities were conducted, teachers at level 2 conducted one to two major activities in each class. Main objectives of activities at level 2 consisted of improving learners' web-quest skills, knowledge about famous people and places in L2 setting, and learning various cultural and historical facts about the target linguistic community. Moreover, discussions based on movies/movie-trailers and other authentic materials (songs etc.) were also used at level 2 to elicit spontaneous interaction among learners.

The input at level 3, in contrast, was more open-ended. In other words, most of the activities at level 3 were literature or social media-based. Learners were introduced with several literary genres (science fiction, horror etc.) using numerous short stories, novels, and essays etc.

Several authentic materials were also used ranging from movie-trailors, movie-extracts, songs, famous speeches etc. Moreover, individual web-quests were also encouraged as part of final projects and oral presentations. Specific aims for using these techniques and materials was to enhance learners' knowledge about L2 language and culture and to produce spontaneous interaction in classrooms. However, as shown in table 4.2.12 below, the general focus of majority of activities, at each level, was to improve learners' grammar, vocabulary, and/or their cultural knowledge about the L2 setting (see appendices 15,16,17). In contrast, L2 pragmatics was seldom addressed in classroom activities. At level 1, only one such activity indirectly linked to L2 pragmatics was identified. This activity was based on a thanking letter by the queen of England (written by a lady-in-waiting for the queen) to pupils for sending a Christmas card to the queen.

In this activity, learners read the letter together with the help of the teacher who explained the meaning of several difficult words and the reason for which the queen sent them the letter. But little attention was paid to the concept of thanking and specific ways for expressing gratitude (see example 4.13 above)

Other than this activity, no such activity was recorded which was directly linked to L2

pragmatics. However, one teacher at level 1 (L1E) tried to incorporate L2 requests in a classroom activity which was focused on grammar (past tense). In this activity, learners had to participate in an oral fill-in-the-blanks exercise in which learners took part turn by turn. The teacher selected the first participant for the first blank and this pupil had to choose the next participant saying "(name), can you do number X". About ten such requests were found in this class. For example; However, even in this activity, pragmalinguistic or sociopragmatic aspects of L2 requests were not explained. Like level 1, L2 pragmatics did not receive much attention in classroom activities at level 2 as well.

In contrast, one of the L2 pragmatic aspects was addressed in a class at level 3 (see appendix 17, teacher code: 3A). In this class, 4 out of 5 activities (during 3 hours of filming) included an implicit focus on the speech act of agreement/disagreement. Several literary documents (e.g., short stories, novel extracts on topics such as war, cosmetic engineering etc.)

were used in this class and learners were encouraged to work in groups, discuss the concepts presented in the documents, work on several given questions, and then discuss their ideas in class while agreeing or disagreeing with each other's' point of views. However, explicit metapragmatic instruction about the nuances of different expressions to agree or disagree were not explained. Likewise, L2 requests were also not addressed (explicitly or implicitly), neither in this class (3A) nor in other classes at level 3 during filming sessions.

Summary

Results reported in this section indicate that learners at all levels had limited opportunities to learn L2 pragmatics in L2 classrooms. Textbook analysis showed that explicit focus on L2

requests was rare at all levels under study (level 1: 0.7%, level 2: 0.5%, level 3: 0.1%; tables 4.2.1, 4.2.3, & 4.2.5). The few activities which contained metapragmatic information in textbooks were generally limited to the explanation of the use of modals or specific expressions to make a particular request (see table 4.2.7). Metapragmatic information about the use of L2 requests, or their sociopragmatic variations in different contexts was not provided. Examination of authentic classroom activities showed that the input in L2 classrooms was generally aimed at enhancing learners' grammar, vocabulary, cultural knowledge, and speaking skills (see table 4.2.12). L2 pragmatics received little or no attention in these activities. Teachers provided some L2 pragmatic information to learners incidentally but they did not plan activities to teach metapragmatic knowledge implicitly or explicitly (see tables 4.2.8, 4.2.9, & 4.2.10). The little spontaneous metapragmatic input found in these classes mostly consisted of translations of requests (French to English). Similarly, the sociopragmatic aspects of L2 requests were not addressed in these classes. These findings suggest that L2 learners' limited access to L2 pragmatic knowledge may well have contributed to their restricted L2 pragmatic development.

Major issues and common patterns concerning learners' ILP development identified in this chapter are discussed in the next chapter in detail.

Chapter 5: Discussion

This chapter consists of three major parts. First, the summary and the interpretation of results for each research question are presented describing a) major findings about secondary school EFL learners' request behaviour and b) explanations for learners' request behaviour based on the analysis of opportunities for learning L2 pragmatics. Later, different methodological implications are discussed concerning instruments employed in the study: COPT, role plays, authentic data.

Discussion is based on the comparison of different methods highlighting similarities and differences among methods used for data collection. Next, a small-scale analysis involving six learners (2 learners at each level) is conducted to compare learners' individual request performance across three methods. The chapter ends with several pedagogical implications which are based on an additional interventional study in which pre-service teachers provided L2 pragmatic input to learners of English. Each of these topics will be discussed in detail below.

L2 Learners' Request Behaviour: Examination of ILP Development with Proficiency

As noted earlier (see section 3.2), three levels of learners took part in this study to examine L2 learners' ILP development with the increase in proficiency. Level 1 learners were in the first year of lower secondary school (age: 11-12), level 2 learners were in the last year of lower secondary school (age:14-15), whereas level 3 learners were finishing upper secondary school (age: 17-18).

Data is collected using a number of instruments including films of classroom activities (see table 3.19), the COPT (see table 3.20 for the number of participants), role plays (see table 3.21), authentic requests, interviews, and textbook analysis (see table 3 .18). The detailed analysis of learners' request behaviour based on findings of these methods revealed a number of patterns which are summarised below.

The first and foremost pattern observed found in the study was that a large number of lower proficiency learners could formulate L2 requests, despite a high rate of opting out at this level. Second, there is a clear evidence of pragmatic development from level 1 to level 3, especially regarding the use of request strategies and requests modifiers. Concerning the order of pragmalinguistic development, findings showed that the development from level 1 to level 2 was salient but it was more prominent from level 2 to level 3, especially in the use of request modifiers (see section 5.1.3 below).

Moreover, despite evident pragmatic development with level, learners even at highest proficiency level depicted restricted familiarity and/or practice of an array of request strategies, modifiers, and modals with a few exceptions at level 3. As a result, learners at all levels showed an overreliance on a number of linguistic elements (e.g., "politeness marker" as an internal modifier, "supportive move" as an external modifiers, and "query preparatory" as a request strategy). Compared to pragmalinguistic development, learners showed more restricted development on sociopragmatic level by evidencing little familiarity with the impact of social status (e.g., request perspective and strategies) and the degree of imposition (in particular) on requests. In the following section, supporting evidence for each of these arguments is presented in detail.

L2 pragmatic skills in lower proficiency group.

The request performance by lower proficiency group showed that learners even at the beginning level possessed basic knowledge about request formulation. For example, as shown in table 5.1 below, level 1 learners used conventionally indirect strategy (e.g., "Can you give me money please?") in a great majority of requests (also see tables 4.9, 4.11, 4.13 in chapter 4) unlike previous research [START_REF] Al-Gahtani | Hi doctor, give me handouts": low-proficiency learners and requests[END_REF]Ellis,1992;[START_REF] Roever | The development of ESL proficiency and pragmatic performance[END_REF] which established that lower proficiency learners used direct strategies (e.g., "Give me a paper.") more frequently in their requests. Regarding the use of alerters (e.g., "miss", "teacher"), level 1 learners also showed similar skills like higher proficiency levels (see table, 4.28, 4.30 in chapter 4). As shown in table 5.3 below, level 1 learners used alerters frequently like higher proficiency groups (see tables, Overall, it appears that the majority learners at level 1 were familiar with the basic/formulaic structure of making L2 requests using some request strategies, modifiers, and modals. However, level 1 learners' requests were generally shorter and not as elaborate/clear as were higher-level learners' requests. Compared to level 1, learners at higher levels showed evident development in their request behaviour which will be highlighted in the following section.

ILP development with proficiency.

More proficient learners used a wider variety of request strategies, modifiers, and modals as compared to their lower proficiency counterparts, indicating ILP development with level. For instance, as shown in table 5.1 above more proficient learners demonstrated a higher tendency of using indirectness in their requests (see also tables 4.9, 4.11, 4.13 in chapter 4). Some evidence also indicated that higher proficiency learners used conventionally indirect strategy more frequently (see It is speculated that the increased use of hints in older learners' requests might be indicative of their heightened awareness about the greater degree of politeness associated with hints [START_REF] Brown | Politeness: Some Universals in language Use[END_REF] as shown in example 5.1 below;

1 learner wants to ask the teacher to postpone the test because he is too tired or is not prepared for the test. The learner used the hint to make the request (delay the test): "Teacher please, uh I went to tonight uh video game centre. Uh I slept, but, uh and non and but, I (report?) uh, uh I I err think, semaine, the test". This request is coded as a hint because the meaning is ambiguous due to the learner's limited linguistic skills. However, such instances mostly occurred at level 1 and their occurrences were rare in COPT (see Likewise, as shown in table 5.7 below, the use of the modal "could" was almost absent in level 1 and level 2 learners' requests. In contrast, some development was found at level 3 with some increase in the use of "could" at this level. Thus, higher level learners demonstrated L2 pragmatic development by using a higher frequency of several request strategies, modifiers, and modals. However, it is important to note that the development from level 1 to level 2 was salient but it was more prominent at level 3. The order of pragmatic development is further discussed in the following section.

Order of development.

With regard to learners' order of development, more similarities were found between level 1 and level 2 learners' requests as compared to level 3 even though the proficiency difference between all groups was statistically significant (see tables 3.4 and 3.5 for statistical analysis details of cloze tests). For instance, as shown in table 5.8 below, the choice of request perspectives was generally more similar between level 1 and level 2. (see tables 4.2, 4.4, 4.7 in chapter 4 for more 35 conventionally indirect requests modals (could) 38 . It is also worth mentioning that despite higher level learners' enhanced pragmatic abilities, learners at all levels showed an overreliance on some linguistic elements which are discussed below.

Overreliance on few elements.

In order to determine if learners showed an overreliance on some linguistic features, an indirect comparison of learners' request performance with previous studies was conducted, in which English speakers' request behaviour was examined. For instance, learners in this study showed an overreliance over hearer dominant perspective (see table 5.8 above and 5.10 below). In contrast, native speakers in Economidou-Kogetsidis' ( 2012) study used speaker dominant (1989), [START_REF] House | Politeness in English and German: The Functions of Please and Bitte[END_REF][START_REF] Martinez-Flor | Analysing English Native Speakers' Use of Request Modification Devices During a Role-Play Activity[END_REF]Martínez-Flor (2008), used politeness markers in up to 31%, 55%, and 32% of their requests, respectively. In contrast, learners in the present study used lexical downgraders (e.g., politeness markers) much more frequently (see tables 5.5 and 5.12).

Level 3 learners in this study used lexical modifiers in about 76% of requests out of which about 95% were politeness markers (e.g., "please", see table 4.17) which indicates that learners in this study did not use a variety of other possible lexical downgraders while overusing politeness markers.

One reason for the overuse of "please" is the ease with which it can be employed, since it can be placed extrasententially [START_REF] Faerch | Internal and External Modification in Interlanguage Request Realization[END_REF], not as part of a planned grammatical structure which might require complex cognitive processing. Another reason for learners' overreliance on specific linguistic elements could be their limited familiarity with a variety of linguistic forms to convey the meaning, or because these formulaic expressions are recurrently practiced in L2 classrooms without introducing alternative linguistic tools. In this section, learners' overreliance on some linguistic elements is presented. In the following, major reasons behind learners' restricted development are highlighted.

Limited pragmalinguistic repertoire.

Since learners used a limited variety of linguistic form to make requests in all types of methods, it appears learners might either not be familiar with alternative linguistic forms (and their functions) or because they could not recall it at the time of request production due to the lack of practice. For instance, the use of the impersonal perspective ("Is it possible to put the test another day please?" COPT, #10, level 3, Item 3) and the speaker and hearer dominant perspective (e.g., "Can we have the silence please?" COPT, #46, Level 1, Item 16) was infrequent at all levels (see tables 5.8 and 5.10 above), which indicated learners' lack of awareness about the politeness/social functions of these request perspectives [START_REF] Eelen | A Critique of Politeness Theories[END_REF][START_REF] Félix-Brasdefer | Linguistic politeness in Mexico: Refusal strategies among male speakers of Mexican Spanish[END_REF], p. 2179). Similarly, as shown in table 5.13 below, the use of syntactic downgraders (e.g., use of past tense instead of present tense or conditional sentences.) and upgraders (e.g., "really") was also limited in learners' requests at all levels (see also tables 4.18 and 4.21 in chapter 4). So far, problems concerning learners' pragmalinguistic development have been discussed. In the following, some issues regarding learners' sociopragmatic development are highlighted.

Restricted sociopragmatic development.

Unlike learners' notable progress on pragmalinguistic level with the increase in proficiency (see also section 5.1.2), learners at all levels demonstrated little progress on sociopragmatic level.

Learners showed some variation (though not significant) in the choice of strategies, perspectives, and modifiers across requests to equal and higher status addressees. For instance, learners at all levels used hearer dominant perspective relatively more frequently in requests to equal status Likewise, as shown in table 5.16 below, learners demonstrated some variation in the use of request strategies by using a slightly greater frequency of conventionally indirect requests to higher status addressees as compared to equal status addressees, indicating their awareness about the strategic use of indirectness in formal settings. Again, differences in the choice of strategies across different addressees were not statistically significant (see also tables 4.48 and 4.53). Likewise, level 3 learners also showed the highest level of similarities in strategy choices in L1 and L2 data (see table 5.22). These similarities were also found at lower proficiency levels since conventionally indirect strategy was predominantly used in interlanguage as well as in L1

French data (see examples 5.4 and 5.5 above). Moreover, the use of nonconventionally indirect strategy was infrequent both L2 English and in L1 French data which shows that the limited use of this strategy in learners' interlanguage might be influenced by L1 transfer. However, it is possible that connections between L1 and L2 data might also be triggered by the similarity of task type (COPT) employed to collect L1 and L2 data, because as compared to other methods (authentic data, role plays) L2 COPT data resembled more closely to L1 COPT data. The comparison of learners' interlanguage and L1 French data further revealed that L1 transfer may also have some explanatory value concerning the use of limited variety of modals in interlanguage data, especially at level 1. For instance, as shown in table 5.24 below, French speakers used the present form of "pouvoir (peux/peut = can)" very frequently at level 1 (age:11-12 years). Moreover, French speakers did not use any other modal than "pouvoir" (in present and conditional forms), which might have contributed to their limited use of modals in interlanguage data (e.g., "would", "might"). Some similarities in learners' L1 and L2 requests were also found on sociopragmatic level.

For instance, as shown in table 5.25 below, learners at all levels used hearer dominant perspective relatively more frequently in requests to equal status addressees, both in L1 and L2 data. In contrast, their use of the speaker dominant perspective was relatively higher in requests to higher status addressees in both types of data which shows that L1 transfer may have affected learners' choice of perspectives. Regarding the choice of lexical and phrasal downgraders (e.g., "please"), learners' choice of modifiers did not seem to be greatly affected by social status of the addressees since they used these modifiers increasingly in both types of requests: requests to equal and higher status addressees. This trend was also found in L1 data showing that L1 transfer might have occurred. Since learners showed limited pragmalinguistic repertoire and restricted sociopragmatic skills in their L2 requests, we are now looking for explanations by examining L2 input and interaction opportunities in foreign language classrooms and textbooks to find reasons for learners' limited L2 pragmatic development.

Input and Interaction Opportunities in L2 Classrooms

Findings for last two research questions which examine the type of input and the extent of opportunities for learning/practicing L2 pragmatics in L2 classrooms are discussed in this section in detail. As noted earlier, participants in this study include three levels of learners in French secondary schools. Level 1 learners (age 11-12 years) were in the first year of lower secondary school, level 2 learners (14-15) in final year of lower secondary school, and level 3 learners (17)[START_REF] Kasper | Can pragmatic competence be taught? (Network #6)[END_REF] in final year of upper secondary school. The French education system involves the use of national programmes for all levels in collège and Lycée in all subjects. While teachers are, in theory, free to teach using their own methods and materials, current language programmes are based on the the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) with the addition of specific cultural materials organized in themes which are common to all modern foreign language programmes (i.e., English, German, Italian, Spanish).

This section is based on findings of classroom observations, textbook analysis, supplemented by teacher interviews. An overall of 13 classes participated in classroom filming

(5 classes at level 1, 3 at level 2, 5 at level 3), in which 308 learners participated (see section 3.4.1.1 for more details about participants). Each participant class was filmed for three hours during which a number of classroom activities were conducted. In order to examine L2 pragmatic input opportunities, classroom films were analysed to find any type of L2 pragmatic input, both spontaneous and planned, as part of classroom activities. In order to get a better understanding of the type of input provided in L2 classrooms, all activities were categorised according to their relevance with L2 pragmatics, grammar, vocabulary/lexicon, and pronunciation. Since textbooks were frequently used in L2 classes in French secondary schools, a total of fifteen textbooks (5 at each level) were analysed to find activities/exercises which might serve as a source for learning L2 pragmatics (see sections 3.3.7 and 3.4.2.2 for more details on textbooks).

Finally, insights from teacher interviews were also included in the analysis to shed light on learners' restricted L2 pragmatic skills and teaching materials/activities used in L2 classes. A total of ten teachers, who taught the 13 classes under study, took part in semi-structured interviews in which they explained the standard practice in foreign language classrooms in France in general, and the activities and techniques they used in filming sessions, in particular.

As noted earlier in chapter 4 (sections 4.2 & 4.3), input opportunities for learning L2 pragmatics were rare both in classroom activities and textbooks. The few opportunities observed in classroom activities occurred spontaneously, rather than as part of structured activities. In contrast, textbooks contained slightly greater number of activities including requests (see section 4.4). However, activities with an explicit focus on requests were rare also in textbooks, at all levels. Activities were mainly aimed to improve one or more of the following skills: L2 grammar, lexicon, pronunciation, and/or culture (including literature, places, people, multimedia resources etc.) irrespective of means (multimedia, written, etc.) used to teach them, both in selfdesigned classroom activities (by teachers) and in textbook materials.

The explicit metapragmatic explanation of variables (social status/imposition) affecting request strategies or alternative range of expressions (strategies, modifiers, perspectives etc.) for realizing requests were almost absent from textbooks as well as classroom activities. Unlike classroom activities, a number of activities with an implicit focus on requests were found in textbooks. However, the salience of such requests could be questionable since all learners might not be able to benefit from these resources equally. Interviews with teachers confirmed that L2 pragmatics received little or no attention in L2 classrooms, especially at higher levels, due to exam-driven nature of the curriculum. In the following, each of these points will be explained in detail.

Type of input in French secondary schools.

As noted earlier, analysis of input in L2 classrooms indicated that despite some differences in specific linguistic objectives across levels, general aims of classroom activities/lessons across levels were similar: improvement of learners' grammar, lexicon (vocabulary), pronunciation, and knowledge about L2 culture. Pragmatics was generally not focused in L2 classrooms, at least the ones which were filmed.

Input at level 1 mostly consisted of activities which involved the use/practice of L2 vocabulary items or they had to make short sentences using simple grammatical structures (see appendix 15). Learners were provided with opportunities to read, write, listen (to recorded textbook materials), and to a limited extent speak/interact during activities. Compared to level 1 in which textbooks were widely used, a greater range of authentic materials was used at level 2.

Learners were introduced to a variety of events, people, places, and movies etc. related to the target culture. However, like level 1, the major aim of input at level 2 was to increase learners' vocabulary, correct grammar, and improve pronunciation (see appendix 16

). Input at level 3, on the other hand, was based on different "notions" or themes (e.g., "spaces and forms of power", "myths and heroes") related to the target culture (see appendix 17). Themes or notions were specified by national curriculum for final examination: "Baccalaureate". While working on each notion (which might take weeks), learners were trained to search, write, and orally report facts and figures about several events and people which were related to the specific "notion" under study to successfully pass final exams.

Overall, the analysis of the type of input in French secondary schools indicated that classroom activities were generally aimed to improve learners' grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and knowledge about L2 culture. Even though pragmatic input did not occur as part of classroom activities at all levels under study, some unstructured instances were found in which spontaneous input was provided to learners. The extent of opportunities for such an input during classroom activities will be discussed in the following section.

Opportunities for learning and practicing L2 pragmatics.

Classroom activities and L2 textbooks were analysed to find opportunities for learning L2 Since a number of participating teachers at all levels confirmed the regular or occasional use of textbooks in L2 classrooms, textbooks were also analysed in detail. As shown in table 5.29, the explicit metapragmatic input regarding L2 requests was rare in textbooks (see also section 4.4 in chapter 4 for more details on textbook findings). Although a number of activities with an implicit focus on requests were found in textbooks (see table 5.29 above), the salience of such requests could be questionable since the provision of metapragmatic information regarding L2 pragmatics depended on teachers, especially at lower levels. In contrast, older more proficient learners were more likely to get implicit input from several online resources, book extracts, movies etc. with which they worked during class projects and presentations. Even though learners at all levels received little or no metapragmatic input, higher level learners' greater exposure to several linguistic resources could explain their better performance in elicited and authentic data as compared to learners at lower levels.

Further analysis of L2 requests found in textbooks showed that information available in textbooks might not be sufficient to learn all types of request strategies. For instance, most of the Overall, based on findings discussed in this section, it can be argued that learners' limited repertoire concerning request modifiers, request strategies, and modals could be a result of the lack of focus on L2 requests, or at least, the lack of practice thereof in L2 classrooms and textbooks.

Insights from teacher interviews.

All teachers who participated in the study were interviewed to better understand the classroom context and reasons for particular pedagogical decisions made during classroom filming. Most of the participant teachers confirmed that the focus of L2 classrooms, both in lower and higher secondary schools, was to improve learners' grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and cultural knowledge.

Teachers had different views about the importance of learning L2 pragmatics. According to one teacher (L3-I), accuracy (in grammar & choice of lexicon) while speaking was the most important skill to master while learning a second language because it was likely to help learners "survive" during their travel abroad. Concerning pragmatics, the teacher maintained that there was little difference between saying "can I have ice-cream" and "ice-cream" as long as learners were capable of conveying their meaning. The teacher further added;

But we we do focus on, pragmatics especially with younger students uh what is lacking perhaps is the, is the accuracy… The fact that students are actually able to um ask directions or (inc.) you know buy things from, a shop…. We saw that when we went on a trip to London. So they were all free to do whatever they wanted so they managed to survive. (L3-I)

Teachers at level 3 also claimed that pragmatics was supposed to be taught at lower levels. Other teachers, especially at lower levels were either not familiar with pragmatics or they thought that learners' proficiency level was too limited at this stage to focus on any other skill than improving their grammar and vocabulary. They relied on textbooks which provided little metapragmatic information.

Moreover, one of the teachers at level 2 argued that the aim of syllabus was to enable L2 learners to speak "in front of an audience um, more than one or two minutes" (L2-C). Other two teachers at level 2 also stressed the importance of speaking in L2 but they also reported having used some materials (before filming sessions) in classrooms which were related to L2 pragmatics. For instance, one of the teachers reported that after a web-quest she organized a role play activity in which learners practiced "real-life conversation" to "order food in a restaurant"

or "ask for directions" etc. (L2-F). The third teacher at level 2 (L2-E) reported that she imparted some metapragmatic input to learners about making requests and asking questions during class presentations but this strategy did not work well, as she had planned. According to her;

For the presentations, they had beforehand we had worked on uh how to, precisely to ask to repeat or speak louder and everything, because they normally ask me but the thing is when they when the classmates do their presentation they don't necessarily do this or they tend to react in French because it's their classmates, and it was, it was they didn't really use it so that was a strategy but they didn't, didn't use it really. (L2-E)

Overall, it appeared that some teachers provided some metapragmatic knowledge to L2 learners but it did not always work because learners only practiced it during the given activities, but they did not use it outside the activity because they usually chose to speak French while making spontaneous requests in classrooms.

Convincing pupils to speak in English was challenging for teachers at all levels because using English with their classmates might sound "unnatural" (L3-I). Therefore, teachers also confessed having used French frequently in their L2 classes to help pupils understand lessons.

In teachers' point of views, one of the major reasons due to which L2 pragmatics receives little attention in French secondary schools is that both syllabus and classroom activities are examdriven, especially at level 2 and level 3. According to one teacher,

The exam doesn't require them (learners) to, play game or to, they require them to learn something at heart to be able to explain something. So, the task-based activities are not what is required for the exams. They really have to work on their language more um and they need to have like cultural references…the exam still requires them to be, be able to talk about Shakespeare and literature with uh literary terms and to analyse something uh like uh in details. (L3-I).

The comment above also serves as a window on the teachers' attitude to goals and processes in FL teaching and learning. The teacher does not consider that a task-based approach will help learners acquire the skills learners need to pass their exams. In contrast, learners have to focus on fluency, culture, and literature which are part of final examination.

The second contributing factor which might have led to the lack of focus on L2 pragmatics in FL classrooms was that teachers generally do not receive ample training during their teacher-training programmes. All ten teachers who took part in this study confirmed that they did not receive any specific training for teaching L2 pragmatics. Thus, some teachers admitted that they were not familiar with "pragmatics" at all. Others were familiar with the term but they did not know how to incorporate pragmatics in their classroom activities because they did not receive any training in this regard. As a result, it appears that the lack of focus on ILP in L2 classrooms might be a major contributing factor in learners' limited pragmalinguistic repertoire, as shown in the COPT, role plays, and authentic data (see section 5.1 above).

On a brighter note, all participant teachers showed keen interest in learning to teach L2 pragmatics in their classes, but they were uncertain about the ways to include pragmatics in their usual activities. According to a teacher, "I don't I don't really know how how to teach pragmatics, I mean. How how you would, you know, find some activities for teaching it?" (TH, level 3). Thus, it is important to find ways to integrate pragmatics into existing syllabus and/or into formal examinations.

So far, results for all four research questions have been discussed with a focus on learners' request behaviour and explanations for their request performance. Since a number of methods were used for data collection in the present study, several methodological implications emerged from the comparison of these methods which will be discussed below, before giving final pedagogical implications of the study.

Methodological Implications

The use of multiple methods (COPT, role plays, and authentic data) in this study has rendered several methodological implications which are discussed in this section. First, various patterns emerging from the triangulation of methods are presented to have a general view about the product of different methods. Later, individual learners' requests are compared across all three methods to have a closer look at learners' actual performance (L2 requests) on a micro level.

Triangulation of methods.

Triangulation of methods has the potential to confirm if certain patterns are recurrent in all methods or they are specific to some methods. For instance, all methods used in the study confirmed that conventionally indirect strategy was frequently used by learners at all levels (see tables 4.10, 4.13, and 4.16 in chapter 4). Likewise, triangulation of methods also established that lexical and phrasal downgraders (e.g., "please") were the most frequent internal modifiers at all levels (see tables 4. 18, 4.22, and 4.25).

However, findings also revealed that despite evident similarities on some measures, results of triangulated data might differ distinctly in terms of frequencies and developmental patterns regarding several elements in L2 requests. For instance, even though hearer dominant perspective was most frequent at all levels in the COPT and role plays, the frequency of this perspective varied across methods. For example, level 3 learners used hearer dominant perspective in 70% of requests in COPT (see table 4.2), but they used this perspective in 58% of requests in role plays (see table 4.4).

Another striking feature which surfaced from the comparison of different types of data was that some pragmalinguistic elements occurred much more frequently in some methods whereas their occurrence was limited in others. For instance, learners especially at level 3 used triggers another supportive move by pupil A in turn 9 (promise of reward: repaying money).

Since such interlocutors were not present in COPT, less supportive moves were used. In contrast, even though interlocutors were present in authentic requests, but they did not ask as many reasons and explanation for learners' requests, probably due to the lack of time or the difference in the type of request scenarios involved.

Likewise, the comparison of different types of data also showed that the developmental trajectory concerning some linguistic elements across levels might not be similar in different COPT at all levels (see table 4.9), whereas the use of this strategy was higher in role plays and authentic data, especially at level 1 and level 3 (see tables 4.11 and 4.13). One possible explanation for the limited use of nonconventionally indirect strategy in COPT could be the absence of actual context which might have made it difficult for learners to concoct related hints as compared to authentic requests. Likewise, learners might not have felt the pressure / obligation to increase the degree of politeness by being more indirect [START_REF] Brown | Politeness: Some Universals in language Use[END_REF] in the COPT due to the absence of the interlocutor/context (see example 5.3 in section 5.1.2 above).

Another method-specific feature found in the study was the shift in perspective or strategy over the course of a conversational exchange. For example, sometimes in role plays learners realized their requests using more than one head acts. Interestingly, they did not always use the same perspective or strategy in all head acts used in a specific speech event. For example, the speaker in example 5.10 below shifted his request strategy (see turn As shown in the example above, the speaker used the conventionally indirect strategy in the first turn to make the request. However, when he repeated his request in turn 9, he used a direct strategy is used. Such a shift in the choice of strategies depends on the nature of the talk and the context in which the conversation is held. Thus, the speaker in the above example used indirectness probably to convey politeness in the beginning, but when the interlocutor asked several questions delaying the response to the speaker's request, the speaker repeated his request using a direct strategy to convey his meaning clearly.

Furthermore, the comparison of findings across methods showed that there were more similarities between COPT and role play data as compared to authentic data. Authentic data confirmed some developmental patterns found in elicited data, especially role plays, but it also showed several opposite patterns. One explanation for differences in elicited and authentic data could be the number of responses examined in each method. For instance, the number of responses in oral production or COPT data was much higher (n=1712 requests) than role plays (n=199 requests) and authentic data (n=126 requests). Another reason for differences between authentic and elicited data could be the lack of control over the type of request scenarios found in authentic settings (49 scenarios) compared to carefully designed COPT (n=20 scenarios) and role play scenarios (n=8). However, differences between authentic and elicited data could also represent what learners think they would do in a given situation and what they actually do in a real situation. Thus, it is likely that COPT and, to some extent, role plays served to show learners' knowledge about L2 requests but authentic data revealed that learners might not always display the extent of their knowledge in real life situations due to several constraints. However, it is important to note that COPT and role plays also differed on several accounts especially in terms of frequency of internal and external downgraders (compare tables 4.15 with 4.18, and tables 4.25 with 4.28).

In this section, several methodological implications based on similarities and dissimilarities among different methods (COPT, role plays, and authentic data) are discussed in detail. However, in order to have a closer look at learners' individual performance across all three methods, a small-scale comparison of L2 requests by two learners at each level is presented in the following section to compare methods on a micro level.

Comparison of learners' individual performance across methods.

As noted above, six learners' pragmalinguistic performance is compared across all three methods to have a closer look at learners' actual performance and to compare all elicitation tasks based on requests of same individuals (2 learners at each level). As shown in table 5.32 below, the comparison of these learners' cloze test scores with the rest of learners at each level showed that level 1 learners performed according to the average scores at this level. Level 2 learners, on the other hand, were above average as compared to other learners at level 2. In contrast, one of the learners (3B) at level 3 scored according to the average scores at this level, whereas the other learner (3A) scored much higher than the average scores at this level. As shown in example 5.14, the learner makes the request to leave the class to bring her school bag from the hall using a hint "I forgot my bag". Teacher decodes the hint and gives her permission (by using expressions like "yes" and "of course") to the pupil to leave the class and bring her bag. Difference in the choice of strategies in different methods might be affected either by the type of methods or by scenarios involved in different methods. Another pattern observed in learner data was that learners used some linguistic elements frequently in a method but they did not do so in other methods. This tendency was evident in the use of request perspectives by learners at level 2 and level 3 (see Overall, the comparison of learners' performance in different methods showed that similarities in learners' request strategies and modifiers across all three methods were generally limited. In some cases, learners' performance in role plays was closely connected to authentic data whereas in other cases their role play data resembled more closely to the COPT data. In contrast, such patterns were also found in which learners showed similar tendencies in COPT and role plays but displayed opposite trends in authentic data. However, only few such instances were found in which the COPT and authentic data shared similarities as opposed to role plays (e.g., use of supportive moves). Thus, it appears that role plays were at the mid-point of the continuum of methods employed in the present study.

So far, findings of all four research questions are summarised followed by a discussion on methodological implications based on the findings of triangulated data. Overall findings of the study suggested that learners especially at higher levels were familiar with a number of linguistic strategies to make requests. However, despite many advancements on pragmalinguistic level, learners showed limitations on sociopragmatic level. Moreover, learners' pragmalinguistic repertoire also appeared to be restricted. Analysis of classroom activities and textbooks showed that learners received little or no L2 pragmatic instruction which might be a major contributing factor concerning limited pragmatic skills of L2 learners. Therefore, we and other researchers who consider L2 pragmatic instruction indispensable for young L2 learners (see also Bardovi-Harlig, 1999;Bardovi-Harlig & Mahan-Taylor, 2003;[START_REF] Cohen | Strategies for learning and performing L2 speech acts[END_REF][START_REF] Kasper | Can pragmatic competence be taught? (Network #6)[END_REF][START_REF] Martínez-Flor | Pragmatic development in second or foreign language: Some classroom techniques[END_REF] have tried to address these problems which are discussed in the following section.

Pedagogical Implications: Teacher Training

Building on findings of the present study, a small-scale follow-up study [START_REF] Whyte | Learning to teach second language pragmatics: Politeness in French EFL classrooms[END_REF] was conducted in which pre-service teachers participated. Two of the major problems found in the present study were addressed in this study by a) providing L2 pragmatic teaching techniques to pre-service teachers and b) by providing L2 pragmatic awareness to EFL learners.

It was aimed to examine the problems teachers and learners might face during L2 pragmatic lessons.

As part of their teacher educational programme at a French university, fifteen pre-service teachers took part in this study by taking a "Classroom Research" course. The course focused on a) multiple research methods, data analysis techniques, and various pragmatic aspects including b) ILP awareness-raising. During the 14h "Classroom Research" course, student-teachers were introduced with several methods for developing authentic materials using TV series, films, and corpus data as suggested by [START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | Developing Corpus-Based Materials to Teach Pragmatic Routines[END_REF]. Furthermore, they were trained to design and implement classroom activities to teach both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic dimensions of requests to EFL learners in lower and upper secondary schools (aged 11 to 18).

Student-teachers worked in groups, prepared and delivered awareness-raising lessons on making appropriate L2 English requests using authentic materials. Data included video-recordings of three classroom activities by four student-teachers, learner focus-group discussions (n=17), video-stimulated recall interviews with student-teachers (n=4), their tutors (n=3), and audiorecorded class presentations of student-teachers.

Teachers structured three lessons independently and taught them in L2 classes where they were giving lessons as part of their two-week teaching practice. Table 5.38 below displays the summary of activities they conducted during their lessons to teach L2 pragmatics. In the first lesson, the student-teacher Jenny 46 used an implicit metapragmatic instruction technique in the beginning. After using some exercise related to transcripts of video extracts, she gave explicit metapragmatic instruction in order to increase learners' pragmalinguistic repertoire. She introduced them with new expressions (e.g., "would you mind") while explaining their sociopragmatic relevance. 46 The names of the student-teachers used in this section are pseudonyms The second lesson by Aude and Faiza was also conducted on similar lines like Jenny's lesson except that Aude and Faiza introduced "requests" in the beginning of lesson and used explicit metapragmatic instruction technique throughout the lesson. After the first introduction to the concept of making requests, they asked pupils to note down all expressions concerning requests that they notice in video extracts which were played several times with pauses. Later, sociopragmatic nuances of different linguistic expressions for making requests were discussed in which a number of learners participated. In the end, some written exercises introducing new modals were conducted for practice.

Compared to the first two lessons in which no major production activities were used, student-teacher Megane used a production activity based on the COPT (10 requests) in the beginning of the lesson to elicit requests to find the type of expressions with which learners were already familiar. Later, the discussion session followed in which each request was discussed and the teacher presented several alternatives for making the same request. The teacher also shed light on sociopragmatic aspects of requests. During the last part of lesson, the teacher used the other ten COPT requests as an oral practice test in which several learners participated.

At the end of each class, a number of volunteers participated in learner focus-group interviews. Learners were asked several questions about their experience in L2 pragmatic instructional session, things they liked about the lesson, and difficulties they faced during the lesson. In two of the three lessons, learner responses were very positive. They appreciated activities and materials teachers used and enjoyed participating in discussions especially when they were made to think about linguistic differences between their L1 (French) and the L2 (English). One of the learners reported "I think, in classes we work more on the grammar, grammar than the expression...there is more participation now…" (Pupil B, Aude & Faiza).

Learners reported that they participated more eagerly in these lessons because activities were interactive and included videos for discussion.

In the following week, video-stimulated interviews were conducted with student-teachers to obtain their views regarding lessons they taught. All participants reported that they enjoyed designing and teaching lessons. They shared that they learnt many new things about L2 pragmatics while preparing lessons. According to one teacher "it was a discovery for us and for them as well" (Faiza). Teachers enjoyed discussion sessions with learners, as one teacher reports "we were not expecting ONE answer, there was no, you know the right one and the wrong one.

So that makes it more pleasant, altogether." Moreover, teachers felt liberated while planning L2 pragmatic lessons, because it did not limit them to specific "linguistic objective or cultural objectives" (Faiza, 1ère).

However, student-teachers also shared some problems while planning and delivering lessons. First, they found the planning of pragmatic lessons somewhat challenging because they had to find authentic materials relevant to the content they chose to teach. One teacher said that in the beginning "it was very blurry because we didn't know where to start .... because it was so new for us" (Faiza, 1ère). Another problem faced by Jenny was the unexpected lack of response by learners when she was expecting more response from learners. Jenny reported "I don't know why, I mean when I showed them the video, I don't know if they didn't understand what I was asking or if it was that they didn't understand the video or, they didn't want to do it, so I don't know." As mentioned above, learners later shared that they had difficulties comprehending the lesson because the lesson was delivered entirely in English. Therefore, they could not participate in the lesson properly even though they liked videos and they wanted to participate in the discussion.

During following weeks, video-stimulated interviews of tutors were conducted to gain their perspectives on activity designs and implementation. All tutors showed appreciation for lessons and materials used in L2 pragmatic lessons. One of the teachers was surprised at her pupils' interest and involvement in L2 pragmatic lessons. According to her, "all (learners) managed to say things what they don't say, in class. And I was amazed at the reactions of some who are considered as so-called low-achievers and they could react spontaneously. So, this I found this very interesting." (Aude and Faiza's tutor, 1ère). Since learners participated actively in the discussion after the video extracts discussing various aspects of L2 pragmatics, the tutor found it very interesting. In contrast, the other tutor (from Jenny's class) found the video extracts useful but she found several implementation problems. She said that pragmatic activities were "really too easy for troisième", because such "things they did in sixième or even in cinquième".

According to her, learners did not use expressions like "'would you mind" when the teacher asked them to give alternatives to "can I" structure (part 3 of the lesson), because learners thought the teacher was expecting something more difficult. In contrast, focused-group learners explained that their lack of contribution in this class was caused by their inability to understand lesson because the lesson was delivered in English and the use of French was limited. In this regard, the tutor added that the student-teacher should have first helped learners in translating and "unlocking" everything and then she would have started the discussion. Like this tutor, the third tutor (from Megane's class) also found some implementation problems such as the limited use of authentic materials in class and the focus on production. However, this tutor showed great interest in integrating L2 pragmatics into classroom activities due to its social and linguistic significance. Megane's tutor further shed light on classroom practice as follows; Aisha: #00:12:02-0# //Right// Mackay: #00:12:02-0# //so// I think that's that's why it's an inter/ an interesting activity to uh to to conduct, because um they know, one way of asking question and it's 'can I', 'may I' sometimes, and that's about it.

As the tutor explained above, the use of classroom English in L2 classrooms and the limited attention to sociopragmatic aspects of different speech acts can be a major cause for learners' limited pragmatic skills regarding L2 requests.

Overall findings of this study suggest a mismatch between secondary EFL expectations and ILP pragmatic goals. Pragmatic instruction seeks to trigger ILP development via rich authentic input using noticing, awareness-raising, and production activities. Pragmatic instruction assumes that similar pragmatic functions can be achieved through a range of grammatical structures (and should not be treated as grammatical rules). In contrast, L2 classrooms in collège / lycée pay more attention to L2 grammar, lexicon, and culture while translating and making learners memorise linguistic expressions for subsequent reuse. Moreover, materials are selected on the basis of themes (fitting cultural objectives) rather than language use.

Concerning the design and implementation of L2 pragmatic activities, this procedure seems harder for novice teachers since they are in early stages of experiencing teaching.

However, they showed promising results and a great potential for designing L2 pragmatic activities. Such a training for novice teachers prepares them for incorporating pragmatic activities in their future L2 classrooms. However, the problem which needs to be addressed at the moment is the integration of pragmatics in wider teaching programmes, as one of the tutors emphasized this point in her interview:

But, in the syllabus or in, you know the type of documents or units that we study with the students, how can we relate it (pragmatics), to some unit, for example? That may be, could be, a possible drawback if I may say. It sounds to me a very specific grammatical point or aspect of the language. Now how can we relate it, to the rest of the unit? Or current events? Or maybe we need to add some more follow up work. As the student asked me, what about some more grammatical exercises on modals? (Aude & Faiza's tutor)

Thus, not only does pragmatics needs to be understood as a separate field of study but also its importance has to be recognized in overall communicative competence. It appears that ILP still has to find its niche in the existing syllabus, which could potentially be achieved if L2

pragmatics is included in official examinations [START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | Expanding Traditional Testing Measures with Tasks from L2 Pragmatics Research[END_REF].

In this chapter, major findings of the study are discussed in light of different patterns found in various methods. Findings suggested that learners showed ample evidence of pragmalinguistic development, especially from level 2 to level 3. However, their sociopragmatic development remained limited despite the increase in proficiency. All methods employed in the study confirmed these findings. On methodological levels, more similarities were found between COPT and role play data as compared to authentic data. Authentic data confirmed some developmental patterns found in elicited data, especially role plays, but it also showed several opposite patterns, which could be caused by the lack of control over data in authentic setting compared to carefully designed elicitation methods (COPT & Role plays). The small-scale analysis of six learners' individual performance examining their performance in different methods indicated that learners used some linguistic elements in all methods but they also showed many variations in their requests depending on the method employed. In the end of this chapter, findings of another small-scale study are presented in which various pedagogical implications are discussed. Pre-service teachers were trained to deliver L2 pragmatic activities in L2 classrooms. Findings of this study suggested that learners take great interest in L2 pragmatic activities involving authentic materials and interaction. Student-teachers found the design of activities somewhat harder due to the difficulty of finding appropriate authentic materials for designing lessons. Tutors, on the other hand, found ILP instruction promising, yet they found the integration of pragmatics into existing syllabus somewhat challenging.

This study highlights several developmental patterns based on results of a large data in several methods, it also has some limitations which are described in the following section followed by suggestions for future research and conclusions of the study.

Limitations

The first and foremost limitation of this study is that it is limited to one speech act, request, which was examined among English as foreign language learners in France and L1 French speakers. pragmatic development (see also [START_REF] Rose | Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase 2[END_REF]. Likewise, in order to improve the effectiveness of COPT and role plays it is recommended to apply time constraints during data collection.

Concerning the analysis of data, a micro-level qualitative along with quantitative analysis is recommended to examine the type and quality of structures and expressions used by L2 learners.

Likewise, since the analysis of textbooks in this study was mostly quantitative, future research should consider an in-depth qualitative analysis of activities/tasks to examine the quality of activities to account for learners' pragmatic development. Concerning L2 classrooms, the major avenue for future research is to find ways to integrate pragmatics into existing syllabus which focus primarily on other linguistic elements (e.g., grammar, vocabulary, culture).

Furthermore, the present study only examined verbal behaviour, as discussed in [START_REF] Félix-Brasdefer | Refusals in Spanish and English: A Cross-Cultural Study of Politeness Strategies among Speakers of Mexican Spanish, American English, and American Learners of Spanish as a Foreign Language[END_REF], the future research should consider analysing non-verbal behaviour, for instance, silence, gestures, and other signs of body languages (e.g., signals, movements, eye-rolls) using video data.

Conclusions

The present study examined the use and development of L2 request by EFL learners at three proficiency levels in French secondary schools. While several interlanguage studies examined the use and/or development of L2 requests in adult learners' requests and employed one or two types of elicited data, the present study focused on young beginning learners using a triangulation of three types of data: oral production (the COPT), free production (role plays), and authentic data which involved situations with variant degrees of imposition and social status of addressees.

Despite some differences across methods, overall findings of the study suggest that learners showed evidence of development in request behaviour with level; older, more proficient learners made more indirect requests with a higher use of modifiers. Concerning the order of pragmalinguistic development, findings showed that the development from level 1 to level 2 was salient but the development from level 2 to level 3 was more prominent, especially in the use of request modifiers (both internal and external). Thus, it appears that L2 linguistic proficiency (i.e., lexico-grammatical) along with greater exposure to online (internet) and multimedia resources (movies, series, etc.) must have contributed in older learners' greater pragmatic development.

However, learners' request performance also depicted their restricted familiarity and/or practice of an array of request strategies, modifiers, and modals even at higher levels. As a result, learners at all levels showed an overreliance on some linguistic elements (e.g., "politeness marker" as internal modifier, "supportive move" as external modifier, and "preparatory strategy" as request strategy). Overall, findings showed that despite increased frequency of specific pragmalinguistic elements at higher levels, the variety/range of learners' pragmatic repertoire remained limited.

Compared to pragmalinguistic development, more restricted development was found on sociopragmatic level, because learners at all levels showed little familiarity with the impact of social status (e.g., request perspective and strategies) and the degree of imposition on L2 requests. Findings suggest that despite some pragmatic development, even the most proficient learners in the study lacked a number of pragmatic skills which prevented them from using a variety of linguistic elements in different contexts. Moreover, learners also showed some evidence of negative L1 (French) pragmatic transfer which is likely to cause discomfort in communication.

In order to find explanations for learners' limited pragmatic development, classroom activities were analysed. Findings showed that the primary focus of L2 classrooms was on lexico-grammatical and cultural aspects of language whereas pragmatics received little or no attention. Moreover, materials in L2 classes (esp. at higher levels) were selected according to themes (fitting cultural objectives) rather than language use. Although authentic materials were frequently used in these classrooms, these materials were mainly translated, subtitled, explained, "unlocked", and memorised for subsequence reuse [START_REF] Whyte | Learning to teach second language pragmatics: Politeness in French EFL classrooms[END_REF]. Additionally, little or no metapragmatic input was found in L2 textbooks which further demarcated learners' knowledge about contextually appropriate use of L2 requests.

Pedagogical implications of the present study indicate that there is a clear need for instructional intervention in L2 classrooms, which has been emphasized in previous studies as well [START_REF] Félix-Brasdefer | Refusals in Spanish and English: A Cross-Cultural Study of Politeness Strategies among Speakers of Mexican Spanish, American English, and American Learners of Spanish as a Foreign Language[END_REF][START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics[END_REF]. Furthermore, this study suggests that special attention should be given to learners at lower secondary levels because they not only lack linguistic proficiency with a limited use of online/multimedia resources, but teachers at higher levels of secondary schools seem to expect learners to have already learnt pragmatics aspects of language (e.g., politeness) in lower secondary schools.

In general, pragmatic instruction seeks to trigger ILP development via rich input and noticing of particular pragmatic aspects which can be accomplished through a range of grammatical structures unless they are treated as grammatical rules. Other teaching strategies which can potentially contribute in pragmatic instruction include the provision of immediate feedback to learners, encouraging spontaneous learner participation, placing emphasis on speaking English during class activities, focusing on meaning before form, and drawing learners' attention to features of context and use of language [START_REF] Siddiqa | A developmental pragmatic study of politeness in EFL: learning to make requests in French secondary schools[END_REF].

Concerning the choice of methodology, the triangulation of multiple methods in this study revealed several developmental patterns which might not have been possible by means of one method only. For instance, the use of the COPT and role plays displayed learners' knowledge (to various degrees) about realization of L2 requests, but authentic data depicted the actual realization of requests. Compared to elicited data, learners may or may not display the extent of their pragmatic knowledge in authentic requests due to several potential constraints.

Among elicitation methods employed in this study, role plays were found to be on the mid-point between the COPT and authentic data. Major differences between role plays and COPT consisted of frequency of various pragmalinguistic elements whereas major differences between role plays and authentic data comprised of the choice of several pragmalinguistic elements. This study suggests a use of multiple methods in ILP research to eliminate task effects on findings and increasing the generalisability of results.

Overall, the results of this study suggest that learners in France do show a measure of L2 pragmatic development as they move through the secondary school EFL programme. However, due to limited opportunities to learn L2 pragmatic skills in classrooms, their pragmalinguistic repertoire and sociopragmatic competence remained relatively restricted. This result may not be surprising to those familiar with this teaching and learning context, but this study provides clear evidence beyond anecdotal impressions. These findings are not encouraging, especially for school leavers who may be expected to come into contact with a variety of English speakers (native or non-native) in the course of their personal lives and/or professional careers. Given their command of lexico-grammatical aspects of English L2, they might be expected to conform more closely to behavioural and sociolinguistic norms of the second language, since any violations in this regard can lead to misunderstandings and disruptions in communication.

Therefore, based on the insights gained in this study, it is suggested that explicit/implicit metapragmatic instruction should be included in pedagogical practice along with other linguistic elements (e.g., grammar, lexicon YES NO 12. Alex asked the teacher to allow him to go out of the class for a while. YES NO 13. Alex asked the teacher to tell him the answers of the questions in an exercise. YES NO 14. Alex asked the teacher to give him the questionnaire.

YES NO 15. Alex asked the teacher to let him take the quiz again.

YES NO 16. Alex asked the teacher to let him go to the bin. YES NO 17. Alex asked the teacher to let him clean the board.

YES NO 18. Alex asked the teacher to return the contrôle.

YES NO 19. Alex asked the teacher to let him write the date on the board. YES NO 20. Alex asked the teacher to change the date and time of the next class. YES NO 21. Alex asked the teacher to let him go to the infirmary. YES NO 22. Alex asked the teacher to let his classmate to accompany him to the infirmary. YES NO 23. Alex asked the teacher to let him read.

YES NO 24. Alex asked the teacher to let him go to the board to have his turn to speak.

YES NO 25. Alex asked the teacher to let him to go to bring his notebook from the locker. YES NO 26. Alex asked the teacher to open the blinds.

YES NO 27. Alex asked the teacher to open the window. YES NO 28. Alex asked the teacher to allow her to leave her bag in the classroom during the recess period. YES NO 29. Alex asked the teacher to allow him to open the door. YES NO 30. Alex asked the teacher to lend him a pen. YES NO 31. Alex asked the teacher to play the video again for evaluation. YES NO 32. Alex asked the teacher to correct his exercise. YES NO 33. Alex asked the teacher to give him a tissue paper/Kleenex. YES NO 34. Alex asked the teacher to open the door.

YES NO 35. Alex asked the teacher to turn in home work late.

YES NO 36. Alex asked the teacher to write the homework again on the board. 37. Alex asked the teacher to move to the left so that he can see the board.

YES NO 38. Alex asked the teacher to explain the lesson again as he did not understand. YES NO 39. Alex asked the teacher permission to go to drink water. First, pupils were given 20 minutes to formulate 20 questions: 10 about "identity" and "personality" and 10 about any other topic. After the first 20 minutes, pupils were asked to find a partner and ask questions from this partner for one minute. Then swap the partner after one minute and then ask the questions from another partner and so on. Finally, teacher gave them her notes based on grammar and vocabulary about the questions. (Kasper, 1992, p. 204). Plus tard, il a été reconnu que « la compétence pragmatique n'est pas complémentaire ou ornementale » (Kasper, 1997, par. 5), mais qu'il s'agit d'une compétence essentielle en corrélation avec la compétence communicative et organisationnelle globale. La présente étude vise donc à contribuer à l'examen de la pragmatique en langue seconde en analysant l'acquisition de la pragmatique interlangue (PIL) par les jeunes apprenants de la langue anglaise en tant que langue étrangère en France (ALE).

nombre de raisons qui seront abordées dans cette section. Cependant, avant d'établir la nécessité d'examiner le développement PIL des apprenants, il est important de noter la différence entre PIL et pragmatique. [START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | Developing L2 Pragmatics[END_REF] met en évidence cette différence en expliquant que la pragmatique est « l'étude de la façon de comment-dire-ce que-à qui-quand » (p. 68), alors que la PIL est « l'étude de la façon dont les élèves arrivent à prendre connaissance du comment-dire-ceque-à qui-quand » (Bardovi-Harlig, 2013, p.68-69, nous soulignons). En d'autres termes, la pragmatique se penche sur l'utilisation de la langue dans un contexte en général tandis que la PIL met l'accent sur la compétence pragmatique et l'acquisition des apprenants de langue seconde.

La nécessité d'examiner le développement PIL des apprenants L2 a été fortement ressentie lorsque [START_REF] Schmidt | Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics[END_REF] a émis l'hypothèse que sa contribution est effective uniquement lorsque les apprenants remarquent les caractéristiques de la langue cible. Selon ce point de vue, les facteurs de la compétence et du contexte d'apprentissage peuvent aider les apprenants à acquérir certains éléments pragmatiques de l'interlangue mais il est possible que ces derniers ne remarquent pas plusieurs autres caractéristiques pragmatiques de l'interlangue, s'ils sont amenés à devoir les repérer par eux-mêmes. Sans l'encadrement adéquat, les apprenants peuvent ne pas se rendre compte que de nombreuses conventions linguistiques de leur culture diffèrent de la culture de L2 [START_REF] Beebe | Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals[END_REF][START_REF] Garcia | Apologizing in English: Politeness strategies used by native and non-native speakers[END_REF][START_REF] Trosborg | Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints, and Apologies[END_REF][START_REF] Wierzbicka | Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts[END_REF][START_REF] Wierzbicka | Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction[END_REF].

Un autre déclencheur en ce qui concerne l'examen du développement de la PIL des apprenants a été la découverte d'un certain nombre d'études en PIL qui indiquent que même les apprenants avancés ont échoué à se rapprocher des normes pragmatiques des natifs [START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic vs. grammatical awareness in instructed l2 learning[END_REF][START_REF] Kasper | Teaching-induced aspects of interlanguage discourse[END_REF][START_REF] Blum-Kulka | Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language[END_REF]Thomas, 1983[START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics[END_REF][START_REF] Kasper | Pragmatics in language teaching[END_REF]Bardovi-Harlig et Mahan-Taylor, 2003;[START_REF] Rose | On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics[END_REF][START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL classroom[END_REF]. Certaines études PIL telles que celles de Marquez-Reiter (2000) et de Trosborg nous pouvons affirmer qu'il existe un besoin évident d'examiner le développement pragmatique des apprenants L2 et de prendre des mesures pour améliorer leurs connaissances PIL.

Objectifs de l'étude

Considérant la nécessité évidente pour l'apprentissage pragmatique L2, un certain nombre d'études se sont penchées sur le développement de la PIL des apprenants L2 (voir la section 2.7.2 pour une liste d'études sur les requêtes en PIL). Ces études ont donné de précieux résultats sur le développement pragmatique des apprenants L2 mais elles se sont souvent concentrées sur les apprenants adultes L2 et les paramètres de la langue seconde. De même, elles ont souvent exploité les données collectées. Les quelques études longitudinales qui ont utilisé des données naturalistes [START_REF] Achiba | Learning to Request in a Second Language: Child Interlanguage Pragmatics[END_REF][START_REF] Safont-Jordà | Early requestive development in consecutive third language learning[END_REF], 2013 ;[START_REF] Ellis | Learning to communicate in the classroom: A study of two language learners' requests[END_REF]

Figure 4 . 1 1 Figure 4 . 2 Figure 4 . 3 Figure 4 . 4 1 Figure 4 . 5 1 Figure 4 . 1 Figure 4 . 1 Figure 4 . 18 1 Figure 4 . 1 Figure 4 . 1 Figure 4 . 1 Figure 4 . 1 Figure 4 . 1 Figure 4 . 1 Figure 4 . 1 Figure 4 . 1 Figure 4 . 1 Figure 4 . 1 Figure 4 . 1 Figure 4 . 1 Figure 4 . 1 Figure 4 .

 411424344145141414181414141414141414141414141414 Figure 4.1 Distribution of request perspectives in L2 requests across method at level 1

  study began when Pau was two years and six months old (2.6 years) and lasted for a year, showing that the introduction of the third language (English) considerably affected Pau's request strategies in other languages. Pau showed an overwhelming preference for negative politeness (e.g., conventionally indirect requests) in English but this development negatively affected his acquisition of other languages as he started using negative politeness in L1 Catalan and L2 Spanish as well, because these languages are oriented towards positive politeness. In order to explore if Pau would show similar patterns of development in the next two years (from 3.6 years to 5.6 years), Safont-Jordà (2013) conducted a follow-up study. Audio and video data showed that over time Pau began to use direct strategies in Spanish and Catalan like native speakers of these languages, losing the influence of L3 English. But he continued using conventionally indirect strategy in English requests with a parallel decrease in direct strategies, showing nativelike performance. Pau also showed some sociopragmatic awareness in English by using conventional indirectness in requests to his mom and by using direct strategies in requests to his toy. Safont-Jordà (2013) argue that Pau's pragmatic development in the second phase of the study may have been influenced by his change from the monolingual Spanish-speaking school to the bilingual Catalan-speaking school.

  a) collection of real-life examples of requests via an exemplar generation task, b) examination of likelihood of occurrence of selected scenarios via a metapragmatic assessment, c) selection of scenarios for the COPT and drawing of cartoons.

French

  and administered in French by native French speakers (class teachers). Participants were given approximately 20 minutes to brainstorm and report examples of requests. As shown in table3.15, a total of 82 participants from seven different classes volunteered to take part in this task and produced 532 examples of requests. The number of participants across levels could not be controlled because the participation was on a voluntary basis. None of these learners participated any further in data collection.

  requests) were analysed according to[START_REF] Blum-Kulka | Playing it Safe: The Role of Conventionality in Indirectness[END_REF] classification of requests. The data were coded for the use of request perspective, request strategy, internal modification (downgraders, upgraders), external modification (alerters, supportive moves), and modals. The only coding category identified in Blum-Kulka et al.

  to pupils): Okay uh can you see? (referring to the document displayed on board via projector) 2 S: Uh zoom little please.(Level 3, Item 10, Authentic data)

Figure 4 .

 4 Figure 4.5 below displays the distribution of request strategies at level 2. Findings

Figure 4 .

 4 Figure 4.8 below displays the frequency of internal modifiers per request at level 2. Findings

  Figure 4.10 below displays the frequency of external modifiers at level 1 per request by method. Findings showed that level 1 learners used a differential frequency of alerters in different methods. The highest frequency of alerters at this level was used in classroom requests. Concerning the supportive moves, level 1 learners' use of alerters was almost non-existent both in oral production and classroom requests. In contrast, level 1 learners showed a frequent use of supportive moves in free production (role plays) data which might be greatly affected by the presence and the support of the interlocutor.

  Modals in conventionally indirect requests: Level 1Oral production (n=1417)Free production (n= 145) Classroom requests (n=76)

Figures 4 .

 4 Figures 4.24 and 4.25 display the distribution of request perspectives in high and low

Figure 4 .

 4 Figure 4.24 Request perspective in high imposition requests at level 2

Figure 4 .

 4 Figure 4.26 Request perspective in high imposition requests at level 3

  Figures

Figure 4 .

 4 Figure 4.40 Use of internal modification in requests to higher in status addressees at level 1

Figure 4 .

 4 Figure 4.42 Use of internal modifiers in requests to higher status addressees at level 2

  Figures 4.46

Figure 4

 4 Figure 4.44 Use of internal modifiers in requests to higher status addressees at level 3 Figure 4.45 Use of internal modifiers in requests to equal status addressees at level 3

Figures 4 .Figure 4 .

 44 Figures 4.50 and 4.51 display the comparison of level 3 learners' use of internal

Figure 4 . 1 Figure 4 . 1 Figure 4 .

 41414 Figure 4.52 Use of external modifiers in requests to higher status addressees at level 1

Figure 4 .

 4 Figure 4.56 Use of external modifiers in requests to higher status addressees at level 3

Figure 4 . 1 Figure 4 .Figure 4

 4144 Figure 4.58 Use of external modifiers in high imposition requests at level 1

Figure 4 . 1 Figure 4 .

 414 Figure 4.64 Use of modals in requests to higher status addressees at level 1

Figures 4 .

 4 Figures 4.70 and 4.71 display level 1 learners' use of modals across high and low

Figure 4 . 1 Figure 4 .

 414 Figure 4.70 Use of modals in high imposition requests at level 1 Figure 4.71 Use of modals in low imposition requests at level 1

Figure 4

 4 Figure 4.74 Use of modals in high imposition requests at level 3

  pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic awareness and development across different proficiency levels. The specific pragmatic measures investigated were a) request perspectives, b) request strategies, c) internal modification of requests, d) external modification, and e) modals.

  Example 4.4 (Level 1, Making friends, p. 97)

  Example 4.8: Input from teacher to learner A pupil: Uh est-ce que je peux avoir un mouchoir? Teacher: uh, can I The pupil: can I the mouchoir? you remember? It's a paper but it's a different type of paper. Pupil A (signals to her nose). Pupils: Mouch-mouch (everyone laughs) Teacher: A tissue. (she writes the word "tissue" on board) Alex, can you ask the question again? Pupil: Teacher I can, I Teacher: Can I Pupil: Can I, have tissue? (another pupil hands over a tissue to her) Teacher: Thanks (L1-E, First observation)

  Example 4.14 Pupil A to B: Ethan Can I, uh, can you, number two? Pupil B: Uh I walked to school… Pupil B to C: Uh, can you (three?) (noise) comment on dit trois? ... Can you three Julie? Teacher: Uh she doesn't have her workbook. Pupil B: Ben uh, Mathias. (L1E, First observation)

  Tutor 3: #00:11:18-9# I mean as I was saying to you I think, I think (pause) uh I mean they have been, in a way almost, brainwashed //by// Researcher: #00:11:28-5# //hmm-hmm// Tutor 3: #00:11:29-4# the activities that they do in, in college in (inc.) you know the warming up Researcher: #00:11:32-4# //hmm-hmm// Tutor 3:#00:11:32-4# //that we do// uh uh the classroom English that they they they do at the beginning. The class where basically they they they formulate the same the the questions, in in exactly the same way is always 'can I', 'can I go to my locker?' Researcher: #00:11:45-3# //hmm// Tutor 3: #00:11:45-3# //'can I// uh switch on the light?' etc. etc. So basically, they have been uh in a way conditioned, uh to asking the questions in in in the same way without really adjusting, Researcher: #00:11:57-9# hmm-hmm Tutor 3: #00:11:58-5# depending on the person they're talking to or depending on the context.

  the description of situations (1)-(45), then indicate whether you think each situation could really happen by circling 'YES' or 'NO'.

  dans tous les scénarios est Alex. Alex est une fille dans la moitié des cas et un garçon dans l'autre moitié. Alex est né en France mais il / elle a déménagé à États-Unis à un jeune âge. Maintenant, il / elle va à l'école aux Etats-Unis et parle anglais. Il y a douze situations ci-dessous où Alex demande quelque chose à son enseignant ou à un camarade de classe. Vous devez penser ce que Alex dirait dans chaque situation. Après, faire des enregistrements sur l'iPod et les enregistrer sur l'iPod.  Have you had any specific training in teaching second language pragmatics in the classroom?  Do you use authentic materials in the classroom activities?  Do you use textbooks in the classroom? Do you find them useful?

  comprenaient un petit nombre de participants, ce qui a en quelque sorte limité la généralisation de leurs conclusions. De la même façon, aucune de ces études acquisitionnelles, à notre connaissance, n'a exploré les possibilités de développement pragmatique L2 dans les manuels scolaires des apprenants et des activités en classe. Cette étude vise à répondre à ces questions en développement la PIL des jeunes apprenants débutants en anglais dans un contexte de langue étrangère : les écoles secondaires françaises. Tout en se concentrant sur les requêtes L2, cette étude fournit une description complète des stratégies de requête des apprenants L2 lors de requêtes d'imposition faibles et élevées adressées aux personnes de statut égal et supérieur, ce qui permet un examen de la pragmalinguistique des apprenants ainsi que la compétence sociopragmatique. Cette étude adopte une approche transversale et examine le développement pragmatique L2 des trois niveaux d'apprenants dans les collèges et lycées en France. Contrairement aux études précédentes, la nôtre exploite des données provenant de différentes sources et croise à la fois les données naturalistes et les données que nous avons collectées pour examiner l'étendue des connaissances2. ConclusionDans la présente étude nous avons examiné l'utilisation et le développement de la requête en interlangue (L2) par les apprenants de l'anglais langue étrangère (ALE) à trois niveaux de compétence dans les collèges et lycées en France. Alors que plusieurs études interlangues examinaient l'utilisation et/ou le développement des requêtes de L2 dans les requêtes des apprenants adultes et employaient un ou deux types de données recueillies, la présente étude portait sur les jeunes apprenants débutants en utilisant une triangulation de trois types de données : la production orale (COPT), la production libre (jeux de rôle), et des données authentiques qui impliquaient des situations avec différents degrés d'imposition et statut social des interlocuteurs.En dépit des différences entre les méthodes employées, de nombreuses recherches ont suggéré que les apprenants ont montré des signes de développement dans le comportement de requête avec niveau ; les apprenants plus âgés et plus compétents ont fait des requêtes plus indirectes avec une utilisation plus élevée des modificateurs. En ce qui concerne l'ordre du développement pragmalinguistique, les résultats ont montré que le développement du niveau 1 au niveau 2 était saillant mais le développement du niveau 2 au niveau 3 était plus important, en particulier, dans l'utilisation des modificateurs de requête (internes et externes). Ainsi, il semble que la compétence linguistique L2 (ie, lexico-grammatical) ainsi qu'une plus grande exposition aux ressources en ligne (internet) et multimédias (films, séries, etc.) ont dû contribuer au développement pragmatique des plus âgés. Cependant, les performances des requêtes des apprenants illustraient également leur familiarité restreinte et/ou leur pratique d'un ensemble de stratégies de requête, modificateurs et modaux, même à des niveaux plus élevés. En conséquence, les apprenants à tous les niveaux ont montré une dépendance excessive vis-à-vis de certains éléments linguistiques ; par exemple, « politeness marker ou please » comme modificateur interne, « supportive moves » (ie, raisons et explications) comme modificateur externe et « preparatory strategy» (ie, conventionally indirect requests) comme stratégie de requête. Dans l'ensemble, les résultats ont montré que malgré la fréquence accrue d'éléments pragmalinguistiques spécifiques à des niveaux plus élevés, la variété / étendue du répertoire pragmatique des apprenants restait limitée. Par rapport au développement pragmalinguistique, le développement sociopragmatique a été plus limité, car les apprenants à tous les niveaux sont peu familiarisés avec l'impact du statut social (p. ex. perspective des requêtes et stratégies) et le degré de l'imposition des requêtes. Les résultats suggèrent qu'en dépit d'un développement pragmatique, même les apprenants les plus compétents dans l'étude manquaient d'un certain nombre de compétences pragmatiques qui les empêchaient d'utiliser une variété d'éléments linguistiques dans différents contextes. De plus, les apprenants ont également montré des signes de transfert pragmatique L1 (français) négatif susceptible de causer un obstacle dans la communication interlangue. Afin de trouver des explications au développement pragmatique limité des apprenants, les activités en classe ont été analysées. Les résultats ont montré que les salles de classe L2 étaient principalement axées sur les aspects lexico-grammaticaux et culturels du langage, alors que la pragmatique recevait peu ou pas d'attention. De plus, les supports pédagogiques dans les classes L2 (en particulier aux niveaux supérieurs) ont été sélectionnés en fonction des thèmes (correspondant aux objectifs culturels) plutôt qu'à l'utilisation de la langue. Bien que des supports authentiques aient été fréquemment utilisés dans ces salles de classe, ces matériaux ont été principalement traduits, sous-titrés, expliqués, « déverrouillés » et mémorisés pour une réutilisation ultérieure (Whyte & Siddiqa, 2016). En outre, peu ou pas de données méta-connaissances pragmatiques dans des requêtes authentiques en raison de plusieurs contraintes potentielles. Parmi les méthodes d'élicitation utilisées dans cette étude, les jeux de rôle se situaient à mi-chemin entre la COPT et des données authentiques. Les différences majeures entre les jeux de rôle et la COPT concernaient la fréquence de divers éléments pragmalinguistiques tandis que les différences majeures entre les jeux de rôle et les données authentiques constituées du choix de plusieurs éléments pragmalinguistiques. Cette étude suggère l'utilisation de plusieurs méthodes dans la recherche PIL pour éliminer les effets des méthodes de collecte de données sur les résultats et accroître la généralisation des résultats. Dans l'ensemble, les résultats de cette étude suggèrent que les apprenants en France montrent une mesure de développement pragmatique à mesure qu'ils avancent dans le programme ALE de l'école secondaire. Cependant, en raison des possibilités limitées d'apprentissage des compétences pragmatiques de L2 dans les salles de classe, leur répertoire pragmalinguistique et leur compétence socio-pragmatique sont restés relativement limités. Ce résultat n'est peut-être pas surprenant pour ceux qui ont une familiarité avec ce contexte d'enseignement et d'apprentissage, mais cette étude fournit des preuves claires au-delà des impressions anecdotiques. Ces résultats ne sont pas encourageants, en particulier pour les jeunes qui quittent l'école et qui sont susceptibles d'entrer en contact avec une variété d'anglophones (natifs ou non-natifs) au cours de leur vie personnelle et / ou de leur carrière professionnelle. Étant donné leur maîtrise des aspects lexico-grammaticaux de l'anglais L2, on pourrait s'attendre à ce qu'ils se conforment davantage aux normes comportementales et sociolinguistiques de la langue seconde, car toute violation à cet égard peut entraîner des malentendus et des perturbations dans la communication. Par conséquent, sur la base des connaissances acquises dans cette étude, nous suggérons que l'enseignement métapragmatique explicite / implicite soit inclus dans la pratique pédagogique avec d'autres éléments linguistiques (par exemple, la grammaire, le lexique).Concernant les moyens d'intégrer l'enseignement pragmatique de L2 dans le programme existant, cette étude a également exploré les manières dont les enseignants peuvent créer des conditions d'apprentissage qui peuvent contribuer à développer les compétences pragmatiques L2 des apprenants dans les environnements de classe. Cette étude a montré que les enseignants de L2 étaient très intéressés par l'enseignement de la pragmatique de l'interlangue, bien qu'ils puissent être empêchés de le mettre en oeuvre par le manque de connaissances / formation, de supports didactiques ou de pertinence de la compétence pragmatique dans les examens finaux. En accord avec les recherches précédentes sur les PIL, cette étude suggère donc que la compétence pragmatique L2 devrait avoir plus d'importance dans les programmes d'enseignement et d'évaluation. Nous espérons que, si cette étude a réussi à mettre en évidence l'importance du développement pragmatique de l'interlangue, et le travail qui peut et doit être entrepris dans ce domaine, alors elle puisse s'avérer utile.

Table 2 .

 2 1 ILP studies on requests Table 2.2 Comparison of different methods in ILP research Table 3.1 Number of participants in pilot cloze tests Table 3.2 Comparison of different tests by mean and standard deviation per test by level Table 3.3 Comparison of p-values of various cloze test scores across different levels via post-hoc Tukey HSD test Table 3.4 Cloze test scores of participants in the study Table 3.5 P-values of cloze test marks in the post-hoc Tukey HSD test across levels Table 3.6 Division of participants by place of birth Table 3.7 Number of years spent learning L2 English at each level Table

Table 3 .

 3 14 Frequency of travel to L2 setting by level Table 3.15 The number of participants and responses in exemplar generation task Table 3.16 Request scenarios on final COPTs Table 3.17 Request scenarios on role play questionnaires

Table 3 .

 3 [START_REF] Kasper | Can pragmatic competence be taught? (Network #6)[END_REF] Textbooks selected for analysis in this study Table 3.19 Classroom observations Table 3.20 Participants in COPT and cloze tests Table 3.21 Role play participants Table 3.22 Participants in French COPT Table 4.1 Empirical examples of different request perspectives Table 4.2 Distribution of request perspectives in COPT data per request by level Table 4.4 Distribution of request perspective in role plays per head act by level Table 4.7 Distribution of request perspective in authentic requests per head act by level Table 4.8 Examples of different types of request strategies Table 4.9 Distribution of request strategies in oral production data per request by level Table 4.11 Distribution of request strategies in free production data per head act by level Table 4.13 Distribution of request strategy in authentic data per head act by level xvi

Table 4 .

 4 14 Empirical examples of internal modifiers Table 4.15 Frequency of internal modifiers per request by level Table 4.17 Frequency of lexical modifier "please" compared to other lexical modifiers in the COPT per request by level Table 4.18 Frequency of internal modifiers in role plays per head act by level Table 4.21 Frequency of internal modifiers in authentic requests by level Table 4.22 Distribution of lexical or phrasal downgraders per request by level Table 4.23 Types and examples of alerters Table 4.24 Types and examples of supportive moves Table 4.25 Frequency of external modifiers in COPT data per request by level Table 4.28 Frequency of external modifiers per request sequence in role play interaction Table 4.30 Frequency of external modifiers in classroom requests per request by level Table 4.31 Distribution of modals in conventionally indirect requests in COPT data per request by level Table 4.34 Distribution of modals in conventionally indirect (CI) requests in role plays Table 4.37 Distribution of modals in conventionally indirect requests in authentic data per request by level Table 4.38 Distribution of request perspectives by dominance in oral production data Table 4.41 Distribution of request perspectives by imposition in oral production data Table 4.43 Distribution of request perspectives in free production data by dominance per request by level Table 4.45 Distribution of request perspectives in free production data by imposition per request by level Table 4.47 Distribution of request perspectives by dominance in classroom requests Table 4.48 Distribution of request strategies in oral production data by dominance per request by level Table 4.50 Distribution of request strategies in oral production data by imposition per

	request by level
	Table 4.53 Distribution of request strategies by dominance in free production data per
	request by level
	Table 4.55 Distribution of request strategies by imposition in free production data per
	request by level

Table 4 .

 4 57 Distribution of request strategies by dominance in classroom requests by level Table 4.58 Frequency of internal modifiers by dominance in oral production data per

	xvii

Table 4 .

 4 60 Frequency of downgraders and upgraders by imposition in oral production data per request by level Table 4.62 Frequency of internal modifiers by dominance in free production data per request by level Table 4.65 Frequency of downgraders and upgraders by imposition in free production data by level Table 4.68 Frequency of downgraders and upgraders by dominance in classroom requests by level Table 4.69 Frequency of external modifiers by dominance in oral production data per request by level Table 4.72 Frequency of external modifiers in oral production data by imposition per request by level Table 4.75 Frequency of external modifiers in free production data by dominance per request sequence by level Table 4.77 Frequency of external modifiers in free production data by imposition per request sequence by level Table 4.79 Frequency of external modification in classroom requests by dominance per request sequence by level Table 4.80 Distribution of modals in conventionally indirect requests in oral production data by dominance Table 4.83 Distribution of modals across conventionally indirect requests in oral production data by imposition Table 4.86 Distribution of modals by dominance per request by level Table 4.89 Distribution of modals in free production data by imposition per request by level Table 4.92 Distribution of modals in conventionally indirect requests in classroom requests per request by level Table 4.2.1 Frequency count of activities containing L2 requests in selected textbooks at level 1 Table 4.2.2 Distribution of request strategies identified in L2 textbooks at level 1 Table 4.2.3 Frequency count of activities containing L2 requests in selected textbooks at level 2 xviii Table 4.2.4 Distribution of request strategies identified in L2 textbooks at level 2 Table 4.2.5 Frequency count of activities containing L2 requests in selected textbooks at level 3 Table 4.2.6 Distribution of request strategies identified in L2 textbooks at level 3 Table 4.2.7 Distribution of explicit metapragmatic input activities by type Table 4.2.8 Number of opportunities for learning L2 pragmatics in different classes at level 1 Table 4.2.9 Number of opportunities for learning L2 pragmatics in different classes at level 2 Table 4.2.10 Number of opportunities for learning L2 pragmatics in different classes at level 3 Table 4.2.11 Summary of linguistic skills addressed in EFL classroom activities Table 4.2.12 Summary of the general focus of classroom activities conducted during filming sessions

Table 5 .

 5 1 Distribution of request strategies in oral production data by level Table 5.2 Frequency of lexical modifiers in oral production data per request by level Table 5.3 Frequency of modal "can" in conventionally indirect requests in oral production data per request by level Table 5.4 Distribution of request strategies in free production data per head act by level Table 5.5 Frequency of internal modifiers in free production data per head act by level Table 5.6 Frequency of external modifiers in COPT data per request by level 235

Table 5

 5

.7 Frequency of modal "could" in oral production data per conventionally indirect request by level

Table 5.8 Distribution of request perspectives in free production data per head act by level Table 5.9 Frequency of external modifiers per request sequence in role play interactions Table 5.10 Distribution of request perspectives in COPT data per request by level

Table 5 .

 5 11 Distribution of request perspectives in L1 French data per request by level Table5.12 Frequency of lexical modifiers in oral production data per request by level Table 5.13 Frequency of internal modifiers in oral production data per request by level Table 5.14 Distribution of supportive moves into subcategories in oral production data Table 5.15 Distribution of request perspectives in oral production data by level Table 5.16 Distribution of request strategies in oral production data by level Table 5.17 Frequency of internal modifiers in free production data by level Table 5.18 Frequency of external modifiers in oral production data by level Table 5.19 Distribution of request strategies in oral production data by imposition Table 5.20 Frequency of internal modifiers in oral production data by imposition Table 5.21 Distribution of request perspectives in L2 English and L1 French COPT data xix Table 5.22 Comparison of request strategies in L1 and L2 COPT data per request by level Table 5.23 Frequency of internal modifiers used in L2 English and L1 French COPT data Table 5.24 Distribution of modals in conventionally indirect requests in L1 and L2 Table 5.25 Comparison of the choice of request perspectives in requests to different addressees

	in L1 and L2 data

Table 5 .

 5 26 Frequency of internal modifiers in L1 French and L2 English COPT by dominanceTable 5.27 Frequency of internal modifiers in L1 French and L2 English COPT by imposition Table 5.28 L2 pragmatic input during classroom filming at all three levels Table 5.29 Number of activities in L2 textbooks with explicit, implicit, and incidental focus on requests Table 5.30 Distribution of explicit metapragmatic input activities into subcategories Table 5.31 Division of request strategies for requests found in the textbooks Table 5.32 Cloze test scores of 6 participants compared to the rest of participants Table 5.33 Distribution of request strategies by level and method Table 5.34 Distribution of request perspective by level and methods Table 5.35 Frequency of internal modifiers by level and method Table 5.36 Frequency of external modifiers by level and method

Table 5

 5

.37 Distribution of modals in L2 learners' conventionally indirect requests Table 5.38 Structure of metapragmatic awareness-raising lessons by pre-service teachers xx

  Brown and Levinson's theory of politeness has informed recent research by offering discerning explanation of societal mechanisms. One of the major characteristics of Brown & Levinson's model is that it can be used for cross-cultural and cross-linguistic comparison. It offers a distinction between positive and negative face which can be used as a parameter to

measure politeness orientations of different cultures. Cultures differ "as to when, how and to what extent face becomes threatened and how it is best redressed"

  further include a developmental aspect in their definition of interlanguage pragmatics. According to Kasper & Schmidt, interlanguage pragmatics refers to "the development and use of strategies for linguistic action by non-native speakers" (p. 150). The definition of ILP has broadened over time. ILP studies explore the use, comprehension, and acquisition of ILP features such as speech acts, linguistic actions, conversational management, and discourse organization. Other areas of investigation in ILP include native and non-native speakers' comparisons concerning the use of linguistic forms to convey illocutionary meaning, strategies, and politeness. Even though these areas have received

attention in ILP, the early ILP research showed a greater interest in the comparison of native and non-native speakers, which created an imbalance in ILP research. This section will shed light on some of these issues in ILP and how following research responded to these issues. Later, findings of ILP studies are presented which provide the background for the present study especially with regard to L1 transfer, effects of proficiency and L2 input or learning context on learners' ILP development. Findings concerning L1 transfer highlight the frequency with which L1 transfer is found in learners' interlanguage and factors that influence L1 transfer. Findings regarding effects of proficiency on L2 pragmatic development show how proficiency affects the L2 pragmatic development. Similarly, studies focusing on context show how L2 input affects the developmental process, because learning opportunities in different contexts may vary substantially. It is important to discuss these findings because the present study also looks at the influence of L1 transfer, proficiency, and L2 input on French EFL learners' pragmatic development.

  used a DCT to investigate the acquisition of request strategies by Japanese learners of English at three proficiency levels.

Comparisons with native speaker data showed that beginning learners used several nonnativelike strategies. Learners overused direct requests but they used very little nonconventionally indirect strategies. Proficient learners, on the other hand, used more indirect strategies and very few direct strategies showing targetlike features in their interlanguage. Hill's findings indicate that learners' increasing proficiency can help them in decreasing L1 transfer.

  Harlig and Dörnyei's (1998) findings. ESL learners in this study recognized more pragmatic errors than EFL learners even after a short stay in the target community.Focusing on advice-giving expressions,[START_REF] Matsumura | Learning the rules for offering advice: A quantitative approach to second language socialization[END_REF] traced the metapragmatic awareness of two groups of Japanese learners of English: ESL learners who spent a year abroad in Canada and EFL learners in Japan. Learners were shown examples at 4 levels of directness and asked to judge appropriateness. ESL learners, even after a short stay abroad, demonstrated a nativelike trend in their responses, choosing strategies according to the status of the listener. EFL

	study, Schauer investigated German
	ESL and EFL learners' awareness about the appropriateness of various pragmatic functions such
	as requests, refusals, apologies, and suggestions. Schauer's (2006c) findings supported Bardovi-

learners, on the other hand, did not show the same level of awareness about status roles in L2 and continued using formal strategies when addressing people with equal or lower status, unlike target language norms.

Table 2

 2

	.1 displays 23 ILP studies which addressed developmental issues in L2
	requests, in a chronological order. The table includes details about the native (L1) and the second
	language (L2) of learners in each study, the number of participants, the speech act(s) in focus,
	the design of the study, specific methods used for data collection, and variables tested (e.g.,
	proficiency, age, setting).
	As shown in table 2.1, the target language in most of these studies is English whereas
	learners are from different language backgrounds (Japanese, Arabic, Hebrew, Danish, Spanish).
	A few other relevant studies are also presented in this table which investigated requests in other
	target languages (Hebrew, German, French). Studies on L2 requests used various designs (cross-
	sectional or longitudinal) to examine L2 pragmatic development; the number of participants in

Table 2

 2

	.1 ILP studies on requests
	Studies	L1/L2 (n)	Participants (n)	Focus	Data and design	Variables tested
	Scarcella	Arabic/ English	Beginning (10), advanced	Invitations,	Role play; Cross-	Effect of proficiency on L2
	(1979)	(SL)	(10),	Requests	sectional	pragmalinguistic and
			Native American English			sociopragmatic development
			speakers (6)
	Walters	Multiple/	Young beginning learners	Requests	Role plays using	Effects of study abroad
	(1980)	English (SL)	(aged from 6;9 years to		puppets; Cross-
			15;6 years), native English		sectional
			children (Total: 123)
	Walters	Spanish/ English	32 beginning learners: Age:	Requests	Role plays using	Effects of age, sex, and race
	(1981)	(SL)	between 7;7 and 11;4 years		puppets; Cross-	of the addressee on learners'
					sectional	situational variation
	Schmidt	Japanese/	1 adult beginning	Requests	Authentic discourse (3	Learning without instruction
	(1983)	English (SL)	participant (Wes)		years), Longitudinal	following acculturation
						model
	Blum-kulka &	Hebrew/ English	Beginning (80),	Requests	DCT; Cross-sectional	Effects of proficiency and
	Olshtain	(SL)	intermediate (80), advanced			study abroad on L2
	(1986)		(80), native Hebrew (172)			development
	Faerch &	Danish/ English	NSs Danish:163,	Requests	DCT; Cross-sectional	Cross-cultural native / non-
	Kasper (1989)	(FL) and	NSs German:200,			native differences in the
		German (FL)	NSs English:100,			internal and external
			German learners: 200,			modification of requests
			English learners: 200
	Takahashi &	Japanese/	Beginning, intermediate,	Requests	Role plays, follow-up	Effects of proficiency on
	DuFon (1989)	English (SL)	advanced (3 at each level)		interviews; Cross-	directness
			NSs of Japanese and		sectional
			American English
	Ellis (1992)	Portuguese,	1 Portuguese and 1 Punjabi	Requests	Authentic classroom	Learning in an instructed
		Punjabi /English	learner of English (young		discourse,	setting
		(SL)	learners)		Longitudinal

Table 2

 2

	.2 Comparison of different methods in ILP research
	Author (year)	Comparison	Focus	Context
	Rintell & Mitchell, (1989)	Written DCT vs. Oral DCT	Requests, Apologies	NSs and NNSs of English (ESL)
	Eisenstein & Bodman	DCTs, role plays, field notes	Expressions of	NSs and NNSs of English (ESL)
	(1993)		gratitude
	Gass & Houck (1996)	Written DCT vs. Role plays	Refusals	NSs and NNSs of English (ESL)
	Sasaki (1998)	Written DCT vs. Role plays	Requests, refusals	Japanese learners of English (EFL)
	Yuan (2001)	Written DCTs, oral DCTs, field	Compliment and	Native speakers of Southwestern Mandarin
		notes, and natural conversations	compliment responses	Spoken in Kunming, China
	Safont-Jordá (2005)	Written DCT vs. Role play	Requests	Spanish learners of English (EFL)
	Martínez-Flor (2006)	Emails vs. (oral) phone	Suggestions	Spanish learners of English (EFL)
		messages
	Salazar (2008)	DCTs vs. Role plays	Request modification	Spanish learners of English (EFL)
	Duan (2008)	DCTs vs. role-plays	invitations, suggestions,	Chinese learners of English
			offers and requests
	Martínez-Flor (2013)	written DCTs vs. Roles plays	Refusals	L2 learners of Spanish (EFL)

Table 3 .

 3 1 Number of participants in pilot cloze tests

	Level	Test A (n)	Test B (n)	Test C (n)	Test D (n)	Total (n)
	1	21	19	19	19	78
	2	17	17	15	16	65
	3	12	12	12	10	46
	Total	50	48	46	45	189

Any contextually appropriate set of words were accepted in the evaluation of tests. The percentage of learners' scores in all tests ranged between 3.38 % to 4.62 % at level 1, 17.8% to

[START_REF] Kasper | Can pragmatic competence be taught? (Network #6)[END_REF]

.95 % at level 2, and 44% to 62% at level 3. Table

3

.2 below displays the mean and standard deviation of learners' scores in each test by level. Findings showed that learners at level 1 showed little variation across different tests. Level 2 learners, on the other hand, scored higher in Test A and Test C with 5 th -word deletion rate whereas they scored lower in Test B and D with 8 th -word deletion rate. In contrast, level 3 learners scored highest in Test A whereas they scored lowest in Test B with a little variation in test C and D.

Table 3 .

 3 2 Comparison of different tests by mean and standard deviation per test by level

			Test A: 5 th word	Test B: 8 th word	Test C: 5 th word	Test D: 8 th word
			deleted	deleted (score:	deleted (score:	deleted (score:
	Level		(score:80)	50)	83)	52)
	1	mean st d. 4	2.23 2.36	2.21 2.50	3.84 4.83	2.26 2.80
	2	mean st d.	14.35 12.13	8.80 6.52	15.73 11.67	9.62 7.28
	3	mean st d.	45.25 13.74	27.16 9.37	36.83 17.98	32.1 7.51

Table 3

 3

	Tukey

.3 Comparison of p-values of various cloze test scores across different levels via post-hoc

Table 3 .

 3 4 Cloze test scores of the participants in the study

		Cloze tests marks (total score: 80)
	Level	Number of participants	Mean score	Standard deviation
	1	111	8.15	6.99
	2	73	15.75	11.96
	3	71	45.12	20.69

Table 3 .

 3 5 The p-values of cloze test markers in the post-hoc Tukey HSD test across different levels

	Levels compared	Tukey HSD p-value
	Level 1 vs. level 2	0.0010*
	Level 1 vs. level 3	0.0010*
	Level 2 vs. level 3	0.0010*
	*p<0.05

Table 3 .

 3 6 Division of participants by place of birth

	Level	Total participants (n)	Birth in France (n) Yes No	Learner data removed (n)
	1	101	95	6	1
	2	67	62	5	0
	3	58	53	5	4
	Total	226	210	16	5

Table 3

 3

		Years spent learning English
		Less
		than 4
	Level	years

.7 Number of years spent learning L2 English at each level

Table 3 .

 3 8 Frequency of the use of multimedia resources at each level under study

			Frequency of watching English TV series / movies
	Level	Not at all	%	Less than an hour	%	one hour	%	Other	%
	1	54	54%	17	17%	18	18%	11	11%
	2	23	34%	20	30%	14	21%	10	15%
	3	17	31%	9	17%	14	26%	14	26%

Table 3

 3

		Not at all	%	Sometimes	%	often	%
	Level 1	59	59%	34	34%	7	7%
	Level 2	34	51%	30	45%	3	4%
	Level 3	11	20.4%	31	57.4%	12	22.2%

.9 Frequency of reading English materials other than course work

Frequency of reading English novels / books / newspapers etc.

Table 3

 3

.10 displays the number of participants with Anglophone parent(s). Findings show that about 14% learners at level 1, 15% at level 2, and 15% learners reported having one or both English-speaking parent(s).

Table 3

 3

	Level	Total participants (n)	Participants with at least one Anglophone parent (n)	%
	1	100	14	14%
	2	67	10	15%
	3	54	8	15%

.10 Number of learners with English parent

(s)

Table 3 .

 3 11 displays the number of learners who used French and/or English at home.

Table 3 .

 3 11 Number of learners using French and/or English at home

	Level	French (n)	%	English (n)	%
	1	97	97%	16	16%
	2	67	100%	9	13%
	3	53	98%	8	15%

Table 3 .

 3 13 Frequency of opportunities for practice English in different settings by level

			English practicing opportunities
	Level	At school (n)	%	At home (n)	%	With friends (n)	%	Other (n)	%
	1	93	93%	29	29%	18	18%	7	7%
	2	63	94%	10	15%	4	6%	9	13%
	3	48	89%	12	22%	22	41%	19	35%

Table 3 .

 3 14 Frequency of travel to L2 setting by level

	Level	No	Travel to an English-speaking country % Yes	%	Length of stay in L2 setting
	1	72	72%	28	28%	1 to 2 weeks
	2	31	46%	36	54%	1 to 4 weeks
	3	16	30%	38	70%	1 to 4 weeks

Table 3 .

 3 15 The number of participants and responses in exemplar generation task

		Level 1 (n)	Level 2 (n)	Level 3 (n)	Total (n)
	Number of participants	42	22	18	82
	Number of responses	276	137	119	532

Table 3

 3

		.16 Request scenarios on final COPT
				Likelihood of	Imposition
	#	Addressee	Description	occurrence:
					High: %	Low: %
				%
	1	Teacher	Translate a French word into English	100%	57%	43%
	2	Teacher	Delay the test	83%	61%	35%
	3	Teacher	Repeat the sentence	96%	42%	57%
	4	Teacher	Go to the toilet	94%	15%	85%
	5	Teacher	Throw the paper in the dustbin	97%	7%	90%
	6	Teacher	Go to the infirmary/ nurse's office	100%	65%	34%
	7	Teacher	Open the window	93%	15%	81%
	8	Teacher	Replay the video	86%	65%	34%
	9	Teacher	Move to the left	90%	29%	65%
		Teacher	Explain a lesson	97%	76%	21%
		Classmate	Borrow a sheet of paper	100%	4%	96%
		Classmate	Be quiet	72%	53%	41%
		Classmate	Inform the school about an absence	86%	49%	47%
		Classmate	Cheating during class test	72%	55%	42%
		Classmate	Move (your) the head	93%	29%	65%
		Classmate	Lend a Kleenex	96%	17%	82%
		Classmate	Borrow yesterday's notes	86%	44%	50%
		Classmate	Borrow money	74%	54%	42%
		Classmate	Explain an exercise	97%	32%	67%
			Accompany X to the infirmary/
		Classmate		93%	32%	67%
			nurse's office

Table 3 .

 3 17 Request scenarios on role play questionnaire

		Teacher	Classmate
	Role play	Asking to repeat the phrase (Small) 9	Asking a to accompany to nurse's office (Small)
	Group A	Asking to replay the video (Big)	Asking to give notes from yesterday (Small)
	Role play	Asking to explain the lesson (Small)	Asking to explain the exercise (Small)
	Group B	Asking to delay the test (Big)	Asking to borrow some money (Big)

Table 3 .

 3 [START_REF] Kasper | Can pragmatic competence be taught? (Network #6)[END_REF] Textbooks selected for analysis in this study

		Name of the textbook	Date	Author	Publisher
		1. New Enjoy English 6e	2011	Odile Martin-Cocher et al.	Les Édition Didier
		2. New Step in 6e	2006	Marie-Aude Ligozat et al.	Hatier Paris
	Level 1	3. Making friends 6e 4. Welcome 6e	2013 2011	Jean-Louis Habert et al. Evelyne Ledru-Germain et al.	Édition Belin Hatier Paris
		5. Connect Anglais 6e	2011	Wendy Benoit et al.	Hachette Livre
		1. Enjoy English 3e	2009	Odile Martin-Cocher et al.	Les Édition Didier
		2. Step in 3e	2003	Marie-Aude Ligozat et al.	Hatier Paris
	Level 2	3. Join the team Anglais 3e	2009	Christian Geringon et al.	Édition Nathan
		4. Welcome 3e	2014	Evelyne Ledru-Germain et al.	Hatier Paris
		5. Connect Anglais 3e	2009	Wendy Benoit et al.	Hachette Livre
		1. Meeting point TLE	2012	Dominique Santoni et al.	Hatier Paris
		2. New Missions TLE	2016	Séraphine Lansonneur et al.	Bordas
	Level 3	3. Full impact Anglais TLE 4. Project TLE	2012 2009	Brigitte Lallement et al. Anaïs Jolly et al.	Hachette Livre Les Édition Didier
		5. Password English TLE	2012	Pascale Fontaine et al.	Les Édition Didier

Table 3

 3

	.19 classroom observations
		Classes (n)	Learners (n)	Hours of observation (n)	English requests found (n)	Requests per hour (n)
	Level 1	5	131	14	66	4
	Level 2	3	73	9	20	2
	Level 3	5	104	16	40	2.5
	Total	13	308	39	126

Table 3 .

 3 20 Participants in COPT and Cloze tests

	Level Classes	Participants	Well-	%	Ambiguous	%	Unattempted	%	Total	%
		(n)	(n)	formed		(n)		(n)		prompts
				(n)						(n)
	1	5	106	584	55%	49	5%	427	40%	1060	100%
	2	3	69	531	77%	15	2%	144	21%	690	100%
	3	5	67	597	95%	10	1.4%	23	3.6%	630	100%
	Total	13	243	1712	72%	74	3%	594	25%	2380	100%

Table 3 .

 3 21 Role play participants

				Number of responses for each scenario
	Level	Total learners	Total role plays (N)	Sc-1 11	Sc-2	Sc-3	Sc-4	Sc-5 Sc-6	Sc-7	Sc-8
	1	18	72	6	6	6	6	12	12	12	12
	2	10	40	8	8	8	8	2	2	2	2
	3	13	48	4	3	4	3	9	9	8	8
	Total	41	160	18	17	18	17	23	23	22	22

Table 3

 3

	.22 Participants in French COPT
			Total	Missing or ambiguous	Total responses
		Participants (n)	Prompts (N)	responses (n)	(n)
	Level 1	26	260	19	241
	Level 2	24	240	13	227
	Level 3	24	240	1	239
	Total	74	740	33	707

Table 4 .

 4 1 Empirical examples of different request perspectives

	Request Perspective	Examples
	Hearer dominant	"Could you lend me some money, please?" (#12, Level 3, Item 8)
		"Miss, can you open the window please?" (#29, Level 3, Item 18)
	Speaker dominant	"Can I go to the toilet please?" (#4, Level 1, Item 5)
		"Uh miss, can I please open the window?" (#6, Level 3, Item 18)
	Speaker and Hearer	"Can we have the silence please?" (#46, Level 1, Item 16)
		"I'm sorry miss, I'm tired. Can we do this test next week please?" (#24, Level
	dominant	3, Item 3)

Impersonal

"Is it possible to put the test another day please?" (#10, level 3, Item 3)

Table 4

 4 With regard to the use of the speaker dominant perspective, table 4.2 shows that all participants in the study used the speaker dominant perspective less frequently than the hearer dominant perspective ("Uh miss, can I please open the window?" #6, Level 3, Item 18). Level 1 learners used this perspective in 29% of requests, level 2 learners showed a greater use of this perspective (31%), whereas level 3 learners used this perspective in 22% of requests. However, as table 4.2 above displays, the use of Speaker and Hearer dominant perspective was restricted at all levels (e.g., "I'm sorry miss, I'm tired. Can we do this test next week please?" #24, Level 3, Item 3). Regarding the use of impersonal perspective, table 4.2 shows that learners at all levels

		Hearer	%	Speaker	%	S & H	%	Impersonal % Total	%
		dominant		dominant		dominant
	Level 1	379 65%	169 29%	1	0%	35 6%	584 100%
	Level 2	322 61%	163 31%	8	1%	38 7%	531 100%
	Level 3	419 70%	133 22%	16	3%	29 5%	597 100%

.2 Distribution of request perspectives in COPT data per request by level

Table 4

 4 Table4.4 displays the distribution of request perspectives in role play interactions per head act by level. Like oral production, the analysis of free production data (role plays) also revealed a general prevalence of hearer dominant perspectives in learners' requests (e.g., "Sorry teacher, can you uh delay the test, to the next week please?" #20, Level 1, Item 5), 74% at level 1, 79% at This perspective occurred at level 1 and level 3 only in 4% and 5% of requests respectively, whereas learners at level 2 did not use this perspective at all. Learners' results across levels were also compared using one-way ANOVA test and post-hoc Tukey HSD test to examine the statistical significance of differences across levels (see tables 4.5 & 4.6 below). Findings showed that the use of the hearer dominant perspective is significantly different across levels.

	.3 p-values of different request perspectives across levels corresponding to the F-statistic of one-way
	ANOVA test
	The p-value corresponding to the F-statistic of one-way ANOVA test
		Hearer dominant Speaker	S & H dominant	Impersonal
			dominant
	p-values across three	0.3342	0.8480	0.2616	0.9451
	levels (20 scenarios)
	p<0.05
	4.2.1.2 Free production.

Role play results also revealed that speaker dominant perspective ("Can I have your notes of yesterday?" #34, Level 3, Item 5) was the second most frequent perspective in L2 requests. Learners showed an increase in the use of speaker dominant perspective with increased proficiency (18% at level 1, 19% at level 2) especially at level 3 (32% at level 3).

With regard to the speaker and hearer dominant perspective (e.g., "Can we delay it please to next week?" #34, Level 3, Item 5), role play data showed no sizeable development in learners' requests. As shown in table 4.4, learners at level 1 and level 3 used this perspective in only 2% and 5% of requests respectively. Learners at level 2, on the other hand, did not use this perspective at all. The use of the impersonal perspective (e.g., "… It's possible to use your, notes please? #16, level 3, Item 2) was also scarce in learners' requests (see table 4.4 above).

Table 4

 4

	.5 p-values of the use of request perspectives in free production data across all three levels
	The p-value corresponding to the F-statistic of one-way ANOVA test
		Hearer dominant	Speaker dominant S & H dominant	Impersonal
	p-values across
	three levels (20 request scenarios)	0.0480*	0.3988	0.4496	0.2760
	p<0.05

In order to see which level, in particular, differed significantly from others in the use of hearer dominant perspective, a post-hoc Tukey HSD test was conducted (see table 4.6 below).

Table 4

 4

			Post-hoc Tukey HSD test results (p-values)
	Comparison across	Hearer	Speaker dominant	S & H dominant	Impersonal
	levels	dominant	perspective
	Level 1 vs. Level 2	0.1384	0.6345	0.6708	0.3430
	Level 1 vs. Level 3	0.0506	0.8930	0.8999	0.8999
	Level 2 vs. Level 3	0.8552	0.3796	0.4311	0.3430
	p<0.05

.

6

The comparison of different pairs of levels using p-values corresponding to the post-hoc Tukey HSD test

Table 4 .

 4 7 Distribution of request perspective in authentic requests per head act by level

		H Dominant	%	S dominant	%	S & H Dominant	% Impersonal	%	Total requests
	Level 1	23	35%	37	56 %	0	0%	6	9%	66
	Level 2	6	30%	12	60 %	0	0%	2	10%	20
	Level 3	16	40%	16	40 %	3	7%	5	13%	40
	Total	45	36%	65	52 %	3	2%	13	10%	126
	by using the speaker dominant perspective. The hearer dominant perspective (e.g., "Can you

write your [email address on board]?...", Item 6, level 3, authentic data), on the other hand, was the second most frequent perspective in authentic requests (see table 4.8 above). Learners at level 1 used this perspective in 35% of requests, which lowered at level 2, that is, 30%, and increased again at level 3 (40%).

Analysis of request strategies in different conditions.

  Figure 4.3 displays the distribution of request perspectives in level 3 learners' requests.Findings showed that level 3 learners also preferred hearer dominant perspective, although with slightly different frequencies compared to level 1 and level 2. Similarly, the use of the speaker dominant perspective was less frequent at level 3 like other levels. However, like level 1 and level 2, the speaker dominant perspective was relatively more frequent in classroom requests as compared to oral production and free production data. Concerning the use of the speaker and hearer dominant perspective and the impersonal perspective, only a little development was found at level 3. The use of the speaker and hearer perspective and the impersonal perspective was generally limited at all levels.In this section, the use of request strategies in different conditions is presented in detail.According to[START_REF] Blum-Kulka | Playing it Safe: The Role of Conventionality in Indirectness[END_REF], each head act is realized by means of one exclusive request strategy. It is possible, however, to have more than one head act in a request sequence.Request strategy is the obligatory choice of directness in requests.[START_REF] Blum-Kulka | Playing it Safe: The Role of Conventionality in Indirectness[END_REF]

	asking the same question or making the same request in the same form, especially at level 1 and
	level 2.
	4.2.2
	Request perspective: Level 1
	100%
	50%
	0%
	Hearer dominant	Speaker dominant	Speaker & Hearer	Impersonal
				dominant
	Oral production (n=1712)	Free production (n=199)	Classroom requests (n=126)
		Request perspective: Level 3
	80%
	60%
	40%
	20%
	0%
	Hearer dominant	Speaker dominant	Speaker and hearer	Impersonal
					dominant
	Oral production (n=1712)	Free production (n=199)	Classroom requests (n=126)
	4.3 Distribution of request perspectives in L2 requests across methods at level 3
	Request perspective: Level 2 Overall, free production (role-play) results are half-way between oral production (COPT)
	100% and classroom requests. In contrast, level 1 and level 2 learners showed similar trends in oral
	80%
	60% production and free production data, but they performed somewhat differently in authentic data,
	20% 40% suggesting either that the proficiency level of learners might influence results of specific
	0% elicitation methods or that the classroom work, especially at lower levels is formulaic -always Hearer dominant Speaker dominant Speaker & Hearer dominant Impersonal
	Oral production (n=1712)	Free production (n=199)	Classroom requests (n=126)

4.2 Distribution of request perspectives in L2

requests across method at level 2 defines the directness in requests as "the degree to which the speaker's illocutionary intent is apparent from the locution" (p. 278). The nine request strategies identified in

[START_REF] Blum-Kulka | Playing it Safe: The Role of Conventionality in Indirectness[END_REF]

framework are subsumed into three broad categories in the present study: direct requests, conventionally indirect requests, and nonconventionally indirect requests. Examples of each type of request with their subtypes identified in this data are illustrated in table 4.8 below.

Table 4

 4

	.8 Examples of different types of request strategies
	Category of	Request	Example
	requests	strategies
		1) Mood	"Give me a paper" (Level 2, #1A, item 1)
	Direct requests	derivable	"The paper please!" (Level 1, #35A, item 1)
		2) Want	"I want to go the toilet." (Level1, #27A, item 5)
		statement
	Conventionally	3) Preparatory -"Can you give me money please?" (Level 3, #23A, item 8)
	indirect requests		-"Miss, can you move to the left please?" (Level 3, #21A,
			item 9)
	Nonconventionally	4) Strong hint -"Do you have um answer to questions, on the tasks, of the
	indirect requests		tasks?" [Intent: cheating in class test] (Level 2, #15B, item 14)
			-"I no um going to school." [Intent: Asking a classmate to
			inform the school for his/her absence] (Level 1, #45A, item 4)

Table 4

 4

	.9 Distribution of request strategies in oral production data per request by level
		Direct	%	Conventionally indirect	%	Non-conventionally indirect	%	Total head acts analysed
	Level 1	128	22%	444	76%	12	2%	584
	Level 2	84	16%	437	82%	10	2%	531
	Level 3	42	7%	536	90%	19	3%	597
	Total	254	15%	1417	83%	41	2%	1712

Table 4 .

 4 10 The p-values of different requests strategies corresponding to the F-statistic of one-way ANOVA test

	The p-value corresponding to the F-statistic of one-way ANOVA test
		Direct requests	Conventionally	Nonconventionally
			indirect requests	indirect requests
	p-value across all three	0.1048	0.1219	0.5418
	levels (20 scenarios)
	p<0.05

Table 4 .

 4 11 Distribution of request strategies in free production data per head act by level this strategy in about 85% of requests. But level 3 learners indicated a decrease by using this strategy in only 61% of requests. A typical example of the use of the conventionally indirect strategy in role plays is shown below (S refers to the speaker and A refers to the addressee):

		Direct %	Conventionally	%	Nonconventionally	%	Total head
				indirect		indirect		acts analysed
	Level 1	8	9%	64	74%	15	17%	87
	Level 2	6	11%	44	85%	2	4%	52
	Level 3	7	12%	37	61%	16	27%	60
	increase by using Example 4.1.1
	1		S: Excuse me I have no money. I have to to to buy something. Just can
			you give just may be, ten euros please?
	2		A: Okay. But I don't have euros, I have dollars. Will, will that work?
	3		S: Yes because, because I'm friend so uh…….
						(#39, Level 3, Item 8, Role play)
	Concerning the use of nonconventional strategy, table 4.11 shows that learners realized
	17% of their requests at level 1 and 27% of requests at level 3 using nonconventional
	indirectness, though level 2 learners produced no notable examples in this corpus. With regard to
	the use of direct strategy, learners at all levels used this strategy very infrequently. Level 1
	learners used direct strategies in only 9% of their requests, level 2 learners in 11% and level 3
	learners in 12% requests.
	Table 4.12 displays results of one-way ANOVA test comparing the use of different

request strategies across levels. Learners showed higher variation in conventionally indirect and nonconventionally indirect requests but none of the differences were statistically significant.

Table 4 .

 4 12 p-values of the use of request strategies in free production data across all three levelsLike oral production data, micro-level analysis of free production data also showed that learners used only three out of nine request strategies which were identified in Blum-Kulka et al.(1987): Mood Derivable ("Please report the test at the next week." #31, Level 2, Item 1, Role play), Preparatory Strategy ("Can you give just may be, ten euros please?" (#39, Level 3, Item 8, Role play), and Strong Hints ("I'm sorry to ask you this but um I have forgotten my money uh for lunch" (#41, Level 3, Item 8, Role play).

	The p-value corresponding to the F-statistic of one-way ANOVA test
	Types of requests	Direct requests	Conventionally	Nonconventionally
			indirect requests	indirect requests
	p-value across all levels (20	0.6805	0.0565	0.0810
	scenarios)
	p<0.05

Table

Table 4 .

 4 13 Distribution of request strategies in authentic data per head act by level

		Direct	%	CI 14	%	NCI	%	Total requests
	Level 1	8	12%	49	74%	9	14%	66
	Level 2	5	25%	11	55%	4	20%	20
	Level 3	10	25%	16	40%	14	35%	40
	4.13 displays the distribution of request strategies in classroom requests (authentic data) per head
	act by level.

  : "downgraders" and "upgraders" which serve two contrastive functions. Downgraders are used to soften the force of the request whereas upgraders contribute in aggravating its force.Both types of modifiers have several sub-categories. Definitions and examples of different internal modifiers identified in data are shown below in table 4.14.

	Request strategies: Level 3
	100%
	50%
	0%
	Direct	Conventionally indirect	Nonconventionally indirect
	Oral production (n=1712)	Free production (n=199)	Classroom requests (n=126)
	4.6 Distribution of request strategies across methods at level 3

categories

Table 4 .

 4 14 Empirical examples of internal modifiers

	Internal modifiers	Sub-types	Subcategories Examples
		Syntactic	Interrogative	"I have authorisation to go to the nurse please?"
		downgraders		(Level 2, #15B, item 15)
			Politeness	"Can I go to the bin please?" (Level 3, #18B, item
	Downgraders		marker	13)
			Understater	"Excuse me, can you move a little bit so I can see the
				board please?" (Level 3, #8A, item 6)
			Downtoner
		Lexical and
		phrasal
		downgraders
				last
				night…." (#33, level 3, Item 5)
			Hedge	"Uh well, I kindda missed, well, the beginning…"
				(Intent: to replay the video) (#38, Level 3, Item 3)
			Cajoler	"Sorry can I have your notes from history yesterday
				because uh hmm you know I was missing and I heard
				there is a big test next week so, can I have your notes
				please?" (#38, Level 3, Item 2)
	Upgraders		Repetition of	"Please um please can you uh come with me, of the
			request	nurse? Please I'm sick. Come with me." (Level 3,
				#16B, item 19)
				"Shush, I need to listen the teacher. Please shush."
				(Leve 2, #25B, item 16)
			Lexical	"Hey guys, shut up please." (Level 2, #20B, item 16)
			uptoner	"Can you close your mouth please?" (Level 3, #3B,
				item 16)

"Uh miss I'm sorry and I don't know if it's possible but, they are a lot of noise, at the beginning of the video and I, don't understand. Can you replay please?" (#16, Level 3, Item 3) Subjectivisor "Uh, for once again I, I just, I don't think I can take take this test uh because I uh have problem

Table 4 .

 4 15 Frequency of internal modifiers per request by level

				COPT: Internal modifiers
	Level	Syntactic downgraders (n)	Downgraders % Lexical downgraders (n)	%	Upgraders Upgraders (n)	%	Total requests
	1	3	.5%	359	61%	4	.7%	584
	2	5	1%	359	67%	8	1.5%	531
	3	8	1%	456	76%	7	1%	597
	Total	16	1%	1174	68.5%	19	1%	1712

Table 4 .

 4 16 p-values concerning the use of internal modifiers in oral production data across all three levelsThe p-value corresponding to the F-statistic of one-way ANOVA test Syntactic downgraders

	Lexical downgraders	Upgraders

Table 4 .

 4 17 Frequency of lexical modifier "please" compared to other lexical modifiers in COPT per request by level

	Level	Politeness markers ("Please")	%	Understaters	%	Total lexical downgraders
	1	358	99.7%	1	.3%	359
	2	359	100%	0	0%	359
	3	433	95%	23	5%	456
	Total	1150	98%	24	2%	1174

Table 4 .

 4 [START_REF] Kasper | Can pragmatic competence be taught? (Network #6)[END_REF] Frequency of internal modifiers in role plays per head act by level

			Role plays: Internal modification
	Level	Lexical or phrasal downgraders (n)	%	Upgraders (n)	%	Upgraders with external modifiers (n)	%	Total head acts analysed (n)
	1	51	57%	1	1%	0	0%	87
	2	43	82%	1	2%	0	0%	52
	3	84	140%	13	22%	24	40%	60

downgraders in their requests (e.g., "Marie could you please lend me some money you have, to eat to the cafeteria?" #34, Level 3, Item 8).

The microanalysis of lexical or phrasal downgraders showed that the majority of downgraders at level 1 and level 2 consisted of Politeness markers. Significant development was found at level 3 because these learners used a variety of lexical downgraders other than Politeness markers: Understaters (49%), Subjectivisors (10%), Downtoners (4%), Cajolers (2%), and Hedges (1%) (see 4.14 above for examples).

Table 4 .

 4 19 p-values of the use of internal modifiers in free production data across all three levels

	The p-value corresponding to the F-statistic of one-way ANOVA test
		Syntactic	Lexical downgraders	Upgraders
		downgraders
	p-value across all levels (20	0.8370	0.1323	0.00078
	scenarios)
	p<0.05

Table 4 .

 4 20 Comparison of different pairs of levels based on p-values corresponding to the post-hoc Tukey HSD test

		Post-hoc Tukey HSD test results (p-values)
	Comparison across	Syntactic downgraders	Lexical downgraders	Upgraders
	levels
	Level 1 vs. Level 2	0.8559	0.8999	0.8999
	Level 1 vs. Level 3	0.8559	0.2663	0.0020*
	Level 2 vs. Level 3	0.8999	0.1386	0.0020*
	p<0.05
	4.2

.3.3 Classroom requests.Table 4 .

 4 21 displays the frequency of internal modifiers in classroom requests per request by level. Findings showed that lexical and phrasal downgraders were the only type of internal

	modifiers found in authentic classroom requests. Level 1 learners used lexical or phrasal
	downgraders in about 35% of their requests. Compared to level 1, a notable drop in the use of
	lexical and phrasal downgraders was found in level 2 learners' requests (15%), which rose again
	at level 3 (35%).

Table 4 .

 4 21 Frequency of internal modifiers in authentic requests by level

	Level	Lexical or phrasal downgrader (n)	%	Total requests at this level (n)
	1	23	35%	66
	2	3	15%	20
	3	13	33%	40
	Total	39	31%	126

Table 4 .

 4 22 Distribution of lexical or phrasal downgraders per request by level

		Politeness	%	Understater	%	Total	%
	Level	Marker
	1	23	96%	1	4%	24	100%
	2	3	100%	0	0%	3	100%
	3	8	73%	3	27%	11	100%

Table 4 .

 4 23 Types and examples of alerters

		Subcategories	Examples
		Title or role	"Miss," "teacher"
	Alerters	First name	"Sophie," "Sarah"
		Endearment term	"My friend," "buddy"
		Attention getter	"Excuse me"

Table 4 .

 4 24 Types and examples of supportive moves either aggravating or mitigating its force"(Blum-Kulka et al., 1989, p. 276). Several types of supportive moves are identified in the data which are illustrated in table 4.24 below. Findings regarding the use of external modifiers in different types of request data (oral production, free production, authentic data) are presented in the following.

	Types of supportive	Examples
	moves
	Apology	"uh I'm sorry miss, could we uh replay the video please?"
		(Level 3, #11B, item 20)
	Grounder (give	"Excuse me, can I have your class notes please? I wasn't there
	reasons or	yesterday I was sick and, I will just write it at home and give it
	explanations)	to you back tomorrow" (Level 3, #10B, item 17)
	Supportive
	moves
		#7B, item 17)
	Preparator	"oh, I think you have finished the exercise. Could you explain to
		me…?" (#11, Level 3, Item 10)
	Promise of Reward	"Can you get me some money? I bring it back tomorrow. I
		need it." (#6, Level 3, Item 8)
	Imposition	"…give me a little paper if you not a problem for you" (#27,
	minimizer	Level 3, Item 1),
	Disarmer	"Uh Claire I don't understand the lesson and we have a test, I
		know, but can you bring me at nurse please?" (#16, Level 3,
		Item 4)

Gratitude

"Laurine. Do you have your notes? Yes, because I'm absent yesterday. Thank you Laurine. You are very nice." (Level 3, Insult "Ho my friend, you are, you are very very very very very énervent (annoying), Shut up please…" (#7, Level 3, Item 16) by

Table 4 .

 4 25 Frequency of external modifiers in COPT data per request by level

				External modifiers
		Alerters	%	Supportive Moves	%	Total requests
	Level 1	72	12%	21	4%	584
	Level 2	143	27%	71	13%	531
	Level 3	494	83%	231	39%	597

Table 4

 4

	Alerters	Supportive moves

.26 p-values of the use of external modifiers in oral production data across all three levels

The p-value corresponding to the F-statistic of one-way ANOVA test

Table 4 .

 4 27 The comparison of different pairs of levels based on p-values corresponding to post-hoc Tukey HSD test

		Post-hoc Tukey HSD test results (p-values)
	Comparison across levels	Alerters	Supportive moves
	Level 1 vs. Level 2	0.0670	0.7575
	Level 1 vs. Level 3	0.0010*	0.0010*
	Level 2 vs. Level 3	0.0010*	0.0012*
	p<0.05

Table 4 .

 4 28 Frequency of external modifiers per request sequence in role play interactions by level

			Free production: External modification
		Alerters (n)	%	Supportive moves (n)	%	Total role plays analysed (n)
	Level 1	38	53%	103	143%	72
	Level 2	32	80%	107	268%	40
	Level 3	63	131%	170	354%	48
	Total	133	83%	380	238%	160

Table 4 .

 4 29 p-values of the use of external modifiers in free production data across all three levels

	The p-value corresponding to the F-statistic of one-way ANOVA test
		Alerters	Supportive moves
	p-value across all levels (20	0.5501	0.1963
	scenarios)
	p<0.05

Table 4 .

 4 30 Frequency of external modifiers in classroom requests per request by level

	Level	Alerters (n)	%	Supportive moves (n)	%	Total requests (n)
	1	46	70%	1	1%	66
	2	12	60%	1	5%	20
	3	9	23%	11	28%	40
	Total	67	53%	13	10%	126

Table 4 .

 4 31 Distribution of modals in conventionally indirect requests in COPT data per request by level

Table 4 .

 4 32 p-values of the use of different modals in oral production data across all three levels

	The p-value corresponding to the F-statistic of one-way ANOVA test
		Can	Could
	p-value across all levels (20	0.9704	1.1102e-16 17
	scenarios)
	p<0.05
	Further analysis of data using post-hoc Tukey HSD test revealed that the level which
	significantly different from others was level 3 (see table 4.33 below).

16

CI requests refers to conventionally indirect requests 17 1.1102e-16 is a scientific notation (for 0.00000000000000011102) indicating that p<0.05.

Table 4 .

 4 33 Comparison of different pairs of levels based on p-values corresponding to the post-hoc Tukey HSD testPost-hoc Tukey HSD test results(p-values)

	Comparison across levels	Can	Could
	Level 1 vs. Level 2	0.8999	0.2436
	Level 1 vs. Level 3	0.8999	0.0010*
	Level 2 vs. Level 3	0.8999	0.0010*
	p<0.05
	4.2.5.2 Free production.

Table 4 .

 4 34 displays the distribution of modals (can, could) in conventionally indirect requests in role play interactions. Results showed that "can" was most frequently employed by the majority of learners at all levels. As shown in table 4.34 below, participants at level 1 showed the highest

Table 4 .

 4 34 Distribution of modals in conventionally indirect (CI) requests in role plays by level

	Can
	Level

Table 4 .

 4 35 p-values of the use of modals in free production data across all three levels

	The p-value corresponding to the F-statistic of one-way ANOVA test
		Can	Could
	p-value across all levels (20	0.0080*	0.0665
	scenarios)
	p<0.05

Table 4

 4

	Comparison across levels	Can	Could
	Level 1 vs. Level 2	0.0279*	0.0552
	Level 1 vs. Level 3	0.0108*	0.5884
	Level 2 vs. Level 3	0.8999	0.3195
	P<0.05

.36 Comparison of different pairs of levels based on p-values corresponding to post-hoc Tukey HSD test

Post-hoc Tukey HSD test results

(p-values)

Table 4 .

 4 37 Distribution of modals in conventionally indirect requests in authentic data by level

		Can	%	Other structure	%	Total conventionally indirect requests
	Level 1	49	100%	0	0%	49
	Level 2	10	91%	1	9%	11
	Level 3	15	94%	1	6%	16
	Total	74	97%	2	3%	76

Table 4 .

 4 38 Distribution of request perspectives by dominance in oral production data

						Request Perspectives: Distribution by dominance
		Hearer' s status	HD (n)	%	p-values	SD (n)	%	p-values	S & HD (n)	%	p-values	Imp 18 (n)	%	p-values	Total reques ts
	Level 1	Higher Equal	175 204	55% 77%	0.5826	125 44	40% 16%	0.0919	0 1	0% 0%	0.3306	17 18	5% 7%	0.9470	317 267
	Level 2	Higher Equal	141 181	49% 74%	0.3617	112 51	39% 21%	0.2121	7 1	3% 0%	0.3349	26 12	9% 5%	0.6162	286 245
	Level 3	Higher Equal	167 252	56% 84%	0.0531	97 36	33% 12%	0.1950	15 1	5% 0%	0.1334	18 11	6% 4%	0.6172	297 300
	p<0.05

Table 4

 4

	Results of one-way ANOVA test for requests to higher and equal in power addressees
	Comparison across levels	Hearer dominant	Speaker dominant perspective	S & H dominant	Impersonal
	Addressee's status	Higher	Equal	Higher	Equal	Higher	Equal	Higher	Equal
	p-values
	(across all 3	0.8204	0.0837	0.9007	0.7962	0.2450	1.0000	0.9273	0.8061
	levels)
	p<0.05

.39 p-values comparing all three levels concerning the use of request perspectives in oral production data by dominance

Table 4 .

 4 40 Comparison of different pairs of levels based on p-values corresponding to the post-hoc Tukey HSD test

		Post-hoc Tukey HSD test results (p-values) to higher in power addressees
		Hearer dominant	Speaker dominant perspective	S & H dominant	Impersonal
	Hearer's status	Higher	Equal	Higher	Equal	Higher	Equal	Higher	Equal
	Level 1 vs. Level 2	0.8054192 0.7272920 0.8999947 0.8999947 0.6918910 0.8999947 0.8999947 0.8520099
	Level 1 vs. Level 3	0.8999947 0.2862417 0.8888708 0.8999947 0.2161139 0.8999947 0.8999947 0.8023241
	Level 2 vs. Level 3	0.8865280 0.0748583 0.8999947 0.7634699 0.6264268 0.8999947 0.8999947 0.8999947
	p<0.05

Table 4 .

 4 42 p-values concerning the use of request perspective in oral production data across levels by imposition

		Results of one-way ANOVA test for high and low imposition requests
	Request perspective	Hearer dominant	Speaker dominant perspective	S & H dominant	Impersonal
	Degree of imposition	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low
	Comparison
	across	0.5402	0.5585	0.9342	0.9026	0.5547	0.3642	0.9079	0.0966
	levels
	p<0.05

Table 4 .

 4 44 p-values concerning the use of request perspective in free production data across levels by dominanceResults of one-way ANOVA test for requests to higher and equal status addresses across all three levels

		Hearer dominant	Speaker dominant perspective	S & H dominant	Impersonal
	Addressee's status	Higher in power	Equal in power	Higher in power	Equal in power	Higher in power	Equal in power	Higher in power	High Equal in power
	Comparison
	across all	0.2289	0.2822	0.7805	0.5305	0.4053	0.5694	0.6224	0.4997
	three levels

Table 4 .

 4 45 Distribution of request perspectives in free production data by imposition per request by level

				Division of Request Perspectives by imposition: Role plays
	Level	I 24	HD %	p-values	SD %	p-values	S&H %	p-values	Impersonal %	p-values	Unclear %	Total head acts
		Big	29 76%		6 16%		0 0%		3	8%		0	0%	38
	1			0.1340		1.0000			0.4816			0.0554
		Small 35 71%		10 21%		2	4%		0	0%		2	4%	49
		Big	11 79%		2 14%		0 0%		0	0%		1	7%	14
	2			0.4650		0.3574			0			0
		Small 30 79%		8 21%		0 0%		0	0%		0	0%	38
		Big	16 59%		7 26%		3 11%		1	4%		0	0%	27
	3			0.2880		0.9676			0.0554			0.8754
		small 19 58%		12 36%		0 0%		2	6%		0	0%	33
	p<0.05
		Similarly, no major patterns of development were found in the use of the impersonal
	perspective. The p-values (using t-tests) also indicated that the variation in learners' requests in
	high and low imposition requests was not significant (see table 4.45 above). The comparison
	across levels using one-way ANOVA test (see table 4.46 below) showed that differences across

Table 4 .

 4 46 p-values concerning the use of request perspective in free production data across levels by imposition

		One-way ANOVA test results (p-values) for high and low imposition requests
	Request perspectives	Hearer dominant	Speaker dominant perspective	S & H dominant	Impersonal
	Degree of imposition	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
	Comparison
	across all three levels	0.1990	0.1330	0.8159	0.2963	0.3966	0.1250	0.1101	0.2519
	(p-values)
	p<0.05

Table 4 .

 4 47 Distribution of request perspectives by dominance in classroom requests by level

				Request perspective by dominance: Authentic data
	Level	Addressee' Status	HD	%	SD	%	S & H dominant	% Impersonal	%	Total
	1	Higher	2	5%	35	87.5%	0	0%	3	7.5%	40
		Equal	19	73%	2	8%	0	0%	5	19%	26
	2	Higher	2	13.3%	11	73.4%	0	0%	2	13.3%	15
		Equal	3	60%	1	20%	0	0%	1	20%	5
	3	Higher	8	23%	14	40%	3	8.5%	10	28.5%	35
		Equal	3	60%	1	20%	0	0%	1	20%	5

Table 4 .

 4 49 p-values of the use of request strategies in requests oral production data across levels by dominance

	Results for one-way ANOVA for requests to higher and equal status addressees
		Direct		Conventionally indirect	Nonconventionally indirect
	Hearer's status	Higher	Equal	Higher	Equal	Higher	Equal
	Comparison across all three levels (p-values)	0.8349	0.1050	0.6552	0.1013	0.4095	0.4114
	p<0.05

Table 4 .

 4 50 Distribution of request strategies in oral production data by imposition per request by level

			Request strategies: distribution by imposition in oral production data
	Level Imposition Direct	%	p-values	CI	%	p-values	NCI	%	p-values	Total requests
	1	High Low	78 50	33% 0.2171 14%	154 65% 0.0503 290 84%	6 6	2% 0.7829 2%	238 346
	2	High Low	65 19	28% 0.0610 6%	166 70% 0.0982 271 92%	5 5	2% 0.8291 2%	236 295
	3	High Low	38 4	14% 0.0638 1.2%	219 83% 0.0519 317 95.5%	8 11 3.3% 3% 0.8994	265 332

Table 4

 4

			Direct	Conventionally indirect	Nonconventionally indirect
	Degree of imposition	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low
	Comparison across levels	0.5439	0.0007*	0.1613	0.4241	0.8663	0.6271
	p<0.05
	As shown in table 4.52 below, further analysis using post-hoc Tukey HSD test revealed

.51 p-values of the use of request strategies in requests oral production data across levels by imposition

Results for one-way ANOVA test (p-values) for high and low imposition requests that the level which differed significantly from the other two was level 1: compare the use of direct strategy in low imposition requests at level 1 vs. level 2 and level 3.

Table 4 .

 4 52 Comparison of different pairs of levels based on p-values corresponding to the post-hoc Tukey HSD testPost-hoc Tukey HSD test results (p-values) for high and low imposition requests

	Comparison across levels	Direct	Conventionally indirect	Nonconventionally indirect
	Degree of imposition	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low
	Level 1 vs. Level 2	0.8999947	0.0208000*	0.8999947	0.8373192	0.8999947	0.8999947
	Level 1 vs. Level 3	0.5259245	0.0010053*	0.1706196	0.7062271	0.8999947	0.7169432
	Level 2 vs. Level 3	0.7291581	0.3655365	0.2995170	0.3955916	0.8501390	0.6305976
	p<0.05

Table 4 .

 4 53 Distribution of request strategies by dominance in free production data per request by level

			Request strategies by dominance: Free production (role plays)
	Level	Hearer's status	Direct %	p-values	CI	%	p-values	NCI	%	p-values	Total head acts
	1	Higher Equal	4 4	10% 9%	1.000	30 71% 34 76%	0.4454	8 7	19% 15%	0.8619	42 45
	2	Higher Equal	4 2	14% 8%	0.4680	22 79% 22 92%	1.0000	2 0	7% 0%	0.1340	28 24
	3	Higher Equal	3 4	11% 12%	0.7502	15 56% 22 67%	0.1532	9 7	33% 21%	0.7681	27 33
	p<0.05

Table 4 .

 4 54 p-values of the use of request strategies in free production data across all three levels by dominance

	One-way ANOVA test results (p-values) for requests to higher and equal status addressees
		Direct		Conventionally indirect	Nonconventionally indirect
	Addressee's status	Higher	Equal	Higher	Equal	Higher	Equal
	Comparison across all three levels (p-values)	0.9331	1.0000	0.2293	0.2867	0.3786	0.2864
	p<0.05

Table 4 .

 4 55 Distribution of request strategies by imposition in free production data per request by level

			Request strategies by imposition: Free production data
	Level Imposition Direct	%	p-values	CI %	p-values	NCI	%	p-values	Total head acts
	1	High	6	16% 0.0924	28 74% 0.0790	4	10% 0.5535	38
		Low	2	4%		36 73%		11	23%	49
	2	High	2	14% 0.8546	12 86% 0.4624		0% 0.2666	14
		Low	4	11%		32 84%		2	5%	38
	3	High	5	18.5% 0.0740	17 63% 0.1947	5	18.5% 0.7606	27
		Low	2	6%		20 61%		11	33%	33
	p<0.05

Table 4 .

 4 56 p-values of the use of request strategies in free production data across all three levels by imposition

	One-way ANOVA test results (p-values) for high and low imposition requests
		Direct	Conventionally indirect	Nonconventionally indirect
		low	High	low	High	low	High
		imposition	imposition	imposition	imposition	imposition	imposition
	Comparison
	across all three
	levels	0.5566	0.5060	0.1677	0.1529	0.2877	0.2282
	p<0.05

Table 4 .

 4 57 Distribution of request strategies by dominance in classroom requests by level

			Request strategies by dominance: Classroom requests
		Hearers' status	Direct	%	CI 25	%	NCI 26	%	Total	%
	Level	Higher	4	10%	33	82.5%	3	7.5%	40	100%
	1	Equal	4	15.5%	16	61.5%	6	23%	26	100%
	Level	Higher	2	13.3%	9	60%	4	26.7%	15	100%
	2	Equal	3	60%	2	40%	0	0%	5	100%
	Level	Higher	7	20%	16	46%	12	34%	35	100%
	3	Equal	3	60%	0	0%	2	40%	5	100%
	Total		23	18.3%	76	60.3%	27	21.4%	126	100%

  Table 4.59 p-values of the use of internal modifiers in oral production data across all three levels by dominance

	One-way ANOVA test results (p-values) for requests to higher and equal status addressees
	Comparison across levels	Syntactic downgraders	Lexical and phrasal downgraders		Upgraders
	Addressee's status	Higher	Equal	Higher	Equal	Higher	Equal
	p-values (across 3 levels)	0.5336	0.5336	0.3246	0.4377		N/A	0.6425
	Request strategies in high imposition p<0.05			Request strategies in low imposition
		requests at level 3			requests at level 3
	100%				120%
	80%				100%
	60%				80%
	20% 40%				20% 40% 60%
	0%	Oral production (n=265)	Free production (n=27)		0%	(n=332) Oral production	Free production (n=33)
		Direct CI NCI			Direct CI NCI
	Figure 4.38 Request strategies in high imposition	Figure 4.39 Request strategies in low imposition
	requests at level 3			requests at level 3

Table 4 .

 4 60 Frequency of downgraders and upgraders by imposition in oral production data per request by level

			Internal modifiers by imposition: oral production data
	Level Imposition Lexical	%	p-values	Syntactic	%	p-values	Upgraders %	p-values	Total
	1	High Low	136 223	57% 64%	0.2980	1 2	.4% .6%	0.5955	3 1	1% .3%	0.6505	238 346
	2	High Low	142 217	60% 74%	0.1775	2 3	1% 1%	0.8080	8 0	3% 0%	0.2806	236 295
	3	High Low	194 272	73% 82%	0.2059	4 4	1.5% 1%	0.7309	5 2	2% .6%	0.4967	265 332
	p<0.05
		Table 4.61 displays results of one-way ANOVA test concerning the use of internal

modifiers in high and low imposition requests at all levels. Findings showed that learners showed no significant variation in the use of internal modifiers across levels.

Table 4 .

 4 61 p-values of the use of internal modifiers in oral production data across all three levels by imposition

	Results for one-way ANOVA test (p-values) for high and low imposition requests
		Syntactic downgraders	Lexical downgraders	upgraders
	Degree of imposition	High	Low	High	Low	High	Low
	Comparison
	across	0.6464	0.8165	0.1438	0.3042	0.8250	0.5095
	levels
	p<0.05

Table 4 .

 4 62 Frequency of internal modifiers by dominance in free production data per request by level

			Downgraders and Upgraders by dominance: Free production data
	Level	Hearer's status	Lexical	%	p-values	Syntactic %	p-values	Upgraders	%	p-values	Total head acts
	1	Higher Equal	24 27	80% 64%	0.4136	1 2	3% 5%	0.5370	0 1	0% 2%	0.3559	30 42
	2	Higher Equal	25 18	208% 64%	0.5805	0 1	0% 4%	0.3559	0 1	0% 4%	0.3559	12 28
	3	Higher Equal	38 46	181% 170%	0.7480	1 0	5% 0%	0.3559	11 25	52% 93%	0.1961	21 27
	p<0.05

Table 4 .

 4 63 p-values of the use of internal modifiers in free production data across all three levels by dominanceAs shown in table 4.64 below, further analysis using the post-hoc Tukey HSD test revealed that the specific level which differed significantly from other levels concerning the use of upgraders in requests to equal status addressees was level 3 as compared to both lower levels.

	One-way ANOVA test results (p-values) for requests to higher and equal status addressees
		Syntactic downgraders	Lexical downgraders	Upgraders
		Higher in	Equal in	Higher in	Equal in	Higher in	Equal in
		power	power	power	power	power	power
	Comparison
	across all three	0.2740	0.3227	0.6553	0.1921	0.1275	0.0030*
	levels

Table 4 .

 4 64 Comparison of different pairs of levels based on p-values corresponding to the post-hoc Tukey HSD test

	Post-hoc Tukey HSD test results (p-values) for requests to higher and equal status addressees
	Comparison across levels	Syntactic downgraders	Lexical downgraders	Upgraders
	Addressee's	Higher in	Equal in	Higher in	Equal in	Higher in	Equal in
	status	power	power	power	power	power	power
	Level 1 vs. Level 2	0.3358604 0.7016174 0.8999947 0.7967635 0.8999947 0.8999947
	Level 1 vs. Level 3	0.8999947 0.2930538 0.6786011 0.4176791 0.1727520 0.0056015*
	Level 2 vs. Level 3	0.3358604 0.7016174 0.7116738 0.1788699 0.1727520 0.0056015*

Table 4 .

 4 65 Frequency of downgraders and upgraders by imposition in free production data by level

			Downgraders and Upgraders by imposition: Free production data
	Level	I 27	Lexical	%	p-values	Syntactic %	p-values	Upgraders	%	p-values	Total head acts
		High	18	60%		2	7%		0	0%		30
	1				0.5317			0.2437			0.4816
		Low	33	79%		1	2%		1	3%		42
	2	High Low	13 30	108% 107%	0.6111	0 1	0% 4%	0.4816	0 1	0% 4%	0.4816	12 28
	3	High Low	49 35	233% 130%	0.1047	1 0	5% 0%	0.2199	23 13	109% 48%	0.9295	21 27
	p<0.05

Table 4 .

 4 66 p-values of the use of internal modifiers in free production data across all three levels by imposition

	One-way ANOVA test results (p-values) for high and low imposition requests
		Syntactic downgraders	Lexical downgraders	Upgraders
		low	High	low	High	low	High
		imposition	imposition	imposition	imposition	imposition	imposition
	Comparison
	across all three	0.6186	0.0910	0.9192	0.0910	0.0094*	0.1405
	levels
	p<0.05

Table 4 .

 4 67 displays results of the post-hoc Tukey HSD test which was conducted to find the level which differed significantly from others concerning the use of different internal modifiers. Findings revealed that differences between levels in both high and low imposition were significant only in the use of upgraders in low imposition requests at level 2 and level 3 compared to level 1.

Table 4 .

 4 67 Comparison of different pairs of levels based on p-values corresponding to the post-hoc Tukey HSD test

	Post-hoc Tukey HSD test results (p-values) for high and low imposition requests
	Comparison across levels	Syntactic downgraders	Lexical downgraders	Upgraders
		low	High	low	High	low	High
		imposition	imposition	imposition	imposition	imposition	imposition
	Level 1 vs. Level 2	0.8999947 0.8999947 0.8999947 0.8999947 0.8999947 0.8999947
	Level 1 vs. Level 3	0.6638416 0.1585484 0.8999947 0.1585484 0.0174630* 0.1833324
	Level 2 vs. Level 3	0.6638416 0.1016888 0.8999947 0.1016888 0.0174630* 0.1833324
	p<0.05

Table 4 .

 4 68 Frequency of downgraders and upgraders by dominance in classroom requests by level

			Internal modification: Classroom requests
		Hearer's	Lexical	%	Syntactic	%	Upgraders	%	Total
		status	downgraders		downgarders				request
									sequences
	Level	Higher	16	40%	0	0%	0	0%	40
	1	Equal	8	31%	0	0%	2	8%	26
	Level	Higher	2	13%	2	13%	0	0%	15
	2	Equal	1	20%	0	0%	0	0%	5
	Level	Higher	11	31%	2	6%	2	6%	35
	3	Equal	1	20%	0	0%	1	20%	5
		4.3.3.

4 Comparison of findings across methods: Internal modification.

	In this section, use of internal modifiers in different situations and elicitations methods is
	compared across levels. Figures 4.40 and 4.41 below display the frequency of internal modifiers
	in requests to higher and equal status addressees respectively, at level 1. Findings showed that
	100%			100%
	80%			80%
	60%			60%
	40%			40%
	20%			20%
	0%			0%
	Oral production (n=317)	Free production (n=30)	Classroom requests (n=40)	Oral production (n=267)	Free production (n=42)	Classroom requests (n=26)
	Lexical downgraders	syntactic downgraders	Lexical downgraders	Syntactic downgraders
	upgraders				Upgraders

  of external modifiers across requests to higher and equal status were not statistically significant at any level (see p-values in table 4.75 below).

	250%			250%
	200%			200%
	150%			150%
	100%			100%
	50%			50%
	0%	Oral production (n=265) Free production (n=21)	0%	Oral production (n=332)	Free production (n=27)
		Lexical downgraders	Syntactic downgraders		Lexical downgraders	Syntactic downgraders
		Upgraders			Upgraders
	Figure 4.50 Use of internal modifiers in high	Figure 4.51 Use of internal modifiers in low
	imposition requests at level 3		imposition requests at level 3

Table 4 .

 4 75 Frequency of external modifiers in free production data by dominance per request sequence by level

			External modification by dominance: Free production (role plays)
		Hearer's Status	Alerters	%	p-values	Supportive moves	%	p-values	Total role plays
	Level 1	Higher Equal	27 11	75% 31%	0.0590	36 67	100% 186%	0.2212	36 36
	Level 2	Higher Equal	22 10	110% 50%	0.8500	41 66	205% 330%	0.3148	20 20
	Level 3	Higher Equal	34 29	136% 129%	0.7321	78 92	312% 400%	0.7264	25 23
	p<0.05
	Table

Table 4 .

 4 76 p-values of the use of external modifiers in free production data across all three levels by dominance

	One-way ANOVA test results (p-values) for requests to higher and equal status addressees
		Alerters		Supportive moves
	Addressee's status	Higher	Equal	Higher	Equal
	Comparison across all three levels (p-values)	0.5374	0.3083	0.2857	0.6424
	p<0.05

Table 4 .

 4 77 Frequency of external modifiers in free production data by imposition per request sequence by level

			External modifiers by imposition: Free production data
	Level Imposition Alerters	%	p-values	Supportive moves	%	p-values	Total role plays
	1	High Low	13 25	43% 60%	0.7934	54 49	180% 117%	0.2134	30 42
	2	High Low	22 20	183% 71%	0.1599	31 76	258% 271%	0.4579	12 28
	3	High Low	32 31	152% 115%	0.2057	84 86	400% 318%	0.2662	21 27

Table 4 .

 4 78 p-values of the use of external modifiers in free production data across all three levels by imposition

	One-way ANOVA test results (p-values) for high and low imposition requests
		Alerters	Supportive moves
		low imposition	High imposition	low imposition	High imposition
	Comparison across all three levels	0.6090	0.2608	0.3746	0.2816
	p<0.05

Table 4 .

 4 79 Frequency of external modification in classroom requests by dominance per request sequence by level

			External modification by dominance: Classroom requests
		Hearer's status	Alerter	%	Supportive moves	%	Total request sequences
	Level 1	Higher Equal	22 24	55% 92%	0 1	0% 4%	40 26
	Level 2	Higher Equal	11 1	73% 20%	1 0	7% 0%	15 5
	Level 3	Higher Equal	9 0	26% 0%	9 2	26% 40%	35 5

Table 4 .

 4 80 Distribution of modals in conventionally indirect requests in oral production data by dominance

		Distribution of modals across conventionally indirect requests per level by dominance
	Level	Hearer's status	Can	%	p-values	Could %	p-values	May %	Would %	Other	%	Total CI requests
	1	Higher 256 99% Equal 183 99%	0.1263	0 0	0% 0%	0	0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%	3 2	1% 1%	259 185
	2	Higher 234 96% Equal 191 99%	0.2657	8 2	3% 1%	0.1062	0 0% 1 .5% 0 0% 0 0%	1 0	.5% 0%	244 193
		Higher 230 82.7%		32 11.6%		1 .3% 4 1.4%	11	4%	278
	3				0.3532			0.2986
		Equal	207 80.2%		39 15.2%		0 0% 1 .4%	11	4.2%	258
	p<0.05

Table 4.81 below shows p-values for one-way ANOVA test comparing all three levels'

Table 4

 4

		Can		Could
	Hearer's status	Higher	Low	Higher	Low
	p-values (across 3 levels)	3.3307e-16*	5.9211e-09*	0.0428*	0.0006*
	p<0.05

.81 p-values in one-way ANOVA test displaying the use of modals in oral production data across levels by dominance

One-way ANOVA test results (p-values) for requests to higher and equal status addressees

Table 4 .

 4 82 Comparison of different pairs of levels based on p-values corresponding to the post-hoc Tukey HSD testIn the following, results for the use of modals in requests with varying degrees of imposition are presented. As shown in table 4.83 below, findings revealed that learners at all levels showed no significant variation in the use of modals across high and low imposition requests.

	Post-hoc Tukey HSD test results (p-values) to higher and equal status addressees
	Comparison across levels	Can		Could
	Hearer's status	Higher	Equal	Higher	Equal
	Level 1 vs. Level 2	0.1567779	0.2723659	0.8024791	0.8999947
	Level 1 vs. Level 3	0.0010053*	0.0010053*	0.0427746*	0.0010892*
	Level 2 vs. Level 3	0.0010053*	0.0010053*	0.1464771	0.0033254*
	p<0.05

Table 4 .

 4 83 Distribution of modals across conventionally indirect requests in oral production data by imposition

				Distribution of modals in oral production data per request by imposition
	Level	I 28	Can	%	p-values	Could	%	p-values	Would % May	%	Other	Total CI 29 requests
	1	High 152 99% 0.0503 low 287 99%	0 0	0% 0%	0	0 0	0% 0%	0 0	0% 0% 3 (1%) 2 (1%)	154 290
	2	High 160 96% 0.0813 Low 266 98%	6 4	4% 0.4299 1.6%	0 0	0% 0%	0 1	0% .4% 0 (0%) 0 (0%)	166 271
	3	High 179 82% 0.1448 Low 258 81%	30 41	14% 0.5647 13%	0 1	0% .3%	0 5	0% 1.7% 12(4%) 10(4%)	219 317
	p<0.05

Table 4 .

 4 84 p-values in one-way ANOVA test displaying the use of modals in oral production data across levels by impositionPost-hoc Tukey HSD test results (p-values) for high and low imposition requests

		Can		Could
	Degree of imposition	High	Low	High	Low
	Comparison across levels	0.7248	0.6995	4.2903e-08*	3.3147e-09*
	p<0.05
	Table 4.85 displays results for post-hoc Tukey HSD test which shows that the level
	which differed significantly from others was level 3, because learners at this level used a higher
	frequency of the modal "could" in both high and low imposition requests as compared to other
	two levels.

Table 4 .

 4 85 Comparison of different pairs of levels based on p-values corresponding to the post-hoc Tukey HSD test

	Post-hoc Tukey HSD test results (p-values) for high and low imposition requests
	Comparison across levels	Can		Could
	Degree of imposition	High	Low	High	Low
	Level 1 vs. Level 2	0.8999947	0.8086968	0.2516938	0.6967562
	Level 1 vs. Level 3	0.6985107	0.6791833	0.0010053*	0.0010053*
	Level 2 vs. Level 3	0.8494258	0.8999947	0.0010053*	0.0010053*
	p<0.05

Table 4 .

 4 86 Distribution of modals by dominance per request by level

					Modals by dominance: Free production data (role plays)
	Level status Can	%	p-values	Could	%	p-values	Would	%	May	%	other	Total CI requests
	1	High Equal 34 28	93% 0.3202 100%	0 0	0% 0%	0	0 0	0% 0%	0 0	0% 0%	2 (7%) 0 (0%)	30 34
	2	High Equal 17 19	86% 0.8505 77%	2 3	9% 14%	0.6704	0 0	0% 0%	0 0	0% 0%	1 (5%) 2 (9%)	22 22
		High	13	86%		1	7%		0	0%	0	0%	1 (7%)	15
	3	Equal 18	82%	0.2070	1	4.5%	1.0000	1	4.5%	1	4.5%	1 (4.5%)	22
	p<0.05

Table 4 .

 4 87 p-values in one-way ANOVA test displaying the use of modals in free production data across levels by dominance

	One-way ANOVA test results (p-values) for requests to higher and equal status addressees
		Use of "Can"	Use of "Could"
	Addressee's status	Higher	Equal	Higher	Equal
	Comparison across all three levels	0.2414	0.0303*	0.3227	0.2740
	p<0.05

Table 4 .

 4 88 Comparison of different pairs of levels based on p-values corresponding to the post-hoc Tukey HSD test

	Post-hoc Tukey HSD test results (p-values) for requests to higher and equal status addressees
	Comparison across levels	Use of "Can"	Use of "Could"
	Addressee's status	Higher	Equal	Higher	Equal
	Level 1 vs. Level 2	0.5051618	0.0423110*	0.2930538	0.2567239
	Level 1 vs. Level 3	0.2222905	0.0552076	0.7016174	0.8304973
	Level 2 vs. Level 3	0.7880423	0.8999947	0.7016174	0.5193486
	p<0.05

Table 4 .

 4 89 Distribution of modals in free production data by imposition per request by level

					Distribution of modals by imposition in free production data
	Level	I 30	Can	%	p-values	Could	%	p-values	Would	% May %	Other structures	%	Total CI requests
	1	High low	26 36	93% 100%	0.3491	0 0	0% 0%	0	0 0	0% 0%	0 0	0% 0%	2 0	7% 0%	28 36
	2	High Low	11 25	92% 78%	0.6233	1 4	8% 13%	0.4327	0 0	0% 0%	0 0	0% 0%	0 3	0% 9%	12 32
	3	High Low	13 19	76% 95%	0.5370	2 0	12% 0%	0.0338*	1 0	6% 0%	1 0	6% 0%	0 1	0% 5%	17 20
	p<0.05

Table 4 .

 4 90 p-values in one-way ANOVA test displaying the use of modals in free production data across levels by imposition

	Post-hoc Tukey HSD test results (p-values) for high and low imposition requests
		Use of "can"	Use of "could"
	Degree of imposition	low	High	low	High
	Comparison across all three levels	0.1367	0.0660	0.0334*	0.2963
	p<0.05

Table 4 .

 4 91 The comparison of different pairs of levels based on p-values corresponding to post-hoc Tukey HSD test

	Post-hoc Tukey HSD test results (p-values) for high and low imposition requests
	Comparison across levels	Use of "can"	Use of "could"
	Degree of imposition	low	High	low	High
	Level 1 vs. Level 2	0.3792827	0.0751140	0.0543975*	0.6719476
	Level 1 vs. Level 3	0.1226990	0.1195855	0.8999947	0.2690309
	Level 2 vs. Level 3	0.7256449	0.8999947	0.0543975*	0.6719476
	p<0.05

Table 4 .

 4 92 Distribution of modals in conventionally indirect requests in classroom requests per request by level

			Modals: Classroom requests
		Hearer's status	Can	%	Total conventionally indirect requests
	Level 1	Higher Equal	33 15	100% 100%	33 15
	Level 2	Higher Equal	8 2	100% 100%	8 2
	Level 3	Higher Equal	15 0	100% 100%	15 0

Table 4 .

 4 2.1 Frequency count of activities containing L2 requests in selected textbooks at level 1

	Textbook name	Estimated total of activities in textbooks 31	Activities with explicit metapragmatic input	%	Activities with implicit metapragmatic input	%	Activities with requests incidental	%	Total number of requests containing activities	%
	Making friends	342	3	1%	12	3%	16	5%	31	9%
	Step in	178	1	1%	9	5%	9	5%	19	11%
	Welcome	329	1	0.3%	2	0.6%	19	6%	22	7%
	Connect	273	1	0.4%	2	0.7%	5	2%	8	3%
	New enjoy	193	3	1.5%	9	5%	16	8%	28	14.5%
	Total	1315	9	0.7%	34	2.6%	65	5%	108	8%

Table 4 .

 4 2.2 Distribution of request strategies identified in L2 textbooks at level 1

					Type of requests (n)
	Textbook name	Activities containing requests (n)	Total requests in the activities (n)	Direct (n)	CI 32 (n)	NCI 33 (n)	Requests to be made by learners as part of the
							exercise (n)
	Making friends	31	53	26	21	1	5
	Step in	19	57	36	13	3	5
	Welcome	22	46	20	25	1	0
	Connect	8	18	15	3	0	0
	New enjoy	28	68	42	25	1	0
	Total	108	242	139	87	6	10

Table 4 .

 4 2.3 Frequency count of activities containing L2 requests in selected textbooks at level 2The 56 activities containing requests in level 2 textbooks were further analysed to find the total number of requests present in activities and to classify requests by strategies. As shown in table 4.2.4 below, findings revealed that out of 56 activities, a total of 106 requests were found. The analysis of request strategies revealed that, like level 1, the direct strategy was most frequent at level 2 (67 out of 106). Conventionally indirect strategies, on the other hand,

	Textbook s	Estimated total of activities / textbook in the exercises	Activities ic input (n) with explicit metapragmat	%	Activities with input (n) implicit metapragmatic	%	Activitie s with (n) requests incident al	%	Total activities (n) requests containin g	%
	Connect	272	2	0.7%	1	0.3%	9	3%	12	4%
	Step in	312	2	0.6%	1	0.3%	5	1.6%	8	2.5 %
	Welcome	258	0	0%	2	0.8%	12	4.6%	14	5.4 %
	Join the team	296	1	0.3%	2	0.7%	9	3%	12	4%
	Enjoy English	204	2	1%	3	1.5%	5	2.5%	10	5%
	Total	1342	7	0.5%	9	0.7%	40	3%	56	4.2 %

Table 4 .

 4 2.6 Distribution of request strategies identified in L2 textbooks at level 3

	Name of textbook	Requests in the activity (n)	Direct (n)	CI (n)	Type of requests (n) NCI (n)	Requests as part of exercises (task for learners) (n)
	Meeting point	27	18	7	2	0
	Missions	11	8	3	0	0
	Project	21	19	1	1	0
	Full impact	8	5	0	0	3
	Password	10	4	5	1	0
	Total	77	54	16	4	3

Table 4

 4

	.2.7 Distribution of explicit metapragmatic input activities by type
	Level	Explanation of Modals (n)	Sample expressions for Specific requests (n)	Total (n)
	Level 1	6	3	9
	Level 2	6	1	7
	Level 3	0	2	2

Table 4 .

 4 2.8 Number of opportunities for learning L2 pragmatics in different classes at level 1

	Class code	Hours of filming (n)	Instances of spontaneous metapragmatic input (n)

Table 4 .

 4 2.10 Number of opportunities for learning L2 pragmatics in different classes at level 3

	Class code	Hours of filming (n)

Table 4 .

 4 2.11 Summary of linguistic skills addressed in EFL classroom activities

				L2 Skills addressed in activities
		Hours of	Total	Speaking	Listening	Reading	Writing	Drawing
	Level	filming	activities	activities	activities	activities	activities	activities
		(n)	(n)	(n)	(n)	(n)	(n)	(n)
	Level 1	14	46	28	8	7	23	2
	Level 2	9	13	13	13	2	2	0
	Level 3	16	22	21	17	6	6	0
	Total	39	81	62	38	15	31	2

Table 4 .

 4 2.12 Summary of the general focus of classroom activities conducted during filming sessions

			General focus of classroom activities
	Level	Hours of filming	Total activities	Grammar	Vocabulary	Culture	Pragmatics
	Level 1	14	46	35	25	4	1
	Level 2	9	13	11	13	10	0
	Level 3	16	22	14	20	7	4
	Total	39	81	60	58	21	5

Table 5 .

 5 1 Distribution of request strategies in oral production data by level Similarly, level 1 learners also used lexical modifier (e.g., "Can I go to the bin please?") frequently in their requests, with almost similar frequency like level 2 and level 3 learners. For example, examine table 5.2 below (see also table 4.15, 4.18, 4.21 in chapter 4 for more details);

Table 5 .

 5 2 Frequency of lexical modifiers in oral production data per request by level

	Level	Lexical downgraders (n)	%	Total requests (n)
	1	359	61%	584
	2	359	67%	531
	3	456	76%	597

Table 5

 5

	.3 Frequency of modal "can" in conventionally indirect requests in COPT data by level
				Total
	Level	Can (n)	%	conventionally indirect requests	%
				(n)
	1	439	99%	444	100%
	2	426	97.5%	437	100%
	3	437	81.5%	536	100%
	4.31, 4.34, and 4.37 in chapter 4 for details), showing their command over classroom English.

table 5

 5

	.1 above), whereas only limited evidence suggested an increase in
	nonconventionally indirect strategy (or hints) in more proficient learners' requests (see table 5.4
	below).

Table 5 .

 5 4 Distribution of request strategies in free production data per head act by level

		Conventionally indirect (n)	%	Nonconventionally indirect (n)	%	Total head acts analysed (n)
	Level 1	64	74%	15	17%	87
	Level 2	44	85%	2	4%	52
	Level 3	37	61%	16	27%	60

  table 5.1 above or table 4.9 in chapter 4) and authentic data (see table 4.13 in chapter 4).Like request strategies, pragmatic development with level was also found in the use of request modifications. For instance, as shown in table 5.5 below, a vivid increase in the use of internal modifiers, especially in lexical or phrasal downgraders, was found in more proficient learners' requests (see also tables 4.15, 4.18, 4.21 in chapter 4).

	serves to convey his illocutionary intent (request for the handout) and the teacher gives him the
	handout.
	Example 5.3
	1	S: Miss
	2	A: Yes
	3	A: I don't have the paper.
	4	A: Oh you don't have a paper. (She runs and gives the pupil the handout)
	Example 5.2	(Level 1, Item 19, authentic request)
		S: Teacher please, uh I went to tonight uh video game centre. Uh I slept, but, uh and non
	1
		and but, I (reported?) uh, uh I I err think, semaine, the test.
	2	A: okay. Uh why, why did you not sleep?
	3	S: err (long pause) uh I I (want ?) to you I sleep video game centre
	4	A: Okay um, so: you're not ready for the test?
	5	S: Uh yes please
	6	A: well, do you think that's fair?
	7	S: err I don't know.
	8	A: okay.
		(#7, Level 1, Item 5, Role play)
	Presence of time constraints and rich context can also contribute to the increased use of
	hints. Likewise, speakers might also use hints in order to avoid stating the obvious because their
	addressee(s) could easily recognise the intent with brief contextual cues. For instance, examine
	example 5.3 below, in which a learner asks the teacher for a handout which the teacher has
	distributed earlier, but this learner did not get any. So, his mere hint "I don't have the paper"

Table 5 .

 5 5 Frequency of internal modifiers in free production data per head act by level

		Lexical or phrasal downgraders (n)	%	Upgraders (n)	%	Total head acts analysed (n)
	Level 1	51	57%	1	1%	87
	Level 2	43	82%	1	2%	52
	Level 3	84	140%	13	22%	60
	Higher proficiency learners also displayed pragmatic development in the use of Alerters
	(e.g., "excuse me") and Supportive moves (e.g., "Excuse me, can I have your class notes please?
	I wasn't there yesterday I was sick …" Level 3, #10B, item 17). Examine table 5.6 below in
	which a clear increase in the use of external modifiers (especially alerters) in higher level
	learners' requests can be found (see also tables 4.28 and 4.30 in chapter 4).

Table 5 .

 5 6 Frequency of external modifiers in COPT data per request by level

		Alerters (n)	%	Supportive Moves (n)	%	Total requests (n)
	Level 1	72	12%	21	4%	584
	Level 2	143	27%	71	13%	531
	Level 3	494	83%	231	39%	597

Table 5 .

 5 7 Frequency of modal "could" in COPT data per conventionally indirect request by level

		Could (n)	%	Total CI 35 requests (n)	%
	Level 1	0	0%	444	100%
	Level 2	10	2.3%	437	100%
	Level 3	71	13.3%	536	100%

Table 5 .

 5 10 Distribution of request perspectives in COPT data per request by level Concerning the use of politeness markers, native English speakers in Faerch and Kasper

	Level	Hearer	%	Speaker	%	S & H	%	Impersonal	%	Total
		dominant		dominant		dominant				requests
	1	379 65%	169 29%	1 0%	35 6%	584
	2	322 61%	163 31%	8 1%	38 7%	531
	3	419 70%	133 22%	16 3%	29 5%	597
	perspective in 74.7% of requests and hearer dominant perspective in only 29.9% of requests
	(e.g., "Well actually I was wondering if you wouldn't mind too much if you were going home if
	I could get a ride with you..." (Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2012, p. 186, italics added). Preference
	for the speaker dominant perspective in native speakers' requests was also found in Félix-
	Brasdefer (2007) and Woodfield and Economidou-Kogetsidis (2010). It appears that learners in

Table 5 .

 5 12 Frequency of lexical modifiers in oral production data per request by level

	Level	Lexical downgraders	%	Total requests
	1	359	61%	584
	2	359	67%	531
	3	456	76%	597

Table 5 .

 5 13 Frequency of internal modifiers in oral production data per request by level

	Level	syntactic downgraders (n)	%	Upgraders (n)	%	Total requests (n)
	1	3	0.5%	4	.7%	584
	2	5	1%	8	1.5%	531
	3	8	1%	7	1%	597
	Total	16	1%	19	1%	1712
	Furthermore, table 5.14 shows that learners at all levels relied heavily on grounders
	(supportive moves: giving reasons and explanations). Higher proficiency learners used more
	Grounders as compared to lower levels, but learners' familiarity with other supportive moves
	such as Preparators (e.g., "I'd like to ask you something…") and Imposition minimizers (e.g.,

Table 5 .

 5 14 Distribution of supportive moves into subcategories in oral production data by level

		Preparator Grounder	Promise of reward	Imposition minimizer	Insult Gratitude Apology	Total supportive moves at this level
	Level	Count	0	20	0	0	0	1	0	21
	1	%	0%	95%	0%	0%	0%	5%	0%	100%
	Leve	Count	0	67	0	0	0	3	1	71
	2	%	0%	94.4%	0%	0%	0%	4.2%	1.4%	100%
	Level	Count	1	201	2	1	1	21	4	231
	3	%	.4%	87%	1%	.4%	.4%	9%	1.8%	100%
	"would you like to give me a lift, but only if you're going my way") seemed to be in a
	burgeoning state.

Table 5 .

 5 15 Distribution of request perspectives in oral production data by level

	Level	Hearer's status	Hearer dominant (n)	%	Speaker dominant (n)	%	Other (n)	%	Total (n)
	1	Higher Equal	175 204	55% 77%	125 44	40% 16%	17 19	5% 7%	317 267
	2	Higher Equal	141 181	49% 74%	112 51	39% 21%	33 13	12% 5%	286 245
	3	Higher Equal	167 252	56% 84%	97 36	33% 12%	33 15	11% 4%	297 300

Table 5 .

 5 16 Distribution of request strategies in oral production data by level

	Level	Hearer's status	Direct	%	CI	%	NCI 39	%	Total
	1	Higher Equal	55 73	17% 28%	259 185	82% 69%	3 9	1% 3%	317 267
	2	Higher Equal	41 43	14.4% 18%	244 193	85.3% 79%	1 9	.3% 3%	286 245
	3	Higher Equal	18 24	6.1% 8%	278 94%	93.6% 86%	1 18	.3% 6%	297 300
	Concerning learners' use of internal modifiers, social status of interlocutors influenced
	learners' requests in role plays (see table 4.62) and in authentic data (see table 4.68), though not
	in COPT (see table 4.58). As expected, learners used lexical and phrasal downgraders (e.g.,
	"please") more frequently in requests to higher status addressees (see table 5.17 below) given the

Table 5 .

 5 17 Frequency of internal modifiers in free production data by level For instance, as shown in table 5.21 below, hearer dominant perspective was frequently used, both in L2 English and L1 French data. For example, compare the use of similar perspective (hearer dominant) by learners in an L1 French and an L2 English request below:

		Downgraders and Upgraders by dominance: Free production data
	Level	Hearer's status	Lexical & phrasal (n)	%	p-values	Total head acts (n)
	1	Higher Equal	24 27	80% 64%	0.4136	30 42
	2	Higher Equal	25 18	208% 64%	0.5805	12 28
	3	Higher Equal	38 46	181% 170%	0.7480	21 27

Table 5

 5

		.22 Comparison of request strategies in L1 and L2 COPT data per request by level
		Types of request strategies used in L2 English and L1 French COPT data
	Level Type of data	Direct (n)	%	Conventionally indirect (n)	%	Non-conventionally indirect (n)	%	Total requests
	1	L2 English data L1 French data	128 24	22% 10%	444 214	76% 88%	12 5	2% 2%	584 243
	2	L2 English data L1 French data	84 13	16% 6%	437 216%	82% 94%	10 0%	2% 0%	531 229
	3	L2 English data L1 French data	42 11	7% 5%	536 216%	90% 90%	19 12%	3% 5%	597 239
		Evidence of L1 transfer was also found in learners' choice of internal modifiers. For
	instance, as shown in table 5.23 below, learners' use of syntactic downgraders and upgraders was
	limited both in L2 and L1 data. In contrast, they used lexical modifiers with comparable
	frequencies in L2 English and L1 French data, at all levels. Moreover, most of their lexical
	modifiers, both in L1 and L2 data, consisted of Politeness Markers ("please") (see table 4.21 for
	L2 data and appendix 19 for L1 data). Examine the use of similar internal modifiers in requests
	below;
	Example 5.6
		"Can you please lower your voices please? I can't hear the mi/ the professor." (#12, Level 3, L2

Table 5 .

 5 24 Distribution of modals in conventionally indirect requests in L2 English and L1 French data

	Level	Type of data	Can/ "pouvoir" (présent)	%	Could / pouvoir (Conditionnelle)	%	Other structures	%	Total requests (n)
	1	L2 English data L1 French data	439 193	99% 90.2%	0 16	0% 7.5%	5 5	1% 2.3%	444 214
	2	L2 English data L1 French data	426 164	97.5% 76%	10 32	2.3% 15%	1 20	.2% 9%	437 216
	3	L2 English data L1 French data	437 112	81.5% 52%	71 77	13.3% 36%	28 27	5.2% 12%	536 216

Table 5 .

 5 25 Comparison of request perspectives in requests to different addressees in L1 and L2 data

			Request perspectives in L2	Request perspectives in L1 French
				English data				data
	Level	Hearer's status	HD	%	SD	%	HD	%	SD	%
	1	Higher Equal	175 204	55% 77%	125 44	40% 16%	71 112	58.2% 92%	44 6	36.1% 5%
	2	Higher Equal	141 181	49% 74%	112 51	39% 21%	72 111	63% 97%	36 1	31% 1%
	3	Higher Equal	167 252	56% 84%	97 36	33% 12%	66 115	55% 97%	48 1	40% 1%

Table 5

 5

	.26 Frequency of internal modifiers in L1 French and L2 English COPT data by dominance
			L2 English data		L2 French data
	Level	Hearer's social status	Lexical & phrasal downgraders	%	Total requests	Lexical & phrasal downgraders	%	Total requests
	1	Higher Equal	194 165	61% 62%	317 267	82 71	67% 60%	122 119
	2	Higher Equal	190 169	66% 69%	286 245	95 72	83% 64%	114 113
	3	Higher Equal	237 229	80% 76%	297 300	98 82	82% 69%	120 119

  the form of English translation of learners' spontaneous French requests.However, none of these examples were part of classroom activities at any level, suggesting that learners received little or no metapragmatic input in classrooms. One of the several constraints which might have contributed in this regard could be the pressure of finishing the syllabus in time to prepare for exams which tested learners' lexico-grammatical abilities, but not pragmatic competence.

	pragmatics. As shown in table 5.28 below, during 39 hours of classroom filming, only a few
	examples of spontaneous metapragmatic input were identified when teachers provided some
	information about L2 requests (see also tables 4.2.8, 4.2.9, and 4.2.10 in chapter 4). Such input
	generally occurred in

Table 5

 5

	.28 L2 pragmatic input during classroom filming at all three levels
	Level	Total classes	Hours of filming (n)	Instances of spontaneous metapragmatic input (n)	Instances of planned metapragmatic input (n)
	1	5	14	5	1
	2	3	9	1	0
	3	5	16	3	0

Table 5 .

 5 29 Number of activities in L2 textbooks with explicit, implicit, and incidental focus on requests see section 4.4.3 for an example), without providing any metapragmatic information about the impact of social variables (e.g., power, distance) on the selection of strategies. For instance;Example 5.8(Step in, Level 2, page, 160)

	Level	Number of textbooks analysed	Estimated total of activities textbooks in	Activities with input explicit metapragmatic	%	Activities with input implicit metapragmatic	%	Activities requests with incidental	%	Total 40
	1	5	1315	9	0.7%	34	2.6%	65	5%	108
	2	5	1342	7	0.5%	9	0.7%	40	3%	56
	3	5	2170	2	0.1%	6	0.3%	34	1.6%	42
		As shown in table 5.30 below, the few activities which focused on L2 requests explicitly
	consisted of the explanation of modals (see example 5.8), or sample requests in specific contexts
	40 Total number of activities containing requests

(

Table 5 .

 5 30 Distribution of explicit metapragmatic input activities into subcategories by level

	Level	Total Activities with explicit metapragmatic	Division of explicit input activities into subcategories
		input (n)	Explanation of Modals (n)	Sample expressions for specific requests (n)
	Level 1	9	6	3
	Level 2	7	6	1
	Level 3	2	0	2

  requests found in textbooks were realised by means of Mood Derivable (direct) strategy (e.g., "Call me back." New Enjoy, level 1, p. 32), whereas the number of conventionally indirect requests was quite limited (see table 5.31 below). Furthermore, conventionally indirect requests were limited to Preparatory strategy (e.g., "Can I go to the cinema with Sue?" Connect, level 3, p.137), whereas nonconventionally indirect requests were rare in textbooks and were limited to Strong hints only (e.g., "Have you got a (key)? My cat is in the tree." Making friends, level 1, p.

	76).

Table 5 .

 5 31 Division of request strategies for requests found in the textbooks

	Level 1	Textbooks (n)	Activities containing requests (n)	Total requests in activities (n)	Direct (n)	Type of requests Requests to be NCI made by CI (n) (n) learners (exercises) (n)
	1	5	108	242	139	87	6	10
	2	5	56	106	67	37	2	0
	3	5	77	54	16	4	3	0

  methods. For example, COPT data showed that the use of hearer dominant perspective increased with level/proficiency (see table 4.2) whereas role plays evidenced that the use of hearer dominant perspective slightly decreased with level (see table 4.4). Concerning the development of request strategies, in contrast, all methods showed different patterns of development. For example, COPT showed that the use of direct strategy decreased and the use of conventional indirectness increased with level (see table 4.9). In contrast, classroom requests showed that the use of directness slightly increased and the use of conventional indirectness gradually decreased with level (see table 4.13). Contrarily, role plays showed an irregular pattern across levels, that is, the use of direct strategy remained comparable at all levels whereas conventionally indirect strategy increased at level 2 but decreased at level 3 (see table 4.11). Similarly, regarding the use of Alerters (external modifiers), COPT and role plays showed that the use of Alerters increased with level (see tables 4.25 for the COPT and table 4.28 for role plays), but authentic data showed that the use of Alerters decreased with level (see table 4.30). COPT (see table 4.15) and authentic data at all levels (see table 4.21). Likewise, it is worth mentioning here that nonconventionally indirect strategy (or hints) rarely occurred in

	Furthermore, some request elements (e.g., modifiers, strategies) did not occur in some
	methods altogether whereas they occurred frequently in others. For example, a notable frequency

of upgraders (e.g., "really") was found in role plays at level 3 (see table 4.18) which was almost absent in

Table 5 .

 5 32 Cloze test scores of 6 participants compared to the rest of participants at each level

	Level and learner #	Cloze test 80) scores (total	Total each level participants at	Mean cloze each level test score at	Standard deviation
	1A 1B	7 7	111 (level 1)	8.15	6.99
	2A 2B	35 36	73 (level 2)	15.75	11.96
	3A 3B	72 48	71 (level 3)	45.12	20.69
	Findings also indicated that learners displayed many similarities in their linguistic
	choices regardless of methods employed. Table 5.33 shows that both learners at level 1 used
	conventionally indirect strategies frequently in all types of data. Level 2 learners performed
	Example 5.11
		"A pupil raises hand during the start of a classroom activity:
	1	Teacher (to the pupil): #00:21:36-7# Alex.
	2	Alex: #00:21:38-3# Um, can I throw the light on the, lesson objectives please?
	3	Teacher: Yes. You can."
				(Authentic data, #1A, 1 st obs)
	Example 5.12
	"Can you repeat? I don't understand." (COPT, #1A, item 8)
	Example 5.13
	"Uh excuse me, teacher. Uh can you repeat the the last, sentence please?" (Role play,#1A, Item1)
	In contrast, level 3 learners showed somewhat different tendency by using
	nonconventionally indirect strategy more frequently in both role plays and authentic data (see

differently from each other, however, their own performance across all three methods was similar. For instance, examine the similar choice of request strategy (conventionally indirect strategy) by a learner in different methods;

table 5 .

 5 33 below), but they used conventionally indirect strategy more often in COPT. For instance, the use of nonconventionally indirect strategy in an authentic request below; Yes. You were so busy about your food that you forgot your bag.Of course. (then the pupil leaves the class to get her bag)

	Example 5.14
	1	In the beginning of a class the teacher asks a pupil #00:00:59-5# (to a pupil who was having a snack) Have you finished? (she laughs) that smelt that smelt very good.
	2	Pupil: yes (she walks towards the teacher, smiling)
	3	Teacher: That smelled, that smelled very good.
	4	Joanna: #00:01:13-9# I forgot my bag. (laughs and makes a gesture with her hand to her head)
	5	Teacher: Uh?
	6	Joanna: #00:01:16-3# I forgot my bag.
	7	Teacher #00:01:18-1#

  table 5.33 above). For instance, examine the use of request perspective in different examples of requests (in different methods) by the same learner;

	Example 5.15 (Authentic data, 3B, first obs)
	1	Teacher #00:15:08-0#... My question is what does the expression mean? (a pupil raises hand) Anthony
	2	Anthony: #00:15:31-8# I don't understand the lowest.

3

The teacher: #00:15:32-8# (the teacher makes a gesture with her hand) the highest, the lowest.

Table 5 .

 5 33 Distribution of request strategies by level and method

	Distribution of request strategies across methods

Table 5 .

 5 34 Distribution of request perspective by level and methods

		Request Perspectives 43
	COPTs	Role plays	Authentic requests

Table 5 .

 5 35 Frequency of internal modifiers by level and method

					Internal modification
			COPTs			Role plays			Authentic data
			Lexical and			Lexical and			Lexical and
	Learner codes	Total requests (n)	phrasal downgrader	Upgraders %	Total requests (n)	phrasal downgrader	Upgraders %(n)	Total requests (n)	phrasal downgrader	Upgraders %(n)
			% (n)			% (n)			%(n)
	1A	7	57% (4)	0%	4	125%(5)	0%	1	0%	0%
	1B	10	40% (4)	0%	4	100%(4)	0%	2	100%(2)	0%
	2A	9	100%(9)	0%	4	100%(4)	0%	2	50%(1)	0%
	2B	10	100%(10)	0%	4	100%(4)	0%	1	0%	0%
	3A	10	90% (9)	0%	4	150%(6)	100%(4)	1	0%	100%(1)
	3B	10	140%(14)	0%	4	100%(4)	100%(4)	1	0%	100%(1)

Table 5 .

 5 37 Distribution of modals in L2 learners' conventionally indirect requests by level and method

					Modals
			COPTs		Role plays		Authentic data
								Total
	Learner	Total	Can %	Could	Total	Can %	Could		Can	Could
								CNI
	code	CNI (n)	(n)	% (n)	CNI (n)	(n)	% (n)		% (n)	% (n)
								(n)
			100%			100%			100%
	1A	7		0%	4		0%	1		0%
			(7)			(4)			(1)
			100%			100%			100%
	1B	9		0%	6		0%	2		0%
			(9)			(6)			(2)
			100%			100%			100%
	2A	5		0%	3		0%	1		0%
			(5)			(3)			(1)
			100%			100%			100%
	2B	8		0%	4		0%	1		0%
			(8)			(4)			(1)
				100%		100%
	3A	9	0%		1		0%	0	0%	0%
				(9)		(1)
			80%
	3B	10		0%	0	0%	0%	0	0%	0%
			(8)

Table 5 .

 5 38 Structure of metapragmatic awareness-raising lessons by pre-service teachers

	Lesson #	Pseudonyms for teachers	Level taught	Time	Activities (steps)
					1. watch video extracts of series Fresh off the Boat
					with short whole-class discussion
	1	Jenny	3ème	50 minutes	2. identify requests from transcripts 3. find alternatives to can I/can you with different
					interlocutors
					4. establish when each expression is appropriate
					(explicit sociopragmatic teaching)
					1. brainstorm requests
					2. watch extracts from TV series
	2	Aude & Faiza	1ère	50 minutes	3. analyse transcripts while watching the videos again (who is talking to whom)
					4. focus on modals
					5. written exercises followed by discussion
					1. use of the COPT (A) in classroom activity to elicit
					pre-instruction requests
	3	Megane	2nde	50 minutes	2. explicit metapragmatic instruction about variant possible forms of expressions used to make requests and their sociopragmatic use
					3. use of the COPT (B) for practice of requests and
					the new expressions taught in this class

  Some caveats were found on methodological level as well, the number of participants / data samples was not comparable in all methods employed in the study (COPT, role plays, authentic data), because the participation was on voluntary basis, especially in COPT and role plays. Authentic data, on the other hand, was small because the occurrence of an authentic speech act in a limited time-frame constrained the resultant data. Concerning role plays, one major limitation was in order, several interlocutors took part in role plays because the native speaker volunteers could not be found who would agree to go to all thirteen participant classes in and around Nice, France. Another method-specific limitation in the present study was that the types of authentic requests could not be controlled (49 different request scenarios occurred) compared to COPT (20 request scenarios) and role plays (8 request scenarios) in which request situations were controlled.Concerning the analysis of data, the major limitation was that data were analysed on grouplevel rather than individual-level in order to make the analysis more manageable since a large number of learners took part in different methods. Furthermore, findings cannot be generalized to all secondary schools in France because the data is collected from a small number of secondary schools (schools=8, classes=13) in and around Nice (South of France), which might not be representative of secondary schools in other parts of the country. Since the present study focused on one speech act only, future research can consider examining a variety of speech acts. During filming sessions, it was noted that speech acts of agreement/disagreement and argument were frequently taught and practiced in higher secondary schools which can be a promising avenue for research in a natural setting. However, future studies focusing on authentic L2 requests should consider specific speech events (e.g., taking consent to record private student-teacher talks at the end of classes) rather than general classroom activities only in order to have a richer and greater dataset in a limited time. Likewise, settings beyond classrooms can also be explored in this regard. Since the use of requestive hints was more common in authentic data in the present study, but the focus was on illocutionary acts only, future research can also examine the perlocutionary effect[START_REF] Félix-Brasdefer | Refusals in Spanish and English: A Cross-Cultural Study of Politeness Strategies among Speakers of Mexican Spanish, American English, and American Learners of Spanish as a Foreign Language[END_REF] of hints on addressees in authentic settings.

		Data Nevertheless, despite several limitations, findings of the present study are significant
	from native English speakers was not collected due to several logistic problems. Although learners because requests have not been studied with a triangulation of several elicited and naturalistic
	in this study were at different proficiency levels (in lower and upper secondary schools), but this methods with a large number of young beginning learners before. Moreover, this study also
	study only traced beginning to high intermediate proficiency learners' pragmatic development (A1 provides a thorough outlook of classroom practice and the position of L2 pragmatics in this setting,
	to B2 level). No university students or advanced-level learners (Level C1 and C2) participated in two research areas which have not been combined in ILP research. Therefore, this study provides
	the study because the focus was on young beginning learners' ILP development. a comprehensive and detailed assessment of learners' use and development of L2 requests while
	keeping in view their proficiency, background information, and classroom environment providing
	a general picture of their L2 pragmatic learning.
	5.6	Future Research
	Keeping in view limitations of the present study, several avenues are recommended for future
	research.

Even though this study examined the effect of a number of factors on learners' L2 pragmatic development (proficiency level/grade (in schools), lack of metapragmatic input, setting (foreign language), and several other potential factors (e.g., frequency of use of online/textual L2 resources, native speaker parents etc.), a comprehensive proficiency test is recommended in future research to contribute to our understanding of effects of grammatical proficiency on learners'

  ). Concerning the ways to incorporate L2 pragmatic instruction into existing syllabus, this study has also explored ways in which teachers can create learning conditions which can contribute to developing learners' L2 pragmatic skills in classroom settings. This study has shown L2 teachers' keen interest in teaching L2 pragmatics, even though they might be held back from doing so by lack of knowledge/training, teaching materials, or relevance of pragmatic competence in final examinations. In line with previous ILP research, thus, this study suggests that L2 pragmatic competence should be given more importance in teaching programmes and assessment. It is hoped if this study can highlight the importance of interlanguage pragmatic development, and the work which can and should be undertaken in this domain, then it may serve a useful purpose. 1. Alex asked his teacher to go to the toilet. YES NO 2. Alex asked his teacher to have a pause during the class. YES NO 3. Alex asked his teacher to translate a French word into English. YES NO 4. Alex asked his teacher to delay the evaluation/ contrôle until next week. YES NO 5. Alex asked his teacher to delay the test until later that day. YES NO 6. Alex asked his teacher to repeat what she/he said. YES NO 7. Alex asked his teacher to explain the instruction for the exercise again. YES NO 8. Alex asked his teacher to revise a part the lesson. YES NO 9. Alex asked his teacher to give him the homework for the next class. YES NO 10. Alex asked the teacher to finish the class early. YES NO 11. Alex asked the teacher to let him have the speaking turn.

Appendix 6. Cartoon Oral Production Task (Group A, French version) Nom: ____________________________________ Classe:_________________ Nom de l'école_________________________________________ Sexe : Garçon / Fille Nombre de I' iPod: _____________________

  1. Alex asked his classmate to lend him a sheet of paper. YES NO 2. Alex asked his classmate to lend him a book. YES NO 3. Alex asked his classmate to help him do his homework. YES NO 4. Alex asked his classmate to drive him home. YES NO 5. Alex asked his classmate to lend him a pencil. YES NO 6. Alex asked his classmate to lend him an eraser. YES NO 7. Alex asked his classmate to lend him a ruler. YES NO 8. Alex asked his classmate to accompany him for lunch. YES NO 9. Alex asked his classmate to lend him a pen. YES NO 10. Alex asked his classmate to give him his/her phone number. YES NO 11. Alex asked his classmate to be quiet during the teacher's lecture. YES NO 12. Alex asked his classmate to lend him his/her phone to make a call. YES NO 13. Alex asked his classmate to help him find his book. YES NO 14. Alex asked his classmate to go with him for skiing. YES NO 15. Alex asked his classmate to inform the school about his absence that day. YES NO 16. Alex asked his classmate to lend him glue. YES NO 17. Alex asked his classmate to lend him a bicycle. YES NO 18. Alex asked his classmate to wait for him for some time. YES NO 19. Alex asked his classmate to help him carry his books. YES NO 20. Alex asked his classmate to lend him a correction fluid. YES NO 21. Alex asked his classmate to give some water. YES NO 22. Alex asked his classmate to tell him the answers of the questions during a contrôle. YES NO 23. Alex asked his classmate to lend him a mobile phone charger. YES NO 24. Alex asked his classmate to play football with him. YES NO 25. Alex asked his classmate to go for running with him. YES NO 26. Alex asked his classmate to exchange his pen with her/his pencil. YES NO 27. Alex asked his classmate to move his head a little so that he can have a look on the board. YES NO 28. Alex asked his classmate to give him a paper towel. YES NO 29. Alex asked his classmate to lend him his yesterday's notes as he was absent. YES NO 30. Alex asked his classmate to close the door. YES NO 31. Alex asked his classmate to come to his home to do the homework together. YES NO 32. Alex asked his classmate to lend him some money. YES NO 33. Alex asked his classmate to give him a candy or a chocolate. YES NO 34. Alex asked his classmate to lend him a set square . YES NO 35. Alex asked his classmate to lend him a tablet. YES NO 36. Alex asked his classmate to explain the exercise to him. YES NO 37. Alex asked his classmate to accompany him to the infirmary. YES NO 38. Alex asked his classmate to lend him a CD. YES NO 39. Alex asked his classmate to lend him a computer. YES NO 40. Alex asked his classmate to lend him a video game. YES NO 41. Alex asked his classmate to accompany him to cinema. YES NO 42. Alex asked his classmate to repeat what he said. YES NO 43. Alex asked his classmate to give him a cigarette. YES NO 44. Alex asked his classmate to give him scissors. YES NO 45. Alex asked his classmate to give him something to eat. YES NO

Summary of activities used by teachers at level 2 during classroom filming

  In the beginning of the lesson, a warming up presentation by a learner is given about a famous English personality. Later, different pupils ask the presenter several questions and then the teacher gives the pupil scores for his speaking and research performance. The teacher plays the beginning scene of a Harry Potter movie. Later, she asks pupils to read again the beginning scene of the corresponding Harry Potter novel. After reading the specified paragraphs, a discussion session followed comparing the movie and the novel. At the end, the teacher gives notes on board and the pupils copy in their notebooks.

	different rooms and items of furniture 5. Exercise on pronunciation of different verbs them information about the on the information from the movie trailer Writing, speaking picture from the previous class. 1. Several groups of learners give	Improving pronunciation and about segregation vocabulary	Pronunciation, lexis
	1.Monser drawing with description: teacher gives directions for drawings and the pupils draw the monster 2. Monster drawing: Pair work. One pupil describes the monster using different monster cards and the other draws 3. Reading activity: reading a "thank you" letter from the Queen of England for the pupils' Christmas card. 1. Asking for directions: Using a map displayed on board, learners are asked to write directions from one location to another 2. Giving directions: Pair work. One pupil asks the other in French to give directions for a specific place on map and the other gives directions in English 3. Guess who activity: a picture is displayed on board with several characters who are named after pupils' names. One pupil had to keep one character in mind and the rest of the class had to ask him/her questions and guess the pupil. 1. Picture description: Picture of a house with 2. Matching exercises on household vocabulary 1. YouTube video: Use of a tongue twister (In Hartford Hereford Hampshire hurricanes hardly ever happen) 2. Correction of exercise on house-related vocabulary 6. Thumbs up or Thumbs down exercise based on an audio document 3. Picture description 2: presentations about famous places in Listening, drawing Listening, speaking, drawing Reading Writing Speaking Speaking Speaking, writing Writing Speaking Writing Listening 1. Correction of a fill in the blanks exercise on past tense Reading 2. Another fill in the blanks exercise in class Reading, writing Picture of tower of London is displayed. Question answer session follows. Teacher gives notes on white board. Speaking, writing English countries. Following each presentation, a game called "Who wants to be a millionaire?" is played. Each presenter asks few questions about their presentation to make sure that their classmates have paid attention. The learner who answers the most questions 3. Picture description with the help of an audio document and written transcription: Picture of a group of people with various nationalities and colours is used in the guessing game. Listening, reading, speaking 4. Writing exercise: Pupils had to write few sentences about one of the characters in the picture without any help. Writing 1. Question answers about Ireland and Irish myths. Speaking, writing 2. Picture description: Picture of an elf is used. The pupils described the picture. Speaking, writing 1. Warming up activity Speaking 2. Picture description with audio document: Picture of a family dinner with several characters Listening, speaking 3. Exercise: Matching the audio document with a specific picture in the textbook Listening 4. Role play: written transcription of a dialogue is used in the activity in which several pupils read the dialogues Reading 47 'Obs #' stands for 'number of observation/filming sesssion' 3rd L1_C 1st 2nd First obs 3rd L1_D 1st several questions and gives L1_E 1st 1. Brainstorming about fairy tails Speaking, writing exercise on past tense about a previous lesson Reading 3. Matching pictures of fairy tales with the descriptions of different fairy tales Reading fairy tales (partly done in class) 2nd 1. Correction of a fill in the blanks exercise on past tense Writing Castle in England, discussion about the picture, teacher asks Speaking, writing 2. Later, several exercises (fill in the blanks, answer questions) are done based 2. Picture description: 3rd obs 1. In the beginning of class, learners give presentations about famous people/places in L2 setting, a short discussion follows each presentation. Writing 4. Inventing one's own L2A 2nd obs places in L2 settings in this class. Later, classmates ask the presenter several questions and then the teacher gives pupils marks for their web-quest and speaking performance. presentations about famous people and 1. Several learners delivered their 2. Correction of an discussion in class. trailer they fill the handout together after containing several questions about the class teacher gave a handout to pupils 3rd dialogue for an imaginary trip to London between two speakers and presenting it in front of Writing and speaking follows based on the trailer involving spontaneous learner responses. Then, the obs 3rd learners. Later a discussion session obs 2. The teacher shows a film trailer to 1st 1.Writing task: Preparing a 2nd 3. Asking questions from classmates using past tense and the given vocabulary. Speaking wins. 4. Picture description with the help of an audio document Listening and speaking 5. Exercise on making sentences using past tense with the help of given vocabulary clues Speaking, writing Appendix 16. Teache r codes Obs 47 # Type of input L2B 2nd obs 1. Comparison Practicing "I have" structure with the names of parts of body and pieces of clothing. Practicing "I have" structure, names of parts of body and pieces of clothing. Learning vocabulary Learning vocabulary for giving/following directions Learning vocabulary for giving/following directions Practicing using names of colours and pieces of clothing and "I have" structure Learning vocabulary about house and household items Practicing vocabulary Correcting pronunciation of H sound Improving listening and comprehension Learning the use of past tense Learning the use of past tense Learning about famous places in L2 setting Web quest: presentation Vocabulary, Grammar, lexis Grammar, lexis Lexis, pragmatics Lexis Lexis Lexis, grammar Lexis Lexis Pronunciation, vocabulary Lexis Grammar Lexis, culture Speaking s on famous grammar, , places in L2 culture Listening setting Grammar Enhancing vocabulary Lexis Learning vocabulary about physical appearances, colours, clothes Lexis Practicing vocabulary Learning about irish culture and developing Practicing the names of colours, clothes, and other appearances Lexis Practicing question answers Grammar, lexis Learning adjectives for describing a day Lexis Improving vocabulary and listening skills Lexis Improving vocabulary, comprehension, and pronunciation Pronunciation, lexis Learning vocabulary Learning the use of past tense Grammar Learning about L2 fairy tales Lexis, fiction fairy tale fiction Learning past tense Grammar Learning about famous places in L2 setting Lexis, culture culture listening information grammar, , writing, Learning Vocab, Speaking setting presentation s about famous people in L2 ation culture pronunci grammar, listening, Vocab, speaking, Learning to write a Lexis, grammar, Web-quest: setting ation people in L2 culture pronunci famous grammar, listening, s about Vocab, speaking, presentation Web-quest: about fairy tales Lexis segregation information vocabulary about cultural listening Lexis, culture Using past tense and vocabulary for a trip Lexis, grammar Learning information grammar, speaking, Vocab, Lexis Learning to make questions using past tense Grammar Improving vocabulary, and learning about famous places in L2 setting Lexis, culture Practicing past tense and making use of new words Lexis, grammar Specific objectives General focus Skills promote d Speaking listening, reading, of a movie Vocabulary, spontane with the grammar ous correspondi ng novel interactio n 1. Web quest: Vocabulary, , presentation s on famous g personalities grammar, culture listening, interactin 1. There were two parts of this activity.

Table 4 .

 4 In the second lesson, the teacher distributes a handout in which there are several songs and other information is given about "segregation in America". First, different pupils read different parts of the songs and other short paragraphs on the handout. Then, the teacher asks them several questions about the documents and the pupils try to answer and then the teacher gives them elaborate information about segregation. Meanwhile few volunteers come to board and write all the difficult vocabulary words from the texts and the teacher explains the meaning of the difficult words. In the second activity, the teacher plays two songs on YouTube, the same songs they have discussed earlier in class to elicit discussion in class. The main activity in this class consisted of the discussion about the web-quest presentations which were given in a previous class. The teacher read learners filled handouts and figured that learners did not understand well when other learners presented their topics. She used the same handouts in this class, displayed the handout on board via projector. Learners had to fill the handout together in class using the information from the presentations from the previous class (e.g., the name of the famous presented, his/her date of birth, death, place of birth, reason for being famous etc.). 73 P-values of the use of internal modifiers in oral production data across all three levels by imposition 175 Table 4.74 The comparison of different pairs of levels in the use of internal modifiers in COPT based on p-values corresponding (by imposition) to the post-hoc Tukey HSD test 175 Table 4.76 P-values of the use of internal modifiers in free production data across all three levels by dominance 177 Table 4.77 The comparison of different pairs of levels in the use of internal modifiers in role plays (by dominance) based on p-values corresponding to the post-hoc Tukey HSD test 177 Table 4.79 P-values of the use of internal modifiers in free production data across all three levels by imposition 179 Table 4.80 The comparison of different pairs of levels in the use of internal modifiers in role plays (by imposition) based on p-values corresponding to the post-hoc Tukey HSD test 179 Table 4.83 P-values of the use of external modifiers in oral production data across all three levels

	Question formulation	Grammar, vocabulary	Speaking , writing, listening

Table 4 .

 4 84 The comparison of different pairs of levels in the use of external modifiers in role plays (by dominance) based on p-values corresponding to the post-hoc Tukey HSD test 187 Table 4.86 P-values of the use of external modifiers in oral production data across all three levels

	by imposition

Table 4 .

 4 87 Comparison of different pairs of levels in the use of external modifiers in COPT (by imposition) based on p-values corresponding to the post-hoc Tukey HSD test 188Table 4.89 P-values of the use of external modifiers in free production data across all three levels by dominance 190 Table 4.90 Comparison of different pairs of levels in the use of external modifiers in role plays (by dominance) based on p-values corresponding to the post-hoc Tukey HSD test 190 Table 4.92 P-values of the use of external modifiers in free production data across all three levels by imposition 191 Table 4.93 The comparison of different pairs of levels in the use of external modifiers in role plays (by imposition) based on p-values corresponding to the post-hoc Tukey HSD test 192 Table 4.96 P-values in one-way ANOVA test displaying the use of modals in oral production data across levels by dominance 199 Table 4.97 The comparison of different pairs of levels in the use of modals in oral production data based on p-values corresponding (by dominance) to the post-hoc Tukey HSD test 199 Table 4.99 P-values in one-way ANOVA test displaying the use of modals in oral production data across levels by imposition 200 Table 4.100 Comparison of different pairs of levels in the use of modals in oral production data (by imposition) based on p-values corresponding to the post-hoc Tukey HSD test 201 Table 4.102 P-values in one-way ANOVA test displaying the use of modals in free production data across levels by dominance 202 Table 4.103 The comparison of different pairs of levels in the use of modals in free production data based on p-values corresponding (by dominance) to the post-hoc Tukey HSD test 202 Table 4.105 P-values in one-way ANOVA test displaying the use of modals in free production data across levels by imposition 203 Table 4.106 The comparison of different pairs of levels in the use of modals in free production data based on p-values corresponding (by imposition) to the post-hoc Tukey HSD test 204

La politesse dans un contexte d'apprentissage, par des francophones, de l'anglais langue étrangère : enjeux pragmatiques, interlangue et acquisition de strategies 1. Introduction La

  pragmatique est une composante importante de la compétence communicative dans toutes les langues. Chaque langue a son propre ensemble de normes sociolinguistiques qui sont systématiquement pratiquées dans chaque communauté. Ces normes comportementales et linguistiques sont généralement attendues des personnes de cette communauté et leur absence est susceptible de générer des obstacles dans la communication. Il est donc important pour les apprenants de langue seconde d'acquérir ces normes ainsi que d'autres compétences linguistiques. La nécessité d'apprendre les normes pragmatiques appropriées aux langues secondes (L2) s'est accrue avec la multiplication des réseaux multilingues mondiaux au cours des dernières années. Cependant, cette dimension importante de la compétence L2 a reçu une attention relativement moindre dans la recherche, principalement parce que la pragmatique ellemême n'a obtenu qu'assez récemment une reconnaissance en tant qu'élément important de la compétence communicative. Avant les années 1970, « la pragmatique n'a pas été intégrée aux débats antérieurs portant sur la SLA [acquisition de langues secondes] centrés sur l'hypothèse de l'analyse contrastive, la construction créative et ainsi de suite »

This term is used by Sabaté i Dalmau and Curell i Gotor(2007, p.307)

SL refers to "Second language", FL refers to "foreign language"

standard deviation

scientific notation for 0.0000000000000032196

scientific notation for 0.00000000000000011102

This learner came to France when she was 9-10 years old. Since the focus of the study was on French EFL learners and this learner had already started school elsewhere, her data was removed.

One learner at level 1 spent three months in an English-speaking country

"Small" refers to small imposition of requests and "big" refers to big imposition

Sc refers to "scenario"

FTA refers to "face-threatening act"

Speaker and hearer, HD refers to "hearer dominant", SD refers to "speaker dominant"

CI refers to conventionally indirect requests, NCI refers to nonconventionally indirect requests

It is important to mention here that some lexical modifiers were used as part of the head act but others occurred before or after the head act during the negotiation of the request. Even if some of these did not occur as part of the head act, they were analysed together with other lexical modifiers to make findings manageable.

Impersonal

Imposition

SD refers to "Speaker dominant perspective", HD refers to "hearer dominant"

Impersonal

Impersonal

"U" refers to "unclear", HD refers to "hearer dominant", SD refers to "speaker dominant"

Imposition

CI refers to "conventionally indirect requests"

NCI refers to "nonconventionally indirect requests"

Imposition

Imposition

CI refers to "conventionally indirect requests"

NCI refers to "nonconventionally indirect requests"

Since, the actual number of requests in the activities containing L2 requests varied from one activity to another, the number of requests found in the activities was counted separately

tables 4.37, 4.38 for statistical significance regarding the use of modals

Nonconventionally indirect

The percentages do not add up to 100% because the frequencies of impersonal and speaker and hearer dominant perspective were removed from this table due to their low values

some percentages in these results are higher than 100% because learners used more than one supportive moves in their requests.

Acknowledgements

List of abbreviations and symbols

// // addressees than equal status addressees (83% as compared to 75% at level 2, 61% as compared to 56% at level 2). Level 1 learners, on the other hand, showed no variation in the use of hearer dominant perspective. Concerning the use of other perspectives, learners did not show any discernible variation in requests to equal and higher status addressees at all levels. Results also indicated that differences in the use of different request perspectives in requests to higher and equal status addressees were not significant. The use of different perspectives in requests to higher and equal status addressees was compared across levels using one-way ANOVA test (see table 4.44 below) which also showed that differences across levels were not significant.

List of appendices

Situational variation in request strategies in different conditions.

In this section, the use of request strategies is analysed based on results of several measures (oral production, free production, classroom/authentic requests) to examine learners' sociopragmatic development across levels under study.

Request strategies: oral production.

Table 4.48 displays the distribution of request strategies in oral production data by dominance.

Findings showed that little variation across requests to higher and equal status addressees was found at all levels. Compared to other levels, the highest level of variation was found at level 1.

Learners at this level used the direct strategy more frequently in requests to equal status addressees (28%) as compared to to higher status addressees (17%). The variation in the choice of the direct strategy was found with much lower frequency at level 2 and level 3 (see table 4.56 below). Comparably, learners at all levels used conventionally indirect strategies more frequently in requests to higher status addressees (82% at level 1, 85% at level 2, and 94% at level 3) compared to equal status addressees (69% at level 1, 79% at level 2, and 86% at level 3).

Concerning the use of nonconventionally indirect strategies, even if the use of this strategy was

Situational variations in internal modification in different conditions.

In this section, learners' sociopragmatic development concerning their use of internal modifiers in L2 requests is examined based on their performance in three types of data: oral production, free production, and authentic classroom requests.

Internal modifiers: oral production

In this section, learners' sociopragmatic development is examined concerning their use of internal modifiers: downgraders, upgraders. Table 4.58 displays the frequency of downgraders and upgraders in oral production data by dominance per request by level. Findings showed that learners displayed no significant variation in the use of request modifiers: lexical and phrasal downgraders, syntactic downgraders, and upgraders. As shown in table 4.58 below, p-values showed significant differences in learners' use of internal modifiers in requests to higher status addressees as compared to equal status addressees. As shown in table 4.59 below, findings of one-way ANOVA test comparing learners' performance in requests to higher and equal status addressees across levels showed that the overall differences among all three levels were not significant.

External modification: oral production.

Table 4.69 displays the frequency of external modifiers in oral production data by dominance.

Findings showed that the use of alerters (e.g., "miss", "excuse me") at all levels were more frequent in requests to higher status addressees (19% at level 1, 30% at level 2, 101% level 3) than in requests to equal status addressees (5% at level 1, 23% at level 2, 65% at level 3). Results of t-tests showed that the difference between the use of alerters in requests to equal and higher status addressees were statistically significant (see the p-values in table 4.69 below). Concerning the use of supportive moves, findings showed that learners at each level used about twice as many supportive moves in requests to equal status addressees as they did in requests to higher status addressees. However, as shown in table 4.82, this difference was not statistically significant. Furthermore, one-way ANOVA test was employed to examine whether levels under study differed significantly regarding the use of alerters and supportive moves in requests to different addressees. As shown in table 4.70 below, findings showed that learners differed significantly across levels in the use of alerters in both situations and in supportive moves in requests to equal status addressees. In order to find if learners showed significant variance across levels in the use of external modifiers in high and low imposition requests, one-way ANOVA test was conducted. As shown in table 4.86, findings indicated that significant differences were found across levels in both types of external modifiers (alerters, supportive moves) and in all types of requests: high and low imposition requests. In this section, findings regarding the use of external modifiers in different conditions of requests are examined in oral production data. Similar sociopragmatic analysis is conducted in free production data in the following section.

External modification: free production data

Unlike oral production data, free production data showed a much higher situational variation in the use of alerters and supportive moves in requests to higher and lower status addressees. Table 4.75 displays the frequency of external modifiers in free production data by dominance per level.

Findings showed that level 1 and level 2 learners used greater frequency of alerters in requests to higher status addressees (compare 75% in higher with 31% in equal status at level 1) compared to equal status addressees (110% in higher with 136% in equal status at level 2). Level 3 learners, on the other hand, showed a lower variation in their requests since they used a high comparable frequency of alerters in both requests to higher and equal status addressees (136% in higher and 129% in equal status addressees). Concerning the use of supportive moves, findings showed that learners at all levels used more supportive moves in requests to equal status addressees (186% at level 1, 330% at level 2, 400% at level 3) than in requests to higher status addressees (100% at level 1, 205% at level 2, 312% at level 3). However, differences in the use Second, those activities, tasks, exercises, and transcriptions of audio documents which focused on L2 requests but did not contain any explicit metapragmatic input about L2 requests were also considered in the analysis. Such activities were considered as an implicit means for learning L2 pragmatics for L2 learners ( see example 4.2 above).

Finally, activities which focused on other linguistic functions (tenses, story writing etc.) but included incidental requests were also included in the analysis. For example;

Example 4.3 (Level 2,New Enjoy,p. 59) Our rationale for considering such incidental requests as shown in example 4.3 above in the analysis was that these activities could also be a potential source of input and/or practice for learners since they repeatedly occurred in different activities, although their salience might be 4.4.3 L2 pragmatic input in textbooks at Level 3. Table 4.2.5 displays the frequency of activities containing L2 requests in selected textbooks at level 3. Findings showed that the total number of activities containing requests at this level (n=42) was smaller than both level 1 (n=108) and level 2 (n=56). However, activities with explicit focus on L2 requests were even more rare in textbooks at level 3. One exceptional example of an explicit metapragmatic input about L2 requests was found in "Meeting point" and "Password" each. For example;

Example 4.5 (Meeting point,p.242) However, in the rest of textbooks no such metapragmatic input was found. The number of activities with an implicit focus on L2 requests was also very small with only six examples at Compared to level 1, instances of metapragmatic input from teachers to learners were even lower at level 2 and no example of learner-learner pragmatic input was found at this level. However, no instance of metapragmatic input as part of (planned) classroom activities was found at level 2. The pupil in example 5.1 above made an excuse while explaining a problem related to the exposée (presentation) he was supposed to present on the given day. The pupil's excuse was taken as a hint by the teacher to move his presentation to the following class because his presentation was not ready. The decision for coding the learner's excuse as a request was made on the grounds that giving reasons and explanations for a future action is one of the nonconventional ways of making English requests [START_REF] Blum-Kulka | Playing it Safe: The Role of Conventionality in Indirectness[END_REF]. Moreover, the contextual clues such as the perlocutionary act by the teacher "(to another pupil) //okay// you want to go first?" confirmed the teacher's recognition of the learner' request and her moving on to the next pupil.

However, as noted in previous studies [START_REF] Trosborg | Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints, and Apologies[END_REF][START_REF] Hassall | Requests by Australian learners of Indonesian[END_REF], the increased use of hints, especially at level 1, can also be triggered by learners' limited pragmalinguistic resources rather than their conscious effort to be polite. As shown in example 5.2 below, a level evidence in this regard). Both groups used hearer dominant perspective increasingly unlike level 3 learners who showed a decrease in the use of hearer dominant perspective while adding other request perspectives (e.g., joint or impersonal perspectives) in their repertoire. Likewise, as shown in tables 5.5, 5.6, and 5.7 above, level 1 and level 2 learners showed limited development in the use of internal modifiers, external modifiers, and modals respectively. In comparison, a much higher development in the use of internal modifiers was found at level 3 (see tables 5.5, 5.6, and 5.7 above). More notable development at level 3 was found in the use of external modifiers especially Alerters in free production data (see table 5.9 below)level 3 learners used almost three times as many alerters (131%) as were used at level 1 (53%). Likewise, concerning the choice of request strategies, [START_REF] Blum-Kulka | Playing it Safe: The Role of Conventionality in Indirectness[END_REF] showed that native speakers used conventionally indirect strategy in about 82% of requests, whereas they used this strategy in 67% of requests in [START_REF] Trosborg | Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints, and Apologies[END_REF]. These findings indicated that English speakers prefer conventional indirectness, but its frequency varied from one study to another mainly due to different scenarios and methods involved. As shown in table 5.1 above, level 3 learners in the present study used conventional indirectness in about 90% of requests indicating somewhat overreliance on this strategy.

Likewise, on micro-level, learners relied on one specific strategy "Query Preparatory"

("Can I have a paper please?", COPT, #29, level 2) to be conventionally indirect compared to native speakers in [START_REF] Taguchi | Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English[END_REF][START_REF] Taguchi | The Effect of L2 Proficiency and Study-Abroad Experience on Pragmatic Comprehension: Proficiency, Study-Abroad, and Pragmatic Comprehension[END_REF] studies in which native speakers employed complex mitigated preparatory structures (e.g., "I was wondering if + verb"), which were almost absent from learners' requests in the present study.

formal nature of relationship between interlocutors.

Compared to other linguistic features (strategies, modifiers etc.), learners at all levels showed significant variation in the use of Alerters (e.g., "miss", "madam)" across requests to higher and equal status addressees (see tables 5.18 (below) and 4.75 in chapter 4). As expected, learners used a significantly higher frequency of Alerters in requests to higher status addressees compared to equal status addressees, mainly because using address terms such as "miss/madam" are commonly practiced during classroom English. Another notable feature of learners' external modifiers was that learners at all levels (especially level 3) used more supportive moves in requests to equal status addressees (classmates) than higher status addresses (see table 5.18

below and table 4.75 in chapter 4). The explanation for this finding could be that learners might have felt more at ease with equal status addressees to negotiate requests using supportive moves. Compared to interlocutors' social status, learners' requests were even less affected by the imposition of requests. Learners at all levels used similar perspectives (see tables 4.41, 4.45), external modifiers (see table 4.72), and modals (see table 4.83) both in high and low imposition requests. Some variation in this regard was found in the use of request strategies and internal modifiers. However, in both cases, findings were contrary to expectations: learners at all levels used direct strategies with greater frequency in high imposition requests (e.g., "Delay the test." #51, Level 1, COPT, item 3) compared to low imposition requests (e.g., "Can you move the left please?" #1, Level 1, COPT, item 9) in which a greater degree of indirectness/politeness could be expected (see table 5.19). Likewise, as shown in table 5.20 below, learners at all levels used a higher frequency of lexical modifiers (e.g., "please") in low imposition requests compared to high imposition requests which might require more redress. Overall, learners at all levels showed little sociopragmatic awareness concerning the effect of social variables (social status, imposition) on L2 requests. In order to examine if learners' limited pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic skills in L2 were affected by L1 transfer, learner COPT data is compared with L1 French COPT data in the following section.

Regarding the impact of imposition, learners showed little or no L1 transfer to their interlanguage, especially in the choice of request perspectives, strategies, and external modifiers (see appendix 20). However, learners indicated some L1 transfer in the use of lexical and phrasal downgraders (internal modifiers) by using slightly greater number of lexical modifiers ("please") in low imposition requests as compared to high imposition requests like French native speakers (as shown in table 5.27 below). Making a request in our daily life is very common. We make a lot of requests to our classmates, our friends, teachers or other people almost every day. Write down some of the requests that you usually make or the requests that you have seen other people making in your school. For example:  I asked my classmate to give me a pencil/pen.

 My friend asked the teacher to repeat the sentence.

 I asked my friend to give me his bicycle.  Identifier de quelle façon les activités menées en classe contribuent à l'apprentissage de la pragmatique de l'anglais.

 Découvrir si les manuels scolaires et les activités dans classes fournissent un apport suffisant pour favoriser l'acquisition de la composante pragmatique de l'anglais par les élèves. Les objectifs de la recherche sont les suivants :

Enregistrement des données

 Identifier de quelle façon les activités menées en classe contribuent à l'apprentissage de la pragmatique de l'anglais, et plus particulièrement de la pragmatique de la politesse.

 Vérifier si les élèves savent tirer parti de l'apprentissage de la pragmatique propre à l'anglais.

 Découvrir si les manuels scolaires fournissent un apport suffisant pour favoriser l'acquisition de la composante pragmatique de l'anglais par les élèves, et pour en faciliter l'utilisation.  Nous estimons à 3-4 heures la durée totale de participation à ce travail de recherche, et la répartition des séances dépendra de la disponibilité des professeurs entre février 2015 et juin 2015.

Enregistrement des données

Votre participation

Votre établissement fait partie d'une liste de collèges et de lycées sélectionnés, dont la direction a donné son accord pour que soit menée cette étude.

Possibilité de retrait

Les participants peuvent à tout moment mettre un terme à leur participation en prenant contact avec nous (cf. coordonnées ci-dessous) ; dans ce cas toutes leurs données seront retirées du projet.

Intérêt de cette étude

 Ce projet permettra d'identifier les difficultés rencontrées par les élèves français dans l'apprentissage de la pragmatique de l'anglais. Les enseignants et les élèves auront connaissance des résultats de la recherche.

 Si vous le souhaitez, à la fin du projet, nous pouvons organiser une présentation des résultats pour tous les enseignants de langue de votre établissement.

 Par le biais des discussions sur les séquences vidéo, les enseignants obtiennent des indications utiles sur l'apprentissage des langues et sur la manière d'enseigner.

Confidentialité et protection de la vie privée

La participation de votre établissement ne comporte aucun risque :

 dans le cadre de publications universitaires, l'identité des participants et celle de votre établissement ne seront pas précisées.

 Lors des séances d'enregistrement, la caméra sera positionnée de manière à visualiser la classe.

 Dans les publications écrites l'identité des participants sera protégée par un pseudonyme ou par une référence codée.

Coordonnées de l'équipe

Aisha Siddiqa Doctorat en Anglais siddiqa.aisha@etu.unice.fr Université de Nice Sophia-Antipolis 06 05 50 45 13 Laboratoire BCL : Bases, Corpus, langage -UMR 7320 24, avenue des diables bleus 06357 Nice CEDEX 4 Veuillez signifier votre accord sur les points ci-dessous en cochant la case correspondante :

Je confirme avoir lu la lettre d'information sur le projet de recherche et je dispose d'un moyen de contacter l'équipe de recherche. 3. An extract from the "Dracula" book is read in class by all learners. Later, many questions based on the extract are discussed in class focusing on the story line, the fears of the character, setting etc. In the end notes are given to learners who copy in their notebooks.

2

Understandin g many facets of fiction

Vocabulary

Reading, speaking, listening 3rd obs 1. A film extract is watched in a previous class. Several questions related to the extract are discussed in this class by several groups: Storyline, the feelings and thoughts of different characters and the effect of science on the characters' life. In the end, the teacher gives notes and learners copy.

Understandin g science fiction

Vocabulary, grammar

Listening, speaking Tables Appendix 18: Tables about textbook analysis Appendix.

Internal modification

Appendix. Le choix de l'acte de langue, la requête, dans le cadre de cette étude est motivé par diverses raisons. En premier lieu, l'importante focalisation de la recherche en PIL sur les requêtes fournit une structure solide sur laquelle de nouvelles perspectives de recherche peuvent s'appuyer [START_REF] Achiba | Learning to Request in a Second Language: Child Interlanguage Pragmatics[END_REF]. En second lieu, elle permet une comparaison avec d'autres recherches qui ont déjà mis l'accent sur ce sujet. Troisièmement, les requêtes sont très fréquentes dans les conversations quotidiennes, ce qui les rend importantes à maîtriser afin de maintenir des relations sociales saines [START_REF] Achiba | Learning to Request in a Second Language: Child Interlanguage Pragmatics[END_REF]. Parce que les requêtes font faire à l'allocutaire quelque chose pour le locuteur (en tant que faveur), cela peut apparaître agressif (face-threatening) pour l'allocutaire [START_REF] Brown | Politeness: Some Universals in language Use[END_REF]. Les locuteurs peuvent donc avoir besoin d'utiliser pragmatiques ont été trouvées dans les manuels de l'interlangue, ce qui a permis de mieux définir les connaissances des apprenants sur l'utilisation contextuelle appropriée des requêtes de L2.

Les implications pédagogiques de la présente étude indiquent qu'il existe un besoin évident d'intervention pédagogique dans les classes de L2, ce qui a également été souligné dans des études antérieures [START_REF] Félix-Brasdefer | Refusals in Spanish and English: A Cross-Cultural Study of Politeness Strategies among Speakers of Mexican Spanish, American English, and American Learners of Spanish as a Foreign Language[END_REF][START_REF] Bardovi-Harlig | Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics[END_REF]. En outre, cette étude suggère qu'une attention particulière devrait être accordée aux apprenants du collège car non seulement ils manquent de compétences grammaticales avec une utilisation limitée des ressources en ligne / multimédia, mais les enseignants des lycées semblent attendre d'eux qu'ils aient déjà acquis les aspects pragmatiques de la langue (par exemple, la politesse) au collège.

En général, l'instruction pragmatique cherche à déclencher le développement de la PIL à travers une contribution riche et en notant des aspects pragmatiques particuliers qui peuvent être accomplis à travers une gamme de structures grammaticales à moins qu'ils ne soient traités comme des règles grammaticales. D'autres stratégies pédagogiques pouvant potentiellement contribuer à l'enseignement pragmatique incluent la rétroaction immédiate aux apprenants, encourageant la participation spontanée des apprenants, mettant l'accent sur l'anglais pendant les cours, se concentrant sur le sens avant la forme et attirant l'attention des apprenants sur le contexte et l'utilisation de la langue [START_REF] Siddiqa | A developmental pragmatic study of politeness in EFL: learning to make requests in French secondary schools[END_REF].

En ce qui concerne le choix de la méthodologie, la triangulation de plusieurs méthodes dans cette étude a révélé plusieurs modèles de développement qui pourraient ne pas avoir été possibles en ne recourant qu'à une seule méthode. Par exemple, l'utilisation de la COPT et des jeux de rôle a montré les connaissances des apprenants (à des degrés divers) sur la réalisation des requêtes L2, mais des données authentiques représentaient la réalisation effective des requêtes.

Par rapport aux données obtenues, les apprenants peuvent ou non exposer l'étendue de leurs