RHEINISCHE FRIEDRICH-WILHELMS-UNIVERSITÄT BONN

Institut für Anglistik, Amerikanistik und Keltologie

Presentation of the speech act of request in German and English textbooks

Contrastive Linguistics
Prof. Dr. Svenja Kranich
Sommersemester 2019

Hranush Hakobyan

Am Jesuitenhof 3, 53117 Bonn

s5hrhako@uni-bonn.de
Matrikel-Nr.: 3201101
2. Semester Bonn, 30.09.2019
Table of content

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Theoretical background ................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Defining requests ..................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Previous research on speech acts in textbooks .......................................................................... 4
3. Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Corpus and Data information……………………………………………………………………..5
3.2 Data analysis……………………………………………………………………………………...6
4. Results .............................................................................................................................................7
5. Discussion........................................................................................................................................9
6. Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................10
References.…………………………………………………………………………………………...11
Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………………...14
Appendix 1………………………………………………………………….......................................14
Appendix 2…………………………………………………………………………………………...18
 1 Introduction

It is now generally acknowledged that one of the vital aspects of communicative competence is
pragmatic competence (Backman and Palmer 2000; Eslami-Rasekh 2005), which needs the ability
to select and recognize the appropriate forms of utterance in a special context (Kasper & Rose
2002). This understanding has resulted in a new focus in the way the languages are learned and
instructed. One of the most major reasons for this shift of focus was the takeoff from prior
theoretical frameworks toward a more communicative point of view, which regards language
more than a disconnected set of grammatical rules.
In the foreign language context, learners are generally dependent on input from textbooks in
an endeavor to become communicatively competent. Thus, textbooks are confronted with the
challenge of providing input and opportunities for output in a range of areas, most outstanding
among them speech act realization. This paper focuses on the speech act of requests because they
are one of the most relevant linguistic forms to be learned at the beginner level in a foreign
language. The purpose of this study is to analyse and evaluate the linguistic presentation of request
strategies and the contextual information provided on the use of these linguistic forms (meta-
pragmatics) in German and English textbooks.
Previous analysis on textbooks has highlighted a paucity of illustration of specific speech acts
and also incomplete and inadequate representations of speech acts and the lack of meta-pragmatic
requests in learning materials have been investigated in comparison to other languages. The
differences of presentation of requests between German and English textbooks have never been
the focus of any of these studies, as it has been in other speech acts such as apologies or
complaints. Hence, as can be seen, there is some research to be done to fill this research gap. It is
hoped that this study may add to the cross-sectional interlanguage pragmatics research by
investigating the pragmatics competence in German and English textbooks, guided under the
following research questions:

 What are the request strategies used in German and English textbooks?
 How do textbooks present contextual and meta-pragmatic information for the facilitation of
learning the requests in English and German?

In order to do so, four different textbooks at beginner and elementary levels have been selected
for each language to investigate the presentation of request strategies in terms of acquisition
1
enhancement. All textbooks are frequently used in teaching German as Foreign Language (DaF) and
English as Foreign Language contexts. The textbooks are considered well-known in the international
market and are currently in offer, therefore they have been chosen for examination. The request
expressions found in textbooks would be analysed in terms of the amount and characteristics of
request strategies using a direct/indirect scala adopted from a study by Blum-Kulka, House, and
Kasper (1989).
Du to the fact that previous studies on differences between English and German speech acts
such as requests (House and Kasper 1987) have shown that English speakers seem to be more indirect
and polite than German speakers, it is expected that these conventional differences will be presented
in textbooks on lexical and contextual levels in order to develop learners’ pragmatic competence and
awareness.
The present paper is structured as follows. First of all, theoretical background information is
given on the definition of requests as well as on previous studies that have been conducted on requests.
The following chapter gives inside in the chosen data base, the data collection, and finally, in the data
analysis. Chapter four presents the results of the study, which are discussed in light of previous studies
as well as in light of the research question in chapter five. The final chapter concludes with a brief
summary of the paper and with some suggestions for future analysis.

2 Theoretical background

2.1 Defining requests

Requests are a type of speech act which has been in focus of discussions for a long time in the study
of pragmatics (Fukushima 2003). By requesting something the requestor tries to ask a favor of the
other person (Nelson et al. 2002). It contains some cost for the interlocutor, is mostly hearer-oriented
and needs some efforts from the hearer. Requests can be regarded as a constraint on the hearer’s
freedom of action and hence, there is a need to put politeness strategies into action in order to mitigate
their impositive force.
According to Trosborg three general strategies of requests (1995), namely direct forms, which
include performatives, imperatives and expressions implying obligation (“Please lend me your
dictionary ”), conventionally indirect forms, which may be either hearer or speaker oriented and
include those routinized expressions denoting polite behavior (“Could you lend me your

2
dictionary?”), and indirect forms or hints (“Do you have a dictionary?”) which imply opaque
language. Linguistically requests can be communicated by means of imperatives, declaratives, and
interrogatives (Taleghani-Nikazm 2010:321). Searle has proposed that the grammatical form of the
utterance is conventionally connected to the actions accomplished in speaking. For example,
interrogative sentence forms mean ‘asking whether’, declaratives ‘stating that’ and imperatives
‘requesting’ (Walker 2013:446).
According to Brown and Levinson (1987), direct requests seem to be intrinsically impolite
and face-threatening since they present in the addressee’s territory. They argue that in order to vary
politeness of a request the requester might rather employ indirect strategies. Scarle suggested that
"politeness is the most prominent motivation for indirectness in requests and certain forms tend to
become the conventionally polite ways of making indirect requests" (1975:76). Most studies follow
the framework created in the CCSARP (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989), where nine various sub-strategies
are differentiated, which are: mood derivable, performatives, hedged performatives, want statements,
obligation statements, suggestory formulae, query preparatory, strong hints and mild hints. Directness
and politeness are related to each other but they are not necessarily coextensive. Speakers of several
languages, including English, have been shown to perceive conventionally indirect requests as most
polite (Blum-Kulka 1987:131). On this level of directness the query preparatory is the most frequently
used strategy, which refers to the capacity or willingness to perform the speech act (Blum-Kulka et
al. 1989:18) and usually takes the form of an interrogative sentence containing the model verb can /
kann (Searke 1975).
Furthermore, Blum-Kulka (1989a) distinguishes between internal and external modifiers in
the request. The internal modifiers are employed to modify the impact of a request (downgraders and
upgraders), whereas external modifiers or supportive moves are supportive statements, whose
function is to perform desired request (alterters, grounders, disarmers, etc.) (Blum-Kulka 1989b).
In their study House and Kasper employed a directness level schema as an instrument to measure the
politeness degree in requests in German and in English. They claim that German speakers are more
direct in request strategies. As request is considered a face-threatening act both German and English
try to use some mitigating devices to show doubt, such as “vielleicht”, “mal”, “perhaps”, “possibly”
(House and Kasper 1981: 177-180) in order to soften the request. Another common element to modify
the, in both languages is the politeness marker “please” / “bitte” which serves to mitigate the request
whether it is used in imperative or interrogative structures.

3
2.2 Previous studies on the speech act presentation in textbooks

Instruction of pragmatic competence is considered as one of the most fundamental parts of foreign
language teaching and, therefore, has been in focus of many studies (Bardovi-Harlig 1996; Bardovi-
Harlig and Griffin 2005). This competence requires the capacity to select out
and recognize the expression forms of utterance appropriately in a particular context (Kasper and
Rose 2002). To put it in other words, this knowledge enables the speaker to communicate his/her
intents appropriately by means of speech acts within a given socio-cultural context of communication.
Acquisition of pragmatic competence according to the sociocultural rules and the knowledge
about which speech acts govern in a given language community make learners aware of what is valued
within a culture and how this is communicated. To develop their pragmatic competence, learners must
be provided with learning materials that offer authentic examples of speech act strategies (Muthusamy
and Farashaiyan 2016 c). Therefore, the importance of the language textbooks for the teaching speech
acts has been considered as a crucial issue to language learners (Diepenbroek and Derwing 2013).
Previous studies on language textbooks have pointed out that the amount and contents of pragmatic
strategies presented in textbooks are not satisfactory and that they offer learners little opportunity for
learning the given language pragmatics (Bardovi-Harlig 1996). ESL textbooks, particularly, have
been examined by many researchers, who claimed that the presentations and the contents of pragmatic
strategies had some problems from point of view of pragmatic acquisition (Scotton and Bernsten
1988; Bardovi-Harlig, Hartford, Mahn-Taylor, Morgan, and Reynolds 1991; Bouton 1996).
Candall and Basturkmen claimed that the conventional approach to improve pragmatic
competence in many language textbooks is ‘present learners with lists of “useful expressions” for
various speech acts’, and also noted that those lists typically present ‘explicit realizations of speech
acts rather than subtle and indirect ones,’ and ‘usually neglects to who when and for what purposes it
is appropriate to make a speech act, and which expressions would be appropriate in a particular
situation’ (2005: 38-39). Bardovi-Harlig et al. (1991) analysed the presentation of closing dialogues in
20 ESL textbooks and found that only 12 books included complete closings on a constant basis.
Nevertheless, requests are generally presented in textbooks very frequently, Bardovi-Harlig (1996)
suggested them to be perhaps the easiest to find of all the speech acts or conversational functions.
Schatte assumes in her study on German textbooks that the frequency of the speech acts of the request
is related to the variety of situations in which they can be applied (1995:88). Barron investigated in
her research an EFL textbook series employed in many schools in Germany and found that only few
request strategies and modification forms are introduced and that the contextual information is

4
presented implicitly (2016).
Many studies have investigated speech acts in language textbooks, especially in English
learning materials. But German and English textbooks have never been compared to each other
regarding to the speech act of request. Therefore, there is a clear need for further research.

3 Methodology

3.1 Corpus and Data information

In order to analyse and compare requests in German and English textbooks the present data has been
selected four different textbooks, which are aimed at adults and young people from the age of sixteen
who have no prior knowledge. These textbooks are: Schritte International 2 ( Niebisch et al. 2006)
Begegnungen (Busha and Szita 2013), New Headway (Soars and Soars 2004), English Elements
(Morris 2005). The selected textbooks are based on the requirements of the Common European
Framework of Reference and led to levels A1 and A2. For this study, textbooks were selected in the
beginner and elementary levels, as our interest was to find out how the speech acts of request are
presented at the very beginning of the foreign language learning. At these levels, basic everyday
situations and the most important speech acts are presented and practiced. The selection of the books
was carried out according to recommendations by teachers from the language school Bonnlingua,
where the above textbooks are currently used for the GFS (DaF) and EFS courses. Examination of
presentation of requests in each book will include the student book, the grammar parts, and transcripts
for listening activities.
The focus of analyses was on the exercises in the textbooks concentrating on the speech act of
requests. Moreover, the pragmatic examination was only on the finished conversations and the
uncompleted sentences were disregarded because of the intention of the speakers was not clear since
our primary rule in understanding the speech act was the illocutionary power of the speaker engaged
in the discussion. First, all the sentences of request were picked up and categorized according to
request strategies, and the number of the sentences in each category were counted. The number of
each request strategy shows how much the textbooks as a whole deal with the speech act of request,
while the number of strategies in each book tells each textbook’s attitude.
Second, the presentation of lexical forms and metapragmatic use of requests were examined
to reveal whether and to what extent the textbooks introduce different request forms (direct,
conventionally indirect and nonconventional indirect) and explore the contextual factors that affect

5
the degree of politeness. For this purpose, certain lessons from the textbooks explaining the structures
and use of public requests were examined.

3.1 Data analysis

For this study, the coding categories utilized were adopted from the Cross-Cultural Speech Act
Realization Project (CCSARP) to identify the used request strategies in selected data. As Table 1
illustrates, there are 9 different request strategies, which are characterized as the obligatory choices
of directness, by which the request is realized. These strategies classify the Head Act of the request.
The first five strategies, from mood derivable to want statements, are direct request strategies,
suggestory formula and quer preparatory strategies conventionally indirect strategies and the last two
startegies, strong and mild hints non-conventionally indirect strategies. In the present data hedged
performative, suggestory formula and mild hints have not been found and therefore no example is
given.

Table 1. Request strategies according to CCSARP

Request startegy Explanation Example

Mood derivable Utterances in which the grammatical Macht bitte die Handys aus! (SI 6)/
mood of the verb signals the Sit down quietly, Cyril. (HW 32)
illocutionary force
Explicit performative Utterances in which the illocutionary Ich bitte dich dein Zimmer
force is explicitly named. aufzuräumen. (BG 53)
Hedged performative Utterances in which the illocutionary -
force is named, but in which it is also
modified by hedging expressions
Locution derivable Utterances in which the illocutionary Es ist schon 7 Uhr! Du must aufstehen!
force is evident from the semantic (SI 35)
meaning of the locution.
Want statement Utterances which state the speaker’s Ich möchte bitte mit Herrn Maler
desire that the act is carried out. sprechen. (SI 56) / I´d like some
orange juice, please.(HW 7)
Suggestory formulae Utterances which contain a -
suggestion to do x.

6
 Query preparatory Utterances in which the preparatory Can I borrow your ashtray? (EE 4) /
conditions of a request (e.g., ability, Würdest du mir mal helfen? (BG4)
willingness, possibility) are
addressed as conventionalized in any
specific language.
Strong hint Utterances containing a partial Do you have a dictionary? (HW 21)
reference to objects or elements
needed for the implementation of the
act.
Mild hint Utterances containing no direct -
reference to objects or elements
needed for the implementation of the
act. Instead, the hearer is forced to
interpret the relevance of the utterance
in relation to the context

4 Results

Request strategies
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Schritte International Begegnungen New Headway English Elements

Figure 1: Representation of request strategies in German and English textbooks

7
As figure 1 illustrates, German and English textbooks differ in the amount of the use of mood
derivable, locution derivable, and want statement strategies, which are prominent in German
textbooks. Neither of them uses hedged performative, suggestory formula, and mild hint strategies,
and the explicit performative and strong hint strategies were used only once.
Moreover, the strategy preparatory is most frequently used in all four textbooks. However, the
German textbooks tend to use the strategy mood derivable significantly more often than English
textbooks, which seem to prefer preparatory strategy as more indirect request strategy.

Furthermore, as figure 2 reveals, German textbooks tend to use more indirect request strategies
whereas English textbooks use mainly conventionally indirect strategies. Only one non-conventional
indirect strategy example was found in the textbook English Elements.

Figure 2: Representation of indirectness level of request strategies used in German and English
textbooks

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Direct request strategies Conventionally direct strategies Non-conventional indirect
strategies

Schritte International Begegnungen New Headway English Elements

Turning to the metapragmatic presentation of requests, in particular lessons both German and English
textbooks present indirect request structures as more polite (see pictures 1, 2, 3, 4,), namely
conditional interrogative sentences (Could you…? Would you…?) in English and Konjunktiv II
(Könnten Sie…? Würden Sie…?) in German.
The German textbooks (pic. 1, 2), however, show the degree of politeness by comparing imperative
and subjunctive (Konjunktiv II), which is missed in English books. Only in New Headway (pic. 4) is

8
given a short explanation about when to use 'Can/Could I…?' (to ask for things) and 'Can/Could
you..?' (to ask other people to do something for us).
In the presented page of Schritte International (pic. 2), subjunctive structures are considered
friendly whereas imperative structures are seen as unfriendly. In exercises C2 und C3 are presented
pictures which shows formal situations (in the office, in a restaurant). Learners are requested to form
similar sentences as in example (C2) and complete the requests according to the pictures (C3).
In the second German textbook Begegnungen (pic. 1) explains the difference between
subjunctive and imperative structures as follows: When using subjunctive, the request sounds very
polite. This form is common in business life. In the following exercise, learners have to transform the
given sentences in more polite forms.
Finally, neither of the textbooks provides information regarding the politeness maker “please”
or “bitte” or other mitigation devices such as “vielleicht”, “mal”, “einfach”, “doch”. Nevertheless,
they are used in requests very often, as they function as illocutionary force indicating devices in bothe
interrogative and imperative sentences (House and Kasper 1981: 177-180).

5 Discussion

The aim of this study is to investigate which request strategies are used in German and English
textbooks and how are they presented with regard to metapragmatic explanations. The following
section will discuss these questions.
First of all, quantitative analysis has shown differences between the presentation of speech act of
request in German and English textbooks. These textbooks, as in Barron’s study, do not have
adequate examples of all types of requests. As discussed above, Blum-Kulka (1989) differentiates
nine request strategies. In this study, only six have been found. This might be due to the data collection
method or the limited number of used textbooks. This may also be due to the fact that only beginner
levels of textbooks were considered in the study. At this level students are not expected to learn more
complicated aspects of language. However, the aim of present study was to analyse which request
strategies textbooks provide to beginner learners.
The results of this research have shown that both German and English textbooks seem to use
most frequently preparatory strategies, which are according to Blum-Kulka, conventionally indirect
forms. In comparison to English textbooks the German books utilize mood derivable strategies, which
are regarded as most direct ones in the scale of request strategies, more often. Imperative structures

9
can be found in both German books very frequently and hence their use can be considered to be more
common in the German language. Consequently the claim that requests in German language are more
direct can be approved.
Furthermore, the findings are also suggestive of the fact that textbooks do not provide enough
appropriate input about the contextual use of requests. In particular, English textbooks lack an
explanation of meta-pragmatic information on politeness issues or norms. This is supported by Barron
(2016) who maintains the paucity of meta-pragmatic information in EFL textbooks claiming that
‘contextual constraints are generally communicated implicitly only and there is a general danger of
overgeneralization’. However, it should be noted that the German textbooks at least provide some
information and explanations about the different forms of direct/indirect or polite/impolite requests
to learners, which unfortunately is not the case in the English textbooks.

6 Conclusion

The present paper has contrasted the request strategies and their expression in German and English
textbooks. The hypothesis was that the German requests are supposed to be more direct than requests
in English and that the textbooks should show this difference on lexical and meta-pragmatical levels.
The research has shown that German textbooks use more direct request strategies namely mood
derivable, locution derivable, want statement. The query preparatory is the most used strategy in all
textbooks. The dominant request strategy in German textbooks is the direct form, whereas English
textbooks tend to use more conventionaly indirect request strategies namely query preparatory. It is
also found that three of the strategies, namely hedged performative, suggestory formula, and mild hint
are not dealt with and that there is no explanation provided about mitigating devices such as “please”,
“bitte”, “mal” etc.
Thy hypothesis that has been made earlier in this paper, is only partly correct. As expected,
the requests in German textbooks were more direct than in English textbooks. However, all textbooks,
especially English textbooks, do not appropriately present contextual and meta-pragmatic information
about use of requests forms.
For the foreign and second language learners, it might be difficult to use these speech acts as
the strategies and lexical and grammatical means might differ in L1 massively. Sociopragmatic
knowledge is necessary for learners to be aware of these differences and know how to use request
strategies correctly. Thus, it is argued that there is a need in providing an adequate explanation of
rules of use due to the facilitation of learners’ development of pragmatic competence in EFL and
GFL contexts.
10
 However, every study has its limitation and the present on is no exception of this rule. First of
all, the study only investigates in four textbooks, which is clearly not enough in order to generalize it
for whole ESL and GSL materials. Future research can investigate other aspects of pragmatics in the
selected textbooks. In order to have more representative results, studies with much more data have to
be conducted.

References

 Bachman L., & Palmer, A. (2000). Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

 Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Griffin, R. (2005). L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL
classroom. (pp. 401-415) System.

 Bardovi-Harlig, K., (1996). Pragmatics and Language Teaching: Bringing Pragmatics and
Pedagogy Together. (pp. 21-40), in L.F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Division of English as an International Language,
Urbana, IL.

 Barron, A., (2016). Developing Pragmatic Competence Using EFL Textbooks. Lüneburg:
Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal 1(7).

 Bouton, L. F. (1996). Pragmatics and Language Learning. University of Illinois, Urbana-

Champaign: Division of English as an International Language.

 Boxer, D and Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT
materials: the case of complaints. (pp. 44–58) ELT Journal.

 Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in request: Same or different? Journal of

Pragmatics (pp. 131-146) 11.

 Blum-Kulka, S., J. House, and G. Kasper (1989) Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and
apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

11
 Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989a). Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics: An
introductory overview. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural
pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp.1-34). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.

 Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989b). The CCSARP coding manual. In S. Blum-
Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies
(pp.273-294). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.

 Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 Derwing, T., Diepenbroek, L. & Foote, J. A. (2012). How well do general textbooks address
pronunciation? (pp. 22-23) TESL Canada Journal, 30(1)
 Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2005). Raising the pragmatic awareness of language learner. (pp.191-208)
ELT Journal 59(3).
 Fukushima, Saeko. (1996). Requests Strategies in British English and Japanese. (pp. 671-688).
Language Sciences 18 (3).

 Heinemann, T. (2006). ‘Will you or can’t you?’: Displaying entitlement in interrogative

requests. Journal of Pragmatics, (pp.1081-1104)38.

 House, J., & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In Coulmas, F.
(Ed.), Conversational Routine (pp. 157-294). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.

 Muthusamy, P., & Farashaiyan, A. (2016c). How Iranian EFL instructors teach L2 pragmatics
in their classroom practices? A Mixed-Methods Approach (pp. 166-178), ELT Journal, 9(5).

 Nelson, G. L., Carson, J., Al-Batal, M. M., & El Bakary, W. (2002). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics:
Strategy Use in Egyptian Arabic and American English Refusals (pp.63-189). Applied
Linguistics, 23(2),

 Rose, K.R (2000) An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic

development (pp.27-67). Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press

12
  Schatte, C. (1995). Höflichkeitsformeln in Lehrbüchern des Deutschen als Fremdsprache.
Glottodidaktika (pp. 83-92). Poznan: International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(23).

 Searle, J. R. (1976). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 Taleghani-Nikazm, C. (2010). Requests and orders: A cross-linguistic study of their linguistic

construction and interactional organization. In Andersen, G. & Aijmer, K. (Eds.), Pragmatics
of Society (pp. 321-360). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

 Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints, and apologies. New

York: Mouton de Gruyter.

 Walker, T. (2013). Requests. In Sbisa, M. & Turner, K. (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics:

Pragmatics of speech actions (pp. 445-466). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Textbooks

 Mooris, S. (2005). English Elements. Refresher A2. Ismaning: Hueber.

 Buscha, A. & Szita, S. (2013). Begegnungen A2. Leipzig: Schubert.
 Niebisch, D., Penning-Hiemstra, S., Sprecht, F., Bovermann, M., Reinmann, M. (2006). Schritte
International 2. Ismaning: Hueber.
 Soars, L. & Soars, G. (2004). New Headway Elementary. New York: Oxford

13
Appendices

Appendix1
Picture 1. Begegnungen A2

14
Picture 2. Schritte International A1

15
Picture 3. English Elements A2

16
Picture 4. New Headway Elementary

17
Appendix 2

1. Schritte International 2
2. Können Sie das bitte wiederholen (S.19)
3. Unterschreiben Sie bitte hier.
4. Mach das Fenster zu!
5. Kinder, seid leise! Sieh doch im Korb nach!
6. Macht bitte die Handys aus! (S.21)
7. Können Sie das bitte erklären?
8. Gehen Sie bitte zur Touisteninformation.
9. Fragen Sie dort bitte mal nach.
10. Fahr langsam!
11. Seien Sie leise!
12. Papa, du must das Handy ausmachen. Du darfst hier nicht telefonieren.
13. Wie bitte? (S.22)
14. Können Sie mir helfen? (S.24)
15. Hört zu!
16. Seien Sie leise! (S.25)
17. Ich brauche bitte einen Termin für eine Rückenmassage.
18. Ich möchte den Termin bitte verschieben.
19. Kann ich bitte schon heute kommen?
20. Kann ich den Termin auf Dienstag verschieben. (S.34)
21. Entschuldigen Sie ich brauche eine Auskunft. (S.44)
22. Das Licht funktioniert nicht mehr. Können Sie einen Technicker schicken?
23. Könnten Sie bitte heute noch die Rechnung hier bezahlen? (S.51)
24. Können Sie villeicht meiene Sonnenbrille reparieren? Sie ist kaputt
25. Würden Sie vielleicht einen Moment warten? Herr Graf telefoniert gerade.
26. Reparieren Sie die Brille!
27. Hier darf man nicht rauchen. Machen Sie die Zigarette aus!
28. Könnten Sie bitte heute noch die Rechnung hier bezahlen?
29. Könntest du bitte das Fenster aufmachen? (S.52)
30. Ihr müsst noch bitte Milch kaufen.
18
31. Sofia kann jetzt nicht mitkommen. Sie muss das Zimmer aufräumen.
32. Peter, du gehst jetzt bitte in dein Zimmer.
33. Du musst deine Hausaufgaben machen!
34. Schluss jetzt! Ihr müsst morgen einen Test schreiben!
35. Es ist schon 7 Uhr! Du musst aufstehen! (S.92)
36. Hallo! Du musst aufstehen, es ist sechs Uhr!
37. Ihr könnt jetzt nicht fernsehen, ihr müsst noch Hausaufgaben machen.
38. Du must langsam sprechen. Ben kann nicht so gut Deutsch.(S.93)
39. Komm, es ist schon spät. Wir müssen nach Hause gehen.
40. Schreib bitte bald!
41. Komm bitte!
42. Lies bitte den Text!
43. Iss nicht so schnell!
44. Marsel, sei bitte leise!
45. Mirna, mach bitte das Fenster zu! (S.95)
46. Kann ich Frau Kaiser sprechen?
47. Warten Sie bitte einen Moment.
48. Kann ich bitte den Stift haben?(S.96)
49. Ich möchte bitte ein Einzelzimmer mit Bad. (S.99)
50. Schreiben Sie bitte Ihren Namen. (S.106)
51. Geh nicht so spat ins Bett!
52. Sprich bitte langsam!
53. Unterschreiben Sie hier bitte!
54. Wartet bitte hier!
55. Räum bitte dein Zimmer auf! (S. 108)
56. Ich möchte bitte Hern Meier sprechen.
57. Koch doch bitte mein Lieblingsessen und mach auch einen Kuchen.
58. Kaufst du bitte auch fünf Flaschen Multivitaminsaft?
59. Könnten Si emir bitte Feuer geben? (S.111)
60. Ich möchte bitte eine Fahrkarte nach Schwein. (S.121)
61. Würden Sie bitte vorbeikommen?

19
62. Mein Fernseher ist kaput. Kommen Sie doch bitte vorbei.
63. Ruf bitte bald an.
64. Rufen Sie bitte später noch einmal an.
65. Kaufst du bitte Briefmarken. Vielen Dank!
66. Frau Köster, buchen Sie bitte den Flug nach Wien.
67. Wo ist die Goethestraße? Erklären Sie mir bitte den Weg.
68. Mach den Fernseher aus!
69. Mach bitte die Haustür aus!
70. Mach bitte überall das Licht aus!

1. New Headway Elementary

1. Would you like some more carrots?

2. Could you pass the salt, please?
3. Could I have a glass of water, please? (p.19)

4. This is delicious! Can you give me the recipe?

5. Can I have the last seat, please?
6. Can I have a message?
7. I’d like some orange juice, please.
8. Can I have some pizza with cheese and tomatoes, please?
9. Could you tell me the time, please?
10. Can you take me to school?
11. Can I see the menu, please? (p.25)
12. Could you send me some money, please?
13. Can you help me with my homework, please?
14. Can I borrow your dictionary, please?
15. Can I have a bread, please?
16. Can I have some salad, please?(p.27)
17. Can I have two ice-creams, please?

20
18. Can I sit here, Mr. McSporran?
19. Be quiet and SIT DOWN! (p. 29)
20. Excuse me, can you tell me the time, please?
21. Do you have a dictionary? I’m sorry, I don’t. It’s at home.
22. Can I have a film for my camera?(p.35)
23. Can I speak to the manager, please?
24. Can I speak to Joe, please? (p.51)
25. Come on, Tommy, say hello to Auntie Mavis.
26. Don’t be shy.
27. Can I have the recipe? (p.63)
28. I’d like some ice-cream, please.
29. Can I have a bread, please?
30. I’d like some fruits, please.(p.69)
31. Don´t do that, Cyril.
32. Sit down quietly, Cyril. Now, listen, I´m going to tell you a story!
33. Hello. A return to Bristol, please.
34. Can I have your ticket, please?
35. Can I have a seat next to the window? (p.73)
36. Can you tell me the times of trains from Bristol to Oxford, please? (p. 121)

2. English Elements

1. Can you lend it to me? (p.69)

2. Can I take this chair?
3. Can I look at your menu?
4. Can I borrow your ashtray?
5. Can I have the salt and paper?
6. Is it OK if I smoke?
7. Is it OK if I open the window?
8. Can I take your plate? (p.85)

21
9. Can I take your coat?
10. Give us a ring when you arrive in Sydney.(p.101)
11. Can you spell your name, please?
12. Have you got the time?
13. Could you book me a rental car for next Monday? (p.117)
14. Can you spell his first name?
15. Can you spell his surname?
16. Can you spell that, please, Ludmilla? (p.134)
17. I’d like to book a hotel room, please.
18. Can I have your name, please?
19. Can I have your telephone number, please?
20. Can you repeat that please? (p.135)
21. Can you lend me some money?
22. Can you turn on the TV, please? (p.136)
23. Can I take a message?
24. Can I have his mobile number? (p.137)
25. Could you phone a taxi for me about four thisty?
26. Could you possibly lend me 15$ to pay the taxi?
27. Could you lend me one, just for this morning?
28. Could you staple these papers for me?
29. Please be careful with it, sweetheart.
30. Put it somewhere safe because it’s really quite expensive. (p.138)
31. Could you ring me back as soon as possible to let me know if you can attend? (p.140)

3. Begegnungen A2
1. Könnt ihr den Fernseher leiser stellen?
2. Gibst du mir bitte dei Fernbedienung? (S.63)
3. Könnte ich bitte Herrn Schröder sprechen?
4. Würdest du mir mal helfen?
5. Könnten Sie die E-Mail gleich beantworten?

22
6. Hätten Sie nächste Woche Zeit?
7. Könnte ich Frau Schulze sprechen?
8. Kann ich bitte Frau Müller sprechen?
9. Können Sie mir bei diesem Problem helfen?
10. Können Sie mich mit Herrn Kummer verbinden?
11. Zeigen Sie mir bitte das Dokument.
12. Bringst du mir bitte ein Lachsbrötchen mit?
13. Kopieren Sie das bitte für alle Mitarbeiter.
14. Können Sie die Tür öffnen?
15. Kannst du mir mal dein Auto leihen? (S.104)
16. Frau Krüger, würden Sie bitte das Fenster öffnen?
17. Könntest du mir mal dein Auto leihen? (S.105)
18. Könnten Sie mich mit Herr Kummer verbinden?
19. Ich hätte gern ein ein Glas Mineralwasser.
20. Könnten Sie Ihren Namen buchstabieren?
21. Ich würde gerne mit Ihnen einen Termin vereinbaren. (S.106)
22. Könnten Sie mir sagen, wo Frau Krause ist?
23. Könnten Sie mir bitte sagen, wann Herr Schramm zurückkommt?
24. Hätten Sie vielleicht eine Briefmarke für mich?
25. Könnten Sie bitte sagen, ob die Chefin heute noch kommt? (S.111)
26. Kann ich mal kurz Ihren Stift leihen?
27. Kann ich den Brief mal sehen?
28. Haben Sie ein Glas Wasser für mich?
29. Frau Krumm, schreiben Sie bitte ein Protokoll.
30. Kann ich den Termin noch ändern?
31. Können Sie ein bisschen lauter sprechen?
32. Kann ich mal Ihr telefon benutzen? (S.121)
33. Ich möchte gern eine Reise buchen.
34. Ich möchtendas Zimmer gerne buchen.
35. Bitte fahren Sie mich zum Bahnhof,
36. Kannst du mir Aspirintabletten mitbringen, wenn du zur Apotheke gehst?

23
37. Hören Sie sofort damit auf!
38. Mach das nie wieder! (S.176)
39. Könnte ich bitte noch ein Bier haben?
40. Wir möchten dann zahlen.
41. Würdest du mich mit dem Auto mitnehmen?
42. Würden Sie noch heute die Einladung versenden?
43. Wir hätten gerne die Rechnung (S.203)
44. Karin, kannst du bitte die Gläser auf den Tisch stellen? (S.208)
45. Kannst du bitte für Martina einen Blumenstrauß mitnehmen, wenn du sie im Krankenhaus
besuchst?
46. Würdest du bitte das Protokoll schreiben.
47. Machst du bitte das Licht aus, wenn du ins Bett gehst? (S.210)
48. Hilfst du mir die Küche aufzuräumen?
49. Bitte hör auf, so laut zu singen!
50. Darf ich Sie bitten, im Treppenhaus nicht zu rauchen?
51. Würden Sie bitte die Musik leiser machen?
52. Würden Sie bitte aufhören, nachts Oper zu singen?
53. Könnten Sie bitte meine Zeitung nicht mehr aus meinem Briefkasten nehmen?
54. Ich bitte dich, dein Zimmer aufzuräumen.
55. Kann ich bitte Herrn Sommer sprechen?
56. Zeigen Si emir den Weg zur Kantine?
57. Reparieren Sie den Kopierer ganz schnell!
58. Können Sie mich vom Bahnhof abholen?
59. Könnten Si emir Ihren Kugelschreiber leihen?
60. Hast du eine warme Münze für mich? (S.241)
61. Würden Sie mir einen Kaffee bringen?
62. Kannst du mich heute anrufen?
63. Frau Kümmel, geben Sie bitte die Kaffeekanne
64. Kannst du bitte die Lampe neben das Sofa stellen? (S.243)

24
25