A double shot 2% mocha latte, please, with whip: Service encounters in two coffee shops and at a coffee cart
Abstract
Introduction One would think that it is a simple task to order coffee. Intuitively, it is simple. “Can I have a cup of coffee?” seems an appropriate request realization. However, coffee is just not coffee anymore. With the advent of gourmet coffee carts and clever marketing, ordering a coffee is no longer a straightforward process. For the unsophisticated buyer, first-timer, let alone low-proficiency level second language learner, ordering a coffee can be a bewildering experience. There is a myriad of options to choose from: 2% milk, whipped cream, shots of nut or fruit flavored syrups, and double or triple shots of espresso. Your beverage can be iced, either blended, or on the rocks. The sizes are short (very small), tall (small), and venti (extra large). This seems to be a reflection of many service encounters today, where seemingly no order of drinks or food is spared a lengthy list of alternatives. This study reports on several representative dialogs in two coffee shops and at one coffee cart, which were taken from 168 audio-taped interactions. Their subsequent analysis reveals features found in native speaker to native speaker conversation, common to a variety of specialized and semi-specialized domains of language use. Furthermore, this analysis highlights the inadequacy of model dialogs presented in ESL textbooks, which ill-prepare ESL learners for the realities of everyday interactions. Even though this study focuses on the rather constrained task of ‘buying a coffee’, dialogs pertaining to the purchase of various drinks and snacks have been included.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Studies have often found LT materials writers' intuitions about language use to differ considerably from authentic language use, even in familiar everyday activities for which their textbooks are supposedly intended to prepare students.
“studies have often found LT materials writers' intuitions about language use to differ considerably from authentic language use, even in familiar everyday activities for which their textbooks are supposedly intended to prepare students (see, e.g., Auerbach & Burgess, 1985;Bartlett, 2005;Cathcart, 1989).”
From In Defense of Tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and Real Issues (2016) · cites this paper as Bartlett, 2005
Cited by
Sorted by citations
In Defense of Tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and Real Issues
Long, M. H. (2016) · Annual Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1017/s0267190515000057 · Cited by 359 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bartlett, N. J. D.
- Corresponding author
- Bartlett, Nicola J. Downey
- Venue
- Second Language Needs Analysis
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2005-10-18
- Pages
- 305-343
- OpenAlex
- W2486351027
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Keywords
- service encounters, coffee shop, specialized language, ESL textbooks, second language learners, customer service interaction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review