Cover not available
Article In:
Thematic Issue: Trends in Second Language Pragmatics Research Part 2
[Applied Pragmatics 6:2] 2024
► pp. 183–196

Mixed methods research in L2 pragmatics

ORCID logo | Daegu National University of Education
In this article, I discuss current research issues and practices in second language (L2) pragmatics research, focusing on how mixed methods are applied in the existing literature. The paper begins by introducing fundamental principles and three core mixed methods approaches, in each case synthesizing unique characteristics in terms of the integration of qualitative and quantitative methods and data interpretation. A critical review of different mixed methods approaches intends to help readers understand the strengths and weaknesses of each approach and make a principled decision. I then provide an overview of the recent trend in applying mixed methods in L2 pragmatics research, examining research purposes and the type of mixed methods designs utilized. I also offer an in-depth discussion of exemplary L2 pragmatics research that employed mixed methods focusing on underlying rationales for using the mixed methods and ways to achieve high degrees of integration at various stages of the study. The paper concludes with challenges in applying mixed methods and suggestions on how to advance the current practice of mixed methods in L2 pragmatics in future research.
Keywords: mixed methods research, L2 pragmatics, qualitative research, quantitative research, research design
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Types of mixed methods research
  • 3.Survey of current literature on L2 pragmatics research using mixed methods
  • 4.Conclusion and future directions for mixed methods L2 pragmatics research
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (32)
References
Alcón-Soler, E., & Safont, P. (2018). Editors’ introduction to mixed method approaches in investigating pragmatic learning. System, 75 1, 1–3. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barón, J., Celaya, M. L., & Levkina, M. (2020). Learning pragmatics through tasks: When interaction plays a role. Applied Pragmatics, 2 1, 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Black, E., & Barron, A. (2018). Learner pragmatics at the discourse level: Staying “on topic” in a telecollaborative eTandem task. System, 75 1, 33–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. D. (2014). Mixed methods research for TESOL. Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, S. (2021). Development and validation of a web-based L2 pragmatic speaking test in the university context. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Northern Arizona University.
Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.Google Scholar
Dai, D. W. (2022). Design and validation of an L2-Chinese interactional competence test. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The University of Melbourne.
Gesuato, S. (2018). Mixed methods in raising sociopragmatic awareness: A proposal for combining insights from the teacher’s feedback and the interlocutor’s point of view. System, 75 1, 48–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greene, J. C. (2006). Toward a methodology of mixed methods social inquiry. Research in the Schools, 13 1, 93–98.Google Scholar
Hashimoto, B. J., & Nelson, K. (2020). Using a corpus in creating and evaluating a DCT. Applied Pragmatics, 2 1, 80–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, M-F., & Wang, Y-F. (2020). Effects of pragmatic instruction on EFL teenagers’ apologetic email writing: Comprehension, production, and cognitive processes. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 60 1, 759–797. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martín-Laguna, S., & Alcón-Soler, E. (2018). Development of discourse-pragmatic markers in a multilingual classroom: A mixed method research approach. System, 75 1, 68–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicholas, A. (2020). Dynamic assessment and requesting: Assessing the development of Japanese EFL learners’ oral requesting performance interactively. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17 1, 545–575. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, M. T. T., & Pham, T. T. T. (2022). Instructional effects of L2 pragmatic comprehension: The case of indirect refusals and indirect opinions. The Language Learning Journal, 50 1, 427–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ockey, G., & Chukharev-Hudilainen, E. (2021). Human versus computer partner in the paired oral discussion test. Applied Linguistics, 42 1, 924–944. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Portolés, L., & Safont, P. (2018). Examining authentic and elicited data from a multilingual perspective. The real picture of child requestive behavior in the L3 classroom. System, 75 1, 81–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riazi, A. M., & Candlin, C. N. (2014). Mixed-methods research in language teaching and learning: Opportunities, issues and challenges. Language Teaching, 47 1, 135–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roever, C. & Ikeda, N. (2022). What scores from monologic speaking tests can(not) tell us about interactional competence. Language Testing, 39 1, 7–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, S. J., & Hong, Y. (2019). Mixed methods in L2 pragmatics research. In N. Taguchi (Ed.). The routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 212–225). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sánchez-Hernández, A. (2018). A mixed-methods study of the impact of sociocultural adaptation on the development of pragmatic production. System, 75 1, 93–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2018). Description and explanation of pragmatic development: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research. System, 75 1, 23–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) (2019). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavior research. Sage.Google Scholar
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 3–50). Sage.Google Scholar
(2006). A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods. Research in the Schools, 13 1, 12–28.Google Scholar
Timpe-Laughlin, V., & Dombi, J. (2020). Exploring L2 learners’ request behavior in a multi-turn conversation with a fully automated agent. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17 1, 221–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yang, H., & Ren, W. (2019). Pragmatic awareness and second language learning motivation: A mixed-methods investigation. Pragmatics & Cognition, 26 1, 447–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y. (2021). Combining computer-mediated communication with data-driven instruction: EFL learners’ pragmatic development of compliment responses. System, 103 1, 102624. DOI logoGoogle Scholar