Cover not available
Article published In:
ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 171:1 (2020) ► pp.113–141

Second language pragmatics development through different instructional techniques

Focus on speech act of criticizing

| University of Isfahan
| University of Isfahan
| University of Isfahan
This study investigated the effectiveness of three types of instruction on learning the speech act of criticizing by 100 Iranian learners of English. For 10 weeks, the consciousness raising group (N = 27), input enhancement group (N = 23), and ZPD (Zone of Proximal Development)-sensitive group (N = 25) participated in the study. The three treatment groups were compared with a control group (N = 25) on pre-tests, immediate and delayed posttests performance of discourse completion test and role-play test. The results revealed that treatment groups significantly improved and outperformed the control group. They maintained their improvement in the delayed posttest. In addition, the results showed the superiority of ZPD-sensitive instruction in relation to two other methods, and better performance of consciousness raising instruction than input-enhancement method. Finally, by interviewing the participants, the researchers could understand the opinions of learners about the instructions they received. The findings and implications are discussed.
Keywords: consciousness raising instruction, input enhancement instruction, ZPD-sensitive instruction, speech act of criticizing, Discourse Completion Test, Role-play test
Article outline
  • Introduction
    • Pragmatic instruction methods
    • Specific instructional techniques instead of explicit/implicit approaches
    • Beyond cognitive-based instruction: ZPD-sensitive pragmatics instruction as a subset of sociocultural paradigms
    • Pragmatic assessment measures
    • Speech act of criticizing
  • Method
    • Participants
    • Instruments
      • TOEFL
      • Discourse completion test (DCT)
      • Role-play (RP) test
      • Interview
    • Procedure
      • Consciousness-raising instruction
      • Input-enhancement instruction
      • ZPD-sensitive instruction
      • Control group
  • Results
    • DCT: Immediate and delayed post-tests
    • RP: Immediate and delayed post-tests
      • Instruction efficacy
      • Interesting tasks and tests
      • L1 pragmatic awareness
      • Classroom atmosphere
      • Clarity levels
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion and implications
  • References
Published online: 25 June 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.17001.zaf
References (59)
References
Alcon Soler, E. (2007). Fostering EFL learners’ awareness of requesting through explicit and implicit consciousness-raising tasks. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.). Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 221–241). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543–574. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: grounds for instruction in pragmatics. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 13–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 151, 279–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 111, 671–684. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel, (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Dornyei, Z. (1997). Psychological processes in cooperative language learning: group dynamics and motivation. The Modern Language Journal, 811, 482–893. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. J. (1994). Fine-tuning of feedback by competent speakers to language learners. In J. Alatis (Ed.), GURT 1993: Strategic interaction (pp. 96–108). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Edstrom, A. (2015). Triads in the L2 classroom: Interaction patterns and engagement during a collaborative task. System, 521, 26–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eslami, Z. R., & Eslami-Rasekh, A. (2008). Enhancing the pragmatic competence of non-native English-speaking teacher candidates (NNESTCs) in an EFL context. In E. Alcón-Soler & A. Martínez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 178–197). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Maters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eslami, Z. R., & Liu, C. N. (2013). Learning pragmatics through computer-mediated communication in Taiwan. International Journal of Society, Culture, and Language, 1(1), 52–73.Google Scholar
Fordyce, K. (2014). The differential effects of explicit and implicit instruction on EFL learners’ use of epistemic stance. Applied Linguistics, 35(1), 6–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. (1988). Integrating research areas: a framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics, 91, 198–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghobadi, A., & Fahim, M. (2009). The effect of explicit teaching of English thanking formulas on Iranian EFL intermediate level students at English language institutes. System, 371, 526–537. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hancock, E. S. & Gallard, A. J. (2004). Pre-service science teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning: The influence of K-12 field experiences. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15 (4), 281–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S. (2000). “Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition?” TESOL Quarterly, 2(34), 239–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jeon, E., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development: a meta-analysis. In: John, Norris, Ortega, Loudres (Eds.), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 165–211). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G. (2001). Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 33–60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2008). The effect of the second language on the first language: The dual language approach. Babylonia, 21, 31–34.Google Scholar
Kubota, M. (1995). Teachability of conversational implicature to Japanese EFL learners. IRLT Bulletin 91, 35–67.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Sociocultural theory and second language learning research: An exegesis. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 335–353). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2011). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development, Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 11–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Q. (2012). Effects of instruction on adolescent beginners’ acquisition of request modification. TESOL Quarterly, 46 (1), 30–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2013). Amount of practice and pragmatic development of request-making in L2 Chinese. In N. Taguchi & J. M. Sykes (eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 43–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LoCastro, V. (2003). An introduction to pragmatics: Social action for language teachers. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 201, 51–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martinez-Flor, A., & Fukuya, Y. (2005). The effects of instruction on learners’ production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. System, 331, 463–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Memari Hanjani, A., & Li, L. (2014). Exploring L2 writers’ collaborative revision interactions and their writing performance. System, 441, 101–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ments, V. M. (1999). The effective use of role-play: practical techniques for improving learning. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
Nabei, T., & Swain, M. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: a case study of an adult EFL student’s second language learning. Language awareness, 11(1), 45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, T. T. M. (2005). Criticizing and responding to criticisms in a foreign language: a study of Vietnamese learners of English. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Auckland, Auckland.Google Scholar
(2008). Criticizing in an L2: Pragmatic strategies used by Vietnamese EFL learners. Intercultural Pragmatics. 5 (1), 41–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Instructional effects on the acquisition of modifiers in constructive criticism by EFL learners. Language Awareness, 22(1), 76–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, T. T. M., Pham, T. H., & Pham, M. T. (2012). The relative effects of explicit and implicit form-focused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic competence. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(4), 416–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Qing, X. (2011). Role-play an effective approach to developing overall communicative competence. Cross-Cultural Communication, 7(4), 36–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rose, K. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 331, 385–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rose, K. R. & K. F. Ng. (2001). Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments and compliment responses. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 145–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning, and interlanguage pragmatics. In: Gabriele, Kasper, Blum-Kulka, Shoshana (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 21–42). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input-enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 151, 165–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 201, 286–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simin, S., Z. Eslami, A. Eslami-Rasekh & S. Ketabi. (2014). The effects of explicit teaching of apologies on Persian EFL learners’ performance: When e-communication helps. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 31, 71–84.Google Scholar
Svalberg, A. M.-L. (2005). Consciousness-raising Activities in some Lebanese English Language Classrooms: Teacher Perceptions and Learner Engagement. Language Awareness, 14 (23), 170–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2009). Pragmatic competence. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. State-of-the-art article. Language Teaching, 481, 1–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N., & Kim, Y. (2016). Collaborative Dialogue in Learning Pragmatics: Pragmatic- Related Episodes as an Opportunity for Learning Request-Making. Applied Linguistics, 9 (6), 416–437. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Takahashi, S. (2010). Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures, Handbooks of Pragmatics, Vol. 71 (pp. 391–421). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Takimoto, M. (2006). The effects of explicit feedback and form-meaning processing on the development of pragmatic proficiency in consciousness-raising tasks. System, 341, 601–614. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). The effects of input-based tasks on the development of learners’ pragmatic proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 301, 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Assessing the effects of identical task repetition and task type repetition on recognition and production of second language request downgraders. Intercultural Pragmatics, 91, 71–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tateyama, Y. (2001). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines: Japanese sumimasen. In: Kenneth, Rose, Kasper, Gabriele (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 200–222). New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turuk, M. C. (2008). The relevance and implications of Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory in the second language classroom. ARECLS, 51, 244–262.Google Scholar
Van Compernolle, R. A. (2011). Developing second language sociopragmatic knowledge through concept-based instruction: A micro-genetic case study. Journal of Pragmatics, 431, 3267–3283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Yoshimi, D., & Wang, H. (2007). Selected papers from pragmatics in CJK classrooms: The state of the art. Manoa: University of Hawaii at Manoa, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Del Bono, Federica & Elena Nuzzo
2021. Incidental pragmatics learning in telecollaborative exchanges. Instructed Second Language Acquisition 5:2 DOI logo
Mirzaei, Azizullah, Farshad Naseri, Aliakbar Jafarpour & Zohreh Eslami
2021. ZPD-based mediation of L2 learners’ comprehension of implicatures: An educational praxis framework. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 17:1-2 ► pp. 127 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Bibliography. In Pragmatics and its Applications to TESOL and SLA, ► pp. 198 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.