Cover not available
Article published In:
Technology-mediated feedback and instruction
Edited by Hossein Nassaji and Eva Kartchava
[ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 170:2] 2019
► pp. 277–308

A meta-analysis of the effects of instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pragmatics and the role of moderator variables

Face-to-face vs. computer-mediated instruction

| University of Victoria
| University of Victoria

This paper reports the results of a meta-analysis of 39 published studies conducted during the last decade (from 2006 to 2016) on the effects of instruction and corrective feedback on learning second language (L2) pragmatics. The study meta-analyzed the effects of instruction in terms of several moderator variables including mode of instruction, type of instruction, outcome measures, length of instruction, language proficiency, and durability of the instructional effects. It was found that (a) computer-assisted instruction generated larger effects than face-to-face instruction, (b) instruction was generally more effective for L2 pragmatic comprehension than production, (c) instruction produced larger effects when tested by selected response outcome measures although different patterns were observed across explicit-implicit categories, (d) longer treatments generated a larger effect size than shorter treatments, (e) studies conducted with intermediate level learners produced larger effect sizes than beginner or advanced level learners, and (f) the observed effects of instruction were maintained.

Keywords: computer-mediated instruction, face-to-dace instruction, L2 pragmatics, meta-analysis, effect size, corrective feedback, technology, second language acquisition
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Reviews of L2 pragmatics studies
    • Narrative reviews
    • Meta-analyses
    • Technology and L2 pragmatics
    • Research questions
  • Methods
    • The literature search strategies
    • Criteria for inclusion
    • Coding
    • Instruction modes
    • Instruction types
    • Outcome measures
    • Length of treatment
    • L2 proficiency
    • Durability of results
    • Reliability of coding
  • Analysis
    • Calculation of effect sizes
    • Outliers
    • Publication bias
    • Effectiveness of instruction in general
    • Instructional mode
    • Instructional type
    • Outcome measures
      • Comprehension versus production
      • Task types
    • Length of treatment
    • L2 proficiency
    • Durability of results
  • Discussion
  • Conclusions, implications and limitations
  • References
Published online: 9 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.19012.you
References

(Note: Studies included in the meta-analysis are marked by an asterisk *)

*Alcón-Soler, E.
(2015) Instruction and pragmatic change during study abroad email communication. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 91, 34–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) “Teachability and Bilingualism Effects on Third Language Learners’ Pragmatic Knowledge.” Intercultural Pragmatics 91: 511–541. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Alcón-Soler, E. & Guzman-Pitarch, J.
(2010) The Effect of Instruction on Learners’ Pragmatic Awareness: A Focus on Refusals. International Journal of English Studies, 10 (1), 65–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alcón-Soler, E. A., & Martinez-Flor, A.
(2008) Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Badjadi, N. I.
(2016) A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Instructional Tasks on L2 Pragmatics Comprehension and Production. In Tang, S. F. and Logonnathan, L. (Eds.), Assessment for Learning Within and Beyond the Classroom (pp. 241–268). Singapore: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K.
(1999) Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 491, 677–713. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Recognition and production of formulas in L2 pragmatics. In Z.-H. Han, (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 205–222). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
(2009) Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource: Recognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 591, 755–795. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63 (Suppl. 1), 68–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Mahan-Taylor, R.
(2003) Teaching pragmatics. Washington DC: Office of English Programs, U.S. Department of State.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B. A. S., Mahan-Taylor, R., Morgan, M. J., & Reynolds, D. W.
(1991) Developing pragmatic awareness: Closing the conversation. ELT Journal, 451, 4–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Bardovi-Harling, K., Mossman, S., & Vellenga, H. E.
(2015) The effect of instruction on pragmatic routines in academic discussion. Language Teaching Research. 191, 324–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Barekat, B., & Mehri, M.
(2013) Investigating the effect of metalinguistic feedback in L2 pragmatic instruction. International Journal of Linguistics, 51, 197–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belz, J. A., & Vyatkina, N.
(2008) The pedagogical mediation of a developmental learner corpus for classroom-based language instruction. Language Learning & Technology, 121, 33–52.Google Scholar
(2005) Learner corpus analysis and the development of L2 pragmatic competence in networked intercultural language study: The case of German modal particles, Canadian Modern Language Review, 621, 17–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Chen, Y. S.
(2011) The effect of explicit teaching of American compliment exchanges to Chinese learners of English. English Teaching & Learning, 351, 1–42.Google Scholar
Chow, S. & Liu, J.P.
(1999) Design and Analysis of Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies Boca Raton. CRC Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J., Mackey, A., & Taguchi, N.
(2018) Second Language Pragmatics : From Theory to Research. NY. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Cunningham, J.
(2016) Request Modification in Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication: The Role of Focused Instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 1001, 484–507. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, D. J., & Vyatkina, N.
(2012) Telecollaboration for professional purposes: Towards developing a formal register in the foreign language classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 681, 422–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Dastjerdi, H. V., & Farshid, M.
(2011) The role of input enhancement in teaching compliments. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 2(2), 460–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Derakhshan, A., & Eslami, Z.
(2015) The Effect of Consciousness-raising Instruction on the pragmatic Development of Apology and Request. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language. 18(4).1–24.Google Scholar
*Eslami, Z. R., & Liu, C. N.
(2013) Learning pragmatics through computer-mediated communication in Taiwan. Iranian Journal of Society, Culture, and Language, 52–73.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 & Martinez-Flor, A. (eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters, 178–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Farahian, M., Rezaee, M., & Gholami, A.
(2012) Does direct instruction develop pragmatic competence? Teaching refusals to EFL learners of English. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 31, 814–821. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Felix-Brasdefer, J. C.
(2008) Pedagogical intervention and the development of pragmatic competence in learning Spanish as a foreign language. Issues in Applied Linguistics 161, 49–84.Google Scholar
*Fordyce, K.
(2014) The differential effects of explicit and Implicit Instruction on EFL Learners’ Use of Epistemic Stance. Applied Linguistics, 351, 6–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Fukuya, Y., & Martinez-Flor, A.
(2008) The interactive effects of pragmatic-eliciting tasks and pragmatics instruction. Foreign Language Annuals, 411, 478–500. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Furniss, E.
(2016) Teaching the pragmatics of Russian conversation using a corpus referred website. Language Learning and Technology, 201, 38–60.Google 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
*Gu, X. L.
(2011) The effect of explicit and implicit instructions of request strategies. Intercultural Communication Studies, 20(1), 104–123.Google Scholar
Hedges, L.
(1992) Modeling Publication Selection Effects in Meta-Analysis. Statistical Science, 71, 246–255. Retrieved from [URL]
Hedges, L., & Vevea, J.
(1998) Fixed- and Random-Effects Models in Meta-Analysis. Psychological Methods, 31, 486–504. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Hernandez, T. A.
(2011) Re-examining the role of explicit instruction and input flood on the acquisition of Spanish discourse markers. Language Teaching Research, 151, 159–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L.
(2000) Fixed effects vs. random effects meta-analysis models: Implications for cumulative research knowledge. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 81, 275–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ishihara, M. & Cohen, A. D.
(2010) Teaching and Learning Pragmatics, Where Language and Culture Meet. Harlow, UK: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Jeon, E. H., & Kaya, T.
(2006) Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development. In N. John & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 165–211). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Jernigan, J.
(2012) Output and English as a second language pragmatic development: The effectiveness of output-focused video-based instruction. English Language Teaching, 5(4), 2–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G., & Rose, K.
(1999) Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 191, 81–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kakegawa, T.
(2009) Development of the use of Japanese sentence-final particles through email correspondence. In N. Taguchi (ed.), Pragmatic competence. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 301–333.Google Scholar
Kasper, G., & Rose, K.
(2002) Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Khaerudin, T.
(2012) Envisioning the use of technology to teach pragmatics. IJ-TEFL, 11, 60–69.Google Scholar
*Li, Q.
(2012) Effects of instruction on adolescent beginners’ acquisition of request modification. TESOL Quarterly, 461, 30–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, S.
(2010) The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 601, 309–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Li, S.
(2012) The effect of input-based practice on pragmatic development in L2 Chinese. Language Learning, 621, 403–438. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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 (pp. 43–70). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. M.
(2007) Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 learning (pp. 379–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Martinez-Flor, A., & Alcón-Soler, E.
(2005) Special issue: Pragmatics in instructed language learning. System, 331, 381–456. Retrieved from [URL]
*Martínez-Flor, A., & Alcón-Soler, E.
(2007) Developing pragmatic awareness of suggestions in the EFL classroom: A focus on instructional effects. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 101, 47–76.Google Scholar
*Narita, R.
(2012) The effects of pragmatic consciousness-raising activity on the development of pragmatic awareness and use of hearsay evidential markers for learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Journal of Pragmatics, 441, 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, T. T. M.
(2008) Modifying L2 criticism: how learners do it? Journal of Pragmatics 401, 768–791. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Nguyen, T. T. M.
(2013) Instructional effects on the acquisition of modifiers in constructive criticisms by EFL learners. Language Awareness, 221, 76–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Nguyen, T. T. M., Do, T. T. H., Nguyen, A. T., & Pham, M. H.
(2015) Teaching email requests in the academic context: a focus on the role of corrective feedback, Language Awareness, 24(2), 169–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Nguyena, T. T. M., Phamb, T. H., & Phamb, M. T.
(2012) The relative effects of explicit and implicit form-focused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic competence. Journal of Pragmatics, 441, 416–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L.
(2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 501, 417–528. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oswald, F. L., & Plonsky, L.
(2010) Meta-analysis in Second Language Research: Choices and Challenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 301, 85–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Rafieyan, V.
(2016) Effect of ‘Focus on Form’ versus ‘Focus on Forms’ Pragmatic Instruction on Development of Pragmatic Comprehension and Production. Journal of Education and Practice, 71, 41–48.Google Scholar
*Rafieyan, V., Sharafi-Nejad, M., Khavari, Z., Siew Eng, L., & Mohamed, A. R.
(2014) Pragmatic Comprehension Development through Telecollaboration. English Language Teaching, 71, 11–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rose, K. R.
(2005) On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 331, 385–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rose, K., & Kasper, G.
(2001) Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, R.
(1995) Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 1181, 183–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1994) Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. Hedges (Eds.), Handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231–244). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M.
(Eds.) (2006) Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Saita, I.
(2001) Aizuchi and cut in-focusing on a situation and setting where a problem concerning cross-cultural communication often occurs. A study on two-way distance learning system of Japanese language (Research outcome report. Grant-in-aid scientific research report 1999–2000). (C) (2), 9–21.Google Scholar
*Simin, S., Eslami, Z., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Ketabi, S.
(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
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y.
(2010) Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 601, 263–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sykes, J.
(2005) Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: Effects of oral and written chat. CALICO, 221, 399–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N.
(2006) Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English. Pragmatics, 161, 513–535. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 311, 289–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N., & Sykes, J. M.
(2013) Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N.
(2005a) Comprehension of implied meaning in English as a second language. Modern Language Journal, 891, 543–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015b) Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 481, 1–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Tajeddin, Z., Keshavarz, M. H., & Zand Moghaddam, A.
(2012) The Effect of Task-Based Language Teaching on EFL Learners’ Pragmatic Production, Metapragmatic Awareness, and Pragmatic Self-Assessment. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 151, 139–166.Google Scholar
Takahashi, S.
(1996) Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 181, 189–223.Google Scholar
(2010a) Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Handbook of pragmatics (vol.71, pp. 391–421). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2010b) The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance. In Mart´ınez- Flor, A. & E. Us´o-Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 127–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Takimoto, M.
(2006) The effects of explicit feedback on the development of pragmatic proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 101, 393–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Takimoto, M.
(2007) The effects of referential oriented activity in the structured input task on the development of learners’ pragmatic proficiency. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 131, 46–60.Google Scholar
Takimoto, M.
(2008) The Effects of Deductive and Inductive Instruction on the Development of Language Learners' Pragmatic Competence. The Modern Language Journal, 921, 369–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Takimoto, M.
(2012a) Assessing the effects of identical task repetition and task type repetition on learners’ recognition and production of second language request downgraders. Intercultural Pragmatics, 91, 71–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012b) Metapragmatic discussion in interlanguage pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 441, 1240–1253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Tan, K. H., & Farashaiyan, A.
(2012) The effectiveness of teaching formulaic politeness strategies in making request to undergraduates in an ESL classroom. Asian Social Science 81, 189–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Tanaka, H., & Oki, N.
(2015) An attempt to raise Japanese EFL learners’ pragmatic awareness using online discourse completion tasks. The jalt call Journal. 11(2).143–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Tateyama, Y.
(2007) The effects of instruction on pragmatic awareness. In K. Bradford-Watts (ed.), JALT 2006 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT, 1189–1200. Available online at [URL]
(2009) Requesting in Japanese: The effect of instruction on JFL learners’ pragmatic competence. In N. Taguchi (ed.), Pragmatic competence. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 129–166.Google Scholar
Utashiro, T., & Kawai, G.
(2009) Blended learning for Japanese reactive tokens: Effects of computer-led, instructor-led, and peer-based instruction. In N. Taguchi (ed.), Pragmatic competence. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 275–299. [URL] Downloaded: 11 Mar 2015 IP address: 142.104.240.194Google Scholar
Viechtbauer, W., & Cheung, M. W.
(2010) Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods. 1(2): 112–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vyatkina, N., & Belz, J. A.
(2006) A learner corpus-driven intervention for the development of L2 pragmatic competence. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, J. C. Fe´lix- Brasdefer, & A. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning (pp. 315–357). Honolulu: National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawai’i.Google Scholar
Wishnoff, J.
(2000) Hedging your bets: L2 learners’ acquisition of pragmatic devices in academic writing and computer-mediated discourse. Second Language Studies, 191, 127–157.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 14 other publications

Boers, Frank, Lara Bryfonski, Farahnaz Faez & Todd McKay
2021. A CALL FOR CAUTIOUS INTERPRETATION OF META-ANALYTIC REVIEWS. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 43:1 ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo
Cohen, Andrew D.
2020. Issues in the assessment of L2 pragmatics. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 16:1 ► pp. 15 ff. DOI logo
Derakhshan, Ali & Farzaneh Shakki
2023. Conclusions, Limitations, Pedagogical Implications, and Directions for Future Research. In Instructed Second Language Pragmatics for The Speech Acts of Request, Apology, and Refusal: A Meta-Analysis [Second Language Learning and Teaching, ], ► pp. 93 ff. DOI logo
Derakhshan, Ali & Farzaneh Shakki
2023. Discussion. In Instructed Second Language Pragmatics for The Speech Acts of Request, Apology, and Refusal: A Meta-Analysis [Second Language Learning and Teaching, ], ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo
Derakhshan, Ali & Farzaneh Shakki
2023. Review of Previous Research. In Instructed Second Language Pragmatics for The Speech Acts of Request, Apology, and Refusal: A Meta-Analysis [Second Language Learning and Teaching, ], ► pp. 17 ff. DOI logo
Huang, Nan
2022. Revisiting L2 pragmatic competence through implicit vs. explicit instructional framework. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Mifka‐Profozic, Nadia, Jennifer Behney, Susan M. Gass, Marijana Macis, Gaia Chiuchiù & Giulia Bovolenta
2023. Effects of Form‐Focused Practice and Feedback: A Multisite Replication Study of Yang and Lyster (2010). Language Learning 73:4 ► pp. 1164 ff. DOI logo
Nassaji, Hossein & Eva Kartchava
2021. Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning. In The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Ren, Wei
2022. Second Language Pragmatics, DOI logo
Ren, Wei, Shaofeng Li & Xiaoxuan Lü
2023. A Meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Second Language Pragmatics Instruction. Applied Linguistics 44:6 ► pp. 1010 ff. DOI logo
Shakki, Farzaneh
2022. Meta-analysis as an emerging trend to scrutinize the effectiveness of L2 pragmatics instruction. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Ypsilandis, George S.
2023. Variables to consider upon having decided to include pragmatics in the teaching of languages. Journal of Language and Cultural Education 11:1 ► pp. 16 ff. DOI logo
Zhang, Ying
2021. Combining computer-mediated communication with data-driven instruction: EFL learners’ pragmatic development of compliment responses. System 103 ► pp. 102624 ff. DOI logo
Zhong, Lijia & Yanle Zhang
2023. Computerized mediated explicit instruction and EFL learners' knowledge of speech acts: Investigating the role of EFL learners’ language proficiency and perceptions. Heliyon 9:9 ► pp. e19738 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 april 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.