Cover not available
Part of
Doing SLA Research with Implications for the Classroom: Reconciling methodological demands and pedagogical applicability
Edited by Robert M. DeKeyser and Goretti Prieto Botana
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 52] 2019
► pp. 55–82

Chapter 4
Integrating instructed second language research, pragmatics, and corpus-based instruction

| Indiana University
| University of Texas at El Paso
| The University of Utah

This paper discusses the issues raised by implementing instruction in language classrooms for the purpose of researching the effects of instruction on second language acquisition. We examine the process of developing and implementing novel corpus-based instruction for the teaching of pragmatic routines in a study that compared the use of teacher-developed corpus-based materials to guided, hands-on corpus searches by learners (Bardovi-Harlig, Mossman, & Su, 2017). We use this study as the impetus for reflection on the experimenters’ role in materials and activities development and the difference between experimental instruction and classroom teaching. We further discuss the role of learner proficiency levels and grammatical and lexical development in response to instruction, teacher collaboration, and generalizability to other contexts.

Keywords: pragmatics, pragmatic formulas, corpus-based instruction, corpus-based materials, corpus searches, instructional effects, materials development, instructional design
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Background
    • Authentic materials in pragmatics
    • Research – teaching trajectory
  • The study: Comparing corpus materials and corpus searches
    • Instruction
    • Pretest-posttest
    • Questionnaire
    • Participants
  • Analysis
  • Results
    • Production data
    • Independent searches
  • Discussion
    • CS and CM comparisons revisited
    • Learning, teaching, and testing clarifications
      • Self-clarification
      • Other-clarification
    • Syntax and lexicon as variables in pragmatic development
  • Integrating research and teaching
    • Experimentalizing instruction
    • Materials and activities development
    • Participant availability
    • Experimental control
    • Teacher collaboration
    • Generalizability to other contexts
  • Concluding reflections
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 7 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.52.04bar
References
Bardovi-Harlig, K.
(2006) On the role of formulas in the acquisition of L2 pragmatics. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, C. Félix-Brasdefer, A. S. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning, (Vol. 11, pp. 1–28). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
(2009) Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource: Recognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 59, 755–795. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Recognition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. In G. Kasper, H. t. Nguyen, D. R. Yoshimi, & J. K. Yoshioka (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 12, pp. 141–162). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
(2013) Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63(Suppl.1), 68–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Pragmatic awareness in second language acquisition. In P. Garret & J. Maria Cots (Eds.), Routledge handbook of language awareness. (pp. 323–338). UK: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Bastos, M.-T.
(2011) Proficiency, length of stay, and intensity of interaction and the acquisition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics 8, 347–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Bastos, M.-T., Burghardt, B., Chappetto, E., Nickels, E., & Rose, M.
(2010) The use of conventional expressions and utterance length in L2 pragmatics. In G. Kasper, H. t. Nguyen, D. R. Yoshimi, & J. K. Yoshioka (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 12, pp. 163–186). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.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, 45, 4–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Mossman, S.
(2016) Corpus-based materials development for teaching and learning pragmatic routines. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.) SLA research and materials development for language learning (pp. 250–267). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S., Rothgerber, J., & Su, Y., & Swanson, K.
in press). Revisiting clarifications: Self- and other-clarifications in corpus-based pragmatics instruction. In M. Sato & S. Loewen Eds. Evidence-based second language pedagogy: A collection of instructed second language acquisition studies New York Routledge
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S., & Su, Y.
(2017) The effect of corpus-based instruction on pragmatic routines. Language Learning & Technology, 21, 76–103.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S., & Vellenga, H. E.
(2015a) Developing corpus-based materials to teach pragmatic routines. TESOL Journal, 6, 499–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015b) The effect of instruction on pragmatic routines in academic discussion. Language Teaching Research, 19, 324–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Salsbury, T.
(2004) The organization of turns in the disagreements of L2 learners: A longitudinal perspective. In D. Boxer & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Studying speaking to inform second language learning (pp. 199–227). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Vellenga, H. E.
(2012) The effect of instruction on conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. System, 40, 77–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V.
(2004) If you look at …: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25, 371–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
(1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Boulton, A.
(2010) Data-driven learning: Taking the computer out of the equation. Language Learning, 60, 534–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boxer, D., & Pickering, L.
(1995) Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: The case of complaints. ELT Journal, 49, 44–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheng, W., & Cheng, P.
(2010) Correcting others and self-correcting in business and professional discourse and textbooks. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures (Vol. 7 of Handbooks of pragmatics , pp. 443–466). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Clennell, C.
(1999) Promoting pragmatic awareness and spoken discourse skills with EAP classes. ELT Journal, 53, 83–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A. D., & Ishihara, N.
(2013) Pragmatics. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Applied linguistics and materials development (pp. 113–126). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Erman, B., & Warren, B.
(2000) The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20, 29–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C., & Cohen, A. D.
(2012) Teaching pragmatics in the foreign language classroom: Grammar as a communicative resource. Hispania, 95, 650–669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Furniss, E. A.
(2016) Teaching the pragmatics of Russian conversation using a corpus-referred website. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 38–60.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J., & Laufer, B.
(2001) Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539–558. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D.
(2010) Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C.
(1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
LoCastro, V.
(1997) Pedagogical intervention and pragmatic competence development. Applied Language Learning, 8, 75–109.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A.
(1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ren, W., & Han, Z.
(2016) The representation of pragmatic knowledge in recent ELT textbooks. ELT J, 70, 424–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simpson, R. C., Briggs, S. L., Ovens, J., & Swales, J. M.
(2002) The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan. [URL]
Taguchi, N.
(2007) Development of speed and accuracy in pragmatic comprehension in English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 313–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N., Kaufer, D., Gómez-Laich, M. P., & Zhao, H.
(2016) A corpus linguistics analysis of on-line peer commentary. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, & J. C. Félix-Brasdefer (Eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning (Vol. 14, pp. 357–370). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, B.
(1994) Pragmatic awareness activities. Language Awareness, 3, 119–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vellenga, H. E.
(2004) Learning pragmatics from ESL and EFL Textbooks: How likely? TESL-EJ, 8 (2).Google Scholar
Vercellotti, M. L., & Packer, J.
(2016) Shifting structural complexity: The production of clause types in speeches given by English for academic purposes students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 179–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vyatkina, N.
(2016) Data-driven learning for beginners: The case of German verb-preposition collocations. ReCALL, 28, 207–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, M.
(1988) Language taught for meetings and language used for meetings: Is there anything in common? Applied Linguistics, 9, 45–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar