Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics
Vol. 31:1 (2021) ► pp.114–143

A Tale of four measures of pragmatic knowledge in an EFL institutional context

ORCID logo | University of Qom
| University of Qom
| University of Qom
The upsurge of interest in L2 pragmatics studies has coincided with a growing interest in pragmatic assessment. Employing the most efficient measure of pragmatics has led many researchers to examine the existing measures to pinpoint the most useful ones. This study was an attempt to compare and contrast Written Discourse Completion Task (WDCT), Oral Discourse Completion Task (ODCT), and Role-play with Natural methodology in an EFL institutional context to see which measure approximated Natural methodology. To this end, data (requests) were collected from 27 intermediate–level Iranian EFL learners in a natural classroom institutional context over 15 weeks, and then the WDCTs, ODCTs, and Role-plays with the same contextual features were selected to elicit the intended data. The participants’ requests were transcribed and analyzed in terms of Schauer’s (2009) request head act strategy taxonomy and its internal and external modification devices. The results of Binominal tests indicated that, in spite of some minor similarities, none of the elicitation measures could approximate the natural data. The participants’ employment of direct, non-conventionally indirect request strategies, and internal and external modification devices were more conspicuous in the WDCTs, ODCTs, and Role-plays than those in the Natural methodology. The study implies that data collection methods should be selected based on researchers’ objectives and research questions.
Keywords: WDCT, ODCT, Role-play, Natural methodology, request speech act, internal and external modification devices
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Pragmatic measurement
    • 2.2Production measures of pragmatics
      • 2.2.1Naturally-occurring data
      • 2.2.2Written discourse completion task
      • 2.2.3Oral discourse completion task
      • 2.2.4Role-play
    • 2.3Studies focusing on pragmatic measures
    • 2.4Request speech act
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Instruments
    • 3.3Data collection procedure
    • 3.4Data analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Request strategies
    • 4.2Internal modification devices
    • 4.3External modification devices
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 25 August 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.18052.moh
References (32)
References
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 2018. “Matching Modality in L2 Pragmatics Research Design”. System: 751, 13–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, and Beverly Hartford. 2005. Institutional Discourse and Interlanguage Pragmatics Research. In Interlanguage pragmatics: exploring institutional talk, ed. by Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig, and Beverly Hartford, 7–36. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, and Sun-Young Shin. 2014. “Expanding Traditional Testing Measures with Tasks from L2 Pragmatics Research.” Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 4 (1): 26–49.Google Scholar
Brown, J. D. 2001. “Pragmatics Test: Different Purposes, Different Tests.” In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, ed. by Kenneth. R. Rose, and Gabriele Kasper, 301–325. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Steven, C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Economidou-Kogetsidis, Maria. 2013. “Strategies, Modification and Perspective in Native Speakers’ Requests: A Comparison of WDCT and Naturally Occurring Requests.” Journal of Pragmatics, 531: 21–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Rod. 2008. The Study of Second Language Acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eslami, Zohreh. R., and Azizullah Mirzaei. 2014. “Speech Act Data Collection in a Non-Western Context: Oral and Written DCTs in the Persian Language.” Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 4(1): 137–154.Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. Cesar. 2010. “Data Collection Methods in Speech Act Performance: DCTS, Role Plays, and Verbal Reports.” In Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues, ed. by Alicia Martínez-Flor and Esther Usó-Juan, 64–81. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “Natural Speech vs. Elicited Data: A Comparison of Natural and Role Play Requests in Mexican Spanish.” Spanish in Context, 4(2): 159–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Golato, Andrea. 2003. “Studying Compliment Responses: A Comparison of DCTs and Recordings of Naturally Occurring Talk.” Applied Linguistics, 24(1): 90–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
House, Juliane. 2018. “Authentic vs. Elicited Data and Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research Methods in Pragmatics: Overcoming Two Non-Fruitful Dichotomies.” System, 751:4–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Thom. 2001. “Indicators for Pragmatic Instruction.” In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, ed. by Kenneth R. Rose and Gabriele Kasper, 283–300. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ishihara, Noriko. 2010. “Instructional Pragmatics: Bridging Teaching, Research, and Teacher Education.” Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(10): 938–953. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jalilifar, Alireza. 2009. “Request Strategies: Cross-Sectional Study of Iranian EFL Learners and Australian Native Speakers.” English Language Teaching, 2(1): 46–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasper, Gabriele. 2000. “Data Collection in Pragmatics Research.” In Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport Through Talk across Cultures, ed. by Helen Spencery-Oatey, 316–41. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Kasper, Gabriele and Carsten Roever. 2005. ”Pragmatics in Second Language Learning.” In Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, ed. by Eli Hinkel, 317–334. Mahwah/New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Martínez-Flor, Alicia and Esther Usó-Juan. 2011. “Research Methodologies in Pragmatics: Eliciting Refusals to Requests.” ELIA, 111: 47–87.Google Scholar
Norris, John. and Lourdes Ortega. 2000. “Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A Research Synthesis and Quantitative Meta-Analysis.” Language Learning, 50 (3): 417–528. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rose, Kenneth. And Reiko Ono. 1995. “Eliciting Speech Act Data in Japanese: The Effect of Questionnaire Type.” Language Learning, 45(2): 191–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasaki, Miyuki. 1998. “Investigating EFL Students’ Production of Speech Acts: A Comparison of Production Questionnaires and Role Plays.” Journal of Pragmatics, 301: 457–484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schauer, Gila. A. 2009. Interlanguage Pragmatic Development: The Study Abroad Context. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Sifianou, Maria. 1999. Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece. A Crosscultural Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taguchi, Naoko. 2018. “Data Collection and Analysis in Developmental L2 Pragmatics Research: Discourse Completion Test, Role Play, and Naturalistic Recording.” In Critical Reflections on Data in Second Language Acquisition, ed. by Aarnes Gudmestad and Amanda Edmonds, 7–32. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, Naoko, and Carsten Roever. 2017. Second Language Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Satomi. 2010. “Assessing Learnability in Second Language Pragmatics.” In, Pragmatics across Languages and Cultures, ed. by Anna Trosborg, 391–423. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Uso-Juan, Esther. 2010. “Requests: A Sociopragmatic Approach.” In Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues ed. by Alicia Martinez-Flor and Esther Uso-Juan, 237–256. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uso-Juan, Esther, and Alicia Martinez-Flor. 2014. “Reorienting the Assessment of the Conventional Expressions of Complaining and Apologizing: From Single Response to Interactive DCTs.” Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 4(1): 113–136.Google Scholar
Woodfield, H. 2012. “I Think Maybe I Want to Lend the Notes from You: Development of Request Modification in Graduate Learners.” In Interlanguage Request Modification, ed. by Maria Economidou-Kogetsidis and Helen Woodfield, 9–49. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yuan, Y. 2001. “An Inquiry into Empirical Pragmatics Data Gathering Methods: Written DCTs, Oral DCTs, and Natural Conversations.” Journal of pragmatics, 331: 271–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar