Cover not available
Part of
Task-Based Approaches to Teaching and Assessing Pragmatics
Edited by Naoko Taguchi and YouJin Kim
[Task-Based Language Teaching 10] 2018
► pp. 55–81

Chapter 3
Effects of task supported language teaching on learners’ use and knowledge of email request mitigators

 | Universitat Jaume I
The present study examines whether task supported language teaching (TSLT) has an impact on L2 English learners’ use and knowledge of request mitigators, assessing the impact of student-students vs. teacher-students interactions on students’ attention to pragmatics during task-based interaction. Forty-eight students of English at a Spanish university participated in the study. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: the student-students interaction group (N = 16), the teacher-students interaction group (N = 16), and the control group (N = 16). Data were collected in pre-test, post-test and delayed post-test email tasks and analysed for frequency of use of request mitigators. Participants’ self-evaluations of email appropriateness were also used to examine whether TSLT facilitated knowledge of request mitigators during student-students and teacher-students tasks performance. In addition, interactions during the TSLT treatment were recorded and analysed for pragmatic related episodes (Taguchi & Kim, 2014) on request-making expressions. Findings from the study showed positive effects of TSLT on learners’ use of request mitigators. In addition, differences were found in the impact of the participatory structure on students’ level of interactional engagement during task performance, which seems to have an impact on pragmatic learning outcomes. More specifically, in teacher-students interaction students hardly ever paid attention towards pragmatics, but if they did, it had an impact on the students’ knowledge of request mitigators. On the contrary, metapragmatic discussion in student-students interaction seemed to trigger attention towards pragmatics and enhanced students’ awareness of how to mitigate email requests.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Background
    • Pragmatic instruction
    • Task implementation, collaborative dialogue and pragmatic knowledge
    • Research questions
  • Method
    • Participants
    • Materials
    • Procedure
      • Week 1.Pre-test
      • Week 2.Day 1 and Day 2
      • Week 3.Day 1 (TSLT session 1), Day 2 (TSLT session 2) and Day 3 (TSLT session 3)
      • TSLT sessions
      • Week 4.Post-test
      • Week 8.Delayed post-test
    • Data analysis
  • Results
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion, limitations and pedagogical implications
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 15 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.10.03alc
References (56)
References
Alcón-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
(2013). Mitigating e-mail requests in teenagers’ first and second language academic cyber-consultation. Multilingua, 32(6), 779–799. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alegría de la Colina, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2007). Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low-proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 91–116). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2015). Operationalizing conversation in studies of instructional effect in L2 pragmatics. In E. Alcón & L. Yates (Eds.), Pragmatic learning across contexts. System, 48 (special issue) 21–34.Google Scholar
Basterrechea, M., & García Mayo, M. P. (2013). Language-related episodes during collaborative tasks: A comparison of CLIL and EFL learners. In K. McDonough and A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts (pp. 25–43). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biesenbach-Lucas, S. (2006). Making requests in E-mail. Do cyber-consultation entail directness? Towards convention in a new medium. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, C. Félix-Brasdefer, & A. S. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics language learning (Vol. 11, pp. 81–107). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
(2007). Student writing emails to faculty: An examination of e-politeness among native and non-native speakers of English. Language Learning and Technology, 11(2), 59–81.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., Kasper, G., & House, J. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Codina-Espurz, V. (2008). The immediate vs. delayed effect of instruction on mitigators in relation to learner’ language proficiency in English. In E. Alcón-Soler (Ed.), Learning how to request in an instructed language learning context (pp. 227–256). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2009). Interlanguage request modification: The use of lexical phrasal downgraders and mitigating supportive moves. Multilingua, 28(1), 79–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). “Please answer me as soon as possible”: Pragmatic failure in non-native speakers’ e-mail requests to faculty. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3193–3215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, C. (2012). E-mail requests to faculty: E-politeness and internal modification. In M. Economidou-Kogetsidis & H. Woodfield (Eds.), Interlanguage request modification (p. 87–118). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P. (2014). Collaborative tasks and their potential for grammar instruction in second/foreign language contexts. In A. Benati, M. C. Laval, & M. Arche (Eds.), The grammar dimension in instructed second language learning: Theory, research and practice (pp. 82–102). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
(Ed.) (2015). Learning language and content through tasks: Exploring the interfaces, System, 54 (special issue).Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Azkarai, A. (2016). EFL task-based interaction: Does task modality impact on language-related episodes. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Research agenda and pedagogical potential (pp. 241–266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
González-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (2014). Technology-mediated TBLT. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartford, B. S., & Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). At your earliest convenience: Written student requests to faculty. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning (pp. 55–69). Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Division of English as an International Language.Google Scholar
Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics. Where language and culture meet. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Jeon, E. H., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development: A meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 165–211). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of second language vocabulary. Modern Language Journal, 92, 114–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). The role of tasks as vehicles for language learning in classroom interaction. In N. Markee (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 163–181). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kubota, M. (1995). Teachability of conversational implicatures to Japanese EFL learners. IRLT Bulletin, 9, 35–67.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2012) The effect of input-based practice on pragmatic development in L2 Chinese. Language Learning, 62, 403–438. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nasaji, H., & Tian, J. (2010). Collaborative and individual output task and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research, 14, 164–187.Google Scholar
Nguyen, T. T. M. (2013). Instructional effects on the acquisition of modifiers in constructive criticisms by EFL learners. Language awareness, 22, 76–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Philp, J., & Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50–72.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33, 385–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rose, K. R. & Kasper, G. (Eds.) (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salazar, P. (2003). Pragmatic instruction in the EFL context. In A. Martínez-Flor, E. Usó-Juan, & A. Fernández-Guerra (Eds.), Pragmatic competence and foreign language teaching. Castelló: Servei de Publicacions.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21–42). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 268–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.). (2014). Processing perspectives on task performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on text editing tasks in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research, 11, 143–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 370–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks. Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–117). London: Longman.Google Scholar
(2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learner’s response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289–310. 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, 48, 1–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N., & Kim, Y. (2014). Collaborative dialogue in learning pragmatics: Pragmatics-related episodes as an opportunity for learning request-making. Applied Linguistics, 1–23.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N., & Sykes, J. (2013). Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Takahashi, S. (2010). Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Handbook of pragmatics VII (pp. 391–421). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Takimoto, M. (2012). Metapragmatic discussion in interlanguage pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1240–1253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES). (2001). CAMBRIDGE IELTS 2 – Examination Papers from the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van den Braden, K., Bygate, M., & Norris, J. (2009). Task-based language teaching: A reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vellenga, H. (2004). Learning pragmatics from ESL & EFL textbooks: How likely? TESOL-EJ, 8(2), 1–18.Google Scholar
Verhelst, N., Van Avermaet, P., Takala, S., Figueras, N., & North, B. (2009). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vygostky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Jung, Jookyoung & Xuehua Fu
2023. The impact of pragmalinguistic support on video-conferenced collaborative suggestion-giving task. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 61:3 ► pp. 1083 ff. DOI logo
Fakher Ajabshir, Zahra
2022. The relative efficacy of input enhancement, input flooding, and output-based instructional approaches in the acquisition of L2 request modifiers. Language Teaching Research 26:3 ► pp. 411 ff. DOI logo
Kim, YouJin
2022. The interface between instructed L2 pragmatics and TBLT research. Applied Pragmatics 4:2 ► pp. 159 ff. DOI logo
Lin, Ming-Fang & Yu-Fang Wang
2022. Effects of pragmatic instruction on EFL teenagers’ apologetic email writing: Comprehension, production, and cognitive processes. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 60:3 ► pp. 759 ff. DOI logo
Usó-Juan, Esther
2021. Long-term instructional effects on learners’ use of email request modifiers. In Email Pragmatics and Second Language Learners [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 328], ► pp. 71 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 december 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.