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. 137–157

Chapter 6
Developing pragmatic competence through tasks in EFL contexts

Does proficiency play a role?

| University of Barcelona
Although task-based language teaching, on the one hand, and teaching pragmatics on the other, are not considered to be new trends anymore, there is still a gap in the research regarding how pragmatic features can be taught using a task-based approach. To fill the gap, the present study examines whether speech acts of apology, justification, and thanking are teachable through tasks in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts. The study further investigates the role of L2 proficiency in the development of pragmatic awareness. The participants are 38 third-year university students in Spain who are enrolled in English for the Media course with two different levels of proficiency in English (B1 and C1 on the CEFR). The experiment consists of a pretest involving e-mail writing tasks and a posttest. Pretest/posttest tasks are analysed by rating the appropriateness of speech acts of apology, justification, and thanking on a six-point appropriateness scale and on grammar scales. Results display some positive effects of the task-based instruction on the learning of pragmatics in both proficiency groups. However, the results of the posttests for the grammar scales and the overall gains did not correlate with the proficiency scores, which suggests that L2 development of pragmatics cannot be fully attributed to L2 learners’ proficiency.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Background
    • TBLT and pragmatics
    • Speech acts as a measure of pragmatic knowledge
    • Proficiency in TBLT and L2 pragmatics studies
    • Purpose of the study and research questions
  • Methodology
    • Participants
    • Materials and procedure
      • Proficiency test
      • Test tasks
      • Treatment tasks
    • Data coding and analysis
  • Results
    • Research Question 1
    • Research Question 2
    • Research Question 3
  • Discussion
  • Limitations and future research
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 15 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.10.06lev
References (69)
References
Alcón, E. (2005). Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context? System 33(3), 417–435. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aston, G. (1995). Say ‘thank you’: some pragmatic constraints in conversational closings. Applied Linguistics, 16, 57–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baralt, M., Gilabert, R., & Robinson, P. (Eds.) (2014). Task sequencing and instructed second language learning. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: a research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49, 677–713. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Bastos, T. (2011). Proficiency, length of stay, and intensity of interaction and the acquisition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(3), 347–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergman, M. L., & Kasper, G. (1993). Perception and performance in native and nonnative apology. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 82–107). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Celaya, M. L., & Barón, J. (2015). The interface between grammar and pragmatics in EFL measurement and development. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 181–203.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A. (1994). Assessing language ability in the classroom. Rowley, MS: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Cohen, A., & Olshtain, E. (1994). Researching the production of second-language speech acts. In E. E. Tarone, S. M. Gass, & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Research methodology in second-language acquisition (pp. 143–156). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Colston, H. L. (2002). Pragmatic justifications for nonliteral gratitude acknowledgements: Oh sure, any time. Metaphor and Symbol, 17, 205–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, F. (1981). “Poison to your soul”: Thanks and apologies contrastively viewed. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech (pp. 69–91). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Council of Europe E.C. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. J. Doughty, & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589–630). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2011). “Please answer me as soon as possible”: Pragmatic failure in non-native speakers’ e-mail requests to faculty. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(13), 3193–3215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (2008). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3(3), 215–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilabert, R. (2005). Task complexity and L2 oral narrative production. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Barcelona.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R., Manchón, R., & Vasylets, O. (2016). Mode in theoretical and empirical TBLT research: advancing research agendas. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 117–135.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hickey, L. (1991). Comparatively polite people in Spain and Britain. Association for Contemporary Iberian Studies, 4, 2–6.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1993). New Zealand women are good to talk to: An analysis of politeness strategies in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 20(2), 91–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.). (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 81–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kim, Y., & Taguchi, N. (2015). Promoting task-based pragmatics instruction in EFL classroom contexts: The role of task complexity. Modern Language Journal, 99, 656–677. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Learner-learner interaction during collaborative pragmatic tasks: The role of cognitive and pragmatic task demands. Foreign Language Annals, 49, 42–57.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
King, B. W., & Holmes, J. (2014). Gender and pragmatics. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (1–6). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, F., Mos, M. & Vedder, I. (2005). Cognitive task complexity and second language written performance. In S. Foster-Cohen, M. P. García-Mayo, & J. Cenoz (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook (Vol. 5) (pp. 195–222). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007a). Cognitive task complexity and linguistics performance in French L2 writing. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp.117–135). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
(2007b). Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(1), 48–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Levkina, M., & Gilabert, R. (2014). Task sequencing in the L2 development of spatial expressions. In M. Baralt, R. Gilabert, & P. Robinson (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 37–71). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Lambert, C., & Robinson, P. (2014). Learning to perform narrative tasks: A semester-long classroom study of L2 task sequencing effects. In M. Baralt, R. Gilabert, & P. Robinson (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 207–230). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language training. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77–99). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Malicka, A., & Levkina, M. (2012). Measuring task complexity. Does EFL proficiency matter? In A. Shehadeh & C. Coombe (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts. Research and implementation (pp. 43–66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martínez-Flor, A., & Fukuya, Y. J. (2005). The effects of instruction on learner’s production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. System, 33(3), 463–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michel, M. C., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 241–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
North, B. (2000). The development of a common framework scale of language proficiency. New York, NY: Peter Lang.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. D. (1983). Apology: A speech-act set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 18–35). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
(1990). The learning of complex speech act behavior. TESL Canada Journal, 7, 45–65.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 492–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., Sachs, R., & Hama, M. (2014). The effects of task complexity and input frequency on the acquisition of the past counterfactual construction through recasts. Language Learning, 64, 615–650. DOI logoGoogle 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
(2010). Situating and distributing cognition across task demands: The SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In M. Putz & L. Sicola (Eds.), Cognitive processing in second language acquisition: Inside the learner’s mind (pp. 243–268). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roever, C. (2009). Teaching and testing pragmatics. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 560–577). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rose, K. R. (1992). Speech acts and questionnaires: The effect of hearer response. Journal of Pragmatics, 17(1), 49–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 27–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33(3), 385–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rose, K. R., & Ng, C. (2001). Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments and compliments responses. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 145–170). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Safont, M. P. (2003). Instructional effects on the use of request acts modification devices by EFL learners. In A. Martínerz-Flor, E. Usó Juan, & A. Fernández Guerra (Eds.), Pragmatic competence and foreign language teaching (pp. 211–232). Castellón de la Plana, Spain: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (2008). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(2), 275–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spada, N. (1986). The interaction between types of contact and types on instruction: Some effects on the second language proficiency of adult learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8(2), 181–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2006). Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English. Pragmatics, 16, 513–535. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Task difficulty in oral speech act production. Applied Linguistics, 28, 113–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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
Takahashi, S. (2005). Pragmalinguistic awareness: Is it related to motivation and proficiency? Applied Linguistics, 26, 90–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures (Handbooks of pragmatics, Vol. 7, pp. 391–421). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
(2013). Awareness and learning in second language pragmatics. Language, Culture and Communication, 5, 53–76.Google Scholar
Takimoto, M. (2008). The effect of deductive and inductive instruction on the development of language learners’ pragmatic Competence. The Modern Language Journal, 92(3), 369–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trosborg, A., & Shaw, P. (2008). Deductive and inductive methods in the teaching of business pragmatics: Not an ‘either/or’! In R. Geluykens & B. Kraft (Eds.), Institutional discourse in cross-cultural contexts (pp. 193–220). Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Watts, R. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winke, P. M. (2007). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(1), 143–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xiao, F. (2015). Proficiency effect on L2 pragmatic competence. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 5(4), 557–581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Albert, Ágnes
2022. Language Tasks. In Investigating the Role of Affective Factors in Second Language Learning Tasks [Second Language Learning and Teaching, ], ► pp. 31 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
Taguchi, Naoko, Daniel H. Dixon, Yuqing Qin & Ying Chen
2022. Pedagogic tasks in digital games: Effects of feedback conditions and individual characteristics on learning request-making. Language Teaching Research ► pp. 136216882211108 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 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.