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. 191–214

Chapter 8
Pragmatics, tasks, and technology

A synergy

 | University of Hawai‘i
 | Georgetown University
This chapter explores the relationship among pragmatics, tasks, and technology when the goal is to support the development of pragmatics in a new language (L2). We view L2 pragmatic competence as culturally and situationally specific and inseparable from authentic communication, which encompasses both the face-to-face and digital worlds of people. Taking as a premise that optimal blends of tasks and new technologies can provide a programmatic framework for L2 instruction (González-Lloret & Ortega, 2014), including L2 pragmatics instruction, we first survey key existing task-based, technology-mediated approaches that incorporate a focus on the development of L2 pragmatics. We then choose two well-known areas of TBLT – cognitive task complexity (Robinson, 2011; Skehan, 2003) and needs analysis (González-Lloret, 2014) – to point at factors that can shape interactional pragmatics, and we show how they can be relevantly applied to technology-mediated tasks for the teaching and learning of L2 pragmatics. From a TBLT stance, we argue that the pragmatics-related demands of tasks might impact cognitive task complexity as an independent variable. From a technology-mediated TBLT stance, we propose that the systematic analysis of tasks in terms of pragmatics is necessary to carve a formal curricular place for L2 pragmatics instruction. We close the chapter by pointing at two fruitful future areas for investigating how the synergy among pragmatics, tasks, and technology can be optimized.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Supporting pragmatic development with technology and tasks: A précis
  • Shall pragmatics and cognitive task complexity meet?
  • Needs analysis
  • Future research directions
  • Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 15 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.10.08gon
References (81)
References
Alcón Soler, E. (2002). Relationship between teacher-led versus learners’ interaction and the development of pragmatics in the EFL classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 359–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Adams, R., & Alwi, N. A. N. M. (2014). Prior knowledge and second language task production in text chat. In M. González-Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 51–78). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Azkarai, A. (2015). Males and females in EFL task-based interaction: Does gender have an impact on LREs? Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12, 9–35.Google Scholar
Baralt, M. (2013). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 689–725. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Task complexity and task sequencing in traditional versus online language classes. In M. Baralt, R. Gilabert, & P. J. Robinson (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 59–122). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Belz, J. A. (2005). Intercultural questioning, discovery and tension in internet-mediated language learning partnerships. Language and Intercultural Communication, 5, 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belz, J. A., & Kinginger, C. (2002). The Cross-linguistic development of address form use in telecollaborative language learning: Two case studies. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 189–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Discourse options and the development of pragmatic competence by classroom learners of German: The case of address forms. Language Learning, 53, 591. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blattner, G., & Fiori, M. (2011). Virtual social network communities: An investigation of language learners’ development of sociopragmatic awareness and multiliteracy skills. CALICO Journal, 29, 24–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breen, M. (1989). The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. In R. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Canto, S., de Graff, R., & Jauregui, K. (2014). Collaborative tasks for negotiation of intercultural meaning in virtual worlds and video-web communication. In M. González-Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 183–212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. (2014). Afterword: Technology-mediated TBLT and the evolving role of the innovator. In M. González-Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 323–334). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Çiftçi, E. Y. (2016). A review of research on intercultural learning through computer-based digital technologies. Educational Technology & Society, 19, 313–327.Google Scholar
Collentine, K. (2010). Measuring complexity in task-based synchronous computer-mediated communication. In M. Thomas & H. Reinders (Eds.), Task-based language learning and teaching with technology (pp. 105–128). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
(2013). Using tracking technologies to study the effects of linguistic complexity in CALL input and SCMC output. CALICO Journal, 30, 46–65.Google Scholar
Cunningham, D. J. (2016). Request modification in synchronous computer-mediated communication: The role of focused instruction. Modern Language Journal, 100, 484–507. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 221–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frenz-Belkin, P. (2015). ‘Teacher! You need to give me back my homework:’ Assessing students’ needs for a pragmatics curriculum in an academic ESL program. In S. Gesuato, F. Bianchi, & W. Cheng (Eds.), Teaching, learning and investigating pragmatics: Principles, methods and practices (pp. 33–56). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. M. (1984). The effect of familiarity on the comprehensibility of nonnative speech. Language Learning, 34, 65–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2001). Intentions as emergent products of social interactions. In B. F. Malle, L. J. Moses, & D. A. Baldwin (Eds.), Intentions and intentionality: Foundations of social cognition (pp. 105–124). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R., & Barón, J. (2018). Independently measuring cognitive complexity for task sequencing and interlanguage pragmatics development. In N. Taguchi & Y. Kim (Eds.), Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Golato, A., & Taleghani-Nikazm, C. (2006). Negotiation of face in chats. Multilingua, 25, 293–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2008). Computer-mediated learning of L2 pragmatics. In E. A. Soler & A. Martinez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 114–132). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Conversation analysis of computer-mediated communication. CALICO Journal, 28, 308–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). The need for needs analysis in technology-mediated TBLT. In M. González-Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 23–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L. (Eds.). (2014). Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hassall, T. (2015). Individual variation in L2 study-abroad outcomes: A case study from Indonesian pragmatics. Multilingua, 34, 33–59.Google Scholar
Hertel, K. (2015). Integrating American English pragmatic instruction in tourism training programs in Latin America: A materials portfolio (MA). University of Oregon. Retrieved from <[URL]>
Holden, C., & Sykes, J. M. (2012). Mentira: Prototyping language-based locative gameplay. In S. Dikkers, J. Martin, & B. Coulter (Eds.), Mobile media learning: Amazing uses of mobile devices for teaching and learning (pp. 111–131). Pittsburg, PA: ETC Press.Google Scholar
Ishihara, N., & Tarone, E. (2009). Subjectivity and pragmatic choice in L2 Japanese: Emulating and resisting pragmatic norms. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Pragmatic competence in Japanese as a second language (pp. 101–128). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Itō, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., & Antin, J. (Eds.). (2010). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jauregi, K., & Canto, S. (in press). Mundos virtuales en la enseñanza de lenguas: Hacia un aprendizaje significativo a través de la interacción, la acción y el juego. In M. González-Lloret & M. Vinagre (Eds.), Comunicación mediada por tecnologías: Aprendizaje y enseñanza de la lengua extranjera. Sheffield: Equinox.
Jauregi, K., Canto, S., de Graaff, R., Koenraad, T., & Moonen, M. (2011). Verbal interaction in Second Life: Towards a pedagogic framework for task design. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24, 77–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1988). On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems, 35, 418–441. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jenks, C. J., & Brandt, A. (2013). Managing mutual orientation in the absence of physical copresence: Multiparty voice-based chat room interaction. Discourse Processes, 50, 227–248. DOI logoGoogle 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
Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? (NetWork #6) Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai ’I, Retrieved August 20, 2004, from [URL].
(2009). L2 pragmatic development. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (2nd ed., pp. 259–284). Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Kim, E. -Y., & Brown, L. (2014). Negotiating pragmatic competence in computer mediated communication: The case of Korean address terms. CALICO, 31, 264–284 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, H. Y. (2014). Learner investment, identity, and resistance to second language pragmatic norms. System, 45, 92–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., & Taguchi, N. (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
Kinginger, C., & Belz, J. A. (2005). Sociocultural perspectives on pragmatic development in foreign language learning: Case studies from telecollaboration and study abroad. Interlanguage Pragmatics, 2, 369–421.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness; or, minding your P’s and Q’s. In C. Corum, T. Cedric Smith-Stark, & A. Weiser (Eds.), Papers from the ninth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (pp. 292–305). Chicago, IL: Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2016). In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 5–33.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Markee, N. (2013). Emic and etic in qualitative research. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marsh, L., & Onof, C. (2008). Stigmergic epistemology, stigmergic cognition. Cognitive Systems Research, 9(1–2), 136–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nik, A. N. M. A., Adams, R., & Newton, J. (2012). Writing to learn via text chat: Task implementation and focus on form. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 23–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2009). Task-based teaching and testing. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 578–594). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Dowd, R., & Ware, P. (2009). Critical issues in telecollaborative task design. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22, 173–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L., & González-Lloret, M. (2015). Staking out the territory of technology-mediated TBLT. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT (pp. 59–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E. (2015). The development of L2 interactional competence: Evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence organization, repair organization and preference organization. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 233–268). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2011). Enacting interactional competence in gaming activities: Coproducing talk with virtual others. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. P. Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 19–44). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Piirainen-Marsh, A. P., & Tainio, L. (2009). Other-repetition as a resource for participation in the activity of playing a video game. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 153–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Asymmetries of knowledge and epistemic change in social gaming interaction. The Modern Language Journal, 98, 1022–1038. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Researching task complexity: Task demands, task-based language learning and performance (pp. 3–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Roever, C. (2011). Testing of second language pragmatics: Past and future. Language Testing, 28, 463–481. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Technology and tests of L2 pragmatics. In N. Taguchi & J. M. Sykes (Eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching (pp. 215–234). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33, 385–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siegal, M. (1996). The role of learner subjectivity in second language linguistic competency: Western women learning Japanese. Applied Linguistics, 17, 356–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (2003). Focus on form, tasks, and technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16, 391–411. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H., & Jiang, W. (2003). Explaining cross-cultural pragmatic findings: Moving from politeness maxims to sociopragmatic interactional principles (SIPs). Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10–11), 1633–1650. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986/2001). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stommel, W. (2008). Conversation analysis and community of practice as approaches to studying online community. Language@Internet, 5. Retrieved from <[URL]>
Sykes, J. (2008). A dynamic approach to social interaction: Synthetic immersive environments & spanish pragmatics. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.Google Scholar
Sykes, J. M. (2014). TBLT and synthetic immersive environments: What can in-game task restarts tell us about design and implementation? In M. González-Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 149–182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google 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 (pp. 357–370). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 38–67.Google Scholar
(2016). Cultures-of-use and morphologies of communicative action. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 185–191.Google Scholar
Timpe-Laughlin, V. (2018). FINAL TITLE. In N. Taguchi & Y. Kim (Eds.), Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsai, M. -H., & Kinginger, C. (2014). Giving and receiving advice in computer-mediated peer response activities. CALICO Journal, 32, 82–112.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2016). The role of teachers in task-based language education. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 164–181.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vinagre, M. (2010). Intercultural learning in asynchronous telecollaborative exchanges: A case study. The Eurocall Review, 17. Available at: <[URL]>.
Walther, J. B., Van der Heide, B., Ramirez, A., Burgoon, J. K., & Peña, J. (2015). Interpersonal and hyperpersonal dimensions of computer-mediated communication. In S. S. Sundar (Ed.), The handbook of the psychology of communication technology (pp. 3–22). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Youn, S. J. (2015). Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods. Language Testing, 32, 199–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Task design and validity evidence for assessment of L2 pragmatics in interaction. In N. Taguchi & Y. Kim (Eds.), Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2016). Taking Technology to Task: Technology-Mediated TBLT, Performance, and Production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 136–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Collentine, Karina
2024. Pragmatic competence in virtual environments. In Recent developments in Hispanic linguistics [Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 41], ► pp. 245 ff. DOI logo
Róg, Tomasz
2024. Teaching L2 pragmatics: The effects of different types of task implementation vs a PPP framework. Neofilolog :62/2 ► pp. 502 ff. DOI logo
Barón, Júlia
2023. A task-supported language approach to teaching L2 pragmatics. In L2 Pragmatics in Action [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 58], ► pp. 319 ff. DOI logo
Collentine, Karina & Joseph Collentine
2023. Promoting Spanish L2 pragmatic competence in a virtual environment. In Innovative Approaches to Research in Hispanic Linguistics [Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 38], ► pp. 173 ff. DOI logo
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
González-Lloret, Marta
2022. The present and future of functional adequacy. TASK. Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning 2:1 ► pp. 146 ff. DOI logo
Kim, YouJin
2022. The interface between instructed L2 pragmatics and TBLT research. Applied Pragmatics 4:2 ► pp. 159 ff. DOI logo
Abrams, Zsuzsanna I.
2020. Intercultural Communication and Language Pedagogy, 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.