English Teaching & Learning

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 75–94 | Cite as

The Impact of Instruction on the Pragmatic Comprehension of Speech Acts of Apology, Request, and Refusal Among Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners

Original Paper

Abstract

Theoretical and pedagogical attention in pragmatic competence and instruction for second- and foreign language learners has culminated in the growing body of literature on teaching pragmatics. Based on cognitively oriented second-language acquisition (SLA) theories, most studies on pragmatic intervention have primarily focused on dichotomous teaching approaches including explicit vs. implicit as well as inductive vs. deductive interventions. However, very few studies have capitalized on more dynamic teaching approaches taking advantage of authentic video-driven vignettes. Therefore, the present study sought to find out the impact of video-enhanced input on the comprehension of three speech acts of apology, request, and refusal on 69 (27 males and 42 females) Iranian intermediate EFL learners who were randomly divided into four homogenous groups (i.e., metapragmatic, form-search, interactive translation, and control) based on the results of the Oxford Quick Placement Test (OQPT). The four groups were accordingly exposed to 60 video vignettes (20 for each speech act) extracted from different episodes of Friends and Seinfeld sitcoms as well as Annie Hall movie for eight 60-min sessions of instruction twice a week. Results of the multiple-choice discourse completion test (MDCT) (Birjandi and Derakhshan Applied Research on English Language, 3(1), 67-85, 2014) revealed that metapragmatic consciousness-raising, form-search, and interactive translation groups led to the development of pragmatic comprehension from pretest to posttest. Furthermore, the results of the post hoc test of Tukey (HSD) demonstrated that while the form-search group had a better performance than interactive translation and control groups, the metapragmatic group outperformed the other treatment groups. In the light of the gained results, the findings might provide pedagogical implications for pragmatic practitioners and theoreticians as well as materials developers, teachers, and learners. Finally, it concludes with some avenues for further research.

Keywords

Consciousness-raising Form-search Interactive translation Metapragmatic Pragmatics 

伊朗中級英語學習者之研究: 道歉、請求、拒絕言語行為的語用理解教學摘要

對英語為第二語言及外語的學習者, 在語用能力和教授中, 理論和教學注意力已在語用學教學研究文獻中達到巔峰。根基於認知導向的第二語言習得(SLA)理論, 大部分採用語用學為主之研究著重在二分法的教學方法; 例如:顯性對隱性及歸納法對演繹法之導入。然而, 顯少之研究是利用大量真實視頻片段作為教學研究。本研究旨在經由視頻增強輸入道歉、請求及拒絕言語行為理解之影響。研究對象為69伊朗以英語為外語的中級學習者; 其中27是男性及42是女性。依據牛津快速分級測驗 (Oxford Quick Placement Test, OQPT) 結果, 他們隨機被分配到四個同質性的組: 後設語用組、形式搜尋組、互動式翻譯組以及控制組。這四組需觀看60部視頻片段, 一個言語行為有20部視頻片段, 每一個視頻片段取自於兩部情境喜劇六人行 (Friends) 和歡樂單身派對 (Seinfeld) 以及一部電影安妮霍爾 (Annie Hall) 。研究對象必須參加每週兩次的教學課程, 每次課程為八堂課, 每堂60分鐘。研究發現, 根據Birjandi & Derakhshan (2014) 制訂選擇型言談填充問卷 (multiple choice discourse completion test, MDCT) 分析結果, 在後測中, 發現後設語用意識提升、形式搜尋及互動式翻譯會導致語用理解的發展; 另外, 依據杜凱氏誠實顯著性差異 (Tukey HSD) 事後檢定結果, 發現雖然形式搜尋組比互動式翻譯組和控制組有較好的表現, 但是後設語用組的表現卻優於其它實驗組。針對上述研究結果並提供給語用實踐家和理論家、教材開發商、老師以及學生相關教學建議。最後, 總結一些方向做為未來研究之參考。

關鍵詞:

意識提升 形式搜尋 互動式翻譯 後設語用 語用學 

References

  1. Alcón-Soler, E. (2005). Does instruction work for pragmatic learning in EFL contexts? System, 33(3), 417–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Alcón-Soler, E. (2013). Teachability and bilingual effects on third language knowledge of refusals. Intercultural Pragmatics, 9(4), 511–541.Google Scholar
  4. Alcón-Soler, E., & Martı’nez-Flor, A. (2005). Editors’ introduction to pragmatics in instructed language learning. System, 33(3), 381–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alcón-Soler, E., & Pitarch, J. G. (2010). The effect of instruction on learners' pragmatic awareness: a focus on refusals. International Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 13–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic vs. grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 233–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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(1), 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Birjandi, P., & Derakhshan, A. (2014). The impact of consciousness-raising video-driven vignettes on the pragmatic development of apology, request, & refusal. Applied Research on English Language, 3(1), 67–85.Google Scholar
  10. Boxer, D., & Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: the case of complaints. ELT Journal, 49(1), 44–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Canning-Wilson, C., & Wallace, J. (2000). Practical aspects of using video in the foreign language classroom. The Internet TESL Journal, 6(11), 1–36.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: the case of apology. Language Learning, 31(1), 113–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crandall, E., & Basturkmen, H. (2004). Evaluating pragmatics-focused materials. ELT Journal, 58(1), 38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Derakhshan, A., & Eslami, Z. (2015). The effect of consciousness-raising instruction on the pragmatic development of apology and request. The Electronic Journal of English as a Second Language, 18(4). Retrieved in February 2016 from: http://teslej.org/wordpress/issues/volume18/ej72/
  16. Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2005). Raising the pragmatic awareness of language learners. ELT Journal, 59(2), 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Garza, T. J. (1996). The message is the medium: using video materials to facilitate foreign language performance. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 2(2), 1–18.Google Scholar
  18. Gilmore, A. (2004). A comparison of textbooks and authentic interactions. ELT Journal, 58(4), 362–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grant, L., & Starks, D. (2001). Screening appropriate teaching materials: closings from textbooks and television soap operas. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. House, J. (2008). Using translation to improve pragmatic competence. In E. Alcón & A. Martı’nez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 135–152). Great Britain: Cromwell Press Ltd.Google Scholar
  21. Ishihara, N. (2010). Assessment of pragmatics. In N. Ishihara & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Teaching and learning pragmatics: where language and culture meet (pp. 287–317). New Jersey: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  22. Jiang, X. (2006). Suggestions: what should ESL students know? System, 34(1), 36–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kasper, G. (2001). Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 33–60). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kasper, G., & Roever, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 317–334). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Kasper, G., & Rose, R. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 81–104.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190599190056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  27. Koike, D. A. (1995). Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanish foreign language learning. In S. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp. 257–281). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  28. Kondo, S. (2008). Effects on pragmatic development through awareness-raising instruction: Refusals by Japanese EFL learners. In E. Alcón & A. Martı’nez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 153–176). Great Britain: Cromwell Press Ltd.Google Scholar
  29. Kubota, M. (1995). Teachability of conversational implicature to Japanese EFL learners. The Institute for Research in Language Teaching Bulletin, 9, 35–67.Google Scholar
  30. LoCastro, V. (2003). An introduction to pragmatics: social action for language teachers. Michigan: Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  31. Martínez-Flor, A. (2008). The effect of inductive-deductive teaching approach to develop learners’ use of request modifiers in the EFL classroom. In E. Alcón Soler (Ed.), Learning how to request in an instructed language learning context (pp. 191–226). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  32. Martínez-Flor, A. (2016). Teaching apology formulas at the discourse level: are instructional effects maintained over time? Elia, (16), 13–48.Google Scholar
  33. McCarthy, M., McCarten, J., & Sandiford, H. (2005). Touchstone series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Nemati, M., & Arabmofrad, A. (2014). Development of interlanguage pragmatic competence: input- and output-based instruction in the zone of proximal development. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(2), 262–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Oxenden, C., Lathan-Koenig, C., & Seligson, P. (2008). American English file series. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Rahimi Domakani, M., Hashemian, M., & Mansoori, S. (2013). Pragmatic awareness of the request speech act in English as an additional language: monolinguals or bilinguals? Research in Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 88–110.Google Scholar
  37. Richards, J. C. (2005). Interchange series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rose, K. R. (1994). Pragmatic consciousness-raising in an EFL context. In L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (pp. 52–63). Urbana: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
  39. Rose, K. R. (1997). Pragmatics in teacher education for nonnative-speaking teachers: a consciousness-raising approach. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 10(2), 125–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rose, K. R. (1999). Teachers and students learning about requests in Hong Kong. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 167–180). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effect of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33(3), 385–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rose, K. R., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Rose, K., & Ng, C. (2001). Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments and compliment responses. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 145–170). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Saslow, J., & Ascher, A. (2006). Top notch series. New York: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  45. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21–42). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–33). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed second language acquisition: theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sherman, J. (2003). Using authentic video in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Taguchi, N. (2008). Pragmatic comprehension in Japanese as a foreign language. Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 558–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tajeddin, Z., Keshavarz, M. H., & Zand-Moghadam, A. (2012). The effect of task-based language teaching on EFL learners’ pragmatic production, metapragmatic awareness, and pragmatic self-assessment. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 139–166.Google Scholar
  54. Takahashi, S. (2005). Noticing in task performance and learning outcomes: a qualitative analysis of instructional effects in interlanguage pragmatics. System, 33(3), 437–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Takimoto, M. (2006). The effects of explicit feedback on the development of pragmatic proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 393–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vellenga, H. (2004). Learning pragmatics from ESL and EFL textbooks: How likely? TESL-EJ, 8(2). Retrieved in March 2016 from: http://www.writing.berkeley.edu/tesl-ej/
  57. Washburn, G. N. (2001). Using situation comedies for pragmatics language teaching and learning. TESOL Journal, 10(4), 21–26.Google Scholar
  58. Zangoei, A., Nourmohammadi, E., & Derakhshan, A. (2014a). The effect of consciousness-raising listening prompts on the development of the speech act of apology in an Iranian EFL context. SAGE Open, 4(2), 2158244014531770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zangoei, A., Nourmohammadi, E., & Derakhshan, A. (2014b). A gender-based study of Iranian EFL learners’ pragmatic awareness: the role of receptive skill-based teaching. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3(6), 53–63.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Taiwan Normal University 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of English Language and LiteratureGolestan UniversityGorganIran

Personalised recommendations