Title: A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Instructional Tasks on L2 Pragmatics Comprehension and Production

Conference paper
First Online:

Abstract

One of the vital aspects of instructed L2 pragmatics is the effect of instruction on comprehension and production. As such, research is needed to investigate the effects of different instructional designs on L2 pragmatics development. This paper reviews experimental and quasi-experimental studies to examine the differentiated effects of second language (SL/L2) pragmatics’ instructional tasks in relation to comprehension and production outcome measures. After an exhaustive and systematic search, 24 studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed to extract data involving a total of 1508 participants. The participants comprised of learners receiving instructional interventions on several L2 pragmatics forms and functions. Across different contexts, proficiency levels, methodological nuances, and target pragmatic constructions, instructional tasks were classified into meta-pragmatic discussion and input-based tasks, with or without the provision of feedback, while outcome measures were classified into comprehension, structured production, or free production measures. The results reveal that, in accordance with instructional tasks, comprehension and production mean effect sizes diverge from small to large. In addition, interventions which actively engaged learners in meta-pragmatic discussion or provided recasts for production in input-based tasks produced larger effects. The meta-analysis yields significant insights into the role of knowledge representation and processing instruction in the acquisition of L2 pragmatics. To ensure even acquisitional pragmatics development, it is important to continue to investigate the roles of feedback and meta-pragmatic knowledge. Further implications for enhancing comprehension and production aspects of L2 pragmatics instruction and development are discussed, and avenues for further research are highlighted.

Keywords

Instructed L2 pragmatics/L2 pragmatic competence Comprehension/production tasks Skill acquisition theory (SAT) Adaptive control of thought (ACT) model 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. *Alcón-Soler, E. (2005). Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context? System, 33(3), 417–435.Google Scholar
  2. Alcón-Soler, E. (2008). Investigating pragmatic language learning in foreign language classrooms. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 46(3), 173–195.Google Scholar
  3. *Alcón-Soler, E., & Guzmán-Pitarch, J. R. (2010). The effect of instruction on learners’ pragmatic awareness: A focus on refusals. International Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 65–80.Google Scholar
  4. Alcón-Soler, E., & Guzmán-Pitarch, J. R. (2013). The effect of instruction on learners’ use and negotiation of refusals. Utrecht Studies in Language & Communication, 25, 41–63.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, J. R. (1993). Problem solving and learning. American Psychologist, 48(1), 35.Google Scholar
  6. Anderson, J. R. (1996). ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition. American Psychologist, 51(4), 355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anderson, J. R., & Fincham, J. M. (1994). Acquisition of procedural skills from examples. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(6), 1322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). The interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49, 677–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Pragmatics and second language acquisition. In R. Kaplan (Ed.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 182–192). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013). Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63(1), 68–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Griffin, R. (2005). L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL classroom. System, 33(3), 401–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. *Barekat, B., &Mehri, M. (2013). Investigating the effect of meta-linguistic feedback in L2 pragmatic instruction. International Journal of Linguistics, 5(2), 197–208.Google Scholar
  13. Billmyer, K., & Varghese, M. (2000). Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability: Effects of enhancing discourse completion tests. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 517–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2011). Introduction to meta-analysis. Wiley.com.Google Scholar
  15. *Bu, J. (2012). A Study of the effects of explicit and implicit teachings on developing Chinese EFL learners’ pragmatic competence. International Journal of Language Studies, 6(3), 57–80.Google Scholar
  16. Bygate, M., Shehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning teaching and testing. UK: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
  17. Byon, A. S. (2006). Developing KFL students’ pragmatic awareness of Korean speech acts: The use of discourse completion tasks. Language Awareness, 15(4), 244–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. *Chen, Y. S. (2011). The effect of explicit teaching of American compliment exchanges to Chinese learners of english. English Teaching & Learning, 35(4), 1–42.Google Scholar
  19. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  20. Cooper, H. (2009). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach (Vol. 2). Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Crookes, G., & Long, M. (1992). Three approaches to task-based design. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 27–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. New York: Rutledge.Google Scholar
  23. Dastjerdi, H. V., & Farshid, M. (2011). The role of input enhancement in teaching compliments. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 2(2), 460–466.Google Scholar
  24. DeKeyser, R. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morpho syntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. DeKeyser, R. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 125–151). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. DeKeyser, R. M. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  28. DeKeyser, R. (2007a). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97–112). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. DeKeyser, R. M. (Ed.). (2007b). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Dodge, M., & Stinson, C. (2010). Microsoft® Excel® 2010 inside out. O’Reilly Media, Inc.Google Scholar
  31. Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 193–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33, 209–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philip, J., & Reinders, H. (2009). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (p. 19). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  35. Eslami, Z. R., & Eslami-Rasekh, A. (2008). Enhancing the pragmatic competence of non-native english-speaking teacher candidates (NNESTCs) in an EFL context. In E. Alcón-Soler & A. Martinez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 178–200). UK: Cromwell Press Ltd.Google Scholar
  36. *Farahian, M., Rezaee, M., & Gholami, A. (2012). Does direct instruction develop pragmatic competence? Teaching refusals to EFL learners of english. Journal of Language Teaching &Research, 3(4), 814–821.Google Scholar
  37. *Fordyce, K. (2013). The Differential effects of explicit and implicit instruction on EFL learners’ use of epistemic stance. Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
  38. *Fukuya, Y. J., & Martínez-Flor, A. (2005). The effects of instruction on learner’s production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. System, 33(3), 463–480.Google Scholar
  39. Fukuya, Y. J., & Martínez-Flor, A. (2008). The interactive effects of pragmatic-eliciting tasks and pragmatic instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 41(3), 478–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. *Ghobadi, A., & Fahim, M. (2009). The effect of explicit teaching of english “than ing formulas” on Iranian EFL intermediate level students at english language institutes. System, 37(3), 526–537.Google Scholar
  41. *Gu, X. L. (2011). The effect of explicit and implicit instructions of request strategies. Intercultural Communication Studies, 20(1), 104–123.Google Scholar
  42. Hassall, T. (2008). Pragmatic performance: What are learners thinking? In E. Alcon-Soler & A. Martinez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 74–93). UK: Cromwell Press Ltd.Google Scholar
  43. *Hernández, T. A. (2011). Re-examining the role of explicit instruction and input flood on the acquisition of Spanish discourse markers. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 159–182.Google Scholar
  44. Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jeon, E. H., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development. In M. Norris., & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching, (pp. 165–211). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  46. *Jernigan, J. (2012). Output and english as a second language pragmatic development: The effectiveness of output-focused video-based instruction. English Language Teaching, 5(4), 2–14.Google Scholar
  47. Kasper, G. (2001a). Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied Linguistics, 22(4), 502–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kasper, G. (2001b). Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 33–60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kasper, G. (2009). L2 pragmatic development. In New handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 259–298). Leeds, UK: Emerald,.Google Scholar
  50. Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in second language acquisition, 13(2), 215–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  52. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. In G. Kasper & K. R. Rose (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 1–10). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Language Learning, 52, 1.Google Scholar
  54. Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 18(2), 149–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. *Koike, D. A., & Pearson, L. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence. System, 33(3), 481–501.Google Scholar
  56. Kondo, S. (2008). Effects on pragmatic development through awareness-raising instruction: Refusals by Japanese EFL learners. In E. Alcon-Soler & A. Martinez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 153–177). UK: Cromwell Press Ltd.Google Scholar
  57. Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63.Google Scholar
  58. Leeman, J. (2007). Feedback in L2 learning: Responding to errors during practice. In R. M. Dekeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 111–183). UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Leow, R. P. (2007). Input in the L2 classroom: An attentional perspective on receptive practice. In R. M. Dekeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 21–50). UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. *Li, S. (2012). The effects of input‐based practice on pragmatic development of requests in L2 Chinese. Language Learning, 62(2), 403–438.Google Scholar
  62. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. (2000). Practical meta-analysis (applied social research methods).Google Scholar
  63. Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lyster, R., & Sato, M. (2013). Skill acquisition theory and the role of practice in L2 development. In M. D. P. G. Mayo, M. J. G. Mangado & M. M. Adrián (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 71–92). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  65. Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Mackey, A., & Goo, J. M. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 learning (pp. 379–452). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Martínez-Flor, A. (2013). Learners’ production of refusals: Interactive written DCT versus oral role play. Utrecht Studies in Language & Communication, 25.Google Scholar
  68. Martínez-Flor, A., & Fukuya, Y. J. (2005). The effects of instruction on learners’ production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. System, 33(3), 463–480.Google Scholar
  69. *Martínez-Flor, A., & Alcón-Soler, E. (2007). Developing pragmatic awareness of suggestions in the EFL classroom: A focus on instructional effects. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 47–76.Google Scholar
  70. *Narita, R. (2012). The effects of pragmatic consciousness-raising activity on the development of pragmatic awareness and use of hearsay evidential markers for learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
  71. *Nguyena, T. T. M., Phamb, T. H., & Phamb, M. T. (2012). The relative effects of explicit and implicit form-focused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic competence. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 416–434.Google Scholar
  72. Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. *Nipaspong, P., & Chinokul, S. (2010). The role of prompts and explicit feedback in raising EFL learners’ pragmatic awareness. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 5(5), 101–146.Google Scholar
  74. Norris, J. M. (2012). Meta-analysis. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar
  75. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Norris, M., & Ortega, L. (2006). Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Philadelphia/ Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2007). The future of research synthesis in applied linguistics: Beyond art or science. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 805–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2010). Timeline: Research synthesis. Language Teaching, 43, 461–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Ortega, L. (2010). Research synthesis. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Companion to research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 111–126). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  81. Oswald, F. L., & Plonsky, L. (2010). Meta-analysis in second language research: Choices and challenges. Annual challenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Non-native speakers’ noticing of recasts in NSNNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Ranta, L. & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The Awareness-Practice-Feedback sequence. In R. M. Dekeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141–160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45(2), 283–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Rose, K. R. (1994). Pragmatic consciousness-raising in an EFL context. In L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning monograph series (Vol. 5, pp. 52–63). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
  86. Rose, K. R. (1997). Pragmatics in the classroom: Theoretical concerns and practical possibilities. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 8). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
  87. Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33(3), 385–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Rose, K., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Rosenthal, M. C. (1994). The fugitive literature. In The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 85–94).Google Scholar
  90. Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (Eds.). (2006). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  91. Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  92. Safont-Jordà, M. P., & Portolés-Falomir, L. (2013). Research method effects on third language learners’ refusals. Utrecht Studies in Language & Communication, 25.Google Scholar
  93. Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11–26.Google Scholar
  94. Shehadeh, A. (2005). Task-based language learning and teaching: Theories and applications. In C. Edwards & J. Willis (Eds.), Teachers exploring tasks in english language teaching (pp. 13–30). UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  95. Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Smith, M. L. (1980). Publication bias and meta-analysis. Evaluation in Education, 4, 22–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Shehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning teaching and testing. UK: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
  99. 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
  100. *Takimoto, M. (2006a). The effects of explicit feedback and form–meaning processing on the development of pragmatic proficiency in consciousness-raising tasks. System, 34(4), 601–614.Google Scholar
  101. Takimoto, M. (2006b). The effects of explicit feedback on the development of pragmatic proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 393-417.Google Scholar
  102. Takimoto, M. (2008a). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the development of language learners’ pragmatic competence. The Modern Language Journal, 92(3), 369–386.Google Scholar
  103. Takimoto, M. (2008b). The effects of various kinds of form-focused instruction on learners’ ability to comprehend and produce polite request in english. TESL Canada Journal, 26(1), 31–51.Google Scholar
  104. *Takimoto, M. (2009). The effects of input-based tasks on the development of learners’ pragmatic proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
  105. *Takimoto, M. (2011). Measuring the effects of structured input task repetition on learners’ interlanguage pragmatic proficiency. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 17(2), 21–36.Google Scholar
  106. *Takimoto, M. (2012). Assessing the effects of identical task repetition and task-type repetition on learners’ recognition and production of second language request down-graders. Intercultural Pragmatics, 9(1), 71–96.Google Scholar
  107. Usó-Juan, E. (2013). Effects of metapragmatic instruction on EFL learners’ production ofrefusals1. In Refusals in instructional contexts and beyond (Vol. 25, pp. 65–99).Google Scholar
  108. VanPatten, B. (2002a). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52(4), 755–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. VanPatten, B. (2002b). Processing the content of input-processing and processing instruction research: A response to DeKeyser, Salaberry, Robinson, and Harrington. Language Learning, 52(4), 825–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Vellenga, H. E. (2011). Teaching L2 pragmatics: Opportunities for continuing professional development. Tesl-Ej, 15(2).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Central China Normal UniversityWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations