Pragmatic Capabilities and Challenges: A Mixed Method Study of Gender-Based Differences in Varied Pragmatic Tasks Performances

Subject Areas : All areas of language and translation

Roohollah Maleki ¹ , Ali Malmir ² , Rajab Esfandiari ³

1 - Department of English Language, Imam Khomeini International University, Ghazvin, Iran
2 - Department of English Language, Imam Khomeini International University, Ghazvin, Iran
3 - Department of English Language, Imam Khomeini International University, Ghazvin, Iran

Received: 2022-10-24 Accepted : 2022-12-18 Published : 2023-07-01

Keywords: pragmatic competence, challenge, pragmatics, Advanced L2 learner, Pragmatic task type,

Abstract :

The present study was mainly concerned with investigating advanced L2 learners’ pragmatic knowledge and the challenges of teaching and learning it. To fulfill the objectives of this study, a convergent mixed-methods study was conducted, and 196 advanced L2 learners and 10 experienced Iranian EFL teachers took part in the study. The results of the quantitative study yielded that, on the whole, the pragmatic knowledge level of advanced EFL learners is not satisfactory. In fact, advanced EFL learners are more skilled at receptive, non-interactive productive, and then pragmalinguistic tasks than sociolinguistic ones. In other words, they are good at intrapersonal perception of pragmatic knowledge but weak at interpersonal and pragmatic social interaction and communication. Furthermore, the gender factor was found to be insignificant. Additionally, the results of the qualitative study revealed five main challenges for teaching and learning pragmatics i.e., inappropriate pedagogical material, improper pragmatic assessment, pragmatically incompetent teachers, unsuitable instructional context, and insufficient time and effort. Finally, both quantitative and qualitative results confirmed and completed each other. In light of the findings, the study provides some pedagogical implications for language teachers, supervisors, language institute managers, material developers, and curriculum designers.

References:

Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. John Benjamins.

Billmyer, K., & Varghese, M. (2000). Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability: Effects of enhancing discourse completion tests. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 517-552. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.4.517

Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Request and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns. Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196-203. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/5.3.196

Caprario, M. (2020). Developing pragmatic competence in English academic discussions: An EAP classroom investigation. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 16(1), 123-152. https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2020-0006

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2^nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Cohen, A. D. (2019). Considerations in assessing pragmatic appropriateness in spoken language.  Language Teaching, 39. 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000156

Cohen, A. D., & Ishihara, N. (2012). Pragmatics. In B. Tomlinson & H. Masuhara
(Eds.), Applied linguistics applied: Connecting practice to theory through materials development (pp. 113-126). Continuum.

Cohen, A. D., & Weaver, S. J. (2006). Styles-and strategies-based instruction: A teachers' guide. Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition. https://stylesandstrategiesi.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/cohen-weaver.pdf

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (Facilitator). (2005, May). Mixed methods. Workshop hosted by the Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Health Care System, Center for Practice Management and Outcomes research, Ann Arbor, MI.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5^th ed.). SAGE.

Cui, X. (2012). Problematic Chinese-Australian social interactions at work [Doctoral dissertation, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne]. http://hdl.handle.net/11343/37635

Derakhshan, A., Malmir, A., & Greenier, V. (2021). Interlanguage pragmatic learning strategies (IPLS) as predictors of L2 speech act knowledge: A case of Iranian EFL learners. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 18(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2021.18.1.14.235

 

Farashaiyan, A., & Tan, K. H. (2012). On the relationship between pragmatic knowledge and language proficiency among Iranian male and female undergraduate EFL learners. 3L: Language, Linguistics and Literature. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 18, 33-46.

Félix-Brasdefer, C. (2010). Data collection methods in speech act performance: DCTs, role plays, and verbal reports. In A. Martínez-Flor, & E. Usó Juan (Ed.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical, and methodological issues (pp. 41-56). John Benjamins.

Garcia, P. (2004). Pragmatic comprehension of high- and low-level language learners. TESL-EJ, 8(2), 1-12. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1068107.pdf

Harrison, R. L., Reilly, T. M., & Creswell, J. W. (2020). Methodological rigor in mixed methods: An application in management studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(4), 473-495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689819900585

Kamble, S. S., & Banik, A. (2018). Comparison of various aspects of pragmatic language skills in male and female adults with spastic cerebral palsy. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 8(11), 95-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.8.11.2018.p8314

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). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Li, S., & Taguchi, N. (2014). The effects of practice modality on pragmatic development in L2 Chinese. Modern Language Journal, 98(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12123.x

Malmir, A., & Derakhshan, A. (2020). The socio-pragmatic, lexico-grammatical, and cognitive strategies in L2 pragmatic comprehension: The case of Iranian male vs. female EFL learners. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2020.120805

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook (2^nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Mohammad-Bagheri, M. (2015). The status of pragmatics among Iranian EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 8(4), 67-79. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n4p67

Riddiford, N., & Holmes, J. (2015). Assisting the development of sociopragmatic skills: Negotiating refusals at work. System, 48, 129-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.010

Ahmadi Safa, M, & Mahmoodi, M. H. (2012). The interface between linguistic and pragmatic competence: The case of disagreement, scolding, requests, and complaints. Journal of English Language, 10(3), 1-26.

Sharif, M., Yarmohammadi, L., Sadighi, F., & Sadegh Bagheri, M. (2017). Teaching pragmatics in the EFL classroom: challenges, lacunas, and suggestions. Advanced Education, 8, 49-53. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.108300

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.

Sykes, J. (2016). Technologies for teaching and learning intercultural competence and interlanguage pragmatics. In S. Sauro, & C. A. Chapelle (Eds.), Handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 118-133). Wiley.

Taguchi, N., & Kim, Y. (2014). Collaborative dialogue in learning pragmatics: Pragmatic-related episodes as an opportunity for learning request-making. Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 416-437. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu039

Taguchi, N., & Roever, C.  (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford University Press.

Tajeddin, Z., & Malmir, A. (2015). The construct of interlanguage pragmatic learning strategies: Investigating preferences of high vs. low pragmatic performers. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 6(4), 153-180. https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2015.3016

Tateyama, Y., & Kasper, G. (2008). Talking with a classroom guest: Opportunities for learning Japanese pragmatics. In E. S. Alcón, & A. Martínez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 45-71). Multilingual Matters.

Tehrani, M. D., Rezaei, O., Dezhara, S., & Kafrani, R. S. (2012). Apology strategies of Iranian undergraduate students. English Language Teaching, 5(2), 93-109. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n2p93

Tran, V. T. T. (2013). Second language interactional competence: Solicitation
effects on suggestions [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia]. http://hdl.handle.net/11343/42024

Zangoei, A., Nourmohammadi, E., & Derakhshan, A. (2014). A gender-based study of Iranian EFL learners' pragmatic awareness: The role of receptive skill-based teaching. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 3(6). https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.6p.53

Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. John Benjamins.

Billmyer, K., & Varghese, M. (2000). Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability: Effects of enhancing discourse completion tests. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 517-552. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.4.517

Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Request and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns. Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196-203. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/5.3.196

Caprario, M. (2020). Developing pragmatic competence in English academic discussions: An EAP classroom investigation. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 16(1), 123-152. https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2020-0006

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2^nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Cohen, A. D. (2019). Considerations in assessing pragmatic appropriateness in spoken language.  Language Teaching, 39. 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000156

Cohen, A. D., & Ishihara, N. (2012). Pragmatics. In B. Tomlinson & H. Masuhara
(Eds.), Applied linguistics applied: Connecting practice to theory through materials development (pp. 113-126). Continuum.

Cohen, A. D., & Weaver, S. J. (2006). Styles-and strategies-based instruction: A teachers' guide. Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition. https://stylesandstrategiesi.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/cohen-weaver.pdf

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (Facilitator). (2005, May). Mixed methods. Workshop hosted by the Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Health Care System, Center for Practice Management and Outcomes research, Ann Arbor, MI.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5^th ed.). SAGE.

Cui, X. (2012). Problematic Chinese-Australian social interactions at work [Doctoral dissertation, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne]. http://hdl.handle.net/11343/37635

Derakhshan, A., Malmir, A., & Greenier, V. (2021). Interlanguage pragmatic learning strategies (IPLS) as predictors of L2 speech act knowledge: A case of Iranian EFL learners. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 18(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2021.18.1.14.235

 

Farashaiyan, A., & Tan, K. H. (2012). On the relationship between pragmatic knowledge and language proficiency among Iranian male and female undergraduate EFL learners. 3L: Language, Linguistics and Literature. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 18, 33-46.

Félix-Brasdefer, C. (2010). Data collection methods in speech act performance: DCTs, role plays, and verbal reports. In A. Martínez-Flor, & E. Usó Juan (Ed.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical, and methodological issues (pp. 41-56). John Benjamins.

Garcia, P. (2004). Pragmatic comprehension of high- and low-level language learners. TESL-EJ, 8(2), 1-12. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1068107.pdf

Harrison, R. L., Reilly, T. M., & Creswell, J. W. (2020). Methodological rigor in mixed methods: An application in management studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(4), 473-495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689819900585

Kamble, S. S., & Banik, A. (2018). Comparison of various aspects of pragmatic language skills in male and female adults with spastic cerebral palsy. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 8(11), 95-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.8.11.2018.p8314

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). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Li, S., & Taguchi, N. (2014). The effects of practice modality on pragmatic development in L2 Chinese. Modern Language Journal, 98(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12123.x

Malmir, A., & Derakhshan, A. (2020). The socio-pragmatic, lexico-grammatical, and cognitive strategies in L2 pragmatic comprehension: The case of Iranian male vs. female EFL learners. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2020.120805

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook (2^nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Mohammad-Bagheri, M. (2015). The status of pragmatics among Iranian EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 8(4), 67-79. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n4p67

Riddiford, N., & Holmes, J. (2015). Assisting the development of sociopragmatic skills: Negotiating refusals at work. System, 48, 129-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.010

Ahmadi Safa, M, & Mahmoodi, M. H. (2012). The interface between linguistic and pragmatic competence: The case of disagreement, scolding, requests, and complaints. Journal of English Language, 10(3), 1-26.

Sharif, M., Yarmohammadi, L., Sadighi, F., & Sadegh Bagheri, M. (2017). Teaching pragmatics in the EFL classroom: challenges, lacunas, and suggestions. Advanced Education, 8, 49-53. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.108300

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.

Sykes, J. (2016). Technologies for teaching and learning intercultural competence and interlanguage pragmatics. In S. Sauro, & C. A. Chapelle (Eds.), Handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 118-133). Wiley.

Taguchi, N., & Kim, Y. (2014). Collaborative dialogue in learning pragmatics: Pragmatic-related episodes as an opportunity for learning request-making. Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 416-437. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu039

Taguchi, N., & Roever, C.  (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford University Press.

Tajeddin, Z., & Malmir, A. (2015). The construct of interlanguage pragmatic learning strategies: Investigating preferences of high vs. low pragmatic performers. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 6(4), 153-180. https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2015.3016

Tateyama, Y., & Kasper, G. (2008). Talking with a classroom guest: Opportunities for learning Japanese pragmatics. In E. S. Alcón, & A. Martínez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 45-71). Multilingual Matters.

Tehrani, M. D., Rezaei, O., Dezhara, S., & Kafrani, R. S. (2012). Apology strategies of Iranian undergraduate students. English Language Teaching, 5(2), 93-109. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n2p93

Tran, V. T. T. (2013). Second language interactional competence: Solicitation
effects on suggestions [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia]. http://hdl.handle.net/11343/42024

Zangoei, A., Nourmohammadi, E., & Derakhshan, A. (2014). A gender-based study of Iranian EFL learners' pragmatic awareness: The role of receptive skill-based teaching. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 3(6). https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.6p.53