The Impact of Pragmatics Instruction on Speech Act Performance Among EFL Learners: A Comparison of Technology-Enhanced and Conventional Classrooms
الموضوعات : نکرش جدید در یادگیری زبان انکلیسیTaif Abdulhussein Dakhil 1 , Fatemeh Karimi 2 , Riyadh Abbas Ubeid Al-Jashami 3 , Zargham Ghapanchi 4
1 - English Department, Isfahan (Khorasgan Branch), Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran.
2 - Islamic Azad University, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch
3 - Department of English language, College of Education, Sawa University, Almuthana, Iraq.
4 - Ferdowsi University
الکلمات المفتاحية: EFL learners, pragmatics instruction, speech acts, technology-enhanced learning,
ملخص المقالة :
Abstract
This research explored how pragmatics instruction affected the performance of Iraqi EFL learners in producing directive and commissive speech acts, examining various age groups and learning settings (technology-enhanced versus conventional classrooms). Additionally, the study investigates the perceptions of both EFL students and teachers regarding this pedagogical approach. For this purpose, four groups, each consisting of 50 Iraqi EFL learners, were included in the study. Specifically, two experimental groups (technology-enhanced versus conventional instruction) received pragmatics instruction, and the two control groups did not receive any instruction. These participants were drawn from both a university and a private language institute. The data were collected by placement tests, multiple discourse completion tests (MDCTs), and assessment questionnaires. Qualitative data was collected by semi-structured interviews and subsequently analyzed thematically. The results indicated that learners who were provided with instruction in speech acts demonstrated a notably higher level of performance than those who did not receive any instruction. Furthermore, the findings revealed that the technology-enhanced group performed better than their peers in conventional classroom and adults outperformed teenagers despite no gender differences. Interviews revealed the various benefits and obstacles associated with speech act instruction.
References
Alsuhaibani, Z. (2022). Developing EFL students’ pragmatic competence: The case of compliment responses. Language Teaching Research, 26(5), 847-866. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820913539
Arundale, R. B. (2021). Toward a pragmatics of relating in conversational interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 179, 19-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.04.018
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. & Palmer, A. (1996). Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Balteiro, I. (2018). English pragmatic markers in Spanish football chatspeak. Journal of Pragmatics, 133, 123-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.03.011
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2020). Pedagogical linguistics: A view from L2 pragmatics. Pedagogical Linguistics, 1(1), 44-65. https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.19013.bar
Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 43-57). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Birjandi, P., & Derakhshan, A. (2014). Pragmatic comprehension of apology, request and refusal: An investigation on the effect of consciousness-raising video-driven prompts. Applied Research on English Language, 3(1), 67-86. https://doi.org/10.22108/are.2014.15479
Clark, B. (2021). Pragmatics: the basics. Routledge.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Derakhshan, A. & Eslami, Z. (2015). The Effect of Consciousness-Raising Instruction on the Pragmatic Development of Apology and Request. TESL-EJ, 18(4), 4-11.
Eslami, Z. R. & Liu, C. N. (2013). Learning pragmatics through computer-mediated communication in Taiwan. Iranian Journal of Society, Culture & Language, 1(1), 52-73.
Esthher, U, & Martínez-Flor, A. (2010). The teaching of speech acts in second and foreign language instructional contexts. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Pragmatics across Languages and Cultures (pp. 423-442). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2021). Pragmatic competence and speech-act research in second language pragmatics. In J. C. Félix-Brasdefer & R. Shively (Eds.), New directions in second language pragmatics (pp.11-26). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
González-Lloret, M. (2022). Technology-mediated tasks for the development of L2 pragmatics. Language Teaching Research, 26(2), 173-189. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211064930
Kasper, G. (2022). Interlanguage pragmatics. In F. Brisard, P. Gras, S. D'hondt & M. Vandenbroucke (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics online (pp. 808-819). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kim, H. (2016). An investigation into EFL learners’ perception towards L2 pragmatic instruction. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(3), 452-462. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0603.02
Korkmaz, S., & Karatepe, Ç. (2023). Exploring the pragmatic awareness and competence of EFL instructors at tertiary level. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 13(1), 34-55. https://doi.org/10.18039/ajesi.1086084
Kreidler, C.W. (2013). Introducing English Semantics, Second Edition. London: Routledge.
Li, S. (2012). The effects of input-based practice on pragmatic development of requests in L2 Chinese. Language Learning, 62, 403–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00629.x
Muhartoyo, K. K. (2013). Directive speech act in the movie “Sleeping Beauty.” Journal of Pragmatic, 4(2), 949-966. https://doi.org/10.21512/humaniora.v4i2.3536
Plonsky, L., & Kim, Y. (2016). Task-Based Learner Production: A Substantive and Methodological Review. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 73-97. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190516000015
Roever, C. (2021). Teaching and testing second language pragmatics and interaction: A practical guide. Routledge.
Ren, W. (2022). Second language pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
Rubio-Fernandez, P. (2020). Pragmatic markers: the missing link between language and Theory of Mind. Synthese 199 (1-2),1125-1158. https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199772810-0130
Shafee Nahrkhalaji, S. (2013). The effect of different types of instruction and feedback on the development of pragmatic proficiency: The case of pragmatic markers. Research in English Language Pedagogy, 1(1), 72–83.
Sk, R., & Bacchu, M. (2023). A Study on Enhancement of Language Competence Through Pragmatic Practices. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 13(2), 341-352. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1302.08
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48, 1–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000263
Taguchi, N. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Taguchi, N., & Sykes, J. M. (2013). Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Takahashi, S. (2010). Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), The Handbooks of Pragmatics, Vol. VII (pp. 391–421). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
Ton Nu, A. T., & Murray, J. (2020). Pragmatic Content in EFL Textbooks: An Investigation into Vietnamese National Teaching Materials. Tesl-Ej, 24(3), n3.
Van der Zwaard, R., & Bannink, A. (2014). Video call or chat? Negotiation of meaning and issues of face in telecollaboration. System, 44(1), 137e148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.03.007
Zand-Moghadam, A., & Adeh, A. (2014). Investigating pragmatic competence, metapragmatic awareness and speech act strategies among Turkmen-Persian bilingual and Persian monolingual EFL learners: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 49(1), 22-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2019.1705876
