Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Intercultural Pragmatics

Editor-in-Chief: Kecskes, Istvan


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.125
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.154

CiteScore 2017: 1.25

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.719
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 1.417

Online
ISSN
1613-365X
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 12, Issue 3

Issues

The use of computer-delivered structured tasks in pragmatic instruction: An exploratory study

Tetyana Sydorenko
Published Online: 2015-09-03 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2015-0017

Abstract

This study examines the effect of oral practice via computer-delivered structured tasks (CASTs) with native speaker (NS) models and open-ended tasks without NS input (i.e., learner-leaner role-plays) on pragmatic development of second language learners. While prior studies have indicated that structured tasks afford more opportunities for focus on form (FonF) than open-ended tasks (Lee and VanPatten 2003; Lyster 2004; Ranta and Lyster 2007; Skehan and Foster 1999; Tavakoli and Foster 2011), differences between these tasks in pragmatic instruction (PI) have not been examined. Additionally, the effect of practice has been widely examined with regard to oral development, but much less so for pragmatics (e.g., Li 2013; Takimoto 2012a). In this study, one group of ESL learners practiced request speech acts via CASTs, and another group did so via learner-learner open role-plays. Qualitative analysis of participants’ output during practice suggests that rehearsal via CASTs promotes FonF and incorporation of NS models into learners’ speech, while rehearsal via role-plays results in more creative, but often pragmatically inappropriate, language and content. Additionally, role-plays, but not CASTs, appear to be conducive to humorous language play, metapragmatic discussions, and extended turns similar to those in naturalistic interactions. The study offers insights regarding task types in PI.

Keywords: pragmatic instruction; oral practice; task types; computer-delivered structured tasks; learner-learner role-plays; focus-on-form

References

  • Adolphs, Svenja. 2008. Corpus and context: Investigating pragmatic functions in spoken discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Ahmadian, Mohammad & Mansoor Tavakoli. 2011. The effects of guided careful online planning on complexity, accuracy and fluency in intermediate EFL learners’ oral production: The case of English articles. Language Teaching Research 15. 35–59.Google Scholar

  • Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 1999. Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisition of pragmatics. Language Learning 49. 677–713.Google Scholar

  • Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 2001. Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In Kenneth Rose & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching, 13–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 2009. Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource: Recognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Language Learning 59. 755–795.Google Scholar

  • Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 2013. Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning 63. 68–86.doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00738xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, Maria-Thereza Bastos, Beatrix Burghardt, Eric Chappetto, Edelmira Nickels & Marda Rose. 2010. The use of conventional expressions and utterance length in L2 pragmatics. In Gabriele Kasper, Hanh thi Nguyen, Dina Rudolph Yoshimi & Jim Yoshioka (eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 12, 163–186. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar

  • Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen & R. Griffin. 2005. L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL classroom. System 33(3). 401–415.Google Scholar

  • Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen & Beverly Hartford. 1996. Input in an institutional setting. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18. 171–188.Google Scholar

  • Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen & Beverly Hartford. 2005. Institutional discourse and interlanguage pragmatics research. In Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig & Beverly Hartford (eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics: Exploring institutional talk, 7–36. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, Sabrina Mossman & Heidi Vellenga. 2015. The effect of instruction on pragmatic routines in academic discussion. Language Teaching Research 19. 324–350.Google Scholar

  • Barron, Anne. 2007. ‘Ah no honestly we’re okay’: Learning to upgrade in a study abroad context. Intercultural Pragmatics 4. 129–166.Google Scholar

  • Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Julianne House & Gabriele Kasper (eds.). 1989. Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

  • Brown, Penelope & Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bygate, Martin & Virginia Samuda. 2005. Integrative planning through the use of task-repetition. In Rod Ellis (ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language, 37–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Cohen, Andrew. 2005. Strategies for learning and performing L2 speech acts. Intercultural Pragmatics 2. 275–301.Google Scholar

  • De Jong, Nel & Charles Perfetti. 2011. Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning 61. 533–568.Google Scholar

  • DeKeyser, Robert. 2007. Study abroad as foreign language practice. In Robert DeKeyser (ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology, 208–226. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Economidou-Kogetsidis, Maria. 2013. Strategies, modification and perspective in native speakers’ requests: A comparison of WDCT and naturally occurring requests. Journal of Pragmatics 53. 21–38.Google Scholar

  • Félix-Brasdefer, J. César. 2006. Teaching the negotiation of multi-turn speech acts: Using conversation-analytic tools to teach pragmatics in the classroom. In Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig, J. César Félix-Brasdefer & Alwiya Omar (eds.), Pragmatics and language learning, Vol. 11, 165–197. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar

  • Félix-Brasdefer, J. César. 2007. Pragmatic development in the Spanish as a FL classroom: A cross-sectional study of learner requests. Intercultural Pragmatics 4. 253–286.Google Scholar

  • Foster, Pauline & Peter Skehan. 1999. The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research 3. 215–247.Google Scholar

  • Golato, Andrea. 2003. Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics 24. 90–121.Google Scholar

  • Haugh, Michael & Derek Bousfield. 2012. Mock impoliteness, jocular mockery and jocular abuse in Australian and British English. Journal of Pragmatics 44(9). 1099–1114.Google Scholar

  • Hudson, Thom, Emily Detmer & James Dean Brown. 1995. Developing prototypic measures of cross-cultural pragmatics. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar

  • Ishihara, Noriko & Andrew Cohen. 2010. Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. London: Pearson.Google Scholar

  • Jeon, Eun Hee & Tadayoshi Kaya. 2006. Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development. In John Michael Norris & Lourdes Ortega (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching, 165–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Judd, Eliot. 1999. Some issues in the teaching of pragmatic competence. In Eli Hinkel (ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning, 152–166. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Kádár, Dániel & Michael Haugh. 2013. Understanding politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Kasper, Gabriele & Kenneth Rose. 2002. Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Koike, Dale. 1989. Pragmatic competence and adult L2 acquisition: Speech acts in interlanguage. The Modern Language Journal 73. 279–289.Google Scholar

  • Koike, Dale & Lynn Pearson. 2005. The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence. System 33. 481–501.Google Scholar

  • Kuha, Mai. 1997. The computer-assisted interactive DCT: A study in pragmatics research methodology. Pragmatics and language learning 8. 99–128.Google Scholar

  • Kuha, Mai. 1999. The influence of interaction and instructions on speech act data. Indiana University Doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Lee, James & Bill Van Patten. 2003. Making communicative language teaching happen (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar

  • Li, Shuai. 2013. Amount of practice and pragmatic development of request-making in L2 Chinese. In Naoko Taguchi & Julie Sykes (eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching, 43–69. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Long, Michael. 1991. Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In Kees de Bot, Ralph Ginsberg & Claire Kramsch (eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspectives, 39–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Lyster, Roy. 2004. Research on form-focused instruction in immersion classrooms: Implications for theory and practice. Journal of French Language Studies14. 321–341.Google Scholar

  • Martínez-Flor, Alicia & Yoshinori Fukuya. 2005. The effects of instruction on learners’ production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. System 33. 463–480.Google Scholar

  • Martínez-Flor, Alicia & Esther Usó-Juan. 2006. A comprehensive pedagogical framework to develop pragmatics in the foreign language classroom: The 6Rs approach. Applied Language Learning 16(2). 39–64.Google Scholar

  • Martínez-Flor, Alicia & Esther Usó-Juan. 2010. The teaching of speech acts in second and foreign language instructional contexts. In Anna Trosborg (ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures, 423–442. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Mochizuki, Naoko & Lourdes Ortega. 2008. Balancing communication and grammar in beginning-level foreign language classrooms: A study of guided planning and relativization. Language Teaching Research 12. 11–37.Google Scholar

  • Olshtain, Elite & Andrew Cohen. 1991. Teaching speech act behavior to nonnative speakers. In Marianne Celce-Murcia (ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language, 154–165. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.Google Scholar

  • Pomerantz, Anne & Nancy Bell. 2007. Learning to play, playing to learn: FL learners as multicompetent language users. Applied Linguistics 28(4). 556–578.Google Scholar

  • Ranta, Leila & Roy Lyster. 2007. A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In Robert DeKeyser (ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology, 141–160. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Roever, Carsten. 2009. Teaching and testing pragmatics. In Michael Long & Catherine Doughty (eds.), The handbook of language teaching, 560–577. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Roever, Carsten, Catriona Fraser & Catherine Elder. 2014. Testing ESL sociopragmatics: Development and validation of a web-based test battery. Oxford: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

  • Rose, Kenneth. 2005. On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System 33. 385–399.Google Scholar

  • Rose, Kenneth. 2009. Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase 2. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 2345–2364.Google Scholar

  • Schauer, Gila. 2007. Finding the right words in the study abroad context: The development of German learners’ use of external modifiers in English. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(2). 193–220.Google Scholar

  • Shauer, Gila & Svenja Adolphs. 2006. Expressions of gratitude in corpus and DCT data: Vocabulary, formulaic sequences, and pedagogy. System 34. 119–134.Google Scholar

  • Schmidt, Richard. 1993. Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 13. 206–226.Google Scholar

  • Schmidt, Richard. 2001. Attention. In Peter Robinson (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction, 3–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Shively, Rachel. 2014. Teasing of L2 learners in host family communities of practice. Paper presented at the Pragmatics and Language Learning Conference, Bloomington, IN.

  • Skehan, Peter & Pauline Foster. 1999. The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning 49. 93–120.Google Scholar

  • Skehan, Peter & Pauline Foster. 2005. Strategic and on-line planning: The influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. In Rod Ellis (ed.), Planning and task-performance in a second language, 193–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Swain, Merrill. 2006. Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In Heidi Byrnes (ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky, 95–108. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

  • Sydorenko, Tetyana. 2011. Exploring the potential of rehearsal via automatized structured tasks versus face-to-face pair work to facilitate pragmatic and oral development. Michigan State University Doctoral dissertation. Dissertation Abstracts International 3464977.Google Scholar

  • Sykes, Julie. 2008. A dynamic approach to social interaction: SCMC, synthetic immersive environments and Spanish pragmatics. University of Minnesota Doctoral dissertation. Dissertation Abstracts International 3310635.Google Scholar

  • Taguchi, Naoko. 2007. Task difficulty in oral speech act production. Applied Linguistics 28. 113–135.Google Scholar

  • Taguchi, Naoko. 2012. Context, individual differences, and pragmatic competence. Toronto: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Taguchi, Naoko & Julie Sykes. 2013. Introduction: Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching. In Naoko Taguchi & Julie Sykes (eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching, 1–15. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Takahashi, Satomi. 2001. The role of input enhancement in developing interlanguage pragmatic competence. In Kenneth Rose & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching, 171–199. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Takahashi, Satomi. 2010. The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance. In Alicia Martínez-Flor & Esther Usó-Juan (eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical, and methodological issues, 127–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Takimoto, Masahiro. 2006. The effects of explicit feedback and form-meaning processing on the development of pragmatic proficiency in consciousness-raising tasks. System 34. 601–614.Google Scholar

  • Takimoto, Masahiro. 2012a. Assessing the effects of identical task repetition and task-type repetition on learners’ recognition and production of second language request downgraders. Intercultural Pragmatics 9. 71–96.Google Scholar

  • Takimoto, Masahiro. 2012b. Metapragmatic discussion in interlanguage pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 44. 1240–1253.Google Scholar

  • Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen & Thorsten Huth. 2010. L2 requests: Preference structure in talk-in-interaction. Multilingua 29(2). 185–202.Google Scholar

  • Tavakoli, Parvaneh & Pauline Foster. 2011. Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning 61. 37–72.Google Scholar

  • Vandergriff, Ilona & Carolin Fuchs. 2009. Does CMC promote language play? Exploring humor in two modalities. CALICO Journal 27(1). 26–47.Google Scholar

  • Walkinshaw, Ian. 2009. Learning politeness: Disagreement in a second language. Oxford: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

  • Yates, Linda. 2010. Dinkas down under: Request performance in simulated workplace interaction. In Gabriele Kasper, Hanh thi Nguyen, Dina Rudolph Yoshimi & Jim Yoshioka (eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 12, 113–140. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar

  • Yuan, Yi. 2001. An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods: Written DCTs, oral DCTs, field notes, and natural conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 33(2). 271–292.Google Scholar

About the article

Tetyana Sydorenko

Tetyana Sydorenko is an Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics at Portland State University. Her research interests include teaching and acquisition of SL pragmatics, computer-assisted language learning, psycholinguistic processes in SL acquisition, and assessment. She is currently investigating the use of adaptive computer-simulated conversations in the teaching of SL pragmatics.


Published Online: 2015-09-03

Published in Print: 2015-09-01


Funding: This study was funded by (1) the U.S. Department of Education International Research and Studies (IRS) Program Grant, special project number P017A100100, and (2) Dissertation Completion Fellowship from Michigan State University.


Citation Information: Intercultural Pragmatics, Volume 12, Issue 3, Pages 333–362, ISSN (Online) 1613-365X, ISSN (Print) 1612-295X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2015-0017.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Tetyana Sydorenko, Tom F. H. Smits, Keelan Evanini, and Vikram Ramanarayanan
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 2018, Page 1
[3]
Hossein Ahmadi, Farid Ghaemi, and Parviz Birjandi
Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2016, Volume 19, Number 2, Page 1
[4]
Tetyana Sydorenko, Phoebe Daurio, and Steven L. Thorne
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 2017, Page 1

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in