Separate and Integrated Explicit Pragmatic Learning Strategies-Based Instruction: Effects on Speech Act Production and Pragmatic Learning Strategy Use

مقالات آماده انتشار
نویسندگان
Mina Akhavan Tavakoli 1
Marzieh Bagherkazemi 2
Alireza Ameri 2
1 Department of Foreign Languages, Islamic Azad University (Kish International Branch)
2 Language Research Center and English Language Teaching Department, Faculty of Islamic Education, Islamic Azad University (South Tehran Branch)
چکیده
Despite the evidenced significance of pragmatic learning strategies (PLSs) for L2 pragmatic performance, research into their instruction is extremely rare. This study explored the effects of two explicit pragmatic learning strategies-based instruction (PLSBI) approaches, namely separate and integrated, on the speech act (request and apology) production and PLSs’ use of 90 intermediate EFL learners in three 30-member convenience sampled groups: explicit separate PLSBI, explicit integrated PLSBI, and control (ESG, EIG, and CG, respectively). As an intensive PLS-focused course, separate PLSBI involved explicit PLSs’ explanation and teacher modelling, followed by presentation of speech act-containing video vignettes and pair predicting tasks for strategic practice. In contrast, integrated PLSBI involved presentation of the same video vignettes, and predicting task performance mediated by explicit PLSs’ explanation and teacher modelling. Both conditions targeted 20 PLSs (11 explicit and 9 implicit) in 10 40-minute sessions. CG, however, did not receive any targeted pragmatics instruction, and was just exposed to the video vignettes as speech act input. Speech act production was measured a 16-item written discourse completion test (WDCT) for apology and request production and pragmatic learning strategy inventory (PRALSI) for PLSs’ use. The results of one-way ANCOVA and MANCOVA demonstrated significant effects of both PLSBI approaches on WDCT and PRALSI scores, with EIG surpassing ESG. These findings substantiate the effectiveness of explicit PLSBI, especially the integrated approach, for pragmatic performance, and highlight the critical role of PLSBI in promoting autonomous interlanguage pragmatic development in EFL contexts.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

An, Z., Li, S., & Gan, Z. (2025). Technology-mediated self-regulated learning strategies in EFL writing: A bibliometric analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 38(2), 210–230. http://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2025.987654
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A Taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives: Complete edition. Longman.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford University Press.
Bagherkazemi, M. (2013). Interlanguage pragmatic development: Impacts of input enhancement, individual/collaborative output, metapragmatic awareness raising, and pragmatic learning strategies [Doctoral dissertation, Allameh Tabatabaei Univeristy, Tehran, Iran].
Bagherkazemi, M., & Harati-Asl, M. (2022). Interlanguage pragmatic development: Comparative impacts of cognitive and interpersonal tasks. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 10(2), 37–54. http://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2022.121182
Birjandi, P. and 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. http://doi.org/10.22108/are.2014.15479
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues andresearch. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061
Cohen, A. D. (2005). Strategies for learning and performing L2 speech acts. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(3), 275–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2005.2.3.275
Cohen A.D. (2010). Strategies for learning and performing speech acts. In N. Ishihara & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet (pp. 227–243). Longman.
Derakhshan, A., Malmir, A., & Greenier, V. T. (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), 235–243. http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2021.18.1.14.235
Derakhshan, A., Malmir, A., Pawlak, M., & Wang, Y. (2023). The use of interlanguage pragmatic learning strategies (IPLS) by L2 learners: The impact of age, gender, language learning experience, and L2 proficiency levels. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 62(4), 1985–2008. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2022-0132
Derakhshan, A., & Shakki, F. (2020). The effect of implicit vs. explicit metapragmatic instruction on the Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ pragmatic comprehension of apology and refusal. ZABANPAZHUHI (Journal of Language Research), 12(35), 151–175. https://doi.org/10.22051/jlr.2019.23938.1636
Derakhshan, A., & Shakki, F. (2021). A meta-analytic study of instructed second language pragmatics: A case of the speech act of request. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.22055/RALS.2021.16722
Derakhshan, A., Shakki, F., & Sarani, M. A. (2020). The effect of dynamic and non-dynamic assessment on the comprehension of Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ speech acts of apology and request. Language Related Research, 11(4), 605–634. http://lrr.modares.ac.ir/article-14-40648-en.html
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Geranpayeh, A. (2003). A quick review of the English Quick Placement Test. University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations, Research Notes, 12, 8–10.
Germain, C. (2018). The neurolinguistic approach (NLA) for learning and teaching foreign languages: Theory and practice. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Huang, Y. (2023). Pragmatics (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Liu, J. (2023). Language learning strategies in second language acquisition. Lecture Notes on Language and Literature, 6, 69–75. https://doi.org/10.23977/langl.2023.061611
Malmir, A. (2020). Interlanguage pragmatic learning strategies (IPLS) as predictors of L2 social identity: A case of Iranian upper-intermediate and advanced EFL Learners. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 12(1), 177–216. http://doi.org/10.22111/ijals.2020.5681
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. http://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2020.120805
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667336
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Newberry House.
Oxford, R. L. (2011). Strategies for learning a second or foreign language. Language Teaching, 44(2), 167–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0261444810000492
Plonsky, L. (2011). The Effectiveness of second language strategy instruction: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 61 (4), 993–1038. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.14679922.2011.00663.x
Rose, H., Briggs, J. G., Boggs, J. A., Sergio, L., & Ivanova-Slavianskaia, N. (2018). A systematic review of language learner strategy research in the face of self-regulation. System, 72, 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.12.002
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning, and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S. Blum Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21–42). Oxford University Press.
Shakki, F. (2022). Meta-analysis as an emerging trend to scrutinize the effectiveness of L2 pragmatics instruction. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1016661
Shakki, F., Naeini, J., Mazandarani, O., & Derakhshan, A. (2020). Instructed second language English pragmatics in the Iranian context. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 39(1), 201–252. . https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2020.38481.2886.
Shakki, F., Naeini, J., Mazandarani, O., & Derakhshan, A. (2021). Instructed second language pragmatics for the speech act of apology in an Iranian EFL context: A meta-analysis. Applied Research on English Language, 10(3), 77–104. https://doi.org/10.22108/are.2021.128213.1709
Shakki, F., Naeini, J., Mazandarani, O., & Derakhshan, A. (2023). A meta-analysis on the instructed second language pragmatics for the speech acts of apology, request, and refusal in an Iranian EFL context. Language Related Research, 13(6), 461–510. https://doi:10.52547/LRR.13.6.15
Shively, R. (2010). From the virtual world to the real world: A model of pragmatics instruction for study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 43(3), 105–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01063
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced Language Learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). Continuum.
Sykes, J., & Cohen, A. (2018). Strategies and interlanguage pragmatics: Explicit and comprehensive. Studies in Second Language Learning and teaching, 8(2), 381–402. http://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.2.9
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson Education.
Taguchi, N. (2006). Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English. Pragmatics, 16(4), 513–533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/prag.16.4.05tag
Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289–310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000018
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000263
Taguchi, N. (2018). Pragmatic competence in foreign language education: Cultivating learner autonomy and strategic learning of pragmatics. In I. Walker, D. Kwang Guan Chan, M. Nagami & C. Bourguignon (Eds.), New perspectives on the development of communicative and related competence in foreign language education (pp. 53–70). De Gruyter Mouton.
Taguchi, N., Tang, X., & Maa, J. (2019). Learning how to learn pragmatics: Application of self-directed strategies to pragmatics learning in L2 Chinese and Japanese. East Asian Pragmatics, 4(1), 11–36. https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.38207
Tajeddin, Z., & Bagherkazemi, M. (2021). Implicit and explicit pragmatic learning strategies: Their factorial structure and relationship with speech act knowledge. TESL-EJ, 25(3), 1–28. Retrieved from https://www.tesl-ej.org/pdf/ej99/a5.pdf
Tajeddin, Z., & Malmir, A. (2015). The construct of interlanguage pragmatic learning Strategies: Investigating preferences of high vs. low pragmatic performers. Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 6(4), 153–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2015.3016
Vance, S. J. (1999). Language learning strategies: Is there a best way to teach them? (ED438716). ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED438716
Zhang, L. J., Thomas, N., & Qin, T. L. (2024). Language learning strategy research in System: Looking back and looking forward. System, 129, 103–115. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103115
جستارهای زبانی

مقالات آماده انتشار، پذیرفته شده
انتشار آنلاین از 25 شهریور 1404