A Meta-Analysis on the Instructed Second Language Pragmatics for the Speech Acts of Apology, Request, and Refusal in an Iranian EFL Context

Document Type : مقالات علمی پژوهشی

Authors
F. Shakki 1
J. Neaini 1
O. Mazandarani 1
A. Derakhshan 2
1 Department of English Language Teaching, Aliabad Katoul Branch, Islamic Azad University, Aliabad Katoul, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Golestan University, Gorgan, Iran
10.52547/LRR.13.6.15
Abstract
Considering one of the earliest calls for applying pragmatics in the second language, Kasper and Rose’s (2002) study “Is Pragmatic Teachable?”, pragmatic features have been analyzed during the last 20 years in EFL/ESL contexts. The amalgamation of studies has been conducted on many speech acts around the world within the two decades, among which request, apology, and refusal are considered as the most-appreciated speech acts in Iran. The purpose of the present paper is to unravel the overall effectiveness of the intervention on the speech acts of request, apology, and refusal in an Iranian EFL context. To this aim, out of a total number of 80 studies, 57 papers were chosen based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, which were coded for the analysis. The results of the study revealed that the instruction of request, apology, and refusal is effective and generated a mean of (g = 1.43) which is significant, reflecting a quite large gain of instruction. The paper concludes with pedagogical implications and suggestions for future studies.

It is about four decades that pragmatics has been at the center of constant theoretical and empirical attention among the theoretician and practitioners around the world (Derakhshan & Shakki, 2021). In order to appropriately construct and reconstruct the meaning of spoken and written utterances, speakers need to have shared background knowledge. Hence, it may be a burden for a person to convey what she/he intends to communicate in a way that enables the interlocutors to find out it in the way that it was intended.

In a nutshell, teaching and assessing pragmatics are justified on the ground that language learners may encounter difficulties to produce and comprehend language appropriately due to cross-cultural mismatches regarding the linguistic and social appropriacy of target language norms, and negative pragmatic transfer from their L1 to L2, to just name a few (Shakki et al., 2021). More importantly, among those studies which have investigated pragmatic instruction (Derakhshan, 2014; Derakhshan & Arabmofrad, 2018; Derakhshan & Eslami Rasekh, 2015, 2020; Derakhshan & Shakki, 2020a; Derakhshan et al., 2020; Jeon & Kaya, 2006; Kasper & Rose, 1999, 2002; Kasper & Roever, 2005; Martínez-Flor & Alcón-Soler, 2005; Plonsky & Zhuang, 2019), none of them thoroughly synthesized the empirical studies on pragmatics to find the lacuna regarding teachability of the pragmatics.

The amalgamation of mentioned studies has been conducted on many speech acts, among which request, apology, and refusal are recognized as the most-appreciated speech acts in Iran. Due to the lack of adequate meta-analyses on the effectiveness of L2 pragmatic instruction (Derakhshan & Shakki, 2021; Shakki et al., 2021), which is under-researched in an Iranian EFL context, this study aimed to meta-analyze the body of research in L2 pragmatic instruction to check its effectiveness. Considering the substantial prominence of ILP in learning and teaching in EFL contexts, the purpose of the present study, as far as meta-analysis is concerned, is to summarize the magnitude and directions of the effects obtained in a series of empirical studies. The aim is to identify the effectiveness of teaching methods in the instruction of pragmatics in an Iranian context.

Apology, request, and refusal are the speech acts that were investigated in the present study. More specifically, the present study was an attempt to pursue the effectiveness of teaching L2 pragmatics, particularly the speech acts of request, apology, and refusal to EFL learners in an EFL context like Iran. Following a comprehensive search, 80 studies were found to be coded based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria, and in the aggregate, 98 effect sizes reported from the 57 original studies generated a mean of (g = 1.43) which is significant, reflecting a quite large gain of instruction.

Despite the fact that this study may divulge several findings and implications in the field of teaching, and learning of pragmatics, like any other study undertaken so far, the present study is not exempt from limitations as well as delimitations which are enumerated as follows: One limitation is the lack of transparency and subjectivity inherent in this approach. Various reviewers might use different criteria to decide which studies should be included in their review, they may come to contradictory results and opposite conclusions. The second limitation is that the process of the analysis becomes hard and eventually untenable as the number of studies increases whereas a reviewer may be able to synthesize data from a few studies in his/her head. Some of the important studies may be ignored during the data collection, and it can be considered as another limitation. A common limitation of meta-analysis is that researchers combine different sorts of studies (apples and oranges) in the same analysis, so it leads to the argument that the summary effect will ignore possibly important differences across studies. There are still some unpublished studies lying dormant in the researchers’ filing cabinets contributing to the use of the term file drawer problem for meta-analysis which were not included in the current study.

The first delimitation refers to those dimensions of pragmatics that were not included in this investigation. Since pragmatic knowledge includes many more dimensions in each component like speech acts, politeness principles, deixis, conversational structure, presupposition, implicatures, routines, and so on. The present study tried to include the most influential components in ILP which are speech acts, among which request, apology, and refusal were selected to be investigated in this study. Though there appears to be a large amount of research in ILP, the studies which were published between 2000 and early 2020 were included in the present study. One conspicuous delimitation is the number of studies in which instruction was employed and the ones which do not implement instruction were removed from the study. The primary subcategories based on which the current study was conducted can also be extended and other moderator variables can be scrutinized.

Conducting this study brings some implications and suggestions for the researchers whose area of interest is L2 pragmatics. The results may have pivotal pedagogical implications for L2 pragmatics and future research. One of the tremendous implications of this study is that while searching for the speech acts, surprisingly, there were some speech acts that have received no attention such as congratulations, condolences, threats, and challenges, so the researchers may use these untouched areas of English pragmatic instruction for their future studies. The other implication is that the teachers would be able to utilize the most effective treatment types, which led to better performance, comprehension, and production, and they also should take care of other factors such as gender, age, and proficiency level of the learners to have better outcomes. The findings of the present study may be useful for researchers whose area of interest is pragmatics, particularly the speech acts to check the moderator variables which are helpful and predictor in teaching the speech act of request, apology, and refusal.

Keywords

Subjects

Ahmadi, A., & Ghafar Samar, R. (2014). Teaching requestive downgraders in L2: Can learners’ MI modify the effects of focused tasks?. Teaching English Language, 8(2), 91-117.
Ahmadi, A., Ghafar, S. R., & Yazdanimoghaddam, M. (2011). Teaching requestive downgraders in L2: How effective are input-based and output-based tasks?. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 14(2), 1-30.
Alavi, S. M., & Dini, S. (2008). Assessment of pragmatic awareness in an EFL classroom context: The case of implicit and explicit instruction. Pazhuheshe Zabanhaye Khareji, 45, 99-113.
Anani Sarab, M. R., & Alikhani, S. (2016a). The efficacy of pragmatic instruction in EFL context: The case of Persian learners of English. English Teaching & Learning, 40(1), 25-47.
Anani Sarab, M. R., & Alikhani, S. (2016b). Pragmatics instruction in EFL context: A focus on requests. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 5(1), 29-42.
Badjadi, N. E. I. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of instructional tasks on L2 pragmatics comprehension and production. In S. F. Tang & L. Logonnathan (Eds.), Assessment for learning within and beyond the classroom (pp. 241-268). Springer.
Bagheri, M., & Hamrang, A. (2013). The effect of metapragmatic instructions on the interpretation and use of apology speech acts of English as a foreign language learner (EFL) at the intermediate level. International Journal of Social Sciences & Education, 3(4), 964-975.
Bagherkazemi, M. (2018). Impact of collaborative output-based instruction on EFL learners’ awareness of the speech act of apology. Journal of Language and Translation, 8(4), 45-54.
Barekat, B., & Mehri, M. (2013). Investigating the effect of metalinguistic feedback in L2 pragmatic instruction. International Journal of Linguistics, 5(2), 197-208.
Birjandi, P., & Derakhshan, A. (2014). The impact of consciousness-raising video-driven vignettes on the pragmatic development of apology, request, & refusal. Applied Research on English Language, 3(1), 67-85.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1991) Interlanguage pragmatics: The case of requests. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogy research—A commemorative volume for Claus Faerch (pp. 255-272). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language use: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-289). Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, A. D. (2008). Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: What can we expect from learners? Language Teaching. 41(2), 213-235.
Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: The case of apology1. Language Learning, 31(1), 113-134.
Crystal, D. (1985). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Blackwell.
Culpeper, J., Mackey, A., & Taguchi, N. (2018). Second language pragmatics: From theory to research. Routledge.
Dastjerdi, H. V., & Farshid, M. (2011). The role of input enhancement in teaching compliments. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(2), 460-466.
Dastjerdi, H. V., & Rezvani, E. (2010). The impact of instruction on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ production of requests in English. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(6), 782-790.
Derakhshan, A. (2014). The effect of consciousness-raising video-driven prompts on the comprehension of implicatures and speech acts (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Allameh Tabataba’i University.
Derakhshan, A., & Arabmofrad, A. (2018). The impact of instruction on the pragmatic comprehension of speech acts of apology, request, and refusal among Iranian intermediate EFL learners. English Teaching & Learning, 42(1), 75-94.
Derakhshan, A., & Cohen, A.D. (2021). Introduction to the TESL-EJ Special issue on teaching, learning, assessing, and researching L2 pragmatics in honor of Prof. Zohreh R. Eslami. TESL-EJ, 25(1). Available at http://www.teslej.org/wordpress/issues/volume25/ej97/ej97a0/
Derakhshan, A., & Eslami, Z. (2015). The effect of consciousness-raising instruction on the comprehension of apology & request. TESL-EJ, 18(4). Available at http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume18/ej72/ej72a6/
Derakhshan, A., & Eslami Rasekh, Z. (2020). The effect of metapragmatic awareness, interactive translation, and discussion through video-enhanced input on EFL learners’ comprehension of implicature. Applied Research on English Language, 9(1), 25-52.
Derakhshan, A., & Malmir, A. (2021). The role of language aptitude in the development of L2 pragmatic competence. TESL-EJ, 25(1), 1-30. Available at http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume25/ej97/ej97a0/
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), 235-243.
Derakhshan, A., & Shakki, F. (2020a). The effect of implicit vs. explicit metapragmatic instruction on the Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ pragmatic comprehension of apology and refusal. Journal of Language Research, 12(37), 151-175.
Derakhshan, A., & Shakki, F. (2020b). [ Review of the book Doing SLA research with implications for the classroom reconciling methodological demands and pedagogical applicability, by R. M. DeKeyser and G. P. Botana]. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. https://doi. 10.1111/ijal.12290.
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), 605-637.
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455-463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x
Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33(2), 209-224.
Eslami, Z., & Eslami, A. (2008). Enhancing the pragmatic competence of non-native English-speaking teacher candidates (NNESTCs) in an EFL context. In E. A Soler, & A. Martı´nez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing, (pp. 178-197). Cromwell Press.
Eslami-Rasekh, Z., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Fatahi, A. (2004). The effect of explicit metapragmatic instruction on the speech act awareness of advanced EFL students. TESL-EJ, 8(2). Available at http://cwp60.berkeley.edu:16080/TESL-EJ/ej30/a2.html.
Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Mardani, M. (2010). Investigating the effects of teaching apology speech act, with a focus on intensifying strategies, on pragmatic development of EFL learners: The Iranian context. The International Journal of Language Society and Culture, 30(1), 96-103.
Eslami, Z. R., Mirzaei, A., & Dini, S. (2015). The role of asynchronous computer mediated communication in the instruction and development of EFL learners’ pragmatic competence. System, 48, 99-111.
Fakher, Z., & Panahifar, F. (2020). The effect of teachers’ scaffolding and peers’ collaborative dialogue on speech act production in symmetrical and asymmetrical groups. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 45-61.
Fakher, Z., Vahdany, F., Jafarigohar, M., & Soleimani, H. (2016). The effect of mixed and matched level dyadic interaction on Iranian EFL learners’ comprehension and production of requests and apologies. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 35(1), 1-30.
Farahian, M., Rezaee, M., & Gholami, A. (2012). Does direct instruction develop pragmatic competence? Teaching refusals to EFL learners of English. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(4), 814-821.
Ghaedrahmat, M., Alavi Nia, P., & Biria, R. (2016). The effect of explicit vs. implicit instruction on mastering the speech act of thanking among Iranian male and female EFL learners. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 9(2), 401-425.
Gharibeh, S. G., Mirzaee, M., & Yaghoubi-Notash, M. (2016). The role of instruction in the development of EFL learners’ pragmatic competence. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 173-184.
Ghavamnia, M., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Vahid Dastjerdi, H. (2018). The effects of input-enhanced instruction on Iranian EFL learners' production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. The Language Learning Journal, 46(2), 114-131.
Ghobadi, A., & Fahim, M. (2009). The effect of explicit teaching of English “thanking formulas” on Iranian EFL intermediate level students at English language institutes. System, 37(3), 526-537.
Gholamia, J., & Aghaeib, H. K. (2012). The impact of explicit and implicit instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ production and recognition of language functions. International Journal of Physical and Social Sciences, 2(9), 107-131.
Glass, G. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Education Researcher, 5(10), 3-8.
Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1-18.
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press.
Hall, J. A., Tickle-Degnen, L., Rosenthal, R., & Mosteller, F. (1994). Hypotheses and problems in research synthesis. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 17-28). Russell Sage Foundation.
Hassaskhah, J., & Ebrahimi, H. (2015). A study of EFL learners' (meta) pragmatic learning through explicit (teacher explanation) and implicit (foreign film) interventions: The case of compliment. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(2), 292-301.
Hernández, T. A. (2021). Explicit instruction for the development of L2 Spanish pragmatic ability during study abroad. System, 96, 102395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102395.
Irshad, A., & Bukhari, N. H. (2020). Investigating the Effect of Explicit Instruction on the Development of Pragmatic Competence of Pakistani Learners of English. Kashmir Journal of Language Research, 23(1), 217-236.
Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2010). Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture meet. Pearson Longman.
Jeon, E.H., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development. In N. John & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 165-211). John Benjamins.
Kaivanpanah, S., & Langari, M. T. (2020). The effect of Bloom-based activities and Vygotskian scaffolding on Iranian EFL learners’ use of the speech act of request. Current Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01053-z.
Kargar, A. A., Sadighi, F., & Ahmadi, A. R. (2012). The effects of collaborative translation task on the apology speech act production of Iranian EFL learners. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 4(3), 47-78.
Kang, E. Y., Sok, S., & Han, Z. (2019). Thirty-five years of ISLA on form-focused instruction: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 23(4), 428-453.
Kasper, G. (1996). Introduction: Interlanguage pragmatics in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(2), 145-148.
Kasper, G. & C. Roever (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Pragmatics in language teaching and learning (pp. 317-328). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 81-104.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Language Learning: A Journal of Research in Language Studies, 52(1), 1-362.
Khatib, M., & Ahmadi Safa, M. (2001). The effectiveness of ZPD-wise explicit/implicit expert peers and coequals’ scaffolding in ILP development. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14, 49-75.
Khodareza, M., & Lotfi, A. R. (2012). Interlanguage pragmatics development: Iranian EFL learners’ interpretation and use of speech acts. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2(9), 9235-9243.
Khodareza, M., & Lotfi, A. R. (2013). Interlanguage pragmatic development: The effect of formal instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ interpretation and use of speech act of apology. Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2(2), 99-104.
Kia, E., & Salehi, M. (2013). The effect of explicit and implicit instruction of English thanking and complimenting formulas on developing pragmatic competence of Iranian EFL upper-intermediate level learners. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 3(8), 202-215.
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309-365.
Li, S. (2016). The construct validity of language aptitude: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(4), 801-842.
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407-451). Oxford University Press.
Malaz, I., Rabiee, M., & Ketabi, S. (2011). The pragmatic instruction effects on Persian EFL learners’ noticing and learning outcomes in request forms. Journal of Technology & Education, 5(3), 187-193.
Malmir, A., & Derakhshan, A. (2020). The socio-pragmatic, lexico-grammatical, and cognitive learners. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 1-23.
Malmir, A., & Taji, N. (2021). The interplay of action, context, and linguistic vs. non-linguistic resources in L2 pragmatic performance: The case of requests and refusals. Language Related Research, 12(3), 213-250.‎
Masouleh, F. A., Arjmandi, M., & Vahdany, F. (2014). The effect of explicit metapragmatic instruction on request speech act awareness of intermediate EFL students at institute level. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2(7), 504-511.
Martínez-Flor, A., & E. Alcón-Soler (2005). Special issue: Pragmatics in instructed language learning. System, 33(3), 381-546.
Merghati, S. V., & Ahangari, S. (2015). Dynamic assessment of pragmatics: The impact of dynamic assessment on EFL Learners’ interlanguage Pragmatic development. Basic Research Journal of Education Research and Review, 1(4), 13-21.
Mey, J. L. (1993). Pragmatics: An introduction. Blackwell.
Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics: An introduction (2nd Ed.). Blackwell.
Mirzaee, A., & Esmaeili, M. (2013). The effects of planned instruction on Iranian L2 learners' interlanguage pragmatic development. International Journal of Society, Culture & Language, 1(1), 89-100.
Mohammadi, M., Sa’d, S. T., & Hatam, S. (2014). Native speakers’ assessment of (im) politeness of non-native speakers’ requests. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 3(4), 23-40.
Moradian, M., Asadi, M., & Azadbakht, Z. (2019). Effects of concurrent group dynamic assessment on Iranian EFL learners’ pragmatic competence: A case of requests and refusals. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 106-135.
Morris, C. W. (1938). Foundations of the theory of signs. In O. Neurath, R. Carnap & C.W. Morris (Eds.), International encyclopedia of unified science (pp.1-59). Chicago University Press.
Nemati, M., & Arabmofrad, A. (2014). Development of interlanguage pragmatic competence: input-and output-based instruction in the zone of proximal development. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(2), 262-270.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta‐analysis. Language learning, 50(3), 417-528.
Plonsky, L., & Gass, S. (2011). Quantitative research methods, study quality, and outcomes: The case of interaction research. Language Learning, 61(2), 325-366.
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in l2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878-912. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079.
Plonsky, L., & Zhuang, J. (2019). A meta-analysis of L2 pragmatics instruction. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 287-307). Routledge.
Plonsky, L., Marsden, E., Crowther, D., Gass, S. M., & Spinner, P. (2020). A methodological synthesis and meta-analysis of judgment tasks in second language research. Second Language Research, 36(4), 583-621.
Pourmousavi, Z., & Zenouzagh, Z. M. (2020). A comparative study of the effect of teacher’s group and individual feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ learning of speech acts in apology letter writing. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 5(1), 1-24.
Rajabia, S., Azizifara, A., & Gowhary, H. (2015a). The effect of explicit instruction on pragmatic competence development; teaching requests to EFL learners of English. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199(3), 231-239.
Rajabi, S., Azizifar, A., & Gowhary, H. (2015b). Investigating the of explicit instruction of apology speech act on pragmatic development of Iranian EFL learners. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(4), 53-61.
Rezvani, E., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Vahid Dastjerdi, H. (2014). Investigating the effects of explicit and implicit instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ pragmatic development: Speech acts of request and suggestion in focus. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 3(7), 1-12.

Rose, K. R. (1999) Teachers and students learning about requests in Hong Kong. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 167-180). Cambridge University Press.
Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33(3), 385-399.
Rose, K., & Kasper, G. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
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). Benjamins.
Sabzalipour, B. (2013). The effect of using web-based instruction on learning of speech act of compliment of Iranian EFL learners. Asian Journal of Management Sciences and Education, 2(3), 11-19.
Sabzalipour, B., & Koosha, M. (2016). The effect of using colligational corpus-based instruction on enhancing the pragmalinguistic knowledge of speech act of apology among Iranian intermediate EFL learners. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 6(9), 191-202.
Sabzalipour, B., Koosha, M., & Afghari, A. (2017). Investigation the effect of colloconstructural corpus-based instruction on pragmalinguistic knowledge of request speech act: Evidence from Iranian EFL students. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 6(7), 103-109.
Sadeghi, A., & Foutooh, M. (2012). The effect of explicit instruction of compliment responses strategies on intermediate Iranian foreign language learners’ ability to respond to compliments. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(3), 385-406.
Sadeqi, H., & Ghaemi, H. (2016). The effect of employing explicit pragmatics awarness-raising instruction on advanced EFL learner's use of politeness strategy of request via emails. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 6(1), 62-80.
Salehi, M. (2011). The effect of explicit versus implicit Instruction: A case for apology and request speech acts. International Conference on Languages, Literature and Linguistics IPEDR, 26, 467-470.
Salehi, M. (2013). The effect of instruction on the development of pragmatic competence. International Journal of Social Science Research, 1(2), 86-97.
Salemi, A., Rabiee, M., & Ketabi, S. (2012). The effects of explicit/implicit instruction and feedback on the development of Persian EFL learners' pragmatic competence in suggestion structures. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(1), 188-199.
Samavarchi, L., & Allami, H. (2012). Giving condolences by Persian EFL learners: A contrastive sociopragmatic study. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(1), 71-78.
Sánchez-Hernández, A., & Alcón-Soler, E. (2020). Pragmatic Instruction in English as an International Language. In Z. Tajeddin & M. Alemi (Eds.), Pragmatics Pedagogy in English as an International Language (pp. 95-116). New York, NY: Routledge.
Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, (pp. 59-82), Academic Press.
Searle, J. R. (1976). The classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1-24.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-33). Cambridge University Press.
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.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 159-168.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed second language acquisition:
Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 165-180.
Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289-310.
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1-50.
Taguchi, N. (Ed.). (2019). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics. Routledge.
Tajeddin, Z., & Alemi, M. (Eds.). (2020). Pragmatics pedagogy in English as an international language. Routledge.
Tajeddin, Z., & Bagherkazemi, M. (2014). Short-term and long-term impacts of individual and collaborative pragmatic output on speech act production. Teaching English Language, 8(1), 141-166.
Tajeddin, Z., & Hosseinpur, R. (2014a). The impact of deductive, inductive, and L1-based consciousness-raising tasks on EFL learners’ acquisition of the request speech act. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 33(1), 73-92.
Tajeddin, Z., & Hosseinpur, R. M. (2014b). The role of consciousness-raising tasks on EFL learners’ microgenetic development of request pragmatic knowledge. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 17(1), 187-147.
Tajeddin, Z., Keshavarz, M. H., & Zand-Moghadam, A. (2012). The effect of task-based language teaching on EFL learners’ pragmatic production, metapragmatic awareness, and pragmatic self-assessment. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 139-166.
Takahashi, S. (2010a). Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 391-421). Mouton de Gruyter.
Takahashi, S. (2010b). The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance. In A. Martínez-Flor & E. Use-Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 127-144). John Benjamins.
Trosborg, A. (1995). Statutes and contracts: An analysis of legal speech acts in the English language of the law. Journal of Pragmatics, 23(1), 31-53.
Vygotsky, Lev S. (1987). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Harvard University Press.
Yang, X., Eslami, Z., Son, D., & Willson, V. (2016, March). The effects of instruction on L2 pragmatic development: A meta-analysis. Poster presented at the conference of the American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL).
Yousefi, M., & Nassaji, H. (2019). A meta-analysis of the effects of instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pragmatics and the role of moderator variables: Face-to-face vs. computer-mediated instruction. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 170(2), 277-308.
Ziafar, M. (2020). The influence of explicit, implicit, and contrastive lexical approaches on pragmatic competence: The case of Iranian EFL learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 58(1), 103-131.
Ziashahabi, S., Jabbari, A. A., & Razmi, M. H. (2020). The effect of interventionist instructions of English conversational implicatures on Iranian EFL intermediate level learners’ pragmatic competence development. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1‏-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1840008.
Language Related Research
Volume 13, Issue 6 - Serial Number 72
January and February 2022
Pages 461-510