Cover not available

Article published In:
[Applied Pragmatics 5:1] 2023
► pp. 1–40

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Developing an empirically-driven aural multiple-choice DCT for conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics

ORCiD logo with link | Indiana University
ORCiD logo with link | The University of Utah
Published online: 3 March 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.20020.bar
Abstract
This paper reports on the development of an aural multiple-choice discourse completion task (aural MC-DCT) for use with EFL learners for large-scale instructional needs assessment. The original version of the aural MC-DCT and an oral DCT were administered to 134 EFL learners from three universities in China. The aural MC-DCT was revised based on the results of the initial administration and completed by 251 EFL students and 89 native speakers of American English in a second administration. Both versions of the task used learner-generated options. The first version used digital files of learner production from an earlier oral DCT taken by ESL learners; the second version re-recorded the learner-produced options using native speakers of American English. The results from the second version show that the aural MC-DCT is a feasible format for exploring learner knowledge of conventional expressions by comparing learner selections to production on the oral DCT, which has been established as a reliable measure of L2 English conventional expressions. The aural MC-DCT provides teachers with a practical alternative to the transcription and analysis required by the oral DCT, allowing them to easily assess knowledge of target conventional expressions and preferred alternatives in order to facilitate decisions about instruction.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Assessing L2 speech acts using MC-DCTs
    • 2.2Assessing L2 formulaic language
    • 2.3The aural MC-DCT in pragmatics instruction
    • 2.4Methodological considerations: Authenticity and practicality
  • 3.Instrument development
    • 3.1Adapting the oral DCT
    • 3.2Developing the aural MC-DCT
  • 4.Study 1: Oral DCT with pilot MC-DCT
    • 4.1Method
    • 4.2Analysis
    • 4.3Pilot results
  • 5.Study 2: Revised aural MC-DCT
    • 5.1Revision of the aural MC-DCT
    • 5.2Method
      • 5.2.1Participants
      • 5.2.2Procedure
    • 5.3Analysis
    • 5.4Results
      • 5.4.1Learner performance matches
      • 5.4.2Interlanguage production informs good choices
      • 5.4.3Competitive distractors
  • 6.Discussion
    • 6.1Reliability
    • 6.2Pedagogical implications
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (40)
References
Alcón-Soler, E., & Sánchez-Hernández, A. (2017). Learning pragmatic routines during study abroad: A focus on type of routine. ATLANTIS: Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies, 39(2), 191–210. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2009). Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource: Recognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 59(4), 755–795. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Recognition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 121, 141–162.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Formulas, routines, and conventional expressions in pragmatics research. ARAL, 321, 206–227. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Awareness of meaning of conventional expressions in second language pragmatics. Language Awareness, 23(1–2), 41–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Routines in L2 pragmatics research. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 47–62). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Bastos, M.-T., Burghardt, B., Chappetto, E., Nickels, E., & Rose, M. (2010). The use of conventional expressions and utterance length in L2 pragmatics. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 121, 163–186.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Bastos, M.-T. (2011). Proficiency, length of stay, and intensity of interaction and the acquisition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(3), 347–384. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 233–259. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S., & Su, Y. (2017). The effect of corpus-based instruction on pragmatic routines. Language Learning & Technology, 21(3), 76–103. 10125/44622Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S., & Vellenga, H. E. (2015a). Developing corpus-based materials to teach pragmatic routines. TESOL Journal, 6(3), 499–526. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015b). The effect of instruction on pragmatic routines in academic discussion. Language Teaching Research, 19(3), 324–350. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Stringer, D. (2017). Unconventional expressions: Productive syntax in the L2 acquisition of formulaic language. Second Language Research, 33(1), 61–90. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Su, Y. (2018). The acquisition of conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource in Chinese as a foreign language. Modern Language Journal, 102(4), 732–757. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). The effect of learning environment on the selection of conventional expressions on an aural multiple-choice DCT. TESL-EJ, 25(1). [URL]
(2019). Using corpus-linguistic methods to track longitudinal development: Routine apologies in the study abroad context. Journal of Pragmatics, 1461, 87–105. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, J. D. (2001). Pragmatics tests: Different purposes, different tests. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 301–326). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carr, N. (2011). Designing and analyzing language tests. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enochs, K., & Yoshitake-Strain, S. (1996). Self-assessment and role plays for evaluating appropriateness in speech act realizations. ICU Language Research Bulletin, 111, 57–76.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text & Talk, 20(1), 201, 29–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
ETS. (2019). Examinee handbook: TOEIC listening and reading. Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hudson, T., Detmer, E., & Brown, J. D. (1992). A framework for testing cross-cultural pragmatics (Technical Report 2). University of Hawai‘i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). Developing prototypic measures of cross-cultural pragmatics (Technical Report 7). University of Hawai‘i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Köylü, Y. (2018). Comprehension of conversational implicatures in L2 English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(3), 373–408. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, J. (2007). Developing a pragmatics test for Chinese EFL learners. Language Testing, 24(3), 391–415. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Osuka, N. (2017). Development of pragmatic routines by Japanese learners in a study abroad context. In I. Kecskes & S. Assimakopoulos (Eds.), Current issues in intercultural pragmatics (pp. 275–296). Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Papageorgiou, S., Wu, S., Hsieh, C., Tannenbaum, R. J., &. Cheng, M. (2019). Mapping the TOEFL iBT® test scores to China’s standards of English language ability: Implications for score interpretation and use. (Research Report No. TOEFL-RR-89). Educational Testing Service. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roever, C. (2005). Testing ESL Pragmatics: Development and validation of a web-based assessment battery. Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). What learners get for free: learning of routine formulae in ESL and EFL environments. ELT Journal, 66(1), 10–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roever, C., Wang, S., & Brophy, S. (2014). Learner background factors and learning of second language pragmatics. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 521, 377–401. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shin, S-Y., Lee, S. & Lidster, R. (2021). Examining the effects of different English speech varieties on an L2 academic listening comprehension test at the item level. Language Testing, 38(4), 580–601. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in the Honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 371–391). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S., & Roberts, C. (2005). So weird; so cool; so innovative: The use of intensifiers in the television series Friends. American Speech, 80(3), 280–300. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2009). Corpus-informed assessment of comprehension of conversational implicatures in L2 English. TESOL Quarterly, 43(4), 738–749. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taguchi, N., Li, S., & Xiao, F. (2013). Production of formulaic expressions in L2 Chinese: A developmental investigation in a study abroad context. Chinese as a Second Language Research, 2(1), 23–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Teng, C., & Fei, F. (2013). A consciousness-raising approach to pragmatics teaching: Web-based tasks for training study-abroad students. Journal of Technology and Chinese Language Teaching, 4(1), 50–63.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yamashita, S. O. (1996). Six measures of JSL pragmatics. University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen
2025. Research methods in L2 pragmatics research: Introduction to the special issue. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics 4:3 ► pp. 100241 ff. DOI logo
Bardovi‐Harlig, Kathleen
2023. Pragmatic Routines. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Fathi, Mohammad Javad, Reza Kafipour, Sara Kashefian-Naeeini & Zahra Shahsavar
2025. The impact of reflective teaching on EFL learners through implicit and explicit pragmatic competence instructions. Reflective Practice 26:2 ► pp. 292 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Fengming & Xiaoying Liles
2025. Regional variation in conventional expressions: a comparative study of Mandarin in Mainland China and Taiwan. Lingua 326 ► pp. 104035 ff. DOI logo
Elena Shorokhova & Palma Peña-Jiménez
2025. Invitations in Spanish and Russian communicative cultures: Sociocultural context and politeness strategies. Russian Journal of Linguistics 29:2 ► pp. 362 ff. DOI logo
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen & Yunwen Su
2024. Implementing discourse-gating tasks to study the timing of speech act recognition. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics 3:3 ► pp. 100122 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue