Cover not available

Article published In: Trends in Second Language Pragmatics Research Part 2
[Applied Pragmatics 6:2] 2024
► pp. 196–227

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

Effects of oral corrective feedback combined with explicit instruction on EFL learners’ recognition and production of English requests

ORCiD logo with link | VNU University of Languages and International Studies
ORCiD logo with link | University of Canberra
ORCiD logo with link | University of Otago
Published online: 7 February 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.21007.pha
Abstract
This quasi-experimental study investigated the effects of four oral corrective feedback (OCF) types, namely recast, clarification request, explicit correction, and metalinguistic clues, on the acquisition of English requests by low intermediate Vietnamese university learners of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) (N = 122) in the context of explicit pragmatic instruction. The control and four treatment groups received six hours of explicit instruction on English requests. Each treatment group received one of the four OCF types. Data were collected using role plays (RP), pragmatic judgment tasks (JT), and journals from the learners after each session. The results demonstrate that all five groups significantly improved their posttest performance in both the JT and RP, and these gains were retained by the time of the delayed posttest, but there were no statistically significant differences among the groups. However, Cohen’s d effect sizes indicate that metalinguistic clues produced the largest gains in the learners’ pragmatic recognition and production, while recasts produced the smallest gains for pragmatic recognition but a similar effect to metalinguistic clues for pragmatic production. The results suggest that teachers should be judicious in selecting the OCF type that suits their instructional goal and task.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
  • 3.Research design
    • 3.1Site and population
    • 3.2Data collection methods
    • 3.3Data collection procedure
    • 3.4Treatment
    • 3.5Data analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Research question 1: Effects of the combination of instruction and OCF on pragmatic recognition
    • 4.2Research Question 2: Effects of the combination of instruction and OCF on pragmatic production
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Effects of the combination of explicit instruction and OCF on pragmatic recognition
    • 5.2Effects of the combination of instruction and OCF on pragmatic production
  • 6.Conclusion and implications
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (55)
References
Alcón Soler, E. (2005). Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context? System, 33(3), 417–435. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barekat, B. (2013). Investigating effects of metalinguistic feedback in L2 pragmatic instruction. International Journal of Linguistics, 51, 197–208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2015). Designing instructional effect studies for L2 pragmatics: A guide for teachers and researchers. In S. Gesuato, F. Bianchi, & W. Cheng (Eds.), Teaching, learning and investigating pragmatics: Principles, methods and practices (pp. 135–164). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Acquisition of L2 pragmatics. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 224–245). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 151, 357–386. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M. (2007). Rethinking the role of communicative competence in language teaching. In E. Alcón Soler & P. Safont Jordà (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 41–57). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, J., Lin, J., & Jiang, L. (2016). Corrective feedback in SLA: Theoretical relevance and empirical research. English Language Teaching, 9(11), 85–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Derakhshan, A. (2021). Naoko Taguchi (ed.): The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics. Applied Linguistics, 42(5), 1029–1032. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. [URL]
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2010). Cross-cultural and situational variation in requesting behaviour: Perceptions of social situations and strategic usage of request patterns. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 2262–2281. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eslami, Z. R., & Derakhshan, A. (2020). Promoting advantageous ways of corrective feedback in EFL/ESL classroom. (Special Issue: In Honor of Andrew Cohen’s Contributions to L2 Teaching and Learning Research). Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 191, 48–65. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fukuya, Y. J., & Zhang, Y. (2002). The effects of recasts on EFL learners’ acquisition of pragmalinguistic conventions of request. Second Language Studies, 211, 1–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1988). Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 198–217. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ha, C. T. (1998). Requests by Australian native speakers of English and Vietnamese learners of English cross-communication study in pragmalinguistics (Unpublished MA thesis). La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
Heiman, G. W. (2002). Research methods in psychology. Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269–293). Penguin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ishihara, N. (2010). Collecting data reflecting the pragmatic use of language. In A. D. Cohen & N. Ishihara (Eds.), Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet (pp. 37–55). Pearson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jeon, E. H., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 165–211). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (2008). Data collection in pragmatics research. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory (2nd ed., pp. 279–303). Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(2), 215–247. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koike, D. A., & Pearson, L. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence. System, 33(3), 481–501. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, S., & Vuono, A. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System. System, 84(1), 93–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martínez-Flor, A., & Fukuya, Y. J. (2005). The effects of instruction on learners’ production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. System, 33(3), 463–480. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2012). Significance tests and their relation to generalizability of research results: A case for replication. In G. Porte (Ed.), Replication research in applied linguistics and second language research: A practical guide (1st ed., pp. 92–115). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Assessing the effectiveness of interactional feedback for L2 acquisition: Issues and challenges. Language Teaching, 53(1), 3–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Effect sizes in quantitative and qualitative research. Language Teaching Research, 25(5), 681–684. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nipaspong, P., & Chinokul, S. (2010). The role of prompts and explicit feedback in raising EFL learners’ pragmatic awareness. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 51, 101–146.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nguyen, T. T. M., Pham, T. H., & Pham, M. T. (2012). The relative effects of explicit and implicit form-focused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic competence. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(4), 416–434. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nguyen, T. T. M., Do, T. T. H., Nguyen, A. T., & Pham, T. T. T. (2015). Teaching email requests in the academic context: A focus on the role of corrective feedback. Language Awareness, 24(2), 169–195. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nguyen, M. T. T., Do, H. T., Pham, T. T., & Nguyen, A. T. (2018). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 pragmatics: An eight-month investigation. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 56(3), 345–375. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Zhuang, J. (2019). A meta-analysis of second language pragmatics instruction. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 287–307). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roever, C., Fraser, C., & Elder, C. (2014). Testing ESL sociopragmatics: Development and validation of a web-based test battery. Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roever, C., & Phakiti, A. (2018). Quantitative methods for second language research. A problem-solving approach. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33(3), 385–399. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative competence. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21–42). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 361–392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In E. Hinkle (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 21, pp. 593–610). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2011). Do proficiency and study-abroad experience affect speech act production? Analysis of appropriateness, accuracy, and fluency. IRAL — International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 49(4), 265–293. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1–50. 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
Tajeddin, Z., & Alemi, M. (Eds.) (2021). Pragmatics pedagogy in English as an International Language. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Takimoto, M. (2006). The effects of explicit feedback on the development of pragmatic proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 393–417. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Metapragmatic discussion in interlanguage pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(10), 1240–1253. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yousefi, M., & Nassaji, H. (2021). Corrective feedback in second language pragmatics: A review of research. TESL-EJ, 25(1). [URL]
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Tian, Jianjing & Qingping Li
2026. Effects of corrective feedback timing on EFL beginners’ learning of request strategies. System 136 ► pp. 103878 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 november 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