Cover not available

Article published In: Technology-mediated feedback and instruction
Edited by Hossein Nassaji and Eva Kartchava
[ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 170:2] 2019
► pp. 277–308

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

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

 | University of Victoria
 | University of Victoria
Published online: 9 August 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.19012.you
Abstract
This paper reports the results of a meta-analysis of 39 published studies conducted during the last decade (from 2006 to 2016) on the effects of instruction and corrective feedback on learning second language (L2) pragmatics. The study meta-analyzed the effects of instruction in terms of several moderator variables including mode of instruction, type of instruction, outcome measures, length of instruction, language proficiency, and durability of the instructional effects. It was found that (a) computer-assisted instruction generated larger effects than face-to-face instruction, (b) instruction was generally more effective for L2 pragmatic comprehension than production, (c) instruction produced larger effects when tested by selected response outcome measures although different patterns were observed across explicit-implicit categories, (d) longer treatments generated a larger effect size than shorter treatments, (e) studies conducted with intermediate level learners produced larger effect sizes than beginner or advanced level learners, and (f) the observed effects of instruction were maintained.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Reviews of L2 pragmatics studies
    • Narrative reviews
    • Meta-analyses
    • Technology and L2 pragmatics
    • Research questions
  • Methods
    • The literature search strategies
    • Criteria for inclusion
    • Coding
    • Instruction modes
    • Instruction types
    • Outcome measures
    • Length of treatment
    • L2 proficiency
    • Durability of results
    • Reliability of coding
  • Analysis
    • Calculation of effect sizes
    • Outliers
    • Publication bias
    • Effectiveness of instruction in general
    • Instructional mode
    • Instructional type
    • Outcome measures
      • Comprehension versus production
      • Task types
    • Length of treatment
    • L2 proficiency
    • Durability of results
  • Discussion
  • Conclusions, implications and limitations
  • References
References (90)
References
(Note: Studies included in the meta-analysis are marked by an asterisk *)
*Alcón-Soler, E. (2015). Instruction and pragmatic change during study abroad email communication. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 91, 34–45. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). “Teachability and Bilingualism Effects on Third Language Learners’ Pragmatic Knowledge.” Intercultural Pragmatics 91: 511–541. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*Alcón-Soler, E. & Guzman-Pitarch, J. (2010). The Effect of Instruction on Learners’ Pragmatic Awareness: A Focus on Refusals. International Journal of English Studies, 10 (1), 65–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alcón-Soler, E. A., & Martinez-Flor, A. (2008). Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Badjadi, N. I. (2016). A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Instructional Tasks on L2 Pragmatics Comprehension and Production. In Tang, S. F. and Logonnathan, L. (Eds.), Assessment for Learning Within and Beyond the Classroom (pp. 241–268). Singapore: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 491, 677–713. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Recognition and production of formulas in L2 pragmatics. In Z.-H. Han, (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 205–222). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource: Recognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 591, 755–795. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63 (Suppl. 1), 68–86. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Mahan-Taylor, R. (2003). Teaching pragmatics. Washington DC: Office of English Programs, U.S. Department of State.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B. A. S., Mahan-Taylor, R., Morgan, M. J., & Reynolds, D. W. (1991). Developing pragmatic awareness: Closing the conversation. ELT Journal, 451, 4–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*Bardovi-Harling, K., Mossman, S., & Vellenga, H. E. (2015). The effect of instruction on pragmatic routines in academic discussion. Language Teaching Research. 191, 324–350. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*Barekat, B., & Mehri, M. (2013). Investigating the effect of metalinguistic feedback in L2 pragmatic instruction. International Journal of Linguistics, 51, 197–208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Belz, J. A., & Vyatkina, N. (2008). The pedagogical mediation of a developmental learner corpus for classroom-based language instruction. Language Learning & Technology, 121, 33–52.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Learner corpus analysis and the development of L2 pragmatic competence in networked intercultural language study: The case of German modal particles, Canadian Modern Language Review, 621, 17–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*Chen, Y. S. (2011). The effect of explicit teaching of American compliment exchanges to Chinese learners of English. English Teaching & Learning, 351, 1–42.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chow, S. & Liu, J.P. (1999). Design and Analysis of Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies Boca Raton. CRC Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, J., Mackey, A., & Taguchi, N. (2018). Second Language Pragmatics : From Theory to Research. NY. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*Cunningham, J. (2016). Request Modification in Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication: The Role of Focused Instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 1001, 484–507. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cunningham, D. J., & Vyatkina, N. (2012). Telecollaboration for professional purposes: Towards developing a formal register in the foreign language classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 681, 422–450. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*Dastjerdi, H. V., & Farshid, M. (2011). The role of input enhancement in teaching compliments. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 2(2), 460–466. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*Derakhshan, A., & Eslami, Z. (2015). The Effect of Consciousness-raising Instruction on the pragmatic Development of Apology and Request. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language. 18(4).1–24.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*Eslami, Z. R., & Liu, C. N. (2013). Learning pragmatics through computer-mediated communication in Taiwan. Iranian Journal of Society, Culture, and Language, 52–73.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*Eslami, Z. R., & Eslami-Rasekh, A. (2008). Enhancing the pragmatic competence of non-native English-speaking teacher candidates (NNESTCs) in an EFL context. In E. Alcón-Soler & Martinez-Flor, A. (eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters, 178–197. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*Farahian, M., Rezaee, M., & Gholami, A. (2012). Does direct instruction develop pragmatic competence? Teaching refusals to EFL learners of English. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 31, 814–821. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2008). Pedagogical intervention and the development of pragmatic competence in learning Spanish as a foreign language. Issues in Applied Linguistics 161, 49–84.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*Fordyce, K. (2014). The differential effects of explicit and Implicit Instruction on EFL Learners’ Use of Epistemic Stance. Applied Linguistics, 351, 6–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*Fukuya, Y., & Martinez-Flor, A. (2008). The interactive effects of pragmatic-eliciting tasks and pragmatics instruction. Foreign Language Annuals, 411, 478–500. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*Furniss, E. (2016). Teaching the pragmatics of Russian conversation using a corpus referred website. Language Learning and Technology, 201, 38–60.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*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, 371, 526–537. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*Gu, X. L. (2011). The effect of explicit and implicit instructions of request strategies. Intercultural Communication Studies, 20(1), 104–123.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hedges, L. (1992). Modeling Publication Selection Effects in Meta-Analysis. Statistical Science, 71, 246–255. Retrieved from [URL]
Hedges, L., & Vevea, J. (1998). Fixed- and Random-Effects Models in Meta-Analysis. Psychological Methods, 31, 486–504. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*Hernandez, T. A. (2011). Re-examining the role of explicit instruction and input flood on the acquisition of Spanish discourse markers. Language Teaching Research, 151, 159–182. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2000). Fixed effects vs. random effects meta-analysis models: Implications for cumulative research knowledge. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 81, 275–292. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ishihara, M. & Cohen, A. D. (2010). Teaching and Learning Pragmatics, Where Language and Culture Meet. Harlow, UK: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*Jernigan, J. (2012). Output and English as a second language pragmatic development: The effectiveness of output-focused video-based instruction. English Language Teaching, 5(4), 2–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 191, 81–104. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kakegawa, T. (2009). Development of the use of Japanese sentence-final particles through email correspondence. In N. Taguchi (ed.), Pragmatic competence. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 301–333.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Khaerudin, T. (2012). Envisioning the use of technology to teach pragmatics. IJ-TEFL, 11, 60–69.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*Li, Q. (2012). Effects of instruction on adolescent beginners’ acquisition of request modification. TESOL Quarterly, 461, 30–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 601, 309–365. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*Li, S. (2012). The effect of input-based practice on pragmatic development in L2 Chinese. Language Learning, 621, 403–438. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Amount of practice and pragmatic development of request-making in L2 Chinese. In N. Taguchi & J. M. Sykes (eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching (pp. 43–70). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. M. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 learning (pp. 379–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martinez-Flor, A., & Alcón-Soler, E. (2005). Special issue: Pragmatics in instructed language learning. System, 331, 381–456. Retrieved from [URL]
*Martínez-Flor, A., & Alcón-Soler, E. (2007). Developing pragmatic awareness of suggestions in the EFL classroom: A focus on instructional effects. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 101, 47–76.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*Narita, R. (2012). The effects of pragmatic consciousness-raising activity on the development of pragmatic awareness and use of hearsay evidential markers for learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Journal of Pragmatics, 441, 1–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nguyen, T. T. M. (2008). Modifying L2 criticism: how learners do it? Journal of Pragmatics 401, 768–791. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*Nguyen, T. T. M. (2013). Instructional effects on the acquisition of modifiers in constructive criticisms by EFL learners. Language Awareness, 221, 76–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*Nguyen, T. T. M., Do, T. T. H., Nguyen, A. T., & Pham, M. H. (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
*Nguyena, T. T. M., Phamb, T. H., & Phamb, M. T. (2012). The relative effects of explicit and implicit form-focused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic competence. Journal of Pragmatics, 441, 416–434. 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, 501, 417–528. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oswald, F. L., & Plonsky, L. (2010). Meta-analysis in Second Language Research: Choices and Challenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 301, 85–110. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*Rafieyan, V. (2016). Effect of ‘Focus on Form’ versus ‘Focus on Forms’ Pragmatic Instruction on Development of Pragmatic Comprehension and Production. Journal of Education and Practice, 71, 41–48.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*Rafieyan, V., Sharafi-Nejad, M., Khavari, Z., Siew Eng, L., & Mohamed, A. R. (2014). Pragmatic Comprehension Development through Telecollaboration. English Language Teaching, 71, 11–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 331, 385–399. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rose, K., & Kasper, G. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 1181, 183–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. Hedges (Eds.), Handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231–244). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (Eds.). (2006). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. NY: Wiley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saita, I. (2001). Aizuchi and cut in-focusing on a situation and setting where a problem concerning cross-cultural communication often occurs. A study on two-way distance learning system of Japanese language (Research outcome report. Grant-in-aid scientific research report 1999–2000). (C) (2), 9–21.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*Simin, S., Eslami, Z., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Ketabi, S. (2014). The effects of explicit teaching of apologies on Persian EFL learners’ performance: When e-communication helps. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning 31, 71–84.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 601, 263–308. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sykes, J. (2005). Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: Effects of oral and written chat. CALICO, 221, 399–432. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 311, 289–310. 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. (2005a). Comprehension of implied meaning in English as a second language. Modern Language Journal, 891, 543–562. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015b). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 481, 1–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*Tajeddin, Z., Keshavarz, M. H., & Zand Moghaddam, 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 (IJAL), 151, 139–166.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 181, 189–223.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010a). Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Handbook of pragmatics (vol.71, pp. 391–421). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010b). The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance. In Mart´ınez- Flor, A. & E. Us´o-Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 127–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 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, 101, 393–417. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*Takimoto, M. (2007). The effects of referential oriented activity in the structured input task on the development of learners’ pragmatic proficiency. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 131, 46–60.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Takimoto, M. (2008). The Effects of Deductive and Inductive Instruction on the Development of Language Learners' Pragmatic Competence. The Modern Language Journal, 921, 369–386. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*Takimoto, M. (2012a). Assessing the effects of identical task repetition and task type repetition on learners’ recognition and production of second language request downgraders. Intercultural Pragmatics, 91, 71–96. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012b). Metapragmatic discussion in interlanguage pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 441, 1240–1253. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*Tan, K. H., & Farashaiyan, A. (2012). The effectiveness of teaching formulaic politeness strategies in making request to undergraduates in an ESL classroom. Asian Social Science 81, 189–196. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*Tanaka, H., & Oki, N. (2015). An attempt to raise Japanese EFL learners’ pragmatic awareness using online discourse completion tasks. The jalt call Journal. 11(2).143–154. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
*Tateyama, Y. (2007). The effects of instruction on pragmatic awareness. In K. Bradford-Watts (ed.), JALT 2006 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT, 1189–1200. Available online at [URL]
(2009). Requesting in Japanese: The effect of instruction on JFL learners’ pragmatic competence. In N. Taguchi (ed.), Pragmatic competence. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 129–166.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Utashiro, T., & Kawai, G. (2009). Blended learning for Japanese reactive tokens: Effects of computer-led, instructor-led, and peer-based instruction. In N. Taguchi (ed.), Pragmatic competence. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 275–299. [URL] Downloaded: 11 Mar 2015 IP address: 142.104.240.194Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Viechtbauer, W., & Cheung, M. W. (2010). Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods. 1(2): 112–125. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vyatkina, N., & Belz, J. A. (2006). A learner corpus-driven intervention for the development of L2 pragmatic competence. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, J. C. Fe´lix- Brasdefer, & A. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning (pp. 315–357). Honolulu: National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawai’i.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wishnoff, J. (2000). Hedging your bets: L2 learners’ acquisition of pragmatic devices in academic writing and computer-mediated discourse. Second Language Studies, 191, 127–157.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (22)

Cited by 22 other publications

Kartchava, Eva & Hossein Nassaji
2026. Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching. In Reference Module in Social Sciences, DOI logo
Fahimpour, Zahra, Reza Khany & Timothy Teo
2025. Science mapping the literature in Applied Linguistics secondary research: navigating knowledge evolution from an epistemic perspective (1970–2022). Language Sciences 107 ► pp. 101687 ff. DOI logo
Khany, Reza, Zahra Fahimpour & Timothy Teo
2025. Exploring Secondary Research Studies in Applied Linguistics: A Scoping Review of Methodologies, Trends, and Impact. Research Synthesis in Applied Linguistics 1:1 ► pp. 100 ff. DOI logo
López-Serrano, Sonia, Alicia Martínez-Flor & Ariadna Sánchez-Hernández
2025. The Effects of Self-Access Web-Based Pragmatic Instruction and L2 Proficiency on EFL Students’ Email Request Production and Confidence. Languages 10:11 ► pp. 279 ff. DOI logo
Rahmani, Pegah, Saman Ebadi & Zohreh R. Eslami
2025. The impact of mobile-mediated dynamic assessment on EFL learners’ pragmatic competence: the speech act of disagreement. Computer Assisted Language Learning ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Róg, Tomasz
2025. Pragmatics in Second Language Acquisition: Overview of Selected Issues. In Task-based Language Teaching and Beyond: L2 Pragmatics Instruction for Young Learners [Second Language Learning and Teaching, ], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Pham, Hanh Thi, Eleni Petraki & Minh Thi Thuy Nguyen
2024. Effects of oral corrective feedback combined with explicit instruction on EFL learners’ recognition and production of English requests. Applied Pragmatics 6:2 ► pp. 196 ff. DOI logo
Suhail Asiri, Atheer & Hanadi Abdulrahman Khadawardi
2024. Teachers’ Perceptions of Electronic Corrective Feedback and its Impact on EFL Learners’ Uptake. Arab World English Journal :10 ► pp. 204 ff. DOI logo
Derakhshan, Ali & Farzaneh Shakki
2023. Conclusions, Limitations, Pedagogical Implications, and Directions for Future Research. In Instructed Second Language Pragmatics for The Speech Acts of Request, Apology, and Refusal: A Meta-Analysis [Second Language Learning and Teaching, ], ► pp. 93 ff. DOI logo
Derakhshan, Ali & Farzaneh Shakki
2023. Discussion. In Instructed Second Language Pragmatics for The Speech Acts of Request, Apology, and Refusal: A Meta-Analysis [Second Language Learning and Teaching, ], ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo
Derakhshan, Ali & Farzaneh Shakki
2023. Review of Previous Research. In Instructed Second Language Pragmatics for The Speech Acts of Request, Apology, and Refusal: A Meta-Analysis [Second Language Learning and Teaching, ], ► pp. 17 ff. DOI logo
Mifka‐Profozic, Nadia, Jennifer Behney, Susan M. Gass, Marijana Macis, Gaia Chiuchiù & Giulia Bovolenta
2023. Effects of Form‐Focused Practice and Feedback: A Multisite Replication Study of Yang and Lyster (2010). Language Learning 73:4 ► pp. 1164 ff. DOI logo
Ren, Wei, Shaofeng Li & Xiaoxuan Lü
2023. A Meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Second Language Pragmatics Instruction. Applied Linguistics 44:6 ► pp. 1010 ff. DOI logo
Ypsilandis, George S.
2023. Variables to consider upon having decided to include pragmatics in the teaching of languages. Journal of Language and Cultural Education 11:1 ► pp. 16 ff. DOI logo
Zhong, Lijia & Yanle Zhang
2023. Computerized mediated explicit instruction and EFL learners' knowledge of speech acts: Investigating the role of EFL learners’ language proficiency and perceptions. Heliyon 9:9 ► pp. e19738 ff. DOI logo
Huang, Nan
2022. Revisiting L2 pragmatic competence through implicit vs. explicit instructional framework. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Ren, Wei
2022. Second Language Pragmatics, DOI logo
Shakki, Farzaneh
2022. Meta-analysis as an emerging trend to scrutinize the effectiveness of L2 pragmatics instruction. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Boers, Frank, Lara Bryfonski, Farahnaz Faez & Todd McKay
2021. A CALL FOR CAUTIOUS INTERPRETATION OF META-ANALYTIC REVIEWS. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 43:1 ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo
Nassaji, Hossein & Eva Kartchava
2021. Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning. In The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Zhang, Ying
2021. Combining computer-mediated communication with data-driven instruction: EFL learners’ pragmatic development of compliment responses. System 103 ► pp. 102624 ff. DOI logo
Cohen, Andrew D.
2020. Issues in the assessment of L2 pragmatics. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 16:1 ► pp. 15 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 march 2026. 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