Cover not available

In:Doing SLA Research with Implications for the Classroom: Reconciling methodological demands and pedagogical applicability
Edited by Robert M. DeKeyser and Goretti Prieto Botana
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 52] 2019
► pp. 55–82

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

Chapter 4
Integrating instructed second language research, pragmatics, and corpus-based instruction

 | Indiana University
 | University of Texas at El Paso
 | The University of Utah
Published online: 7 March 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.52.04bar
Abstract
This paper discusses the issues raised by implementing instruction in language classrooms for the purpose of researching the effects of instruction on second language acquisition. We examine the process of developing and implementing novel corpus-based instruction for the teaching of pragmatic routines in a study that compared the use of teacher-developed corpus-based materials to guided, hands-on corpus searches by learners (Bardovi-Harlig, Mossman, & Su, 2017). We use this study as the impetus for reflection on the experimenters’ role in materials and activities development and the difference between experimental instruction and classroom teaching. We further discuss the role of learner proficiency levels and grammatical and lexical development in response to instruction, teacher collaboration, and generalizability to other contexts.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Background
    • Authentic materials in pragmatics
    • Research – teaching trajectory
  • The study: Comparing corpus materials and corpus searches
    • Instruction
    • Pretest-posttest
    • Questionnaire
    • Participants
  • Analysis
  • Results
    • Production data
    • Independent searches
  • Discussion
    • CS and CM comparisons revisited
    • Learning, teaching, and testing clarifications
      • Self-clarification
      • Other-clarification
    • Syntax and lexicon as variables in pragmatic development
  • Integrating research and teaching
    • Experimentalizing instruction
    • Materials and activities development
    • Participant availability
    • Experimental control
    • Teacher collaboration
    • Generalizability to other contexts
  • Concluding reflections
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
References (39)
References
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2006). On the role of formulas in the acquisition of L2 pragmatics. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, C. Félix-Brasdefer, A. S. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning, (Vol. 11, pp. 1–28). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.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, 59, 755–795. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Recognition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. In G. Kasper, H. t. Nguyen, D. R. Yoshimi, & J. K. Yoshioka (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 12, pp. 141–162). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.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
(2018). Pragmatic awareness in second language acquisition. In P. Garret & J. Maria Cots (Eds.), Routledge handbook of language awareness. (pp. 323–338). UK: Taylor & Francis.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, 347–384. 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. In G. Kasper, H. t. Nguyen, D. R. Yoshimi, & J. K. Yoshioka (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 12, pp. 163–186). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.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, 45, 4–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Mossman, S. (2016). Corpus-based materials development for teaching and learning pragmatic routines. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.) SLA research and materials development for language learning (pp. 250–267). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S., Rothgerber, J., & Su, Y., & Swanson, K. (in press). Revisiting clarifications: Self- and other-clarifications in corpus-based pragmatics instruction. In M. Sato & S. Loewen (Eds.), Evidence-based second language pedagogy: A collection of instructed second language acquisition studies. New York: Routledge.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S., & Su, Y. (2017). The effect of corpus-based instruction on pragmatic routines. Language Learning & Technology, 21, 76–103.Google 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, 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, 324–350. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Salsbury, T. (2004). The organization of turns in the disagreements of L2 learners: A longitudinal perspective. In D. Boxer & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Studying speaking to inform second language learning (pp. 199–227). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Vellenga, H. E. (2012). The effect of instruction on conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. System, 40, 77–89. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at …: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25, 371–405. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boulton, A. (2010). Data-driven learning: Taking the computer out of the equation. Language Learning, 60, 534–572. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boxer, D., & Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: The case of complaints. ELT Journal, 49, 44–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheng, W., & Cheng, P. (2010). Correcting others and self-correcting in business and professional discourse and textbooks. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures (Vol. 7 of Handbooks of pragmatics, pp. 443–466). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clennell, C. (1999). Promoting pragmatic awareness and spoken discourse skills with EAP classes. ELT Journal, 53, 83–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D., & Ishihara, N. (2013). Pragmatics. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Applied linguistics and materials development (pp. 113–126). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20, 29–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C., & Cohen, A. D. (2012). Teaching pragmatics in the foreign language classroom: Grammar as a communicative resource. Hispania, 95, 650–669. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Furniss, E. A. (2016). Teaching the pragmatics of Russian conversation using a corpus-referred website. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 38–60.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539–558. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
LoCastro, V. (1997). Pedagogical intervention and pragmatic competence development. Applied Language Learning, 8, 75–109.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ren, W., & Han, Z. (2016). The representation of pragmatic knowledge in recent ELT textbooks. ELT J, 70, 424–434. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simpson, R. C., Briggs, S. L., Ovens, J., & Swales, J. M. (2002). The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan. <[URL]>
Taguchi, N. (2007). Development of speed and accuracy in pragmatic comprehension in English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 313–338. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taguchi, N., Kaufer, D., Gómez-Laich, M. P., & Zhao, H. (2016). A corpus linguistics analysis of on-line peer commentary. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, & J. C. Félix-Brasdefer (Eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning (Vol. 14, pp. 357–370). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomlinson, B. (1994). Pragmatic awareness activities. Language Awareness, 3, 119–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vellenga, H. E. (2004). Learning pragmatics from ESL and EFL Textbooks: How likely? TESL-EJ, 8 (2).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vercellotti, M. L., & Packer, J. (2016). Shifting structural complexity: The production of clause types in speeches given by English for academic purposes students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 179–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vyatkina, N. (2016). Data-driven learning for beginners: The case of German verb-preposition collocations. ReCALL, 28, 207–226. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Williams, M. (1988). Language taught for meetings and language used for meetings: Is there anything in common? Applied Linguistics, 9, 45–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen
2020. Pedagogical linguistics. Pedagogical Linguistics 1:1 ► pp. 44 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 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