Cover not available

Article published In: Pedagogical Linguistics
Vol. 3:1 (2022) ► pp.1–28

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

Spontaneous classroom engagement facilitating development of L2 pragmatic competence

A naturalistic study

ORCiD logo with link | Simon Fraser University
 | Trinity Western University
Published online: 16 April 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.20011.van
Abstract
The question of how to teach toward social, cultural and linguistic L2 pragmatic competence has raised serious challenges (Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? NetWork, 61, 105–119.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). This is more the case for spoken rather than written discourse. As can be expected, the underlying pragmatic implications of spontaneous face-to-face communication naturally constrains the interactional scope and its potential pedagogical application. To address this issue, this naturalistic study explores two key potential contributors to the development of oral pragmatic competence: meta-pragmatic classroom conversational discourse and the course framework supporting that kind of relatively spontaneous interaction. An English for Academic Purposes (EAP) course provided fluency practice protocols, instruction in pragmatic categories, analysis of conversational data and “live” in-class intervention, focusing on meaning and alternate expressions and forms. Those interventions were designed to enhance learners’ ability to self-assess, monitor and expand their interactional repertoires. Part of a larger research project examining principles of pragmatics applied in EAP instruction, this study focuses on data from spontaneous classroom interactions situated within the integrated instructional framework of the course. Results present a range of strategies employed by the instructor consistent with current theoretical models of factors or pedagogical interventions that facilitate development of pragmatic competence.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Key constructs of the study
    • 2.1Pragmatic competence
    • 2.2Pragmatics research in conversational interaction and L2 acquisition
    • 2.3Meta-pragmatic discussion and pedagogic intervention
    • 2.4Situating this study in the EAP speaking class
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Research framework and questions
    • 3.2Participants
    • 3.3Course framework features
    • 3.4Cooperative attending skills training
  • 4.Data analysis and results
    • 4.1Pedagogic interventions
    • 4.2Meta-pragmatic classroom discourse with Post-CAST interactive analysis
    • 4.3Student identification of CAST features and strategies
    • 4.4Results
  • 5.Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
References (102)
References
Acton, W. R. & Cope, C. (1999). Cooperative Attending Skills Training, in Kluge, D., McGuire, S., Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (Eds). Co-operative Learning. JALT Applied Materials, Tokyo: JALT, 50–66.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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
Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 3(2), 233–262. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013). Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63(1), 68–86. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Operationalizing conversation in studies of instructional effect in L2 pragmatics. System, 481, 21–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bazzanella, C. (2019). The complex process of mis/understanding spatial deixis in face-to-face interaction, Sociocultural Pragmatics, 7(1), 1–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beltrán-Planques, V. & Querol-Julián, M. (2018). English language learners’spoken interaction: What a multimodal perspective reveals about pragmatic competence. System (Linköping), 771, 80–90. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Belz, J. A. (2007). The role of computer mediation in the instruction and development of L2 pragmatic competence. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 271, 45–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what teachers think, know, believe and do. Language Teaching, 361, 81–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carpenter, H., Jeon, K. S., MacGregor, D., & Mackey, A. (2006). Learners’ interpretations of recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 209–236. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clennel, C. (1999). Promoting pragmatic awareness and spoken discourse skills with EAP classes. ELT Journal, 53(2), 83–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D. (2008). Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: What can we expect from learners? Language Teaching, 41(2), 213–235. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Teaching and learning second language pragmatics. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 6th ed., New York: Routledge. 31, 428–452.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cross, J. (2010). Raising L2 listeners’ metacognitive awareness: a sociocultural theory perspective. Language Awareness, 19(4), 281–297. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cruz, M. P. (2013). Metapsychological awareness of comprehension and epistemic vigilance of L2 communication in interlanguage pragmatic development. Journal of Pragmatics, 591, 117–135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Fostering EF/SL learns’ meta-pragmatic awareness of complaints and their interactive effects. Language Awareness, 24(2), 123–137. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (2015). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 6th ed. New York: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, P. (2013). Turn design. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 131–149.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R. & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 575–600. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (2010). Pragmatic competence: the case of hedging. In: Kaltenböck, G., Mihatsch, W. & S. Schneider (Eds.), New Approaches to Hedging. Bingley: Emerald, 15–34.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frith, C. & Frith, U. (2005). Theory of mind. Current Biology, 15(17), 644–645. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. D. P. & Pica, T. (2000). Interaction among proficient learners: Are input, feedback and output needs addressed in a foreign language context? Studia Linguistica, 54(2), 272–279. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., Svetics, I. & Lemelin, S. (2003). Differential effects of attention. Language Learning, 53(3), 495–543. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gatbonton, E. (1999). Investigating experienced ESL teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. The Modern Language Journal, 83(1), 35–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gironzetti, E. & Koike, D. (2016). Bridging the gap in Spanish instructional pragmatics: from theory to practice. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching, 3(2), 89–98. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heron, M. & Webster, J. (2019). Scaffolding talk in EAP lessons: an examination of experienced teachers’ practices. Innovation in Language Learning, 13(4), 358–370. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hiver, P. et al. (2019). Language teacher metacognition: beyond the mirror. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 13(3), 201–220.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, Alan. (2020). The dialogical nature of language use in interactive listening: revisiting meaning in context. Language Awareness, 29(1), 21–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hunter, J. (2012). ‘Small Talk’: developing fluency, accuracy, and complexity in speaking. ELT Journal, 66(1), 30–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ifantidou, E. (2013). Pragmatic competence and explicit instruction. Journal of Pragmatics, 591, 93–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ishihara, N. & Cohen, A. D. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ivey, A. (1971). Microcounseling: Innovations in interviewing training. Springfield, Ill: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? NetWork, 61, 105–119.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. In Rose, K. R., Kasper, G. (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 33–60. 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
(2002). Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kasper, G. & Roever, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 317–334). Mahwah: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (2006). Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. In: K. Bardovi-Harlig, C. Félix-Brasdefer, & A. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, (Volume 3, 11, pp. 281–314). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Locating cognition in second language interaction and learning: Inside the skull or in public view? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, IRAL, 47(1), 11–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kubanyiova, M. (2015). The role of teachers’ future self guides in creating L2 development opportunities in teacher-led classroom discourse: reclaiming the relevance of language teacher cognition. The Modern Language Journal, 99(3), 565–584. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lam, P., McNaught, C. & Cheng, K. (2008). Pragmatic meta-analytic studies: learning the lessons from naturalistic evaluations of multiple cases. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 16(2), 61–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, C. & Gao, X. (2017). Bridging ‘what I said’ and ‘why I said it’: the role of Metapragmatic awareness in L2 request performance. Language Awareness, 26(3), 170–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liddicoat, A. J. (2014). Pragmatics and intercultural mediation in intercultural language learning. Intercultural Pragmatics, 11(2), 259–277. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, (Volume 3791, pp. 259–278). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Recasts in SLA: The story so far. In M. Long (Ed.), Problems in SLA, (pp. 75–116). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2007). Interaction as practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practicing in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 85–110). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Introduction: The role of conversational interaction in second language acquisition. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mackey, A. & Gass, S. M. (2015). Second Language Research: Methodology and Design (2nd Ed.). New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mackey, A. & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82(82), 338–356. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martínez-Flor, A. & Usó-Juan, E. (2010). Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McConachy, T. (2019). L2 pragmatics as ‘intercultural pragmatics’: Probing sociopragmatic aspects of pragmatic awareness. Journal of Pragmatics, 1511, 167–176. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nguyen, M., Pham, T. & Pham, M. (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, M., Pham, T., & Pham, M. (2017). The effects of input enhancement and recasts on the development of second language pragmatic competence. Innovation in Language learning and Teaching, 11(1), 45–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nguyen, M. (2017). Using conversation tasks and retrospective methodology to investigate L2 pragmatics development: the case of EFL criticisms and responses to criticisms. The Language Learning Journal, 45(3), 399–417. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pang, W. & Burri, M. (2017). Teaching Dialogic Speaking Strategies in a Canadian EAP Program. In A. Burns & A. Seigel (Eds.), International Perspectives on Teaching the Four Skills in ELT (pp. 111–124). New York: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roever, C. (2009). Teaching and testing pragmatics. In Long, M. & Doughty, C. (Eds). The Handbook of Language Teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rogers, C. R. & Wood, J. (1974). Client-centered therapy. In A. Burton (Ed.), Operational theories of personality (pp. 211–258). New York: Brunner/Mazel.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rose, K. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 331, 385–399. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ross, S. (2018). Listener response as a facet of interactional competence. Language Testing, 35(3), 357–375. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rueda, Y. (2006). Developing pragmatic competence in a foreign language. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 81, 169–182.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Safont-Jordá, M. (2004). An analysis on EAP learners’ pragmatic production: a focus on request forms. Ibérica, 81, 23–39.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sáez, N. (2015). Rethinking for Second Language Speaking. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics and TESOL, 15(2), 1–21.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sánchez-López, L. (2018). Cultural and pragmatic aspects of L2 Spanish for academic purposes: new data on the current state of the question. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching, 5(2), 102–114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1993). Metapragmatic Discourse and Metapragmatic Function. In A. Lucy, (Ed.), Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics (pp. 33–58). Cambridge: Cambridge, University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sotillo, S. (2005). Corrective feedback via instant messenger learning activities in NS-NNS and NNS-NNS dyads. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 467–496. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperti, S. (2019). Cross-cultural mediation in ELF migration contexts: Pedagogical implications on ELT multilingual settings. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 269–286. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sykes, J. & Cohen, A. (2018). Strategies and interlanguage pragmatics: Explicit and comprehensive. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(2), 381–402. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2005). Comprehending implied meaning in EFL. The Modern Language Journal, 8(4), 43–562.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Development of speed and accuracy in pragmatic comprehension in EFL. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 313–338. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). The role of learning environment in the development of pragmatic competence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 301, 423–452. 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
(2011). Do proficiency and study-abroad experience affect speech act production? Analysis of appropriateness, accuracy, and fluency. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 491, 265–293. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Context, Individual Differences and Pragmatic Competence. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Pragmatic socialization in an English-medium university in Japan. IRAL, 52(2), 157–181. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). “Contextually” speaking: A survey of pragmatic learning abroad, in class, and online. System, 481, 3–20. 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. & Ishihara, N. (2018). The pragmatics of English as a Lingua Franca: Research and pedagogy in the era of globalization. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 381, 80–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2018). Advanced Second Language Pragmatic Competence. In The Handbook of Advanced Proficiency in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 505–526). Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing inter-language pragmatic competence. In: G. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 171–199). New York: Cambridge University Press. 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 F. Martinez-Flor & E. Usó-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, 10(4), 393–417. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). The effects of input-based tasks on the development of learners’ pragmatic proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 1–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Evaluating the effects of task repetition on learners’ recognition and production of second language pragmatic chunks. Paper presented at the International Conference of Malaysian English Language Teaching Association, Selangor, Malaysia. June.
(2012). Metapragmatic discussion in interlanguage pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 441, 1240–1253. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Investigating the effect of cognitive linguistic approach in developing EFL learners’ pragmatic proficiency. System, 891, 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Timpe, V. (2013). “Assessing intercultural language learning. The dependence of receptive sociopragmatic competence and discourse competence on learning opportunities and input.” Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Timpe-Laughlin, V. et al. (2015). Defining and Operationalizing the Construct of Pragmatic Competence: Review and recommendations. ETS Research Report.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Timpe-Laughlin, V. (2016). Learning and Development of Second and Foreign Language Pragmatics as a Higher-order Language Skill: A Brief Overview of Relevant Theories, ETS Research Report.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winke, P. & Gass, S. M. (2018). Individual Differences in Advanced Proficiency. In P. Malovrh & A. Benati (Eds.), The Handbook of Advanced Proficiency in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 157–178). Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xiao, F. (2015). Proficiency effect on L2 pragmatic competence. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 41, 557–581. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Advanced-Level Pragmatics in Instructed SLA. In P. Malovrh & A. Benati (Eds.), The Handbook of Advanced Proficiency in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 463–483). Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Young, R. (2013). Learning to talk the talk and walk the walk: Interactional competence in academic spoken English. Ibérica, 251, 15–38.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. & Bryfonski, L. (2018). Interaction-Driven L2 Learning. In P. Malovrh & A. Benati (Eds.), The Handbook of Advanced Proficiency in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 94–113). Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhu, X., Liao, X. & Cheong, C. (2019). Strategy use in oral communication with competent synthesis and complex interaction. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48(5), 116–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Lin, Rong, Wenwen Liu, Yang Kong & J. Zhu
2024. Status and trend of development of the higher foreign language education research—based on the analysis of citespace visualization. MATEC Web of Conferences 395 ► pp. 01080 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 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