The use of computer-delivered structured tasks in pragmatic instruction: An exploratory study
-
Tetyana Sydorenko
Tetyana Sydorenko is an Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics at Portland State University. Her research interests include teaching and acquisition of SL pragmatics, computer-assisted language learning, psycholinguistic processes in SL acquisition, and assessment. She is currently investigating the use of adaptive computer-simulated conversations in the teaching of SL pragmatics.
Abstract
This study examines the effect of oral practice via computer-delivered structured tasks (CASTs) with native speaker (NS) models and open-ended tasks without NS input (i.e., learner-leaner role-plays) on pragmatic development of second language learners. While prior studies have indicated that structured tasks afford more opportunities for focus on form (FonF) than open-ended tasks (Lee and VanPatten 2003; Lyster 2004; Ranta and Lyster 2007; Skehan and Foster 1999; Tavakoli and Foster 2011), differences between these tasks in pragmatic instruction (PI) have not been examined. Additionally, the effect of practice has been widely examined with regard to oral development, but much less so for pragmatics (e.g., Li 2013; Takimoto 2012a). In this study, one group of ESL learners practiced request speech acts via CASTs, and another group did so via learner-learner open role-plays. Qualitative analysis of participants’ output during practice suggests that rehearsal via CASTs promotes FonF and incorporation of NS models into learners’ speech, while rehearsal via role-plays results in more creative, but often pragmatically inappropriate, language and content. Additionally, role-plays, but not CASTs, appear to be conducive to humorous language play, metapragmatic discussions, and extended turns similar to those in naturalistic interactions. The study offers insights regarding task types in PI.
Funding statement: Funding: This study was funded by (1) the U.S. Department of Education International Research and Studies (IRS) Program Grant, special project number P017A100100, and (2) Dissertation Completion Fellowship from Michigan State University.
About the author
Tetyana Sydorenko is an Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics at Portland State University. Her research interests include teaching and acquisition of SL pragmatics, computer-assisted language learning, psycholinguistic processes in SL acquisition, and assessment. She is currently investigating the use of adaptive computer-simulated conversations in the teaching of SL pragmatics.
Appendix A
Prompts for CAST 1, with Responses of Tony Acting as a Student [7]
Role X
You are a student. Ask your instructor if you can change the topic of your paper. The paper is due soon. You know that you do not have a lot of time to work on the new topic. However, you have good reasons for changing the topic of your paper. Try to get permission from your instructor to change the topic. Be polite.
| Iteration 1 | Iteration 2 | Iteration 3 | |
| Prompt | How can I help you? | ||
| Response | [pause] Hi professor. Uh I want to change my topic about our assessment. | Hi professor. I was wonder could I change the topic for my assessment? Because there I meet I really meet a big trouble. There isn’t a lot of information I I can find from the old topic the original topic from the promotion pro- promised topic. So I was wonder could I change the topic. | Uh yes, professor. I I would like to change my I would like to change my topic from the assessment. Because I’m really meet a big problem. I I cannot find a lot of information from this topic. So I was won- I was wonder could I change it? |
| Prompt | Wow, it’s pretty late to be changing your topic. If if you’d come to me a few weeks ago, maybe we could have worked something out. But uh I really do think you should stay with your original topic. | ||
| Response | Yeah, but uh you know I already got a [pause] I already brainstorm and about my new topic and I already have the um outline. I think I can do it soon, and it’s not waste a lot of time. So | Yeah, I totally understand. I know it [clears throat] Sorry, I totally understand. I know it will become soon. But I I already made the plan, so I don’t think it will cost me a lot of time. | Uh yes, I know that I I know that due day will be soon. But I really I really like the new topic. And I’m really interest in this topic. And I cannot find I cannot find much as much information from the original topic. So could I change it? |
| Prompt | Yeah, I understand. But my chief concern is that we’ve already met about the previous topic and I’ve looked at outlines for the class. So if you did change your topic now, you’d be handing in a paper without any of that previous guidance. | ||
| Response | Oh [pause] but I think I still have I I can do it soon. It don’t it doesn’t cost a lot of time. | Oh yeah, really, but I really want to do it. How about I send you my outline first? Then could I uh could I could I change my topic? | Yeah, but how about I can send you the outline and some brainstorm to your email, then you can get some information from it. [pause] Then you can give me more advice? |
| Prompt | OK, so you can change your topic, but I think you are taking a big risk because I’m not going to have much time to help you with it since we are approaching the end of the semester. In fact, if I were you, I would seriously consider whether you wanna do this or not. | ||
| Response | OK, OK, um I was wonder if if you have if you have some free time, could I send you a email to talk about um to ask you a few question about my new topic if I may. | Oh, but [pause] but I can find a lot of information from this topic. Um could I write could I send you a email about the new topic? Uh then if I have enough time, could you help me to figure this out? | OK, I will seriously think ab- I will think about this question seriously. Uh so if I got any if I make new decide if I make sure the decision, I will send you a email or call you to let you know as soon as possible. |
| Prompt | OK, either way, just let me know what you decide. | ||
| Response | OK, I will send you top- send you a email to make sure about my uh decide [pause] decide. | OK. Uh if I decided, I will let you know as soon as possible. Thank you. | OK, OK, I will let you know as soon as possible. Thank you. |
Role Y
Imagine that you are an instructor. Your student asks you if he or she can change the topic of the paper. But you think that it is too late to change the topic now because the paper is due soon. Try to convince the student to write the paper on the original topic. Be strict but polite.
CAST Prompts
Hi. I was wondering if I could switch topics for my paper. I know it’s due soon. But I’m not finding very much stuff on this topic and there’s another topic that I can find a lot of information on.
I’m really really having problems with my first topic and I’ve already found a lot of stuff on the second topic and you know like if I can handle switching topics, would you allow it?
I understand but I really really like this new topic. So what if I come up with an outline and get it to you tomorrow?
Yeah, I’ll think about it some more. And when I make a final decision, I’ll let you know. Thanks.
Appendix B
Transcript of the Beginning of Interaction Between Sara and Jenny (Dyad 1) in Role-Play 1
| 1 | Sara: | Hi Jenny |
| 2 | Jenny: | Hello, Sara. How are you? |
| 3 | Sara: | Fine, and you? |
| 4 | Jenny: | Uh, pretty good. |
| 5 | Sara: | OK, uh I want to ask you something about the topic. |
| 6 | Jenny: | Topic? OK, sure, go ahead. |
| 7 | Sara: | Uh um I think this topic for me it’s not very well, so I want to |
| 8 | change the topic. Can I do that? | |
| 9 | Jenny: | Uh, wait a moment. You want to change a the topic? |
| 10 | Sara: | Yes |
| 11 | Jenny: | But you know the due the the paper is due soon. |
| 12 | Sara: | But I think this topic for me is a little difficult, I can’t do it very. |
| 13 | well. So I want to change the topic. I think if I have a new topic. | |
| 14 | I can do it well. | |
| 15 | Jenny: | Uh why not why don’t you change it uh soo- uh before?’ Cause. |
| 16 | it’s due due soon | |
| 17 | Sara: | Uh |
| 18 | Jenny: | I think you should change uh before the due time uh before the |
| 19 | day or it’s much better for you to uh finish the topic very well. | |
| 20 | Sara: | Because um this days I’m very busy uh so today I see the topic I |
| 21 | think it’s little uh it’s not fit for me so I want to change it. | |
| 22 | Jenny: | Uh so you can promise you shou- uh you can uh finish it on time? |
| 23 | Sara: | Yes, of course. |
| 24 | Jenny: | Um if you stick to change your topic, uh I’m OK, you can |
| 25 | change. And make sure you can hand in it on time and you | |
| 26 | can do it pretty perfect. | |
| 27 | Sara: | OK, thank you very much. |
| 28 | Jenny: | Uh you are welcome. OK change.[Students switch roles here.] |
| 29 | Jenny: | May I come in? |
| 30 | Sara: | OK, come in. |
| 31 | Jenny: | Uh, how are you, Sara? |
| 32 | Sara: | Uh, fine. What about you? |
| 33 | Jenny: | Uh good. Uh, I have a question for you. Can I talk you- with you |
| 34 | very quick? | |
| 35 | Sara: | OK, of course. |
| 36 | Jenny: | Um OK. Um I want to change my topic of my paper. Can I do |
| 37 | that? | |
| 38 | Sara: | Oh why you want to change your topic? |
| 39 | Jenny: | Uh’cause it is it is not suitable for me to for the study, you know. |
| 40 | Sara: | Why? I think uh a lot students think this topic is good. |
| 41 | Jenny: | Yes, I tried to do at first I tried. But I gradually I found it is really |
| 42 | not suitable for me to to further study, and I’m not sure I can | |
| 43 | finish it very well. So I want to change my topic. Uh if I want if I | |
| 44 | can change my topic, I am much uh I’m interested in it, so I can | |
| 45 | do it very well. | |
| 46 | Sara: | OK. Um but I think it’s too late to change the topic now because |
| 47 | the paper is due soon. | |
| 48 | Jenny: | Oh, really? [pause] However, I have uh I can do it’cause I’m |
| 49 | interested in the uh topic so I can uh change my schedule and | |
| 50 | move so much more time on it. So I think it’s OK. I will hand in it | |
| 51 | on time. | |
| 52 | Sara: | Uh can you promise this thing? You can do it before the due |
| 53 | time? | |
| 54 | Jenny: | Sure I can, I promise. |
| 55 | Sara: | OK if you can do it uh very quick uh very soon, you can change |
| 56 | the topic. And I think you can do it very well. | |
| 57 | Jenny: | Oh, that’s very kind of you. Thank you. |
| 58 | Sara: | You are welcome.[Students begin a discussion here.] |
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my numerous mentors (Dr. Gass, Dr. Winke, Dr. Goertler, Dr. Loewen), colleagues (Dr. Hellermann, Dr. Arnold), reviewers, the technical team led by Dr. Hoopingarner, and the participants for help with various aspects of this project. All errors remain my own.
References
Adolphs, Svenja. 2008. Corpus and context: Investigating pragmatic functions in spoken discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.30Search in Google Scholar
Ahmadian, Mohammad & Mansoor Tavakoli. 2011. The effects of guided careful online planning on complexity, accuracy and fluency in intermediate EFL learners’ oral production: The case of English articles. Language Teaching Research 15. 35–59.10.1177/1362168811425433Search in Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 1999. Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisition of pragmatics. Language Learning 49. 677–713.10.1111/0023-8333.00105Search in Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 2001. Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In Kenneth Rose & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching, 13–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524797.005Search in Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 2009. Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource: Recognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Language Learning 59. 755–795.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00525.xSearch in Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 2013. Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning 63. 68–86.doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00738x10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00738xSearch in Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, Maria-Thereza Bastos, Beatrix Burghardt, Eric Chappetto, Edelmira Nickels & Marda Rose. 2010. The use of conventional expressions and utterance length in L2 pragmatics. In Gabriele Kasper, Hanh thi Nguyen, Dina Rudolph Yoshimi & Jim Yoshioka (eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 12, 163–186. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Search in Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen & R. Griffin. 2005. L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL classroom. System 33(3). 401–415.10.1016/j.system.2005.06.004Search in Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen & Beverly Hartford. 1996. Input in an institutional setting. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18. 171–188.10.1017/S027226310001487XSearch in Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen & Beverly Hartford. 2005. Institutional discourse and interlanguage pragmatics research. In Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig & Beverly Hartford (eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics: Exploring institutional talk, 7–36. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.10.4324/9781410613776-5Search in Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, Sabrina Mossman & Heidi Vellenga. 2015. The effect of instruction on pragmatic routines in academic discussion. Language Teaching Research 19. 324–350.10.1177/1362168814541739Search in Google Scholar
Barron, Anne. 2007. ‘Ah no honestly we’re okay’: Learning to upgrade in a study abroad context. Intercultural Pragmatics 4. 129–166.10.1515/IP.2007.009Search in Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Julianne House & Gabriele Kasper (eds.). 1989. Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813085Search in Google Scholar
Bygate, Martin & Virginia Samuda. 2005. Integrative planning through the use of task-repetition. In Rod Ellis (ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language, 37–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.11.05bygSearch in Google Scholar
Cohen, Andrew. 2005. Strategies for learning and performing L2 speech acts. Intercultural Pragmatics 2. 275–301.10.1515/iprg.2005.2.3.275Search in Google Scholar
De Jong, Nel & Charles Perfetti. 2011. Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning 61. 533–568.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00620.xSearch in Google Scholar
DeKeyser, Robert. 2007. Study abroad as foreign language practice. In Robert DeKeyser (ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology, 208–226. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511667275.012Search in Google Scholar
Economidou-Kogetsidis, Maria. 2013. Strategies, modification and perspective in native speakers’ requests: A comparison of WDCT and naturally occurring requests. Journal of Pragmatics 53. 21–38.10.1016/j.pragma.2013.03.014Search in Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. César. 2006. Teaching the negotiation of multi-turn speech acts: Using conversation-analytic tools to teach pragmatics in the classroom. In Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig, J. César Félix-Brasdefer & Alwiya Omar (eds.), Pragmatics and language learning, Vol. 11, 165–197. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.Search in Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. César. 2007. Pragmatic development in the Spanish as a FL classroom: A cross-sectional study of learner requests. Intercultural Pragmatics 4. 253–286.10.1515/IP.2007.013Search in Google Scholar
Foster, Pauline & Peter Skehan. 1999. The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research 3. 215–247.10.1177/136216889900300303Search in Google Scholar
Golato, Andrea. 2003. Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics 24. 90–121.10.1093/applin/24.1.90Search in Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael & Derek Bousfield. 2012. Mock impoliteness, jocular mockery and jocular abuse in Australian and British English. Journal of Pragmatics 44(9). 1099–1114.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.003Search in Google Scholar
Hudson, Thom, Emily Detmer & James Dean Brown. 1995. Developing prototypic measures of cross-cultural pragmatics. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.Search in Google Scholar
Ishihara, Noriko & Andrew Cohen. 2010. Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. London: Pearson.Search in Google Scholar
Jeon, Eun Hee & Tadayoshi Kaya. 2006. Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development. In John Michael Norris & Lourdes Ortega (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching, 165–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.13.10jeoSearch in Google Scholar
Judd, Eliot. 1999. Some issues in the teaching of pragmatic competence. In Eli Hinkel (ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning, 152–166. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kádár, Dániel & Michael Haugh. 2013. Understanding politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139382717Search in Google Scholar
Kasper, Gabriele & Kenneth Rose. 2002. Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Koike, Dale. 1989. Pragmatic competence and adult L2 acquisition: Speech acts in interlanguage. The Modern Language Journal 73. 279–289.10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb06364.xSearch in Google Scholar
Koike, Dale & Lynn Pearson. 2005. The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence. System 33. 481–501.10.1016/j.system.2005.06.008Search in Google Scholar
Kuha, Mai. 1997. The computer-assisted interactive DCT: A study in pragmatics research methodology. Pragmatics and language learning 8. 99–128.Search in Google Scholar
Kuha, Mai. 1999. The influence of interaction and instructions on speech act data. Indiana University Doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Lee, James & Bill Van Patten. 2003. Making communicative language teaching happen (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.Search in Google Scholar
Li, Shuai. 2013. Amount of practice and pragmatic development of request-making in L2 Chinese. In Naoko Taguchi & Julie Sykes (eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching, 43–69. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.36.04liSearch in Google Scholar
Long, Michael. 1991. Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In Kees de Bot, Ralph Ginsberg & Claire Kramsch (eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspectives, 39–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/sibil.2.07lonSearch in Google Scholar
Lyster, Roy. 2004. Research on form-focused instruction in immersion classrooms: Implications for theory and practice. Journal of French Language Studies14. 321–341.10.1017/S0959269504001826Search in Google Scholar
Martínez-Flor, Alicia & Yoshinori Fukuya. 2005. The effects of instruction on learners’ production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. System 33. 463–480.10.1016/j.system.2005.06.007Search in Google Scholar
Martínez-Flor, Alicia & Esther Usó-Juan. 2006. A comprehensive pedagogical framework to develop pragmatics in the foreign language classroom: The 6Rs approach. Applied Language Learning 16(2). 39–64.Search in Google Scholar
Martínez-Flor, Alicia & Esther Usó-Juan. 2010. The teaching of speech acts in second and foreign language instructional contexts. In Anna Trosborg (ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures, 423–442. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110214444.3.423Search in Google Scholar
Mochizuki, Naoko & Lourdes Ortega. 2008. Balancing communication and grammar in beginning-level foreign language classrooms: A study of guided planning and relativization. Language Teaching Research 12. 11–37.10.1177/1362168807084492Search in Google Scholar
Olshtain, Elite & Andrew Cohen. 1991. Teaching speech act behavior to nonnative speakers. In Marianne Celce-Murcia (ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language, 154–165. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.Search in Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anne & Nancy Bell. 2007. Learning to play, playing to learn: FL learners as multicompetent language users. Applied Linguistics 28(4). 556–578.10.1093/applin/amm044Search in Google Scholar
Ranta, Leila & Roy Lyster. 2007. A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In Robert DeKeyser (ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology, 141–160. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511667275.009Search in Google Scholar
Roever, Carsten. 2009. Teaching and testing pragmatics. In Michael Long & Catherine Doughty (eds.), The handbook of language teaching, 560–577. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781444315783.ch29Search in Google Scholar
Roever, Carsten, Catriona Fraser & Catherine Elder. 2014. Testing ESL sociopragmatics: Development and validation of a web-based test battery. Oxford: Peter Lang.10.3726/978-3-653-04598-7Search in Google Scholar
Rose, Kenneth. 2005. On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System 33. 385–399.10.1016/j.system.2005.06.003Search in Google Scholar
Rose, Kenneth. 2009. Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase 2. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 2345–2364.10.1016/j.pragma.2009.04.002Search in Google Scholar
Schauer, Gila. 2007. Finding the right words in the study abroad context: The development of German learners’ use of external modifiers in English. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(2). 193–220.10.1515/IP.2007.011Search in Google Scholar
Shauer, Gila & Svenja Adolphs. 2006. Expressions of gratitude in corpus and DCT data: Vocabulary, formulaic sequences, and pedagogy. System 34. 119–134.10.1016/j.system.2005.09.003Search in Google Scholar
Schmidt, Richard. 1993. Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 13. 206–226.10.1017/S0267190500002476Search in Google Scholar
Schmidt, Richard. 2001. Attention. In Peter Robinson (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction, 3–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003Search in Google Scholar
Shively, Rachel. 2014. Teasing of L2 learners in host family communities of practice. Paper presented at the Pragmatics and Language Learning Conference, Bloomington, IN.Search in Google Scholar
Skehan, Peter & Pauline Foster. 1999. The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning 49. 93–120.10.1111/1467-9922.00071Search in Google Scholar
Skehan, Peter & Pauline Foster. 2005. Strategic and on-line planning: The influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. In Rod Ellis (ed.), Planning and task-performance in a second language, 193–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.11.12skeSearch in Google Scholar
Swain, Merrill. 2006. Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In Heidi Byrnes (ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky, 95–108. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Sydorenko, Tetyana. 2011. Exploring the potential of rehearsal via automatized structured tasks versus face-to-face pair work to facilitate pragmatic and oral development. Michigan State University Doctoral dissertation. Dissertation Abstracts International 3464977.Search in Google Scholar
Sykes, Julie. 2008. A dynamic approach to social interaction: SCMC, synthetic immersive environments and Spanish pragmatics. University of Minnesota Doctoral dissertation. Dissertation Abstracts International 3310635.Search in Google Scholar
Taguchi, Naoko. 2007. Task difficulty in oral speech act production. Applied Linguistics 28. 113–135.10.1093/applin/aml051Search in Google Scholar
Taguchi, Naoko. 2012. Context, individual differences, and pragmatic competence. Toronto: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781847696106Search in Google Scholar
Taguchi, Naoko & Julie Sykes. 2013. Introduction: Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching. In Naoko Taguchi & Julie Sykes (eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching, 1–15. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.36Search in Google Scholar
Takahashi, Satomi. 2001. The role of input enhancement in developing interlanguage pragmatic competence. In Kenneth Rose & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching, 171–199. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524797.014Search in Google Scholar
Takahashi, Satomi. 2010. The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance. In Alicia Martínez-Flor & Esther Usó-Juan (eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical, and methodological issues, 127–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.26.08takSearch in Google Scholar
Takimoto, Masahiro. 2006. The effects of explicit feedback and form-meaning processing on the development of pragmatic proficiency in consciousness-raising tasks. System 34. 601–614.10.1016/j.system.2006.09.003Search in Google Scholar
Takimoto, Masahiro. 2012a. Assessing the effects of identical task repetition and task-type repetition on learners’ recognition and production of second language request downgraders. Intercultural Pragmatics 9. 71–96.10.1515/ip-2012-0004Search in Google Scholar
Takimoto, Masahiro. 2012b. Metapragmatic discussion in interlanguage pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 44. 1240–1253.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.007Search in Google Scholar
Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen & Thorsten Huth. 2010. L2 requests: Preference structure in talk-in-interaction. Multilingua 29(2). 185–202.10.1515/mult.2010.008Search in Google Scholar
Tavakoli, Parvaneh & Pauline Foster. 2011. Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning 61. 37–72.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00446.xSearch in Google Scholar
Vandergriff, Ilona & Carolin Fuchs. 2009. Does CMC promote language play? Exploring humor in two modalities. CALICO Journal 27(1). 26–47.10.11139/cj.27.1.26-47Search in Google Scholar
Walkinshaw, Ian. 2009. Learning politeness: Disagreement in a second language. Oxford: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Yates, Linda. 2010. Dinkas down under: Request performance in simulated workplace interaction. In Gabriele Kasper, Hanh thi Nguyen, Dina Rudolph Yoshimi & Jim Yoshioka (eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 12, 113–140. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Search in Google Scholar
Yuan, Yi. 2001. An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods: Written DCTs, oral DCTs, field notes, and natural conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 33(2). 271–292.10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00031-XSearch in Google Scholar
©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Pragmatics and mindreading: Forward and backward inferences in shared intentional contexts
- Intention to deceive, bald-faced lies, and deceptive implicature: Insights into Lying at the semantics-pragmatics interface
- The use of computer-delivered structured tasks in pragmatic instruction: An exploratory study
- The (ab)use of taboo lexis in audiovisual translation: Raising awareness of pragmatic variation in English-Spanish
- Forum
- On weak communication
- Book Reviews
- Félix-Brasdefer, J. Cesar and Dale April Koike: Pragmatic Variation in First and Second Language Contexts: Methodological Issues
- Ingrid Piller: Intercultural Communication: A Critical Introduction
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Pragmatics and mindreading: Forward and backward inferences in shared intentional contexts
- Intention to deceive, bald-faced lies, and deceptive implicature: Insights into Lying at the semantics-pragmatics interface
- The use of computer-delivered structured tasks in pragmatic instruction: An exploratory study
- The (ab)use of taboo lexis in audiovisual translation: Raising awareness of pragmatic variation in English-Spanish
- Forum
- On weak communication
- Book Reviews
- Félix-Brasdefer, J. Cesar and Dale April Koike: Pragmatic Variation in First and Second Language Contexts: Methodological Issues
- Ingrid Piller: Intercultural Communication: A Critical Introduction
