Home ZPD-based mediation of L2 learners’ comprehension of implicatures: An educational praxis framework
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

ZPD-based mediation of L2 learners’ comprehension of implicatures: An educational praxis framework

  • Azizullah Mirzaei

    Azizullah Mirzaei is an Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at Shahrekord University, Iran. He has numerous publications in different journals (e.g., System, ReCALL, Journal of Pragmatics, Studies in Educational Evaluation, and Educational Psychology). His research interests include: Vygotsky-inspired sociocultural theory, second language learning, teaching methodology, interlanguage and intercultural pragmatics, language testing and assessment, and teacher education.

    , Farshad Naseri

    Farshad Naseri is a Ph.D. Candidate of Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) at Shahrekord University. His research interests include: second language learning theories, sociocultural theory, and interlanguage pragmatics.

    , Aliakbar Jafarpour

    Aliakbar Jafarpour is an Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics at Shahrekord University. He has publications in different journals (e.g., TELL, IJAL, JTLS). His research interests include: discourse analysis, teaching second language skills, and teacher education.

    and Zohreh Eslami

    Zohreh R. Eslami is a Professor at Texas A&M University and served as the Program Chair of the Liberal Arts program at Texas A&M University-Qatar from 2016-2020. She has published more than 120 journal articles in journals such as Intercultural Pragmatics, System, ELT Journal, Modern Language Journal, Journal of Pragmatics, Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, and Bilingual Education Journal. Her research interests include intercultural communication, instructional and intercultural pragmatics, cyber-pragmatics, L2 literacy development, L2 literacy in content areas, and task-based language teaching and technology.

Published/Copyright: March 17, 2022

Abstract

Conversational implicatures (CIMs) are implied by the speaker in context rather than being linguistically encoded, and learners’ inability to infer the intended meaning, if not remedied through instruction (or mediation), leads to communication breakdowns. Given this premise, the current study aimed to examine effects of classroom praxis-based instruction adjusted to EFL learners’ Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) on their comprehension of CIMs. Participants were 36 Iranian high school students in 2 classrooms, assigned to experimental and comparison groups. A 20-item CIM test was administered at pretest and posttest times to collect the data. Microgenetic trajectories were also traced through audio-recorded role-plays and social interactions within the ZPD setting. ZPD-adjusted mediational instruction on CIMs was given based on a multi-level regulatory scale and a view of microgenetic development along an other-to self-regulated functioning continuum. In the non-ZPD setting, mainstream teacher-fronted instruction was employed. ANCOVA results revealed differential instructional effects in favor of the praxis-based mediational setting. Microgenetic learning episodes also portrayed how collectively-mediated, ZPD-activated learning led to L2 learners’ progressively improved comprehension of CIMs. The findings suggest that comprehension (and perhaps production) of L2 CIMs can be improved through praxis-oriented co-construction of pragmatic knowledge through collaborative engagement with communicative activity.


English Department, Faculty of Letters and Humanities Shahrekord University 8818634141 Shahrekord, Chaharmahal Bakhteyari Province, Iran

Texas A&M University MS 4232, College of Education and Human Development Texas A & M University College Station, Texas 77843-4232, United States


About the authors

Azizullah Mirzaei

Azizullah Mirzaei is an Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at Shahrekord University, Iran. He has numerous publications in different journals (e.g., System, ReCALL, Journal of Pragmatics, Studies in Educational Evaluation, and Educational Psychology). His research interests include: Vygotsky-inspired sociocultural theory, second language learning, teaching methodology, interlanguage and intercultural pragmatics, language testing and assessment, and teacher education.

Farshad Naseri

Farshad Naseri is a Ph.D. Candidate of Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) at Shahrekord University. His research interests include: second language learning theories, sociocultural theory, and interlanguage pragmatics.

Aliakbar Jafarpour

Aliakbar Jafarpour is an Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics at Shahrekord University. He has publications in different journals (e.g., TELL, IJAL, JTLS). His research interests include: discourse analysis, teaching second language skills, and teacher education.

Zohreh Eslami

Zohreh R. Eslami is a Professor at Texas A&M University and served as the Program Chair of the Liberal Arts program at Texas A&M University-Qatar from 2016-2020. She has published more than 120 journal articles in journals such as Intercultural Pragmatics, System, ELT Journal, Modern Language Journal, Journal of Pragmatics, Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, and Bilingual Education Journal. Her research interests include intercultural communication, instructional and intercultural pragmatics, cyber-pragmatics, L2 literacy development, L2 literacy in content areas, and task-based language teaching and technology.

References

Abdelhafez, Ahmed M. M. 2016. The effect of conversational implicature instruction on developing TEFL students’ pragmatic competence and language proficiency. US-China Education Review A 6(8). 451–465.10.17265/2161-623X/2016.08.001Search in Google Scholar

Aljaafreh, Ali & James P. Lantolf. 1994. Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal 78(4). 471–83.10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02064.xSearch in Google Scholar

Ament, Jennifer Rose, Júlia Barón Páres & Carmen Pérez-Vidal. 2020. A study on the functional uses of textual pragmatic markers by native speakers and English-medium instruction learners. Journal of Pragmatics 156. 41–53.10.1016/j.pragma.2019.09.009Search in Google Scholar

Antón, Marta. 2012. Dynamic assessment. In Glenn Fulcher & Fred Davidson (eds.), The Routledge handbook of language testing, 106–119. New York: RoutledgeSearch in Google Scholar

Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen & Beverly S. Hartford. 2005. Interlanguage pragmatics: Exploring institutional talk. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.10.4324/9781410613776Search in Google Scholar

Bouton, Lawrence F. 1994. Conversational implicature in a second language: Learned slowly when not deliberately taught. Journal of Pragmatics 22(2). 157–167.10.1016/0378-2166(94)90065-5Search in Google Scholar

Bouton, Lawrence F. 1999. Developing non-native speaker skills in interpreting conversational implicatures in English: Explicit teaching can ease the process. In Eli Hinkel (ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning, 47–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Canale, Michael. 1983. From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. Language and Communication 1(1). 1–47.Search in Google Scholar

Canale, Michael & Merrill Swain. 1980. Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing. Applied Linguistics 1(1). 1–47.10.1093/applin/1.1.1Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, Tsui-ping. 2016. Authentic L2 interactions as material for a pragmatic awareness-raising activity. Language Awareness 25(3). 159–178.10.1080/09658416.2016.1154568Search in Google Scholar

Chinn, Clark A. & Bruce L. Sherin. 2014. Microgenetic methods. In Keith R. Sawyer (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd edn.), 171–190. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139519526.012Search in Google Scholar

Cignetti, Luciana M. & María Salomé Di Giuseppe. 2015. Pragmatic awareness of conversational implicatures and the usefulness of explicit instruction. Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada 19. 42–70.Search in Google Scholar

Cohen, Andrew D. 2018. Learning pragmatics from native and nonnative language teachers. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/COHEN9924Search in Google Scholar

Crystal, David. 2008. A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. (6th edn.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.10.1002/9781444302776Search in Google Scholar

Cunningham, Joseph D. 2017. Second language pragmatic appropriateness in telecollaboration: The influence of discourse management and grammaticality. System 64. 46–57.10.1016/j.system.2016.12.006Search in Google Scholar

Daniels, Harry. 2001. Vygotsky and pedagogy. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203469576Search in Google Scholar

de Guerrero, María C. M. & Olga S. Villamil. 2000. Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal 84(1). 51–68.10.1111/0026-7902.00052Search in Google Scholar

Eslami-Rasekh, Zohreh. 2005. Raising the pragmatic awareness of language learners. ELT Journal 59(3). 199–208.10.1093/elt/cci039Search in Google Scholar

Eslami, Zohreh R., Azizullah Mirzaei & Shadi Dini. 2015. The role of asynchronous computer mediated communication in the instruction and development of EFL learners' pragmatic competence. System 48(1). 99–111.10.1016/j.system.2014.09.008Search in Google Scholar

Firth, Alan & Johannes Wagner. 2007. On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal 91(1). 757–772.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00667.xSearch in Google Scholar

Glaser, Karen. 2016. News from the pragmatics classroom: Contrasting the inductive and the deductive approach in the teaching of pragmatic competence. Intercultural Pragmatics 13(4). 529–561.10.1515/ip-2016-0023Search in Google Scholar

Grice, Paul H. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 3), 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hawkins, Margaret R. 2004. Language learning and teacher education: A sociocultural approach. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781853597657Search in Google Scholar

Hymes, Dell. 1972. On communicative competence. In John B. Pride & Janet Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings, 269–293. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.Search in Google Scholar

Ifantidou, Elly. 2013. Pragmatic competence and explicit instruction. Journal of Pragmatics 59. 93–116.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.008Search in Google Scholar

Ishihara, Noriko. 2010. Instructional Pragmatics: Bridging Teaching, Research, and Teacher Education. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(10). 938–953.10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00242.xSearch in Google Scholar

Ishihara, Noriko & Andrew D. Cohen. 2010. Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. New York: Pearson Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Kasper, Gabriele. 1996. Introduction: Interlanguage pragmatics in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(2). 145–148.10.1017/S0272263100014856Search in Google Scholar

Kasper, Gabriele & Richard Schmidt. 1996. Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(2). 149–169.10.1017/S0272263100014868Search in Google Scholar

Köylü, Yilmaz. 2018. Comprehension of conversational implicatures in L2 English. Intercultural Pragmatics 15(3). 373–408.10.1515/ip-2018-0011Search in Google Scholar

Kubota, Mikio. 1995. Teachability of conversational implicature to Japanese EFL learners. The IRLT Bulletin 9. 35–67.Search in Google Scholar

Kuepper, Marie-Christin & Anne Feryok, A. 2019. Concept-based pragmatics instruction: Teaching German address pronouns to New Zealand tertiary students. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 6(2). 158–183.10.1558/lst.37359Search in Google Scholar

LoCastro, Virginia. 2012. Pragmatics for Language education: A sociolinguistic perspective. New York/London: RoutledgeSearch in Google Scholar

Lantolf, James P. 2000. Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching 33(2). 79–96.10.1017/S0261444800015329Search in Google Scholar

Lantolf, James P. 2006. Language Emergence: Implications for Applied Linguistics--A Sociocultural Perspective. Applied Linguistics 27(4). 717–728.10.1093/applin/aml034Search in Google Scholar

Lantolf, James P. 2011. Integrating sociocultural theory and cognitive linguistics in the second language classroom. In Eli Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning 2. 303–318.10.4324/9780203836507.ch19Search in Google Scholar

Lantolf, James P & Matthew E. Poehner. 2014. Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203813850Search in Google Scholar

Lantolf, James P. & Steven L. Thorne. 2006. Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lee, Jin Sook. 2002. Interpreting conversational implicatures: A study of Korean learners of English. The Korean TESOL Journal 5. 1–26.Search in Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey N. 1996. Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Pearson Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Lidz, Carol S. 1991. Practitioners’ guide to dynamic assessment. New York: Gilford Press.Search in Google Scholar

Martínez-Flor, ALicia & Esther Usó-Juan. 2010. Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.26Search in Google Scholar

McNamara, Tim & Carsten Roever. 2006. Language testing: The social dimension. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Mirzaei, Azizullah & Zohreh R. Eslami. 2015. ZPD-activated languaging and collaborative L2 writing. Educational Psychology 35(1). 5–25.10.1080/01443410.2013.814198Search in Google Scholar

Mirzaei, Azizullah, Mahmood Hashemian & Amin Khoramshekouh. 2016. L2 learners’ enhanced pragmatic comprehension of implicatures via computer-mediated communication and social media networks. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics 19(1). 141–180.10.18869/acadpub.ijal.19.1.141Search in Google Scholar

Mitchell, Rosemond, Florence Myles & Emma Marsden. 2013. Second language learning theories. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203770795Search in Google Scholar

Moeschler, Jacques. 2012. Conversational and conventional implicatures. In Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), Cognitive Pragmatics, 407–434. New York: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110214215.405Search in Google Scholar

Moradian, Mahmoodreza, Marzieh Asadi & Zeinab Azadbakht. 2019. Effects of concurrent group dynamic assessment on Iranian EFL learners’ pragmatic competence: A case of requests and refusals. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics 10(2). 106–135.Search in Google Scholar

Murray, Jill C. 2011. Do bears fly? Revisiting conversational implicature in instructional pragmatics. TESL-EJ 15(2). 1–30.Search in Google Scholar

Nassaji, Hossein. 2015. The interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning: Linking theory, research, and practice. London: Bloomsbury.Search in Google Scholar

Nassaji, Hossein. 2016. Anniversary article interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research 20(4). 535–562.10.1177/1362168816644940Search in Google Scholar

Nassaji, Hossein & Sandra Fotos. 2011. Teaching grammar in second language classrooms. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203850961Search in Google Scholar

Nassaji, Hossein & Merrill Swain. 2000. A Vyogtskyan perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness 9(1). 34–51.10.1080/09658410008667135Search in Google Scholar

Negueruela, Eduardo A. 2008. Revolutionary pedagogies: Learning that leads (to) second language development. In James P. Lantolf & Matthew E. Poehner (eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages, 189–227. London: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar

Ohta, Amy S. 2005. Interlanguage pragmatics in the zone of proximal development. System 33. 503–517.10.1016/j.system.2005.06.001Search in Google Scholar

Poehner, Matthew E. 2008. Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting second language development. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-0-387-75775-9Search in Google Scholar

Rassaei, Ehsan. 2014. Scaffolded feedback, recasts, and L2 development: A sociocultural perspective. The Modern Language Journal 98(1). 417–431.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12060.xSearch in Google Scholar

Richards, Brian J., & Clare Gallaway. 1994. Conclusions and directions. In Clare Gallaway & Brian J. Richards (eds.), Input and interaction in language acquisition, 253–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620690.013Search in Google Scholar

Rose, Kenneth R. 1997. Pragmatics in the classroom: Theoretical concerns and practical possibilities. In Lawrence F. Bouton (ed.), Pragmatics and language learning (vol. 8), 89–11. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.Search in Google Scholar

Rose, Kenneth R. 2005. On the effect of instruction in second language pragmatics. System 33(3). 385–399.10.1016/j.system.2005.06.003Search in Google Scholar

Rose, Kenneth R., & Gabriele Kasper. 2001. Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524797Search in Google Scholar

Searle, John R. 1976. The classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5(1). 1–23. Simon, Mandy. 2019. Implicature. Semantics-Interfaces 15. 529–562.10.1017/S0047404500006837Search in Google Scholar

Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Swain, Merrill, Penny Kinnear & Linda Steinman. 2010. Sociocultural theory in second language education: An introduction through narratives. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar

Taguchi, Naoko. 2011. Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31. 289–310.10.1017/S0267190511000018Search in Google Scholar

Taguchi, Naoko. 2015. Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going in interlanguage pragmatics. Language Teaching 48(1). 1–5.10.1017/S0261444814000263Search in Google Scholar

Taguchi, Naoko, Shuai Li & Yan Liu. 2013. Comprehension of conversational implicature in L2 Chinese. Pragmatics & Cognition 21(1). 139–157.10.1075/pc.21.1.06tagSearch in Google Scholar

Tajeddin, Zia & Farhad Tayebipour. 2012. The effect of dynamic assessment on EFL learners’ acquisition of request and apology. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills 4(2). 87–118.Search in Google Scholar

Thorne, Steven L. 2005. Epistemology, politics, and ethics in sociocultural theory. The Modern Language Journal 89(3). 393–409.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00313.xSearch in Google Scholar

van Compernolle, Rémi A. 2011. Developing second language sociopragmatic knowledge through concept-based instruction: A microgenetic case study. Journal of Pragmatics 43(3). 3267–3283.10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.009Search in Google Scholar

van Compernolle, Rémi A. 2014. Sociocultural theory and L2 instructional pragmatics. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781783091409Search in Google Scholar

van Compernolle, Rémi A. 2019. Vygotskian cultural-historical psychology in L2 pragmatics. In Naoko Taguchi (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics, 145–160. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781351164085-10Search in Google Scholar

van Compernolle, Rémi A., Maria Pia Gomez-Laich & Ashley Weber. 2016. Teaching L2 Spanish sociopragmatics through concepts: A classroom-based study. The Modern Language Journal 100(1). 341–361.10.1111/modl.12318Search in Google Scholar

van Compernolle, Rémi A. & Celeste Kinkinger. 2013. Promoting metapragmatic development through assessment in the zone of proximal development. Language Teaching Research, 17(3). 282–302.10.1177/1362168813482917Search in Google Scholar

van Compernolle, Rémi A. & Lawrence Williams. 2012. Teaching, learning, and developing L2 French sociolinguistic competence: A sociocultural perspective. Applied Linguistics 33(2). 184–205.10.1093/applin/amr048Search in Google Scholar

van Lier, Leo. 2000. From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In James P. Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural theory second language learning, 245–259. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

van Lier, Leo. 2004. The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.10.1007/1-4020-7912-5Search in Google Scholar

Vygotsky, Lev S. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Vygotsky, Lev S. 1981. The genesis of higher mental functions. In James V. Wertsch (ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet Psychology, 144–188. Armonk, NY: Sharpe.Search in Google Scholar

Vygotsky, Lev S. 1986. Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Vygotsky, Lev S. 1987. The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Thinking and speaking (vol. 1). New York: Plenum.Search in Google Scholar

Vygotsky, Lev S. 1997. The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: The history of the development of higher mental functions (vol. 4). New York: Plenum.Search in Google Scholar

Wells, Gordon. 1999. Dialogic inquiry: Towards a socio-cultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511605895Search in Google Scholar

Zaferanieh, Elaheh, Mansoor Tavakoli & Abbass Eslami-Rasekh. 2020. Second language pragmatics development through different instructional techniques. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 171(1). 113–141.10.1075/itl.17001.zafSearch in Google Scholar

Appendix A: Bouton’s (1999) Taxonomy of CIMs

CIMs that flout the relevance maxim are labeled as’ idiosyncratic’ implicatures. Since comprehension of this type is more challenging and requires more familiarity with cultural prerequisites, it has been broken down into four subcomponents:

Relevance-general (R-general): The answer to a question is transparently irrelevant and flouts the relevance maxim.

Relevance-evaluation (R-evaluation): This type is uttered as an indirect response related to evaluation of someone or something.

Relevance-change (R-change): The response is a tool for changing the topic totally.

Relevance disclosure (R-disclosure): It's a response to a question from a different angle by revealing some extra information.

The other type, namely “formulaic” implicatures, employs semantic or structural features to make the intended meaning detectable. This type consists of:

Irony: This component is the violation of quality maxim.

Indirect criticism: The utterance conveys a complaint indirectly.

The POPE Q: It is the violation of relevance maxim based on the prototype dialog in which the apparently irrelevant question

Published Online: 2022-03-17
Published in Print: 2021-07-27

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 2.11.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/lpp-2021-0007/html
Scroll to top button