Factors Contributing to Interlanguage Pragmatics (ILP) Competence Development: Evidence from the Iranian EFL Setting
محورهای موضوعی : Research in English Language PedagogyArezoo Nik Khormizi 1 , Gholam-Reza Abbasian 2 , Massood Yazdanimoghaddam 3
1 - Department of English Teaching, Kish International Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kish Island, Iran
2 - Imam Ali University, Tehran, Iran
3 - Department of English Language, Garmsar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Garmsar, Iran
کلید واژه: ILP competence development, Pragmatic competence, ILP assessment ,
چکیده مقاله :
This study sought to explore the factors contributing to Iranian EFL learners’ interlanguage pragmatic (ILP) competence development. In line with the objective, 20 conveniently selected Iranian advanced EFL learners attended a semi-structured interview which consisted of three open-ended questions addressing the factors contributing to EFL learners’ ILP competence development. The data underwent qualitative thematic analysis. The findings showed that the factors like grammatical knowledge, input and output enhancement, explicit instruction, corrective feedback, realistic material, simulation activities, class negotiations, online resources, teachers and teachers’ speech, textbooks, classroom tasks and activities, and context play a main role in developing the target ILP. The findings offer some implications for EFL learners, teachers, teacher trainers and curriculum developers. For instance, EFL learners can leverage these findings by incorporating the identified factors into their strategies to enhance their ILP competence.
This study sought to explore the factors contributing to Iranian EFL learners’ interlanguage pragmatic (ILP) competence development. In line with the objective, 20 conveniently selected Iranian advanced EFL learners attended a semi-structured interview which consisted of three open-ended questions addressing the factors contributing to EFL learners’ ILP competence development. The data underwent qualitative thematic analysis. The findings showed that the factors like grammatical knowledge, input and output enhancement, explicit instruction, corrective feedback, realistic material, simulation activities, class negotiations, online resources, teachers and teachers’ speech, textbooks, classroom tasks and activities, and context play a main role in developing the target ILP. The findings offer some implications for EFL learners, teachers, teacher trainers and curriculum developers. For instance, EFL learners can leverage these findings by incorporating the identified factors into their strategies to enhance their ILP competence.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, Ch. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th ed.). Wadsworth Group.
Bardovi‐Harlig, K. (2001). Another piece of the puzzle: The emergence of the present perfect. Language Learning, 51(1), 215–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.2001.tb00018.x
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dornyei, Z. (1997). Pragmatic awareness and instructed L2 learning: An empirical investigation. The AAAL 1997 Conference.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dornyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 233-262. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587583
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (1990). Congruence in native and nonnative conversations: Status balance in the academic advising session. Language Learning, 40(4), 467-501. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1990.tb00603.x
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(3), 279–304. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100012122
Berry, L. L. (2000). Cultivating service brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 128-137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300281012
Biber, D., & Reppen, R. (2002). What does frequency have to do with grammar teaching? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 199-208. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002048
Bishop, R. (1996). Collaborative research stories. The Dunmore Press.
Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814563200
Brown, T. T., & Jernigan, T. L. (2012). Brain development during the preschool years. Neuropsychology Review, 22(4), 313–333. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-012-9214-1
Bygate, M. (2015). Sources, developments and directions of task-based language teaching. Language Learning Journal, 44(4), 1-20. http://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1039566
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C. Richard, & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2-14). Longman.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47. http://doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.1.1
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. Colombia University Press.
Cohen, A. D. (1997). Developing pragmatic ability: Insights from the accelerated study of Japanese. In H. M. Cook, K. Hijirida & M. Tahara (eds.), New trends and issues in teaching Japanese language and culture (pp. 137–163). University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Cohen, J. (2017). Maker principles and technologies in teacher education: A national survey. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 25(1), 5-30.
Cook, V. (2001). Second language learning and language teaching (3rd ed.). Arnold.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge University Press.
DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(2), 195-221. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44488683
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2013). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. Routledge.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2018). The language of service encounters: A pragmatic-discursive approach. Cambridge University Press.
Furstenberg, G. (1997). Teaching with technology: What is at stake? ADFL Bulletin, 28(3), 21-25. https://doi.org/10.1632/adfl.28.3.21
Glaser, K. (2013). The neglected combination: A case for explicit-inductive instruction in teaching pragmatics in ESL. TESL Canada Journal, 30(7), 150-163. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v30i7.1158
Glaser, K. (2014). Inductive or deductive?: The impact of method on the acquisition of pragmatic competence in EFL. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Grant, L., & Starks, D. (2001). Screening appropriate teaching materials: Closing from textbooks and television soap operas. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 39(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.39.1.39
Holden, C. L., & Sykes, J. M. (2013). Complex L2 pragmatic feedback via place-based mobile games. In N. Taguchi, & J. M. Sykes (eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching (pp. 155–183). John Benjamin Punlishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.36.09hol
House, J. (1996). Communicative styles in English and German. European Journal of English Studies, 10(3), 249-267. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825570600967721
Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A.D. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315833842
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541–577. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102004023
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. http://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n4p2
Kanagy, R., & Igarashi, K. (1997). Acquisition of pragmatics competence in a Japanese immersion kindergarten. In L. Bouton (eds.), Pragmatics and language learning, monograph series (pp. 243-265). University of Illinois.
Kasper, G. (2000). Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied Linguistics, 22(4), 502–530. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.4.502
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Language Learning, 52(1), 1–352.
Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(2), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100014868
Kasper, L. F. (1997). The impact of content-based instructional programs on the academic progress of ESL students. English for Specific Purposes, 4, 309-320. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00035-5
Li, S., & Vuono, A. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in system. System, 84, 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.05.006
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Blackwell.
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(01), 1-40. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000365
Mezzadri, M. (2001). Internet nella didattica dell’italiano. Guerra Edizioni.
Nassaji, H., & Tian, J. (2010). Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 397-419. http://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810375364
Niezgoda, K., & Röver, C. (2001). Pragmatic and grammatical awareness. In K. R. Rose, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 63-79). Cambridge University Press.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417-528. http://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136
Olshtain, E., & Blum-Kulka, S., (1985). Cross-cultural pragmatics and the testing of communicative competence. Language Testing, 2(1), 16-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553228500200103
Röver, C. (1996). Liguistische Routinen: Systematische, psycholinguistische und fremdsprachendidaktische Überlegungen. Fremdsprache und Hochschule, 46, 43-60.
Röver, C. (2001). A web-based test of interlanguage pragmalinguistic knowledge: Speech acts, routines, implicatures. University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. Product Information International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10(3), 209-241. http://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209
Stalnaker, R. (1998). On the representation of context. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 7(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/0198237073.003.0006
Suzuki, Y., Nakata, T., & DeKeyser, R. (2019). Optimizing second language practice in the classroom: Perspectives from cognitive psychology. The Modern Language Journal, 103(3), 551-561. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12582
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410612700-38
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners' response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3), 285-304. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00006-5
Sykes, J. M., & Dubreil, S. (2019). Pragmatics learning in digital games and virtual environments. In N. Taguchi (Eds.), Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 387–399). Routledge.
Taguchi, N., & Kim, Y. (2016). Collaborative dialogue in learning pragmatics: Pragmatic-related episodes as an opportunity for learning request-making. Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 416–437. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu039
Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. M. (1987). The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English. JALT Journal, 8(2), 131-55.
Takimoto, M. (2009). Exploring the effects of input-based treatment and test on the development of learners’ pragmatic proficiency. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 1029-1046. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.12.001
Tarone, E. (2001). Interlanguage. In R. Mesthrie (Eds.), Concise encyclopedia of sociolinguistics (pp. 475- 81). Elsevier.
Tarone, E., & Kuehn, K. (2000). Negotiating the social services oral intake interview: Communicative needs of nonnative speakers of English. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 99-126. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588098
Van den Branden, K., Van Gorp, K., & Verhelst, M. (2009). Tasks in action: Task-based language education from a classroom-based perspective. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Vellenga, H., (2004). Learning pragmatics from ESL & EFL textbooks: How likely? TESL-EJ, 8(2), 1–17.
Vivekmetakorn, C. K. (2018). Doing applied linguistics: A guide for students. Routledge.
Windeatt, S., Hardisty, D., & Eastment, D. (2000). The internet. Oxford University Press.
Young, R. (2013). Interactional competence in language learning, teaching, and testing. In Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 426-443). Routledge
