(PDF) Instructed Second Language English Pragmatics in the Iranian Context

(PDF) Instructed Second Language English Pragmatics in the Iranian Context
About
Press
Papers
We're Hiring!
Outline
Title
Abstract
Review of the Literature
Research Questions
Method
Data
Study
Discussion
Research Designs in Using Speech Acts
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Education
Language and Literacy Education
Instructed Second Language English Pragmatics in the Iranian Context
Farzaneh Shakki
2020, Journal of Teaching Language Skills
visibility
description
52 pages
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
check
Get notified about relevant papers
check
Save papers to use in your research
check
Join the discussion with peers
check
Track your impact
Abstract
The present study aimed to review the instruction of the L2 speech acts in English pragmatics in the Iranian context during the last two decades from 2000 to 2020. To this end, upon the completion of the study search, the retrieved articles were selected and analyzed based on the research domain.  The results of our synthesis from 54 studies carried out on the instruction of the speech act not only reveal that pragmatics is amenable to instruction but also unfold that the most frequently instructed speech act is the speech act of request which has been conducted in 29 studies, while the least instructed speech act is  invitation, used in only one study. Moreover, analyzing the data collection methods documented that Multiple-choice Discourse Completion Test (MDCT) is the most predominant method utilized in 36 papers during the last decades in English pragmatic instruction. With respect to the treatment types, it is illuminated that the most recurrent treatment type is explicit, impl...
Related papers
Evaluation of Diuretic and Antibacterial Activities of Tribulus terrestris Ethanolic Extract 2
Ahmed Al-mohamadi
Background: Renal disorders like urinary tract infections and imbalances in body fluids and electrolytes still create significant health and economic challenges, particularly in areas with fewer resources. Objective: This study aimed to assess the diuretic and antibacterial effects of the ethanol extract of Tribulus terrestris (EETT) through both in vivo and in vitro experimental approaches. Methods: The diuretic activities of ethanol extract of Tribulus terrestris (EETT) were evaluated in rodent models, while its antibacterial potential was investigated in vitro. Diuretic activity was assessed in rats by measuring urine output and electrolyte excretion (sodium, potassium, and chloride) following administration of EETT at the different doses; furosemide served as the reference diuretic. Antibacterial activity was tested in vitro using the disc diffusion technique on four bacterial strains: Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, and Klebsiella pneumoniae. Results: EETT produced a dose-dependent diuretic effect, with the highest dose (450 mg/kg) significantly increasing urine output (p < 0.05) and sodium excretion (p < 0.01) to levels comparable with furosemide. Potassium excretion also rose significantly, whereas chloride excretion decreased at higher doses, suggesting a possible chloride-sparing mechanism. Antibacterial testing revealed moderate inhibition of Staphylococcus aureus (15 mm) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (23 mm), while Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae exhibited no detectable susceptibility under current testing conditions. Conclusion: The ethanol extract of Tribulus terrestris showed dose-dependent diuretic effects and moderate antibacterial activity. These findings support further research, including clinical studies, to explore its potential as a complementary treatment for kidney-related disorders.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
International Real Estate Review
Su Chan
International Real Estate Review, 2011
This paper develops a stylized model to provide a rational explanation for the boom-and-bust price movement pattern that we frequently observe in the real world. Our stylized model indicates that there are three conditions to form a boom-and-bust price pattern in a community: a move-in of high income residents, wide income gap between new and existing residents, and supply process that leads to an inventory buildup. It seems that, based on these three conditions, China is more likely to experience a boom-and-bust price movement pattern than a developed country with a more mature and less vibrant economy.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Multi-attribute based optimal location and sizing of solar power plant in radial distribution system
beei iaes
Bulletin of Electrical Engineering and Informatics, 2025
Advancements in renewable energy sources (RES) have significantly increased power generation and reduced emissions. Optimally integrating RES into distribution systems can minimize power losses, emissions, and enhance voltage profile and stability. Therefore, determining the optimal location and size of RES is crucial for their effective integration. This paper presents a novel approach for identifying the optimal location and size of a solar power plant (SPP) in a distribution system, considering system power losses, voltage profile, voltage stability, and emissions simultaneously. A simple yet effective methodology combining repeated load flow and fuzzy systems is proposed. Repeated load flow is used to calculate the relevant attributes, while fuzzy decision-making is employed to determine the optimal solution. The effectiveness of the proposed method is demonstrated through its application to the IEEE-33 bus system. The results illustrate that integrating a SPP at the optimal location and size can significantly reduce power losses and emissions while improving voltage profile and stability.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
د.المحجوب الزنيقري-العدد 16 مجلة التبيان
Ahmed Eldawdi
د.المحجوب ابراهيم الزنيقري, 2026
مسألة تعدد الحملاء – دراسة في مؤلف الشيخ محمد الغرياني بن علي (ت 1195هـ / 1780م) | د. المحجوب إبراهيم الزنيقري PDF
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Characteristics of Candidates for Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation at H. Adam Malik General Hospital Medan
International Journal of Research Publication (IJRP)
International Journal of Research Publications (IJRP), 2026
Background: Liver transplantation is the definitive treatment for end-stage liver disease and certain acute hepatic conditions. Globally, the number of liver transplantations continues to increase, but access remains uneven across regions. In Indonesia, liver transplantation programs are still limited and mainly rely on living donors. The development of deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) programs requires identification of potential recipient characteristics. Objective: To describe the characteristics of potential recipients for deceased donor liver transplantation at H. Adam Malik General Hospital Medan. Methods: This study used a descriptive observational design with a case series approach. Data were obtained from medical records of patients who were candidates for deceased donor liver transplantation at H. Adam Malik General Hospital Medan from September 2023 to January 2025. Total sampling was used. Demographic, clinical, and organ-related characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: Approximately 100 potential recipients were identified. The majority of candidates were adults aged 18–66 years with varied demographic backgrounds. The distribution of recipients showed diversity in gender, ethnicity, religion, and education level. Clinical characteristics included indications such as end-stage liver disease, hepatocellular carcinoma, and acute liver failure. Organ-related characteristics included blood type compatibility and recipient viability for transplantation. Conclusion: Candidates for deceased donor liver transplantation at H. Adam Malik General Hospital Medan show diverse demographic and clinical characteristics. These findings provide important baseline data for the development of a deceased donor liver transplantation program in Indonesia.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
LIBRO s tec
Janeth Mireles
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Production and characterization of craft beers with different additions of native fruits and agro-industrial residues: a review
Admilson Costa Cunha
Ciência Rural
ABSTRACT: There is a growing demand for authentic products that provide sensory characteristics combined with health benefits that current studies have focused on. This review addressed the technological aspects involved in producing craft beers and the use of various fruits in developing new products with higher added value. The information was collected by researching scientific databases such as Scopus, websites, and the CAPES catalog of Theses and Dissertations. Thus, this study sought to obtain more information to promote discussion about the possibilities of adding various fruits in developing beers with a strong cultural appeal, high nutritional and marketing value, and that can also be categorized as a functional food.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Gebet, Ritual und Schweigen.Die Psalmen als Gottesdienst in Exegese und Religionswissenschaft
Benjamin Sommer
Psalmen und Ritual. 100 Jahre Psalmenstudien von Sigmund Mowinckel (1921-1924) und seine Impulse für die aktuelle Psalmenforschun, 2024
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Archeologia in Sicilia nel Secondo Dopoguerra
Gabriella Tigano
La ricerca archeologica nella provincia di Messina: dagli anni post bellici alla ripresa economica. RIASSUNTO -I decenni tra la fine della seconda guerra mondiale e gli anni del boom edilizio, costituiscono uno dei momenti chiave per la storia della ricerca archeologica in Sicilia e per la scoperta "archeologica" della provincia di Messina, all'epoca ricadente sotto la giurisdizione della Soprintendenza alle Antichità di Siracusa. In quei decenni grazie alla grande capacità organizzativa dell'allora Soprintendente, Luigi Bernabò Brea, si gettarono le basi per la conoscenza di questo territorio nel lungo periodo e si avviarono programmi di valorizzazione turistica, acquisendo al demanio dello Stato vaste estensioni di terreno (per es. Tindari e Alesa), nuclei originari degli attuali Parchi archeologici. RESEARCH IN THE PROVINCE OF MESSINA: FROM THE POST WAR YEARS TO THE ECO-NOMIC UPTURN. PROTAGONISTS AND RESULTS -The decades between the end of the second world war and the years of the urban development are one of the key moments in the history of archeological research in Sicily and for the archeological discover of the province of Messina, that time under the jurisdiction of the Soprintendenza alle Antichità of Siracusa. In those years, thanks to the great organizational ability of Luigi Bernabò Brea, Superintendent at the time, were laid the foundations for the knowledge of this area and the programs for tourist promotion started, by acquiring large plots of land (for ex. Tindari and Alesa) in the State's property. Those were the original nucleuses of today Archeological Parks.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
From Stages to Regimes: Material Thresholds and a New Framework for Archaeological Social Change
Kazuya Imaizumi
Preprint (Zenodo), 2025
This paper proposes a renewed framework for the stage-based developmental view of history. The stage-based developmental view has long been highly compatible with archaeological practice, in which discrete transformations are identified through the appearance and disappearance of specific artefacts and features. Consequently, stagebased models of social development proposed by scholars such as Service and Friedman have exerted a strong influence, particularly in Japanese archaeology, where they continue to be widely employed. However, within the research history of social evolution theory, the stage-based developmental view that flourished between the 1950s and 1970s is now regarded as a classical framework. Since the 1980s, the rise of complexity theory has led to strong critiques of simple linear and discrete models of change, while since the 2000s discrete transformations have re-emerged as a central topic, now understood as part of composite processes combining linear and nonlinear, continuous and discrete dynamics. From the perspective of the research history of social evolution theory and social organism theory, this paper proposes the Regime Shift Perspective as an alternative to the traditional stage-based developmental view. Grounded in integrative theories developed in ecology, this perspective conceptualizes discrete transformations as observable transitions occurring within a framework that combines linear and nonlinear, continuous and discrete processes, and provides archaeologically accessible indicators suited to empirical application. This perspective offers a theoretically grounded framework for identifying regime shifts in archaeological and historical records and provides a foundation for empirical modeling of social change.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Journal of Teaching Language Skills Online ISSN
(JTLS) 2717-1604
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
DOI: 10.22099/jtls.2020.38481.2886 Research Paper

Instructed Second Language English Pragmatics in the
Iranian Context

Farzaneh Shakki1 Jila Naeini**

Omid Mazandarani ***
Department of English Language Teaching, Aliabad Katoul Branch, Islamic
Azad University, Aliabad Katoul, Iran

Ali Derakhshan****
Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Humanities and
Social Sciences, Golestan University, Gorgan, Iran

Abstract
The present study aimed to review the instruction of the L2 speech acts in
English pragmatics in the Iranian context during the last two decades from
2000 to 2020. To this end, upon the completion of the study search, the
retrieved articles were selected and analyzed based on the research domain.
The results of our synthesis from 54 studies carried out on the instruction of
the speech act not only reveal that pragmatics is amenable to instruction but
also unfold that the most frequently instructed speech act is the speech act of
request which has been conducted in 29 studies, while the least instructed
speech act is invitation, used in only one study. Moreover, analyzing the data
collection methods documented that Multiple-choice Discourse Completion
Test (MDCT) is the most predominant method utilized in 36 papers during the
last decades in English pragmatic instruction. With respect to the treatment
types, it is illuminated that the most recurrent treatment type is explicit,
implicit vs. control, followed by explicit vs. implicit, although other treatment

Received: 17/09/2020 Accepted: 05/10/2020

PhD Candidate, Email:
[email protected]
**
Assistant Professor, Email:
[email protected]
, Corresponding Author
***
Assistant Professor, Email:
[email protected]
****
Associate Professor, Email:
[email protected]
Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 202
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

types have been embarked on. As a final point, it is worth noting that 53 of the
conducted studies utilized the quantitative method in their data analyses,
whereas only one study implemented the qualitative method. The paper
concludes with some avenues for further research.

Keywords: Pragmatics, Instruction, Speech Acts, Systematic Review

The American philosopher Charles W. Morris (1901-79) introduced
pragmatics as one of the three constituents of semiotics, dating back to the
early 19th century. Distinctly, Morris (1938) conceptualized pragmatics as
“the study of the relation of signs to interpreters” (p. 6). Since its
commencement, pragmatics has announced its place as the most fertile ground
for research. It has its theoretical underpinnings in language philosophy and
came to existence as a result of speculations put forth by philosophers such as
Austin (1962), Grice (1975), and Searle (1976). Subsequent definitions of
linguistic pragmatics incline to embark upon some other terminologies and are
often more circumstantial.
Pragmatics is the study of language from the point of view of users,
especially of the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in
using language in social interaction, and the effects their use of language
has on other participants in the act of communication. (Crystal, 1985, p.
240)

Crystal (1985) pinpointed that actual language use plays a salient role in
pragmatics research, and the process of coding and decoding by the utterances
is accentuated. Another definition proposed by Mey (2001) mentioned that
“Pragmatics studies the use of language in human communication as
determined by the conditions of society” (p. 6). In a similar line of inquiry,
Mey (2001) situated pragmatics within the context of language use.

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 203
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Corroborating the importance of pragmatics, Taguchi (2019) reiterated
that learning sociocultural conventions and norms of language is a vital part
of becoming a competent speaker in the second language (L2). She stressed
that learning another language does not involve merely learning grammar and
vocabulary of that language, and there is a need to acquire the pragmatic
knowledge in order to have e better communication. Pragmatic competence,
which is a prerequisite for meaningful discourses, has been developed over
time, and it is considered as an interminable multi-layered and multi-
dimensional concept in which numerous skills and knowledge such as
linguistic and sociocultural knowledge, interactional abilities, and agency are
involved (Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei, & Thurrell, 1995; Uso´-Juan & Martı´nez-
Flor, 2008).
Leech (1983) accentuated that pragmatic competence entails two
specific domains, including sociopragmatics (the contextual features of
pragmatics) and pragmalinguistics (the linguistics structure of pragmatics),
which can be considered as two subcategories of pragmatics. Elaborated by
Brown and Levinson (1987), sociopragmatics is pertinent to the social
consequences of what you do, when, and to whom, and it focuses on the social
distance, power, and communicative action. On the other hand,
pragmalinguistics is perceived as the ability to utilize the conventions of forms
and means (Thomas, 1983).
Considering pragmatics as a pivotal component of language, researchers
started to investigate its constituents in different contexts, (Birjandi &
Derakhshan, 2014; Cohen, 2008; Derakhshan, 2014; Derakhshan &
Arabmofrad, 2018; Derakhshan & Eslami Rasekh, 2015; Derakhshan,
Malmir, & Greenier, in press; Jeon & Kaya, 2006; Kasper & Rose, 1999,
2002; Malmir & Dearkhshan, 2020, in press; Sonnenburg-Winkler, Eslami,
& Derakhshan, in press). One of the most popular aspects of pragmatic

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 204
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

research is devoted to instruction. Since second language learning is a process
in which we learn a language other than the first language, and it is different
from bilingualism and multilingualism because it should happen after the first
language has been learned, it has been at the heart of research during the last
decades (Gass, 2013). Pica (1983) highlighted that instructed second language
learning affects not only production but also the performance of the learners.
Ellis (2005) believed that successful Instructed Language Learning (ILL)
needs extra second language input to provide opportunities for producing
output. Noticing the individual differences and increasing the learners’
proficiency through instruction and input are also other vital factors. Nassaji
(2016) believes that one of the subcategories of Second Language Acquisition
(SLA) is instructed second language acquisition (ISLA) that focuses on the
scientific process of gathering knowledge about L2 learning. Considering the
goal of L2 instruction, which is to improve communicative competence and
enhance the ability of the learners to use L2 for communicative purposes,
ISLA and instructed second language learning (ISLL) are of high importance.
ISLA and ISLL are concerned with not only language meanings, but also
language forms, and directly or indirectly, they are involved in language
teaching (Loewen & Sato, 2017). ISLL is not achieved unless awareness and
noticing happen while teaching. The results obtained from a variety of studies
accentuate that awareness is a prerequisite of learning (Schmidt, 1993, 2001),
and noticing the input which makes it intake is considered to be a vital element
and corroborates the advantage of instruction. It is undeniable that instruction
has become much more popular as compared to the past and the most
compelling reason for holding this view is that instruction is an effective
deterrent to misunderstanding the pragmatic features (Rose, 2005; Taguchi,
2011).

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 205
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

The same process is for second language learning, so enhancing input and
instruction in pragmatics may help better comprehension and production.
Pragmatics has got its prominence in fledgling scientific research during the
last decades as a branch of linguistics in teaching (Birjandi & Derakhsham,
2014; Cohen, 2020; Culpeper, Mackey, & Taguchi, 2018; Derakhshan, 2015;
Derakhshan & Eslami, 2015, 2020; Derakhshan, Shakki, & Sarani, in press;
Jeon & Kaya, 2006; Taguchi & Kim, 2018). It is also concerned with the usage
of language in the society (Arabmofrad, Derakhshan, & Atefinejad, 2019;
Malmir & Derakhshan, 2020), but the profusion of studies in pragmatics
reveals that there are some aspects such as speech acts, conversational
implicatures, routines, humor, prosody, etc. which are the cornerstones in this
field, among which speech acts are the most predominant aspects of research,
that is why the speech acts are only utilized in this review (Cohen, 2017;
Derakhshan, 2019a, 2019b; Derakhshan & Arabmofrad, 2018; Derakhshan &
Shakki, 2020a; Eslami & Mardani, 2010).
In a nutshell, teaching pragmatics and particularly the speech acts are
justified on the ground that language learners may encounter difficulties to
produce and comprehend language due to cross-cultural mismatches
regarding the linguistic and social appropriacy of target language norms, and
negative pragmatic transfer from their L1 to L2, to just name a few. More
importantly, among those studies which have investigated the English
pragmatic instruction (Derakhshan & Eslami, 2015, 2020; Derakhshan &
Shakki, 2020a; Jeon & Kaya, 2006; Kasper & Rose, 1999, 2002; Martı´nez-
Flor & Alcón-Soler, 2005; Rose & Kasper, 2001; Takahashi, 2010a, 2010b;
Taguchi, 2011, 2015, 2019), none of them thoroughly synthesized the
empirical studies in the Iranian context to find the general patterns in English
pragmatic instruction.

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 206
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

The main impetus for conducting this systematic review paper is to put
into practice what Kasper and Rose (2002) brought to the limelight in their
seminal work. Reviewing the influence of the communicative competence
models on pragmatic studies, they contemplate on three pivotal questions that
make the cornerstones of the present paper. One of the questions was to find
out whether the targeted pragmatic feature is teachable at all; the other one
was whether instruction in the targeted feature is more effective than non-
instruction, and the last one was whether various teaching methods and
approaches are distinctively effective. They concluded that the features are
teachable, instruction makes a difference, and literature still needs more
empirical studies to be done to ascertain which teaching methods and
approaches are differentially conducive to learning. Taking these questions
into account, after passing two decades of research on English pragmatic
instruction, the present paper aimed to recapitulate the findings of the studies
in the EFL context of Iran to unravel the trends.

Review of the Literature
Pragmatics is one of the significant branches of philosophy and
linguistics, dealing with the nature of language use and addressing how
individuals comprehend and produce communicative acts. It has contributed
to the literature in the realm of language learning and teaching over this
century. it gradually attempts to establish its own specific status in the world
academic arena as well. Despite different definitions for pragmatics in
addition to slur and thick terms, it is commonly considered as the branch of
linguistics and semiotics research that investigates the factors in which setting
and situation contribute to the meaning, and it examines language from its
users’ point of view to attain their communicative intentions regarding their
constraints and capabilities. It is, therefore, hypothesized that conducting a

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 207
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

systematic review in English pragmatic instruction holds a great promise to
bring real consequences for the teachers and to be able to raise researchers’
ideas for future studies.

Conceptualization of Pragmatics
Communicative Competence. The construct of communicative
competence has been accentuated by different scholars. Inspired by Hymes’s
(1971, 1972) postulations criticizing Chomsky’s (1957) linguistic
competence, Canale and Swain (1980) proposed the most influential model of
communicative competence, which includes discoursal knowledge, strategic
competence, sociolinguistic competence, and grammatical competence.
Bachman (1990) was the first person who directly subsumed the pragmatic
component under the category of ‘pragmatic competence’. He elaborated on
the differences between pragmatic competence and organizational
competence. Moreover, Bachman (1990) conceptualized two more constitutes
of communicative language ability, psychomotor, and strategic skills.
Strategic skill allows learners to draw on the items included within language
competence. On the other side, psychomotor skill deals with the productive or
receptive mode in which competence is conducted through a special type of
channel.
Celce-Murcia et al. (1995) posited a thorough, communicative
competence model compromising actional, linguistic, strategic, sociocultural,
and discoursal competence. The discoursal competence works as a core and
entails to choose and order the utterances to make a written or spoken text.
Linguistics competence involves the basic items of communicating, like
phonological system, lexical resources, morphological inflection, and also
sentence patterns. Sociocultural competence encompasses the expression of
appropriate messages by the users in cultural and social contexts. Actional

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 208
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

competence deals with the understanding of the intention behind performing
the speech acts.
Last but not least, these four components are controlled by the last one,
strategic competence, which entails the knowledge of communication
strategies and how to use them (Uso´-Juan & Martı´nez-Flor, 2008). This
framework subsumes pragmatic competence under the rubric of actional
competence, consisting of knowledge of speech act sets and language
functions, and the productive and receptive skills within discourse
competence; they also pinpoint the interplay among these components
together with the linguistic, sociocultural, and strategic competencies.
Speech Acts. Teaching pragmatics has gained significant attention
during the last decades. By the same token, Interlanguage Pragmatics (ILP),
motivated by SLA theories and pragmatics, is concerned with how second
language learners acquire how to do things with words over time in their own
country lies. It deals with how learners (adult or children) learn to find out and
produce communicative actions in a second language, and as an
interdisciplinary field, it has been studied from various methodological,
theoretical, and analytical perspectives. Since the incorporation of language
functions in the notional-functional syllabus in the 1970s (Wilkins, 1972),
speech acts have attracted considerable attention in SLA in general and ILP in
particular. A myriad of studies has scrutinized speech acts and the effect of
various interventional treatments on the production and fewer on the
comprehension of different speech acts within the domain of second language
acquisition. Levinson (1983) pinpointed this issue “of all the issues in the
general theory of language usage, speech act theory has probably aroused the
widest interest” (p. 226). Speech acts have attained considerable attention in
SLA in general and request, apology, refusal, suggestion, invitation, and
compliment in particular.

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 209
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Review of the Studies in English Pragmatic Instruction
ISLA happens as a result of teaching a second language, and L2
instruction generally occurs in the classroom although it may include some
self-studies such as using the target language in everyday life. Guiding and
facilitating the process of learning by teachers and materials can be defined as
L2 instruction. There have been some arguments among theorists whether
instruction may help learners to understand explicit rules about the L2, and
some practitioners believe that instruction may have little impact on people’s
ability to use the target language for communicative aims. Not crucially, the
rate of L2 acquisition can be increased by assisting learners to achieve high
proficiency in the target language, and it shows that instruction is valuable.
Based on early studies in the 1980s and 1990s, there is a consensus that
pragmatics is teachable, and instructed groups often outperformed the non-
instructed groups (Kasper & Rose, 1999). Motivated by Schmidt’s (1993)
noticing hypothesis, the comparison between implicit and explicit teaching
method has been accentuated, and the role of consciousness and attention
reveals that explicit explanation is more beneficial than an implicit condition
which enhances learning through input exposure and consciousness-raising.
According to Taguchi’s (2015) state-of-the-art paper on the teachability of
English pragmatic instruction, “effective teaching is closely related to the
depth of processing” (Taguchi, 2019, p.7) and instruction is indeed a
prerequisite for each and every field of study.
Over the last 30 years, second language pragmatics has been considered
in a large body of research, and major growth in (quasi-) experiments on L2
pragmatics instruction (Taguchi, 2015) has been observed. A series of review
papers (Jeon & Kaya, 2006; Kasper & Rose, 2002; Norris & Ortega, 2000;
Taguchi, 2011, 2015) has been published regarding the pragmatics instruction
across various treatments, learner factors, outcome measures, and target

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 210
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

features by which researchers agreed that instruction is more effective than
just exposure to input. Besides the benefits, there are influential variations,
inconclusive findings, and the presence of moderators affecting the process of
instruction, which need to be investigated. After Kasper’s plenary talk in 1997
at the TESOL Convention, inspiring the investigation into the effectiveness of
instruction, a couple of studies have been done on instructed pragmatics (Jeon
& Kaya, 2006; Kasper & Rose, 1999; Rose, 2005; Takahashi, 2010b; Taguchi,
2011, 2015, 2019).
Norris and Ortega (2000) employed 49 samples published between 1980
and 1998 to work on focus on form and focus on forms studies. They found
that the focused L2 instruction and explicit groups are more effective than the
other counterpart. It was a meta-analysis that was done on the effectiveness of
L2 instruction. Alternatively, the first meta-analysis on L2 pragmatics
instruction was conducted about fourteen years ago by Jeon and Kaya (2006),
using 13 studies published before 2003. The findings illustrated that direct
instruction provides a significant difference over no instruction counterpart.
Furthermore, the results on the relationship between different instructional
methods, length of instruction, and outcome measures, and the effectiveness
of L2 pragmatics instruction were not convincing. Inconclusive findings and
a limited number of studies that were analyzed are the drawbacks of this meta-
analysis.
By the same token, Takahashi (2010b) reviewed 49 studies on pragmatic
intervention, and the superiority of explicit over implicit was highlighted.
However, evidence indicated that implicit teaching may have its own benefits,
and some aspects of that may be equally effective. Takahashi also suggested
that higher proficiency levels and motivation are the prerequisites in
promoting pragmatic teachability. Another review article carried out by
Taguchi (2015) on the development of instructed pragmatics over the past

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 211
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

three decades used 58 instructional intervention studies. She claimed that
explicit teaching is typically more effective than the implicit one, though
implicit teaching can be conducive if it involves activities on noticing and
processing. Her findings are not eloquent enough since it just considers the
explicit vs. implicit studies so that further investigation was proposed to assess
to take into account variations and stability in the findings.
Similarly, Badjadi (2016) utilized 24 studies to find the differentiated
effects of second language pragmatics instructional tasks related to
production and comprehension outcome measures. The findings revealed that,
in conformity with instructional tasks, production and comprehension mean
effect sizes change from small to large. Alternatively, Plonsky and Zhuang
(2019) utilized a total of 50 studies to answer the following questions: a. What
is the overall effectiveness of L2 pragmatics instruction? b. What is the
relationship between the effectiveness of pragmatics instruction and the
following types of moderating variables: treatment and target features,
contextual and learner factors, research and reporting practices, and outcome
measures?
Their findings support the previous reviews and meta-analyses in which
the importance of explicit was accentuated over the implicit one. They found
that pragmatics instruction provided opportunities for practice, was more
effective than instruction without opportunities for practice, and longer
instruction is better than the other one in general. They also stated that free
outcome measures such as role-plays relinquished larger effects than more
controlled outcome measures like multiple-choice questions. As they
mentioned, their study lacked different research designs and analyses, which
they proposed to be done one day by future studies.
Regarding the effects of instruction and corrective feedback on L2
pragmatics, Yousefi and Nassaji (2019) worked on 39 published studies from

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 212
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

2006 to 2016. Their results indicated that computer-assisted instruction
generated larger effects in comparison with face-to-face instruction. The
above-mentioned reviews and meta-analyses have covered various factors in
teaching pragmatics and whether it is effective or not. Due to the limited
number of studies they have selected, ignoring an Iranian context, and the
scant attention devoted to a thorough systematic review in this field, the
present study is going to shed light on the effectiveness of Iranian instruction
in L2 pragmatics. It also aims to reveal the most frequently used speech acts,
data collection methods, treatment types, and research designs in the last two
decades in pragmatic instruction studies in Iran.

Research Questions
Given the conceptual fit between pragmatics and instruction, this study
seeks to scrutinize the state of instruction through the lens of pragmatics. This
review tries to answer the following research questions:
1. Is teaching pragmatics (speech acts) effective?
2. What are the frequent speech acts used for English pragmatic instruction
in the Iranian EFL context?
3. What are the most frequent data collection methods utilized in English
pragmatic instruction in the Iranian EFL context?
4. What are the most common and frequent treatment types for the instruction
of English pragmatics in Iran?
5. Which research designs are at the center of attention and frequent while
conducting a study in English pragmatic instruction?
To address the research questions, specific terms such as “pragmatics”,
instruction, speech acts, and Iran were used. Different databases, including
Google Scholar, Magiran, CIVILICA, LLBA, ERIC, and ProQuest were

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 213
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

utilized to find related studies from various journals, book chapters, and
conferences from 2000 to 2020.

Method
This review article included any study reporting data that can be
synthesized to address any or all of the research questions, encompassing the
following criteria. The first criterion pertains to the teaching pragmatics in an
Iranian context. The second benchmark deals with teaching at least one of the
speech acts in its procedure. Thirdly, the study had to be empirical, whether
in English or Persian, and had to be available in a written scholarly format
through a journal, conference proceeding, and an academic book chapter.
Based on these inclusion criteria, the studies which focused on implicature,
routines, prosody, etc. were excluded from this study. Besides, papers that had
no intervention and instruction were also removed from the corpus.

Data
Analyzing the Iranian English pragmatics instruction studies during the
last two decades, 54 studies that have met the criteria were used in the present
review. Within these 54 studies, there were some papers whose focus was on
more than one speech act, so these combinations of speech acts were also
included in the present review. These appear in Table 1.

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 214
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Table 1.
The Number of the Speech Acts in a Paper
Study Request Apology Refusal Suggestion Complaint Compliment Thanking Invitation
Derakhshan  
& Shakki
(2020a)
Fakher &  
Panahifar
(2020)
Derakhshan  
Arabmofrad
(2018)
Fakher,  
Jafarigohar,
Vahdany, &
Soleimani,
(2016)
Derakhshan  
& Eslami
(2015)
Birjandi &   
Derakhshan
(2014)
Nemati &  
Arabmofrad
(2014)
Tajeddin &  
Bagherkazem
i (2014)
Mirzaei &   
Esmaili
(2013)
Kia & Salehi  
(2013)
Gholamnia &  
Aghaeib
(2012)

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 215
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Study Request Apology Refusal Suggestion Complaint Compliment Thanking Invitation
Tajeddin,     
Kehsvarz, &
Zand
Moghadam,
(2012)
Birjandi &  
Pezeshki
(2012)
Salehi (2011)  
Khatib &   
Ahmadi Safa,
(2011)
Eslami &  
Eslami
(2008)
Eslami,  
Eslami, &
Fatahi (2004)

Request Studies
Table 2. outlines request studies.
Table 2.
Request Studies
Treatment Outcome
Study Design Participants Results
type measure(s)
Fakher & Pre- 119 (19-32) Peers' WDCT The superiority of the
Panahifar post/ collaborativ peers'
(2020) control e dialogue collaborative dialogue
(PCD) (PCD)
group and group over the teacher's
teacher's scaffolding (TS) group.
scaffolding Asymmetrical pairs
(TS) group were
also found to
outperform
their symmetrical
counterparts.
Derakhshan & Pre- 69 (17-27) Metapragma MDCT Metapragmatic
Arabmofrad post/ tic, form- outperformed
(2018) control search, the other groups.
interactive

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 216
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Treatment Outcome
Study Design Participants Results
type measure(s)
translation
vs. control
Anani Sarab Pre- 62 (20-34) Explicit vs. MDCT & Parallel performance in
& Alikhani post/ control WDCT groups.
(2016b) control
Sadeqi & Pre-post 45 (19-28) Explicit vs. MDCT & The explicit group
Ghaemi control WDCT performed
(2016) significantly better than
the
implicit group.
Fakher, Pre-post 125 (18-32) Interaction ODCT The interaction group
Jafarigohar, vs. control performed significantly
Vahdany & better
Soleimani than the control group.
(2016)
Derakhshan & Pre-post 60 (17-26) Discussion, MDCT Discussion
Eslami (2015) roleplay & outperformed the
interactive other groups.
translation
Eslami, Pre-post 74 (early Explicit vs. MDCT The explicit group
Mizaei & Dini and late 20s, implicit performed
(2015) late 30s) implicit.
Rajabi, Pre- 73 (17-20) Explicit vs. MDCT Explicit outperformed
Azizifar & post/ control control.
Gowhary control
(2015a)
Birjandi & Pre- 78 (16-26) Video- MDCT Metapragmatic group
Derakhshan post/ prompts vs. outperformed the other
(2014) control control. treatment groups. Form-
group was better than
role-play and control
groups.
Nemati & Pre- 90 (18-20) Individual MDCT & Collaborative groups
Arabmofrad post/ input-based, WDCT outperformed individual
(2014) control collaborativ counterparts.
e input-
based,
individual
out-put-
based &
collaborativ
e output-
based

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 217
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Treatment Outcome
Study Design Participants Results
type measure(s)
Rezvani, Pre-post 60 (18-25) Explicit vs. MDCT Explicit and implicit
Eslami & implicit groups
Dastjerdi were both significant.
(2014)
Masouleh, Pre-post 60 (Above Explicit vs. DCT Explicit outperformed
Arjmandi & 18) control control.
Vahdany
(2014)
Ahmadi & Pre-post 60 (21-26) Dictogloss Writing Dictogloss was more
Ghafar Samar vs. Production effective.
(2014) consciousne Test
ss raising
Tajeddin & Pre-post 54 (19-31) Individual WDCT Both significant,
Bagherkazemi and collaborative
(2014) collaborativ had greater efficacy.
e output
Tajeddin & Pre-post 140 (19-28) Deductive, WDCT Deductive was netter
Hosseinpur inductive, than L1
(2014a) and L1- and inductive.
based
consciousne
ss-raising
instructional
tasks
Tajeddin & Qual 140 (19-28) Instructional WDCT Effective
Hosseinpur group
(2014b)
Mirzaei & Pre-post 270 (18-25) Explicit vs. MDCT & Explicit outperformed
Esmaeili control WDCT control,
(2013) and level of proficiency
does not have any
special
effect in instruction.
Barkat & Pre- 45 (16-20) Consciousn WDCT C-R F group was better
Mehri (2013) post/ ess-raising than C-R group.
control (C-R) and
consciousne
ss-raising
with
feedback
(C-R F)
Gholamnia & Pre-post 30 (14-19) Explicit vs. WDCT Explicit outperformed
Aghaeib implicit implicit.
(2012)

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 218
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Treatment Outcome
Study Design Participants Results
type measure(s)
Khodareza & Pre-post 60 (NA) Interpretatio MDCT Higher
Lotfi (2012) n & use progress in the
interpretation
but no significant
change in
the use of the speech
acts.
Tajeddin, Pre- 75 (18-46) Pragmatic MDCT The development of
Keshavarz & post/ focus in all pragmatic
Zand- control phases of a self-assessment and
Moghadam task, metapragmatic
(2012) scaffolding awareness
in task and can be better for
completion pragmatic focus and
& control feedback.
Birjandi & Pre- 64 (18-24) Self WDCT Self assessment group
Pezeshki post/ assessment outperformed the
(2012) control vs. control group.
conventiona
l method
Salehi (2011) Pre- 40 (NA) Explicit vs. DCT Instruction works, but
post/ Implicit the
control explicit group was
not necessarily
superior to the implicit
group.
Khatib & Pre- 85 Explicit vs. MDCT & Expert peers' ZPD-wise
Ahmadi Safa post/ (Freshmen) Implicit WDCT explicit and implicit
(2011) control Performed better than
others.
Ahmadi, Pre-post 147 (21-26) Dictogloss WDCT Both groups were
Ghafar Samar vs. effective.
& consciousne
Yazdanimogh ss raising
adam (2011)
Malaz, Rabiee Pre-post 30 (NA) Form- DCT Form-comparison
& Ketabi comparison condition
(2011) condition & was better than
form-search form-search condition.
condition
Dastjerdi & Pre- 90 (19-27) Explicit vs. MDCT Explicit outperformed
Rezvani post/ implicit implicit.
(2010) control

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 219
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Treatment Outcome
Study Design Participants Results
type measure(s)
Eslami & Pre-post 52 (23-30) Pragmatic MDCT Experimental group’s
Eslami (2008) focus vs. performances on the
control posttests
of both ‘awareness’ and
‘production’ tests were
significantly high.
Eslami, Pre- 66 (23-25) Explicit vs. MDCT Students’ speech act
Eslami & post/ control comprehension was
Fatahi (2004) control significant.

NA: Not Applicable

Among 54 studies, 29 employed the speech act of request in their
analyses. As can be seen in Table 2, all of the studies are in line with the first
research question that the instruction of speech acts provides effective results
for the learners. The number of the participants was at least 30 in Gholamnia
and Aghaeib (2012), and Malaz, Rabiee, and Ketabi (2011), and at most 147
in Ahmadi, Ghafar Samar, and Yazdanimoghadam (2011). Analyzing the
request studies, it was found that about 15 studies used pretest and posttest
design, 13 studies implemented pretest, posttest, and control design, and one
study (Tajeddin & Hosseinpur, 2014b) conducted a qualitative design in their
analyses. Furthermore, Table 2 illustrates that six studies have had explicit vs.
implicit treatment types, while nine papers have focused on explicit vs.
control. Taking the data collection method into account, MDCT was used
mostly in 11 studies, Written Discourse Completion Test (WDCT) in eight
studies, both (MDCT& WDCT) in five studies, and the rest five papers had
other data gathering methodology such as Discourse Completion Test (DCT),
and Oral Discourse Completion Test (ODCT).

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 220
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Apology Studies
Table 3. summarizes apology studies.

Table 3
Apology Studies
Treatment Outcome
Study Design Participants Results
type measure(s)
Derakhshan Pre-post/ 49 (18-33) Explicit vs. MDCT Explicit
& Shakki control implicit outperformed
(2020a) implicit.
Fakher & Pre-post/ 119 (19-32) Peers' WDCT The superiority of the
Panahifar control collaborative peers'
(2020) dialogue collaborative
(PCD) group dialogue (PCD)
and group over the
teacher's teacher's
scaffolding scaffolding (TS)
(TS) group group.
Asymmetrical pairs
were also
found to outperform
their
symmetrical
counterparts.
Bagherkazemi Pre-post 51 (19-28) Collaborativ WDCT Collaborative
(2018) e vs. control outperformed
control.
Derakhshan Pre-post/ 69 (17-27) Metapragma MDCT Metapragmatic
& control tic, form- outperformed
Arabmofrad search, the other groups.
(2018) interactive
translation
vs. control
Anani Sarab Pre-post 62 (20-34) Sequential MDCT & Sequential method
& Alikhani method vs. WDCT outperformed control.
(2016a) control
Fakher, Pre-post 125 (18-32) Interaction ODCT The interaction group
Jafarigohar, vs. control performed better than
Vahdany & the control group.
Soleimani
(2016)

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 221
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Treatment Outcome
Study Design Participants Results
type measure(s)
Rajabi, Pre-post/ 73 (17-20) Explicit vs. MDCT Explicit
Azizifar & control control outperformed control.
Gowhary
(2015b)
Derakhshan Pre-post 60 (17-26) Discussion, MDCT Discussion
& Eslami roleplay & outperformed the
(2015) interactive other groups.
translation
Birjandi & Pre-post/ 78 (16-26) Video- MDCT Metapragmatic group
Derakhshan control prompts vs. was
(2014) control. better than others.
Simin, Pre-post 60 (20-27) Explicit vs. WDCT E-communication
Eslami, Implicit group
Eslami & (using emails)
Ketabi outperformed
(2014) the other group.
Nemati & Pre-post/ 90 (18-20) Individual MDCT & Collaborative groups
Arabmofrad control input and WDCT outperformed
(2014) output- individual
based, counterparts.
collaborative
input and
output-based
Tajeddin & Pre-post 54 (19-31) Individual WDCT Both significant,
Bagherkaze and collaborative
mi (2014) collaborative had greater efficacy.
output
Zangoei, Pre-post 64 (17-27) Video MDCT Listening prompts
Nourmoham prompts group
madi, & group vs. outperformed control
Derakhshan control group.
(2014a)
Zangoei, Pre-post 64 (17-27) Listening MDCT Listening prompts
Nourmoham prompts group
madi, & group vs. outperformed control
Derakhshan control group.
(2014b)
Farrokhi & Pre-post/ 60 (19-25) Explicit vs. MDCT Explicit
Atashin control implicit outperformed
(2013) implicit.
Khodareza Pre-post 60 (NA) Explicit (use) MDCT Advanced learners
& Lotfi vs. Explicit showed
(2013) (interpretation)

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 222
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Treatment Outcome
Study Design Participants Results
type measure(s)
progress in both use
and
interpretation.
Mirzaei & Pre-post 270 (18-25) Explicit vs. MDCT & Explicit
Esmaeili control WDCT outperformed control,
(2013) and level of
proficiency
does not have any
special
effect in instruction.
Bagheri & Pre-post 60 (Above Explicit (use) DCT Progress in both use
Hamrang 18) vs. Explicit and
(2013) (interpretation) interpretation group.
Kargar, Pre-post/ 150 (20-27) Explicit vs. DCT Collaborative
Sadighi & control implicit translation
Ahmadi (collaborative had better
(2012) translation vs. performance than
structured the other group.
input)
Birjandi & Pre-post/ 64 (18-24) Self WDCT Self assessment
Pezeshki control assessment group
(2012) vs. outperformed the
conventional control group.
method
Tajeddin, Pre-post/ 75 (18-46) Pragmatic MDCT The development of
Keshavarz & control focus in all pragmatic self-
Zand- phases of a assessment
Moghadam task, and metapragmatic
(2012) scaffolding awareness
in task and can be better for
completion pragmatic
& control focus and feedback.
Khatib & Pre-post/ 85 Explicit vs. MDCT & Expert peers' ZPD-
Ahmadi Safa control (Freshmen) Implicit WDCT wise explicit
(2011) and implicit
scaffolding were
significant.
Salehi Pre-post/ 40 (NA) Explicit vs. DCT Effective but explicit
(2011) control Implicit was not
better than implicit.
Eslami & Pre-post 60 (21-24) Explicit vs. Diagnostic Explicit
Mardani Implicit Assessment outperformed
(2010) implicit.

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 223
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Treatment Outcome
Study Design Participants Results
type measure(s)
Eslami & Pre-post 52 (23-30) Pragmatic MDCT Experimental group’s
Eslami focus vs. performances on the
(2008) control posttests
of both ‘awareness’
and
‘production’ tests
were
significantly high.
Eslami, Pre-post/ 66 (23-25) Explicit vs. MDCT Significant
Eslami & control control comprehension on
Fatahi the part of the speech
(2004) acts.
NA: Not Applicable
Of 26 studies focusing on the speech act of apology, Salehi (2011) had
the fewest number of participants (40), and Mirzaei and Esmaili (2013) used
the highest number of people (270) in their analyses. Answering the first
question, the results illustrate that instruction is much more beneficial than
non-instrucution. Furthermore, 13 studies used pretest, posttest, and control
design, whereas the rest 13 papers applied just pretest and posttest to
investigate this speech act. Regarding the treatment, seven studies conducted
an explicit vs. implicit teaching methodology, whereas 10 studies performed
an explicit vs. control. The rest were nine papers which have drawn on other
treatments. Table 3 delineates that the data collection methodology in
implementing the speech act of apology for MDCT, WDCT, both MDCT and
WDCT, and others were 12, five, four, and five studies, respectively.

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 224
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Refusal Studies
Table 4. summarizes refusal studies.

Table 4.
Refusal Studies
Treatment Outcome
Study Design Participants Results
type measure(s)
Derakhshan & Pre-post/ 49 (18-33) Explicit vs. MDCT Explicit
Shakki control implicit outperformed
(2020a) implicit.
Derakhshan & Pre-post/ 69 (17-27) Metapragmati MDCT Metapragmatic
Arabmofrad control c, form- outperformed
(2018) search, the other groups.
interactive
translation vs.
control
Gharibeh, Pre-post/ 104 (19-22) Explicit vs. MDCT Explicit
Mirzaee & control control outperformed
Yaghoubi- control.
Notash (2016)
Birjandi & Pre-post/ 78 (16-26) Video- MDCT Metapragmatic
Derakhshan control prompts vs. group ouwas
(2014) control. better than other
groups.
Tajeddin & Pre-post 54 (19-31) Individual and WDCT Both significant,
Bagherkazemi collaborative collaborative
(2014) output had greater
efficacy.
Khodareza & Pre-post 60 (NA) Interpretation MDCT Higher
Lotfi (2012) & use progress in the
interpretation
but no
significant
change in
the use of the
speech acts.
Tajeddin, Pre-post/ 75 (18-46) Pragmatic MDCT Metapragmatic
Keshavarz & control focus in all awareness
Zand- phases of a and pragmatic
Moghadam task, self-assessment
(2012) scaffolding in have some
task influences on
completion & pragmatic focus
control and

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 225
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Treatment Outcome
Study Design Participants Results
type measure(s)
feedback.

Birjandi & Pre-post/ 64 (18-24) Self WDCT Self assessment
Pezeshki control assessment vs. group
(2012) conventional outperformed
method the control
group.
Farrokhi & Pre-post/ 60 (19-25) Explicit vs. MDCT Explicit
Atashain control implicit outperformed
(2012) implicit.
Farahian, Pre-post/ 64 (19-25) Explicit vs. WDCT Explicit
Rezaee & control control outperformed
Gholami control.
(2012)
Alavi & Dini Pre-post/ 54 (20-27) Explicit, MDCT Explicit
(2008) control implicit vs. outperformed
control implicit.
NA: Not Applicable

Analyzing the speech act of refusal, it was found that Derakhshan and
Shakki (2020a) had the fewest number of participants (n=49), whereas
Gharibeh, Mirzaee, and Yaghoubi Notash’s (2016) study had the highest
number of participants (n=104). The results demonstrate that instruction
improves pragmatic learning, and refusal is better learnt through interventions
and interactions. It was interesting that out of 11 studies conducted on refusal,
nine studies performed pretest, posttest, and control design, while two papers
applied pretest and posttest design. A thorough review of the refusal studies
revealed that three studies utilized explicit vs. implicit treatments, three
studies had explicit vs. control, and five studies employed other types of
treatment. For data gathering procedure, eight papers exerted MDCT, and
three studies implemented WDCT. Table 4 provides a comprehensive list of
the papers.

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 226
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Suggestion Studies
A summary of suggestion studies appear in Table 5.
Table 5.
Suggestion Studies
Outcome
Study Design Participants Treatment type Results
measure(s)
Chalak & Abbasi Pre-post 60 (NA) Explicit, MDCT Combination group
(2015) implicit & outperformed E & I.
combination
Ghavamnia, Pre-post/ 110 (19-23) Metapragmatic MDCT the form-comparison
Eslami Rasekh & control explanation, and the
Datjerdi (2014) form- metapragmatic
comparison, explanation
typographically groups performed
enhanced input, better.
input flooding
& meaning-
focused
Tajeddin, Pre-post/ 75 (18-46) Pragmatic focus MDCT Having better
Keshavarz & control in all phases of pragmatic focus
Zand-Moghadam a task, and feedback by
(2012) scaffolding in metapragmatic
task completion awareness and
& control pragmatic self-
assessment.
Salemi, Rabiee, Pre-post/ 100 (17-25) Explicit OPT Explicit outperformed
& Ketabi (2012) control instruction and the rest.
explicit
feedbacks,
explicit
instruction and
implicit
feedbacks,
implicit-
explicit,
implicit-implicit
instruction and
feedbacks.
NA: Not Applicable

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 227
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Drawing on the speech act of suggestion, as shown in Table 5, Chalak
and Abbasi (2015) carried out a study with the minimum number of
participants (60), and Ghavamnia, Eslami Rasekh, and Dastjerdi (2014) used
the maximum number of people (110). Considering the effectiveness of
instruction in teaching pragmatics, the results of the studies dealing with
English speech act of suggestion reveal that instruction is significantly more
profitable for learners than the non-instruction condition. Out of 54 studies,
four papers concentrated on suggestion in which three studies were based on
the pretest, posttest, and control design, and just one used pretest and posttest
design for the analyses. It is worth mentioning that no study utilized explicit
vs. control treatment, and there were two explicit vs. implicit, and two other
types of treatments. WDCT was not among the data collection methods in
conducting the speech act of suggestion, and there were three studies which
employed MDCT, and one other data gathering method.

Complaint Studies
A summary of complaint studies appear in Table 6.
Table 6.
Complaint Studies
Treatment Outcome
Study Design Participants Results
type measure(s)
Mirzaei & Pre-post 270 (18-25) Explicit vs. MDCT & Explicit outperformed
Esmaeili control WDCT control, and level of
(2013) proficiency does not
have any special effect in
instruction.
Birjandi & Pre-post/ 64 (18-24) Self WDCT Self assessment group
Pezeshki control assessment outperformed
(2012) vs. the control group.
conventiona
l method
Khatib & Pre-post/ 85 (Freshmen) Explicit vs. MDCT & Expert peers' ZPD-wise
Ahmadi Safa control Implicit WDCT explicit and implicit
(2011) performed better

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 228
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Treatment Outcome
Study Design Participants Results
type measure(s)
Eslami, Pre-post/ 66 (23-25) Explicit vs. MDCT Significant comprehension.
Eslami & control control
Fatahi (2004)

As can be seen in Table 6, four studies out of 54 were based on the speech
act of complaint within which Birjandi and Pezeshki (2012) employed 64
participants as the fewest number, and Mirzaei and Esmaili (2013) utilized the
most ones (270) for their data analyses. In line with the findings of the effect
of instruction on speech acts, the findings of complaint speech act also reveal
that it is also effectively amenable to insruction. Scrutinizing the complaint
speech act, three studies implemented pretest, posttest, and control design,
whereas the only study by Mirzaei and Esmaili (2013) which used the pretest
and posttest analysis. Considering the treatment, it was illustrated that one
study used explicit vs. implicit, two studies had explicit vs. control, and the
remaining one applied other types. One study drew on MDCT, one on WDCT,
and the rest two papers implemented both MDCT and WDCT to collect data.

Compliment Studies
Compliment studies are summarized in Table 7.

Table 7.
Compliment Studies
Treatment Outcome
Study Design Participants Results
type measure(s)
Hassaskhah & Pre-post 32 (16-35) Explicit WDCT Both significant
Ebrahimi teacher
(2015) explanation
and implicit
foreign film
watching

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 229
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Treatment Outcome
Study Design Participants Results
type measure(s)
Kia & Salehi Pre-post 46 (24-33) Explicit vs. MDCT & Explicit
(2013) implicit WDCT outperformed
implicit.
Sadeghi & Pre-post/ 30 (25-30) Explicit vs. MDCT Explicit
Foutooh control control outperformed
(2012) control.
Tajeddin, Pre-post/ 75 (18-46) Pragmatic MDCT Better
Keshavarz & control focus in all metapragmatic
Zand- phases of a awareness
Moghadam task, and pragmatic self-
(2012) scaffolding assessment,
in task better pragmatic
completion focus and
& control feedback.

Results from the subgroup analyses indicate that out of 54, four studies
were conducted on the instruction of the speech act of compliment. Sadeghi
and Foutooh’s (2012) study had the fewest number of participants (n= 30),
while Tajeddin et al.’s (2012) study had the highest number of participants
(n=75). As the results of the studies indicate that, both explicit interventions
and implicit teaching methods are considered as effective ways of teaching
pragmatics, hence the importance of instruction. Half of the papers used
pretest, posttest, and control, while the other two studies conducted pretest and
posttest design only. Taking into account the treatment, two papers
implemented explicit vs. implicit, one explicit vs. control, and one used other
types of instruction. Examining the data collection methods, it was shown that
MDCT was used in two papers, WDCT in one, and both in one remaining
study.

Thanking Studies
Thanking studies are summarized in Table 8.

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 230
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Table 8.
Thanking Studies
Study Design Participants Treatment Outcome Results
type measure(s)
Ghaedrahmat, Pre-post/ 30 (20-29) Explicit vs. MDCT Explicit outperformed
Alavi Nia, & control control control.
Biria (2016)
Kia & Salehi Pre-post 46 (24-33) Explicit vs. MDCT & Explicit outperformed
(2013) implicit WDCT implicit.

As it detailed in Table 8, there were only two papers among 54 studies
which used the speech act of thanking. Both studies done on the speech act of
thanking elucidate not only the importance of instruction in teaching
pragmatics but also the supremacy of the explicit instruction over the non-
instruction. One of them adopted pretest, posttest, and control and also explicit
vs. control treatment type, while the other utilized pretest and posttest by
implementing explicit vs. implicit teaching. MDCT and both MDCT and
WDCT were the data collection procedures for each of the studies.

Invitation Studies
Invitation studies appear in Table 9.

Table 9.
Invitation Studies
Treatment Outcome
Study Design Participants Results
type measure(s)
Gholamnia Pre- 30 (14-19) Explicit vs. WDCT Explicit
& Aghaeib post implicit outperformed
(2012) implicit.

Gholamnia and Aghaeib (2012) is the only study in which the speech act
of invitation was taught. They also found that instruction boosts learning of

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 231
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

speech act of invitation, and the explicit group which received the instruction
show significantly better upshots than the non-instrcution group. The results
of their studies accentuate what Kasper and Rose (2002) pointed to as the
usefulness of instruction. They used a pretest and posttest design and WDCT
for conducting their research. They utilized explicit vs. implicit treatment on
30 participants to analyze the speech act of invitation.

Discussion
Frequent Speech Acts in the Iranian Context Studies
Figure 1. below shows the number of speech acts conducted on the
teachability of speech acts in pragmatics studies in the Iranian context during
the last two decades. Overall, it can be seen that out of 54 studies conducted
on English pragmatics instruction in the Iranian EFL context, 29 studies were
devoted to request, and it is the most prevailing speech act in the Iranian
context. Twenty-six studies were conducted using apology as the second
frequent speech act, followed by the speech act of refusal, which is used in 11
studies in Iran. Subsequently, the speech acts of suggestion, complaint, and
compliment were taught in four studies. Finally, thanking by two and
invitation by one are the least frequent speech acts used in the Iranian context
English pragmatic instruction.

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 232
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Frequency of Instructed Speech Acts

30
25
20
15
10

Figure 1. Frequency of the Speech acts in Iranian English Pragmatic
Instruction

Frequent Data Collection Methods in Iranian Studies
There are various types of data collection methods in pragmatics, such as
DCT, MDCT, and WDCT. The pie chart gives information about the data
collection procedures in studies conducted in English pragmatic instruction in
Iran. As can be seen, there has been a notable increase in MDCT by 36 studies,
closely followed by WDCT by 19, and compared with 13 studies utilized both
MDCT and WDCT for gathering the data. There are also 11 more studies such
as Eslami and Mardani (2010), and Salemi et al. (2012) in which other data
collection methods (DCT, & diagnostic assessment) were used.

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 233
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Frequency of Data Collection Methods

40

30

20

10

MDCT WDCT MDCT/WDCT Others

Figure 2. Frequnecy of Data Collection Methods

Treatment Types in Using Speech acts
Studies in English pragmatic instruction used different treatment types
while teaching pragmatics to non-native learners. Scrutinizing the published
papers until 2020 shows that 25 studies used explicit vs. implicit and control
group, whereas the 24 studies utilized only explicit vs. control types. Among
the 30 remaining studies, a variety of treatments was used, and they had their
own special interventions based on the nature of their studies (Ahmadi &
Ghafar Samar, 2014 (Dictogloss vs. consciousness-raising); Derakhshan &
Arabmofrad, 2018 (form-search, interactive translation vs. control); Tajeddin
& Bagherkazemi, 2014 (Dictogloss vs. consciousness-raising); Derakhshan
& Eslami, 2015 (discussion, roleplay & interactive translation) etc.).

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 234
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Frequency of Treatment Types

30
25
20
15
10
Explicit/Implicit/ Explicit/ Control Others
Control

Figure 3. Frequency of Treatment Types

Research Designs in Using Speech acts
Of 54 studies investigated English pragmatic instruction in the Iranian
context, 42 studies used pretest, posttest vs. control as a trendy design to elicit
their results. Moreover, 36 studies utilized pretest vs. posttest design, and
surprisingly, just one study, by Tajeddin and Hosseinpur (2014), selected
coding to illustrate the findings. The proportion of the qualitative studies
suffers a severe decline during the last decades in Iranian studies focusing on
instructed pragmatics.

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 235
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Frequency of Research Designs

50
40
30
20
10
Pretest/Posttest/ Pretest/Posttest Others
Control

Figure 4. Frequency of Research Designs

To answer the first research question, all 54 studies carried out on the
speech acts in an Iranian context accentuate the superiority of the instruction
over non-instruction, and it is in line with what Kasper and Rose (2002)
postulate about the effectiveness and productiveness of teaching pragmatics.
Similar to Taguchi (2015) and Plonsky and Zhuang (2019), the results of the
current paper confirm that teaching speech acts brings about significant
outcomes for the learners, and they receive better opportunities through
instruction. Considering the second research question, aiming to identify the
most frequent speech acts used in English pragmatic instruction in the Iranian
EFL context, it should be mentioned that request is the most predominant
speech act utilized in 29 studies out of 54 papers. The remaining speech acts
used are as follows: apology in 26 studies, refusal in 11, suggestion in four,
complaint in four, compliment in four, thanking in two, and invitation in only
one paper. Considering the third research question, the most prevailing data
collection method in English pragmatic instruction is MDCT in 36 studies.
The second highest data gathering way is WDCT implemented in 19 studies,

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 236
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

compared with both MDCT and WDCT in 13 studies, and other adopted
methods such as ODCT, and diagnostic assessment, which were found in the
remaining 11 studies. Analyzing the treatments in these 54 papers to answer
the four research question reveals that the variety of the interventions is almost
significant. Explicit vs. implicit by 25 studies, explicit vs. control in 24 papers,
and the rest 30 have different treatment types such as self-assessment vs.
conventional method, individual vs. collaborative output, and discussion, role
play, and interactive translation. Concerning the last research question, aiming
to find out the most frequent research design in English pragmatic instruction,
it is quite obvious that quantitative studies prevail the qualitative ones. Among
53 papers in which the quantitative method was used, 42 studies applied
pretest, posttest, and control design, and the remaining 36 papers implemented
pretest and posttest design in their analyses. The only study in which a
qualitative method is used is Tajeddin and Hosseinpur (2014b).

Directions for Future Research
The present paper systematically synthesized 54 papers in English
pragmatics instruction in the Iranian EFL context over the last two decades
(2000-2020), and has elucidated the patterns and trends they followed to
propose the future directions and upcoming research in pragmatics.
Different Cultural Backgrounds and Age Variations. As it was
revealed in the analyses, despite the fact that the context is the same and just
one country is at the center of attention (Iran), the cultural background of the
participants has not been taken into account and mentioned in the conducted
studies. They may have various cultural backgrounds such as Azari, Lori,
Sistani, Gilaki which can be considered as a focal feature for the participants
of the future studies. Almost all of the studies carried out in English pragmatic
instruction in Iran used adults in their research ranged from 14 to 46 (Anani

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 237
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Sarab & Alikhani, 2016a, 2016b; Bagherkazemi, 2018; Derakhshan & Shakki,
2020a; Fakher & Panahifar, 2020), and there is scant attention to the diversity
of ages especially children which can be a variable for the new research.
Investigating Teaching Speech acts among Students of other Fields
of Study. Kesckes (2014) has postulated, a standard pragmatic
communication needs some commonalities, shared knowledge, same beliefs
and conventions between the hearer and the speaker to make a core common
ground. In cases such as intercultural communications, this common core is
missing, and co-constructing it requires new studies and ideas so as to avoid
miscommunication. Teaching English pragmatics to the students whose major
is English (teaching, literature, or translation) seems to be easier than teaching
to those students who are studying in other fields of study (enginnering, art,
music, etc.) because English related majors have more exposure to features of
speech acts, so teachers also need to make learners of non-English related
majors cognizant of sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic features of speech
acts. Analyzing 54 studies in the Iranian context showed that only one of them
(Salehi, 2011) has concentrated on the students of other fields of study in their
general English class. One of the unexplored gaps in reviewing the literature
of the Iranian studies in English pragmatic instruction is to take into account
the non-English major students as the participants of the study. Future studies
can embark on teaching different speech acts to other fields of studies to check
whether it is helpful or not.
Using other Research Designs and Technology in Conducting a
Study. Due to the paucity of studies using qualitative design (Tajeddin &
Hosseinpur, 2014b), future research can focus on qualitative rather than
quantitative (pretest, posttest, & control) to broaden the scope of English
pragmatic instruction. Utilizing technology-based instruction and assessment
is also proposed for the upcoming studies in pragmatics. The lacuna in

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 238
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

research in the area of technology and pragmatics is puzzling since pragmatic
competence is one of the important constituents of communicative
competence and that most of the technologies nowadays exist in the service
of communication (Taguchi & Sykes, 2013).
Instructed Second Language Pragmatics from the Ecological
Validity Perspective. As it was reviewed by Derakhshan and Shakki (2020b),
ecological validity, which is the ability to generalize study findings to the real-
world context, is another essential factor to be taken into account in the
upcoming studies to have more useful results and apply them to everyday life.
Paying more attention to the components of the environment and the context
of the study help determine what is meant by ecological validity. No study in
the corpus of the current study, concerned the concept of ecological validity,
and no wonder, there was no evidence in rgard to the applicability of their
findings. Given the ecological validity, the real world situation should be
implemented in our classes, and the instruction might be adapted to the current
conditions to make an inextricable relation with culture and educational
system. The more the teachers try to control a study, the less ecological
validity they may have, because they are changing the situation in which the
experiment occurs, and make distances from the natural settings, so providing
opportunities for the students’ engagement can increase the ecological validity
of the study (Thorne, 2013).

Conclusion
The last two decades have faced a rapid expansion of English pragmatic
instruction in the world, and Iran is not an exception. Besides grammar and
vocabulary, which need to be instructed, pragmatic competence is found to be
improved through teaching. This study has reviewed the papers on the L2
pragmatic instruction that were published from 2000 to 2020, the time of

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 239
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

writing this study, over the last two decades and has illustrated the major
patterns and trends they have followed within this period. Reiterating the three
insightful questions raised by Kasper and Rose (2002) about two decades ago,
the results of the present synthesis corroborate that pragmatic features are
indeed teachable, and comparing different interventional methods, explicit
instruction has proved to be more effective. Not only does ISLL ameliorate
the process of pragmatic acquisition, but also it sensitizes learners’
metapragmatic knowledge. Based on the present review, there are some
speech acts that have received no attention such as congratulations,
condolences, threats, and challenges, so the researchers may use these
untouched areas of English pragmatic instruction for their future studies. The
teachers would also be able to utilize the most effective treatment types, which
led to better performance and production.

References
Ahmadi, A., & Ghafar Samar, R. (2014). Teaching requestive downgraders in
L2: Can learners’ MI modify the effects of focused tasks?. Teaching
English Language, 8(2), 91-117.
Ahmadi, A., Ghafar, S. R., & Yazdanimoghaddam, M. (2011). Teaching
requestive downgraders in L2: How effective are input-based and
output-based tasks?. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL),
14(2), 1-30.
Alavi, S. M., & Dini, S. (2008). Assessment of pragmatic awareness in an EFL
classroom context: The case of implicit and explicit instruction.
Pazhuheshe Zabanhaye Khareji, 45, 99-113.
Alcón-Soler, E., & Martı´nez-Flor, A. (2008). Investigating pragmatics in
foreign language learning, teaching, and testing. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 240
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Anani Sarab, M. R., & Alikhani, S. (2016a). The efficacy of pragmatic
instruction in EFL context: The case of Persian learners of
English. English Teaching & Learning, 40(1), 25-47.
Anani Sarab, M. R., & Alikhani, S. (2016b). Pragmatics instruction in EFL
context: A focus on requests. International Journal of Research Studies
in Language Learning, 5(1), 29-42.
Arabmofrad, A., Derakhshan, A., & Atefinejad, M. (2019). An interplay
between Iranian EFL learners’ specific and general inter-language
pragmatic motivation and their meta-pragmatic awareness. Iranian
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(3), 77-94.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words? London: Oxford University
Press.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Badjadi, N. E. I. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of instructional tasks
on L2 pragmatics comprehension and production. In S. F. Tang & L.
Logonnathan (Eds.), Assessment for learning within and beyond the
classroom (pp. 241-268). Singapore: Springer.
Bagheri, M., & Hamrang, A. (2013). The effect of metapragmatic instructions
on the interpretation and use of apology speech acts of English as a
foreign language learner (EFL) at the intermediate level. International
Journal of Social Sciences & Education, 3(4), 964-975.
Bagherkazemi, M. (2018). Impact of collaborative output-based instruction on
EFL learners’ awareness of the speech act of apology. Journal of
Language and Translation, 8(4), 45-54.
Barekat, B., & Mehri, M. (2013). Investigating the effect of metalinguistic
feedback in L2 pragmatic instruction. International Journal of
Linguistics, 5(2), 197-208.

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 241
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Birjandi, P., & Derakhshan, A. (2014). The impact of consciousness-raising
video-driven vignettes on the pragmatic development of apology,
request, & refusal. Applied Research on English Language, 3(1), 67-85.
Birjandi, P., & Pezeshki, M. (2013). The effect of self-assessment and
conference on EFL students’ production of speech acts and politeness
markers: Alternatives on the horizon?. Iranian Journal of Applied
Language Studies, 5(1), 1-30.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language
usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical aspects of communicative
approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied
Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
Celce-Murcia, M, Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative
competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content
specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 5-35.
Chalak, A., & Abbasi, S. (2015). The effects of explicit and implicit
pragmatic instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ production of suggestion
speech act in the context of distance learning. Journal of Applied
Linguistics and Language Research, 2(4), 275-284.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cohen, A. D. (2008). Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: What can we
expect from learners? Language Teaching. 41(2), 213-235.
Cohen, A. D. (2017). Teaching and learning second language pragmatics. In
E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and
learning (pp. 428-452), Vol. 3. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cohen, A. D. (2020). Considerations in assessing pragmatic appropriateness
in spoken language. Language Teaching, 53(2), 183-202.

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 242
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Crystal, D. (1985). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Culpeper, J., Mackey, A., & Taguchi, N. (2018). Second language
pragmatics: From theory to research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Dastjerdi, H. V., & Rezvani, E. (2010). The impact of instruction on Iranian
intermediate EFL learners’ production of requests in English. Journal
of Language Teaching and Research, 1(6), 782-790.
Derakhshan, A. (2014). The effect of consciousness-raising video-driven
prompts on the comprehension of implicatures and speech
acts (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Allameh Tabataba’i
University, Tehran, Iran.
Derakhshan, A. (2015). The effect of video-enhanced input on the
comprehension of implicature of the intermediate EFL learners.
Golestan: Golestan University Press.
Derakhshan, A. (2019a). The relationship between Iranian EFL learners’
proficiency level and their knowledge of idiosyncratic and formulaic
implicatures. Language Related Research. 10(5), 1-27.
Derakhshan, A. (2019b). [Review of the book Routledge handbook of second
language acquisition and pragmatics, by N. Taguchi]. Applied
Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amz031.
Derakhshan, A., & Arabmofrad, A. (2018). The impact of instruction on the
pragmatic comprehension of speech acts of apology, request, and refusal
among Iranian intermediate EFL learners. English Teaching &
Learning, 42(1), 75-94.
Derakhshan, A., & Eslami, Z. (2015). The effect of consciousness-raising
instruction on the comprehension of apology & request. TESL-EJ, 18(4).
Available at http://www.tesl-
ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume18/ej72/ej72a6/

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 243
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Derakhshan, A., & Eslami, Z. (2020). The effect of meta-pragmatic
awareness, interactive translation, and discussion through video-
enhanced input on EFL learners’ comprehension of implicature. Applied
Research on English Language, 9(1), 25-52.
Derakhshan, A., Malmir, A., Greenier, V. (in press). Interlanguage pragmatic
learning strategies (IPLS) as predictors of L2 speech act knowledge: A
case of Iranian EFL learners. The Journal of Asia TEFL.
Derakhshan, A., & Shakki, F. (2020a). The effect of implicit vs. explicit
metapragmatic instruction on the Iranian intermediate EFL learners’
pragmatic comprehension of apology and refusal. Journal of Language
Research, 12(37), 151-175.
Derakhshan, A., & Shakki, F. (2020b). [ Review of the book Doing SLA
research with implications for the classroom reconciling
methodological demands and pedagogical applicability, by R. M.
DeKeyser and G. P. Botana]. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics. https://doi. 10.1111/ijal.12290.
Derakhshan, A., & Shakki, F., Sarani, M., A. (in press). The effect of dynamic
and non-dynamic assessment on the comprehension of Iranian
intermediate EFL learners’ speech acts of apology and request.
Language Related Research.
Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33(2),
209-224.
Eslami, Z., & Eslami, A. (2008). Enhancing the pragmatic competence of non-
native English-speaking teacher candidates (NNESTCs) in an EFL
context. In E. A Soler, & A. Martı´nez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating
pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing, (pp. 178-
197). Britain: Cromwell Press.

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 244
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Eslami-Rasekh, Z., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Fatahi, A. (2004). The effect of
explicit metapragmatic instruction on the speech act awareness of
advanced EFL students. TESL-EJ, 8(2) Available at
Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Mardani, M. (2010). Investigating the effects of
teaching apology speech act, with a focus on intensifying strategies, on
pragmatic development of EFL learners: The Iranian context. The
International Journal of Language Society and Culture, 30(1), 96-103.
Eslami, Z. R., Mirzaei, A., & Dini, S. (2015). The role of asynchronous
computer mediated communication in the instruction and development
of EFL learners’ pragmatic competence. System, 48, 99-111.
doi:10.1016/j.system.2014.09.008
Fakher, Z., & Panahifar, F. (2020). The effect of teachers’ scaffolding and
peers’ collaborative dialogue on speech act production in symmetrical
and asymmetrical groups. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching
Research, 8(1), 45-61.
Fakher, Z., Vahdany, F., Jafarigohar, M., & Soleimani, H. (2016). The effect
of mixed and matched level dyadic interaction on Iranian EFL learners’
comprehension and production of requests and apologies. Journal of
Teaching Language Skills, 35(1), 1-30.
Farahian, M., Rezaee, M., & Gholami, A. (2012). Does direct instruction
develop pragmatic competence? Teaching refusals to EFL learners of
English. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(4), 814-821.
Farrokhi, F., & Atashian, S. (2012). The role of refusal instruction in
pragmatic development. World Journal of Education, 2(4), 85-93.
Farrokhi, F., & Atashian, S. (2013). Towards pragmatic instruction of apology
in the Iranian context. The Iranian EFL Journal, 1(2), 207-217.

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 245
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Gass, S. M. (2013). Second language acquisition: An introductory course.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Ghaedrahmat, M., Alavi Nia, P., & Biria, R. (2016). The effect of explicit vs.
implicit instruction on mastering the speech act of thanking among
Iranian male and female EFL learners. Latin American Journal of
Content and Language Integrated Learning, 9(2), 401-425.
Gharibeh, S. G., Mirzaee, M., & Yaghoubi-Notash, M. (2016). The role of
instruction in the development of EFL learners’ pragmatic competence.
The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 173-184.
Ghavamnia, M., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Dastjerdi, H. V. (2014). Exploring the
effects of input based instruction on the development of EFL
learnerspragmatic proficiency. International Journal of Research
Studies in Language Learning, 3(7), 43-56.
Gholamia, J., & Aghaeib, H. K. (2012). The impact of explicit and implicit
instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ production and recognition of
language functions. International Journal of Physical and Social
Sciences, 2(9), 107-131.
Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (Eds.),
Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Hassaskhah, J., & Ebrahimi, H. (2015). A study of EFL learners' (meta)
pragmatic learning through explicit (teacher explanation) and implicit
(foreign film) interventions: The case of compliment. Journal of
Language Teaching and Research, 6(2), 292-301.
Hymes, D. (1971). Competence and performance in linguistic theory. In R.
Huxley & E. Ingram (Eds.), Language acquisition: Models and methods
(pp. 3-28). London: Academic Press.

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 246
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes
(Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth, England:
Penguin Books.
Jeon, E.H., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage
pragmatic development. In N. John & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing
research on language learning and teaching (pp. 165-211).
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kargar, A. A., Sadighi, F., & Ahmadi, A. R. (2012). The effects of
collaborative translation task on the apology speech act production of
Iranian EFL learners. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 4(3),
47-78.
Kasper, G. & K. Rose. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 19, 81-104.
Kasper, G., & K. Rose. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language.
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Khatib, M., & Ahmadi Safa, M. (2001). The effectiveness of ZPD-wise
explicit/implicit expert peers and coequals’ scaffolding in ILP
development. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14, 49-75.
Kia, E., & Salehi, M. (2013). The effect of explicit and implicit instruction of
English thanking and complimenting formulas on developing pragmatic
competence of Iranian EFL upper-intermediate level learners. Journal
of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 3(8), 202-215.
Khodareza, M., & Lotfi, A. R. (2012). Interlanguage pragmatics development:
Iranian EFL learners’ interpretation and use of speech acts. Journal of
Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2(9), 9235-9243.

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 247
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Khodareza, M., & Lotfi, A. R. (2013). Interlanguage pragmatic development:
The effect of formal instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ interpretation
and use of speech act of apology. Asian Journal of Social Sciences and
Humanities, 2(2), 99-104.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2017). The Routledge handbook of instructed second
language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Malaz, I., Rabiee, M., & Ketabi, S. (2011). The pragmatic instruction effects
on Persian EFL learners’ noticing and learning outcomes in request
forms. Journal of Technology & Education, 5(3), 187-193.
Malmir, A., & Derakhshan, A. (2020). The socio-pragmatic, lexico-
grammatical, and cognitive strategies in L2 pragmatic comprehension:
A case of Iranian male vs. female EFL learners. Iranian Journal of
Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 1-23.
Malmir, A., & Derakhshan, A. (in press). Identity processing styles as
predictors of L2 pragmatic knowledge and performance: A case of
common English speech acts. Journal of Language Horizons.
Martı´nez-Flor, A., & E. Alcón-Soler (2005). Special issue: Pragmatics in
instructed language learning. System, 33(3), 381-546.
Masouleh, F. A., Arjmandi, M., & Vahdany, F. (2014). The effect of explicit
metapragmatic instruction on request speech act awareness of
intermediate EFL students at institute level. Universal Journal of
Educational Research, 2(7), 504-511.
Morris, C. W. (1938). Foundations of the theory of signs. In O. Neurath, R.
Carnap & C.W. Morris (Eds.), International encyclopedia of unified
science (pp. 1-59). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 248
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Mirzaee, A., & Esmaeili, M. (2013). The effects of planned instruction on
Iranian L2 learners' interlanguage pragmatic development. International
Journal of Society, Culture & Language, 1(1), 89-100.
Nassaji, H. (2016). Research timeline: Form-focused instruction and second
language acquisition. Language Teaching, 49(1), 35-62.
Nemati, M., & Arabmofrad, A. (2014). Development of interlanguage
pragmatic competence: input-and output-based instruction in the zone
of proximal development. Theory and Practice in Language
Studies, 4(2), 262.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research
synthesis and quantitative meta‐analysis. Language Learning, 50(3),
417-528.
Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisition of English as a second language under
different conditions of exposure. Language Learning, 33(4), 465-497.
Plonsky, L., & Zhuang, J. (2019). A meta-analysis of L2 pragmatics
instruction. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of SLA and
pragmatics (pp. 287-307). New York, NY: Routledge.
Rajabia, S., Azizifara, A., & Gowhary, H. (2015a). The effect of explicit
instruction on pragmatic competence development; teaching requests to
EFL learners of English. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,
199(3), 231-239.
Rajabi, S., Azizifar, A., & Gowhary, H. (2015b). investigating the of explicit
instruction of apology speech act on pragmatic development of Iranian
EFL learners. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(4), 53-61.
Rezvani, E., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Vahid Dastjerdi, H. (2014). Investigating
the effects of explicit and implicit instruction on Iranian EFL learners’
pragmatic development: Speech acts of request and suggestion in focus.

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 249
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 3(7),
1-12.
Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language
pragmatics. System, 33(3), 385-399.
Rose, K. & G. Kasper (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sadeghi, A., & Foutooh, M. (2012). The effect of explicit instruction of
compliment responses strategies on intermediate Iranian foreign
language learners’ ability to respond to compliments. International
Journal of Linguistics, 4(3), 385-406.
Sadeqi, H., & Ghaemi, H. (2016). The effect of employing explicit pragmatics
awarness-raising instruction on advanced EFL learner's use of
politeness strategy of request via emails. Modern Journal of Language
Teaching Methods, 6(1), 62.
Salehi, M. (2011). The effect of explicit versus implicit instruction: A case for
apology and request speech acts. International Conference on
Languages, Literature and Linguistics IPEDR, 26, 467-470.
Salemi, A., Rabiee, M., & Ketabi, S. (2012). The effects of explicit/implicit
instruction and feedback on the development of Persian EFL learners'
pragmatic competence in suggestion structures. Journal of Language
Teaching and Research, 3(1), 188-199.
Searle, J. R. (1976). The classification of illocutionary acts. Language in
Society, 5(1), 1-24.
Simin, S., Eslami, Z. R., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Ketabi, S. (2014). The effect
of explicit teaching of apologies on Persian EFL learners’ performance:
When e-communication helps. International Journal of Research
Studies in Language Learning, 3(4), 71-84.

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 250
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In
G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.) Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21-
42). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second
language instruction (pp. 3-33). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Sonnenburg-Winkler, S. L., Eslami, Z. R., & Derakhshan, A. (in press). Rater
variation in pragmatic assessment: The impact of linguistic background
on peer-assessment and self- assessment. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics.
Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289-310.
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional
studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1-
50.
Taguchi, N. (Ed.). (2019). The Routledge handbook of second language
acquisition and pragmatics. New York/London: Routledge.
Taguchi, N., & Kim, Y. (2018). Task-based approaches to teaching and
assessing pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Taguchi, N., & Sykes, J. M. (2013). Technology in interlanguage pragmatics
research and teaching. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Tajeddin, Z., & Bagherkazemi, M. (2014). Short-term and long-term impacts
of individual and collaborative pragmatic output on speech act
production. Teaching English Language, 8(1), 141-166.
Tajeddin, Z., & Hosseinpur, R. (2014a). The impact of deductive, inductive,
and L1-based consciousness-raising tasks on EFL learners’ acquisition
of the request speech act. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 33(1),
73-92.

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 251
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Tajeddin, Z., & Hosseinpur, R. M. (2014b). The role of consciousness-raising
tasks on EFL learners’ microgenetic development of request pragmatic
knowledge. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 17(1), 187-
147.
Tajeddin, Z., Keshavarz, M. H., & Zand-Moghadam, A. (2012). The effect of
task-based language teaching on EFL learners’ pragmatic production,
metapragmatic awareness, and pragmatic self-assessment. Iranian
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 139-166.
Takahashi, S. (2010a). Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics.
In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 391-421). Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Takahashi, S. (2010b). The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act
performance. In Martı´nez-Flor A. & E. Use-Juan. (Eds.), Speech act
performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp.
127-144). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2),
91-112.
Thorne, S. L. (2013). Language learning, ecological validity, and innovation
under conditions of superdiversity. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching &
Learning Language & Literature, 6(2), 1-27.
Uso´-Juan, E., & Martı´nez-Flor, A. (2008). Teaching learners to
appropriately mitigate requests. ELT Journal, 62(4), 349-357.
Wilkins, D. A. (1972). Grammatical, situational and notional syllabuses
(Report No. FI 008 113). Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 136 549).
Yousefi, M., & Nassaji, H. (2019). A meta-analysis of the effects of
instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pragmatics and the role of
moderator variables: Face-to-face vs. computer-mediated

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 252
39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Farzaneh Shakki
INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

instruction. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 170(2),
277-308.
Zangoei, A., Nourmohammadi, E., & Derakhshan, A. (2014a). The effect of
consciousness-raising listening prompts on the development of the
speech act of apology in an Iranian EFL context. SAGE, 4(2). Retrieved
from https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014531770.
Zangoei, A., Nourmohammadi, E., & Derakhshan, A. (2014b). A gender-
based study of Iranian EFL learners' pragmatic awareness: The role of
receptive skill-based teaching. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics and English Literature, 3(6), 53-63.
References (97)
Farzaneh Shakki INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS 39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252 Farzaneh Shakki INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS References
Ahmadi, A., & Ghafar Samar, R. (2014). Teaching requestive downgraders in L2: Can learners' MI modify the effects of focused tasks?. Teaching English Language, 8(2), 91-117.
Ahmadi, A., Ghafar, S. R., & Yazdanimoghaddam, M. (2011). Teaching requestive downgraders in L2: How effective are input-based and output-based tasks?. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 14(2), 1-30.
Alavi, S. M., & Dini, S. (2008). Assessment of pragmatic awareness in an EFL classroom context: The case of implicit and explicit instruction. Pazhuheshe Zabanhaye Khareji, 45, 99-113.
Alcón-Soler, E., & Martı´nez-Flor, A. (2008). Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching, and testing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Anani Sarab, M. R., & Alikhani, S. (2016a). The efficacy of pragmatic instruction in EFL context: The case of Persian learners of English. English Teaching & Learning, 40(1), 25-47.
Anani Sarab, M. R., & Alikhani, S. (2016b). Pragmatics instruction in EFL context: A focus on requests. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 5(1), 29-42.
Arabmofrad, A., Derakhshan, A., & Atefinejad, M. (2019). An interplay between Iranian EFL learners' specific and general inter-language pragmatic motivation and their meta-pragmatic awareness. Iranian Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(3), 77-94.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words? London: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Badjadi, N. E. I. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of instructional tasks on L2 pragmatics comprehension and production. In S. F. Tang & L. Logonnathan (Eds.), Assessment for learning within and beyond the classroom (pp. 241-268). Singapore: Springer.
Bagheri, M., & Hamrang, A. (2013). The effect of metapragmatic instructions on the interpretation and use of apology speech acts of English as a foreign language learner (EFL) at the intermediate level. International Journal of Social Sciences & Education, 3(4), 964-975.
Bagherkazemi, M. (2018). Impact of collaborative output-based instruction on EFL learners' awareness of the speech act of apology. Journal of Language and Translation, 8(4), 45-54.
Barekat, B., & Mehri, M. (2013). Investigating the effect of metalinguistic feedback in L2 pragmatic instruction. International Journal of Linguistics, 5(2), 197-208. 39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252 Farzaneh Shakki INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS
Birjandi, P., & Derakhshan, A. (2014). The impact of consciousness-raising video-driven vignettes on the pragmatic development of apology, request, & refusal. Applied Research on English Language, 3(1), 67-85.
Birjandi, P., & Pezeshki, M. (2013). The effect of self-assessment and conference on EFL students' production of speech acts and politeness markers: Alternatives on the horizon?. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 5(1), 1-30.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical aspects of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
Celce-Murcia, M, Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 5-35.
Chalak, A., & Abbasi, S. (2015). The effects of explicit and implicit pragmatic instruction on Iranian EFL learners' production of suggestion speech act in the context of distance learning. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(4), 275-284.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cohen, A. D. (2008). Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: What can we expect from learners? Language Teaching. 41(2), 213-235.
Cohen, A. D. (2017). Teaching and learning second language pragmatics. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 428-452), Vol. 3. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cohen, A. D. (2020). Considerations in assessing pragmatic appropriateness in spoken language. Language Teaching, 53(2), 183-202. 39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252 Farzaneh Shakki INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS Crystal, D. (1985). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Culpeper, J., Mackey, A., & Taguchi, N. (2018). Second language pragmatics: From theory to research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Dastjerdi, H. V., & Rezvani, E. (2010). The impact of instruction on Iranian intermediate EFL learners' production of requests in English. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(6), 782-790.
Derakhshan, A. (2014). The effect of consciousness-raising video-driven prompts on the comprehension of implicatures and speech acts (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran.
Derakhshan, A. (2015). The effect of video-enhanced input on the comprehension of implicature of the intermediate EFL learners. Golestan: Golestan University Press.
Derakhshan, A. (2019a). The relationship between Iranian EFL learners' proficiency level and their knowledge of idiosyncratic and formulaic implicatures. Language Related Research. 10(5), 1-27.
Derakhshan, A. (2019b). [Review of the book Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics, by N. Taguchi]. Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amz031.
Derakhshan, A., & Arabmofrad, A. (2018). The impact of instruction on the pragmatic comprehension of speech acts of apology, request, and refusal among Iranian intermediate EFL learners. English Teaching & Learning, 42(1), 75-94.
Derakhshan, A., & Eslami, Z. (2015). The effect of consciousness-raising instruction on the comprehension of apology & request. TESL-EJ, 18(4). Available at http://www.tesl- ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume18/ej72/ej72a6/ 39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Derakhshan, A., & Eslami, Z. (2020). The effect of meta-pragmatic awareness, interactive translation, and discussion through video- enhanced input on EFL learners' comprehension of implicature. Applied Research on English Language, 9(1), 25-52.
Derakhshan, A., Malmir, A., Greenier, V. (in press). Interlanguage pragmatic learning strategies (IPLS) as predictors of L2 speech act knowledge: A case of Iranian EFL learners. The Journal of Asia TEFL.
Derakhshan, A., & Shakki, F. (2020a). The effect of implicit vs. explicit metapragmatic instruction on the Iranian intermediate EFL learners' pragmatic comprehension of apology and refusal. Journal of Language Research, 12(37), 151-175.
Derakhshan, A., & Shakki, F. (2020b). [ Review of the book Doing SLA research with implications for the classroom reconciling methodological demands and pedagogical applicability, by R. M. DeKeyser and G. P. Botana]. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. https://doi. 10.1111/ijal.12290.
Derakhshan, A., & Shakki, F., Sarani, M., A. (in press). The effect of dynamic and non-dynamic assessment on the comprehension of Iranian intermediate EFL learners' speech acts of apology and request. Language Related Research.
Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33(2), 209-224.
Eslami, Z., & Eslami, A. (2008). Enhancing the pragmatic competence of non- native English-speaking teacher candidates (NNESTCs) in an EFL context. In E. A Soler, & A. Martı´nez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing, (pp. 178- 197). Britain: Cromwell Press. 39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252 Farzaneh Shakki INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS
Gass, S. M. (2013). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. New York, NY: Routledge.
Ghaedrahmat, M., Alavi Nia, P., & Biria, R. (2016). The effect of explicit vs. implicit instruction on mastering the speech act of thanking among Iranian male and female EFL learners. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 9(2), 401-425.
Gharibeh, S. G., Mirzaee, M., & Yaghoubi-Notash, M. (2016). The role of instruction in the development of EFL learners' pragmatic competence. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 173-184.
Ghavamnia, M., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Dastjerdi, H. V. (2014). Exploring the effects of input based instruction on the development of EFL learnerspragmatic proficiency. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 3(7), 43-56.
Gholamia, J., & Aghaeib, H. K. (2012). The impact of explicit and implicit instruction on Iranian EFL learners' production and recognition of language functions. International Journal of Physical and Social Sciences, 2(9), 107-131.
Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Hassaskhah, J., & Ebrahimi, H. (2015). A study of EFL learners' (meta) pragmatic learning through explicit (teacher explanation) and implicit (foreign film) interventions: The case of compliment. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(2), 292-301.
Hymes, D. (1971). Competence and performance in linguistic theory. In R. Huxley & E. Ingram (Eds.), Language acquisition: Models and methods (pp. 3-28). London: Academic Press. 39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.
Jeon, E.H., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development. In N. John & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 165-211). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kargar, A. A., Sadighi, F., & Ahmadi, A. R. (2012). The effects of collaborative translation task on the apology speech act production of Iranian EFL learners. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 4(3), 47-78.
Kasper, G. & K. Rose. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 81-104.
Kasper, G., & K. Rose. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Khatib, M., & Ahmadi Safa, M. (2001). The effectiveness of ZPD-wise explicit/implicit expert peers and coequals' scaffolding in ILP development. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14, 49-75.
Kia, E., & Salehi, M. (2013). The effect of explicit and implicit instruction of English thanking and complimenting formulas on developing pragmatic competence of Iranian EFL upper-intermediate level learners. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 3(8), 202-215.
Khodareza, M., & Lotfi, A. R. (2012). Interlanguage pragmatics development: Iranian EFL learners' interpretation and use of speech acts. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2(9), 9235-9243. 39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252 Farzaneh Shakki INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS
Khodareza, M., & Lotfi, A. R. (2013). Interlanguage pragmatic development: The effect of formal instruction on Iranian EFL learners' interpretation and use of speech act of apology. Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2(2), 99-104.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2017). The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Malaz, I., Rabiee, M., & Ketabi, S. (2011). The pragmatic instruction effects on Persian EFL learners' noticing and learning outcomes in request forms. Journal of Technology & Education, 5(3), 187-193.
Malmir, A., & Derakhshan, A. (2020). The socio-pragmatic, lexico- grammatical, and cognitive strategies in L2 pragmatic comprehension: A case of Iranian male vs. female EFL learners. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 1-23.
Malmir, A., & Derakhshan, A. (in press). Identity processing styles as predictors of L2 pragmatic knowledge and performance: A case of common English speech acts. Journal of Language Horizons.
Martı´nez-Flor, A., & E. Alcón-Soler (2005). Special issue: Pragmatics in instructed language learning. System, 33(3), 381-546.
Masouleh, F. A., Arjmandi, M., & Vahdany, F. (2014). The effect of explicit metapragmatic instruction on request speech act awareness of intermediate EFL students at institute level. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2(7), 504-511.
Morris, C. W. (1938). Foundations of the theory of signs. In O. Neurath, R. Carnap & C.W. Morris (Eds.), International encyclopedia of unified science (pp. 1-59). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. 39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252
Mirzaee, A., & Esmaeili, M. (2013). The effects of planned instruction on Iranian L2 learners' interlanguage pragmatic development. International Journal of Society, Culture & Language, 1(1), 89-100.
Nassaji, H. (2016). Research timeline: Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 49(1), 35-62.
Nemati, M., & Arabmofrad, A. (2014). Development of interlanguage pragmatic competence: input-and output-based instruction in the zone of proximal development. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(2), 262.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417-528.
Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure. Language Learning, 33(4), 465-497.
Plonsky, L., & Zhuang, J. (2019). A meta-analysis of L2 pragmatics instruction. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 287-307). New York, NY: Routledge.
Rajabia, S., Azizifara, A., & Gowhary, H. (2015a). The effect of explicit instruction on pragmatic competence development; teaching requests to EFL learners of English. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199(3), 231-239.
Rajabi, S., Azizifar, A., & Gowhary, H. (2015b). investigating the of explicit instruction of apology speech act on pragmatic development of Iranian EFL learners. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(4), 53-61.
Rezvani, E., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Vahid Dastjerdi, H. (2014). Investigating the effects of explicit and implicit instruction on Iranian EFL learners' pragmatic development: Speech acts of request and suggestion in focus. 39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252 Farzaneh Shakki INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.) Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21- 42). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-33). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sonnenburg-Winkler, S. L., Eslami, Z. R., & Derakhshan, A. (in press). Rater variation in pragmatic assessment: The impact of linguistic background on peer-assessment and self-assessment. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics.
Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289-310.
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1- 50.
Taguchi, N. (Ed.). (2019). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics. New York/London: Routledge.
Taguchi, N., & Kim, Y. (2018). Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Taguchi, N., & Sykes, J. M. (2013). Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Tajeddin, Z., & Bagherkazemi, M. (2014). Short-term and long-term impacts of individual and collaborative pragmatic output on speech act production. Teaching English Language, 8(1), 141-166.
Tajeddin, Z., & Hosseinpur, R. (2014a). The impact of deductive, inductive, and L1-based consciousness-raising tasks on EFL learners' acquisition of the request speech act. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 33(1), 73-92. 39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252 Farzaneh Shakki INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS
Tajeddin, Z., & Hosseinpur, R. M. (2014b). The role of consciousness-raising tasks on EFL learners' microgenetic development of request pragmatic knowledge. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 17(1), 187- 147.
Tajeddin, Z., Keshavarz, M. H., & Zand-Moghadam, A. (2012). The effect of task-based language teaching on EFL learners' pragmatic production, metapragmatic awareness, and pragmatic self-assessment. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 139-166.
Takahashi, S. (2010a). Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 391-421). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Takahashi, S. (2010b). The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance. In Martı´nez-Flor A. & E. Use-Juan. (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 127-144). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112.
Thorne, S. L. (2013). Language learning, ecological validity, and innovation under conditions of superdiversity. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 6(2), 1-27.
Uso´-Juan, E., & Martı´nez-Flor, A. (2008). Teaching learners to appropriately mitigate requests. ELT Journal, 62(4), 349-357.
Wilkins, D. A. (1972). Grammatical, situational and notional syllabuses (Report No. FI 008 113). Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 136 549).
Yousefi, M., & Nassaji, H. (2019). A meta-analysis of the effects of instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pragmatics and the role of moderator variables: Face-to-face vs. computer-mediated 39(1), Spring 2020, pp. 201-252 Farzaneh Shakki INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE ENGLISH PRAGMATICS instruction. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 170(2), 277-308.
Zangoei, A., Nourmohammadi, E., & Derakhshan, A. (2014a). The effect of consciousness-raising listening prompts on the development of the speech act of apology in an Iranian EFL context. SAGE, 4(2). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014531770.
Zangoei, A., Nourmohammadi, E., & Derakhshan, A. (2014b). A gender- based study of Iranian EFL learners' pragmatic awareness: The role of receptive skill-based teaching. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3(6), 53-63.
Farzaneh Shakki
Golestan, Post-Doc
Papers
26
Followers
View all papers from
Farzaneh Shakki
arrow_forward
Related papers
Supplementary material 1 from: Asztalos M, Ayaz D, Bayrakcı Y, Afsar M, Tok CV, Kindler C, Jablonski D, Fritz U (2021) It takes two to tango – Phylogeography, taxonomy and hybridization in grass snakes and dice snakes (Serpentes: Natricidae: Natrix natrix, N. tessellata). Vertebrate Zoology 71: 8...
murat afsar
2021
Using two mitochondrial DNA fragments and 13 microsatellite loci, we examined the phylogeographic structure and taxonomy of two codistributed snake species (Natrix natrix, N. tessellata) in their eastern distribution area, with a focus on Turkey. We found evidence for frequent interspecific hybridization, previously thought to be extremely rare, and for backcrosses. This underscores that closely related sympatric species should be studied together because otherwise the signal of hybridization will be missed. Furthermore, the phylogeographic patterns of the two species show many parallels, suggestive of a shared biogeographic history. In general, the phylogeographies follow the paradigm of southern richness to northern purity, but the dice snake has some additional lineages in the south and east in regions where grass snakes do not occur. For both species, the Balkan Peninsula and the Caucasus region served as glacial refugia, with several mitochondrial lineages occurring in close proximity. Our results show that the mitochondrial divergences in both species match nuclear genomic differentiation. Yet, in the former glacial refugia of grass snakes there are fewer nuclear clusters than mitochondrial lineages, suggesting that Holocene range expansions transformed the glacial hotspots in melting pots where only the mitochondrial lineages persisted, bearing witness of former diversity. On the other hand, the deep mitochondrial divergences in N. tessellata across its entire range indicate that more than one species could be involved, even though lacking microsatellite data outside of Turkey prevent firm conclusions. On the contrary, our microsatellite and mitochondrial data corroborate that N. megalocephala is invalid and not differentiated from sympatric populations of N. natrix. For Cypriot grass snakes, our analyses yielded conflicting results. A critical assessment of the available evidence suggests that N. natrix is a genetically impoverished recent invader on Cyprus and taxonomically not distinct from a subspecies also occurring in western Anatolia and the southern Balkans. Based on combined mitochondrial and nuclear genomic evidence we propose that for grass snakes the following subspecies should be recognized in our study region: (1) Natrix natrix vulgaris Laurenti, 1768, southeastern Central Europe and northern Balkans; (2) Natrix natrix moreotica (Bedriaga, 1882), southern Balkans, western Anatolia, and Cyprus; and (3) Natrix natrix scutata (Pallas, 1771), eastern Anatolia, Caucasus region, Iran, northeastern distribution range (from eastern Poland and Finland to Kazakhstan and the Lake Baikal region). Thus, Natrix natrix cypriaca (Hecht, 1930) becomes a junior synonym of N. n. moreotica and Natrix natrix persa (Pallas, 1814) becomes a junior synonym of N. n. scutata. Due to insufficient material, we could not resolve the status of Natrix natrix syriaca (Hecht, 1930) from the Gulf of İskenderun, southeastern Turkey.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Polatuzumab Vedotin in Relapsed or Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma
Matthew Matasar
Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2019
PURPOSE Patients with transplantation-ineligible relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) fare poorly, with limited treatment options. The antibody-drug conjugate polatuzumab vedotin targets CD79b, a B-cell receptor component. METHODS Safety and efficacy of polatuzumab vedotin with bendamustine and obinutuzumab (pola-BG) was evaluated in a single-arm cohort. Polatuzumab vedotin combined with bendamustine and rituximab (pola-BR) was compared with bendamustine and rituximab (BR) in a randomly assigned cohort of patients with transplantation-ineligible R/R DLBCL (primary end point: independent review committee [IRC] assessed complete response [CR] rate at the end of treatment). Duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression methods. RESULTS Pola-BG and pola-BR had a tolerable safety profile. The phase Ib/II pola-BG cohort (n = 27) had a CR rate of 29.6% and a median OS of 10.8 m...
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Ponašanje potrošača pri onlajn grupnoj kupovini turističkih usluga
Jelena Šuleić
Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference - Sinteza 2017, 2017
Savremeni način podsticanja prodaje, koji postaje sve popularniji, jeste grupna kupovina. To podrazumeva da se zainteresovani kupci okupljaju na internet mreži, preko sajtova za grupnu kupovinu, i na taj način ostvaruju popust pri kupovini. Internet servis koji pruža uslugu grupne kupovine deluje kao posrednik između prodavca, s jedne strane, i kupca, s druge strane. Poseban fokus rada usmeren je ka ponašanju potrošača -motivima zbog kojih se potrošači opredeljuju ili izbegavaju ovaj vid kupovine. Rezultati do kojih se došlo na osnovu sprovedenog anketnog istraživanja (n=152), pokazuju da su potrošači motivisani za ovaj vid kupovine upravo zbog raznovrsne ponude na jednom mestu, zahvaljujući savremenim internet tehnologijama. Takođe, rezultati pokazuju da se potrošači ne boje zloupotrebe ličnih podataka pri internet kupovini, ali da nisu kupili turističku uslugu jer nisu naišli na adekvatnu ponudu. Ovo zapravo ukazuje da se radi o potrošačima koji su fleksibilniji u odnosu na tradicionalne potrošače. Više od polovine ispitanika zadovoljno je kupljenom uslugom preko interneta i ima nameru da nastavi da kupuje turističke usluge na ovaj način. Takođe, rad nastoji da prikaže demografski profil potrošača grupnih turističkih putovanja u cilju efikasnijih marketinških aktivnosti preduzeća iz turističko-ugostiteljskog sektora.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Isolation and identification of Escherichia coli O157:H7 from ground beef hamburgers in Khuzestan Province, Iran
Sabuj Nath
African Journal of Microbiology Research, 2013
Meat products have been implicated in outbreaks of E.coli O157:H7 in most of the world. This bacterium is associated with diseases such as hemorrhagic colitis, hemolytic uremic syndrome and thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura. In this study, we used two Conventional methods and Multiplex PCR for the isolation and identification of E. coli O157:H7 from ground beef hamburger samples. In total, 200 fresh ground beef hamburger samples were obtained from different meat factories across Khuzestan Province from March to September 2010. Tryptone-Soya-broth (TSB) supplemented with novobiocine (20 mg/l) was used as enrichment medium and Tellurite cefixime-sorbitol MacConkey agar (TC-SMAC) was used for the detection of Non-Sorbitol Fermenting bacteria. Biochemical tests were performed on the Non-Sorbitol fermenting (NSF) colonies. Colonies confirmed as E. coli were selected as templates for Multiplex PCR method and serotyping. Out of the 200 ground beef hamburger samples, 8 samples (4%) had positive results for Non-Sorbitol fermenting colonies (NSF). Out of the 8 samples, three (38%) were confirmed as E. coli by biochemical tests. Of the 3 samples, two samples were E. coli O157:H7 based on multiplex PCR and serotyping. The results indicate that hamburgers could be a reservoir of E.coli O157:H7 in Khuzestan Province. Since this strain is a food-born pathogen, inspection of meat products for this bacterium is recommended.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Angiosperm diversity of Lawachara National Park (Bangladesh): a preliminary assessment
Mohammad Uddin
Bangladesh Journal of Plant Taxonomy, 1970
The present article focuses on an inventory of angiosperm diversity of Lawachara National Park. Using traditional taxonomic techniques data have been collected from the Park during January to October 2008. In this preliminary assessment, a total of 374 angiosperm species including cultivated ones have been catalogued under 84 families. Nineteen threatened plant species have also been recognized in the Park.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Valid Criteria for the Selection of Speech Acts of Academic Situations to Develop a Comprehensive Discourse Completion Test of Interlanguage Pragmatics
Parviz Maftoon
The present study aimed at investigating the criteria required for the selection of speech acts of academic situations to be included in a comprehensive test of interlanguagepragmatics in the Iranian context. To do so, a meta-analysis of fifty articles which had reported on the tests of interlanguagepragmatics was done and the criteria required for the speech acts of academic situations were developed. Then a valid and reliable test of interlan-guagepragmatics ability, namely Multiple-Choice Discourse Completion Test (MDCT), was developed and validated through native checked situations and items employing meta-pragmatics procedures. Participants of the study were 50 M.A. students majoring in TEFL studying atIranian universities as well as 50 native speakers of English studying or working in the academic situations in their respective countries. Reliability and content validity of the test were obtained through analyzing the data gathered through administering the test to native and non-native participants. The findings of the present study revealed that the most significant criteria considered to select the speech acts and situations in a DCT or MDCT are interpersonal functions, power differences, underlying cultural reasons, meta-pragmatic assessment, politeness, and gender differences. The results also revealed that the most frequent speech acts of academic situations were request, apology, and refusals followed by speech acts of complaint and disagreement. The least frequent speech acts of academic situations, however, were suggestion, thanks, and advice. The criteria developed for the selection of situations and speech acts in the present study could be further used by the language testers interested in the measures of interlanguagepragmatics. The present findings could contribute to the fields of second language testing and assessment in general and testing interlan-guagepragmatics in particular.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
The Effects of Planned Instruction on Iranian L2 Learners' Interlanguage Pragmatic Development
Azizullah Mirzaei
2013
The most compelling evidence that instruction in L2 pragmatics is necessary comes from learners whose language proficiency is advanced but their communicative acts frequently contain pragmatic errors. The current study evaluated the impact of explicit instruction on EFL learner's awareness and production of three speech acts of request, apology, and complaint. It also probed whether learners’ language proficiency plays any role in incorporating pragmatic instruction into the L2 classroom. The instruction lasted for about 12 weeks. Achievement in L2 pragmatics was assessed based on a pretest-posttest plan using Multiple-Choice Discourse Comprehension Test (MDCT) and Written Discourse Completion Test (WDCT). The significant gains made by the experimental groups receiving instruction support the claim recently made by instructional pragmatics that explicit instruction does facilitate the development of pragmatically appropriate use of language. Yet, learners ’ level of language pr...
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
The Effect of Explicit and Implicit Instruction on Developing Pragmatic Competence of Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners: The Case of the Speech Act of Complaint
Abdolreza pazhakh
2013
This study aims to investigate the effect of explicit and implicit instructions on developing pragmatic competence among Iranian intermediate EFL learners using speech act of complaint. To homogenize participants, Nelson (Fowler & Coe, 1976) test was administered, and a homogeneous sample comprised of 33 males and 9 females were selected from a population of 90 at the intermediate level. Then the homogenized sample was randomly assigned to two experimental groups, A and B. After that, learners were given a Discourse Completion Test (DCT) pre-test. The two groups were under the explicit and implicit instructions of the instructor, separately, at Masjed.I.Soleiman (MIS) Oil Company for 14 sessions. Having been exposed to the treatments, the two groups took a similar post-test to see whether learners learned complain strategies appropriately. The results of three t-tests indicated that there was a significant difference between the performances of both experimental groups on pre and po...
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Developing a multiple-choice discourse completion test of interlanguage pragmatics for Iranian EFL learners
Saeed Rezaei
The researchers in this study developed a Multiple-choice Discourse Completion Test (MDCT) to assess the pragmatic knowledge of Iranian EFL learners in relation to the speech acts of request and apology in EFL classrooms. The development process involved several steps. The first step was exemplar generation. Ninety three Iranian EFL learners at two universities in Tehran were asked to write, in either English or Persian, the situations in which they would request or apologize. The second step was situation likelihood investigation in which the researchers investigated how far the situations suggested by the learners in step one were likely to occur in reality. The third step was scenario generation and initial piloting. For so doing, the generated open ended situations were given to a group of native speakers and nonnative intermediate and advanced learners to respond to the situations. The fourth step included the development of the multiple choices. The responses given in the previous step were used as distracters and correct options for the MDCT items. The fifth step was allocated to the final piloting of the MDCT which confirmed that all the native speakers chose the key as the most appropriate answer to the situations provided.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Pragmatic Analysis of Strategies Employed by Iranian EFL Learners in Realization of the Speech Act of Request
Journal of Language Horizons
Journal of Language Horizons, 2025
The present paper explores the use of pragmatic strategies by Iranian EFL learners in fulfilling the speech act of request. Accordingly, the analytical classification of request strategies suggested by Blum-Kulka & Olshtain (1984) and the cross-cultural speech act realization patterns (CCSARP) coding manual (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989) were used to examine the corresponding features of pragmatic strategies employed by 22 upperintermediate Iranian EFL learners in performing the speech act of request. To this end, this descriptive study analyzed the participants' utterances in both informal and formal situations using a Written Discourse Completion Task (WDCT). The outcomes revealed that among nine request strategies classified by Blum-Kulka & Olshtain (1984), Iranian EFL learners most frequently employed the "query preparatory strategy" as a conventional indirectness strategy on request in informal and formal situations. However, they used the direct strategy of "want statement" in informal contexts.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Related topics
Psychology
Teaching Language Skills
Cited by
Meta-analysis as an emerging trend to scrutinize the effectiveness of L2 pragmatics instruction
Farzaneh Shakki
Frontiers in Psychology
How efficient is instruction in pragmatics? We have attempted to answer this question through meta-analyses. Considering the plethora of studies conducted in L2 pragmatics instruction, it is still challenging for researchers to keep up with the literature, so aggregating the findings across multiple studies and comparing their results systematically in various dimensions can be pivotal to deciding whether this kind of research is effective or not. This review paper delineates the previous meta-analyses and reviews conducted in the field of instructed second language pragmatics in EFL/ESL context to explore the importance of conducting meta-analyses and to recommend some suggestions and pedagogical implications for further studies.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Explore
Papers
Topics
Features
Mentions
Analytics
PDF Packages
Advanced Search
Search Alerts
Journals
Academia.edu Journals
My submissions
Reviewer Hub
Why publish with us
Testimonials
Company
About
Careers
Press
Content Policy
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104