This study investigates the effects of input-based and output-based instructions on the acquisition of second language (L2) request modifiers. Four intact classes were randomly assigned to textual enhancement (TE), input flooding (IF), output-based instruction (OI), and control (CO) groups. The TE group watched some captioned videos on requests and read over the video transcripts with the target features typographically highlighted. The IF group watched twice more captioned videos and read over the video transcripts with no textual manipulation. The OI group watched videos with no captions and then engaged in dialogue reconstruction tasks. Results of the pragmatic comprehension and production pre-test and post-test revealed the overall effectiveness of the treatment. TE and OI groups performed rather similarly in the comprehension test. Concerning the production test, the OI group performed best, followed by TE, IF, and CO groups. The findings suggest employing input-based and output-based practices to promote learners’ L2 pragmatic knowledge.
AhmadiA.Ghafar SamarR.YazdanimoghaddamM. (2011). Teaching request downgraders in L2: How effective are input-based and output-based tasks?Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 1, 1–30.
2.
AhmadianM.J. (2018). Explicit and implicit instruction of refusal strategies: Does working memory capacity play a role?Language Teaching Research. Epub ahead of print 21 August 2018. DOI: 10.1177/1362168818783215.
3.
AndersonJ.R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4.
AufaF. (2011). Explicit pragmatic instruction in teaching English as a foreign language. Journal of English and Education, 5(1), 37–44.
5.
Bardovi-HarligK.VellengaH.E. (2012). The effect of instruction on conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. System, 40, 77–89.
BrownP.LevinsonS. (1987). Politeness. New York: Cambridge University Press.
8.
CunninghamD.J. (2017). Methodological innovation for the study of request production in telecollaboration. Language Learning and Technology, 21, 76–99.
9.
DeKeyserR.M. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPattenB.WilliamsJ. (Ed.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97–113). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10.
DeKeyserR.M.SokalskiK.J. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practices. Language Learning, 46, 613–642.
11.
DerakhshanA.Eslami-RasekhZ. (2015). The Effect of consciousness-raising instruction on the pragmatic development of apology and request. TESL-EJ, 18, 1–24.
12.
EllisR. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13.
Fakher AjabshirZ. (2019).The effect of synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) on EFL learners’ pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic competences. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 169–177.
14.
GhavamniaM.Eslami-RasekhA.Vahid DastjerdiH. (2018). The effects of input-enhanced instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. The Language Learning Journal, 46, 114–131.
15.
HalenkoN.JonesC. (2017). Explicit instruction of spoken requests: An examination of pre-departure instruction and the study abroad environment. System, 68, 26–37.
16.
JerniganJ. (2012). Output and English as a second language pragmatic development: The effectiveness of output-focused video-based instruction. English Language Teaching, 5, 1–12.
17.
KimY.TaguchiN. (2016). Learner–learner interaction during collaborative pragmatic tasks: The role of cognitive and pragmatic task demands. Foreign Language Annals, 49, 42–57.
18.
LevkinaM. (2018). Developing pragmatic competence through tasks in EFL contexts: Does proficiency play a role? In TaguchiN.KimY. (Eds.), Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 138–157). Amsterdam; John Benjamins.
19.
LiS. (2012). The effects of input-based practice on pragmatic development of requests in L2 Chinese. Language Learning, 62, 403–438.
20.
LiS. (2013). Amount of practice and pragmatic development of request-making in L2 Chinese. In TaguchiN.SykesJ.M. (Eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching (pp. 43–70). Amsterdam / Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
21.
Martinez-FlorA. (2008). The effect of an inductive-deductive teaching approach to develop learners’ use of request modifiers in the EFL. In Alcon SolerE. (Ed.), Learning how to request in an instructed language learning context (pp. 191–225). Bern: Peter Lang.
22.
NaritaR. (2012). The effects of pragmatic consciousness-raising activity on the development of pragmatic awareness and use of hearsay evidential markers for learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1–29.
23.
NguyenT.T.M. (2013). Instructional effects on the acquisition of modifiers in constructive criticism by EFL learners. Language Awareness, 22, 76–94.
24.
NguyenT.T.M.PhamT.H.PhamM.T. (2015). The effects of input enhancement and recasts on the development of second language pragmatic competence. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 11, 45–67.
25.
PrabhuN.S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26.
RichardsJ.C.HullJ.ProctorS. (2006). Interchange. 3rd edition.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
SchmidtR. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.
29.
SchmidtR. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In KasperG.Blum-KulkaS. (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21–42). New York: Oxford University Press.
30.
SchmidtR. (2001). Attention. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Sharwood SmithM. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165–179.
32.
ShintaniN.EllisR. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite articles. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 286–306.
33.
ShintaniN.LiS.EllisR. (2013). Comprehension-based versus production-based grammar instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Language Learning, 63, 296–329.
34.
SolerE.A. (2018). Effects of task supported language teaching on learners’ use and knowledge of email request mitigators. In TaguchiN.KimY. (Eds.), Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 56–81). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
35.
SwainM. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In CookG.SeidlhoferB. (Eds.), Principles and practice in the study of language (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36.
SwainM. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In LantolfJ.P. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37.
SwainM.SuzukiW. (2010). Interaction, output, and communicative language learning. In B. SpolskyB.HultF. (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 557–570). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
38.
TaguchiN. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289–310.
39.
TaguchiN. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. State-of-the-art article. Language Teaching, 48, 1–50.
40.
TaguchiN.KimY. (2018). Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
41.
TajeddinZ.BagherkazemiM. (2014). Short-term and long-term impacts of individual and collaborative pragmatic output on speech act production. TELL, 8(1), 39–164.
42.
TajeddinZ.PezeshkiM. (2014). Acquisition of politeness markers in an EFL context: Impact of input enhancement and output tasks. RELC Journal, 45, 269–286.
43.
TakahashiS. (1998). Quantifying requestive imposition: validation and selection of situations for L2 pragmatics research. Studies in Languages and Cultures, 9, 135–159.
44.
TakahashiS. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing interlanguage pragmatic competence. In RoseK.KasperG. (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 171–199). New York: Cambridge University Press.
45.
TakimotoM. (2009). Exploring the effects of input-based treatment and test on the development of learners’ pragmatic proficiency. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1029–46.
46.
TakimotoM. (2012a). Assessing the effects of identical task repetition and task type repetition on learners’ recognition and production of second language request downgraders. Intercultural Pragmatics, 9, 71–96.
47.
TakimotoM. (2012b). Metapragmatic discussion in interlanguage pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1240–53.
48.
TakimotoM. (2014). Evaluating the effects of input-based approaches to the teaching of pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics in second language pragmatics: A case of English request hedges. The IAFOR Journal of Language Learning, 1, 1–16.
49.
TrosborgA. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
50.
van CompernolleR.A. (2014). Sociocultural theory and instructed L2 pragmatics. Bristol / New York: Multilingual Matters.
51.
VanPattenB. (2007). Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In VanPattenB.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 115–135). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
52.
VanPattenB.SmithM. (2014). Aptitude as grammatical sensitivity and the initial stages of learning Japanese as an L2: Pragmatic variation and case marking: Corrigendum. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 175–176.
