Developing pragmatic competence implies the learning of the norms and principles that affect the behavior of participants in a culture (i.e. sociopragmatics) and the ability to choose the language to realize those norms (i.e. pragmalinguistics). Learning to be pragmatically appropriate in the second language (L2) is not easy, and although it is possible without instruction, research shows that instruction helps development (Plonsky & Zhuang, 2019). This article advocates that technology-mediated tasks are an excellent and effective pedagogic tool to promote L2 pragmatic development. The article will introduce some key findings of studies that incorporate technology and pragmatics as well as those that have investigated tasks and L2 pragmatics to then focus on those studies that incorporate the three elements: tasks, technology and L2 pragmatics. These studies are grouped by their main focus of investigation: (1) the task, (2) the technology, or (3) the L2 pragmatic feature. As a whole, these studies show the possibilities that tasks and technology-mediated contexts have to engage learners in discursive practices that may not be possible otherwise, exposing them to the cyberpragmatics of an ever-growing digital world. Finally, lines of new research to advance the field are suggested.
AbeM.RoeverC. (2019). Interactional competence in L2 text-chat interactions: First-idea proffering in task openings. Journal of Pragmatics, 144, 1–14.
2.
AbeM.RoeverC. (2020). Task closings in L2 text-chat interactions: A study of L2 interactional competence. CALICO Journal, 37, 23–45.
3.
AbramsZ. (2008). Sociopragmatic features of learner-to-learner computer-mediated communication. CALICO Journal, 26, 1–27.
4.
AbramsZ. (2013). Say what?! L2 sociopragmatic competence in CMC: Skill transfer and development. CALICO Journal, 30, 423–445.
5.
Alcón-SolerE. (2018). Effects of task-supported language teaching on learning how to mitigate email requests. In TaguchiN.KimY. (Eds.), Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics. John Benjamins.
6.
AustinJ.L. (1962). How to do things with words. Harvard University Press.
7.
BachmanL.F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Addison-Wesley.
8.
BarónJ.OrtegaM. (2018). Investigating age differences in e-mail pragmatic performance. System, 78, 148–158.
9.
BelzJ.A.KingingerC. (2002). The cross-linguistic development of address form use in telecollaborative language learning: Two case studies. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 189–214.
10.
BelzJ.A.KingingerC. (2003). Discourse options and the development of pragmatic competence by classroom learners of German: The case of address forms. Language Learning, 53, 591–647.
11.
Biesenbach-LucasS. (2007). Students writing emails to faculty: An examination of e-politeness among native and non-native speakers of English. Language Learning & Technology, 11, 59–81.
12.
Biesenbach-LucasS.WeasenforthD. (2002). Virtual office hours: Negotiation strategies in electronic conferencing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15, 147–165.
13.
BlattnerG.FioriM. (2011). Virtual social network communities: An investigation of language learners’ development of sociopragmatic awareness and multiliteracy skills. CALICO Journal, 29, 24–43.
14.
BrownP.LevinsonS.C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
15.
CanaleM.SwainM. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.
16.
CantoS.de GraffR.JaureguiK. (2014). Collaborative tasks for negotiation of intercultural meaning in virtual worlds and video-web communication. In González-LloretM.OrtegaL. (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: researching technology and tasks (pp. 183–212). John Benjamins.
17.
ChenC.-F.E. (2006). The development of e-mail literacy: From writing to peers to writing to authority figures. Language Learning & Technology, 10, 35–55.
18.
ChenR.T.-H. (2015). L2 blogging: Who thrives and who does not?Language Learning and Technology, 19, 177–196.
19.
ChiuT.-L.LiouH.-C.YehY. (2007). A study of web-based oral activities enhanced by automatic speech recognition for EFL college learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20, 209–233.
20.
CunninghamD.J. (2016). Request modification in synchronous computer-mediated communication: The role of focused instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 484–507.
21.
CunninghamD.J. (2017). Second language pragmatic appropriateness in telecollaboration: The influence of discourse management and grammaticality. System, 64, 46–57.
22.
CunninghamD.J. (2019). L2 pragmatic learning in computer-mediated communication. In TaguchiN. (Ed.), Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 372–386). Routledge.
23.
CunninghamD.J.VyatkinaN. (2012). Telecollaboration for professional purposes: Towards developing a formal register in the foreign language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 68, 422–450.
24.
DavisJ. (2007). Resistance to L2 pragmatics in the Australian ESL context. Language Learning, 57, 611–649.
25.
DeweyJ. (1938). Experience and education. MacMillan/Collier.
26.
DeweyJ. (1997). Experience and education. Simon and Schuster.
27.
DoolyM.TudiniV. (2016). ‘Now we are teachers’: The role of small talk in student language teachers’ telecollaborative task development. Journal of Pragmatics, 102, 38–53.
28.
GablasovaD.BrezinaV.MceneryT.BoydE. (2017). Epistemic stance in spoken L2 English: The effect of task and speaker style. Applied Linguistics, 38, 613–637.
29.
García-PastorM.D. (2020). Researching identity and L2 pragmatics in digital stories: A relational account. CALICO Journal, 37, 46–65.
30.
GilabertR.BarónJ. (2013). The impact of increasing task complexity on L2 pragmatic moves. In McDonoughK.MackeyA. (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts (pp. 45–70). John Benjamins.
31.
GonzalesA. (2013). Development of politeness strategies in participatory online environments: A case study. In TaguchiN.SykesJ.M. (Eds.), Language learning and language teaching: Volume 36 (pp. 101–120). John Benjamins.
32.
González-LloretM. (2008). Computer-mediated learning of L2 pragmatics. In SolerE.A.Martinez-FlorA. (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 114–132). Multilingual Matters.
González-LloretM. (2019). Task-based language teaching and L2 pragmatics. In TaguchiN. (Ed.), Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 338–352). Routledge.
35.
González-LloretM.OrtegaL. (2018). Pragmatics, tasks, and technology: A synergy. In TaguchiN.KimY. (Eds.), Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 191–214). John Benjamins.
36.
HoldenC.SykesJ.M. (2012). Mentira: Prototyping language-based locative gameplay. In DikkersS.MartinJ.CoulterB. (Eds.), Mobile media learning: Amazing uses of mobile devices for teaching and learning (pp. 111–131). ETC Press.
37.
HoldenC.SykesJ.M. (2013). Complex L2 pragmatic feedback via place-based mobile games. In TaguchiN.SykesJ.M. (Eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching (pp. 155–183). John Benjamins.
38.
HymesD. (1972). On communicative competence. In PrideJ.B.HolmesJ. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Penguin.
39.
IshiharaN.TaroneE. (2009). Subjectivity and pragmatic choice in L2 Japanese: Emulating and resisting pragmatic norms. In TaguchiN. (Ed.), Pragmatic competence (pp. 101–128). Mouton de Gruyter.
40.
JeonE.H.KayaT. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development: A meta-analysis. In NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 165–211). John Benjamins.
41.
JonesL.C.HollandA. (2013). Who blogs? Understanding the correlation of personality and blogging in cultural discussions. In HubbardP.SchulzeM.SmithB. (Eds.) Learner–computer interaction in language education: A Festschrift in honor of Robert Fischer (pp. 92–107). CALICO.
42.
KasperG.RoseK. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Blackwell.
43.
KimY.TaguchiN. (2015). Promoting task-based pragmatics instruction in EFL classroom context: The role of task complexity. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 656–677.
44.
KingingerC.BelzJ.A. (2005). Sociocultural perspectives on pragmatic development in foreign language learning: Case studies from telecollaboration and study abroad. Interlanguage Pragmatics, 2, 369–421.
45.
LimbergH. (2016). Teaching how to apologize: EFL textbooks and pragmatic input. Language Teaching Research, 20, 700–718.
46.
LongM. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. First edition. Wiley-Blackwell.
47.
LongM.H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In HyltenstamK.PienemannM. (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77–99). Multilingual Matters.
48.
Neary-SundquistC. (2013). Task type effects on pragmatic marker use by learners at varying proficiency levels. L2 Journal, 5, 1–21.
49.
NorrisJ.M. (2009). Task-based teaching and testing. In LongM.H.DoughtyC.J. (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 578–594). Wiley-Blackwell.
50.
Piirainen-MarshA.TainioL. (2014). Asymmetries of knowledge and epistemic change in social gaming interaction. The Modern Language Journal, 98, 1022–1038.
51.
PlonskyL.ZhuangJ. (2019). A meta-analysis of second language pragmatics instruction. In TaguchiN. (Ed.), Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 287–307). Routledge.
52.
PojanapunyaP.JaroenkitbowornK. (2011). How to say ‘good-bye’ in second life. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3591–3602.
53.
RafieyanV.Sharafi-NejadM.KhavariZ.Siew EngL.Rashid MohamedA. (2014). Pragmatic comprehension development through telecollaboration. English Language Teaching, 7(2).
54.
ReaganD.PayantC. (2018). Task modality effects on Spanish learners’ interlanguage pragmatic development. In TaguchiN.KimY. (Eds.), Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 113–136). John Benjamins.
55.
ReinhardtJ.RyuJ. (2013). Using social network-mediated bridging activities to develop socio-pragmatic awareness in elementary Korean. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 3, 18–33.
56.
RévészA. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 162–181.
57.
RobinsonP. (2001). Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes and learning conditions in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 17, 368–392.
58.
RobinsonP. (2011). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance (pp. 3–38). John Benjamins.
59.
SearleJ.R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge University Press.
60.
Spencer-OateyH.JiangW. (2003). Explaining cross-cultural pragmatic findings: Moving from politeness maxims to sociopragmatic interactional principles (SIPs). Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1633–1650.
61.
SydorenkoT.DaurioP.ThorneS.L. (2018). Refining pragmatically-appropriate oral communication via computer-simulated conversations. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31, 157–180.
62.
SykesJ.M. (2009). Learner requests in Spanish: Examining the potential of multiuser virtual environments for L2 pragmatic acquisition. In LomickaL.LordG. (Eds.), The second generation: Online collaboration and social networking in CALL (pp. 199–234). Texas State University.
63.
SykesJ.M. (2010). Multi-user virtual environments: User-driven design and implementation for language learning. In VicentiG.BramanJ. (Eds.), Teaching through multi-user virtual environments: Applying dynamic elements to the modern classroom (pp. 283–305). IGI Global.
64.
SykesJ.M. (2014). TBLT and synthetic immersive environments: What can in-game task restarts tell us about design and implementation? In González-LloretM.OrtegaL. (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: researching technology and tasks (pp. 149–182). John Benjamins.
65.
SykesJ.M. (2017). Technologies for teaching and learning intercultural competence and interlanguage pragmatics. In ChapelleC.A.SauroS. (Eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 119–133). First edition. John Wiley and Sons.
66.
SykesJ.M.DubreilS. (2019). Pragmatics learning in digital games and virtual environments. In TaguchiN. (Ed.), Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 387–399). Routledge.
67.
SykesJ.González-LloretM. (2020). Exploring the Interface of Interlanguage (L2) pragmatics and digital spaces. CALICO Journal, 37, i–xv.
68.
TaguchiN. (2012). Context, individual differences and pragmatic competence. Multilingual Matters.
69.
TaguchiN. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48, 1–50.
70.
TaguchiN.KimY. (2016). Collaborative dialogue in learning pragmatics: Pragmatic-related episodes as an opportunity for learning request-making. Applied Linguistics, 37, 416–437.
71.
TaguchiN.LiQ.TangX. (2017). Learning Chinese formulaic expressions in a scenario-based interactive environment. Foreign Language Annals, 50, 641–660.
72.
TakahashiS. (2010). Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics. In TrosborgA. (Ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures: Volume 7 (pp. 391–421). De Gruyter Mouton.
73.
TakahashiS. (2019). Individual learner considerations in SLA and L2 pragmatics. In TaguchiN. (Ed.), Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 429–443). Routledge.
74.
TakamiyaY.IshiharaN. (2013). Blogging: Crosscultural interaction for pragmatic development. In TaguchiN.SykesJ.M. (Eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching (pp. 185–214). John Benjamins.
75.
TangX.TaguchiN. (2020). Designing and using a scenario-based digital game to teach Chinese formulaic expressions. CALICO Journal, 37, 1–22.
76.
TateyamaY. (2019). Pragmatics in a language classroom. In TaguchiN. (Ed.), Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 400–412). Routledge.
77.
TatsukiD. (2019). Instructional material development in L2 pragmatics. In TaguchiN. (Ed.), Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 322–337). Routledge.
78.
Tercedor CabreroM. (2013). Developing interactional competence through video-based computer-mediated conversations: Beginning learners of Spanish. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
TsaiM.-H.KingingerC. (2014). Giving and receiving advice in computer-mediated peer response activities. CALICO Journal, 32, 82–112.
81.
UtashiroT.KawaiG. (2009). Blended learning for Japanese reactive tokens: Effects of computer-led, instructor-led, and peer-based instruction. In TaguchiN. (Ed.), Pragmatic competence (pp. 275–299). Mouton de Gruyter.
82.
van CompernolleR.A. (2014). Sociocultural theory and L2 instructional pragmatics. Multilingual Matters.
83.
YatesL.MajorG. (2015). ‘Quick-chatting’, ‘smart dogs’, and how to ‘say without saying’: Small talk and pragmatic learning in the community. System, 48, 141–152.
84.
YehE.SwinehartN. (2019). Testing the waters: Developing interlanguage pragmatics through exploration, experimentation, and participation in online communities. CALICO Journal, 37, 66–84.
85.
YusF. (2011). Cyberpragmatics: Internet-mediated communication in context: Volume 213. John Benjamins.
86.
ZhengB.YimS.WarschauerM. (2017). Social media in the writing classroom and beyond. In LiontasJ.I., et al. (Eds.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–5). John Wiley.
