Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
Exploring the effect of metaphor awareness-raising instruction on L2 learners’ acquisition of requests: Application of computer-animated production tasks for evaluation
This study responds to the growing emphasis on applying the cognitive linguistic approach to second language (L2) teaching by investigating the effects of metaphor awareness-raising instruction on the acquisition of requests in the underexplored domain of L2 pragmatics. Using a pretest, intervention, immediate posttest, and delayed posttest design, this study compares the performance of an experimental group exposed to metaphor awareness-raising instruction with a comparison group receiving explicit instruction. Both groups engaged in three weekly 35-minute teaching sessions. Computer-animated production tasks were utilized to elicit learners’ request productions in the pretest, immediate, and delayed posttests. Results indicated significant improvement in both groups postintervention, with the experimental group demonstrating sustained learning effects. In addition, the experimental group outperformed the comparison group significantly in both immediate and delayed posttests, emphasizing the efficacy of metaphor awareness-raising in enhancing pragmatic competence. This study contributes valuable insights for improving instructional methodologies in L2 pragmatic teaching.
Bardovi-HarligK.MossmanS.VellengaH.E. (2014). The effect of instruction on pragmatic routines in academic discussion. Language Teaching Research, 19(3), 324–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541739
3.
BelzJ. (2007). The role of computer mediation in the instruction and development of L2 pragmatic competence. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 45–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190508070037
4.
Blum-KulkaS.HouseJ.KasperG. (1989). Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics: An introductory overview. In Blum-KulkaS.HouseJ.KasperG. (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (p. 134). Ablex.
5.
BrownP.LevinsonS.C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
6.
CaprarioM.TaguchiN.ReppenR. (2022). Corpus-informed instruction of the pragmatic marker I mean. The Language Learning Journal, 50(4), 460–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2022.2088439
7.
ClarkJ.M.PaivioA. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149–210.
8.
EslamiZ.R.MirzaeiA.DiniS. (2015). The role of asynchronous computer mediated communication in the instruction and development of EFL learners’ pragmatic competence. System, 48, 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.008
9.
EunJ.TadayoushiK. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development: A meta-analysis. In NorrisJ.OrtegaL. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 165–211). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/LLLT.13.10JEO
10.
Fakher AjabshirZ. (2022). The relative efficacy of input enhancement, input flooding, and output-based instructional approaches in the acquisition of L2 request modifiers. Language Teaching Research, 26(3), 411–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819896655
11.
GassS.MackeyA. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In VanPattenB.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 180–206). Routledge.
12.
GradyJ. (1999). A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance. In GibbsR.SteenG. (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 79–100). John Benjamins.
13.
HalenkoN. (2013). Using computer-animation to assess and improve spoken language skills. In Pixel (Ed.), Proceedings of the international conference for ICT for language learning (pp. 287–290). Libreriauniveritaria.
14.
HallE.T. (1976). Beyond culture. Anchor.
15.
HernándezT.A. (2021). Explicit instruction for the development of L2 Spanish pragmatic ability during study abroad. System, 96, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102395
16.
IshiharaN. (2010). Assessing learners’ pragmatic ability in the classroom. In TatsukiD.HouckN. (Eds.), Pragmatics: Teaching speech acts (pp. 209–227). Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
17.
KasperG. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught?University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
18.
KimY.TaguchiN. (2015). Promoting task-based pragmatics instruction in EFL classroom context: The role of task complexity. The Modern Language Journal, 99(4), 656–677. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12273
19.
KimY.TaguchiN. (2016). Learner-learner interaction during collaborative pragmatic tasks: The role of cognitive and pragmatic task demands. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1), 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12180
20.
LakoffG. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. The University of Chicago Press.
21.
LakoffG.JohnsonM. (1980). Metaphors we live by. The University of Chicago Press.
LeechG.N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.
24.
LiS.TaguchiN. (2014). The effects of practice modality on pragmatic development in L2 Chinese. The Modern Language Journal, 98(3), 794–812. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12123
25.
LinY.H. (2009). Query preparatory modals: Cross-linguistic and cross-situational variations in request modification. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(8), 1636–1656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.12.007
26.
MyrsetA. (2022). ‘You could win Masterchef with this soup. Can I get some more?’ Request production and the impact of instruction on young EFL learners. Journal of Pragmatics, 192, 56–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.02.010
27.
NguyenT.T.M. (2013). Instructional effects on the acquisition of modifiers in constructive criticism by EFL learners. Language Awareness, 22(1), 76–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2012.658810
28.
NguyenT.T.M. (2019). Data collection methods in L2 pragmatics research: An overview. In TaguchiN. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 195–210). Routledge.
29.
NicholasA. (2015). A concept-based approach to teaching speech acts in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 69(4), 383–394. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv034
30.
PaivioA. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
31.
PlonskyL.ZhuangJ. (2019). A meta-analysis of L2 pragmatics instruction. In TaguchiN. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 287–307). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085-19
32.
SchmidtR. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In KasperG.Blum-KulkaS. (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 43–57). Oxford University Press.
33.
SchmidtR. (2001). Attention. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognitive and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press.
TaguchiN. (2012). Context, individual differences and pragmatic competence. Multilingual Matters.
36.
TaguchiN. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000263
37.
TaguchiN. (2024). Technology-enhanced language learning and pragmatics: Insights from digital game-based pragmatics instruction. Language Teaching, 57(1), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000101
38.
TaguchiN.DixonD.H. (2023). Game-informed approach to teaching request-making in English: A comparison of feedback mechanics. CALICO Journal, 40(2), 153–177. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.21176
39.
TaguchiN.TangX.MaaJ. (2019). Learning how to learn pragmatics: Application of self-directed strategies to pragmatics learning in L2 Chinese and Japanese. East Asian Pragmatics, 4(1), 11–36. https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.38207
40.
TakimotoM. (2006). The effects of explicit feedback on the development of pragmatic proficiency. Language Teaching Research10(4), 393–417. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr198oa
41.
TakimotoM. (2009). The effects of input-based tasks on the development of learners’ pragmatic proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm049
TakimotoM. (2018). Exploring the effects of proximal-distal metaphor on the development of EFL learners’ knowledge of the degree of certainty. Language Teaching Research, 24(3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818782259
44.
TakimotoM. (2020). Investigating the effects of cognitive linguistic approach in developing EFL learners’ pragmatic proficiency. System, 89, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102213
45.
TakimotoM. (2021). A comparative study of animation versus static effects in the spatial concept-based metaphor awareness-raising approach on EFL learners’ cognitive processing of request strategies. Language and Cognition, 13(2), 191–226. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2020.34
46.
TangX.TaguchiN. (2021). Digital game-based learning of formulaic expressions in second language Chinese. The Modern Language Journal, 105(3), 740–759. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12725
47.
TatsukiD. (2019). Instructional material development in L2 pragmatics. In TaguchiN. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 272–284). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085-21
TylerA.MuellerC.HoV. (2010). Applying cognitive linguistics to instructed L2 learning: The English modals. AILA Review, 23(1), 30–49. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.23.03tyl
50.
Usó-JuanE. (2010). A sociopragmatic approach. In Martínez-FlorA.Usó-JuanE (Eds.) Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 237–256). John Benjamins.
51.
WangV.X. (2011). Making requests by Chinese EFL learners. John Benjamins.
52.
WoodfieldH. (2008). Problematising discourse completion tasks: Voices from verbal report. Evaluation & Research in Education, 21(1), 43–69. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.2167/eri413.0
53.
YangH.-C.Zapata-RiveraD. (2010). Interlanguage pragmatics with a pedagogical agent: The request game. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(5), 395–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2010.520274
54.
YuM. (1999). Universalistic and culture-specific perspectives on variation in the acquisition of pragmatic competence in a second language. Pragmatics Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 9(2), 281–312. https://doi.org/10.1075/PRAG.9.2.04YU
