Volume 1, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2589-109X
  • E-ISSN: 2589-1103
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This study investigated the efficacy of different feedback conditions in developing accurate and fluent production of L2 English email requests. Sixty-nine intermediate-level Vietnamese EFL university students were randomly assigned to one control and three experimental groups. All the four groups received three hours of explicit metapragmatic instruction on email requests, but only the experimental groups received written corrective feedback on their pragmatic production. One experimental group received feedback without opportunity for revision. Another experimental group received one cycle of feedback and revision, and the third group two cycles of feedback and revision. Results of a Discourse Completion Task (DCT) pre-test, immediate post-test, and delayed post-test indicated that the combination of instruction and feedback had a positive effect on the accuracy of learners’ pragmatic performance. However, no clear-cut evidence for the effect of revision on the fluency of learners’ pragmatic performance was found in the study. The findings highlight the effectiveness of corrective feedback and revision in consolidating emergent L2 pragmatic knowledge, but further research is needed to understand how much revision is sufficient to facilitate fluency development.

This work is currently available as a sample.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Abdel Latif, M. M.
    (2009) Toward a new process-based indicator for measuring writing fluency: Evidence from L2 writers’ think-aloud protocols. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65(4), 531–558. 10.3138/cmlr.65.4.531
    https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.65.4.531 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alcón-Soler, E.
    (2005) Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context?System, 33(3), 417–435. 10.1016/j.system.2005.06.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.06.005 [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson, J. R.
    (1993) Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barron, J. , & Celaya, M.
    (2010) Developing pragmatic fluency in an EFL context. In L. Roberts , M. Howard , M. Laoire , & D. Singleton (Eds.), EUROSLA yearbook (Vol.10, pp.38–61). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bialystok, E.
    (1993) Symbolic representation and attentional control. In G. Kasper & S. Blum–Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp.43–57). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Biesenbach-Lucas, S.
    (2007) Students writing e-mails to faculty: An examination of e-politeness among native and non-native speakers of English. Language Learning and Technology, 11(2), 59–81.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bygate, M.
    (1996) Effects of task repetition: Appraising the development of second language learners. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp.136–147). Oxford: Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (2001) Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate , P. Skehan , & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing (pp.23–48). Harlow: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chenoweth, N. A. , & Hayes, J.
    (2001) Fluency in writing. Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18(1), 80–98. 10.1177/0741088301018001004
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018001004 [Google Scholar]
  10. DeKeyser, R. M.
    (1997) Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(2), 195–221. 10.1017/S0272263197002040
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197002040 [Google Scholar]
  11. Economidou-Kogetsidis, M.
    (2011) “Please answer me as soon as possible”: Pragmatic failure in non-native speakers’ e-mail requests to faculty. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(13), 3193–3215. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.006 [Google Scholar]
  12. Ellis, R. , & Yuan, F.
    (2004) The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 59–84. 10.1017/S0272263104261034
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104261034 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gass, S. , Mackey, A. , Alvarez-Torres, M. , & Fernández-Garcίa, M.
    (1999) The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49, 549–581. 10.1111/0023‑8333.00102
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00102 [Google Scholar]
  14. Hattie, J. , & Timperley, H.
    (2007) The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. 10.3102/003465430298487
    https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 [Google Scholar]
  15. Ishihara, N.
    (2010) Assessing learners’ pragmatic ability in the classroom. In D. Tatsuki & N. Houck (Eds.), Pragmatics: Teaching speech acts (pp.209–227). Alexandria, VA: TESOL Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Johnson, M. D. , Mercado, L. , & Acevedo, A.
    (2012) The effect of planning sub-processes on L2 writing fluency, grammatical complexity, and lexical complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 264–282. 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.05.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.05.011 [Google Scholar]
  17. Kasper, G.
    (2001) Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp.33–60). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524797.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524797.006 [Google Scholar]
  18. Koike, D. , & Pearson, L.
    (2005) The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence. System, 33(3), 481–501. 10.1016/j.system.2005.06.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.06.008 [Google Scholar]
  19. Knoch, U.
    (2007) Diagnostic writing assessment: The development and validation of a rating scale. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, The University of Auckland, New Zealand.
  20. Leijten, M. , & Van Waes, L.
    (2013) Keystroke logging in writing research: Using Inputlog to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication, 30(3), 358–392. 10.1177/0741088313491692
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313491692 [Google Scholar]
  21. Li, S.
    (2012) The effect of input-based practice on pragmatic development in L2 Chinese. Language Learning, 62(2), 403–438. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2011.00629.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00629.x [Google Scholar]
  22. (2013) Amount of practice and pragmatic development of request-making in L2 Chinese. In N. Taguchi & J. Sykes (Eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching (pp.43–70). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.36.04li
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.36.04li [Google Scholar]
  23. Li, S. , & Taguchi, N.
    (2014) The effects of practice modality on pragmatic development in L2 Chinese. The Modern Language Journal, 98(3), 794–812. 10.1111/modl.12123
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12123 [Google Scholar]
  24. Lyster, R. , Saito, K. , & Sato, M.
    (2013) Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40. 10.1017/S0261444812000365
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000365 [Google Scholar]
  25. Nipaspong, P. , & Chinokul, S.
    (2010) The role of prompts and explicit feedback in raising EFL learners’ pragmatic awareness. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 5, 101–146.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Nguyen, T. T. M.
    (2018) Pragmatic development in the instructed context: A longitudinal investigation of L2 email requests. Pragmatics, 28(2), 217–252. 10.1075/prag.00007.ngu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.00007.ngu [Google Scholar]
  27. (2019) Data collection methods in L2 pragmatics research: An overview. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp.195–211). New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9781351164085‑13
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085-13 [Google Scholar]
  28. Nguyen, T. T. M. , Do, T. T. H. , Nguyen, T. A. , Pham, T. T. T.
    (2015) Teaching email requests in the academic context: A focus on the role of corrective feedback. Language Awareness, 24(2), 169–195. 10.1080/09658416.2015.1010543
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2015.1010543 [Google Scholar]
  29. Nguyen, T. T. M. , Do, T. T. H. , Pham, T. T. T. , & Nguyen, T. A.
    (2018) The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 pragmatics: An eight month investigation. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 56(3), 345–375.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Nguyen, T. T. M. , Pham, T. H. , & Pham, M. T.
    (2012) The relative effects of explicit and implicit form-focused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic competence. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(4), 416–434. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.01.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  31. Polio, C. G.
    (1997) Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47(1), 101–143. 10.1111/0023‑8333.31997003
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.31997003 [Google Scholar]
  32. Saito, M. , & Lyster, R.
    (2012) Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 591–626. 10.1017/S0272263112000356
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000356 [Google Scholar]
  33. Skehan, P.
    (1996) A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62. 10.1093/applin/17.1.38
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.1.38 [Google Scholar]
  34. Schmidt, R.
    (2010) Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In W. M. Chan , S. Chi , K. N. Cin , J. Istanto , M. Nagami , J. W. Sew , T. Suthiwan , & I. Walker (Eds.), Proceedings of CLaSIC 2010 (pp.721–737). Singapore: National University of Singapore, Centre for Language Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Taguchi, N.
    (2005) Comprehending implied meaning in English as a foreign language. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 543–562. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2005.00329.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00329.x [Google Scholar]
  36. (2008) Cognition, language contact, and the development of pragmatic comprehension in a study-abroad context. Language Learning, 58, 33–71. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2007.00434.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00434.x [Google Scholar]
  37. (2015) Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48, 1–50. 10.1017/S0261444814000263
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000263 [Google Scholar]
  38. Takimoto, M.
    (2006) The effects of explicit feedback on the development of pragmatic proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 10, 393–417. 10.1191/1362168806lr198oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr198oa [Google Scholar]
  39. (2012) 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. 10.1515/ip‑2012‑0004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2012-0004 [Google Scholar]
  40. Van Waes, L. , & Leijten, M.
    (2015) Fluency in writing: A multidimensional perspective on writing fluency applied to L1 and L2. Computers and Composition, 38, 79–95. 10.1016/j.compcom.2015.09.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2015.09.012 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): accuracy; corrective feedback; email requests; fluency; metapragmatic instruction
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error