1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Applied Pragmatics
  4. Volume 6, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 6, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2589-109X
  • E-ISSN: 2589-1103
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In this article, I discuss current research issues and practices in second language (L2) pragmatics research, focusing on how mixed methods are applied in the existing literature. The paper begins by introducing fundamental principles and three core mixed methods approaches, in each case synthesizing unique characteristics in terms of the integration of qualitative and quantitative methods and data interpretation. A critical review of different mixed methods approaches intends to help readers understand the strengths and weaknesses of each approach and make a principled decision. I then provide an overview of the recent trend in applying mixed methods in L2 pragmatics research, examining research purposes and the type of mixed methods designs utilized. I also offer an in-depth discussion of exemplary L2 pragmatics research that employed mixed methods focusing on underlying rationales for using the mixed methods and ways to achieve high degrees of integration at various stages of the study. The paper concludes with challenges in applying mixed methods and suggestions on how to advance the current practice of mixed methods in L2 pragmatics in future research.

© 2024 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ap.00026.you
2025-02-07
2026-02-17

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ap.00026.you
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alcón-Soler, E., & Safont, P.
    (2018) Editors’ introduction to mixed method approaches in investigating pragmatic learning. System, 751, 1–3. 10.1016/j.system.2018.03.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.03.013 [Google Scholar]
  2. Barón, J., Celaya, M. L., & Levkina, M.
    (2020) Learning pragmatics through tasks: When interaction plays a role. Applied Pragmatics, 21, 1–25. 10.1075/ap.18010.bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.18010.bar [Google Scholar]
  3. Black, E., & Barron, A.
    (2018) Learner pragmatics at the discourse level: Staying “on topic” in a telecollaborative eTandem task. System, 751, 33–47. 10.1016/j.system.2018.03.019
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.03.019 [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown, J. D.
    (2014) Mixed methods research for TESOL. Edinburgh University Press. 10.1515/9780748698059
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9780748698059 [Google Scholar]
  5. Chen, S.
    (2021) Development and validation of a web-based L2 pragmatic speaking test in the university context. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Northern Arizona University.
  6. Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V.
    (2018) Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Dai, D. W.
    (2022) Design and validation of an L2-Chinese interactional competence test. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The University of Melbourne.
  8. Gesuato, S.
    (2018) Mixed methods in raising sociopragmatic awareness: A proposal for combining insights from the teacher’s feedback and the interlocutor’s point of view. System, 751, 48–67. 10.1016/j.system.2018.03.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.03.006 [Google Scholar]
  9. Greene, J. C.
    (2006) Toward a methodology of mixed methods social inquiry. Research in the Schools, 131, 93–98.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Hashimoto, B. J., & Nelson, K.
    (2020) Using a corpus in creating and evaluating a DCT. Applied Pragmatics, 21, 80–120. 10.1075/ap.19009.has
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.19009.has [Google Scholar]
  11. Ikeda, N.
    (2021) Assessing L2 learners’ pragmatic ability in problem-solving situations at English-medium university. Applied Pragmatics, 31, 51–83. 10.1075/ap.19039.ike
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.19039.ike [Google Scholar]
  12. Lin, M-F., & Wang, Y-F.
    (2020) Effects of pragmatic instruction on EFL teenagers’ apologetic email writing: Comprehension, production, and cognitive processes. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 601, 759–797. 10.1515/iral‑2019‑0116
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2019-0116 [Google Scholar]
  13. Martín-Laguna, S., & Alcón-Soler, E.
    (2018) Development of discourse-pragmatic markers in a multilingual classroom: A mixed method research approach. System, 751, 68–80. 10.1016/j.system.2018.03.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.03.009 [Google Scholar]
  14. Nguyen, M. T. T., & Pham, T. T. T.
    (2022) Instructional effects of L2 pragmatic comprehension: The case of indirect refusals and indirect opinions. The Language Learning Journal, 501, 427–442. 10.1080/09571736.2022.2088443
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2022.2088443 [Google Scholar]
  15. Nguyen, T. T. M.
    (2018) Pragmatic development in the instructed context: A longitudinal investigation of L2 email requests. Pragmatics, 281, 217–252. 10.1075/prag.00007.ngu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.00007.ngu [Google Scholar]
  16. Nicholas, A.
    (2020) Dynamic assessment and requesting: Assessing the development of Japanese EFL learners’ oral requesting performance interactively. Intercultural Pragmatics, 171, 545–575. 10.1515/ip‑2020‑5002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2020-5002 [Google Scholar]
  17. Ockey, G., & Chukharev-Hudilainen, E.
    (2021) Human versus computer partner in the paired oral discussion test. Applied Linguistics, 421, 924–944. 10.1093/applin/amaa067
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amaa067 [Google Scholar]
  18. Portolés, L., & Safont, P.
    (2018) Examining authentic and elicited data from a multilingual perspective. The real picture of child requestive behavior in the L3 classroom. System, 751, 81–92. 10.1016/j.system.2018.03.012
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.03.012 [Google Scholar]
  19. Riazi, A. M., & Candlin, C. N.
    (2014) Mixed-methods research in language teaching and learning: Opportunities, issues and challenges. Language Teaching, 471, 135–173. 10.1017/S0261444813000505
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444813000505 [Google Scholar]
  20. Roever, C. & Ikeda, N.
    (2022) What scores from monologic speaking tests can(not) tell us about interactional competence. Language Testing, 391, 7–29. 10.1177/02655322211003332
     https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322211003332 [Google Scholar]
  21. Ross, S. J., & Hong, Y.
    (2019) Mixed methods in L2 pragmatics research. InN. Taguchi (Ed.). The routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp.212–225). Routledge. 10.4324/9781351164085‑14
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085-14 [Google Scholar]
  22. Sánchez-Hernández, A.
    (2018) A mixed-methods study of the impact of sociocultural adaptation on the development of pragmatic production. System, 751, 93–105. 10.1016/j.system.2018.03.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.03.008 [Google Scholar]
  23. Taguchi, N.
    (2018) Description and explanation of pragmatic development: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research. System, 751, 23–32. 10.1016/j.system.2018.03.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.03.010 [Google Scholar]
  24. (Ed.) (2019) The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics. Routledge. 10.4324/9781351164085
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085 [Google Scholar]
  25. Taguchi, N., & Roever, C.
    (2017) Second language pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C.
    (Eds.) (2003) Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavior research. Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A.
    (2003) Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. InA. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp.3–50). Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. (2006) A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods. Research in the Schools, 131, 12–28.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Timpe-Laughlin, V., & Dombi, J.
    (2020) Exploring L2 learners’ request behavior in a multi-turn conversation with a fully automated agent. Intercultural Pragmatics, 171, 221–257. 10.1515/ip‑2020‑0010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2020-0010 [Google Scholar]
  30. Yang, H., & Ren, W.
    (2019) Pragmatic awareness and second language learning motivation: A mixed-methods investigation. Pragmatics & Cognition, 261, 447–473. 10.1075/pc.19022.yan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.19022.yan [Google Scholar]
  31. Youn, S. J.
    (2023) Grammar as validity evidence for assessing L2 interactional competence: The case of requests in role-play interaction. Applied Pragmatics, 51, 174–201. 10.1075/ap.00012.you
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.00012.you [Google Scholar]
  32. Zhang, Y.
    (2021) Combining computer-mediated communication with data-driven instruction: EFL learners’ pragmatic development of compliment responses. System, 1031, 102624. 10.1016/j.system.2021.102624
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102624 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ap.00026.you
Loading
Mixed methods research in L2 pragmatics
Applied Pragmatics 6, 182 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.00026.you
/content/journals/10.1075/ap.00026.you
/content/journals/10.1075/ap.00026.you
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): L2 pragmatics; mixed methods research; qualitative research; quantitative research; research design

Most Cited

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