Volume 5, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2589-109X
  • E-ISSN: 2589-1103
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper reports on the development of an aural multiple-choice discourse completion task (aural MC-DCT) for use with EFL learners for large-scale instructional needs assessment. The original version of the aural MC-DCT and an oral DCT were administered to 134 EFL learners from three universities in China. The aural MC-DCT was revised based on the results of the initial administration and completed by 251 EFL students and 89 native speakers of American English in a second administration. Both versions of the task used learner-generated options. The first version used digital files of learner production from an earlier oral DCT taken by ESL learners; the second version re-recorded the learner-produced options using native speakers of American English. The results from the second version show that the aural MC-DCT is a feasible format for exploring learner knowledge of conventional expressions by comparing learner selections to production on the oral DCT, which has been established as a reliable measure of L2 English conventional expressions. The aural MC-DCT provides teachers with a practical alternative to the transcription and analysis required by the oral DCT, allowing them to easily assess knowledge of target conventional expressions and preferred alternatives in order to facilitate decisions about instruction.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Alcón-Soler, E., & Sánchez-Hernández, A.
    (2017) Learning pragmatic routines during study abroad: A focus on type of routine. ATLANTIS: Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies, 39(2), 191–210. 10.28914/Atlantis‑2017‑39.2.10
    https://doi.org/10.28914/Atlantis-2017-39.2.10 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bardovi-Harlig, K.
    (2009) Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource: Recognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 59(4), 755–795. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00525.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00525.x [Google Scholar]
  3. (2010) Recognition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 121, 141–162.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (2012) Formulas, routines, and conventional expressions in pragmatics research. ARAL, 321, 206–227. 10.1017/S0267190512000086
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000086 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2014) Awareness of meaning of conventional expressions in second language pragmatics. Language Awareness, 23(1–2), 41–56. 10.1080/09658416.2013.863894
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2013.863894 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2019) Routines in L2 pragmatics research. InN. Taguchi (Ed.), Handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp.47–62). Routledge. 10.4324/9781351164085‑4
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085-4 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bardovi-Harlig, K., Bastos, M.-T., Burghardt, B., Chappetto, E., Nickels, E., & Rose, M.
    (2010) The use of conventional expressions and utterance length in L2 pragmatics. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 121, 163–186.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Bastos, M.-T.
    (2011) Proficiency, length of stay, and intensity of interaction and the acquisition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(3), 347–384. 10.1515/iprg.2011.017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2011.017 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z.
    (1998) Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 233–259. 10.2307/3587583
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587583 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S., & Su, Y.
    (2017) The effect of corpus-based instruction on pragmatic routines. Language Learning & Technology, 21(3), 76–103. 10125/44622
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S., & Vellenga, H. E.
    (2015a) Developing corpus-based materials to teach pragmatic routines. TESOL Journal, 6(3), 499–526. 10.1002/tesj.177
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.177 [Google Scholar]
  12. (2015b) The effect of instruction on pragmatic routines in academic discussion. Language Teaching Research, 19(3), 324–350. 10.1177/1362168814541739
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541739 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Stringer, D.
    (2017) Unconventional expressions: Productive syntax in the L2 acquisition of formulaic language. Second Language Research, 33(1), 61–90. 10.1177/0267658316641725
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658316641725 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Su, Y.
    (2018) The acquisition of conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource in Chinese as a foreign language. Modern Language Journal, 102(4), 732–757. 10.1111/modl.12517
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12517 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2021) The effect of learning environment on the selection of conventional expressions on an aural multiple-choice DCT. TESL-EJ, 25(1). www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume25/ej97/ej97a1/
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Barron, A.
    (2003) Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.108
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.108 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2019) Using corpus-linguistic methods to track longitudinal development: Routine apologies in the study abroad context. Journal of Pragmatics, 1461, 87–105. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.015 [Google Scholar]
  18. Brown, J. D.
    (2001) Pragmatics tests: Different purposes, different tests. InK. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp.301–326). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524797.020
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524797.020 [Google Scholar]
  19. Carr, N.
    (2011) Designing and analyzing language tests. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Enochs, K., & Yoshitake-Strain, S.
    (1996) Self-assessment and role plays for evaluating appropriateness in speech act realizations. ICU Language Research Bulletin, 111, 57–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Erman, B., & Warren, B.
    (2000) The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text & Talk, 20(1), 201, 29–62. 10.1515/text.1.2000.20.1.29
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.2000.20.1.29 [Google Scholar]
  22. ETS
    ETS (2019) Examinee handbook: TOEIC listening and reading. Educational Testing Service.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Fuchs, R.
    (2017) Do women (still) use More intensifiers than men? Recent change in the sociolinguistics of intensifiers in British English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3), 345–374. 10.1075/ijcl.22.3.03fuc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.3.03fuc [Google Scholar]
  24. Hudson, T., Detmer, E., & Brown, J. D.
    (1992) A framework for testing cross-cultural pragmatics (Technical Report 2). University of Hawai‘i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (1995) Developing prototypic measures of cross-cultural pragmatics (Technical Report 7). University of Hawai‘i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Köylü, Y.
    (2018) Comprehension of conversational implicatures in L2 English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(3), 373–408. 10.1515/ip‑2018‑0011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2018-0011 [Google Scholar]
  27. Liu, J.
    (2007) Developing a pragmatics test for Chinese EFL learners. Language Testing, 24(3), 391–415. 10.1177/0265532207077206
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532207077206 [Google Scholar]
  28. Osuka, N.
    (2017) Development of pragmatic routines by Japanese learners in a study abroad context. InI. Kecskes & S. Assimakopoulos (Eds.), Current issues in intercultural pragmatics (pp.275–296). Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.274.13osu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.274.13osu [Google Scholar]
  29. Papageorgiou, S., Wu, S., Hsieh, C., Tannenbaum, R. J., &. Cheng, M.
    (2019) Mapping the TOEFL iBT® test scores to China’s standards of English language ability: Implications for score interpretation and use. (Research Report No. TOEFL-RR-89). Educational Testing Service. 10.1002/ets2.12281
    https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12281 [Google Scholar]
  30. Roever, C.
    (2005) Testing ESL Pragmatics: Development and validation of a web-based assessment battery. Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑653‑04780‑6
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-04780-6 [Google Scholar]
  31. (2012) What learners get for free: learning of routine formulae in ESL and EFL environments. ELT Journal, 66(1), 10–21. 10.1093/elt/ccq090
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq090 [Google Scholar]
  32. Roever, C., Wang, S., & Brophy, S.
    (2014) Learner background factors and learning of second language pragmatics. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 521, 377–401. 10.1515/iral‑2014‑0016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2014-0016 [Google Scholar]
  33. Shin, S-Y., Lee, S. & Lidster, R.
    (2021) Examining the effects of different English speech varieties on an L2 academic listening comprehension test at the item level. Language Testing, 38(4), 580–601. 10.1177/0265532220985432
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532220985432 [Google Scholar]
  34. Swain, M.
    (1995) Three functions of output in second language learningInG. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in the Honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp.371–391). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Tagliamonte, S., & Roberts, C.
    (2005) So weird; so cool; so innovative: The use of intensifiers in the television series Friends. American Speech, 80(3), 280–300. 10.1215/00031283‑80‑3‑280
    https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-80-3-280 [Google Scholar]
  36. Taguchi, N.
    (2009) Corpus-informed assessment of comprehension of conversational implicatures in L2 English. TESOL Quarterly, 43(4), 738–749. 10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2009.tb00202.x
    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00202.x [Google Scholar]
  37. Taguchi, N., Li, S., & Xiao, F.
    (2013) Production of formulaic expressions in L2 Chinese: A developmental investigation in a study abroad context. Chinese as a Second Language Research, 2(1), 23–58. 10.1515/caslar‑2013‑0021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/caslar-2013-0021 [Google Scholar]
  38. Taguchi, N., & Roever, C.
    (2017) Second language pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Teng, C., & Fei, F.
    (2013) A consciousness-raising approach to pragmatics teaching: Web-based tasks for training study-abroad students. Journal of Technology and Chinese Language Teaching, 4(1), 50–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Yamashita, S. O.
    (1996) Six measures of JSL pragmatics. University of Hawaii at Manoa.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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