1887
image of A holistic approach to pragmatic development of discussion starters in L2 online forums
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article examines pragmatic development in L2 online forum discussions. The data was gathered from learners’ text-based discussions of weekly reading materials in a fully online course of L2 English at a Japanese university. Information solicitation acts in thread-opening posts emerged as a trackable pragmatic feature. An examination of 38 thread-opening posts revealed that as a general trend, students who started discussions tended first to solicit knowledge, and later to solicit opinions instead. Investigations into several discussion starters who created a thread multiple times showed more opportunities for increasing linguistic repertoire for opinion solicitation. Some discussion starters showed routinization of solicitation strategies, and they tried new strategies, such as soliciting both opinions and knowledge in one post, but ended up never using such a strategy consistently. Some strategies were also found in a forum-specific element such as the subject line. The current study emphasizes the significance of the use of different epistemological stances of speech-act and interactional approaches to L2 pragmatics based on a holistic view to aim at changing and improving instructional design.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ap.23001.abe
2026-03-13
2026-04-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abe, M., & Roever, C.
    (2019) Interactional competence in L2 text-chat interactions: First-idea proffering in task openings. Journal of Pragmatics, , –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alcón-Soler, E.
    (2015) Pragmatic learning and study abroad: Effects of instruction and length of stay. System, , –. 10.1016/j.system.2014.09.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  3. Al-Gahtani, S., & Roever, C.
    (2012) Proficiency and sequential organization of L2 requests. Applied Linguistics, (), –. 10.1093/applin/amr031
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr031 [Google Scholar]
  4. Biesenbach-Lucas, S.
    (2007) Students writing emails to faculty: An examination of e-politeness among native and non-native speakers of English. Language Learning & Technology, (), –. llt.msu.edu/vol11num2/biesenbachlucas/. 10.64152/10125/44104
    https://doi.org/10.64152/10125/44104 [Google Scholar]
  5. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G.
    (Eds.) (1989) Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, P., & Levinson, S.
    (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  7. Canagarajah, S.
    (2018) Translingual practice as spatial repertoires: Expanding the paradigm beyond structuralist orientations. Applied Linguistics, (), –. 10.1093/applin/amx041
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx041 [Google Scholar]
  8. Chen, C. F. E.
    (2006) The development of e-mail literacy: From writing to peers to writing to authority figures. Language Learning & Technology, (), –. llt.msu.edu/vol10num2/chen/. 10.64152/10125/44060
    https://doi.org/10.64152/10125/44060 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chen, Y. S.
    (2015) Developing Chinese EFL learners’ email literacy through requests to faculty. Journal of Pragmatics, , –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.05.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.05.009 [Google Scholar]
  10. 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, (), –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.006 [Google Scholar]
  11. Félix-Brasdefer, C.
    (2013) Refusing in L2 Spanish: The effects of the context of learning during a short-term study abroad program. InO. Martí-Arnándiz & P. Salazar-Campillo (Eds.), Refusals in instructional contexts and beyond (pp.–). Brill. 10.1163/9789401209717_009
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401209717_009 [Google Scholar]
  12. Giles, D. C., & Newbold, J.
    (2013) “Is this normal?” The role of category predicates in constructing mental illness online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, (), –. 10.1111/jcc4.12022
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12022 [Google Scholar]
  13. Golato, A.
    (2003) Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics, (), –. 10.1093/applin/24.1.90
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.1.90 [Google Scholar]
  14. González-Lloret, M.
    (2019) Technology and L2 pragmatics learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, , –. 10.1017/S0267190519000047
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190519000047 [Google Scholar]
  15. González-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L.
    (Eds.) (2014) Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.6 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2018) Pragmatics, tasks, and technology: A synergy. InY. Kim & N. Taguchi (Eds.). Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.10.08gon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.10.08gon [Google Scholar]
  17. Hauser, E.
    (2017) Avoiding initiation of repair in L2 conversations-for-learning. Pragmatics, (), –. 10.1075/prag.27.2.03hau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.27.2.03hau [Google Scholar]
  18. Hellermann, J.
    (2007) The development of practices for action in classroom dyadic interaction: Focus on task openings. The Modern Language Journal, (), –. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2007.00503.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00503.x [Google Scholar]
  19. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R.
    (2002) Pragmatic development in a second language. Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Leech, G.
    (1983) Principles of pragmatics. Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Lester, J. N., & Paulus, T. M.
    (2011) Accountability and public displays of knowing in an undergraduate computer-mediated communication context. Discourse Studies, (), –. 10.1177/1461445611421361
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611421361 [Google Scholar]
  22. Paulus, T. M., & Lester, J. N.
    (2013) Making learning ordinary: Ways undergraduates display learning in a CMC task. Text & Talk, (), –. 10.1515/text‑2013‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2013-0003 [Google Scholar]
  23. Pekarek Doehler, S., & Balaman, U.
    (2021) The routinization of grammar as a social action format: A longitudinal study of video-mediated interactions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, (), –. 10.1080/08351813.2021.1899710
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2021.1899710 [Google Scholar]
  24. Pennycook, A.
    (2018) Posthumanist applied linguistics. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Pomerantz, A.
    (1988) Offering a candidate answer: An information seeking strategy. Communications Monographs, (), –. 10.1080/03637758809376177
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376177 [Google Scholar]
  26. Richards, J. C., & Eckstut-Didier, A.
    (2012) Strategic reading level 3. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Roever, C.
    (2015) Researching pragmatics. InB. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Research methods in applied linguistics: A practical resource (pp.–). Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (2021) Teaching and testing second language pragmatics and interaction: A practical guide. Routledge. 10.4324/9780429260766
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429260766 [Google Scholar]
  29. Schegloff, E. A.
    (1968) Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, (), –. 10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030 [Google Scholar]
  30. Searle, J.
    (1969) Speech acts. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  31. Sidnell, J., & Enfield, N. J.
    (2012) Language diversity and social action: A third locus of linguistic relativity. Current Anthropology, (), –. 10.1086/665697
    https://doi.org/10.1086/665697 [Google Scholar]
  32. Stommel, W., & Koole, T.
    (2010) The online support group as a community: A micro-analysis of the interaction with a new member. Discourse Studies, (), –. 10.1177/1461445609358518
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445609358518 [Google Scholar]
  33. Stommel, W., & Meijman, F. J.
    (2011) The use of conversation analysis to study social accessibility of an online support group on eating disorders. Global Health Promotion, (), –. 10.1177/1757975911404764
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1757975911404764 [Google Scholar]
  34. Stommel, W., & van der Houwen, F.
    (2014) Complaining and the management of face in online counseling. Qualitative Health Research, (), –. 10.1177/1049732313519706
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732313519706 [Google Scholar]
  35. Taguchi, N., & Roever, C.
    (2017) Second language pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Vayreda, A., & Antaki, C.
    (2009) Social support and unsolicited advice in a bipolar disorder online forum. Qualitative Health Research, (), –. 10.1177/1049732309338952
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732309338952 [Google Scholar]
  37. Warren, A. N.
    (2018) Navigating assigned roles for asynchronous online discussions: Examining participants’ orientation using conversation analysis. Online Learning, (), –.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Warren, A. N., & Paulus, T. M.
    (2020) Postgraduate students’ accomplishment of epistemic positioning through personal experience in online discussion forums. Classroom Discourse, (), –.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Youn, S. J.
    (2014) Measuring syntactic complexity in L2 pragmatic production: Investigating relationships among pragmatics, grammar, and proficiency. System, , –.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ap.23001.abe
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ap.23001.abe
Loading

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