Volume 4, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2665-9581
  • E-ISSN: 2665-959X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Role-play as a bridging and integrating practice in language teaching and development of pragmatic competence in learners is well-established. In an EAP classroom (Van Dyke & Acton, 2021) explored the impact of one fluency protocol, by which students were trained to listen attentively to shared personal stories, working toward more sophisticated strategies of conversational interaction. That system included dialogic, pragmatics-focused, spontaneous analysis and instructor-student discussion of interactional discourse features. With that experience, further modeling and conceptual input, participants in this study engaged in six role-plays, each involving a problem requiring pragmatic accommodation. The data from transcribed role-plays were analyzed in terms of pragmatic discourse functions and NVivo-based thematic threads. The generally successful application of the targeted skills and concepts by course end most likely resulted from the engaging meta-pragmatic interactions preceding the role-plays, and the formal and informal instructor feedback related to implicature, prosody, implicit understandings, direct conversation strategies, grammar, and vocabulary.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Acton & Cope, C.
    (1999) Cooperative Attending Skills Training, inKluge, D., McGuire, S., Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (Eds). Co-operative Learning. JALT Applied Materials, Tokyo: JALT, 50–66.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Al-Gahtani, S., & Roever, C.
    (2018) Proficiency and preference organization in second language refusals. Journal of Pragmatics, 1291, 140–153. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.01.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.01.014 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bardovi-Harlig, K.
    (2015) Designing instructional effect studies for L2 pragmatics: A guide for teachers and researchers. InS. Gesuato, F. Bianchi, & W. Cheng (Eds.), Teaching, learning and investigating pragmatics: Principles, methods and practices (pp.135–164). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (2018) Matching modality in L2 pragmatics research design. System (Linköping), 751, 13–22. 10.1016/j.system.2018.03.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.03.007 [Google Scholar]
  5. 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, 81, 347–384. 10.1515/iprg.2011.017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2011.017 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bell, N. D.
    (2005) Exploring L2 language play as an aid to SLL: A case study of humor in NS–NNS interaction. Applied Linguistics, 261, 192–218. 10.1093/applin/amh043
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amh043 [Google Scholar]
  7. Beltrán-Palanques, V.
    (2020) Towards a learner-centred approach to design role-play instruments for ILP studies: A Study Based on Complaints. Complutense Journal of English Studies, 281, 121. 10.5209/cjes.67055
    https://doi.org/10.5209/cjes.67055 [Google Scholar]
  8. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D.
    (2016) Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 6.0.11). www.praat.org/
  9. Brazil, D.
    (1997) The communicative value of intonation in English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Brown, P. & Levinson, S.
    (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  11. Carlson, K., & Tyler, J. C.
    (2018) Accents, not just prosodic boundaries, influence syntactic attachment. Language and Speech, 61(2), 246–276. 10.1177/0023830917712282
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830917712282 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cheng, W., & Warren, M.
    (2005) Can I help you? The use of rise and rise-fall tones in the Hong Kong Corpus of Spoken English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(1), 85–107. 10.1075/ijcl.10.1.05che
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.10.1.05che [Google Scholar]
  13. Cohen, Andrew D.
    (2020) Considerations in assessing pragmatic appropriateness in spoken language. Language Teaching, (53), 183–202. 10.1017/S0261444819000156
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000156 [Google Scholar]
  14. Davies, C. E.
    (2005) Learning the discourse of friendship. InA. E. Tyler, M. Takada, Y. Kim, & D. Marinova (Eds.), Language in use: Cognitive and discourse perspectives on language and language learning, (pp.85–99). Washington, DC: George- town University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. DeKeyser, R. M.
    (2003) Implicit and explicit learning. InM. H. Long & C. H. Doughty (eds.) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp.312–348). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 10.1002/9780470756492.ch11
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch11 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2015) Skill Acquisition theory. InB. VanPatten, & J. Williams (Eds.) Theories in Second Language Acquisition, 94–112. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. De Marco, A. & Paone, E.
    (2015) The acquisition of emotional competence in L2 learners of Italian through specific instructional training. In: Gesuato, S., Bianchi, F., & Cheng, W. (Eds.) (2015) Teaching, learning and investigating pragmatics: Principles, methods and practices, (pp.441–468).
    [Google Scholar]
  18. de Moraes, J. A. & Rilliard, A.
    (2016) Prosody and emotion in Brazilian Portuguese. InM. E. Armstrong, N. Henriksen, & V. M. D. Mar (Eds.). Intonational Grammar in Ibero-Romance: Approaches Across Linguistic Subfields (pp.135–152). John Benjamins Publishing Co.. 10.1075/ihll.6.07mor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.6.07mor [Google Scholar]
  19. Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S.
    (2015) The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York/London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315779553
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315779553 [Google Scholar]
  20. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C., and A. D. Cohen
    (2012) Teaching Pragmatics in the Foreign Language Classroom: Grammar as a Communicative Resource. Hispania95(4), 650–669. 10.1353/hpn.2012.0124
    https://doi.org/10.1353/hpn.2012.0124 [Google Scholar]
  21. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. & Mugford, G.
    (2017) (Im)politeness: Learning and Teaching. In: Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., Kádár, D. (Eds.) The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, (pp.489–516). Palgrave Macmillan, London. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑37508‑7_19
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_19 [Google Scholar]
  22. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C.
    (2018a) Role plays. InA. Jucker, K. P. Schneider, & W. Bublitz (Eds.), Methods in pragmatics, (pp.305–331). Berlin: Mouton DeGruyter. 10.1515/9783110424928‑012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110424928-012 [Google Scholar]
  23. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C.
    (2019) Speech Acts in Interaction: Negotiating Joint Action in a Second Language. InN. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics, (pp.17–30).
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Filipi, A. & Barraja-Rohan, A.
    (2015) An Interaction-Focused Pedagogy based on Conversation Analysis for Developing L2 Pragmatic Competence. In: Gesuato, S., Bianchi, F., & Cheng, W. (Eds.) (2015) Teaching, learning and investigating pragmatics: Principles, methods and practices, (pp.231–251).
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Haugh, M., & W. L. M. Chang
    2015 Understanding Im/politeness Across Cultures: An Interactional Approach to Raising Sociopragmatic Awareness. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 53(4), 389–414. 10.1515/iral‑2015‑0018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2015-0018 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hassal, T.
    (2015) Individual variation in L2 study abroad outcomes: A case study from Indonesian pragmatics. Multilingua, 341, 33–59. 10.1515/multi‑2013‑0050
    https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2013-0050 [Google Scholar]
  27. Heron, M. & Webster, J.
    (2019) Scaffolding talk in EAP lessons: an examination of experienced teachers’ practices. Innovation in Language Learning, 13(4), 358–370. 10.1080/17501229.2018.1466892
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2018.1466892 [Google Scholar]
  28. Ishihara, N. & Cohen, A.D.
    (2010) Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. ten Have, P.
    (2007) Doing Conversation Analysis. Sage. 10.4135/9781849208895
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208895 [Google Scholar]
  30. Iwasaki, N.
    (2011) Learning L2 Japanese ‘politeness’ and ‘impoliteness’: Young American men’s dilemmas during study abroad. Japanese Language and Literature451, 67–106.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Kang, O. & Kermod, A.
    (2019) Prosody in L2 Pragmatic Research. In: Taguchi, N. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics. New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9781351164085‑6
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085-6 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kasper, G. & Rose, K. R.
    (2002) Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Kelley, C. & J. Meyers
    (1995) Cross-cultural adaptability inventory manual. Arlington, VA: Vangent.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Long, M.
    (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. InW.C. Ritchie and T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp.413–468). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. MacWhinney, B.
    (2022) The Competition Model: Past and Future. In: Gervain, J., Csibra, G., Kovács, K. (Eds.). A Life in Cognition. Language, Cognition, and Mind, Vol111. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑66175‑5_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66175-5_1 [Google Scholar]
  36. Maher, K.
    (2013) Neuroplasticity in the SLA classroom: Connecting brain research to language learning. JALT 2012 Conference
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Maibodi, A. H. & Fazilatfar, A. M.
    (2015) The impact of individual differences on the interlanguage pragmatics of Iranian EFL learners in institutional discourse. Issues in Language Teaching, 4(1), 99–129.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Mi, Q., Wang, C., Camerer, C. F., & Zhu, L.
    (2021) Reading between the lines: Listener’s vmPFC simulates speaker cooperative choices in communication games. Science Advances, 7(10), 6276. 10.1126/sciadv.abe6276
    https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abe6276 [Google Scholar]
  39. Pylkkänen, L., Oliveri, B. & Smart, A. J.
    (2009) Semantics vs. world knowledge in prefrontal cortex. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(9), 1313–1334. 10.1080/01690960903120176
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960903120176 [Google Scholar]
  40. Portes, C., Beyssade, C., Michelas, A., Marandin, J.-M., & Champagne-Lavau, M.
    (2014) The dialogical dimension of intonational meaning: Evidence from French. Journal of Pragmatics, 741(Dec), 15–29. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.08.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.08.013 [Google Scholar]
  41. Roever, C. & Kasper, G.
    (2018) Speaking in turns and sequences: Interactional competence as a target construct in testing speaking. Language Testing, 351, 331–355. 10.1177/0265532218758128
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532218758128 [Google Scholar]
  42. Schegloff, E. A.
    (2006) Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language, and the arena in which culture is enacted. InN. J. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of Human Society (pp.70–96). Oxford: Berg.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Schegloff, E. A.
    (2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge UP. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  44. Schneider, K. P.
    (2018) Methods and ethics of data collection. In: A. H. Jucker, K. P. Schneider & W. Bublitz (Eds.). Methods in Pragmatics, (pp.37–93). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110424928‑002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110424928-002 [Google Scholar]
  45. Seedhouse, P.
    (2012) What kind of interaction receives high and low ratings in oral proficiency interviews?English Profile Journal, 31, 1–24. 10.1017/S2041536212000025
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S2041536212000025 [Google Scholar]
  46. Segalowitz, N. & Lightbown, P.
    (1999) Psycholinguistic approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 191, 43–63. 10.1017/S0267190599190032
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190599190032 [Google Scholar]
  47. Shively, R. L.
    (2011) L2 pragmatic development in study abroad: A longitudinal study of Spanish service encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 431, 1818–1835. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.030
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.030 [Google Scholar]
  48. (2013) Learning to be funning Spanish during study abroad: L2 humor development. The Modern Language Journal, 97(1), 930–946. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2013.12043.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12043.x [Google Scholar]
  49. Taguchi, N.
    (2011) Do proficiency and study-abroad experience affect speech act production? Analysis of appropriateness, accuracy, and fluency. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 491, 265–293. 10.1515/iral.2011.015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2011.015 [Google Scholar]
  50. Skehan, P.
    (2015) Working Memory and Second Language Performance: A Commentary. InZ. Wen, M. Borges Mota & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working Memory in Second Language Acquisition and Processing (pp.189–202). Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783093595‑015
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783093595-015 [Google Scholar]
  51. Suzuki, Y., Nakata, T. & DeKeyser, R.
    (2019) Optimizing second language practice in the classroom: Perspectives from cognitive psychology. The Modern Language Journal (103)31, 551–561. 10.1111/modl.12582
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12582 [Google Scholar]
  52. Taguchi, N.
    (2015) Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1–50. 10.1017/S0261444814000263
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000263 [Google Scholar]
  53. Taguchi, N., S. Li & F. Xiao
    (2013) Production of formulaic expressions in L2 Chinese: A developmental investigation in a study abroad context. Chinese as a Second Language Research Journal21, 23–58. 10.1515/caslar‑2013‑0021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/caslar-2013-0021 [Google Scholar]
  54. Taguchi, N., F. Xiao & S. Li
    (2016) Development of pragmatic knowledge in L2 Chinese: Effects of intercultural competence and social contact on speech act production in a study abroad context. The Modern Language Journal, 100(4), 775–796. 10.1111/modl.12349
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12349 [Google Scholar]
  55. Taguchi, N. & Li, S.
    (2019) Replication research in contextual and individual influences in pragmatic competence: Taguchi, Xiao & Li (2016) and Bordovi-Harlig & Bastos (2011). Language Teaching, 52(1), 128–140. 10.1017/S0261444817000222
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000222 [Google Scholar]
  56. Takahashi, S.
    (2019) Individual Learner Considerations in SLA and L2 Pragmatics. InN. Taguchi, (Ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisitions and Pragmatics (pp.429–443). Taylor and Francis. 10.4324/9781351164085‑28
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085-28 [Google Scholar]
  57. Takimoto, M.
    (2010) Evaluating the effects of task repetition on learners’ recognition and production of second language pragmatic chunks. Paper presented at theInternational Conference of Malaysian English Language Teaching Association, Selangor, Malaysia. June.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Van Dyke, A. & Acton, W. R.
    (2021) Spontaneous classroom engagement facilitating development of L2 pragmatic competence: A naturalistic study. Pedagogical Linguistics, 2665(9581), 1–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. VanPatten, B.
    (2003) From Input to Output: A Teacher’s Guide to Second Language Acquisition. McGraw-Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Vidal, C. P. & Shively, R. L.
    (2019) L2 Pragmatic Development in Study Abroad Settings. InN. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics, (pp.355–371). New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9781351164085‑23
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085-23 [Google Scholar]
  61. Walters, F. S.
    (2021) Some Considerations Regarding Validation in CA-Informed Oral Testing for the L2 Classroom. InS. Kunitz (Eds.) Classroom-based Conversation Analytic Research, (pp.383–404). Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑52193‑6_19
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52193-6_19 [Google Scholar]
  62. Winke, P. & Gass, S. M.
    (2018) Individual Differences in Advanced Proficiency. InP. Malovrh & A. Benati (Eds.), The Handbook of Advanced Proficiency in Second Language Acquisition (pp.157–178). Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9781119261650.ch9
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119261650.ch9 [Google Scholar]
  63. Xu, W., R. E. Case & Y. Wang
    (2011) Pragmatic and grammatical competence, length of residence, and overall L2 proficiency. System, 371, 205–216. 10.1016/j.system.2008.09.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.09.007 [Google Scholar]
  64. Youn, S. J.
    (2015) Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods. Language Testing, 32(2), 199–225. 10.1177/0265532214557113
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214557113 [Google Scholar]
  65. (2018) Task-based needs analysis of L2 pragmatics in an EAP context. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 361, 86–98. 10.1016/j.jeap.2018.10.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.10.005 [Google Scholar]
  66. (2020) Interactional features of L2 pragmatic interaction in role-play speaking assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 54(1), 201–233. 10.1002/tesq.542
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.542 [Google Scholar]
  67. (2020) Managing proposal sequences in role-play assessment: Validity evidence of interactional competence across levels. Language Testing, (37)11, 76–106. 10.1177/0265532219860077
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532219860077 [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