Volume 31, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238



The upsurge of interest in L2 pragmatics studies has coincided with a growing interest in pragmatic assessment. Employing the most efficient measure of pragmatics has led many researchers to examine the existing measures to pinpoint the most useful ones. This study was an attempt to compare and contrast Written Discourse Completion Task (WDCT), Oral Discourse Completion Task (ODCT), and Role-play with Natural methodology in an EFL institutional context to see which measure approximated Natural methodology. To this end, data (requests) were collected from 27 intermediate–level Iranian EFL learners in a natural classroom institutional context over 15 weeks, and then the WDCTs, ODCTs, and Role-plays with the same contextual features were selected to elicit the intended data. The participants’ requests were transcribed and analyzed in terms of Schauer’s (2009) request head act strategy taxonomy and its internal and external modification devices. The results of Binominal tests indicated that, in spite of some minor similarities, none of the elicitation measures could approximate the natural data. The participants’ employment of direct, non-conventionally indirect request strategies, and internal and external modification devices were more conspicuous in the WDCTs, ODCTs, and Role-plays than those in the Natural methodology. The study implies that data collection methods should be selected based on researchers’ objectives and research questions.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen
    2018 “Matching Modality in L2 Pragmatics Research Design”. System: 75, 13–22. 10.1016/j.system.2018.03.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.03.007 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, and Beverly Hartford
    2005 Institutional Discourse and Interlanguage Pragmatics Research. InInterlanguage pragmatics: exploring institutional talk, ed. byKathleen Bardovi-Harlig, and Beverly Hartford, 7–36. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 10.4324/9781410613776
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410613776 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, and Sun-Young Shin
    2014 “Expanding Traditional Testing Measures with Tasks from L2 Pragmatics Research.” Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 4 (1): 26–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown, J. D.
    2001 “Pragmatics Test: Different Purposes, Different Tests.” InPragmatics in Language Teaching, ed. byKenneth. R. Rose, and Gabriele Kasper, 301–325. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524797.020
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524797.020 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brown, Penelope, and Steven, C. Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  6. Economidou-Kogetsidis, Maria
    2013 “Strategies, Modification and Perspective in Native Speakers’ Requests: A Comparison of WDCT and Naturally Occurring Requests.” Journal of Pragmatics, 53: 21–38. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.03.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.03.014 [Google Scholar]
  7. Ellis, Rod
    2008The Study of Second Language Acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Eslami, Zohreh. R., and Azizullah Mirzaei
    2014 “Speech Act Data Collection in a Non-Western Context: Oral and Written DCTs in the Persian Language.” Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 4(1): 137–154.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Félix-Brasdefer, J. Cesar
    2010 “Data Collection Methods in Speech Act Performance: DCTS, Role Plays, and Verbal Reports.” InSpeech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues, ed. byAlicia Martínez-Flor and Esther Usó-Juan, 64–81. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.26.03fel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.26.03fel [Google Scholar]
  10. 2007 “Natural Speech vs. Elicited Data: A Comparison of Natural and Role Play Requests in Mexican Spanish.” Spanish in Context, 4(2): 159–185. 10.1075/sic.4.2.03fel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.4.2.03fel [Google Scholar]
  11. Golato, Andrea
    2003 “Studying Compliment Responses: A Comparison of DCTs and Recordings of Naturally Occurring Talk.” Applied Linguistics, 24(1): 90–121. 10.1093/applin/24.1.90
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.1.90 [Google Scholar]
  12. House, Juliane
    2018 “Authentic vs. Elicited Data and Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research Methods in Pragmatics: Overcoming Two Non-Fruitful Dichotomies.” System, 75:4–12. 10.1016/j.system.2018.03.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.03.014 [Google Scholar]
  13. Hudson, Thom
    2001 “Indicators for Pragmatic Instruction.” InPragmatics in Language Teaching, ed. byKenneth R. Rose and Gabriele Kasper, 283–300. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524797.019
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524797.019 [Google Scholar]
  14. Ishihara, Noriko
    2010 “Instructional Pragmatics: Bridging Teaching, Research, and Teacher Education.” Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(10): 938–953. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2010.00242.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00242.x [Google Scholar]
  15. Jalilifar, Alireza
    2009 “Request Strategies: Cross-Sectional Study of Iranian EFL Learners and Australian Native Speakers.” English Language Teaching, 2(1): 46–61. 10.5539/elt.v2n1p46
    https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v2n1p46 [Google Scholar]
  16. Kasper, Gabriele
    2000 “Data Collection in Pragmatics Research.” InCulturally Speaking: Managing Rapport Through Talk across Cultures, ed. byHelen Spencery-Oatey, 316–41. London and New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kasper, Gabriele and Carsten Roever
    2005 ”Pragmatics in Second Language Learning.” InHandbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, ed. byEli Hinkel, 317–334. Mahwah/New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Labov, William
    1972Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Martínez-Flor, Alicia and Esther Usó-Juan
    2011 “Research Methodologies in Pragmatics: Eliciting Refusals to Requests.” ELIA, 11: 47–87.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Norris, John. and Lourdes Ortega
    2000 “Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A Research Synthesis and Quantitative Meta-Analysis.” Language Learning, 50 (3): 417–528. 10.1111/0023‑8333.00136
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136 [Google Scholar]
  21. Rose, Kenneth. And Reiko Ono
    1995 “Eliciting Speech Act Data in Japanese: The Effect of Questionnaire Type.” Language Learning, 45(2): 191–223. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1995.tb00438.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00438.x [Google Scholar]
  22. Sasaki, Miyuki
    1998 “Investigating EFL Students’ Production of Speech Acts: A Comparison of Production Questionnaires and Role Plays.” Journal of Pragmatics, 30: 457–484. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00013‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00013-7 [Google Scholar]
  23. Schauer, Gila. A.
    2009Interlanguage Pragmatic Development: The Study Abroad Context. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Sifianou, Maria
    1999Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece. A Crosscultural Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Taguchi, Naoko
    2018 “Data Collection and Analysis in Developmental L2 Pragmatics Research: Discourse Completion Test, Role Play, and Naturalistic Recording.” InCritical Reflections on Data in Second Language Acquisition, ed. byAarnes Gudmestad and Amanda Edmonds, 7–32. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.51.02tag
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.51.02tag [Google Scholar]
  26. Taguchi, Naoko, and Carsten Roever
    2017Second Language Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Takahashi, Satomi
    2010 “Assessing Learnability in Second Language Pragmatics.” In, Pragmatics across Languages and Cultures, ed. byAnna Trosborg, 391–423. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Turnbull, William
    2001 “An Appraisal of Pragmatic Elicitation Techniques for the Social Psychological Study of Talk: The Case of Request Refusals.” Pragmatics, 11(1): 31–61. 10.1075/prag.11.1.03tur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.11.1.03tur [Google Scholar]
  29. Uso-Juan, Esther
    2010 “Requests: A Sociopragmatic Approach.” InSpeech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issuesed. byAlicia Martinez-Flor and Esther Uso-Juan, 237–256. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.26.14uso
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.26.14uso [Google Scholar]
  30. Uso-Juan, Esther, and Alicia Martinez-Flor
    2014 “Reorienting the Assessment of the Conventional Expressions of Complaining and Apologizing: From Single Response to Interactive DCTs.” Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 4(1): 113–136.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Woodfield, H.
    2012 “I Think Maybe I Want to Lend the Notes from You: Development of Request Modification in Graduate Learners.” InInterlanguage Request Modification, ed. byMaria Economidou-Kogetsidis and Helen Woodfield, 9–49. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.217.02woo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.217.02woo [Google Scholar]
  32. Yuan, Y.
    2001 “An Inquiry into Empirical Pragmatics Data Gathering Methods: Written DCTs, Oral DCTs, and Natural Conversations.” Journal of pragmatics, 33: 271–92. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00031‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00031-X [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