Applied Pragmatics - Volume 6, Issue 2, 2024

Pragmatic and interactional abilities are represented in major models of second language (L2) communicative competence (Bachman & Palmer, 2010; Canale & Swain, 1980), which provide the framework for L2 assessment. However, pragmatics and interaction are only rarely tested in major operational tests. This is despite a significant amount of work in the testing of L2 pragmatics and interaction since the mid-1990s. This paper outlines current work on testing of L2 pragmatics, which broadly follows two traditions, one informed by speech act theory, politeness theory and philosophical pragmatics, and the other by conversation analysis and sociology. It also discusses reasons for the limited uptake of pragmatics assessment by large-scale tests, including low practicality, limited stakeholder test literacy, and broader challenges in testing pragmatics. It concludes by suggesting ways of overcoming these obstacles and thereby achieving better construct representation in L2 tests.

Developing pragmatic competence in another language is not an easy task for language learners, especially in foreign language settings which are deprived of real and rich interactions with different speakers of the target language in a variety of contexts. For more than a decade, researchers of L2+ pragmatics have proposed that technology and technology-mediated environments can expose students to a large variety of context and interactional practices to enhance their pragmatic awareness and develop their pragmatic competence. This article reviews studies that have investigated the potential of teaching pragmatic features with technology using a variety of tools (e.g., email; text-, audio-, and video-based computer-mediated communication; social networks; simulations; virtual environments; games) to summarize the findings of the field so far. The article also poses some questions that still need to be addressed and suggests future directions for research within the ever-evolving world of technology.

The diversity of heritage language learners and inclusivity of pragmatics usher in a new era of research that explores the unique nature of “heritage learner pragmatics.” This article provides a review of this emerging field, drawing on a thematic analysis of the literature over the past decade. Major findings reveal that a high degree of hybridity underlies heritage learners’ pragmatic competence and performance and that the reasons for this hybridity are complex. The hegemony of the majority language, the assimilative pressure from the host society, the status of the heritage language in the home country, and access to formal education, together with learner factors such as proficiency, attitude, and agency, all appear to have meaningful impacts. We propose that the research of heritage learner pragmatics needs an extension beyond the binary convention of monolingualism and bilingualism to embrace intersectional inquiries that focus on identity, multiculturalism, translanguaging, and social justice for minoritized communities and their languages.

This paper critically reviews pragmatic-oriented investigations of English-medium instruction (EMI) courses in tertiary education. Analyses on potential gains in pragmatic competence, classroom interaction, and e-politeness define some of the lines of research identified. Speech acts like requests and opinions (e.g., Taguchi, 2012, 2014) or directives (e.g., Smit, 2010) are still the main foci of interest, along with pragmatic markers (e.g., Ament et al., 2018) or openings and closings (e.g., Codina-Espurz & Salazar-Campillo, 2019). A more holistic perspective has also been adopted to examine functional adequacy in writing (e.g., Herraiz-Martinez & Alcón-Soler, 2019). Strengths and limitations of studies conducted in the EMI context are discussed and, from this, a research agenda is put forward. Lastly, future investigators are encouraged to explore the complex interplay between external (e.g., target language contact) and internal factors (e.g., proficiency, motivation, or willingness to communicate) which may have an impact on learner pragmatics.

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.

This quasi-experimental study investigated the effects of four oral corrective feedback (OCF) types, namely recast, clarification request, explicit correction, and metalinguistic clues, on the acquisition of English requests by low intermediate Vietnamese university learners of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) (N = 122) in the context of explicit pragmatic instruction. The control and four treatment groups received six hours of explicit instruction on English requests. Each treatment group received one of the four OCF types. Data were collected using role plays (RP), pragmatic judgment tasks (JT), and journals from the learners after each session. The results demonstrate that all five groups significantly improved their posttest performance in both the JT and RP, and these gains were retained by the time of the delayed posttest, but there were no statistically significant differences among the groups. However, Cohen’s d effect sizes indicate that metalinguistic clues produced the largest gains in the learners’ pragmatic recognition and production, while recasts produced the smallest gains for pragmatic recognition but a similar effect to metalinguistic clues for pragmatic production. The results suggest that teachers should be judicious in selecting the OCF type that suits their instructional goal and task.