A Study of EFL Learners' (Meta) Pragmatic Learning through Explicit (Teacher Explanation) and Implicit (Foreign Film) Interventions: The Case of Compliment

Abstract

Abstract-One of the controversies regarding teaching 'pragmatics' is whether the medium of instruction would make a difference in the development of learners' pragmatic awareness and pragmatic use in both second and foreign language contexts. The present study compared the impact of two types of teaching conditions: explicit teacher explanation and implicit foreign film watching, onthe process of (meta) pragmatic learning (here, compliment) of 32Iranian female elementary EFL learners. To examine the effect of each type of instruction, the data collected through a written discourse completion test (WDCT) werelater analyzed by a paired samples t-test, and the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The results indicated that instruction of both types improved learners' awareness of compliments. Also both types of instruction were beneficial in terms of raising learners' (meta) pragmatic use. The findings provide insight into the facilitative impact of (meta) pragmatic instruction and present suggestions for EFL/ESL teachers and materials developers.Index Terms-(meta) pragmatic instruction, explicit/implicit pragmatic instruction, speech acts, compliment, (meta) pragmatic use, pragmatic awareness

Realisation of the Speech Act of Request, Suggestion and Apology by Libyan EFL Learners

“…This emphasises the importance of conducting more studies to clarify and discuss relevant issues for better awareness and understanding of the target language culture. Research has postulated the need for pragmatic instruction in an EFL context (Al-Shar, 2017; Eslami & Liu, 2013; Ghobadi & Fahim, 2009; Hassaskhah & Ebrahimi, 2015; Kasper & Schmidt, 1996).…”

Reliability and Content Validity of a Comprehensive Discourse Completion Test of Interlanguage Pragmatics for Academic Situations

“…A thorough review of the related literature (Bachman, 1990;Bachman & Palmer, 2010;Birjandi & Rezaei, 2010;Cohen, 2007;Farashaiyan & Amirkhiz, 2011;Farhady, 1980;Farnia & Suleiman, 2009;Hassaskhah & Ebrahimi, 2015;House & Kasper, 1987;Hudson, Detmer, & Brown, 1995;Jalilifar, 2009;Jianda, 2006Jianda, , 2007Karatza, 2009;Moradkhan & Jalayer, 2010;Rafieyan, Majid, Bin, & Eng, 2013;Rafieyan, Sharafi-Nejad, Khavari, & Eng, 2014;Roever, 2005;Rose, 2000;Shimazu, 1989;Soler & Martinez-Flor, 2008;Taghizade-Mahani, 2012;Usó-Juan & Martínez-Flor, 2015;Ymashita, 1996) reveals that attempts have been made to construct MDCTs in various situational contexts. Increasing reliability and validity of MDCT also has been a matter of concern for the test developers (Jianda, 2006).…”