Pragmatic Tasks for EFL Instruction: Explicitness, Time and Proficiency Effects in the Iranian Context

Vali, Armin; Yaghoubi-Notash, Massoud; Behtary, Shahabaddin

Volume 10, Issue 2 (6-2025) IJREE 2025, 10(2): 36-56 | Back to browse issues page

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Vali A, Yaghoubi-Notash M, Behtary S. (2025). Pragmatic Tasks for EFL Instruction: Explicitness, Time and Proficiency Effects in the Iranian Context. IJREE. 10(2),
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-963-en.html

Pragmatic Tasks for EFL Instruction: Explicitness, Time and Proficiency Effects in the Iranian Context

Armin Vali

, Massoud Yaghoubi-Notash

, Shahabaddin Behtary ^*

Department of English, Ardabil Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ardabil, Iran

Abstract: (1915 Views)

Despite the substantial significance of communicative goals in EFL, pragmatic aspects of instruction that are geared towards the learners’ appropriacy still remain less than adequately addressed. Such a niche offers potentials for and stimulates a proliferating body of research. This study aims at examining the effectiveness of explicit vs. implicit pragmatic instruction regarding language performance as output. For the purpose of the study, 120 (60 male and 60 female) EFL learners took part in this project. Error Recognition Tests (ERTs), Discourse Completion Tests (DCTs), role-play, and writing assessments were used for gauging pragmatic output. Two separate 3×2 mixed between-within-subjects factorial ANOVAs were conducted to examine the effects of instruction type, proficiency level, and time (treatment) on pragmatic acquisition. Findings significantly support (a) the overall benefit of pragmatic instruction, (b) the effect of both implicit and explicit instructions with explicit type being more highly influential, (c) the effect of proficiency, and (d) the interaction effect of proficiency and pragmatic instruction on pragmatic language L2 use. Findings bear implications for enriching teaching and learning contexts, deepening theoretical concerns, improving pedagogical practice, and implementing communicative syllabus design.
Keywords:

Keywords: explicit pragmatic instruction, language proficiency, implicit pragmatic instruction

Full-Text [PDF 823 kb] (1251 Downloads)

Type of Study: Research | Subject: General

References

1. Afrouz, M., Alkawaz, A., Nejad Ansari, D., & Dabaghi, A. (2023). The effect of explicit pragmatic instruction on Iraqi EFL students' production of speech acts: Pragmalinguistic vs. sociopragmatic errors in focus. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 15(31), 1-17. doi: 10.22034/elt.2023.54597.2521

2. Alcón Soler, E. (2005). Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context? System, 33, 417-435. [DOI:10.1016/j.system.2005.06.005]

3. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.

4. Aydin, F. (2023). Effects of implicit and explicit form-focused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic competence. TESOL Communications, 2(1), 27-45. Retrieved I November 2025 from https://www.tesolcommunications.com/attachments/files/1OTK56NZFH1MZEX3Y2QXFZTLMEMTFI5MZA51YZY12NMY1BOTEWFMZVHAMMQ47OWMW4NJYZEY2Y02NDG36ODC4FY2E52LJA15NDM09MJA28LJJL.pdf

5. Baleghizadeh, S. (2010). The effect of pair work on a word-building task. ELT Journal, 64(4), 405-413. doi:10.1093/elt/ccp097 [DOI:10.1093/elt/ccp097]

6. Baleghizadeh, S., & Oladrostam, E. (2010). The effect of mobile assisted language learning (MALL) on grammatical accuracy of EFL students. Mextesol Journal, 34(2), 1-10. https://www.mextesol.net/journal/index.php?page=journal&id_article=50

7. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2018). Matching modality in L2 pragmatics research design. System, 75, 13-22. doi:10.1016/j.system.2018.03.007 [DOI:10.1016/j.system.2018.03.007]

8. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 233-262. [DOI:10.2307/3587583]

9. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Griffin, R. (2005). L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL classroom. System, 33(3), 401-415. [DOI:10.1016/j.system.2005.06.004]

10. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Mahan-Taylor, R. (2003). Teaching pragmatics. US Department of State Office of English Language Programs.

11. Böheim, R., Knogler, M., Kosel, C., & Seidel, T. (2020). Exploring student hand-raising across two school subjects using mixed methods: An investigation of an everyday classroom behavior from a motivational perspective. Learning and Instruction, 65, 101250. [DOI:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101250]

12. Böheim, R., Urdan, T., Knogler, M., & Seidel, T. (2020). Student hand-raising as an indicator of behavioral engagement and its role in classroom learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 62(1), 101894. [DOI:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101894]

13. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47. [DOI:10.1093/applin/1.1.1]

14. Chalak, A., & Karimi, M. (2017). Analysis of turn taking and repair strategies among male and female Iranian intermediate EFL learners. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 4(2), 1-9. file:///C:/Users/SMA/Downloads/508-1549-1-PB.pdf

15. Chen, L., Tsai, T. F. (2018). HLA‐Cw6 and psoriasis. British Journal of Dermatology, 178(4), 854-862. [DOI:10.1111/bjd.16083]

16. Chen, M. H., Ye, S. X., He, J., & Yao, D. D. (2022). The effect of pragmatic instruction on developing learners' use of request modifiers in the EFL context. World Journal of English Language, 12(8), 5-11. doi: 10.5430/wjel.v12n8p74 [DOI:10.5430/wjel.v12n8p74]

17. Çopur, N., Atar, C., & Walsh, S. (2021). Humour as a pedagogical tool in teacher-initiated repair sequences: the case of extreme case formulations and candidate hearing. Classroom Discourse, 12(3), 280-294. [DOI:10.1080/19463014.2021.1910051]

18. Curby, T. W., Grimm, K. J., & Pianta, R. C. (2010). Stability and change in early childhood classroom interactions during the first two hours of a day. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(3), 373-384. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.02.004 [DOI:10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.02.004]

19. Dastgoshadeh, A., Birjandi, P., & Jalilzadeh, K. (2011). Error recognition tests as a predictor of EFL learners' writing. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(2), 252-257. doi: 10.5539/ijel.v1n2p252 [DOI:10.5539/ijel.v1n2p252]

20. Deda, N. (2013). The role of pragmatics in English language teaching. Pragmatic competence. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 2(4), 63-70. doi: 10.5901/ajis.2012.v2n4p63 [DOI:10.5901/ajis.2012.v2n4p63]

21. Derakhshan, A., Kruk, M., Mehdizadeh, M., & Pawlak, M. (2021). Boredom in online classes in the Iranian EFL context: Sources and solutions. System, 101, 102556. [DOI:10.1016/j.system.2021.102556]

22. Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I. (Eds.). (2022). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and speaking (1st ed.). Routledge, 372-385. [DOI:10.4324/9781003022497-1]

23. Fa, Au. (2011). Explicit Pragmatic Instruction in Teaching English as A Foreign Language. Journal of English and Education, 5(1), 37-44. doi: [DOI:10.20885/jee.vol5.iss1.art3]

24. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2008). Politeness in Mexico and the United States: A contrastive study of the realization and perception of refusals. John Benjamins Publishing. [DOI:10.1075/pbns.171]

25. Garrett, P., & Young, R. F. (2009). Theorizing affect in foreign language learning: An analysis of one learner's responses to a communicative Portuguese course. The Modern Language Journal, 93(2), 209-226. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00857.x [DOI:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00857.x]

26. Grifenhagen, J. F., & Barnes, E. M. (2022). Reimagining discourse in the classroom. The Reading Teacher, 75(6), 739-748. doi: [DOI:10.1002/trtr.2108]

27. Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. Pearson Longman.

28. Jing, N., & Jing, J. (2018). Teacher talk in an EFL classroom: A pilot study. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 8(3), 320-324. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0803.07 [DOI:10.17507/tpls.0803.07]

29. Jocuns, A. (2012). Classroom discourse. In The encyclopedia of applied linguistics, C.A. Chapelle (Ed.), 1-5. [DOI:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0134]

30. Kang, E. Y., Sok, S., & Han, Z. (2019). Thirty-five years of ISLA on form-focused instruction: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 23(4), 428-453. doi: 10.1177/1362168818776671 [DOI:10.1177/1362168818776671]

31. Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, 8(3), 203-231. [DOI:10.1177/026765839200800303]

32. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 81-104. doi: [DOI:10.1017/S0267190599190056]

33. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Blackwell.

34. Kim, H. (2019). The perception of teachers and learners towards an exploratory corpus based grammar instruction in a Korean EFL primary school context. Primary English Education, 25(1), 123-152. doi: 10.1177/1362168818776671 [DOI:10.1177/1362168818776671]

35. Kondo, M., Nozawa, T., Jeong, H., Ikeda, S., Yamamoto, R., & Ishikawa, Y. (2019). In what conditions do EFL students engage more in group work? A NIRS study. Abstract from International Conference on Foreign Language Education & Technology.

36. Leech, G. N. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford Studies in Sociolinguists. [DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001]

37. Li, D., & Zhang, L. (2022). Exploring teacher scaffolding in a CLIL-framed EFL intensive reading class: A classroom discourse analysis approach. Language Teaching Research, 26(3), 333-360. [DOI:10.1177/1362168820903340]

38. Lin, V & Liu, G. Z., & Chen, N. S. (2020). The effects of an augmented-reality ubiquitous writing application: a comparative pilot project for enhancing EFL writing instruction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35, 1-42. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2020.1770291 [DOI:10.1080/09588221.2020.1770291]

39. Landone, E. (2022). Discourse completion test. In: Methodology in politeness research. Advances in (Im)politeness studies. Springer, Cham. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-031-09161-2]

40. Lovorn, M., & Holaway, C. (2015). Teachers' perceptions of humor as a classroom teaching, interaction, and management tool. The European Journal of Humor Research, 3(4), 24-35. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7592/EJHR2015.3.4.lovorn [DOI:10.7592/EJHR2015.3.4.lovorn]

41. Maghfur. B. (2021). A classroom discourse analysis of teacher-students interaction: A case study on Sinclair and Coulthard's model at Madrasah Tsanawiyah NU 15 Jurangagung. Journal of English Language and Pedagogy, 4(1), 40-47. [DOI:10.36597/jelp.v4i1.9272]

42. Malmir, A., & Taji, N. (2021). The interplay of action, context, and linguistic vs. Non-linguistic resources in L2 pragmatic performance: The case of requests and refusals. LRR, 12(3), 215-253. http://lrr.modares.ac.ir/article-14-48272-en.html

43. Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: Methods and methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 1-14. https://www.teachertoolkit.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Mercer-2010-British_Journal_of_Educational_Psychology.pdf [DOI:10.1348/000709909X479853]

44. Mickan, P. (1997). Classroom talk and second language learning. MA thesis, Wollongong, Australia.

45. Nematilloevna, S. G. (2023a). Pragmatic contrast as a new way of learning. Journal of Marketing, Business and Management, 2(2), 9-12. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/pragmatic-contrast-as-a-new-way-of-learning

46. Nematilloevna, S. G. (2023b). The semantic shift of bare coordination. Journal of Marketing, Business and Management, 2(2), 175-178. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/the-semantic-shift-of-bare-coordination

47. Nguyen, T. (2019). Using ICT to foster collaborative writing for EFL university students in Vietnam. Edith Cowan University, 144-169.

48. Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2010). Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students' argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 218-233. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.003 [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.003]

49. Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2013). Effects of the manipulation of cognitive processes on EFL writers' text quality. TESOL Quarterly, 47(2), 375-398. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43267796 [DOI:10.1002/tesq.55]

50. Ong. J. (2019). A case study of classroom discourse analysis of teacher's fronted reading comprehension lessons for vocabulary learning opportunities. RELC, 50(1), 118-135. [DOI:10.1177/0033688217730138]

51. Reinhold, F., Strohmaier, A., Hoch, S., Reiss, K., Böheim, R., & Seidel, T. (2020). Process data from electronic textbooks indicate students' classroom engagement. Learning and Individual Differences, 83, 101934. [DOI:10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101934]

52. Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33(3), 385-399. doi: [DOI:10.1016/j.system.2005.06.003]

53. Rumenapp, R. C. (2016). Analyzing discourse analysis: Teachers' views of classroom discourse and student identity. Linguistics and Education, 35(3), 26-36. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2016.04.002 [DOI:10.1016/j.linged.2016.04.002]

54. Rymes. B. (2015). Classroom discourse analysis: A tool for critical reflection. Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9781315775630]

55. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9781139173438]

56. Serova, T., Perlova, I., Pipchenko, E., & Chervenko, Y. (2020). Intellect and intellectual speech-thinking activity of technical University students in integrative professionally-oriented technology of foreign language learning. In: Anikina, Z. (eds) Integrating engineering education and Humanities for global intercultural perspectives. IEEHGIP 2022. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, 131. Springer, Cham, 396-407. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-47415-7_42]

57. Shao, K., Yu, W., & Ji, Z. (2013). An exploration of Chinese EFL students' emotional intelligence and foreign language anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 97(4), 917-929. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12042.x [DOI:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12042.x]

58. Soler, E. A. (2005). Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context? System, 33(3), 417-435. doi: [DOI:10.1016/j.system.2005.06.005]

59. Taguchi, N. (2008). Cognition, language contact, and the development of pragmatic comprehension in a study-abroad context. Language Learning, 58(1), 33-71. doi: [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00434.x]

60. Taguchi, N. (2012). Context, individual differences, and pragmatic competence. Multilingual matters. [DOI:10.21832/9781847696106]

61. Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford.

62. Tajeddin, Z., & Ghanbar, H. (2016). Discoursal structure of class opening and closing in EFL teachers' talk: A conversational analytic perspective. Teaching English Language, 10(1), 87-108. doi: 10.22132/tel.2016.53614

63. Thomas, E. E. (2013). Dilemmatic conversations: Some challenges of culturally responsive discourse in a high school English classroom. Linguistics and Education, 24(3), 328-347. doi: 10.1016/j.linged.2013.03.004 [DOI:10.1016/j.linged.2013.03.004]

64. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112. doi: [DOI:10.1093/applin/4.2.91]

65. Tsui, A. B. M., Edwards, G., Lopez-Real, F., Kwan, T., Law, D., Stimpson, P., Tang, R., & Wong, A. (2008). Learning in school-university partnership: Sociocultural perspectives. Routledge, 25-69. [DOI:10.4324/9780203891001]

66. Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. Taylor & Francis. [DOI:10.4324/9780203827826]

67. Wang, Y., Derakhshan, A., & Zhang, L. J. (2021). Researching and practicing positive psychology in second/foreign language learning and teaching: the past, current status and future directions. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 731721. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.731721 [DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.731721]

68. Weizheng, Z. (2019). Teacher-student interaction in EFL classroom in China: communication accommodation theory perspective. English Language Teaching, 12(12), 99-111. doi 10.5539/elt.v12n12p99 [DOI:10.5539/elt.v12n12p99]

69. Xie, F., & Derakhshan, A. (2021). A conceptual review of positive teacher interpersonal communication behaviors in the instructional context. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 3-8. doi: [DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.708490]

70. Xin, L., Luzheng, L., & Biru, S. (2011). EFL (English as a Foreign Language) classroom discourse analysis of a vocational college and some reflections. US-China Education Review, 6, 752-755. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED529379.pdf

71. Yang, X., & Maarof, N. (2024). Effects of exposure to L2 input and language proficiency on pragmatic competence during study abroad. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 6(2), 1118. doi: [DOI:10.59400/fls.v6i2.1118]

72. Young, R. F. (2009). Discursive practice in language learning and teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

73. Yuan, R., & Mak, P. (2018). Reflective learning and identity construction in practice, discourse and activity: Experiences of pre-service language teachers in Hong Kong. Teaching and Teacher Education, 74, 205-214. doi: [DOI:10.1016/j.tate.2018.05.009]