ISSN 2456-2653
Contact us
Social Science and Humanities Journal
ISSN 2456-2653
Submit Paper
server-injected
ArticlesOpen Access

Interlanguage Pragmatic Competence Test for EFL Learners’ Request Speech Act: A Systematic Review

DOI: 10.18535/sshj.v8i12.1543· Pages: 6133-6158· Vol. 8, No. 12, (2024)· Published: December 21, 2024
PDF
Views: 392 PDF downloads: 441

Abstract

This paper intends to provide a range of possibilities for testing learners’ interlanguage pragmatic competence of request speech acts. A request speech act has scarcely been understood in the context of the sequences of talk that involve the pre-request, the request, and the post-request stages. Request speech acts unfold over multiple turns in conversation and are co-constructed by the interlocutors engaged in the conversation. Previous studies have provided robust sources for assessing learners’ request abilities. Some assessment tools such as the discourse completion test, both oral (ODCT) and written discourse completion test (WDCT), and role play (RP) are among the most popular tools generally used to test learners’ comprehension and production of English requests. While these tools suggest a promising outlook of learners’ interlanguage pragmatic competence, their lack of authenticity remains questionable, except for role plays based on carefully planned scenarios of learners’ daily experiences and interests. Current development of interlanguage measures has taken advantage of technology such as the use of role-play computer-based tasks (RPCBT), role-play virtual reality tasks (RPVRT), and computer-animated production tasks (CAPT). Hence, it is likely that an interactive form of assessment device that can unfold every move and act of learners’ performance during interaction may become a better alternative to resolve the problems of testing learners’ interlanguage pragmatic competence covering knowledge, comprehension, and production of pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic abilities. However, the use of ODCT or WDCT, despite the drawbacks, remains a reasonable choice for eliciting learners’ off-line knowledge of normative conventions of pragmatic language use.

 

Keywords

interlanguage pragmatic competencerequest speech actsdiscourse completion testsWDCT

References

  1. Aini, Q., Hidayat, D. N., Husna, N., & Alek, A. (2023). Discourse Analysis of Directive Speech Acts Used by Teachers in Classroom Interactions. JET (Journal of English Teaching), 9(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.33541/jet.v9i2.4566DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  2. Akmal, H., Syahriyani, A., & Handayani, T. (2022). Request Speech Act of Indonesian English Learners and Australian English Speakers Through Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Perspectives. In Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network (Vol. 15, Issue 2). https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/LEARN/indexGoogle Scholar ↗
  3. Alcón Soler, E. (2005). Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context? System, 33(3), 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.06.005DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  4. Alcón-Soler, E. (2017). Pragmatic Development during Study Abroad: An Analysis of Spanish Teenagers’ Request Strategies in English Emails. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190517000125DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  5. Alcón-Soler, E., & Pitarch, J. G. (2010). The effect of instruction on learners’ pragmatic awareness: A focus on refusals. International Journal of English …, 10(1), 65–80.Google Scholar ↗
  6. Alfghe, A., & Mohammadzadeh, B. (2021). Realisation of the Speech Act of Request, Suggestion and Apology by Libyan EFL Learners. SAGE Open, 11(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211050378DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  7. Azizi, Z., & Namaziandost, E. (2023). Implementing Peer-dynamic Assessment to Cultivate Iranian EFL Learners’ Interlanguage Pragmatic Competence: A Mixed-methods Approach. International Journal of Language Testing, 13(1).Google Scholar ↗
  8. Bagherkazemi, M., & Harati-Asl, M. (2022). Interlanguage Pragmatic Development: Comparative Impacts of Cognitive and Interpersonal Tasks. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 10(2), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2022.121182DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  9. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49(4), 677–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00105DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  10. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2005). Interlanguage Pragmatics. Interlanguage Pragmatics, 39–60. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410613776DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  11. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013). Developing L2 Pragmatics. Language Learning, 63(SUPPL. 1). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00738.xDOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  12. Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196–213. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/5.3.196DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  13. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness; Some Universals in Language Usage. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The Discourse Reader (Second, pp. 311–322). Routledge, Tyalor & Francis Group.Google Scholar ↗
  14. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.1.1DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  15. Cutrone, Pino. (2013). Assessing Pragmatic Competence in the Japanese EFL Context : Towards the Learning of Listener Responses. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar ↗
  16. Khavidaki, D. M. (2023). The Interplay of Contextual Variables and Language Proficiency in Request Realization. SAGE Open, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231220457DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  17. Derakhshan, A., & Eslami, Z. (2015). The Effect of Consciousness-Raising Instruction on the Pragmatic Development of Apology and Request. Tesl-Ej, 18(4).Google Scholar ↗
  18. Halenko, N., & Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2022). Japanese learners’ spoken requests in the study abroad context: appropriateness, speech rate and response time. Language Learning Journal, 50(4), 506–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2022.2088441DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  19. Holmes, J., & Riddiford, N. (2011). From classroom to workplace : tracking socio-pragmatic development. ELT Journal, 65(4), 376–386. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq071DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  20. Ishihara, N. (2011). Co-Constructed Pragmatic Awareness: Instructional Pragmatics in EFL Teacher Development in Japan. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language (TESL-EJ), 15(2).Google Scholar ↗
  21. Ishihara, N. (2013). Is It Rude Language? Children Learning Pragmatics through Visual Narratives. TESL Canada Journal, 30(7), 135–149. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1033738&site=ehost-liveGoogle Scholar ↗
  22. Ishihara, N., & Chiba, A. (2014). Teacher-based or Interactional ?: Exploring Assessments for Children’s Pragmatic Development. Iranian Journal of Language Testingesting, 4(1), 84–112.Google Scholar ↗
  23. Karatepe, Ç. (2001). Pragmalinguistic Awareness in EFL Teacher Training. Language Awareness, 10(2–3), 178–188.Google Scholar ↗
  24. Kasper, G. (1997). Can Pragmatic Competence be taught? Network, 6(1990), 1–12. http://static.schoolrack.com/files/4890/43904/Can_Pragmatic_Competence_Be_Taught.docGoogle Scholar ↗
  25. Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(2), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100014868DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  26. Kim, Y., & Taguchi, N. (2016). Learner-Learner Interaction During Collaborative Pragmatic Tasks: The Role of Cognitive and Pragmatic Task Demands. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1), 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12180DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  27. Leech, G. (2016). Principles of Pragmatics. In Principles of Pragmatics. Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315835976DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  28. Lenchuk, I., & Ahmed, A. (2019). Are the speech acts of EFL learners really direct? The case of requests in the omani EFL context. SAGE Open, 9(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018825018DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  29. Li, S., & Taguchi, N. (2014). The effects of practice modality on pragmatic development in L2 Chinese. Modern Language Journal, 98(3), 794–812. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12123.xDOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  30. McConachy, T., & Hata, K. (2013). Addressing textbook representations of pragmatics and culture. ELT Journal, 67(3), 294–301. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cct017DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  31. Mukhroji, M., Nurkamto, J., Subroto, H. D. E., Sri, &, & Tarjana, S. (2019). Pragmatic Forces in The Speech Acts of EFL Speakers At Kampung Inggris, Indonesia. www.jsser.orgGoogle Scholar ↗
  32. Nguyen, T. T. M., Pham, T. H., & Pham, M. T. (2012). The relative effects of explicit and implicit form-focused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic competence. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(4), 416–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.01.003DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  33. Nicholas, A. (2015). A concept-based approach to teaching speech acts in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 69(4), 383–394. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv034DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  34. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. In The BMJ (Vol. 372). BMJ Publishing Group. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  35. Qadha, A. M., Al-Wasy, B. Q., & Mahdi, H. S. (2021). Using social networking tools for teaching requests to undergraduate Arab EFL learners: a study of pragmatics. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 17(2), 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/LTHE-09-2020-0041DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  36. Qari, I. A. (2021). The Effect of Explicit Instruction of Requests on Saudi EFL learners using a pre-test, post-test Approach. Arab World English Journal, 12(1), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol12no1.8DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  37. Rezai, A. (2023). Cultivating interlanguage pragmatic comprehension through concurrent and cumulative group dynamic assessment: a mixed-methods study. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-022-00179-wDOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  38. Taguchi, N. (2014). Personality and Development of Second Language Pragmatic Competence. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 16(2), 203–221.Google Scholar ↗
  39. Taguchi, N. (2022). Immersive Virtual Reality for Pragmatics Task Development. TESOL Quarterly, 56(1), 308–335. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3070DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  40. Taguchi, N., & Kim, Y. (2014). Collaborative dialogue in learning pragmatics: Pragmatic-related episodes as an opportunity for learning request-making. Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 416–437. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu039DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  41. Taguchi, N., Naganuma, N., & Budding, C. (2015a). Does Instruction Alter the Naturalistic Pattern of Pragmatic Development? A Case of Request Speech Act. In Naganuma & Budding (Vol. 3, Issue 3).Google Scholar ↗
  42. Taguchi, N., Naganuma, N., & Budding, C. (2015b). Does Instruction Alter the Naturalistic Pattern of Pragmatic Development? A Case of Request Speech Act. Tesl-Ej, 19(3). https://ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1083978&site=eds-live&scope=siteGoogle Scholar ↗
  43. Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics (First). Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar ↗
  44. Xu, L., & Wannaruk, A. (2016). Testing University Learners’ Interlanguage Pragmatic Competence in a Chinese EFL Context (Vol. 52).Google Scholar ↗
  45. Yousefi, M., & Nassaji, H. (2024). The Impact of Corrective Feedback on L2 Pragmatics Production in Face-to-face and Technology-mediated Settings1. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 39, 305–328. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2024.39.19DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  46. Zand-Moghadam, A., & Samani, F. M. (2021). Effect of Information-gap, Reasoning-gap, and Opinion-gap Tasks on EFL Learners’ Pragmatic Production, Metapragmatic Awareness, and Comprehension of Implicature (Vol. 25, Issue 1).Google Scholar ↗
  47. Zavialova, A. (2023). Formulaic Language in the Acquisition of L2 Pragmatic Competence in a Community-based Classroom. TESL-EJ, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.27105a2DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
Author details
Musli Ariani
Universitas Jember
✉ Corresponding Author
ORCID ↗
👤 View Profile →🔗 Is this you? Claim this publication