Corrective Feedback in Instructional Pragmatics

doi:10.1017/9781108589789.021

20 - Corrective Feedback in Instructional Pragmatics

from Part V - Corrective Feedback and Language Skills

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 February 2021

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig and

Yucel Yilmaz

Edited by

Hossein Nassaji and

Eva Kartchava

Show author details

Hossein Nassaji: Affiliation:
University of Victoria, British Columbia
Eva Kartchava: Affiliation:
Carleton University, Ottawa

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter has two broad aims: to explore the potential for a role for corrective feedback in instructional pragmatics; and to review studies of instructional pragmatics that have investigated the effectiveness of corrective feedback. The chapter starts with the observation that there has been a disinclination to correct learners’ pragmatic errors. In fact, studies of instructional pragmatics rarely refer to “errors,” which is a construct integral to feedback studies. Allowing for this difference in orientation, the chapter discusses potential issues related to correcting pragmatic errors, such as challenges in identifying errors, the feasibility of correcting pragmalinguistic versus sociopragmatic errors, and the lack of firm norms to use in correction. Next, the chapter summarizes the findings of nine studies published between 2005 and 2017 and assesses their methodological strengths and weaknesses. The review revealed that although most of the studies reported positive effects for corrective feedback, many of the studies reviewed suffered from major methodological limitations. Owing to the nature of the available evidence, the chapter advocates neither for nor against the implementation of corrective feedback in instructional pragmatics. The chapter concludes by providing guidelines for future principled investigations into the role of corrective feedback in instructional pragmatics.

Keywords

instructional pragmatics pragmalinguistics sociopragmatics sociopragmatic feedback pragmalinguistic feedback choice

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 429 - 449

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.021 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ajabshir, Z. F. (2014). The effect of implicit and explicit types of feedback on learners’ pragmatic development. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 463–471.Google Scholar

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 7, 21–39.Google Scholar

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). The interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49(4), 677–713.Google Scholar

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2009). Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource: Recognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 59(4), 755–795.Google Scholar

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013). Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63(Suppl. 1), 68–86.Google Scholar

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2015). Operationalizing conversation in studies of instructional effects in L2 pragmatics. System, 48, 21–34.Google Scholar

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2017). Acquisition of pragmatics. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), Handbook of instructed SLA (pp. 224–245). New York; London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2018a). Matching modality in L2 pragmatics research. System, 75, 13–22.Google Scholar

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2018b). Pragmatic awareness in second language acquisition. In Garret, P. & Maria Cots, J. (eds.), Routledge handbook of language awareness (pp. 323–338). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2019). Routines in L2 pragmatics research. In Taguchi, N. (ed.), Handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 47–62). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic vs. grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 233–259.Google Scholar

Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Griffin, R. (2005). L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL classroom. System, 33(3), 401–415.Google Scholar

Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B. S. (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(3), 279–304.Google Scholar

Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Su, Y. (2018). The acquisition of conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource in Chinese as a foreign language. Modern Language Journal, 102(4), 732–757.Google Scholar

Barekat, B. & Mehri, M. (2013). Investigating effects of metalinguistic feedback in L2 pragmatic instruction. International Journal of Linguistics, 5(2), 197–208.Google Scholar

Crystal, D. (ed.). (1997). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ellis, R., Loewen, S. & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339–368.Google Scholar

Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2005). Raising the pragmatic awareness of language learners. ELT Journal, 59(3), 199–208.CrossRef Google Scholar

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. & Cohen, A. D. (2012). Teaching pragmatics in the foreign language classroom: Grammar as a communicative resource. Hispania, 95(4), 650–669.Google Scholar

Fukuya, Y. & Zhang, Y. (2002). Effects of recasts on EFL learners’ acquisition of pragmalinguistic conventions of request. Second Language Studies, 21(1), 1–47.Google Scholar

Fukuya, Y. J. & Zhang Hill, Y. (2006). The effects of recasting on the production of pragmalinguistic conventions of request by Chinese learners of English. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 59–91.Google Scholar

Gass, S. (1997). Input, Interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 445–474.Google Scholar

Goo, J. (2016). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity: A replication. In Granena, G., Jackson, D. O. & Yilmaz, Y. (eds.), Cognitive individual differences in second language processing and acquisition (pp. 276–302). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y. & Novella, M. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning: Norris & Ortega (2000) revisited and updated. In Rebuschat, P. (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (Vol. IV, pp. 443–483). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Goo, J. & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 127–165.Google Scholar

Guo, L. (2013). Effects of recasts and metalinguistic feedback on developing ESL learners’ pragmatic competence. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar

Holden, C. L. & Sykes, J. M. (2013). Complex L2 pragmatic feedback via place-based mobile games. In Taguchi, N. & Sykes, J. M. (eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching (pp. 155–170). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ishihara, N. (2007). Web-based curriculum for pragmatics instruction in Japanese as a foreign language: An explicit awareness-raising approach. Language Awareness, 16(1), 21–40.Google Scholar

Ishihara, N. & Cohen, A. D. (2014). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kasper, G. (1997). The role of pragmatics in language teacher education. In Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B. S. (eds.), Beyond methods: Components of language teacher education (pp. 113–136). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar

Kasper, G. (2001). Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. In Rose, K. & Kasper, G. (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 33–60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Koike, D. & Pearson, L. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence. System, 33(3), 481–501.Google Scholar

Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 37–63.CrossRef Google Scholar

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.Google Scholar

Loewen, S. & Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 361–377). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Loewen, S. & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 536–556.Google Scholar

Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In De Bot, K., Ginsberg, R. & Kramsch, C. (eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. K. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399–432.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59(3), 453–498.Google Scholar

Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. (2015). The interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning: Linking Theory, Research and Practice. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Nguyen, M. T. T., Do, H. T., Nguyen, A. T. & Pham, T. T. (2015). Teaching email requests in the academic context: A focus on the role of corrective feedback. Language Awareness, 24(2), 169–195.Google Scholar

Nguyen, M. T. T., Do, H. T., Nguyen, A. T. & Pham, T.T. (2017). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 pragmatics: An eight-month investigation. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL) early access.Google Scholar

Nipaspong, P. & Chinokul, S. (2010). The role of prompts and explicit feedback in raising EFL learners’ pragmatic awareness. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 5, 101–146.Google Scholar

Pica, T. (1988). Interlanguage adjustments as outcome of NS–NNS negotiated interaction. Language Learning, 38(1), 45–73.Google Scholar

Ranta, L. & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In DeKeyser, R. (ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141–160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45(2), 283–331.Google Scholar

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learners’ uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263–300.Google Scholar

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 301–322). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1–50.Google Scholar

Takenoya, M. (2003). Terms of address in Japanese: An interlanguage pragmatics approach. Sapporo: Hokkaido University Press.Google Scholar

Takimoto, M. (2006). The effects of explicit feedback and form-meaning processing on the development of pragmatic proficiency in consciousness-raising tasks. System, 34(4), 601–614.Google Scholar

Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–111.Google Scholar

Tomlin, R., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(2), 183–204.Google Scholar

Washburn, G. (2001). Using situation comedies for pragmatic language teaching and learning. TESOL Journal, 10(4), 21–26.Google Scholar

Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar

Yilmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62(4), 1134–1169.Google Scholar

Yilmaz, Y. (2013). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback. System, 41(3), 691–705.CrossRef Google Scholar

Yilmaz, Y. (2016a). The effectiveness of explicit correction under two different feedback exposure conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(1), 65–96.Google Scholar

Yilmaz, Y. (2016b). The linguistic environment, interaction and negative feedback. Brill Research Perspectives in Multilingualism and Second Language Acquisition, 1, 45–86.Google Scholar

Yoshimi, D. R. (2001). Explicit instruction and JFL learners’ use of interactional discourse markers. In Rose, K. & Kasper, G. (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 223–244). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.