Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-zkzgt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-09-12T17:05:47.245Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Technology and L2 Pragmatics Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 July 2019

Marta González-Lloret
Marta González-Lloret*
Affiliation:
University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: marta@hawaii.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The field of technology and language learning, also known as CALL (computer-assisted language learning), is now a robust area of study informed by research and practice in the fields of language education, computer science, psychology, sociology, cognitive science, cultural studies, and, most of all, applied linguistics and second language acquisition (SLA). As with any other large field of study, some subareas have become the focus of study, often influenced by advances and research in applied linguistics, while others remain to be explored further; among these is the area of technology-mediated second/foreign language (L2) pragmatics, also known as interlanguage pragmatics. The lack of research in this area is puzzling if one considers that pragmatic competence is one of the essential components of communicative competence and that most of the technologies today exist in the service of communication. This article reviews the efforts so far to explore the connections between interlanguage pragmatics and a variety of technologies and innovations, as well as existing resources to bring L2 pragmatic teaching into the language classroom. It then suggests unexplored areas where technology could be used to aid the development of pragmatic competence and where pragmatic theory can inform SLA research.

Information

Type
Position Paper
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 39 , March 2019 , pp. 113 - 127
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abrams, Z. (2013). Say what?! L2 Sociopragmatic competence in CMC: Skill transfer and development. CALICO Journal, 30, 423–445.Google Scholar
Alcón-Soler, E. (2013). Mitigating e-mail requests in teenagers’ first and second language academic cyber-consultation. Multilingua, 32, 779–799.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 232–262.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S., & Su, Y. (2017). The effect of corpus-based instruction on pragmatic routines. Language Learning & Technology, 21, 76–103.Google Scholar
Belz, J. A. (2007). The role of computer mediation in the instruction and development of L2 pragmatic competence. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 45–75.Google Scholar
Belz, J. A., & Kinginger, C. (2003). Discourse options and the development of pragmatic competence by classroom learners of German: The case of address forms. Language Learning, 53, 591.Google Scholar
Blattner, G., & Fiori, M. (2011). Virtual social network communities: an investigation of language learners’ development of sociopragmatic awareness and multiliteracy skills. CALICO Journal, 29, 24–43.Google Scholar
Bloch, J. (2002). Student/teacher interaction via email: the social context of Internet discourse. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 117–134.Google Scholar
Bohn, D. (2018, June 27). Google Duplex really works and testing begins this summer. Retrieved from https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/27/17508728/google-duplex-assistant-reservations-demoGoogle Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chen, Y. (2015). Developing Chinese EFL learners’ email literacy through requests to faculty. Journal of Pragmatics, 75, 131–149.Google Scholar
Chun, D. M. (2011). Developing intercultural communicative competence through online exchanges. CALICO Journal, 28, 392–419.Google Scholar
Çiftçi, E. Y. (2016). A review of research on intercultural learning through computer-based digital technologies. Educational Technology & Society, 19, 313–327.Google Scholar
Cunningham, D. J. (2016). Request modification in synchronous computer-mediated communication: the role of focused instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 484–507.Google Scholar
Davis, J. M. (2007). Resistance to L2 pragmatics in the Australian ESL context. Language Learning, 57, 611–649.Google Scholar
Duff, P. A. (2012). Identity, agency, and second language acquisition. In Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 410–426). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2016). Variation in evaluations of the (im)politeness of emails from L2 learners and perceptions of the personality of their senders. Journal of Pragmatics, 106, 1–19.Google Scholar
Eslami, Z. R., Mirzaei, A., & Dini, S. (2015). The role of asynchronous computer mediated communication in the instruction and development of EFL learners’ pragmatic competence. System, 48, 99–111.Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, C. (2012). E-mail requests to faculty: E-politeness and internal modification. In Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. & Woodfield, H. (Eds.), Interlanguage request modification (pp. 87–118). Amsterdam; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Furniss, E. (2016). Teaching the pragmatics of Russian conversation using a corpus-referred website. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 38–60.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R., & Barón, J. (2018). Independently measuring cognitive complexity for task sequencing and interlanguage pragmatics development. In Taguchi, N. & Kim, Y. (Eds.), Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 159–190). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gonzales, A. (2013). Development of politeness strategies in participatory online environments: A case study. In Taguchi, N. & Sykes, J. M. (Eds.), Language learning & language teaching (Vol. 36, pp. 101–120). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2008). Computer-mediated learning of L2 pragmatics. In Soler, E. A. & Martinez-Flor, A. (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 114–132). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2009). CA for computer-mediated interaction in the Spanish L2 classroom. In Nguyen, H. & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives (pp. 281–316). Honolulu, HI: NFLRC and University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2011). Conversation analysis of computer-mediated communication. CALICO Journal, 28, 308–325.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2015). Conversation analysis in computer-assisted language learning. CALICO Journal, 32, 569–594.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2018). Pragmatics in technology-mediated contexts. In Herraiz-Martínez, A. & Sánchez-Hernández, A. (Eds.), Learning second language pragmatics beyond traditional contexts (pp. 15–46). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L. (2018). Pragmatics, tasks, and technology: A synergy. In Taguchi, N. & Kim, Y. (Eds.), Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 191–214). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hellermann, J., Thorne, S. L., Lester, D., & Jones, A. (2013). Walking and talking as a group: Interactional practices for playing an AR game with a mobile digital device. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 6, 1–26.Google Scholar
Hendriks, B. (2010). An experimental study of native speaker perceptions of non-native request modification in e-mails in English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7, 221–255.Google Scholar
Holden, C., & Sykes, J. M. (2012). Mentira: Prototyping language-based locative gameplay. In Dikkers, S., Martin, J., & Coulter, B. (Eds.), Mobile media learning: Amazing uses of mobile devices for teaching and learning (pp. 111–131). Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In Pride, J. B. & Holmes, J. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
Ikeda, K. (2009). Advanced learners’ honorific styles in emails and telephone calls. In Taguchi, N. (Ed.), Pragmatic competence (pp. 69–100). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ishihara, N., & Tarone, E. (2009). Subjectivity and pragmatic choice in L2 Japanese: Emulating and resisting pragmatic norms. In Taguchi, N. (Ed.), Pragmatic competence (pp. 101–128). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jenks, C. (2009). When is it appropriate to talk? Managing overlapping talk in multi-participant voice-based chat rooms. CALL, 22, 19–30.Google Scholar
Jenks, C. J., & Brandt, A. (2013). Managing mutual orientation in the absence of physical copresence: Multiparty voice-based chat room interaction. Discourse Processes, 50, 227–248.Google Scholar
Kakegawa, T. (2009). Development of the use of Japanese sentence-final particles through email correspondence. In Taguchi, N. (Ed.), Pragmatic competence (pp. 301–334). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? (NetWork #6) [HTML document]. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Retrieved from http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW06/Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (2009). L2 pragmatic development. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (1st ed., pp. 259–284). Bingley, UK: Emerald.Google Scholar
Kim, E. Y. A., & Brown, L. (2014). Negotiating pragmatic competence in computer mediated communication: The case of Korean address terms. CALICO Journal, 31, 264–284.Google Scholar
Kim, Y., & Taguchi, N. (2016). Learner-learner interaction during collaborative pragmatic tasks: The role of cognitive and pragmatic task demands. Foreign Language Annals, 49, 42–57.Google Scholar
Kitade, K. (2000). L2 learners’ discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in internet chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13, 143–166.Google Scholar
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2002). The sociability of computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology & Society, 5, 8–22.Google Scholar
Kulavuz-Onal, D., & Vásquez, C. (2018). “Thanks, shokran, gracias”: Translingual practices in a Facebook group. Language Learning & Technology, 22, 240–255.Google Scholar
Leviathan, Y., & Matias, Y. (2018, May 8). Google Duplex: An AI system for accomplishing real-world tasks over the phone. Retrieved from https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/05/duplex-ai-system-for-natural-conversation.htmlGoogle Scholar
Liaw, M.-L., & English, K. (2017). Identity and addressivity in the “Beyond These Walls” program. System, 64, 74–86.Google Scholar
Limberg, H. (2016). Teaching how to apologize: EFL textbooks and pragmatic input. Language Teaching Research, 20, 700–718.Google Scholar
Li, Q., Taguchi, N., & Tang, X. (2018). Pragmatic development via CMC-based data-driven instruction: Chinese sentence final particles. In Herraiz-Martínez, A. & Sánchez-Hernández, A. (Eds.), Learning second language pragmatics beyond traditional contexts (pp. 47–84). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Nguyen, T. T. M. (2018). Pragmatic development in the instructed context: A longitudinal investigation of L2 email requests. Pragmatics, 28, 217–252.Google Scholar
O'Dowd, R. (2016). Emerging trends and new directions in telecollaborative learning. CALICO Journal, 33, 291–310.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2013). Ways forward for a bi/multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education. In May, S. (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education (pp. 32–53). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2009). Interaction and attention to form in L2 text-based computer-mediated communication. In Mackey, A. & Polio, C. (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction in SLA: Research in honor of Susan M. Gass. New York, NY: Erlbaum/Routledge/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2017). New CALL-SLA research interfaces for the 21st century: Towards equitable multilingualism. CALICO Journal, 34, 285–316.Google Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30, 590–601.Google Scholar
Pan, P. C. (2012). Interlanguage requests in institutional e-mail discourse. In Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. & Woodfield, H. (Eds.), Interlanguage request modification (pp. 119–161). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E. (2015). The development of L2 interactional competence: Evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence organization, repair organization and preference organization. In Cadierno, T. & Eskildsen, S. W. (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pew Research Center. (2014). Email rules the workplace (Internet & Technology). Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/12/30/email-rules-the-workplace/Google Scholar
Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2010). Bilingual practices and the social organisation of video gaming activities. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3012–3030.Google Scholar
Piirainen-Marsh, A., & Tainio, L. (2014). Asymmetries of knowledge and epistemic change in social gaming interaction. The Modern Language Journal, 98, 1022–1038.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Ziegler, N. (2016). The CALL-SLA interface: Insights from a second-order synthesis. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 17–37.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Zhuang, J. (2019). A meta-analysis of second language pragmatics instruction. In Taguchi, N. (Ed.), Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 287–307). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pojanapunya, P., & Jaroenkitboworn, K. (2011). How to say “Good-bye” in Second Life. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3591–3602.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ren, W., & Han, Z. (2016). The representation of pragmatic knowledge in recent ELT textbooks. ELT Journal, 70, 424–434.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Researching task complexity: Task demands, task-based language learning and performance (pp. 3–38). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Roever, C., Fraser, C., & Elder, C. (2014). Testing ESL sociopragmatics: Development and validation of a web-based test battery. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ross, S., & Kasper, G. (2013). Assessing second language pragmatics. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Salazar, P., & Codina, V. (2018). Politeness in first and follow-up emails to faculty: Openings and closings. In Sánchez-Hernández, A. & Herraiz-Martínez, A. (Eds.), Learning second language pragmatics beyond traditional contexts (pp. 85–106). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Schreiber, B. R. (2015). “I am what I am”: Multilingual identity and digital translanguaging. Language Learning & Technology, 19(3), 69–87.Google Scholar
Soares Palmer, D. (2010). Second language pragmatic socialization in World of Warcraft (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Davis. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=2160261961&sid=1&Fmt=2&clientId=48051&RQT=309&VName=PQDGoogle Scholar
Stroinska, M., & Cecchetto, V. (2013). Facework in intercultural e-mail communication in the academic environment. In Sharifian, F. & Jamarani, M. (Eds.), Language and intercultural communication in the new era (pp. 160–180). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sykes, J. M. (2005). Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: Effects of oral and written chat. CALICO Journal, 22, 399–431.Google Scholar
Sykes, J. M. (2009). Learner requests in Spanish: Examining the potential of multiuser virtual environments for L2 pragmatic acquisition. In Lomicka, L. & Lord, G. (Eds.), The second generation: Online collaboration and social networking in CALL (pp. 199–234). San Marcos, TX: Texas State University.Google Scholar
Sykes, J. (2013). Multiuser virtual environments. In Taguchi, N. & Sykes, J. (Eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching (pp. 71–100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sykes, J. M. (2017). Technologies for teaching and learning intercultural competence and interlanguage pragmatics. In Chapelle, C. A. & Sauro, S. (Eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 118–133). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Sykes, J. M. (2018). Interlanguage pragmatics, curricular innovation, and digital technologies. CALICO Journal, 35, 120–141.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2013). Comprehension of conversational implicature: What response times tell us. In Taguchi, N. & Sykes, J. M. (Eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching (pp. 19–41). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48, 1–50.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N., & Sykes, J. (2013). Introduction: Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching. In Taguchi, N. & Sykes, J. M. (Eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching (pp. 1–15). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N., Li, Q., & Tang, X. (2017). Learning Chinese formulaic expressions in a scenario-based interactive environment. Foreign Language Annals, 50, 641–660.Google Scholar
Takamiya, Y., & Ishihara, N. (2013). Blogging: Crosscultural interaction for pragmatic development. In Taguchi, N. & Sykes, J. M. (Eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching (pp. 185–214). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tercedor Cabrero, M. (2013). Developing interactional competence through video-based computer-mediated conversations: Beginning learners of Spanish (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Iowa.Google Scholar
The Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 19–47.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91–112.Google Scholar
Timpe-Laughlin, V. (2018). Pragmatics in task-based language assessment: Opportunities and challenges. In Taguchi, N. & Kim, Y. (Eds.), Task-based language teaching (Vol. 10, pp. 288–304). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tsai, M.-H., & Kinginger, C. (2014). Giving and receiving advice in computer-mediated peer response activities. CALICO Journal, 32, 82–112.Google Scholar
Tudini, V. (2010). Online second language acquisition. Conversation Analysis of online chat. London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
Tudini, V. (2013). Form-focused social repertoires in an online language learning partnership. Journal of Pragmatics, 50, 187–202.Google Scholar
Utashiro, T., & Kawai, G. (2009). Blended learning for Japanese reactive tokens: Effects of computer-led, instructor-led, and peer-based instruction. In Taguchi, N. (Ed.), Pragmatic competence (pp. 275–299). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Uzum, B. (2010). An investigation of alignment in CMC from a sociocognitive perspective. CALICO Journal, 28, 135–155.Google Scholar
Vandergriff, I. (2013). “My major is English, believe it or not:)” — Participant orientations in nonnative/native text chat. CALICO Journal, 30, 393–409.Google Scholar
Vandergriff, I. (2014). A pragmatic investigation of emoticon use in nonnative/native speaker text chat. Language@Internet, 11, Article 4.Google Scholar
Vandergriff, I. (2016). Second-language discourse in the digital world: Linguistic and social practices in and beyond the networked classroom (Vol. 46). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M., & Newhart, V. A. (2016). Broadening our concepts of universal access. Universal Access in the Information Society, 15, 183–188.Google Scholar
Youn, S. J. (2015). Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods. Language Testing, 32(2), 199–225Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2001). Ciberpragmática. El uso del lenguaje en Internet. Barcelona, Spain: Ariel.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2011). Cyberpragmatics: Internet-mediated communication in context. Amsterdam; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zhu, W. (2012). Polite requestive strategies in emails: an investigation of pragmatic competence of Chinese EFL learners. RELC Journal, 43, 217–238.Google Scholar