Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:26:10.929Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

20 - Corrective Feedback in Instructional Pragmatics

from Part V - Corrective Feedback and Language Skills

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2021

By
Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig  and
Yucel Yilmaz
Edited by
Hossein Nassaji  and
Eva Kartchava
Hossein Nassaji
Affiliation:
University of Victoria, British Columbia
Eva Kartchava
Affiliation:
Carleton University, Ottawa
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 pragmaticspragmalinguisticssociopragmaticssociopragmatic feedbackpragmalinguistic feedbackchoice
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 429 - 449
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.)

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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×