DSpace at VNU: The effects of input enhancement and recasts on the development of second language pragmatic competence

This article was downloaded by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln]
On: 09 April 2015, At: 05:33
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Innovation in Language Learning and
Teaching
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
/>
The effects of input enhancement and
recasts on the development of second
language pragmatic competence
a

b

b

Minh Thi Thuy Nguyen , Hanh Thi Pham & Tam Minh Pham
a

English Language and Literature, National Institute of Education,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
b

Click for updates

Faculty of English Language Teacher Education, University of
Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University,

Hanoi, Viet Nam
Published online: 07 Apr 2015.

To cite this article: Minh Thi Thuy Nguyen, Hanh Thi Pham & Tam Minh Pham (2015): The effects
of input enhancement and recasts on the development of second language pragmatic competence,
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, DOI: 10.1080/17501229.2015.1026907
To link to this article: />
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &


Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:33 09 April 2015

Conditions of access and use can be found at />

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 2015
/>

The effects of input enhancement and recasts on the development
of second language pragmatic competence

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:33 09 April 2015

Minh Thi Thuy Nguyena*, Hanh Thi Phamb and Tam Minh Phamb
a
English Language and Literature, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological
University, Singapore, Singapore; bFaculty of English Language Teacher Education, University of
Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Viet Nam

(Received 29 October 2014; accepted 28 February 2015)
This study investigates the combined effects of input enhancement and recasts on a
group of Vietnamese EFL learners’ performance of constructive criticism during peer
review activities. Particularly, the study attempts to find out whether the instruction
works for different aspects of pragmatic learning, including the learners’ sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic knowledge, as well as their frequency of externally
and internally modifying their criticism. Over a course lasting approximately seven
instructional hours, the learners received visually enhanced pragmatic input and
recasts of their errors of form and meaning. The learners’ pre-to-posttest improvement
was investigated using three production tasks, namely a discourse completion task, a
role play, and an oral peer-feedback task. The findings show there is potential for input
enhancement and recast in teaching different aspects of second language pragmatics
and are discussed with implications for classroom practices and future research.
Keywords: pragmatic competence; input enhancement; recast; speech acts; second
language acquisition; interlanguage pragmatics

1. Introduction
Pragmatic competence is the knowledge of how to express one’s meanings and intentions
appropriately within a particular social and cultural context of communication. This
knowledge involves both having linguistic resources for expressing meanings and

intentions (i.e. pragmalinguistics) and understanding the sociocultural constraints on the
use of these means (i.e. sociopragmatics) (Canale 1983). Pragmatic competence is
essential for effective communication and is featured significantly in various models of
communicative competence in second language (L2) teaching (see Bachman 1990;
Canale and Swain 1980; Canale 1983). Nonetheless, previous research has shown that
pragmatic knowledge in the target language (TL) is incomplete for many learners,
regardless of their proficiency levels (see Kasper and Rose 2002). Unlike grammatical
errors, pragmatic failure may be treated as offensive, thus likely adversely affecting the
learner’s communication with the native speaker (NS) (Thomas 1983). Earlier studies
have also shown that pragmatic features are learned slowly without the benefits of
instruction (see for example Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford 1993; Bouton 1994). This is
because pragmatic functions and their contextual constraints are not salient enough for L2

*Corresponding author. Emails: ;
© 2015 Taylor & Francis


Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:33 09 April 2015

2

M.T.T. Nguyen et al.

learners to notice despite prolonged exposure (Kasper and Schmidt 1996). In other words,
mere exposure is insufficient for L2 pragmatic development, and pragmatic acquisition
requires a certain degree of consciousness of form-function mappings and pertinent
contextual variables (Schmidt 1990, 1993).
Recent years have seen an upsurge of interest in the effects of instruction in
promoting pragmatic awareness (see Alcón-Soler 2008; Martínez-Flor, Usó-Juan, and
Fernández-Guerra 2003; Rose and Kasper 2001). These studies address three important

questions: the teachability of L2 pragmatics, the benefits of instruction versus mere
exposure, and the relative effects of different teaching approaches. Generally, the findings
of these studies have attested to the teachability of pragmatic features and overall benefits
of instruction in developing L2 pragmatic competence (see Jeon and Kaya 2006; Kasper
and Rose 2002; Rose 2005; Roever 2009; Taguchi 2011; Takahashi 2010, for a
comprehensive review). Findings have also suggested that explicit instruction (i.e.
instruction that serves to direct learners’ attention to the target forms with the aim of
discussing those forms) may work more effectively than implicit instruction (i.e.
instruction that allows learners to infer rules without awareness), particularly in teaching
sociopragmatics (Jeon and Kaya 2006; Takahashi 2010). However, findings in this area
may need to be treated with caution (see Ellis 2008; Jeon and Kaya 2006). First, because
current research has focused predominantly on relatively ‘well defined’ speech acts such
as requests and suggestions (e.g. Alcón-Soler 2005; Ghavamnia, Eslami-Rasekha, and
Vahid-Dastjerdi 2014; Eslami, Mirzaei, and Dini 2014; Fuykuya and Zhang 2002; Koike
and Pearson 2005; Martínez-Flor and Fukuya 2005; Safont 2003; Salazar 2003;
Takahashi 2001, 2005; Takimoto 2009), it has remained much less known whether
instruction works for less clearly defined speech acts or speech act sets such as
constructive criticism that has no predetermined form and thus may cause even more
problems to L2 learners (see Nguyen 2013; Nguyen, Pham, and Cao 2013; Nguyen,
Pham, and Pham 2012). Thus, it is important that further research expand the range of
learning targets under inquiry. Second, due to a limited number of studies that have
examined the impact of implicit instruction on L2 pragmatic development, their findings
must be corroborated in further research to strengthen the body of evidence (Jeon and
Kaya 2006; Nguyen, Pham, and Pham 2012).
Another limitation, as pointed out by Fuykuya and Zhang (2002), lies in the
inadequate conceptualization of implicit instruction in many earlier pragmatics studies. In
contrast to explicit instruction that is well aligned with a focus on forms approach
(involving intentional learning of form via presentation and consolidation of rules in
increasingly communicative practice), implicit instruction seems to be a less developed
area both conceptually and methodologically (Fuykuya and Zhang 2002, 2–3, but see

Alcón-Soler 2005; Ghavamnia, Eslami-Rasekha, and Vahid-Dastjerdi 2014; Eslami,
Mirzaei, and Dini 2014; Koike and Pearson 2005; Martínez-Flor and Fukuya 2005;
Nguyen, Pham, and Pham 2012). In many studies, it is simply defined as mere exposure
to input (Pearson 1998; Tateyama 2001; Takahashi 2001) or the withholding of metapragmatic information (e.g. House 1996). According to Fuykuya and Zhang (2002, 3),
this conventional way of conceptualizing implicit instruction ‘leave[s] us with the
impression that the pragmatists have been caught with a fixed notion of simple exposure
to pragmatic examples,’ whereas implicit instruction may, in fact, refer to a wider range
of instructional techniques varying in degrees of implicitness (see Jeon and Kaya 2006).1
The lack of systematic conceptualization of implicit instruction in earlier studies seems to
suggest that perhaps they are more pedagogically than theoretically motivated (see Ellis
2008). Obviously, this calls for more rigorous designs in future interlanguage (IL)


Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:33 09 April 2015

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching

3

pragmatics research to bring instructional pragmatics research closer to traditions of
mainstream second language acquisition (SLA) research.
The present study attempts to add a variation in the way of conceptualizing implicit
instruction by examining the potential of implementing focus on form instruction in
teaching L2 pragmatics. In contrast to the intentional learning of form afforded by focus
on forms instruction, in focus on form instruction, learners’ attention to form is
subconsciously accomplished while they are primarily engaged in comprehending or
producing meaning (see Ellis 2001, 2008; Long 1991; Long and Norris 2009; Long and
Robinson 1998). A focus on form might be achieved by means of input-based activities
where input is manipulated in a way that causes attention to form to take place
incidentally (e.g. textual input enhancement), or implicit feedback (e.g. recasts) that

briefly addresses learners’ difficulty in using the target form (see Ellis 2008). Because of
its unobtrusiveness, this instructional approach may be a suitable option for teaching form
in meaning-based contexts where the primary focus is maintained on content of
communication. In the framework of this paradigm, the present study, therefore, examines
the combined impact of two instructional techniques, i.e. provision of textually enhanced
input and recasts, given during a writing class to draw students’ attention to language
form needed for giving pragmatically appropriate constructive criticism on a peer’s
written work. Since much focus-on-form literature addresses L2 grammatical development, more research is needed in the area of L2 pragmatic development (Fuykuya and
Zhang 2002; Koike and Pearson 2005; Martínez-Flor and Fukuya 2005).
The study reported in this article is part of a larger-scale project that sets out to
investigate the relative effectiveness of explicit and implicit form-focused instruction on
the acquisition of the speech act of constructive criticism by a group of Vietnamese EFL
learners (see Nguyen, Pham, and Pham 2012). While the comparative effects of the above
two instructional approaches on the learners’ overall pragmatic performance were
discussed in Nguyen, Pham, and Pham (2012), the present article focuses on examining
how the implicit approach works for different aspects of pragmatic learning that has not
yet been explored in the earlier article (i.e. Nguyen, Pham, and Pham 2012). It is hoped
that by offering an in-depth analysis of the different aspects of the learners’ performance,
the present article would be able to provide insights into questions such as what aspects
of pragmatics are amenable or resistant to instruction and therefore would provide useful
information to guide classroom practices. In particular, one of the questions that the
present article seeks to answer is whether implicit instruction improves learners’
performance in both areas of sociopragmatic appropriateness (conformity to sociocultural
code of language use) and pragmalinguistic accuracy (accurate usage of linguistic
resources for expressing the intended meaning). The reason for an examination of this
question is that despite that grammar is distinctive from pragmatics (see Bachman 1990;
Canale 1983; Canale and Swain 1980), grammar ‘serves as a resource for encoding
different kinds of meaning,’ including pragmatic meaning (Ellis 2008, 195). Learners’
limited grammatical competence may restrict their capacity to produce linguistic actions
effectively (see Nguyen 2008). This is particularly the case in a foreign language context

where learners lack sustained exposure to L2 pragmatic input while their classrooms may
place a greater emphasis on developing linguistic than pragmatic competence (see Ellis
2008). In a previous study, it was found that while explicit instruction generally produced
positive impact on L2 learners’ performance of constructive criticism, this type of
instruction seemed to benefit sociopragmatic appropriateness to a greater extent than
pragmalinguistic accuracy (Nguyen, Pham, and Cao 2013). Thus, it would be useful to
examine how implicit instruction impacts the two above aspects in the learners’ speech


4

M.T.T. Nguyen et al.

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:33 09 April 2015

production. Another question of interest to the present study is whether implicit
instruction enables learners to notice both external and internal illocutionary force
modifying devices (politeness devices that serve to tone down the force of the utterance).
As indicated in previous studies, internal modifiers (politeness devices occurring within
and making up an integral part of the head act) tend to carry less transparent pragmatic
meaning than external modifiers (semantic moves to support the head act) and therefore
are less likely noticeable to learners (Hassal 2001; Nguyen 2008). Although it would be
pedagogically important to examine whether internal modifiers are amenable to
intervention, previous studies on the effects of instruction of this type of modifiers are
rather scarce and yet produce inconclusive evidence (e.g. Fukuya 1998; Fukuya and
Clark 2001; Martínez-Flor 2008; Nguyen 2013; Safont 2003). Hence, this question is
worthy of further investigation.
2. The role of enhanced input and recasts in SLA
Input enhancement is a technique for making the target form more prominent either
phonologically (by means of oral repetition) or typographically (e.g. color-coding or

bold-facing) with an attempt to induce learners’ noticing in an implicit and unobtrusive
manner (Doughty and Williams 1998). This idea is based on the assumption that noticing
is a prerequisite for intake (see Gass 1988; Schmidt 1990, 1993; Sharwood Smith 1981)
and that without being prompted to attend to target forms in language input learners
generally lack sensitivity to them, particularly if these forms lack perceptual salience
(Sharwood Smith 1993). A number of empirical studies have been conducted to
investigate the effects of input enhancement on L2 learning (e.g. Doughty 1991; Izumi
2002; Leeman et al. 1995; White 1998; Wong 2003). Their outcomes are inconclusive,
however. For example, while some studies found significant results (e.g. Alcón-Soler
2005; Doughty 1991; Leeman et al. 1995; Martínez-Flor 2006; Martínez-Flor and AlcónSoler 2007; Martínez-Flor and Fukuya 2005; White 1998), others found limited or no
effects (e.g. Izumi 2002; Fukuya and Clark 2001; Wong 2003). Han, Park, and Combs
(2008) attribute this lack of congruence to methodological idiosyncrasies of the earlier
studies, for example, different choices of target structures (meaningful vs. nonmeaningful) and learners (with vs. without prior knowledge of the target form), nature and lengths
of treatment, and types of enhancement (used with vs. without other attention-getting
devices). Han, Park, and Combs (2008) also point out that despite the mixed results,
previous studies, nonetheless, have shown that although input enhancement may induce
the noticing of form, particularly if the form is meaningful, whether or not it leads to
acquisition depends largely on whether or not the learner has prior knowledge of the form
(also see Sharwood Smith 1981). Further, input enhancement combined with other
attention-getting devices such as corrective feedback may be most effective in causing the
learner to process the form at a deeper level.
Recasts as a type of corrective feedback have been an area of inquiry of great interest
to SLA. Recasts are generally defined as the reformulations of erroneous utterances into
more target-like versions while preserving the original meaning (see Long 1996; Lyster
2004). From the interactionist perspective, recasts are considered useful because they
occur during interaction and the process of negotiation of meaning, thus causing learners
to attend to linguistic form while maintaining their primary focus on meaning (Long
1996). Saxton (1997) also hypothesizes that recasts from caregivers to children learning
their first language enable the latter to make cognitive comparison of their own output
with the adults’ version, thus providing them opportunities to learn the correct form.

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:33 09 April 2015

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching

5

Despite strong advocating theories, however, there is controversial empirical evidence
regarding the facilitative impact of recasts (e.g. Carroll and Swain 1993; Doughty and
Varela 1998; Lyster and Ranta 1997; Mackey and Philp 1998; Ortega and Long 1997;
Panova and Lyster 2002; Y. Sheen 2004). Observational classroom studies have shown
that recasts may not always be noticed by the learner, particularly when used within
content-based, meaning-focused (as opposed to form-focused) instructional contexts (e.g.
Lyster 1998, 2004; Y. Sheen 2004). Compared to other types of corrective feedback, for
example, elicitations or clarification requests, recasts are less likely to lead to uptake and
immediate repair (Lyster and Ranta 1997; Panova and Lyster 2002). On the other hand,
many experimental laboratory studies have found that learners who receive recasts
generally improve in postexperimental observations (e.g. Carroll and Swain 1993;
Doughty and Varela 1998; Mackey and Philp 1998; Ortega and Long 1997).
As pointed out by Ellis and Sheen (2006) and Sheen (2008), these mixed results
reflect differences in the design of the above studies, including research designs
(classroom observation vs. experiments), interaction settings where the recasts occur
(form-focused vs. meaning-focused), linguistic forms targeted for recasting (e.g. morphosyntax vs. phonology), types of recasts (e.g. explicit vs. implicit)2, learner factors (e.g.
developmental readiness, cognitive orientation), and outcome measurements. Hence,
Sheen (2008) calls for further research that allows for a more systematic control of these
variables in order to fully understand the efficacy of recasts. Importantly, Ammar and
Spada (2006) have pointed out that it is problematic to associate the effectiveness of
recasts with the rate of uptake and repair following this technique (as did observational
studies). This is because uptake or the absence of it may not always serve as the best

evidence of learning or lack of learning. For example, sometimes opportunities for uptake
to occur are impossible. In other cases, repairs might simply be a sign of ‘mimicking.’
Therefore, it has been argued that the evidence of learning should be measured more
reliably by means of carefully designed experimental research.
Unlike in mainstream SLA research, the role and effects of textually enhanced input
and recasts have been scarcely investigated in L2 pragmatic research (e.g. Alcón-Soler
2005; Fukuya et al. 1998; Fukuya and Clark 2001; Fuykuya and Zhang 2002; MartínezFlor and Fukuya 2005). Findings of these studies are also relatively mixed. For example,
whereas Fukuya et al. (1988) found no effects for recasts in teaching sociopragmatic
aspects of L2 requests, Fuykuya and Zhang (2002) reported relatively large impact of
recasts on improving learners’ performance of requests in terms of both sociopragmatic
appropriateness and pragmalinguistic accuracy. Fukuya and Clark (2001) failed to find
positive effects for textual input enhancement in teaching request modifiers. On the other
hand, Alcón-Soler (2005) and Martínez-Flor and Fukuya (2005) found significant
combined effects of textual input enhancement and recasts on the acquisition of L2
requests and suggestions, respectively. See also the positive impact of combining input
enhancement and input flooding in Ghavamnia, Eslami-Rasekha, and Vahid-Dastjerdi’s
(2014) investigation of suggestions and input enhancement and recasts in Eslami,
Mirzaei, and Dini’s (2014) investigation of requests.
Despite their contributions in terms of offering a more developed definition of
implicit instruction compared to earlier works (for a review, see Jeon and Kaya 2006), the
above studies nevertheless have exclusively focused on requests and suggestions, thus
leaving unanswered the question of how implicit teaching works for other speech acts.
Further, most of the above studies employed only a single outcome measure task, thus
limiting the validity of the data (e.g. Alcón-Soler 2005; Fukuya et al. 1988; Fukuya and
Clark 2001; Fuykuya and Zhang 2002). Finally, due to the absence of a delayed posttest


6

M.T.T. Nguyen et al.

in the reviewed studies, it remains unknown if their findings are stable over an extended
period of time.

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:33 09 April 2015

3. The present study
3.1. Research question
Due to a number of outstanding issues, there is a need for continuing the above line of
inquiry to further our understanding of the applicability of implicit instruction in the
pragmatic realm. The present study therefore attempts to find out whether implicit
instruction that is based on enhanced input and recasts works for different aspects of
pragmatic learning, including learners’ sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic knowledge
that is needed for performing constructive criticism during peer review activities, as well
as their frequency of externally and internally modifying their criticism to reduce the
potential offense to their peers. The present study is hoped to address the current gaps in
three ways. First, it focuses on a less commonly researched speech act, i.e. giving
constructive criticism to a peer’s performance, hence contributing to expanding the range
of learning targets for investigation (see Nguyen 2013; Nguyen, Pham, and Pham 2012;
Nguyen, Pham, and Cao 2013). Second, the study employs a mix of written and oral data
elicitation methods to measure the learning outcomes with a view to enhancing the
validity of the data. Third, the study aims to examine both immediate and durable effects
of input enhancement and recasts, thus hoping to be better capable of informing L2
classroom practices. To achieve the specified aims, the current study seeks to answer the
following question:
Does the combination of input enhancement and recasts benefit the different aspects of the
learners’ performance of constructive criticism, as outlined above, in both short and longer
terms?

The rationales for implementing both of the instructional techniques are as follows. First,

the provision of corrective feedback in tandem with instruction is generally supported as
they are deemed complementary in pedagogical terms (see Lyster, Saito, and Sato 2013).
Further, research has shown that employing multiple instructional strategies may produce
more positive learning effects than the adoption of a single teaching strategy (see
Izumi 2002).
Regarding the learning target under inquiry, the present study defines constructive
criticism as a negative assessment of an individual’s work in progress with the aim of
improving current or future performance. This speech act usually involves the
identification of a problematic action, choice, or product as well as advice on how to
change or correct the problem (Nguyen 2005). The use of constructive criticism as a
means of improving L2 learners’ writing skills has been generally supported in the
literature for ‘its social, cognitive, affective and methodological benefits’ (Rollinson
2005, 23). However, due to its face-damaging nature, providing constructive criticism to
a peer can become a daunting experience if learners lack training in it. Research has
documented that students from certain cultures may feel uncomfortable criticizing their
peers’ work or worse yet face considerable difficulty in conveying their message
appropriately. For example, unlike the NS, Vietnamese learners of English tend to soften
their constructive criticism far less frequently while aggravating it far more often, using
modal verbs of obligation inappropriately (see Nguyen 2005). Given that constructive
criticism may pose a challenge to learners who are not familiar with the way it is
performed in the TL, this speech act deserves due pedagogical attention.


Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching

7

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:33 09 April 2015

3.2. Participants

The present study was conducted at a teacher training institution in Vietnam. Two high
intermediate EFL intact classes (N = 41) were invited to participate in the study. Before
being recruited, the learners were explained about the research3 and signed consent forms
to indicate their agreement to participate. The learners (2 males and 39 females) were
preservice EFL teachers doing their Year 3 English major. The two classes were randomly
assigned to control (N = 22) and treatment (N = 19) conditions. There were no notable
differences between the two groups in terms of age range, lengths of English study, and
exposure to English outside the classroom. In both groups, learners’ ages ranged between
20 and 22. Their lengths of English study ranged between 6 and 9 years. None of them
had ever resided in an English-speaking country. They had had limited opportunities to
hear and speak English outside the formal instructional time.
3.3. Choice of target forms
The treatment was integrated into a writing syllabus that focused on paragraph and essay
writing. The syllabus specified that students participate in peer-feedback activities for at
least four writing assignments. That is, they had to read and give critical comments on at
least four pieces of written work by a peer. The writing classes met for three class hours
every week. Instruction on constructive criticism was implemented for the treatment
group for one class hour (i.e. 45 minutes) every week over a period of 10 weeks, resulting
in an approximate total of seven instructional hours. The third author taught the control
group and the second author taught the treatment group.
The two classes followed the same writing syllabus and schedule, that is, they both
engaged in peer-feedback activities for at least four writing assignments (see above). The
only difference was the additional exposure to the language for expressing constructive
criticism via input enhancement and recast activities by the treatment group. It is noted
that the control group may have received some exposure to these linguistic items
incidentally through teachers’ feedback in their writing class and other courses. However,
it remains uncertain if the items had been explicitly taught to them in previous courses.
Given that the students had reached a high intermediate level, it is plausible to assume a
positive answer. Nonetheless, since English instruction in Vietnam is heavily grammarbased, it could be the case that although the students may have learned these grammatical
forms, they may not have learned all corresponding pragmalinguistic functions. As a

result, they did not always put the forms to the correct pragmatic use, as can be seen in
their pretest performance.
The target features selected for instruction included two major criticism realization
strategies: (1) identification of problem and (2) giving advice. The pragmalinguistic
conventions for realizing identification of problem included three structures: (1) NP was
ADJ; (2) You V (past tense); and (3) You had (a/an) (ADJ) NP. The pragmalinguistic
conventions for realizing advice included 12 structures: (1) You can + V; (2) You could +
V; (3) You could have + V (past participle); (4) You may + V; (5) You might + V; (6) You
might want to + V; (7) (If I were you) I would; (8) It would be better if you + V; (9) It
would be better + V (infinitive); (10) If you + V, it may; (11) NP may be + V (past
participle); and (12) Why don’t you?
The target features also comprised two types of criticism modifiers: (1) external
modifiers, including compliments (e.g. It was an interesting paper), disarmers (e.g. You
had a few spelling mistakes here and there but I think that’s because you’re writing pretty
quick, nothing too major), and grounders (e.g. I think ‘it’ is better than ‘are’ there because


8

M.T.T. Nguyen et al.

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:33 09 April 2015

‘traffic’ is single) and (2) internal modifiers, including past tense (e.g. I thought it would
make more sense that way), modal verbs (e.g. may, might, could, would), modal adverbs
(e.g. maybe, perhaps, probably), expression of uncertainty (e.g. I wasn’t sure that was the
best phrase you could’ve used), hedges (e.g. sort of, kind of, seem), and understaters (e.g.
a bit, a little bit, quite, rather) (see details in Nguyen, Pham, and Pham 2012). The above
strategies, modifiers, and pragmalinguistic conventions were selected for teaching
because they were found to occur most frequently in NS criticism in equal power

situations but to present considerable difficulty to many learners of English (see
Nguyen 2005).

3.4. Instructional procedures
Over the 10 weeks, the treatment group was engaged in the following activities:
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Exposure to visually enhance input in the first three sessions: In the first session,
learners read samples of NS peer-feedback conversations, answered comprehension questions, and evaluated the effectiveness of the NS criticism using a
list of criteria such as whether the criticism is specific, well-grounded, sounds
positive, includes suggestion for improvement, and does not provoke negative
responses from the hearer (see Tracy, van Dusen, and Robinson 1987). They
might add more criteria to the list if they wished to. In the second session, the
learners read and wrote feedback on a sample essay. Then they read the sample
NS feedback on this essay and compared the feedback with their own with
reference to the above criteria.4 In the third session, the learners read different
sample essays, identified the problems with them, and matched them with
corresponding NS feedback samples. Note that all the NS feedback samples
contained bold-faced target structures, and the learners were instructed to pay
attention to these highlighted parts when reading the samples in order to
complete the tasks (see Appendix for samples of the materials).
Communicative practice comprising performance on a discourse completion
task (DCT) and oral peer-feedback tasks (OPFs) in the remaining seven
sessions.

Performance evaluation: For this activity, learners recorded their peer-feedback
conversation, listened to the recording, and evaluated their own performance,
using a set of guiding questions given to them (see Appendix).
Receiving recasts of both pragmatic and grammatical errors that arose out of
communicative tasks (see below). The recasts were also written on the
blackboard at the end of the lesson for students to note down.

Recasts were provided in the form of confirmation checks as these were assumed to
present a clearer corrective intention than the reformulation of errors alone (see Gass and
Alison 2007). Recasts were done as follows. First, the teacher, also the second author,
repeated the erroneous part of the utterance in a rising tone to attract students’ attention.
Then, the teacher said the appropriate utterance, preceded by ‘You mean’, also using a
rising tone. The corrected part was also stressed, as seen in the example below:
Student: You must pay attention to grammar.
Teacher: Must?↑ You mean ‘Perhaps you could pay more attention to grammar?’↑


Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching

9

In order to decide what and how to recast, the framework proposed by Fuykuya and
Zhang (2002) was adopted. In particular, if an utterance is pragmatically appropriate but
grammatically inaccurate, the teacher recasts only the linguistic form (type 1). If an
utterance is pragmatically inappropriate but grammatically accurate, the teacher recasts its
illocutionary force by using one of the pragmalinguistic conventions for expressing
constructive criticism (type 2). Finally, if an utterance is neither pragmatically appropriate
nor grammatically accurate, the teacher recasts both of its form and illocutionary force
by using one of the pragmalinguistic conventions for expressing constructive criticism
(type 3). This procedure together with illustrative examples is presented in Figure 1.5

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:33 09 April 2015

3.5. Assessment tools
Previous research has shown that the type of outcome measure may affect the observed
magnitude of instructional effects (Jeon and Kaya 2006). Studies employing elicited data
only tend to produce smaller effect sizes than those employing both elicited and natural
data. Thus, to maximize the possibility to track postexperimental changes, both elicited
and naturalistic data were employed in this study. Specifically, the current study made use
of an OPF on actual written works, an 8-item DCT, and a 6-item role play (RP). Details
of these instruments were reported in Nguyen, Pham, and Pham (2012). Also see
Nguyen, Pham, and Pham (2012) for samples of these instruments.
The treatment and control groups’ performance was compared on a pretest and an
immediate posttest, using the three production tasks mentioned above. The pretest was
conducted at the onset of the study while the immediate posttest at the end of the
treatment period. To examine whether the treatment group’s gains (if any) were durable

Learner made an
error

Figure 1.

Type 1
Appropriate but
inaccurate
(e.g. If I were
you, I will
revise it)

Type 2

Inappropriate
but accurate
(e.g. You must
pay attention to
grammar)

Type 3
Inappropriate
and inaccurate
(e.g. Your
introduction are
too long)

Recasting
linguistic form
(e.g. If I were
you I would
revise it)

Recasting
illocutionary
force
(e.g. Perhaps
you could pay
more attention
to grammar it)

Recasting both
illocutionary
force and

linguistic form
(e.g. Your
introduction
was probably a
bit long)

Types of errors and corresponding recasts.


10

M.T.T. Nguyen et al.

beyond the treatment, a delayed posttest consisting of the above three production tasks
was also conducted for this group five weeks after. Due to limited resources, however, the
delayed posttest was not conducted for the control group. To guard against the
possibilities of the learners’ memorizing responses from the pretest, some adjustments
were made as follows. For the OPF task, the learners were asked to critique a different
essay in each test. Similarly, the order of DCT and RP scenarios was also reshuffled each
time. Finally, to keep the variable of social distance constant, the learners were allowed to
choose their own pairs for the RP and OPF, and this pairing was maintained throughout
all the three tests.

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:33 09 April 2015

3.6. Data analysis
The data were coded into different categories of criticizing strategies and modifiers, using
a coding scheme devised and validated by Nguyen (2005) (also see Section 3.3). The data
were first coded independently by each researcher in the team and then were carefully
cross-checked. Cases of discrepancies were discussed until an agreement was reached. In

order to analyze the frequency with which the learners in each group externally and
internally modified their constructive criticism, means and standard deviations of each
category of modifiers were computed. This was done by first calculating the number of
external and internal modifiers produced per criticism in each production task by
individual learners in each group and then averaging the outcomes of the three tasks for
each learner. Next, the average outcomes for individual learners in each group were
entered into an SPSS spreadsheet to compute the means and standard deviations for the
groups.
In order to assess the sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic aspects of the learners’
performance of criticism, two rating scales, which were adapted from Martínez-Flor and
Fukuya (2005), were employed. Each scale consisted of five points, with 0 representing
the lowest and five the highest possible score. Sociopragmatic appropriateness (henceforth ‘appropriacy’) was assessed in terms of knowledge of what to say to a particular
interlocutor in a particular context of situation. In this study, appropriacy was determined
by the choice of realization strategies and politeness devices from the list that was taught
to the students (see Section 3.3). These items were derived from an NS database of
constructive criticism between peers in the institutional context that was collected by
Nguyen (2005). Pragmalinguistic accuracy (henceforth ‘accuracy’) was assessed in terms
of knowledge of various expressions for conveying intentions and determined by the
correct usage of relevant linguistic structures, also from the aforementioned list. Note that
accuracy was to be scored only when appropriacy had been achieved. This is because the
ultimate goal of pragmatic instruction is to enable students to find socially appropriate
language for the situations that they encounter (Bardovi-Harlig and Mahan-Taylor 2003);
thus, only when learners can connect newly learned grammatical forms to the
corresponding pragmatic functions should the instruction be considered successful.
Also note that scores were given only when learners were able to use one of the target
forms which had been taught to them in the treatment (see Section 3.3).
The scoring procedure for appropriacy is as follows. If the student was able to employ
the realization strategy and at the same time modify its illocutionary force appropriately
according to the context, he or she would be awarded the full mark of 5. He or she,
however, would be awarded only 2.5 points if his or her utterance was lacking in

modality or was accompanied by an inappropriate modifier (e.g. making use of an
intensifier instead of a downgrader). This is because modality constitutes an essential


Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:33 09 April 2015

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching

11

means for softening potentially offensive speech acts such as criticism, and the lack of it
may cause serious damage to the hearer’s face (Nguyen 2005). Finally, no point would be
awarded for an inappropriate realization strategy (e.g. ordering a peer to make changes to
his or her essay instead of offering suggestions for improvement). As far as accuracy is
concerned, a full mark of 5 would be awarded for a correct pragmalinguistic form with
the correct connecting part. A deduction of one point would be applied if the connecting
part was inaccurate, however. This type of error was penalized by only one point as it
would only minimally interfere with the overall meaning and would not affect the
recognizability of the speaker’s illocutionary intent. Finally, no point would be assigned
for an incorrect pragmalinguistic form. A learner’s total score for each of two aspects on a
production task was obtained by averaging the sum of sub-scores that he or she achieved
for each criticism that he or she had made when performing the task. Finally, a learner’s
combined score gained for the three tasks was computed by averaging his or her total
score gained in each task. Scoring procedures were conducted independently and crosschecked carefully by all researchers on the team with the agreement rate of 90%.
Short- and longer-term improvement of the treatment group was measured in terms of
students’ gains from the pretest to the two posttests (i.e. within-group comparison). In
order to determine whether changes in the dependent variables (i.e. learners’ appropriacy
and accuracy scores as well as their frequency of usage of external and internal modifiers)
can be attributed to the manipulation of the independent variable (i.e. whether or not the
learners received exposure to textually enhanced input and recasts), the gains from the

pretest to the immediate posttest of the treatment group were also compared with those of
the control group (i.e. between-group comparison). (Recall that delayed posttest data were
not available for the control group – see Section 3.5.) A repeated-measures multivariate
analysis of variance (MANOVA) was employed for the within-group comparison,
whereas a one-way MANOVA was employed for the between-group comparison.

4. Results
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for the treatment group, whereas Table 2
presents the descriptive statistics for the control group.
First, results of the repeated-measures MANOVA conducted for the treatment group
revealed a statistically significant multivariate effect [F(8, 11) = 10.5, p < .001, g2p =.89].
Within-group univariate analyses indicated a significant improvement on all four
measurements (that is, appropriacy and accuracy scores, external and internal modifiers)
between the pretest and the two posttest (see Table 3). Post hoc analyses with the Least
Significant Difference procedure showed that in both aspects of appropriacy and
accuracy, differences lay between results gained from the pretest with those from the
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the treatment group.
Pretest

Appropriacy
Accuracy
External modifier
Internal modifier

Posttest 1

Posttest 2

Pre-to-posttest 1
gains

Pre-to-posttest 2
gains

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

1.49
1.97
.40
.12

.33

.50
.22
.12

2.18
2.52
.66
.24

.36
.38
.41
.15

2.1
2.48
.69
.15

.29
.35
.37
.09

.69
.56
.26
.12

.35

.43
.42
.13

.62
.51
.29
.02

.34
.42
.34
.14


12

M.T.T. Nguyen et al.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the control group.
Pretest

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:33 09 April 2015

Appropriacy
Accuracy
External modifier
Internal modifier

Posttest 1

Pre-to-posttest 1 gains

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

1.82
2.11
.56
.19

.46
.47
.32
.15

1.75
1.97
.59
.11

.36
.40
.45
.08

−.07
−.15
.02
−.08

.47
.46
.31
.15

two posttests (p < .001) but not between results from the two posttests (p > .05). These
findings suggest positive effects for the treatment group in terms of both of their
sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic performance when measured both immediately and
five weeks after the treatment. Nonetheless, when it came to the learners’ use of
modification, it was found that although significant gains from the pretest to the
immediate posttest were observed in their usage of both external and internal modifiers (p
< .05), retention of these gains was observed only in the area of external modifiers (cf.
immediate posttest vs. delayed posttest: p > .05 for external modifiers, but p = .01 for
internal modifiers). In other words, while both short- and longer-term positive effects
were found for the treatment group’s usage of external modifiers, only immediate positive
effects were found for their usage of internal modifiers.
Further, results of the one-way MANOVA conducted for the gain difference between
the treatment and control groups revealed that the former significantly outperformed the
latter, both when the results were combined for the four dependent variables (i.e.
appropriacy, accuracy, external and internal modifiers) [F(4, 36) = 10.8, p < .001, g2p =

.55] and when the results were considered separately for each dependent variable
[appropriacy: F(1, 39) = 33.6, p < .001, g2p = .46; accuracy: F(1, 39) = 25.1, p < .001,
g2p = .39; external modifiers: F(1, 39) = 4.14, p < .05, g2p = .10; internal modifiers:
F(1, 39) = 19.1, p < .001, g2p = .33] (see Table 4).
5. Discussion
The present study sought to explore the combined effects of input enhancement and
recasts on four different aspects of the learners’ performance of constructive criticism in
English: (1) appropriacy, (2) accuracy, (3) external modifiers, and (4) internal modifiers.
In particular, the study addressed whether the instruction produced positive effects on all
of the four aspects, and whether the effects (if any) lasted beyond the immediate
postexperimental observation. To this end, short- and longer-term improvement of the
treatment group in the above aspects was measured in terms of the learners’ gains from
Table 3. Results of the within-group univariate analyses for the treatment group.
Measure
Appropriacy
Accuracy
External modifier
Internal modifier

Type III sum of squares

df

Mean square

F

Significance

Partial η2

5.45
3.60
.941
.151

2
2
2
2

2.73
1.80
.470
.075

47.3
20.9
6.31
7.96

.000
.000
.004
.001

.72
.54
.26
.31

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching

13

Table 4. Results of the between-group univariate analyses for the two groups.
Measure

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:33 09 April 2015

Appropriacy
Accuracy
External modifier
Internal modifier

Type III sum of squares

df

Mean square

F

Significance

Partial η2

5.92
5.01

.554
.387

1
1
1
1

5.92
5.01
.554
.387

33.6
25.1
4.14
19.1

.000
.000
.049
.000

.46
.39
.10
.33

the pretest to the two posttests. In order to determine whether changes in the dependent
variables can be attributed to the manipulation of the independent variable, the gains from

the pretest to the immediate posttest of the treatment group were also compared with
those of the control group.
Regarding within-group contrasts, results indicate that the learners’ postexperimental
improvement was evident in all four investigated areas. Relatively strong partial η2 values
found for the learners’ pre-to-posttest gains in these areas (appropriacy: g2p = .72; for
accuracy: g2p = .54; external modifiers: g2p = .26; internal modifiers: g2p = .31) suggest
large magnitudes of impact of instruction on improving the learners’ performance over
time. Results also indicate that learners’ improvement in terms of their appropriacy and
accuracy scores as well as usage of external modifiers was retained by the time of the
delayed posttest, suggesting the durable effects of the instruction on these three aspects of
the learners’ pragmatic performance. On the other hand, there was a lack of sustained
improvement in the learners’ usage of internal modifiers, which indicated that
instructional effects on this aspect of the learners’ pragmatic performance were only
short-lived. While additional follow-up tests are needed to confirm whether the above
observations would be stable over a more extended period of time, the results of the
present study seem to suggest that internal modifiers seem less effectively responsive to
the type of instruction under inquiry than the other three areas of learners’ pragmatic
performance (see Table 5, which shows, on average, the effect size for internal modifiers
was the smallest). A possible account for the lesser responsiveness of internal modifiers
(as compared to external modifiers, for example) may lie in the fact that because internal
modifiers carry less transparent pragmatic meaning, their face-saving function may be
less readily noticeable, especially when not explicitly explained to the learners.
Alternatively, it could have also been explained that since the addition of internal
modifiers may increase the structural complexity of the speech act, thus requiring more
processing effort on the part of the learners, the ability to retrieve internal modifiers in
real-time communication requires a high degree of fluency in the TL (see Hassal 2001;
Nguyen 2008). However, due to the lack of sustained practice of giving peer feedback
beyond the present study, the treatment group might not have maintained their fluency in
Table 5. Cohen’s d effect sizes of the present study.

Appropriacy
Accuracy
External modifier
Internal modifier
Average

Treatment vs. control

Pretreatment vs. posttreatment

1.75
1.55
0.74
1.06
1.28

3.89
2.57
1.49
1.13
2.27


Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:33 09 April 2015

14

M.T.T. Nguyen et al.

using this speech act, which can explain why their increased use of internal modifiers in

the immediate posttest was not retained in the longer term.
Concerning between-group contrasts, results of the present study indicate that the
treatment group gained significantly higher scores than the control group in all four
explored areas. Strong partial η2 values found for treatment-versus-control contrasts in the
areas of appropriacy (g2p = .46), accuracy (g2p = .39), and internal modifiers (g2p = .33) and
moderate partial η2 value found in the area of external modifiers (g2p = .10) revealed that
the sizes of these differences were relatively large between the instructed learners and
their uninstructed peers. Taken together, these results suggest that changes in the learners’
postexperimental performance can be safely attributed to the instruction under
investigation.
To interpret the overall effectiveness of the instructional approach employed in this
study as compared to instructional approaches used in previous studies, Cohen’s d effect
sizes were calculated for both within-group (i.e. pretest vs. posttests) and between-group
(i.e. treatment vs. control) analyses (see Table 5) and compared with the corresponding
figures reported by Jeon and Kaya (2006) in their meta-analysis of instructed L2
pragmatics studies, and by Fuykuya and Zhang (2002) and Martínez-Flor and Fukuya
(2005) (see Table 6).
The mean pretest-to-posttest effect size of the present study, calculated by averaging
all effect sizes for pretest vs. immediate posttest and pretest vs. delayed posttest, was
considered very large (d = 2.27). This was larger than the mean effect size of 1.01
reported in Jeon and Kaya (2006). Similarly, the mean treatment-versus-control effect size
in the current study, calculated by averaging all effect sizes for posttest contrasts, was
considered relatively large (d = 1.28), following Cohen’s (1988) recommendation. This
was also larger than the mean effect size of .44 reported for implicit pragmatic instruction
by Jeon and Kaya (2006). Taken together, these results suggest a larger magnitude of
instructional effects for the current study than that reported in earlier studies of L2
pragmatic instruction.
When compared with the two studies to which the current study was closest in terms
of design and pedagogical procedures, i.e. Fuykuya and Zhang (2002) and Martínez-Flor
and Fukuya (2005), it was found that the current study had a larger mean treatmentcontrol effect size to Fuykuya and Zhang (2002) (d = .83 for pragmatic appropriateness;

d = .87 for grammatical accuracy; average d = .85). However, its mean effect size was
much smaller than the effect size reported in Martínez-Flor and Fukuya (2005) (d = 1.90
for oral production; d = .2.13 for written production; average d = 2.02). In other words,
the intervention in the current study produced greater effects than that in Fuykuya and
Zhang (2002), but smaller impact than that in Martínez-Flor and Fukuya (2005).
It is argued that the differential duration of treatment, number of structures targeted
for instruction, and method of recasting might have explained for smaller magnitude of
Table 6. A comparison of mean effect sizes for treatment-versus-control and pretest-to-posttest
contrasts among three studies.

The present study
Jeon and Kaya (2006)
Fuykuya and Zhang (2002)
Martínez-Flor and Fukuya (2005)

Implicit vs. Control

Pretreatment vs. posttreatment

1.28
.44
.85
2.02

2.27
1.01
Not reported
Not reported

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:33 09 April 2015

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching

15

effects of this study compared to that of Martínez-Flor and Fukuya (2005). In particular,
Martínez-Flor and Fukuya (2005) conducted 12 hours of instruction, whereas the current
study consisted of only approximately 7 hours. Martínez-Flor and Fukuya (2005) targeted
at 12 head acts and 7 downgraders, whereas the current study included instruction of 15
criticizing conventions and 8 types of modifiers. It was assumed that instruction of a
greater number of forms in a shorter period of time might have led to less effect for the
current study. In fact, Ellis and Sheen (2006) have pointed out that recasts can be more
effective when they are focused and intensive (i.e. directed repeatedly at a single
linguistic form) than when they are incidental and extensive (i.e. directed at all types of
errors that occur). Additionally, the type of recasts provided in Martínez-Flor and Fukuya
(2005) may also be considered more explicit than the type of recast provided in the
present study, which might have made the target forms more perceptually salient to
learners.
Nonetheless, despite the different magnitudes of instructional effects found between
the current study and Martínez-Flor and Fukuya (2005), the findings of the current study
were generally consistent with the findings of both Fuykuya and Zhang (2002) and
Martínez-Flor and Fukuya (2005). Overall, the present study has shown that although
constructive criticism is a challenging speech act, requiring a high degree of both
linguistic complexity and pragmatic sophistication, it seems responsive to input
enhancement and recast activities (especially in the aspect of learners’ appropriacy,
accuracy and usage of external modifiers). The results of the current study, therefore,
have made another case for the benefits of inducing noticing of forms via input
enhancement and recasts, particularly when the two techniques are combined (see Han,
Park, and Combs 2008).

Indeed, input enhancement served to provide positive evidence of target forms and at
the same time to induce learners’ noticing of these forms in an unobtrusive manner. In
this study, the learners were engaged in input enhancement activities whose primary focus
was on meaning, requiring them to respond to the content of the input. Thus, any
attention to form would arise incidentally within a meaning-focused context where
learners were more likely to see the relationship between language form and communicative function. For example, by completing the communicative tasks based on NS peerfeedback samples (e.g. answering comprehension questions, evaluating the content of the
feedback, or matching problems with corresponding feedback) that contained bold-faced
target forms, the learners might be able to notice that certain linguistic resources could be
used to undertake the act of criticizing in a tactful manner, such as hedges and modal
structures for marking politeness. Recasts, on the other hand, served to provide learners
with both positive (i.e. what is possible in the TL) and negative evidence (i.e. what is not
possible in the TL) of TL input. In particular, it indicated to learners the gap between the
target form and their output, making them aware that their choices were disfavored, while
at the same time providing the preferred alternative (Saxton 1997).
It should be noted that while enhanced input alone was unlikely to cause learners to
process the noticed form further (Izumi 2002), the combination of input enhancement
activities and recasts promoted both the processes of noticing the form and noticing the
IL-TL mismatch, thus aiding acquisition of the form. As pointed out by Egi (2010),
the latter process may represent a higher level of cognitive activity because it requires the
learner to make a cognitive comparison and notice the gap between the target form and
their own output, thus facilitating the integration of this form into their knowledge
system. Particularly, the current study improved the perceptual saliency of recasts by
artificially manipulating learners’ attention (e.g. by the teacher stressing the error and


Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:33 09 April 2015

16

M.T.T. Nguyen et al.

repeating the correct version in a rising voice). Also, the recasts were subsequently
written on the blackboard at the end of the lesson to promote noticing. According to
Doughty (2001), the effectiveness of recasts can be improved when their saliency is
enhanced, for example, by repeating the non-target-like part of a learner’s utterance and
reformulating it in interrogative form (also see Sheen 2006, for further discussion on this
point).
One noteworthy point, however, is that although learners scored significantly higher
in the two posttests than in the pretest with regard to both appropriacy and accuracy, their
posttest mean scores were not as high as expected (i.e. below 3 points out of a maximum
possible score of 5 points for each aspect). A close analysis of individual scores also
showed that learners did not make similar gains. In fact, their mean gains (calculated by
averaging the gains from the pretest to each of the two posttests) ranged between .11 and
1.24 (M = .65, SD = .30) for appropriacy and between −.15 and 1.24 (M = .53, SD = .38)
for accuracy. Similar observations were also made for the learners’ usage of external and
internal modifiers. Despite a general postexperimental improvement in these two areas,
the learners’ mean gains varied greatly from −.09 to 0.63 for external modifiers (M = .27,
SD = .33) and from −.017 to 0.27 for internal modifiers (M = .07, SD = .11). These
results suggested that the intervention may not work equally successfully for every
learner. These results may have been linked to the possible variation across learners in
terms of their use of target feedback instances and forms during communicative practice
(i.e. peer-feedback sessions). In particular, since there was no specification on the amount
of feedback one needed to provide on a peer’s work, this amount may vary from learner
to learner, leading to possibly different amounts of practice among them. Additionally,
since some learners may have made more errors than others, they may also have received
greater amount of recasts directed at them. Although recasts directed at individual
learners may be available to the rest of the class as hearers (Sheen 2010), not every
learner may be attentive enough to benefit from the feedback that was not addressed to
them directly. An alternative explanation for the varying learning outcomes among the
learners may also be related to possible variations in terms of the learners’ prior

knowledge of the target form as well as cognitive orientation (i.e. whether their attention
is oriented toward form or meaning) (see a further discussion on this point in Ellis and
Sheen 2006; Sheen 2008). In the latter case, the learners might benefit from training in
noticing strategies, so that they know what to look for in the provided input. Such
training, however, was absent in the current study.
6. Conclusion
In sum, the present study explores the possibility of implementing an under-researched
type of pragmatic instruction, namely combining input enhancement and recast for a less
commonly taught speech act, i.e. giving constructive criticism in the L2, within the
context of a writing class. On the one hand, findings of this study show that these two
instructional techniques can work alongside each other during meaning-based lessons to
improve both of learners’ sociopragmatic and of pragmalinguistic knowledge related to
the above speech act, as well as their frequency of modifying their criticism both
externally and internally, making another case for the efficacy of the methods. This
insight is relevant for pedagogical purposes. Conventionally, L2 pragmatics has been
taught explicitly by means of the presentation of pragmatic rules and the use of
consolidation exercises. The findings of this study have shown that the two above
implicit techniques can also legitimately be added to the variety of methodological


Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:33 09 April 2015

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching

17

options available to the teacher. On the other hand, this study also raises issues in
improving the effectiveness of the techniques. First, it is assumed that intensive,
prolonged instruction limited to only a few forms may produce more effects. The current
study targeted at 15 pragmalinguistic conventions and 8 types of modifiers, which might

have overloaded learning capacity. Potential individual variation in terms of amount of
practice could also have been more effectively controlled to enhance instructional effects.
For example, detailed protocols may be given to learners to guide them with respect to
how much feedback they should aim to provide to peers in each session. Further, some
learner training in what to attend to in positive and negative input might also help
produce better learning outcomes, particularly when learners are not sufficiently formconscious. In this study, it is assumed that the two instructional techniques were not
maximally effective perhaps due to a lack of such training. Finally, it is believed that
opportunities for sustained practice are important for maintaining instructional effects on
less salient, yet structurally more complex, pragmatic features such as internal modifiers.
In this study, the short-lived effects of the instruction on the learners’ usage of internal
modifiers were attributed to the absence of these opportunities.
Despite the insightful findings, the current study, nevertheless, suffers from
limitations that need to be addressed in future research. The sample size of the current
study was relatively small and gender-biased (2 males and 39 females), thus affecting the
generalizability of the findings. The delayed posttest was given only to the treatment
group, limiting the comparison with the control learners. Other problems include a lack of
consideration of individual learner variables such as working memory, cognitive
orientation, language anxiety, or motivation that may affect learners’ receptivity (Egi
2010; Ellis and Sheen 2006; Sheen 2008). Similarly, research has shown that learners’
perceptions of their own cultural identity may lead to the resistance to NS norms and thus
the teacher’s correction of sociopragmatic choices (see Thomas 1983). Unfortunately,
these issues have not been considered in the present study, but they may be worth
investigating in future research. Finally, while it is believed that input enhancement used
alongside another attention-getting device such as recasts may lead to greater learning
success, this combination, nonetheless, can make it difficult to identify the source of
improvement. Future research may as well single out each technique to test, thus
furthering our understanding of their separate effects on L2 pragmatic development.
Notes
1. As noted by Jeon and Kaya (2006), the distinction between explicit and implicit instruction tends
to constitute a continuum rather than a dichotomy in previous L2 pragmatic research. As such,

the concept of implicit instruction is not absolute but may represent a wide variety of
pedagogical interventions varying in degrees of implicitness. These may range from extremely
implicit conditions (e.g. sole exposure to TL input without any form of manipulation of learners’
attention to target forms) to instructional techniques lying on the adjoining points of the explicitimplicit continuum toward the implicit end (e.g. visual input enhancement). The current study
shares Jeon and Kaya’s view of the relative nature of explicitness and implicitness.
2. As pointed out by Ellis and Sheen (2006), recasts are far from homogeneous and monolithic but
have been operationalized differently in the literature. Contrary to Long’s (1996, 2006) view that
as an implicit type of corrective feedback recasts do not include an overt focus on form, Ellis and
Sheen point out that recasts may in fact lie at various points on a continuum of linguistic
implicitness-explicitness. In other words, depending on the linguistic signals that encode them
and the discoursal context, recasts can be more or less implicit or explicit. For example, a
conversational recast (a reformulation of a student utterance in an attempt to resolve a
communication breakdown that is often formulated as a confirmation check) may be considered
more implicit than a didactic recast (a reformulation of a student utterance in the absence of a


Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:33 09 April 2015

18

M.T.T. Nguyen et al.

communication problem). However, both types of recasts are deemed less explicit than explicit
and metalinguistic correction (see Lyster, Saito, and Sato 2013).
3. The learners, however, were blind to the real purpose of the study and were only told that the
researchers were interested to know what they did and talked about in a peer-feedback session.
This is to avoid inadvertently influencing their behavior and biasing the collected data.
4. The criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of criticism were mainly based on Tracy, van Dusen,
and Robinson (1987). Tracy, van Dusen, and Robinson (1987) investigated the characteristics of
‘good’ criticism as perceived by people from different cultural backgrounds via an open-ended

questionnaire. They found some stylistic characteristics that distinguish ‘good’ from ‘bad’
criticism. For example, ‘good’ criticism needs to display positive language and manner. The
changes suggested in it must be specific enough, and the critic must offer to help make them
possible. The reasons for criticizing must usually be justified and made explicit and the criticism
compensated for by being placed in a larger positive message. ‘Good’ criticism also does not
violate the relationship between interlocutors and is accurate. While adopting these criteria, we
acknowledge, however, that for some activities, such as responding to sample essays, it was
difficult for the learners to evaluate the effectiveness of their and the NS feedback without
knowing how it would have been co-constructed by the target hearer. Nonetheless, the real
purpose of these activities was to incidentally expose the learners to the target structures rather
than to teach them how to evaluate criticism, which they had already learned in the first session
and continued to practice in the subsequent reflection tasks.
5. It should be noted that although the corrected part was stressed phonologically, we cannot be
certain that the recast was understood the way it was intended. This may particularly be the case
for Type 3 where there were more than one error to deal with. Unfortunately, we did not
interview the students to find out whether or not they noticed the focus of the correction.
However, the students’ postexperimental improvement has attested to the efficacy of the
treatment.

Notes on contributors
Minh Thi Thuy Nguyen is an Assistant Professor at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore. Her research interests and recent publications include
pragmatics and language learning, language pedagogy, and language teacher education.
Hanh Thi Pham is a Lecturer at the Faculty of English Language Teacher Education at the University
of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi. Her professional and
research interests are curriculum development, testing and assessment, SLA, and teacher education.
Tam Minh Pham is a Lecturer at the Faculty of English Language Teacher Education at the
University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi. Her
research interests include language pedagogy and language teacher education.

References
Alcón-Soler, E. 2005. “Does Instruction Work for Learning Pragmatics in the EFL Context?”
System 33 (3): 417–435. doi:10.1016/j.system.2005.06.005.
Alcón-Soler, E., ed. 2008. Learning How to Request in an Instructed Language Learning Context.
Bern: Peter Lang.
Ammar, A., and N. Spada. 2006. “One Size Fits All? Recasts, Prompts, and L2 Learning.” Studies
in Second Language Acquisition 28 (4): 543–574. doi:10.1017/S0272263106060268.
Bachman, L. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., and B. Hartford. 1993. “Learning the Rules of Academic Talk: A Longitudinal
Study of Pragmatic Change.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15 (3): 279–304.
doi:10.1017/S0272263100012122.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., and R. Mahan-Taylor, eds. 2003. Teaching Pragmatics. Washington, DC:
United States Department of State.
Bouton, L. F. 1994. “Can NNS Skill in Interpreting Implicature in American English be Improved
through Explicit Instruction? – A Pilot Study.” In Pragmatics and Language Learning. Vol. 5,


Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:33 09 April 2015

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching

19

edited by L. Bouton, 88–109. Urbana: Division of English as an International Language
Intensive English Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Canale, M. 1983. “On Some Dimensions of Language Proficiency.” In Issues in Language Testing
Research, edited by W. Oller, 332–342. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Canale, M., and M. Swain. 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.

Carroll, S., and M. Swain. 1993. “Explicit and Implicit Negative Feedback: An Empirical Study of
the Learning of Linguistic Generalizations.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15 (3):
357–386.doi:10.1017/S0272263100012158.
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Doughty, C. 1991. “Second Language Instruction Does Make a Difference: Evidence from
an Empirical Study of SL Relativization.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13 (4):
431–469. doi:10.1017/S0272263100010287.
Doughty, C. 2001. “Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form.” In Cognition and Second
Language Instruction, edited by P. Robinson, 206–257. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Doughty, C., and E. Varela. 1998. “Communicative Focus on Form.” In Focus on Form in
Classroom Second Language Acquisition, edited by C. Doughty and J. Williams, 114–1380.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., and J. Williams, eds. 1998. Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language
Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge, University Press.
Egi, T. 2010. “Uptake, Modified Output, and Learner Perceptions of Recasts: Learner Responses as
Language Awareness.” The Modern Language Journal 94 (1): 1–21. doi:10.1111/j.15404781.2009.00980.x.
Ellis, R. 2001. “Investigating Form-focused Instruction.” Language Learning 51 (Suppl.1): 1–46.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.2001.tb00013.x.
Ellis, R. 2008. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ellis, R., and Y. Sheen. 2006. “Reexamining the Role of Recasts in Second Language Acquisition.”
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28: 575–600. doi:10.1017/S027226310606027X.
Eslami, Z. R., A. Mirzaei, and S. Dini. 2014. “The Role of Asynchronous Computer Mediated
Communication in the Instruction and Development of EFL Learners’ Pragmatic Competence.”
System 48: 99–111. doi:10.1016/j.system.2014.09.008.
Fukuya, Y. J. 1998. “Consciousness-raising of Downgraders in Requests.” Paper presented at
Second Language Research Forum ‘98, University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Honolulu, October
15–18.

Fukuya, Y., and M. Clark. 2001. “A Comparison of Input Enhancement and Explicit Instruction of
Mitigators.” In Pragmatics and Language Learning. Vol. 10, edited by L. Bouton, 111–130.
Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois.
Fukuya, Y., M. Reeve, J. Gisi, and M. Christianson. 1998. “Does Focus on Form Work for Teaching
Sociopragmatics?” Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Conference on
Pragmatics and Language Learning, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL, February
27. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 452736).
Fuykuya, Y., and Y. Zhang. 2002. “Effects of Recasts on EFL Learners’ Acquisition of
Pragmalinguistic Conventions of Request.” Second Language Studies 21 (1): 1–47.
Gass, S. 1988. “Integrating Research Areas: A Framework for Second Language Studies.” Applied
Linguistics 9 (2): 198–217.doi:10.1093/applin/9.2.198.
Gass, S., and M. Alison. 2007. “Input, Interaction, and Output in Second Language Acquisition.” In
Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction, edited by B. VanPatten and
J. Williams, 175–199. New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence, Mahwah.
Ghavamnia, M., A. Eslami-Rasekha, and H. Vahid-Dastjerdia. 2014. “The Effects of Inputenhanced Instruction on Iranian EFL Learners’ Production of Appropriate and Accurate
Suggestions.” The Language Learning Journal. doi:10.1080/09571736.2014.972431.
Han, Z., E. Park, and C. Combs. 2008. “Textual Enhancement of Input: Issues and Possibilities.”
Applied Linguistics 29 (4): 597–618. doi:10.1093/applin/amn010.
Hassal, T. 2001. “Modifying Requests in a Second Language.” International Review of Applied
Linguistics in Language Teaching 39: 59–283. doi:10.1515/iral.2001.005.


Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:33 09 April 2015

20

M.T.T. Nguyen et al.

House, J. 1996. “Developing Pragmatic Fluency in English as a Foreign Language: Routines and
Metapragmatic Awareness.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18 (2): 225–252. doi:10.

1017/S0272263100014893.
Izumi, S. 2002. “Output, Input Enhancement, and the Noticing Hypothesis: An Experimental Study
on ESL Relativization.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24 (4): 541–577. doi:10.1017/
S0272263102004023.
Jeon, E. H., and T. Kaya. 2006. “Effects of L2 Instruction on Interlanguage Pragmatic
Development: A Meta-analysis.” In Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and
Teaching, edited by M. Norris and L. Ortega, 165–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kasper, G., and K. Rose. 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kasper, G., and R. Schmidt. 1996. “Developmental Issues in Interlanguage Pragmatics.” Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 18 (2): 149–169. doi:10.1017/S0272263100014868.
Koike, D. A., and L. Pearson. 2005. “The Effect of Instruction and Feedback in the Development of
Pragmatic Competence.” System 33 (3): 481–501. doi:10.1016/j.system.2005.06.008.
Leeman, J., I. Arteagoitia, B. Fridman, and C. Doughty. 1995. “Integrating Attention to Form with
Meaning: Focus on Form in Content-based Spanish Instruction.” In Attention and Awareness in
Foreign Language Learning, edited by R. Schmidt, 217–258. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i,
Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
Long, M. 1991. “Focus on Form: A Design Feature in Language Teaching Methodology.” In
Foreign Language Research in Cross-cultural Perspective, edited by K. de Bot, Kees, R.
Ginsberg, and C. Kramsch, 39–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
Long, M. 1996. “The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition.” In
Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, edited by W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia, 413–468. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Long, M., and P. Robinson 1998. “Focus on Form: Theory, Research, and Practice.” In Focus on
Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, edited by C. Doughty and J. Williams, 15–41.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. 2006. Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Long, M., and P. Robinson. 1998. “Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice.” In Focus on
Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, edited by C. Doughty and J. Williams, 15–
41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Long, M., and J. Norris. 2009. “Task-based Teaching and Assessment.” In Task-based Language

Teaching: A reader, edited by K. van den Branden, M. Bygate, and J. Norris, 135–42.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lyster, R. 1998. “Recasts, Repetition, and Ambiguity in L2 Classroom Discourse.” Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 20 (1): 51–81. doi:10.1017/S027226319800103X.
Lyster, R. 2004. “Differential Effects of Prompts and Recasts in Form-focused Instruction.” Studies
in Second Language Acquisition 26 (3): 399–432. doi:10.1017/S0272263104263021.
Lyster, R., and L. Ranta. 1997. “Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake: Negotiation of Form in
Communicative Classrooms.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19 (1): 37–66.
doi:10.1017/S0272263197001034.
Lyster, R., K. Saito, and M. Sato. 2013. “Oral Corrective Feedback in Second Language
Classrooms.” Language Teaching 46 (1): 1–40. doi:10.1017/S0261444812000365.
Mackey, A., and J. Philp. 1998. “Conversational Interaction and Second Language Development:
Recasts, Responses, and Red Herrings?” The Modern Language Journal 82 (3): 338–356.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01211.x.
Martínez-Flor, A. 2006. “The Effectiveness of Explicit and Implicit Treatments on EFL Learners’
Confidence in Recognizing Appropriate Suggestions.” In Pragmatics and Language Learning.
Vol. 11, edited by K. Bardovi-Harlig, C. Félix-Brasdefer, and A. S. Ormar, 199–223. Honolulu:
National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawaii.
Martínez-Flor, A. 2008. “The Effects of an Inductive-deductive Teaching Approach to Develop
Learners’ Use of Request Modifiers in the EFL Classroom.” In Learning How to Request in an
Instructed Language Learning Context, edited by E. Alcón-Soler, 191–225. Bern: Peter Lang.
Martínez-Flor, A., and E. Alcón-Soler. 2007. “Developing Pragmatic Awareness of Suggestions in
the EFL Classroom: A Focus on Instructional Effects.” Canadian Journal of Applied
Linguistics 10 (1): 47–76.


Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:33 09 April 2015

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching

21

Martínez-Flor, A., and Y. J. Fukuya. 2005. “The Effects of Instruction on Learners’ Production of
Appropriate and Accurate Suggestions.” System 33: 463–480. doi:10.1016/j.system.2005.
06.007.
Martínez-Flor, A., E. Usó-Juan, and A. Fernández-Guerra, eds. 2003. Pragmatic Competence and
Foreign Language Teaching. Castelló, Spain: Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I,
Castello.
Nguyen, T. T. M. 2005. “Criticizing and Responding to Criticism in a Foreign Language: A Study
of Vietnamese Learners of English.” PhD. thesis, The University of Auckland.
Nguyen, T. T. M. 2008. “Modifying L2 Criticisms: How Learners Do It?” Journal of Pragmatics
40 (4): 768–791. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.008.
Nguyen, T. T. M. 2013. “Instructional Effects on the Acquisition of Modifiers in Constructive
Criticism by EFL Learners.” Language Awareness 22 (1): 76–94. doi:10.1080/09658416.2012.
658810.
Nguyen, T. T. M., M. T. Pham, and T. H. Cao. 2013. “The Effects of Explicit Meta-pragmatic
Instruction on EFL Learners’ Performance of Constructive Criticisms in an Academic Setting.”
In Pragmatics and Language Learning. Vol 13, edited by T. Greer, D. Tatsuki, and C. Roever,
199–230. Honolulu: National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawaii.
Nguyen, T. T. M., T. H. Pham, and M. T. Pham. 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. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.01.003.
Ortega, L., and M. Long. 1997. “The Effects of Models and Recasts on Object Topicalization and
Adverb Placement in L2 Spanish.” Spanish Applied Linguistics 1: 65–86.
Panova, I., and R. Lyster. 2002. “Patterns of Corrective Feedback and Uptake in an Adult ESL
Classroom.” TESOL Quarterly 36 (4): 573–595. doi:10.2307/3588241.
Pearson, L. 1998. “Spanish L2 Pragmatics: The Effects of Metapragmatic Discussion.” Paper
presented at Second Language Research Forum ‘98, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, October
15–18.
Roever, C. 2009. “Teaching and Testing Pragmatics.” In Handbook of Language Teaching, edited

by M. H. Long and C. J. Doughty, 560–577. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Rollinson, P. 2005. “Using Peer Feedback in the ESL Writing Class.” ELT Journal 59 (1): 23–30.
doi:10.1093/elt/cci003.
Rose, K. 2005. “On the Effects of Instruction in Second Language Pragmatics.” System 33 (3):
385–399. doi:10.1016/j.system.2005.06.003.
Rose, K., and G. Kasper. 2001. Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Safont, M. P. 2003. “Instructional Effects on the Use of Request Acts Modification Devices by EFL
Learners.” In Pragmatic Competence and Foreign Language Teaching, edited by A. MartınezFlor, E. Uso-Juan and A. Fernandez-Guerra, 211–232. Castelló, Spain: Servei de Publicacions
de la Universitat Jaume I, Castello.
Salazar, P. C. 2003. “Pragmatic Instruction in the EFL Context.” In Pragmatic Competence and
Foreign Language Teaching, edited by A. Martınez-Flor, E. Uso, and A. Fernandez, 233–246.
Castelló: Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I, Castello.
Saxton, M. 1997. “The Contrast Theory of Negative Input.” Journal of Child Language 24 (1):
139–161. doi:10.1017/S030500099600298X.
Schmidt, R. 1990. “The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning.” Applied Linguistics
11 (2): 129–158. doi:10.1093/applin/11.2.129.
Schmidt, R. 1993. “Consciousness, Learning, and Interlanguage Pragmatics.” In Interlanguage
Pragmatics, edited by G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka, 21–42. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Sharwood Smith, M. 1981. “Consciousness Raising and Second Language Acquisition Theory.”
Applied Linguistics 7 (3): 239–256.
Sharwood Smith, M. 1993. “Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases.” Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 15 (2): 165–179. doi:10.1017/S0272263100011943.
Sheen, Y. 2004. “Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake in Communicative Classrooms across
Instructional Settings.” Language Teaching Research 8 (3): 263–300. doi:10.1191/136216880
4lr146oa.
Sheen, Y. 2006. “Exploring the Relationship between Characteristics of Recasts and Learner
Uptake.” Language Teaching Research 10 (4): 361–392. doi:10.1191/1362168806lr203oa.

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:33 09 April 2015

22

M.T.T. Nguyen et al.

Sheen, Y. 2008. “Recasts, Language Anxiety, Modified Output and L2 Learning.” Language
Learning 58 (4): 835–874. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00480.x.
Sheen, Y. 2010. “Differential Effects of Oral and Written Corrective Feedback in the ESL
Classroom.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32 (2): 203–234. doi:10.1017/S027
2263109990507.
Taguchi, N. 2011. “Teaching Pragmatics: Trends and Issues.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
31: 289–310. doi:10.1017/S0267190511000018.
Takahashi, S. 2001. “The Role of Input Enhancement in Developing Pragmatic Competence.” In
Pragmatics in Language Teaching, edited by K. Rose and G. Kasper, 171–199. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Takahashi, S. 2005. “Noticing in Task Performance and Learning Outcomes: A Qualitative Analysis
of Instructional Effects in Interlanguage Pragmatics.” System 33 (3): 437–461. doi:10.1016/j.
system.2005.06.006.
Takahashi, S. 2010. “The Effect of Pragmatic Instruction on Speech Act Performance.” In Speech
Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues, edited by A. MartínezFlor and E. Usó-Juan, 127–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Takimoto, M. 2009. “The Effects of Input-based Tasks on the Development of Learners’ Pragmatic
Proficiency.” Applied Linguistics 30 (1): 1–25. doi:10.1093/applin/amm049.
Tateyama, Y. 2001. “Explicit and Implicit Teaching of Pragmatic Routines: Japanese Sumimasen.”
In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, edited by K. Rose and G. Kasper, 200–222. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, J. 1983. “Cross-cultural Pragmatic Failure.” Applied linguistics 4 (2): 91–112.
doi:10.1093/applin/4.2.91.
Tracy, K., D. Van Dusen, and S. Robinson. 1987. “Good and Bad Criticism: A Descriptive

Analysis.” Journal of Communication 37 (2): 46–60. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1987.tb00982.x
White, J. 1998. “Getting the Learners’ Attention: A Typographical Input Enhancement Study.” In
Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, edited by C. Doughty and
J. Williams, 85–113. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wong, W. 2003. “Textual Enhancement and Simplified Input: Effects on L2 Comprehension and
Acquisition of Non-meaningful Grammatical Form.” Applied Language Learning 13 (2):
17–45.

Appendix: Sample instructional materials
Worksheet 3
Instruction: Sandra has just written an essay on the topic ‘Should people who travel to the city to work each day
use only public transport?’ Read her work carefully. Try to identify at least one unsatisfactory point about her
paragraph. What comments do you want to give her regarding this point? Make notes of your comments and be
ready to share them with the class.
(Sandra’s essay provided)
Worksheet 4
Instruction: Meredith is giving Sandra some comments on her writing. Please look carefully at the lines in bold
face type and underline all the instances of critical feedback that you can find there. On what aspects of the essay
does Meredith give feedback to Sandra? Do you agree with her? Compare your own comments with Meredith’s.
Which do you think would be more effective? Why?
Meredith: Alright, Sandra, I thought your essay was pretty good, especially taking into consideration that we
have pretty limited time, we didn’t get to research it or anything like that but it was still strong research. I
thought in your topic sentence you sort of have listed about the benefits of public transport then you followed
through in the next sentences. I thought it followed along fairly well. Just in the fourth sentence you sort of
changed from ‘people’ and the generic ‘we’ to ‘you.’ I think maybe you could have kept one or the other,
because later you went back to ‘people,’ so it was a bit inconsistent but it’s nothing too major. In the end I
thought that you didn’t really answer the question, because you sort of had to disagree or agree, and you said
you strongly agree that people should use public transport, but then you said but it’s up to them, so it’s sort of
contradictory.
(A longer feedback episode with highlighted target features continues)

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching

23

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:33 09 April 2015

Worksheet 8: Reflection checklist
(1) What aspect did you focus on when giving feedback on your friend’s essay?
(2) How effective do you feel your feedback was?
(3) How do you think your friend would feel about your feedback? Why?
(4) If you could do this feedback task again, what would you like to change about your feedback? Why?