References
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.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Vellenga, H. E. (2012). The effect of instruction on conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. System, 40(1), 77–89.
Coulmas, F. (1981). Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech. The Hague: Mouton.
Edmondson, W., & House, J. (1991). Do learners talk too much? The waffle phenomenon in interlanguage pragmatics. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogy research (pp. 273–287). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Rafieyan, V., Sharafi-Nejad, M., & Eng, L. S. (2014). Effect of pragmatic instruction on development of pragmatic comprehension and production. English Language Teaching, 7(2), 122–130.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taguchi, N. (2013). Pragmatic competence. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Keywords
pragmatic instruction
study abroad
conventional expressions
Short summary
This study compares the effects of pragmatic instruction and educational sojourn on L2 learners’ knowledge of English conventional expressions. Findings show that explicit pragmatic instruction leads to significantly greater gains than study abroad alone. Interpreted through the Noticing Hypothesis, the results highlight the role of awareness in pragmatic development and support integrating pragmatics into EFL instruction, even when study-abroad opportunities are available.
Abstract
Conventional expressions, defined as tacitly shared formulas for social interaction (Coulmas, 1981), play a crucial role in pragmatic competence but are notoriously difficult for second language learners to acquire, even at advanced proficiency levels (Bardovi-Harlig & Vellenga, 2012). Learners often lack access to contextually appropriate, conventionalized forms and may fail to link linguistic form to pragmatic function (Edmondson & House, 1991). This study compares the effects of two forms of pragmatic intervention—explicit pragmatic instruction and educational sojourn—on learners’ knowledge of English conventional expressions.
Participants were 30 Malaysian undergraduate students majoring in English education, divided into a study-at-home group receiving semester-long pragmatic instruction and a study-abroad group spending one academic semester at a U.S. university. All participants were at an upper-intermediate level of English proficiency. Knowledge of conventional expressions was assessed using a discourse completion task eliciting a wide range of speech acts (Bardovi-Harlig, 2009). Responses were rated for pragmatic appropriateness by two native speakers of English using a four-point scale (Taguchi, 2013).
Results from an independent-samples t-test showed that learners who received pragmatic instruction significantly outperformed those in the study-abroad group, with a substantial effect size. These findings are interpreted through the Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990, 2001), suggesting that explicit instruction enhances awareness of pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic features, thereby facilitating intake. The study highlights the pedagogical value of integrating pragmatic instruction into EFL classrooms, even in contexts where study-abroad opportunities are available (Rafieyan et al., 2014).
| Scheduling preference | Anytime on Saturday |
|---|---|
| Title | Pragmatic Instruction vs. Study Abroad in Learning Conventional Expressions |