The effects of deductive instruction and inductive instruction on learners’ development of pragmatic competence in the teaching of Chinese as a second language

System 70 (2017) 26e37

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/system

The effects of deductive instruction and inductive instruction on learners’ development of pragmatic competence in the teaching of Chinese as a second language Xuedan Qi a, *, Chun Lai b a b

Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou, China The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 12 October 2016 Received in revised form 15 August 2017 Accepted 21 August 2017

Pragmatic competence determines one's overall communicative competence and can be developed through pedagogical interventions. The existing literature generally agrees on the effectiveness of explicit instruction in the development of pragmatic competence, but diverges on when and how explicit knowledge is best provided, and when and how pragmatic input may be most effectively presented. This study adds to the existing literature by comparing the effectiveness of two types of pragmatic instruction e deductive instruction and inductive instruction e via self-access websites in developing Chinese as a second language (CSL) learners' pragmatic competence in the speech act of request. Fortytwo intermediate-level CSL learners were randomly assigned to the two treatment conditions, and their performance in open-ended discourse completion tasks (DCT) was compared across the two groups. The study found a significantly greater effect of the inductive approach on learners' DCT performance in both the immediate and delayed posttest. This suggests that inductive instruction might be more effective in teaching the speech act of request in CSL. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Pragmatic instruction Pragmatic competence CSL The speech act of request

1. Introduction Pragmatic competence has been recognized as an essential component of communicative competence (Laughlin, Wain, &
-Juan & Martínez-Flor, 2006), and has been found to be a great challenge to second language (L2) Schmidgall, 2015; Uso learners, even those with advanced proficiency levels, as they are frequently reported to lack the knowledge and ability to use pragmatically appropriate language in daily communication (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Halenko & Jones, 2011; Kasper, 1997). Thus, how to help learners to develop L2 pragmatic competence has drawn much research attention (Li, 2012; Martínez-Flor, 2008). It is commonly agreed that most pragmatic features, such as speech acts, pragmatic routines, discourse makers, and discourse strategies, are teachable in the classroom environment (Rose, 2005), and that L2 learners who receive pragmatic instruction outperform those who are merely exposed to the target language (Jeon & Kaya, 2006; Yoshimi, 2001). Research on pragmatic instruction has compared the effectiveness of explicit instruction (i.e., explicit discussion and teaching of pragmatic

* Corresponding author. Room 204, Institute for International Education, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, No.2 North Baiyun Avenue, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (X. Qi). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.08.011 0346-251X/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

X. Qi, C. Lai / System 70 (2017) 26e37

27

rules) to that of implicit instruction (i.e., engaging learners’ attention without explicit metalinguistic explanation or discussion) on the development of L2 pragmatic competence, and the findings are generally in favor of explicit instruction
n-Soler, 2005; Duan & Wannaruk, 2010; Farrokhi & Atashian, 2012; Martínez-Flor, 2006; Rose & Ng, 2001; Takahashi, (Alco 2001). Despite universal agreement on the effectiveness of explicit instruction, there is a great deal of controversy over when and how explicit rules are best provided (Kasper & Roever, 2005). One issue is whether explicit pragmatic rules should be provided after students have gone through the mind work of finding out the rules from examples by themselves, or whether the rules should be provided directly to students before they are provided with elaborative examples e in other words, whether explicit instruction should be delivered deductively or inductively. This study aims at enhancing our understanding of the issue through an experimental study that compares the effectiveness of explicit deductive instruction and explicit inductive instruction on a group of CSL learners’ development of pragmatic competence in the speech act of request in a lab-based experiment. 2. Literature review 2.1. Deductive instruction and inductive instruction Deduction is the process that goes from the general to the specific, and a deductive approach to language teaching provides explicit explanation on the metalinguistic rules related to the target language structures first before presenting students with examples of these structures (Decoo, 1996; Vogel, Herron, Cole, & York, 2011). In contrast, induction is the process that goes from the specific to the general, and an inductive teaching approach focuses on directing learners’ attention to the target structures and/or guiding learners to work out the rules from real language use (Decoo, 1996; Takimoto, 2008; Vogel et al., 2011). Thus, the procedural relationship between rules and examples is the key factor that differentiates inductive approaches from deductive approaches. A natural question that follows is whether inductive learning denies the explicit teaching of rules. In other word, does inductive learning necessarily imply implicit learning? Decoo (1996) and DeKeyser (2003) have proposed two influential theoretical frameworks that could shed some light on this question. Both frameworks negate the simple equation of deductive learning to explicit learning and inductive learning to implicit learning. Decoo (1996) conceptualized four modalities of inductive learning, which could be either explicit or implicit (see Appendix A and Table 1). DeKeyser (2003) further pointed out that both deductive and inductive could be either explicit or implicit (see Table 2). DeKeyser asserts that both explicit deductive learning and explicit inductive learning involve metalinguistic rules, and the only difference is whether the rules are acquired through teaching or through self-discovery. However, neither of the frameworks specifically theorizes whether inductive learning would involve direct explanation of the rules. Prince and Felder (2006), in their seminar, works on inductive teaching, made it explicit that “when we speak of inductive methods, we therefore do not mean total avoidance of lecturing and complete reliance on self-discovery” (p. 124). The point was also highlighted by DeKeyser (1995), who stated “induction can be either implicit or explicit (and explicit induction can happen with or without help from a teacher or textbook” (p. 380)). Based on these theoretical discussions, this study operationalizes inductive learning as inductive guided discovery supplemented with the provision of explicit rules of the target features, which aligns with the practice in quite a few studies (Chan, 2004; Glaser, 2016; Haight, Herron, & Cole, 2007; Jean & Simard, 2013; Takimoto, 2008; Vogel & Engelhard, 2011). 2.2. Empirical studies on deductive and inductive pragmatic instruction Empirical studies have examined the efficacy of deductive versus inductive instruction on learners' development of L2 pragmatics, but the findings remain inconclusive. Some found significant differences between the two approaches (Glaser, 2016; Rose & Ng, 2001; Takimoto, 2008), while others did not find any (Trosborg & Shaw, 1998). Among the studies that Table 1 Comparison of Decoo's five modalities. Deductive

Explicit or implicit Guided discovery Material structure

Inductive

Modality A

Modality B

Modality C

Modality D

Modality E

Explicit Absence N/A

Explicit or implicit Presence N/A

Explicit Absence N/A

Implicit Absence Structured material

Implicit Absence Unstructured material

Table 2 The inductive/deductive-implicit/explicit dimensions (DeKeyser, 2003: 315).

Explicit Implicit

Deductive

Inductive

Traditional teaching Using parameters

Rule discovery Learning L1 from input

28

X. Qi, C. Lai / System 70 (2017) 26e37

did find differences, Rose and Ng (2001) found that deductive instruction had more positive effects than inductive instruction, whereas Takimoto’s (2008) and Glaser’s (2016) reported the opposite. The inconsistent findings might be due to the differences in learners' proficiency levels, the pragmatic features investigated, and the operationalization of inductive approaches in these studies. Although all four studies chose English as the target foreign language, three studies were based on the performances of advanced language learners (Glaser, 2016; Rose & Ng, 2001; Trosborg & Shaw, 1998) while one study involved intermediate language learners (Takimoto, 2008). These studies also examined different pragmatic features, including complaints (Trosborg & Shaw, 1998), compliments and compliment responses (Rose & Ng, 2001), requests (Takimoto, 2008), and refusals (Glaser, 2016). These pragmatic features varied in complexity and might have responded differently to different types of instruction (Jean & Simard, 2013; Rose & Ng, 2001). For instance, the negative finding on inductive instruction in Rose and Ng’s (2001) study might have been due to “the highly formulaic nature of American English compliments” (p. 168), which made it a relatively easy pragmatic feature for their advanced-level participants to understand. In contrast, the target pragmatic features in Takimoto's (2008) and Glaser's (2016) studies were requests and refusals, whose pragmalinguistic forms and influential social factors might be more varied and complex than those concerning complains and compliments (Glaser, 2016; Takimoto, 2008). In addition, deductive and inductive instruction were operationalized differently in these studies, which might also have influenced the findings (Glaser, 2014; Vogel et al., 2011). While all these studies operationalized deductive instruction as explicit-deductive instruction of metapragmatic information, inductive instruction was operationalized differently, with two studies examining implicitinductive instruction (Rose & Ng, 2001; Trosborg & Shaw, 1998) and the other two examining explicit-inductive instruction (Glaser, 2016; Takimoto, 2008). The two studies that compared explicit-deductive and explicit-inductive instruction both reported some advantages of inductive instruction over deductive instruction (Glaser, 2016; Takimoto, 2008). The researchers attributed the better performance in the inductive instruction condition to its strength in developing learners' ability to process information stored in working memory. Thus, current literature suggests that explicit inductive instruction might be more effective than explicit deductive instruction, and that the advantages of inductive instruction might be more salient in the case of relatively more complex features that involve more varied pragmalinguistic structures and influencing factors in language use. Given the inconsistent findings in the current literature, more research studies are needed to shed further light on this issue. Moreover, most extant studies have examined the acquisition of English pragmatic features in the English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) contexts; their findings may not be easily applied to other languages, as pragmatic features in different languages may vary in the degree of complexity and thus respond differently to different instructional approaches. Given the lack of studies on this topic in Chinese as a second language (CSL) contexts (Ma, Gong, Gao, & Xiang, 2017), this study aims to fill in the current research gap by comparing the effectiveness of explicit deductive instruction with that of explicit inductive instruction in the acquisition of Chinese speech act of request among CSL learners. 2.3. Research question and hypothesis This study examined a group of CSL learners’ acquisition of the speech act of request via self-study of video-based selfaccess websites under two instructional conditions: explicit deductive instruction and explicit inductive instruction (guided discovery followed by explicit rule explanation). Thus, the study investigated the following research question: Is explicit inductive instruction more effective than explicit deductive instruction in CSL learners’ development of the speech act of request? We hypothesized that the explicit inductive instruction condition would demonstrate better learning outcomes for two reasons. First, inductive instruction involves active problem-solving or hypothesis-testing process (Fosnot, 2005; Kim, 2005; Pelech & Pieper, 2010; Reagan & Osborn, 2002; Zahorik, 1995), and has been found to be more effective than, or at least equal to, the deductive approach in terms of achieving a range of learning outcomes, such as retention of knowledge, academic achievement, conceptual understanding, reasoning skills, and the development of thinking (Prince & Felder, 2006, 2007). Learners’ active engagement in hypothesis testing and linguistic data processing is also deemed important for L2 acquisition (Bley-Vroman, 1986; Herron & Tomasello, 1992; Tomasello & Tomasello, 2009), and a synthetic review of L2 studies has shown the inductive approach with guided discovery tended to be more promising and effective at providing this (Glaser, 2014). Second, researchers have pointed out that “the nature of the rule or syntactic structures” might influence the effectiveness of the instructional approaches (Jean & Simard, 2013, p. 1025), and that inductive instruction might be particularly beneficial for complex and dynamic problems (Klauer, 1996). Since L2 pragmatic development (i.e., acquisition of speech acts) involves formfunction-context connections (Li, 2012), and features high variability and irregularity, it may be more responsive to inductive instruction. The target pragmatic feature, Chinese speech act of request, is particularly complex as it is highly variable regarding the relationship between the requester and requestee; thus inductive instruction may benefit its acquisition more. 3. Method 3.1. Participants The participants in this study were 42 CSL adult learners at a university in mainland China. They were studying in intermediate-level classes, based on their performance on placement tests (consisting of both a written and an oral

X. Qi, C. Lai / System 70 (2017) 26e37

29

proficiency test) at the beginning of the semester. The study began three weeks after the placement test. Intermediate-level students were recruited because they were still developing their pragmatic competence, but had sufficient proficiency to process the intervention materials. The participants included 18 male and 24 female students, between the ages of 19 and 27, who had been studying Chinese for 9 months to 4 years. Among the participants, 21 were from Asian countries, and 21 were from non-Asian countries. The participants were randomly assigned to the deductive instruction (DI) group (n ¼ 22) or the inductive instruction (II) group (n ¼ 20). Table 3 shows the two groups were equivalent in their gender and nationality distribution. 3.2. Treatment materials and conditions This study adopted Modality A (explicit-deductive) and Modality B (explicit-inductive) from Decoo’s (1996) framework (see Appendix A) to design the instructional approaches for the two treatment groups, and the training materials were video clips delivered via self-access websites. The video clips were excerpts from contemporary Chinese situational comedies that contained requests. Video clips were chosen because they contained contextualized language input that has been argued to be an effective means of presenting pragmatic features (Abrams, 2014; Derakhshan & Zangoei, 2014; Rose, 1997). A total of 27 video clips, varying in length from five to thirty seconds, were selected for instruction. They were cut in such a way that each contained at least one request utterance as well as the context of the dialogue between interlocutors. Each video clip was preceded by a brief textual description of the situation of the request utterance to ensure that the learners would have sufficient contextual information surrounding the speech act (i.e., the relationship between interlocutors; the reasons for the request). The conversations in these clips were evaluated by ten native Chinese speakers, who affirmed they resembled natural and genuine conversations between people in real life. All conversations were supplemented with transcripts and English translations, and the request events were highlighted in bold to raise learners' awareness of the target features during the learning process. The selected video clip examples and explicit rule explanations were structured in reference to the taxonomy of three social variables that influence request strategies: social distance, social power, and rank of imposition (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984; Brown & Levinson, 1987; Nikula, 1996; Rue & Zhang, 2008). Social distance refers to how close the interlocutors are, and social power refers to the status of the requester with respect to the requestee. These two variables are external contextual factors related to the interlocutors' role relationship and are relatively easy to classify. Rank of imposition is an internal contextual factor concerning the specific situation in the conversation (i.e., the requester's estimated legitimacy of the request) or other situational prerequisites for compliance (i.e., the requestee's ability and willingness to comply). Since the rank of imposition deals with the requester's estimation of the specific situation, it is difficult to measure externally. Thus, in this study, social distance and social power were chosen as the classification criteria for the video clips and instructional sessions; however, rank of imposition was also pointed out in the instructional materials. Each website consisted of one introductory unit (fundamental knowledge of requests, i.e., request strategy type and social variables) and nine units structured by the variation of social distance (D) and social power (P) (see Table 4). Social distance was categorized into three levels according to the relationship types in Chinese culture. In the table, eD means the interlocutors are intimate; ±D means the interlocutors know each other but are not very close; and þD means the interlocutors are strangers. The units on both websites included the same teaching materials, with the only difference being the order of presentation. In the DI group, students were given textual explanations of the pragmatic rules of the requests first, and the textual explanations were then illustrated with three examples of requests in the form of video clips with transcripts. Afterwards, the participants were given a discourse completion task item to practice. In contrast, participants in the II group viewed the three video clip examples first and were then provided with some questions that guided them to discover specific features and rules. These guiding questions asked them to assess the request strategy type in the video clips and the sociopragmatic reasons behind the request strategy. Examples of the guiding questions were: “Which type of request strategy is used in these

Table 3 Demographic information of participants in two instruction groups. Gender

Nationality (First language)

Length of Chinese learning

Mean age

DI (N ¼ 22)

10 males 12 females

11 Asians: 6 Koreans (Korean); 4 Japanese (Japanese); 1 Thai (Thai) 11 non-Asians: 3 Germans (German); 2 Russian (Russian); 1 Italian (Italian); 1 Portuguese (Portuguese); 1 American (English); 1 Pole (Polish); 1 Australian (Australian); 1 Dutch (Dutch)

22.6

II (N ¼ 20)

8 males 12 females

10 Asians: 6 Koreans (Korean); 4 Japanese (Japanese) 10 non-Asians: 2 German (German); 1 Russian (Russian); 1 Italian (Italian); 1 Portuguese (Portuguese); 1 Ukrainian (Ukrainian); 1 Pole (Polish); 1 Slovakian (Slovak); 1 Australian (Australian); 1 Dutch (Dutch)

9 months to 4 years 9 months to 2 years: N ¼ 21; 4 years: N¼1 10 months to 2 years

21.89

30

X. Qi, C. Lai / System 70 (2017) 26e37 Table 4 Structure of the instructional sessions in each website. Unit

Content

Introductory Unit Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Unit 6 Unit 7 Unit 8 Unit 9

Fundamental knowledge about requests Close & Request > Requestee (eD þ P) Close & Request ¼ Requestee (eD ± P) Close & Request < Requestee (eD eP) Casual & Request > Requestee (±D þ P) Casual & Request ¼ Requestee (±D ± P) Casual & Request < Requestee (±D eP) Distant & Request > Requestee (þD þ P) Distant & Request ¼ Requestee (þD ± P) Distant & Request < Requestee (þD eP)

videos? Why is it used?”, “What kind of requests do you use in your mother language when facing the same situation?”, and “Can you find any words or ways to show politeness? How and why are they used?”. Explicit pragmatic rules were then provided after the participants submitted their responses to the guiding questions. They were then given the same practice item to work on as the one in the DI group. 3.3. Instruments 3.3.1. Discourse completion task (DCT) Written Discourse Completion Task (DCT) was used to measure learners' speech act performance. DCT presented descriptions of a number of situations and asked learners to write down what they would say in each situation (Kasper & Dahl, 1991). DCT elicits speech act data under controlled conditions and thus measures learners' offline pragmatic competence, in
lix-Brasdefer, 2010). Although written DCT has been criticized for its lack both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic terms (Fe of task authenticity (i.e., limited contextual information; non-interactive format) and the unreliability of written responses
lix-Brasdefer, 2010; Roever, 2013; Woodfield, 2008), it has also been argued to efficiently elicit participants' projected oral (Fe language (Cohen, 2010) which has been found to be compatible with the major patterns and formulae found in natural speech occurrences (Varghese & Billmyer, 1996; Yamashita, 2008). In addition, written DCT has been argued to have a few advantages: 1) it can elicit more well-thought-out speech act data that are usually not exhibited and hence difficult to observe in
lix-Brasdefer, 2010); and 2) it allows researchers greater learners' language output in natural settings (Cohen, 2010; Fe freedom in manipulating the variables in the communication contexts than what could be possible in natural conversation settings, and thus can help researchers efficiently collect sufficient data (Glaser, 2014; Schauer, 2009). Thus, despite its limitations, written DCT was adopted to measure participants' learning outcomes. Nonetheless, it must be acknowledged that, by choosing written DCT, this study only measured the participants’ off-line pragmatic competence (i.e., what people know and what they may say) instead of their on-line pragmatic use in real-world communicative situations (i.e., what people actually do say) (Golato, 2003; Ren, 2013; Rose, 2009). In the present study, the DCT included descriptions of twelve request situations. The situations were the same for three tests (i.e., pretest, posttest and delayed posttest) but were presented in a different order to minimize possible learning effects. For each situation, the variables of social distance, social power, and rank of imposition were manipulated as shown in Table 5 (þI refers to relatively high rank of imposition; -I refers to relatively low rank of imposition). 3.3.2. Interview A semi-structured interview, consisting of seven open-ended questions, was designed to obtain learners’ perceptions of the different instructional treatments. The interview participants could choose to have the interview conducted in either English or Chinese, depending on their preference and oral fluency. During the interview, the participants were primarily asked about their perceptions of DI and II (i.e., their relative effectiveness, advantages, and disadvantages). They were also asked to comment on their reactions to the learning process: whether they enjoyed the learning process and whether they had encountered any difficulties. 3.4. Data collection and data analysis This study adopted a pretest-immediate posttest-delayed posttest design and used the written DCT (paper-and-pencil) to collect primary data on learners' request performance. Before the pretest, all participants completed a brief background Table 5 Manipulation of social variables across situations for DCT pretest. Situation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Distance Power Imposition

-D ±P -I

þD ±P -I

±D -P þI

±D þP -I

±D ±P þI

þD -P þI

þD þP -I

-D -P -I

-D þP -I

±D þP -I

-D ±P þI

±D -P þI

X. Qi, C. Lai / System 70 (2017) 26e37

31

information questionnaire, which showed that none had learned the speech act of request systematically prior to this study. The first author further confirmed with the teachers that the participants had not received instruction on requests during the preceding months of instruction, and also observed the participants’ classes to ensure request acts were not mentioned during study period. In addition, two CSL instructors reviewed the treatment and test materials to ensure they were sufficiently clear and feasible. Both the DI group and the II group followed the same research procedures. The pretest was conducted two weeks prior to the treatment and took 15e25 min. The participants were then invited to learn the speech act of request via their respective self-access websites in a computer lab outside the class time. The instructional materials were only accessible to them during the lab session. The participants were asked to study the website independently without discussing with each other or checking additional references. The first author was present during the lab sessions and observed no interactions or online surfing behaviors among participants. We decided not to control for the time that the participants spent interacting with the websites because we wanted them to work on the materials under a natural condition. As the II group needed to complete extra tasks (i.e., answer the guiding questions and summarize the rules), its participants may take more time. To check the time the learners spent with the learning materials, we randomly selected ten participants from each condition and screencaptured their interaction with the websites using a screen capture software that recorded the participants’ cursor movements on the screen. Analysis of the recordings showed that, after deducting the time learners in the inductive group spent in answering the guiding questions, the average time learners in the two groups spent in watching the teaching materials (i.e., video clips and rules) was roughly the same, both being around 1 h. The first posttest, which took approximately 15e25 min, was conducted immediately after the treatment. Focus group semi-structured interviews were then conducted after the immediate posttest. Ten participants (five from each group) were randomly selected to participate in the interview, with each interview lasting about 15e20 min. All interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed afterwards. Finally, the delayed posttest, which also took 15e25 min, was conducted two weeks after the immediate posttest to investigate the sustainability of the treatment effects. To examine the effects of the interventions on learners' speech act performance, participants’ DCT scores in the pretest and two posttests were compared between the two treatment groups using the Mann-Whitney U test. Gain scores between pretest and each posttest were calculated and compared between the two groups. The rating criteria and rubrics were developed and adapted from research conducted by Hudson, Detmer, and Brown (1992) and Liu (2006) (see Appendix C). The appropriateness of each request response was rated on a five-point scale. Two native-speaking Chinese teachers were trained to rate the DCT responses. They conducted their ratings separately and yielded an inter-rater reliability of 0.93, suggesting a high degree of rating consistency. 4. Results 4.1. DCT results No significant difference was found between the deductive group and the inductive group in pretest performance (U ¼ 335, p > 0.05), meaning the two groups were equivalent in terms of their initial pragmatic competence with regard to the speech act of request. The positive gain scores in the immediate and delayed posttests across groups suggest that both groups made some progress after the treatments (see Table 6). However, the inductive group showed a greater gain score than the deductive group in their DCT test performance in the immediate tests, with the difference being statistically significant (Z ¼ 3.27, p ¼ 0.00, h2 ¼ 0.255). The inductive group also showed a greater gain score than the deductive group in the delayed posttest, with the difference being statistically significant (Z ¼ 1.94, p ¼ 0.048, h2 ¼ 0.09). The results demonstrated that inductive instruction had more positive effects (both an immediate effect and a long-lasting effect) on learners’ acquisition of the speech act of request than did deductive instruction. 4.2. Interview results The interview responses provided some possible explanations for the different effects of the two treatment conditions and gave supplementary evidence regarding the better outcomes of the II condition. The participants reported that the II condition engaged them in a deeper thinking process, which helped them to develop an in-depth understanding of the target Table 6 Mann-Whitney U test results of gain score difference between two groups. Test

Group

N

M

Mann-Whitney U

Sig.

Immediate posttest

DI II DI II

22 20 22 20

5.82 13.25 6.00 10.25

350

0.00

297

0.048

Delayed posttest

32

X. Qi, C. Lai / System 70 (2017) 26e37

pragmatic features and to retain the pragmatic rules better. For instance, one participant from the II group talked about how the guiding question facilitated deeper thinking: The questions helped me to think more because I should discover the rules by myself. It's a little hard and challenging, but it made me remember the rules easily. Another participant recounted that the self-discovery and hypothesis-testing processes were beneficial for the comprehension and retention of pragmatic information: I tried to figure out the structures and rules with the help of the questions … Then, I was given the right answers … When I guessed it right, I was really happy. Also, I think it helped me fully understand the rules and keep them in memory for a long time. In contrast, although participants in the DI condition felt having the rules explained first made them more “comfortable” and “relaxed,” and “more confident in the subsequent learning and practice,” a few of them mentioned that DI was a passive type of learning that was “not conducive to deeper thinking”. In addition, the II condition also pushed participants to interact with the intervention materials more, which might have further enhanced its effectiveness. Analysis of participants’ interaction with the website revealed that the participants in the II group clicked back to the video clips and watched them repeatedly more often, whereas the participants in the DI group chose to skip the video clips more frequently. Moreover, compared to the DI group, the participants in the II group spent more time on the video clip examples than the other training materials. The interview responses indicated their deeper interaction with the video clips contributed to better comprehension and memorization of the pragmatic rules. One participant recounted: I would pay more attention to the conversation in videos and figure out something instead of, like, someone telling me. I think this way could help me learn better. And another participant commented: The inductive way helped me memorize the rules more easily because I could recall the rules by connecting them to the video examples. At the same time, some participants pointed out that the effectiveness of DI and II might be relative. For instance, one interviewee remarked that the efficacy of DI and II “depends on different language features.” She further pointed out that II might be more effective in the case of Chinese requests because this type of speech act was “not easy to learn.” 5. Discussion This study has examined the effects of deductive instruction and inductive instruction on CSL learners' acquisition of the speech act of request. The DCT results showed II tended to be more effective in intermediate-level proficiency leaners' pragmatic development than did DI. This finding is consistent with constructivist theories, which advocate learners’ active engagement in the learning process though problem solving and hypothesis testing (Bley-Vroman, 1986; Fosnot, 2005; Herron & Tomasello, 1992; Kim, 2005; Pelech & Pieper, 2010; Reagan & Osborn, 2002; Tomasello & Tomasello, 2009; Zahorik, 1995). In this study, the comparison of inductive and deductive instruction was conducted in the explicit paradigm, that is, explicit pragmatic information was presented in both the inductive and deductive conditions but at different times. This differed from Rose and Ng’s (2001) study, in which no explicit pragmatic information was provided after film segment watching and tasks. In other words, the II in Rose and Ng's study was an implicit type of instruction, whereas the II in this study was an explicit one. In contrast to Rose and Ng’s (2001) study, which found deductive instruction more effective in developing learners' sociopragmatic competence, this study found that inductive instruction had a greater effect on learners' performance in both immediate and delayed posttests. The different results between these two studies are consistent with those of previous studies, in which explicit instruction proved more effective in developing learners' pragmatic competence
n-Soler, 2005; House, 1996; Martínez-Flor, 2006; Rose & Ng, 2001; Takahashi, 2001). Thus, the than implicit instruction (Alco finding suggests that fine-tuned categorization along the explicit-implicit dimension might be needed when comparing the efficacy of inductive learning and deductive learning. Further studies are needed to examine the relative effectiveness of explicit inductive learning and implicit inductive learning. Concurring with Glaser's (2016) research findings on EFL learners' acquisition of refusals in English, this study found that II had a greater effect on CSL learners' development of the speech act of request in Chinese than did DI. However, Rose and Ng (2001) reported the opposite finding in their study of the acquisition of English compliments. Jean and Simard (2013) suggested that the relative effects of DI and II might depend on the nature of the rule or syntactic structure (complexity, salience, markedness, frequency, scope, etc.). As reported by Klauer (1996), inductive reasoning helps in solving complex and dynamic problems. Compared to compliments, the request is a relatively complex kind of speech act

X. Qi, C. Lai / System 70 (2017) 26e37

33

with more structures and rules, meaning that II may be more effective for its teaching. Future studies may systematically examine the interaction between the nature of pragmatic features and the effects of DI and II on the acquisition of these features. Furthermore, the present study was conducted in the context of self-access, web-based pragmatic learning, whereas both Rose and Ng's and Takimoto's studies involved classroom-based research using paper and audio materials as inputs. For one thing, video materials can provide contextual elements in a more efficient manner than paper and audio materials, and are thus probably more beneficial to L2 learners in inferring pragmatic features (Abrams, 2014; Moradkhan & Jalayer, 2010; Rose, 1997). For another, the web-based learning in this study was entirely self-directed, so learners' different interaction behaviors with the website might have been another factor influencing the relative effects of DI and II. The participants' self-learning operation and process were recorded as screencasts. It was found that learners in the II group tended more frequently to repeat their viewing of video clips and to return to browse previous instruction materials, as they needed to think over the guiding questions and make hypotheses during the treatment. In this way, the self-directed web-based design might have boosted the effectiveness of II, because it provided learners with a constructive learning environment and helped them gradually construct knowledge. Thus, the contextualization of pragmatic information in the video clips might have provided more cues for learners to work out the rules and facilitated their guided discovery process, in this way, leading to better learning outcomes in the inductive condition. It would be interesting to examine the effect of media on the efficacy of inductive instruction. 6. Conclusion The present study has examined the effectiveness of explicit deductive instruction (DI) and explicit inductive instruction (II) in intermediate-level learners' acquisition of the speech act of request. It found there was a statistically significant difference between these two instructional conditions, with II having a greater effect on learners' pragmatic development of requests. This finding aligns with constructivist theories (Fosnot, 2005; Reagan & Osborn, 2002; Zahorik, 1995), which emphasize active engagement and problem solving in learning. This study contributes to the research on pragmatic instruction in L2, and, more specifically, contributes to research examining the effectiveness of DI and II in CSL pragmatic instruction. The study also has practical implications for language pedagogy, especially for CSL pragmatic instruction. Given that the findings indicated that II was more effective than DI in learners’ acquisition of Chinese requests, L2 instructors might achieve more successful outcomes if they increasingly apply the former in teaching pragmatics. They could provide students with more guiding questions and more problem-solving tasks to help them process pragmatic resources in depth, and thus develop their pragmatic competence. Considering the limited time available for pragmatic teaching in school, some relevant pragmatic materials for self-learning could be designed in an instructive manner as well. However, this current study has several limitations. First and foremost, it only used a single outcome measure, the written DCT, to assess the relative effects of DI and II. Although this data collection instrument deals with both receptive and productive skills, it still has some shortcomings. For example, the DCT format cannot examine multiple turns in speech, which could provide additional and useful information for making appropriate speech acts (Manes, 1983; Rose, 1992). Moreover, the DCT requires learners to imagine what they would say in given situations, so the elicitation process is highly controlled and does not generate naturalistic and authentic data. Future research should adopt multiple outcome measures to enhance the validity of the conclusion. Another promising direction for future studies would be to move beyond typical tasks (i.e., DCT and role-play) to investigate pragmatic development by gathering naturally occurring data and long-term interaction data (Ren, 2013; Taguchi, 2015). Second, the inductive group spent relatively more time with the training materials, which might have confounded the research findings. However, longer time-on-task might be an inherent characteristic of inductive learning as learners need to engage in more cognitive processing when interacting with the training materials. It is not clear whether it was the inductive learners’ longer time-on-task or the extra cognitive heavy lifting they were required to engage in that led to their greater pragmatic gains. Future studies may delve deeper into the working mechanism behind the greater pragmatic gains in inductive instruction by asking the deductive group to spend the same length of time on the training materials as the inductive group. Finally, there were limitations concerning the sample. The sample size was insufficient, and the finding needs to be tested with a larger sample size. Moreover, all participants were intermediate-level CSL learners. Whether the same finding would apply to learners of different CSL proficiency levels deserves further research. Due to the participants' different language levels, studies examining the effectiveness of deductive and inductive approaches on L2 learning might yield contradictory results (Vogel et al., 2011). Learners' L2 proficiency level should be considered as a necessary element in studies on pragmatic instruction, and future research could examine learners at other levels, such as elementary and advanced learners. Furthermore, the participants came from different cultural and L1 backgrounds, and it is possible that students of different cultural backgrounds might respond to DI and II differently. Although the proportions of Asian and non-Asian in the two groups were comparable, some confounding effects might still have existed. Further research is needed to examine the potential effect of learners’ cultural background on the relative effects of DI and II on their development of pragmatic competence.

34

X. Qi, C. Lai / System 70 (2017) 26e37

Appendix A. Decoo's Five Modalities in the Deduction-Induction Continuum

Modality

Description

Modality A Actual deduction Modality B Conscious induction as guided discovery

The grammatical rule or pattern is explicitly stated at the beginning of the learning process and the students move into the applications of this (examples and exercises). The students first encounter various examples, often sentences, sometimes embedded in a text. The “conscious discovery” of the grammar is then directed by the teachers: on the basis of the examples the teacher normally asks a few key questions and the students are led to discover and formulate the rule. The rationale usually given is that students who discover the rule on their own will profit from this. … The learner first practices a certain structure in an intense way. Through this practice the rule is “somehow” induced and internalized. Then, at the end of the learning segment, the teacher summarized the rule explicitly. The methodologists advocating this approach avoid the impression that this explanation is important, by simply calling it “a summary of behaviour”. It was the approach of early proponents of audio-lingualism and can be detected in a number of specific methodological recommendations of the past three decades. … In subconscious induction on structured material, the students are exposed to language material that has been structured in such a way to help the inductive process. The principle advocates that through the systematic repetition of the same pattern, through graded variations, through drill and practice, the student will come to an “integrated mastery” of the rule, without conscious analysis. This modality was the major technique advocated by many of the audio-lingual methods around 1960, and especially by the French audio-visual methods. This is supposed to come as close as possible to “natural acquisition”. Only intense language practice is given, on the basis of authentic input, without any linguistic structuring or manipulation. “Generalizations” will come naturally, comparable to first language acquisition.

Modality C Induction leading to an explicit “summary of behaviour”

Modality D Subconscious induction on structured material

Modality E Subconscious induction on unstructured material

(Decoo, 1996, pp. 2e3).

Appendix B. Discourse Completion Tasks for Pretest 1. 你把字典忘在家里了, 想借好朋友的字典用用。你对她说: You have left your dictionary at home and you want to borrow one from your close friend. You say to her: 2. 妈妈和女儿在一辆公共汽车上, 司机开得太快, 女儿很害怕。妈妈想让司机开慢一点, 她对司机说: A mother and her daughter are on a bus. The driver is driving very fast and the daughter is scared. The mother wants the driver to drive a little slowly, so she says to the driver: 3. 你是一个商店售货员, 你想请假两天去参加朋友的婚礼, 但你最近没有假期。你对老板说: You work as a shop assistant. You need two days off for your friend's wedding, but you have no holidays left. You say to your boss: 4. 在办公室, 老板要你去买一杯咖啡。老板对你说: In your office, your boss asks you to buy a cup of coffee for him. He says to you: 5. 你想买一台电脑, 但是你的钱不够, 想跟朋友借$1000。你对他说: You want to buy a computer but you don't have enough money. You want to borrow 1000 dollars. You say to him: 6. 你是一个饭店的服务员。一位客人点了一道菜, 但是饭店今天不提供。你想让顾客换一道菜。你对她说: You are a waiter in a restaurant. A guest orders a dish, but the restaurant doesn't offer it today. You want him to change the dish. You say to him: 7. 你在商场买鞋, 你试了一双鞋, 有点大, 你想要小一号的。你对售货员说: You are buying shoes in a department store. You try one pair of shoes but they are a little too big. You want to try a smaller pair. You say to the shop assistant:

X. Qi, C. Lai / System 70 (2017) 26e37

35

8. 你妈妈要做饭, 你想吃西红柿炒鸡蛋。你对她说: Your mother is going to cook and you want to eat scrambled eggs with tomatoes. You say to her: 9. 你爸爸想见你, 让你星期日回一趟家。他打电话对你说: Your father wants to see you and he asks you on the telephone to go home on Sunday. He says to you: 10. 你是一名老师, 上课的时候, 一个学生的手机响了, 你让他关掉手机。你对他说: You are a teacher. In class, a student's mobile phone rings. You ask him to turn off his mobile phone. You say to him: 11. 你要去参加一个聚会, 想借姐姐的新裙子。但她还没有穿过, 不想借给你。你对她说: You are going to a party. You want to borrow your sister's new dress, but she hasn't worn it before, and doesn't want to lend it to you. You say to her: 12. 你应该今天把作业交给老师, 但你没有完成, 想晚一点交(申请延期)。你对老师说: You are supposed to hand in your assignment to the teacher today, but you haven't finished it and want to ask for an extension. You say to your teacher: Appendix C. Rating criteria and rubrics You should rate the appropriateness of participants’ responses to the Discourse Completion Task items on the following four criteria: (1) correct speech act; (2) formulaic expressions; (3) amount of speech; (4) levels of formality and directness (politeness). Ability to use the correct speech act All situations were designed to elicit specific requests and you should evaluate if the answer is a “true” request, and not another type of speech act. You should make a judgment about how appropriate this speech act is for this situation: a correct speech act, a vague speech act that may cause misunderstanding, or an incorrect speech act. Possible problems: when you rate the responses, other speech acts may be not mutually exclusive. For example, a request may begin with an apology: “Sorry, but could you stop smoking? (对不起, 能不能别在这里抽烟)”. This is still a correct request. As long as the response involves a request, it can be regarded as a correct speech act. Formulaic expressions This criterion deals with learners’ request expressions pertaining to their pragmalinguistic competence. More specifically, it is related to request strategies (i.e., imperatives, want statements and suggestory formula). The question you should ask yourself is: How appropriate is the wording and the expression? Inappropriate expressions may be the result of first language transfer or other reasons. For example, English native speakers may use “能不能我借一下你的书?” instead of “我能不能借一下 你的书?”. Pinyin can be used to represent learners’ unfamiliar characters, and incorrect writing of characters is also accepted. Do not let this aspect influence your ratings. Amount of speech used and information given Speakers of any language adjust the amount of speech in a specific speech act to fit the given situation. In this category, the question you should consider is: How appropriate is the amount of speech used/information given? Do the responses provide appropriate and sufficient information for people to understand? Level of directness and formality (politeness) This criterion refers to the overall politeness of each request item, which includes the aspects of directness and formability. Directness refers to how direct the request is. The request can be performed at different degrees of directness: direct, conventionally indirect and non-conventionally indirect (hints). Formality can be expressed through word choice, phrasing, and the use of titles, politeness markers and so on (modification devices of the request). You should evaluate the extent to which these two aspects are appropriate in the given cultural and situational context. This criterion focuses on pragmatic appropriateness rather than grammatical accuracy. It deals with learners’ sociopragmatic competence.

36

X. Qi, C. Lai / System 70 (2017) 26e37

Rubrics for Holistic Rating. Grade

Criteria

5 Demonstrates excellence

-

4 Demonstrates good command with only limited difficulties

3 Demonstrates adequate command with some weaknesses

2 Falls below expectations

-

1 Unacceptable

-

Correct speech act is elicited. Expressions and wording are completely appropriate. The amount of information given is completely appropriate. Level of directness and formality (politeness) is completely appropriate. Correct speech act is elicited. Expressions and wording are mostly appropriate. The amount of information given is appropriate. Level of directness and formality (politeness) is mostly appropriate. Correct speech act is elicited. Expressions and wording are generally appropriate. The amount of information given is generally appropriate. – Level of directness and formality (politeness) is generally appropriate. Intended speech act is vaguely implied but may cause misunderstanding. Expressions and wording are non-typical but still acceptable. The amount of information given is inappropriately much or little but still acceptable. – Level of directness and formality (politeness) is not very appropriate but still acceptable. Incorrect speech act or no speech act is elicited. Expressions and wording are not appropriate. The amount of information given is either too much or too little. – Level of directness and formality (politeness) is not appropriate.

Note.This rating criteria and rubrics were developed from Hudson et al. (1992) research and Liu’s (2006) research.

References Abrams, Z. I. (2014). Using film to provide a context for teaching L2 pragmatics. System, 46, 55e64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.06.005.
n-Soler, E. (2005). Does instruction work for pragmatic learning in EFL contexts? System, 33, 417e435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.06.005. Alco Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics. In K. R. Rose, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 13e32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bley-Vroman, R. (1986). Hypothesis testing in second-language acquisition theory. Language Learning, 36(3), 353e376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770. 1986.tb00559.x. Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196e213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/5.3.196. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chan, Y. Y. E. (2004). The effects of deductive and inductive approaches on the acquisition of grammatical structures in second language: The case of the passive voice among secondary two students in Hong Kong (Unpublished master's thesis). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Baptist University. Cohen, A. D. (2010). Approaches to assessing pragmatic ability. In N. Ishihara, & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet (pp. 264e285). Edinburgh, UK: Pearson Education Limited. Decoo, W. (1996). The induction-deduction opposition: Ambiguities and complexities of the didactic reality. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 34(2), 95e118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/iral.1996.34.2.95. DeKeyser, R. M. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(3), 379e410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S027226310001425X. DeKeyser, R. M. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. J. Doughty, & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313e348). Malden: Blackwell. Derakhshan, A., & Zangoei, A. (2014). Video-driven prompts: Avialable pragmatic consciousness-raising approach in EFL/ESL classrooms. World Applied Sciences Journal, 31(9), 1652e1660. http://dx.doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wasj.2014.31.09.102. Duan, L., & Wannaruk, A. (2010). The effects of explicit and implicit instruction in English refusals. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 93e109. Retrieved from http://www.celea.org.cn/teic/91/10091707.pdf. Farrokhi, F., & Atashian, S. (2012). The role of refusal instruction in pragmatic development. World Journal of Education, 2(4), 85e93. http://dx.doi.org/10. 5430/wje.v2n4p85.
lix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2010). Data collection methods in speech act performance. In A. Martínez-Flor, & E. Uso
-Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, Fe empirical and methodological issues (pp. 41e56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Fosnot, C. T. (2005). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Glaser, K. (2014). Inductive or deductive?: the impact of method of instruction on the acquisition of pragmatic competence in EFL. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Glaser, K. (2016). News from the pragmatics classroom: Contrasting the inductive and the deductive approach in the teaching of pragmatic competence. Intercultural Pragmatics, 13(4), 529e561. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ip-2016-0023. Golato, A. (2003). Studying compliment responses: A comparison of dcts and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 90e121. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.1.90. Haight, C. E., Herron, C., & Cole, S. P. (2007). The effects of deductive and guided inductive instructional approaches on the learning of grammar in the elementary foreign language college classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 40(2), 288e310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2007.tb03202.x. Halenko, N., & Jones, C. (2011). Teaching pragmatic awareness of spoken requests to Chinese EAP learners in the UK: Is explicit instruction effective? System, 39(2), 240e250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.05.003. Herron, C., & Tomasello, M. (1992). Acquiring grammatical structures by guided induction. The French Review, 65(5), 708e718. Retrieved from http://www. jstor.org/stable/395311. House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 225e252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100014893. Hudson, T., Detmer, E., & Brown, J. D. (1992). A framework for testing cross-cultural pragmatics. Honolulu: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawai'i at Manoa. Jean, G., & Simard, D. (2013). Deductive versus inductive grammar instruction: Investigating possible relationships between gains, preferences and learning styles. System, 41(4), 1023e1042. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.10.008.

X. Qi, C. Lai / System 70 (2017) 26e37

37

Jeon, E. H., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development. In J. M. Norris, & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 165e211). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? NetWork, 6, 105e119. Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(2), 215e247. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1017/S0272263100009955. Kasper, G., & Roever, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in language learning and teaching (pp. 317e334). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kim, J. S. (2005). The effects of a constructivist teaching approach on student academic achievement, self-concept, and learning strategies. Asia Pacific Education Review, 6(1), 7e19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03024963. Klauer, K. J. (1996). Teaching inductive reasoning: Some theory and three experimental studies. Learning and Instruction, 6(1), 37e57. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/0959-4752(95)00015-1. Laughlin, V. T., Wain, J., & Schmidgall, J. (2015). Defining and operationalizing the construct of pragmatic competence: Review and recommendations. http://dx. doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12053. Li, S. (2012). The effects of input-based practice on pragmatic development of requests in L2 Chinese. Language Learning, 62(2), 403e438. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00629.x. Liu, J. (2006). Measuring interlanguage pragmatic knowledge of EFL learners. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Ma, X., Gong, Y., Gao, X., & Xiang, Y. (2017). The teaching of Chinese as a second or foreign language: A systematic review of the literature 2005e2015. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2016.1268146. Manes, J. (1983). Compliments: A mirror of cultural values. In N. Wolfson, & E. L. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 96e106). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Martínez-Flor, A. (2006). The effectiveness of explicit and implicit treatments on EFL learners' confidence in recognizing appropriate suggestions. In K.
lix-Brasdefer, & A. S. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (vol. 11, pp. 199e225). Manoa: National Foreign Language Bardovi-Harlig, J. C. Fe Resource Center. Martínez-Flor, A. (2008). The effect of an inductive-deductive teaching approach to develop learners' use of request modifiers in the EFL classroom. In E.
n-Soler (Ed.), Learning how to request in an instructed language learning context (pp. 191e225). Bern: Peter Lang. Alco Moradkhan, D., & Jalayer, B. (2010). The impact of using authentic audio-taped and video-taped materials on the level of EFL learners' pragmatic competence. Journal of English Language Studies, 1(3), 33e52. Retrieved from http://en.journals.sid.ir/ViewPaper.aspx?ID¼230664. €skyla €: University of Jyva €skyla €. Nikula, T. (1996). Pragmatic force modifiers: A study in interlanguage pragmatics. Jyva Pelech, J., & Pieper, G. W. (2010). The comprehensive handbook of constructivist teaching: From theory to practice. Charllotte: Information Age Pub. Prince, M., & Felder, R. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123e138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00884.x. Prince, M., & Felder, R. (2007). The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(5), 14e20. doi: 2200/ 20080506115505992T. Reagan, T. G., & Osborn, T. A. (2002). The foreign language educator in society: Toward a critical pedagogy. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ren, W. (2013). The effect of the study abroad on the pragmatic development in internal modification of refusals. Pragmatics, 23(4), 715e741. http://dx.doi. org/10.1075/prag.23.4.06ren. Roever, C. (2013). Technology and tests of L2 pragmatics. In N. Taguchi, & J. M. Sykes (Eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching (pp. 215e233). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rose, K. R. (1992). Speech acts and questionnaires: The effect of hearer response. Journal of Pragmatics, 17(1), 49e62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/03782166(92)90028-A. Rose, K. R. (1997). Pragmatics in the classroom: Theoretical concerns and practical possibilities. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning (vol. 8, pp. 267e295). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33(3), 385e399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.06.003. Rose, K. R. (2009). Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase 2. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(11), 2345e2364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. pragma.2009.04.002. Rose, K. R., & Ng, C. (2001). Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments and compliment responses. In K. R. Rose, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 145e170). New York: Cambridge University Press. Rue, Y.-J., & Zhang, G. Q. (2008). Request strategies: A comparative study in Mandarin Chinese and Korean. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Schauer, G. A. (2009). Interlanguage pragmatic development: The study abroad context. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Taguchi, N. (2015). Pragmatics in Chinese as a second/foreign language. Studies in Chinese Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 3e17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9781107415324.004. Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In K. R. Rose, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 171e199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Takimoto, M. (2008). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the development of language learners' pragmatic competence. The Modern Language Journal, 92(3), 369e386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00752.x. Tomasello, M., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Trosborg, A., & Shaw, P. (1998). Sorry does not pay my bills: The handling of complaints in everyday interaction/cross-cultural business interaction. Hermes, Journal of Linguistics, 21, 67e94. http://dx.doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v11i21.25477.
-Juan, E., & Martínez-Flor, A. (2006). Approaches to language learning and teaching: Towards acquiring communicative competence through the four Uso
-Juan, & A. Martínez-Flor (Eds.), Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills (pp. 3e25). New York: Mouton de skills. In E. Uso Gruyter. Varghese, M., & Billmyer, K. (1996). Investigating the structure of discourse completion tests. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 12(1), 39e58. Retrieved from http://www.gse.upenn.edu/wpel/archive/s1996. Vogel, S., & Engelhard, G. (2011). Using Rasch measurement theory to examine two instructional approaches for teaching and learning of French grammar. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(4), 267e282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671003733815. Vogel, S., Herron, C., Cole, S. P., & York, H. (2011). Effectiveness of a guided inductive versus a deductive approach on the learning of grammar in the intermediate-level college French classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 44(2), 353e380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2011.01133.x. Woodfield, H. (2008). Interlanguage requests: A contrastive study. In M. Pütz, & J. Neff-Van Aertselaer (Eds.), Developing contrastive pragmatics: Interlanguage and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 231e264). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
n-Soler, & A. Martínez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics Yamashita, S. (2008). Investigating interlanguage pragmatic ability: What are we testing. In E. Alco in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 201e223). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Yoshimi, D. R. (2001). Explicit instruction and JFL learner's use of interactional discourse markers. In K. R. Rose, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 223e244). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zahorik, J. A. (1995). Constructivist teaching. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kapp.