Operationalizing conversation in studies of instructional effect in L2 pragmatics

System xxx (2014) 1e14

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Operationalizing conversation in studies of instructional effect in L2 pragmatics Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig Department of Second Language Studies, Indiana University, 1021 E. 3rd St, Memorial Hall 315, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA

a b s t r a c t Keywords: Pragmatics Instructional effects Conversation Input DCT Role play

This paper examines how conversation is operationalized in studies that investigate the effect of instruction on L2 pragmatics. This survey of 81 instructional effect studies published from 2000 to 2013 considers the operationalization of conversation at three points in the design of such studies: the task(s) used for evaluation, the input used as models, and the activities used for practice. The findings suggest that how conversation is operationalized is a variable that should be taken into account to better understand the range of outcomes reported by studies of how instruction affects development of L2 pragmatics. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction This paper examines how conversation is operationalized in studies that investigate the effect of instruction on L2 pragmatics. It draws on two notions of context in keeping with this thematic issue: the first is the classroom, one of the possible real world contexts in which pragmatics may be learned or taught (or in some cases ignored); and the second is conversation, one of the possible linguistic contexts in which pragmatic performance is realized by speakers and learners. I have selected instructional effects studies as the subject of this investigation, as opposed to more general investigations of L2 pragmatics, for two main reasons. Interest in the effect of instruction of L2 pragmatics is clearly on the rise as evidenced by the increase in the number of published studies in this area. In their reviews of studies of instructional effects, Rose (2005) reviewed 25 studies which he called “the small, but growing body of research” (p. 386), Jeon and Kaya (2006) identified 34 studies (including studies from the fugitive, i.e., unpublished, literature), and Takahashi (2010a) reviewed 49, double that of Rose (2005) only five years later. In addition, instructional effects studies provide a picture of how pragmatics instruction has been implemented in the classroom. Intervention studies contrast with acquisition studies without intervention in that they take place over longer periods of time and thus could potentially have greater leeway to use conversation or conversational activities in their designs. In other words, instructional effects studies are important because they reflect both our intrinsic interest in helping learners increase their knowledge and use of L2 pragmatics, and our best efforts at doing so. In this paper, I move away from both methodological arguments related to design on the one hand, and quantitative- and results-oriented reviews on the other (e.g., Jeon & Kaya, 2006; Rose, 2005; Takahashi, 2010a, 2010b), to instead discuss how conversation is represented in the classroom. Unlike research contexts which are not intended to foster acquisition, and which are almost always limited in time, classrooms are sites of learning, where teachers and learners have extended contact at regular times. Although time pressure is also a reality in classrooms, it is less acute than in research tasks which “borrow”

E-mail address: [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.002 0346-251X/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Bardovi-Harlig, K., Operationalizing conversation in studies of instructional effect in L2 pragmatics, System (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.002

2

K. Bardovi-Harlig / System xxx (2014) 1e14

time from participants. In addition, published accounts of investigations of the effect of instruction on L2 pragmatics also provide two other benefits: the teaching units have already been implemented, and they have been published and thus are available for examination. 1.1. Studies of instructional effects in L2 pragmatics Studies of instructional effects in pragmatics, or in language more generally, study the influence of specific pedagogical practices on second or foreign language development. Often called treatment or intervention studies, instructional effect studies typically have a pretest-instruction-posttest design. They may present quantitative or qualitative analyses of the data. Researchers and teachers generally exercise particular care in the development of the instructional unit in such studies, and thus it allows us to see how pragmatics is implemented in classrooms in the best possible case. A study may test one or more than one approach to teaching pragmatics; single approaches are generally tested against a control group of students who do not get the special instruction and multiple approaches are often tested against each other, although some comparative studies also have a control group. Pragmatics instruction has been realized in multiple ways which reflect current approaches and has included implicit or explicit, inductive or deductive, processing, recasts, or noticing treatments, as well as others. For a more thorough account of instructional approaches readers are referred to the methodological reviews conducted by Jeon and Kaya (2006), Rose (2005), Taguchi (2011), and Takahashi (2010a, 2010b). System has encouraged such studies in pragmatics by providing a venue through thematic issues in 2005 and the present  n Soler (2005), Bardovi-Harlig and Vellenga (2012), Ghobadi and issue, and has published multiple studies including Alco Fahim (2009), Halenko and Jones (2011), Koike and Pearson (2005), Martínez-Flor and Fukuya (2005), Takahashi (2005b), Takimoto (2006a), and van Compernolle and Williams (2013). 1.2. Conversation Conversation constitutes the most familiar form of authentic unplanned discourse. Assessing conversation as a source of data for pragmatics research, Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford (2005) described conversation as oral, interactive, either dyadic or multi-partied, and consequential. It is spontaneous, authentic language used by speakers who are speaking as themselves, in genuine situations, with socio-affective consequences. Conversations exhibit a wide variety of speech acts in a single encounter. In conversations, speakers take turns, introduce and maintain topics, negotiate meaning, and attend to face concerns. Participants generally have a social connection that leads them to talk in the first place and those relationships are further impacted by talk. Because they are unique, conversations are generally low on comparability for specific linguistic contexts or ideas, although they are somewhat more comparable in turn-taking and other discourse features. Conversation is the imagined context for the pragmatic features investigated in L2 pragmatics research, regardless of elicitation task. For example, instructions to a written dialog completion task ask the respondents to “respond as you would in actual conversation” (Beebe, Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz, 1990). In contrast, there are relatively few studies in the L2 pragmatics literature related to pragmatic features of written discourse, whether interactive or monologic.1 It is therefore noteworthy that conversation has not always been viewed as an ideal source of data for interlanguage pragmatics research (see for example the discussion by Bardovi-Harlig, 2010; Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 2005). Thus, asking how L2 pragmatics studies operationalize conversation, and how it affects the outcomes of instructional studies, is by no means trivial. 1.3. Selection criteria for articles Articles were included in this review on two criteria: an article was included if a) it reported the findings of an empirical study that investigated the effects of instruction on the development of L2 pragmatics and b) it was published in 2000 or later. Reviews of the literature, teaching proposals, and other papers that either did not present the results of an empirical study or used instructed interlanguage data solely to illustrate claims or argue a position were not included. The emphasis on research since 2000 was intended to draw attention to work that has not been previously reviewed and to explore the potential for innovation. Bardovi-Harlig (2010) reported on a comprehensive search of empirical studies in pragmatics published in seven major journals and edited volumes from 1979 to 2008 (see article for selection criteria). The method used in that survey was extended to include a larger range of journals and to add an additional five years of research, but this time included only studies of instructional effects. Journals with a second language focus (Applied Linguistics, Language Learning, Language Teaching Research, Modern Language Journal, System, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, and TESOL Quarterly) were searched electronically with the terms pragmatics, politeness, and speech act, and pragmatics journals (Intercultural Pragmatics, Journal of Pragmatics) were searched for acquisition, learner, learning, and student. The serial publication Pragmatics and Language Learning (2001, 2006, 2010, 2013) was searched by hard copy. Edited volumes were searched individually in hard

1 Of the 152 studies of pragmatics learning surveyed by Bardovi-Harlig (2010), only one pertained to writing, and five to written CMC. There are similarly few studies of written language among the instructional effects studies (e.g., Fordyce, 2014; Ifantidou, 2013; Wishnoff, 2000) with four additional studies focusing on CMC (Belz & Kinginger, 2003; Belz & Vyatkina, 2005; Kinginger & Belz, 2005; Vyatkina & Belz, 2006).

Please cite this article in press as: Bardovi-Harlig, K., Operationalizing conversation in studies of instructional effect in L2 pragmatics, System (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.002

K. Bardovi-Harlig / System xxx (2014) 1e14

3

copy and, where possible, electronically. The references of included articles and other reviews were also checked. The search resulted in 81 articles published between 2000 and the third quarter of 2013. As pointed out in Section 1, there has been a noticeable increase in interest in the acquisition of L2 pragmatics in the context of instruction. In keeping with the breakdown of production and perception studies in the pragmatic literature more broadly, 72 of the 81 studies investigated production, and nine of the articles studied awareness, perception, or interpretation (I will call these “nonproduction studies”).2 Of the production studies, four explored computer-mediated communication (CMC): Belz and Kinginger (2003); Belz and Vyatkina (2005); Kinginger and Belz (2005); Vyatkina and Belz (2006). An additional two (Fordyce, 2014; Wishnoff, 2000) examine other written contexts. The remaining 66 articles focus on pragmatics for conversational interactions. The next section takes up the question of how conversation is operationalized in studies of instructional effects. 2. Operationalizing conversation There are three points in a pedagogical intervention study at which conversation could potentially appear: in the input used for models, the activities used for practice, and the task(s) used for evaluation.3 Every study of the effects of instruction obligatorily has two of these components: Every study has some form of input (constituting instruction) and every study has a means of assessment. Some studies have designed their instructional components to also include practice. To draw attention to the three different design points, and the potential effect on learners and the instruction, I will consider each of these areas separately: conversation as operationalized in the assessment task, input, and production practice. I begin with the operationalization of conversation in assessment tasks because the topic has been frequently discussed. 2.1. Operationalization of conversation in assessment tasks The means used to elicit language samples and the characteristics of the resulting language samples are the most widely discussed aspects of research design in L2 pragmatics. The first review of tasks in interlanguage pragmatics research was published as early as 1991 (Kasper & Dahl, 1991) and the field's reflection on the tasks it uses continues to the present (see, for example, Trosborg, 2010). The abiding interest in task effects in L2 pragmatics more generally shaped one of Jeon and Kaya's (2006) research questions in their meta-analysis of instructional effects in pragmatics: “Is there a systematic relationship between the type of outcome measure (e.g., natural language data vs. elicited language data) and observed instructional effectiveness?” (p. 174), later reframed as “Does type of outcome measure exhibit any systematic relationship with observed instructional effectiveness?” (p. 194). Although their ability to answer that question was limited by the number of studies available at the time, the question itself demonstrates interest in task effects: not only do tasks vary, but the variety they exhibit becomes an additional variable in determining the efficacy of instructional approaches. The defining characteristics of conversation are its modedconversation is quintessentially oraldand its interactivitydconversation is dyadic or multi-partied, and tasks can be evaluated by using these characteristics as criteria.4 Considering mode first, the tasks testing pragmatic characteristics of conversation fall into three categories: oral, written, and oral plus written (Table 1). A census of the tasks used to evaluate the effects of instruction on learner production (thus exempting the non-production studies for this part of the evaluation) shows that approximately one third of the sample (24 of the 66 studies), even as recently as 2000e2013, is comprised of written discourse completion tasks (DCTs; see Table 1). Another third (22 of the 66 studies) use oral tasks exclusively, and the final third (20 of the 60) elicit both oral and written data. DCTs are the single task in the written category used by production studies. Written DCTs are written production questionnaires which provide scenarios to which participants respond in writing as in (1) from Eslami and Liu (2013, p. 71)5: 1. Discourse completion task (DCT) Your friend's birthday is coming and you are shopping for him/her. You see something in a display case that is appropriate as a gift. You want to look at it more closely. What would you say to the salesperson? Some of the DCTs used for assessment specify the speech act for which instruction was provided, thus directing the learners to a specific act (“What would you ask?” Halenko & Jones, 2011 “What do you suggest in this situation?” (italics original) Ifantidou, 2013; “What would you ask?” Takimoto, 2012b, inter alia) rather than using a generic “you say” which was typical of the early DCTs in non-intervention studies (cf. “What do you say?” Pearson, 2006; “What would you say?” Safont-

2 With the exception of van Compernolle (2011) and van Compernolle and Williams (2013), the non-production studies refer to conversation at some phase are thus are included in the analysis. 3 I use the term “task” as a shortened form of “elicitation task,” a means by which data is collected. In contrast, I use the term “activity” for pedagogical intervention and practice. 4 I wrestled with the question of CMC as conversation. Ultimately, because of its asynchronous nature, with opportunities for re-reading earlier turns and for planning responses (see Sykes, 2005, for discussion), I excluded asynchronous written CMC from the category of conversation, but as the reader will find, I use it as an example of “written-for-written” activities. 5 DCTs may be further divided into types. See Bardovi-Harlig (2012).

Please cite this article in press as: Bardovi-Harlig, K., Operationalizing conversation in studies of instructional effect in L2 pragmatics, System (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.002

4

K. Bardovi-Harlig / System xxx (2014) 1e14

Table 1 Tasks employed for assessment of instructional effects by modality (N ¼ 66). Oral-for-oral

Oral-for-oral and written-for-oral

Written-for-oral

Conversation Sardegna and Molle (2010) Yoshimi (2001) Role plays n Soler (2012) Alco n Soler and Guzma n Pitarch (2010) Alco lix-Brasdefer (2008a, 2008b) Fe Huth (2006) Liddicoat and Crozet (2001) Martínez-Flor (2008) Silva (2003) Sykes (2005) Taylor (2002) Trosborg and Shaw (2008) Oral DCTs Bardovi-Harlig, Mossman, and Vellenga et al. (2014) Bardovi-Harlig and Vellenga (2012) Kondo (2008) Li (2011) Narita (2012) Winke and Teng (2010) Suggestions on other students' role plays ndez-Guerra and Martínez-Flor (2006) Ferna Mock job interviews Louw et al. (2010) Information gap activities meth and Kormos (2001) Ne

Role plays & WDCTs Cohen and Sykes (2010, 2012); Sykes and Cohen (2009) Ghobadi and Fahim (2009) Takimoto (2006a, 2006b, 2008a, 2008b, 2009), Tateyama (2001) Witten (2000) Role plays, WDCTs, & face-to-face authentic Holmes and Riddiford (2010) Riddiford (2007) Riddiford and Joe (2010) Oral peer feedback & written DCT Nguyen (2013), Nguyen et al. (2013), Nguyen et al. (2012) Oral DCT & written DCT Pearson (2006) Oral-for-oral & written-for-written Fukuya and Martínez-Flor (2008) Martínez-Flor and Fukuya (2005)

DCTs n Soler (2005) Alco Barekat (2013) Codina-Espurz (2008) Cohen and Ishihara (2005) Cohen and Shively (2007) Eslami and Eslami-Rasekh (2008) Eslami and Liu (2013) Fukuya and Zhang (2002, 2006) Halenko and Jones (2011) Ifantidou (2013) Jernigan (2012) Koike and Pearson (2005) Li (2012) Mirzaei and Esmaeili (2013) Rose and Ng (2001)  (2003) Safont-Jorda  and Alco n Soler (2012) Safont-Jorda Salazar Campillo (2003) Takahashi (2001, 2005b) Takimoto (2012a, 2012b) Teng and Fei (2013)

 & Alco  n Soler, 2012). The general prompt, “you say” or its variants, allows learners to demonstrate their sociopragmatic Jorda knowledge by providing the speech act that best fits the scenario, whereas the more directive prompt eliminates the learner choice in the matter, thus pre-empting demonstration of sociopragmatic knowledge for the particular situation. This may be done for expedience (to increase the yield of the number of target speech acts), but it also artificially increases the production of the target speech act at least in the pretest, if not also in the posttest. At the very best, written DCTs are, as Cohen and Shively (2007) described them, “an indirect means for assessing spoken language in the form of a written production measure” (p. 196). Cohen and Shively's description has led me to call DCTs “written-for-oral” tasks. Written-for-oral tasks ask learners to produce in writing what they would say in conversation, and thus always embody an inherent conflict in mode. In contrast, “written-for-written” tasks ask learners to write where writing is called for (see Fordyce, 2014; email scenarios used by Fukuya & Martínez-Flor, 2008; Martínez-Flor & Fukuya, 2005; and CMC: Belz & Kinginger, 2003; Belz & Vyatkina, 2005; Kinginger & Belz, 2005; Vyatkina & Belz, 2006) and are always consistent with intended mode. Likewise, “oral-for-oral” tasks are also consistent in mode, and they exhibit a wide variety of tasks. Studies that employ oral-for-oral tasks operationalize conversation as oral production in a variety of ways, including conversation, role plays, and oral DCTs (see the left and center columns of Table 1). Although conversation is the predominant target, only two studies collect data through conversation and both explore the teaching and learning of discourse markers. Sardegna and Molle (2010) examined reactive tokens and Yoshimi (2001) examined interactional makers in extended tellings in conversation. Role plays, also known as open role plays, are performed by two or more speakers and are elicited through the presentation lixof a context (called a scenario) which typically includes information about speaker characteristics and setting (Fe  n Soler, 2012) and can be structured to elicit a number of turns from each speaker. Role play setBrasdefer, 2008a; Alco tings are controlled, but the turn exchanges are spontaneous and retain features of interaction. In the first published review of research methods in interlanguage pragmatics, Kasper and Dahl (1991) claimed that role plays “represent oral production, full operation of the turn-taking mechanism, impromptu planning decisions contingent on interlocutor input, and hence negotiation of global and local goals, including negotiation of meaning” (p. 228). The position was reiterated more recently by lix-Brasdefer (2008a, 2008b), as well as other studies (e.g., Bataller, 2010) that employ role Kasper and Rose (2002) and Fe plays to elicit interaction while controlling variables. lix-Brasdefer, 2008a, p. 82) 2. Role-play scenario (Fe Refusal to a friend's invitation to attend a birthday party (-Power, -Distance) Imagine that you are in (Spanish-speaking country of your preference). You are walking across campus when you run into a good friend of yours whom you haven't seen for about a month. You and he have been studying in the same Please cite this article in press as: Bardovi-Harlig, K., Operationalizing conversation in studies of instructional effect in L2 pragmatics, System (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.002

K. Bardovi-Harlig / System xxx (2014) 1e14

5

program at the university for three years, and have studied and written papers together in the past, but you don't have any classes together this semester since you have been doing an internship off-campus. He invites you to his 21st birthday party at his house next Friday night at 8:00 p.m. He tells you that a group of mutual friends that you both used to hang out with and whom you haven't seen since the semester started will also be there. You know that this would be a good opportunity to see everyone again and to celebrate this special occasion with him. Unfortunately you cannot make it. Oral DCTs (also known as closed role plays) provide aural and/or written scenarios to which individual participants respond orally. Like role plays, oral DCTs retain the modality of conversation (they are oral), but unlike role plays, they are not interactive. Some studies that report using role plays may actually employ closed role plays or what we now think of as oral DCTs. Role plays also differ in whether both parts are played by learners (who are both being evaluated) or one part is being played by a native speaker or a research associate. Table 1 reports the tasks as the authors have described them. A modification to the oral DCT is simulated turn taking used by Bardovi-Harlig and Vellenga (2012) for conventional expressions in the realization of speech acts and Bardovi-Harlig, Mossman, and Vellenga (2014) for agreements, disagreements, and self- and other-clarification. Following a very brief scene-setting scenario, participants heard a conversational excerpt over headphones and rapidly responded to an aural turn (which they did not read). Having to respond to a spoken turn makes the simulation more like conversation, provides an identical turn for all participants, and constrains the possible responses. 3. Oral DCT with turn simulation (introduction) (Bardovi-Harlig & Vellenga, 2012) Your friend introduces you to his new roommate. (Aural only): “This is my new roommate, Bill.” (On screen only) You say: [Target: Nice to meet you]

4. Context for academic discussion: Agreement item (Bardovi-Harlig et al., 2014) Narrator (visual and audio): Your group is discussing the way that people communicate. You have the same opinion as your classmate. Classmate's turn (audio only): People spend too much time talking on the phone these days. [Screen only] You say: [Target: Agreeing expressions including I agree (with), Good point, That's right, You’re right, That's true] Studies that investigate talk other than social conversation (such as conversation in the workplace) or speech events (such as job interviews or peer response groups in writing classrooms) often use the real or simulated event to collect oral production data to evaluate the efficacy of instruction. In the imagined workplace, these tasks include mock job interviews (Louw, Derwing, & Abbott, 2010) and white-collar office, workplace talk (Riddiford, 2007). Other studies capitalize on events meth & Kormos, and activities in the educational setting that learners need to master: engaging in an opinion gap activity (Ne ndez-Guerra & Martínez-Flor, 2001) and giving suggestions on other student's work, in one case on their role plays (Ferna 2006) and in another on their written work (Nguyen, 2013; Nguyen, Pham, & Cao, 2013; Nguyen, Pham, & Pham, 2012). In both of the latter studies learners engage first in an instructionally valuable activity (performing a role play, writing an actual essay assignment), and then in talk about the results of that activity, thus integrating the teaching, learning, and evaluation of pragmatics into the instructional context. Oral-for-oral tasks have been used in a variety of studies in both host and foreign language settings. In addition to their flexibility, oral-for-oral tasks have the advantage of high face validity because they ask learners to speak when demonstrating knowledge of pragmatic features of conversation; speaking also addresses an independent goal of many second and foreign language classrooms.

2.2. The representation of conversation in input This section considers how conversation is represented to learners in instructional input. In the larger context of instructional design and delivery, the representation of conversation is only one part. However, the representation of conversation is often at the core of the instruction with different interventions (implicit, explicit, inductive, deductive, processing, and noticing) implemented around the conversational starting point. This section asks what learners actually see and hear during instruction through pedagogical representations of conversation. Studies were included whether their focus was production or non-production as long as they utilized a representation of conversation and excluded if they were described as Please cite this article in press as: Bardovi-Harlig, K., Operationalizing conversation in studies of instructional effect in L2 pragmatics, System (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.002

6

K. Bardovi-Harlig / System xxx (2014) 1e14

providing non-conversational input such as lists (Halenko & Jones, 2011; van Compernolle, 2011) or workbooks (Cohen & Shively, 2007; Winke & Teng, 2010). Because many studies use multiple forms of input, this survey catalogs the source of input that is closest to conversation. Representations of conversation in input vary according to mode (audio-visual, audio, or written) and authenticity (Table 2). Authenticity may be viewed in a loose continuum from authentic language samples, authentic-scripted samples by which I mean television shows that exist in the real world apart from instruction (thus authentic) but are scripted by the show's writers, language samples elicited from native speakers through tasks or role plays for the purposes of producing a model, language modeled on authentic talk for the purposes of instruction, innovative pedagogical materials like Destinos (a 52-episode soap opera for students), and traditional pedagogical input written by textbook writers or the researcherinstructor for the purposes of instruction. The categories are loosely ordered and not exhaustive; there are other possible sources of input not used by the studies under review. Table 2 reveals an intriguing gap: with the exception of conversation used by Sardegna and Molle (2010), the use of authentic conversation in instructional units is exclusively written. That is, those studies that present learners with actual

Table 2 Types of conversational input (N ¼ 63). Source

Audio-visual or oral (w or w/o transcripts)

Written (only)

Authentic

Conversation Sardegna and Molle (2010)

Authentic Scripted

TV shows  n Soler (2012) Friends: Silva (2003); Alco  n Soler (2005, 2007); Alco n Soler and Stargate: Alco n Pitarch (2010) Guzma Cristina: Taylor (2002) Super Nanny: Codina-Espurz (2008) Movies Martínez-Flor (2008, excerpts from 4 films) Rose and Ng (2001, film) Video Cohen and Sykes (2010, 2012); Sykes and Cohen (2009) Fukuya and Clark (2001) Jernigan (2012) Louw et al. (2010) Martínez-Flor and Fukuya (2005); Fukuya & Martínez-Flor (2008) Takahashi (2001) Other Fordyce (2014) (taped interview) Yoshimi (2001) (live exchange) Scripted NSeNS interactions  n Soler (2002) Alco  n Soler (2007) Martínez-Flor and Alco TV shows Destinos: Pearson (2006); Witten (2000); Japanese Course & Yasahii Nihongo [Easy Japanese]: Tateyama (2001) Textbooks Kondo (2008); Yoshida et al. (2000) Written pedagogical dialogues (spoken by NS on videotape) Sykes (2005)

Transcripts Huth (2006, from Golato, 2002; Pomerantz, 1978) Liddicoat and Crozet (2001, from Beal, 1992) Narita (2012) Nguyen (2013); Nguyen et al. (2013); Nguyen et al. (2012) Dialogues Koike and Pearson (2005) Transcripts with some re-recording Bardovi-Harlig et al. (2014) Riddiford (2007); Riddiford and Joe (2010); Holmes and Riddiford (2010) TV Shows Friends: Bardovi-Harlig and Vellenga (2012) Modified Authentic-Scripted Based on movie excerpts Mirzaei and Esmaeili (2013)

Elicited

Scripted

Pedagogical (existing materials)

Created for study

Source not specified

Naturalistic audio Cohen and Ishihara (2005) Tateyama (2007, video clips pertinent to making requests) Teng and Fei (2013, authentic pragmatic scenarios) Fern andez-Guerra and Martínez-Flor (2006, real world examples)

Transcripts of role plays lix-Brasdefer (2008a, 2008b) Fe Takahashi (2005a, 2005b)

Written dialogues Ghobadi and Fahim (2009) Li (2012) meth and Kormos (2001) Ne  (2003) Safont-Jorda  and Alco n Soler (2012) Safont-Jorda

Written dialogues Takimoto (2006a, 2006b, 2008a, 2008b, 2009, 2012a, 2012b) Trosborg and Shaw (2008) Written dialogues Li (2011) Eslami-Rasekh et al. (2004)

Please cite this article in press as: Bardovi-Harlig, K., Operationalizing conversation in studies of instructional effect in L2 pragmatics, System (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.002

K. Bardovi-Harlig / System xxx (2014) 1e14

7

conversational input do so in the form of written transcripts. As Table 2 shows, both the most authentic samples (transcripts of talk) and the least authentic samples (pedagogical materials and dialogs written for specific studies) show a predominance of written mode. In contrast, authentic scripted, authentic modified, and elicited input are largely presented audio-visually. The use of audio or audio-visual input is not restricted to studies that promote oral production. Fordyce (2014) included spoken interviews as one of four text types for input on epistemic stance for a study focused on writing. Five of the nine studies of pragmatic awareness also used video-clips as input, without expecting learners to produce language at the end of  n Soler, 2002, 2007; Fukuya & Clark, 2001, producing an original 48-min video; Martínez-Flor & Alco  n Soler, treatment (Alco 2007; Tateyama, 2007) and one, Takahashi (2005a, 2005b) used written transcripts.6 The remainder of this section surveys the range of input through the examples that the reports have provided, when available. Nguyen (2013); Nguyen et al. (2013); Nguyen et al. (2012) provided students with examples of constructive criticism during peer response sessions from one native speaker to another. The examples are provided in a paper entitled “Teaching constructive criticism” (Nguyen & Basturkmen, 2010). In this example “Anne” is critiquing a paper. I have excerpted the first two points of the six provided. 5. Native speaker excerpt from peer response group (Nguyen & Basturkmen, 2010, p. 133) [1] “OK, well, I think it's a pretty good paper, pretty good argument, so most of the problems I have are probably with the organizational structure and a couple of grammatical things. Um to start, I think it seems like both of these introductory paragraphs may be put together as just one paragraph. It would be easier because they’re both good paragraphs. They’re both introductory ones so I think that if that were together they would make more sense (laugh). [2] and I thought you had sort of two conclusions as well. But they're both good so I thought maybe if that one came after that one, because that was more of a conclusion that that one, perhaps that would be better.” [Continues to Points 3e6] Bardovi-Harlig et al. (2014) used examples of agreements, disagreement, and self- and other-clarifications in academic discourse that were identified in an academic corpus, the Michigan Corpus for Academic Spoken English (MICASE; Simpson, Briggs, Ovens, & Swales, 2002). Some of the transcripts were re-recorded to create oral input. 6. Corpus excerpt, agreement example (Bardovi-Harlig et al., 2014; from MICASE) A: Good, thanks. Okay, the last thing that I was considering was a translation task, and I can see that as being something very messy. B: Yeah, I can too. A: So … B: Um, cuz, well, let's see … with German and Spanish, you're not gonna have character problems. Chinese and Japanese you are gonna have, character problems. A: Oh that's true. Transcript ID: OFC355SU094 An example of the use of authentic-scripted television shows is found in Silva (2003). Silva played three video excerpts from Friends depicting invitation-refusal sequences, thus employing authentic scripted audio-visual input. Learners viewed the video clips first without a script and then watched again with the script plus questions to promote noticing. Even though Friends is a known entity (and thus is a source that can be looked up by readers), Silva includes the transcripts in the appendix, thus illustrating the input that students received, as shown below. 7. Authentic scripted: Excerpt from Friends [Season 5, Episode 14] (Silva, 2003, p. 94) Rachel: Hey Mon, what are you doing now? Wanna come see a movie with us? Monica: Uhh, y'know actually I was gonna do some laundry. Rachel: Oh. Monica: Hey Chandler, wanna do it with me? Chandler: Sure, I'll do it with ya. Monica: Okay. Rachel: Okay great, hold on a sec! (She runs to her room and returns carrying a huge bag of laundry.) Oh, here you go! You don't mind do ya? That would really help me out a lot! Thanks!

6

Given their format, written, untimed, DCTs also contribute to the use of metapragmatic knowledge, which is not thought to be in use in conversation.

Please cite this article in press as: Bardovi-Harlig, K., Operationalizing conversation in studies of instructional effect in L2 pragmatics, System (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.002

8

K. Bardovi-Harlig / System xxx (2014) 1e14

Monica: I mean I-I don't I think I have enough quarters. Phoebe: I have quarters! (She holds up a bag of quarters.) Riddiford (2007), Holmes and Riddiford (2010) and Riddiford and Joe (2010) used authentic input collected by the Victoria University of Wellington Language in the Workplace Project; pedagogical units were based on authentic interactions in written transcripts and re-recorded audio. 8. Authentic modified: re-recorded conversations with written transcripts (Riddiford & Newton, 2010, p. 23) 1 Tom: Can I just have a quick word? 2 Greg: Yeah, sure. Have a seat. 3 Tom: Great weather, eh? 4 Greg: Mm. 5 Tom: Yeah, been a good week. Did you get away skiing at the weekend? 6 Greg: Yeah we did … Now, how can I help you? 7 Tom: I was just wondering if I could take Friday off and make it a long weekend. 8 Greg: Mm, I don't see any problem with thatdyou will have finished that report by then won't you? An example of elicited conversation can be found in Takahashi (2005a), who asked an NSeNS and an NNSeNNS pair to role play a request concerning late-night violin playing. The following example is from the first turn taken by the NS pair. 9. Transcript of NS elicited role play Takahashi (2005a, online Appendix B) 1 Beth: Hi, Mrs. Burns. My name is Beth Sanford and I live 2 next door. and I'm a college student. I live with my 3 sister, Mary. and we've, um, been hearing late at 4 night violin playing. At first, you know, we thought, 5 maybe, it would stop. But it seems like it's goin on 6 pretty much. and it's hard for us to get sleep. So I was 7 wondering if your daughter could practice earlier 8 in the evening.  and Alco n Soler (2012, p. 217) presented learners with transcripts of “authentic-like” Safont-Jord a (2003), Safont-Jorda language use modeled on research-based pedagogical material by Barraja-Rohan and Pritchard (1997).  & Alco  n Soler, 2012; based on 10. Research-based pedagogical material (Safont-Jord a, 2003, pp. 217e218; Safont-Jorda Barraja-Rohan & Pritchard, 1997) Mary: Hi John! John: Hi Mary! How are you? Mary: Not bad, thanks! Mm John: What's the matter? Mary: I'm in class and I hate leaving my students by themselves … I was wondering if you were busy … John: Well not now … What can I do for you? Mary: Would you be able to help me? I needed to photocopy … John: Sure! Mary: So could you photocopy this page and this page? John: Not a problem .. how many ..? Mary: Twenty … John: OK, done!

Please cite this article in press as: Bardovi-Harlig, K., Operationalizing conversation in studies of instructional effect in L2 pragmatics, System (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.002

K. Bardovi-Harlig / System xxx (2014) 1e14

9

Mary: Thanks! Takimoto (2009) used input which he describes as “specially contrived to contain numerous exemplars of the structure” (p. 1031) to be learned. Takimoto (2008a) reports that the dialogues were read aloud to the learners by the researcher in English. 11. Written dialogues created to demonstrate targeted features (Takimoto, 2008a, p. 385, used the full dialogue; Takimoto, 2012a, p. 92, used a short form, up to “Sure, get in”) SITUATION Yuka is about to start her car when she notices that her car battery has gone dead. She needs to go to school now and she does not have any other means but to ask her neighbor, James, whom she knows well, to give her a ride to school. She sees her neighbor go out to his car and she decides to ask her neighbor to drive her to school. DIALOGUE A James: Hi, Yuka. Yuka: Hi, Jim. My car battery has just gone dead and I can't start my car. I really need to get to school. (a) Could I have a lift ? James: Sure. Get in. Yuka: Thanks. and (b) would you do me a favor? James: What is it? Yuka: I haven't got any money at the moment and (c) could you lend me a dollar to come back by bus? James: No problem. There you go. Yuka: Thanks a lot. By the way, (d) could you explain how I could come back by bus? James: Sure, I can. As Table 2 shows, there is a good mix of input types related to degree of authenticity, and also a relatively good balance of audio and audio-visual to written. What Table 2 does not show, however, is that several studies do not provide examples of input given to learners or describe the origin of the input they use. In contrast, other studies not only give examples of the input (some of which were given above), but they also provide detailed information about related pedagogical resources (see, for example, Nguyen & Basturkmen, 2010; Riddiford & Newton, 2010 Yoshida, Kamiya, Kondo, & Tokiwa, 2000). Such information is necessary for the development of the field and to give other instructors models of how such instruction can be developed. 2.3. Conversation in production practice While all instructional effects studies have phases that deliver input in some form and a task that evaluates the learners' responses to intervention, not all employ a phase for practice. This section considers only practice opportunities which are intended to simulate conversation. The opportunity to practice, and the activities implemented during practice, provides one more window on how classrooms viewdand operationalizedconversation. Looking at the practice phase can be quite informative because it does not have to be evaluated (as do assessment tasks) nor does it have to be prepared in advance to the same extent as the input phase. Thus, instructoreresearchers may be more inclined to use oral activities in practice than in testing or input. In fact, we see that a much higher proportion of studies that provide opportunities for oral production in the practice phase (Tables 3 and 4) than in either the assessment (Table 1) or input phases (Table 2). As Table 4 shows, even some non-production studies gave students opportunities to engage in oral practice in some form. Three of those used role plays n Soler, 2002; Eslami-Rasekh, Eslami-Rasekh, & Fatahi, 2004; Martínez-Flor & Alco n-Soler, 2007), and one had face-to(Alco face conversations with NSs (Tateyama, 2007). Consequently, a smaller proportion of studies provided written-for-oral practice, and all 10 studies that did used DCTs. With the exception of the pragmatic awareness studies which do not elicit production for assessment even though they may provide opportunities for production practice, the practice phase aligns quite well with the assessment task format. Peer response groups, mock interviews, and storytelling formed part of the input, practice, and assessment. Three studies gave learners practice with native speakers in face-to-face oral conversations (Holmes & Riddiford, 2010; Winke & Teng, 2010), including Tateyama (2007), who focused on pragmatic awareness rather than production.7 An additional two studies that assessed pragmatic development by written DCTs also gave students oral practice through role plays (Eslami & Eslami-

7 The CMC studies conduct by Belz and colleagues (Belz & Kinginger, 2003; Belz & Vyatkina, 2005; Kinginger & Belz, 2005; Vyatkina & Belz, 2006) also provided practice with NS, although through (written) CMC. This provided both input and practice.

Please cite this article in press as: Bardovi-Harlig, K., Operationalizing conversation in studies of instructional effect in L2 pragmatics, System (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.002

10

K. Bardovi-Harlig / System xxx (2014) 1e14

Table 3 Types of production practice (N ¼ 55). Oral-for-oral

Oral-for-oral and Written-for-oral

Written-for-oral

(See Table 4 for individual study listings) Conversations with NS Production Studies Non-production Studies Role plays Production studies Non-production Studies Other practice activities Games Mock job interviews Oral peer feedback Problem-solving activities SIE: simulated immersive environments

Role plays & DCTs Kondo (2008) Mirzaei and Esmaeili (2013) Pearson (2006)  (2003) Safont-Jorda  and Alco n Soler (2012) Safont-Jorda Tateyama (2001) SCMC (Synchronized CMC) Oral & written, Sykes (2005)

Written DCTs Production Studies  n Soler (2005) Alco Cohen and Shively (2007) Eslami and Liu (2013) Salazar Campillo (2003) Takahashi (2001) Non-production Studies  n Soler (2007) Alco Written-for-written CMC Belz and Kinginger (2003) Belz and Vyatkina (2005); Vyatkina and Belz (2006) Kinginger and Belz (2005) Eslami and Liu (2013) Wishnoff (2000)

Rasekh, 2008; Halenko & Jones, 2011). The use of interactive production activities for practice is consistent not only with goals for developing L2 pragmatic competence for conversation, it is consistent with pedagogical goals more generally for developing oral competence. 3. Discussion This survey of how instructional effects studies operationalize conversation has shown that the answer varies somewhat according to the phase of the study. This section first provides a brief overview of the findings and then makes suggestions for future research. 3.1. Assessment tasks Examining the tasks shows that even excluding studies before 2000, written-for-oral tasks are used in two thirds of the production studies that target pragmatics features found in conversations, with one third using written-for-oral tasks exclusively. Recall, however, that two thirds of the studies also use an oral-for-oral task, with one third using oral-for-oral tasks exclusively. The overlap comes from studies that use both oral-for-oral and written-for-oral tasks as shown in Table 1. The written-for-oral tasks are all DCTs, whereas the oral tasks show variety, and many of those tasks either provide opportunities for turn-taking or simulate turns, allowing for interactivity. Table 4 Oral practice activities used in production and non-production studies. Activities

Production Studies

Non-production Studies

Conversations with NS

Holmes and Riddiford (2010) Winke and Teng (2010) Yoshimi (2001) Sykes (2005) by SCMC n Soler (2012) Alco n Soler and Guzma n Pitarch (2010) Alco Eslami and Eslami-Rasekh (2008) lix-Brasdefer (2008a, 2008b) Fe Fukuya and Martínez-Flor (2008); Martínez-Flor and Fukuya (2005) Halenko and Jones (2011) Huth (2006) Li (2012) Liddicoat and Crozet (2001) Martínez-Flor (2008) Riddiford (2007, with NS); Riddiford and Joe (2010); Holmes and Riddiford (2010) Silva (2003) Taylor (2002) Trosborg and Shaw (2008) Bardovi-Harlig et al. (2014) Sykes and Cohen (2009); Cohen and Sykes (2010, 2012); SIE: simulated immersive environment Louw et al. (2010) Nguyen (2013); Nguyen et al. (2013); Nguyen et al. (2012) meth and Kormos (2001) Ne

Tateyama (2007)

Role plays

Games

Mock job interviews Oral peer feedback Problem-solving activities

n Soler (2002) Alco n Soler (2007) Martínez-Flor and Alco Eslami-Rasekh et al. (2004)

Please cite this article in press as: Bardovi-Harlig, K., Operationalizing conversation in studies of instructional effect in L2 pragmatics, System (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.002

K. Bardovi-Harlig / System xxx (2014) 1e14

11

3.2. Input Whereas assessment tasks are constrained by what learners may be able to do and the technology teachers may have available for them to do it, the representations of conversation are not limited in the same way as assessment tasks are. The input used by the studies reviewed here shows promising use of audio-visual input and authentic input. Currently, most of the examples of authentic conversation are presented solely as written transcripts, but elicited NS talk often includes audio-visual presentations accompanied by written transcriptions. Not surprisingly, authentic scripted data are generally presented in audio-visual format (and often with transcripts). Written pedagogical dialogues and dialogues created especially for individual studies are in the minority. The use of transcripts of authentic conversations (and other written material) in instruction could be related to relative ease of presentation, but it could also be argued that written input might be especially well suited to input enhancement. While that may be true, I would suggest that the use of audio-visual input should not preclude input enhancement, as shown by the use of videos with enhanced subtitles by Martínez-Flor and Fukuya (2005) and Fukuya and Martínez-Flor (2008). In addition, the use of audio or audio-visual input provides intonation, prosody, stress, and emphasis, and, in video, facial expressions and gestures. Whether learners are able to notice pragmatic features of audio or audio-visual input as well as in written input is an empirical question. 3.3. Practice In the area of activities that are used to practice conversation, we see a wide range of oral activities, and reasonably few studies (only about a half-dozen) that use DCTs as written-for-oral practice. The larger number of interactive-oral activities for practice compared to the number in assessment tasks suggests that constraints of preparation, transcription, and other logistics may figure heavily in a teacher's or researcher's choice of assessment task. In contrast, the choice of practice activities is less constrained in the absence of evaluation. In addition, the use of oral production practice in instructional units seeking to promote pragmatic awareness (rather than production) suggests that researchereinstructors also see production as contributing to awareness, whether the value of production is attributed to the opportunities to notice during an output push (Swain & Lapkin, 1995) or to consolidation of knowledge during performance (Byram, 2008). 3.4. Future research In their 2006 review of instructional effects studies in pragmatics, Jeon and Kaya (2006) asked whether type of task makes a difference in outcome: “Is there a systematic relationship between the type of outcome measure (e.g., natural language data vs. elicited language data) and observed instructional effectiveness?” (p. 174; see also Taguchi, 2011; Takahashi, 2010a). This question is a legitimate starting place given the methodological orientation of the field to assessment tasks. Based on this review, I suggest two additional research questions: “How does the representation of conversation in input affect pragmatic learning?”8 and “How does the operationalization of conversation in practice activities affect pragmatic learning?” Given that many studies do not include a practice phase, we might also investigate whether practice improves pragmatic outcomes. It is not enough to test the efficacy of authentic, interactive, oral input using standard measures. We should add to our evaluations of instructional effect whether learners develop sensitivity to L2 regarding timing of turns, tolerance for overlap, and prosodic cues to illocutionary force and perlocutionary effect, all of which pragmatics researchers have acknowledged, but have not fully embraced in research design. An additional point for future research relates to the reports themselves and the standards we set collectively for instructional effects studies in pragmatics. As noted earlier, not every reports presents a sample of the input used in the study. Doughty's (1991) article was one of the earliest to point the importance of detailing the instructional phase of research on the effects of instruction. Without examples, pedagogical intervention seems more like magic than teaching. Giving examples of the pedagogical input achieves three main goals: it provides a full account of the experiment; it furthers pedagogical development in pragmatics by showing readers how it can be done; and it encourages replication, which is necessary to determine the generalizability of the findings. In addition to including examples in published articles, examples of input can be provided online by journals or independent websites (e.g., Riddiford, 2007; Takahashi, 2005a, 2005b; Teng & Fei, 2013). This need for examples is not limited to the input phase, however. Examples of the tasks and practice activities should also be included in reports if this area of investigation is to move forward. 4. Conclusion Studies of the effect of instruction on pragmatics operationalize conversation when evaluating the outcome of instruction, providing input, and where included, implementing practice activities. Conversation is more likely to be operationalized as oral, interactive, and authentic in the input and practice phases; testing appears to be more conservative than input or practice, reflecting greater use of written-for-oral tasks.

8

Gilmore (2011) compared textbook and authentic input in a study of L2 communicative competence.

Please cite this article in press as: Bardovi-Harlig, K., Operationalizing conversation in studies of instructional effect in L2 pragmatics, System (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.002

12

K. Bardovi-Harlig / System xxx (2014) 1e14

This assessment of the field may be somewhat optimistic because the studies were described on the basis of their most conversational form of input or practice where there was more than one task or activity. Thus, rather than cataloging all sources of input or characterizing the dominant (i.e., the longest or most frequent) type of input used in an intervention, the input with the most conversational features was identified; the same was done for types of practice. Nevertheless, the learners were likely to benefit from oral, interactive, or authentic samples when they encountered them. Being exposed to authentic language use is likely better than not being exposed. Testing the effects of the use of input, practice activities, and tasks with greater authenticity on the development of L2 pragmatics is an empirical endeavor which should be undertaken. Boiling down instructional effects studies in pragmatics to the essential feature of how conversation is operationalized ignores other features of experimental design. However, I argue that in pragmatics, how conversation is elicited, treated, or presented is of paramount importance. I further argue that conversation can be used with any instructional approach. On the whole, I think this collection of 81 studies published between 2000 and 2013 represents a significant step forward in pragmatics pedagogy. Many of the contributors to this special issue have advocated the teaching of pragmatics and the use of “real” examples, and in 2001 I encouraged the use of authentic input as “fair play: giving the learners a fighting chance” (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001, p. 30). More recently, I have begun to say to language teachers and researchers, “You just cannot make this stuff up!” I am encouraged to see how many studies of instruction have integrated audio-visual input and oral practice activities into the pedagogical intervention. The tasks used for assessment seem to be changing more slowly, and I would suggest that it is time to abandon the written DCT as the default task as we move forward. This review shows that although much remains to be done, there is healthy activity in the field. References* *Note. References that are marked with an asterisk formed part of the 81 articles used in this survey.  n Soler, E. (2002). Relationship between teacher-led versus learners' interaction and the development of pragmatics in the EFL classroom. International *Alco Journal of Educational Research, 37, 359e377.  n Soler, E. (2005). Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context? System, 33, 417e435. *Alco  n Soler, E. (2007). Fostering EFL learners' awareness of requesting through explicit and implicit consciousness-raising tasks. In M. del Pilar Garcia Mayo *Alco (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 221e241). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.  n Soler, E. (2012). Teachability and bilingualism effects on third language learners' pragmatic knowledge. Intercultural Pragmatics, 9, 511e541. *Alco  n Soler, E., & Guzma n Pitarch, J. (2010). The effect of instruction on learners' pragmatic awareness: a focus on refusals. International Journal of English *Alco Studies, 10, 65e80. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In K. Rose, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 13e32) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2010). Exploring the pragmatics of interlanguage pragmatics: definition by design. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Handbooks of pragmatics: Vol. 7. Pragmatics across languages and cultures (pp. 219e259). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2012). Pragmatics in SLA. In S. M. Gass, & A. Mackey (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 147e162). London: Routledge/ Taylor Francis. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (2005). Institutional discourse and interlanguage pragmatics. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, & B. S. Hartford (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics: Exploring institutional talk (pp. 7e36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. *Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Vellenga, H. E. (2012). The effect of instruction on conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. System, 40, 77e89. *Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S., & Vellenga, H. E. (2014). The effect of instruction on pragmatic routines in academic discussion. Language Teaching Research, 19(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541739. Retrieved 17.7.2014. *Barekat, B. (2013). Investigating effects of metalinguistic feedback in L2 pragmatic instruction. Interntional Journal of Linguistics, 5, 197e208. Barraja-Rohan, A., & Pritchard, C. R. (1997). Beyond talk. Melbourne: Western Melbourne Institute of TAFE. Bataller, R. (2010). Making a request for a service in Spanish: pragmatic development in the study abroad setting. Foreign Language Annals, 43, 160e175. Beal, C. (1992). Did you have a good weekend? Or why there is no such thing as a simple question in crosscultural encounters? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 23e52. Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. Scarcella, E. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), On the development of communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55e73). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House. *Belz, J. A., & Kinginger, C. (2003). Discourse options and the development of pragmatic competence by classroom learners of German: the case of address forms. Language Learning, 53, 591e647. *Belz, J. A., & Vyatkina, N. (2005). Learner corpus analysis and the development of L2 pragmatic competence in networked intercultural language study: the case of German modal particles. Canadian Modern Language Review, 62, 17e48. Byram, M. (2008). From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship: Essays and reflections. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. *Codina-Espurz, V. (2008). The immediate vs. delayed effect of instruction on mitigators in relation to the learners' language proficiency in English. In E. n Soler (Ed.), Learning how to request in an instructed language learning context (pp. 227e256). Switzerland: Peter Lang. Alco *Cohen, A. D., & Ishihara, N. (2005). A web-based approach to strategic learning of speech acts. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA), University of Minnesota. Retrieved 02.10.13 from http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/Japanese%20Speech%20Act%20Report% 20Rev.%20June05.pdf. *Cohen, A. D., & Shively, R. (2007). Acquisition of requests and apologies in Spanish and French: impact of study abroad and strategy-building intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 189e212. *Cohen, A. D., & Sykes, J. M. (2010). Language learner strategies and their effect on speech act performance. Applied Linguistics Forum, 30. Retrieved 02.10.13 from https://sites.google.com/a/umn.edu/andrewdcohen/publications/pragmatics. *Cohen, A. D., & Sykes, J. (2012). Strategy-based learning of pragmatics: an example of intercultural language learning. In F. Dervin, & A. J. Liddicoat (Eds.), Linguistics for intercultural education in language learning and teaching (pp. 87e111). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. *van Compernolle, R. (2011). Developing second language sociopragmatic knowledge through concept-based instruction: a microgenetic case study. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3267e3283. *van Compernolle, R., & Williams, L. (2013). The effect of instruction on language learners' sociolinguistic awareness: an empirical study with pedagogical implications. System, 41, 298e306. Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431e469.

Please cite this article in press as: Bardovi-Harlig, K., Operationalizing conversation in studies of instructional effect in L2 pragmatics, System (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.002

K. Bardovi-Harlig / System xxx (2014) 1e14

13

*Eslami, Z., & Eslami-Rasekh, A. (2008). Enhancing the pragmatic competence of non-native English-speaking teacher candidates (NNESTCs) in an EFL n Soler, & A. Martínez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 178e197). Bristol, UK: context. In E. Alco Multilingual Matters. *Eslami-Rasekh, A., Eslami-Rasekh, Z., & Fatahi, A. (2004). The effect of explicit metapragmatic instruction on the speech act awareness of advanced EFL students. TESL-EJ. Retrieved 09.10.13 from http://tesl-ej.org/ej30/a2.html. *Eslami, Z., & Liu, C. (2013). Learning pragmatics through computer-mediated communication in Taiwan. Iranian Journal of Science, Culture and Language, 1, 52e73. lix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2008a). Pedagogical intervention and the development of pragmatic competence in learning Spanish as a foreign language. Issues in *Fe Applied Linguistics, 16, 49e84. lix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2008b). Teaching Spanish pragmatics in the classroom: explicit instruction of mitigation. Hispania, 91, 477e492. *Fe ndez-Guerra, A., & Martínez-Flor, A. (2006). Is teaching how to suggest a good suggestion? an empirical study based on EFL learners' accuracy and *Ferna appropriateness when making suggestions. Porta Linguarum, 5, 91e108. *Fordyce, K. (2014). The differential effects of explicit and implicit instruction on EFL learners' use of epistemic stance. Applied Linguistics, 35, 6e28. *Fukuya, Y., & Clark, M. K. (2001). A comparison of input enhancement and explicit instruction of mitigators. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 10, pp. 111e130). Urbana, IL: Division of English as an International Language Intensive English Institute, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. *Fukuya, Y., & Martínez-Flor, A. (2008). The interactive effects of pragmatic-eliciting tasks and pragmatic instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 41, 478e500. *Fukuya, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2002). Effects of recasts on EFL learners' acquisition of pragmalinguistic conventions of request. Second Language Studies, 21, 1e47. *Fukuya, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2006). The effects of recasting on the production of pragmalinguistic conventions of request by Chinese learners of English. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 15, 59e91. *Ghobadi, A., & Fahim, M. (2009). The effect of explicit teaching of English “thanking formulas” on Iranian EFL intermediate level students at English language institutes. System, 37, 526e537. Gilmore, A. (2011). “I prefer not text”: developing Japanese learners' communicative competence with authentic materials. Language Learning, 61, 786e819. Golato, A. (2002). German compliment responses. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 547e571. *Halenko, N., & Jones, C. (2011). Teaching pragmatic awareness of spoken requests to Chinese EAP learners in the UK: is explicit instruction effective? System, 39, 240e250. *Holmes, J., & Riddiford, N. (2010). From classroom to workplace: tracking socio-pragmatic development. ELT Journal, 65, 376e386. *Huth, T. (2006). Negotiating structure and culture: L2 learners' realization of L2 compliment-response sequences in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 2025e2050. *Ifantidou, E. (2013). Pragmatic competence and explicit instruction. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 93e116. Jeon, E. H., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development: a meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris, & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 165e211). Amsterdam: Benjamins. *Jernigan, J. (2012). Output and English as a second language pragmatic development: the effectiveness of output-focused video-based instruction. English Language Teaching, 5, 2e14. Retrieved 02.10.12 from http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/view/15931. Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 215e247. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. *Kinginger, C., & Belz, J. (2005). Socio-cultural perspectives on pragmatic development in foreign language learning: microgenetic case studies from telecollaboration and residence abroad. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2, 369e421. *Koike, D., & Pearson, L. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence. System, 33, 481e501.  n Soler, & A. *Kondo, S. (2008). Effects of pragmatic development through awareness-raising instruction: refusals by Japanese EFL learners. In E. Alco Martínez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 153e177). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. *Li, Q. (2012). Effects of instruction on adolescent beginners' acquisition of request modification. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 30e55. *Li, S. (2011). The effects of input-based practice on pragmatic development of requests in L2 Chinese. Language Learning, 62, 403e438. *Liddicoat, A., & Crozet, C. (2001). Acquiring French interactional norms through instruction. In K. Rose, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 125e144). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. *Louw, K., Derwing, T., & Abbott, M. (2010). Teaching pragmatics to L2 learners for the workplace: the job interview. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 739e758. n *Martínez-Flor, A. (2008). The effect of inductive-deductive teaching approach to develop learners' use of request modifiers in the EFL classroom. In E. Alco Soler (Ed.), Learning how to request in an instructed language learning context (pp. 191e226). Bern: Peter Lang.  n Soler, E. (2007). Developing pragmatic awareness of suggestions in the EFL classroom: a focus on instructional effects. Canadian *Martínez-Flor, A., & Alco Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10, 47e76. *Martínez-Flor, A., & Fukuya, Y. J. (2005). The effects of instruction on learners' production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. System, 33, 463e480. *Mirzaei, A., & Esmaeili, M. (2013). The effects of planned instruction on Iranian L2 learners' interlanguage pragmatic development. Iranian Journal of Society, Culture and Language, 1, 89e100. *Narita, R. (2012). The effects of pragmatic consciousness-raising activity on the development of pragmatic awareness and use of hearsay evidential markers for learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1e29. meth, N., & Kormos, J. (2001). Pragmatic aspects of task performance: the case of argumentation. Language Teaching Research, 5, 213e240. *Ne *Nguyen, T. T. M. (2013). Instructional effects on the acquisition of modifiers in constructive criticism by EFL learners. Language Awareness, 22, 76e94. Nguyen, T. T. M., & Basturkmen, H. (2010). Teaching constructive critical feedback. In D. H. Tatsuki, & N. R. Houck (Eds.), Pragmatics: Teaching speech acts (pp. 125e140). New York: TESOL. *Nguyen, T. T. M., Pham, M. T., & Cao, T. H. (2013). The effects of explicit metapragmatic instruction on EFL learners' performance of constructive criticism in an academic setting. In T. Greer, D. Tatsuki, & C. Roever (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 13, pp. 213e244). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language Resource Center. *Nguyen, T. T. M., Pham, T. H., & Pham, M. T. (2012). The relative effects of explicit and implicit form-focused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic competence. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 416e434. lix-Brasdefer, & A. Omar (Eds.), *Pearson, L. (2006). Teaching pragmatics in Spanish L2 courses: what do learners think?. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, J. C. Fe Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 11, pp. 109e134) Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment responses: notes on the cooperation of multiple constraints. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 79e112). New York: Academic Press. *Riddiford, N. (2007). Making requests appropriately in a second language: does instruction help to develop pragmatic proficiency? TESOLANZ Journal, 15, 88e102. *Riddiford, N., & Joe, A. (2010). Tracking the development of sociopragmatic skills. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 195e205. Riddiford, N., & Newton, J. (2010). Workplace talk in action: An ESOL resource. Wellington: School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Victoria University of Wellington. *Rose, K., & Ng, C. (2001). Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments and compliment responses. In K. Rose, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 145e170). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33, 385e399. , M. P. (2003). Instructional effects on the use of request acts modification devices by EFL learners. In A. Martínez-Flor, E. Uso -Juan, & A. *Safont-Jorda ndez-Guerra (Eds.), Pragmatic competence and foreign language teaching (pp. 211e232). Castello  de la Plana: Universitat Jaume I. Ferna

Please cite this article in press as: Bardovi-Harlig, K., Operationalizing conversation in studies of instructional effect in L2 pragmatics, System (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.002

14

K. Bardovi-Harlig / System xxx (2014) 1e14

, M. P., & Alco n Soler, E. (2012). Teachability of request act peripherical modification devices in third language learning contexts. In M. *Safont-Jorda Economidou-Kogetsidis, & H. Woodfield (Eds.), Interlanguage request modification (pp. 275e313). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. -Juan, & A. Ferna ndez-Guerra (Eds.), Pragmatic competence *Salazar Campillo, P. (2003). Pragmatic instruction in the EFL context. In A. Martínez-Flor, E. Uso  de la Plana: Universitat Jaume I. and foreign language teaching (pp. 233e246). Castello *Sardegna, V., & Molle, D. (2010). Videoconferencing with strangers: teaching Japanese EFL students verbal backchannel signals and reactive expressions. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7, 279e310. *Silva, A. (2003). The effects of instruction on pragmatic development: teaching polite refusals in English. Second Language Studies, 22, 55e106. Simpson, R. C., Briggs, S. L., Ovens, J., & Swales, J. M. (2002). The Michigan corpus of academic spoken English. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan Accessed 30.11.12 from http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/micase. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: a step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371e391. *Sykes, J. (2005). Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: effects of oral and written chat. CALICO Journal, 22, 399e432. *Sykes, J. M., & Cohen, A. D. (2009). Learner perception and strategies for pragmatic acquisition: a glimpse into online learning materials. In C. R. Dreyer (Ed. ), Language and linguistics: Emerging trends (pp. 99e135). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289e310. *Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In K. Rose, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 171e199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. *Takahashi, S. (2005a). Pragmalinguistic awareness: is it related to motivation and proficiency? Applied Linguistics, 26, 90e120. *Takahashi, S. (2005b). Noticing in task performance and learning outcomes: a qualitative analysis of instructional effects in interlanguage pragmatics. System, 33, 437e461. Takahashi, S. (2010a). Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Handbooks of pragmatics: Vol. 7. Pragmatics across languages and cultures (pp. 391e421). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Takahashi, S. (2010b). The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance. In A. Martínez-Flor, & E. Uso-Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 127e144). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. *Takimoto, M. (2006a). The effects of explicit feedback and form-meaning processing on the development of pragmatic proficiency in consciousness-raising tasks. System, 34, 601e614. *Takimoto, M. (2006b). The effects of explicit feedback on the development of pragmatic proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 10, 393e417. *Takimoto, M. (2008a). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the development of language learners' pragmatic competence. Modern Language Journal, 92, 369e386. *Takimoto, M. (2008b). The effects of input-based tasks on the development of learners' pragmatic proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 30, 1e25. *Takimoto, M. (2009). Exploring the effects of input-based treatment and test on the development of learners' pragmatic proficiency. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1029e1046. *Takimoto, M. (2012a). Assessing the effects of identical task repetition and task-type repetition on learners' recognition and production of second language request downgraders. Intercultural Pragmatics, 9, 71e96. *Takimoto, M. (2012b). Metapragmatic discussion in interlanguage pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1240e1253. *Tateyama, Y. (2001). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines. In K. Rose, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 200e222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. *Tateyama, Y. (2007). The effects of instruction on pragmatic awareness. In K. Bardford-Watts (Ed.), JALT 2006 conference proceedings (pp. 1189e1200). Tokyo: JALT. Retrieved 09.10.13 from http://jalt-publications.org/archive/proceedings/2006/E128.pdf. *Taylor, G. (2002). Conversation strategies by intermediate Spanish students. Foreign Language Annals, 35, 171e189. *Teng, C., & Fei, F. (2013). A consciousness-raising approach to pragmatics teaching: web-based tasks for training study-abroad students. Journal of Technology and Chinese Language Teaching, 4, 50e63. Trosborg, A. (Ed.). (2010), Handbooks of pragmatics: Vol. 7. Pragmatics across languages and cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. *Trosborg, A., & Shaw, P. (2008). Deductive and inductive methods in the teaching of business pragmatics: not an either/or. In R. Geluykens, & B. Kraft (Eds.), LINCOM studies in pragmatics 14Institutional discourse in cross-cultural contexts (pp. 193e220). Munchen: LINCOM. lix*Vyatkina, N., & Belz, J. A. (2006). A learner corpus-driven intervention for the development of L2 pragmatic competence. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, C. Fe Brasdefer, & A. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 11, pp. 293e329). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language Resource Center. *Winke, P., & Teng, C. (2010). Using task-based pragmatics tutorials while studying abroad in China. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7, 363e399. *Wishnoff, J. R. (2000). Hedging your bets: L2 learners' acquisition of pragmatic devices in academic writing and computer-mediated discourse. Working Papers in Second Language Studies, 19, 119e148. *Witten, C. (2000). Using video to teach for sociolinguistic competence in the foreign language classroom. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 5, 143e175. Retrieved 09.10.13 from http://eric.ed.gov (ED468314). *Yoshimi, D. R. (2001). Explicit instruction and JFL learners' use of interactional discourse markers. In K. Rose, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 223e244). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yoshida, K., Kamiya, M., Kondo, S., & Tokiwa, R. (2000). Heart to heart: Overcoming barriers in cross-cultural communication. Tokyo: Macmillan Languagehouse.

Please cite this article in press as: Bardovi-Harlig, K., Operationalizing conversation in studies of instructional effect in L2 pragmatics, System (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.002