•Taguchi, N. (2015b/invited submission). “Contextually” speaking: A survey of pragmatics...

System xxx (2014) 1e18

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System

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

“Contextually” speaking: A survey of pragmatic learningabroad, in class, and online

Naoko Taguchi*

Carnegie Mellon University, United States

Keywords:PragmaticsContextStudy abroadClassroomTechnology

* Corresponding author. Carnegie Mellon UniversE-mail address: [email protected].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.0010346-251X/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Taguchonline, System (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10

a b s t r a c t

In order to acquire pragmatic competence, learners must have access to the target lan-guage input and opportunities for pragmatic practice. Over the last three decades, researchhas emerged to specify this fundamental condition of pragmatic learning. Existing studiesfall primarily into three main categories: study abroad literature that focuses on students'learning pragmatics in the target language community, formal classroom environmentwhere pragmatics is not the target of instruction, and digitally-mediated contexts in whichcommunication takes place in virtual environments. This paper synthesizes key findings inthese three contexts, and compares and contrasts the opportunities and challengesinvolved in each context, with the overall aim of revealing how each context supportspragmatic learning and development.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

With the growing epistemology that capitalizes the dynamic and complex process involved in acquiring a second lan-guage, researchers have recently begun to emphasize the centrality of context in language development. Dynamic SystemsTheory (DST) (de Bot, 2008; Verspoor, de Bot, & Lowie, 2011), chaos/complexity theory (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2009;Larsen-Freeman, 2012), and emergentism (N. Ellis & Larsen-Freeman, 2006) are the major forerunners of this trend. Theseresearchers view language learning as a dynamic, non-linear, and adaptive process emerging through an interaction of re-sources and individuals within a given context. Larsen-Freeman and Cameron (2009) claim that context is not a stablebackground external to individuals that affects their linguistic choices. Instead, they believe that the individual and contextare coupled, and every change to the individual in a system is influenced by context. Larsen-Freeman and Cameron observe:

The context-dependence of complex applied linguistic systems is three-fold: language is developed in context, as use incontext shapes language resources; language is applied in context, as context selects the language action to be performed;language is adapted for context, as the experience of past language use is fitted to the here and now (p. 69).

Interlanguage pragmatics shares this perspective and considers the integration of context and individuals fundamental forexplaining pragmatic development. A substantial amount of empirical studies has investigated the role of learning contextwhile acquiring sociocultural language use (see Kasper & Rose, 2002, for a review). These studies have examined L2 learners'

ity, Modern Languages Department, 5000 Forbes, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States.

i, N., “Contextually” speaking: A survey of pragmatic learning abroad, in class, and.1016/j.system.2014.09.001

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0346251X

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/system

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.001



N. Taguchi / System xxx (2014) 1e182

pragmatic behaviors in a variety of contexts, including study abroad, immersion, sojourn, and the formal classroom, all en-vironments where learners acquire this form-function-context mapping. While some of these studies do not conform to thisdynamic, complex systems theory in their research design and methods, context has been the core in their investigation ofpragmatic development.

In this paper, I synthesize the key findings in three major contexts: the study abroad environment, the classroom, andtechnology platforms, in order to identify the ways in which each context supports pragmatic learning and development. Iwill first survey the research findings on study abroad programs, addressing the benefits of experience in target countries onpragmatic development and what aspects of this experience will likely produce the benefit. Then I will analyze the context ofthe formal classroom, reviewing the findings from observational classroom studies that analyzed classroom discourse andpractice (e.g., teacher talk, routines, and peer-to-peer interaction) from a pragmatic perspective that reveals types of class-room resources available for pragmatic learning. In this section, I will briefly discuss classroom-based instructional inter-vention studies. Finally, I will discuss recent developments in computer-based curricula to highlight the relationship betweendigitally-meditated technologies, pragmatics research, and teaching by presenting exemplary technology-mediated contextssuch as CALL, CMC, social networking, mobile games, and multiuser virtual environments. For each section, I will presentcritical insights and possible future research directions.

2. Study abroad context for pragmatic learning

Study abroad programs e pre-scheduled, temporary stays in a foreign country for educational purposes e have beenexamined extensively as a promising venue for learning a second language (for a review, see Collentine& Freed, 2004; DuFon& Churchill, 2006; Kinginger, 2013). This trend also exists in the area of interlanguage pragmatics (ILP), demonstrated by agrowing body of recent studies examining the effects of study abroad experience on the development of pragmaticcompetence (e.g., Barron, 2006; Cook, 2008; Kinginger, 2008; Schauer, 2009). The popularity of the study abroad context inILP research is understandable considering how the construct of pragmatic competence interacts with the characteristics ofstudy abroad settings. According to LoCastro (2003), pragmatics is ‘the study of speaker and hearer meaning created in theirjoint actions that include both linguistic and non-linguistic signals in the context of socioculturally organized activities’ (p.15). This definition, along with others that emphasize speakerehearer interaction in a sociocultural context (e.g., Allott, 2010;Crystal, 2003; Cutting, 2008; Verschueren, 2009), suggests that L2 pragmatic competence involves learners' linguisticknowledge and knowledge of cultural norms, as well as their ability to use their newly formed knowledgewhen they performsocially-bound linguistic functions.

Researchers believe that study abroad programs benefit pragmatic development because they offer learners the oppor-tunity to participate in “socioculturally-organized activities,” normal daily occurrences where members of local communitiesinteract. When studying abroad, learners are exposed daily to local norms and patterns of communication and opportunitiesto practice those patterns through interaction. These communicative practices, aided by modeling and feedback fromcommunity members, could bring about successful socialization into culturally-appropriate pragmatic behaviors. Addi-tionally valuable to the study abroad program is how learners are exposed to a diversity of contexts and can interact withcommunity members from various backgrounds and style. By experiencing diverse patterns of communication, learnersdevelop their sociopragmatic sensitivity: they come to understand that their linguistic choices are guided by the contextualfactors of the circumstances and the person to whom they are speaking, and those choices have a direct consequence on theoutcome of the interaction and interpersonal relationship.

In short, a constellation of contextual features unique to study abroad settings are: opportunities to observe local norms ofinteraction, contextualized pragmatic practice and immediate feedback on that practice, real-life consequences of pragmaticbehavior, and exposure to variation in styles and communicative situations. These features are thought to assist learners indeveloping pragmatic competence that involves abilities to manage a complex interplay of language, language users, andsocial context of interaction.1

Given this potential link between study abroad context and pragmatics learning, wewould naturally ask whether studyingin the target country actually leads to measurable gains in pragmatic abilities, and what features of studying abroad e input,feedback, types of experience, living arrangements, length of study, and learners' individual characteristics, investment, andidentity e constrain any gains. These questions have been taken up in two lines of literature. One is a group of cross-sectionalstudies that compared pragmatic performance between learners in a host country and their counterparts in a domestic,formal instructional context (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig & D€ornyei, 1998; Barron, 2003; Matsumura, 2001; Olshtain & Blum-Kulka,1985; Schauer, 2006; Shimizu, 2009; Taguchi, 2008a, 2011a, b). The other is a line of longitudinal studies that tracked downpragmatic development of learner(s) during their stay in a host country (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1993; Barron, 2003,2006, 2007; Bataller, 2010; Bouton, 1992, 1994; Cole & Anderson, 2001; Cook, 2008; Ishida, 2009, 2011; Iwasaki, 2010;

1 There is a line of study that revealed that cultural stereotypes can function as a barrier to providing and receiving pragmatically relevant input (Kasper& Rose, 2002). Members in the host culture may perceive international visitors differently than in-group members and interact with them using differentpragmatic norms (Brown, 2013; Iino, 1996; Siegal, 1994). There were other external factors that constrained learners' participation in the target speechcommunity, such as race and gender-related discrimination (Polanyi, 1995; Talburt & Stewart, 1999) and living arrangements (Churchill, 2003; Knight,Schmidt-Rinehart & Barbara, 2002).

Please cite this article in press as: Taguchi, N., “Contextually” speaking: A survey of pragmatic learning abroad, in class, andonline, System (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.001

N. Taguchi / System xxx (2014) 1e18 3

Kinginger, 2008; Kinginger& Blattner, 2008; Kinginger& Farrell, 2004; Masuda, 2011; Nguyen, 2011; Regan,1995; Salsbury&Bardovi-Harlig, 2000; Sawyer, 1992; Shively, 2011, 2013; Taguchi, 2008b; Warga & Scholmberger, 2007). Interestingly,empirical findings from these two lines of literature have come to similar generalizations: (1) Students in the study abroadcontext do not always outperform students at-home instructional context in improved pragmatic performance; (2) The studyabroad effect is not all encompassing over different pragmatic targets: some aspects of pragmatics were more susceptible tochanges as a result of study abroad experience than others, and (3) Not all learners gain equally well while studying abroad:individual characteristics mediate development. I will illustrate all of these generalizations in turn, beginning first with thosefound in cross-sectional studies.

Several cross-sectional studies supported the link between study abroad experiences and pragmatic gains by demon-strating that learners in a second language context outperformed learners in a foreign language context in the production,recognition, and production of speech acts (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig & D€ornyei, 1998; Matsumura, 2001; Olshtain & Blum-Kulka,1985; Schauer, 2006; Shimizu, 2009). Matsumura (2001) examined how Japanese learners of English in Japan and Canadadeveloped the ability to recognize appropriate advice-giving expressions. Participants read scenarios and selected the mostappropriate advice-giving expression from four options. After a four-month period, more students in the study abroad groupchose appropriate expressions than the at-home group, indicating marked pragmatic development over time. Thisimprovement was likely to be a unique product of study abroad experiences, because Matsumura's (2007) follow-up studyshowed that after the learners returned to Japan, their knowledge of appropriate advice-giving expressions to someone inhigher status diminished gradually due to re-socialization into their home country norm.

Similarly, Schauer's (2006) study revealed positive effects from studying abroad on learners' detection of pragmatic errors.Following Bardovi-Harlig and D€ornyei's (1998) study, she examined L2 English learners' detection of pragmatic and gram-matical errors. German learners of English in England and Germany watched video interactions in which the interlocutors'speech act expressions contained either grammatical or pragmatic errors. Compared with the learners in Germany, thelearners in England detected a higher number of pragmatic errors than grammatical errors. Their pragmatic awarenesscontinued to improve during their nine-month stay in the target language country, almost reaching the native speaker level.These findings corroborated Bardovi-Harlig and D€ornyei’s findings that L2 English learners in America were more sensitive topragmatic errors than their counterparts in Hungary.

Contrary to these findings, several studies found superior pragmatic performance in at-home learners compared withlearners in a study abroad context (Niezgoda & R€over, 2001; Taguchi, 2008a). In study, another replication of Bardovi-Harligand D€ornyei's (1998) study, EFL learners in Czech Republic detected a higher number of pragmatic and grammatical errors inspeech acts and judged both error types as more serious than ESL learners. EFL learners' sensitivity to pragmatic inappro-priateness was attributed to their enrollment in a teacher education program taught with a communicative approach.

Taguchi (2008a), on the other hand, compared the comprehension of indirect refusals and indirect opinions betweenJapanese EFL and ESL learners. Indirect refusals were considered conventional because they followed a common, predictablediscourse pattern (giving a reason for refusal). In contrast, indirect opinions were less conventional because meaning was notattached to conventional linguistic expressions or predictable patterns. Comprehension of these two types of impliedmeaning was measured by a multiple-choice listening test administered twice over a five-to-seven-week period. Both groupsmade significant gains in comprehension accuracy and speed. As comprehension accuracy of indirect refusals is concerned,the EFL group had a higher achievement than the ESL group. For the EFL group, the degree of gain was much larger for ac-curacy than it was for response times, but the pattern was reversed for the ESL group; they showed greater gain incomprehension speed, but only marginal improvement in accuracy. The EFL group's competitive performance was inter-preted from their instructional arrangements: the learners were enrolled in an immersion program that offered content-based, integrated skills classes taught in English.

As described above, previous cross-sectional findings on study abroad effects are somewhat inconclusive. These findingssuggest a generalization that study abroad and at-home context cannot be treated in a dichotomized category and that astraightforward comparison between learners in one group with those in the other may not yield meaningful results. A moreprofitable approach would be to move away from the ‘context-as-a-black-box’ stance and to conduct a bottom-up analysis ofthe characteristics of individual institutional environments (e.g., student and teacher background, class style, class size, andinstructional language). Both Niezgoda & R€over and Taguchi's findings suggest that pragmatic development does occur in adomestic instructional context as long as the context affords ample opportunities for target language practice under im-mersion or with a communicative-oriented approach.

The cross-sectional findings also suggest a potential interaction between learning environment and the construct ofpragmatic competence. It is possible that different learning contexts support different aspects of pragmatic abilities because,as found in Taguchi, ESL and EFL group demonstrated reversed patterns of development between accuracy and speed in theircomprehension of implied meaning. In fact, several other cross-sectional studies showed a clearer picture on this con-structecontext interaction (R€over, 2005; Taguchi, 2011a, 2013a). R€over (2005) compared ESL and EFL learners on compre-hension of implicatures, comprehension of routines, and production of speech acts (i.e., requests, refusals, and apologies).There was a significant effect of study abroad on the comprehension of routines but no effect on the comprehension ofimplicatures and production of speech acts, although there was positive proficiency effect on both. The advantage of studyabroad on routines was also supported by Taguchi's (2011a) study that found L2 English learners with study abroad expe-rience were significantly more accurate when comprehending routines than those with no study abroad experience. How-ever, different from comprehension findings, study abroad experience alone did not make any unique contribution to the



production of routines. Taguchi (2013a) revealed that only learners who studied abroad and had high proficiency excelled onthe oral discourse completion test (DCT) that required appropriate and fluent production of routines.

While cross-sectional studies often take a ‘black box’ view to context by making a direct, group-level comparison be-tween a study abroad context and at-home instructional context, several longitudinal studies have provided more informedanalyses on the relation between pragmatic changes and learning environments (e.g., Barron, 2003; Brown, 2013; Cook,2008; Kinginger, 2008; Kinginger & Blattner, 2008; Iwasaki, 2010, 2011; Nguyen, 2011; Shively, 2011, 2013). The strengthof longitudinal studies using a mixed methods approach is their descriptive and explanatory power. These studies revealedchanging patterns in the pragmatic systems in learner(s) over time through a cyclical use of comparative tasks (e.g., pre-post tests results and analysis of changing use of pragmatic features over time). At the same time, these studiesexplained the patterns by scrutinizing contextual and individual factors contributing to the patterns through qualitativedata collected from interviews, observations, diaries, and journals. These studies are particularly valuable considering thecontradicting findings gleaned from previous cross-sectional studies. Mixed methods studies combining qualitative andquantitative data do a great job in accounting for these apparent inconsistencies because they present a situated analysis ofdevelopment and provide an account of the intricate interrelationship among pragmatic change, individual differences, andcontext. In turn, these studies reveal what types of contextual features e nature, type, intensity of social contact and in-dividuals' investment and orientation toward learning e cause the individual variation in the outcome of pragmatic gainsduring study abroad.

Kinginger represents an example of these lines of study in her book-length monograph (2008) about the awareness ofsociolinguistic forms (e.g. address terms, colloquial expressions) in L2 French learners in a semester abroad in France. Pre-and-post test comparisons revealed considerable individual variation in 17 learners' change. To account for the variation,Kinginger explored the histories of six participants by collecting data from interviews, bi-weekly journals, and diaries inwhich the participants recorded their language use. Qualitative data revealed how learners negotiated their membership inthe community. For example, one learner, Louis, had a host family who preferred a quiet, non-talkative environment. Tocompensate for the lack of interaction with his host family, he actively developed a social network in French by talking withhis American friends in French and participating in volunteer activities in French. Liza's case was the opposite. She developeda close relationship with her host mother, but ended up spending a substantial amount of time speaking in English becauseher family and friends visited her in France, and shemaintained strong links to home online. These findings revealed the typesof learning resources available in host communities and learners' various reactions toward them. Although learners mightinitially treat the study abroad as an opportunity for learning, they might get discouraged from unexpected home stay ar-rangements or close connections they maintain with their home country peers. In those circumstances, it is the learners'agency and investment that re-shapes the context and learning opportunities available within the program.

The interaction between context and learner agency was also found in Iwasaki's (2010, 2011) studies on the acquisition ofspeech style (polite and plain/casual forms) among five American learners of Japanese during a year abroad. Iwasaki (2010)analyzed pre-post oral proficiency interviews and revealed that all learners predominantly used polite forms at the begin-ning, but at the end of the study abroad, two students used the informal forms as their base style during the formal interviewwhen the polite style was considered appropriate. The findings were in part attributed to their subjectivity (Iwasaki, 2011).Interview data revealed the dilemma of some learners who knew the appropriate speech style to use but struggled withconforming to the norms due to their desire to sound casual and maintain their identity.

While the connection between context and pragmatic learning made in Kinginger's and Iwasaki's studies is somewhatindirect, other longitudinal studies taking the language socialization approach provided more direct insights by documentinglearning as it occurred through social interaction (Cook, 2008; McMeekin, 2011; Nguyen, 2011; Shively, 2011, 2013). Languagesocialization theory posits that linguistic and sociocultural knowledge is acquired simultaneously through social interaction(e.g., Duff, 2007; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986). Following this theoretical position, these studies provided micro-generic analysesof the learners' moment-by-moment interaction with community members in order to reveal how pragmatic features arelearned in situated social activities.

Cook (2008) examined learners' socialization into the use of the polite speech style through their interactions with thehost family. She audio recorded dinnertime conversations between nine learners of Japanese and their host families duringa year-long study abroad program. She revealed instances in which host families explicitly and implicitly socialized thelearners into target-like uses of speech style. Explicit socialization occurred through modeling, feedback, and spontaneousdiscussion about polite speech. Implicit socialization occurred in daily observation and interaction where host familymembers routinely shifted between speech styles to index authority, self-presentation stances, playfulness, and quotingothers' speech.

McMeekin (2011) also investigated the acquisition of Japanese speech style and socialization process by analyzing learners'use of the plain form through their interactions with host families. She analyzed video-taped conversations between fivelearners of Japanese and their host families and revealed that, while the host family members predominantly used the plainform, the learners opted to use the polite form. Toward the end of their study abroad program, however, several students usedthe plain formmore than the polite form. For example, a routine exchange about food with her host mother helped a studentto learn that spontaneous, emphatic utterances like oishii (‘It's delicious.’) take the plain form because they index self-directedthoughts. The student gradually adopted the plain form in these emphatic expressions by repeating after her host mother.Language socialization occurred through the host mother's modeling of the appropriate speech style in context, promptingparticipation in the exchange, and repetition of the exchange.



Shively (2011), on the other hand, documented seven L2 learners of Spanish acquiring service encounter routines duringtheir semester stay in Spain. This study is different from other study abroad studies cited here that are purely observational,because Shively included explicit instruction in the course of study abroad. The data consisted of 113 naturalistic audio-recordings of service encounter interactions in a local community. A unique design feature of this study is that the re-cordings were made by learners themselves who carried a digital recorder while visiting local shops, banks, and other fa-cilities. Additional data from learners' weekly journals and interviews were used to explain reasons behind the changes intheir opening and request-making strategies over time. For example, the learners changed from the predominance ofspeaker-oriented request forms (e.g., ‘Can I…?’) to the greater use of hearer-oriented request (e.g., ‘Can you…?’) and ellipticalrequests. This learning occurred through repeated participation in everyday service encounter exchanges. Some learnersobserved other customers' request forms and adapted them to their practice, while others learned target forms throughfeedback from host family members and from class.

Similar to Cook and McMeeken's studies, Shively's study illustrated how learners, as new members in the target com-munity, were socialized into the practices of the community group. The byproduct of this socialization was that the learnersacquired target-like service encounter forms and understood how these forms are used in socially appropriate ways in orderto create meaning and index social roles. The pragmatic socialization occurred as learners entered the new community, tookup a new role as a customer, and participated in the role through recurrent practice of service encounter interaction. In thecase of Shively's study, explicit instruction embedded during study abroad might have facilitated this socialization process.Because pragmatics typically develops through communication with local members, it is possible that explicit instructiondirected learners' attention to pragmatics language use in communication and helped them make most of pragmaticslearning while studying abroad.

These findings emphasize the strength of longitudinal design in revealing what actually occurs during study abroad thatmoves learners toward increasing their pragmatic abilities. Some of the key elements of a study abroad context e oppor-tunities for input and interaction, feedback on and modeling of linguistic behaviors, and exposure to varied linguistic normsand practice e are analyzed in conjunction with pragmatic growth, consequently arriving at a meaningful interpretation ofwhat resources are available in the context and how they support pragmatic learning. Longitudinal studies that combinesystematic data collection on quantitative change with qualitative analyses of context and individuals, or studies thatdocument a situated analysis of community practice as they contribute to pragmatic learning, could provide an account to theintricate relationship among pragmatic change, individual differences, and context, subsequently shedding light on thecomplexity and dynamicity of pragmatic development in a study abroad context.

Future research should continue this trend and explore the configuration of study abroad experience in relation topragmatic gains. Ethnographic studies should incorporate systematic, scheduled data collection so that pragmatic change canbe interpreted with a rich analysis of context and individuals. Quantitative-descriptive studies should include qualitative dataso that researchers can develop an explanation for pragmatic change. Measures such as observations and interviews arevaluable in documenting learners' access to pragmatic input and practice at individual levels. Detailed reports on the nature ofsocial contacts, the domains of those contacts, and activity types, as well as the learners' orientation toward social contacts,could clarify the extent to which the types of sociocultural experiences and individual characteristics affect pragmaticdevelopment.

There are several other implications for future study abroad research. Previous studies examined study abroad partici-pants' performance in relation to various pragmatic features, including speech act strategies, politeness markers, stylisticdevices, and comprehension of implicatures and routines, and found that some pragmatic targets were learned better in thetarget community while others were not. Hence, the structure of the learning object itself, along with the types of oppor-tunities offered in specific contexts, determines whether or not pragmatic targets are best learned in study abroad contextthrough out-of-class interaction and exposure, or domestic classroom learning alone is just as effective, as long as learnershave sufficient general proficiency. Future research should continue investigating this constructecontext interaction byanalyzing learners' mastery over multiple pragmatic targets. When the variation in the rate and attainment is found acrosspragmatic targets in the same environment, such findings will reveal properties of study abroad context and why it facilitatesthe learning of certain pragmatic features but not others.

Second, the definition of context should go beyond the traditional category of study abroad and at-home environment,extending to a broader range of instructional arrangements including immersion, cultural exchange programs, heritagespeaker communities, and lingua franca interaction. For example, immersion settings offer rich and authentic in-class inputand interaction opportunities, but they differ from study abroad context because extracurricular opportunities are limited. Onthe other hand, in lingua franca communication, participants bring their own pragmatic norms for communication, anddifferent interactional norms, standards of politeness, and cultural conventions are constantly negotiated among speakers(House, 2010). Because pragmatic behaviors observed in this lingua franca context are not those from L1 or L2 but rather ahybrid of multiple styles and strategies, different criteria and frameworks are necessary for analysis. Heritage speakers alsocome from unique speech communities. Heritage learners are bilinguals who grow up acquiring two languages e homelanguage and societal/school language e and are concerned about the study and maintenance of their minority languages(Valdes, 2005). This circumstance gives rise to a unique context where pragmatic development occurs concurrently withintwo languages and cultures. Given the array of these diverse options available in the current internationalized society,different forms of instructional arrangements should be explored in future research to gain a more comprehensive under-standing of the role the learning context plays in pragmatic development.



3. Classroom environment for pragmatics learning

This section surveys existing findings in formal instructional settings. Kasper and Rose (2002) state that classrooms offertwo types of opportunity for pragmatic learning: learning pragmatics through planned pedagogical action on pre-selectedpragmatic targets, and learning pragmatics incidentally from input and output opportunities through classroom use of thetarget language. This section will focus on this second type of learning while including a brief review of the first type oflearning. I will first present literature that highlights the limitations of a formal classroom environment for learning prag-matics, and then move on to a small amount of observational classroom research that has successfully identified types ofclassroom opportunities and resources available for pragmatic learning. Finally, I will briefly discuss a few instructionalintervention studies that are designed to teach pragmatics in a situated context by bridging instructional intervention andreal-life use of pragmatics.

Pragmatic learning in the formal classroom generally has a poor reputation. There is a general consensus that theclassroom lacks opportunities for pragmatic learning because classroom discourse does not provide representations of avariety of communication situations, and textbooks lack information about pragmatic norms and contain unauthentic lan-guage samples (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Diepenbroek & Derwing, 2013; Kasper, 2001; McGroarty & Taguchi, 2005; Vellenga,2004). This is evident in Vellenga's (2004) analysis of eight ESL textbooks. She found that the amount of pragmatic infor-mation (information related to culture, context, illocutionary force, politeness, and register) accounts for a small portion oftext, ranging from 4 to 29%. Each textbook presents between 3 and 20 unique speech acts, which are offered either throughaudio recordings or printed dialogs and examples with minimum contextual information. The amount of metapragmaticdiscussion related to speech acts was also limited: of the 65 speech acts presented in the eight textbooks, only eight had ametapragmatic explanation.

In addition, the classroom alone cannot afford a complexity of pragmatic behaviors. Because pragmatics entails usinglinguistic forms to perform communicative acts (pragmalinguistics) and assess the context in which those forms are used tosupport social interaction (sociopragmatics) (Leech, 1983; Thomas, 1983), pragmatic behaviors are a reflection of the complexinterplay of form-function-context associations. These associations do not always assume one-to-one correspondence. Thereare immense availabilities of linguistic forms and their functional possibilities, and contextual requirements that determinethe form-function mappings. The variation in pragmatic behaviors becomes even more intricate when people's subjectivityand identity factor in. Politeness, appropriateness, and formality in pragmatic behaviors reflect not only people's knowledgeof pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics, but also their preferences for how they want to sound in certain situation e formalor casual, or distant or close. Due to these multiple factors involved, learning is most likely to take place through exposure todiverse pragmatic behaviors over different language users and language use situations. Classroom context that offers arestricted range of communicative acts and situations is inexorably limited in the variation of pragmatic samples that learnersare exposed to.2

Another challenge in classroom-based learning relates to teachers' limited feedback to students' pragmatic behaviors.Teachers may provide corrective feedback on grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation, but they tend not to give negativefeedback onpragmatic aspects due to their fear of threatening face or risking their relationshipwith students. Lack of negativefeedback might send wrong signals to the students that their behaviors are pragmatically acceptable as a norm. Severalprevious studies lend support to this observation. Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford (1993) examined speech acts of suggestionsand rejections produced by international graduate students in a U.S. university. Naturalistic data on advising sessions revealedthat students made little progress with pragmalinguistic forms: they used direct linguistic forms of rejections and did notemploy any mitigating expressions. In contrast, they developed the ability to initiate suggestions about the courses theywanted to take and offer credible reasons when rejecting their advisors' suggestions about courses. Close analysis of pro-fessorestudent interactions revealed advisors' explicit guidance on the logistics of advising sessions: they showed thatstudents are expected to make suggestions on the courses and what content is acceptable for suggestions by promptingstudents to make their own course nomination or giving examples of good course selections. However, they gave no negativefeedback on the form of speech acts. Hence, explicit teaching on the content but lack of it on forms can explain the students'slow progress with pragmalinguistic forms compared with sociopragmatic knowledge.

Taguchi's (2012a) monograph reported similar findings. She traced the development of pragmatic competence among 48Japanese college students of English in an immersion context where they interacted with their English-speaking instructorsregularly. Using an oral DCT, she assessed students on their ability to express opinions appropriately in formal and informalsituations over one academic year. Results showed that while production of informal opinions showed strong progress, theability to express opinions in formal situations did not develop. Students rarely used syntactic and lexical mitigations to softenthe tone of speech, and expressed likes and dislikes directly to a teacher. This direct manner of speech was indeed observed instudents' real-life interaction with instructors on campus. When making a complaint or expressing disagreement with theirteachers, students often used strongmodals such as ‘should’ or ‘must’, and produced a direct expression of dislike (‘I don't likeX’). Students' under-development of formal speech acts, both in the DCT and real-life communication, was explained by theirinteraction style with teachers. Teachers were often so keen on having students speak up that they did not care much about

2 This observation may or may not apply to multilingual classrooms, which have received empirical interest in recent pragmatics research (e.g., Alc�on-Soler, 2013). Due to the space limit, opportunities for pragmatics learning in a multilingual classroom are not discussed in this paper.



how they spoke up. They responded to the content of the message but not to the language, either neglecting to correctstudents' misuse of pragmalinguistic forms or feeling no need to correct it.

Teachers' reluctance of correcting students on pragmatics is similar to host country members' avoidance of providingpragmatic feedback to international students and foreign visitors (e.g., Barron, 2003; Iino, 1996; Siegal, 1994). Therefore, thephenomenon may not be restricted to formal classroom interactions. However, the lack of negative feedback in a domesticinstructional context could lead to even slower development in pragmatics because of the relative paucity of positive evi-dence in that context. The classroom context is considerably limited in the amount of input, particularly pragmatic input, as itdoes differentiate from a naturalistic environment where learners presumably have abundant incidental opportunities toreceive target input and observe models of interaction. Without input exposure and sufficient amount of time-on-task, theprobability of encountering the normative pragmatic behaviors is slim, as well as the opportunity for pragmatic learning.Hence, it is critical that teachers orient themselves to pragmatic aspects of interaction with their students, and preparethemselves to provide timely corrective feedback when necessary.

Taguchi (2012a) documented one rare instance of a teacher's explicit feedback leading to a student's noticing and learningof appropriate pragmalinguistic forms. One of the participants in her study was not able to produce mitigated request forms(e.g., ‘I wonder if’ þ verb) in a formal request situation in the oral DCT at the beginning, but the target structure appeared inher last DCT. In the follow-up interview, the student reported that she was conscientious about using the form ‘I wonder if’because her teacher gave her corrective feedback on her email. In her original message requesting an appointment, shewrote,‘I want to talk to you on Tuesday, 25th, to talk aboutmy registration. Do you have time?’ In response, the teacher explicitly toldher to use ‘I wonder if.’ See below (p. 160. Names are pseudonyms):

Shoko,Well, I do have some time, but you have to learn how to be a bit more polite in your emails. You must use a more polite

form with teachers than you do with your friends. For example, with a friend you say “I want/I need/Let's go” but with ateacher you write: I am wondering if I can set up an appointment with you next week sometime to discuss my winter termregistration. Are you free at all next week? I look forward to hearing from you,

Sincerely,ShokoI know it sounds very formal, but you can't email to me the sameway youwould your friends. The email you sent sounded

too demanding. Be careful. I can see you on Tuesday afternoon, okay? Tom.This excerpt reiterates the importance of direct feedback and modeling for the acquisition of pragmalinguistic forms. The

teacher's feedback served as the critical role that triggered a new form-function-context mapping to enter the student'sknowledge system and to be retrieved later in a similar task situation. The feedback was powerful enough to cause this robustlearning probably because it was contextualized, personal, and immediate: it was the direct consequence of the student'spragmatic behavior in a purposeful, authentic interaction.

While it is rather rare for the formal classroom setting to include this sequence of noticing and subsequent acquisition,several studies have documented incidental learning of pragmatic features in a classroom when pragmatics was not theintended learning target, suggesting that pragmatic development could occur in a formal classroom setting without explicitinstruction (R. Ellis, 1992; Forman, 2011; Hellermann, 2009; Kanagy, 1999; Nikula, 2008; Ohta, 2001; Tateyama & Kasper,2008). What is common among these studies is the analysis of a frequent use of target pragmatic forms in recurringspeech events. For example, Nikula (2008) explored adolescents' classroom interaction from a pragmatics perspective. Thestudy focused on three seventh-grade physics classes and three ninth-grade biology classes in Finland that followed content-based instruction taught in the target language, English. Analysis of classroom interaction revealed numerous instances ofstudents' language use for pragmatic meaning. For example, when there were disagreements on subject-related concepts,some students used mitigators (‘well, then…’) or discourse markers (‘yeah, but just like…’) to preface their disagreement, orused rising intonation to soften the tone of disagreement. When asking questions, some students demonstrated pragmaticsensitivity by avoiding direct questioning and using a pre-sequence such as ‘Can I ask something?’ These various instances ofinteractional accomplishments among students demonstrate how the nature of content-based classroom environments canallow for learners to practice pragmatics in conversational participation. Students adapted their personal perspectives tosubject matters and as a result, the overall tone of talk becamemore involved than inmany language classrooms. Through therecurrent speech events of asking questions or discussing academic matters, students learned how to interact in a way thatbuilds a rapport with the teacher and peers, leading to the development of pragmatic proficiency specific to classroominteraction.

These naturalistic opportunities for pragmatic input and practice may be covert in a language classroom but do come tothe surface by closely analyzing the salient features of classroom discourse and interaction patterns. Forman (2011), forexample, examined use of humor in a college EFL classroom in Thailand. Analyses of 19 h of classroom recordings revealedinstances of discursive humors used to mitigate social distance and hierarchical power relationship between the teacher andstudents. See example (p.549):

Student (S): Shampoo.Teacher (T): Shampoo.S: Powder.



T: Powder.…

S: ToothbrushT: ToothbrushT: Do you use them? (deadpan tone)Ss: (laugh)T: Oh yeah. I thought you never used them. (high voice; disbelieving tone)Ss: (laugh)

This excerpt shows humor surrounding the teacher's teasing of the students, which helped reduce the teacher-studentdistance and produced a relaxing atmosphere. The study also revealed the instances of linguistic humors. There werenumerous instances of the teacher's ‘play on words’ that assisted students' learning and participation. Humorous languageplays are forms of non-literal comprehension. Jokes and sarcasm assume shared context and background knowledge amongparticipants. Based on the common understanding, as well as deductive processing based on Gricean maxims and under-standing of contextual cues, we are able to infer underlying meanings of humorous expressions and show appropriate re-action (e.g., laughter). Accumulation of language play in the classroom could contribute to students' increased abilities tocomprehend conversational implicatures in the target language, even if direct, focused instruction and practice of theimplicatures might be absent in the classroom.

While the studies summarized above are focused on analyzing classroom interaction for potential opportunities forpragmatic practice, a few other studies were able to explicitly link classroom resources to pragmatic-related learning out-comes. An early study by R. Ellis (1992), a study on young learners' pragmatic development, is one such example. He analyzedclassroom interaction between Portuguese and Punjabi speaking boys learning English and traced their development ofrequest-making expressions over time. He observed change at three stages: (1) the pre-basic stage where learners conveyed arequest intention in a context-dependent, minimalistic manner, (2) the formulaic stage where learners performed requestswith unanalyzed formulas, and (3) the unpacking stage where formulas were incorporated into use of productive languageand conventional request forms. Interestingly, R. Ellis noted that while the learners’ pragmalinguistic knowledge changedover time, their sociopragmatic knowledge revealed almost no development, as learners did not vary their request formsaccording to addressee.

Ohta (2001) also revealed distinct stages of pragmatic development in relation to classroom input and interaction. Shetracked L2 Japanese learners' progress in the use of alignment and acknowledgment expressions in a classroom over twosemesters. Acknowledgment is a feedback signal used to show attentiveness during conversation (e.g., soo desu ka meaning“oh really”), while alignment is an emphatic feedback signal with the sentence final particle ne (e.g., ii desu ne, meaning“That's great, isn't it?”). Ohta collected five naturalistic recordings of classroom interactions. The focal participants, Candaceand Rob, exhibited a similar, six-staged development of the target expressions: (1) no use of acknowledgment and alignment,(2) use of repetition and laughter for acknowledgment, (3) use of aa soo desu ka and minimal response (e.g., hai, meaning“yes”) for acknowledgment, (4) use of aa so desu kawith facility and emergence of alignment expression, (5) spontaneous useof a limited range of alignment expressions, and (6) appropriate use of a range of acknowledgment expressions and greaterlexical variety in alignment expressions. There were no individual differences in the sequence of the stages, but in the pace ofdevelopment, Candace showed stable, frequent use of alignment expressions earlier than Rob because her conversationpartner consistently used alignment with frequency and variety. These findings highlight the connection between types ofclassroom practice and pragmatic gains. Collaborative peer-to-peer interaction created a range of opportunities for studentsto use the targets that were not available in teacher-fronted exchanges. Candace's progress was faster than other studentsbecause of more frequent, recycled use of the target forms with her conversation peer.

More recently, Hellermann (2009) used conversation analysis to document the micro-genetic development of one L2English learner's use of the word no in an ESL classroom over a fifty-week period. Data consisted of 6 h of video documentingthe learner's interaction with her peers and teachers. Analyses revealed that the learner first used the unmitigated no tocorrect her interlocutor directly. However, later she expanded the function of no, using it for repair and humor. She alsostarted to mitigate nowith hesitation and hedging (e.g.,well) in a correction sequence, demonstrating her orientation towarddispreferred response. These findings suggest that classroom interactions present recurrent opportunities to produce adispreferred response such as correction. Through repeated participation in the face-threatening act, the participant probablyoriented herself to the interpersonal nature of the exchange and the consequence of her language to the social relationship.This orientation and attention to sociocultural language use seemed to have assisted pragmatic learning, as observed in theparticipant's gradual expansion of pragmalinguisitc repertoire (i.e., use of hedging and mitigators in correction). Anotherimplication of this study is that classroom discourse and interaction potentially present a variety of form-function mappings.The learner's use of no expanded in function over time, from direct correction and disagreement to repair and humor. Thisexpansion suggests that contrary to the previous assumption about scant communicative situations and functions, classroomcontext could offer a rich variety of opportunities for meaning making.

While small in quantity, previous findings have unveiled the potential opportunities and outcomes of incidental pragmaticlearning in different classroom arrangements. These findings contradict previous generalizations about the limited pragmaticresources in a formal classroom, but we should keep inmind that these generalizations could be the result of the limited body



of observational classroom research. Researchers could test this generalizability through further studies geared to lookinginto classroom talk, routines, and interaction through pragmatics lens.

A handful of studies described here certainly serve as guidelines for researchers who wish to cultivate concrete methodsfor such investigations. A common thread among these studies is that they focused on recurring speech events in class. In achain of similar speech events, certain linguistic forms appear repeatedly in connection with specific functions, andknowledge of the form-function connection gets strengthened through repeated, contextualized practice within speechevent. While this underlyingmechanism of learningmay apply to naturalistic learning in the study abroad context or sojourn,the strength of classroom-based research is that the process of learning is potentially more readily observable, and its link toacquisition is more easily made due to the very characteristics of the classroom as a restricted learning environment withfinite possibilities. Class recordings give us a complete data set on input, output, and interaction occurring in the classroom.We can conduct an exhaustive analysis of pragmatic-related language use in this data. Salient, recurring pragmatic behaviorsin the data can be traced over time to see how learners' pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics have changed over time, andwhat factors in the classroom, such as teacher feedback and modeling, peer-to-peer interaction, and learner orientation andstance, have assisted in the change. When linked with formative and summative assessment, such analysis could yieldmeaningful information about what aspects of pragmatic competence develop naturally with resources available in the givenclassroom, as well as what aspects do not progress fast and require instructional intervention.

There are several points of consideration in classroom-based pragmatics research. First, the studies summarized herewereall conducted in an input-rich classroom taught in the target language. For example, Nikula (2008) examined interaction incontent-based physics and biology classrooms, and Hellermann (2009) examinedmulti-cultural ESL classroomwhere Englishwas the lingua franca of communication among students. Forman (2011) looked into a college-level English classroom inThailand taught by a native English speaker. As evident in these studies, research could become profitable if it investigates aclassroom where target language is the medium of instruction and communication.

Second, classroom research has only revealed patterns of change in pragmalinguistics and not adequately addressed thedevelopment of sociopragmatics. R. Ellis's (1992) study revealed evolving linguistic structures in the speech act of request,while Ohta's (2001) study revealed learners' gradual shift from acknowledgment to alignment expressions. Nikula (2008) andHellermann's (2009) studies, on the other hand, focused on the pragmalinguistic sophistication in performing a face-threatening act (e.g., disagreement and correction) as found in learners' use of syntactic mitigations and hedging. Whilelearners' increased knowledge of form-function mappings is evident in these analyses, what is not clear is whether learners'knowledge could extend to the knowledge of form-function-context mapping or the area of sociopragmatics where they arerequired to make a linguistic choice corresponding to situational variety. In fact, R. Ellis (1992) concluded that his focalparticipants demonstrated no progress with sociopragmatics because they used the same request-making forms regardless ofwhom they were talking to. Investigation into sociopragmatic development is challenging in a formal classroom becauselearners typically interact with the same interlocutors, i.e., teachers and classmates, in a relatively fixed environment. Unlessthere are routine contacts with others of different social status and distance, it is difficult to observe learners' linguistic style-shift from one situation to another. However, Tateyama and Kasper (2008) presented a creative attempt in this regard byinviting native speaker guests to a language classroom. They found that, compared to interactions with students, requestsfrom a class instructor to a native speaker classroom guest reflected a wider range of interactional sequences, linguistic re-sources, and speech styles. These different styles associated with requests potentially provided learners with opportunities toobserve how request speech acts are structured differently in various situations and speaker relationships. A challenge in aclassroom setting is making this type of arrangement a sustainable practice so that learners have recurrent exposure todifferent registers and styles.

I would be remiss if I did not make mention of instructional studies in L2 pragmatics here. However, a thorough review ofintervention studies is beyond the scope of this paper, because the context of intervention studies is different than that ofstudy abroad or classroom in that the instructional context, particularly a laboratory setting, is artificially created by theresearcher with a sole purpose of inducing learning. Readers who are interested in the discussion on effective teachingmethods in pragmatics should refer to existing review articles (Cohen, 2008; Jeon & Kaya, 2006; Kasper & R€Over, 2005;Kasper & Rose, 1999; R€Over, 2009; Taguchi, 2011b, 2012b; Takahashi, 2010a, 2010b) and edited volumes dedicated to thistopic (Alc�on-Soler & Martínez-Flor, 2008; Martínez-Flor & Alc�on-Soler, 2005; Martínez-Flor, Us�o Juan, & Fernandez-Guerra,2003; Rose, 2005; Rose & Kasper, 2001).

Instructed ILP is a growing area of research supported by mounting empirical studies published since the 1990s. Jeon andKaya (2006) located 34 instructional studies, 13 of which were subjected to a quantitative meta-analysis. Takahashi (2010a)found 49 studies. The most recent review (Taguchi, inpress) found 58 studies over six target languages (38 English, 4 Spanish,9 Japanese, 3 French, 2 German, and 2 Chinese) in a range of pragmatic targets (e.g., speech acts, implicature, routines, reactivetokens, discourse markers, address forms, hedging and epistemic markers). While early studies focused on the teachability ofpragmatics (i.e., whether pragmatics is teachable like grammar or vocabulary), recent studies have revolved around themethod debate ewhich instructional method is more effective than others. A number of intervention studies have addressedthis question by comparing the effects of certain teaching methods over others and measuring the degree of learning frompre- to post-instruction. By far, the comparison between the explicit and implicit method has occupied much of the debate(Takahashi, 2010a), but there are several studies that followed other theoretical positions.

While most of these intervention studies were conducted in a laboratory or restricted instructional setting, there are twostudies that attempted to link instructional context with real world language use: Louw, Derwing, and Abbott (2010) and



Riddiford and Joe (2010). Both studies reported on a pedagogical tool developed to promote effective interculturalcommunication in the workplace. Louw et al. implemented pedagogical intervention on job interview skills of three pro-spective L2 job candidates (all Chinese speaking engineers in Canada). The intervention involved a simulated job interview, avideo source of a model interview, explicit lessons on common interview questions, and effective interview behaviors thataimed to teach aspects of the pragmatics in a job interview. The pre-test was a 20-min mock job interview conducted by apanel of two recruiters using authentic questions. Two experts who had experience with human resources and hiringevaluated the interview performance and identified the candidates' problems. The problems were used to prepare instruc-tional materials. After the instruction, the participants completed a post-instruction mock job interview. The panel assessedthe candidates' skills using a five-point Likert scale over 21 pragmatic skill categories, such as introduction, rapport man-agement, tempo, and expression of enthusiasm. All three candidates demonstrated general improvement at the post-interview stage. The value of this instructional intervention is its authenticity. Value came from the real-life need offinding a job, so the consequence of learning is immediate to the students. The study was also motivated by the societalproblem of newcomers to Canada being unemployed and needing to improve their potential for obtaining a position.Interview training fills this need, bymaking candidates aware of pragmatic rules and rituals of job interviews, and using themto their advantage.

Riddiford and Joe (2010) also demonstrated direct application of classroom learning to real-life pragmatics. They described11 immigrant ESL learners' acquiring request making forms during a five-week classroom learning program followed by a six-week work placement. The initial five-week-in-class training was arranged so learners can better detect characteristics ofworkplace interactions in New Zealand. Materials involved recordings of authentic workplace conversations around variousspeech acts including request. During the six-week work placement period, learners came back to the classroom once a weekand discussed their problems. Learners' development in request-making behaviors was traced with DCT, role plays, in-terviews, and recordings of their workplace conversations with colleagues and supervisors. Learners' progress was found intheir increasing use of external modifiers (e.g., ‘excuse me’, ‘please, ‘Can I have a quick word?’), internal modifiers (e.g., “Iwonder if” and “if possible”), and use of grounders. The researchers found that learners were able to transfer their learnedpragmatic knowledge to the authentic workplaces. The findings also suggest that the sociopragmatic skills learned in classbecame relevant once the learners entered a New Zealand workplace where high-stake speech acts such as request occurrelatively frequently during everyday interactions.

The two studies described above have expanded the possibilities and usefulness of instructional studies in pragmatics bybridging two different contexts e classroom instructional context and authentic communicative contexts outside theclassroom. These studies capitalized on the transfer of training. Knowledge of sociocultural behaviors, norms of interaction,and conventions of language use learned in class can be and should be applied to everyday life interaction with greatconsequence, because the outside world is the place where learners' pragmatic knowledge is really tested. Their performancebeyond the classroom reflects the robustness and stability of learned pragmatic knowledge, as well as the meaningfulness ofpragmatic learning.

Most interventional studies in pragmatics seldom go beyond post-test: investigation stops at the stage where they havemeasured the effect of instruction by comparing the pre-and posttest performances. Perhaps, future instructional studiesshould cultivateways to look into the ‘aftereffect’ of instruction by examining how learners can transfer learned knowledge toreal world communicative acts and situations (see Alc�on and Riddiford in this special issue). Such an analysis potentiallyremedies the shortcomings of incidental pragmatics learning in classroom previously mentioned e relative neglect onsociopragmatics over pragmalinguistics. After identifying emerging pragmatic behaviors in classroom interaction, learnerscan be instructed to pay attention to those behaviors outside the classroom and observe variations across individuals andsituations so that their sociopragmatic knowledge related to the target form-function mappings continues to develop.

4. The technology platforms for pragmatic learning

In this section, I will discuss recent developments in the technology related platforms used for pragmatic learning. Arecent volume on this topic is Taguchi and Sykes's (2013) book, Technology in Interlanguage Pragmatics Research and Teaching(John Benjamins). Ten empirical papers in the volume collectively inform us about the potentials of technology in expandingthe scope of data collection and analysis methods, and teaching approaches in pragmatics. These papers present criticalinsights into how technology can best be leveraged as a solution to existing barriers to pragmatics research and pedagogy.

Advancements in technology have introduced a number of digitally-mediated data collection contexts and expanded ouroptions for interlanguage analysis (Belz & Thorne, 2006; Chapelle, 2003, 2007, 2009; Lafford, 2009). Social computing hasproliferated as a promising platform for data collection and analysis since the 1990s, and recently, it has been taken to a newlevel by Web 2.0 applications (e.g., Facebook, blogs and Twitter) (Lafford, 2009). Computer-mediated communication (CMC)occurring in those virtual social spaces has several advantages for L2 research and pedagogy. First, researchers and teacherscan create an authentic communicative environment across physical distance by having learners engage in electronic dialogswith their native speaking peers. Such interaction may expose learners to a wide range of discourse options and increasedopportunities for peer feedback and assistance. In addition, CMC allows for the collection of multiple data sources at once,which, in turn, more comprehensibly inform us about the process of language development. Researchers can trace learners'production with the input of native speakers. By cross-examining learners' and their peers' linguistic choices, they can studythe effects of input on L2 use and acquisition, as well as the role of attention and noticing of target forms in acquisition. These



advantages are illustrated in the recent studies that examined CMC for a range of SLA-related notions, including alignmentand co-construction of discourse (Simpson, 2005; Uzum, 2010), projection of identity (Lam, 2000; Yi, 2008), negotiation formeaning (Blake & Zizik, 2003; Tudini, 2007; Yanguas, 2010; Zheng, Young, Wagner, & Brewer, 2009), focus-on-form andnoticing (Lai & Zhao, 2006; Lee, 2008; Payne & Whitney, 2002; Pellettieri, 2000; Smith, 2008; Yilmaz, 2011), and onlinemonitoring and sentence complexity (Sauro & Smith, 2010).

CMC has created a valuable virtual context for the analysis of L2 pragmatics as well (see Belz, 2007, for a review). Learners'pragmatic forms such as speech act strategies, address terms, discourse markers, and interactional particles have beenexplored through rich descriptions of synchronous and asynchronous dyads (e.g., Belz & Kinginger, 2003; Gonzalez-Lloret,2008; Jenks, 2012; Kakegawa, 2009; Sykes, 2005; Viyatkina & Belz, 2006; Wishnoff, 2000). CMC provides an invaluablecontext for learning pragmatics because learners gain opportunities to engage in meaningful interaction and to experienceintercultural communication. E-mail, blogs, written and voice chat, online gaming, discussion forums, and video-conferencing (e.g., Skype) provide a context-rich, high stakes environment where learners can practice pragmatic aspectsof languagewith target language speakers (Belz, 2007; Belz& Thorne, 2006). Immersive digital environments (e.g., Fan fictionsites, multiplayer online games, social virtualities), on the other hand, offer a means for learners to simulate numerousparticipant roles and perform pragmatic functions in diverse social settings (Thorn, Black & Sykes, 2009).

A number of studies have examined L2 pragmatic language use in the CMC context. Belz and Kinginger's (2003) study isone of the early studies in this domain. They examined the acquisition of German address forms by American college studentswho corresponded with their German peers electronically. The authors documented learners' growing tendency to replacethe formal V-form with the informal T-form of solidarity when addressing peers in their age-group. This study was partiallyreplicated by Kakegawa (2009) in L2 Japanese. In this study, Japanese learners in the U.S.A. received explicit instruction onhow to use Japanese interactional particles and exchanged e-mails with native speakers for ten weeks. Over time, learnersused the particles more frequently and in a greater variety, suggesting that the combination of CMC and explicit instructionpromoted learners' use of these particles.

Recently, more researchers have focused on studying intercultural communication occurring in authentic participatoryonline sites. Jenks (2012) analyzed a corpus of 50 h of online conversations among nonnative English speakers in the chatroom Skypecasts, showing that its participants were quick in highlighting communication problems. They brought theproblems to their partner's attention immediately via laughter, joking, or ridicule, indicating that being reprehensive was thenorm of online chatting examined in the study. In another study, Gonz�alez (2013) analyzed multilingual interactionsoccurring in Livemocha, an online social network for language learners. Such online environments have great potential forpragmatic learning because learners can build relationships with native speakers from all over the world, fulfill roles of bothnovice and expert, and take ownership of their own learning experience. Gonz�alez documented one L2 Spanish learner'schanging stance on online participation. She revealed the learner's development in the use of politeness strategies at leave-taking in the participatory site by analyzing conversation closings in textual synchronous CMC between a learner and nativespeakers.

Blogging is another representative form of CMC and a prime feature of Web 2.0. Blogs have emerged as a useful educa-tional tool owing to their multimedia features, interactivity, and capacity to support cooperative and self-directed learning(e.g., Baggetun & Wasson, 2006; Richardson, 2006). In addition, the asynchronous nature of blogging enables learners tostructure their thoughts in advance before making them publicly available, thereby encouraging the use of metacognitivestrategies such as planning, monitoring, and evaluation. These advantages of blogging are supported by a small but emergingbody of research that explicitly tests the usefulness of blogging for language learning (e.g., Bloch, 2007; Campbell, 2003; Sun,2009).

Takamiya and Ishihara (2013) explored the potentials of blogging in teaching pragmatics and promoting cross-culturalinteraction. A learner of Japanese in a U.S. college first received pragmatics-focused instruction on four speech acts: com-pliments, thanking, requests, and refusals. After the instruction, the learner interacted with native Japanese speakers in Japan(college students of English) and discussed the use of these speech acts via blogs. Through blogging, the learner demonstratedgradual pragmatic awareness. Her posts showed explicit noticing of Japanese-specific pragmatic behaviors (e.g., a white liewhen turning down someone's invitation) and her struggle with accepting the behaviors. Responses from native speakerpeers were instrumental in assisting the learner in her understanding of this culture-specific practice.

Further expanding the potentials of CMC, Sykes (2009, 2013) explored applications of multiuser virtual environments(MUVEs) and digital games as venues for pragmatic learning. She created Croquelandia, a three-dimensional, immersivegame-based digital space that emulates Spanish-speaking worlds where learners of Spanish make requests and apologies toimprove their pragmatic abilities in L2 Spanish. Sykes (2009, 2013) measured the degree of learning using a DCT consisting ofapology and request scenarios administered in pre- and post-tests. Results revealed only a small change in the choice ofspeech act strategies. However, the learners' perceptions revealed a strong improvement in pragmatic abilities in Spanish,suggesting benefits in virtual interaction for pragmatic learning.

Finally, Holdern & Sykes (2013) presented innovative work in the use of mobile devices that combines with socialcomputing. They developed Mentira, a place-based mobile game, to teach L2 Spanish pragmatics in a context-rich, collabo-rative environment. The Mentira is a video game built in the open-source authoring platform ARIS and played on iPodTouches. While playing Mentira, learners must collect clues and talk to non-player characters (NPCs) to solve a murdermystery. The pragmatic preferences of each NPC are embedded in the game. For example, some characters prefer directrequests for informationwhile others prefer indirect requests. A player's success with getting key information depends on his



or her skills in using a variety of pragmatic strategies to interact differently with each character. In addition, successfulcompletion of in-game tasks requires completing various pragmatic functions such as agreement, refusal, and apology witheach of the NPCs. Pragmatically appropriate player choices lead to more clues and successful gameplay, whereas inappro-priate pragmatic choices can result in roadblocks or game over experiences. Another unique component of theMentira-basedcurriculum is a visit to a local neighborhood where the game's story is based. Players are required to collect clues whilevisiting local sites to solve the mystery. The connection of the fictional game world and the real world plays a critical role forthe learners, as it makes the target language interaction with simulated characters meaningful.

Mentirawas implemented as part of a fourth-semester, intermediate-level university Spanish language class. The authorsevaluated the efficacy of Mentira by analyzing gameplay data, in-class observations, interviews, videos of gameplay, andwritten assessments collected from 68 learners. They especially focused on the use of feedback systems in the mobile gameand their impact on pragmatic learning. One of the problems they faced with feedback was that the feedback was too subtlefor learners to notice in their pragmatic consequence for further gameplay. As a result, the authors had to redesign in-gameinteractions to exaggerate pragmatic behaviors, making them more evident to the learners. Although the authors concludedthat the feedback did not have the intended impact on pragmatic development, it offers much insight for the future design ofplace-based mobile games for pragmatic learning. These games can provide valuable contexts for authentic pragmaticfeedback.

Holden and Sykes's study is in line with the increasing interest in digital games. According to 2010 data from theEntertainment Software Association (ESA), 67% of U.S. households played video games, and 25% of those playing the gameswere 18 years of age and younger (ESA, 2010). The prominence of digital game play for social purposes has sparked stronginterest in researchers and instructors wishing to harness the power of digital games for teaching and learning (e.g., Gee,2003; Saywer & Smith, 2008; Squire, 2011).

Holden and Syke's paper also contributes to the trend of mobile technologies in education. As seen in the increasing bodyof literature about mobile technology in education in general (Ally, 2009; Klopfer, 2008; Kukulska-Hulme & Traxler, 2005)and in language learning in particular (Stockwell, 2010), mobile learning has gainedmomentum as an alternative medium fordelivering instruction. Among the mobile technologies available to date (wireless laptop computers, MP3 players, personaldigital assistants, e-dictionaries), cell phones have started to gain prominence among language teachers, due to theirwidespread penetration of the market and their “anytime, anywhere” feature of convenience. The affordances offered bymobile devices present a number of possibilities for teaching and learning. These include deep connection to place, ubiquityof access, and a personalized learning experience (Squire, 2011).

So far, I have described various forms of computer-mediated communication and participatory online environment ascontexts where learners can acquire pragmatics. Below, I will discuss two other technology-based venues for pragmaticlearning: CALL and self-access online curriculums. These are different from CMC or gaming in that learning is carefullystructured and navigated by the teacher or researcher through the use of systematic, focused activities on pre-plannedpragmatic targets.

The field has seen an emergence of a number of acronyms related to computer-based learning, including: CALL (computer-assisted language learning), CALI (computer-assisted language instruction), TELL (technology-enhanced language learning),ITS (intelligent tutoring systems), and CSCL (computer supported collaborative learning). Correspondingly, a number ofcomputer-assisted programs have emerged to improve L2 learners' speaking, reading, writing and listening, as well asknowledge of specific language areas such as grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation. Intelligent tutoring systems andinteractive simulations have made it possible for learners to engage in a virtual conversation with a built-in agent in amultimodal environment. These technology-mediated learning programs have a number of strengths: they provide sys-tematic practice on focal aspects of language; afford opportunities for input, output, and interaction; offer individualized helpthrough feedback, dictionaries and search tools; promote autonomous learning and strategy training; enhance learners'motivation and interest in learning; facilitate cooperative leaning; and promote learners' participation in authentic discoursecommunities (e.g., Belz & Thorne, 2006; Blyth, 2008; Chapelle, 2003, 2007, 2009; Egbert & Petrie, 2005; Garrett, 2009; Gee,2003; Kern, 2006; Lomicka & Lord, 2006; Prensky, 2001; Thorne & Payne, 2005).

These advantages also apply to teaching pragmatics. Interactive multi-media modules in CALL are thought to promotelearners' pragmatic practice in a systematic, context-rich environment, and several studies have tested the efficacy of CALL forpragmatic learning (Chiu, Liou, & Yeh, 2007; Li, 2013; Utashiro& Kawai, 2009; Ward, Rafael, Al Bayyari, & Thamar, 2007). Forexample, Ward et al (2007) developed a program in which learners of Arabic practiced backchannels by producing them inresponse to pre-recorded utterances. Computers analyzed the timing and frequency of backchannels and provided feedback.Utashiro and Kawai (2009), on the other hand, developed DiscourseWare that teaches reactive tokens in Japanese. Learnerswatched video clips of native speaker conversations and practiced the reactive tokens with feedback from the computer. Inanother study, Chiu et al. (2007) applied Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) technology to teach speech acts of greeting,parting, requesting, complaining, apologizing, and complimenting in L2 English. The CandleTalk program presents a pre-patterned route for learners to select appropriate pragmalinguistic form in conversation. Learners speak out the selectedform, and the ASR engine judges whether learners have provided appropriate input by passing or rejecting their speech.

While not explicitly directed to pragmatics, Wik and Hjalmarsson (2009) developed a dialog system called DEAL thatinvolves a role-playing gamewith an embodied conversational agent. DEAL simulates a fleamarket in Sweden so that learnersof Swedish can practice a variety of language functions (e.g., requesting for an object, asking price, and negotiating). Thesecommunicative acts are selected according to rules from a script and episodic knowledge structures. The agent (shopkeeper)



shows emotional reactions to the learners' responses. He responds with a smile to greetings and closings of deals. In longsequences of haggling, the agent looks angry and unhappy. Great care was taken to make the agent's utterances human-like.For instance, based on the analysis of a corpus of humanehuman dialogs, numerous interactive devices (e.g., discoursemarkers, filled pauses) were used to simulate human strategies on how to rapidly take and maintain the floor while alsoanticipating the next turn. DEAL helps us imagine how computer-simulated interaction may work for pragmatics learning.Learners can practice speech acts using a variety of conversation strategies and turn-taking behaviors which are likely tooccur in naturalistic interaction. The agent's facial expressions could function as implicit corrective feedback to learners'pragmatic errors.

In addition to these CALL programs, there are examples of self-access online curricula for learning L2 pragmatics (CLEAR,2007; Cohen & Ishihara, 2011; Ishihara, 2007; Russell & Vasquez, 2011; Sykes & Cohen, 2006). Cohen and Ishihara (2011)developed a self-access website where learners of Japanese can practice speech acts. Learners can watch video clips ofconversations which include a target speech act, hear explanations of the speech act, read cultural tips, and complete ex-ercises with pre-programmed feedback and scaffolding as aids. The Spanish website developed by Sykes and Cohen (2006)(Dancing with Words) is more extensive, including 10 speech acts with explicit treatment of L1 pragmatic variation acrossdifferent varieties of Spanish. The website includes video clips that demonstrate dynamics of interaction, directness/indi-rectness and politeness considerations, and guidelines for enhancing strategies for learning and performing speech acts.Russell and Vasquez's (2011) recent attempt adds to the online learning of Spanish pragmatics. They developed aweb tutorialfocusing on the speech acts of complaining and requesting in Spanish. The tutorial offers an introduction to pragmatics, twostandalone lessons, resources for learning Spanish pragmatics, and an interactive assessment. Different from Sykes andCohen's site, the tutorial presents a highly interactive user interface where learners can video record their speech acts byusing their web cams.

In summary, this section has presented the current literature in the application of technology to interlanguage pragmaticsresearch and teaching. Technologies afford many advantages to researchers by providing a mechanism to collect, store, andanalyze L2 data. Technologies are equally valuable for teachers in expanding their options for instructional methods.Exemplary activities demonstrated here e communication in online participatory environments, systematic pragmatic in-struction in CALL, gaming in a synthetic virtual environment and mobile device, and self-access online materials for prag-maticse could assist teachers with finding newways to teach pragmatics, which, in turn, will generate new insights about theprocess and product of pragmatic learning.

While these digitally-mediated contexts hold much promise, empirical data is still considerably limited regarding thecause-and-effect relationship between learners' participation in those contexts and increased pragmatic abilities. As a result,we have not reached the conclusion as to whether assumed benefits of technology platforms could indeed producemeasurable gains in pragmatic competence. Take virtual environments and gaming as examples. The strength of this kind ofcontext is that it potentially stands as a hybrid learning environment that compensates for the shortcomings of both studyabroad and the formal classroom. Virtual environments bring together some of the key elements of pragmatic learning,including context, functional language use and interaction, with added values of authenticity, self-discovery, and experientiallearning, which a traditional classroom cannot afford easily. Learners could access ‘virtual study abroad’ in their immediacy bysimply logging in, and they can simulate numerous participant roles and perform a variety of communicative acts with built-in avatars in diverse social settings. While in real-world study abroad, these opportunities for pragmatic practice are onlyassumed and not guaranteed to everyone, in a virtual environment, researchers can explicitly incorporate them as learningtargets through game-based tasks and prompts. While these characteristics of virtual environment suggest a number ofprofound transformations from traditional approaches in pragmatic learning, Sykes (2009, 2013), cited in the previoussection, is the only existing study that directly evaluated the effect of this context on pragmatics gains. Results revealedminimal progress from pre- to post-test in terms of the choice of the target speech act expressions (although there wasevidence of increased pragmatic awareness), leading the author to conclude that pragmatic practice in the virtual world didnot produce the intended outcome.

Given the dearth of empirical evidence, a great deal of work needs to be done in this area to understand how interactionsin virtual spaces may facilitate pragmatic learning. Perhaps, what is to be seen in the next decade is more structuredinstructional intervention research that directly compares gains between technology-based pragmatic learning and othertypes of learning. In the current body of instructional studies in pragmatics, there is no such investigation in an experimentaldesign using a pre-post comparison with a control group. Direct comparison between different instructional arrangementscould help us understand which features of online participation and gaming (e.g., interactivity, comprehensible input, self-study opportunities, repetition, and meaningful language use) may produce strong evidence of learning to the extent thatit outperforms learning in a traditional instructional setting. There are several such studies in other target areas (deHaan,Reed, & Kuwada, 2010; Piiraninen-Marsh & Tainio, 2009), which researchers in pragmatics can refer to.

In addition to more explicit attention to learning outcomes based on empirical data, future research in technology andpragmatics should continue expanding the scope of investigation by utilizing available technologies in full. Advances intechnological capabilities offer the potential to investigate areas that have not been previously possible, and encourages re-searchers to expand repertoires and areas of inquiry. In the last chapter of the technology and pragmatics volume, Julie Sykesand I sketched out some of the underexplored tools and data sources in pragmatics. We listed online authorship as one of theareas. With the surge of Web 2.0, there has been a dramatic shift in authorship, online communication, and news delivery, asseen in the expansion of blogs, wikis, on-line news sources, e-books, and online publications. Direct and intimate interaction



between the authors and audience in these venues naturally requires the establishment of online interaction etiquette(netiquette), which involves distinct pragmatic behaviors. Hence, how students acquire the norms and rules of onlineauthorship and the interaction surrounding it may become a critical area of investigation for pragmatic learning in the future.

Another area that merits attention is the use of eye-tracking in pragmatics research. Eye-tracking has become increasinglypopular in reading and syntactic processing research. An assumption is that eye movement reflects underlying processingmechanismse what parts of linguistic input learners attend to most, whether their eye fixation patterns differ from those ofnative speakers, and whether they regress like native speakers upon encountering ambiguous input. When applied topragmatics, eye tracking could advance our current practice of pragmatic processing research. Previous studies have analyzedthe online processing of conversational implicature bymeasuring response times in comprehension (see Taguchi, 2013b for asummary of previous findings). While these studies have revealed cognitive mechanisms of inferencing at some level, what islacking in the literature is a study that investigates multimodal processing of pragmatic input. Comprehension is not merelythe decoding of linguistic input. It is a global process in which all available cues, both linguistic and non-linguistic (e.g.,intonation, tone, visual cues such as facial expressions and gesture), are simultaneously attended to and used to arrive atmeaning. Eye-tracking could analyze this multimodal processing to reveal whether or not L2 listeners attend visual cues suchas facial expressions and gestures, as well as other contextual cues, during comprehension, all of which offer stronger functionthan linguistic cues in comprehension of non-literal meaning.

These are just a few examples of future expansion of pragmatic inquiry in technology-based contexts. With informedapplication of technology, the field will grow further and adopt new ways of researching and teaching pragmatics. A shift inpragmatic contexts and avenues of communication that we have witnessed recently will transform our way of conceptual-izing and understanding pragmatic behaviors in the next decade.

5. Conclusion

The recent paradigm shift in SLA research has seen a move away from the traditional reductionist approach that pursues asimple cause-effect explanation in isolation from context, to a more ecologically-oriented approach that includes context aspart of the systems under investigation and considers reciprocal relationships between context and individuals over time.This trend is seen in new theoretical perspectives that take dynamic, complex systems approaches to language learning (deBot, 2008; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2009; Verspoor et al., 2011). Under this epistemology, the focus is not on learner orlanguage but on the learning process in which learners ‘soft assemble’ their language resources while interacting with achanging environment (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2009, p.158).

The field of interlanguage pragmatics also acknowledges this current epistemology and embraces the centrality of contextin its investigation. In this effort, I have surveyed recent literature in three distinct contexts: study abroad, classroom, andtechnology platforms, with the aim of revealing a variety of resources for pragmatics learning identified in each environment.Synthesis of existing literature presents both possibilities and challenges in each respective context. Opportunities to observeand practice community norms of interaction in study abroad are advantageous, but the shaky link between study abroadexperience and pragmatic gains found in the literature calls for more profound analysis of the configuration of study abroadexperience and its interaction with individuals and constructs of pragmatics competence. On the other hand, scant oppor-tunity for pragmatic practice has long characterized domestic, formal instructional settings, but this generalization needs re-thinking with a motivated look into recurrent communicative events in classroom. This orientation is important, consideringthat much of second/foreign language learning takes place in formal classrooms and school curriculums. Finally, technologycould potentially remove the barriers of traditional classroom learning by offering an immediate multimedia environmentwhere naturalistic interaction could take place, but research in this area is still at the stage of showing only what is possible,with more comprehensive evidence on the effect of this context on pragmatic learning yet to be seen.

Although I have discussed the current literature regarding these three classifications, I have no intention of using contextas a categorical label. What is important is to examine what actually goes on within context that drives students acquirepragmatic abilities. Activities inwhich learners participate in the context and the occasions afforded learners for engagementas participants in interaction should be examined closely in order to meaningfully interpret the process and outcome ofpragmatic learning, as well as factors affecting the learning. Researchers should also look into learners' subjectivity, in-vestment, orientation to opportunity for practice, and societal and local positioning in the context when considering the roleof learning context for pragmatic development. To this end, I believe that future research in pragmatics should more closelyalign itself with the dynamic, complex systems perspective, and commit to probing an intricate interaction and co-adaptationamong elements, agents and systems, and their connection with context, as they jointly shape the course of pragmaticdevelopment.

Acknowledgment

I would like to thank reviewers for their helpful comments during the process of manuscript preparation. Special thanksgoes to Joe Monte for his careful editing of the paper. I am responsible for all that errors that may remain.



References

Alc�on-Soler, E. (2013). Teachability and bilingual effects on third language knowledge of refusals. Intercultural Pragmatics, 9, 511e541.Alc�on-Soler, E., & Martínez-Flor, A. (2008). Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing. Bristol/New York: Multilingual Matters.Allott, N. (2010). Key terms in pragmatics. London: Continuum.Ally, N. (2009). Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education & training. Athabasca: AU Press.Baggetun, R., & Wasson, B. (2006). Self-regulated learning and open writing. European Journal of Education, 41, 453e472.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., & D€Ornyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognise pragmatic violations? pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2

learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 233e259.Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk: a longitudinal study of pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 15, 279e304.Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John

Benjamins.Barron, A. (2006). Learning to say ‘you’ in German: the acquisition of sociolinguistic. In M.,E. DuFon, & E. Churchill (Eds.), Language learners in study abroad

contexts (pp. 59e88). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Barron, A. (2007). “Ah no honestly we're okay:” Learning to upgrade in a study abroad context. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4, 129e166.Bataller, R. (2010). Making a request for a service in Spanish: pragmatic development in the study abroad Setting. Foreign Language Annals, 43, 160e175.Belz, J. (2007). The role of computer mediation in the instruction and development of L2 pragmatic competence. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27,

45e75.Belz, J., & 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., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Computer-mediated intercultural foreign language education. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Blake, R., & Zizik, E. (2003). Who's helping whom? Learner/heritage-speakers' networked discussions in Spanish. Applied Linguistics, 24, 519e544.Bloch, J. (2007). Abdullah's blogging: a generation 1.5 student enters the blogsphere. Language Learning & Technology, 11, 128e141.Blyth, C. (2008). Research perspective on online discourse and foreign language learning. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Bouton, L. (1992). The interpretation of implicature in English by NNS: does it come automatically without being explicitly taught?. In L. Bouton, & Y. Kachru

(Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning monograph Series (Vol. 3, pp. 66e80) Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.Bouton, L. (1994). Can NNS skill in interpreting implicature in American English be improved through explicit instruction?: a pilot study. In L. Bouton, & Y.

Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning monograph Series (Vol. 5, pp. 88e108). Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.Brown, L. (2013). Identity and honorifics use in Korean study abroad. In C. Kinginger (Ed.), Social and cultural aspects of language learning in study abroad (pp.

269e298). Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins.Campbell, A. (2003). Weblogs for use with ESL classes. Retrieved June 1, from The Internet TESL Journal, 4 http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Campbell-Weblogs.

html.Chapelle, C. A. (2003). English language learning and technology: lectures on applied linguistics in the age of information and communication. Amsterdam/New

York: John Benjamins.Chapelle, C. A. (2007). Technology and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 98e114.Chapelle, C. A. (2009). The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computer-assisted language learning.Modern Language Journal, 93,

741e753.Chiu, T.-L., Liou, H.-C., & Yeh, Y. (2007). A study of web-based oral activities enhanced by automatic speech recognition for EFL college learning. Computer

Assisted Language Learning, 20, 209e233.Churchill, E. (2003). Competing for the floor in the American home: Japanese students sharing host families. Kanagawa University Studies in Language, 25,

185e202.CLEAR. (2007).Multimedia interactive modules for education and assessment (MIMEA). East lansing: Center for language education and research. Retrieved June

1, 2011 from. Michigan State University http://mimea.clear.msu.edu/.Cohen, A. D. (2008). Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: what can we expect from learners? Language Teaching, 41, 213e235.Cohen, A. D., & Ishihara, N. (2005). A Web-based approach to strategic learning of speech acts. University of Minnesota. Retrieved June 1, 2011 from. Min-

neapolis: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA) http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/Japanese%20Speech%20Act%20Report%20Rev.%20June05.pdf.

Cole, S., & Anderson, A. (2001). Requests by young Japanese: a longitudinal study. The Language Teacher, 25(8), 7e11.Collentine, J., & Freed, B. (2004). Learning contexts and its effects on second language acquisition. Special issue. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26.Cook, H. (2008). Socializing identities through speech style. Bristol/New York: Multilingual Matters.Crystal, D. (2003). In A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (5th ed.). MA: Blackwell.Cutting, J. (2008). Pragmatics and discourse. London: Routledge.Diepenbroek, L., & Derwing, T. (2013). To what extent do popular EFL textbooks incorporate oral fluency and pragmatic development. TESL Canada Journal,

30, 1e20.Duff, P. (2007). Second language socialization as sociocultural theory: Insights and issues. Language Teaching, 40, 309e319.DuFon, M., & Churchill, E. (2006). Language learners in a study abroad context. Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins.de Bot, K. (2008). Introduction: second language development as a dynamic process. Modern Language Journal, 92, 166e178.deHaan, J., Reed, M., & Kuwada, K. (2010). The effect of interactivity with a music video game on second language vocabulary recall. Language Learning &

Technology, 14, 74e94.Egbert, J., & Petrie, G. (2005). CALL research perspectives. NJ: Erlbaum.Ellis, N., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics e introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics, 27,

558e589.Ellis, R. (1992). Learning to communicate in the classroom: a study of two learners' requests. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 1e23.ESA. (2010). 2008 sales, demographic and usage data. Essential facts about the computer and video game industry. Retrieved January 28, 2011 from http://www.

theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_Essential_Facts_2010.PDF.Forman, R. (2011). Humorous language play in a Thai EFL classroom. Applied Linguistics, 33, 541e565.Garrett, N. (2009). Computer-assisted language learning trends and issues revisited: Integrating innovation. Modern Language Journal, 93, 719e740.Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Gonz�alez, A. (2013). Development of politeness strategies in participatory online environments. In N.,J. M. Taguchi, & J. M. Sykes (Eds.), Technology in

interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching (pp. 101e120). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Gonz�alez-Lloret, M. (2008). Computer-mediated learning of L2 pragmatics. In E. Alc�on-Soler, & A. Martínez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign

language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 114e132). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Hellermann, J. (2009). Practices for dispreferred responses using no by a learner of English. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching,

47, 95e126.Holden, C., & Sykes, J. M. (2013). Complex L2 pragmatic feedback via place-based mobile games. In N. Taguchi, & J. M. Sykes (Eds.), Technology in inter-

language pragmatics research and teaching (pp. 155e184). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0346-251X(14)00134-1/sref1




















































http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Campbell-Weblogs.html

http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Campbell-Weblogs.html














http://mimea.clear.msu.edu/



http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/Japanese%2520Speech%2520Act%2520Report%2520Rev.%2520June05.pdf

http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/Japanese%2520Speech%2520Act%2520Report%2520Rev.%2520June05.pdf

























http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_Essential_Facts_2010.PDF

http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_Essential_Facts_2010.PDF






















House, J. (2010). The pragmatics of English as a lingua franca. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Handbook of pragmatics (Vol. VII, pp. 363e387). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Iino, M. (1996). ‘Excellent foreigner!’: Gaijinization of japanese language and culture in contact situations: An ethnographic study of dinner table conversations

between japanese host families and american students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Ishida, M. (2009). Development of interactional competence: changes in the use of ne in L2 Japanese during study abroad. In H. T. Nguyen, & G. Kasper (Eds.

), Talk-in-Interaction: Multilingual perspectives (pp. 351e385). Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center.Ishida, M. (2011). Engaging in another person's telling as a recipient in L2 Japanese: development of interactional competence during one-year study-

abroad. In G. Pallotti, & J. Wagner (Eds.), L2 learning as social Practice: Conversation-Analytic perspectives (pp. 355e385). Honolulu, HI: National ForeignLanguage Resource Center.

Ishihara, N. (2007). Web-based curriculum for pragmatics instruction in Japanese as a foreign language: an explicit awareness-raising approach. LanguageAwareness, 16, 21e40.

Iwasaki, N. (2010). Style shifts among Japanese learners before and after study abroad in Japan: becoming active social agents in Japanese. Applied Lin-guistics, 31, 45e71.

Iwasaki, N. (2011). Learning L2 Japanese “politeness” and “impoliteness”: young American mean's dilemmas during study abroad. Japanese Language andLiterature, 45, 67e106.

Jenks, C. J. (2012). Doing being reprehensive: some interactional features of English as a lingua franca in a chat room. Applied Linguistics, 33, 386e405.Jeon, E.-H., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development. In N. John, & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on

language learning and teaching (pp. 165e211). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Kakegawa, T. (2009). Development of the use of Japanese sentence final particles through email correspondence. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Pragmatic competence

(pp. 301e334). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Kanagy, R. (1999). Interactional routines as a mechanism for L2 acquisition and socialization in an immersion context. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1467e1492.Kasper, G. (2001). Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. In K. Rose, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 33e62). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Kasper, G., & R€Over, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Pragmatics in language teaching and learning (pp. 317e328,). NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 81e104.Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford: Blackwell.Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 183e210.Kinginger, C. (2008). Language learning in study abroad: case studies of Americans in France. Modern Language Journal Monograph Series, 92.Kinginger, C. (2013). Social and cultural aspects of language learning in study abroad. Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins.Kinginger, C., & Farrell, K. (2004). Assessing development of metapragmatic awareness in study abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study

Abroad, 10, 19e42.Kinginger, C., & Blattner, G. (2008). Development of sociolinguistic awareness in study abroad. In L. Ortega, & H. Byrns (Eds.), Longitudinal studies and

advanced L2 capacities (pp. 223e246). New York: Routledge.Klopfer, E. (2008). Augmented learning: Research and design of mobile educational games. Cambridge: MIT Press.Knight, S., Schmidt-Rinehart, M., & Barbara, C. (2002). Enhancing the homestay: study abroad from the host family's perspective. Foreign Language Annals,

33, 190e201.Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Traxler, J. (2005). Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and trainers. London: Routledge.Lafford, B. (2009). Technology in the service of language learning: update on Garrett (1991). Modern Language Journal Focus Issue, 93, 673e696.Lai, C., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning and Technology, 10, 102e120.Lam, W. (2000). Second language literacy and the design of the self: a case study of a teenager writing on the internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 457e482.Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2009). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Larsen-Freeman, D. (2012). Complexity theory. In S. Gass, & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 73e87). NewYork:

Routledge.Lee, L. (2008). Focus-on-for through collaborative scaffolding in expert-to-novice interaction. Language Learning and Technology, 12, 53e72.Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Harlow: Longman.Li, S. (2013). Amount of practice in pragmatic development of request-making in L2 Chinese. In N. Taguchi, & J. M. Sykes (Eds.), Technology in interlanguage

pragmatics research and teaching (pp. 43e70). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.LoCastro, V. (2003). An introduction to Pragmatics: Social action for language teachers. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Lomicka, L., & Lord, G. (2006). The next Generation: Social networking and online Collaboration in foreign language learning. San Marcos, TX: CALICO book

series.Louw, K. J., Derwing, T. M., & Abbott, M. L. (2010). Teaching pragmatics to L2 learners for the workplace: the job interview. The Canadian Modern Language

Review, 66, 739e758.Martínez-Flor, A., & Alc�on-Soler, E. (2005). Pragmatics in instructed language learning. Special issue. System 33.Martínez-Flor, A., Us�o-Juan, E., & Fernandez-Guerra, A. (2003). Pragmatic competence and foreign language teaching. Castell�o de la Plana, Spain: Publications

de la Universitat Jaume I.Masuda, K. (2011). Acquiring interactional competence in a study abroad context: Japanese language learners' use of the interactional particle ne. Modern

Language Journal, 95, 519e540.Matsumura, S. (2001). Learning the rules for offering advice: a quantitative approach to second language socialization. Language Learning, 51, 635e679.Matsumura, S. (2007). Exploring the aftereffects of study abroad on interlanguage pragmatic development. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 167e192.McGroarty, M., & Taguchi, N. (2005). Evaluating communicativeness of EFL textbooks for Japanese secondary schools. In J. Frodesen, & C. Holten (Eds.), The

power of context in language teaching and learning (pp. 211e224). Boston, MA: Thomson/Heinle & Heinle.McMeekin, A. L. (2011). Japanese L2 learners' use and acquisition of the plain form during study abroad. A paper presented at the meeting of the American

association for applied linguistics (Chicago: IL).Nguyen, H. T. (2011). A longitudinal microanalysis of a second language learner's participation. In G. Pallotti, & J. Wagner (Eds.), L2 learning as social practice:

Conversation-analytic perspectives (pp. 17e44). Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center.Niezgoda, K., & R€Over, C. (2001). Pragmatic and grammatical awareness: a function of learning environment? In K. Rose, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in

language teaching (pp. 63e79) New York: Cambridge University Press.Nikula, T. (2008). Learning pragmatics in content-based classrooms. In E. A. Soler, & A. Martínez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language

learning, teaching and testing (pp. 94e113). Bristol/New York: Multilingual Matters.Ohta, A. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Olshtain, E., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1985). Degree of approximation: nonnative reactions to native speech act behavior. In G. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in

second language acquisition (pp. 303e325). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Payne, S., & Whitney, P. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: output, working memory, and interlanguage development.

CALICO Journal, 20, 7e32.Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotaitin in cyberspace: the role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence in the virtual foreign language class-

room. In M. Warschauer, & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59e86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Piiranen-Marsh, A., & Tainio, L. (2009). Other-repetition as a source for participation in the activity of playing a video game. Modern Language Journal, 93,

153e169.


























































































































Polanyi, L. (1995). Language learning and living abroad: stories from the field. In B. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp.271e291). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9, 1e6.Regan, V. (1995). The acquisition of sociolinguistic native speech norms. In Freed, B (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp.

245e267). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, Podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms. Thansand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Riddiford, N., & Joe, A. (2010). Tracking the development of sociopragmatic skills. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 195e205.R€over, C. (2005). Testing EFL pragmatics. Frankfurt: Gunter Narr.R€over, C. (2009). Teaching and testing pragmatics. In M. H. Long, & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 560e577). Malden, MA: Wiley-

Blackwell.Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33, 385e399.Rose, K., & Kasper, G. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Russell, V., & Vasquez, C. (2011). A web-based tutorial for the instruction of Spanish pragmatics. IALLT Journal, 41, 27e55.Salsbury, T., & Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Oppositional talk and the acquisition of modality in L2 English. In B. Swierzbin, F. Morris, M. E. Anderson, C. A. Klee,

& E. Tarone (Eds.), Social and cognitive factors in second language acquisition: Selected proceedings of the 1999 second language research forum (pp. 57e76).Somerville: Cascadilla Press.

Sauro, S., & Smith, B. (2010). Investigating L2 performance in text chat. Applied Linguistics, 31, 554e577.Sawyer, M. (1992). The development of pragmatics in Japanese as a second language: the sentence-final particle ne. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of japanese

as a native and foreign language. Second language teaching and curriculum Center (pp. 83e112). Honolulu, HI.Saywer, B., & Smith, P. (2008). Serious games taxonomy. Retrieved on May 25, 2011, from http://www.dmill.com/presentations/serious-games-taxonomy-

2008.pdf.Schauer, G. (2006). Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: contrast and development. Language Learning, 56, 269e318.Schauer, G. (2009). Interlanguage pragmatic development: the study abroad context. London: Continuum.Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization across cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Shimizu, T. (2009). Influence of learning environment on L2 pragmatic realization: a comparison between JSL and JFL learners' compliment responses. In N.

Taguchi (Ed.), Pragmatic competence (pp. 167e198). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Shively, R. (2011). L2 pragmatic development in study abroad: a longitudinal study of Spanish service encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1818e1835.Shively, R. (2013). Learning to be funny in Spanish study abroad: L2 humor development. Modern Language Journal, 97, 939e946.Siegal, M. (1994). Looking east: Learning japanese as a second language and the interaction of race, gender, and social context. Unpublished doctoral disser-

tation. Berkeley: University of California.Simpson, J. (2005). Conversational floors in synchronous text-based CMC discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 337e361.Smith, B. (2008). Methodological hurdles in capturing CMC data: the case of the missing self-repair. Language Learning & Technology, 12, 85e103.Squire, K. (2011). Video games and learning: Teaching and participatory culture in the digital age. New York: Teachers College Press.Stockwell, G. (2010). Using mobile phones for vocabulary activities: examining the effect of the platform. Language Learning & Technology, 14, 95e110.Sun, Y.-C. (2009). Voice blog: an exploratory study of language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 13, 88e103.Sykes, J. M. (2005). Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: effects of oral and written chat. CALICO Journal, 22, 399e431.Sykes, J. M. (2009). Learner request in Spanish: examining the potential of multiuser virtual environments for L2 pragmatics acquisition. In L. Lomika, & G.

Lord (Eds.), The second generation: Online collaboration and social networking in CALL, CALICO monograph (pp. 199e234). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.Sykes, J. M. (2013). Multiuser virtual environments: apologies in Spanish. In N. Taguchi, & J. M. Sykes (Eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research

and teaching (pp. 71e100). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Sykes, J. M., & Cohen, A. D. (2006). Dancing with words: Strategies for learning pragmatics in Spanish. Retrieved June 1, 2011 from. Regents of the University of

Minnesota http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/sp_pragmatics/home.html.Talburt, S., & Stewart, M. A. (1999). What's the subject of study abroad? Race, gender, and ‘‘living culture’’. Modern Language Journal, 83, 163e175.Taguchi, N. (2008a). The role of learning environment in the development of pragmatic comprehension: a comparison of gains between EFL and ESL

learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 423e452.Taguchi, N. (2008b). Cognition, language contact, and the development of pragmatic comprehension in a study-abroad context. Language Learning, 58,

33e71.Taguchi, N. (2011a). The effect of L2 proficiency and study-abroad experience in pragmatic comprehension. Language Learning, 61, 904e939.Taguchi, N. (2011b). Teaching pragmatics: trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289e310.Taguchi, N. (2012a). Context, individual differences, and pragmatic competence. New York/Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Taguchi, N. (2012b). Pragmatic teaching. In C. Chapell (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics: Language teaching. Wiley-Blackwell.Taguchi, N. (2013a). Production of routines in L2 English: effect of proficiency and study-abroad experience. System, 41, 109e121.Taguchi, N. (2013b). Processing load in conversational implicature: what response times tell us. In N. Taguchi, & J. M. Sykes (Eds.), Technology in inter-

language pragmatics research and teaching (pp. 19e42). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Taguchi, N. (2014). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: where ILP studies are, were, and should be going. State-of-the-art article. Language Teaching, 48.

inpress.Taguchi, N., & Sykes, J. (2013). Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Takahashi, S. (2010a). Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Handbook of Pragmatics (Vol. VII, pp. 391e421). Berlin/New

York: Mouton de Gruyter.Takahashi, S. (2010b). The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance. In A. Martindz-Flor, & E. Use-Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance:

Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 127e144). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Takamiya, Y., & Ishihara, N. (2013). Blogging: cross-cultural interaction for pragmatic development. In N. Taguchi, & J. M. Sykes (Eds.), Technology in

interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching (pp. 185e214). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Tateyama, Y., & Kasper, G. (2008). Talking with a classroom guest: opportunities for learning Japanese pragmatics. In E. Alc�on-Soler, & E. Martínez-Flor (Eds.

), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 45e71). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91e112.Thorne, S., & Payne, S. (2005). Computer-mediated communication and foreign language learning: context, research and practice. CALICO Journal Special

Issue, 22(3).Thorn, S., Black, R., & Sykes, J. M. (2009). Second language use, socialization, and learning in internet interest communities and online gaming. Modern

Language Journal, 93, 802e821.Tudini, V. (2007). Negotiation and intercultural learning in Italian native speaker chat rooms. Modern Language Journal, 91, 577e601.Utashiro, T., & Kawai, G. (2009). Blended learning for Japanese reactive tokens: effects of computer-led, instructor-led, and peer-based instruction. In N.

Taguchi (Ed.), Pragmatic competence (pp. 275e300). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Uzum, B. (2010). An investigation of alignment in CMC from a sociocognitive perspective. CALICO, 28, 135e155.Valdes, G. (2005). Bilingualism, heritage language learners, and SLA research: opportunities lost or seized? Modern Language Journal, 89, 410e426.Vellenga, H. (2004). Learning pragmatics from ESL & EFL textbooks: how likely? TESOL-EJ, 8(2). http://www/writing.berkeley.edu/tesl-ej/ej30/a3.html.Verspoor, M., de Bot, K., & Lowie, W. (2011). A dynamic approach to second language development: methods and techniques. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John

Benjamins.

































http://www.dmill.com/presentations/serious-games-taxonomy-2008.pdf

http://www.dmill.com/presentations/serious-games-taxonomy-2008.pdf


































http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/sp_pragmatics/home.html




















































http://www/writing.berkeley.edu/tesl-ej/ej30/a3.html




Verschueren, J. (2009). Intro: the pragmatic perspective. Key notions for pragmatics. In J. Verschueren, & J.-O. €Ostman (Eds.), Key notions for Pragmatics:Handbook of pragmatics highlights (Vol. 1, pp. 1e27). Amsterdam: John Benjimins.

Viyatkina, N., & Belz, J. (2006). A learner corpus-driven intervention for the development of L2 pragmatic competence. In K. Bardovi-Harling, C. Felix-Brasdefer, & A. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 11, pp. 293e329). Honolulu, HI: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

Ward, N., Rafael, E., Al Bayyari, Y., & Thamar, S. (2007). Learning to show you’re listening. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20, 385e407.Warga, M., & Scholmberger, U. (2007). The acquisition of French apologetic behavior in a study abroad context. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4, 221e251.Wik, P., & Hjalmarsson, A. (2009). Embodied conversational agents in computer assisted language learning. Speech Communication, 51, 1024e1037.Wishnoff, J. (2000). Hedging your bets: L2 learners' acquisition of pragmatic devices in academic writing and computer-mediated discourse. Second

Language Studies, 19, 127e157.Yanguas, I. (2010). Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It's about time! Language Learning & Technology, 14, 72e93.Yi, Y. (2008). Relay writing in an adolescent online community. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 51, 670e680.Yilmaz, Y. (2011). Task effects on focus on form in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Modern Language Journal, 95, 115e132.Zheng, D., Young, M., Wagner, M., & Brewer, R. (2009). Negotiation for action: English language learning in game-based virtual worlds. Modern Language

Journal, 93, 489e511.




























•Taguchi, N. (2015b/invited submission). “Contextually” speaking: A survey of pragmatics...

Documents

Transcript of •Taguchi, N. (2015b/invited submission). “Contextually” speaking: A survey of pragmatics...