System 48 (2015) 99e111

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System

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

The role of asynchronous computer mediated communicationin the instruction and development of EFL learners' pragmaticcompetence

Zohreh R. Eslami a, *, Azizullah Mirzaei b, Shadi Dini a

a Texas A&M University, College of Education and Human Resource Development, Department of Teaching, Learning, and Culture, CollegeStation, TX 4232-77843, USAb Shahrekord University, Faculty of Letters & Humanities, English Department, Shahrekord, Iran

Keywords:Asynchronous computer mediated commu-nicationPragmatic developmentExplicit/implicit pragmatic instructionEnglish as a foreign language

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: zeslami@tamu.edu (Z.R. Eslam

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.0080346-251X/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

This study investigates two types of form-focused instruction on the acquisition of requestsby Iranian EFL learners to determine the effectiveness of pragmatic instruction throughasynchronous computer mediated communication (ACMC). Three groups of EFL learners, acontrol (n ¼ 27) and two intervention groups, are included in this study. The interventiongroups were matched with US-based graduate ESL Education students (as telecollaborativetutors) to undertake either an explicit or an implicit instructional treatment through ACMCfor one semester. The explicit group (n¼ 23) participated in consciousness-raising activities,received explicit metapragmatic explanations and corrections of errors of forms andmeanings. The implicit group (n ¼ 24) received enhanced input and implicit feedback. Adiscourse completion task (DCT) was used to compare control and intervention groups.Furthermore, students' email communications with the graduate students were used totrack their language development. Quantitative and qualitative analysis were used todetermine the impact of instructional methods on EFL learners' pragmatic competence.Both treatment groups significantly improved, outperforming the control group. However,the explicit group performed significantly better than the implicit group on both the DCTand email communication measures. These findings are discussed with implications forusing technology to teach and learn pragmatics.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Research in interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) has documented that pragmatic instruction facilitates learners' awareness ofform-function mappings and important contextual variables which may not otherwise be salient enough to be noticed(Kasper & Schmidt, 1996). In the foreign language context, where opportunities for input and interaction outside theclassroom are highly limited and formal instruction serves as the main source of L2 knowledge, pragmatic instruction plays amore prominent role (e.g., Eslami-Rasekh, 2005; Rose, 2005).

Several researchers in the field of ILP, informed by second language acquisition (SLA) theories, have examined the dif-ferential effects of explicit versus implicit instruction (e.g., Alc�on Soler, 2005; Fordyce, 2013; Jeon & Kaya, 2006; Koike &Pearson, 2005; Taguchi, 2011; Tateyama, 2001). Several studies (e.g., Alc�on Soler, 2005; Eslami & Eslami-Rasekh, 2008;

i), mirzaei-a@lit.sku.ac.ir (A. Mirzaei), shadi.dini@tamu.edu (S. Dini).

Z.R. Eslami et al. / System 48 (2015) 99e111100

Nguyen, Pham& Pham, 2012) suggest that explicit instruction is more effective for ILP development than implicit instruction.However, as noted by Jeon and Kaya (2006), the above findings should be treated with caution due to the limited number ofstudies examining implicit instruction, a lack of research rigor and methodological issues with some of the studies. As re-ported by Taguchi's (in press) comprehensive review of instructional studies in pragmatics, most studies have revealed a clearadvantage of explicit over implicit methods, some have revealed no difference between the two methods, and a few haverevealed mixed findings. Thus, further research is needed in order to understand the relative effectiveness of these two typesof pedagogical interventions.

Today's fast-growing technologies offer exciting new possibilities for pragmatic instruction. The affordances provided bydifferent technologies can promote the learning of pragmatics by facilitating learners' interaction with peers and expertlanguage users who are located remotely, thus providing opportunities for natural communication and self-regulatedlearning (Belz, 2007; Taguchi, 2011; Takamiya & Ishihara, 2012). Despite the affordances provided by technology in pro-moting pragmatic competence, few studies have examined pragmatic instruction using CMC in a foreign language (FL)context. In this regard, Belz (2007) notes that the potential of telecollaboration for second language (L2) pragmatic devel-opment, research, and instruction is still underexplored within FL education circles. Thus the goal of the present study is toexamine the use of various forms of CMC (emails, oral and written chats) in promoting L2 pragmatic development. We haveused technology to determine whether CMC can serve as a potentially useful channel to deliver pragmatics instruction to EFLlearners using methods of explicit and implicit form-focused instruction (FFI).

2. Literature review

2.1. Pragmatic instruction

The teaching of pragmatic competence has enjoyed considerable attention due to its recognition as one of the majorcomponents of language ability (Bachman, 1990). Instructional pragmatics research has generally focused on the effects ofpragmatic instruction by employing research methodologies mainly grounded in cognitive approaches to SLA (e.g., Alc�on-Soler, 2005; Bardovi-Harlig & Vellenga, 2012; Nguyen et al., 2012). The cognitive approaches to SLA have stressed the roleof noticing in language acquisition (Schmidt, 1994, 2001) and different instructional methods (i.e., explicit and implicit) havebeen used to facilitate students' noticing of the target forms.

Researchers have argued that explicit and implicit instructional conditions represent a continuum rather than a dichotomy(Eslami & Eslami-Rasekh, 2008; Jeon & Kaya, 2006; Taguchi, 2011). Additionally, explicit and implicit FFI vary greatly in theirmethodological options and conceptualizations (Nguyen et al., 2012) and explicit pragmatic instruction may refer to a widearray of FFI activities, from metapragmatic explanations to different input conditions with or without metapragmatic in-formation. According to Norris and Ortega (2000), in FFI the intention is to foster the learner's attention to particular formswithin a meaningful context integrated into an otherwise content-based and meaning-oriented syllabus of the L2 classroom.

Compared to the findings related to explicit instruction, results regarding the effects of implicit instruction are incon-clusive (Fukuya & Martinez-Flor, 2008; Fukuya & Zhang, 2002). Moreover, implicit pragmatic instruction, as compared toexplicit pragmatic instruction, has been less adequately described from both conceptual and methodological perspectives(Fukuya & Zhang, 2002; Nguyen et al., 2012). Therefore, further research is needed in order to understand the relativeeffectiveness of these two types of pedagogical interventions.

2.2. CMC and pragmatic instruction

Research on the use of technology for language instruction has provided insights about the potential of technology toexpand teaching options and offers information on how technology can provide a solution to existing barriers to formalteaching (Taguchi & Sykes, 2013). Studies of both SCMC (synchronous CMC) and ACMC (asynchronous CMC) suggest thesignificant potential of text-based interaction in promoting language learning in general and pragmatic learning in particular(Taguchi, 2011). Although it is generally assumed that SCMC has the features of spoken informal communication and ACMCfollows the patterns of written discourse, both forms influence the nature of social networks and communication patterns(Fulk & Collins-Jarvis, 2001) in a way which makes the CMC context different from regular spoken and written communi-cations. Such typical features of telecollaborative language learning contexts are influenced by “an intricate inter-relationshipof social and institutional affordances and constraints, aspects of individual psycho-biography, as well as language andcomputer socialization experiences and particular power relationships” (Belz, 2002, p.73). Both SCMC and ACMC can offer anauthentic learning environment where learners practice L2 pragmatics while engaged in real-life interactions with expertusers of language. Technology-mediated exchanges can also scaffold students' learning by providing online access to L2language, genuine interactions, and opportunities to compare their own language use with expert language users' data (Belz,2007).

Researchers have used telecollaboration, wiki, video conferencing, online discussions and text and voice chats for teachingpragmatics (e.g., Belz & Vyatkina, 2005; Cunningham & Vyatkina, 2012; Johnson & deHaan 2013; Kakegawa, 2009; Li, 2012;Yus, 2011). Computer technology can create favorable conditions (e.g., input, interaction, simulation) to enhance L2 pragmaticdevelopment (e.g., Belz, 2007; Eslami & Liu, 2013; Gonz�alez-Lloret, 2008; Kakegawa, 2009; Li, 2012; Sykes, 2005). The ca-pacities provided by computer technology include: a) authentic instructional materials, b) exposure of learners to a broader

Z.R. Eslami et al. / System 48 (2015) 99e111 101

range of pragmatic features and discourse options, c) opportunities for meaningful interactions, d) longitudinal evidence anddata of L2 pragmatic development, and e) effectiveness of instructional interventions in L2 pragmatic development (Baar &Gillespie, 2003; Belz, 2007; Kosunen, 2009; Li, 2012; van der Zwaard & Bannink, 2014).

Among the contributions of CMC is its potential to record and provide rich learner data for longitudinal pragmaticdevelopment studies. Belz (2007) offers a detailed account of theways inwhich CMC can contribute to developmental studieswith a particular emphasis on the production of individual developmental journey profiles and microgenetic analysis (i.e.,local, moment-to-moment learning in social interactions) of pragmatic features. Belz (2007) maintains that microgeneticanalysis is possible in telecollaborative contexts because in this kind of discourse the whole history of the interactions iselectronically recorded and conveniently retrievable. Belz and Kinginger (2003), and Kinginger and Belz (2005) for example,provide detailed, microgenetic analyses of learners' development of address forms in a telecollaborative partnership. Theyfound that technology mediation in their telecollabrative classrooms provided an opportunity for the learners to receiveexplicit assistance from their peers, observe the appropriate expert norms in telecollaborative interactions, and improve theirL2 pragmatic competence.

CMC also makes it possible to individualize instruction and align instructional interventions to learners' actual needs. Belzand Vyatkina's (2005) study is an excellent example of how the use of intended pragmatic features in the learners' corpus canbe monitored and then teaching modules designed in response to students' needs. Based on the analysis of learners' corpus,the authors conducted a three-week face-to-face pedagogical intervention that consisted of three instructional modules.Their findings revealed that the pedagogical intervention was effective and the majority of learners' pragmatic performanceimproved both in terms of frequency and accuracy. Their study is a good example of corpus-enabled as well as electronicallymediated interactions between learners and their native-speaker “keypals,” and of the potential for “hyper-noticing” intechnology mediated intercultural pragmatic research. Similarly, Kakegawa (2009) examined the effects of pedagogical in-terventions via email correspondence with Japanese native speakers on the development of American learners of Japaneseuse of sentence-final particles. The American participants exchanged emails with native speakers of Japanese for 12 weeksand received two face-to-face pedagogical interventions on the use of sentence-final particles. The results indicated that thecombination of email exchanges and instructional interventions had a positive impact on students' use of sentence-finalparticles. As Kakegawa (2009) notes, using emails to connect learners with telecollaborative experts overseas providesauthentic materials in a foreign language context and also makes less salient linguistic forms and pragmatic functions morenoticeable to learners.

Among different mediums of ACMC, emails now play an indispensable part in educational contexts (Biesenbach-Lucas,2007; Iwasaki, 2008) and have recently been investigated in L2 pragmatics research. Different pragmatic features havebeen examined in the email exchanges between native and non-native speakers in various contexts (e.g., Biesenbach-Lucas,2007; Chalak, Eslami-Rasekh, & Eslami-Rasekh, 2010; Chen, 2001; Eslami, 2013; Motallebzadeh, Mohsenzadeh, & Sobhani,2014; Zhu, 2012). Studies on L2 learners' email practices have mainly focused on how email exchange facilitates secondlanguage learning and encourages collaborativewriting (e.g., Lapp, 2000; Li, 2000; Liaw,1998). A number of studies comparedhow L2 learners' email discourse differed from their oral or offlinewritten discourse (Biesenbach-Lucas&Weasenforth, 2001;Chapman, 1997). Chen (2001) investigated a Taiwanese graduate student's pragmatic development by examining her emailpractices. Using a critical discourse analysis approach, Chen (2001) shows the complexity of an L2 learner's evolving prag-matic competence and struggle for appropriateness.

Research findings reported so far have, by implication, demonstrated certain benefits for pragmatic instruction in CMCcontexts. Related research has also shown that ACMC, by default, engenders typical discourse patterns and social behaviors inlanguage learning contexts. Therefore, emails, one of themost frequently usedmeans of communication in academic settings,seem to offer a highly affordable platform through which L2 practitioners can efficiently plan to optimize the teaching,learning, and assessment of L2 pragmatics in foreign contexts (Kakegawa, 2009). Unlike inauthentic language classroomactivities that lack social consequences (Kasper & Rose, 2002), CMC provides learners with a variety of discourse options andspeech functions, and offers opportunities for the practice and use of L2 pragmatics in meaningful interactions. Moreover,technology-mediated contexts provide venues for learners to engage in pragmatics learning on their own, both inside andoutside the classroom (Taguchi & Sykes, 2013).

While all the studies discussed above used a hybrid of both face-to-face and online methodologies to deliver pragmaticinstruction, Eslami and Liu's (2013) study is one of the few which used online instruction for one group and face-to-faceinstruction for another group. They compared the relative effectiveness of the instructional modules implementedthrough CMC with face-to-face instruction for teaching requestive strategies. The results showed that explicit pragmaticinstruction had a positive impact on the EFL learners in both the teacher-instructed and CMC groups (compared to the controlgroup) and there was no significant difference between the two experimental groups in the amount of pragmatic gains.Furthermore, Xiao-le (2011) examined the efficiency of explicit and implicit instruction of request strategies in increasingpragmatic appropriateness in the on-line communications of Chinese EFL learners and found that the participants in theexplicit group outperformed their peers in the implicit group.

Our purpose in the current study is to expand the previous research and explore the effectiveness of two instruc-tional methods (i.e. explicit vs. implicit) delivered mainly through ACMC. Thus, the current study is an attempt toinvestigate the relative efficacy of explicit and implicit FFI through ACMC on the Iranian EFL learners' requestivebehavior in an academic setting. The study contributes to our understanding of the efficacy of using technology inpragmatic instruction.

Z.R. Eslami et al. / System 48 (2015) 99e111102

3. Research questions

As argued by several SLA researchers (e.g., Belz, 2007; Taguchi & Sykes, 2013; van der Zwaard & Bannink, 2014), FL ed-ucation circles have yet to fully realize the potential of technology for L2 pragmatic development, research, and instruction.Furthermore, as Jeon and Kaya (2006) and Taguchi (in press) note, it is not yet possible to confidently conclude which type ofpragmatic instruction is more effective and it is difficult to make a comprehensive claim about instructional effectivenesswithout considering the interaction among learner characteristics, treatment methods, and outcome measures (Taguchi, inpress). Thus, the current study aims to address the following research questions:

1. What are the effects of explicit and implicit FFI using CMC on EFL learners' performance of requests in English?2. Which type of instruction is more effective?

4. Materials and methods

4.1. Participants

A quasi-experimental, pretest/posttest designwith a control group was adopted to address these research questions. Twogroupswere studied: learners and telecollaborative tutors. The learner group consisted of three upper-intermediate EFL intactclasses (n¼ 74). Theywere categorized as upper-intermediate based on their performance on the national English-proficiencytest for university students. The learners (11males and63 females)were in their early 20s studying English language literature/translation in two state universities in the center and south-west of Iran. They had studied English between 7 and 9 years. Nonehad visited an English speaking country, and all had limited exposure to English outside of the classroom. The classes wererandomly assigned to one of three conditions: control (n ¼ 27), explicit (n ¼ 23), and implicit (n ¼ 24).

The telecollaborative tutors were 18 native and highly proficient non-native English speakers who were ESL Educationgraduate students at a U.S. University ranging in age from late 20s to late 30s. The graduate students (tutors) were enrolled inan ESL Methodology course and read papers on pragmatic instruction and assessment, as part of their course requirements.Each was paired with two or three Iranian EFL learners over the treatment period and either used explicit or implicitinstructional techniques, depending upon their group assignment. Researchers provided guiding lesson plans throughout thesemester, and tutors were asked to modify the lesson plans as required to meet the needs of their students.

4.2. Data-collection instruments

We used a highly structured outcome measure, a Discourse Comprehension Task (DCT), and freely constructed responses(emails) as process and outcome measures in this study. The employment of mixed methods enhances the validity of thefindings, thus strengthening the claims that canbemade. As suggestedbyKasper andDahl (1991), elicited andnatural languagedata both have pros and cons as far as the quantity and quality of data is concerned. Although naturally occurring data aremorehighly valued (as they authentically reflect pragmatic variability), in practice pragmatics researchers, have shown a preferencefor DCTs since theycan enactmore control over the type of speech act elicited, the rangeof tokens produced, and the contextualvariables operationalized in the design of scenarios (Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2013; Kasper & Dahl, 1991). DCTs also facilitatethe collectionof speech act data froma large sample simultaneously focusingonawider rangeof linguistic issues. In the currentstudy, the use of both structured DCTs and freely constructed speech acts (emails) helps to compensate for the drawbacks ofeach measure used alone. Additionally, previous research has shown that the type of outcome measure might affect themagnitude of instructional effects observed (Jeon&Kaya, 2006; Taguchi, in press). Studies employing only elicited data tend toproduce smaller effect sizes than those employing both elicited and natural data (Nguyen et al., 2012). Thus, to maximize ourability to track developmental changes, we collected both elicited and naturalistic data in this study.

The elicitation instrument (DCT) contained 12 situations likely to be encountered by the EFL students in academic con-texts. They were based on the DCT situations collected through exemplar generation as suggested by Eslami and Mirzaei(2014) and were controlled for the relative power, level of imposition, and the social distance of speakers and hearers.

An analytical assessment scale was then used to score learners' request performances on the DCT. The scale consisted oftwo parts, allowing the assessment of both sociopragmatic appropriateness and linguistic accuracy. Sociopragmatic appro-priateness was rated from 1 (very inappropriate) to 5 (very appropriate), and a binary linguistic accuracy scale was used forgrammatical and lexical accuracy (1 if grammatically and lexically correct and 0 if grammatically or lexically incorrect). Thus,the total possible score for each situationwas thus 6. Therefore, the possible minimum andmaximum scores on the (12-item)pragmatics test were 12 and 72, respectively. Scoring procedures were conducted independently and half of the data wascross-checked by two researchers with the agreement rate of 90%.

Requestive speech acts were extracted from the email data both at the beginning of the intervention (weeks 1e3) andtowards the end (weeks 10e12) and analyzed for evidence of learners' pragmatic development. Using Blum-Kulka, House,and Kasper's (1989) categorization scheme, two researchers coded the email data. Email requests were independentlycoded into different types of request strategies and modifiers and then carefully cross-checked. Inter-rater procedures wereused to estimate the reliability, and found to be 79% after the first trial coding. The differences in coding were discussed untilagreement was reached. In the second trial coding, an inter-rater reliability of 95% was reached.

Z.R. Eslami et al. / System 48 (2015) 99e111 103

4.3. Procedures

The EFL learners in the two treatment groups (i.e., explicit and implicit) were matched with the graduate students at alarge public university (in the U.S.) for this 12 week intervention. The telecollaborative tutors received a lesson plan everyother week, which provided them with ideas on which aspects of requestive speech acts to focus on and how to teach thelearners. The tutors in both treatment groups were instructed to exchange four emails with their peers every two workingweeks before they received the next lesson plan. They were also instructed to use learners' ongoing discourse in their emailsand other forms of CMC to raise their awareness of pragmatically (in)appropriate use of language. This approach draws on themethodologies of contrastive learner corpus analysis and data-driven learning (Belz& Vyatkina, 2005). While the main modeof CMC was (asynchronous) email, a number of the telecollaborative tutors also interacted with their EFL learners in otherforms of CMC (e.g., Skype, Facebook, written/oral chats). The use of other CMC modes was not pre-planned into instructionalactivities because of the challenges of Iran-US time difference, slow internet speeds in Iran, and Iranian students' limitedaccess to the internet. As argued by Taguchi and Sykes (2013), technology-mediated contexts provide venues for learners toengage in pragmatic learning on their own, both inside and outside the classroom. Over the first few weeks, the lessonobjectives focused on the main requestive strategies, and learners were exposed to a variety of requestive forms in differentcontexts along with examples of miscommunication (inappropriate forms). During weeks 4, 5, and 6, the three important(sociopragmatic) variables in requests (i.e. “distance”, “power/social status”, and “imposition”) were introduced and eitherexplicitly discussed for the explicit group or highlighted through input enhancement techniques for the implicit group.Finally, pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic features in requests were reviewed and recycled during the last two weeks.

Following Eslami-Rasekh (2005), the explicit group used the following strategies for instruction: a) consciousness-raising(e.g. identifying and providing examples of requests in learners' L1 and L2, recognizing requestive strategies includingexternal and internal modifications, and recognizing directness levels); b) metapragmatic explanation following eachconsciousness-raising activity; c) discussion of inappropriate requests and the potential causes of their inappropriateness; d)production activities (e.g. responding to situations with requests, and providing reasons for their use of one formvs. another);and e) explicit feedback related to both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic issues. The implicit group, however, used adifferent set of instructional activities, including: a) consciousness-raising activities using input enhancement (e.g., bold-faced target structures; comparing their own requests to native speakers' requests); b) discourse completion task produc-tion activities; and c) reflection on their own productions based on recasts and implicit feedback. An example of a recast fromthe data is provided in Table 1.

Additionally, the telecollaborative tutors were referred to other teachers' guides and resource books with ready-madelesson plans and teaching tips (Bardovi-Harlig & Mahan-Taylor, 2003; Houck & Tatsuki, 2011; Ishihara & Cohen, 2010; Tat-suki & Houck, 2010). Tutors were asked to use these guides to individualize their instruction by implementing activitiesappropriate for their learners' pragmatic competence level, progress, and needs. Weekly updates, classroom discussions, aswell as reflection journals were checked to ensure adherence to the planned treatment and ensure fidelity of treatment.

Learners in the control group completed traditional in-class activities, including the four skills, grammar, and vocabularypractice activities, and they also performed extra-class work to extend their learning beyond the class hour. In summary, thedata comprised 1776 DCT-responses, and 94 emails. Quantitative analysis of the groups' DCT pretest and posttest scores anddescriptive analysis of the learners' email requests in two time intervals (beginning and end) were carried out in order toaddress the research questions.

5. Results

5.1. DCT results

Quantitative analysis of the groups' DCT pretest and posttest scores was conducted to address the research questions.Descriptive statistics were first calculated to ensure that there was no violation of the preliminary normality assumptions, theresults of which are summarized in Table 2.

The results showed that the datawere normally distributedwith skewness and kurtosis values well within the satisfactoryrange of ±1.5. A one-way between-groups analysis of covariance (or ANCOVA) was conducted to compare the effectiveness ofdifferent CMC-oriented and traditional (non-CMC) instructions on students' ability to appropriately produce English requests.

Table 1Akram (a female student in the implicit group) makes a request to change an appointment with her professor. The utterance is linguistically correct, but isconsidered too direct and is thus recast by the tutor.

Akram's initial email message: I need to change the appointment time because I am sick. Can I meet you tomorrow?Tutor's reformulated request: “I fell sick and unfortunately cannot make it to the campus today.

Is it possible to change the appointment to another day when it's convenient for you?”

Keep in mind that you are making this request to your professor. Can you let me knowthe difference between your request and the one above?

Table 2Descriptive statistics for pretests and posttests for each group.

Group Test N Min Max Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis

Control Pretest 27 17 44 31.85 6.24 �.43 .04Posttest 27 23 57 36.85 8.35 .23 �.04

Explicit Pretest 23 18 43 31.48 6.35 �.32 �.46Posttest 23 36 72 59.52 9.97 �1.13 .9

Implicit Pretest 24 19 41 31.67 5.74 �.42 �.28Posttest 24 18 43 52.54 8.03 .06 �.19

Table 3ANCOVA results for groups' pragmatic development.

Source Type III sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Partial eta squared

Corrected model 8667.68a 3 2889.22 55.45 .000 .70Intercept 1394.48 1 1394.48 26.76 .000 .28Pretest 1835.8 1 1835.8 35.23 .000 .34Group 7005.36 2 3502.68 67.22 .000 .66Error 3647.31 70 52.10Total 189,891.00 74Corrected total 12,314.99 73

a R Squared ¼ .704 (Adjusted R Squared ¼ .691).

Z.R. Eslami et al. / System 48 (2015) 99e111104

The independent variable was the type of pedagogical intervention (traditional teacher-fronted, explicit CMC-oriented, andimplicit CMC-oriented) named as Group in the analysis, and the dependent variable was students' posttest scores on the DCT.Students' pretest scores were used as the covariate in the analysis to control for pre-existing pragmatic-knowledge differencesbetween the groups. ANCOVA-specific preliminary assumptions such as normality, linearity, and homogeneity of varianceswere initially checked, and no violation was observed. The ANCOVA results are demonstrated in Table 3.

As can be seen, the ANCOVA results revealed a statistically significant main effect for Group, F (2, 70) ¼ 67.22, p < .0005,partial eta squared ¼ .66, which means that there were significant differences among the posttest mean scores of the groupsreceiving different types of instruction. A partial eta squared value of .66 statistically represents quite a large effect size(Cohen's criterion ¼ .14), which shows that 66 per cent of the variance in the pragmatics posttest means can be explained bythe type of instruction. Further inspection of the post hoc (Bonferroni-adjusted) pairwise comparisons (Table 4) demon-strated that both CMC-oriented groups made noticeable interlanguage pragmatic gains compared to the control group.However, the English pragmatic ability of the CMC-based group receiving explicit instruction and feedback from their tel-ecollaborative tutors improved significantly more than the implicit CMC-oriented group. The post hoc pairwise comparisonresults are shown in Table 4 below.

Fig. 1 illustrates the superiority of the pragmatic performance of the experimental groups (over the control group)following their engagement in CMC-based instructional activities with telecollaborative tutors. The differences among thegroups' posttest mean scores are particularly noteworthy since all groups demonstrated similar pragmatic performance onthe pretest.

These results suggest there is an important association between participation in CMC-oriented instructional activities(addressing speech act realization patterns) and L2 learners' development of pragmatic ability over time. Furthermore,explicit communication-focusedmetapragmatic instruction and feedback (delivered using the interactivity of technology andsocial media) shows significantly more gains in learners' pragmatic development.

Table 4Post hoc pairwise comparisons for different groups.

(I) Group(J) Group

Mean difference (IeJ) Std. Error Sig.a 95% Confidence interval for differencea

Upper bound Lower bound

ExplicitControl

22.98* 2.05 .000 17.96 28.01

ImplicitControl

15.84* 2.02 .000 10.88 20.81

ExplicitImplicit

7.137* 2.106 .003 1.970 12.303

Based on estimated marginal means.* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

a Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

TimePosttestPretest

Mea

ns

60.00

55.00

50.00

45.00

40.00

35.00

30.00

Ex-ImplicitEx-ExplicitControl

Group

Fig. 1. Interaction plot for groups' over-time pragmatic development.

Z.R. Eslami et al. / System 48 (2015) 99e111 105

5.2. Email data results

A corpus of requests used in email communications was compiled over the twelve weeks of the course. The data included47 emailed requests during the first three weeks of the study (the first data set) and another 47 requests during the last threeweeks of the study (the second data set). The type of strategy and modifiers, frequency of use, and accuracy in the first set ofemailed requests were compared with those in the second set of email data to examine learners' development in their use ofrequestive speech acts in their email communications.

Requests were analyzed first for the head act, which was coded as direct, conventionally indirect, or hint. Table 5 showsthat a direct strategy was used in approximately one third of the emails at the beginning (34.8% by explicit group and 33.3% byimplicit group). Conventionally indirect strategies were the most frequently used by both groups (52.2.1% and 58.4). Hintswere the least frequently used strategies (13% and 8.3%). What is interesting, however, is that in the second set of email data,both groups decreased their use of direct strategies and increased their use of conventionally indirect strategies. The higherpreference for directness among the learners in the first data set fits well with findings in developmental pragmatics in thatL2 learners tend to employ far more direct strategies (and fewer internal lexical/syntactic modifiers) than native speakers(Biesenbach-Lucas, 2007; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2011; Rose, 2000; Trosborg, 1995). Additionally, in the second data set,both the explicit and implicit group opted more frequently for conventionally indirect strategies (62.2 and 70.8, respectively),moving closer to native speaker request strategies (Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2011; Rose, 2000). This finding provides furthersupport for the positive effects of CMC instructional activities provided by telecollaborative tutors on pragmatic development.Hints were the request strategy used the least frequently by both groups, although the implicit group used slightly more inthe second set (8.3 vs. 12.5). Research shows that hints appear later in learners' pragmatic development and these findingscould be a sign of a nascent development in the implicit group's email communication. However, further longitudinalresearch with larger data set would be needed to support such a claim.

Some examples of direct requests, indirect requests, and hints from the data are given below.

(1) Check your email pllllllllllz. I sent you my responses! (L to H, March 1)(2) Do you celebrate Christmas? Would you mind tell me about your region? (S to M, Feb 23)(3) I would like to know more about you and your background. (L to J, on March 27).

5.2.1. Supportive movesIn contrast to internal modificationwhich is more formal, external modification is discoursal. It involves providing reasons

or preparing interlocutors for the request. Pragmatics research has shown that L2 learners (of English) underuse (external)

Table 5Requestive strategies (Head act).

Strategy Explicit P1 (%) Explicit P2 (%) Implicit P1 (%) Implicit P2 (%)

Direct 8 (34.8) 5 (21.7) 8 (33.3) 4 (16.7)Conventionally indirect 12 (52.2) 15 (65.2) 14 (58.4) 17 (70.8)Indirect (Hint) 3 (13) 3 (13.1) 2 (8.3) 3 (12.5)Total 23 (100) 23 (100) 24 (100) 24 (100)

Table 6Supportive moves in two email data set.

Supportive move Explicit P1 (%) Explicit P2 (%) Implicit P1 (%) Implicit P2 (%)

�Supportive move 15 (65.2) 10 (43.5) 14 (58.3) 11 (45.8)þSupportive move 8 (34.8) 13 (56.5) 10 (41.7) 13 (54.2)Total 23 (100) 23 (100) 24 (100) 24 (100)

Z.R. Eslami et al. / System 48 (2015) 99e111106

supportive moves compared to native speakers (Biesenbach-Lucas & Weasenforth, 2001; Hartford & Bardovi-Harlig, 1996;Lundell& Erman, 2012; Rose, 2000; Trosborg, 1995). Table 6 shows the frequency of supportive moves used in their first set ofemails compared to the second set (after the intervention). As can be seen, there has been a noticeable change in the fre-quency of supportive moves in both groups.

These results suggest that the two treatment groups benefited from the CMC pragmatic instruction. Two examples ofsupportive moves used by the students are shown below.

(4) I am busy this week with an exam we have. Can I do the examples and send it to you next Friday? (M to J, April 7)(5) I like to ask you something? Are you married? (J to J, March 11)

Moreover, the natural email data indicates that instruction has been differentially effective in learners' acquisition ofrequest supportive moves. The explicit group, by comparison, took up more supportive moves in the second data set than theimplicit group (explicit: 34.8 to 56.5 vs. implicit: 41.7e54.2).

5.2.2. Internal modifiersAs argued by Trosborg (1995), the development of internal modification depends on the automaticity in syntactic parsing

since adding lexical or phrasal modifiers to a head act is likely to increase formal complexity. Results of the analysis of lexicaland syntactic modifiers used in the two email data set are presented in Table 7.

Students' use of internal modification increased over time. In the explicit group's first set of emails, 43.47% of the studentsprovided no syntactic modifiers, compared to 26.09% in the second data set. In contrast, these figures were 37.5% vs. 25% forthe implicit group. This indicates that the intervention was effective for both groups, though the explicit groups made moreprogress (17.38) than the implicit group (12.5). However, the number of emails used in this analysis is rather small and thusthese findings cannot be considered conclusive.

6. Discussion and conclusion

This study found that CMC-oriented pedagogical tasks and activities designed to heighten EFL students' noticing andawareness and delivered by native and highly proficient non-native English speaking telecollaborative tutors can assiststudents to develop their pragmatic ability. This finding offers evidence that L2 pragmatics can respond well toconsciousness-raising interaction and instruction scaffolded by expert users of the target language in a virtual communi-cation environment. More specifically, computer technology and CMC offer instruction and communication affordances thatcan cater for the needs of L2 learners as they develop their pragmatic competence. The results demonstrated that feedbackand instruction, when provided through tailored on-line communication with L2 informants, can promote students'awareness of form-function mappings and pertinent contextual variables which may otherwise be insufficiently salient(Eisenchlas, 2011; Ifantidou, 2013; Nguyen et al., 2012). In other words, mere exposure to the target language or over-emphasis of L2 lexico-grammatical aspects, typical of ESL/EFL classrooms, does not necessarily lead to a correspondingdevelopment of students' pragmatic competence (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001, 2013; Kasper & Schmidt, 1996).

The second important finding of this study is that explicit instruction and feedback in L2 pragmatics appeared to be moreeffective for the development of learners' pragmatic competence. While both treatment groups outperformed the controlgroup, the group receiving explicit metapragmatic information and explanations benefited more than the implicit group interms of their posttest achievements on the DCT. Similarly, the longitudinal examination of their email data demonstratedthat the explicit group showed more tendencies to employ supportive moves to modify their email requests in the seconddata set. This findings is supported by SLA literature related to noticing andmetalinguistic awareness. As shown by recent SLA

Table 7Internal modifiers used in two email data set.

Internal modifiers Explicit P1 (%) Explicit P2 (%) Implicit P1 (%) Implicit P2 (%)

Syntactic 3 (13.05) 7 (30.44) 2 (8.33) 5 (20.83)Lexical 5 (21.74) 7 (30.44) 7 (29.17) 7 (29.17)Both 5 (21.74) 3 (13.04) 6 (25.0) 6 (25.0)None 10 (43.47) 6 (26.08) 9 (37.5) 6 (25.0)Total 23 (100) 23 (100) 24 (100) 24 (100)

Z.R. Eslami et al. / System 48 (2015) 99e111 107

literature (e.g., DeKeyser, 2003; Ellis, 2004, 2006; Norris&Ortega, 2001; Schmidt,1994, 2001), noticing of linguistic forms andfunctions and metalinguistic awareness play an important role in L2 learning. While implicit learning involves perception ordrawing conscious attention to (surface) target features simply by ‘flagging’ target items (DeKeyser, 2003), the explicitlearning involves consciousness of the underlying rules governing linguistic behavior throughmeta-talks over form-meaningmappings. Therefore, although noticing with some degree of awareness is implicated in implicit feedback, such as inputenhancement and recasts, it is incumbent upon the learner to infer the rules (Jeon & Kaya, 2006). However, provision ofmetalinguistic information and explanations, instantiated by a focus on meaning and communication, enables the learner toprocess both meaning and underlying rules at a deeper level and results in more efficient restructuring of the linguisticknowledge and profound understanding (DeKeyser, 2003; Norris & Ortega, 2001).

The current study adds to the growing literature arguing for the significant role of attention and awareness in L2 (prag-matics) learning (Eslami-Rasekh, 2005; Jeon& Kaya, 2006; Norris& Ortega, 2000, 2001; Rose& Kasper, 2001; Schmidt, 2001)and the greater effectiveness of explicit instruction on development of pragmatic competence (Alc�on-Soler & Safont Jord�a,2008; Bardovi-Harlig, 2013; Halenko & Jones, 2011; Huth, 2006; Nguyen et al., 2012; Takimoto, 2007). Nevertheless, forimplicit feedback to be effective it should become, in Ellis and Sheen's (2006) sense, more focused and intensive (asdemonstrated in the explicit group) rather than incidental and extensive (as demonstrated in the implicit group), ensuringdeeper processing of pragmalinguisticesociopragmatic mappings and connections of target features.

Another contribution made by the present study is the attempt to draw on affordances offered to L2 education by socialnetworking spaces, virtual environments, and computers. The findings show that, judiciously employed, the opportunities forinteraction offered by Information Technology (IT) and computers can help promote communication across culturalboundaries and foster form-function-oriented instruction and pragmatic awareness (Bloch, 2002; Kakegawa, 2009; Lee,2004). The literature on the application of CMC-based input, interaction, and instruction to teaching and learning L2 prag-matics is still fairly limited. Further benefits of IT, such as authentic input, interaction, feedback, andmultimedia, have alreadybeen probed in L2 research and pedagogy. For example, Lin, Huang, and Liou's (2013) meta-analysis of related research showsthat visual synchronous CMC, voice-chats and text-based chat-rooms can foster aspects of SLA, with oral performancereceiving the most influence followed by lexical and grammatical aspects (e.g., Abrams, 2003; Blake, 2000; Chen & Eslami,2013; Loewen & Erlam, 2006; Satar & Ozdener, 2008). The findings of a recent study by van der Zwaard and Bannink(2014), show that the trajectory and outcome of the interaction and whether or not L2 learners engage in negotiatedinteraction depend on the constraints and affordances of the specific mode of communication. They compared negotiatedepisodes between learners and native speakers in video call vs. text chat and found that learners seem less inhibited toindicate non-understanding, and hence upstarted to engage in the negotiation of meaning more often and more successfullyin text-based chat interactions.

However, the use of CMC in this study extends this work by providing for and fostering the construction andmanagement ofinter-group (noviceeexpert) partnerships and collaborations. Such initiatives become feasible and cost-effective onlywhen thereis institutional agreement or managerial coordination between the EFL learning setting and the cooperating academic context.

In light of the importance of pragmatics and appropriate language use for successful intercultural and cross-culturalcommunication (Taguchi, 2012), L2 practitioners should help to make pragmatic similarities and differences perceptuallysalient to students through explicit feedback and instruction. Employing explicit consciousness-raising activities and met-apragmatic explanation helps learners to analyze and process pragmalinguisticesociopragmatic relations at a deeperperceptual and mental level. Most importantly, explicit awareness-raising activities and instruction in L2 pragmatics arebecoming more urgent in educational settings like Iran where EFL learners are largely deprived of direct access to native-speakers. In these contexts, the affordances provided by technology and systematic goal oriented partnership with expertusers of English can be of great benefit to the development of EFL students' pragmatic competence.

Due to limited internet access and the duration of the study, the number of emails collected in this study was limited andthus conclusive claims based on the email data cannot bemade. Larger-scale studies capable of collecting larger sets of naturaldata would provide more robust results.

Appendices

A. Sample Lesson Plan: (Explicit CMC Instruction Group, Week 7)Goals:

1. To enable the learners to become aware of the use and the distinction between direct vs. indirect requests. (email 1)2. To help the learners to become familiar with/be able to choose/use appropriate request “strategies” in various contexts

with different interlocutors. (email 2)

Description:In their first email in week 7, the tutors clarify the distinction between direct and indirect requests, i.e., direct requests are

explicit expressions of requests (e.g., orders) while indirect ones implicitly perform the speech act. They further explain totheir partners that three variables previously discussed in weeks 4e6, e.g. distance (level of familiarity), power relationshipbetween interlocutors (equal, lower, higher), and the level of the imposition of requests, can influence the directness level of

Z.R. Eslami et al. / System 48 (2015) 99e111108

the requests. The tutors also may remind their partners that indirect requests are not necessarily more appropriate in allcontexts. Depending on the relationship and contextual variables the level of directness may change.

In order to help the tutees to make more pragmatically appropriate requests, the tutors, in their second email, introduce anumber of request supportive moves, e.g., giving explanations/reasons/excuses, bringing statements of regret, offering op-tions/alternatives to the interlocutor, etc. Depending on the context (week 3), and based on their interlocutor's distance (week4) and power/social status (week 5), the speakers may decide to use different levels of directness in their requests anddifferent supportive moves tomake a sociopragmatically appropriate request. Also, the degree of imposition (week 6) level ina request is another key factor which influences the directness level of the requests and the type and number of supportivemoves used by the speakers. By giving this metapragmatic information to their partners, the tutors enable them to becomeconscious of the context variables, and to be able to “strategically” make appropriate requests.

Activities:These are sample activities for week 7. The tutors should make sure to give metapragmatic feedback in their emails.

1. Give your partner a few samples of direct requests (in an academic context), and ask them if they think the request isappropriate in communicationwith faculty members, and explainwhy they think it is appropriate or not. If they believethe request is not appropriate, how would they make the request appropriately? Have them discuss the consequencesthat an inappropriately direct or a too indirect request might have in different contexts.

2. Ask your partners to write different dialogs in an academic context with different interlocutors. Based on the context/interlocutors, they should be able to use request strategies and supportive moves appropriately.

B. Discourse Completion Test (DCT)Name: ………………… Group: …………..Sex: Male Ο Female ΟAge: Under 20 Ο 21e25 Ο Over 26 ΟHave you ever been/lived to/in an English country? No Ο Yes Ο,If yes, Which Country?........... How long have you been/lived there?...........

Instruction: Please respond to each situation as if you were in a conversation with the other speaker. Write what youwould ‘naturally’ say in each situation.

1. You are a student and are attending a lecture by a university professor at a conference. You like the presentation andwant to learn more. When s/he finishes her/his lecture, you go and ask her/him to email you her presentation.

You say:

2. You have selected a topic for your research project. Before you start your project, you need to ask a professor in yourdepartment who has expertise in your area of research and does not know you, for an appointment to discuss yourresearch topic and get some input.

You say:

3. You are on the bus to campus when you remember you forgot to bring your phone. You decide to borrow a phone fromthe student next to you to call home.

You say:

4. You have been studying in the library for a few hours and have to go to the library caf�e to quickly get something to eatand get back to study again. You do not want to leave your books unattended. You have to ask the student sitting next toyou reading a book to watch your stuff.

You say:

5. You are a graduate student with a very busy schedule and have to study hard for a very important exam. Two un-dergraduate roommates have just moved to your room in the dormitory, and are planning a party for the weekend. Youwant to ask them not to have their party this weekend, which is two days before your exam.

You say:

6. You are in the gym running on the treadmill when a classmate with his/her younger sibling comes in. You feel it isgetting hot inside and want to ask his/her sibling (sister/brother), whom you have never met before, to open the door.

Z.R. Eslami et al. / System 48 (2015) 99e111 109

You say:

7. You are applying for a master's degree next semester and you need to have two recommendation letters. You decide tomeet with/send an email to your instructor form last semester, who is also your department head, and ask him/her towrite you a recommendation letter.

You say:

8. You are an undergraduate student and have an assignment due next week. Before you complete your assignment, youhave tomeet with your professor to discuss some points/ask some questions. You should send him/her an email and askhim/her to schedule an appointment.

You say:

9. You are invited to a friend's birthday party. You do not know the address, and you do not have a car. You have to call afriend and ask for a ride.

You say:

10. You are teaching as a foreign language teacher in your campus language center. You have to borrow a book for a fewhours from a colleague who is teaching in the same center.

You say:

11. You are a PhD candidate/a graduate student sharing an apartment with an undergraduate. The utility bill is under yourname but you are supposed to split it. You pay the first-month bill and s/he does not pay her/his share. You have to askher/him to pay her/his part of the bill.

You say:

12. You are in your friend's graduation and want to ask his/her younger brother/sister to take a photo of you and yourfriend.

You say:

References

Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 157e167.Alc�on Soler, E. (2005). Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context? System, 33, 417e435.Alc�on Soler, E., & Safont Jord�a, M. P. (2008). Pragmatic awareness in second language acquisition. In J. Cenoz, & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language

and education (Vol. 6, pp. 193e204). New York: Springer.Baar, D., & Gillespie, J. H. (2003). Creating a computer-based language learning environment. ReCALL, 15(1), 68e78.Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence. Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In K. R. Rose, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language

teaching (pp. 13e32) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013). Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63(Suppl. 1), 68e86.Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Mahan-Taylor, R. (2003). Teaching pragmatics. Washington, DC: Office of English Programs, U.S. Department of State.Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Vellenga, H. E. (2012). The effect of instruction on conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. System, 40, 77e89.Belz, J. A. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 60e81.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

terms. Language Learning, 53, 591e647.Belz, J. A., & Vyatkina, N. (2005). Learner corpus analysis and the development of L2 pragmatic competence in networked intercultural language study: the

case of German modal particles. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 62, 17e48.Biesenbach-Lucas, S. (2007). Students writing e-mails to faculty: an examination of e-politeness among native and non-native speakers of English. Language

Learning and Technology, 11(2), 59e81.Biesenbach-Lucas, S., & Weasenforth, D. (2001). E-mail and word processing in the ESL classroom: how the medium affects the message. Language, Learning

& Technology, 5, 133e165.Blake, R. (2000). Computer-mediated communication: a window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120e136.Bloch, J. (2002). Student/teacher interaction via email: the social context of internet discourse. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(2), 117e134.Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Chalak, A., Eslami-Rasekh, Z., & Eslami-Rasekh, A. (2010). Communication strategies and topics in email interactions between Iranian EFL student and their

instructors. International Journal of Language Studies, 4(4), 129e147.Chapman, D. (1997). A comparison of oral and e-mail discourse in Japanese as a second language. On-Call, 11, 31e39.Chen, C.-F. E. (2001). Making e-mail requests to professors: Taiwanese vs. American students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American

Association of Applied Linguistics, St. Louis, MO. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 461 299.).

Z.R. Eslami et al. / System 48 (2015) 99e111110

Chen, W. C., & Eslami, Z. (2013). Focus on form in live chats. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 147e158.Cunningham, J., & Vyatkina, N. (2012). Telecollaboration for professional purposes: towards developing a formal register in the foreign language classroom.

The Canadian Modern Language Review, 68, 422e450.DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. Doughty, & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313e349). Malden, MA:

Blackwell.Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2011). ‘‘Please answer me as soon as possible’’: pragmatic failure in non-native speakers' e-mail requests to faculty. Journal of

Pragmatics, 43(13), 3193e3215.Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2013). Strategies, modification and perspective in native speakers requests: a comparison of WDCT and naturally occurring

requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 21e38.Eisenchlas, S. A. (2011). On-line interactions as a resource to raise pragmatic awareness. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 51e61.Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54(2), 227e275.Ellis, R. (2006). Modeling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: the differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied

Linguistics, 27(3), 431e463.Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 575e600.Eslami, Z. R. (2013). Online communication and students' pragmatic choices in English. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 9(1), 71e92.Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2005). Raising the pragmatic awareness of language learners. ELT Journal, 59(3), 199e208.Eslami, Z. R., & Eslami-Rasekh, A. (2008). An empirical study of NNESTs' pragmatic competence enhancement in an EFL setting. In E. Alc�on Soler, & A.

Martínez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 178e196). Bristol/England: Multilingual Matters.Eslami, Z. R., & Liu, C. N. (2013). Learning pragmatics through computer-mediated communication in Taiwan. International Journal of Society, Culture, and

Language, 1(1), 52e73. Available at http://www.ijscl.net/?_action¼articleInfo&article¼2002&vol¼486.Eslami, Z. R., & Mirzaei, A. (March 2014). Speech act data collection in a non-Western context: oral and written DCTs in the Persian language. Iranian Journal

of Language Testing, 4(1), 137e154. Available at http://ijlt.ir/journal/images/PDF/426-2014-4-1.pdf.Fordyce, K. (2013). The differential effects of explicit and implicit instruction on EFL Learners' use of epistemic stance. Applied Linguistics, 35(1), 6e28.Fukuya, Y., & Martinez-Flor, A. (2008). The interactive effects of pragmatic eliciting tasks and pragmatic instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 41, 478e500.Fukuya, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2002). Effects of recasts on EFL learners' acquisition of pragmalinguistic conventions of request. Second Language Studies, 21, 1e47.Fulk, J., & Collins-Jarvis, L. (2001). Wired meetings: technological mediation of organizational gatherings. In L. L. Putnam, & F. M. Jablins (Eds.), New

handbook of organizational communication (2nd ed.). (pp. 624e703). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.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. 114e134). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Halenko, N., & Jones, C. (2011). Teaching pragmatic awareness of spoken requests to Chinese EAP learners in the UK: is explicit instruction effective? System,

39(2), 240e250.Hartford, B. S., & Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). “At your earliest convenience:” a study of written student requests to faculty. Pragmatics and Language Learning,

7, 55e69.Houck, N., & Tatsuki, D. (2011). Pragmatics from research to practice: New directions. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.Huth, T. (2006). Negotiating structure and culture: L2 learners' realization of L2 compliment-response sequences in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Prag-

matics, 38(12), 2025e2050.Ifantidou, E. (2013). Pragmatic competence and explicit instruction. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 93e116. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/

S037821661200327X (in press).Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. London: Longman.Iwasaki, I. (2008). From cyberspace to the classroom: Using e-mail to enhance the EFL environment.Jeon, E., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development: a meta-analysis. In J. Norris, & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing

research on language learning and teaching (pp. 165e211). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Johnson, N., & deHaan, J. (2013). Strategic interaction 2.0: instructed intercultural pragmatics in and EFL context. International Journal of Strategies Infor-

mation Technology and Application, 4, 49e62.Kakegawa, T. (2009). Development of the use of Japanese sentence final particles through email correspondence. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Pragmatic competence

(pp. 301e334). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 215e247.Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(2), 149e169.Kinginger, C., & Belz, J. A. (2005). Sociocultural perspectives on pragmatic development in foreign language learning: case studies form telecollaboration and

study abroad. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(4), 369e421.Koike, D. A., & Pearson, L. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence. System, 33(3), 481e501.Kosunen, R. (2009). Discussing course literature online: analysis of macro speech acts in an asynchronous computer conference. ReCALL, 21(3), 337e351.Lapp, S. (2000). Using email dialogue to generate communication in an English as a second language classroom. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy,

23, 50e60.Lee, L. (2004). Learners' perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of Spanish in the US. Language Learning & Technology,

8(1), 83e100.Li, Y. (2000). Linguistic characteristics of ESL writing in task-based email activities. System, 28, 229e245.Li, S. (2012). The effects of input-based practice on pragmatic development of request in L2 Chinese. Language Learning, 62(2), 403e438.Liaw, M.-L. (1998). Using electronic mail for English as a foreign language instruction. System, 26, 335e351.Lin, W. C., Huang, H. T., & Liou, H. C. (2013). The effects of text-based SCMC on SLA: a meta-analysis. Language Learning & Technology, 17(2), 123e142.Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Corrective feedback in the chatroom: an experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 1e14.Lundell, F., & Erman, B. (2012). High-level requests: a study of long residency L2 users of English and French and native speakers. Journal of Pragmatics,

44(6e7), 756e775.Motallebzadeh, K., Mohsenzadeh, H., & Sobhani, A. (2014). Investigating Iranian University students' emails for pragmatic features. Procedia-Social and

Behavioural Sciences, 98, 1263e1272.Nguyen, T. T. M., Pham, T. H., & Pham, M. T. (2012). The relative effects of explicit and implicit form-focused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic

competence. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(4), 416e434.Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: a research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417e528.Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2001). Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings from a meta-analytic review. Language Learning, 51(1),

157e213.Rose, K. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 27e67.Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33(3), 385e399.Rose, K. R., & Kasper, G. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Satar, H., & Ozdener, N. (2008). The effect of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency and anxiety: text versus voice-chat. The Modern Language Journal,

92(4), 595e613.Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11(1), 11e26.Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In R. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3e32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Sykes, J. (2005). Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: effects of oral and written chat. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 399e432.

Z.R. Eslami et al. / System 48 (2015) 99e111 111

Taguchi, N. (2011). The effect of L2 proficiency and study-abroad experience on pragmatic comprehension. Language Learning, 61(3), 904e939.Taguchi, N. (2012). Context, individual differences and pragmatic competence. London: Multilingual Matters.Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. State-of-the-art article. Language Teaching

(in press).Taguchi, N., & Sykes, J. M. (2013). Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Takamiya, Y., & Ishihara, N. (2012). Blogging: cross-cultural interaction for pragmatic development. In N. Taguchi, & J. Sykes (Eds.), Technology in inter-

language pragmatics research and teaching (pp. 193e222). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Takimoto, M. (2007). The effects of input-based tasks on the development of learners' pragmatic proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 1e25.Tateyama, Y. (2001). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines: Japanese sumimasen. In K. R. Rose, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language

teaching (pp. 200e222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Tatsuki, D., & Houck, N. (2010). Speech acts and beyond: New directions in pragmatics. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.van der Zwaard, R., & Bannink, A. (2014). Video call or chat? Negotiation of meaning and issues of face in telecollaboration. System, 44(1), 137e148.Xiao-le, G. (2011). The effect of explicit and implicit instructions of request strategies. Intercultural Communication Studies, 20(1), 104e123.Yus, F. (2011). Cyberpragmatics: Internet-mediated communication in context. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Zhu, W. (2012). Polite requestive strategies in emails: an investigation of pragmatic competence of Chinese EFL learners. RELC Journal, 43(2), 217e238.