Keywords
task complexity
speech acts
suggestions
How to Cite
Number of views: 86
Number of downloads: 66
Abstract
Pragmatic competence, understood as the ability to use language effectively and appropriately in social interactions, is recognized as a critical component of second/foreign language (L2) development, yet questions remain about how it is shaped by instruction. This study examined the impact of explicit pragmatic instruction on the complexity and accuracy of English L2 learners’ production of suggestions, a directive speech act that balances influence and listener autonomy. Thirty-seven secondary school students with intermediate to advanced English completed interactive decision-making tasks of varying cognitive demands (simple vs. complex), accompanied by semi-structured interviews exploring whether they prioritized linguistic form or meaning conveyance, at three time points (pretest, immediate posttest, delayed posttest). Instruction involved three sessions integrating awareness-raising, input presentation, metapragmatic analysis, and interactive practice, which emphasized directness and politeness strategies for suggestion-making in different settings. Linear mixed-effects analyses indicated that instruction enhanced both pragmatic complexity and accuracy, with similar gains for simple and complex tasks. Higher-proficiency learners maintained more advanced performance, while lower-proficiency learners showed rapid post-instruction increases, particularly in complexity, narrowing the gap with their peers over time. Interviews suggested heightened learner agency, strategic decision-making, and sociopragmatic sensitivity following instruction. These findings underscore the effectiveness of explicit, reflective, socially grounded instruction for fostering context-sensitive pragmatic performance and highlight the importance of proficiency-sensitive approaches and post-instructional reinforcement for sustaining complex pragmatic behaviors across diverse communicative situations.
References
Abolfathiasl, H., & Abdullah, A. N. (2015). Pragmatic consciousness-raising activities and EFL learners’ speech act performance of “making suggestions.” Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(2), 333-342. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0602.13
Abrams, Z. (2014). Using film to provide a context for teaching L2 pragmatics. System, 46, 55-64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.06.005
Abrams, Z. (2016). Creating a social context through film: Teaching L2 pragmatics as a locally situated context. L2 Journal, 8(3), 23-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5070/L28330738
Aminifard, Y., Safaei, E., & Askari, H. (2014). Speech act of suggestion across language proficiency and gender in Iranian context. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 3(5), 189-205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.5p.198
Aufa, F. (2011). Explicit pragmatic instruction in teaching English as a foreign language. Journal of English and Education, 5(1), 37-44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20885/jee.vol5.iss1.art3
Bach, K., & Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 21-46). John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.02bul
Chalak, A., & Abbasi, S. (2015). The effects of explicit and implicit pragmatic instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ production of suggestion speech act in the context of distance learning. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(4), 275-284.
Cohen, A. D. (2003). Learner strategy training in the development of pragmatic ability. In A. Martínez-Flor, E. Usó-Juan, & A. Fernández Guerra (Eds.), Pragmatic competence and foreign language teaching (93-108). Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I.
Cohen, A. D., & Sykes, J. M. (2013). Strategy-based learning of pragmatics for intercultural education. In F. Dervin & A. J. Liddicoat (Eds.), Linguistics for intercultural education in language learning and teaching (pp. 87-111). John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.33.06coh
Council of Europe (2020). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing.
Dörnyei, Z., & Csizér, K. (2012). How to design and analyze surveys in second language acquisition research. In A. Mackey & S. Gass (Eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp. 74-94). Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444347340.ch5
Ekiert, M., Lampropoulou, S., Révész, A., & Torgersen, E. (2018). The effects of task type and L2 proficiency on discourse appropriacy in oral task performance. In N. Taguchi & Y. Kim (Eds.), Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 248-263). John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.10.10eki
Ellis, R. (2019). Towards a modular language curriculum for using tasks. Language Teaching Research, 23(4), 454-475. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818765315
Fukuya, Y. J., & Clark, M. (2001). A comparison of input enhancement and explicit instruction of mitigators. In L. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning (pp. 111-130). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Ghavamnia, M., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Vahid Dastjerdi, H. (2014). The effects of input-enhanced instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. The Language Learning Journal, 46(2), 114-131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.972431
Gilabert, R., & Barón, J. (2013). The impact of increasing task complexity on L2 pragmatic moves. In K. McDonough & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse contexts (pp. 45-70). John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.34.06ch3
González-Lloret, M. (2019). Task-based language teaching and L2 pragmatics. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 339-344). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085-22
Haverkate, H. (1984). Speech acts, speakers and hearers: Reference and referential strategies in Spanish. John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.v.4
Hernández, T. A. (2011). Reexamining the role of explicit instruction and input flood in the acquisition of Spanish discourse markers. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 159-82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810388694
Hosseinpur, R. M., & Bagheri Nevisi, R. (2020). The impact of pragmatic consciousness-raising tasks on EFL learners’ speech act strategy use. Pragmatics and Society, 11(4), 570-590. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.16066.hos
Huang, N. (2022). Revisiting L2 pragmatic competence through implicit vs. explicit instructional framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 987729. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.987729
Ishihara, N. (2019). Identity and agency in L2 pragmatics. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 161-175). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085-11
Jeon, E. H., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development: A meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 165-211). John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.13.10jeo
Jiang, X. (2006). Suggestions: What should ESL students know? System, 34(1), 36-54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.02.003
Kim, Y., & Taguchi, N. (2015). Promoting task-based pragmatics instruction in EFL classroom contexts: The role of task complexity. Modern Language Journal, 99(4), 656-677. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12273
Koike, D. A. (1996). Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanish foreign language learning. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp. 257-281). De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219289.2.257
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2018). Assessing functional adequacy of L2 performance in a task-based approach. In N. Taguchi & Y. Kim (Eds.), Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 266-285). John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.10.11kui
Lemhöfer, K., & Broersma, M. (2012). Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid lexical test for advanced learners of English. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 325-343. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0146-0
Li, S. (2013). Amount of practice and pragmatic development of request-making in L2 Chinese. In N. Taguchi & J. M. Sykes (Eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching (pp. 43-70). John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.36.04li
Márquez, D., & Barón, J. (2021). Effects of task complexity on L2 suggestions: An exploratory study on trade-offs between accuracy and complexity. Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning, 1(2), 277-265. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/task.20007.mar
Márquez, D., & Michel, M. (2026). Assessment of task-based pragmatic performance: Measuring pragmatic complexity and accuracy. Journal of the European Second Language Association, 10(1), 48-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22599/jesla.157
Martínez-Flor, A. (2005). A theoretical review of the speech act of suggesting: Towards a taxonomy for its use in FLT. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 18, 167-187. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14198/raei.2005.18.08
Martínez-Flor, A. (2010). Suggestion: How social norms affect pragmatic behavior. In A. Martínez-Flor & E. Usó-Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical, and methodological issues (pp. 258-273). John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.26
Martínez-Flor, A., & Alcón-Soler, E. (2007). Developing pragmatic awareness of suggestions in the EFL classroom: A focus on instructional effects. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 47-76.
Martínez-Flor, A., Sánchez-Hernández, A., & Barón, J. (2023). L2 pragmatics in action: Teachers, learners and the teaching-learning interaction process. In A. Martínez-Flor, A. Sánchez-Hernández, & J. Barón (Eds.), L2 pragmatics in action (pp. 3-27). John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.58.01mar
Matsumura, S. (2003). Modelling the relationships among interlanguage pragmatic development, L2 proficiency, and exposure to L2. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 465-491. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.465
McConachy, T. (2013). Exploring the meta-pragmatic realm in English language teaching. Language Awareness, 22(2), 100-110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2011.644795
McConachy, T., & Spencer-Oatey, H. (2020). Developing pragmatic awareness. In K. P. Schneider & E. Ifantidou (Eds.), Developmental and clinical pragmatics (pp. 393-427). De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110431056-014
Pishghadam, R., & Sharafadini, M. (2011). Delving into speech act of sug-gestion: A case of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(16), 152-160.
Plonsky, L., & Zhuang, J. (2019). A meta-analysis of L2 pragmatics instruction. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 287-307). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085-19
Rajabi, S., & Farahian, M. (2013). The effects of pragmatic instruction on EFL learners’ awareness of suggestions. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 3(3), 28-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.3.4.814-821
Reagan, D., & Payant, C. (2018). Task modality effects on Spanish learners’ interlanguage pragmatic development. In N. Taguchi & Y. Kim (Eds.), Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 114-136). John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.10.05rea
Révész, A., Michel, M., & Gilabert, R. (2016). Measuring cognitive task demands using dual-task methodology, subjective self-ratings, and expert judgments: A validation study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(4), 703-737. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000339
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287-318). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.012
Robinson, P. (2007). Criteria for classifying and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 7-27). Multilingual Matters. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.27939675.6
Salemi, A., Rabiee, M., & Ketabi, S. (2012). The effects of explicit/implicit instruction and feedback on the development of Persian EFL learners’ pragmatic competence in suggestion structures. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(1), 188-199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.3.1.188-199
Sasayama, S., Malicka, A., & Norris, J. (2025). Second language cognitive task complexity: A research synthesis. John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.18
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning, and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21-42). Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195066029.003.0002
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1-63). University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438
Sharqawi, M. A., & Anthony, E. M. (2019). Speech acts and their underlying strategies by EFL learners and non-learners: A systematic literature review. Revista Amazonia Investiga, 8(20), 486-502.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford Uni-versity Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829802900209
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183-205). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.009
Souzandehfar, M., & Ahmed Abdel-Al Ibrahim, K. (2023). Task-supported language instruction in an EFL context: Impacts on academic buoyancy, self-esteem, creativity, and language achievement. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 8, 43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-023-00218-0
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295-312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000263
Taguchi, N. (2019). Second language acquisition and pragmatics: An overview. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 1-14). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085-1
Taguchi, N., & Kim, Y. (2018). Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics: An overview. In N. Taguchi & Y. Kim (Eds.), Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 2-24). John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.10.01tag
Tai, H.-Y., & Chen, Y.-S. (2021). The effects of L2 proficiency on pragmatic comprehension and learner strategies. Education Sciences, 11(4), 174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11040174
Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 171-99). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524797.014
Takahashi, S. (2010). The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance. In A. Martínez-Flor & E. Usó-Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 127-142). John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.26.08tak
Takahashi, S. (2012). Pragmatic awareness in second language learning. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 4505-4509). Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0926
Toprak, T. E. (2020). A study on the use of suggestion strategies among Turkish EFL learners. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 11, 36-55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.505686
Usó-Juan, E. (2022). Exploring the role of strategy instruction on learners’ ability to write authentic email requests to faculty. Language Teaching Research, 26(2), 213-237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211066997
Usó-Juan, E., & Martínez-Flor, A. (2021). Fostering learners’ (me-ta)pragmatic awareness through film analysis. Language Value, 14(1), 85-111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6035/languagev.5821
Xiao, F., Taguchi, N., & Li, S. (2019). Effects of proficiency subskills on pragmatic development in L2 Chinese study abroad. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(2), 469-483. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263118000128
Yildiz Ekin, M. Y. (2013). Do current EFL coursebooks work for the development of L2 pragmatic competence? The case of suggestions. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1306-1310. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.033
Youn, S. J. (2015). Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods. Language Testing, 32(2), 199-225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214557113
Zhang, L., & Aubrey, S. (2024). The role of individual differences in second language pragmatics: A systematic review. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(4), 1316-1334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12573
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Daniel Márquez, Rick de Graaff
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.