[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
:: Volume 19, Issue 2 (9-2016) ::
IJAL 2016, 19(2): 1-32 Back to browse issues page
The Effect of Output-based Task Repetition on EFL Learners’ Speech Act Production
Hossein Ahmadi , Farid Ghaemi , Parviz Birjandi
Islamic Azad University, Karaj
Abstract:   (394 Views)
This study investigated the effects of different output-based task repetition conditions on EFL learners’ speech act production. Three intact classes of English-major students constituted three instructional groups: (1) the explicit task-repetition (ETR) group, (2) the implicit task-repetition (ITR) group, and (3) the no-input task repetition (NTR) group. All the three groups engaged in the repetition of output-generation tasks. However, before the second performance of the task, the ETR group received input coupled with metapragmatic information, the ITR group received visually enhanced input coupled with a consciousness raising task, and the NTR group received no input. The results of a written discourse completion test (WDCT) revealed statistically significant gains in the learners’ performance from the pretest to the posttest in the ETR and ITR groups, but not in the NTR group. Moreover, the analysis of differences across the groups in the posttest revealed the superiority of the ETR over the ITR and NTR groups. The results suggest that output-based task repetition cannot enhance EFL learners’ speech act production ability unless learners are provided with input before the second performance of the task. Also when explicit and implicit instructional methods are integrated with output-based task repetition, the explicit approach is more effective than its implicit counterpart.
Keywords: Output, Metapragmatic information, Visual enhancement, Task repetition, Speech acts
Full-Text [PDF 577 kb]   (237 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2016/01/12 | Accepted: 2016/08/20 | Published: 2016/09/21
1. Ahmadi, A., Ghafar Samar, R., & Yazdanimoghaddam, M. (2011). Teaching requestive downgraders in L2: How effective are input-based and output-based tasks? Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 1 (2), 1-30.
2. Ahmadian, M. J. (2011). The effect of ‘massed’ task repetitions on complexity, accuracy and fluency: Does it transfer to a new task? The Language Learning Journal, 39 (3), 269-280.
3. Allen, D. (2004). Oxford placement test 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2009). Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource: Recognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 59 (4), 755-795.
5. Bataineh, R. F., & Bataineh, R. F. (2006). Apology strategies of Jordanian EFL university students. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1901-1927.
6. Beebe, L., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. Scacella, E. Anderson, & S. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communication competence in a second language (pp. 55-73). New York: Newbury House.
7. Birjandi, P., & Siyyari, M. (2010). Self-assessment and peer-assessment: A comparative study of their effects on writing performance and rating accuracy. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13 (1), 23-45.
8. Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Request and apologies: A crosscultural study of speech act realization patterns. Applied Linguistics, 5 (3), 196-213.
9. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Bygate, M. (1996). Effect of task repetition: Appraising the development of second language learners. In J. Willis, & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 136-146). Oxford: Heinemann.
11. Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23-48). Harlow: Longman.
12. Bygate, M., & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task repetition. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 37-74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
13. Cheng, S. W. (2005). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development of expressions of gratitude by Chinese learners of English. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Iowa, USA.
14. Craven, M., Thaine, C., & Logan, S. (2008). Cambridge English skills: Real listening and speaking level three. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Dignen, B., Flinder, S., & Sweeney, S. (2004). English 365: Book two. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197-261). New York: Cambridge University Press.
17. Eisenstein, M., & Bodman, J. W. (1986). “I very appreciate”: Expressions of gratitude by native and nonnative speakers of American English. Applied Linguistics, 7 (2), 167-185.
18. Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19. Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 3-34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
20. Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 474-509.
21. Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist, 49 (8), 725-747.
22. Ghobadi, A., & Fahim, M. (2009). The effect of explicit teaching of English thanking formulas on Iranian EFL intermediate level students at English language institutes. System, 37, 526–537.
23. Hancock, M., & McDonald, A. (2009a). English results: Preintermediate student’s book. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24. Hancock, M., & McDonald, A. (2009b). English results: Intermediate student’s book. UK: Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25. House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 225-253.
26. Jernigan, J. E. (2007). Instruction and developing second language pragmatic competence: An investigation into the efficacy of output (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
27. Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? (NetWork #6) [HTML document]. Honolulu: University of Hawai`i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Retrieved from http://www.lll.hawaii.edu/nflrc/NetWorks/NW6/
28. Kim, Y., & Taguchi, N. (2015). Promoting task-based pragmatics instruction in EFL classroom contexts: The role of task complexity. The Modern Language Journal, 99 (4), 656-677.
29. Koltia, A. (2013). 112 phrases for saying thank you in any situation. Retrieved from http://www.myenglishteacher.eu/blog/how-to-say-thank-you-26-thank-you-sayings/
30. Li, Q. (2012). Effects of instruction on adolescent beginners’ acquisition of request modification. TESOL Quarterly, 46 (1), 30-55.
31. Li, S. (2012). The effects of input-based practice on pragmatic development of requests in L2 Chinese. Language Learning, 62 (2), 403-438.
32. Maclean, J. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research,4, 221- 250.
33. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
34. Martınez-Flor, A., & Fukuya, Y. J. (2005). The effects of instruction on learners’ production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. System, 33, 463-480.
35. Nemeth, N., & Kormos, J. (2001). Pragmatic aspects of task-performance: The case of argumentation. Language Teaching Research, 5, 213-240.
36. Oxenden, C., & Latham-Koenig, C. (2006). New English file: Intermediate student’s book. Oxford: Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37. Pica, T. (2011).). Second Language acquisition research: Applied and applicable orientations to practical questions and concerns. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp.257-273). New York: Routledge.
38. Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33(3), 385-399.
39. Rose, K. R., & Kasper, G. (2001a). Pragmatics in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40. Rose, K. R., & Kasper, G. (2001b). Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 33-60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41. Rose, K. R., & Ng Kwai-fun, C. (2001). Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments and compliments responses. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 145-170). New York: Cambridge University Press.
42. Savetz Publishing (2010a). Apology letters. Retrieved from http://www.apologyletters.net/
43. Savetz Publishing (2010b). Thank you letters. Retrieved from http://www.thankyouletters.ws/
44. Sheppard, C. (2006). The effects of instruction directed at the gaps second language learners noticed in their oral production. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Auckland, New Zealand.
45. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
46. Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J.Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.64–81). New York: Cambridge University Press.
47. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: a step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16 (3), 371-391.
48. Swan, M., & Walter, C. (1993). The new Cambridge English course: Book four. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49. Sydorenko, T. (2015).The use of computer-delivered structured tasks in pragmatic instruction: An exploratory study. Intercultural Pragmatics. 12 (3), 333–362.
50. Taguchi, N. (2006). Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English. Pragmatics, 16 (4), 513-533.
51. Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289-310.
52. Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48, 1-50.
53. Tajeddin, Z., & Bagherkazemi, M. (2014). Short-term and long-term impacts of individual and collaborative pragmatic output on speech act production. TELL, 8(1), 39-164.
54. Tajeddin, Z., Keshavarz, M. H., & Zand-Moghadam, A. (2012). The effect of task- based language teaching on EFL Learners’ pragmatic production, metapragmatic awareness, and pragmatic self-assessment. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15 (2), 139-166.
55. Takimoto, M. (2009). The Effects of input-based tasks on the development of learners’ pragmatic proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 30, 1-25.
56. Takimoto, M. (2012). Assessing the effects of identical task repetition and task- type repetition on learners’ recognition and production of second language request downgraders. Intercultural Pragmatics, 9 (1), 71-96.
57. Tateyama, Y. (2001). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 200-222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
58. Van den Branden, K. (2007). Second language education: Practice in perfect learning conditions? In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 161- 179). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

Write the security code in the box >

XML     Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Ahmadi H, Ghaemi F, Birjandi P. The Effect of Output-based Task Repetition on EFL Learners’ Speech Act Production . IJAL. 2016; 19 (2) :1-32
URL: http://ijal.khu.ac.ir/article-1-2726-en.html
Volume 19, Issue 2 (9-2016) Back to browse issues page
Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.144 seconds with 871 queries by yektaweb 3525