Nguyen Et Al (2012)

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.
The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Author's personal copy
Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 416–434
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of Pragmatics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma
The relative effects of explicit and implicit form-focused instruction on

the development of L2 pragmatic competence
Thi Thuy Minh Nguyen a,*, Thi Hanh Pham b, Minh Tam Pham b
a
National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
b
Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Vietnam
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Article history: This study evaluates the relative effectiveness of two types of form-focused instruction on
Received 23 July 2011 the acquisition of the speech act set of constructive criticism by sixty-nine Vietnamese
Received in revised form 15 December 2011 learners of English. Over a 10-week course, the explicit group (N = 28) participated in
Accepted 3 January 2012
consciousness-raising activities, received explicit meta-pragmatic explanation and
correction of errors of forms and meanings. The implicit group (N = 19), on the other
Keywords:
hand, participated in pragmalinguistic input enhancement and recast activities. The two
Pragmatic competence
Form-focused instruction treatment groups were compared with a control group (N = 22) on pre-test and post-test
Speech act performance, consisting of a discourse completion task, a role play and an oral peer-
Constructive criticism feedback task. A delayed post-test comprising of the same production tasks was also
Second language acquisition conducted for the two treatment groups to measure long term retention. The results
Interlanguage pragmatics revealed that both of the treatment groups significantly improved in the immediate post-
test over the pre-test, outperforming the control group. The treatment groups also
maintained their improvement in the delayed post-test. However, the explicit group
performed significantly better than the implicit group on all measures. These findings are
discussed with implications for classroom practices and future research.
ß 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Previous studies have documented that second language (L2) learners who do not receive instruction in pragmatics may
differ considerably from the native speaker (NS) in their pragmatic performance in the target language (TL) (see Kasper and
Rose, 2002). Unlike grammatical errors, pragmatic idiosyncrasies may ‘‘reflect badly’’ on the learner as a person, thus likely
adversely affecting his or her communication with the NS (Thomas, 1983: 97). Previous studies also show that pragmatic
knowledge is acquired slowly in naturalistic contexts (see for example Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford, 1993; Bouton, 1994). In
other words, mere exposure is insufficient for L2 pragmatic development and therefore instruction is necessary to raise the
learner’s consciousness of form-function mappings and pertinent contextual variables which may not be salient enough to
be noticed (Kasper and Schmidt, 1996). In the foreign language context, pragmatic instruction is even more desirable since
opportunities for input and interaction outside the classroom are often limited and formal instruction serves as the only
regular source of L2 knowledge.
The above findings have led researchers to argue for a greater emphasis on pragmatics in the L2 classroom (Eslami-
Rasekh, 2005; Rose, 2005). Indeed, recent years have seen a steady increase in the number of studies that have examined the
effects of instruction on L2 pragmatics learning (see Rose, 2005). This line of research addresses three important questions:
* Corresponding author at: 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616, Singapore. Tel.: +65 67903568.
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (T.T.M. Nguyen).
0378-2166/$ – see front matter ß 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.01.003
T.T.M. Nguyen et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 416–434 417
(1) whether L2 pragmatics is teachable; (2) whether instruction makes a difference; (3) and whether there are different
effects for different teaching approaches. Generally, the findings of these studies have suggested that although certain L2
pragmatic areas remain difficult for learners, L2 pragmatics can be taught and instruction is beneficial to pragmatic
development (see Jeon and Kaya, 2006; Kasper and Rose, 2002; Rose, 2005 for a comprehensive review). Findings have also
suggested that explicit instruction (referring to a wide range of classroom techniques which serve to direct learners’
attention to form) may produce more effects than implicit instruction (referring to methodological options which allow
learners to infer rules without awareness) (Jeon and Kaya, 2006). However, as warned by Jeon and Kaya (2006), due to a
limited number of studies that have examined implicit instruction and methodological issues such as unequal treatment
lengths for explicit and implicit instruction and variation in data collection methods, the above findings should be treated
with caution. Therefore, in order to understand the relative effectiveness of these two types of pedagogical interventions,
further research is certainly needed (Ellis, 2008; Jeon and Kaya, 2006).
The current study is an attempt to investigate the relative efficacy of explicit and implicit form-focused instruction (FFI)
on the performance of constructive criticism by a group of Vietnamese student teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL)
in an academic setting. It has been conducted both to contribute to furthering our understanding of the roles of these two
types of instruction and to expand the range of learning targets. Since earlier L2 pragmatics studies have focused
predominantly on relatively easily defined speech acts such as requests and suggestions (e.g. Fukuya et al., 1998; Fukuya and
Clark, 2001; Fukuya and Zhang, 2002; Martinez-Flor, 2008; Martinez-Flor and Fukuya, 2005; Safont, 2003; Salazar, 2003;
Takahashi, 2001, 2005; Takimoto, 2009), it has remained little known whether instruction works for more complex speech
act sets1 such as constructive criticism which may require multiple realization strategies.
In this study, constructive criticism refers to a negative assessment of a peer’s current work with the aim of improving
current or future performance. It usually involves the identification of a problematic action, choice, or product, as well as
advice on how to change or correct the problem (see Nguyen, 2005). In institutional settings teachers’ constructive criticism
is fully sanctioned by their authoritative role. At the same time, giving criticism by one peer to another is often tricky, not
only because learners generally lack the knowledge required to give fair criticism but also because they lack pragmatic
competence to express their criticism in an appropriate manner in the TL (Nguyen and Basturkmen, 2010). Research has
shown that while students from some countries may find giving constructive criticism that can improve a colleague’s work a
positive exercise, students from other cultures (particularly Asian cultures) are uncomfortable expressing criticism of
another’s output (Nelson and Carson, 1998; Soares, 1998). Other studies have indicated that learners of English may give
constructive criticism very differently from the NS. For example, they tend to soften criticism less frequently but aggravate
criticism more often than their NS fellow students. The learners also employ modal verbs such as must, should, and have to
inappropriately and thus need pedagogical in this area (see Nguyen, 2005, 2008a,b).
Nonetheless, although to date a great deal of pedagogical effort has been devoted to orienting L2 learners to the content of
peer feedback and the structure of peer feedback sessions (Liu and Hansen, 2002; Mendonca and Johnson, 1994; Rollinson,
2005), fairly little attention has been focused on the language used to provide negative assessment (see Nguyen and
Basturkmen, 2010). The present study is conducted to address some of the language problems that L2 learners may have with
constructive criticism while participating in peer feedback sessions. It focuses specifically on a group of Vietnamese student–
teachers of EFL who are undertaking an English-medium teacher education program. It is argued that these students need
training in how to give constructive criticism appropriately so that they can successfully transfer the acquired knowledge
and skills to their future professional practices. It is also believed that they should be equipped with L2 pragmatic knowledge
so that they can assist their students in making informed pragmatic decisions that both fit their systems of values and beliefs
and do not break communication with the NS.
Related to the instructional approaches employed in the current study is the distinction between explicit and implicit FFI.
DeKeyser (2003) defines the former as involving rule formulation and the latter as the absence of it. In other words, while the
former works to develop learners’ metalinguistic awareness of rules, the latter is directed at enabling learners to infer rules
without awareness (Ellis, 2008). However, as noted by Jeon and Kaya (2006), the above distinction tends to constitute a
continuum rather than a dichotomy in previous L2 pragmatics studies. As commonly found in these studies, at each end of
the explicit–implicit continuum are absolutely extreme explicit (e.g. teacher-fronted instruction and overt correction of
forms and meanings) and implicit conditions (e.g. sole exposure to TL input without any form of manipulation of learners’
attention to target forms). On the adjoining point of this continuum toward either end lie other instructional techniques. For
example, visual input enhancement lies toward the implicit end because although in this technique input is manipulated in a
way that induces learners to notice target forms in the input, there was no attempt to direct learners’ attention to the forms
(e.g. by asking them to deduce rules) (see Fukuya and Zhang, 2002; Martinez-Flor and Fukuya, 2005).
The current study bases its definition of explicit and implicit instruction on Jeon and Kaya (2006) and treats the
distinction between these two types of instruction as a continuum. In particular, the current study defines explicit FFI as a
pedagogical approach that combines consciousness-raising, meta-pragmatic generalizations and explicit correction of forms
and meanings which occur in output practice. Implicit FFI, on the other hand, is conceptualized as a provision of enriched
input via input enhancement techniques and recasting of pragmalinguistic errors which arise out of meaning-focused
communication (see also Fukuya and Zhang, 2002; Martinez-Flor and Fukuya, 2005). These conceptualizations respectively
1
A speech act set is composed of a range of strategies, any combination of which could perform it. This term was first used by Olshtain and Cohen (1983)
to describe apologies. In the current study the term is adopted to describe constructive criticism, the realization of which also involves multiple strategies.
418 T.T.M. Nguyen et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 416–434
represent two paradigms of FFI instruction in second language acquisition (SLA), focus on forms (i.e. intentional learning of
linguistic elements via meta-linguistic presentation) and focus on form (i.e. incidental learning of linguistic elements within
a meaning-focused context)2 (see Doughty and Williams, 1998; Ellis, 2001, 2008; Long, 1991; Long and Robinson, 1998).
In conceptualizing its instructional designs, the current study draws on Schmidt’s (1990, 1993, 1995) Noticing
Hypothesis, Swain’s (1985, 1995, 2005) Comprehensible Output Hypothesis, and Long’s (1983, 1996) Interaction Hypothesis
which specify conditions for language learning as opportunities for input noticing, corrective feedback and output. In other
words, it is believed that learners can benefit from types of instruction that allow them not only to attend to linguistic forms
and see the relationship between forms and meanings, but also to use these forms in meaningful communication, receive
negative evidence about their output and modify it accordingly. Details of these instructional implementations will be
discussed in the sections below.
2. The role of form-focused instruction in L2 pragmatics development
2.1. Methodological options
Ellis (2008: 870–871) specifies four methodological options for the focus on forms approach: (1) input-based instruction
where input is manipulated in a way that directs learners’ attention to the target form; (2) explicit instruction involving
consciousness-raising or/and meta-linguistic explanation; (3) output-based instruction which enables learners to
manipulate and create texts; and (4) explicit corrective feedback, e.g. by means of meta-linguistic explanation or
elicitation. These options share characteristics of explicit FFI discussed by Ellis (2008: 879); that is they (1) direct attention to
target forms; (2) are planned; (3) and obtrusive; (4) present target forms in isolation; (5) involve the use of meta-language;
and (6) include controlled practice of forms.
In contrast, Ellis (2008: 879) points out that a focus on form might involve one or all of these options: (1) input-based
instruction where input is manipulated in a way that causes attention to forms to take place incidentally; (2) implicit
instruction (i.e. absence of rule explanation or instruction to attend to form); (3) output-based instruction which enables
learners to create texts; and (4) implicit corrective feedback, e.g. by means of recasts or requests for clarification. Unlike the
focus on forms approach, focus on form instruction does not direct but only attracts learners’ attention to target forms while
they are engaged in meaning-based activities. It is therefore unobtrusive, meaning it only minimally interrupts
communication. It presents target forms in context, makes no use of meta-linguistic terminology and encourages free
production of target forms. In other words, it carries characteristics of implicit FFI.
Recent years have witnessed a growing interest in the effects of explicit and implicit FFI on L2 pragmatic development
(see a collection of studies in Alcon-Soler, 2008; Kasper and Rose, 2002; Rose and Kasper, 2001). These studies vary greatly in
their methodological options. For example, explicit pragmatic instruction may refer to a wide range of focus on forms
techniques, from meta-pragmatic explanation to different input conditions with or without meta-pragmatic information
(e.g. Hernandez, 2011; Fukuya, 1988; House, 1996; Liddicoat and Crozet, 2001; Martinez-Flor, 2008; Rose and Ng, 2001;
Safont, 2003; Takahashi, 2001; Takimoto, 2009; Tateyama et al., 1997; Tateyama, 2001; Yoshimi, 2001). Many of these
studies also include production options since using multiple instructional strategies is often believed to produce most effects
(Ellis, 2008).
Compared to explicit pragmatic instruction, however, implicit pragmatic instruction has been less adequately
conceptualized. As a result, Fukuya and Zhang (2002: 2–3) describe implicit pragmatic instruction as ‘‘a somewhat
underdeveloped area, both conceptually and methodologically’’. In many studies, implicit instruction is simply defined as
mere exposure to pragmatic input (e.g. Hernandez, 2011; Pearson, 1998; Tateyama, 2001; Takahashi, 2001) or the
withholding of meta-pragmatic information (e.g. House, 1996). Very few studies have taken a step further to operationalize
this type of instruction in terms of the focus on form paradigm, which more closely reflects the principles of implicit form-
focused instruction. For example, Fukuya and Clark (2001) define implicit pragmatic instruction as using typographically
enhanced input. Fukuya and Zhang (2002) conceptualize it as involving recasts of pragmalinguistic errors. Martinez-Flor and
Fukuya (2005) include both input enhancement and recasts.
The lack of a systematic conceptualization of implicit instructional approaches in many early studies, as pointed out by
Ellis (2008), shows that they are perhaps more pedagogically than theoretically motivated and oriented. Obviously, this calls
2
There have been a number of attempts to discuss the distinction between the two types of form-focused instruction: focus on form and focus on forms
(Doughty and Williams, 1998; Ellis, 2001; Long and Robinson, 1998) since Long’s (1991) first introduction of these terms. In Long’s (1991) original sense of
the terms, focus on forms refers to the teaching of discrete language forms in traditional approaches, whereas focus on form attempts to draw student’s
attention to linguistic elements only when the need incidentally arises out of communication. In other words, Long (1991) assumes an incidental (as
opposed to planned) approach to form. However, this initial idea has been changed as later Long and Robinson (1998) expand the concept of focus on form to
include both proactive (i.e. involving the preselecting of target structures) and reactive (i.e. using corrective feedback) attention to form. Ellis (2001)
therefore recommends that form-focused instruction be conceptualized as involving three rather than two types: focus on forms, incidental focus on form
and planned focus on form. The current study deals with both types of focus on form instruction.
An alternative definition, offered by Doughty and Williams (1998), is to view focus on form as instruction that entail form-meaning mappings and focus
on forms as instruction directed at only formal accuracy. According to this definition, both types can include explicit instruction. However, as pointed out by
Ellis (2008), an essential feature of focus on form is that it involves incidental rather than intentional learning, which he believes cannot be achieved if
students receive explicit instruction. In this study we adopt Ellis’s (2008) view and base our choice of instructional techniques on Ellis’s (2008) list of
methodological choices.
for more rigorous designs in future L2 pragmatics research to bring this line of research closer to traditions of mainstream
second language acquisition (SLA) research.
2.2. The roles of explicit form-focused instruction
Studies exploring the effects of explicit FFI constitute a majority in the literature on L2 pragmatics instruction (Jeon and
Kaya, 2006). Findings of these studies generally show that explicit FFI is effective in promoting L2 pragmatic ability, attesting
to the role of attention and awareness in L2 learning (see Gass, 1988; Schmidt, 1983, 1993, 1995; Sharwood Smith, 1981). For
example, three studies, namely Fukuya (1988), Martinez-Flor (2008) and Safont (2003) have found positive effects for
awareness-raising combined with meta-pragmatic instruction in teaching request modifiers in L2 English. Similarly,
Yoshimi (2001) examined the combined effect of meta-pragmatic explanation, communicative practice, and feedback on the
use of Japanese interactional markers in extended discourse and found an overall effect for the instructed learners.
Hernandez (2011) found positive effects for the combination of input flooding (i.e. input that contains abundant examples of
the target forms) with meta-pragmatic instruction on the use of discourse markers by learners of Spanish. Similar effects
were also reported for those learners who received explicit instruction in Takahashi (2001), and those who received
structured input with explicit information in Takimoto (2009).
In addition to the compelling evidence for the positive effects of explicit instruction on L2 pragmatic learning, there is also
contrary evidence. For example, Fukuya and Clark (2001) found no significant results for learners who received explicit
instruction of requesting modifiers as compared to a control group. However, these researchers attributed their findings to
methodological limitations such as brevity of treatment, absence of a pre-test, small sample size, and insensitivity of the
post-test in measuring pragmatic ability. Yoshimi in the above study pointed out that despite the overall benefit of
instruction, not all target features were learned equally well. Yet she acknowledged that the inadequacies in instruction,
feedback and practice components of the study might explain her findings.
2.3. The role of implicit form-focused instruction
Implicit FFI seems to have received less attention in L2 pragmatics research than explicit FFI. For example, in a meta-
analysis recently conducted by Jeon and Kaya (2006) thirteen studies with quantitative data were reviewed. While twelve of
them included explicit treatment, only seven of them included implicit treatment. Because of limited data, the findings of
these studies are also less conclusive than those regarding the role of explicit FFI. Fukuya and Zhang (2002) investigated the
effectiveness of pragmalinguistic recast on the learning of request strategies. They found a relatively large effect size for both
pragmatic appropriateness and grammatical accuracy by the treatment group as compared to a control group, attesting to
the effect of implicit corrective feedback in developing L2 pragmatic competence. Hernandez (2011) found a significant
increase in the use of discourse markers by learners who received input flooding without meta-pragmatic information when
measured on both an immediate and delayed post-tests. Similar effects were also reported for learners who received visually
enhanced input and pragmalinguistic recast in Martinez-Flor and Fukuya (2005).
On the contrary, Fukuya (1988) failed to find effects for a focus on form in teaching sociopragmatics. Fukuya and Clark
(2001) also found no significant impact of visual input enhancement on the learning of English request modifiers. Despite a
lack of significant results due to methodological limitations (e.g. the brevity of treatment and small sample size), these
studies had opened up the possibility to explore focus on form instruction in the pragmatic area. This line of inquiry has been
continued in later studies, for example in Martinez-Flor and Fukuya (2005) and in the current study.
2.4. The relative effects of explicit and implicit form-focused instruction
Implicit FFI also seems less effective in developing pragmatic awareness and ability in L2 learners as compared to
explicit FFI (e.g. Rose and Ng, 2001; Takahashi, 2001; Tateyama, 2001). Rose and Ng (2001), for example, found effects
for both explicit and implicit instruction in developing learners’ pragmalinguistic proficiency, but reported effects for
only explicit instruction in developing learners’ sociopragmatic proficiency. Takahashi (2001) found that the most
explicit type of instruction produced more effects than instruction that involves form-comparison, form-search, or
meaning-focused conditions (i.e. reading, listening and answering questions based on the input). Martinez-Flor and
Fukuya (2005) found that while there were significant impacts for both groups of learners who received meta-pragmatic
instruction and those who received typographically enhanced input and pragmalinguistic recast, the magnitude of
effects was larger for the former group. Perhaps Kubota (1995) was the only study that found superior effects for
implicit instruction over explicit instruction. However, these initial differences vanished by the time a delayed post-test
was conducted.
In their meta-analysis study, Jeon and Kaya (2006) warn that it is not yet possible to conclude with confidence which type
of FFI instruction is more effective because of the limited data available for comparison, particularly a limited number of
studies exploring implicit FFI, as well as several methodological issues observed in previous studies, for example unequal
treatment lengths for explicit and implicit group, lack of delayed post-tests, and variations in data collection methods. To
achieve more conclusive research outcomes, obviously, this line of research should be continued and methodological issues
should be improved in future studies.
3. The present study
Due to the mixed results of the above reviewed studies as well as their methodological issues as discussed earlier,
there is a need for continuing this line of research to further our understanding of the relative efficacy of explicit and
implicit FFI in the pragmatic realm. The current study aims to address this need by answering the following research
questions:
(1) What are the effects of explicit and implicit FFI on learners’ performance of constructive criticism in English?
(2) Do the instructional effects (if any) last beyond the immediate post-experimental observation?
(3) Which type of instruction is more effective?
3.1. Participants
This study adopts a quasi-experimental, pre-test/post-test design with a control group. Three high intermediate EFL
intact classes (N = 69) were recruited. The learners (6 males and 63 females) were pre-service EFL teachers doing their
Year 3 English major at a teacher training institution in Vietnam at the time of data collection. Their lengths of English
study ranged between six and nine years. None of them had ever visited an English-speaking country. They had had
limited exposure to English use in their daily life and little chance to use English for communication outside the
classroom. The three classes were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: control (N = 22), explicit (N = 28), and
implicit (N = 19).
3.2. Choice of target forms
The treatment was incorporated into a writing program where students were taught how to write paragraphs and
different types of academic essays in English. As part of the syllabus requirements, the students participated in peer-
feedback activities for at least four writing assignments where they had to read and give critical comments on a peer’s
work. English was the language of instruction and communication in the classroom. One of the authors taught the two
treatment groups and another author taught the control group. The three groups followed the same writing syllabus and
schedule. The only difference was that while the two treatment groups respectively received explicit instruction of
language for giving constructive criticism and exposure to enriched target pragmatic input via input enhancement and
recast activities, the control group did not receive any equivalent instruction or exposure but only followed the normal
schedule.
The target forms included two major criticism realization strategies: (1) identification of problem and (2) giving advice,
and two types of criticism modifiers: (1) external modifiers (compliments, disarmers and grounders) and (2) internal
modifiers (past tense, modal verbs, modal adverbs, expression of uncertainty, hedges and understaters) (see Table 1). A list of
pragmalinguistic conventions for realizing criticism is included in Appendix A. These strategies, modifiers and
pragmalinguistic conventions were selected as instructional foci because they tended to occur most frequently in native
speaker (NS) criticism in equal power situations as found by Nguyen (2005). They also constituted areas of difficulty for
many learners of English (see Nguyen, 2005).
3.3. Instructional procedures
Instruction was implemented for the two treatment groups for one class hour (i.e. 45 min) every week over a period of
10 weeks, resulting in an approximate total of seven instructional hours. The procedures for these implementations are
summarized in Table 2. Materials for the two treatment groups were designed based on the same authentic NS speech
samples, but the versions used for the implicit group contained boldfaced target structures for the purpose of inducing
learners’ noticing of form.
3.3.1. Explicit treatment

The instructional procedure for the explicit group comprised of the following components:
(1) Consciousness-raising (e.g. identifying criticizing strategies and recognizing directness levels) in the first three sessions.
(2) Meta-pragmatic explanation following each consciousness-raising activity.
(3) Follow-up class discussion of sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic aspects of giving constructive criticism in both L1 and L2.
(4) Productive activities (e.g. providing softeners for unmitigated constructive criticism, plus providing oral feedback on
peer’s written assignments) in the remaining seven sessions.
(5) Reflection on output and working to improve it. For this activity, learners recorded their peer-feedback conversation,
listened to the recording and thought about how much they liked or disliked the way they gave criticism and how they
would have improved it.
(6) Explicit correction of both pragmatic and grammatical errors in both teacher-fronted and pair-work activities.
Table 1
Target forms included in the study (adapted from Nguyen, 2005).
Target forms Examples
Realization strategies
1. Identification of problems I thought you had two conclusions.
I didn’t see your conclusion.
2. Giving advice You might want to delete the comma.
Why don’t you decide on just one conclusion?
Modifiers
1. External:
a. Compliment It was an interesting paper.
That was a great presentation.
b. Disarmer You had a few spelling mistakes here and there but I think that’s
because you’re writing pretty quick, nothing too major.
c. Grounder I think is is better than are there because traffic is single
2. Internal:
a. Question Did you summarize the main idea?
Could this work?
b. Past tense I thought it would make more sense that way.
Maybe you could’ve explained it a little bit more.
c. Modal verbs (e.g. may, I’m not sure but maybe you could cut out the second section.
might [want to], could, would)
d. Modal adverbs maybe, perhaps, probably
Perhaps you might want to check that again.
e. Uncertainty phrases I wasn’t sure that was the best phrase you could’ve used.
I don’t know that I agree with the point you made.
f. Hedges (e.g. kind of, sort of, seem) This sentence was sort of unclear.
g. Understaters (e.g. a bit, a little [bit], Your introduction seemed a little too long.
quite, rather)
Table 2
Instructional procedures for the explicit and implicit groups.
Week Explicit instruction Implicit instruction
Pre-test at the beginning of session 1

1 Class discussion of experience of giving Class discussion of experience of giving and receiving criticism in both L1 and L2.
and receiving criticism in both L1 and L2.
Input enhancement
2 Consciousness-raising of criticizing strategies Input enhancement

Meta-pragmatic instruction
Distribution of explanatory handout
Class discussion
3 Consciousness-raising of modifiers Input enhancement

Meta-pragmatic instruction
Distribution of explanatory handout
Class discussion
4 Recognizing directness level in criticism Input enhancement

Explicit correction
5 Softening constructive criticism Discourse completion task

Explicit correction Recast
6–10 Oral peer-feedback Oral peer-feedback

Explicit correction Recast
Reflection on output Reflection on output
Immediate post-test at the end of session 10

15 Delayed post-test in Week 15
3.3.2. Implicit treatment

Over the ten weeks, the implicit group participated in the following activities:
(1) Input enhancement in the first three sessions. For input enhancement activities, learners read samples of NS peer-
feedback conversations containing bold-faced target structures, answered comprehension questions and compared NS
criticism with their own in terms of effectiveness (i.e. whether the criticism is specific, well-grounded and includes
suggestion for improvement). They were also instructed to pay attention to the highlighted parts when reading the
samples in order to find answers to comprehension questions.
Table 3
Examples of types of errors and corresponding recasts.
Problem Recast
Type 1 If I were you, I will revise it. If I were you I would revise it.
(The modal verb ‘‘will’’ should be in the past tense form).
Type 2 You must pay attention to grammar. Perhaps you could pay more
(The modal verb ‘must’ indicates strong obligation and thus attention to grammar.
is inappropriate to be used in equal status feedback situations).
Type 3 Your introduction are too long. Your introduction was probably a bit long.
(This utterance is rather direct because of the adverb ‘too’ and does
not display a subject-verb agreement. Also, if the verb is in the
past tense form, the force of the utterance can be modified).
(2) Communicative tasks comprising of a discourse completion task and oral peer-feedback tasks in the remaining seven
sessions.
(3) Reflection on output and working to improve it, as with the explicit group.
(4) Recast of both pragmatic and grammatical errors which arise out of communicative tasks. The correct versions were also
written on the blackboard at the end of the lesson for students to memorize.
In the current study, recasts were provided in the form of confirmation checks, which were assumed to present a clearer
corrective intention than the reformulation of errors alone. Gass and Mackey (2007: 182–185) have argued that confirmation
checks imply a lack of comprehension, which may lead the learner to infer that there is a problem with his or her production.
In particular, recasts were done as follows in this study. First, the teacher repeated the deviant part of the utterance in a rising
tone to attract students’ attention. Then, the teacher said the appropriate utterance, preceded by ‘You mean’, also using a
rising tone, similarly to the way confirmation checks were done. The corrected part was also stressed, as seen in the example
below.
Student: You must pay attention to grammar.

Teacher: Must?" You mean ‘Perhaps you could pay more attention to grammar?"
In order to decide what and how to recast the current study adopted the framework proposed by Fukuya and Zhang
(2002). That is, if an utterance is pragmatically appropriate but grammatically inaccurate, the teacher recasts only the
linguistic form (type 1). If an utterance is pragmatically inappropriate but grammatically accurate, the teacher recasts it by
using one of the pragmalinguistic conventions for expressing constructive criticisms (type 2). Finally, if an utterance is
neither pragmatically appropriate nor grammatically accurate, the teacher also recasts it by using one of the
pragmalinguistic conventions for expressing constructive criticisms (type 3). Examples of these three scenarios are
presented in Table 3.
3.4. Data collection
Constructive criticisms were collected by means of multiple instruments: an 8-item written discourse completion task
(DCT), a 6-item oral role play (RP), and oral peer feedback (OPF) on actual written works (see Appendix B). The employment
of multiple instruments serves three purposes. First, elicitation and observational methods have their own pros and cons
regarding the amount and quality of data (see Kasper and Dahl, 1991). Using both types of methods would help compensate
for the cons of each. Second, using both highly structured and free constructed responses as outcome measures would allow
us to avoid favoring one type of instruction and biasing against the other (see Ellis, 2001, 2008). Third, previous research has
shown that the type of outcome measure might affect the observed magnitude of instructional effects (Jeon and Kaya, 2006).
Studies employing elicited data only tend to produce smaller effect size than those employing both elicited plus natural data.
Thus, to maximize the possibility to track post-experimental changes, both elicited and naturalistic data were employed in
this study.
The OPF task was adopted from Nguyen (2005) which was originally used to elicit constructive criticism from a group of
Vietnamese EFL learners and Australian NSs. For this task, learners were paired up to give constructive criticism on each
other’s writing assignments, which was also one of the learning tasks on this writing program. They were instructed to
critique their peer’s essays based on three main assessment criteria, namely the organizational structure of the essay, the
quality of argumentation, and grammar and vocabulary. Their feedback conversations were audio-recorded and transcribed
for later analysis.
The DCT was also adapted from Nguyen (2005), which was originally devised to triangulate the OPF data. The original DCT
consisted of four criticizing scenarios, which were constructed based on the peer-feedback data taken from a pilot study with
four dyads of learners and three dyads of NSs one month prior to Nguyen’s (2005) main study. In the present study, four more
scenarios were added to increase the number of test items. These scenarios were also based on Nguyen’s (2005) peer-
feedback data.
For the RP task, learners were required to give responses to hypothetical situations involving giving critical feedback to
peers in a range of classroom situations, for example, commenting on a peer’s presentation, lesson plan or micro-teaching
demonstration. The RP conversations were also audio-recorded and transcribed.
The same OPF task was used in a pre-test, immediate and delayed post-tests but each time the learners were required to
critique a different essay written by their peers. Three versions of the DCT were distributed in the pre-test, immediate and
delayed post-tests. These versions contained similar peer-to-peer criticizing scenarios. However, the order of these scenarios
was different in each test. This was done to avoid the learners memorizing responses from the pre-test. The same held true
for three RP versions, which were used in the pre-test, immediate and delayed post-tests. It should also be noted that at the
onset of the study learners were allowed to choose their own pairs for the RP and OPF. This pairing was then kept consistent
throughout the three tests to keep variables such as social distance under control.
Pre-test data were collected at the onset of the study and consisted of the control and two treatment groups’ performance
on three production tasks: DCT, RP and OPF. Immediate post-test (hereafter referred to as post-test 1) data were collected at
the end of the treatment period, and also consisted of the three group’s performance on all three production tasks. Due to
limited resources, however, delayed post-test (hereafter referred to as post-test 2) data were collected only for the treatment
groups five weeks after the treatment. Apart from performing on the production tasks in the delayed post-test, the learners
from the treatment groups were also required to write an end-of-course reflective essay, in which they recorded and
commented on their learning experience throughout the course. Data from this source were then analyzed for instances of
input noticing.
3.5. Data analysis
Data consisted of 1480 DCT responses, 1110 RP conversations and 185 OPF conversations, altogether yielding 11,052
criticisms. Data were coded independently into different types of criticizing strategies and modifiers, adapting a
categorization scheme devised and validated by Nguyen (2005) (summarized in Table 1), and then carefully cross-checked
and discussed by all researchers on the team until an absolute agreement was achieved.
An analytical assessment was conducted to assign scores to each learner for his or her performance of constructive
criticisms in the tests, using a 10 point scale (with 10 being the highest possible score) adapted from Martinez-Flor and
Fukuya (2005). This scale consisted of two parts, allowing the researchers to assess both pragmatic appropriateness and
linguistic accuracy in learners’ constructive criticisms. Each part was rated from 0 to 5, making a total score ranging from 0 to
10 when added up (see Appendix C). Pragmatic appropriateness was assessed in terms of knowledge of what to say to a
particular interlocutor in a particular context of situation and determined by the right choice of realization strategies and
politeness devices. Linguistic accuracy was assessed in terms of knowledge of various expressions for conveying intentions
and determined by the correct usage of relevant linguistic structures (see Appendix C for examples). Note that although
learners were assessed for both pragmatic appropriateness and linguistic accuracy, they were to be awarded scores in the
latter area only when they were awarded scores in the former area. In other words, linguistic accuracy was to be scored only
when pragmatic appropriateness had been achieved. Note also that scores were awarded only when learners made use of
one of the target forms which had been taught to them in the experiment (see Table 1 and Appendix A). A learner’s final score
on a task was obtained by averaging the sum of sub-scores that he or she achieved for each of the criticisms that he or she had
made when performing the task. Scoring procedures were conducted independently and cross-checked carefully by all
researchers on the team with the agreement rate of 90%.
4. Results
4.1. Results from the immediate post-test
4.1.1. The DCT

Results of a mixed between-within subjects ANOVAs revealed a significant main effect for Time across the pre-test and
immediate post-test [F(1, 66) = 106.5, p < .001, hp2 ¼ :61]. A significant main effect for Group for the two treatment groups
and control group was also found [F(2, 66) = 8.76, p < .001, hp2 ¼ :21]. In addition, the results revealed a significant
interaction effect between Group and Time [F(2, 66) = 44.5, p < .001] (see Table 5).
Table 4 and Fig. 1 illustrate two important results of the DCT: (1) there were no significant differences among three groups
on the pre-test [F(2, 66) = 2.95, p > .05]; (2) while the two treatment groups displayed improvement from the pre-test to the
immediate post-test (p < .05), the control group did not (p > .05).
Post hoc LSD analyses conducted on the immediate post-test scores for the main effect for treatment showed that (1) the
explicit group performed significantly better than the control group on the DCT (p < .001, d = 2.17), but the implicit group did
not (p > .05) and (2) the explicit group also significantly outperformed the implicit group (p < .001, d = 2.31). Cohen’s d effect
sizes of 2.17 and 2.31 suggested a very large magnitude of instructional effect for the explicit group as compared to the
implicit group and the control group.
Table 4
Means scores gained by the three groups in the pre-test and immediate post-test.
Task Group N Pre-test Post-test 1 Pre-test–post-test gain
M SD M SD
DCT Explicit 28 2.92 1.33 7.11 1.42 4.19

Implicit 19 3.58 1.37 4.38 .79 .80
Control 22 3.79 1.32 4.03 1.49 .24
RP Explicit 29 3.51 .92 6.63 1.18 3.12

Implicit 18 3.88 .57 4.91 1.08 1.03
Control 22 3.97 .82 3.79 .82 .18
OPF Explicit 29 3.42 1.47 6.02 1.23 2.60

Implicit 18 2.88 1.58 4.81 1.51 1.93
Control 22 4.04 1.96 3.34 1.52 .070
Table 5
Results of mixed within-between subjects ANOVA for the scores gained by three groups in the pre-test and immediate post-test.
Source SS df MS F p hp2
DCT
Within-group
Time 137.9 1 137.9 106.5 <.001 .61
Group Time 115.4 2 57.7 44.5 <.001 .58
Error 85.5 66 1.29
Between-group
Group 38.2 2 19.1 8.76 <.001 .21
Error 143.7 66 2.18
RP
Within-group
Time 76.8 1 76.8 99.4 <.001 .60
Group Time 69.6 2 34.8 45.1 <.001 .58
Error 50.9 66 .772
Between-group
Group 35.3 2 17.6 18.1 <.001 .35
Error 64.3 66 .98
OPF
Within-group
Time 64.08 1 64.1 38.7 <.001 .37
Group Time 71.70 2 35.9 21.7 <.001 .39
Error 109.3 66 1.66
Between-group
Group 31.0 2 15.5 4.98 .010 .13
Error 205.4 66 3.1
[(Fig._1)TD$IG]
DCT performance
8
6
Mean scores
5
Explicit
4
Implicit
3 Control
0
Pretest Posttest 1
Fig. 1. DCT scores gained by three groups in the pre-test and immediate post-test.
[(Fig._2)TD$IG] T.T.M. Nguyen et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 416–434 425
RP performance
7
Mean scores
4 Explicit
3 Implicit
Control
2
0
Pretest Posttest 1
[(Fig._3)TD$IG] Fig. 2. RP scores gained by three groups in the pre-test and immediate post-test.
OPF performance
7
5
Mean scores
4
Explicit
3 Implicit
Control
2
0
Pretest Posttest 1
Fig. 3. OPF scores gained by three groups in the pre-test and immediate post-test.
4.1.2. The RP
The results of a mixed between-within subjects ANOVA for the RP test scores revealed the same significant main effects as
the DCT: a significant main effect for Time [F(1, 66) = 99.4, p < .001, hp2 ¼ :60], a significant main effect for Group [F(2, 66)
= 18.1, p < .001, hp2 ¼ :35] and a significant interaction effect between Group and Time [F(2, 66) = 45.1, p < .001] (see Table 5).
The results displayed for RP in Table 4 and Fig. 2 showed that (1) there were no statistically significant differences among
the three groups on the pre-test scores [F(2, 66) = 2.30, p > .05]; and (2) the two treatment groups made gains from the pre-
test to the immediate post-test (p < .05), but the control group did not (p > .05).
Post hoc LSD analyses conducted on the immediate post-test scores for the main effect for treatment showed that (1) both
treatment group performed significantly better than the control group on the RP (explicit vs. control: p < .001, d = 2.79;
implicit vs. control: p = .001, d = 1.21); (2) the explicit group also significantly outperformed the implicit group (p < .001,
d = 1.54). Cohen’s d effect sizes calculated for these comparisons suggested a very large magnitude of instructional effects for
the two treatment groups as compared to the control group and for the explicit group as compared to the implicit group.
4.1.3. The OPF

As with the DCT and OPF, results of a mixed between-within subjects ANOVA for the OPF test scores also revealed a
significant main effect for Time [F(1, 66) = 38.7, p < .001, hp2 ¼ :37], a significant main effect for Group [F(2, 66) = 4.98,
p = .010, hp2 ¼ :13] and a significant interaction effect between Group and Time [F(2, 66) = 21.7, p < .001] (see Table 5).
Table 6
Results of paired sample t tests for the scores gained by two experimental groups in the pre-test and delayed post-test.
Task Group N Pre-test Post-test 2 Pre-test–post-test gain t p
M SD M SD
DCT Explicit 28 2.91 1.33 7.08 1.19 4.16 11.9 <.001

Implicit 19 3.58 1.37 4.34 .89 .76 3.13 .006
RP Explicit 28 3.51 .92 6.71 1.35 3.20 11.0 <.001

Implicit 19 3.88 .57 4.81 .71 .93 5.04 <.001
OPF Explicit 28 3.42 1.47 5.74 1.42 2.33 5.59 <.001

Implicit 19 2.88 1.58 4.60 1.27 1.72 3.63 .002
[(Fig._4)TD$IG]
DCT performance
8
7
6
Mean scores
5
4 Explicit
3 Implicit
2
1
0
Pretest Posttest 2
[(Fig._5)TD$IG] Fig. 4. DCT scores gained by the two experimental groups in the pre-test and delayed post-test.
RP performance
8
7
6
Mean scores
5
4
Explicit
3 Implicit
2
1
0
Pretest Posttest 2
Fig. 5. RP scores gained by two experimental groups in the pre-test and delayed post-test.
Table 4 and Fig. 3 show that (1) there were no significant differences among the three groups [F(2, 66) = 2.475, p > .05]; and
(2) the two treatment groups improved from the pre-test to the immediate post-test (p < .001), but the control group did not
(p > .05).
Post hoc LSD analyses conducted on the immediate post-test scores for the main effect for treatment showed that (1) both
treatment group performed significantly better than the control group on the RP (explicit vs. control: p < .001, d = 2.01; implicit
vs. control: p = .001, d = .92); (2) the explicit group also significantly outperformed the implicit group (p = .005, d = 1.00). In
addition, the Cohen’s d effect sizes calculated for these comparisons suggest a very large magnitude of instructional effects for
the two treatment groups as compared to the control group and for the explicit group as compared to the implicit group.
4.2. Results from the delayed post-test
Results of paired samples t tests conducted for the pre-test and delayed post-test scores gained by the two experimental
groups showed that both groups scored significantly higher in the delayed post-test than in the pre-test. This improvement
[(Fig._6)TD$IG]was evident as learners were measured by all three production tasks: DCT [explicit group: t(27) = 11.9, p < .001; implicit
OPF performance
7
5
Mean scores
4
Explicit
3
Implicit
2
0
Pretest Posttest 2
Fig. 6. OPF scores gained by two experimental groups in the pre-test and delayed post-test.
Table 7
Results of independent t tests for the scores gained by two experimental groups in the delayed post-test.
Task Group N Post-test 2 Mean difference t p
M SD
DCT Explicit 28 7.08 1.19 2.74 8.55 <.001

Implicit 19 4.34 .89
RP Explicit 28 6.71 1.35 1.90 6.29 <.001

Implicit 19 4.81 .71
OPF Explicit 28 5.74 1.42 1.14 2.82 .007

Implicit 19 4.60 1.27
group: t(18) = 3.13, p = .006]; RP [explicit group: t(27) = 11.0, p < .001; implicit group: t(18) = 5.04, p < .001]; and OPF
[explicit group: t(27) = 5.59, p < .001; implicit group: t(18) = 3.63, p = .002] (see Table 6; Figs. 4–6). These results indicated
that the positive effects for the two types of treatments were maintained beyond immediate post-experimental observation.
Results of independent t tests also showed that the explicit group significantly outperformed the implicit group in all
three tasks: DCT [t(45) = 8.55, p < .001, d = 2.59]; RP [t(45) = 6.29, p < .001, d = 1.71]; and OPF [t(45) = 2.82, p = .007, d = .79]
(see Table 7; Figs. 4–6). Cohen’s d effect sizes suggested a large magnitude of instructional effect for the explicit group as
compared to the implicit group.
5. Discussion
The aim of the present study was to investigate the relative efficacy of two types of pedagogical interventions, explicit and
implicit FFI, on a group of Vietnamese EFL learners’ performance of constructive criticism in equal status academic
exchanges. The results showed that learners who received either type of instruction improved in the immediate post-test
over the pre-test and maintained their improvement in the delayed post-test. Results also showed that when performing in
the immediate post-test, the explicit group significantly outperformed the control group in all three production tasks;
however, the implicit group performed significantly better than the control group only when measured on the RP and OPF.
Between the two treatment groups, the explicit group scored significantly higher than the implicit group in both of the
immediate and delayed post-tests. Generally, these results seemed to suggest that although both types of instruction proved
effective in developing learners’ pragmatic performance, explicit instruction tended to produce a larger magnitude of effects.
These results are consistent with findings of previous research in both grammar instruction and pragmatics instruction
(e.g. see Jeon and Kaya, 2006; Norris and Ortega, 2000; Rose, 2005 for a comprehensive review) and might be explained in
light of a number of second language acquisition theories.
First, the overall effectiveness of both types of instruction might be attributed to the fact that learners in both treatment
groups were not only presented with contextually rich input, which serves as positive evidence about the way constructive
criticism may be performed in the TL, but also made to attend to this input (e.g. via awareness-raising activities for the
explicit group and visual input enhancement for the implicit group), which is an important condition for acquisition to take
place (see Gass, 1988; Schmidt, 1993, 1995; Sharwood Smith, 1981). Indeed, instances of input noticing were evidenced in
end-of-course reflective journals where learners from both groups recorded pragmalinguistic forms and sociopragmatic
issues they had noticed throughout the course. For example, a learner from the explicit group wrote:
‘‘Previously, I always went straight to the writer’s problem and made them disappointed. For example, I said ‘You made a
lot of mistakes of word choice’. However, I now know how to make my comments softer. Instead of using sentence like
above, I use ‘I think that you might want to pay more attention to your word choice’. This way seems to be better. Also, I have
learned many ways to give soft comments such as using past tenses, using structures such as ‘I’m not sure’, questions, and
so on.’’
Another learner from the implicit group commented:
‘‘Critical feedback is an important stage of improving one’s writing skills. In my opinion, giving critical peer feedback has
to be clear on what mistakes they [my peers] make and how to improve. Moreover, to reduce the bad impression of
critical feedback, the person who gives it has to be careful on [about his or her] expression.’’
What is more, learners in both groups were also made to process the input further in production activities (i.e. oral peer-
feedback tasks), in which they had an opportunity not only to try out newly learned forms and receive corrective feedback
from the teacher, but also to gain control over this newly learned knowledge (see Bialystok, 1993). In other words, apart from
an opportunity for input noticing, learners in both group also benefited from an opportunity to use language in a meaningful
way to develop fluency and to receive negative evidence regarding the appropriateness and accuracy of their constructive
criticism. Both of the explicit and implicit groups were also engaged in reflection on their own output after each peer-
feedback session, which, too, provided opportunity for gap noticing and modified output (see Swain, 1985, 1995, 2005).
Nonetheless, the superiority of explicit instruction over implicit instruction is not surprising. Presumably, learners who
were made to deduce and discuss pragmatic rules from the provided input had an opportunity to process the input at a
deeper level than those who received only enhanced input without working further on it (see Takimoto, 2009 for similar
finding and discussion). As a result, the former group would also develop a higher level of awareness of these pragmatic rules,
which, in turn, made them more receptive to teacher corrective feedback. Indeed, Izumi (2002) has indicated that input
enhancement may not work equally successfully for every learner, particularly if he or she is not form-conscious or does not
have prior advanced meta-linguistic knowledge. Perhaps in this case the learner might require training in noticing strategies,
which was, however, absent in the current study.
Further, the explicit group also advantaged from receiving meta-pragmatic explanation. While input enhancement may
only induce noticing of pragmalinguistic forms, meta-pragmatic explanation may also promote understanding of
sociopragmatic rules governing these forms. According to Schmidt (2001), noticing is a phenomenon that happens at the
surface level, but understanding concerns a deeper level of abstraction that involves the learning of rules. Gass (1988) also
points out that not all input that is noticed may be comprehended, and thus may be internalized and integrated into the
learner’s interlanguage system. In other words, comprehension is also important for learning to take place. Because the
implicit group did not receive meta-pragmatic explanation, it was unknown to what extent their awareness of target norms
was achieved at the level of understanding, as may be the case for the explicit group.
Explicit correction also seemed more successful than recast in causing learners to attend to problematic forms and
meanings, especially when occurring in content-based instructional contexts where learners’ attention was on meaning
rather than on form (see Lyster, 1998) and when learners are less advanced (see Ellis, 2008), like in this study. Although
considered a useful type of feedback because of their non-obtrusive nature, more than often recasts carry an ambiguous
corrective intention as compared to explicit correction. Recasts are likely to be perceived as non-corrective repetitions
because of their identical forms and similar frequencies of occurrence in teacher–student interactions (Ammar and Spada,
2006; Lyster, 1998; Nabei and Swain, 2002). For example, Doughty (1994) and Lyster (1998) observed that teachers in
communicative L2 classrooms often repeated and rephrased both error-free and erroneous learner utterances. Their
repetitions of the learner’s well-formed utterances even occurred almost as frequently as their reformulations of ill-formed
utterances. Besides, recasts often accompanied affirmative comments for the truth value of the learner’s reply, which made
them almost identical to non-corrective repetitions. Thus, recasts might easily be mistaken for a confirmation of the content
of the learner’s message rather than a disconfirmation of its form, particularly if the learner was not form-conscious and
linguistically advanced enough to notice the gap between his or her output and the TL form. In the current study, recasts
were made more noticeable to learners by means of emphasis. They were also written on the blackboard at the end of the
lesson to promote noticing. However, it is assumed that although learners might recognize the teacher’s correction, without
being told explicitly as with the explicit group, they might still have difficulty identifying the source of their errors, especially
those caused by L1–L2 differences.
Indeed, an analysis of frequency of use of target as opposed to non-target forms by the implicit group before and after
treatment showed that although learners significantly increased their use of the former and decreased their use of the latter
in both post-tests (p < .001), their total use of the latter in three production tasks were still relatively high (36% in each post-
test, as compared to only 16% in each post-test for the explicit group). A further qualitative analysis showed that many of
these non-target forms might be caused by L1 influence, for example the use of strong modal verbs ‘should’ and ‘must’ when
giving advice for improvement (see Nguyen, 2008a for a discussion of modality in Vietnamese pragmatics). This result
seemed to suggest that recasts did not succeed in eradicating L1-induced pragmatic errors, particularly when learners lacked
both extensive and prolonged exposure to TL input in order to notice the differential sociopragmatics–pragmalinguistic
connection in their L1 and L2.
An additional factor that may have reduced the efficacy of recasts in the current study is that the current study included
instruction of a total of 15 pragmalinguistic conventions and eight types of modifiers. We would assume that instruction of a
smaller number of forms would produce more effect. In fact, Ellis and Sheen (2006) have pointed out that recasts can be more
effective when they are focused and intensive (i.e. directed repeatedly at a single linguistic form) than when they are
incidental and extensive (i.e. directed at all types of errors that occur).
6. Conclusion
The primary purpose of the present study is to examine the relative effectiveness of explicit and implicit FFI in developing
L2 learners’ competence in performing the speech act set of constructive criticism in academic contexts. Findings of the
present study show that although it is a challenging speech act set which may require a relatively high degree of linguistic
complexity as well as pragmatic sophistication, constructive criticism can be taught using both types of FFI instruction. The
findings thus make a strong case for teaching this speech act set in the L2 classroom to help learners improve their pragmatic
skills in using it. Since uninstructed learners may have difficulty using this speech act set in an appropriate manner in the TL,
learners should be made aware of target-like criticizing strategies so that they can make informed pragmatic decisions which
do not break communication while allowing them to maintain their cultural identity. Such instruction is particularly
important in the EFL context where opportunities to hear and use English outside the classroom are minimal.
Findings of the present study have also contributed to our further understanding of the roles of the two types of FFI
instruction, particularly the possibility of implementing focus on form instruction in the pragmatic realm (see Fukuya and
Zhang, 2002; Martinez-Flor and Fukuya, 2005). Although it is considered beneficial for L2 learning (Long and Norris, 2009),
focus on form instruction has been scarcely addressed in L2 pragmatic research (Fukuya and Clark, 2001; Fukuya and Zhang,
2002; Martinez-Flor and Fukuya, 2005). The present study therefore helps to shed light on the applicability of this type of
instruction at the pragmatic level, particularly when compared with the conventional explicit focus on forms approach to
teaching pragmatics. Its findings have shown that although explicit pragmatic instruction is more desirable, there might also
be a scope for implicit work on pragmatics in the classroom.
Traditionally, L2 pragmatic features are taught explicitly following a focus-on-forms approach where pragmalinguistic
features are taught as discrete points, presented with rule explanation, and consolidated by means of production practice
(see Rose and Kasper, 2001 for a collection of these studies). The present study has shown that alongside with meta-
pragmatic instruction, there is a potential for focus on form techniques such as visual input enhancement and recast in
teaching L2 pragmatics, particularly when these two techniques are combined to enhance the effectiveness of each (see Han
et al., 2008). Implicit focus on form instruction can permeate many levels of language teaching (O’Keeffe et al., 2011). For
example, in the current study it can be incorporated into a writing class to respond to learners’ need for instruction in the
language used to provide critical peer feedback. Indeed, indirect teaching of pragmatic skills, including the recasting of
pragmatic errors, has been used successfully with young children learning their L1 pragmatics (see Becker, 1988). A small but
growing number of instructional L2 pragmatics research has also pointed in this direction (see Fukuya and Zhang, 2002;
Martinez-Flor and Fukuya, 2005).
The present study also raises some concerns regarding the implementation of implicit FFI techniques such as input
enhancement and recasts to less advanced learners in the input-poor context. That is, instruction focusing on only a few forms
might produce more effects because it does not overload learning capacity. Further, perhaps some learner training in what to
attend to in positive and negative input might help produce better learning outcomes. In the current study it is assumed that a
lack of such training has reduced the noticing function of the input enhancement activities and recasts provided to learners
Finally, the current study suffers from limitations that need to be addressed in future research. These limitations included
the employment of a small, nonrandomized, gender biased sample (with all but six being females), which was likely to affect
the representativeness of the findings and the extent to which they could be applied to a larger population. What is more, the
fact that the study employed two different instructors for the treatment and control groups may also contribute to the
differences in learning outcomes. In particular, although the instructors were aware of the purpose of the study and therefore
made sure that they did not differ considerably in their classroom procedures, they might still differ in their teaching styles,
which could affect learners’ motivation to learn. Therefore, carefully planned future studies should address all these
limitations in order to better understand the issues outlined above.
Another important issue that is worth addressing in instructed L2 pragmatics study but has not been considered in the
present study is concerning the role of learners’ subjectivity in L2 pragmatics learning and the extent to which this might
impact on their responsiveness to instruction. Previous research has shown that L2 learners may not aim to achieve NS
pragmatic competence but may only target at becoming competent L2 users while maintaining their cultural identity
(e.g. Hinkel, 1996; Siegal, 1996). In other words, L2 may only serve as a tool for communication rather than a language for
identification as L1 (see House, 2003). Therefore, while they might be responsive to teacher correction of pragmalinguistic
errors (i.e. incorrect usage of linguistic structures), they might be less so to the correction of sociopragmatic choices
(e.g. choices of realization strategies and the extent to which they wish to modify the illocutionary force of their speech acts)
because these are closely related to issues of cultural identity (Thomas, 1983). Unfortunately, the extent to which learners’
subjectivity may affect their receptivity to pragmatic instruction remains unexplored in the current study but it certainly
deserves attention in future research.
Appendix A. Pragmalinguistic conventions for realizing constructive criticism
1. Identification of problem:
NP was ADJ
You V (past tense)
You had (a/an) (ADJ) NP
2. Giving suggestion:
You can
You could + V
You could have + V (past participle)
You may + V
You might + V
You might want to + V
(If I were you) I would

It would be better if you + V
It would be better + V (infinitive)
If you + V, it may
NP may be + V (past participle)
Why don’t you?
NOTE: Structures to be avoided because they might produce a negative effect on the hearer:
Imperatives: ‘‘Give more examples’’

Strong modal structures: should, must, have to, ought to
Negative words: ‘‘wrong’’, ‘‘weak’’, etc.
Appendix B. Samples of data collection instruments (English translation)
1. Discourse Completion Task

Please read the instruction and the given situations carefully and write your answers in English in the space provided
under each situation. It is important that you understand the requirements completely, so before you start, you are
encouraged to ask questions if you find something you do not understand.
Thank you for your assistance.
Example:
Situation 0: What would you say to your friend if you thought her essay exceeded the limit of 250 words?
You: ‘‘I think . . ..’’
Situation 1: What would you say to your friend if you thought his or her paragraphs were not sequenced logically enough so ideas
did not flow naturally?
You:
Situation 2: What would you say to your friend if you thought his or her essay presented only one-sided arguments, and so the
essay was hardly convincing to the readers?
You:
Situation 3: What would you say to your friend if you thought he or she sometimes wandered off the topic?
You:
Situation 4: What would you say to your friend if you thought his or her linking words were not always helpful and sometimes
they even confused readers?
You:
Situation 5: What would you say to your friend if you thought some of his or her paragraphs lacked topic sentences, so it was
difficult to know what he or she was trying to discuss in these paragraphs?
You:
Situation 6: What would you say to your friend if you thought he or she did not develop his or her arguments very well but
repeated himself or herself at times?
You:
Situation 7: What would you say to your friend if you thought he or she did not adequately address the essay question because he
or she answered only one part of it?
You:
Situation 8: What would you say to your friend if you thought he or she did not make an appropriate choice of words so his or her
tone was too informal at times?
You:
2. Role-play:
Instruction: You will take turn to talk in the following hypothetical role-play situations. Take some minutes to read the
procedure for conducting the role plays and the descriptions of the role-play situations. Try to imagine yourself in the
situations and respond to them as you would do in the real life.
It is important that you understand the procedure and situations completely, so before you start you are encouraged to ask
questions if you find something you do not understand.
Your role-play conversations will be audio-recorded with your consent. Thank you for your cooperation.
Situation 1: Student A and student B are attending the same writing course and have been paired up to give peer-feedback
on their essays. Student A thinks that student B has not done enough research on the topic so his or her essay lacks depths
and has a superficial account of the issue under discussion. Student A also suggests some useful readings to improve the
essay.
Situation 2: Student A and student B are attending the same English course. Now student A is helping student B to rehearse
his or her presentation on his or her research topic for tomorrow’s class. Student A thinks the presentation is not engaging
enough and suggests adding visual aids to make more impact.
Situation 3: Student A and student B have been working together on a research project assignment for their course. Each of
them has had to gather information on different aspects of the research topic and they meet weekly to discuss what they
have found. In one of the meetings, student A thinks that the sources of information that student B is using are already
outdated and suggests some more recent sources.
Situation 4: Student A and student B have been working together on a research project assignment for their course and are
preparing their final research report. Each of them has had to write part of the report and then they put their parts together.
Student A thinks that student B has left out some important points and suggests adding them to make the report more
robust and rigorous.
Situation 5: Student A and student B are attending the same teacher training course and working in the same micro-
teaching team. Together they have been drafting a lesson plan which they will demonstrate to their tutor and classmates in
the class meeting tomorrow. Student A thinks that one of the teaching activities that student B has designed is not engaging
enough and suggests turning it into a language game to boost students’ motivation.
Situation 6: Student A and student B are attending the same teacher training course. Student B has just demonstrated his or
her lesson plan to the class in a micro-teaching session. Student A thinks that student B spends too much time on explaining
new grammatical structures and too little time for students to practice these structures. Student A suggests that student B
reconsider the timing of his or her lesson.
3. Oral peer-feedback task

Instruction: You have written a 250 word essay. Now show it to your friend and work in pairs. Take as much time as you
need to read your friend’s essay. Try to find something you are unsatisfied with about the essay and comment on it. Does
your friend think the same? Discuss with him or her some of the things you think are wrong with the essay. Your friend will
also give comments on your essay. Do you agree with his or her ideas?
Do not try to discuss two essays at the same time. Work on one at a time only. You may discuss between yourselves whose
essay to work on first.
Your feedback conversations will be audio-recorded with your consent. Thank you for your cooperation.
Note:
1. It is important that you understand the task completely, so before you start you are encouraged to ask questions if you find
any detail you are not sure of.
2. Although the task requires you to comment specifically on the points you are unsatisfied with in your friend’s essay, you
can also comment on the good points (if any) in his or her essay.
You may want to ask yourself the following questions when giving feedback on your friend’s essay:
Organization:
1. Does the essay directly discuss the topic?
2. Is there a clear organizational structure, i.e. does it have three parts: an introduction, a body, and a conclusion?
3. Is the introduction brief and to the point? Does it indicate the main ideas that the writer will discuss in the body?
4. Are there several paragraphs in the body, each making a different specific point?
5. Is there a brief conclusion that summarizes the main points in the argument?
6. Are the ideas properly linked?
Ideas:
7. Is the writer’s opinion clear or do you think the writer is not quite sure what he or she thinks?
8. Are the ideas relevant and well supported by evidence and examples?
9. Are the ideas presented logically?
10. Are the ideas developed from one paragraph to another or does the writer just repeat himself or herself?
Grammar/vocabulary:
11. Is there a variety of sentence structure and vocabulary or is there a lot of repetition?
12. Are the linking words (i.e. words used to link ideas) helpful or do they confuse you?
13. Are the sentences grammatically accurate?
Appendix C. Grading criteria

Scoring for pragmatic appropriateness level:
*Appropriateness: knowing what to say to a particular interlocutor in a particular context of situation; determined by the
right choice of realization strategies, e.g. giving suggestion rather than demanding changes because of the equal power status
between the interlocutors.
Appropriateness level Score Examples
Inappropriate Head Act (HA) 0 You must pay attention to grammar.

Appropriate HA (without modifiers 2.5 You can rewrite your introduction
or with inappropriate modifiers) (without modifiers).
You can rewrite your introduction because it’s too bad
(with inappropriate modifier).
Appropriate HA + appropriate modifiers 5 Perhaps you could pay more attention to grammar.
Scoring for linguistic accuracy:

*Accuracy: knowing the expressions for conveying intentions; determined by the correct usage of relevant linguistic
structures, e.g. saying ‘‘if I were you, I would’’ but not ‘‘If I were you, I will’’.
Grammatical level Score Examples
Incorrect pragmalinguistic form 0 Your ideas would be more coherent (the correct form is
‘‘Your ideas could be more coherent’’).
Correct pragmalinguistic form + incorrect 4 It would be better if you could revising it (the correct
connecting part/inaccurate modifiers form is ‘‘if you could revise it).
Correct pragmalinguistic form + correct 5 You may want to explain this a little bit more.
connecting part/accurate modifiers
Note:
Scores to be assigned for the target forms only (see Appendix A).
Scores to be assigned for both linguistic realization strategies (i.e. identifying problem and giving advice) and modifiers
(i.e. softeners).
Scores to be assigned for both pragmatic appropriateness and linguistic accuracy but linguistic accuracy is to be scored
only when pragmatic appropriateness has been achieved. In other words, pragmatic appropriateness is a necessary
condition for linguistic accuracy.
Modifiers to be awarded scores only when appropriate head act has been used. E.g. if a candidate says ‘‘Your writing is good
but you must pay attention to grammar’’, the compliment ‘‘Your writing is good’’ is not to be awarded a score because the
head act ‘‘You must’’ is not appropriate.
A candidate’s final score will be calculated following this procedure: (1) calculate the total number of criticisms he or she
has made; (2) then generate the score for each criticism by adding its score for appropriateness and score for accuracy; (3)
calculate the sum for all criticisms made; (4) finally divide this sum by the number of criticisms made.
(adapted from Martinez-Flor and Fukuya, 2005)
References
Alcon-Soler, Eva (Ed.), 2008. Learning How to Request in an Instructed Language Learning Context. Peter Lang, Bern.
Ammar, Ahlem, Spada, Nina, 2006. One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, 543–574.
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, Hartford, Beverly, 1993. Learning the rules of academic talk: a longitudinal study of pragmatic change. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 15, 279–304.
Becker, Judith, 1988. The success of parents’ indirect techniques for teaching their preschoolers pragmatic skills. First language 8, 173–182.
Bialystok, Ellen, 1993. Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence. In: Gabriele, Kasper, Blum-Kulka, Shoshana (Eds.), Inter-
language Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 42–57.
Bouton, Lawrence, 1994. Can NNS skill in interpreting implicature in American English be improved through explicit instruction?—A pilot study. In: Bouton,
Lawrence (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, vol. 5. Division of English as an International Language. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
IL, pp. 88–109.
DeKeyser, Robert, 2003. Implicit and explicit learning. In: Catherine, Doughty, Long, Michael (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition.
Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 313–348.
Doughty, Catherine, 1994. Fine-tuning of feedback by competent speakers to language learners. In: Alatis, James (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table
on Languages and Linguistics 1993: Strategic Interaction and Language Acquisition. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, pp. 96–108.
Doughty, Catherine, Williams, Jessica (Eds.), 1998. Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge, University Press, Cambridge.
Ellis, Rod, 2001. Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning 51 (Suppl. 1), 1–46.
Ellis, Rod, 2008. The Study of Second Language Acquisition, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Ellis, Rod, Sheen, Younghee, 2006. Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, 575–600.
Eslami-Rasekh, Zohreh, 2005. Raising the pragmatic awareness of language learners. ELTJ 59 (3), 199–208.
Fukuya, Yoshinori, 1988. Consciousness-raising of downgraders in requests. In: Paper Presented at Second Language Research Forum’98. University of
Hawai‘i at Manoa (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED466100).
Fukuya, Yoshinori, Clark, Martyn, 2001. A comparison of input enhancement and explicit instruction of mitigators. In: Lawrence, Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics
and Language Learning, Monograph Series, vol. 10. Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL, pp.
111–130.
Fukuya, Yoshinori, Zhang, Yao, 2002. The effects of recasts on EFL learners’ acquisition of pragmalinguistic conventions of request. Second Language Studies
21 (1), 1–47.
Fukuya, Yoshinori, Reeve, Melissa, Gisi, Jennifer, Christianson, Mary, 1998. Does focus on form work for teaching sociopragmatics? In: Paper Presented at the
Annual Meeting of the International Conference on Pragmatics and Language Learning. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 452736).
Gass, Susan, 1988. Integrating research areas: a framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics 9, 198–217.
Gass, Susan, Mackey, Alison, 2007. Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In: Bill, VanPatten, Williams, Jessica (Eds.), Theories in
Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. Lawrence, Mahwah, New Jersey, pp. 175–199.
Han, Zhaohong, Park, Eun Sung, Combs, Charles, 2008. Textual enhancement of input: issues and possibilities. Applied Linguistics 29 (4), 597–618.
Hernandez, Todd, 2011. Re-examining the role of explicit instruction and input flood on the acquisition of Spanish discourse markers. Language Teaching
Research 15 (2), 159–182.
Hinkel, Eli, 1996. When in Rome: evaluations of L2 pragmalinguistic behaviour. Journal of Pragmatics 26 (1), 51–70.
House, Juliane, 1996. Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 18 (2), 225–252.
House, Juliane, 2003. Teaching and learning pragmatic fluency in a foreign language: the case of English as a lingua franca. In: Alicia, Martinez-Flor, Uso
Juan, Esther, Fernandez Guerra, Ana (Eds.), Pragmatic Competence and Foreign Language Teaching. Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I, Castelló de la
Plana, Spain, pp. 133–159.
Izumi, Shinichi, 2002. Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: an experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 24 (4), 541–577.
Jeon, Eun Hee, Kaya, Tadayoshi, 2006. Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development: a meta-analysis. In: John, Norris, Ortega, Loudres
(Eds.), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 165–211.
Kasper, Gabriele, Dahl, Merete, 1991. Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13, 215–247.
Kasper, Gabriele, Rose, Kenneth, 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Blackwell, Oxford.
Kasper, Gabriele, Schmidt, Richard, 1996. Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 149–169.
Kubota, Mikio, 1995. Teachability of conversational implicature to Japanese EFL learners. IRLT Bulletin 9, 35–67 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 397640).
Liddicoat, Anthony, Crozet, Chantal, 2001. Acquiring French interactional norms through instruction. In: Kenneth, Rose, Kasper, Gabriele (Eds.), Pragmatics
in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 125–144.
Liu, Jun, Hansen, Jette, 2002. Peer Response in Second Language Writing Classrooms. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Long, Michael, 1983. Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics 4, 126–141.
Long, Michael, 1991. Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology. In: de Bot, Kees, Ginsberg, Ralph, Kramsch, Claire (Eds.), Foreign
Language Research in Cross-cultural Perspective. John Benjamin, Amsterdam, pp. 39–52.
Long, Michael, 1996. The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In: William, Ritchie, Bhatia, Tej (Eds.), Handbook of Second
Language Acquisition. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 413–468.
Long, Michael, Norris, John, 2009. Task-based teaching and assessment. In: van den Branden, Kris,Bygate, Martin, Norris, John (Eds.), Task-based Language
Teaching: a Reader. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 135–142.
Long, Michael, Robinson, Peter, 1998. Focus on form: theory, research, and practice. In: Doughty, Catherine, Williams, Jessica (Eds.), Focus on Form in
Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 15–41.
Lyster, Roy, 1998. Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20, 51–81.
Martinez-Flor, Alicia, 2008. The effects of an inductive-deductive teaching approach to develop learners’ use of request modifiers in the EFL classroom. In:
Alcon-Soler, Eva (Ed.), Learning How to Request in an Instructed Language Learning Context. Peter Lang, Bern, pp. 191–225.
Martinez-Flor, Alicia, Fukuya, Yoshinori, 2005. The effects of instruction on learners’ production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. System 33, 463–
480.
Mendonca, Cassia, Johnson, Karen, 1994. Peer review negotiations: revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly 28 (4), 745–769.
Nabei, Toshiyo, Swain, Merrill, 2002. Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: a case study of an adult EFL student’s second language learning.
Language Awareness 11, 43–63.
Nelson, Gayle, Carson, Joan, 1998. ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing 7 (2), 113–131.
Nguyen, Minh Thi Thuy, 2005. Criticizing and responding to criticisms in a foreign language: a study of Vietnamese learners of English. Ph.D. Thesis, The
University of Auckland, Auckland.
Nguyen, Minh Thi Thuy, 2008a. Modifying L2 criticism: how learners do it? Journal of Pragmatics 40 (4), 768–791.
Nguyen, Minh Thi Thuy, 2008b. Criticizing in a L2: pragmatic strategies used by Vietnamese EFL learners. Intercultural Pragmatics 5 (1), 41–66.
Nguyen, Minh Thi Thuy, Basturkmen, Helen, 2010. Teaching Constructive Critical Feedback. In: Houck, Noel, Tatsuki, Donna (Eds.), Pragmatics: Teaching
Speech Acts. TESOL Inc, Alexandria, VA, pp. 125–140.
Norris, John, Ortega, Loudres, 2000. Effectiveness of L2 instruction: a research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language learning 50, 417–528.
O’Keeffe, Anne, Clancy, Brian, Adolphs, Svenja, 2011. Introducing Pragmatics in Use. Routledge, New York.
Olshtain, Elite, Cohen, Andrew, 1983. Apology: a speech act set. In: Nessa, Wolfson, Elliot, Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Second Language Acquisition.
Newbury House, Rowley, MA, pp. 18–35.
Pearson, Lynn, 1998. Spanish L2 pragmatics: the effects of metapragmatic discussion. In: Paper Presented at Second Language Research Forum ‘98,
University of Hawai‘i at Manoa.
Rollinson, Paul, 2005. Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal 59 (1), 23–30.
Rose, Kenneth, 2005. On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System 33, 385–399.
Rose, Kenneth, Kasper, Gabriele, 2001. Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Rose, Kenneth, Ng, Kwai-fun, 2001. Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments and compliment responses. In: Kenneth, Rose, Kasper, Gabriele
(Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 145–170.
Safont, Maria Pilar, 2003. Instructional effects on the use of request acts modification devices by EFL learners. In: Alicia, Martinez-Flor, Uso Juan, Esther,
Fernandez Guerra, Ana (Eds.), Pragmatic Competence and Foreign Language Teaching. Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I, Castelló de la Plana, Spain,
pp. 211–232.
Salazar, Patricia, 2003. Pragmatic instruction in the EFL context. In: Martɪnez-Flor, Alicia, Uso-Juan, Esther, Fernandez-Guerra, Ana (Eds.), Pragmatic
Competence and Foreign Language Teaching. Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I, Castello, Spain, pp. 233–246.
Schmidt, Richard, 1983. Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative competence: a case study of one adult. In: Nessa, Wolfson, Judd,
Elliot (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition. Series on Issues in Second Language Research. Newbury House Publishers, Rowley, MA, pp. 18–
35.
Schmidt, Richard, 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11 (2), 129–158.
Schmidt, Richard, 1993. Consciousness, learning, and interlanguage pragmatics. In: Gabriele, Kasper, Blum-Kulka, Shoshana (Eds.), Interlanguage
Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 21–42.
Schmidt, Richard, 1995. Consciousness and foreign language learning: a tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In: Richard, Schmidt
(Ed.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning. University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Centre, Honolulu, pp. 1–
63.
Schmidt, Richard, 2001. Attention. In: Robinson, Peter (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 3–33.
Sharwood Smith, Michael, 1981. Consciousness raising and second language acquisition theory. Applied Linguistics 7 (3), 239–256.
Siegal, Meryl, 1996. The role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguistic competency: western women learning Japanese. Applied Linguistics
17, 356–382.
Soares, Colleen, 1998. Peer review methods for ESL writing improvement. In: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of
Other Languages. Seattle, WZ (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED491393).
Swain, Merrill, 1985. Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In: Susan, Gass,
Madden, Carolyn (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition. Newbury House, Rowley, Mass, pp. 235–256.
Swain, Merrill, 1995. Three functions of output in second language learning. In: Guy, Cook, Seidlhofer, Barbara (Eds.), Principles and Practice in the Study of
Language: Studies in Honour of H.G. Widdowson. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 125–144.
Swain, Merrill, 2005. Verbal protocols: what does it mean for research to use speaking as a data collection tool? In: Micheline, Chalhoub-Deville, Chapelle,
Carol, Duff, Patricia (Eds.), Inference and Generalizability in Applied Linguistics: Multiple Perspectives. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 97–113.
Takahashi, Satomi, 2001. The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In: Kenneth, Rose, Kasper, Gabriele (Eds.), Pragmatics in
Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 171–199.
Takahashi, Satomi, 2005. Noticing in task performance and learning outcomes: a qualitative analysis of instructional effects in interlanguage pragmatics.
System 3, 437–461.
Takimoto, Masahiro, 2009. The effects of input-based tasks on the development of learners’ pragmatic proficiency. Applied Linguistics 30 (1), 1–25.
Tateyama, Yumiko, 2001. Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines: Japanese sumimasen. In: Kenneth, Rose, Kasper, Gabriele (Eds.), Pragmatics
in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 200–222.
Tateyama, Yumiko, Kasper, Gabriele, Mui, Lara, Tay, Hui-Mian, Thananart, Ong-on, 1997. Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines. In: Lawarence,
Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, vol. 8. Division of English as an International Language. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL,
pp. 163–178.
Thomas, Jenny, 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4, 91–112.
Yoshimi, Dina Rudolph, 2001. Explicit instruction and JFL learner’s use of interactional discourse markers. In: Kenneth, Rose, Kasper, Gabriele (Eds.),
Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 223–244.
Thi Thuy Minh Nguyen is an assistant professor in the English Language and Literature Academic Group at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang
Technological University in Singapore. Her research interests and recent publications include pragmatics and language learning, language pedagogy and language
teacher education.
Thi Hanh Pham is a lecturer at Faculty of English Language Teacher Education at the University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National
University, Hanoi. Her professional and research interests are curriculum development, testing and assessment, second language acquisition and teacher
education.
Minh Tam Pham is a lecturer at Faculty of English Language Teacher Education at the University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National
University, Hanoi. Her research interests include language pedagogy and language teacher education.

Nguyen Et Al (2012)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nguyen Et Al (2012)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nguyen Et Al (2012)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 416–434

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

The relative effects of explicit and implicit form-focused instruction on

T.T.M. Nguyen et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 416–434 417

418 T.T.M. Nguyen et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 416–434

2. The role of form-focused instruction in L2 pragmatics development

2.1. Methodological options

T.T.M. Nguyen et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 416–434 419

2.2. The roles of explicit form-focused instruction

2.3. The role of implicit form-focused instruction

2.4. The relative effects of explicit and implicit form-focused instruction

420 T.T.M. Nguyen et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 416–434

3. The present study

3.2. Choice of target forms

3.3. Instructional procedures

3.3.1. Explicit treatment

T.T.M. Nguyen et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 416–434 421

Target forms Examples

Week Explicit instruction Implicit instruction

Pre-test at the beginning of session 1

2 Consciousness-raising of criticizing strategies Input enhancement

3 Consciousness-raising of modifiers Input enhancement

4 Recognizing directness level in criticism Input enhancement

5 Softening constructive criticism Discourse completion task

6–10 Oral peer-feedback Oral peer-feedback

Immediate post-test at the end of session 10

3.3.2. Implicit treatment

422 T.T.M. Nguyen et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 416–434

Student: You must pay attention to grammar.

3.4. Data collection

T.T.M. Nguyen et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 416–434 423

3.5. Data analysis

4.1. Results from the immediate post-test

4.1.1. The DCT

424 T.T.M. Nguyen et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 416–434

Task Group N Pre-test Post-test 1 Pre-test–post-test gain

DCT Explicit 28 2.92 1.33 7.11 1.42 4.19

RP Explicit 29 3.51 .92 6.63 1.18 3.12

OPF Explicit 29 3.42 1.47 6.02 1.23 2.60

[(Fig._2)TD$IG] T.T.M. Nguyen et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 416–434 425

4.1.3. The OPF

Task Group N Pre-test Post-test 2 Pre-test–post-test gain t p

DCT Explicit 28 2.91 1.33 7.08 1.19 4.16 11.9 <.001

RP Explicit 28 3.51 .92 6.71 1.35 3.20 11.0 <.001

OPF Explicit 28 3.42 1.47 5.74 1.42 2.33 5.59 <.001

4.2. Results from the delayed post-test

T.T.M. Nguyen et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 416–434 427

Task Group N Post-test 2 Mean difference t p

DCT Explicit 28 7.08 1.19 2.74 8.55 <.001

RP Explicit 28 6.71 1.35 1.90 6.29 <.001

OPF Explicit 28 5.74 1.42 1.14 2.82 .007

428 T.T.M. Nguyen et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 416–434

T.T.M. Nguyen et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 416–434 429

Appendix A. Pragmalinguistic conventions for realizing constructive criticism

430 T.T.M. Nguyen et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 416–434

(If I were you) I would

Imperatives: ‘‘Give more examples’’

Appendix B. Samples of data collection instruments (English translation)