Developing Pragmatic Comprehension of Indirect Speech Acts through Explicit Instruction: Evidence from Algerian EFL University Students

Journal title EXCELLENCE AND INNOVATION IN LEARNING AND TEACHING
Author/s Salma Aleb, Leila Loucif, Zohra Labed
Publishing Year 2026 Issue 2025/2
Language English Pages 30 P. 89-118 File size 0 KB
DOI 10.3280/exioa2-2025oa21750
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

View article Download Open Access article

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

<p>This quasi-experimental study investigates the effectiveness of explicit pragmatic instruction on Algerian EFL university students’ comprehension of indirect speech acts. Sixty-four second-year English majors from an Algerian university participated in an eight-week intervention. The experimental group (n = 32) received explicit instruction targeting requests, refusals, and suggestions, while the control group (n = 32) followed conventional communicative language teaching methods. Data collection involved discourse completion tasks and metapragmatic assessments administered pre- and post-intervention. Analysis of covariance revealed statistically significant differences favoring the experimental group, F(1, 61) = 47.83, p &lt; .001, ?²p = .32, with large effect sizes for request comprehension (Cohen’s d = 1.28) and refusal recognition (Cohen’s d = 1.18). Qualitative analysis of learner reflections indicated enhanced metalinguistic awareness and contextual sensitivity. Findings provide novel evidence supporting the integration of explicit pragmatic instruction within Algerian EFL curricula, addressing persistent gaps between linguistic competence and pragmatic performance. This study offers one of the first empirical investigations of pragmatic comprehension development in the Algerian EFL context, extending current interlanguage pragmatics research. Pedagogical implications emphasize structured awareness-raising activities, authentic materials incorporation, and teacher professional development in pragmatic pedagogy.</p>�

Keywords: Explicit Instruction;Pragmatic Comprehension;Indirect Speech Acts;Algerian EFL Learners;Interlanguage Pragmatics

  1. Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1): 1-50.
  2. Taguchi, N., Li, S., & Liu, Y. (2021). Comprehension of conversational implicature: Taguchi revisited with advanced-level Chinese learners of English. Pragmatics, 31(1): 101-127.
  3. Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
  4. Takimoto, M. (2020). Effects of metapragmatic discussion and metalinguistic information on L2 pragmatic development. Language Teaching Research, 24(3): 383-405.
  5. Al-Issa, A. (2003). Sociocultural transfer in L2 speech behaviors: Evidence and motivating factors. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(5): 581-601.
  6. Alcón-Soler, E., & Martínez-Flor, A. (2022). Pragmatics in instructed language learning. In: C. A. Chapelle (Ed.). The concise encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 932-940). Wiley Blackwell.
  7. Al-Qahtani, H. A. (2022). Pragmatic competence of Saudi EFL learners: A focus on speech acts. Arab World English Journal, 13(1): 89-106.
  8. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2020). Pedagogical pragmatics. In: M. Lamb, K. Csizér, A. Henry, & S. Ryan (Eds.). The Palgrave handbook of motivation for language learning (pp. 569-589). Palgrave Macmillan.
  9. Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S., & Vellenga, H. E. (2023). The effect of instruction on pragmatic routines. Language Teaching Research, 27(1): 5-32.
  10. Bella, S. (2021). Pragmatic development during study abroad: The case of requests and apologies. Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and International Education, 6(1): 147-176.
  11. Bouton, L. F. (1994). Conversational implicature in the second language: Learned slowly when not deliberately taught. Journal of Pragmatics, 22(2): 157-167.
  12. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2): 77-101.
  13. DeKeyser, R. M. (2007). Introduction: Situating the concept of practice. In: R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 1-18). Cambridge University Press.
  14. DeKeyser, R. M. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In: B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.). Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 94-112). Routledge.
  15. Ellis, N. C. (2019). Essentials of a theory of language cognition. The Modern Language Journal, 103(Supplement): 39-60.
  16. Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
  17. Jeon, E. H., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development: A meta-analysis. In: J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.). Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 165-211). John Benjamins.
  18. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press.
  19. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.
  20. Li, S. (2021). The interface of prosody and pragmatics: Investigating metapragmatic awareness of English intonation by Chinese EFL learners. Applied Linguistics, 42(4): 691-717.
  21. Nguyen, T. T. M., Pham, T. H., & Pham, M. T. (2021). The impact of explicit instruction on VietnameseEFL learners’ pragmatic competence. Journal of Asia TEFL, 18(1): 110-130.
  22. Roever, C. (2012). What learners get for free: Learning of routine formulae in ESL and EFL environments. ELT Journal, 66(1): 10-21.
  23. Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In: G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.). Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21-42). Oxford University Press.
  24. Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In: P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.). Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 59-82). Academic Press.
  25. Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In: H. Byrnes (Ed.). Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95-108). Continuum.
  26. Taguchi, N. (2007). Task difficulty in oral speech act production. Applied Linguistics, 28(1): 113-135.
  27. Taguchi, N. (2011). Rater variation in the assessment of speech acts. Pragmatics, 21(3): 453-471.
  28. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2): 91-112.
  29. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.
  30. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Salma Aleb, Leila Loucif, Zohra Labed, Developing Pragmatic Comprehension of Indirect Speech Acts through Explicit Instruction: Evidence from Algerian EFL University Students in "EXCELLENCE AND INNOVATION IN LEARNING AND TEACHING" 2/2025, pp 89-118, DOI: 10.3280/exioa2-2025oa21750