The Comparative Effects of Input Enhancement and Input Flooding on the Learning of Apology and Request Speech Acts among EFL Learners: The Case of Computer-mediated vs. Traditional Methods
Keywords:
Pragmatics, Speech acts, Computer-mediated, Input Enhancement, Input FloodingAbstract
This study examines how input enhancement and input flooding, delivered via traditional vs. computer-mediated instruction, affect EFL learners’ mastery of the speech acts apology and request. One hundred twenty intermediate learners (both male and female) were selected by convenience sampling. Using a quasi-experimental design, four experimental groups each received one of the treatment combination. Data analysis involved one-way ANOVA, and independent-samples t-tests. Results show that the computer-mediated input flooding group achieved the highest mean score in pragmatic knowledge (≈ 17.67), whereas the traditional input enhancement group performed lowest (≈ 12.90). The other two groups (computer-mediated enhancement; traditional flooding) were between these extremes, with no statistically significant difference between them. All groups showed improvement in performing apology and request speech acts, with greater gains in the computer-mediated conditions. There was no significant gender difference. Flooding, especially when delivered through computer mediation, is particularly effective for enhancing pragmatic competence.
Downloads
References
1. Murray N. Pragmatics, awareness raising, and the Cooperative Principle. ELT Journal. 2010;64(3):293-301. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccp056.
2. Yule G. Pragmatics: Oxford University Press; 1996.
3. Canale M. On some dimensions of language proficiency. Issues in language testing research: Newbury House; 1983. p. 333-42.
4. Canale M, Swain M. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics. 1980;1(1):1-47. doi: 10.1093/applin/I.1.1.
5. Bachman LF, Palmer A. Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests: Oxford University Press; 1996.
6. Crystal D. The Cambridge encyclopedia of language: Cambridge University Press; 1997.
7. Uso-Juan E, Martinez-Flor A. Teaching learners to appropriately mitigate requests. ELT Journal. 2008;62(4):394-57. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccm092.
8. Thomas J. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied linguistics. 1983;4(2):91-112. doi: 10.1093/applin/4.2.91.
9. Blum-Kulka S, House J, Kasper G. Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies: Ablex; 1989.
10. Austin JL. How to do things with words: Oxford University Press; 1962.
11. Austin JL. How to do things with words: Harvard University Press; 1975.
12. Brown P, Levinson S. Politeness: Some language universals in language use: Cambridge University Press; 1987.
13. Kasper G. Four Perspectives on L2 Pragmatic Development. Applied Linguistics. 2001;22(4):502-30. doi: 10.1093/applin/22.4.502.
14. Taguchi N. Pragmatic competence: Mouton de Gruyter; 2009.
15. Eslami-Rasekh Z. A cross-cultural comparison of requestive speech act realization patterns in Persian and American English. Pragmatics and Language Learning. 1993;4(1):85-100.
16. Suh JS. ESL Korean learners' use of external and internal modifications in request realizations. 1999.
17. Kim J. "Could you calm down more?" Requests and Korean ESL learners. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics. 1995;11(1):67-82.
18. Kasper G. Can pragmatic competence be taught? Net Work. 1997;6(1):105-19.
19. Bataineh FR, Bataineh FR. A cross-cultural comparison of apologies by native speakers of American English and Jordanian Arabic. Journal of Pragmatics. 2008;40(7):792-821. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.01.003.
20. Chamani F, Zareipur P. A cross-cultural study of apologies in British English and Persian. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics. 2010;36(1):133-53.
21. İstifçi İ. The use of apologies by EFL learners. English Language Teaching. 2009;2(3):15-25. doi: 10.5539/elt.v2n3p15.
22. Tuncel R, editor Apologizing and speech act realizations of Turkish EFL Learners2011.
23. Kasanga LA, Lwanga-Lumu J. Cross-cultural linguistic realization of politeness: A study of apologies in English and Setswana. Journal of Politeness Research. 2007;3(1):65-92. doi: 10.1515/PR.2007.004.
24. Smith MS. Consciousness raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics. 1993;2(2):36-48. doi: 10.1093/applin/2.2.159.
25. Han Z, Park ES, Combs C. Textual enhancement of input: Issues and possibilities. Applied Linguistics. 2008;29(4):597-618. doi: 10.1093/applin/amn010.
26. Motlagh SFP. Assessing input enhancement as positive factor and its impact on L2 vocabulary learning. Advances in Language and Literary Studies. 2015;6(1):227-37. doi: 10.7575/aiac.alls.v.6n.1p.227.
27. Smith CA. Writing without testing. Portfolios: Process and Product: Boynton/Cook; 1991. p. 279-91.
28. Ellis R. Learning to communicate in classroom: A study of two language learners' requests. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 1992;14:1-23. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100010445.
29. Schmidt R. Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars and SLA. Implicit and explicit learning of languages: Academic Press; 1994. p. 165-209.
30. Trahey M, White L. Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in second language acquisition. 1993;15(2):181-204. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100011955.
31. Nation ISP. Teaching and learning vocabulary: Heinle & Heinle; 1990.
32. Sedaghat A, Biria R, Amirabadi YA. Cross cultural analysis of hedges in Persian and English editorial columns. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World. 2015;8(1):37-50.
33. Lee SK, Huang HT. Visual input enhancement and grammar learning: A meta-analytic review. Studies in second language acquisition. 2008;30(3):307-31. doi: 10.1017/S0272263108080479.
34. Leow RP. Do learners notice enhanced forms while interacting with the L2? An online and offline study of the role of written input enhancement in L2 reading. Hispania. 2001:496-509. doi: 10.2307/3657810.
35. Cohen AD. Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: What can we expect from learners? Language Teaching. 2008;41(02):213-35. doi: 10.1017/S0261444807004880.
36. Olshtain E, Cohen A. The learning of complex speech act behavior. TESL Canada Journal. 1990;7(2):45-65. doi: 10.18806/tesl.v7i2.568.
37. Soler EA. Relationship between teacher-led versus learners' interaction and the development of pragmatics in the EFL classroom. International Journal of Educational Research. 2002;37(3):359-77. doi: 10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00010-7.
38. Marandi SS. Exploring the Evolution and Impact of Computer-Assisted Language Learning in Iran: An Exclusive Interview. Technology Assisted Language Education. 2023;1(2):1-8.
39. Mirzapour Kouhdasht A. Transformative Applications of Technology in English Language Education: A literature review over the last two decades. Technology Assisted Language Education. 2023;1(3):45-62.
40. Kern R. Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal. 1995;79:457-76. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb05445.x.
41. Warschauer M, Turbee L, Roberts B. Computer learning networks and student empowerment. System. 1996;24(1):1-14. doi: 10.1016/0346-251X(95)00049-P.
42. Barón J, Celaya ML. 'May I do something for you?': The effects of audio-visual material (captioned and non-captioned) on EFL pragmatic learning. Language Teaching Research. 2022;26(2):238-55. doi: 10.1177/13621688211067000.
43. Chun DM, Plass JL. Effects of multimedia annotations on vocabulary acquisition. The modern language journal. 1996;80(2):183-98. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb01159.x.
44. Shahrokni SA. Second language incidental vocabulary learning: The effect of online textual, pictorial, and textual pictorial glosses. Tesl-Ej. 2009;13(3):n3.
45. Chiu TL, Liou HC, Yeh Y. A study of web-based oral activities enhanced by automatic speech recognition for EFL college learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2007;20(3):209-33. doi: 10.1080/09588220701489374.
46. Taguchi N. Development of speed and accuracy in pragmatic comprehension in English as a foreign language. Tesol Quarterly. 2007;41(2):313-38. doi: 10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00061.x.
47. Wyner L, Cohen AD. Second language pragmatic ability: individual differences according to environment. Studies in second language learning and teaching. 2015;5(4):519-50. doi: 10.14746/ssllt.2015.5.4.2.
48. Derakhshan A, Eslami Z. The effect of consciousness-raising instruction on the pragmatic development of apology and request. TESL-EJ. 2015;18(4):n4.
49. Birjandi P, Derakhshan A. Pragmatic comprehension of apology, request and refusal: An investigation on the effect of consciousness-raising video-driven prompts. Applied Research on English Language. 2014;3(1):67-86.
50. Eslami-Rasekh Z, Noora A. Perceived pragmatic transferability of L1 request strategies by Persian learners of English. Developing contrastive pragmatics Interlanguage and cross-cultural perspectives: Mouton de Gruyter; 2008. p. 301-34.
51. Birjandi P, Rezaei S. Developing a multiple-choice discourse completion test of interlanguage pragmatics for Iranian EFL learners. ILI Language Teaching Journal. 2010;6(1, 2):43-58.
52. Krashen S. Principles and practice in second language acquisition: Pergamon Press Inc.; 1982.
53. Krashen S. The input hypothesis: Issues and implications: Longman; 1985.
54. Ishikawa Y. Gender differences in request-A statistical analysis of American English in the NICT JLE corpus. International Journal of Humanities and Management Sciences (IJHMS). 2013;1(1):57-62.
55. Alfghe A, Mohammadzadeh B. Realisation of the speech act of request, suggestion and apology by Libyan EFL learners. Sage Open. 2021;11(4):21582440211050378. doi: 10.1177/21582440211050378.
56. Fakher Ajabshir Z. The relative efficacy of input enhancement, input flooding, and output-based instructional approaches in the acquisition of L2 request modifiers. Language Teaching Research. 2022;26(3):411-33. doi: 10.1177/1362168819896655.
57. Rose KR. On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System. 2005;33(3):385-99. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2005.06.003.
58. Soler EA. Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context? System. 2005;33(3):417-35. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2005.06.005.
59. Bardovi-Harlig K. Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics. Pragmatics in language teaching. 2001;21(1):13-32. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524797.005.
60. Rose KR. Pragmatic Consciousness-Raising in an EFL Context. Language Graph Series Vol 5: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois; 1994. p. 52-63.
61. Zangoei A, Nourmohammadi E, Derakhshan A. The effect of consciousness-raising listening prompts on the development of the speech act of apology in an Iranian EFL context. Sage Open. 2014;4(2):2158244014531770. doi: 10.1177/2158244014531770.
62. Nassaji H, Fotos S. Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context: Routledge; 2011.
63. Boxer D, Pickering L. Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: The case of complaints. ELT Journal. 1995;49(1):44-58. doi: 10.1093/elt/49.1.44.
64. Tan KH, Farashaiyan A. The effectiveness of teaching formulaic politeness strategies in making request to undergraduates in an ESL classroom. Asian Social Science. 2012;8(15):189. doi: 10.5539/ass.v8n15p189.
65. Blum-Kulka S, Olshtain E. Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics. 1984;5(3):196-214. doi: 10.1093/applin/5.3.196.
66. Eslami-Rasekh Z. 'Face keeping strategies in reaction to complaints: English and Persian'. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication. 2004;14(1):181-98. doi: 10.1075/japc.14.1.11esl.
67. Cambridge Dictionary. 2025. Apology.
68. Taguchi N. Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 2011;31(1):289-310. doi: 10.1017/S0267190511000018.
Downloads
Published
Submitted
Revised
Accepted
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Iman Bakhshi Jahromi, Masoumeh Ahmadi Shirazi, Ali Akbar Khomijani Farahani (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
