A Comparison of Learning the Speech Acts of Requesting and Apologizing among EFL Learners through Input Enhancement and Input Flooding Approaches: Computer-Mediated Method versus Traditional Method
Keywords:
pragmatics, speech act, gender, computer-mediated, input enhancement, input floodingAbstract
The present study investigated the effects of input enhancement and input flooding on the learning of the speech acts of apologizing and requesting by learners of English as a foreign language (EFL). A total of 120 intermediate-level male and female learners were randomly selected and assigned to four groups of 30 participants each (computer-mediated input enhancement, computer-mediated input flooding, traditional input enhancement, and traditional input flooding), who received instruction over a specified instructional period. The instructional method, taking learners’ gender into account, was divided into two modes: computer-mediated and traditional. A pragmatics-based discourse completion test was used to collect the data. Independent-samples t-tests and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were employed for data analysis. The findings indicated that the highest mean score for pragmatic knowledge belonged to the computer-mediated input flooding group (17.67), while the lowest mean score was observed in the traditional input enhancement group (12.90). No statistically significant differences were found between the other two groups. Overall, the results demonstrated that: (1) the computer-mediated method was more effective than the traditional method in promoting learners’ acquisition of speech acts; (2) the input flooding approach was more effective than the input enhancement approach in facilitating the learning of speech acts; (3) gender had no significant effect on the learning of speech acts among male and female learners; and (4) the group receiving computer-mediated input flooding instruction showed the greatest improvement in learning the speech acts of apologizing and requesting. These findings can be useful for selecting appropriate instructional methods and for improving EFL learners’ pragmatic knowledge in performing speech acts.
Downloads
References
1. Hymes D. Two types of linguistic relativity. In: Bright W, editor. Sociolinguistics. The Hague: Mouton; 1966. p. 114-58.
2. Bachman LF. Fundamental considerations in language testing. New York: Oxford University Press; 1990.
3. Blum-Kulka S, House J, Kasper G. Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex; 1989.
4. Takahashi T, Beebe LM. The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English. JALT Journal. 1987;8(2):55-131.
5. Kasper G, Rose KR. Pragmatics in language teaching. In: Kapser G, Rose KR, editors. Pragmatics in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2001. p. 1-12.
6. Taguchi N. "Contextually" speaking: A survey of pragmatic learning abroad, in class, and online. System. 2015;48:3-20. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2014.09.001.
7. Kasper G. Four Perspectives on L2 Pragmatic Development. Applied Linguistics. 2001;22(4):502-30. doi: 10.1093/applin/22.4.502.
8. Arabmofrad A, Mehdiabadi F. Developing a multiple-choice discourse completion test for Iranian EFL learners: The case of the four speech acts of apology, request, refusal and thanks. Language Related Research. 2022;13(4):1-34.
9. Bardovi-Harlig K. Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics. Pragmatics in language teaching. 212001. p. 13-32.
10. Bardovi-Harlig K. A new starting point? Investigating formulaic use of an Input in future expression. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 2002;24(2):189-98. doi: 10.1017/S0272263102002036.
11. Nassaji H, Fotos SS. Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context: Routledge; 2011.
12. Norris JM, Ortega L. Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta‐analysis. Language learning. 2000;50(3):417-528. doi: 10.1111/0023-8333.00136.
13. Derakhshan A, Eslami Z. The effect of consciousness-raising instruction on the pragmatic development of apology and request. TESL-EJ. 2015;18(4).
14. Schmidt RW. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied linguistics. 1990;11(2):129-58. doi: 10.1093/applin/11.2.129.
15. Smith MS. Consciousness-raising and the second language Learner. Applied linguistics. 1981;2(2):159-68.
16. Krashen S. Some issues relating to the monitor model. On TESOL1977. p. 144-58.
17. VanPatten B. Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition: Praeger; 1996.
18. 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.
19. Hernández TA. Input flooding. The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching2018. p. 1-7.
20. Szudarski P, Carter R. The role of input flood and input enhancement in EFL learners' acquisition of collocations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 2016;26(2):245-65. doi: 10.1111/ijal.12092.
21. Celik B. The effects of input flood and input enhancement techniques in teaching collocations to EFL learners. Forum for Linguistic Studies. 2024;6(1). doi: 10.59400/fls.v6i1.2088.
22. Rashtchi M, Etebari F. Learning the English passive voice: A comparative study on input flooding and input enhancement techniques. International Linguistics Research. 2018;1(1):67-. doi: 10.30560/ilr.v1n1p67.
23. Fatahzadeh SS, Shafiee S, Rahimi Esfahani F. Impact of Consciousness-Raising via Input Flooding vs. Vocabulary Input Enhancement on EFL Learners' Reading Fluency. Language and Translation. 2022;12(4):119-30.
24. 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.
25. Hubbard P. CALL and the future of language teacher education. CALICO journal. 2008;25(2):175-88. doi: 10.1558/cj.v25i2.175-188.
26. Hubbard P. Computer Assisted Language Learning, Volume 1: Foundations of CALL. Critical Concepts in Linguistics Series. New York: Routledge; 2009.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. Hubbard P, Schulze M. AI and the Future of Language Teaching: Motivating Sustained Integrated Professional Development. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT). 2025;15(1):1-17. doi: 10.4018/IJCALLT.378304.
30. Rasekh-Eslami Z, Zohoor S. Second language (L2) pragmatics and computer assisted language learning (CALL). Technology Assisted Language Education. 2023;1(3):1-17.
31. Farzaneh M, Khodabandeh F, Rezvani E. Exploring the Impact of Computer-Supported Input Enhancement on Enhancing Parallel Structures in EFL Learners' Writing: A Comparative Study in Flipped Online and Face-to-Face Higher Education Settings. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies. 2024;11(3).
32. Khademi M, Hemmati F, Khodabandeh F, Mousavi M. Exploring the Impact of Computer-Supported Input Flooding and Input Enhancement on EFL Learners' Collaborative Oral Performance in Blended and Virtual Classes. Journal of Language Horizons. 2025;9(1):7-40.
33. 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.
34. Birjandi P, Rezaei S. Developing a multiple-choice discourse completion test of interlanguage pragmatics for Iranian EFL learners. Proceedings of the First Conference on ELT in the Islamic World, ILI Language Teaching Journal. 2010;6(1-2):43-58.
Downloads
Published
Submitted
Revised
Accepted
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 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.
