• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

site logo
The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language
search
  • Home
  • About TESL-EJ
  • Vols. 1-15 (1994-2012)
    • Volume 1
      • Volume 1, Number 1
      • Volume 1, Number 2
      • Volume 1, Number 3
      • Volume 1, Number 4
    • Volume 2
      • Volume 2, Number 1 — March 1996
      • Volume 2, Number 2 — September 1996
      • Volume 2, Number 3 — January 1997
      • Volume 2, Number 4 — June 1997
    • Volume 3
      • Volume 3, Number 1 — November 1997
      • Volume 3, Number 2 — March 1998
      • Volume 3, Number 3 — September 1998
      • Volume 3, Number 4 — January 1999
    • Volume 4
      • Volume 4, Number 1 — July 1999
      • Volume 4, Number 2 — November 1999
      • Volume 4, Number 3 — May 2000
      • Volume 4, Number 4 — December 2000
    • Volume 5
      • Volume 5, Number 1 — April 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 2 — September 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 3 — December 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 4 — March 2002
    • Volume 6
      • Volume 6, Number 1 — June 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 2 — September 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 3 — December 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 4 — March 2003
    • Volume 7
      • Volume 7, Number 1 — June 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 2 — September 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 3 — December 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 4 — March 2004
    • Volume 8
      • Volume 8, Number 1 — June 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 2 — September 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 3 — December 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 4 — March 2005
    • Volume 9
      • Volume 9, Number 1 — June 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 2 — September 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 3 — December 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 4 — March 2006
    • Volume 10
      • Volume 10, Number 1 — June 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 2 — September 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 3 — December 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 4 — March 2007
    • Volume 11
      • Volume 11, Number 1 — June 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 2 — September 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 3 — December 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 4 — March 2008
    • Volume 12
      • Volume 12, Number 1 — June 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 2 — September 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 3 — December 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 4 — March 2009
    • Volume 13
      • Volume 13, Number 1 — June 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 2 — September 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 3 — December 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 4 — March 2010
    • Volume 14
      • Volume 14, Number 1 — June 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 2 – September 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 3 – December 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 4 – March 2011
    • Volume 15
      • Volume 15, Number 1 — June 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 2 — September 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 3 — December 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 4 — March 2012
  • Vols. 16-Current
    • Volume 16
      • Volume 16, Number 1 — June 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 2 — September 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 3 — December 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 4 – March 2013
    • Volume 17
      • Volume 17, Number 1 – May 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 2 – August 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 3 – November 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 4 – February 2014
    • Volume 18
      • Volume 18, Number 1 – May 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 2 – August 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 3 – November 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 4 – February 2015
    • Volume 19
      • Volume 19, Number 1 – May 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 2 – August 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 3 – November 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 4 – February 2016
    • Volume 20
      • Volume 20, Number 1 – May 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 2 – August 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 3 – November 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 4 – February 2017
    • Volume 21
      • Volume 21, Number 1 – May 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 2 – August 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 3 – November 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 4 – February 2018
    • Volume 22
      • Volume 22, Number 1 – May 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 2 – August 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 3 – November 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 4 – February 2019
    • Volume 23
      • Volume 23, Number 1 – May 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 2 – August 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 3 – November 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 4 – February 2020
    • Volume 24
      • Volume 24, Number 1 – May 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 2 – August 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 3 – November 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 4 – February 2021
    • Volume 25
      • Volume 25, Number 1 – May 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 2 – August 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 3 – November 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 4 – February 2022
    • Volume 26
      • Volume 26, Number 1 – May 2022
      • Volume 26, Number 2 – August 2022
      • Volume 26, Number 3 – November 2022
      • Volume 26, Number 4 – February 2023
    • Volume 27
      • Volume 27, Number 1 – May 2023
      • Volume 27, Number 2 – August 2023
      • Volume 27, Number 3 – November 2023
      • Volume 27, Number 4 – February 2024
    • Volume 28
      • Volume 28, Number 1 – May 2024
      • Volume 28, Number 2 – August 2024
      • Volume 28, Number 3 – November 2024
      • Volume 28, Number 4 – February 2025
    • Volume 29
      • Volume 29, Number 1 – May 2025
      • Volume 29, Number 2 – August 2025
      • Volume 29, Number 3 – November 2025
      • Volume 29, Number 4 – February 2026
    • Volume 30
      • Volume 30, Number 1 – May 2026
      • Volume 30, Number 2 – August 2026
  • Books
  • How to Submit
    • Submission Info
    • Ethical Standards for Authors and Reviewers
    • TESL-EJ Style Sheet for Authors
    • TESL-EJ Tips for Authors
    • Book Review Policy
    • Media Review Policy
    • TESL-EJ Special issues
    • APA Style Guide
  • Editorial Board
  • Support

Introduction to the EJ Special Issue

From the Guest Editors, Ali Derakhshan & Andrew Cohen

Dear Readers,

It is our pleasure to welcome you to this TESL-EJ Special Issue on Teaching, Learning, Assessing, and Researching L2 Pragmatics in Honor of Prof. Zohreh R. Eslami. We would like to thank Thomas Robb for affording us the opportunity to serve as guest editors for this special issue.

The lead editor, Ali Derakhshan, has been a colleague of Prof. Zohreh R. Eslami for many years and has co-authored a number of publications with her. He was inspired by her thought-provoking publications on pragmatics while he was a PhD student. This impetus inspired him to write his dissertation on the teachability of speech acts and implicatures. The second editor of the volume, Andrew D. Cohen, first met Prof. Eslami when she attended the 2006 CARLA Summer Institute course on Pragmatics at the University of Minnesota, co-taught by Noriko Ishihara and him. From 2011 to 2014, Cohen served as a consultant on a research project in Qatar, for which she was Co-Principal Investigator. The project under the auspices of  Carnegie Mellon University in Qatar was initiated in order to improve the EFL reading strategies of middle-school children reading in science.

Cohen agreed to co-edit this volume as a tribute to Prof. Zohreh R. Eslami, given her amazingly productive record of scholarship representing numerous fields in applied linguistics. This honorary volume is focused on just one of the various fields that her work has impacted over the years, namely, pragmatics. Whereas half of the contributions to this volume are from her colleagues in Iran, it is to be noted that the impact of her work on research and practice dealing with EFL pragmatics has been truly worldwide. Eslami has done extensive research on a number of speech acts, such as apologies, complaints, compliments, invitations, and requests. She has also done research in a number of other areas of pragmatics, such as on forms of address, politeness, research methods, and assessment of pragmatics. In addition, her work has included teacher development studies, wherein the focus has been on preparing instructors for teaching pragmatics and on the extent to which teachers should indulge in explicit metapragmatic instruction. With regard to the learning of pragmatics, she has conducted research on raising pragmatic awareness among learners and on best practices in the learning of pragmatics, with a focus on the nature and extent of contact with the target language.

As a result of expanding travel globally by speakers of a host of languages, pragmatics inevitably plays an ever more valuable role in ensuring successful intercultural communications. In these intercultural contexts, pragmatic competence is not confined to the traditional focus on how EFL/ESL learners might perform a speech act such as requesting or apologizing, but rather encompasses more broadly how these learners and their interlocutors co-construct pragmatic norms according to the needs in the given context. Hence, it becomes imperative to ensure that learners of English become proficient not only linguistically but also pragmatically.

Addressing this desideratum, interlanguage pragmatics studies have shown that pragmatic proficiency can be enhanced through explicit instruction.[1] Concomitantly, these studies have underscored that in order for EFL/ESL learners to communicate competently in such an internationalized world, they need to be both sociopragmatically and pragmalinguistically savvy. In other words, they need to know what they can say, when, and to whom, as well as how best to say it in a given situation so as not to cause pragmatic failure.

The aim of this collection of papers is to stimulate the growth of research in the field of L2 pragmatics. Most of the 12 articles in the volume constitute empirical studies in L2 pragmatics. The studies represent a range of languages and contexts worldwide, including America, Africa, Asia, and Europe, and involve both quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method approaches to the exploration of issues that impact the teaching, learning, and assessment of abilities in pragmatics needed for contemporary communication.

In the opening paper, Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig and Yunwen Su examine the role of L2 and FL contexts in the acquisition of conventional expressions. Their results demonstrate the effect of learning environment on learners’ selection of conventional expressions. They found that the ESL group selected the conventional expressions in more items than the EFL group on the aural MC-DCT. They also reported that the observed effect of the learning is context dependent both on the nature of the individual items, as well as on the type and modality of the task. The authors conclude their paper by suggesting a variety of activities for teaching conventional expressions (based on Bardovi-Harlig & Mossman, 2016), and suggest that teachers can increase the learners’ awareness of such expressions by showing video-taped vignettes featuring these expressions (Derakhshan & Eslami, 2020).

In the second paper, Ali Dabbagh and Esmat Babai report on an investigation of experienced and novice nonnative speakers’ (NNSs) criteria in scoring multiple-rejoinder written discourse completion tasks (MR-WDCT), relating these criteria to those used by native speakers (NS) of the L2. The concern was to identify the extent to which NNSs’ L1 pragmatic cultural schemata might influence their ratings. They found that the pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic factors, used by NNSs in evaluating pragmatic performance,  were in part similar to and in part different from those used by NSs. Their findings, consistent with  Prof. Zohreh R. Eslami’s study, support the position that NNSs can benefit from instruction in how to avoid having the influence of  L1 cultural schemata inadvertently bias their ratings.

The paper by Azizullah Mirzaei and Reza Parhiskar examines how Iranian EFL learners’ identity (re)positioning in a university context may influence both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic features in how they make L2 requests. The authors employed mixed-method data-collection procedures, including an identity questionnaire, classroom observations, role plays, stimulated recalls, and diaries. Their results indicated that the male learner was influenced by his L1 identity projections in his pragmatic choices even though he made efforts to assume an L2-oriented identity. In contrast, the initially L1-identity female learner progressively demonstrated more openness towards renegotiating a newer L2-inclined social identity and employing more L2-like sociopragmatic norms.

The focus of Ali Derakhshan and Ali Malmir’s paper is on the contribution of L2 learning aptitude as measured by Grigorenko et al.’s (2000) Cognitive Ability for Novelty in Acquisition of Language as Applied to Foreign Language Test (CANAL-FT) to L2 speech-act knowledge. The study was prompted by a concern for exploring individual differences among learners in pragmatic performance among 121 Iranian upper-intermediate to advanced level EFL learners. A multiple regression analysis revealed that all five components of CANAL-FT were significant predictors of L2 speech-act knowledge. The aptitude for learning sentential inferences was the strongest predictor, followed by the ability to acquire the meanings of the whole passage. The authors found that the other three components of aptitude, namely, comprehending the meanings of contextualized neologisms, acquiring the language rules, and learning the meanings of paired associates, were moderate predictors of L2 speech act knowledge. These results appeared to underscore the benefits of obtaining aptitude data on learners as a means for better understanding the dynamics of L2 development in the area of pragmatics.

The study by Amir Zand-Moghadam and Fatemeh Mohandes Samani had two objectives. First, it aimed to investigate the effectiveness of task-based instruction on the development of pragmatic competence and second, it sought to see if different task types (i.e., information-gap, reasoning-gap, and opinion-gap) could have a significant effect on the development of EFL learners’ pragmatic production, metapragmatic awareness, and comprehension of implicature. Their findings confirmed the positive effect of task-based instruction on EFL learner’s pragmatic competence, consistent with Prof. Zohreh R. Eslami’s studies on the teachability of pragmatic features. The results also revealed that learners in the information-gap task group outperformed the other groups on pragmatic production and metapragmatic awareness, but there was no significant difference among the groups regarding their performance on the implicature comprehension test.

Marziyeh Yousefi and Hossein Nassaji’s paper reviews the effect of corrective feedback (CF) on learning L2 pragmatics. The authors postulate that CF plays a pivotal role in the mastery of pragmatic knowledge. They suggest that materials designers view CF as an integral part of instruction, arguing that focused instructional tasks employing different types of CF contribute differentially to learners’ L2 pragmatic development. They conclude that more research is necessary to obtain a better understanding of the relationship between CF and L2 pragmatic knowledge.

Shaun Weihong Ko and Zohreh R. Eslami provide a systematic review of the literature on the contributions that multiuser virtual environments (MUVEs) have made to the development of pragmatic competence among second language (L2) learners. The article specifically illuminates the potential role that can be played by synthetic immersive virtual environments (SIEs) and massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs) in promoting learners’ pragmatic awareness and production, and in enhancing interactional skills.

The next two papers by Boudjemaa Dendenne and Azizeh Chalak draw on Prof. Zohreh R. Eslami’s contributions to research dealing with online and face-to-face compliments and praise (Derakhshan, Eslami, et al., 2020; Eslami et al., 2019; Eslami et al., 2020; Placencia & Eslami, 2020). Dendenne’s study reports on an examination of the use of compliments, self-praise, and self-denigration, as exchanged among NNS English users from six countries (Algeria, Brazil, Indonesia, Japan, Taiwan, and the Netherlands) who took part in an online cross-cultural exchange project (Ibunka 2019). The author concluded that EFL teachers could benefit from taking a closer look at how speech acts could be used for discourse (metacomments, openers, closers) and relational purposes (to build rapport). In addition, the author suggests that teachers could benefit from exploring the users’ assumed identity while participating in EFL interactions (e.g., being apologetic about their linguistic performance)

Chalak’s paper brings to the fore the ever-increasing effect of social networks such as Instagram as a platform for sharing information intended for self presentation. Her study uses a descriptive design to examine the perceptions and attitudes of Iranian EFL learners toward self-praise. The findings reported on the effect that self-praise, bragging, and humble bragging had on the audience. While self-praise was found to constitute a somewhat positive though weak self-presentation strategy, bragging and humblebragging were definitely perceived as ineffective strategies in that they created a negative impression. She argued that the findings could be used by the teachers and practitioners to raise awareness of English learners on how to employ language to observe netiquette and be appropriate and polite. It could also add to an understanding of the pragmatics of self-praise on social media, addressing issues regarding digital media literacy.

Alyssa Kermad examined how second language (L2) English learners dealt with cases where attention to prosody was necessary in correctly interpreting the speakers’ intent. In her study, learners described their rationale for how they made their decisions about speaker intent in each of 16 speech act situations. She concluded that for almost half the speech acts, the learners relied primarily on the linguistic message and consequently did not arrive at the same judgments as did the NSs who drew on prosodic clues in their judgments. In over half the cases where the learners decisions were consistent with those of the NSs, the pragmatic force was transmitted just by the linguistic form, rather than by prosodic signals. She argues that there is a need for teachers to teach learners how to interpret a range of spoken cues, with a focus on prosodic properties, in order to correctly decipher pragmatic meaning across a variety of speech acts.

Drawing on the nature of the content, its positioning in the discourse, and the strategic role of utterances in turns and turn sequences, Sara Gesuato sought to identify and classify speech act moves more rigorously – consistent with how they actually appear in conversation In her study, the offerers and the offerees produced conversation management moves for opening, closing, and sustaining the interaction (e.g., summoning vs responding to summons), and goal-furthering moves for negotiating the offering exchange in line with their complementary initiating vs responding discursive and speech-act roles (e.g., motivating the offer vs the reaction to it). She found that the strategies for making offers and for reacting to them were similar across interactional role-relationships. She found that clusters of moves tended to have preferred sequencing patterns, and that interlocutors tended to cooperate actively in the co-construction of their interaction. In addition, she found that function-detecting heuristic prompts were particularly useful for the identification of moves in turns. Gesuato recommended model scripts as a means for helping language learners become familiar with the interactional strategies called for in goal-oriented communication.

Finally, a state-of-the-art paper by Zia Tajeddin closes the thematic issue by pointing out the value of embracing a critical perspective when addressing issues of an applied nature in the teaching, learning, and assessing of interlanguage pragmatics. Informed by the postulations of critical applied linguistics, Tajeddin notes that whereas there have been numerous efforts to broaden the foci of critical applied linguistics, little or no effort has yet to be made to initiate a focus on critical applied pragmatics. In an effort to redress this gap, Tajeddin posits 10 principles underpinning the epistemic formation and functioning of critical applied pragmatics. Time will tell whether this thrust will result in the launching of a new direction for research and practice in L2 pragmatics.

As editors for this honorary volume, we would like to think that this collection of papers will, in fact, contribute to enriching future investigations dealing with the teaching, learning, and assessment of L2 pragmatics.

Notes

[1] See the following for theoretical and practical underpinnings, based on empirical research: Alcón-Soler, 2015; Bardovi-Harlig et al., 2015; Cohen,  2008, 2012, 2014, 2016,  2017, 2018, 2019; Cohen & Ishihara, 2013; Cohen & Shively, 2007; Cohen & Sykes, 2012;  Derakhshan & Arabmofrad, 2018; Derakhshan & Eslami-Rasekh, 2015, 2020; Derakhshan &  Shakki, 2020, 2021;  Derakhshan et al., 2020; Eslami & Mirzaei, 2012 ; Eslami-Rasekh et al., 2004; Eslami-Rasekh et al., 2015; Félix-Brasdefer & Cohen, 2012; Fukuya & Martínez-Flor, 2008; Ishihara & Cohen, 2010, 2014; Kasper & Rose, 2002; Martínez-Flor & Fukuya, 2005;  Plonsky & Zhuang, 2019; Rose, 2005; Shakki et al., 2020; Sonnenburg-Winkler et al., 2020; Taguchi, 2015, 2019; Taguchi & Roever, 2017; Takahashi, 2010; Tajeddin et al.,  2012; Yousefi & Nassaji, 2019. [back]

References

Alcón-Soler, E. (2015). Pragmatic learning and study abroad: Effects of instruction and length of stay. System, 48(1), 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.005

Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Mossman, S. (2016). Corpus-based materials development for teaching and learning pragmatic routines. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), SLA research and materials development for language learning (pp. 250–278). Routledge.

Bardovi-Harlig, H., Mossman, S., & Vellenga, H. (2015). The effect of instruction on pragmatic routines in academic discussion. Language Teaching Research, 19(3), 324–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541739

Cohen, A. D. (2008). Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: What can we expect from learners? Language Teaching, 41(2), 215–237. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444807004880

Cohen, A. D. (2012). Teaching pragmatics in the second language classroom. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 1(1), 35–49.

Cohen, A. D. (2014). Towards increased classroom assessment of pragmatic ability. Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 4(1), 5–25.

Cohen, A. D. (2016). The teaching of pragmatics by native and nonnative language teachers: What they know and what they report doing. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(4), 561–585.

Cohen, A. D. (2017). Teaching and learning second language pragmatics. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 428–452), Vol. 3. Routledge.

Cohen, A. D. (2018). Learning pragmatics from native and nonnative language teachers. Multilingual Matters.

Cohen, A. D. (2019). Strategy instruction for learning and performing target language pragmatics. In A. U. Chamot & V. Harris (Eds.), Learning strategy instruction in the language classroom: Issues and implementation (pp. 140–152). Multilingual Matters.

Cohen, A., & Ishihara, N. (2013). Pragmatics. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Applied linguistics and materials development (pp. 113–126). Bloomsbury Academic.

­Cohen, A. D., & Shively, R. L. (2007). Acquisition of requests and apologies in Spanish and French: Impact of study abroad and strategy-building intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 91(2), 189–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00540.x

Cohen, A. D., & Sykes, J. M. (2012). Strategy-based learning of pragmatics: An example of language learning for intercultural competence. In F. Dervin & A. J. Liddicoat (Eds.), Linguistics for intercultural education in language learning and teaching. John Benjamins.

Derakhshan, A., & Arabmofrad, A. (2018). The impact of instruction on the pragmatic comprehension of speech acts of apology, request, and refusal among Iranian intermediate EFL  learners. English Teaching & Learning, 42(1), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-018-0004-6

Derakhshan, A., & Eslami-R., Z. (2015). The effect of consciousness-raising instruction on the comprehension of apology & request. TESL-EJ, 18(4).  Available at http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume18/ej72/ej72a6/

Derakhshan, A., & Eslami, Z. R. (2020). The effects of metapragmatic awareness, interactive translation, and discussion through video-enhanced input on the Iranian upper-intermediate EFL learners’ comprehension of implicatures. Applied Research on English Language, 9(1), 637–664. https://doi.org/10.22108/ARE.2019.118062.1476

Derakhshan, A., Eslami, Z., & Chalak, A. (2020). A systematic review of compliments among Iranian Persian speakers: Past, present, and future directions. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 12(26), 85–123. https://doi.org/10.22034/ELT.2020.11468

Derakhshan, A., & Shakki, F. (2020). The effect of implicit vs. explicit metapragmatic instruction on the Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ pragmatic comprehension of apology and refusal. Journal of Language Research, 12(35), 151–175. https://doi.org/10.22051/JLR.2019.23938.1636

Derakhshan, A., & Shakki, F. (2021). A meta-analytic study of instructed second language pragmatics: A case of the speech act of request. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.22055/RALS.2021.16722

Derakhshan, A., & Shakki, F., Sarani, M., A. (2020). The effect of dynamic and non-dynamic assessment on the comprehension of Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ speech acts of apology and request. Language Related Research, 11(4), 605–637.

Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2005). Raising the pragmatic awareness of language learners. ELT Journal, 59(3), 199– 208. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci039

Eslami-Rasekh, Z., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Fatahi, A. (2004). The effect of explicit metapragmatic instruction on the speech act awareness of advanced EFL students. TESL-EJ, 8(2), https://www.tesl-ej.org/ej30/a2abs.html

Eslami, Z., Jabbari, N., & Kuo, L. J. (2019). Online compliments of Iranian Facebook users. In E. Ogiermann & P. G. Blitvich (Eds.), From speech acts to lay understandings of politeness: Multilingual and multicultural perspectives (pp. 68–92). Cambridge University Press.

Eslami, Z. R., & Mirzaei, A. (2012). Assessment of second language pragmatics. In C. Coombe, P. Davidson, B. O’Sullivan, & S. Stoynoff (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language assessment, (pp. 198–208). Cambridge University Press.

Eslami, Z. R., Mirzaei, A., & Dini, S. (2015). The role of asynchronous computer mediated communication in the instruction and development of EFL learners’ pragmatic competence. System, 48(1), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.008

Eslami, Z., Yang, L., & Qian, C. (2020). A comparative study of compliment responses among Chinese Renren users and American Facebook users. In M. E. Placencia &. E. Eslami, (Eds.). Complimenting behavior and (self-)praise across social media (pp. 21–47). John Benjamins.

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C., & Cohen, A. D. (2012). Teaching pragmatics in the foreign language classroom: Grammar as a communicative resource. Hispania, 95(4), 650–669.

Fukuya, Y., & Martínez-Flor, A. (2008). The interactive effects of pragmatic-eliciting tasks and pragmatic instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 41, 478–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2008.tb03308.x

Grigorenko, E., Sternberg, R., & Ehrman, E. E. (2000). A theory-based approach to the measurement of foreign language learning ability: The Canal-F theory and test. The Modern Language Journal, 84(4), 390–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00076

Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. Pearson Longman.

Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2014). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. Routledge.

Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). The role of instruction in learning second language pragmatics. Language Learning, 52, 237–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.2002.tb00028.x

Martínez-Flor, A., & Fukuya, Y. J. (2005). The effects of instruction on learners’ production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. System, 33(3), 463–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.06.007

Placencia, M. E., & Eslami, Z. (Eds.). (2020). Complimenting behaviour and (self-)praise across social media: New contexts and new insights. John Benjamins.

Plonsky, L., & Zhuang, J. (2019). A meta-analysis of second language pragmatics instruction. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 287–307). Routledge.

­Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33(3), 385–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.06.003

Shakki, F., Naeini, J., Mazandarani, O., & Derakhshan, A. (2020). Instructed second language English pragmatics in the Iranian context. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 39(1), 201–252. https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2020.38481.2886

Sonnenburg-Winkler, S. L., Eslami, Z. R., & Derakhshan, A. (2020). Rater variation in pragmatic assessment: The impact of linguistic background on peer-assessment and self- assessment. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 16(1), 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2020-0004

­Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. State-of-the-art article. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000263

Taguchi, N. (2019). Second language acquisition and pragmatics: An overview. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 1–14). Routledge.

Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford University Press.

Takahashi, S. (2010). The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance. In A. Martinez- Flor, & E. Uso-Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 127–144). John Benjamins.

Tajeddin, Z., Keshavarz, M. H., & Zand-Moghadam, A. (2012). The effect of task-based language teaching on EFL learners’ pragmatic production, metapragmatic awareness, and pragmatic self-assessment. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 139–166.

Yousefi, M., & Nassaji, H. (2019). A meta-analysis of the effects of instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pragmatics and the role of moderator variables: Face-to-face vs. computer-mediated instruction. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 170(2), 277–308. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.19012.you

Guest Editors:

Ali Derakhshan (Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics, Golestan University, Gorgan, Iran)

Andrew D. Cohen (Professor Emeritus, University of Minnesota, living in Oakland, CA)

© 1994–2026 TESL-EJ, ISSN 1072-4303
Copyright of articles rests with the authors.