Developing EFL Students ' Pragmatic

LTR0010.1177/1362168820913539Language Teaching ResearchAlsuhaibani research-article9135392020

LANGUAGE TEACHING Full Research Article RESEARCH

Language Teaching Research 20–1 Developing EFL students ’ © The Author(s) 2020 Article reuse guidelines: pragmatic competence: The sagepub.com/journals-permissions https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820913539DOI: 10.1177/1362168820913539 case of compliment responses journals.sagepub.com/home/ltr

Zainab Alsuhaibani Al Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Saudi Arabia

Abstract This study investigated the effect of consciousness-raising instruction and corpus-based instruction on EFL (English as a foreign language) students’ development of compliment responses. It employed a quasi-experimental design with 136 EFL university students divided between three groups: control, consciousness-raising, and corpus groups. A discourse completion test (DCT) was used as a pre- and post-test with all the groups to investigate any significant differences between them. Further, a questionnaire with open-ended questions was used to explore students’ perceptions of pragmatic instruction of compliment responses. The results showed the effectiveness of pragmatic instruction of compliment responses through both consciousness-raising instruction and corpus- based instruction. More specifically, significant differences were found between consciousness-raising group and the corpus group on one hand, and the control group on the other. No significant differences were found between the consciousness-raising group and the corpus group. The results also revealed that the students value the importance of pragmatic instruction indicating that it was important, necessary, useful, and enjoyable at the same time. The article ends with some pedagogical recommendations for pragmatic instruction.

Keywords compliment responses, consciousness-raising, corpus, corpus-based instruction, EFL, foreign language, pragmatics, pragmatic competence

I Introduction Nowadays, pragmatic competence has been recognized as a major element of communicative competence in the area of language learning (Martínez-Flor, Fernández-Guerra, &

Corresponding author: Zainab Alsuhaibani, Assistant Professor in Applied Linguistics, College of Languages and Translation, Al Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Riyadh, 11973, (85), Saudi Arabia Email: [email protected] 2 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Usó-Juan, 2003). It is one of the keystones of effective communication and success in second or foreign language learning. However, learning pragmatics is a complex process that involves more than focusing on form. Taguchi (2015) maintained that language learners encounter challenges in developing their pragmatic competence because they have to attend to multipart mappings of form, meaning, function, force, and context. Such mappings are not only intricate but also variable and unsystematic. Further, the pragmatic forms and their mappings are not salient and they usually pass unnoticed by language learners (Kasper & Rose, 2002; Schmidt, 1993). These difficulties in developing second language (L2) pragmatic competence suggest the need for pragmatic instruction. Without instruction, pragmatic failure and negative transfer appear in learners’ perception and production even if they have good language proficiency or high grammatical competence (Bardovi-Harlig & Mahan-Taylor, 2003). In the English as a foreign language (EFL) context, the need for pragmatic instruction is emphasized because learners are only exposed to the target language in classrooms. Liu (2007) asserted that pragmatic instruction is essential in EFL classrooms as it is the main avenue through which students can learn the foreign language with its various pragmatic functions. Studies on developing pragmatic competence strongly indicate the effectiveness of teaching pragmatics to both foreign and second language learners (Belz, 2007; Eun & Tadayoushi, 2006; Rose, 2005). Given that instruction develops learners’ pragmatic competence, a major question that should be raised is which approach is more facilitative for effectively developing pragmatic competence. In this regard, Kasper (1996) pointed out that ‘the issue is not whether or not but how to teach’ (p. 147). Most of the studies on pragmatic instruction investigate the effect of explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatics (Eun & Tadayoushi, 2006). However, other approaches based on Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis (1990) such as the use of consciousness-raising tasks, and others involving the application of computer assisted language learning (CALL) such as corpus, received little attention. When considering the speech act of compliment responses, the need for research on pragmatic instruction is emphasized as they are ‘kind of culture-bound matter which is directly pertinent to the culture in which one has been nurtured’ (Shahsavari, Alimohammadi, & Rasekh, 2014, p. 2). Little attention has also been paid to exploring students’ perceptions of pragmatic instruction. Therefore, this study investigates the effect of using consciousness-raising and corpus-based instruction on developing EFL students’ pragmatic competence of compliment responses. It also explores students’ perceptions of pragmatic instruction of compliment responses. More specifically, the study is set out to answer the following questions:

1. Is there any effect of teaching compliment responses to EFL students using consciousness-raising and corpus-based instruction? 2. Is there any significant difference between consciousness-raising and corpus- based instruction of compliment responses? 3. What are students’ perceptions of pragmatic instruction of compliment responses? Alsuhaibani 3

II Literature review 1 Pragmatic competence Generally speaking, up till now there is no consensus on the definition of pragmatics. But in simple words, pragmatics is concerned with the study of contextual meaning. More specifically, it refers to ‘the meaning as communicated by a speaker (or writer) and interpreted by a listener (or reader)’ (Yule, 1996, p. 3). According to Leech (1983) pragmatic knowledge consists of two components: pragmalinguistic competence and sociopragmatic competence. Pragmalinguistic competence refers to the knowledge of the linguistic and conventional resources available for the appropriate communicative use of language in a particular context. These resources include pragmatic strategies such as directness, indirectness and routines. On the other hand, sociopragmatic competence is concerned with the knowledge of the appropriate social performance in relation to the social norms of a particular society including the awareness of variables such as social power and social distance. Taguchi (2015) considered pragmatic competence as the ability to handle a complex interaction of language, language users, and context of interaction.

2 Compliment responses Defined as a positive attribute of someone’s appearance, skills, possessions and personal characteristics, complimenting is a very complex speech act itself. It is a positive politeness strategy, yet it can be a face threatening act in some situations (Holmes, 1986). It functions as an important strategy that strengthens relationship and establishes social solidarity (Wolfson, 1989). Responding to compliments is an intimately related speech act. Pomerantz (1978), who was the first to discuss compliment responses from a pragmatic perspective, described compliments and compliment responses as an ‘action chain event’ (p. 109). In her study, she identified two conflicting constraints faced when responding to compliments: agreeing with the compliment and avoiding self-praise. These constrains lead the receiver of the compliment to mitigate between agreeing, disagreeing, accepting or rejecting. Yet, The receiver can deal with these constraints by following some strategies such as down-grading or credit shifting. Such strategies in Pomerantz’ study formed the basis for later classifications and taxonomies of compliment responses (Herbert, 1986; Holmes, 1986). In Herbert’s taxonomy (1986), for example, compliment responses are generally classified into three main categories: agreement, nonagreement, and other interpretations, including different sub-types. Holmes (1986) also classified compliment responses into accept, reject and deflect/evade, each of which includes several sub-types. These taxonomies provide a base for many cross-cultural and comparative studies, and later, interlanguage studies. Concerning Arabic, different studies compared between English and Arabic compliment responses considering different Arabic dialects (Alsalem, 2015; Farghal & Al-Khatib, 2001; Jamil, 2016; Nelson, Al Batal, & Echols, 1996; Nelson, El Bakary, & Al Batal, 1993; Salameh, 2001). For example, Nelson et al. (1996) investigated similarities and differences between Syrian and American compliment 4 Language Teaching Research 00(0) responses. The results showed that Syrians and Americans shared some compliment responses such as agreement, return, and qualifying comments. Yet, Americans used more appreciation tokens (e.g., thanks, thank you), whereas Syrians preferred acceptance with formulas (e.g., it is presented to you) which wasn’t found in the responses of Americans at all. Comparing American and Saudi compliment responses, Salameh (2001) found that Americans accept and reject compliments slightly more than Saudis, while Saudis evade compliments more than Americans. In fact, compliments and compliment responses are complex speech acts with a ‘darker side’ because compliments can be interpreted as offensive, sarcastic or even as put downs (Holmes, 1995, p. 119). The case is more complex when dealing with a foreign language as the risk of misunderstanding and miscommunication is high. In his interlanguage pragmatic study with Saudi learners of English, Althigafi (2017) found that many of the Saudi learners fail to produce target-like compliment responses in many of the given situations. Also, Al Falasi (2007) found that Emarati learners of English transfer some of Arabic pragmatic norms to L2 which can lead to communication breakdown. They, for example, literally translated some Arabic formulaic expressions used in compliment responses such as ‘I am ashamed’ which is completely inappropriate for responding to compliments in English (p. 38). Some also tend to view compliments as insincere which can explain their use of non-agreement strategies (e.g. ‘Oh, this is not true, you’re only complimenting me! and Really? Or is it just a compliment?’ (p. 36). In fact, the results from comparative and interlanguage studies suggest the need for pragmatic instruction and pave the way for pragmatic instruction research.

3 Pragmatic instruction During the last two decades, different arguments have been proposed for the support of teaching pragmatics to language learners. For example, it is argued that children receive direct instruction of pragmatics during the acquisition of the first language. Parents and caretakers do not usually correct the grammatical errors of their children because they know that children occasionally construct and test their rules. However, when it comes to pragmatic errors, parents immediately interfere and instruct their children on how to use appropriate language in social contexts (Eun & Tadayoushi, 2006; Schmidt, 1993). Studies also show that L2 learners, even proficient language learners with good grammatical skills, show significant differences from native-speakers in their perception and production of speech acts (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Taguchi, 2009). Unfortunately, learners do not usually make use of their competence in their first language (positive transfer) without instruction. Rather, they tend to show either negative transfer or overgeneraliza- tion of perceived L2 pragmatic norms. These differences can be misinterpreted and may lead to unwanted consequences that could be avoided with pragmatic instruction (Ishihara & Cohen, 2014). In this regard, Bardovi-Harlig and Mahan-Taylor (2003) commented that pragmatic failure or differences in language learners’ production is usually misinterpreted and taken on a personal level; not as an outcome of the language learning process like in grammatical mistakes. Such differences or failure in the production or compre- hension of pragmatic norms lead to unsuccessful communication or even breakdowns as a result of misinterpreting it as an act of rudeness or abruptness. Alsuhaibani 5

As regards to foreign language context, pragmatic instruction could compensate for the restricted opportunities for developing competence in such classroom setting. Also, in the L2 setting, it compensates for the lack of both sufficient and appropriate exposure to real language use. Because even when learners are exposed to the target language in and out of the classroom, most of them do not acquire the pragmatics of the target language on their own (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001). In order to develop pragmatic competence, learners must first notice how pragmatic features are used in the target language so that input can become intake. Schmidt (1993) asserted that simple exposure to the target language is not enough because most of pragmatic functions lack saliency, and thus usually pass unnoticed by learners even after a long period of exposure to the second language.

4 Research on pragmatic instruction Apart from the arguments supporting pragmatic instruction, meta-analyses and reviews of studies on developing pragmatic competence strongly prove that pragmatic instruction does make a difference. They show that pragmatic instruction has a significant positive effect on developing pragmatic competence when compared to mere exposure to or learning of the target language (Belz, 2007; Eun & Tadayoushi, 2006; Taguchi, 2015; Takahashi, 2010). In their meta-analysis, Eun and Tadayoushi (2006) analysed 30 quantitative studies coded based on: the study sample, the nature of instruction (explicit vs. implicit instruction), the assessment measure, and the length of instruction. After calcu- lating the effect size estimates, the results indicated that there was a considerable effect of pragmatic instruction over mere exposure. Explicit pragmatic instruction was found to be more effective than implicit instruction. Further, long-term pragmatic instruction yielded more instructional effects than short-term instruction. Takahashi (2010) also reviewed experimental studies involving pre-and post-test designs of pragmatic instruction. The results generally revealed that explicit instruction of speech acts provided more significant effects than implicit instruction. However, the researcher warned that the results are inconclusive because some studies of explicit instruction provided mixed findings. The review also indicated that learners’ motivation and attitudes towards the target language community influence pragmatic teaching and learning. Considering consciousness-raising instruction, few studies investigated its effect on developing learners’ pragmatic competence. Yet, these studies indicate positive effects of pragmatic instruction (Abolfathiasl & Abdullah, 2015; Alcón-Soler, 2007; Narita, 2012; Noonkong, Damnet, & Charttrakul, 2017; Ryu, 2018; Takimoto, 2006). For example, Narita (2012) examined the impact of consciousness-raising instruction on the acquisition of hearsay evidential markers by learners of Japanese as a foreign language. The experimental group compared the hearsay reports in English and Japanese detecting and explaining the differences between them. The analysis of two metapragmatic knowledge tests and an oral discourse production test showed that the experimental group outperformed the control group in both the immediate and delayed post-tests. In addition, Abolfathiasl and Abdullah (2015) investigated the effect of consciousness-raising tasks on EFL students’ pragmatic performance of suggestions. The experimental group received 8-week consciousness-raising instruction involving reading conversations, role plays, pragmatic discussions, and watching film segments about suggestions. The 6 Language Teaching Research 00(0) analysis of the written discourse completion test (DCT) showed that the frequency of using linguistic expressions of suggestions, suggestion strategies and also politeness strategies has changed significantly from pre-test to post-test and delayed post-test. Although research on using corpus in teaching pragmatics is in its infancy, corpus- based pragmatic instruction studies showed positive effects (Bardovi-Harlig, Mossman, & Vellenga, 2015; Belz & Vyatkina, 2005; Furniss, 2016). For example, Furniss (2016) investigated the effect of using corpus-referred instructional website on learning the pragmatics of Russian routine formulas. The researcher included corpus excerpts of these formulas on the website. The analysis of the post- and delayed tests showed that using corpus instruction yielded a durable effect on learners’ awareness of the routine formulas. Further, Belz and Vyatkina (2005) examined the effect of using learner corpora on learning German modal particles. The intervention involved contrastive analyses of learner and native speaker corpus data in a telecollaborative course. The results indicated that using learner corpora increased learners’ metapragmatic awareness of the meaning and function, distribution, and frequency of the modal particles. Regarding the speech act of compliment responses, the few studies that explored its instruction also indicated positive results (Cheng & Liang, 2015; Ishihara, 2003; Sadeghi & Foutooh, 2012; Wen & Jun, 2017). For example, using explicit instruction of compliment responses in Sadeghi and Foutooh’s study (2012) resulted in positive effect on developing foreign-language students’ pragmatic awareness and less negative transfer of L1 as shown in the DCT results. Further, Cheng and Liang (2015) investigated the effect of explicit and implicit instruction of compliment responses on Chinese EFL learners. The analysis of the role-plays and conversations indicated the effectiveness of both explicit and implicit instruction on developing students’ pragmatic awareness of compliment responses. The review above generally indicates that pragmatic instruction, especially explicit instruction, yields positive results in developing language learners’ pragmatic competence. Yet, most of the studies concentrated on comparing the effect of explicit and implicit instruction rather than other approaches occurring in the continuum between them. Compliment responses and learners’ perception of pragmatic instruction received little attention, as well. Most importantly, given the effect of L1 transfer, there is a need to con- sider instruction of pragmatics to Arab learners. Unfortunately, language learners with Arabic as their first language are almost absent from pragmatic instruction research. To the best knowledge of the researcher, no study compared the effect of consciousness- raising and corpus-based instruction on developing pragmatic competence of compliment responses. Considering EFL Arab learners and their perception, the need for such study is strongly emphasized and would make additions to pragmatic instruction literature.

III Methodology 1 Choice and justification of research methods The study adopted a quasi-experimental research design. Pre-tests and post-tests were conducted with three groups randomly chosen and assigned as control, consciousness-raising, and corpus groups. A detailed description of the instruments used is presented as follows. Alsuhaibani 7 a The discourse completion test. Discourse completion tests (DCTs) have an extended history in pragmatics research. Although DCTs have been criticized for their hypotheti- cal nature that doesn’t represent reality, they have several advantages and strengths that need to be stressed. For example, DCTs have control of contextual variables and demo- graphic information (Cyluk, 2013). They also represent prototypical responses that tap into the participants’ pragmalinguistic knowledge (Kwon, 2004). This makes a DCT particularly suitable in this study given its focus on investigating the effect of pragmatic instruction on foreign-language learners. Further, due to the study’s quantitative focus, a DCT is appropriate because it facilitates the collection of a large amount of data in rela- tively short time. It is also useful for the purpose of comparison since many studies used a DCT as an instrument. The DCT consisted of eight compliment situations. The situations were adapted from different DCTs in the literature (Al Falasi, 2007; Althigafi, 2017; Tang & Zhang, 2009). The choice of the situations was based on two criteria: their suitability to both the native speaker’s and the participants’ culture; second, their variability in terms of the topic and the object complimented. Thus, the situations revolve around topics of talent and skills (well performed presentation, delicious food, computer talent), appearance and decora- tion (nice haircut, suitable room clock), and possessions (nice shirt, stunning ring, nice house). The participants in the three different groups were asked to respond to the compliments in English. The validated DCT was used before and after the treatment to explore any potential differences between the control and experimental groups. b Consciousness-raising instruction. Based on Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis that neces- sitates conscious noticing as a condition for the conversion of input into intake, consciousness raising aims to sensitize and raise the learner’s attention to notice L2 pragmatic features (Rose, 2005; Schmidt, 1990, 2001). Ishihara and Cohen (2014) maintained that the theoretical framework consciousness-raising is built on justifies its current spread in L2 pragmatic instruction. Ishihara and Cohen suggested a list of different consciousness- raising tasks with pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic focus that can be used in pragmatic instruction. Following their suggestions, the researcher used the following different tasks with the first experimental group (consciousness-raising group):

•• Presenting data obtained from research about compliment responses and discussing them: The researcher benefited from the studies conducted on compliment responses among native speakers of English and presented the classifications to participants for discussion. For example, the researcher presented the results of Herbert’s study (1986) and its taxonomy of compliment responses. The discussion of the taxonomy involved the different agreement and non-agreement strategies of compliment responses used among native speakers that directed the participants to to notice if there are any differences between Arabic and English compliment responses. •• Comparing L1 and L2 compliment responses in terms of types and frequencies: The participants were provided with research data charts showing L1 and L2 compliment responses in relation to their types and frequencies of use to help them notice the differences between them. For example, the researcher presented the 8 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

results of Althigafi’s (2017) study showing the significant difference in the frequency of occurrence of compliment response types among American and Saudi participants. •• Observing and collecting L2 compliment responses from the media: The researcher asked the participants to observe L2 compliment responses found in TV programs, interviews, films, etc. and share them in classroom discussions. The participants shared the links or clips of videos of compliment responses considering the type of strategy used. •• Comparing felicitous and infelicitous pragmatic uses of compliment responses: The researcher discussed felicitous and infelicitous uses of compliment responses and how they can lead to the success or breakdown of communication between interlocutors, especially when considering sociopragmatic aspects. For example, the researcher brought some L2 examples of felicitous use of compliment responses among interlocutors with different sociopragmatic aspects from the media. Then, the researcher hypothesized an infelicitous compliment response given the same situation and discussed it with the participants. Other examples focused on infelicitous uses of compliment response strategy due to negative L1 transfer discussing how they can lead to misunderstanding. •• Role plays of L2 pragmatic use of compliment responses: The participants were given scenarios of compliment situations presenting different compliment topics among interlocutors with different sociopragmatic aspects. Then, they were asked to role play each scenario providing an appropriate compliment response strategy. Other participants can provide other appropriate responses to the same scenario being role played. c Corpus-based instruction. Corpus-based instruction was followed with the second experimental group (the corpus group). The corpus was used to help learners notice L2 compliment responses. However, unlike the consciousness-raising group, the corpus group received real authentic compliment responses through the direct use of corpus. The corpus was used directly as a teaching resource and as a search tool for participants. Using Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), the researcher gathered authentic compliment responses as the material for pragmatic instruction. Interviews, magazines, newspaper were the mostly used resources. Key words of compliments (nice, great, gorgeous, beautiful, etc.) and compliment responses (thanks, thank you, glad, yours too, etc.) were the search words. Such corpus data were used as class material for presentation, tasks, and discussions. More specifically, the researcher applied the following tasks with the corpus group:

•• Presenting corpus-based examples about compliment responses and discussing them: The researcher used the corpus to present direct authentic instances of compliment responses from native speakers. The authenticity of the corpus examples also helped to represent sociopragmatic aspects. The examples were used to create a platform for classroom discussions considering different strategies of compliment responses and sociopragmatic aspects. Alsuhaibani 9

•• Comparing L1 and L2 compliment responses using the corpus: The researcher used the corpus to show the differences between L 1 and L2 especially in terms of frequency since the corpus has the advantage of showing the frequency of the use of certain compliment response strategies. The researcher also used some research data for comparison to compensate for the lack of Arabic corpus. •• Gathering L2 compliment responses from the corpus: The researcher asked the participants to search COCA for compliment responses and bring them to class for discussions. They were also asked to role play the corpus examples they found in the corpus and discuss other possible appropriate responses.

The examples of compliment responses were chosen based on their comprehensibility and pedagogical usefulness. The following are two examples of the corpus-based materials.

Example 1: •• Winfrey: I say one of my producers bought the print. It’s gorgeous. It’s beautiful. •• Bennett: Thank you. This is one of my very favorite paintings. •• Winfrey: It’s lasting. •• Bennett: I named it after my mom. Example 2: •• George: I love your beard. •• Andy-Samberg: Thanks. I like yours, too. •• George: Thank you very much. d Questionnaire. By the end of the experiment, the participants were given a questionnaire consisting of open-ended questions. Open ended questions were chosen because they permit the participants to write their responses and express their opinions comfort- ably and spontaneously without the restriction found in closed-ended questions. Dörnyei and Taguchi (2009) maintained that open-ended items provide greater richness than closed-ended items as they allow greater freedom of expression. The questions sought to explore the participants’ perceptions about pragmatic teaching of compliment responses. These open-ended questions include:

•• Do you think that pragmatic teaching of compliment responses is important? Why? •• What is your opinion about pragmatic teaching of compliment responses? •• During pragmatic instruction of compliment responses, what difficulties did you encounter?

Each question was explained to the participants. The participants completed the questions at their own pace. The responses were then analysed through content analysis of patterns and themes. 10 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

2 Participants The participants in this study were 136 Saudi EFL sophomore university students major- ing in English. They were between 20 to 23 years old with moderate English proficiency. In the first and second college levels, the students take courses that are mainly dedicated to developing English skills of reading, writing, listening, speaking and grammar, along with some Arabic courses. In the third and fourth levels, they study linguistics courses such as introduction to linguistics, semantics and pragmatics, syntax, and phonetics besides literature and translation courses. All participants were native speakers of Arabic and had at least 6 years of EFL instruction prior to their admission to the Languages and Translation College. For the purpose of the study, the participants were randomly divided into three groups: consciousness-raising, corpus and control group.

3 Procedures In order to minimize threats to validity, the DCT was administered among the three groups at the beginning of the study. The results indicated homogeneity, thus, the researcher proceeded to instruction of compliment responses to the three groups by herself. The control group received instruction of compliment responses (including definition, functions, rules, taxonomy, etc.) just as an example of speech acts. The instruction was without raising students’ awareness to the differences between L1 and L2 through explicit instruction or through using any consciousness-raising or corpus- based tasks. Both consciousness-raising group and corpus-based group received metapragmatic information of the definition and functions of compliment responses during the first session. Then, the sessions continued with the tasks specified for each group. The treatment involved a total of 6 sessions. After that, the researcher distributed the DCT as a post-test to the three groups. The questionnaire was then distributed to explore students’ perceptions of pragmatics instruction of compliment responses. The data obtained from the DCT was analysed following Herbert’s (1986) taxonomy of compliment responses (Table 1). Each response was given a score based on the taxonomy. For example, appreciation tokens were given a score of 1, comment acceptance 2 while qualifications 10, based on their arrangement in the taxonomy. Other examples of responses not falling under a specific type in the taxonomy were coded under other interpretations (score 12). These responses are usually a result of L1 negative transfer found especially in the pre-test. They include examples such as ‘it is for you’ (used to offer the object complimented to the interlocutor), and ‘say ma sha Allah’ (ma sha Allah is an expression used to express praise, and it is used as a protection from the evil-eye). Further, some responses were agreement strategy but literal translation from L1 such as ‘your eyes are beautiful’, (used as an agreement strategy which means that because your eyes are beautiful, you can see the good thing), ‘it is from your taste’ (used as an agreement strategy which means that it is nice from you or it is because of your courtesy). These agreement strategy responses were given a score of 0.5 to indicate that they are under the category of agreement strategies but a result of L1 negative transfer. The coding of the responses was checked by an applied linguistics instructor and coded into SPSS. Alsuhaibani 11

Table 1. Herbert’s taxonomy of compliment responses.

Response type Example A. Agreement I. Acceptances 1. Appreciation token Thanks; thank you; (smile) 2. Comment acceptance Thanks; it’s my favorite too. 3. Praise upgrade Really brings out the blue in my eyes, doesn’t it? II. Comment history I bought it for the trip to Arizona. III. Transfers 1. Reassignment My brother gave it to me. 2. Return So’s yours. B. Nonagreement I. Scale down It’s really quite old. II. Question Do you really think so? III. Nonacceptances 1. Disagreement I hate it. 2. Qualification. It’s alright, but Len’s is nicer IV. No acknowledgment (silence) C. Other interpretations I. Request You wanna borrow this one too?

Source. Herbert, 1986, p. 79.

IV Results 1 The discourse completion test results A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine whether there was any significant difference in the means of pragmatics competence of compliment responses between the three groups: the control group, the consciousness-raising group, and the corpus group. The dependent variable was the means of students’ pragmatic competence of compliment responses, and the independent variable accounted for the three different groups. Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations for each of the three groups in the pre- and post-tests. Considering the assumptions of ANOVA, the Levene’s F test showed (Table 3) that the homogeneity of variance assumption was violated for the post-test only (p = .000). Therefore, the Welch’s F test was used. As the results of Table 4 show, there was no statistical significant difference between the three groups in the pre-test Welch’s F (2, 88.492) = 376, p = .687. However, a statistical significant difference between the three groups was found in the post-test Welch’s F (2, 85.069) = 22.142, p = .000, indicating an effect of instruction on students’ pragmatic development of compliment responses. 2 The estimated partial eta squared (ηp = .31) indicated a large effect size. In order to determine which group’s mean differed significantly from the other, Games-Howell post hoc comparisons were conducted. The results in Table 5 show that the means of the students in the control group (M = 6.38, SD = 1.13) differed 12 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Table 2. Means and standard deviations of the three groups in the pre- and post-tests.

Group N M SD Pre-test: Control 45 6.1778 1.33636 Consciousness-raising 44 5.9318 1.37075 Corpus 47 6.0213 1.35918 Post-test: Control 45 6.3778 1.13396 Consciousness-raising 44 7.5682 .62497 Corpus 47 7.6383 .73501

Table 3. ANOVA results of the differences between the groups in pre- and post-tests.

Sum of squares Df Mean square F Significance Pre-test: Between groups 1.383 2 .692 .376 .687 Within groups 244.352 133 1.837 Total 245.735 135 Post-test: Between groups 45.415 2 22.708 30.747 .000 Within groups 98.224 133 .739 Total 143.640 135

Table 4. Welch results of the differences between the groups in pre- and post-tests.

Pre-test Statistic df1 df2 Significance Pre-test .376 2 88.492 .687 Post-test 22.142 2 85.069 .000 significantly from the means of the students who received corpus-based pragmatic instruction (M = 7.64, SD = .74), and from the students who received consciousness- raising instruction of compliment responses (M = 7.57, SD = .26). There was no significant difference between the students who received corpus-based instruction and those who received consciousness-raising instruction (p = .876).

2 The questionnaire results The analysis of the differences between the groups can be also supported by looking at the frequencies of the agreement and non-agreement strategies of compliment responses among the different study groups. Table 6 shows the frequencies of agreement and non- agreement strategies in the pre- and post-tests among the three groups. Alsuhaibani 13 .2701 .4104 .4385 .5932 .9304 .8263 .7721 .5133 1.6540 1.7392 −.7268 −.7819 Upper bound .7268 .7819 −.4104 −.2701 −.9304 −.7721 −.4385 −.5133 −.5932 −.8263 −1.6540 −1.7392 95% confidence interval Lower bound Significance .876 .000 .000 .000 .000 .876 .669 .948 .843 .669 .843 .948 Standard error .14273 .19352 .19352 .20017 .20017 .14273 .28704 .28637 .28105 .28704 .28105 .28637 * * * * .07012 .24596 .15650 .08946 1.26052 1.19040 −.07012 −.24596 −.08946 −.15650 Mean difference (I–J) −1.19040 −1.26052 (J) group Corpus Consciousness-raising Corpus Consciousness-raising Control Control Corpus Consciousness-raising Corpus Consciousness-raising Control Control Games–Howell post hoc comparisons. Table 5. (I) group Note . * The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. Control Corpus

Pre-test : Consciousness-raising Control Corpus Post-test : Consciousness-raising 14 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Table 6. Frequencies of the agreement and non-agreement strategies of compliment responses in pre- and post-tests.

Group Test Agreement strategies Non-agreement strategies Control group Pre-test 291 69 Post-test 294 66 Consciousness-raising group Pre-test 268 84 Post-test 334 18 Corpus group Pre-test 282 94 Post-test 360 16

The analysis of the questionnaire showed that 96% of the participants believed that pragmatic instruction of compliment responses is important. They mentioned that teaching compliment responses is necessary to know how to respond appropriately and prop- erly to native speakers, to avoid misunderstandings when responding to compliments in an unsuitable way, to strengthen relationships and to build confidence when communi- cating with native speakers, to show respect and understanding of the native speaker’s culture, and to avoid literal translation of compliment responses. One participant wrote ‘It should be mandatory’, another maintained ‘We need it just as we need writing and speaking courses’. Further, they showed positive attitudes towards learning the pragmatics of compliment responses mentioning that it is ‘interesting and useful’, ‘enjoyable’, and ‘helpful’. One wrote that she wanted to know more about it. They also maintained that the instruction was easy, clear, and no difficulties were encountered except for hav- ing new expressions/phrases to learn and memorize. On the other hand, only four participants believed that pragmatic instruction of compliment responses is unnecessary and secondary. One participant, for example, wrote ‘I believe that it is better not to teach it as it is unimportant and already known.’ Another commented that it is ‘secondary and not fundamental’. A third one mentioned: ‘I believe that teaching it is useless because it is acquired from the society.’ Yet, those four participants maintained that that they didn’t encounter difficulties during instruction.

V Discussion The above results revealed that there were significant differences between the control and experimental groups in compliment responses indicating the effectiveness of pragmatic instruction to EFL learners. Such results echo the findings of meta-analyses regarding pragmatic instruction (Belz, 2007; Eun & Tadayoushi, 2006; Taguchi, 2015). In fact, there is a general consensus that pragmatic instruction should be part of EFL classrooms just like grammar and vocabulary (Taguchi, 2015). Yet, it is important to explore whether any type of instruction is effective without any differences between the approaches used, or there are more facilitative and effective approaches than others. Investigating the effect of pragmatic instruction of compliment responses using consciousness-raising instruction, the results of the study show that there was a significant difference between the consciousness-raising group and the control group. This indicates the effectiveness of Alsuhaibani 15 teaching compliment responses through consciousness-raising instruction. Such a result is in line with previous studies that involve teaching pragmatics through consciousness- raising instruction (Abolfathiasl & Abdullah, 2015; Alcón-Soler, 2007; Narita, 2012; Noonkong et al., 2017; Ryu, 2018; Takimoto, 2006). Schmidt (2001) argued that the learning of any feature of the second language cannot occur without noticing, asserting that ‘while there is subliminal perception, there is no subliminal learning’ (p. 26). Consciousness-raising tasks help learners to notice the norms, recognize and process the differences in compliment responses between English and Arabic. In the process of noticing and comparing, learners eventually internalize L2 norms to become intake (Schmidt, 1993). In addition, the results of the study revealed that the corpus-based group outperformed the control group in compliment responses indicating the effectiveness of using corpus in the instruction of compliment responses. Using corpora in pragmatic instruction has the advantage of offering EFL learners real and authentic language. Thus, it helps to raise EFL students’ awareness of how language is really used with its different forms and functions. Over two decades, Bardovi-Harlig (2001) recommended the use of authentic rather than invented artificial language in pragmatic instruction. Ishihara and Cohen (2014) maintained that the use of corpus has been valued for quite a while because they mirror the way language is really used. Belz and Vyatkina (2005) argued that the recent advances in corpus linguistics provide good opportunities for pragmatic instruction in the EFL setting because corpus materials overcome some of the constraints found in current decontextualized inauthentic teaching materials. Using either consciousness-raising or corpus-based instruction in teaching compliment responses is effective and promising with no significant difference between them. The result is understandable as both approaches help the learner to notice the difference in the norms of compliment responses either through consciousness-raising tasks or through the use of authentic corpus materials. Taguchi (2015) emphasized that a high level of awareness is fundamental for noticing any pragmatic feature to subsequently internalize it into intake. Learners need to notice the target feature in question, process it and, hence, internalize it into intake. With the use of consciousness-raising tasks or corpus-based materials, learners’ awareness of compliment responses is raised as they were able to notice and process them. In fact, a glance at the differences in the frequencies of using agreement and non- agreement compliment response strategies in pre- and post-tests of both groups clearly indicate the effectiveness of pragmatic instruction to Saudi EFL learners. Different studies report that generally Arab EFL learners, even advanced learners, fail to produce target-like responses to compliments as a result of negative transfer from Arabic (Al Falasi, 2007; Althigafi, 2017; Al-Khateeb, 2009). A noticeable difference between Arab and native speakers’ compliment responses is the tendency of Arab learners to use non- agreement strategies. Commonly, Arabs tend to disagree with compliments responses as an indication of modesty or because they are perceived to be insincere most of the time (Al Amro, 2013; Al Falasi, 2007; Alharbi, 2017; Jamil, 2016). Such a reaction might sound bizarre or be misunderstood by native speakers as a sign of low confidence. Arabs also sometimes offer the object complimented to the speaker which can be embar- rassing to a native speaker. Some participants in the pre-tests just literally translated 16 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Arabic compliment responses to English leading to negative transfer. However, after pragmatic instruction through consciousness-raising and corpus instruction, Saudi EFL students’ compliment responses developed significantly not only in terms of frequency but also in terms of variation of strategy use. Regarding students’ perceptions, it is clear that the students clearly recognize the value of pragmatic instruction of compliment responses. The only difficulty they encountered is the learning and memorization of some new expressions or phrases. As for the four participants who perceived pragmatic instruction as secondary and unimportant, it is interesting to know that they scored good in the DCT and faced no difficulties during instruction. However, it seems that they perceive pragmatic instruction as secondary because they were afraid to have it as an extra material to study or as a new required course considering their heavy schedules. An indication of this is that they support the importance of pragmatics but not teaching it. For example, one stated: ‘It is important to be polite but not through teaching.’ Another maintained that it is already known and they don’t need it because they have a lot of courses and they need to save time. Further, one clearly commented that if pragmatic instruction is ‘‘for enjoyment, okay, but for exams, no’’. In fact, the results of students’ positive perceptions of teaching pragmatics mirror the findings in previous pragmatic instruction studies (Kim, 2016; Noonkong et al., 2017; Ryu, 2018). Kim (2016), for example, found that most of the students perceived pragmatic instruction as interesting, useful, motivating, and important. Yet, some students with low proficiency mentioned that it was difficult because of the complexity and length of some of the formulaic expressions. The participants in Noonkong et al.’s study (2017) also found pragmatic instruction of complaints and apologies beneficial and interesting. In fact, not only students perceive the importance of pragmatic instruction, but adminis- trators and instructors, as well (Ryu, 2018).

VI Conclusions and limitations The study provides promising findings regarding pragmatic instruction. Teaching pragmatics to EFL learners is effective through consciousness-raising instruction and corpus-based instruction. Both instructional approaches are effective without any significant difference between them. Further, the study reveals that Saudi EFL learners value the importance of pragmatic instruction indicating its importance in developing their communicative competence. However, these findings have to be seen in light of some limitations. First, the study is generally quantitative in nature that deprives it from the richness of qualitative designs. The study also used a DCT that have the limitation of not replicating reality. Further, the sample is limited to EFL learners in Saudi Arabia only. Thus, further studies with different design and sample are needed.

VII Pedagogical recommendations In reality, pragmatic competence is a major component of communicative competence that needs more attention. Teaching pragmatic competence has got its own convincing rationale and supportive studies showing its effectiveness. In the EFL setting, in Alsuhaibani 17 particular, teaching pragmatics is faced with some challenges that relate to teacher education and professional development as well as to ELT materials and assessment. More importantly, the case of EFL learner is more challenging considering the lack of exposure to the real use of language outside the classroom. Even with the use of available technology today, pragmatic features are not salient and passed unnoticed by learners without instruction. Hence, there is a need to include pragmatics in under- graduate courses, and in pragmatics workshops in teacher development programs in order to: (1) raise teacher awareness of the importance of teaching pragmatics, (2) enhance teachers’ knowledge of pragmatics, (3) develop the skills for teaching and assessing pragmatics, and (4) provide teachers with the knowledge and skills that help them to incorporate technology in pragmatics instruction. Additionally, teachers can benefit from the valuable materials and resources for the development and assessment of pragmatic competence that are found in pragmatics instruction studies and dissertations. They can also make use of contrastive pragmatic studies to show the similarities and differences between L1 and L2 speech acts. Teachers and learners, as well, can compensate for the lack of exposure to real life use of language by using corpora, tools for computer-mediated communication (CMC), video-conferencing, virtual interaction and telecollabortaion.

Funding The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD Zainab Alsuhaibani https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2154-9460

References Abolfathiasl, H., & Abdullah, A.N. (2015). Pragmatic consciousness-raising activities and EFL learners’ speech act performance of ‘making suggestions’. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6, 333–342. Al Amro, M. (2013). The sociolinguistics of compliment behavior in Najdi Saudi Arabic. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Order No. 3605396. Al Falasi, H. (2007). Just say ‘thank you’: A study of compliment responses. The Linguistics Journal, 2, 28–42. Alcón-Soler, E. (2007). Fostering EFL learners’ awareness of requesting through explicit and implicit consciousness-raising tasks. In Mayo, M.D. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 221–241). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Alharbi, R. (2017). Responses of female non-native speakers to English compliments: A cross- generational study of Saudi Arabian University students and lecturers. Unpublished master’s thesis, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. Alsalem, N.K. (2015). Compliment responses: A comparison of Saudi English learners and native speakers of American English in an academic environment. Master’s thesis. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Order No. 1595372. Althigafi, K. (2017). Pragmatic failure in compliment responses among Saudi speakers of English. Unpublished paper presented at the 65th ISERD International Conference, Mecca, Saudi Arabia. 18 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Al-Khateeb, S. (2009) The speech act of thanking as a compliment response as used by the Arab speakers of English: A comparative intercultural study. Unpublished master thesis, An-Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001) Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In Rose, K.R., & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 13–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Mahan-Taylor, R. (2003). Teaching pragmatics. Washington, DC: United States Department of State. Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S., & Vellenga, H.E. (2015). The effect of instruction on pragmatic routines in academic discussion. Language Teaching Research, 19, 324–350. Belz, J. (2007). The role of computer mediation in the instruction and development of L2 pragmatic competence. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 45–75. Belz, J., & Vyatkina, N. (2005). Learner corpus analysis and the development of L2 pragmatic competence in networked inter-cultural language study: The case of German modal particles. Canadian Modern Language Review, 62, 17–48. Cheng, D., & Liang, J. (2015) The effect of instruction on Chinese EFL learners’ compliment responses. TESOL International Journal, 10, 1–23. Cyluk, A. (2013) Discourse completion task: Its validity and reliability in research projects on speech acts. Anglica: An International Journal of English Studies, 22, 101–112. Dörnyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2009). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge. Drbseh, M. (2015). The use of English compliments and compliment responses by the Arab students at Jordan University in Jordan. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 5, 230–235. Eun, J., & Tadayoushi, K. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development: A meta-analysis In Norris, J., & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 165–112). Amsterdam / Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Farghal, M., & Al-Khatib, M.A. (2001). Jordanian college students’ responses to compliments: A pilot study. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1485–1502. Furniss, E.A. (2016). Teaching the pragmatics of Russian conversation using a corpus-referred website. Language Learning & Technology, 20, 38–60. Herbert, K. (1986). Say ‘thank you’ or something. American Speech, 61, 76–88. Holmes, J. (1986). Compliments and compliment responses in New Zealand English. Anthropological Linguistics, 28, 485–508. Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. London: Longman. Ishihara, N. (2003). Formal instruction on the speech act of giving and responding to compliments. Proceedings of the 7th conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, SEAMEO RELC, Singapore, 13–15 December 2002, pp. 62–78. Tokyo: Kyung-Ja Park and Michiko Nakano. Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A.D. (2014). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. New York: Routledge. Jamil, A. (2016). Compliment responses at Higher Education Institutions: A comparative study of Omani and Australian speakers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia. Kasper, G (1996). Interlanguage pragmatics in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 145–149. Kasper, G., & Rose, K.R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford: Blackwell. Kim, H. (2016). An investigation into EFL learners’ perception towards L2 pragmatic instruction. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6, 452–462. Alsuhaibani 19

Kwon, J. (2004) Expressing refusals in Korean and in American English. Multilingua, 23, 339– 364. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman. Liu, C.N. (2007). Pragmatics in foreign language instruction: the effects of pedagogical intervention and technology on the development of EFL learners’ realization of ‘request’. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Order No. 3296458. Martínez-Flor, A.M., Fernández-Guerra, A.F., & Usó-Juan, E.U. (Eds.). (2003). Pragmatic competence and foreign language teaching. Castellón de la Plana: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume. Narita, R. (2012). The effects of pragmatic consciousness-raising activity on the development of pragmatic awareness and use of hearsay evidential markers for learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1–29. Nelson, G.L., El Bakary, W., & Al Batal, M. (1993). Egyptian and American compliments: A cross-cultural study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17, 293–313. Nelson, G.L., Al Batal, M., & Echols, E. (1996). Arabic and English compliment responses: Potential for pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 17, 411–432. Noonkong, U.R., Damnet, A., & Charttrakul, K. (2017). Enhancing Thai engineering students’ complaints and apologies through pragmatic consciousness-raising approach (PCR). Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 8, 92–99. Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In Atkinson, J.M., & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 225–246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rose, K.R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33, 385–399. Ryu, J. (2018). Pragmatics instruction in Korean as a foreign language programs in the US: Overview of the programs, instructors’ beliefs, and pedagogical application. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Order No. 10743719. Sadeghi, A., & Foutooh, M. (2012). The effect of explicit instruction of compliment responses strategies on intermediate Iranian foreign language learners’ ability to respond to compliments. International Journal of Linguistics, 4, 385–406. Salameh, A. (2001). Compliment responses in American English, Saudi Arabic and the English of Saudi EFL learners. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Order No. 9781321943443. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158. Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In Kasper, G., & S. Blum Kulba (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 21–42). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schmidt, R.W. (2001) Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shahsavari, S., Alimohammadi, B., & Rasekh, A.E. (2014). Compliment responses: A comparative study of native English speakers and Iranian L2 speakers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1744–1753. Taguchi, N. (Ed.). (2009). Pragmatic competence: Volume 5. Germany: Walter de Gruyter. Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48, 1–50. Takahashi, S. (2010). The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance. In Martínez- Flor, A., & E. Usó-Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and meth- odological issues (pp. 127–144). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Takimoto, M. (2006). The effects of explicit feedback and form–meaning processing on the development of pragmatic proficiency in consciousness-raising tasks. System, 34, 601–614. 20 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Tang, C.H., & Zhang, G.Q. (2009). A contrastive study of compliment responses among Australian English and Mandarin Chinese speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 325–345. Wen, Z., & Jun, D. (2017). The effects of explicit metapragmatic instruction on Chinese English language learners’ acquisition of compliment responses. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 40, 167–180. Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House. Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.