LTR0010.1177/1362168820913539Language Teaching ResearchAlsuhaibani 913539research-article2020 LANGUAGE TEACHING Full Research Article RESEARCH Language Teaching Research 1 –20 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 communi- cative 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 devel- oping second language (L2) pragmatic competence suggest the need for pragmatic instruction. Without instruction, pragmatic failure and negative transfer appear in learners’ per- ception and production even if they have good language proficiency or high grammatical competence (Bardovi-Harlig & Mahan-Taylor, 2003). In the English as a foreign lan- guage (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 facilita- tive 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 compli- ment 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 instruc- tion. Therefore, this study investigates the effect of using consciousness-raising and corpus-based instruction on developing EFL students’ pragmatic competence of com- pliment 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 con- sciousness-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 inter- preted by a listener (or reader)’ (Yule, 1996, p. 3). According to Leech (1983) pragmatic knowledge consists of two components: pragmalinguistic competence and socioprag- matic competence. Pragmalinguistic competence refers to the knowledge of the linguis- tic 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 polite- ness 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 prag- matic 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 compli- ment responses (Herbert, 1986; Holmes, 1986). In Herbert’s taxonomy (1986), for exam- ple, 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