Document Type : Research Paper


1 Department of English Language Teaching, West Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of English Language Teaching, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.


Objective: Research on corrective feedback (CF) in L2 pragmatics instruction, especially in online teaching, is still in its infancy. To address this gap, this study sought to examine the types of CF provided by EFL teachers in online classes in response to the learners’ pragmalinguistically and sociopragmatically inappropriate production of the binary speech acts of request and refusal.
Methods: Eighteen hours of online classroom interaction data were analyzed using conversation analysis and a taxonomy that classifies feedback into implicit and explicit input-providing and output-prompting CF.
Results: The findings of the study showed that explicit output prompts were largely applied by teachers as the most frequent type of CF. The teachers tended to use prompting questions and metapragmatic clues to help learners better understand request and refusal speech acts, rather than directly offering input or reformulation. In addition, because of the face-threatening nature of speech acts of refusal and request, the teachers applied explicit output prompts as corrective feedback to reinforce the accuracy of learners’ production.
Conclusions: It can be concluded that the online mode of instruction can impact the explicitness of pragmatic CF. This research is of great value for teachers to employ both implicit and explicit types of CF to develop learners’ competency in pragmatics in online instruction.


Main Subjects

Ahangari, S., & Amirzadeh, S. (2011). Exploring the teachers’ use of spoken corrective feedback in teaching Iranian EFL learners at different levels of proficiency. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences29, 1859-1868.
Alsuhaibani, Z. (2020). Developing EFL students’ pragmatic competence: The case of compliment responses. Language Teaching Research.
Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2005). Student perspectives on rubric-referenced assessment. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation10(1), 3.
Basturkmen, H. L., & Fu, M. (2021). Corrective feedback and the development of second language grammar. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchara (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 367-386). Cambridge University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2017). Acquisition of L2 pragmatics. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 224-245). Routledge.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2022). Pragmatics: Speaking as a pragmalinguistic resource. In T. M. Derwing, M. J. Munro, R. I. Thomson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and speaking (pp. 243-257). Routledge
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Yilmaz, Y. (2021). Corrective feedback in instructional pragmatics. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchara (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 429-449). Cambridge University Press.
Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Ulissweltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. Scarcella, E. Anderson, & S. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55-73). Newbury House.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research20(4), 436-458.
Chong, S. W. (2022). The role of feedback literacy in written corrective feedback research: from feedback information to feedback ecology. Cogent Education9(1), 2082120.
Coşkun, A. (2010). The effect of metacognitive strategy training on the listening performance of beginner students. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 4(1), 35–50.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson Education.
Dai, D. W. (2023). What do second language speakers really need for real-world interaction? A needs analysis of L2 Chinese interactional competence. Language Teaching Research, 13621688221144836.
De Casterlé, B. D., Gastmans, C., Bryon, E., & Denier, Y. (2012). QUAGOL: A guide for qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 49(3), 360-371.
Dilāns, G. (2016). Corrective feedback in L2 Latvian classrooms: Teacher perceptions versus the observed actualities of practice. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 479-497.
Edmondson, Willis J., Juliane House, and Daniel Z. Kadar. (2023). Expressions, speech acts and discourse: A pedagogic interactional grammar of English. Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18.
Eslami, Z. R., & Derakhshan, A. (2020). Promoting advantageous ways of corrective feedback in EFL/ESL classroom. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 19, 48-65. 10.32038/ltrq.2020.19.04
Fukuya, Y. J., & Zhang Hill, Y. (2006). The effects of recasting on the production of pragmalinguistic conventions of request by Chinese learners of English. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 59-91.
García-Gómez, A. (2022). Learning through WhatsApp: Students’ beliefs, L2 pragmatic development and interpersonal relationships. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(5-6), 1310-1328.
Gass, S., Behney, J., & Plonsky, L. (2020). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Routledge.
Glaser, K. (2018). Enhancing the role of pragmatics in primary English teacher training. Glottodidactica. An International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 45(2), 119-131.
Gorman, M., & Ellis, R. (2019). The relative effects of metalinguistic explanation and direct written corrective feedback on children’s grammatical accuracy in new writing. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 1(1), 57-81.
Halenko, N., & Wang, J. (2022). Guest editorial: Learning and teaching second language pragmatics: Setting the scene. The Language Learning Journal, 50(4), 407-408.
Heift, T. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in CALL. ReCALL, 16(2), 416-431.
Ishihara, N. (2010). Instructional pragmatics: Bridging teaching, research, and teacher education. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(10), 938-953.
Jenks, C. J. (2011) Transcribing talk and interaction: Issues in the representation of communication data. John Benjamins.
Kamiya, N. (2016). The relationship between stated beliefs and classroom practices of oral corrective feedback. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 10(3), 206-219.
Kimura, D., Malabarba, T., & Kelly Hall, J. (2018). Data collection considerations for classroom interaction research: A conversation analytic perspective. Classroom Discourse, 9(3), 185-204.
Koike, D. A., & Pearson, L. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence. System, 33(3), 481-501.
Kulka, S. B, House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Ablex.
Lee, I. (2013). Research into practice: Written corrective feedback. Language Teaching, 46(1), 108-119.
Lee, I., Luo, N., & Mak, P. (2021). Issues of Error Selection for Focused Written Corrective Feedback in Authentic Classroom Contexts. RELC Journal.
Luquin, M., & Mayo, M. D. P. G. (2021). Exploring the use of models as a written corrective feedback technique among EFL children. System, 98, 102465.
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40.
Lyster, R. (2002). Negotiation in immersion teacher–student interaction. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3-4), 237-253.
Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48(2), 183-218.
Macbeth, D. (2014). Studies of work, instructed action, and the promise of granularity: A commentary. Discourse Studies, 16(2), 295-308.
Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Routledge.
McManus, K., & Marsden, E. (2019). Signatures of automaticity during practice: Explicit instruction about L1 processing routines can improve L2 grammatical processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40(1), 205-234.
Méndez, E. H., & Cruz, M. R. R. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions about oral corrective feedback and their practice in EFL classrooms. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 14(2), 63-75.
Melander, H., & Sahlstrom, F. (2009). In tow of the blue whale: Learning as interactional changes in topical orientation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1519-1537.
Nicholas, A., & Perkins, J. (2023). A concept-based approach to teaching L2 pragmatics. L2 Pragmatics in Action: Teachers, learners and the teaching-learning interaction process, 58, 293- 318.
Nguyen, M. T. T., Pham, H. T., & Pham, T. M. (2017). The effects of input enhancement and recasts on the development of second language pragmatic competence. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching11(1), 45-67.
Nguyen, M. T. T., Do, H. T., Pham, T. T., & Nguyen, A. T. (2018). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 pragmatics: An eight-month investigation. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching56(3), 345-375.
Patra, I., Alazemi, A., Al-Jamal, D., & Gheisari, A. (2022). The effectiveness of teachers’ written and verbal corrective feedback (CF) during formative assessment (FA) on male language learners’ academic anxiety (AA), academic performance (AP), and attitude toward learning (ATL). Language Testing in Asia, 12(1), 1-21.
Pfanner, N. (2015). Teacher corrective oral feedback in the classroom. Journal of Language and Education, 1(2), 46-55. 1-2-46-55
Plonsky, L. (2012). Replication, meta-analysis, and generalizability. In G. Porte (Ed.), Replication research in applied linguistics (pp. 116-132). Cambridge University Press.
Plonsky, L., & Zhuang, J. (2019). A meta-analysis of second language pragmatics instruction. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 287–307). Routledge.
Rahimi, M., & Zhang, L. J. (2015). Exploring non-native English-speaking teachers' cognitions about corrective feedback in teaching English oral communication. System, 55, 111-122.
Ranta, L. & R. Lyster (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The Awareness–Practice–Feedback sequence. In R. DeKeyser (ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141–160). Cambridge University Press,
Riazi, M. (2016). The Routledge encyclopedia of research methods in applied Linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research. Routledge.
Sánchez-Hernández, A., & Martínez-Flor, A. (2022). Teaching the pragmatics of English as an international language: A focus on pragmatic markers. Language Teaching Research, 26(2), 256-278.
Schenck, A. (2022). How selection of a target feature impacts corrective feedback: Finding answers through meta-analysis of Chinese EFL learners. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 45(2), 274-293.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 128-158.
Shao, J., Wu, Y., Zeng, S., & Huang, R. (2023). The role of feedback type and language anxiety in the effectiveness of written corrective feedback for L2 learning. The Language Learning Journal, 1-13.
Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 593-610). Routledge.
Shen, R., & Chong, S. W. (2022). Learner engagement with written corrective feedback in ESL and EFL contexts: a qualitative research synthesis using a perception-based framework. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1-15.
Taguchi, N. (2018). Contexts and pragmatics learning: Problems and opportunities of the study abroad research. Language Teaching, 51(1), 124-137. https://  
Taguchi, N. (Ed.). (2019). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics. Routledge.
Taguchi, N. (2023). Technology-enhanced language learning and pragmatics: Insights from digital game-based pragmatics instruction. Language Teaching, 1-11.
Takimoto, M. (2006). The effects of explicit feedback on the development of pragmatic proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 393-417.
Tajeddin, Z., & Shirkhani, S. (2017). Pragmatic corrective feedback in L2 classrooms: Investigating EFL teachers’ perceptions and instructional practices. Teaching English Language, 11(2), 25-56.
Taylor, T. L. (2003). Multiple pleasures women and online gaming. Convergence. The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 9(1), pp. 21-46.
Valizadeh, M. (2022). The Effect of Comprehensive Written Corrective Feedback on EFL Learners’ Written Syntactic Complexity. Journal of Language and Education, 8(1), 196-208.
Van Ha, X., & Murray, J. C. (2021). The impact of a professional development program on EFL teachers’ beliefs about corrective feedback. System96, 102405.
Widanta, I. M. R. J., Hudiananingsih, P. D., Sitawati, A. A. R., & Ardika, I. W. D. (2019). Pragmatic errors and transfer of foreign learners of Indonesian: The case of refusals. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10(3), 501-508.
Yang, C., Potts, R., & Shanks, D. R. (2017). Metacognitive unawareness of the errorful generation benefit and its effects on self-regulated learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(7), 1073-1092.
Yusuf, N. H. (2018). Causes of pragmalinguistic errors in university EFL learners’ writings. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 5(6), 1-27.
Zhang, L. J., & Cheng, X. (2021). Examining the effects of comprehensive written corrective feedback on L2 EAP students’ linguistic performance: A mixed-methods study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 54, 101043.
Zhao, Y., & Ellis, R. (2022). The relative effects of implicit and explicit corrective feedback on the acquisition of 3rd person-s by Chinese university students: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research, 26(3), 361-381.