Effects of Peer Feedback on EFL Learners' Pragmatic Acquisition

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2017.03.017

Abstract

Abstract: This study investigated the effects of two types of peer feedback, i.e., peer prompts and peer recasts, on the acquisition of request speech act, i.e., comprehensive and productive acquisition, by 102 non-English majors. Through the experimental design of pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest, it revealed that, peer prompts and peer recasts facilitated learners' pragmatic acquisition in which both experimental groups significantly improved pragmatic comprehensive competence, irrespective of feedback type, while peer prompts group performed significantly better than peer recasts group in pragmatic production. In terms of effect durability, both of them were durable for pragmatic comprehension, but the effect of peer recasts faded away in pragmatic production compared with that of peer prompts.

CLC Number:

H315.9

WEI Ran. Effects of Peer Feedback on EFL Learners' Pragmatic Acquisition[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2017, 17(03): 96-102.

References

Adams, R. 2007. Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? [A] In A. Mackey (ed.). Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A collection of Empirical Studies [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 29-51.
Adams, R., A. M. Nuevo & T. Egi. 2011. Explicit and implicit feedback, modified output, and SLA: Does explicit and implicit feedback promote learning and learner-learner interactions? [J]. The Modern Language Journal 95: 42-63.
Ballinger, S. 2013. Towards a cross-linguistic pedagogy: Biliteracy and reciprocal learning strategies in French immersion [J]. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 1: 131-148.
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2^nd ed.) [M]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dekeyser, R. 2007. Practice in a Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology [M]. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dekeyser, R. 2010. Practice for second language learning: Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater [J]. International Journal of English Studies 10: 155-165.
Ellis, R. & Y. Sheen. 2006. Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28(4): 575-600.
Fukuya, Y. J. & Y. Zhang. 2002. Effects of recasts on EFL learners' acquisition of pragmalinguistic conventions of request [J]. Second Language Studies 21(1): 1-47.
Kasper, G. & S. Blum-Kulka. 2003. Interlanguage Pragmatics [M]. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kasper, G. & K. R. Rose. 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language [M]. Michigan: Blackwell.
Koike, D. A. & L. Pearson. 2005. The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence [J]. System 33: 481-501.
Lantolf, J. P. & S. L. Thorne. 2006. Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Laufer, B. & J. Hulstijn. 2001. Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement [J]. Applied Linguistics 22 (1): 1-26.
Liu, J. 2006. Measuring Interlanguage Pragmatic Knowledge of EFL Learners [M]. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Lyster, R., K. Saito & M. Sato. 2013. Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms [J]. Language Teaching 46: 1-40.
Mackey, A., R. Oliver & J. Leeman. 2003. Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads [J]. Language Learning 53: 35-66.
Nguyen, T., T.H. Pham & M. H. Pham. 2012. The relative effects of explicit and implicit form-focused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic competence [J]. Journal of pragmatics 44: 416-434.
Rose, K. R. 2005. On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics [J]. System 33: 385-399.
Sato, M. & R. Lyster. 2012. Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34 (4): 591-626.
Schmidt, R. 1993. Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics [A]. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics [C]. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 43-57.
Swain, M. 2005. The output Hypothesis: Theory and research [A]. In E. Hinkel (ed.). Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning [C]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 471-483.
Taguchi, N. 2011. Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues [J]. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31: 289-310.
Takimoto, M. 2006. The effects of explicit feedback on the development of pragmatic proficiency [J]. Language Teaching Research 10: 393-417.
VanPattern, B. 2012. Input processing [A]. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (eds.), Routledge handbook of SLA [C]. NY: Routledge, 268-281.
何自然. 1986. 语用学概论[M]. 湖南教育出版社.
季佩英、江静. 2010. 对大学英语语用能力培养的再思考——以2010年首届“外教社杯”全国大学英语教学大赛上海赛区比赛为例[J]. 外语界(6):33-41.
魏冉. 2015. 纠错反馈和明示教学对英语学习者语用习得的影响[J]. 现代外语(1):73-82.
徐锦芬. 2016. 大学英语课堂小组互动中的同伴支架研究[J]. 外语与外语教学(1):15-23.
张雪梅、戴炜栋. 2001. 反馈、二语习得、语言教学[J]. 外语界(2):2-8.

[1]	Shihong DU, Yu WANG. Reflections upon Reductionism and Holism in Eco-translatology [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 451(1): 86-96.
[2]	ZHAN Jun. The Framework and the Componential Elements of of Business English Descipline [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2020, 450(6): 7-18.
[3]	CHEN Xinren. A Note on the Internationalization of Research Outputs by Scholars in the Field of Foreign Studies [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2020, 450(6): 5-6.
[4]	ZHANG Siyong. Translation Process Research from Interdisciplinary Perspectives: A Survey and Some Reflections [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2020, 449(5): 91-100.
[5]	SHANG Wenbo. A Corpus based Study on the Explicitation of Logical Relations in Translated Academic Texts——A Case Study of the Translation of Handbook of Social Justice in Education [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2020, 449(5): 110-120.
[6]	ZHU Xiaoying. On Huang Yuanshen’sAesthetic Ideas of Translation [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2020, 449(5): 23-33.
[7]	ZHU Bo. On Translation for Strategic Communication——A Case Study of "China Keywords Project" [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2020, 446(2): 111-118.
[8]	LI Chao, WANG Shouhong. Translation as a Way of Interpretation [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2020, 446(2): 119-128.
[9]	GONG Gang, ZHAO Jiao. The “Corresponding Translation” Theory: The Ideal State of Literary Translation [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2020, 445(1): 102-110.
[10]	PENG Wenqing, WANG Jinbo. Inheritance or Plagiarism: A Case Study of Cheung Yik-man's Partial Translation of San Guo Yan Yi [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2019, 19(06): 98-110.
[11]	FENG Quangong, GU Tao. On Translation Landscape in Tourist Areas: Exemplified by the West Lake Scenic Area in Hangzhou [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2019, 19(06): 83-97.
[12]	Sakai Hirobumi. Scattered Recollections of the Japanese Translation of September's Fable and Others [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2019, 19(05): 85-95.
[13]	CHU Dongwei. Art for Art's Sake: On Translating Zhang Wei's Fiction [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2019, 19(05): 96-105.
[14]	ZHOU Yuanhang. An Approach to Style Criticism of Literary Translation: A Case Study of Goldblatt's Translation of the Republic of Wine [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2019, 19(05): 106-117.
[15]	DENG Lingyun, YU Huan. A Comparative Study and Its Implications of Translation Quality Requirements in China and Foreign Countries [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2019, 19(04): 115-123.