Interlanguage Pragmatics (ILP)

Alternative assessment approaches received considerable attention soon after a discontent with traditional, one-shot testing. These approaches, however, have been used only to improve learners’ linguistic ability despite communicative models of language which pointed that knowledge of language also involves pragmatic ability (Bachman, 1990; Bachman & Palmer, 1996). The present study tries to explore the effect of two alternative assessment approaches (self-assessment and conference) on students’ production of four speech acts (apology, complaint, request, and refusal) plus politeness markers. A sample of 64 EFL students participated in this study. Metapragmatic explanations were given to three groups of university students studying English as a foreign language. The two treatment groups received instruction through self-assessment and conference and a comparison group was exposed to the conventional one-shot testing. The results of the One-Way ANOVA conducted after the treatment revealed an outperformance of alternative assessment approaches to the conventional one in the production of the four speech acts and politeness markers in WDCTs. A qualitative analysis of students’ self-ratings in the self-assessment group revealed that they focused more on linguistic criteria during the initial sessions and on pragmatic ones by the end of the treatment. It can be concluded that alternative assessment approaches are beneficial to students’ production of speech acts and politeness markers. In the end, the applicability and the positive effect of alternative approaches in pragmatic assessment are emphasized.

The field of Interlanguage pragmatics has always reflected on its methodology, and the validity of the collected data through various data collection methods and whether they approximate the authentic data have always been serious concerns in the field. Drawing upon Schauer’s (2009) taxonomy of request speech act and its internal and external modification devices, the present study was an attempt to investigate the effects of enhancing DCTs. To this end, the requests of 30 EFL students produced by non-modified and modified DCTs were compared with their authentic requests recorded in the classroom institutional context. The findings revealed that modified WDCT and ODCT approximated Natural methodology in terms of request head act and internal modification devices but not external modifiers. To investigate the deeper layers of respondents' thoughts toward DCTs, unstructured interviews were also conducted. Although artificiality of the DCTs and their test-like nature in general were regarded as the weak points of the DCTs by the interviewees, they asserted that the modified DCTs improved their self-confidence and understanding of the scenarios. The findings cautiously suggest that modified version of DCTs enjoy the positive features of both non-modified DCTs, tapping pragmalinguistic and metapragmatic knowledge of respondents, and partly Natural methodology, eliciting the respondents’ sociopragmatic knowledge.