The Effect of Explicit and Implicit Instruction on Developing Pragmatic Competence of Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners: The Case of the Speech Act of Complaint

The Effect of Explicit and Implicit Instruction on Developing Pragmatic Competence of Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners: The Case of the Speech Act of Complaint

Loading document ...
Loading page ...


Author(s): Abdolreza Pazhakh, Masoomeh Barani Tashari, Bahman Gorjian

Download Full PDF Read Complete Article

636 1434 114-118 Volume 2 - Sep 2013


This study aims to investigate the effect of explicit and implicit instructions on developing pragmatic competence among Iranian intermediate EFL learners using speech act of complaint. To homogenize participants, Nelson (Fowler & Coe, 1976) test was administered, and a homogeneous sample comprised of 33 males and 9 females were selected from a population of 90 at the intermediate level. Then the homogenized sample was randomly assigned to two experimental groups, A and B. After that, learners were given a Discourse Completion Test (DCT) pre-test. The two groups were under the explicit and implicit instructions of the instructor, separately, at Masjed.I.Soleiman (MIS) Oil Company for 14 sessions. Having been exposed to the treatments, the two groups took a similar post-test to see whether learners learned complain strategies appropriately. The results of three t-tests indicated that there was a significant difference between the performances of both experimental groups on pre and post-test, and finally post-tests. Consequently, the results of the study also confirmed that pragmatic competence could be developed through implicit instruction to some extent and explicit instructions of speech act of complaint to a more extent.


Explicit and Implicit Instruction, Pragmatic Competence, Speech Act of Complaint


  1. Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words? In Jaworski, A. & Coupland, N., (Eds.). The discourse reader. New York: Rutledge, 63-75
  2. Brown, H. D. (2001). Principles of language teaching. New York: Pearson Education.
  3. Bulut, D. (2009). Pragmatic Awareness of a Foreign Language in a Gender-Segregated Society. Journal of the Institute of Social Sciences Count, 1, 123-139
  4. Fowler, W. S. & Coe, N. (1976). Nelson English language texts. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd.
  5. Jaworski, A. & Coupland, N. (1999). Introduction: Perspectives on discourse analysis. In Jaworski, A. & Coupland, N. (Eds.). The Discourse Reader. New York: Routledge, 1-15
  6. Hudson, R.A. (1996). Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge Textbook linguistics, 109-110
  7. Moon, K. (2001). Speech act study: differences between Native and Nonnative speakers' complaint strategies
  8. Olshtain, E. & Weinbach, L. (1987). Complaints: a study of speech act behavior among native and non-native speakers of Hebrew. In J. Verschueren, & M. Bertucelli-Papi (Eds.), The Pragmatic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 195-208
  9. Schmit, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and inter language pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press, 21-42
  10. Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University press
  11. Tanck, S. (2002). Speech act sets of refusal and complaint: A comparison of native and non- native English speakers' production
  12. Yamagashira, H. (2001). Pragmatic transfer in Japanese ESL refusals. Pragmatic Transfer, 31, 259-275

Cite this Article:

International Journal of Sciences is Open Access Journal.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License.
Author(s) retain the copyrights of this article, though, publication rights are with Alkhaer Publications.

Search Articles

Issue June 2023

Volume 12, June 2023

Table of Contents

World-wide Delivery is FREE

Share this Issue with Friends:

Submit your Paper