Document Type : Research Paper


Department of English Language Teaching, Aliabad Katoul Branch, Islamic Azad University, Aliabad Katoul, Iran


The present study aimed to review the instruction of the L2 speech acts in English pragmatics in the Iranian context during the last two decades from 2000 to 2020. To this end, upon the completion of the study search, the retrieved articles were selected and analyzed based on the research domain.  The results of our synthesis from 54 studies carried out on the instruction of the speech act not only reveal that pragmatics is amenable to instruction but also unfold that the most frequently instructed speech act is the speech act of request which has been conducted in 29 studies, while the least instructed speech act is  invitation, used in only one study. Moreover, analyzing the data collection methods documented that Multiple-choice Discourse Completion Test (MDCT) is the most predominant method utilized in 36 papers during the last decades in English pragmatic instruction. With respect to the treatment types, it is illuminated that the most recurrent treatment type is explicit, implicit vs. control, followed by explicit vs. implicit, although other treatment types have been embarked on. As a final point, it is worth noting that 53 of the conducted studies utilized the quantitative method in their data analyses, whereas only one study implemented the qualitative method. The paper concludes with some avenues for further research.


Ahmadi, A., & Ghafar Samar, R. (2014). Teaching requestive downgraders in L2: Can learners’ MI modify the effects of focused tasks?. Teaching English Language, 8(2), 91-117.
Ahmadi, A., Ghafar, S. R., & Yazdanimoghaddam, M. (2011). Teaching requestive downgraders in L2: How effective are input-based and output-based tasks?. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 14(2), 1-30.
Alavi, S. M., & Dini, S. (2008). Assessment of pragmatic awareness in an EFL classroom context: The case of implicit and explicit instruction. Pazhuheshe Zabanhaye Khareji, 45, 99-113.
Alcón-Soler, E., & Martı´nez-Flor, A. (2008). Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching, and testing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Anani Sarab, M. R., & Alikhani, S. (2016a). The efficacy of pragmatic instruction in EFL context: The case of Persian learners of English. English Teaching & Learning, 40(1), 25-47.
Anani Sarab, M. R., & Alikhani, S. (2016b). Pragmatics instruction in EFL context: A focus on requests. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 5(1), 29-42.
Arabmofrad, A., Derakhshan, A., & Atefinejad, M. (2019). An interplay between Iranian EFL learners’ specific and general inter-language pragmatic motivation and their meta-pragmatic awareness. Iranian Journal of English for Academic Purposes8(3), 77-94.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words? London: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Badjadi, N. E. I. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of instructional tasks on L2 pragmatics comprehension and production. In S. F. Tang & L. Logonnathan (Eds.), Assessment for learning within and beyond the classroom (pp. 241-268). Singapore: Springer.
Bagheri, M., & Hamrang, A. (2013). The effect of metapragmatic instructions on the interpretation and use of apology speech acts of English as a foreign language learner (EFL) at the intermediate level. International Journal of Social Sciences & Education, 3(4), 964-975.
Bagherkazemi, M. (2018). Impact of collaborative output-based instruction on EFL learners’ awareness of the speech act of apology. Journal of Language and Translation, 8(4), 45-54.
Barekat, B., & Mehri, M. (2013). Investigating the effect of metalinguistic feedback in L2 pragmatic instruction. International Journal of Linguistics, 5(2), 197-208.
Birjandi, P., & Derakhshan, A. (2014). The impact of consciousness-raising video-driven vignettes on the pragmatic development of apology, request, & refusal. Applied Research on English Language3(1), 67-85.
Birjandi, P., & Pezeshki, M. (2013). The effect of self-assessment and conference on EFL students’ production of speech acts and politeness markers: Alternatives on the horizon?. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 5(1), 1-30.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical aspects of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
 Celce-Murcia, M, Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 5-35.
 Chalak, A., & Abbasi, S. (2015). The effects of explicit and implicit pragmatic instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ production of suggestion speech act in the context of distance learning. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(4), 275-284.
  Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cohen, A. D. (2008). Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: What can we expect from learners? Language Teaching. 41(2), 213-235.
Cohen, A. D. (2017). Teaching and learning second language pragmatics. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 428-452), Vol. 3. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cohen, A. D. (2020). Considerations in assessing pragmatic appropriateness in spoken language. Language Teaching53(2), 183-202.
Crystal, D. (1985). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Culpeper, J., Mackey, A., & Taguchi, N. (2018). Second language pragmatics: From theory to research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Dastjerdi, H. V., & Rezvani, E. (2010). The impact of instruction on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ production of requests in English. Journal of Language Teaching and Research1(6), 782-790.
Derakhshan, A. (2014). The effect of consciousness-raising video-driven prompts on the comprehension of implicatures and speech acts (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.
Derakhshan, A. (2015). The effect of video-enhanced input on the comprehension of implicature of the intermediate EFL learners. Golestan, Golestan University Press.
Derakhshan, A. (2019a). The relationship between Iranian EFL learners’ proficiency level and their knowledge of idiosyncratic and formulaic implicatures. Language Related Research. 10(5), 1-27.
Derakhshan, A. (2019b). [Review of the book Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics, by N. Taguchi]. Applied Linguistics.
Derakhshan, A., & Arabmofrad, A. (2018). The impact of instruction on the pragmatic comprehension of speech acts of apology, request, and refusal among Iranian intermediate EFL learners. English Teaching & Learning, 42(1), 75-94.   
Derakhshan, A., & Eslami, Z. (2015). The effect of consciousness-raising instruction on the comprehension of apology & request. TESL-EJ, 18(4).  Available at
Derakhshan, A., & Eslami, Z. (2020). The effect of meta-pragmatic awareness, interactive translation, and discussion through video-enhanced input on EFL learners’ comprehension of implicature. Applied Research on English Language9(1), 25-52.
Derakhshan, A., Malmir, A., Greenier, V. (in press). Interlanguage pragmatic learning strategies (IPLS) as predictors of L2 speech act knowledge: A case of Iranian EFL learners. The Journal of Asia TEFL.
Derakhshan, A., & Shakki, F. (2020a). The effect of implicit vs. explicit metapragmatic instruction on the Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ pragmatic comprehension of apology and refusal. Journal of Language Research, 12(37), 151-175.
Derakhshan, A., & Shakki, F. (2020b). [ Review of the book Doing SLA research with implications for the classroom reconciling methodological demands and pedagogical applicability, by R. M. DeKeyser and G. P. Botana]. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. https://doi. 10.1111/ijal.12290.
Derakhshan, A., & Shakki, F., Sarani, M., A. (in press). The effect of dynamic and non-dynamic assessment on the comprehension of Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ speech acts of apology and request. Language Related Research.
Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System33(2), 209-224.
Eslami, Z., & Eslami, A. (2008). Enhancing the pragmatic competence of non-native English-speaking teacher candidates (NNESTCs) in an EFL context. In E. A Soler, & A. Martı´nez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing, (pp. 178-197). Britain: Cromwell Press.
Eslami-Rasekh, Z., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Fatahi, A. (2004). The effect of explicit metapragmatic instruction on the speech act awareness of advanced EFL students. TESL-EJ, 8(2)Available at
Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Mardani, M. (2010). Investigating the effects of teaching apology speech act, with a focus on intensifying strategies, on pragmatic development of EFL learners: The Iranian context. The International Journal of Language Society and Culture, 30(1), 96-103.
Eslami, Z. R., Mirzaei, A., & Dini, S. (2015). The role of asynchronous computer mediated communication in the instruction and development of EFL learners’ pragmatic competence. System, 48, 99-111. doi:10.1016/j.system.2014.09.008
Fakher, Z., & Panahifar, F. (2020). The effect of teachers’ scaffolding and peers’ collaborative dialogue on speech act production in symmetrical and asymmetrical groups. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research8(1), 45-61.
Fakher, Z., Vahdany, F., Jafarigohar, M., & Soleimani, H. (2016). The effect of mixed and matched level dyadic interaction on Iranian EFL learners’ comprehension and production of requests and apologies. Journal of Teaching Language Skills35(1), 1-30.
Farahian, M., Rezaee, M., & Gholami, A. (2012). Does direct instruction develop pragmatic competence? Teaching refusals to EFL learners of English. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(4), 814-821.
Farrokhi, F., & Atashian, S. (2012). The role of refusal instruction in pragmatic development. World Journal of Education, 2(4), 85-93.
Farrokhi, F., & Atashian, S. (2013). Towards pragmatic instruction of apology in the Iranian context. The Iranian EFL Journal, 1(2), 207-217.
Gass, S. M. (2013). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. New York, NY: Routledge.
Ghaedrahmat, M., Alavi Nia, P., & Biria, R. (2016). The effect of explicit vs. implicit instruction on mastering the speech act of thanking among Iranian male and female EFL learners. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 9(2), 401-425.
Gharibeh, S. G., Mirzaee, M., & Yaghoubi-Notash, M. (2016). The role of instruction in the development of EFL learners’ pragmatic competence. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 173-184.
Ghavamnia, M., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Dastjerdi, H. V. (2014). Exploring the effects of input based instruction on the development of EFL learnerspragmatic proficiency. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning3(7), 43-56.
Gholamia, J., & Aghaeib, H. K. (2012). The impact of explicit and implicit instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ production and recognition of language functions. International Journal of Physical and Social Sciences2(9), 107-131.
Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Hassaskhah, J., & Ebrahimi, H. (2015). A study of EFL learners' (meta) pragmatic learning through explicit (teacher explanation) and implicit (foreign film) interventions: The case of compliment. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(2), 292-301.
Hymes, D. (1971). Competence and performance in linguistic theory. In R. Huxley & E. Ingram (Eds.), Language acquisition: Models and methods (pp. 3-28). London: Academic Press.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.
Jeon, E.H., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development. In N. John & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 165-211). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kargar, A. A., Sadighi, F., & Ahmadi, A. R. (2012). The effects of collaborative translation task on the apology speech act production of Iranian EFL learners. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 4(3), 47-78.
Kasper, G. & K. Rose. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 81-104.
Kasper, G., & K. Rose. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford, UK:  Blackwell.
Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Khatib, M., & Ahmadi Safa, M. (2001). The effectiveness of ZPD-wise explicit/implicit expert peers and coequals’ scaffolding in ILP development. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14, 49-75.
Kia, E., & Salehi, M. (2013). The effect of explicit and implicit instruction of English thanking and complimenting formulas on developing pragmatic competence of Iranian EFL upper-intermediate level learners. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 3(8), 202-215.
Khodareza, M., & Lotfi, A. R. (2012). Interlanguage pragmatics development: Iranian EFL learners’ interpretation and use of speech acts. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2(9), 9235-9243.
Khodareza, M., & Lotfi, A. R. (2013). Interlanguage pragmatic development: The effect of formal instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ interpretation and use of speech act of apology. Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2(2), 99-104.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2017). The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Malaz, I., Rabiee, M., & Ketabi, S. (2011). The pragmatic instruction effects on Persian EFL learners’ noticing and learning outcomes in request forms. Journal of Technology & Education, 5(3), 187-193.
Malmir, A., & Derakhshan, A. (2020). The socio-pragmatic, lexico-grammatical, and cognitive strategies in L2 pragmatic comprehension: A case of Iranian male vs. female EFL learners. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 1-23.
Malmir, A., & Derakhshan, A. (in press). Identity processing styles as predictors of L2 pragmatic knowledge and performance: A case of common English speech acts. Journal of Language Horizons.
Martı´nez-Flor, A., & E. Alcón-Soler (2005). Special issue: Pragmatics in instructed language  learning. System, 33(3), 381-546.
Masouleh, F. A., Arjmandi, M., & Vahdany, F. (2014). The effect of explicit metapragmatic instruction on request speech act awareness of intermediate EFL students at institute level. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2(7), 504-511.
Morris, C. W. (1938). Foundations of the theory of signs. In O. Neurath, R. Carnap, & C.W. Morris (Eds.), International encyclopedia of unified science (pp. 1-59). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mirzaee, A., & Esmaeili, M. (2013). The effects of planned instruction on Iranian L2 learners' interlanguage pragmatic development. International Journal of Society, Culture & Language, 1(1), 89-100.
Nassaji, H. (2016). Research timeline: Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition. Language Teaching49(1), 35-62.
Nemati, M., & Arabmofrad, A. (2014). Development of interlanguage pragmatic competence: input-and output-based instruction in the zone of proximal development. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(2), 262.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta‐analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417-528.
Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure. Language Learning33(4), 465-497.
Plonsky, L., & Zhuang, J. (2019). A meta-analysis of L2 pragmatics instruction. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 287-307). New York, NY: Routledge.
Rajabia, S., Azizifara, A., & Gowhary, H. (2015a). The effect of explicit instruction on pragmatic competence development; teaching requests to EFL learners of English. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199(3), 231-239.
Rajabi, S., Azizifar, A., & Gowhary, H. (2015b). Investigating the of Explicit Instruction of Apology Speech Act on Pragmatic Development of Iranian EFL Learners. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(4), 53-61.
Rezvani, E., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Vahid Dastjerdi, H. (2014). Investigating the effects of explicit and implicit instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ pragmatic development: Speech acts of request and suggestion in focus. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 3(7), 1-12.
Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33(3), 385-399.
Rose, K. & G. Kasper (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sadeghi, A., & Foutooh, M. (2012). The effect of explicit instruction of compliment responses strategies on intermediate Iranian foreign language learners’ ability to respond to compliments. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(3), 385-406.
Sadeqi, H., & Ghaemi, H. (2016). The effect of employing explicit pragmatics awarness-raising instruction on advanced EFL learner's use of politeness strategy of request via emails. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 6(1), 62.
Salehi, M. (2011). The effect of explicit versus implicit Instruction: A case for apology and request speech acts. International Conference on Languages, Literature and Linguistics IPEDR, 26, 467-470.
Salemi, A., Rabiee, M., & Ketabi, S. (2012). The effects of explicit/implicit instruction and feedback on the development of Persian EFL learners' pragmatic competence in suggestion structures. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(1), 188-199.
Searle, J. R. (1976). The classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1-24.
Simin, S., Eslami, Z. R., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Ketabi, S. (2014). The effect of explicit teaching of apologies on Persian EFL learners’ performance: When e-communication helps. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 3(4), 71-84.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.) Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21-42). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-33). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sonnenburg-Winkler, S. L., Eslami, Z. R., & Derakhshan, A. (in press). Rater variation in pragmatic assessment: The impact of linguistic background on peer-assessment and self- assessment. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics.
Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289-310.
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching48(1), 1-50.
Taguchi, N. (Ed.). (2019). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics. New York/London: Routledge.
Taguchi, N., & Kim, Y. (2018). Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Taguchi, N., & Sykes, J. M. (2013). Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Tajeddin, Z., & Bagherkazemi, M. (2014). Short-term and long-term impacts of individual and collaborative pragmatic output on speech act production. Teaching English Language, 8(1), 141-166.
Tajeddin, Z., & Hosseinpur, R. (2014a). The impact of deductive, inductive, and L1-based consciousness-raising tasks on EFL learners’ acquisition of the request speech act. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 33(1), 73-92.
Tajeddin, Z., & Hosseinpur, R. M. (2014b). The role of consciousness-raising tasks on EFL learners’ microgenetic development of request pragmatic knowledge. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 17(1), 187-147.
Tajeddin, Z., Keshavarz, M. H., & Zand-Moghadam, A. (2012). The effect of task-based language teaching on EFL learners’ pragmatic production, metapragmatic awareness, and pragmatic self-assessment. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 139-166.
Takahashi, S. (2010a). Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 391-421). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Takahashi, S. (2010b). The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance. In Martı´nez-Flor A. & E. Use-Juan. (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 127-144). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112.
Thorne, S. L. (2013). Language learning, ecological validity, and innovation under conditions of superdiversity. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature6(2), 1-27.
Uso´-Juan, E., & Martı´nez-Flor, A. (2008). Teaching learners to appropriately mitigate requests. ELT Journal, 62(4), 349-357.
Wilkins, D. A. (1972). Grammatical, situational and notional syllabuses (Report No. FI 008 113). Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 136 549).
Yousefi, M., & Nassaji, H. (2019). A meta-analysis of the effects of instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pragmatics and the role of moderator variables: Face-to-face vs. computer-mediated instruction. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics170(2), 277-308.
Zangoei, A., Nourmohammadi, E., & Derakhshan, A. (2014a). The effect of consciousness-raising listening prompts on the development of the speech act of apology in an Iranian EFL context. SAGE4(2). Retrieved from
Zangoei, A., Nourmohammadi, E., & Derakhshan, A. (2014b). A gender-based study of Iranian EFL learners' pragmatic awareness: The role of receptive skill-based teaching. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature3(6), 53-63.