Defossilization of Fossilized Pragmatic Routines: Corpus-Driven Input-Based and Output-Based Instruction

Document Type: Research Paper


1 Department of English Language Teaching, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran


Mainstream L2 pragmatic research has shown that pragmatic fossilization is quite common among L2 learners at almost all levels of proficiency. This study examined the defossilizing effect of corpus-driven activities on 10 situationally-based pragmatic routines under two instructional conditions, i.e. input-based and output-based treatments. Participants were 33 advanced EFL learners in two classes in a private English language center. They received instruction in four sessions across two weeks. Before and after the treatment, a WDCT was administered for pretest and posttest purposes. The results of paired-samples and Independent Samples t-tests showed that input-enhancement and output-based instructions were effective in defossilization pragmatic routines which had a strong fossilization tendency among learners. Both treatment tasks led to significant increases in learners’ comprehension and production of the routines. The output-based group; however, significantly outperformed the input-based group in the production of the routines. The findings indicate that pragmatic instruction can debilitate the fossilization tendencies of pragmatic routines and that different instructional tasks have differential effects on the production and comprehension of pragmatic routines. The pedagogical implication of this study is that a combination of instructionally supported corpus-based tasks would be effective for enhancing EFL learners’ ability to comprehend and use routines appropriately in context.


Article Title [Persian]

فسیل زدایی اصطلاحات پیش ساخته منظورشناختی با استفاده از آموزش تولید محور و داده محور مبتنی بر پیکره های زبانی

Authors [Persian]

  • ضیا تاج الدین 1
  • انسیه خدارحمی 2
2 دانشجوی دکتری آموزش زبان انگلیسی، گروه زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران
Abstract [Persian]

نتایج پژوهش های انجام شده در مورد منظورشناسی زبان دوم نشان داده است که فسیل شدگی در میان زبان آموزان در همه سطوح مهارت های زبانی بسیار رایج است. مطالعه حاضر به بررسی تاثیر تدریس مبتنی بر پیکره های زبانی در فسیل‌زدایی اصطلاحات پیش-ساخته منظورشناختی در دو شرایط آموزشی، یعنی روش های تولید محور و داده محور می پردازد. شرکت‌کنندگان 33 زبان آموز سطح پیشرفته زبان انگلیسی بودند که در یک مرکز خصوصی آموزش زبان انگلیسی مشغول فراگیری این زبان بودند. شرکت‌کنندگان در چهار جلسه آموزشی که در طی دو هفته برگزار شد، شرکت کردند. قبل و بعد از جلسات آموزشی، شرکت کنندگان به یک آزمون تکمیل گفتمان نوشتاری به عنوان پیش آزمون و پس آزمون پاسخ دادند. نتایج آزمون تی نمونه های زوجی و مستقل نشان داد که روش های آموزشی تولید محور وداده محور در فسیلزدایی اصطلاحات پیش ساخته موثر بودند. هر دو روش آموزشی منجر به افزایش قابل ملاحظه درتوانایی زبان آموزان برای درک و استفاده از این اصطلاحات شدند، گرچه گروه تولید محور به طور قابل ملاحظه ای موفق‌تر از گروه داده محور در استفاده صحیح از اصطلاحات عمل کردند. یافته های این پژوهش نشان داد که آموزش تولید محور و داده محور می تواند تاثیر مثبتی بر متوقف کردن گرایش های فسیل شدگی اصطلاحات پیش ساخته داشته باشد. نتایج همچنین نشان داد که روش های آموزشی مختلف می تواند تاثیرات متفاوتی بر تولید و درک اصطلاحات داشته باشد. یکی از مهمترین کاربردهای آموزشی این مطالعه این است که ترکیبی از روش های آموزشی مبتنی بر پیکره های زبانی برای افزایش توانایی فراگیران زبان انگلیسی برای درک و استفاده از اصطلاحات پیش ساخته می تواند موثر واقع شود.

Keywords [Persian]

  • فسیل شدگی منظورشناختی
  • فسیل زدایی
  • اصطلاحات پیش ساخته
  • آموزش داده محور
  • آموزش تولید محور
Alcon Soler E., & Martinez-Flor, A. (2008). Pragmatics in foreign language contexts. In E. Alcon Soler, & A. Martinez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 3-24). New York, NY: Multilingual Matters.

Bardovi‐Harlig, K. (1999) Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49(4), 677-713.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2012) Pragmatics in SLA. In S. M Gass & A.  Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 147-162). London: Routledge.

Bardovi‐Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (1990). Congruence in native and nonnative conversations: Status balance in the academic advising session. Language Learning, 40(4), 467-501.

Bardovi-Harlig K., & Hartford, B. S. (1993). Natural conversations, institutional talk, and interinterlanguage pragmatics. Unpublished Manuscript. Bloomington: Indian University, Programs in Applied Linguistics.

Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S., & Su, Y. (2017). The effect of corpus-based instruction on pragmatic routines. Language Learning & Technology, 21(3), 76-103.

Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S., & Vellenga, H. E. (2015a). Developing corpus-based materials to teach pragmatic routines. TESOL Journal, 6(3), 499-526.

Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S., & Vellenga, H. E. (2015b). The effect of instruction on pragmatic routines in academic discussion. Language Teaching Research, 19(3), 324-350.

Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Vellenga, H. E. (2012). The effect of instruction on conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. System, 40(1), 77-89.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Blum-Kulka, S., & Sheffer, H. (1993). The metapragmatic discourse of American-Israeli families at dinner. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 196-223). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Boulton, A. (2012). Hands-on/hands-off: Varying approaches in data-driven learning. In J. Thomas & A. Boulton (Eds.), Input, process, and product: Developments in teaching and language corpora (pp. 152-168). Brno, Czech Republic: Masaryk University Press.

Cohen, A. D., & Ishihara, N. (2013). Pragmatics. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Applied linguistics and materials development (pp. 113-126). London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic.

Coulmas, F. (1981). Poison to your soul: Thanks and apologies contrastively viewed. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routines: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech (pp. 69-91). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.

Eisenchlas, S. A. (2011). On-line interactions as a resource to raise pragmatic awareness. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 51-61.

Ellis, R. (1989). Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(3), 305-328.

Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2005). Raising the pragmatic awareness of language learners. ELT Journal, 59(3), 199-208.

Eslami, Z. R., & Eslami-Rasekh, A. (2008). Enhancing the pragmatic competence of non-native English-speaking teacher candidates (NNESTCs) in an EFL context. In E. Alcon Soler & A. Martinez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 178-197). New York, NY: Multilingual Matters.

Flowerdew, L. (2015). Data-driven learning and language learning theories: Whither the twain shall meet. In A. Leńko-Szymańska & A. Boulton (Eds.), Multiple affordances of language corpora for data-driven learning (pp. 15-36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Furniss, E. A. (2016). Teaching the pragmatics of Russian conversation using a corpus-referred website. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 38-60.

Gilmore, A. (2011). “I prefer not text”: Developing Japanese learners’ communicative competence with authentic materials. Language Learning, 61(3), 786-819.

Hall, T. (2009). The fossilization-formula interface. Working Papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 62-64.

Han, Z. (2006). Fossilization: Can grammaticality judgment be a reliable source of evidence.  In Z-H. Han & T. Odlin (Eds.), Studies of fossilization in second language acquisition (pp. 56-82). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(2), 225-252.

House, J. (2009). Introduction: The pragmatics of English as a lingua franca. Intercultural Pragmatics6(2), 141-145.

Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. London: Longman.

Jakubowicz, C. (2002). Functional categories in (ab)normal language acquisition. In I. Lasser (Ed.), The process of language acquisition (pp. 165-202). Frankfurt am Main: Lang.

Jiang, X. (2006). Suggestions: What should ESL students know? System, 34(1), 36-54.

Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA.  Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 81-104.

Kecskes, I. (2010). The paradox of communication: Socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics Pragmatics and Society, 1(1), 50-73.

Kupferberg, I. (1999). The cognitive turn of contrastive analysis: empirical evidence. Language Awareness, 8(3), 210-222.

Lardiere, D. (1998). Case and tense in the ‘fossilized’steady state. Second Language Research14(1), 1-26.

Liu, J. (2006). Assessing EFL learners’ interlanguage pragmatic knowledge: Implications for testers and teachers. Reflections on English Language Teaching, 5(1), 1-22.

Mukattash, L. (1986). Persistence of fossilization. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 14 (3), 187-203.

Pilcher, H. (2009). The functional and social reality of discourse variants in a northern English dialect: I DON'T KNOW and I DON'T THINK compared. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(4), 561-596.

Roever, C., & Al-Gahtani, S. (2015). The development of ESL proficiency and pragmatic performance. ELT Journal, 69(4), 395-404.

Romero Trillo, J. (2002). The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(6), 769-784.

Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1-63). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL, 10(1-4), 209-232.

Selinker, L., & Lamendella, J. T. (1979). The role of extrinsic feedback in interlanguage fossilization: A discussion of rule fossilization: A tentative method. Language Learning29(2), 363-376.

Simpson, R. C., Briggs, S. L., Ovens, J., & Swales, J. M. (2002). The Michigan corpus of academic spoken English. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan. Retrieved from

Skehan, P. (2002). Theorizing and updating aptitude. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 197-216). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Sorace, A. (2005). Selective optionality in language development. In L. Cornips & K. P. Corrigan (Eds.), Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social (pp. 55-80). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Suzuki, W., & Itagaki, N.  (2007). Learner metalinguistic reflections following output oriented and reflective activities. Language Awareness, 16(2), 131-146.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in the study of language: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp.125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.64-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471-483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tajeddin, Z., & Hosseinpur, R. (2014). 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., & Pezeshki, M. (2014). Acquisition of politeness markers in an EFL context: Impact of input enhancement and output tasks. RELC Journal45(3), 269-286.

Tomlinson, B. (1994). Pragmatic awareness activities. Language Awareness, 3(3), 119-129.

Vellenga, H. E. (2004). Learning pragmatics from ESL and EFL Textbooks: How likely? TESL-EJ, 8(2), 1-18.

Vigil, N., & Oller, J. W. (1976). Rule fossilization: A tentative model. Language Learning, 26(2), 281-297.

Vyatkina, N. (2016a). Data-driven learning for beginners: The case of German verb-preposition collocations. ReCALL, 28(3), 207-226.

Vyatkina, N. (2016b). Data-driven learning of collocations: Learner performance, proficiency, and perceptions. Language Learning & Technology, 20(3), 159-179.

Washburn, G. (1994). Working in the ZPD: Fossilized and nonfossilized nonnative speakers. In J. Lantolf & A. Gabriela (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 69-81). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Williams, M. (1988). Language taught for meetings and language used for meetings: Is there anything in common? Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 45-58.

Woodfield, H. P. (2008). Problematising discourse completion tasks: Voices from verbal report. Evaluation and Research in Education, 21(1), 43-69.