Explicit comparison of L1 and L2 complaints and apologies through the interview project was followed by more appropriate strategies in the posttest¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r2 · q1
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? The authors report that class differentiation of native and nonnative speaker interaction resulted in more appropriate posttest strategies. → Noonkong et al. 2017

Evidence¶

Noonkong et al. 2017¶

Uraiwan Rattanapan Noonkong, Anamai Damnet, Kanjana Charttrakul. (2017). Enhancing Thai Engineering Students’ Complaints and Apologies through Pragmatic Consciousness-Raising Approach (PCR). Advances in Language and Literary Studies. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.8n.6p.92

q1 · i? · design · r2

The authors' interpretation in the Discussion section of their classroom action research; the article attributes the pattern to the explicit L1/L2 comparison and interview project following the PCR approach, citing Rose (1999) and Kondo (2008).

"Most participants could differentiate native speakers’ interaction from that of nonnative speakers in class and this resulted in more appropriate strategies used in the posttest."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Explicit instruction of the apology speech act significantly improves Iranian EFL learners' appropriate use of apology strategies at both intermediate and advanced proficiency levels — related
• Explicit instruction of refusals significantly improves Iranian EFL learners' pragmatic performance of refusals — related
• Twelve sessions of PCR instruction significantly improved Thai engineering students' WDCT performance on complaints across all four criteria in both scenarios — related