105

|E-ISSN: 2981-1686

Journal of Studies in Language Learning and Teaching

www.jsllt.yazd.ac.ir

JSLLT, Vol. 1, No. 1, 105–120.

Paper Type: Original Article

The Impact of the Formal Instruction of Invitation Speech
Act on the Ostensible and Genuine Pragmatic Knowledge of
Iranian EFL Learners
Hamideh Shahriari Felordi*
TESL, Humanities, Islamic Azad University, Qaemshahr, Mazandaran, Iran; [email protected];

Received: 12 March, 2023 Revised: 29 July, 2023 Accepted: 22 November, 2023

Abstract
The present study was an attempt to investigate the impact of formal instruction as a facilitative tool to develop the
ostensible and genuine pragmatic knowledge of Iranian EFL learners with a focus on the “speech act of invitation”. The
participants of this study were 60 females Iranian EFL learners at the intermediate level who were divided into two
different groups, control and experimental. The all went through the Interchange series which resulted in having a similar
background in learning English. The participants’ level was assessed with both a pretest and a posttest in order to be
homogenized considering their pragmatic knowledge in advance. The results of this study showed that the formal
instruction affected the participants by giving them a higher level of proficiency in pragmatic knowledge. The findings
of the study would be helpful for language teachers and curriculum developers.

Keywords: EFL learner, Formal instruction, Intermediate level, Pragmatic knowledge, Speech act of
invitation.

I | INTRODUCTION

Proficiency in speaking a foreign language has become increasingly essential for effective cross-
cultural communication. Successful communication depends on the effective conveying of one's
Licensee
Journal of Studies in
intended message, a task that can be more challenging than expected. Upon visiting a given country,
Language Learning and it is not uncommon for individuals who have dedicated significant time to learning a foreign language
Teaching. This article is to discover, that they still have it hard to communicate their intentions to native speakers. Adding to
an open access article the complexity, language learners may construct grammatically correct sentences that native speakers
distributed under the understand, but the learners may not grasp the social nuances conveyed by these sentences within the
terms and conditions of
specific cultural context of the target language (Eslami-Rasekh, 2005). In this research paper, the
the Creative Commons
author’s objective is to explore the potential of teaching pragmatics to English Language Learners
Attribution (CC BY-NC)
license.
(ELLs). Therefore, the null hypothesis is “Formal instruction of the speech act of invitation has no
effect on the development of the ostensible and genuine pragmatic knowledge of Iranian EFL
learners”. The researcher will begin by providing a clear definition of pragmatic competence.
Following that, the paper will delve into the various teaching methods employed to instruct

Corresponding Author: [email protected]

10.22034/jsllt.2023.19850.1011
 106

pragmatics. Lastly, there will be an outline of the techniques designed to enhance the awareness of
learners regarding pragmatic aspects.

Cultural variations in the use of speech acts pose significant challenges to non-native speakers who try
to communicate in an unfamiliar cultural context where the target language is spoken (Blum et al., 1989).
It highlights the importance for language learners to grasp and consider this essential aspect. 106
Effective communication with people from diverse cultural backgrounds is highly challenging. Cultures
shape individuals’ unique ways of thinking, perceiving, listening, and comprehending the world.
Consequently, even when individuals converse in the “same” language, identical utterances can carry
different meanings for those from various cultural backgrounds. When languages differ and
communication depends on interpretation and translation, the chances for misunderstanding increase
(Eslami-Rasekh, 2005).

Communicative or pragmatic competence refers to the skill of utilizing language effectively across
diverse settings while considering the dynamics among the individuals conversing and the social and
cultural backdrop of the situation (Spada & Lightbown, 1999; Gass & Selinker, 1990). Even individuals
who might be deemed “fluent” in a foreign language because of their adeptness in its grammar,
vocabulary, or even more intricate structures may still fall short in terms of pragmatic competence. In
simpler terms, they should produce the language that conforms to the social and cultural norms of the
context.

There is a growing interest in sociolinguistics and ethnographic studies, which underscore the

Shahriari Felordi | JSLLT, 1(1) 105-120

importance of incorporating pragmatic awareness into the curriculum of Teaching English to Speakers
of Other Languages (TESOL). This shift from a focus solely on grammar to a more comprehensive
emphasis on communicative competence in language learning has further emphasized the need for this
adjustment. While the significance of pragmatic awareness in TESOL is widely acknowledged, there is
limited research on the specific elements constituting such awareness (Yaqubi, 2019). To effectively
grasp the rules for the appropriate use of linguistic forms, EFL learners have to possess knowledge not
only of grammar but also of text organization rules and the pragmatic aspects of the target language
(Bachman, 1990). Kasper (1997) defines pragmatic competence as encompassing the understanding of
communicative actions, how to execute them, and the ability to use language in accordance with
contextual factors. In order to teach these pragmatic components and foster competence in this area,
the researcher adopted the awareness-raising model of instruction. Research into the pragmatic
competence of adult foreign and second language learners has demonstrated that grammatical
development does not guarantee a corresponding level of pragmatic development (Bardovi-Harlig &
Dornyei, 1997) and that even advanced learners may fail to comprehend or to convey the intended
intentions and politeness values.

The responsibility for imparting knowledge about the pragmatic aspects of language use primarily lies
with teachers. However, as language educators, we encounter specific challenges in fulfilling this role.
One of these challenges is the scarcity of teaching materials and techniques, a deficiency that stems from
the limited emphasis on pragmatic matters in English as a Second Language (ESL) courses (Eslami-
Rasekh & Koutlaki, 2018).

The development of the speech act theory (pioneered by Austin in 1962 and further advanced by Searle
in 1969, 1975, 1976 as well as Sinclair and Coulthard in 1975) has provided researchers with a deeper
understanding of how speakers intend to effectively and appropriately perform various functions in the
act of communication. This theory triggered research endeavors centered on speech events and speech
acts, yielding insights that have made educators more cognizant of the intricate interplay between
situational, sociolinguistic, and linguistic aspects of competence (Eslami-Rasekh & Mardani, 2010).
 107

The acquisition of language functions, namely speech acts such as requesting, complaining, thanking,
refusing, apologizing, and inviting along with their associated strategies, has emerged as a significant
concern in the field of English Language Teaching (ELT), especially within the framework of
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). This approach not only encompasses the traditional learning
of vocabulary and grammar but also regards discourse strategies and their combinations (known as
107 semantic formulae) as well as politeness strategies.

It is highly desirable for EFL learners to begin acquiring pragmatic strategies concurrently with their
mastery of vocabulary and sentence structure. This enables them to express themselves in natural and
appropriate ways in various contexts. Learning a language should not be limited to comprehension, but
should also encompass the ability to use it effectively. Thus, language learning is a dynamic process that
involves developing the learners’ pragmatic competence and understanding of the language.

There are numerous definitions proposed for pragmatics, but one particularly useful definition comes from
Journal of Studies in Language Learning and Teaching

Crystal (1985). According to him, “pragmatics is the study of language from the point of view of users,
especially focusing on the choices they make, the constraints they encounter when using language in social
interactions, and the impacts their language use has on other participants in the communication process”
(Crystal, 1985, p. 240).

An existing literature indicates, explicit instruction can have positive effects on the acquisition of speech
acts. Unfortunately, the teaching of speech acts as a socio-cultural skill is not given sufficient emphasis in
English language institutes, high schools, and universities. Consequently, Iranian EFL learners often fail to
correctly understand the functions of speech acts in English-speaking contexts (Eslami-Rasekh, 2005).
Assisting them in acquiring these skills through comprehensive teaching methodologies is considered an
essential component of any EFL teaching program. So far, there has been limited research conducted in
Iran to explore the strategies related to speech acts.

This study aimed to investigate the impact of the formal instruction of the invitation speech act and its
influence on the pragmatic knowledge of Iranian Intermediate EFL female learners. Iranian learners learn
English as a foreign language and, like all other foreign language learners, need to learn English pragmatics
as well. They need to understand and produce English like a native-speaker; hence the necessity of
improving their pragmatic knowledge.

This study focused on invitation because it is considered essential in people’s everyday life. It can
sometimes even cause misunderstandings in the target context, particularly when it comes to ostensible
and genuine invitations (Eslami-Rasekh, 2005). For instance, to invite a native speaker of English, the
speaker can use an utterance which causes the misunderstanding of the listener and make him or her
confused as what the speaker’s intention may be. Therefore, the need of our learners is to cope with
interactive situations in the best way they can. The outcome of this study can help language teachers use
instructions to achieve a better result in terms of the invitation speech acts. It is obviously necessary for
teachers to guide their students in attaining a strong grasp of pragmatic knowledge. Unfortunately, there is
a scarcity of readily available resources to assist educators in pursuing this objective.

In an English environment, it is important to produce those forms and structures which can transfer one’s
intention correctly. The main problem that learners are faced with, however, is the lack of pragmatic
knowledge in a variety of contexts. It is crucial for EFL and even ESL learners to understand native
speakers’ intentions completely and vice versa. As mentioned earlier, most of the time, EFL and ESL
learners have it difficult to transfer their intentions. It is not because of their lack of knowledge in grammar;
rather, it is their poor pragmatic knowledge of that language. Dudley-Evans & St-John (1998) proposed
the concept of teaching pragmatic meanings and highlighted the significance of imparting cultural values
and attitudes as a pivotal aspect in all domains of English for Specific Purposes. Consequently, the objective
of the current study was to investigate the effects of the formal instruction of speech acts on the pragmatic
knowledge of Iranian EFL learners.
 108

As of now, to the best of the researchers’ knowledge, there remains a notable absence of empirical
research exploring the impact of formal instruction on learning speech acts and the promotion of Iranian
EFL learners’ pragmatic knowledge. Therefore, this study aims to bridge this gap by finding a response
to the question “Does formal instruction of speech acts have an impact on the development of the
pragmatic knowledge of Iranian intermediate female learners?”
108

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

1. Speech Act of Invitation

Researchers such as Austin (1975), Yule (1996), and Paltridge & Burton (2000) have collectively defined
the speech act of invitation as an illocutionary act. This act is employed when an inviter intends to
request the invitee's presence at a specific event and is open to accepting the invitee's attendance either
immediately or in the future at a designated time and location.

“I would like to invite you to a celebrity next Monday.” (Bruder & Tillitt, 1999).

In his categorization of speech acts, Searle (1979) classifies an invitation as a directive speech act, wherein
the speaker prompts the hearer to take a particular action. In this sense, invitations share similarities
with requests, orders, and commands, as they all prompt the hearer to perform certain actions. However,
invitations differ in that they encourage the hearer to act for their own benefit rather than for the

Shahriari Felordi | JSLLT, 1(1) 105-120

speaker's benefit, as is the case with orders, requests, or commands. In other words, in situations
involving invitations, the focus is on enhancing the hearer’s well-being rather than the speaker’s.
Hancher (1979) further explains that an invitation is both directive and commissive. In invitations,
speakers not only direct the invitees to perform certain actions but also commit themselves to a future
action. For instance, when inviting someone to a party, the inviters not only guide the invitees to attend
the social gathering but also pledge to provide what they have promised to the invitees.

Wolfson (1989) points out that an invitation typically includes three essential components: a specified
time, a designated place, and a request for restraint. Additionally, he notes the existence of another type
of invitation referred to as ambiguous invitations, where the timing is left unspecified, and modal
auxiliary verbs like “must”, “should”, or “have to” are often used.

Isaacs & Clark (1990) observe that people sometimes present invitations that they do not intend to be
taken seriously. According to them, such invitations are termed ostensible invitations. When making
ostensible invitations, speakers typically employ specific strategies to indicate that these invitations are
not meant to be taken seriously. The purpose of ostensible invitations is not to initiate genuine
invitations but rather to facilitate friendly, ceremonial and interactive functions in order to maintain
suitable social interactions.

2. Types of Inviting

Invitations come in various forms suitable on different occasions, leading to the categorization of
invitations into two main types: direct and indirect invitations. Depending on the structure of the
sentences used, direct invitations can further be divided into several types of speech acts, including
declarative, imperative, performative, hopeful, and conditional speech acts. On the other hand, indirect
invitations are categorized into types such as interrogative invitations (utilizing Wh-questions, Yes/No
questions, and tag questions) and requests for willingness. Amelia (2015) notes that sentences can be
categorized based on their form, falling into types such as declarative, interrogative, and imperative
sentences or orders. However, speech acts go beyond sentence structure, as expressions may not always
align with the sentence type, mode, or the original function of the sentence. In such cases, they are
 109

referred to as “indirect speech acts”; that is, a manner of expression that tends to be more polite in
communication.

One other important aspect considering the speech act of invitation is its being ostensible or genuine,
which was offered by Isaacs & Clark (1990). According to Eslami-Rasekh (2005), intercultural
109 misunderstandings in American / Iranian interactions relate to their ostensible and genuine invitations.

3. Politeness and Polite Invitation

Green (1996) asserts that politeness serves as a means of demonstrating concern for another person by
striving to maximize their comfort and minimize any discomfort they may experience. In other words,
norms governing social behavior, such as showing respect, maintaining appropriate distance, building
rapport and demonstrating courtesy, are influenced by politeness as a key aspect of language use. This is
reflected in a set of politeness principles or maxims that individuals expect to be followed in others’ speech,
Journal of Studies in Language Learning and Teaching

as outlined by Lakoff (1973, p. 199). Furthermore, Green suggests two overarching principles for effective
communication: (i) clarity or being obvious and (ii) courtesy. The second principle encompasses three
strategies: (1) refraining from imposition, (2) offering choices or options, and (3) adopting a friendly and
approachable tone. Lakoff (1973) also underscores the importance of delivering a message in a clear and
unambiguous manner, as this is essential for successful communication, ensuring that one’s intentions are
not misinterpreted. Politeness in the context of language study can be defined in two key ways: (i) as the
manner in which a language conveys the social dynamics and various positional relationships between
individuals in a conversation and (ii) as the practice of face-work, which involves the efforts made to
establish, maintain, and safeguard one’s social identity or “face” during verbal interactions within a speech
community (Richard et al., 2010).

In English, politeness is exemplified by individuals who exhibit courteous behavior, possess good manners,
and communicate in a manner that conforms with socially accepted norms and does not come across as
rude or offensive to others. Politeness strategies have garnered significant attention in both research and
theory. These strategies, which are employed by speakers, have been the subject of investigation by
researchers and theorists such as Leech (2016), Brown et al. (1987), and Lakoff (1973). They are used by
speakers to foster and maintain harmonious relationships by demonstrating respect for the feelings and
sensibilities of their conversational partners.

One of the prominent theories regarding politeness is the Politeness Principle introduced by Brown et al.
(1987). This theory introduces the concept of “face”, which represents the shared self-image that speakers
aim to uphold during communication. The idea of “face” was originally introduced by Goffman (1967) as
an image situated within the context of social interactions. According to this theory, there are two aspects
of face: positive and negative face. Positive face relates to the desire for connection and rapport with others,
while negative face pertains to the need to avoid imposition or intrusion (Brown et al., 1987).

Furthermore, Brown et al. (1987) argue that the concept of face is culturally specific. They suggest that
cultural variations influence how polite behavior is perceived, such as whether a culture leans toward
positive or negative politeness orientation. However, cultural differences do not alter the fundamental
content and nature of negative and positive face. In essence, the core principle of the Politeness Principle
revolves around respecting and valuing the speaker’s desires, emotions, and preferences while making them
feel acknowledged and respected.

4. Previous Empirical Studies on Speech Act of Invitation

In a study by Sukesti (2014), the focus was on identifying invitation strategies used by Indonesian students,
who are non-native speakers of English. The results revealed that Indonesian students employ various
strategies when making invitations in English. It was evident that they often translate and transfer what
they are familiar with in their first language into English when constructing invitations. Additionally, the
 110

study found that certain factors, including gender, social status, and intimacy levels, influenced the choice
of invitation strategies. Furthermore, participants with lower proficiency in English exhibited more
pragmatic errors compared to those with higher proficiency. Polite markers were frequently used by
Indonesian students when making invitations.

Amelia (2015) investigated the ability of English native speakers to orally produce speech acts of 110
invitation. She identified three types of invitation speech acts: direct, indirect, and literal, which are
influenced by the politeness principle used by speakers in real speech contexts.

In another study by Suraih (2019), Yemeni EFL learners were examined regarding their use of invitation
strategies. The findings indicated that Yemeni EFL learners tended to favor direct approaches when
inviting others. They often transferred elements from their native language and applied them when
learning the English language.

Rakowicz (2009) conducted a study to examine the invitation strategies employed by adult Polish
learners of English as a second language. The findings revealed that some Polish learners of American
English sometimes interpreted ambiguous invitations as genuine ones. They tended to transfer elements
from their native language into their English usage. Interestingly, the study indicated that Polish learners
of American English tended to be more direct in their communication than native speakers.

Abbood (2016) conducted similar research to assess the ability of Iraqi English as Foreign Language
(EFL) learners in producing two types of speech acts: offers and invitations. The study identified
challenges faced by Iraqi EFL learners in producing these speech acts and found that they preferred

Shahriari Felordi | JSLLT, 1(1) 105-120

using imperative and interrogative strategies but were less inclined to use exclamatory strategies when
making offers or invitations. Additionally, the study highlighted a positive correlation between the
learners’ ability to produce these speech acts and factors such as their academic year.

Salmani-Nodoushan (2006) explored a different type of invitation known as Farsi ostensible invitations,
as produced by Iranian inviters, within the context of pragmatics. The study revealed similarities between
ostensible Iranian invitations and those produced by English speakers. It also showed that Iranian
inviters employed similar strategies to make the pretense of their invitations apparent, akin to their
English-speaking counterparts. In summary, the findings of this study illustrated that ostensible Iranian
invitations is in line with the general linguistic norms and standards that influence language usage.

Another study assessing the quality of invitation creation and acceptance in Jordanian society from a
pragmatic perspective was conducted by Al-Khatib (2006). The findings of the study revealed the
invitation strategies employed by Jordanian individuals when inviting, accepting, or refusing invitations.
In summary, the study highlighted that people in Jordanian society tend to extend invitations with the
intention of demonstrating their willingness and expressing their desire to invite others, often
accompanied by swear phrases. When accepting invitations, Jordanian individuals commonly employed
expressions of gratitude, appreciation, goodwill, and compliments.

Wolfson et al. (1989) emphasized the importance of communicative competence, which includes the
knowledge of giving, interpreting, and responding to invitations. Such knowledge is particularly crucial
for individuals who aim to engage in effective communication within society. This information is of
utmost significance for non-native English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners when interacting in
the host speech community. According to Hatch (1992), language learners can demonstrate their
proficiency in the target language when provided with the opportunity to directly communicate with
native speakers. Wolfson et al. (1989) further observed that due to the diversity of speech patterns and
behaviors in various speech communities, non-native speakers often aspire to engage with the target
speech community to learn their customs and practices. Consequently, the fundamentals of conducting
invitations often operate at a subconscious level among speakers. As a result, it is possible to examine
 111

and provide language learners with the rules for producing invitations among American English speakers
through descriptive analysis.

Van Trong (2017) focused on invitations with implicit or explicit performative elements as produced by
Vietnamese speakers. In his dissertation, he noted that invitations, from a speech theory perspective,
111 involve polite terms used to encourage others to participate in activities that are mutually beneficial to both
the speaker and the hearer.

III. MATERIALS AND METHODS

1. Participants
Journal of Studies in Language Learning and Teaching

The participants of this study were female Iranian intermediate language learners who were learning
English at English institutes in Sari. The English language learners were selected randomly from those in
different institutes at the level of interchange 3. They were from 18 to 35 years old. In order to achieve
reliable results, the participants were homogenized in terms of their proficiency level through an Oxford
placement test from elementary to intermediate by Edwards (2007). Then, their pragmatic knowledge was
assessed. Besides, the researcher chose the learners who studied the whole series in order to prevent any
background differences. They were divided into two groups of learners, a control group and a treatment
group, each including 30 learners.

2. Materials

The textbooks used as the materials were a) Interchange 3 which was taught to both groups (as mentioned
earlier, all the participants had the same background of passing the series and it had to be kept as a stable
material for both) and b) a supplementary and facilitative book named “Function in English” written by
Jon Blundell, Jonathan Higgens and Nigel Middlemiss. The latter was just taught to the experimental group,
and the researcher applied some parts of it which were related to the subject of the study.

3. Instrumentation

3.1. Oxford placement test elementary to intermediate

In order to homogenize the participants, the Oxford placement test elementary to intermediate by Edwards
(2007) was used in this study. This test provides teachers with valuable insights into their learners’
proficiency levels. It consists of three components:

1. 50 Multiple Choice Questions: These questions assess the learners’ grasp of essential grammar and
vocabulary concepts, ranging from elementary to intermediate levels.

2. Reading Comprehension: A reading text is provided along with ten comprehension questions, graded to
match the learners’ proficiency.

3. Optional Writing Task: This task evaluates the learners’ ability to produce written language. While it is
optional, it serves as an important assessment component.

The 50 multiple-choice questions and the reading task are intended to be completed in a single 45-minute
lesson. The writing task, which takes around 20 minutes, can be assigned in a subsequent lesson. This
comprehensive assessment approach aids teachers in gauging their learners’ language proficiency accurately
(Edwards, 2007).
 112

This test was validated before being given to the learners, and the reliability was 0.87 for a similar group
as a pilot, who were 20 people and at the same level of proficiency (i.e. the intermediate level).

3.2. Pre- and Posttests for the speech act of invitation

Afterwards, the other test was used as a pretest which was derived from the textbook and the website 112
named Anglo-American Culture by Marcel Van Amelsvoort and Greg Lum. This test was for evaluating
the level of learners’ pragmatic knowledge before starting the treatment. Its reliability was 0.791. This
test was also given to 20 randomly selected learners as a pilot group. The Discourse Completion Test
(DCT) (Appendix 1) included two sections; one part was multiple-choice, and, in the other, the
researcher gave some scenarios and asked the participants to invite the people mentioned due to those
situations. In this way if a student chose the correct answers in the multiple-choice questions by chance,
he or she could not answer the situation items. The posttest was the same as the pretest.

4. Procedure

The researcher tried to teach some of English learners by formal instruction to see the impact on their
pragmatic knowledge. For this purpose, the researcher tried to select some English learners randomly.
The researcher selected learners who studied the whole Interchange series to have the same background
knowledge of what they learned. Although this cannot be exactly regarded as having the very same
background, because some external learning may take place out of the classroom setting, the researcher
attempted to minimize the differences. After the sampling process, the researcher gave the Oxford
placement test to check their level of proficiency (i.e. the intermediate level). After the application of the

Shahriari Felordi | JSLLT, 1(1) 105-120

test, 60 participants were divided into two groups, a control group and a treatment one.

The sessions lasted for 90 minutes. For the control group the researcher continued to teach Interchange
3 and did nothing more in their class, but the experimental group were taught with Interchange 3 for
sixty minutes and for the next 30 minutes the researcher worked on the textbook, “Function in English”.
The researcher tried to apply cognitive approach in the teaching procedure for the experimental group.
The whole term lasted for 20 sessions. The first session was spent for knowing learners to make them
feel comfortable. The second session was the pretest session and after it, the researcher started to teach
the Interchange 3 to both groups. During the third to fourteenth sessions, the researcher worked on the
speech act set of invitation. Fifteenth and sixteenth sessions were devoted to reviewing the whole set
and finally on seventeenth session, the researcher gave the post test. The next two sessions went for just
studying the Interchange 3, and, at last, in the twentieth session, the researcher gave an exam which was
related to the term. The tests were given to all the participants in both groups.

5. Data Analysis

The data collected for this study were subjected to statistical analysis using the SPSS software, version
21. The analysis involved employing descriptive statistics, specifically calculating means and standard
deviations, to summarize and describe the data. Additionally, an independent sample t-test was
conducted to assess the influence of formal instruction on the speech act of invitation, specifically its
impact on the ostensible and genuine pragmatic knowledge of Iranian EFL learners. This statistical
approach allowed for a thorough examination of the findings and implications of the study.

IV. RESULTS
The analysis of the data for the pretest and the posttest and the result of the pilot study are presented
below.
 113

1. Data Analysis and Investigation of The Research Question

In order to find the reliability indices, the placement test and the test for both pretesting and posttesting
were administered to a group of 20 learners who were at the same level of proficiency. As displayed in
Table 1, the Cronbach Alpha reliability indices for the placement test, pretest and posttest showed they
113 could be used for this study.

Table 1. Cronbach Alpha reliability indices for the pilot study.

Cronbach’s Alpha No. of Items
Placement test .873 20
Pretest and posttest .791 20

2. Pretest
Journal of Studies in Language Learning and Teaching

The pretest was given to both groups. Their mean scores are shown in Table 2. There were 30 learners in
each group. The mean score of the control group was a little higher than that of the experimental group.

Table 2. Descriptive analysis of the pretest for both control and experimental groups.
Group No. Mean Std. deviation Std. error mean
pretest control 30 13.2000 5.34596 .97603
experimental 30 12.2667 5.46420 .99762
As it can be seen in Table 3, when the researcher gave the pretests to the participants, the P value was
.891, which was more than 0.5 and conveyed that there was no significant difference between their
pragmatic knowledge. Thus, the researcher could be sure that learners were at the same level before the
researcher gave the treatment to the experimental group.

Table 3. Independent sample t-test for the pretest of both control and experimental groups.
Levene’s
test for
t-test for equality of means
equality of
variances
pretest
95% confidence
Sig. Mean Std. error interval of the
F Sig. t df
(2-tailed) difference difference difference
Lower Upper
Equal
variances .019 .891 .669 58 .506 .93333 1.39567 -1.86040 3.72707
assumed
Equal
variances
.669 57.972 .506 .93333 1.39567 -1.86043 3.72710
not
assumed

3. Posttest

In Table 4, the researcher got the gain scores of both groups, which represented the mean of the gain
scores of the control group as 1.6333 which was lower than that of the experimental group as 4.1000.

Table 4. Descriptive analysis of the posttest for both control and experimental groups.

Groups No. Mean Std. deviation Std. error mean

gain score control 30 1.6333 .92786 .16940
experimental 30 4.1000 1.72906 .31568
 114

From the data presented in Table 5, it can be deduced that a noteworthy disparity exists between the
mean scores of the experimental and control groups in the posttests. Specifically, the mean score of the
experimental group surpasses that of the control group, indicating a significant difference in
performance between the two groups. (F = 5.371, P = .000 < .05) The Sig. value was .024, which was
less than .05 showing the rejectability of the null hypothesis, namely the Formal instruction of the speech
act of invitation has no effect on the development of ostensible and genuine pragmatic knowledge of 114
Iranian EFL learners. Also, the experimental group were more successful and better achieved in the
posttest.
Table 5. Independent sample t-test for both control and experimental groups.
Levene’s test
for equality of t-test for equality of means
variances
gain score 95% confidence
Sig. Mean Std. error interval of the
F Sig. t df
(2-tailed) difference difference difference
Lower Upper
Equal 5.371 .024 6.885 58 .000 2.46667 .35826 1.74953 3.18381
variances
assumed
Equal 6.885 44.423 .000 2.46667 .35826 1.74483 3.18850
variances
not
assumed
Figure 1 signifies that the mean score of the experimental group was higher than that of the control
group, which implies that formal instruction affected the achievement of the experimental group.

Shahriari Felordi | JSLLT, 1(1) 105-120

Figure 1. The difference of mean scores for both control and experimental groups.

4. Differences Between the Means Scores of The Two Groups

If the hypothesis is about comparing two groups, investigating whether it is correct or not must be done
by comparing their mean scores.

In this test, there was no need for the data to be distributed normally. The test was as follows:

F = Fisher, (k-1) for the degree of freedom is (n1 + n2 + ... + nk - k).

As mentioned above, it was observed that the control and experimental groups were at the same level
in the pretest, but, after the term finished, the experimental group which underwent the formal
instruction as treatment was at a higher level in pragmatic knowledge; the control group just dealt with
 115

Interchange 3. Hence, the formal instruction has an impact on intermediate EFL female learners’ pragmatic
knowledge.

115 V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The null hypothesis mentioned as “Formal instruction of the speech act of invitation has no effect on the
development of ostensible and genuine pragmatic knowledge of Iranian EFL learners”, is rejected through
the analysis of the data provided by the present study. Actually, the results proved a strong positive impact
of formally teaching the speech act of invitation on Iranian EFL learners’ ostensible and genuine pragmatic
knowledge. The treatment given to the participants as the formal instruction played a role in promoting
EFL learners’ pragmatic knowledge. Based on the diagrams and statistical data shown in tables, the scores
of the participants involved in the experimental group were higher in the posttest.
Journal of Studies in Language Learning and Teaching

At first, the pragmatic knowledge of both groups was slightly at the similar level, which conveyed the fact
that they were not different in terms of the knowledge under study. This can be interpreted in a way that
they could show similar abilities and attitudes and express similar utterances when encountering a native
speaker of English. Also, the intention of both groups’ would be understood to a similar extent. On the
other hand, after offering the treatment and depending on the resulting data, we can expect totally different
expressions conveying the intended meaning resulting in two different types of understanding, which
would have either the appropriate intended meaning between the interlocutors or the negative one, which
would sometimes lead to an unexpected consequences and misunderstandings.

As previously mentioned, the primary objective of English language teaching is to enhance learners’ ability
to effectively communicate and engage in genuine conversations in the target language. This approach
underscores the significance of employing the second or foreign language meaningfully, particularly in oral
tasks (Eslami-Rasekh & Koutlaki, 2018).

Furthermore, the study’s findings revealed that certain participants attempted to directly translate and
transfer expressions from their native language into the target language, often following similar sentence
structures and word orders. This frequently results in misunderstandings and communication breakdowns
in the target language, primarily due to a lack of consideration for the foreign culture and disparities
between L1 and L2. Considering this issue, it was also suggested to the teachers to work on the related
utterances more than the others by using different examples, feedbacks and peer corrections or even by
getting the students to pay attention to the differences and try to correct themselves based on those
differences.

1. Pedagogical Implications

This study can provide valuable support for other studies, whether confirmatory or exploratory, addressing
the issue of teaching formal instruction and learners’ pragmatic knowledge in order to decline the level of
uttering wrong or misleading expressions concerning their intentions in an English-speaking context. Some
of the implications of this study are presented below.

1.1. Implications for teaching and teacher training

Educators should contemplate how they can create an ideal setting where students are encouraged to utilize
language appropriately within provided scenarios. This approach aims to enhance learners’ understanding
of pragmatic language in the context of foreign language acquisition. Using formal sources such as booklets
or corpora in the classroom increases learners’ pragmatic knowledge and the ability of using appropriate
structures and speech acts in the context. Indeed, the results of formal instruction and assessments related
to pragmatic knowledge can be invaluable for teachers.
 116

These findings can inform teachers on how to design activities and tailor their instructional approaches
to cultivate learners who can communicate effectively in English with a higher level of pragmatic
knowledge. Teachers should strive to create an environment that encourages active communication and
interaction among learners, which is essential for honing pragmatic skills.

1.2. Implications for materials development 116

Material developers play a crucial role in the field of education. One of their key responsibilities is to
curate, organize, and elucidate the content within teaching materials. This involves structuring the
content in a way that creates opportunities for effective communication and encourages the use of a
second or foreign language in the classroom. Additionally, these materials should be designed to enhance
learners’ pragmatic knowledge, which is the understanding of how language is used in real-life contexts
and interactions. In essence, the task of material developers is to facilitate language learning by providing
resources that not only teach linguistic elements but also promote practical language usage and cultural
understanding.

2. Limitations of The Study

There were two limitations that need to be addressed regarding the present study. The first concerns the
number of participants and their gender, as this study was performed with female participants and the
differences of genders in producing utterances was neglected. The second one relates to the
environment. In fact, in different cities, the study may have a different result; the participants’ level and
their use of ostensible and genuine speech acts may depend on where they live or even on their L1. The

Shahriari Felordi | JSLLT, 1(1) 105-120

performance may also be affected by the experience of living in an English environment. Therefore, the
results would be far different for them.

In future studies, it is recommended to include more subjects from different gender and age groups. It
would also be interesting to investigate the same speech acts by Iranians and with a large number of
speakers and tokens.

AUTHOR’S BIOGRAPHY

Hamideh Shahriari Felordi is currently a Ph.D. Candidate in TESOL at Islamic Azad University
(Qaemshahr Branch), Mazandaran, Iran. She is also an instructor at Payam Nour University (Sari
Branch), teaching technical courses, e.g., Translation of Economic Texts and Reading English
Journalistic Texts to undergraduate students at the English Department there. She has also experience
as an English teacher at different language institutes, and as an interpreter at some international
companies.
 117

REFERENCES

Abbood, H. (2016). Investigating the Use of the Two Speech Acts of Invitation and Offer Among Iraqi EFL University
Learners. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University Science Malaysia, USM, Malaysia.

117 Al-Khatib, M. A. (2006). The pragmatics of invitation making and acceptance in Jordanian society. Journal
of Language and Linguistics, 5(2), 272-294.

Amelia, F. (2015). Speech acts of invitation in English. Journal of Speech Acts of Invitation in English, 6(1), 1-
28.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Austin, J. L. (1975). How to Do Things with Words. Vol. 88, Oxford University Press.
Journal of Studies in Language Learning and Teaching

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Dörnyei, Z. (1997). Pragmatic awareness and instructed L2 learning: An empirical
investigation. Paper presented at the AAAL 1997 Conference, Orlando.

Brown, P., Levinson, S. C. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Vol. 4,
Cambridge University Press.

Bruder, M. N. & Tillitt, B. (1999). Speaking Naturally (12th printing). Cambridge University Press.

Crystal, D. (1985). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.

Dudley-Evans, T. & St. John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for Specific Purposes: A Multidisciplinary
Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Edwards, L. (2007). Oxford Placement Test (Elementary to Intermediate). Oxford Press.

Eslami, R. Z. (2005). Invitations in Persian and English: Ostensible or genuine? Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(4),
453-480

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, R. Z. & Koutlaki A. S. (2018). Critical intercultural communication education: cultural analysis and
pedagogical applications. Journal of Intercultural Communication Education, 1(3), 100-109.

Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. (1990). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-To-Face Interaction. Chicago: Aldine Publishing
Company.

Green, G. M. (1996). Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Psychology Press.

Hancher, M. (1979). The classification of cooperative illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 8(1), 1-14.

Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and Language Education. Cambridge University Press.

 118

Isaacs, E. A. & Clark, H. H. (1990). Ostensible invitations. Language in Society, 19(4), 493-509.

Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be thought. Honolulu: University of Hawai’I, Second.

Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness, or minding your P’s and Q’s. Chicago Linguistic Society, 9, 292-
305. 118
Leech, G. N. (2016). Principles of Pragmatics. Routledge.

LoCastro, V. (2013). Pragmatics for Language Educators: A Sociolinguistic Perspective. Routledge.

Paltridge, B. & Burton, J. (2000). Making Sense of Discourse Analysis. Gold Coast, Queensland: Antipodean
Educational Enterprises.

Rakowicz, A. (2009). Ambiguous Invitations: The Interlanguage Pragmatics of Polish English Language Learners.
New York University.

Richard, J. C., Platt, J. & Platt, H. (2010). Dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics. Essex:
Longman, 4th edition, Longman: Pearson Education.

Salmani-Nodoushan, M. A. (2006). A comparative sociopragmatic study of ostensible invitations in

English and Farsi. Speech communication, 48(8), 903-912.

Shahriari Felordi | JSLLT, 1(1) 105-120

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Searle, J. R. (1970). Speech Acts: An Essay in The Philosophy of Language. New York: Cambridge University
Press.

Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in society, 5(1), 1-23.

Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning. Cambridge University Press.

Shoshana, B. K., House, J. & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and
apologies. Grazer Linguistische Studien.

Sinclair, J. M. H. & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers
and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Instruction, first language influence, and developmental readiness
in second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 83(1), 1-22

Sukesti, L. A. (2014). Interlanguage pragmatics of invitation By Indonesian EFL learners. Doctoral dissertation,
Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta.

Suraih, N. (2019). Invitation Strategies as Produced by Yemeni EFL Learners. Applied Linguistics Research
Journal, 3(2), 15-34.

Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112.

Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.

Van Trong, N. G. U. Y. E. N. (2017). A comparative study on invitations in English and Vietnamese in terms of
cross-cultural perspective. Doctoral dissertation, MA thesis. Dong Thap University, Luanvan.
 119

Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Newbury House Publishers.

Yaqubi, M., Rahman, W. R. E. A., & Hadavandkhani, A. (2019). Context in distinguishing between overt
and actual functions of polite speech acts. Journal for the Study of English Linguistics, 7(1), 95-115.

119 Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Appendix 1. DCT test

A. Multiple choice questions. Choose the answer that you think would fit the situation.

1. You are eating lunch at a café next to your office. Suddenly, you see your colleague who is your friend,
Journal of Studies in Language Learning and Teaching

too. You want to invite him/her and say …

a. Hey, come and join me.

b. It will be a pleasure if you join me.

c. I’d be glad if you join me

2. You are planning a surprise party for your boss and you want to invite your colleague who is a new
member and you do not know him/her very much. You say…

a. We are getting a party for Mr. Ray. Don’t forget to come.

b. We are getting a party for Mr. Ray. We would be happy if you join us.

c. We are getting a party for Mr. Ray. Come and have fun.

3. You are between classes at school and you want to invite your close friend for a quick lunch. You say…

a. Let’s have something to eat.

b. Would you like to have lunch with me?

c. I’m going to have lunch and I would be glad if you join me.

4. You have just moved to a new neighborhood and a neighbor came to say hello. You invite him/her in
but you do not want him/her to come (you do not intend to invite him/her). You say…

a. Thank you for coming by. Do you want to come in and have some tea?

b. Thank you for coming by. I would be so glad if you come inside and have some tea.

c. Thank you for coming by. I would be glad if you come over sometime and have some tea.
 120

5. You are having a family gathering on Friday and you want to invite your siblings. You say…

a. I’m having a gathering on Friday and it would be my pleasure if you accept to come.

b. I called to see if you have time and can come for dinner on Friday.
120
c. I’m having a gathering on Friday night. Don’t be late.

B. There are some situations with different people and you want to invite them. What would you say
for each of them?

1. Suppose you would like to invite your boss, supervisor or manager to a party you are hosting at your
place next month. What would you say to him/her?

2. A friend of yours is very desperate about some issues and experiencing a hard time. You want to take
him/her out of this mood, so you decide to get him/her somewhere or to your place. What would you
say? (You can also offer an activity to do together.)

Shahriari Felordi | JSLLT, 1(1) 105-120

3. You have a new colleague and you want to invite him/ her out to get familiar or closer. How would
say that?

4. You are preparing to go on a trip. You want to invite your friend to join you. What would you say?

5. You have a birthday party with a specific time. You want to invite your close friend to join it. What
would you say?

6. You are the boss of a big company. You want to invite the staff for a lunch meeting at a restaurant.
What would you say?