Synchronous CMC and Pragmatic Development
Abstract
This study systematically examines the strength of the connection between synchronous CMC and pragmatic instruction by measuring the effects of three types of synchronous group discussion (written chat [WC], oral chat [OC], and traditional face-to-face [FF] discussion) on the acquisition of the speech act (refusals of an invitation) in the target language. Zhao (2003) notes that CMC research is limited in terms of investigating the effects these types of discussions have on other features of language development. Even so, the existing research indicates a positive connection between the use of written chat and oral production (e.g., Healy-Beauvois, 1997; Payne & Whitney, 2002). However, no other investigations specifically address the effects of CMC (written or oral) on pragmatic acquisition. In this study, two classes of third-semester Spanish students (N = 27) participated in small group discussions as well as pre and post role-play tasks that elicited the invitation refusal. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of these role plays illustrate that synchronous discussion type does have an effect on pragmatic development. The WC groups outperformed the others in terms of both complexity and variety of strategies used. A discussion of the results and implications for future research and pedagogy is included.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Sykes (2005) found that participants in the written chat group outperformed the other two groups in producing more native-like refusals.
“Sykes found that participants in the written chat group outperformed the other two groups in producing more native-like refusals, a result she attributed to the additional processing time available in written chat interaction as well as the need for more linguistic responses due to the lack of paralinguistic features such as intonation and laughter.”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Sykes 2005
Sykes attributed the written chat group's advantage to the additional processing time available in written chat interaction as well as the need for more linguistic responses due to the lack of paralinguistic features such as intonation and laughter.
“a result she attributed to the additional processing time available in written chat interaction as well as the need for more linguistic responses due to the lack of paralinguistic features such as intonation and laughter.”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Sykes 2005
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 41 · Cited by 198
- Authors
- Sykes, J.
- Affiliations
- Arizona State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Sykes, Julie
- Venue
- CALICO Journal
- Published
- 2005-08-01
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 399-431
- ISSN
- 0742-7778 (ISSN-L)
- 2056-9017
- OpenAlex
- W2172192575
- Cited by
- 198
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 38.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- CALICO Journal (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Digital Communication and Language
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
- Keywords
- synchronous computer-mediated communication, pragmatic development, face-to-face discussion, Spanish as a foreign language, role-play tasks, small group discussion, second language pragmatics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
