Immersive Virtual Reality for Pragmatics Task Development

Abstract

This study intends to contribute to the methodological debate into L2 pragmatics research by examining the usability of immersive virtual reality (VR) for developing a pragmatics task. The study compared participants’ speech act performance between two closed role‐play tasks using different mediums: computer‐based and VR‐based. Sixty‐two native and nonnative speakers of English completed both tasks eliciting speech acts (requests, refusals, and opinions). The impact of task medium was assessed on oral fluency and use of speech act strategies. Both groups spoke more slowly and used more modification devices in the VR‐based speech acts; However, the directness level of the main speech act strategies was similar between the two task mediums. In the speech act situations involving a large social distance, unequal power relationship and a high degree of imposition, speech rates were slower and the use of modifications was greater than those involving a small social distance, equal power relationship and a low degree of imposition. While the native speaker group used fewer direct strategies in the former situation type regardless the task medium, the nonnative speaker group was less direct in the former situation type in the VR condition only.

The effects of interleaved and blocked corpus-based practice on L2 pragmatic development

“…It is likely that this cognitive process might lead to the IP group’s slower and more cautious utterances. This finding aligns with the findings of previous L2 pragmatics studies (e.g., Taguchi, 2022). Taguchi (2022) found that L2 learners’ speech rate was significantly lower when producing PDR-high pragmatic features than PDR-low pragmatic features.…”

“…A questionnaire with a five-point Likert-type scale entailing the target test items was conducted with 22 L1 speakers of American English and 10 proficient L2 speakers. The questionnaire adapted Taguchi’s (2022) survey and asked the 32 L1 and L2 speakers to rate how easy or challenging it was to perform the target pragmatic features (1 = very easy , 5 = very challenging ). The results showed a significant difference between the PDR-high scenarios ( M = 4.10, SD = .29) and the PDR-low scenarios ( M = 2.18, SD = .61), t = 16.336, p < .001, d = 2.888 (large), suggesting that the target speech acts in the PDR-high scenarios were perceived as more challenging to perform compared with the target pragmatic features in the PDR-low situations.…”

“…One of the reasons why these two pragmatic features were selected as the foci of the current study is that they are ubiquitous but face-threatening (Brown & Levinson, 1987). As far as hearers are concerned, making a request or suggestion may impose on the negative face of the addressee who wants to be undisturbed and the positive face of the addressee who strives for agreement (Brown & Levinson, 1987;Taguchi, 2022). Realizing these two speech acts can also be face-threatening for speakers, who might hesitate to make a suggestion or request "for fear of exposing a need or risking the hearer's loss of face" (Blum-Kulka et al, 1989, p. 11).…”

Pragmatics: Mapping Evidence on Enhancing Children’s Use of Linguistic and Non-Linguistic Capacities for Interactive Communication

“…Research in pragmatics has also been demonstrated to correlate with the clusters identified in our scientometric analysis. Among these studies are those investigating variations in pragmatic language learning in non-English contexts [ 145 ], aspects of politeness [ 146 ], using virtual reality for developing pragmatic language [ 147 ], pragmatics and reasoning [ 148 ], ritual interaction [ 132 ], hearing impairment and pragmatic language skills [ 149 ], autism and neural association of pragmatic language skills [ 150 ], linguistic prediction at the pragmatic language level [ 151 ], mind reading in pragmatics [ 152 , 153 ] and executive functions and pragmatic language skills [ 154 ].…”

The third wind of language learning strategies research

“…These are questions for further research, which could also work to determine what game-like elements are most effective in certain contexts and/or for certain tasks. Pedagogically, we see incredible promise for this line of work in the low-tech form described by Hernandez-Gonzalez and Gunning as well as high-tech variations afforded by the increasing use of immersive virtual reality and game-based language learning (e.g., Taguchi, 2021).…”