“…In the same vein, other ILP researchers have proposed that language learners' attainment of the ability to use the pragmatic aspects of the TL accurately and appropriately is profoundly affected by three factors: "appropriate input, opportunities for output and provision of feedback" (Martínez-Flor & Usó-Juan , 2010, p. 9). As a result, empirical investigations have sought to securitize the effects of various contextual parameters that may activate the acquisition of L2 pragmatic competence, such as motivation, language proficiency, emotional intelligence, the educational setting, length of residence in a TL country, and metapragmatic discussions (Derakhshan & Eslami, 2015;Sánchez-Hernández & Alcón-Soler, 2019;Rafieyan et al, 2014;Roever, 2012;Takahashi, 2010a;Takahashi, 2010b). As pragmatics have increasingly proven to be amenable to intervention, ILP researchers and practitioners have begun examining the effectiveness of dichotomous teaching approaches and modes of instruction in comparison to others and exploring whether different teaching approaches yield different outcomes in various contextual settings, namely explicit vs. implicit, inductive vs. deductive, input vs. output-based instruction, and metapragmatic instruction, with a few studies focusing on the Arab World English Journal www.awej.org ISSN: 2229-9327 5 integration of modern technological tools into L2 pragmatics instruction (e.g., Alcón-Soler & Pitarch, 2010;Alsmari, 2020;Takahashi, 2010a).…”