在外語語用教學的文獻中，最受關注的一類研究之一為比較外顯式和內隱式「以形式為主」的教學方式對學習者外語語用行為表現的影響。目前，大部份的外語語用教學研究支持有意注意假設(noticing hypothesis)， 並指出外顯式「以形式為主」的教學方式能比內隱式「以形式為主」的教學方式更能吸引學習者對學習內容的注意。此外，外顯式「以形式為主」的教學方式也更能產生顯著和持久的效果。但是，在有些學者持續追蹤學習者對於語用知能的記憶力後，發現外顯式「以形式為主」的教學方式沒辦法確保學習者能持久記憶所學的語用知能。為了提升學習者在外顯式教學法下的記憶持久性，有部分學者認為可在教學中降低學習者的認知負荷。除了將認知負荷理論(Cognitive load theory)應用於提升學習者對語用知能的記憶，更多文獻將重心著墨於研究學習者對學習資訊的處理層次。根據處理層次模型，協助學習者連結語言語用能力和社交語用能力以及採用歸納式教學法可促使學習者進行更深層之處理，進而提升長期記憶。至今，相關研究甚少，許多學者呼籲能有更多針對歸納式語用教學法的研究。
為了更了解不同教學法對於學習者語用能力表現和記憶，本研究比較歸納外顯式「以形式為主」的教學方式(inductive-explicit FFI)與演繹外顯式「以形式為主」的教學方式(deductive-explicit FFI)對學習英語請求的成效。本研究將以英語為外語學習者在表現請求恰當性(request appropriateness)的前測、後測和延後測做質化和量化的分析。資料分析的來源為語言言談情境問卷(DCT)。後測在教學實驗後立即實施，而延後測在教學實驗後隔五週實施。歸納外顯式「以形式為主」的教學方式(inductive-explicit FFI)的受試者樣本數為39名。演繹外顯式「以形式為主」的教學方式的受試者樣本數為41名。兩組實驗組的受試者皆來自同一所大學，英語程度為中等程度。兩組的教學實驗皆為5小時，教學內容皆包含元語用解釋(metapragmatic explanation)、引導式問題、語用形式比較、恰當性評估以及語用知能討論。
研究結果顯示兩組實驗組皆提升了請求恰當性因為兩組受試者在實驗後使用更多修飾語並移除過於直接的表達。藉由使用二因子混合設計變異數分析，兩組請求恰當性後測和延後測的分數皆顯著高過前測。雖然使用修飾語種類的增加不平均，兩組實驗組皆在不同社交條件下展現不同程度修飾語的使用。就研究理論而言，本研究指出學習者在學習過程中，注意力和深層處理對學習成效強度和持久度的重要性。就教學應用而言，本研究結果建議以英語為外語中等程度學習者皆可受惠於歸納式「以形式為主」和演繹式「以形式為主」的教學方式，但在教學過程中要確保能學習者能充分連結言語用能力和社交語用能力。

Among the literature of instruction on L2 pragmatic competence, one of the most popular kind of investigation is to compare explicit and implicit form-focused instruction (FFI) on learners’ pragmatic production. So far, most L2 pragmatic instruction studies have supported Noticing hypothesis (Schmidt, 1993, 1995, 2012) and have pointed out that explicit FFI can better draw learners’ attention to the learning targets than implicit FFI. Furthermore, explicit FFI could also produce stronger and longer instructional effect than its counterpart. However, as some researchers continued tracing learners’ retention of the pragmatic knowledge, it was found that explicit FFI does not guarantee durable instructional effects. To enhance the durability of explicit FFI, some researchers claimed that instructors could reduce learners’ cognitive load when teaching. In addition to the application of Cognitive load theory on learners’ retention of L2 pragmatics, more plentiful literature was found to concentrate on learners’ depth of processing when receiving instructions. According to Levels of processing model (Craik & Lockart, 1972), helping learners make L2 pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic connections as well as to adopt inductive FFI could lead to learners’ greater depth of processing and promote long-term retention. Many researchers have thus called for more investigations of inductive FFI on learners’ pragmatic competence and retention since relevant studies remain scant thus far.
To broaden the knowledge of different instructional effects on learners’ pragmatic production and retention, the present study compares inductive-explicit and deductive-explicit FFI on English requests. The appropriateness of EFL learners’ requests was evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively through a pre-, post-, and delayed post-test, collected through the form of DCT. The post-test was conducted immediately after instruction, and the delayed post-test was conducted five weeks after the instruction. In other words, the instructional effects from both the inductive-explicit and deductive-explicit FFI are not only compared in short-term but also in long-term. The inductive-explicit group includes 39 Taiwanese participants and the deductive-explicit includes 41 Taiwanese participants. The participants in both groups came from the same university and are at the intermediate level. The two experimental groups receive either inductive-explicit or deductive-explicit FFI for five hours. Both types of explicit instructions contain metapragmatic explanations, guided questions, form-comparisons, appropriateness evaluations and discussions on the target pragmatic knowledge. The two types of FFI differ in terms of the sequence of tasks and it is said that inductive FFI requires a greater depth of processing on the part of the learners than deductive FFI.
The results show that both FFI improved learners request appropriateness as both groups used more modifiers and avoided direct expressions after instruction. By using a two-way mixed-design ANOVA, it was found that the appropriateness scores from both groups’ post-test and delayed post-test are significantly better than their pre-test scores. In both groups’ post- and delayed post-tests, although the increase occurred more obviously on the use of specific modifiers, the more modifiers used under demanding social conditions showed inductive and deductive instructional effects in learners’ pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge. Theoretically, the results imply that learners’ noticing and greater processing of the L2 pragmatic targets are supported to promote stronger and longer instructional effects. Pedagogically, the results suggest that intermediate EFL learners could be equally benefited from both inductive-explicit and deductive-explicit FFI as long as the instruction contains sufficient L2 pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic connections.

ABSTRACT (Chinese) 2
ABSTRACT (English) 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS 6
LIST OF TABLES 8
LIST OF FIGURES 9
Chapter 1 Introduction 10
1.1 Background and motivation of the study 10
1.2 Research purposes 13
Chapter 2 Literature review 14
2.1 Definition of pragmatic competence 14
2.2 Communication appropriateness and the development of L2 pragmatic competence 15
2.3 Form-focused instruction on L2 pragmatic competence 16
2.3.1 Noticing Hypothesis 16
2.3.2 Explicit and implicit FFI on L2 pragmatic competence 18
2.4 Enhancing pragmatic retention: explicit FFI 21
2.5 Enhancing pragmatic retention: materials which reduce learners’ cognitive load 25
2.6 Enhancing pragmatic retention: tasks which require deep processing 26
2.7 The effect of inductive-explicit and deductive-explicit FFI 28
2.8 Research questions 32
Chapter 3 Methodology 34
3.1 Participants and learning context 34
3.2 Development of the instructional material 35
3.2.1 The target pragmatic features for instruction 35
3.2.2 Teaching materials 38
3.3 Instructional treatments 41
3.3.1 Inductive-explicit FFI 42
3.3.2 Deductive-explicit FFI 46
3.4 Testing instruments and procedures 49
3.5 Data analysis 50
Chapter 4 Results 56
4.1 Learners’ short-term and long-term improvement on appropriateness scores 56
4.1.1 Inter-rater reliability 56
4.1.2 Results from the pre-, post-, and delayed post-test 57
4.2 The comparison of request production before and after instruction 59
4.2.1 Direct requests and improper hints or suggestions 59
4.2.2 The amount and the diversity of modifiers 67
4.3 Summary of the findings 87
Chapter 5 Discussion 88
5.1 The role of instructional explicitness in teaching L2 pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge 88
5.2 The effect of inductive-explicit and deductive-explicit FFI on learners’ pragmatic retention 92
5.3 The instructional effect on the types of modifiers 97
Chapter 6 Conclusions 99
6.1 Theoretical implications 99
6.2 Pedagogical implications 101
6.3 Limitations and suggestions for future research 104
References 106
Appendix 115
Appendix A 115
Appendix B 116
Appendix C 121
Appendix D 132
Appendix E 133
Appendix F 137
Appendix G 140
Appendix H 143
Appendix I 146

References
Alcón-Soler, E. (2005). Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context?. System, 33(3), 417-435.
Alcon-Soler, E. (2007). Fostering EFL learners’ awareness of requesting through explicit and implicit consciousness-raising tasks. In M. de Pilar Garcia Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 221–241). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 279-304.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In G. Kasper & K. R. Rose (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 13–32). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig,K.,&Mahan-Taylor, R. (2003). Teaching pragmatics.Washington, DC:Office of English Programs, U.S. Department of State.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Salsbury, T. (2004). The organization of turns in the disagreements of L2 learners: A longitudinal perspective. Studying speaking to inform second language learning, 199-227.
Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context (Vol. 108). John Benjamins Publishing.
Barron, A., & Warga, M. (2007). Acquisitional pragmatics: Focus on foreign language learners. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 113-127.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and Apologies: A Cross-Cultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns(CCSARP). Applied linguistics, 5(3), 196-213.
Bourke, M. (1996). In praise of linguistic problem-solving. RELC Journal, 27(2), 12-29.
Bouton, L. (1999). Developing nonnative speakers skills in interpreting conversational implicatures in English: Explicit teaching can ease the process. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 47-70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and instruction, 8(4), 293-332.
Chang, Y. (2011). Interlanguage pragmatic development: The relation between pragmalinguistic competence and sociopragmatic competence. Language Science, 33(5), 786-798.
Chen, Y. (2009). Learner perceptions of instruction in L2 Pragmatics. English Language Teaching, 2(4), 154-161.
Cohen, A. D., & Shively, R. L. (2007). Acquisition of Requests and Apologies in Spanish and French: Impact of Study Abroad and Strategy‐Building Intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 91(2), 189-212.
Cohen, A. D. (2008). Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: What can we expect from learners? Language Teaching, 41(02), 213-235.
Chou, T. S., & Park, J. (2005). An Application of Multidimensional IRT to the Assessment of Taiwanese Students’ English pragmatic competence. 測驗學刊, 52(2), 95-118.
Decoo, W. (1996). The induction-deduction opposition: Ambiguities and complexities of the didactic reality. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 34(2), 95-118.
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313-348). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (1997). The empirical evaluation of language teaching materials. ELT Journal, 51, 36-42.
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating Form‐Focused instruction. Language learning, 51(1), 1-46.
Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition, second ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Ellis, R. (2010). Does explicit grammar instruction work. NINJAL Project Review, 1(2), 3-22.
Erlam, R. (2003). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of direct object pronouns in French as a second language. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 242-260.
Eslami, Z., & Liu, C. N. (2013). Learning pragmatics through computer-mediated communication in Taiwan. International Journal of Society, Culture & Language, 1(1), 52-73.
Fukuya, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2002). Effects of recasts on EFL learners’ acquisition of pragmalinguistic conventions of request. Second Language Studies, 21(1), 1-47.
Farahian, M., Rezaee, M., & Gholami, A. (2012). Does Direct Instruction Develop Pragmatic Competence? Teaching Refusals to EFL Learners of English. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(4), 814-821.
Farrokhi, F., & Atashian, S. (2012). The role of refusal instruction in pragmatic development. World Journal of Education, 2(4), 85–93.
Kasper, G. (2000). Data collection in pragmatics research. Culturally speaking, 316-341.
Giles, H., Mulac, A., Bradac, J. J., & Johnson, P. (1987). Speech accommodation theory: The first decade and beyond. Annals of the International Communication Association, 10(1), 13-48.
Ghobadi, A., & Fahim, M. (2009). The effect of explicit teaching of English “thanking formulas” on Iranian EFL intermediate level students at English language institutes. System, 37(3), 526–537.
Glaser, K. (2014). The Neglected Combination: A Case for Explicit-Inductive Instruction in Teaching Pragmatics in ESL. TESL Canada Journal, 30(7), 150.
Glaser, K. (2014). Inductive or Deductive? The Impact of Method of Instruction on the Acquisition of Pragmatic Competence in EFL. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Ghavamnia, M., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Vahid Dastjerdi, H. (2014). Exploring the effects of input-based instruction on the development of EFL learners’ pragmatic proficiency. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning,3(7).
Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 11(6), 671-684.
Haight, C. E., Herron, C., & Cole, S. P. (2007). The effects of deductive and guided inductive instructional approaches on the learning of grammar in the elementary foreign language college classroom. Foreign Language Annals,40 (2), 288-310.
Halenko, N., & Jones, C. (2011). Teaching pragmatic awareness of spoken requests to Chinese EAP learners in the UK: Is explicit instruction effective? System, 39(2), 240-250.
Hassall, T. (2001). Modifying requests in a second language. IRAL, 39(4), 259-284.
Hernández, T. A. (2011). Re-examining the role of explicit instruction and input flood on the acquisition of Spanish discourse markers. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 159-182.
Herron, C., & Tomasello, M. (1992). Acquiring grammatical structures by guided induction. French Review, 65, 708-718.
Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet (pp. 101-102). Harlow, UK: Pearson Longman.
Jean, G., & Simard, D. (2013). Deductive versus inductive grammar instruction: Investigating possible relationships between gains, preferences and learning styles. System, 41(4), 1023-1042.
Jeon, E. H., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development. Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching, 165-211.
Kasper, G. (2001). Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. In K. R. Rose & G.Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 33-60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Language Learning: A Journal of Research in Language Studies,52, 1.
Koike, D. A., & Pearson, L. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence. System, 33(3), 481-501.
Kubota, M. (1995). Teachability of Conversational Implicature to Japanese EFL Learners. IRLT (Institute for Research in Language Teaching) Bulletin, 9, 35-67.
Leaver, B. L., Ehrman, M. E., & Shekhtman, B. (2005). Achieving success in second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Martínez-Flor, A., & Fukuya, Y. J. (2005). The effects of instruction on learners’ production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. System, 33(3), 463-480.
Martínez-Flor, A., & Soler, E. A. (2007). Developing pragmatic awareness of suggestions in the EFL classroom: A focus on instructional effects. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 47-76.
Martínez-Flor, A. (2008). The effect of an inductive-deductive teaching approach to develop learners’ use of request modifiers in the EFL classroom. In Alc´on-Soler (Ed.), Learning how to request in an instructed language learning context (pp. 191–226). Berlin: Peter Lang.
Martínez-Flor, A., & Beltrán-Palanques, V. (2014). Teaching refusal strategies in the foreign language classroom: a focus on inductive-deductive treatments.Journal of English Studies, 11, 41-67.
Narita, R. (2012). The effects of pragmatic consciousness-raising activity on the development of pragmatic awareness and use of hearsay evidential markers for learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(1), 1-29.
Nguyen, T. T. M., Pham, T. H., & Pham, M. T. (2012). The relative effects of explicit and implicit form-focused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic competence. Journal of pragmatics, 44(4), 416-434.
Nemati, M., & Arabmofrad, A. (2014). Development of Interlanguage Pragmatic Competence: Input-and Output-based Instruction in the Zone of Proximal Development. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(2), 262-270.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2001). Does Type of Instruction Make a Difference? Substantive Findings From a Meta‐analytic Review. Language Learning,51(s1), 157-213.
Nunan, D. (2015). Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages: An Introduction. Routledge.
Oded, B., & Walters, J. (2001). Deeper processing for better EFL reading comprehension. System, 29, 357-370.
Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and instruction, 12(1), 61-86
Rose, K. R. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(1), 27-67.
Rose, K. R., & Ng, C. (2001). Inductive and deductive approaches to teaching compliments and compliment responses. In Rose, K., Kasper, G. (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp.145-170). Cambridge University Press.
Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33(3), 385-399.
Rose, K. R. (2009). Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase 2. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2345–2364.
Safont, M. P. (2003). Instructional effects on the use of request acts modification devices by EFL learners. Pragmatic competence and foreign language teaching, 211-232.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning1. Applied linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S.Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21-42). New York: Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, R. (2012). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. Perspectives on individual characteristics and foreign language education, 6, 27.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and instruction, 4(4), 295-312.
Taguchi, N. (2005). Comprehending implied meaning in English as a foreign language. The Modern Language Journal, 89, pp.543-562.
Taguchi, N. (2007). Task difficulty in oral speech act production. Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 113-135.
Taguchi, N. (2008). Building language blocks in L2 Japanese: Chunk learning and the development of complexity and fluency in spoken production. Foreign Language Annals, 41(1), 132.
Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289-310.
Taguchi, N., Naganuma, N., & Budding, C. (2015). Does Instruction Alter the Naturalistic Pattern of Pragmatic Development? A Case of Request Speech Act. TESL-EJ, 19(3).
Takimoto, M. (2006). The effects of explicit feedback and form–meaning processing on the development of pragmatic proficiency in consciousness-raising tasks. System, 34(4), 601-614.
Takimoto, M. (2008). The effects of various kinds of form-focused instruction on learners' ability to comprehend and produce polite requests in English. TESL Canada Journal, 26(1), 31-51.
Takimoto, M. (2009). Exploring the effects of input-based treatment and test on the development of learners’ pragmatic proficiency. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 1029-1046.
Takimoto, M. (2009). The effects of input-based tasks on the development of learners' pragmatic proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 1-25.
Takimoto, M. (2012). Metapragmatic discussion in interlanguage pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1240-1253.
Takimoto, M. (2012). Assessing the effects of identical task repetition and task-type repetition on learners' recognition and production of second language request downgraders. Intercultural Pragmatics, 9(1), 71-96.
Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing interlanguage pragmatic competence. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds), Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 171–99). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Takahashi, S. (2005). Noticing in task performance and learning outcomes: A qualitative analysis of instructional effects in interlanguage pragmatics. System, 33(3), 437-461.
Takahashi, S. (2010). Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 391–421). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Thomas, J. (1984). Cross-Cultural Discourse as ‘Unequal Encounter’: Towards a Pragmatic Analysis1. Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 226-235.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Trosborg, A. (Ed.). (2010). Pragmatics across languages and cultures (Vol. 7). Walter de Gruyter.
Yu, M. C. (2008). Teaching and learning sociolinguistic skills in university EFL classes in Taiwan. TESOL Quarterly, 31-53.
Usó-Juan, E., & Martínez-Flor, A. (2008). Teaching learners to appropriately mitigate requests. ELT journal, 62(4), 349-357.
Vogel, S., Herron, C., Cole, S. P., & York, H. (2011). Effectiveness of a guided inductive versus a deductive approach on the learning of grammar in the intermediate‐level college French classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 44(2), 353-380.
Zhu, W. (2012). Polite requestive strategies in emails: An investigation of pragmatic competence of Chinese EFL learners. RELC Journal, 43(2), 217-238.