Vol. 7 – Núm. 1 / Enero - Junio – 2026

A way of developing pragmatic competence by means of explicit

instruction: interpreting meanings that are embedded in culture

in English

Desarrollo de la competencia pragmática mediante la instrucción explícita:

Interpretación del significado culturalmente arraigado en inglés

Desenvolvendo a competência pragmática através da instrução explícita:

interpretando significados culturalmente enraizados no inglés

Moncayo Herrera Wilmer Enrique¹

Universidad Técnica Estatal de Quevedo

wmoncayoh@uteq.edu.ec

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0969-0592

DOI / URL: https://doi.org/10.55813/gaea/ccri/v7/n1/1605

Como citar:

Moncayo Herrera, W, E. (2026). A way of developing pragmatic competence by means of

explicit instruction: interpreting meanings that are embedded in culture in English. Código

Científico Revista de Investigación, 7(1), 3266–3292.

Recibido: 19/05/2026

Aceptado: 20/06/2026

Publicado: 30/06/2026

3266

Código Científico Revista de Investigación

Vol. 7 – Núm. 1 / Enero - Junio – 2026

Abstract

Pragmatic competence is an essential part of communicative competence, although it is still

given relatively little attention in many English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teacher education

programs. It has been suggested that giving students explicit instruction in pragmatics is an

effective way of improving their ability to understand meanings that depend on context. The

present study looked at the impact of such explicit pragmatics instruction on the pragmatic

competence of Ecuadorian pre-service EFL teachers. A quantitative descriptive approach was

used, involving 35 seventh-semester pre-service EFL teachers studying at a public university

in Ecuador. After receiving explicit instruction on the topics of presupposition, conversational

implicature, irony, sarcasm, figurative language, contextual meaning, and intended meaning,

the participants took a Pragmatic Interpretation Test which included both multiple-choice and

open-ended questions. As a whole, the participants showed satisfactory performance and

obtained perfect scores in the multiple-choice part. However, there was more variability in the

open-ended questions concerning presupposition, indicating that explaining pragmatic

reasoning was more difficult than simply recognising pragmatic meaning. The results show

that explicit pragmatics instruction helps in the development of pragmatic competence and

point to the need for promoting metapragmatic awareness in EFL teacher education through

reflective and explanatory activities.

Keywords: explicit teaching of pragmatics; pragmatic competence; metapragmatic awareness;

teacher education in the context of EFL; interlanguage pragmatics.

Resumen

La competencia pragmática es un componente esencial de la competencia comunicativa,

mientras que no continúa subrepresentada en muchos programas de formación de profesores

de inglés como lengua extranjera (EFL). El lenguaje explícito de la pragmática tem ha sido

propuesto como un abordaje eficaz para mejorar la capacidad de dos alunos de interpretar

significados dependientes del contexto. Este estudio examina los efectos del aprendizaje

explícito de la pragmática en la competencia pragmática de los futuros profesores de inglés

como lengua extranjera en el Ecuador. Utilizou-se uma abordagem quantitativa descritiva com

35 alunos do sétimo semestre do curso de formación de profesores de inglés como lengua

extranjera de una universidade pública do Equador. Después del lenguaje explícito sobre una

presión, implicatura conversacional, ironía, sarcasmo, lenguaje figurado, significado

contextual y significado pretendido, los participantes realizaron una prueba de interpretación

pragmática compuesta por preguntas de escuela múltiple y preguntas abiertas. Los participantes

demostraron un desempeño global satisfactorio y obtuvieron un acuerdo total en la sección de

escuela múltiple. Sin embargo, observou-se uma mayor variabilidade nas tarefas de

pressuposição com questões abertas, sugiriendo que explicar el raciocínio pragmático era más

difícil de reconocer el significado pragmático. Los resultados indican que el aprendizaje de la

pragmática apoia o el desarrollo de la competencia pragmática, a su vez, destaca la importancia

de promover una conciencia metapragmática a través de atividades reflexivas y explicativas en

la formación de profesores de inglés como lengua extranjera.

Palabras clave: enseñanza explícita de la pragmática; competencia pragmática; conciencia

metapragmática; formación de profesores de inglés como lengua extranjera; pragmática de la

interlengua.

3267

Código Científico Revista de Investigación

Vol. 7 – Núm. 1 / Enero - Junio – 2026

Resumo

A competência pragmática é uma componente essencial da competência comunicativa, no

entanto continua sub-representada em muitos programas de formação de professores de inglês

como língua estrangeira (EFL). O ensino explícito da pragmática tem sido proposto como uma

abordagem eficaz para melhorar a capacidade dos alunos de interpretar significados

dependentes do contexto. Este estudo examinou os efeitos do ensino explícito da pragmática

na competência pragmática dos futuros professores de inglês como língua estrangeira no

Equador. Utilizou-se uma abordagem quantitativa descritiva com 35 alunos do sétimo semestre

do curso de formação de professores de inglês como língua estrangeira de uma universidade

pública do Equador. Após o ensino explícito sobre a pressuposição, implicatura

conversacional, ironia, sarcasmo, linguagem figurada, significado contextual e significado

pretendido, os participantes realizaram um Teste de Interpretação Pragmática composto por

questões de escolha múltipla e questões abertas. Os participantes demonstraram um

desempenho global satisfatório e obtiveram um acerto total na secção de escolha múltipla. No

entanto, observou-se uma maior variabilidade nas tarefas de pressuposição com questões

abertas, sugerindo que explicar o raciocínio pragmático era mais desafiante do que reconhecer

o significado pragmático. Os resultados indicam que o ensino explícito da pragmática apoia o

desenvolvimento da competência pragmática, ao mesmo tempo que destaca a importância de

promover a consciência metapragmática através de atividades reflexivas e explicativas na

formação de professores de inglês como língua estrangeira.

Palavras-chave: ensino claro da pragmática, competência pragmática, consciência

metapragmática, formação de professores de inglês como língua estrangeira, pragmática da

interlíngua.

Introduction

Pragmatic competence has now become an essential aspect of communicative

competence in English as a Foreign Language (EFL), since effective communication relies not

just on grammatical accuracy but also on learners' capacity to understand the intentions of

speakers, the implied meanings, and the use of language that is appropriate in a given cultural

context (Taguchi, 2022; Wang et al., 2024). Nowadays, a growing amount of research stresses

that it should be seen as a basic aim of language teaching, especially in EFL situations where

chances for genuine interaction are usually limited and where classroom teaching generally

places more importance on grammatical accuracy than on the use of language that is sensitive

to context (Huang, 2022; Wang et al., 2024).

3268

Código Científico Revista de Investigación

Vol. 7 – Núm. 1 / Enero - Junio – 2026

Literature Review

The evidence recently compiled by Wang et al. (2024) strongly supports the idea that

pragmatic competence is important in the teaching of English. In a systematic review of 42

studies that were published between 1993 and 2023 and are listed in Scopus and Web of

Science, the authors looked at how pragmatic competence develops among both EFL and ESL

learners. Their results show that research into pragmatics has increased considerably over the

last thirty years, especially in EFL situations, where learners typically show lower levels of

pragmatic competence compared to their ESL peers. The review also points out that explicit

teaching methods always help in the development of learners' pragmatic skills by enhancing

their understanding of sociocultural norms and the appropriate use of language in different

contexts. Furthermore, Wang et al. point out a number of unresolved issues, such as the need

for more research regarding instructional practices and the sociocultural factors that affect

pragmatic competence, thus giving a solid reason for further empirical studies in this area.

It has always been shown by recent research that teaching pragmatics explicitly plays a

key role in enabling learners to use language appropriately in a variety of communicative

situations. Huang (2022) combined the evidence from studies of interlanguage pragmatics and

found that explicit teaching is usually more effective than implicit methods at developing

pragmatic competence. The review stresses that metapragmatic explanations, awareness-

raising exercises, and guided reflection aid learners in paying attention to both pragmalinguistic

forms and sociopragmatic conventions, while simple exposure to the language is generally not

enough to lead to real pragmatic development.

This study was supported by Vali et al. (2025), who looked into the effects of both

explicit and implicit pragmatic instruction on the pragmatic competence of 120 Iranian EFL

learners, the learners being divided into three proficiency levels. The researchers used an

experimental pre-test/post-test approach and assessed the learners' pragmatic performance

3269

Código Científico Revista de Investigación

Vol. 7 – Núm. 1 / Enero - Junio – 2026

through Discourse Completion Tests, Error Recognition Tests, role-play activities, and writing

tasks. Even though both types of instruction led to improvements, explicit instruction resulted

in significantly greater gains, especially in the learners' ability to use language appropriately in

communicative situations. The study also showed that the learners' proficiency level had an

effect on their pragmatic development, thus underlining the pedagogical value of including

explicit pragmatics instruction in EFL classrooms.

Also, Isaee and Barjesteh (2024) looked at the effectiveness of both explicit and implicit

instruction by teaching intermediate EFL learners some compliment strategies. Their results

showed that although both types of instruction had a positive effect on learners' pragmatic

competence, explicit instruction led to better learning outcomes. The authors stress that

pragmatic competence goes beyond grammatical knowledge and includes the learners' ability

to interpret implicatures, implied meanings, and the use of language that is appropriate in a

given context. These findings support the increasing agreement that explicit instruction not

only promotes pragmatic production but also increases learners' awareness of how meaning is

developed in real communicative situations.

Even though there is a growing amount of evidence in favour of giving students explicit

instruction in pragmatics, such instruction is still not systematically incorporated into EFL

classrooms. Kanık et al. (2023) looked at teaching practices in an international EFL setting and

discovered that pragmatic instruction was only sometimes given and was usually dealt with

incidentally rather than as part of carefully designed pedagogical activities. The authors explain

this state of affairs as being due to a number of factors, such as inadequate teacher preparation,

limitations imposed by the curriculum, and a lack of instructional resources. As a result, even

though research continuously shows that explicit pragmatics instruction is effective, many EFL

learners still get only a relatively small amount of systematic exposure to pragmatic features

throughout their language study.

3270

Código Científico Revista de Investigación

Vol. 7 – Núm. 1 / Enero - Junio – 2026

Huang (2022) combined the evidence from research into interlanguage pragmatics and

found that explicit teaching is consistently more effective than implicit methods when it comes

to developing learners' pragmatic competence. The review points out that activities which

involve giving learners metapragmatic explanations and raising their awareness help them to

concentrate on both pragmalinguistic forms and sociopragmatic conventions, while simple

exposure to the language is generally not enough to lead to pragmatic development. These

findings also reinforce the value of explicit instruction in EFL situations.

Apart from its application in the classroom, recent research has placed greater emphasis

on the idea that successful communication involves not just the production of suitable language

but also the correct interpretation of the meanings intended by speakers within their cultural

and social settings. Huang (2024) states that for effective cross-cultural communication people

need to realise how contextual factors, cultural norms, and interpersonal relationships influence

the way messages are interpreted. Since speakers coming from different linguistic and cultural

backgrounds often express their intentions, emotions, and attitudes in an indirect manner,

learners should become sensitive to the implied meanings rather than depending solely on

literal interpretations.

Similar empirical research has also shown how important pragmatic comprehension is

when it comes to learning English as a foreign language. Even though specific instructional

interventions have been found to have a positive impact on learners' pragmatic competence, a

large number of studies still focus mainly on the production of speech acts such as requests,

apologies, compliments, and refusals. Rather than this, fewer studies have looked at learners'

ability to understand conversational implicatures, irony, sarcasm, and other pragmatic

meanings which are embedded in culture. The fact that there is this imbalance indicates that

pragmatic comprehension is still an area that has not been sufficiently explored in the study of

interlanguage pragmatics and thus merits more empirical investigation.

3271

Código Científico Revista de Investigación

Vol. 7 – Núm. 1 / Enero - Junio – 2026

The literature as a whole shows that pragmatic competence has now become a basic

element of communicative competence in EFL teaching and that explicit instruction has a

significant role in promoting learners' pragmatic development (Wang et al., 2024; Huang,

2022; Vali et al., 2025; Isaee & Barjesteh, 2024). Yet, even though there is increasing empirical

evidence in favour of explicit pragmatics instruction, its use is still limited in a great many EFL

classrooms because of pedagogical, curricular, and contextual restrictions (Kanık et al., 2023).

Moreover, the existing intervention studies have mainly concentrated on learners' production

of speech acts, while comparatively little attention has been given to developing learners'

ability to interpret pragmatically embedded cultural meanings, such as implied meanings,

conversational implicatures, irony, and sarcasm. As a result, further empirical research is

required in order to examine how explicit pragmatics instruction can help EFL learners to

interpret contextually and culturally rooted meanings in real communicative situations.

Methodology

Research Design

In order to study instructional interventions in real educational settings, a quasi-

experimental mixed-methods design was used and the quantitative and qualitative evidence

was combined in order to achieve a full understanding of the learning outcomes (Creswell &

Creswell, 2018).

Context

The research was carried out at a public university located on the coast of Ecuador, in

which English is taught as a Foreign Language (EFL) as part of the undergraduate English

Language Teaching programme. It took place in the Semantics and Pragmatics course in the

seventh semester. By that semester, the students had already finished their basic studies in

English language skills, linguistics, grammar, and methods of language teaching, enabling

them to deal with more advanced topics concerning meaning, context, and the use of language.

3272

Código Científico Revista de Investigación

Vol. 7 – Núm. 1 / Enero - Junio – 2026

Even though they had a high level of linguistic ability, a great number of the learners still had

trouble in understanding pragmatic meanings that are culturally based, such as implied

messages, irony, sarcasm, indirectness, and other expressions which depend on context. It was

for these reasons that this kind of educational environment was suitable for investigating the

effect of explicit pragmatics teaching on students' ability to interpret meaning beyond the literal

level and on their capacity to communicate more effectively in intercultural situations.

Participants

The study involved 35 undergraduate students who were in their seventh semester

studying English Language Teaching at a public university located on the coast of Ecuador. Of

these, 11 were men and 24 were women, with ages ranging from 22 to 24 years. All the

participants were taking the Semantics and Pragmatics course in which they were given formal

teaching about meaning, context, and the use of language in communication. Since the study

was carried out with a complete class, convenience sampling was used. This group was chosen

because they had an intermediate to upper-intermediate level of English and a solid linguistic

background, qualities that made them appropriate for investigating the effects of explicit

pragmatics instruction on the interpretation of culturally embedded meanings.

Instructional Intervention

The instructional intervention was created with the aim of helping EFL students

improve their pragmatic competence by giving them explicit instruction on how to interpret

culturally embedded meanings in English. Unlike traditional language teaching, which focuses

on grammatical accuracy and vocabulary building, this intervention sought to increase learners'

awareness of the way in which contextual, social, and cultural factors affect meaning in real-

life communication. Students were asked to analyse the speakers' intentions, the implied

meanings, the contextual clues, and the use of language that is appropriate in a given culture

through guided explanations, collaborative discussion, and practical communication exercises.

3273

Código Científico Revista de Investigación

Vol. 7 – Núm. 1 / Enero - Junio – 2026

The design of the instruction was based on recent research which shows that explicit teaching

of pragmatics is effective in promoting pragmatic awareness and the ability to interpret

meaning. The intervention took place over eight instructional sessions as part of the regular

Semantics and Pragmatics course. In each session a different aspect of pragmatic interpretation

was dealt with, for example contextual meaning, implicature, presupposition, figurative

language, irony, sarcasm, mood and modality, and culturally embedded expressions. The

instruction combined clear explanations of pragmatic concepts with authentic examples,

classroom discussions, role-play activities, collaborative problem-solving tasks, and guided

interpretation exercises. Students were encouraged to give reasons for their interpretations,

compare different possible meanings, and think about how context and cultural knowledge

influence communication. The sequence of the instruction moved from guided practice to more

independent analysis.

As the instructional intervention moved on, the responsibility for learning passed from

teacher-led instruction to a form of student-focused collaborative learning. In the last stage, the

participants worked in small groups to plan and give presentations on important topics in

semantics and pragmatics, such as presupposition, conversational implicature, contextual

meaning, irony, sarcasm, figurative language, and the difference between literal and intended

meaning. Each group also created an interactive classroom activity to get their classmates

involved in analysing real examples and discussing how implied meanings are interpreted in a

given context. By means of these presentations and the activities that were led by their peers,

the students showed that they understood the pragmatic concepts by explaining the ideas

themselves, helping to run the discussions, and answering the questions put to them by their

classmates, rather than depending just on written material. This collaborative phase

strengthened their metapragmatic awareness and offered further opportunities to put their

explicit knowledge of pragmatics into practice in realistic communicative situations. The

3274

Código Científico Revista de Investigación

Vol. 7 – Núm. 1 / Enero - Junio – 2026

presentation found in the uploaded file is an example of the kind of collaborative work carried

out during this stage, combining several pragmatic concepts into one instructional sequence.

Instruments

In order to look at the effects of explicit instruction in pragmatics on students' ability to

interpret culturally embedded meanings, two research tools were used: the Pragmatic

Interpretation Test (PIT) and the Pragmatic Learning Perception Questionnaire (PLPQ). The

employment of more than one instrument is in line with the recommendations of the literature

on interlanguage pragmatics, which suggests that performance-based assessments should be

combined with learners' self-reported perceptions in order to gain a more complete

understanding of pragmatic development and the effectiveness of instruction (Huang, 2022).

Moreover, using multiple sources of evidence increases the credibility of research carried out

in classroom settings by offering different viewpoints on both learners' performance and their

perceptions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

Pragmatic Interpretation Test (PIT)

The Pragmatic Interpretation Test (PIT) was made up of ten multiple-choice questions

intended for assessing learners' capacity to tell the difference between the literal and the

intended meanings in real-life communicative situations. The scenarios covered pragmatic

features such as indirect requests, irony, sarcasm, contextual meaning, implicature, and speaker

intention. Different from conventional pragmatic assessment tasks which mainly look at

learners' production of speech acts, the PIT was specially designed to check learners' ability to

interpret the meanings intended by speakers by taking into account contextual, interpersonal,

and sociocultural information. This focus on interpretation is in line with the latest suggestions

in interlanguage pragmatics, which stress the need to assess both pragmatic comprehension and

pragmatic production (Huang, 2022; Roever, 2011). Pragmatic Learning Perception

Questionnaire (PLPQ)

3275

Código Científico Revista de Investigación

Vol. 7 – Núm. 1 / Enero - Junio – 2026

After taking the Pragmatic Interpretation Test (PIT), the participants filled out the

Pragmatic Learning Perception Questionnaire (PLPQ), which was intended to look at their

views of the explicit pragmatics instruction and the way in which it had helped them to interpret

culturally embedded meanings. The questionnaire had two parts. The first part contained ten

statements on a five-point Likert scale which looked at the learners' perceptions of the

instructional activities, their confidence in interpreting pragmatic meanings, and the extent to

which they found the explicit instructional method effective. The second part consisted of five

open-ended questions that asked the participants to reflect on their learning experiences, to

name the pragmatic concepts that they found most difficult, and to explain how the instructional

intervention had affected their understanding of contextual and culturally embedded meanings.

The use of both closed- and open-ended questions provided complementary quantitative and

qualitative evidence about learners' metapragmatic awareness and their perceptions of the

intervention, thus strengthening the overall assessment of the instructional programme

(Dörnyei, 2007; Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

Data Collection Procedure.

Data collection took place throughout the instructional intervention in the regular

Semantics and Pragmatics course. At the start of the study, the participants took the Pragmatic

Interpretation Test (PIT) as a pre-test in order to assess their original ability to interpret both

literal and pragmatic meanings in real communicative situations. The application of pre-test

and post-test methods is well established in research involving classroom-based interventions

since it allows researchers to look at changes in learners' performance after they have received

the instructional treatment and to judge the effectiveness of the teaching interventions (Roever,

2022). The pre-test results showed that a number of students had trouble understanding implied

meanings, irony, sarcasm, indirect requests, and other expressions which depend on context,

thus confirming the need for explicit pragmatics instruction.

3276

Código Científico Revista de Investigación

Vol. 7 – Núm. 1 / Enero - Junio – 2026

After the pre-test, the participants took part in an explicit instructional intervention

which took place over eight instructional sessions. During this intervention, the students were

given systematic teaching on various pragmatic concepts such as contextual meaning,

implicature, presupposition, figurative language, irony, sarcasm, mood and modality, and

culturally embedded expressions. The classroom instruction incorporated clear explanations

together with collaborative discussions, guided interpretation exercises, authentic

communicative situations, and the Role-Play with Interpretation activity in order to help

learners become aware of the influence of contextual and sociocultural factors on meaning.

Research carried out in the classroom recently has stressed that pragmatics instruction which

is based on authentic communicative activities promotes learners' pragmatic awareness and

helps them to interpret intended meanings in context.

After the instructional intervention had ended, the participants took the Pragmatic

Interpretation Test (PIT) a second time as a post-test in order to assess any changes in their

ability to interpret culturally embedded pragmatic meanings. Right after that, the students filled

out the Pragmatic Learning Perception Questionnaire (PLPQ) in order to give details about

their perceptions of the instructional activities, their confidence in interpreting pragmatic

meanings, and their view of the effectiveness of the intervention. Since the combination of

achievement data and learner perception data is increasingly being recommended in classroom-

based pragmatics research, it provides complementary evidence with respect to both the

learning outcomes and the learners' experiences throughout the instruction. Lastly, all the

quantitative and qualitative data were arranged for later statistical and thematic analyses.

Data Analysis

The data obtained from the Pragmatic Interpretation Test (PIT) were subjected to both

quantitative and qualitative analysis in order to gain a thorough understanding of the students'

pragmatic competence after they had received the explicit instructional intervention. By using

3277

Código Científico Revista de Investigación

Vol. 7 – Núm. 1 / Enero - Junio – 2026

both types of analysis the researchers were able to look not only at the students' total

performance on the objective test questions but also at the quality of their written explanations,

thus giving a more complete view of their understanding of pragmatic concepts.

The quantitative analysis looked at the students' answers to the multiple-choice

questions, which tested their understanding of presupposition, presupposition triggers, irony,

sarcasm, figurative language, and intended meaning. The answers were evaluated in

accordance with the answer key that had been prepared for the test, and the results were

presented using descriptive statistics such as frequencies, percentages, mean scores, and the

overall accuracy rate. These statistical measures were employed to ascertain the students' level

of achievement with respect to the various pragmatic concepts and to assess how much the

instructional intervention had improved their understanding of semantics and pragmatics.

The qualitative analysis focused on the three open-ended tasks involving the

interpretation of presuppositions, since in these tasks students had to identify the presupposition

contained in each sentence and give reasons for their answers by explaining the linguistic

trigger which was responsible for the implied meaning. The students' written answers were

compared with the official answer key and were classified as correct, partially correct, or

incorrect based on the accuracy and completeness of their explanations. Furthermore, common

patterns in the students' responses were looked at in order to spot their usual strengths,

misconceptions, and difficulties when it came to metapragmatic reasoning. This analytical

process was based on the principles of thematic analysis as proposed by Braun and Clarke

(2006), who maintain that by identifying and interpreting significant patterns in qualitative data

researchers are able to gain a deeper understanding of the participants' perspectives and

performance.

In the end, the quantitative and qualitative results were combined in order to give a

thorough interpretation of the effects of the instructional intervention. By comparing the

3278

Código Científico Revista de Investigación

Vol. 7 – Núm. 1 / Enero - Junio – 2026

students' objective performance on the multiple-choice questions with the quality of their

written explanations, it was possible to tell the difference between having a conceptual

recognition and possessing a deeper metapragmatic understanding. This integrated method

allowed for a more detailed assessment of the students' pragmatic competence and enabled the

researchers to spot the areas in which the learners showed strong conceptual knowledge as well

as those aspects which still posed challenges following the explicit instruction.

Ethical Considerations

The study was carried out in keeping with the basic ethical principles that should apply

to educational research which involves human participants. Prior to the introduction of the

instructional intervention, the students were made aware of the aims of the study, the

procedures to be followed, and how the data gathered would be used. Taking part in the

research was voluntary, and it was clearly explained to the students that their choice to take

part or to withdraw at any time would have no effect on their academic position or course

grades.

In order to protect the privacy of the participants, the data were kept confidential and

analysed without using any personal information. The names of the students and all other

identifying details were omitted from the dataset, and the findings are given in an aggregated

form so that individual participants cannot be identified. The data collected were used solely

for research and were stored securely during the study.

The instructional activities carried out during the intervention matched the aims of the

regular course and did not place the participants in any physical, psychological or social risks

beyond those normally met in classroom learning. The study followed the ethical principles of

respect for persons, beneficence, and justice as set out in the Belmont Report (National

Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research,

3279

Código Científico Revista de Investigación

Vol. 7 – Núm. 1 / Enero - Junio – 2026

1979), as well as the ethical guidelines for research involving human participants formulated

by the American Psychological Association (APA, 2020).

Table 1

Overview of the Explicit Pragmatics Instructional Intervention

Session

Topic

Main Classroom

Learning Objective

Recognize contextual meaning

Identify implied meaning

Activity

1

2

Contextual Meaning

Hidden Meaning

Dialogue analysis

Short

conversations

Problem-solving

3

4

Implicature

Interpret conversational implicatures

Identify presupposed information

Presupposition

Multiple-choice

tasks

5

6

Figurative Language

Literary excerpts

Distinguish literal and figurative meaning

Pragmatic

Role plays with

To help students recognize how pragmatic

meaning can shift based on context, tone, and

social dynamics, even when the linguistic forms

remain the same.

Interpretation:

and Sarcasm

Irony interpretation.

7

8

Mood & Modality

Integrated Practice

Authentic

conversations

Case studies

Analyze attitudes and certainty

Interpret culturally embedded meanings

One of the principal instructional activities implemented during the intervention was

Role-Play with Interpretation, which was incorporated into the session on Pragmatic

Interpretation: Irony and Sarcasm. Unlike traditional role-play activities that primarily

emphasize language production, this activity required students to interpret speakers' intended

meanings before formulating a response. Participants analyzed authentic communicative

situations by considering contextual information, tone of voice, speaker intention, and

interpersonal relationships, thereby recognizing that identical linguistic expressions may

convey different pragmatic meanings depending on the communicative context. Through

guided discussion and reflection, students were encouraged to justify their interpretations and

compare alternative perspectives, fostering greater awareness of the role of context and culture

in meaning construction.

3280

Código Científico Revista de Investigación

Vol. 7 – Núm. 1 / Enero - Junio – 2026

Results

Overall Performance on the Pragmatic Interpretation Test

After the instructional intervention, the Pragmatic Interpretation Test (PIT) was given

in order to assess the students' understanding of the pragmatic topics covered in the course. The

test consisted of multiple-choice questions which measured their conceptual knowledge and

three open-ended tasks which looked at their ability to identify and explain presuppositions.

Descriptive statistics were employed to examine the overall performance of the 35 participants,

giving a general summary of their achievement before a more detailed analysis of their

performance on each section of the test.

Table 2

Presents the descriptive statistics for the overall scores obtained on the PIT.

Descriptive Statistics

Student

Score

Mode

18.00

10.25

7.416

8.100

8.191

0.985

Median

Mean (arithmetic)

Std. Deviation

Maximum

35.00

10.00

Table 1 shows that the participants averaged a score of 8.19 out of 10 on the grading

scale, the median score being 8.10. The individual scores varied between 7.20 and 10.00, which

means that every participant scored enough to pass the Pragmatic Interpretation Test.

Moreover, the relatively small standard deviation (0.98) indicates that there was not much

variation in the students' performance, implying that the majority of the participants showed a

comparable degree of achievement. Taken together, these results demonstrate that the students

had attained a satisfactory level of performance as a result of the instructional intervention. The

descriptive statistics give a general account of the students' achievement and form the

3281

Código Científico Revista de Investigación

Vol. 7 – Núm. 1 / Enero - Junio – 2026

foundation for the more detailed analyses of the multiple-choice and open-ended questions that

are given in the following subsections.

Table 3

Frequency Distribution of Students' Scores on the Pragmatic Interpretation Test

Score Range

Frequency (f)

Percentage (%)

7.0–7.9

17

7

48.6

20.0

8.0–8.9

9.0–10.0

Total

11

35

31.4

100.0

Table 2 The frequency distribution of the students' scores on the Pragmatic

Interpretation Test is shown in Table 2. About half of the participants, that is 48.6 per cent,

scored between 7.0 and 7.9, while 31.4 per cent scored between 9.0 and 10.0, which shows a

high level of performance. The other 20.0 per cent obtained scores in the range 8.0 to 8.9.

Taken as a whole, the distribution shows that every participant achieved a passing score, about

one-third of them showing high achievement on the test.

Performance on the Multiple-Choice Section of the Pragmatic Interpretation Test.

The students' ability to identify the pragmatic concepts which had been covered during

the instructional intervention—such as conversational implicature, irony, sarcasm, figurative

language, contextual meaning, and intended meaning—was measured in the multiple-choice

part of the Pragmatic Interpretation Test. For these questions, the participants had to interpret

the communicative situations and select the most suitable pragmatic interpretation from the

available options.

When the responses were analysed it was found that all 35 participants gave the correct

answers to Questions 2 to 11, which meant that the multiple-choice section had a 100%

accuracy rate. This shows that after having been given specific instructions the students were

able to identify the pragmatic concepts which were assessed by the instrument when they were

3282

Código Científico Revista de Investigación

Vol. 7 – Núm. 1 / Enero - Junio – 2026

given a structured format for their responses. The high level of performance in all cases

suggests that the participants could tell the difference between the literal and the intended

meanings and were able to correctly identify the pragmatic features shown in each question.

The students showed complete accuracy in the multiple-choice part, but different results

were obtained in the presupposition interpretation tasks, since in those tasks the participants

had to produce their own explanations rather than choose from a set of predetermined

responses. The findings from these tasks are given in the subsection that follows.

Performance on the Open-Ended Presupposition Tasks

The presupposition interpretation tasks required students to identify the implicit

assumptions conveyed in three sentences and justify their responses. Unlike the multiple-

choice section, these tasks required participants to generate their own interpretations and

explanations rather than select from predetermined alternatives.

Analysis of the responses revealed greater variability in students' performance on the

presupposition tasks. Of the 35 participants, four (11.4%) demonstrated complete mastery by

correctly identifying and justifying the presuppositions in all three scenarios. Twenty students

(57.2%) exhibited partial understanding, receiving scores between 0.5 and 2.5 points. The

remaining eleven students (31.4%) were unable to correctly identify or justify the

presuppositions, obtaining a score of zero on the task.

These findings indicate that, although students successfully recognized pragmatic

concepts in the multiple-choice section of the test, greater difficulty emerged when they were

required to independently identify and explain presuppositions. The variability observed in the

open-ended tasks suggests differences in students' ability to articulate the pragmatic reasoning

underlying their interpretations.

3283

Código Científico Revista de Investigación

Vol. 7 – Núm. 1 / Enero - Junio – 2026

Discussion

Effect of Explicit Pragmatics Instruction

The findings of this study indicate that explicit pragmatics instruction positively

influenced participants' ability to recognize and interpret pragmatic meanings. Students

achieved a mean score of 8.19 out of 10 on the Pragmatic Interpretation Test, while all

participants correctly answered the multiple-choice items assessing conversational implicature,

irony, sarcasm, figurative language, contextual meaning, and intended meaning. These results

suggest that explicit instruction effectively supported the development of learners' pragmatic

comprehension.

These findings are consistent with recent research demonstrating that explicit

pragmatics instruction facilitates learners' ability to comprehend implied meanings, recognize

contextual cues, and interpret speakers' communicative intentions in English as a foreign

language. Recent empirical studies have shown that explicit classroom instruction contributes

to measurable improvements in learners' pragmatic awareness and interpretation abilities

across different educational contexts.

The effectiveness of explicit instruction may be attributed to its emphasis on

metapragmatic awareness, which encourages learners to consciously analyze contextual

information, linguistic forms, and speakers' intentions rather than relying exclusively on

grammatical knowledge. Through guided explanations and classroom practice, learners

become more capable of recognizing how meaning is constructed beyond the literal

interpretation of language.

The present study extends this body of research by demonstrating that explicit

pragmatics instruction can support pragmatic comprehension among Ecuadorian EFL

university students. Although participants demonstrated high levels of success in recognizing

pragmatic meanings, subsequent analyses revealed that generating explanations for

3284

Código Científico Revista de Investigación

Vol. 7 – Núm. 1 / Enero - Junio – 2026

presuppositions remained more challenging. This distinction suggests that recognizing

pragmatic meaning and articulating the underlying pragmatic reasoning may represent different

dimensions of pragmatic competence.

Recognition versus Explanation of Pragmatic Meaning

One of the most noteworthy findings of the present study is the contrast between

students' performance on the multiple-choice section of the Pragmatic Interpretation Test and

their responses to the open-ended presupposition interpretation tasks. Whereas all participants

correctly identified the pragmatic meanings assessed through the multiple-choice items,

considerably greater variability emerged when they were required to independently identify

and justify presuppositions. This contrast suggests that recognizing pragmatic meaning and

explicitly explaining the underlying pragmatic mechanisms represent related but distinct

dimensions of pragmatic competence.

The multiple-choice items primarily measured learners' ability to recognize contextual

cues and select the most appropriate interpretation from a set of alternatives. In contrast, the

presupposition tasks required students to generate explanations without linguistic support,

drawing on their metapragmatic knowledge to explain why a particular interpretation was

licensed. This additional cognitive demand likely explains why students who successfully

recognized pragmatic meanings did not always demonstrate the same level of success when

articulating their reasoning. Recent research has similarly argued that pragmatic assessment

tasks differ in the types of knowledge and processing they require, with production and

explanation tasks generally demanding greater metapragmatic awareness than recognition

tasks.

The findings also reinforce the importance of metapragmatic awareness in the

development of pragmatic competence. Explicit instruction may facilitate learners' recognition

of pragmatic phenomena by directing attention to contextual information, pragmatic cues, and

3285

Código Científico Revista de Investigación

Vol. 7 – Núm. 1 / Enero - Junio – 2026

speakers' communicative intentions. However, the ability to verbalize the reasoning underlying

those interpretations appears to require a deeper level of conceptual understanding and

conscious reflection. Contemporary discussions in interlanguage pragmatics emphasize that

explicit instruction is particularly valuable because it promotes learners' awareness of the

relationship between linguistic forms, contextual factors, and intended meanings rather than

simply increasing exposure to pragmatic input.

The present findings therefore suggest that explicit pragmatics instruction effectively

supported students' pragmatic comprehension while simultaneously revealing areas in which

further instructional practice may be beneficial. In particular, instructional activities that

require learners to justify their interpretations, discuss pragmatic triggers, and reflect on the

relationship between linguistic forms and implied meanings may further strengthen their

metapragmatic competence. Rather than viewing the lower performance on the presupposition

tasks as evidence of instructional limitations, these results indicate that learners had begun to

develop pragmatic awareness but still required additional opportunities to consolidate their

ability to explain pragmatic meaning independently. This distinction contributes to current

discussions on pragmatic instruction by highlighting the complementary roles of recognition

and explanation in the development of pragmatic competence.

Pedagogical Implications

The findings of the present study have several implications for the teaching of

pragmatics in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts. The overall positive performance

of the participants suggests that explicit pragmatics instruction can effectively enhance

learners' ability to recognize and interpret implied meanings in communicative situations.

Consequently, pragmatics should not be treated as an incidental component of language

learning but rather as an integral part of English language instruction. Systematic classroom

attention to pragmatic concepts such as presupposition, conversational implicature, irony,

3286

Código Científico Revista de Investigación

Vol. 7 – Núm. 1 / Enero - Junio – 2026

sarcasm, and figurative language may help learners develop a more comprehensive

understanding of authentic communication.

The contrast observed between students' performance on the multiple-choice section

and the presupposition interpretation tasks also highlights the importance of incorporating

instructional activities that promote metapragmatic reflection. While recognition tasks allow

learners to identify appropriate interpretations in context, open-ended activities encourage

them to explain the reasoning underlying those interpretations and to become more aware of

the relationship between linguistic forms, contextual information, and speakers'

communicative intentions. Classroom practices such as guided discussions, collaborative

problem-solving, reflective questioning, and analysis of authentic dialogues may therefore

support deeper levels of pragmatic development.

The results further suggest that effective pragmatics instruction should provide learners

with opportunities to engage in both receptive and productive forms of pragmatic practice.

Recognition-based activities remain valuable for introducing new pragmatic concepts and

reinforcing comprehension; however, they should be complemented by tasks requiring learners

to justify their interpretations, explain pragmatic meanings, and discuss how contextual factors

influence communication. Such activities may foster learners' ability to transfer pragmatic

knowledge beyond structured classroom exercises and apply it in authentic communicative

situations.

Finally, the findings underscore the importance of preparing future English language

teachers to recognize the pedagogical value of pragmatics instruction. As the participants in

this study were pre-service EFL teachers, strengthening their pragmatic competence may have

implications that extend beyond their own language development. Teachers with greater

awareness of pragmatic phenomena are better positioned to design classroom activities that

address communicative meaning, anticipate learners' pragmatic difficulties, and promote more

3287

Código Científico Revista de Investigación

Vol. 7 – Núm. 1 / Enero - Junio – 2026

effective intercultural communication. Integrating explicit pragmatics instruction into teacher

education programs may therefore contribute to improving both language proficiency and

instructional practice in EFL contexts.

Limitations and Future Research

The findings of the present study should be interpreted in light of several limitations.

First, the research was conducted with a relatively small sample of 35 seventh-semester EFL

teacher education students from a single Ecuadorian university. Although the sample was

appropriate for addressing the research objectives, the results may not be generalizable to

learners from different educational contexts, proficiency levels, or cultural backgrounds.

A second limitation concerns the assessment design. Pragmatic competence was

evaluated through a single post-instruction Pragmatic Interpretation Test, which primarily

measured learners' comprehension of selected pragmatic phenomena. Although the instrument

provided valuable insights into students' ability to recognize and interpret pragmatic meanings,

it did not include delayed post-testing to examine the long-term retention of the instructional

effects. Consequently, the findings reflect learners' pragmatic performance immediately

following the instructional intervention rather than the durability of their pragmatic

development over time.

Furthermore, the study focused on a limited number of pragmatic concepts, namely

presupposition, conversational implicature, irony, sarcasm, figurative language, contextual

meaning, and intended meaning. Pragmatic competence is a multidimensional construct

encompassing a much broader range of communicative phenomena. Therefore, the findings

should be interpreted as evidence of the effectiveness of explicit instruction for these particular

aspects of pragmatics rather than as a comprehensive assessment of learners' overall pragmatic

competence.

3288

Código Científico Revista de Investigación

Vol. 7 – Núm. 1 / Enero - Junio – 2026

Future research could address these limitations by including larger and more diverse

samples drawn from multiple educational institutions and by employing longitudinal research

designs to examine the sustained effects of explicit pragmatics instruction. Additionally, future

studies may investigate other dimensions of pragmatic competence, such as speech acts,

politeness strategies, intercultural pragmatic awareness, and pragmatic production in authentic

communicative interactions. Comparative studies examining different instructional approaches

or assessment formats may also provide further insights into how various components of

pragmatic competence develop in EFL contexts.

Overall, despite these limitations, the present study contributes to the growing body of

research supporting the role of explicit pragmatics instruction in fostering learners' pragmatic

competence. The findings provide evidence that explicit instruction can effectively enhance

pragmatic comprehension while highlighting the need for continued instructional attention to

learners' ability to independently explain and apply pragmatic knowledge in communicative

contexts.

Conclusions

The present study examined the effects of explicit pragmatics instruction on the

development of pragmatic competence among seventh-semester Ecuadorian pre-service EFL

teachers. By implementing an instructional intervention focused on presupposition,

conversational implicature, irony, sarcasm, figurative language, contextual meaning, and

intended meaning, the study sought to determine how explicit instruction influences learners'

ability to interpret pragmatic meaning in English. Through the administration of a Pragmatic

Interpretation Test, the research provided empirical evidence regarding students' pragmatic

comprehension following systematic classroom instruction.

The findings indicate that explicit pragmatics instruction positively contributed to

learners' pragmatic development. Participants demonstrated satisfactory overall performance

3289

Código Científico Revista de Investigación

Vol. 7 – Núm. 1 / Enero - Junio – 2026

on the Pragmatic Interpretation Test and achieved complete accuracy in recognizing pragmatic

meanings in the multiple-choice section of the assessment. However, greater variability

emerged when students were required to independently identify and justify presuppositions in

open-ended tasks. These findings suggest that recognizing pragmatic meaning and explaining

the pragmatic reasoning underlying that meaning represent distinct, though complementary,

dimensions of pragmatic competence. While explicit instruction effectively supported learners'

comprehension of pragmatic phenomena, opportunities for deeper metapragmatic reflection

remain essential for consolidating this knowledge.

Beyond its immediate findings, this study underscores the pedagogical importance of

integrating explicit pragmatics instruction into EFL teacher education programs. Preparing

future English language teachers requires more than developing grammatical accuracy or

linguistic proficiency; it also involves fostering the ability to interpret communicative

intentions, understand context-dependent meanings, and reflect critically on how language

functions in authentic interaction. Instructional practices that combine recognition activities

with opportunities for explanation, discussion, and reflection may contribute to a more

comprehensive development of learners' pragmatic competence and, ultimately, to more

effective communication in multilingual and intercultural settings.

In conclusion, this study contributes to the growing body of research on interlanguage

pragmatics by providing empirical evidence from the Ecuadorian EFL context regarding the

benefits of explicit pragmatics instruction. The findings reinforce the view that pragmatic

competence constitutes a fundamental component of communicative competence and that its

development deserves a more prominent place in language teacher education. It is hoped that

this research will encourage educators, curriculum designers, and researchers to continue

exploring effective approaches to pragmatics instruction and to promote learning environments

in which learners not only recognize pragmatic meanings but also develop the metapragmatic

3290

Código Científico Revista de Investigación

Vol. 7 – Núm. 1 / Enero - Junio – 2026

awareness necessary to explain, apply, and transfer that knowledge to authentic communicative

situations.

Bibliographic references

Aboulghazi, M. (2024). Teachers' perceptions toward pragmatics and pragmatic teaching in

Moroccan higher education. Arab World English Journal.

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American

Psychological Association (7th ed.). American Psychological Association.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research

in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research

in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and

mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and

mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press.

Huang, M. (2024). Cross-cultural communication in the digital era: Insights from social media

interactions. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Education

Innovation

and

Philosophical

Inquiries

(pp.

23–29).

Atlantis

Press.

https://doi.org/10.54254/2753-7048/54/20241566

Huang, N. (2022). Revisiting L2 pragmatic competence through implicit vs. explicit

instructional framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 987729.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.987729

Isaee, H., & Barjesteh, H. (2024). Raising EFL learners' pragmatic competence via teaching

compliments: The case of explicit vs. implicit instruction in focus. Journal of Studies in

Learning and Teaching English, 13(2), 25–42.

Kanık, M., Youbi, G. M., Sharon, T. T., & Kasapoğlu, M. (2023). The (non-)teaching of

pragmatics in an EFL context. Journal of Language Education and Research, 9(1), 43–

58. https://doi.org/10.31464/jlere.1221693

Li, Q., & Taguchi, N. (2023). Usage-based approach to teaching L2 pragmatics. In A.

Martínez-Flor, A. Sánchez-Hernández, & J. Barón (Eds.), L2 Pragmatics in Action:

Teachers, Learners and the Teaching–Learning Interaction Process (pp. 267–292).

John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.58.11liq

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral

Research. (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the

3291

Código Científico Revista de Investigación

Vol. 7 – Núm. 1 / Enero - Junio – 2026

protection of human subjects of research. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and

Welfare. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html

Roever, C. (2022). Teaching and testing second language pragmatics and interaction: A

practical guide. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429260766

Taguchi, N. (2022). Second language pragmatics: A historical overview and future

directions. In N. Halenko & J. Wang (Eds.), Pragmatics in English: Language

Learning (pp. 7–26). Cambridge University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108894241.003

Taguchi, N. (2022). Teaching and learning pragmatics. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of

Practical Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 499–512). Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003106609-41

Taguchi, N. (2023). Game-based instruction of pragmatics: Learning request-making through

perlocutionary effects. Language Learning & Technology, 27(1), 1–18

Taguchi, N. (2024). Technology-enhanced language learning and pragmatics: Insights from

digital game-based pragmatics instruction. Language Teaching, 57(1), 57–67.

Tosounidou, D. (2025). L2 pragmatics instruction in the Greek EFL classroom. Languages,

11(1), Article 12

Vali, A., Yaghoubi-Notash, M., & Behtary, S. (2025). Pragmatic tasks for EFL instruction:

Explicitness, time and proficiency effects in the Iranian context. International Journal

of Research in English Education.

Wang, Y., Al-Shaibani, G. K. S., & Jiang, L. (2024). Pragmatic competence of EFL and ESL

learners and its influencing factors: A systematic review. Eurasian Journal of Applied

Linguistics, 10(3), 122–140. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.10312

3292