10.57647/JNTELL.2025.0403.14

Navigating Cultural Fault Lines: The Impact of Disconnection on Pragmatic Competence in Virtual EFL Instruction

PDF
  • Weam Lateef Fenjan Al-Furaiji1,
  • Ehsan Rezvani*1,
  • Muayyad Omran Chiad2,
  • Bahram Hadian1,
  1. Department of English Language, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
  2. Department of English, College of Education for the Humanities, University of Kerbala, Kerbala, Iraq

Received: 2025-03-05

Revised: 2025-08-12

Accepted: 2025-09-06

Published in Issue 2025-10-19

Copyright (c) 2025 Weam Lateef Fenjan Al-Furaiji, Ehsan Rezvani, Muayyad Omran Chiad, Bahram Hadian (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Lateef Fenjan Al-Furaiji, W., Rezvani, E., Omran Chiad, M., & Hadian, B. (2025). Navigating Cultural Fault Lines: The Impact of Disconnection on Pragmatic Competence in Virtual EFL Instruction. Journal of New Trends in English Language Learning (JNTELL), 4(3). https://doi.org/10.57647/JNTELL.2025.0403.14
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 84

Abstract

This research examined the influence of cultural mismatch in virtual English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learning on the pragmatic competence of learners based on comparative contrast of Iranian and British EFL learners. Relying on findings regarding information structure from recent studies on EFL instructional methods, this article probed how culturally inappropriate content and pedagogy hinder the development of pragmatic ability, especially in virtual learning contexts. By integrating Vygotsky's Sociocultural Theory and Byram's Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC) model, the research stresses the necessity of culturally responsive virtual EFL environments that acknowledge and accept learners' cultural backgrounds and experiences. Findings, drawn from both quantitative and qualitative data, reveal deep pragmatic competence disparities between learners instructed with culturally disconnected and culture-tailored teaching, demonstrating the importance of cultural embedding in online EFL instruction and the need for culturally responsive instructional design. The findings also show that cultural mismatch affects not just pragmatic competence but also learners' interest and motivation, thus hindering them from communicating efficiently in real-life situations. The findings of this research contribute to a growing body of research advocating the implementation of culturally responsive pedagogical practice in EFL instruction to better learning and foster intercultural competence.

Keywords

  • British EFL Learners,
  • Cultural Disconnect,
  • Iranian EFL Learners,
  • Intercultural Communicative Competence,
  • Pragmatic Competence,
  • Virtual EFL
PDF

References

  1. Aylett, M., & Turk, A. (2004). The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 47(1), 31–56. https://doi.org/
  2. Bachman, L. F. (2010). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford University Press.
  3. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013). Developing L2 pragmatic competence in study abroad. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/
  4. Bennett, M. J. (2013). Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Paradigms, principles, and practices. Intercultural Press.
  5. Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analyzing genre: Language use in professional settings. Longman.
  6. Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2021). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to CoronaVirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/
  7. Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2015). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
  8. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
  9. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual Matters.
  10. Byram, M. (2020). Intercultural competence: Theories, methodologies, and assessment. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 15(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/
  11. Byram, M., & Wagner, M. (2018). Making a difference: Language teaching for intercultural and international dialogue. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 140–151. https://doi.org/
  12. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47. https://doi.org/
  13. Chesterman, A. (1998). Contrastive functional analysis. John Benjamins.
  14. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge University Press.
  15. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.
  16. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
  17. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
  18. Denzin, N. K. (2017). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Routledge.
  19. Derakhshan, A. (2023). Pragmatic instruction in EFL settings: Trends, challenges, and future directions. Language Teaching Research, 27(3), 467–489. https://doi.org/
  20. Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/
  21. Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press.
  22. Féry, C. (2017). Intonation and prosodic structure. Cambridge University Press.
  23. Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (3rd ed.). Routledge.
  24. Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.
  25. Godwin-Jones, R. (2021). Second language pragmatics online: Exploring instructional approaches. Language Learning & Technology, 25(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/
  26. Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (2003). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  27. Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review, 27(3), 1–12.
  28. Holliday, A. (1999). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20(2), 237–264. https://doi.org/
  29. Ishihara, N. (2023). Pragmatics in online language learning: Challenges and pedagogical considerations. Journal of Pragmatics, 204, 65–78. https://doi.org/
  30. Jaeger, T. F. (2010). Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology, 61(1), 23–62. https://doi.org/
  31. James, C. (1980). Contrastive analysis. Longman.
  32. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. https://doi.org/
  33. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Blackwell.
  34. Knutson, E. (2006). Cross-cultural awareness for second/foreign language learners. Canadian Modern Language Review, 62(4), 591–610. https://doi.org/
  35. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/
  36. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education. Routledge.
  37. Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40(3), 387–417. https://doi.org/
  38. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.
  39. Liddicoat, A. J., & Scarino, A. (2020). Intercultural language teaching and learning. Wiley-Blackwell.
  40. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1–55.
  41. Meihami, H., & Rashidi, N. (2020). Pragmatics in EFL teaching: Addressing cultural appropriateness. TESOL Quarterly, 54(3), 623–647. https://doi.org/
  42. Sharifian, F. (2015). The Routledge handbook of language and culture. Routledge.
  43. Steedman, M. (2000). The syntactic process. MIT Press.
  44. Sun, Q., & Yang, L. (2022). Online language learning during COVID-19: A review of challenges and strategies. System, 107, 102787. https://doi.org/
  45. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2021). Second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Multilingual Matters.
  46. Taguchi, N. (2019). Pragmatic competence. De Gruyter Mouton.
  47. Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
  48. Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20–32. https://doi.org/
  49. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  50. Zou, B., et al. (2021). Digital technologies in language learning. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 34(3), 271–291. https://doi.org/