Constructivist vs. Non-constructivist Cognitive Linguistics-Based Processing Instruction: Impact on L2 English Request Competence

This study investigated the relative effects of constructivist and non-constructivist versions of Cognitive Linguistics-based Processing Instruction (CLPI) on enhancing Taiwanese EFL learners’ pragmatic competence in making requests. Both approaches integrated cognitive linguistics with the Processing Instruction model but differed in course design. The research involved 89 college students in three groups: a control group receiving no instruction and two experimental groups undergoing either constructivist or non-constructivist CLPI. Both experimental groups followed the same protocol, including iconicity-driven multimodal explanations of pragmalinguistic-sociopragmatic mappings for biclausal and past tense mitigators, followed by structured input processing practice. The key difference was whether the concept of iconicity had been previously introduced through teaching interclausal semantic functions in relation to participle positioning. Data were collected via discourse completion and pragmatic judgment tests administered as pre-, post-, and delayed posttests. Results showed both experimental groups significantly outperformed the control group in immediate posttests, demonstrating CLPI’s effectiveness in developing L2 pragmatic competence. Notably, the constructivist CLPI group exhibited superior retention in delayed posttests, suggesting enhanced long-term learning outcomes. These findings indicate that integrating cognitive linguistics with an appropriate pedagogical model enhances effectiveness. The study underscores the value of a constructivist approach in language teaching, where cognitive linguistic concepts introduced through simpler structures serve as scaffolds for learning more complex structures motivated by the same concepts. This approach, leveraging students’ prior knowledge of fundamental cognitive notions to facilitate the acquisition of new, conceptually related linguistic forms, proves particularly effective in developing L2 pragmatic competence.