L2 Pragmatics Instruction in the Greek EFL Classroom: Teachers’ Competence, Beliefs, and Classroom Challenges

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is timely and possesses interesting findings. Please see my comments in the attached file for further improvement.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This paper is well written. However, it would be even more so if the authors could separate the Discussion from the Findings as I have stated with reasons in the attached file.

Author Response

Comment 1: While this section covered the related literature quite well, I would suggest the
authors to also include relevant studies from 2020 onwards. There are many recent studies
closely related to the investigated topics of this paper.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. Given the focus and scope of our study, as well
as the word limit, we selected literature that most closely aligns with our theoretical and
methodological framework. However, we acknowledge that there are additional recent studies
relevant to our topic, and we have incorporated four of them into the revised manuscript.
(p.3, Previous research on L2 pragmatic instruction/2.2 EFL Teachers and the Instruction of L2
Pragmatics, 7th paragraph, line 104;
p.4, Previous research on L2 pragmatic instruction/2.3 Challenges in Teaching L2 Pragmatics,
11th paragraph, line 143;
p.4, Previous research on L2 pragmatic instruction/2.4 EFL Teachers’ Knowledge, Beliefs and
Attitudes, 15th paragraph, lines 169-172;
p.5, Previous research on L2 pragmatic instruction/2.5 EFL Teachers’ Pragmatic Instruction:
Global and Greek Perspectives, 18th paragraph, lines 202-206).
References:
Aboulghazi, M., Amiri, E., & El Karfa, A. (2024). Teachers’ perceptions towards pragmatics and pragmatic teaching. Arab
World English Journal, 15(3), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol15no3.3
Glaser, K. (2023). Teachers’ awareness, knowledge and attitudes towards instruction in L2 pragmatics. In A. Martínez
Flor, A. Sanchez-Hernandez, & J. Baron (Eds.), L2 pragmatics in action: Teachers, learners and the teaching-
learning interaction process (pp. 63–87). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.58.03gla
Glaser, K., & Martínez-Flor, A. (2025). Tracing a pre-service primary English teacher’s development in teaching L2
pragmatics: Knowledge, beliefs, and perceived challenges. System, 131, 103655.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2025.103655
Marcet, E. (2024). Teaching pragmatics to instructors of L2 Japanese: A relevance-theoretic approach. System, 126,
103472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103472

Comment 2: The page number should be deleted because there seems to be no direct
quotation in this sentence.

Response 2: Agree. We have accordingly deleted the page number (p.2, Previous research on
L2 pragmatic instruction/2.1 The Importance of Pragmatic Instruction, 2nd paragraph, line 59).

Comment 3: Delete this word (recent)because the mentioned study is not recent.

Response 3: Agree. We have accordingly deleted the page number (p.2, Previous research on
L2 pragmatic instruction/2.1 The Importance of Pragmatic Instruction, 3rd paragraph, line 63).

Comment 4: In this section, I only see how the data of this study were collected but not yet how
they were analysed. The author need to add it in this section.

Response 4: We agree with this comment. Thank you for pointing this out. We have accordingly
included a Data Analysis section where we explain in more detail our approach to analysing the
data (p.7-8, Methods, 32nd -36th paragraphs, lines 338-389).

Comment 5: Such sentences should be placed under the Data analysis section as mentioned in
the previous comment.

Response 5: We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have removed these sentences and
included relevant information in the Data Analysis section (p.7-8, Methods, 32nd -36th paragraphs,
lines 338-389).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read your manuscript. I enjoyed learning more about the Greek EFL context and I believe that with some revision, this paper will be a welcome addition to the existing literature on L2 pragmatics. Your interview task was well-designed and well-presented in the manuscript. I found these results valuable for triangulation purposes. Similarly, I thought the beliefs and attitudes questionnaire revealed great insight into teaching pragmatics in this specific context. My main issues with this manuscript, which are detailed in the attached Word document, relate to the pragmatic comprehension and production tasks, along with some other methodological issues that I see throughout the paper. Generally, I don't think you can claim that participants demonstrated high levels of pragmatic competence based on only 2 comprehension items and 3 production items, all of which considered different pragmatic targets. These claims should be adjusted and the paper should be revised accordingly. Again, please see the attached document for further comments. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Generally, I think the quality of the English language in this manuscript is quite good. I made some spelling and grammar comments in the attached Word document, but I do not believe it needs a great deal of review in that regard.

Author Response

Comment 1(before revision line 7): Suggest to remove “only”
Response 1: Agree. We have accordingly revised the sentence and removed the word “only” (p.1, Abstract, revised line 7).


Comment 2 (before revision line 34): Incorrect spelling of “competence”
Response 2: Agree. We have accordingly revised the word “competence” (p.1, Introduction, 1^st paragraph, revised line 34).

Comment 3 (before revision line 41): I am unsure of which global trend you are referring to here. You could change "this" to "the” or clarify
Response 3: Agree. We have accordingly change the word “this” to “the” for clarity” (p.2, Previous research on L2 pragmatic instruction, 2^nd paragraph, revised line 41).

Comment 4 (before revision line 62): “meta-analysis” might be a better term to use here
Response 4: Agree. We have accordingly changed the term meta-study to meta-analysis (p.2, Previous research on L2 pragmatic instruction/2.1 The Importance of Pragmatic Instruction, 4^th paragraph, revised line 63).

 

Comment 5 (before revision 76): Add “for” between “advocated” and “identifying”
Response 5: Agree. We have accordingly added the word “for” between “advocated” and “identifying” (p.2, Previous research on L2 pragmatic instruction/2.1 The Importance of Pragmatic Instruction,5^th paragraph, revised line 77).

 

Comment 6 (before revision 127): Remove comma after “theory”
Response 6: Agree. We have accordingly removed comma after “theory” (p.2, Previous research on L2 pragmatic instruction/2.2 EFL Teachers and the Instruction of L2 Pragmatics,9^th paragraph, revised line 128).

 

Comment 7 (before revision 191): Add “programs” after “teacher education”
Response 7: Agree. We have accordingly added “programs” after “teacher education” (p.5, Previous research on L2 pragmatic instruction/2.5 EFL Teachers’ Pragmatic Instruction: Global and Greek Perspectives,18^th paragraph, revised line 196).

 

Comment 8 (before revision line 215-216): Does the term “Non-Native English-speaking Teachers” need to be capitalized here? This term does not seem to be capitalized anywhere else in the manuscript.
Response 8: Agree. We have accordingly revised the term “Non-Native English-speaking Teachers” and removed the capitalization (p.5, Previous research on L2 pragmatic instruction/2.5 EFL Teachers’ Pragmatic Instruction: Global and Greek Perspectives, 20^th paragraph, revised lines 224-225).

Comment 9 (before revision line 230): Change “the finding” to “findings” to make a grammatical sentence
Response 9: Agree. We have accordingly changed the term “the finding” to “findings” (p.5, Previous research on L2 pragmatic instruction/2.6 Goals of the study, 21^st paragraph, revised line 239).

 

Comment 10 (before revision line 244-245): I suggest rewording the research question for clarity: To what extent do Greek EFL instructors have the necessary pragmatic competence to teach second language pragmatics?
Response 10: We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have accordingly changed the research question from To what extent are Greek EFL instructors pragmatically competent to teach second language pragmatics? to To what extent do Greek EFL instructors have the necessary pragmatic competence to teach second language pragmatics? (p.6, Previous research on L2 pragmatic instruction/2.6 Goals of the study, 23^rd paragraph, revised lines 253-254).

Comment 11(before revision line 261): Add a comma after “scenarios”
Response 11: Agree. We have added a coma after “scenarios” (p.6, Methods/3.2.1 The Electronic Questionnaire, 27^th paragraph, line 231, revised line 293).

Comment 12 (before revision line 268): If I understand correctly, you are only using two items to measure pragmatic comprehension in your study. I would suggest adding additional scenarios if you are going to make claims about your participants’ pragmatic comprehension. We need to see more than two scenarios to be able to assess this.

Response 12: We agree that more scenarios would yield greater nuance to our assessment of participants' receptive pragmatic competence. However, given the questionnaire was structured in many parts and in order to make sure participants could complete it in 15 minutes as mentioned in the consent form to boost participation, we needed to maintain a balance between obtaining the necessary information and minimizing participant fatigue, which would have resulted in lower quality data and/or participants not completing the task. We therefore opted for a balanced presentation of two scenarios for elicitation of comprehension and three for production. The two scenarios chosen for assessing comprehension (one speech act scenario and one implicature scenario) capture the two main pragmatic phenomena. Crucially, we also asked participants to justify their answers, which provides more insight into the depth of their pragmatic knowledge. We believe that the provision of two scenarios, each representative of a different phenomenon, complemented by participants' self-reflection provided us with the necessary information to assess participants' competence without over-burdening them (p.7, Methods/3.2.1.1 Pragmatic Comprehension Scenarios, 28^th paragraph, mow lines 300-305).

Comment 13 (before revision line 275): Likewise, for your DCT, you are only using 3 scenarios. I appreciate that they are varied, however, it is difficult to make conclusions about participants’ pragmatic production abilities with only three items. You should justify why you are only using 3 items here, and also why you only use 2 scenarios in your pragmatic comprehension task.

Response 13: For the same reasons outlined in response 12 above, we thought adding greater length to this section of the questionnaire would not significantly enhance findings while proving counter-productive in terms of participation and the quality of answers. As we were eliciting both comprehension and production through the same questionnaire, the number of items had to be reduced to ensure the task was feasible for the participants to complete. Considering our participants were not students but teachers who volunteered to take part, we felt an extra responsibility to respect their time. That is also why, after having collected broad-range survey data through the questionnaire, we went into greater depth with those teachers who volunteered to participate in the interviews, signalling greater interest in the topic and a willingness to contribute further. We believe this strategy worked fairly well, as 72 participants completed the questionnaire, of whom 12 offered themselves for the interviews (p.7, Methods/ 3.2.1.2 Discourse Completion \Task (DCT), 29^th paragraph, now lines 307-318).

Comment 14 (before revision line 306): I suggest moving the section about Participants to the top of your Materials and Methods section. This would help clarify a question I had about the native language of the DCT raters since that information would then appear before the DCT is discussed.
Response 14: We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have moved the Participants section to the beginning of the Materials and Methods section for clarity and coherence. The Materials and Methods section is now titled Methods, and the Participants and Materials sections have been created accordingly. (p.6, Methods/3.1 Participants, 24^th-25^th paragraph, revised lines 263-282).

 

Comment 15 (before revision line 353): Table 1: Change “hight” to “high”
Response 15: Agree. We have accordingly revised the word “high” (p.9, Findings and Discussion/4.1 Pragmatic Comprehension: receptive competence, 40^th paragraph, revised line 415).

 

Comment 16 (before revision line 363): In the conversational implicature item for the comprehension task, I am not sure how you coded the responses. As I understand it, participants had to explain what the colleague meant by their statement, so I assume the researchers quantified this somehow. It would be helpful to have an explanation of how you coded this data up in the methods section so the results section reads more clearly. I can sort of understand how you coded these when I read the results on lines 378-384, but it would be helpful to have an explanation earlier in the manuscript.
Response 16: Thank you for pointing this out. We have accordingly included a Data Analysis section where we explain in more detail our approach to analysing the data (p.7-8, Methods, 32^nd-36^th paragraphs, revised lines 338-389).

 

Comment 17 (before revision lines 385-386): I appreciate you including the caveat that you are basing your claim only on participants’ comprehension of apologies, but I don’t think you can claim that they have strong pragmatic comprehension abilities based on one item alone. I suggest adjusting the text to say that participants demonstrated strong comprehension of English apologies rather than claiming they have strong pragmatic comprehension skills overall. In order to make that claim, you would need additional items in your comprehension task.
Response 17: We agree with this comment and have adjusted the text accordingly. The text now reads: "Overall our findings from the understanding of apologies suggest that Greek EFL teachers' abilities to correctly identify speech acts are good, although of course it would be desirable to cross-check this finding with a greater variety of speech acts." We believe this phrasing also reflects the limitations of our claims (p.10, Findings and Discussion/4.1 Pragmatic Comprehension: receptive competence, 45^th paragraph, now lines 447-449)

Comment 18 (before revision line 417): I wonder why you only chose to include 3 raters for this task?
Response 18: Thank you for raising this point. Using three raters allowed us to balance reliability with feasibility. To ensure consistency in the evaluations, all raters received a detailed rating scale, explicit criteria for assessing the DCT responses, and detailed explanations and rating tables. Given the raters were volunteers external to the study (i.e. their rating behaviour is not one of the variables studied), and time constraints, this ensured feasibility. In fact, few studies use more than two raters, which is the minimum. In our case, considering that the number of raters depends on the complexity of the task as well as the fact that adding more raters doesn't automatically improve reliability, but rather requires clearer criteria and training for consistency, using three raters was sufficient to ensure reliability, given its relatively small scale of our study (p.8, Methods/3.4 Data analysis, 34^th paragraph, revised lines 364-373).

Comment 19 (before revision lines 473-474): Could you back up this claim with research that supports the idea that this average rating indicates that the teachers have enough pragmatic competence to be able to integrate pragmatics into their teaching? Again, I find this a difficult claim to make given that you only analyzed 3 items and only had 3 raters’ opinions on these items.
Response 19: We have rephrased this claim to adjust it to our findings as follows " indicates that Greek EFL teachers' demonstrated pragmatic competence is above average, making it sufficient for integrating pragmatics into their teaching." We believe this more accurately reflects what we are trying to convey here. (p. 11, Findings and Discussion/ 4.2 Discourse Completion Task: productive competence ,50^th paragraph, now lines 510-512)

Comment 20 (before revision line 402): Incorrect spelling of “pragmatics”
Response 20: Agree. We have accordingly revised the word “pragmatics” (p.10, Findings and Discussion/4.1 Pragmatic Comprehension: receptive competence, 45^th paragraph, revised line 462).

Comment 21 (before revision lines 501-503): I would use caution when saying that participants had a high level of pragmatic competence given the issues I mention in my comments.
Response 21: We agree. Thank you for pointing this out. We have rephrased as follows: "..., we can conclude that their pragmatic competence is sufficient for them to teach pragmatics." (p.13, Findings and Discussion/4.1 Pragmatic Comprehension: receptive competence, 53^rd paragraph, now lines 539-541).

Comment 22 (before revision line 506): What is your explanation for the lack of relation between teaching experience and pragmatic competence in the statistical analysis? You don’t seem to revisit this analysis anywhere else in the manuscript.
Response 22: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added our explanation to the finding (p.13, Findings and Discussion/4.2.4 Correlations with Background Information, 54^th paragraph, revised lines 550-560).

Comment 23 (before revision line 540): Add “that” after “confidence”
Response 23: Agree. We have accordingly added the word “that” after “confidence” (p.14, Findings and Discussion/4.3 Self-reported attitudes and abilities, 57^th paragraph, revised line 589).


Comment 24 (before revision line 554): Add “When” before “asked”
Response 24: Agree. We have accordingly added the word “When” before “asked” (p.15, Findings and Discussion/4.3 Self-reported attitudes and abilities, 59^th paragraph, revised line 603).

Comment 25 (before revision line 856): Here you claim that the teachers have a medium level of L2 pragmatic competence, but earlier in the paper you say high level. I would revise for consistency.
Response 25: We agree, thank you pointing out this inconsistency. We have rephrased to repeat our new revised phrasing earlier in the article: "Our results show that Greek EFL teachers possess an above average level of pragmatic competence, with an average score of 23.94 out of 35 calculated by averaging scores across the three DCT situations and raters." (p.21, 103^rd paragraph, Conclusion, now lines 906-911).

Comment 26 (before revision lines 861-863): I don’t think these comprehension and production results are robust enough to make this claim. It seems like there are many other reasons why these teachers incorporate L2 pragmatics into their classrooms, as revealed in your attitudes questionnaire and interview tasks.
Response 26: Indeed, our conclusions in this section are not based on the production and comprehension tasks only. Rather, we summarize over both the questionnaire and interview data and provide a global view that suggests also additional reasons for not integrating pragmatics in their teaching, as explained in the rest of this paragraph and the following ones in the section. (p.21, 103^rd paragraph, Conclusion, now lines 906-911).


Comment 27 (before revision lines 867-868): You could expand on this idea a bit here. Why do you think this is?
Response 27: Similar to comment 22, we agree with this point. Accordingly, we have expanded on this idea in both the Results section and the Conclusion (p.21-22, 103^rd paragraph, Conclusion, revised lines 917-922).


Comment 28 (before revision line 904): You are missing some abbreviations here, such as NNT and NT.
Response 28: Agree. We have added the abbreviations for NNT and NT (p.22, Abbreviations, revised line 958).


Comment 29 (before revision lines 1000-1001): Is there a reason why you told participants what you are measuring?
Response 29: Thank you for this comment. We agree that the original description may have been too specific, however we opted for this level of transparency for ethical reasons, since it is already mentioned in the consent form participants saw at the start. Considering we were addressing teachers who are language professionals and therefore trained to "read through the lines", we did not see any reason to keep this information from them, since they would likely deduce it from the materials themselves anyway. For the same reason, we believe that this description has not influenced their responses (they were aware of what is being measured because of their professional identity). (p.24, Appendix A, revised lines 1050-1051).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for making the suggested revisions to this paper. I appreciate the detailed responses and I believe the paper is now ready for publication. It will be a welcome addition to the existing literature on L2 pragmatics. I do not see the need for any further revisions, as I feel my concerns have been adequately addressed.