Multiple Intelligences as Predictors of Foreign Language Pragmatic Knowledge: The Case of Five Frequent English Speech Acts


1 University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran

2 Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran


Because of the important role of multiple intelligences (MIs) in learning a second/foreign langue (L2) as supported by the existing second language acquisition (SLA) literature, some pragmatic scholars have asked for studying their contribution to pragmatic competence (e.g., Taguchi & Roever, 2017). Accordingly, the present investigation has attempted to examine the relationship between L2 learners’ multiple intelligences and their speech-act pragmatic performance. A sample of 124 EFL students who were selected from an initial sample of 206 learners at two Iranian state universities based on their scores on the Michigan Test of English Language Proficiency (MTELP) took part in this study. The data collection procedure was done in two subsequent phases. First, McKenzie's (1999) multiple intelligences (MI) survey including 90 items was filled out by the participants. Then, a validated 50-item multiple-choice discourse completion test (MDCT) including five frequent English speech acts (requests, apologies, refusals, complaints, and compliments/compliment responses) was administered. Data analysis using multiple regression revealed that four of the intelligence including logical, interpersonal, verbal, and intrapersonal intelligences were significant predictors of L2 learners' speech-act pragmatic knowledge. Among these four intelligences, verbal intelligence was the strongest followed by interpersonal, intrapersonal, and logical intelligences. However, five other intelligences (i.e., naturalistic, musical, existential, visual, & kinesthetic intelligences were not significant predictors of L2 pragmatic performance). These findings can have some pedagogical implications for EFL teachers in helping their learners develop their speech-act pragmatic knowledge based on their MIs.   


Ahmadi, A., & Ghafar Samar, R. (2014). Teaching requestive downgraders in L2: Can learners’ MI modify the effects of focused tasks? Teaching English Language (TEL), 8(2), 91–117.##
Armstrong, T. (2009).  Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria, VA.: The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: ASCD.##
Arnold, J., & Fonceca, C. (2004). Multiple intelligence theory and foreign language learning: A brain-based perspective. International Journal of English Studies (IJES), 4(1), 119–136.##
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. New York: Oxford University Press.##
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.##
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice: developing language tests and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.##
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2005). Contextualizing interlanguage pragmatics. In A. Tyler (Ed.). Language in use: Cognitive and discourse perspectives on language and language learning (pp. 65–84). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.##
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013a). Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63(Suppl.1), 68–86.##
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013b). On saying the same thing: Assessing the production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. In T. Greer, D. Tatsuki, & C. Roever (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 13, pp. 191–211). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.##
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Bastos, M.T. (2011). Proficiency, length of stay, and intensity of interaction and the acquisition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(4), 347–384.##
Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study-abroad context. London: John Benjamin.##
Bella, S. (2012). Pragmatic development in a foreign language: A study of Greek FL requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(13), 1917–1947.##
Bella, S. (2014). Developing the ability to refuse: A cross-sectional study of Greek FL refusals. Journal of Pragmatics, 61(1), 35–62.##
Brown, H. D. (2014). Principles of language learning and teaching (6th ed.). New York: Pearson Education ESL.##
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 5–35.##
Christison, M.A., (1998). An introduction to multiple intelligence theory and second language learning. In J.M. Reid (Ed.), Understanding learning styles in second language classrooms (pp. 112–121). New York, NY.: Prentice Hall Regents.##
Christison, M.A. (1999a). A guidebook for applying multiple intelligences theory in the ESL/EFL classroom. Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center.##
Christison, M.A. (1999b). Applying multiple intelligences theory in second and foreign language teaching. ESL Magazine, 2(5), 10–13.##
Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1993). The production of speech acts by EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 33–56.##
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.##
Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. Doughty, & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589–630). Oxford: Blackwell.##
Ellis, R. (2005). Individual differences in second language learning. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 525–551). Oxford: Blackwell.##
Ellis, R. (2008).  The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.).  Oxford: Oxford University Press.##
Fazilatfar, A., Cheraghi, M. (2013). Exploring the effects of instruction on EFL learners' pragmatic development. Teaching English Language, 7(2), 1–25.##
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2004). Interlanguage refusals: Linguistic politeness and length of residence in the target community. Language Learning, 54(4), 587–653.##
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2007). Pragmatic development in the Spanish as a FL classroom: A cross-sectional study of learner requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 253–286.##
Garcia, P. (2004). Developmental differences in speech act recognition: A pragmatic awareness study. Language Awareness, 13(1), 96–115.##
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.##
Gardner, H., (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.##
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New. York: Basic Books.##
Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligence. New York: New Horizons.##
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Boston, MA: Blackwell.##
Kasper, G., & Roever, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 317–334). Mahwah: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishing.##
McKenzie, W. (1999). Multiple intelligences survey. Available at
Maeshiba, N., Yoshinaga, N., Kasper, G., & Ross, S. (1996). Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage apologizing. In S. M. Gass, & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp. 155–187). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.##
Mirzaei, A., Rahimi Domakani, M., Seyyed Rezaei, M. (2014). L2 pragmatics underrepresentation as a washback mechanism in EFL contexts: Linking test-design features to high-stakes test use. Teaching English Language, 8(1), 1–29.##
Palmberg, R. (2011). Multiple intelligences revisited. [Ebook] retrieved from: club-multiple intelligences- revisited.pdf##
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##
Reid, J. (1997). Understanding learning styles in the second language classroom. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall/Regents.##
Roever, C. (2005). Testing ESL pragmatics. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.##
Roever, C. (2006). Validation of a web-based test of ESL pragmalinguistics. Language Testing 23(2), 229–256.##
Roever, C. (2012). What learners get for free (and when): Learning of routine formulae in ESL and EFL environments. ELT Journal, 66, 10–21.##
Roever, C. (2013). Testing implicature under operational conditions. In G. Kasper, & S. Rose (Eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics (pp. 43–64). New York: Palgrave-McMillan.##
Roever, C., Wang, S., & Brophy, S. (2014). Learner background factors and learning of second language pragmatics. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5(4), 377–401.##
Rose, K. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(1), 27–67.##
Rose, K. R. (2009). Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase 2. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(11), 2345–2364.##
Schauer, G. A. (2009). Interlanguage pragmatic development: The study abroad context. London: Continuum.##
Shardakova, M. (2005). Intercultural pragmatics in the speech of American L2 learners of Russian: Apologies offered by Americans in Russian. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(4), 423–451.##
Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), 2000. Handbook of intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.##
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Inc.##
Taguchi, N. (2005). Comprehending implied meaning in English as a foreign language. Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 543–562.##
Taguchi, N. (2007). Development of speed and accuracy in pragmatic comprehension in English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 313–338.##
Taguchi, N. (2008). The role of learning environment in the development of pragmatic comprehension: A comparison of gains between EFL and ESL learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(4), 423–452.##
Taguchi, N. (2009). Comprehension of indirect opinions and refusals in L2 Japanese. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Pragmatic competence (pp. 249–274). New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.##
Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31(1), 289–310.##
Taguchi, N. (2015). Contextually speaking: A survey of pragmatics learning abroad, in class and online. System, 48(1), 2–30.##
Taguchi, N. (2017). Interlanguage pragmatics. In A. Barron, P. Grundy, & G. Yueguo (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 153–167). Oxford/New York: Routledge.##
Taguchi, N. (Ed.). (2019). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics. New York/London: Routledge.##
Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.##
Taguchi, N., & Yamaguchi, S. (2019). Implicature comprehension in L2 pragmatics research. In Taguchi, N. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 31–46). New York/London: Routledge.##
Tajeddin, Z., Bagherkazemi, M. (2014). Short-term and long-term impacts of individual and collaborative pragmatic output on speech act production. Teaching English Language, 8(1), 141–166.##
Tajeddin, Z., & Malmir, A. (2015). The construct of interlanguage pragmatic learning Strategies: Investigating preferences of high vs. lowpragmatic performers. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 6(4), 153–180.##
Tajeddin, Z., Pirhoseinloo, M. (2012). Production of apologies in English: Variation by L2 proficiency and apology situations. Teaching English Language, 6(2), 129–160.##
Verhoeven, L., & Vermeer, A. (2002). Communicative competence and personality dimensions in first and second language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23(4), 361–374.##