The question of whether, and to what extent, different measures of pragmatic knowledge mirror students' capabilities as represented in their authentic application of language has been an important consideration in the vicinity of interlanguage pragmatics. To examine the production of politeness markers, as defined by House and Kasper's (1981) seminal work, this study compared and contrasted language learners' performance across four different measures of pragmatic competence: Written Discourse Completion Test, Oral Discourse Completion Test, Role-play, and Natural Methodology in an EFL setting. Furthermore, the requests made by 27 learners in natural situations and by means of WDCT, ODCT, and Role-play with similar characteristics were analyzed. The results revealed that hesitators enjoyed high prevalence in Natural Methodology and consultative devices and scope-stators were more popular in the WDCT, ODCT, and Role-play suggesting, regardless of some minor similarities, significant disparities between the three conventional data-gathering techniques and Natural methodology. The investigation exhibits that Natural Methodology might not necessarily be the ideal pragmatic measure to truly represent all politeness markers. WDCT, ODCT, and Role-Play could be more appropriate to draw on learners' explicit/declarative knowledge, though Natural methodology might be more advantageous to capitalize on learners' automated/procedural knowledge.
Hosseinpur et al. (Mon,) studied this question.