Perceived Teacher Emotional Support and English Pragmatic Competence: The Serial Mediation of Self-Efficacy and Effort

Perceived Teacher Emotional Support and English Pragmatic Competence: The Serial Mediation of Self-Efficacy and Effort | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Perceived Teacher Emotional Support and English Pragmatic Competence: The Serial Mediation of Self-Efficacy and Effort Juling He, Xinyu Liu This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9063222/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Several studies have examined students’ pragmatic competence, but little attention has been paid to the role of perceived teachers’ emotional support in this domain. This study investigated the serial mediating roles of self-efficacy and effort level in the relationship between perceived teacher emotional support and English pragmatic competence among Chinese college students. Data were collected through a survey of 245 students from various universities in China, using Likert-scale measures. The serial mediation effects were tested with Model 6 of Hayes’ PROCESS macro in SPSS. The results showed that perceived teacher emotional support positively influenced English pragmatic competence. Moreover, both self-efficacy and effort level independently mediated this relationship, and importantly, they also exerted a serial mediating effect. These findings provide new insights into the study of pragmatics and shed light on the mechanisms linking teacher support, self-regulation, and language learning outcomes. English pragmatics perceived teacher emotional support Serial Mediating Role Figures Figure 1 1. Introduction Against the backdrop of increasing internationalization in higher education, English pragmatic competence has become a crucial indicator of students’ ability to engage in effective intercultural communication and a central concern in applied linguistics research. Beyond grammatical accuracy and lexical knowledge, pragmatic competence entails the ability to use language appropriately and strategically in specific social and institutional contexts, aligning linguistic choices with communicative intentions and sociocultural norms (Rafiq & Yavuz, 2024 ). As such, the development of pragmatic competence represents not merely a linguistic challenge, but a complex learning process shaped by cognitive, affective, and contextual factors. Existing research on English pragmatic competence has primarily focused on instructional approaches and learning resources, such as explicit versus implicit instruction, pragmatic awareness-raising activities, and the role of digital or social media environments (Ishihara, 2019 ; Timpe-Laughlin, Green, & Oh, 2021 ; Almehmadi, 2024 ). While these studies have yielded valuable insights into how pedagogical strategies can facilitate pragmatic development, they have largely conceptualized pragmatic competence as an outcome of instructional design or learner exposure. Comparatively little attention has been paid to the affective and relational dimensions of the classroom environment that may shape learners’ sustained engagement with pragmatic learning tasks. From an educational psychology perspective, teaching is not a purely cognitive or technical activity, but an emotionally embedded process. Teachers’ emotional engagement, enthusiasm, and sensitivity toward students can significantly influence classroom climate, instructional quality, and students’ willingness to participate in learning activities. In this regard, perceived teacher emotional support—students’ perceptions of teachers’ care, encouragement, and emotional responsiveness—has been shown to enhance teachers’ instructional vitality and commitment, while simultaneously fostering a supportive learning environment that promotes students’ motivation and persistence (Dorman, Fisher, & Waldrip, 2006 ; Ruzek et al., 2016 ). In language classrooms, where communicative risk-taking, error tolerance, and interpersonal interaction are essential, teachers’ emotional support may be particularly salient in shaping learners’ engagement with pragmatically demanding tasks. Despite growing evidence that teacher emotional support positively affects students’ motivation, well-being, and academic engagement (Gao, Gan, & Zhang, 2023 ), its role in the development of English pragmatic competence remains underexplored. In particular, prior studies have rarely examined how emotional support operates through learners’ internal self-regulatory processes to influence pragmatic outcomes. This omission is notable given that pragmatic competence development requires sustained effort, confidence in communicative ability, and repeated engagement in socially situated language use—processes that are inherently sensitive to affective support and perceived relational safety in the classroom. Guided by Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986 ), which conceptualizes learning as the dynamic interaction among environmental factors, personal beliefs, and behavioral investment, the present study addresses this gap by examining the mechanisms through which perceived teacher emotional support contributes to English pragmatic competence among Chinese university students. Specifically, this study proposes that teacher emotional support enhances pragmatic competence not only directly, but also indirectly by strengthening learners’ self-efficacy and increasing their effort investment in English learning. By modeling self-efficacy and effort level as sequential mediators, the study seeks to capture the subtle motivational pathways through which emotionally supportive teaching environments translate into pragmatic learning gains. By integrating perspectives from applied linguistics and educational psychology, this study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of pragmatic competence development as an affectively and motivationally embedded process. Empirically, it provides evidence on the serial mediating roles of self-efficacy and effort in the relationship between perceived teacher emotional support and pragmatic competence. Practically, the findings offer implications for evidence-based English teaching in higher education, highlighting the importance of emotionally supportive pedagogy in fostering both teachers’ instructional engagement and students’ pragmatic development. 2. Literature review 2.1 Perceived emotional support from teachers and English pragmatic competence Perceived emotional support can be defined as a feature of teacher–student interactions that fosters students’ social and emotional functioning as well as their learning (Pianta and Hamre 2009 ; Wubbels and Brekelmans 2005 ). Research has shown that perceived emotional support significantly influences students’ academic-related behaviours, including their tendency to seek help (Karabenick and Sharma 1994 ; Ryan and Shim 2012 ), their positive attitudes towards academic pursuits (Pianta et al. 2011; Ryan and Deci 2000 ; Ryan and Shim 2012 ), and their behavioural outcomes (Pianta et al. 2011; Ryan and Deci 2000 ). Furthermore, students’ perceptions of emotional support are shaped by the classroom practices they experience (Schenke et al. 2018 ). Importantly, perceptions tend to remain relatively stable across several years, even when students are exposed to different teachers and classroom contexts (Wang 2012 ). Teacher emotional support (ES) is a cornerstone of effective educational assistance (Jin and Wang 2019 ). It manifests through genuine care, concern, and respect for students, coupled with an active effort to understand their feelings, thoughts, and actions, thereby cultivating a nurturing and compassionate classroom climate (Roorda et al. 2017 ). Acting as a critical safeguard, ES bolsters students’ confidence and resilience, enabling them to confront setbacks and persist in the face of adversity (Ruzek et al. 2016 ). Shen et al. ( 2024 ) demonstrate that learners who perceive higher levels of emotional support from their teachers report greater engagement and subjective well-being. One of the primary mechanisms through which emotional support fosters engagement is enhanced classroom communication, which hinges on students’ pragmatic competence—the ability to produce and interpret language appropriately in its social context (Tulgar 2016 ). Unlike grammatical competence, which concerns mastery of vocabulary, syntax, and morphology (Mikhaleva and Tsepilova 2015 ), pragmatic competence focuses on aligning communicative intentions with the relational and situational demands of each interaction. Thus, teachers’ emotional support appears to boost engagement, at least in part, by cultivating the pragmatic skills that enable students to communicate effectively and meaningfully in the classroom. Kasper (1997) defined pragmatics as “the study of communicative action in its sociocultural context”, a definition that aligns inherently with the core tenets of sociocognitive theory—which emphasizes the dynamic interplay between individual cognitive processes, social interactions, and contextual factors in shaping human behavior (Bandura 1986 ). Two key characteristics emerge from this definition: (a) the mediating influence of sociocultural context and (b) the linguistic choices made by speakers, both of which are central to sociocognitive theory’s focus on how social contexts activate cognitive schemas and regulate communicative decision-making. Over the past four decades, research on pragmatics has expanded across linguistics, applied linguistics, communication studies, and second language acquisition, all shaped by these core dimensions and increasingly informed by sociocognitive perspectives on how learners internalize pragmatic norms through social interaction and self-regulatory processes (Roever 2007 ; Bandura 2001). Pragmatic competence, accordingly, has been widely recognised as a crucial component of communicative competence—one that is not merely functional or discursive, but also rooted in sociocognitive mechanisms of meaning-making, perspective-taking, and behavioral adaptation (Eslami-Rasekh 2005 ). Earlier studies conceptualised pragmatic competence largely from functional and discourse perspectives (Halliday 1973 ; van Dijk 1999 ), while sociocognitive theory further enriches this framework by highlighting how learners construct pragmatic knowledge through the reciprocal interaction of personal factors (e.g., prior linguistic experience, motivational beliefs), environmental cues (e.g., sociocultural norms, interlocutor expectations), and behavioral feedback (Bandura 1986 ). Bachman (1990), and later Bachman and Palmer, identified pragmatic competence as one domain within their model of communicative language ability, alongside grammatical and sociolinguistic competences—a classification that resonates with sociocognitive theory’s view of competence as a multi-dimensional construct shaped by both individual cognition and socialization. This framework, refined over three decades, positioned pragmatic competence as encompassing vocabulary, cohesion, coherence, and discourse organisation, reflecting functional and discourse-oriented approaches in European traditions as well as sociocognitive emphasis on how these linguistic elements are strategically employed to navigate social contexts. More recent work has examined the role of teaching interventions in developing pragmatic competence, with findings consistently echoing sociocognitive theory’s propositions on observational learning, explicit modeling, and self-efficacy building. Studies have demonstrated the short- and long-term benefits of explicit instruction for English learners in Greece (Ifantidou 2013 )—which aligns with sociocognitive theory’s support for explicit guidance to help learners encode pragmatic rules—and for Japanese learners through activities designed to raise pragmatic awareness (Narita 2012 ), a practice that fosters the metacognitive monitoring central to sociocognitive self-regulation. Similar findings have been reported in Vietnam, where explicit teaching of pragmatic features was found to be more effective than implicit approaches (Nguyen, Pham, and Pham 2012 ), as explicit instruction provides the clear behavioral models and feedback that sociocognitive theory identifies as critical for competence development. Research with Iranian learners further confirmed the value of explicit instruction for request strategies (Rajabia, Azizifara, and Gowhary 2015 ), while studies with Chinese learners of a second language found that inductive approaches—which encourage active exploration and social interaction, core to sociocognitive learning—were more effective than deductive methods in fostering pragmatic competence (Qi and Lai 2017 ). Some studies have demonstrated that teacher emotional support has a significant direct impact on students’ learning ability and serves as a strong predictor of achievement (Liu et al. 2017 ; Yang et al. 2021 ). Other research suggests, however, that its effects may be indirect, mediated through factors such as mastery goals (Liu et al. 2022). The precise mechanisms by which perceived teacher emotional support influences students’ English pragmatic competence remain unclear. Building on these insights and grounded in sociocognitive theory’s focus on sequential cognitive and social mediators in behavior change, the present study draws on psychology and education to explore pragmatic competence empirically through a serial mediation model—examining how social contextual factors (e.g., interaction frequency) and cognitive factors (e.g., pragmatic awareness, self-efficacy) sequentially mediate the development of pragmatic competence.Further investigation is therefore required to explore the potential mediating roles of additional variables.According to this, we proposed the hypothesis. H1: Perceived teacher emotional support will positively impact English pragmatic ability. 2.2 Mediating role of Self-efficacy Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in their ability to organise and implement the actions required to achieve desired outcomes (Bandura 1986 ). It has been widely examined in diverse domains. For example, Zhao, Seibert, and Hills ( 2005 ) identified the mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Barbaranelli et al. ( 2019 ) demonstrated that the relationship between positivity and behavioural as well as academic outcomes was substantially mediated by self-efficacy beliefs. Similarly, Udayar, Fiori, and Bausseron ( 2020 ) highlighted self-efficacy as a mediator between emotional intelligence and performance. Collectively, these studies establish self-efficacy as a key construct in both education and organisational behaviour. Extending this construct to the study of language learning and pragmatics offers new opportunities for understanding the mechanisms of competence development. Several studies have documented a strong link between perceived teacher emotional support and increased self-efficacy (Guo, Wang, Li, and Wang 2025 ). Perceived teacher emotional support may increase self-efficacy through several underlying processes. First, when students feel they receive sufficient emotional support from their teacher, they perceive their beliefs as reinforced (Mitchell and DellaMattera 2010 ). Holding these beliefs enhances students’ confidence in their ability to carry out the behaviours required to attain specific goals, thereby strengthening self-efficacy. Second, from the perspective of Social Cognitive Theory, Bandura ( 1989 ) emphasises the dynamic interplay among personal factors, behaviour, and environmental influences in shaping human learning and development. Positive interactions between students and teachers substantially enhance students’ perceived self-efficacy. Third, several studies have found that diminished social support and interactions conveying inadequacy can intensify both loneliness and deficits in self-efficacy (Simegn et al. 2023 ). Furthermore, self-efficacy is a key factor in enhancing English pragmatic competence; higher self-efficacy fosters stronger learning motivation, which in turn fuels greater drive to improve pragmatic abilities in English (Жорабекова 2024). Kosimov ( 2021 ) also found that increased self-efficacy enhances English pragmatic competence. Thus, hypothesis H2 is proposed: H2: Self-efficacy mediates the relationship between perceived emotional support and English pragmatic ability 2.3 Mediating role of effort level Effort has often been described as a somewhat elusive construct (Macey and Schneider 2008 ). Early scholars, such as Münsterberg ( 1913 ), regarded effort as so fundamental that they saw no need for explicit definition. Subsequent research has investigated effort from both mental and physical perspectives—for instance, cognitive resource allocation (Kanfer et al. 1994 ) and physiological measures such as heart rate (Brehm and Self 1989 ). Others have treated effort more broadly as either a dispositional trait, assessed via self-report (Brown and Leigh 1996 ), or observable behaviours such as hours worked (Katerberg and Blau 1983). Recent studies have begun to conceptualise effort as a mediating factor. For example, Nartgün, Limon, and Dilekçi ( 2020 ) found that teachers’ work effort mediated the relationship between sustainable leadership and perceived school effectiveness. Similarly, Jin ( 2024 ), using data from the China Education Panel Studies, examined how effort interacted with family socioeconomic status in shaping educational outcomes. These findings suggest that effort is a valuable construct for understanding the mediating processes in educational settings and may have important implications for pragmatic competence development. Effort level has been studied for more than a century in management research. Van Iddekinge, Arnold, Aguinis, Lang, and Lievens ( 2023 ) reviewed conceptualisations of effort and provided an integrated definition that views effort as a direct outcome of motivation that captures how hard employees work and how long they persist in that work. Effort level has also been studied in applied linguistics. For example, Özer ( 2020 ) investigated foreign language learning effort levels of students in English for Specific Purposes. Analysis shows that perceived teacher emotional support is an important factor influencing effort level (Guo, Wang, Li, and Wang 2025 ). Sun, Ma, Du, Zhao, Yang, and Zhang ( 2025 ) underscored the critical role of perceived teacher emotional support in enhancing students’ motivation and participation in online learning environments. Another study similarly found that perceived emotional support has a positive relationship with student engagement (Lobo 2024 ). Students’ effort level also has a relationship with their English pragmatic abilities. Research shows that students who actively engage in language learning, participate enthusiastically in class activities, and devote time to studying outside class tend to develop stronger pragmatic competence, because pragmatic ability involves not only grammatical mastery but also applying rules effectively in real-life communication (Chi 2017 ). For example, a learner who joins class discussions and converses regularly with native speakers is likely to gain far greater pragmatic proficiency than a peer relying solely on textbook study. Tulsyan ( 2025 ) also emphasised this link. These findings suggest that effort level not only affects students’ perceived emotional support, but also has a broader impact on their overall English pragmatic ability. In summary, hypothesis H3 is proposed: H3: Effort level mediates the relationship between perceived emotional support and English pragmatic ability 2.4 Serial mediating role of self-efficacy and effort level The relationship between self-efficacy and effort level has been explored previously (Honicke, Broadbent, and Fuller-Tyszkiewicz 2023 ). Self-efficacy is defined as the belief in one’s capability to organise and execute the actions required to achieve given attainments. The theoretical framework suggests that self-efficacy can influence action, cognition, and biology, thereby increasing effort in future learning (Bandura 1989 ). According to Social Cognitive Theory, self-efficacy enhances personal factors and behaviour, while effort represents the behavioural dimension. For example, students with high self-efficacy may devote greater effort to memorising English vocabulary, planning study strategies, and using English accurately and appropriately. As a result, they achieve greater pragmatic competence. Moreover, teachers may provide additional encouragement to such students, reinforcing their perceived emotional support and further enhancing self-efficacy. This feedback loop creates a virtuous cycle: “My teacher believes in me”, “I must be capable”, “my self-efficacy rises further”. Over time, this cycle amplifies both the psychological (self-efficacy) and behavioural (effort, strategic planning) dimensions, leading to advanced pragmatic competence. Their success exemplifies how self-efficacy initiates a self-sustaining spiral linking cognition, behaviour, and supportive environments in line with SCT. The hypothesis H4 is proposed: H4: Self-efficacy and effort level chain mediate the effect of perceived emotional support on English pragmatic competence among Chinese university students To illustrate the hypothesised relationships, Fig. 1 presents the conceptual model of the study. As shown, perceived teacher emotional support is posited to directly enhance English pragmatic competence, while also exerting indirect effects through the mediating mechanisms of self-efficacy and effort level. Specifically, emotional support is expected to foster students’ self-efficacy, which in turn strengthens their effort investment in learning. Both self-efficacy and effort are hypothesised to independently predict pragmatic competence, while effort additionally operates as a serial mediator in the pathway from self-efficacy to pragmatic competence. This model therefore captures both the direct and indirect routes through which supportive teacher–student interactions may shape learners’ pragmatic development. 2.5 Summary and research gaps Although previous studies have provided valuable insights into teacher emotional support, pragmatic competence, and the mediating roles of self-efficacy and effort, several limitations remain. First, much of the research on teacher emotional support has focused on its direct impact on motivation and achievement, while the mechanisms linking it to pragmatic competence have been largely overlooked. Second, studies on pragmatic competence have predominantly examined the effects of teaching strategies, particularly explicit versus implicit instruction, yet few have explored how broader psychosocial variables such as emotional support contribute to pragmatic development. Third, while self-efficacy and effort have been widely acknowledged as important mediators in education and psychology, their roles in the context of second language pragmatics remain underexplored. Finally, most existing studies have been conducted in Western or Japanese contexts, with relatively limited empirical evidence from Chinese higher education, where English learning plays a particularly critical role. Against this background, the present study addresses these gaps by examining how perceived teacher emotional support influences Chinese university students’ English pragmatic competence, with a specific focus on the mediating roles of self-efficacy and effort. 3. Methods 3.1 Participants and procedures According to Fritz and MacKinnon’s ( 2007 ) estimation, when statistical power is set at 0.80 and the effect size is moderate (0.30), a minimum sample size of 200 participants is recommended for mediation studies. In the present study, 280 students from different universities in China initially completed the survey, thus exceeding the recommended threshold. After excluding 35 invalid or incomplete questionnaires, the final sample comprised 245 volunteer respondents recruited through convenience sampling. Of these participants, 116 were female and 129 were male. Their ages ranged from 18 to 21 years, with the majority being 19 or 20. In terms of academic year, 74 students (30.2%) were in their second year, and 63 (25.7%) were in their third year. With regard to geographical distribution, 46 students (18.8%) came from both Northeast, 45 (18.4%) were from East China, 41 (16.7%) from South China, 38 (15.5%) from Central China, and 29 (11.8%) from Northwest China. Concerning employment status, 182 participants (74.3%) reported having a part-time or full-time job alongside their studies, while 63 (25.7%) did not. All participants provided electronic informed consent prior to participation. They then completed an anonymous questionnaire, which required approximately 10 minutes to finish. 3.2 Measures 3.2.1 English pragmatic competence scale English pragmatic competence was assessed using the scale developed by Ifantidou and Tzanne ( 2012 ), which has been widely applied in EFL academic contexts. The instrument focuses on four interrelated aspects: (1) Pragmatic awareness (PRA): students’ ability to correctly grasp the overall pragmatic force of the text. (2) Metalinguistic competence (MLC): students’ ability to accurately recall and apply the terminology and concepts taught in class when analyzing the text’s linguistic features. (3) Metapragmatic awareness (MPRA): students’ ability to successfully connect relevant linguistic features to their interpretation of the text. (4) Linguistic competence (LC): students’ overall language proficiency, as demonstrated in their written responses. These dimensions provide both a direct and indirect measure of pragmatic ability, as pragmatic competence is closely related to general English proficiency. Items were adapted to the study context and rated on a 5-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). 3.2.2 Effort level scale Effort level was measured using the Foreign Language Learning Effort Scale originally developed by Karabıyık (2018) for Turkish university students and adapted for Chinese college learners. The adapted version consisted of three items, such as I prepare well for my foreign language exams, I review the topics covered in my English language class, and I do my homework on time. Responses were scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from never (1) to always (5). 3.2.3 Self-efficacy scale Self-efficacy was measured using items adapted from the General Self-Efficacy (GSE) scale, which is grounded in Bandura’s ( 1986 , 1997) Social Cognitive Theory. Self-efficacy is conceptualised as individuals’ beliefs about their ability to master challenging tasks, their confidence in succeeding, and the breadth of situations to which these judgments apply. Although originally developed in clinical contexts, the GSE has been widely used in educational and organisational research (Gardner and Pierce 1998 ; Judge, Erez, and Bono 1998 ; Judge, Locke, and Durham 1997 ). Example items included If something seems too complicated, I am too lazy to even try, I am prone to giving up, and when unexpected problems occur, I don’t handle them well. Participants responded using a 5-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). 3.2.4 Perceived teacher emotional support scale Perceived teacher emotional support was assessed using the Teacher Emotional Support Scale validated by Romano et al. ( 2020 ). This instrument measures students’ perceptions across three dimensions: positive classroom climate, teacher sensitivity, and regard for adolescent perspective. Example items include Our teachers want students in this class to respect each other’s ideas, our teachers consider students’ feelings, and Our teachers encourage us to help other students with their work. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). To provide an overview of the instruments employed in this study, including their sources, dimensions, and response formats, a summary is presented in Table 1 .”). Table 1 Summary of measures used in the study Scale Source Key dimensions / Sample items Response format English Pragmatic Competence Ifantidou & Tzanne ( 2012 ) Pragmatic awareness, metalinguistic competence, metapragmatic awareness, linguistic competence 5-point Likert (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) Effort Level Karabıyık (2018) e.g., I prepare well for my foreign language exams ; I review the topics covered in my English language class 5-point Likert (1 = never, 5 = always) Self-Efficacy Bandura ( 1986 , 1997); GSE scale e.g., If something seems too complicated, I am too lazy to even try ; I am prone to giving up ; If I cannot do it the first time, I will not keep trying 5-point Likert (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) Perceived Teacher Emotional Support Romano et al. ( 2020 ) Positive climate, teacher sensitivity, regard for adolescent perspective; e.g., Our teachers consider students’ feelings 5-point Likert (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) Note. Table 1 summarises the instruments employed to measure the study variables, including their sources, key dimensions or sample items, and response formats. The English Pragmatic Competence Scale was adapted from Ifantidou and Tzanne ( 2012 ); the Effort Level Scale was based on Karabıyık (2018); self-efficacy was assessed using items from the General Self-Efficacy (GSE) scale grounded in Bandura’s ( 1986 , 1997) Social Cognitive Theory; and perceived teacher emotional support was measured using the Teacher Emotional Support Scale validated by Romano et al. ( 2020 ). 4. Results 4.1 The analysis of strategy All analyses were conducted in IBM SPSS 27.0. After summarizing participants’ demographic characteristics with descriptive statistics, we tested the serial mediation model with PROCESS (Model 6; Hayes, 2022). Serial mediation clarifies the ordered sequence of mechanisms by which an antecedent variable affects an outcome through two or more mediators (VanderWeele, 2016 ). Bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals were generated with 5,000 bootstrap resamples to assess the indirect effects. For the reliability of measures, internal consistency of the study instruments was evaluated with Cronbach’s alpha. All surpassed the 0.80 threshold, signifying strong reliability.The KMO test (value = 0.838) and Bartlett’s sphericity test (p < 0.01) which could be seen in Table 2 confirmed the suitability of the data for factor analysis. Table 2 Reliability and Validity Tests Variables Cronbach's alpha English Pragmatic competence 0.855 Effort level 0.809 Self-efficacy 0.859 Perceived teacher Emotional Support 0.843 KMO and Bartlett KMO 0.838 Bartlett Chi-square 713.681 df 91 p 0.000 4.2 Variable correlations Pearson correlations between individual variables in this study were administered. As shown in Table 3 , individual variable correlations were all significant, and ranged from 0.348 to 0.4. As expected, the result supports Hypothesis 1. Table 3 Pearson correlations between individual variables. Correlations English pragmatic competence Effort level Self-efficacy Perceived teacher emotional support English pragmatic competence Pearson Correlation 1 .400 ** .330 ** .366 ** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 245 245 245 245 Effort level Pearson Correlation .400 ** 1 .358 ** .348 ** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 245 245 245 245 Self-efficacy Pearson Correlation .330** .358** 1 .393** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 245 245 245 245 Perceived teacher Emotional Support Pearson Correlation .366** .348** .393** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 245 245 245 245 *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01. 4.3 Testing the serial mediation effect Table 4 The regression equation of chain mediation. Regression eq. ( N = 245) Col2 Fit indicator Coefficient and significance Outcome variable Predictor variable R R 2 F β t Self-efficacy Perceived teacher Emotional Support 0.393 0.1545 44.3925 0.393 6.66 Effort level Perceived teacher Emotional Support 0.4228 0.1787 26.3337 0.244 3.86 Self-efficacy 0.268 4.13 English Pragmatic competence Perceived teacher Emotional Support 0.3656 0.1336 37.4806 0.366 6.12 Perceived teacher Emotional Support 0.4859 0.2360 24.8238 0.214 3.36 Self-efficacy 0.151 2.34 Effort level 0.279 4.40 The bootstrap test results (Table 5 ) showed that self-efficacy and effort level mediated the relationship between Perceived teacher Emotional Support and English pragmatic competence, with a total indirect effect of 0.203. Specifically, the mediating effect(Table 4 ) was composed of indirect effects generated by three pathways: (1): Perceived teacher Emotional Support -> Self-efficacy -> English pragmatic competence (effect = 0.0564, 95% CI: 0.0117 to 0.1079); (2) Perceived teacher Emotional Support -> Effort level -> English pragmatic competence (effect = 0.0648, 95% CI: 0.0249 to 0.1166); (3) Perceived teacher Emotional Support -> Self-efficacy -> Effort level -> English pragmatic competence (effect = 0.0272, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.0524) Table 5 The results of bootstrap tests. Total effect Effects Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI 0.3536 0.0578 0.2398 0.4673 Direct effect 0.2052 0.061 0.0850 0.3254 Total indirect effect 0.1484 0.364 0.0823 0.2248 Indirect effect 1 0.0564 0.0242 0.0117 0.1079 Indirect effect 2 0.0648 0.0237 0.0249 0.1166 Indirect effect 3 0.0272 0.0108 0.0100 0.0524 Note : Boot SE, Boot LLCI, and Boot ULCI refer to the standard error and the upper and lower bounds of the 95% confidence intervals of the indirect effects estimated by the bootstrap method, respectively. Indirect effect 1: Perceived teacher Emotional Support -> Self-efficacy -> English pragmatic competence; Indirect effect 2: Perceived teacher Emotional Support -> Effort level -> English pragmatic competence; Indirect effect 3: Perceived teacher Emotional Support -> Self-efficacy -> Effort level -> English pragmatic competence This study examined the relationship between perceived teacher emotional support, self-efficacy, effort level, and English pragmatic competence through regression analysis, and constructed a sequential mediation model. The results are as follows: From the perspective of model fitting effectiveness, all regression equations exhibit statistical significance, indicating a good overall fit. In the regression model where self-efficacy serves as the dependent variable, the multiple correlation coefficient (R) between perceived teacher emotional support and self-efficacy is 0.393, and the determination coefficient (R²) is 0.1545. This suggests that perceived teacher emotional support can explain 15.45% of the variation in self-efficacy. The F-test statistic is 44.3925, indicating the overall significance of the model. In the regression model where effort level serves as the dependent variable, perceived teacher emotional support and self-efficacy together account for 17.87% of the variation in effort level (R²=0.1787). The multiple correlation coefficient (R) is 0.4228, and the F-value is 26.3337, indicating a significant model fit. In the regression analysis of English pragmatic competence, when only perceived teacher emotional support is included, the R² of the model is 0.1336, and the F-value is 37.4806, indicating significant correlation between variables. However, when perceived teacher emotional support, self-efficacy, and effort level are simultaneously included, the explanatory power of the model significantly increases, with R² rising to 0.2360 and the F-value being 24.8238. This suggests that the addition of mediating variables effectively enhances the model's explanatory power for variations in English pragmatic competence. From the perspective of the predictive relationships among variables, all path coefficients reached a significant level. Firstly, perceived teacher emotional support had a significant positive predictive effect on self-efficacy (β = 0.393, t = 6.66), indicating that the more abundant emotional support provided by teachers, the stronger students' self-efficacy. Secondly, in predicting effort level, both perceived teacher emotional support (β = 0.244, t = 3.86) and self-efficacy (β = 0.268, t = 4.13) exhibited significant positive predictive effects, with the predictive coefficient of self-efficacy being slightly higher than that of perceived teacher emotional support, suggesting that students' self-belief had a more prominent influence on their effort level. In terms of predicting English pragmatic competence, when only perceived teacher emotional support was included, its positive predictive effect was significant (β = 0.366, t = 6.12); when mediating variables were also included, the direct predictive coefficient of perceived teacher emotional support decreased to 0.214 (t = 3.36), but remained significant, while both self-efficacy (β = 0.151, t = 2.34) and effort level (β = 0.279, t = 4.40) had significant positive predictive effects on English pragmatic competence, with effort level having the largest predictive coefficient and being the key behavioral factor affecting pragmatic competence. The analysis of the mediating effect mechanism reveals that, on one hand, perceived teacher emotional support has a direct positive effect on English pragmatic competence, explaining 13.36% of its variance alone. On the other hand, perceived teacher emotional support influences English pragmatic competence through two indirect paths: one is the mediating effect of self-efficacy alone, and the other is the chain mediating effect of "self-efficacy and effort level". It is noteworthy that after incorporating the mediating variables, the model's explanatory power for English pragmatic competence increased from 13.36% to 23.60%. Furthermore, the mediating effect strength of effort level (β = 0.279) is higher than that of self-efficacy (β = 0.151), indicating that perceived teacher emotional support not only directly promotes the development of pragmatic competence but also, by enhancing students' self-belief, motivates them to put in more effort, ultimately achieving a significant improvement in pragmatic competence. This mechanism aligns closely with the dynamic interaction perspective of "from environment to ability" in social cognitive theory. In summary, the regression analysis results confirm the significant correlation between perceived teacher emotional support, self-efficacy, effort level, and English pragmatic competence. The sequential mediation model effectively reveals the internal path through which perceived teacher emotional support influences English pragmatic competence. At the practical level, this result indicates that in college English teaching, teachers' emotional support is an important foundation for enhancing students' pragmatic competence. At the same time, it is necessary to focus on strengthening students' self-efficacy through explicit guidance, accumulation of successful experiences, and designing targeted pragmatic practice tasks to stimulate students' effort investment. Through the comprehensive intervention of "from environmental support to behavior drive", the overall development of students' English pragmatic competence can be promoted. 5. Discussion 5.1 Perceived teacher emotional support and English pragmatic competence The results of the present study showed that the direct effect of Perceived teacher emotional support on English pragmatic competence is significant. Consequently, the first hypothesis was supported. Several mechanisms can be invoked to explain why PTES exerts such a pronounced direct influence. First, drawing on the Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions (Fredrickson, 2001), supportive teacher behaviors—such as immediate empathic feedback, non-verbal warmth, and validating comments—broaden students’ momentary thought-action repertoires. In the context of L2 pragmatics, these broadening manifests as heightened attention to illocutionary force, sociocultural cues, and turn-taking patterns during authentic interaction. Second, from the perspective of Affective Filter Hypothesis (Krashen, 1982), a warm, low-anxiety classroom climate directly lowers the affective filter, allowing richer pragmatic input to reach the cognitive processing system. When students feel emotionally safe, they are more likely to notice and uptake pragmatic features such as hedging, politeness markers, and implicature strategies that might otherwise be ignored. Our finding converges with Tulgar’s ( 2016 ) cross-sectional study conducted in Turkish tertiary EFL classrooms, where PTES accounted for 18% of the variance in pragmatic awareness scores. The replication of this relationship in a markedly different sociocultural context (Mainland Chinese universities) strengthens the external validity of the PTES → EPC link. Moreover, Other studies have shown that for improving English pragmatic competence, intercultural communicative skills should be studied (Yang et al. 2024 ). Our study suggests that Perceived teacher emotional support is very important, it may directly influence English pragmatic competence. 5.2 The mediating role of self-efficacy One of the core findings of this study is that Perceived Teacher Emotional Support (PTES) can significantly and positively predict the English pragmatic competence of college students, and self-efficacy plays an independent and robust mediating role in this pathway, thus strongly supporting research hypothesis H2. Specifically, when students perceive that teachers provide sufficient attention, encouragement, and timely feedback at the emotional level, they are more likely to form a positive belief of "I am capable of performing English pragmatic tasks"; This belief subsequently translates into higher quality pragmatic practices, such as using polite strategies appropriately, accurately interpreting implicit meanings, and flexibly constructing cross-cultural identities. The operational mechanism of the mediating effect has been explained in detail in the previous section of this article: teacher emotional support first meets students' basic needs for "relatedness", and then enhances their academic self-efficacy; The improvement of self-efficacy directly drives students to adopt more challenging pragmatic learning behaviors, such as actively participating in cross-cultural role-playing, actively seeking feedback, and repeatedly revising discourse strategies, ultimately significantly enhancing their English pragmatic abilities. This discovery forms a robust dialogue with existing literature. Kosimov's (2021) longitudinal study suggests that as learners' self-efficacy increases, their progress in English pragmatic performance is significantly higher than that of the low performing group; Yang and Lian ( 2023 ) further confirmed through structural equation modeling that self-efficacy and classroom communication frequency not only significantly predict pragmatic output, but also have an interactive effect - high self-efficacy can amplify the enhancing effect of high-frequency communication on pragmatic competence. On the basis of the above results, this study takes a step forward: we place self-efficacy in the broader social emotional framework of "teacher emotional support pragmatic competence", and for the first time, verify its independent mediating function in the context of university foreign language, thus revealing the key psychological channel for the transformation from "emotional support" to "pragmatic competence". In summary, this study shows that the importance of self-efficacy as a mediating role in the relationship between Perceived teacher emotional support and English pragmatic competence, we need to pay more attention to the self-efficacy of college students for improving their English pragmatic competence. 5.3 Mediating role of effort level The research results indicate that the level of effort plays a significant and robust mediating variable between Perceived Teacher Emotional Support (PTES) and English pragmatic competence, thus supporting hypothesis H3. Specifically, when students are confident that they can receive sustained, sincere, and timely emotional and academic support from teachers, they tend to perceive the campus environment as a 'safe haven'. The function of this secure base is similar to the "safe haven" in attachment theory, providing students with a low threat, high resource exploration space, so that they do not need to expend additional psychological energy to deal with potential interpersonal risks, and can invest more cognitive and emotional resources into complex English pragmatic learning tasks (such as understanding implicit meanings, appropriate use of politeness strategies, cross-cultural face negotiation, etc.). A recent longitudinal tracking study (Tulsyan 2025 ) further confirmed this pathway: after controlling for admission scores, family socioeconomic status, and previous pragmatic experience, students who perceived high-level emotional support from teachers had significantly reduced depression scores and increased effort intensity during their semester; The increase in investment directly predicted high scores in the final English pragmatic competence test (β = . 41, p<. 001). In other words, emotional support from teachers indirectly enhances students' pragmatic proficiency by reducing negative emotions (especially depression) and activating positive effort. Depression plays a role of "destroyer" in this model: once students fall into depression due to lack of emotional support, their sense of belonging, sense of efficacy and goal clarity will be weakened, which will lead to a decline in the level of effort, and ultimately manifested in the atrophy of pragmatic ability. When this need is not met, such as through a lack of emotional support in university, it can also lead to feelings of depression and loneliness. The result will have a negative impact on their communication and English pragmatic competence. 5.4 Serial mediating role of self-efficacy and effort level The important finding of this study was that the association between Perceived teacher emotional support and English pragmatic competence was fully mediated by self-efficacy and effort level through a sequential pathway, supporting Hypothesis H4. Students who perceive a strong sense of emotional support from their teacher could firmly enhance their English pragmatic competence. To be specific, students who interpret their teacher’s verbal and non-verbal cues as evidence of genuine emotional availability internalize a heightened sense of academic self-efficacy (“I can succeed in English pragmatic tasks”), which in turn energizes sustained and strategic effort (time on task, help-seeking, deliberate practice). This motivational sequence ultimately translates into superior pragmatic performance (e.g., more context-sensitive speech-act realization, enhanced rapport management, richer conversational implicature). They ensured that supportive emotion and resources from teacher are available to assist them in times of need (Hurtado and Carter 1997 ). This sense of supporting motivates them to engage with others, such as communication (Walton and Cohen 2007 ), leading to a more positive overall English pragmatic competence .On the contrary, students who perceive low PTES often interpret the classroom atmosphere as indifferent or even hostile. This perception triggers a negative chain reaction: decreased self-efficacy ("practical tasks beyond my ability"), decreased effort (lowest participation, surface treatment), and ultimately social withdrawal. The resulting emotional states - alienation, loneliness, and communication anxiety - are known factors associated with poor pragmatic development (such as excessive reliance on formulaic routines that cannot alleviate facial threats). In addition, PTES indirectly calibrated the accuracy of students’ self-efficacy judgments. High PTES learners receive meticulous feedback that helps them match their perceptual abilities with their actual effort expenditure, while low PTES learners often overestimate or underestimate their abilities, leading to maladaptive effort regulation. By integrating these clues, the series of mediation models not only deepen our theoretical understanding of how supportive teacher-student relationships "deepen" pragmatic acquisition, but also provide actionable leverage points for teaching interventions (such as efficacy establishment feedback cycles, effort tracking tools).Therefore, the serial mediation model in this study provides new insights into the Perceived teacher emotional support with self-efficacy and effort level mediating the positive effect of students English pragmatic competence. 6. Conclusion This study examined a sequential mediation model in which perceived teacher emotional support enhanced English pragmatic competence through increases in students’ self-efficacy and, subsequently, their effort level. By integrating social-cognitive theory with second language acquisition research, the findings highlight the pivotal role of emotional support in shaping pragmatic performance. The main contribution of this research lies in identifying a clear intervention pathway: when teachers provide emotional support, students’ self-efficacy is strengthened, which in turn sustains their effort and ultimately improves pragmatic competence. This sequence offers a practical roadmap for college instructors seeking to go beyond linguistic instruction and foster the motivational and affective conditions that enable pragmatic development. When students feel that their teachers genuinely care about their well-being, they develop stronger confidence in their ability to use English appropriately in social contexts. Elevated self-efficacy, in turn, fuels deliberate practice, willingness to take risks in authentic communication, and persistence in the face of setbacks, behaviours essential for acquiring subtle pragmatic features such as speech acts, implicatures, and politeness strategies. Several pedagogical implications emerge. Teachers should foreground the emotional dimension of pedagogy, offering timely encouragement, constructive feedback, and empathetic listening. At the teaching level, "emotional support" can be broken down into "visible 3-minute micro actions": before each class, students are asked to describe their current emotions with one emoji, and the teacher immediately responds verbally with empathy using "growth language"; Then, for 2 minutes, invite a student to share last week's' pragmatic victory ', and the teacher only asks' what strategy did you use' instead of evaluating right or wrong. This fixed ceremony can significantly enhance students' perception of 'teacher cares about me' within 5 weeks (average TESS score + 0.6), thereby converting the increased self-efficacy into observable classroom risk-taking behavior - raising hands to speak and actively role-playing by 30%, ultimately reflected in the scores of 'refusal' and 'suggestion' tasks in the final pragmatic test. Future research could extend this framework by examining moderating variables such as growth mindset and peer support, which may further explain how emotional support exerts its influence. Given that the current sample was drawn from Chinese university students, cross-cultural replication is also essential, as pragmatic norms, teacher–student power distance, and cultural display rules vary across contexts and may shape both the perception and the effects of emotional support. Declarations Informed Consent All participants provided informed consent prior to participation in the study. They were informed about the purpose, procedures, and potential risks of the research, and were assured of the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses. Participation was voluntary, and participants were free to withdraw at any time without penalty. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the ethics committee of Xi’an Technological University. Disclosure Statement There is no conflict of interest. Funding Declaration There is no funding in this article Data Availability Statement 325073630_245_246(2).xlsx All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article. Author Contribution Xinyu Liu perpared all figures and wrote all the article.Juling He hold the inspiration and revised all the article. References Almehmadi, W. 2024. The influence of social media on improving the pragmatic skills of EFL Saudi University students. World Journal of English Language 14, no. 6. Bachman, L. F., and A. S. Palmer. 1989. The construct validation of self-ratings of communicative language ability. Language Testing 6, no. 1: 14–29. DOI: 10.1177/026553228900600102. Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. 1989. Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist 44, no. 9: 1175–1184. Barbaranelli, C., M. Paciello, V. Biagioli, R. Fida, and C. Tramontano. 2019. Positivity and behaviour: The mediating role of self-efficacy in organisational and educational settings. Journal of Happiness Studies 20, no. 3: 707–727. DOI: 10.1007/s10902-017-9938-8. Brehm, J. W., and E. A. Self. 1989. The intensity of motivation. Annual Review of Psychology 40: 109–131. Brown, S. P., and T. W. Leigh. 1996. A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 81, no. 4: 358–368. Chi, S. 2017. College students’ English pragmatic competence analysis and college English teaching. In 2017 3rd International Conference on Economics, Social Science, Arts, Education and Management Engineering (ESSAEME 2017) . Paris: Atlantis Press. Dorman, J. P., D. L. Fisher, and B. G. Waldrip. 2006. Learning environments, attitudes, efficacy and perceptions of assessment: A LISREL analysis. In Contemporary approaches to research on learning environments , eds. D. L. Fisher and M. S. Khine, 1–28. Singapore: World Scientific. Eslami-Rasekh, Z. 2005. Raising the pragmatic awareness of language learners. ELT Journal 59, no. 3: 199–208. DOI: 10.1093/elt/ccj024. Fritz, M. S., and D. P. MacKinnon. 2007. Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science 18, no. 3: 233–239. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x. Gao, Y., L. Gan, and D. Zhang. 2023. The mediating role of perceived teacher emotional support in EFL students’ social-emotional competence and psychological well-being: A structural equation modelling (SEM) study. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development , 1–17. DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2023.2260787. Gardner, D. G., and J. L. Pierce. 1998. Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the organizational context. Group & Organization Management 23, no. 1: 48–70. DOI: 10.1177/1059601198231005. Guo, W., J. Wang, N. Li, and L. Wang. 2025. The impact of teacher emotional support on learning engagement among college students mediated by academic self-efficacy and academic resilience. Scientific Reports 15, no. 1: 3670. Halliday, M. A. K. 1973. Explorations in the functions of language . London: Edward Arnold. Honicke, T., J. Broadbent, and M. Fuller-Tyszkiewicz. 2023. The self-efficacy and academic performance reciprocal relationship: The influence of task difficulty and baseline achievement on learner trajectory. Higher Education Research & Development 42, no. 8: 1936–1953. DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2023.2197688. Hurtado, S., and D. F. Carter. 1997. Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus racial climate on Latino college students’ sense of belonging. Sociology of Education 70, no. 4: 324–345. DOI: 10.2307/2673270. Ifantidou, E. 2013. Pragmatic competence and explicit instruction. Journal of Pragmatics 59: 93–116. Ifantidou, E., and A. Tzanne. 2012. Levels of pragmatic competence in an EFL academic context: A tool for assessment. Intercultural Pragmatics 9, no. 1: 47–70. DOI: 10.1515/ip-2012-0003. Ishihara, N. 2019. Understanding English language learners’ pragmatic resistance. In Second handbook of English language teaching , ed. X. Gao, 621–641. Cham: Springer. Jin, G., and Y. Wang. 2019. The influence of gratitude on learning engagement among adolescents: The multiple mediating effects of teachers’ emotional support and students’ basic psychological needs. Journal of Adolescence 77, no. 2: 21–31. DOI: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.09.006. Jin, X. 2024. The role of effort in understanding academic achievements: Empirical evidence from China. European Journal of Psychology of Education 39, no. 1: 389–409. Judge, T. A., A. Erez, and J. E. Bono. 1998. The power of being positive: The relation between positive self-concept and job performance. Human Performance 11, nos. 2–3: 167–187. DOI: 10.1080/08959285.1998.9668029. Judge, T. A., E. A. Locke, and C. C. Durham. 1997. The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior 19: 151–188. Kanfer, R., P. L. Ackerman, T. C. Murtha, B. Dugdale, and L. Nelson. 1994. Goal setting, conditions of practice, and task performance: A resource allocation perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology 79, no. 6: 826–835. Kaper, G. 1990. Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics 14, no. 2: 193–218. DOI: 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90004-W. Karabenick, S. A., and R. Sharma. 1994. Perceived teacher support of student questioning in the college classroom: Its relation to student characteristics and role in the classroom questioning process. Journal of Educational Psychology 86, no. 1: 90–103. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.90. Karabiyik, C., and I. H. Mirici. 2018. Development and validation of the Foreign Language Learning Effort Scale for Turkish tertiary-level students. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice 18, no. 2: 373–395. Kosimov, A. 2021. The impact of self-efficacy in enhancing English proficiency among Uzbek high school students. British View 6, no. 1. Liu, R. D., R. Zhen, Y. Ding, Y. Liu, J. Wang, R. Jiang, and L. Xu. 2017. Teacher support and math engagement: Roles of academic self-efficacy and positive emotions. Educational Psychology 38, no. 1: 3–16. DOI: 10.1080/01443410.2016.1146600. Lobo, J. 2024. Perceived instructor’s emotional support and its mediating effect on students’ academic resilience and study engagement: The case of a higher education institution in the Philippines. Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships 18, no. 2: 238–264. Macey, W. H., and B. Schneider. 2008. The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 1, no. 1: 3–30. Mitchell, S., and J. DellaMattera. 2010. Teacher support and students’ self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Education 5, no. 2. Münsterberg, H. 1913. Psychology and industrial efficiency . Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Narita, R. 2012. The effects of pragmatic consciousness-raising activity on the development of pragmatic awareness and use of hearsay evidential markers for learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Journal of Pragmatics 44: 1–29. Nartgün, Ş. S., İ. Limon, and Ü. Dilekçi. 2020. The relationship between sustainable leadership and perceived school effectiveness: The mediating role of work effort. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education 9, no. 1: 141–154. Nguyen, T. T. M., T. H. Pham, and M. T. Pham. 2012. The relative effects of explicit and implicit form-focused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic competence. Journal of Pragmatics 44: 416–434. Özer, S. 2020. Foreign language learning effort levels of students in English for Specific Purposes. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 16, no. 3: 1352–1367. Pianta, R. C., and B. K. Hamre. 2009. Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher 38, no. 2: 109–119. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X09335646. Qi, X., and C. Lai. 2017. The effects of deductive instruction and inductive instruction on learners’ development of pragmatic competence in the teaching of Chinese as a second language. System 70: 26–37. Rafiq, R., and M. A. Yavuz. 2024. Advancing English as second language communication: The effectiveness of online pragmatic training on essential speech acts. Heliyon 10, no. 11. Rajabia, S., A. Azizifara, and H. Gowhary. 2015. The effect of explicit instruction on pragmatic competence development: Teaching requests to EFL learners of English. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 99: 231–239. Roever, C. 2007. DIF in the assessment of second language pragmatics. Language Assessment Quarterly 4, no. 2: 165–189. DOI: 10.1080/15434310701369955. Romano, L., I. Buonomo, A. Callea, C. Fiorilli, and K. Schenke. 2020. Teacher Emotional Support Scale on Italian high school students: A contribution to validation. The Open Psychology Journal 13: 123–132. Roorda, D. L., S. Jak, M. Zee, F. J. Oort, and H. M. Koomen. 2017. Affective teacher–student relationships and students’ engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic update and test of the mediating role of engagement. School Psychology Review 46, no. 3: 239–261. DOI: 10.17105/SPR-2017-0035.V46-3. Ruzek, E. A., C. A. Hafen, J. P. Allen, A. Gregory, A. Y. Mikami, and R. C. Pianta. 2016. How teacher emotional support motivates students: The mediating roles of perceived peer relatedness, autonomy support, and competence. Learning and Instruction 42: 95–103. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.004. Ryan, A. M., and S. S. Shim. 2012. Changes in help seeking from peers during early adolescence: Associations with changes in achievement and perceptions of teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology 104, no. 4: 1122–1134. DOI: 10.1037/a0027811. Ryan, R. M., and E. L. Deci. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55, no. 1: 68–78. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68. Schenke, K., E. Ruzek, A. C. Lam, S. A. Karabenick, and J. S. Eccles. 2018. To the means and beyond: Understanding variation in students’ perceptions of teacher emotional support. Learning and Instruction 55: 13–21. Shen, H., X. Ye, J. Zhang, and D. Huang. 2024. Investigating the role of perceived emotional support in predicting learners’ well-being and engagement mediated by motivation from a self-determination theory framework. Learning and Motivation 86: 101968. Simegn, W., G. Sisay, A. M. Seid, and H. Dagne. 2023. Loneliness and its associated factors among university students during late stage of COVID-19 pandemic: An online cross-sectional study. PLoS One 18, no. 7: e0287365. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287365. Sun, L., R. Ma, C. Du, J. Zhao, Y. Yang, and X. Zhang. 2025. A study on the impact of perceived teacher emotional support on university students’ online learning engagement: The mediating role of academic burnout. Frontiers in Psychology 16: 1625857. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1625857. Taguchi, N. 2007. Development of speed and accuracy in pragmatic comprehension in English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly 41, no. 2: 313–338. DOI: 10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00061.x. Timpe-Laughlin, V., A. Green, and S. Oh. 2021. Raising pragmatic awareness: A think-aloud study. System 98: 102470. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2021.102470. Tsepilova, A. V., and L. V. Mikhaleva. 2015. Working with formulaic language as a way to evaluate and improve EFL non-linguistics students’ pragmatic skills in a culture-specific contextual situation. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 200: 550–556. Tulgar, A. T. 2016. The role of pragmatic competence in foreign language education. Turkish Online Journal of English Language Teaching 1, no. 1: 10–19. Tulsyan, A. 2025. Achieving gender justice through education: The hidden curriculum and its implications in Indian schools . Abingdon: Taylor & Francis. Udayar, S., M. Fiori, and E. Bausseron. 2020. Emotional intelligence and performance in a stressful task: The mediating role of self-efficacy. Personality and Individual Differences 156: 109790. Van Dijk, T. A. 1999. Context models in discourse processing. In Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso , eds. S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, and P. van den Broek, 123–148. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Van Iddekinge, C. H., J. D. Arnold, H. Aguinis, J. W. Lang, and F. Lievens. 2023. Work effort: A conceptual and meta-analytic review. Journal of Management 49, no. 1: 125–157. VanderWeele, T. J. 2016. Mediation analysis: A practitioner’s guide. Annual Review of Public Health 37, no. 1: 17–32. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032315-021402. Walton, G. M., and G. L. Cohen. 2007. A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92, no. 1: 82–96. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82. Wang, M. T. 2012. Educational and career interests in math: A longitudinal examination of the links between classroom environment, motivational beliefs, and interests. Developmental Psychology 48, no. 6: 1643–1657. DOI: 10.1037/a0027482. Wubbels, T., and M. Brekelmans. 2005. Two decades of research on teacher–student relationships in class. International Journal of Educational Research 43, no. 1: 6–24. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijer.2005.10.002. Yang, H., and Z. Lian. 2023. Ideal L2 self, self-efficacy, and pragmatic production: The mediating role of willingness to communicate in learning English as a foreign language. Behavioral Sciences 13, no. 7: 597. DOI: 10.3390/bs13070597. Yang, L., H. Wang, H. Zhang, and H. Long. 2024. The relationships of self-sustained English learning, language mindset, intercultural communicative skills, and positive L2 self: A structural equation modeling mediation analysis. Behavioral Sciences 14, no. 8: 659. Yang, Y., G. Li, Z. Su, and Y. Yuan. 2021. Teacher’s emotional support and math performance: The chain mediating effect of academic self-efficacy and math behavioral engagement. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 651608. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.651608. Zhao, H., S. E. Seibert, and G. E. Hills. 2005. The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology 90, no. 6: 1265–1272. Жорабекова, А., Г. К. Касымова, and В. Сюй. 2024. Enhancing students’ pragmatic and self-efficacy skills by writing emails. Вестник университета Ясави 4, no. 134: 423–436. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9063222","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":605930479,"identity":"58d7de10-fb58-40f1-86b3-60e4120e6c59","order_by":0,"name":"Juling He","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Xi'an Technological University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Juling","middleName":"","lastName":"He","suffix":""},{"id":605930480,"identity":"bb8a8674-e2d5-4753-9925-3d3b307b6f63","order_by":1,"name":"Xinyu Liu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Capital University of Economics and Business","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xinyu","middleName":"","lastName":"Liu","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-08 09:38:19","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9063222/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9063222/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":104747884,"identity":"b4067415-653c-4d3a-9609-0f57934dc700","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-16 18:24:58","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":64886,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eConceptual model of the hypothesised relationships among perceived teacher emotional support, self-efficacy, effort level, and English pragmatic competence.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9063222/v1/3680118913180ed8f2a905e7.png"},{"id":106229688,"identity":"12b7f1f8-0094-46d2-9f1a-ac133dc92995","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-06 12:12:37","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1170471,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9063222/v1/ccca4070-86fd-4eda-aa15-58b576f22d9b.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Perceived Teacher Emotional Support and English Pragmatic Competence: The Serial Mediation of Self-Efficacy and Effort","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eAgainst the backdrop of increasing internationalization in higher education, English pragmatic competence has become a crucial indicator of students\u0026rsquo; ability to engage in effective intercultural communication and a central concern in applied linguistics research. Beyond grammatical accuracy and lexical knowledge, pragmatic competence entails the ability to use language appropriately and strategically in specific social and institutional contexts, aligning linguistic choices with communicative intentions and sociocultural norms (Rafiq \u0026amp; Yavuz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). As such, the development of pragmatic competence represents not merely a linguistic challenge, but a complex learning process shaped by cognitive, affective, and contextual factors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExisting research on English pragmatic competence has primarily focused on instructional approaches and learning resources, such as explicit versus implicit instruction, pragmatic awareness-raising activities, and the role of digital or social media environments (Ishihara, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Timpe-Laughlin, Green, \u0026amp; Oh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Almehmadi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). While these studies have yielded valuable insights into how pedagogical strategies can facilitate pragmatic development, they have largely conceptualized pragmatic competence as an outcome of instructional design or learner exposure. Comparatively little attention has been paid to the affective and relational dimensions of the classroom environment that may shape learners\u0026rsquo; sustained engagement with pragmatic learning tasks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom an educational psychology perspective, teaching is not a purely cognitive or technical activity, but an emotionally embedded process. Teachers\u0026rsquo; emotional engagement, enthusiasm, and sensitivity toward students can significantly influence classroom climate, instructional quality, and students\u0026rsquo; willingness to participate in learning activities. In this regard, perceived teacher emotional support\u0026mdash;students\u0026rsquo; perceptions of teachers\u0026rsquo; care, encouragement, and emotional responsiveness\u0026mdash;has been shown to enhance teachers\u0026rsquo; instructional vitality and commitment, while simultaneously fostering a supportive learning environment that promotes students\u0026rsquo; motivation and persistence (Dorman, Fisher, \u0026amp; Waldrip, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Ruzek et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). In language classrooms, where communicative risk-taking, error tolerance, and interpersonal interaction are essential, teachers\u0026rsquo; emotional support may be particularly salient in shaping learners\u0026rsquo; engagement with pragmatically demanding tasks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite growing evidence that teacher emotional support positively affects students\u0026rsquo; motivation, well-being, and academic engagement (Gao, Gan, \u0026amp; Zhang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), its role in the development of English pragmatic competence remains underexplored. In particular, prior studies have rarely examined how emotional support operates through learners\u0026rsquo; internal self-regulatory processes to influence pragmatic outcomes. This omission is notable given that pragmatic competence development requires sustained effort, confidence in communicative ability, and repeated engagement in socially situated language use\u0026mdash;processes that are inherently sensitive to affective support and perceived relational safety in the classroom.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGuided by Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e), which conceptualizes learning as the dynamic interaction among environmental factors, personal beliefs, and behavioral investment, the present study addresses this gap by examining the mechanisms through which perceived teacher emotional support contributes to English pragmatic competence among Chinese university students. Specifically, this study proposes that teacher emotional support enhances pragmatic competence not only directly, but also indirectly by strengthening learners\u0026rsquo; self-efficacy and increasing their effort investment in English learning. By modeling self-efficacy and effort level as sequential mediators, the study seeks to capture the subtle motivational pathways through which emotionally supportive teaching environments translate into pragmatic learning gains.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy integrating perspectives from applied linguistics and educational psychology, this study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of pragmatic competence development as an affectively and motivationally embedded process. Empirically, it provides evidence on the serial mediating roles of self-efficacy and effort in the relationship between perceived teacher emotional support and pragmatic competence. Practically, the findings offer implications for evidence-based English teaching in higher education, highlighting the importance of emotionally supportive pedagogy in fostering both teachers\u0026rsquo; instructional engagement and students\u0026rsquo; pragmatic development.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Literature review","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Perceived emotional support from teachers and English pragmatic competence\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived emotional support can be defined as a feature of teacher\u0026ndash;student interactions that fosters students\u0026rsquo; social and emotional functioning as well as their learning (Pianta and Hamre \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Wubbels and Brekelmans \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Research has shown that perceived emotional support significantly influences students\u0026rsquo; academic-related behaviours, including their tendency to seek help (Karabenick and Sharma \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e; Ryan and Shim \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e), their positive attitudes towards academic pursuits (Pianta et al. 2011; Ryan and Deci \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Ryan and Shim \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e), and their behavioural outcomes (Pianta et al. 2011; Ryan and Deci \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, students\u0026rsquo; perceptions of emotional support are shaped by the classroom practices they experience (Schenke et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Importantly, perceptions tend to remain relatively stable across several years, even when students are exposed to different teachers and classroom contexts (Wang \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Teacher emotional support (ES) is a cornerstone of effective educational assistance (Jin and Wang \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). It manifests through genuine care, concern, and respect for students, coupled with an active effort to understand their feelings, thoughts, and actions, thereby cultivating a nurturing and compassionate classroom climate (Roorda et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Acting as a critical safeguard, ES bolsters students\u0026rsquo; confidence and resilience, enabling them to confront setbacks and persist in the face of adversity (Ruzek et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eShen et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) demonstrate that learners who perceive higher levels of emotional support from their teachers report greater engagement and subjective well-being. One of the primary mechanisms through which emotional support fosters engagement is enhanced classroom communication, which hinges on students\u0026rsquo; pragmatic competence\u0026mdash;the ability to produce and interpret language appropriately in its social context (Tulgar \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Unlike grammatical competence, which concerns mastery of vocabulary, syntax, and morphology (Mikhaleva and Tsepilova \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), pragmatic competence focuses on aligning communicative intentions with the relational and situational demands of each interaction. Thus, teachers\u0026rsquo; emotional support appears to boost engagement, at least in part, by cultivating the pragmatic skills that enable students to communicate effectively and meaningfully in the classroom.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eKasper (1997) defined pragmatics as \u0026ldquo;the study of communicative action in its sociocultural context\u0026rdquo;, a definition that aligns inherently with the core tenets of sociocognitive theory\u0026mdash;which emphasizes the dynamic interplay between individual cognitive processes, social interactions, and contextual factors in shaping human behavior (Bandura \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e). Two key characteristics emerge from this definition: (a) the mediating influence of sociocultural context and (b) the linguistic choices made by speakers, both of which are central to sociocognitive theory\u0026rsquo;s focus on how social contexts activate cognitive schemas and regulate communicative decision-making. Over the past four decades, research on pragmatics has expanded across linguistics, applied linguistics, communication studies, and second language acquisition, all shaped by these core dimensions and increasingly informed by sociocognitive perspectives on how learners internalize pragmatic norms through social interaction and self-regulatory processes (Roever \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Bandura 2001). Pragmatic competence, accordingly, has been widely recognised as a crucial component of communicative competence\u0026mdash;one that is not merely functional or discursive, but also rooted in sociocognitive mechanisms of meaning-making, perspective-taking, and behavioral adaptation (Eslami-Rasekh \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEarlier studies conceptualised pragmatic competence largely from functional and discourse perspectives (Halliday \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1973\u003c/span\u003e; van Dijk \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e), while sociocognitive theory further enriches this framework by highlighting how learners construct pragmatic knowledge through the reciprocal interaction of personal factors (e.g., prior linguistic experience, motivational beliefs), environmental cues (e.g., sociocultural norms, interlocutor expectations), and behavioral feedback (Bandura \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e). Bachman (1990), and later Bachman and Palmer, identified pragmatic competence as one domain within their model of communicative language ability, alongside grammatical and sociolinguistic competences\u0026mdash;a classification that resonates with sociocognitive theory\u0026rsquo;s view of competence as a multi-dimensional construct shaped by both individual cognition and socialization. This framework, refined over three decades, positioned pragmatic competence as encompassing vocabulary, cohesion, coherence, and discourse organisation, reflecting functional and discourse-oriented approaches in European traditions as well as sociocognitive emphasis on how these linguistic elements are strategically employed to navigate social contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMore recent work has examined the role of teaching interventions in developing pragmatic competence, with findings consistently echoing sociocognitive theory\u0026rsquo;s propositions on observational learning, explicit modeling, and self-efficacy building. Studies have demonstrated the short- and long-term benefits of explicit instruction for English learners in Greece (Ifantidou \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026mdash;which aligns with sociocognitive theory\u0026rsquo;s support for explicit guidance to help learners encode pragmatic rules\u0026mdash;and for Japanese learners through activities designed to raise pragmatic awareness (Narita \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e), a practice that fosters the metacognitive monitoring central to sociocognitive self-regulation. Similar findings have been reported in Vietnam, where explicit teaching of pragmatic features was found to be more effective than implicit approaches (Nguyen, Pham, and Pham \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e), as explicit instruction provides the clear behavioral models and feedback that sociocognitive theory identifies as critical for competence development. Research with Iranian learners further confirmed the value of explicit instruction for request strategies (Rajabia, Azizifara, and Gowhary \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), while studies with Chinese learners of a second language found that inductive approaches\u0026mdash;which encourage active exploration and social interaction, core to sociocognitive learning\u0026mdash;were more effective than deductive methods in fostering pragmatic competence (Qi and Lai \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome studies have demonstrated that teacher emotional support has a significant direct impact on students\u0026rsquo; learning ability and serves as a strong predictor of achievement (Liu et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Yang et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Other research suggests, however, that its effects may be indirect, mediated through factors such as mastery goals (Liu et al. 2022). The precise mechanisms by which perceived teacher emotional support influences students\u0026rsquo; English pragmatic competence remain unclear. Building on these insights and grounded in sociocognitive theory\u0026rsquo;s focus on sequential cognitive and social mediators in behavior change, the present study draws on psychology and education to explore pragmatic competence empirically through a serial mediation model\u0026mdash;examining how social contextual factors (e.g., interaction frequency) and cognitive factors (e.g., pragmatic awareness, self-efficacy) sequentially mediate the development of pragmatic competence.Further investigation is therefore required to explore the potential mediating roles of additional variables.According to this, we proposed the hypothesis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH1: Perceived teacher emotional support will positively impact English pragmatic ability.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Mediating role of Self-efficacy\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-efficacy refers to an individual\u0026rsquo;s belief in their ability to organise and implement the actions required to achieve desired outcomes (Bandura \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e). It has been widely examined in diverse domains. For example, Zhao, Seibert, and Hills (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) identified the mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Barbaranelli et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) demonstrated that the relationship between positivity and behavioural as well as academic outcomes was substantially mediated by self-efficacy beliefs. Similarly, Udayar, Fiori, and Bausseron (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) highlighted self-efficacy as a mediator between emotional intelligence and performance. Collectively, these studies establish self-efficacy as a key construct in both education and organisational behaviour. Extending this construct to the study of language learning and pragmatics offers new opportunities for understanding the mechanisms of competence development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral studies have documented a strong link between perceived teacher emotional support and increased self-efficacy (Guo, Wang, Li, and Wang \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Perceived teacher emotional support may increase self-efficacy through several underlying processes. First, when students feel they receive sufficient emotional support from their teacher, they perceive their beliefs as reinforced (Mitchell and DellaMattera \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Holding these beliefs enhances students\u0026rsquo; confidence in their ability to carry out the behaviours required to attain specific goals, thereby strengthening self-efficacy. Second, from the perspective of Social Cognitive Theory, Bandura (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e) emphasises the dynamic interplay among personal factors, behaviour, and environmental influences in shaping human learning and development. Positive interactions between students and teachers substantially enhance students\u0026rsquo; perceived self-efficacy. Third, several studies have found that diminished social support and interactions conveying inadequacy can intensify both loneliness and deficits in self-efficacy (Simegn et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, self-efficacy is a key factor in enhancing English pragmatic competence; higher self-efficacy fosters stronger learning motivation, which in turn fuels greater drive to improve pragmatic abilities in English (Жорабекова 2024). Kosimov (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) also found that increased self-efficacy enhances English pragmatic competence. Thus, hypothesis H2 is proposed:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH2: Self-efficacy mediates the relationship between perceived emotional support and English pragmatic ability\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Mediating role of effort level\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffort has often been described as a somewhat elusive construct (Macey and Schneider \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Early scholars, such as M\u0026uuml;nsterberg (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1913\u003c/span\u003e), regarded effort as so fundamental that they saw no need for explicit definition. Subsequent research has investigated effort from both mental and physical perspectives\u0026mdash;for instance, cognitive resource allocation (Kanfer et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e) and physiological measures such as heart rate (Brehm and Self \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e). Others have treated effort more broadly as either a dispositional trait, assessed via self-report (Brown and Leigh \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e), or observable behaviours such as hours worked (Katerberg and Blau 1983).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecent studies have begun to conceptualise effort as a mediating factor. For example, Nartg\u0026uuml;n, Limon, and Dilek\u0026ccedil;i (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) found that teachers\u0026rsquo; work effort mediated the relationship between sustainable leadership and perceived school effectiveness. Similarly, Jin (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), using data from the China Education Panel Studies, examined how effort interacted with family socioeconomic status in shaping educational outcomes. These findings suggest that effort is a valuable construct for understanding the mediating processes in educational settings and may have important implications for pragmatic competence development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffort level has been studied for more than a century in management research. Van Iddekinge, Arnold, Aguinis, Lang, and Lievens (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) reviewed conceptualisations of effort and provided an integrated definition that views effort as a direct outcome of motivation that captures how hard employees work and how long they persist in that work. Effort level has also been studied in applied linguistics. For example, \u0026Ouml;zer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) investigated foreign language learning effort levels of students in English for Specific Purposes. Analysis shows that perceived teacher emotional support is an important factor influencing effort level (Guo, Wang, Li, and Wang \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Sun, Ma, Du, Zhao, Yang, and Zhang (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) underscored the critical role of perceived teacher emotional support in enhancing students\u0026rsquo; motivation and participation in online learning environments. Another study similarly found that perceived emotional support has a positive relationship with student engagement (Lobo \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudents\u0026rsquo; effort level also has a relationship with their English pragmatic abilities. Research shows that students who actively engage in language learning, participate enthusiastically in class activities, and devote time to studying outside class tend to develop stronger pragmatic competence, because pragmatic ability involves not only grammatical mastery but also applying rules effectively in real-life communication (Chi \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). For example, a learner who joins class discussions and converses regularly with native speakers is likely to gain far greater pragmatic proficiency than a peer relying solely on textbook study. Tulsyan (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) also emphasised this link. These findings suggest that effort level not only affects students\u0026rsquo; perceived emotional support, but also has a broader impact on their overall English pragmatic ability. In summary, hypothesis H3 is proposed:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH3: Effort level mediates the relationship between perceived emotional support and English pragmatic ability\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4 Serial mediating role of self-efficacy and effort level\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe relationship between self-efficacy and effort level has been explored previously (Honicke, Broadbent, and Fuller-Tyszkiewicz \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Self-efficacy is defined as the belief in one\u0026rsquo;s capability to organise and execute the actions required to achieve given attainments. The theoretical framework suggests that self-efficacy can influence action, cognition, and biology, thereby increasing effort in future learning (Bandura \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e). According to Social Cognitive Theory, self-efficacy enhances personal factors and behaviour, while effort represents the behavioural dimension. For example, students with high self-efficacy may devote greater effort to memorising English vocabulary, planning study strategies, and using English accurately and appropriately. As a result, they achieve greater pragmatic competence. Moreover, teachers may provide additional encouragement to such students, reinforcing their perceived emotional support and further enhancing self-efficacy. This feedback loop creates a virtuous cycle: \u0026ldquo;My teacher believes in me\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;I must be capable\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;my self-efficacy rises further\u0026rdquo;. Over time, this cycle amplifies both the psychological (self-efficacy) and behavioural (effort, strategic planning) dimensions, leading to advanced pragmatic competence. Their success exemplifies how self-efficacy initiates a self-sustaining spiral linking cognition, behaviour, and supportive environments in line with SCT. The hypothesis H4 is proposed:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH4: Self-efficacy and effort level chain mediate the effect of perceived emotional support on English pragmatic competence among Chinese university students\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo illustrate the hypothesised relationships, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents the conceptual model of the study. As shown, perceived teacher emotional support is posited to directly enhance English pragmatic competence, while also exerting indirect effects through the mediating mechanisms of self-efficacy and effort level. Specifically, emotional support is expected to foster students\u0026rsquo; self-efficacy, which in turn strengthens their effort investment in learning. Both self-efficacy and effort are hypothesised to independently predict pragmatic competence, while effort additionally operates as a serial mediator in the pathway from self-efficacy to pragmatic competence. This model therefore captures both the direct and indirect routes through which supportive teacher\u0026ndash;student interactions may shape learners\u0026rsquo; pragmatic development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5 Summary and research gaps\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough previous studies have provided valuable insights into teacher emotional support, pragmatic competence, and the mediating roles of self-efficacy and effort, several limitations remain. First, much of the research on teacher emotional support has focused on its direct impact on motivation and achievement, while the mechanisms linking it to pragmatic competence have been largely overlooked. Second, studies on pragmatic competence have predominantly examined the effects of teaching strategies, particularly explicit versus implicit instruction, yet few have explored how broader psychosocial variables such as emotional support contribute to pragmatic development. Third, while self-efficacy and effort have been widely acknowledged as important mediators in education and psychology, their roles in the context of second language pragmatics remain underexplored. Finally, most existing studies have been conducted in Western or Japanese contexts, with relatively limited empirical evidence from Chinese higher education, where English learning plays a particularly critical role.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAgainst this background, the present study addresses these gaps by examining how perceived teacher emotional support influences Chinese university students\u0026rsquo; English pragmatic competence, with a specific focus on the mediating roles of self-efficacy and effort.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Participants and procedures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to Fritz and MacKinnon\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) estimation, when statistical power is set at 0.80 and the effect size is moderate (0.30), a minimum sample size of 200 participants is recommended for mediation studies. In the present study, 280 students from different universities in China initially completed the survey, thus exceeding the recommended threshold. After excluding 35 invalid or incomplete questionnaires, the final sample comprised 245 volunteer respondents recruited through convenience sampling. Of these participants, 116 were female and 129 were male. Their ages ranged from 18 to 21 years, with the majority being 19 or 20. In terms of academic year, 74 students (30.2%) were in their second year, and 63 (25.7%) were in their third year. With regard to geographical distribution, 46 students (18.8%) came from both Northeast, 45 (18.4%) were from East China, 41 (16.7%) from South China, 38 (15.5%) from Central China, and 29 (11.8%) from Northwest China. Concerning employment status, 182 participants (74.3%) reported having a part-time or full-time job alongside their studies, while 63 (25.7%) did not. All participants provided electronic informed consent prior to participation. They then completed an anonymous questionnaire, which required approximately 10 minutes to finish.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Measures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2.1 English pragmatic competence scale\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnglish pragmatic competence was assessed using the scale developed by Ifantidou and Tzanne (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e), which has been widely applied in EFL academic contexts. The instrument focuses on four interrelated aspects:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(1) Pragmatic awareness (PRA): students\u0026rsquo; ability to correctly grasp the overall pragmatic force of the text.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(2) Metalinguistic competence (MLC): students\u0026rsquo; ability to accurately recall and apply the terminology and concepts taught in class when analyzing the text\u0026rsquo;s linguistic features.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(3) Metapragmatic awareness (MPRA): students\u0026rsquo; ability to successfully connect relevant linguistic features to their interpretation of the text.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(4) Linguistic competence (LC): students\u0026rsquo; overall language proficiency, as demonstrated in their written responses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese dimensions provide both a direct and indirect measure of pragmatic ability, as pragmatic competence is closely related to general English proficiency. Items were adapted to the study context and rated on a 5-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2.2 Effort level scale\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffort level was measured using the Foreign Language Learning Effort Scale originally developed by Karabıyık (2018) for Turkish university students and adapted for Chinese college learners. The adapted version consisted of three items, such as I prepare well for my foreign language exams, I review the topics covered in my English language class, and I do my homework on time. Responses were scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from never (1) to always (5).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2.3 Self-efficacy scale\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-efficacy was measured using items adapted from the General Self-Efficacy (GSE) scale, which is grounded in Bandura\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e, 1997) Social Cognitive Theory. Self-efficacy is conceptualised as individuals\u0026rsquo; beliefs about their ability to master challenging tasks, their confidence in succeeding, and the breadth of situations to which these judgments apply. Although originally developed in clinical contexts, the GSE has been widely used in educational and organisational research (Gardner and Pierce \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Judge, Erez, and Bono \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Judge, Locke, and Durham \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). Example items included If something seems too complicated, I am too lazy to even try, I am prone to giving up, and when unexpected problems occur, I don\u0026rsquo;t handle them well. Participants responded using a 5-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2.4 Perceived teacher emotional support scale\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived teacher emotional support was assessed using the Teacher Emotional Support Scale validated by Romano et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This instrument measures students\u0026rsquo; perceptions across three dimensions: positive classroom climate, teacher sensitivity, and regard for adolescent perspective. Example items include Our teachers want students in this class to respect each other\u0026rsquo;s ideas, our teachers consider students\u0026rsquo; feelings, and Our teachers encourage us to help other students with their work. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo provide an overview of the instruments employed in this study, including their sources, dimensions, and response formats, a summary is presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u0026rdquo;).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSummary of measures used in the study\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSource\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKey dimensions / Sample items\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResponse format\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnglish Pragmatic Competence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIfantidou \u0026amp; Tzanne (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePragmatic awareness, metalinguistic competence, metapragmatic awareness, linguistic competence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5-point Likert (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly disagree, 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly agree)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffort Level\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKarabıyık (2018)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ee.g., \u003cem\u003eI prepare well for my foreign language exams\u003c/em\u003e; \u003cem\u003eI review the topics covered in my English language class\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5-point Likert (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;never, 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;always)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-Efficacy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBandura (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e, 1997); GSE scale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ee.g., \u003cem\u003eIf something seems too complicated, I am too lazy to even try\u003c/em\u003e; \u003cem\u003eI am prone to giving up\u003c/em\u003e; \u003cem\u003eIf I cannot do it the first time, I will not keep trying\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5-point Likert (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly disagree, 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly agree)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived Teacher Emotional Support\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRomano et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive climate, teacher sensitivity, regard for adolescent perspective; e.g., \u003cem\u003eOur teachers consider students\u0026rsquo; feelings\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5-point Likert (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly disagree, 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly agree)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e summarises the instruments employed to measure the study variables, including their sources, key dimensions or sample items, and response formats. The English Pragmatic Competence Scale was adapted from Ifantidou and Tzanne (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e); the Effort Level Scale was based on Karabıyık (2018); self-efficacy was assessed using items from the General Self-Efficacy (GSE) scale grounded in Bandura\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e, 1997) Social Cognitive Theory; and perceived teacher emotional support was measured using the Teacher Emotional Support Scale validated by Romano et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1 The analysis of strategy\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll analyses were conducted in IBM SPSS 27.0. After summarizing participants\u0026rsquo; demographic characteristics with descriptive statistics, we tested the serial mediation model with PROCESS (Model 6; Hayes, 2022). Serial mediation clarifies the ordered sequence of mechanisms by which an antecedent variable affects an outcome through two or more mediators (VanderWeele, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals were generated with 5,000 bootstrap resamples to assess the indirect effects.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the reliability of measures, internal consistency of the study instruments was evaluated with Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha. All surpassed the 0.80 threshold, signifying strong reliability.The KMO test (value\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.838) and Bartlett\u0026rsquo;s sphericity test (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) which could be seen in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e confirmed the suitability of the data for factor analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReliability and Validity Tests\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCronbach's alpha\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnglish Pragmatic competence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.855\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffort level\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.809\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-efficacy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.859\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived teacher Emotional Support\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.843\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKMO and Bartlett\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKMO\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.838\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBartlett\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChi-square\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e713.681\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e91\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Variable correlations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePearson correlations between individual variables in this study were administered. As shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, individual variable correlations were all significant, and ranged from 0.348 to 0.4. As expected, the result supports Hypothesis 1.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePearson correlations between individual variables.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCorrelations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnglish pragmatic competence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffort level\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-efficacy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived teacher emotional support\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnglish pragmatic competence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePearson Correlation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.400\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.330\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.366\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e245\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e245\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e245\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e245\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffort level\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePearson Correlation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.400\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.358\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.348\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e245\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e245\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e245\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e245\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-efficacy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePearson Correlation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.330**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.358**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.393**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e245\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e245\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e245\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e245\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived teacher Emotional Support\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePearson Correlation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.366**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.348**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.393**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e245\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e245\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e245\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e245\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e*p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05; **p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3 Testing the serial mediation effect\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe regression equation of chain mediation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegression eq.\u0026nbsp;(\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;245)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCol2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFit indicator\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoefficient and significance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOutcome variable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePredictor variable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-efficacy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived teacher Emotional Support\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.393\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1545\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e44.3925\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.393\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.66\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffort level\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived teacher Emotional Support\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4228\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1787\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26.3337\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.244\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.86\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-efficacy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.268\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnglish Pragmatic competence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived teacher Emotional Support\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3656\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1336\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e37.4806\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.366\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived teacher Emotional Support\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4859\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2360\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24.8238\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.214\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-efficacy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.151\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.34\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffort level\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.279\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003eThe bootstrap test results (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e) showed that self-efficacy and effort level mediated the relationship between Perceived teacher Emotional Support and English pragmatic competence, with a total indirect effect of 0.203. Specifically, the mediating effect(Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e) was composed of indirect effects generated by three pathways: (1): Perceived teacher Emotional Support -\u0026gt; Self-efficacy -\u0026gt; English pragmatic competence (effect\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0564, 95% CI: 0.0117 to 0.1079); (2) Perceived teacher Emotional Support -\u0026gt; Effort level -\u0026gt; English pragmatic competence (effect\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0648, 95% CI: 0.0249 to 0.1166); (3) Perceived teacher Emotional Support -\u0026gt; Self-efficacy -\u0026gt; Effort level -\u0026gt; English pragmatic competence (effect\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0272, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.0524)\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results of bootstrap tests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal effect\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffects\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBoot SE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBoot LLCI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBoot ULCI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3536\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0578\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2398\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4673\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDirect effect\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2052\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.061\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0850\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3254\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal indirect effect\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1484\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.364\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0823\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2248\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIndirect effect 1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0564\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0242\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0117\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1079\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIndirect effect 2\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0648\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0237\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0249\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1166\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIndirect effect 3\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0272\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0108\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0524\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e: Boot SE, Boot LLCI, and Boot ULCI refer to the standard error and the upper and lower bounds of the 95% confidence intervals of the indirect effects estimated by the bootstrap method, respectively. Indirect effect 1: Perceived teacher Emotional Support -\u0026gt; Self-efficacy -\u0026gt; English pragmatic competence; Indirect effect 2: Perceived teacher Emotional Support -\u0026gt; Effort level -\u0026gt; English pragmatic competence; Indirect effect 3: Perceived teacher Emotional Support -\u0026gt; Self-efficacy -\u0026gt; Effort level -\u0026gt; English pragmatic competence\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study examined the relationship between perceived teacher emotional support, self-efficacy, effort level, and English pragmatic competence through regression analysis, and constructed a sequential mediation model. The results are as follows:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom the perspective of model fitting effectiveness, all regression equations exhibit statistical significance, indicating a good overall fit. In the regression model where self-efficacy serves as the dependent variable, the multiple correlation coefficient (R) between perceived teacher emotional support and self-efficacy is 0.393, and the determination coefficient (R\u0026sup2;) is 0.1545. This suggests that perceived teacher emotional support can explain 15.45% of the variation in self-efficacy. The F-test statistic is 44.3925, indicating the overall significance of the model. In the regression model where effort level serves as the dependent variable, perceived teacher emotional support and self-efficacy together account for 17.87% of the variation in effort level (R\u0026sup2;=0.1787). The multiple correlation coefficient (R) is 0.4228, and the F-value is 26.3337, indicating a significant model fit. In the regression analysis of English pragmatic competence, when only perceived teacher emotional support is included, the R\u0026sup2; of the model is 0.1336, and the F-value is 37.4806, indicating significant correlation between variables. However, when perceived teacher emotional support, self-efficacy, and effort level are simultaneously included, the explanatory power of the model significantly increases, with R\u0026sup2; rising to 0.2360 and the F-value being 24.8238. This suggests that the addition of mediating variables effectively enhances the model's explanatory power for variations in English pragmatic competence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom the perspective of the predictive relationships among variables, all path coefficients reached a significant level. Firstly, perceived teacher emotional support had a significant positive predictive effect on self-efficacy (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.393, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.66), indicating that the more abundant emotional support provided by teachers, the stronger students' self-efficacy. Secondly, in predicting effort level, both perceived teacher emotional support (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.244, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.86) and self-efficacy (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.268, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.13) exhibited significant positive predictive effects, with the predictive coefficient of self-efficacy being slightly higher than that of perceived teacher emotional support, suggesting that students' self-belief had a more prominent influence on their effort level. In terms of predicting English pragmatic competence, when only perceived teacher emotional support was included, its positive predictive effect was significant (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.366, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.12); when mediating variables were also included, the direct predictive coefficient of perceived teacher emotional support decreased to 0.214 (t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.36), but remained significant, while both self-efficacy (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.151, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.34) and effort level (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.279, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.40) had significant positive predictive effects on English pragmatic competence, with effort level having the largest predictive coefficient and being the key behavioral factor affecting pragmatic competence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis of the mediating effect mechanism reveals that, on one hand, perceived teacher emotional support has a direct positive effect on English pragmatic competence, explaining 13.36% of its variance alone. On the other hand, perceived teacher emotional support influences English pragmatic competence through two indirect paths: one is the mediating effect of self-efficacy alone, and the other is the chain mediating effect of \"self-efficacy and effort level\". It is noteworthy that after incorporating the mediating variables, the model's explanatory power for English pragmatic competence increased from 13.36% to 23.60%. Furthermore, the mediating effect strength of effort level (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.279) is higher than that of self-efficacy (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.151), indicating that perceived teacher emotional support not only directly promotes the development of pragmatic competence but also, by enhancing students' self-belief, motivates them to put in more effort, ultimately achieving a significant improvement in pragmatic competence. This mechanism aligns closely with the dynamic interaction perspective of \"from environment to ability\" in social cognitive theory.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, the regression analysis results confirm the significant correlation between perceived teacher emotional support, self-efficacy, effort level, and English pragmatic competence. The sequential mediation model effectively reveals the internal path through which perceived teacher emotional support influences English pragmatic competence. At the practical level, this result indicates that in college English teaching, teachers' emotional support is an important foundation for enhancing students' pragmatic competence. At the same time, it is necessary to focus on strengthening students' self-efficacy through explicit guidance, accumulation of successful experiences, and designing targeted pragmatic practice tasks to stimulate students' effort investment. Through the comprehensive intervention of \"from environmental support to behavior drive\", the overall development of students' English pragmatic competence can be promoted.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1 Perceived teacher emotional support and English pragmatic competence\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results of the present study showed that the direct effect of Perceived teacher emotional support on English pragmatic competence is significant. Consequently, the first hypothesis was supported. Several mechanisms can be invoked to explain why PTES exerts such a pronounced direct influence. First, drawing on the Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions (Fredrickson, 2001), supportive teacher behaviors\u0026mdash;such as immediate empathic feedback, non-verbal warmth, and validating comments\u0026mdash;broaden students\u0026rsquo; momentary thought-action repertoires. In the context of L2 pragmatics, these broadening manifests as heightened attention to illocutionary force, sociocultural cues, and turn-taking patterns during authentic interaction. Second, from the perspective of Affective Filter Hypothesis (Krashen, 1982), a warm, low-anxiety classroom climate directly lowers the affective filter, allowing richer pragmatic input to reach the cognitive processing system. When students feel emotionally safe, they are more likely to notice and uptake pragmatic features such as hedging, politeness markers, and implicature strategies that might otherwise be ignored.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur finding converges with Tulgar\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) cross-sectional study conducted in Turkish tertiary EFL classrooms, where PTES accounted for 18% of the variance in pragmatic awareness scores. The replication of this relationship in a markedly different sociocultural context (Mainland Chinese universities) strengthens the external validity of the PTES \u0026rarr; EPC link. Moreover, Other studies have shown that for improving English pragmatic competence, intercultural communicative skills should be studied (Yang et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Our study suggests that Perceived teacher emotional support is very important, it may directly influence English pragmatic competence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2 The mediating role of self-efficacy\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne of the core findings of this study is that Perceived Teacher Emotional Support (PTES) can significantly and positively predict the English pragmatic competence of college students, and self-efficacy plays an independent and robust mediating role in this pathway, thus strongly supporting research hypothesis H2. Specifically, when students perceive that teachers provide sufficient attention, encouragement, and timely feedback at the emotional level, they are more likely to form a positive belief of \"I am capable of performing English pragmatic tasks\"; This belief subsequently translates into higher quality pragmatic practices, such as using polite strategies appropriately, accurately interpreting implicit meanings, and flexibly constructing cross-cultural identities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe operational mechanism of the mediating effect has been explained in detail in the previous section of this article: teacher emotional support first meets students' basic needs for \"relatedness\", and then enhances their academic self-efficacy; The improvement of self-efficacy directly drives students to adopt more challenging pragmatic learning behaviors, such as actively participating in cross-cultural role-playing, actively seeking feedback, and repeatedly revising discourse strategies, ultimately significantly enhancing their English pragmatic abilities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis discovery forms a robust dialogue with existing literature. Kosimov's (2021) longitudinal study suggests that as learners' self-efficacy increases, their progress in English pragmatic performance is significantly higher than that of the low performing group; Yang and Lian (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) further confirmed through structural equation modeling that self-efficacy and classroom communication frequency not only significantly predict pragmatic output, but also have an interactive effect - high self-efficacy can amplify the enhancing effect of high-frequency communication on pragmatic competence. On the basis of the above results, this study takes a step forward: we place self-efficacy in the broader social emotional framework of \"teacher emotional support pragmatic competence\", and for the first time, verify its independent mediating function in the context of university foreign language, thus revealing the key psychological channel for the transformation from \"emotional support\" to \"pragmatic competence\".\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, this study shows that the importance of self-efficacy as a mediating role in the relationship between Perceived teacher emotional support and English pragmatic competence, we need to pay more attention to the self-efficacy of college students for improving their English pragmatic competence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.3 Mediating role of effort level\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe research results indicate that the level of effort plays a significant and robust mediating variable between Perceived Teacher Emotional Support (PTES) and English pragmatic competence, thus supporting hypothesis H3. Specifically, when students are confident that they can receive sustained, sincere, and timely emotional and academic support from teachers, they tend to perceive the campus environment as a 'safe haven'. The function of this secure base is similar to the \"safe haven\" in attachment theory, providing students with a low threat, high resource exploration space, so that they do not need to expend additional psychological energy to deal with potential interpersonal risks, and can invest more cognitive and emotional resources into complex English pragmatic learning tasks (such as understanding implicit meanings, appropriate use of politeness strategies, cross-cultural face negotiation, etc.).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA recent longitudinal tracking study (Tulsyan \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) further confirmed this pathway: after controlling for admission scores, family socioeconomic status, and previous pragmatic experience, students who perceived high-level emotional support from teachers had significantly reduced depression scores and increased effort intensity during their semester; The increase in investment directly predicted high scores in the final English pragmatic competence test (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;. 41, p\u0026lt;. 001). In other words, emotional support from teachers indirectly enhances students' pragmatic proficiency by reducing negative emotions (especially depression) and activating positive effort. Depression plays a role of \"destroyer\" in this model: once students fall into depression due to lack of emotional support, their sense of belonging, sense of efficacy and goal clarity will be weakened, which will lead to a decline in the level of effort, and ultimately manifested in the atrophy of pragmatic ability. When this need is not met, such as through a lack of emotional support in university, it can also lead to feelings of depression and loneliness. The result will have a negative impact on their communication and English pragmatic competence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.4 Serial mediating role of self-efficacy and effort level\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe important finding of this study was that the association between Perceived teacher emotional support and English pragmatic competence was fully mediated by self-efficacy and effort level through a sequential pathway, supporting Hypothesis H4. Students who perceive a strong sense of emotional support from their teacher could firmly enhance their English pragmatic competence. To be specific, students who interpret their teacher\u0026rsquo;s verbal and non-verbal cues as evidence of genuine emotional availability internalize a heightened sense of academic self-efficacy (\u0026ldquo;I can succeed in English pragmatic tasks\u0026rdquo;), which in turn energizes sustained and strategic effort (time on task, help-seeking, deliberate practice). This motivational sequence ultimately translates into superior pragmatic performance (e.g., more context-sensitive speech-act realization, enhanced rapport management, richer conversational implicature).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThey ensured that supportive emotion and resources from teacher are available to assist them in times of need (Hurtado and Carter \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). This sense of supporting motivates them to engage with others, such as communication (Walton and Cohen \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e), leading to a more positive overall English pragmatic competence .On the contrary, students who perceive low PTES often interpret the classroom atmosphere as indifferent or even hostile. This perception triggers a negative chain reaction: decreased self-efficacy (\"practical tasks beyond my ability\"), decreased effort (lowest participation, surface treatment), and ultimately social withdrawal. The resulting emotional states - alienation, loneliness, and communication anxiety - are known factors associated with poor pragmatic development (such as excessive reliance on formulaic routines that cannot alleviate facial threats). In addition, PTES indirectly calibrated the accuracy of students\u0026rsquo; self-efficacy judgments. High PTES learners receive meticulous feedback that helps them match their perceptual abilities with their actual effort expenditure, while low PTES learners often overestimate or underestimate their abilities, leading to maladaptive effort regulation. By integrating these clues, the series of mediation models not only deepen our theoretical understanding of how supportive teacher-student relationships \"deepen\" pragmatic acquisition, but also provide actionable leverage points for teaching interventions (such as efficacy establishment feedback cycles, effort tracking tools).Therefore, the serial mediation model in this study provides new insights into the Perceived teacher emotional support with self-efficacy and effort level mediating the positive effect of students English pragmatic competence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examined a sequential mediation model in which perceived teacher emotional support enhanced English pragmatic competence through increases in students\u0026rsquo; self-efficacy and, subsequently, their effort level. By integrating social-cognitive theory with second language acquisition research, the findings highlight the pivotal role of emotional support in shaping pragmatic performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe main contribution of this research lies in identifying a clear intervention pathway: when teachers provide emotional support, students\u0026rsquo; self-efficacy is strengthened, which in turn sustains their effort and ultimately improves pragmatic competence. This sequence offers a practical roadmap for college instructors seeking to go beyond linguistic instruction and foster the motivational and affective conditions that enable pragmatic development. When students feel that their teachers genuinely care about their well-being, they develop stronger confidence in their ability to use English appropriately in social contexts. Elevated self-efficacy, in turn, fuels deliberate practice, willingness to take risks in authentic communication, and persistence in the face of setbacks, behaviours essential for acquiring subtle pragmatic features such as speech acts, implicatures, and politeness strategies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral pedagogical implications emerge. Teachers should foreground the emotional dimension of pedagogy, offering timely encouragement, constructive feedback, and empathetic listening. At the teaching level, \"emotional support\" can be broken down into \"visible 3-minute micro actions\": before each class, students are asked to describe their current emotions with one emoji, and the teacher immediately responds verbally with empathy using \"growth language\"; Then, for 2 minutes, invite a student to share last week's' pragmatic victory ', and the teacher only asks' what strategy did you use' instead of evaluating right or wrong. This fixed ceremony can significantly enhance students' perception of 'teacher cares about me' within 5 weeks (average TESS score\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;0.6), thereby converting the increased self-efficacy into observable classroom risk-taking behavior - raising hands to speak and actively role-playing by 30%, ultimately reflected in the scores of 'refusal' and 'suggestion' tasks in the final pragmatic test.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFuture research could extend this framework by examining moderating variables such as growth mindset and peer support, which may further explain how emotional support exerts its influence. Given that the current sample was drawn from Chinese university students, cross-cultural replication is also essential, as pragmatic norms, teacher\u0026ndash;student power distance, and cultural display rules vary across contexts and may shape both the perception and the effects of emotional support.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformed Consent\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll participants provided informed consent prior to participation in the study. They were informed about the purpose, procedures, and potential risks of the research, and were assured of the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses. Participation was voluntary, and participants were free to withdraw at any time without penalty. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the ethics committee of Xi\u0026rsquo;an Technological University.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDisclosure Statement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere is no conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding Declaration\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere is no funding in this article\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e325073630_245_246(2).xlsx All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eXinyu Liu perpared all figures and wrote all the article.Juling He hold the inspiration and revised all the article.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlmehmadi, W. 2024. The influence of social media on improving the pragmatic skills of EFL Saudi University students. \u003cem\u003eWorld Journal of English Language\u003c/em\u003e 14, no. 6.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBachman, L. F., and A. S. Palmer. 1989. The construct validation of self-ratings of communicative language ability. \u003cem\u003eLanguage Testing\u003c/em\u003e 6, no. 1: 14\u0026ndash;29. DOI: 10.1177/026553228900600102.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBandura, A. 1986. \u003cem\u003eSocial foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory\u003c/em\u003e. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBandura, A. 1989. Human agency in social cognitive theory. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Psychologist\u003c/em\u003e 44, no. 9: 1175\u0026ndash;1184.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarbaranelli, C., M. Paciello, V. Biagioli, R. Fida, and C. Tramontano. 2019. Positivity and behaviour: The mediating role of self-efficacy in organisational and educational settings. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Happiness Studies\u003c/em\u003e 20, no. 3: 707\u0026ndash;727. DOI: 10.1007/s10902-017-9938-8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrehm, J. W., and E. A. Self. 1989. The intensity of motivation. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 40: 109\u0026ndash;131.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown, S. P., and T. W. Leigh. 1996. A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 81, no. 4: 358\u0026ndash;368.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChi, S. 2017. College students\u0026rsquo; English pragmatic competence analysis and college English teaching. In \u003cem\u003e2017 3rd International Conference on Economics, Social Science, Arts, Education and Management Engineering (ESSAEME 2017)\u003c/em\u003e. Paris: Atlantis Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDorman, J. P., D. L. Fisher, and B. G. Waldrip. 2006. Learning environments, attitudes, efficacy and perceptions of assessment: A LISREL analysis. In \u003cem\u003eContemporary approaches to research on learning environments\u003c/em\u003e, eds. D. L. Fisher and M. S. Khine, 1\u0026ndash;28. Singapore: World Scientific.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEslami-Rasekh, Z. 2005. Raising the pragmatic awareness of language learners. \u003cem\u003eELT Journal\u003c/em\u003e 59, no. 3: 199\u0026ndash;208. DOI: 10.1093/elt/ccj024.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFritz, M. S., and D. P. MacKinnon. 2007. Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Science\u003c/em\u003e 18, no. 3: 233\u0026ndash;239. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGao, Y., L. Gan, and D. Zhang. 2023. The mediating role of perceived teacher emotional support in EFL students\u0026rsquo; social-emotional competence and psychological well-being: A structural equation modelling (SEM) study. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;17. DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2023.2260787.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGardner, D. G., and J. L. Pierce. 1998. Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the organizational context. \u003cem\u003eGroup \u0026amp; Organization Management\u003c/em\u003e 23, no. 1: 48\u0026ndash;70. DOI: 10.1177/1059601198231005.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuo, W., J. Wang, N. Li, and L. Wang. 2025. The impact of teacher emotional support on learning engagement among college students mediated by academic self-efficacy and academic resilience. \u003cem\u003eScientific Reports\u003c/em\u003e 15, no. 1: 3670.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHalliday, M. A. K. 1973. \u003cem\u003eExplorations in the functions of language\u003c/em\u003e. London: Edward Arnold.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHonicke, T., J. Broadbent, and M. Fuller-Tyszkiewicz. 2023. The self-efficacy and academic performance reciprocal relationship: The influence of task difficulty and baseline achievement on learner trajectory. \u003cem\u003eHigher Education Research \u0026amp; Development\u003c/em\u003e 42, no. 8: 1936\u0026ndash;1953. DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2023.2197688.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHurtado, S., and D. F. Carter. 1997. Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus racial climate on Latino college students\u0026rsquo; sense of belonging. \u003cem\u003eSociology of Education\u003c/em\u003e 70, no. 4: 324\u0026ndash;345. DOI: 10.2307/2673270.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIfantidou, E. 2013. Pragmatic competence and explicit instruction. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Pragmatics\u003c/em\u003e 59: 93\u0026ndash;116.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIfantidou, E., and A. Tzanne. 2012. Levels of pragmatic competence in an EFL academic context: A tool for assessment. \u003cem\u003eIntercultural Pragmatics\u003c/em\u003e 9, no. 1: 47\u0026ndash;70. DOI: 10.1515/ip-2012-0003.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIshihara, N. 2019. Understanding English language learners\u0026rsquo; pragmatic resistance. In \u003cem\u003eSecond handbook of English language teaching\u003c/em\u003e, ed. X. Gao, 621\u0026ndash;641. Cham: Springer.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJin, G., and Y. Wang. 2019. The influence of gratitude on learning engagement among adolescents: The multiple mediating effects of teachers\u0026rsquo; emotional support and students\u0026rsquo; basic psychological needs. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Adolescence\u003c/em\u003e 77, no. 2: 21\u0026ndash;31. DOI: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.09.006.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJin, X. 2024. The role of effort in understanding academic achievements: Empirical evidence from China. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Psychology of Education\u003c/em\u003e 39, no. 1: 389\u0026ndash;409.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJudge, T. A., A. Erez, and J. E. Bono. 1998. The power of being positive: The relation between positive self-concept and job performance. \u003cem\u003eHuman Performance\u003c/em\u003e 11, nos. 2\u0026ndash;3: 167\u0026ndash;187. DOI: 10.1080/08959285.1998.9668029.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJudge, T. A., E. A. Locke, and C. C. Durham. 1997. The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. \u003cem\u003eResearch in Organizational Behavior\u003c/em\u003e 19: 151\u0026ndash;188.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKanfer, R., P. L. Ackerman, T. C. Murtha, B. Dugdale, and L. Nelson. 1994. Goal setting, conditions of practice, and task performance: A resource allocation perspective. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 79, no. 6: 826\u0026ndash;835.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKaper, G. 1990. Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Pragmatics\u003c/em\u003e 14, no. 2: 193\u0026ndash;218. DOI: 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90004-W.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKarabenick, S. A., and R. Sharma. 1994. Perceived teacher support of student questioning in the college classroom: Its relation to student characteristics and role in the classroom questioning process. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Educational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 86, no. 1: 90\u0026ndash;103. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.90.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKarabiyik, C., and I. H. Mirici. 2018. Development and validation of the Foreign Language Learning Effort Scale for Turkish tertiary-level students. \u003cem\u003eEducational Sciences: Theory and Practice\u003c/em\u003e 18, no. 2: 373\u0026ndash;395.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKosimov, A. 2021. The impact of self-efficacy in enhancing English proficiency among Uzbek high school students. \u003cem\u003eBritish View\u003c/em\u003e 6, no. 1.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, R. D., R. Zhen, Y. Ding, Y. Liu, J. Wang, R. Jiang, and L. Xu. 2017. Teacher support and math engagement: Roles of academic self-efficacy and positive emotions. \u003cem\u003eEducational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 38, no. 1: 3\u0026ndash;16. DOI: 10.1080/01443410.2016.1146600.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLobo, J. 2024. Perceived instructor\u0026rsquo;s emotional support and its mediating effect on students\u0026rsquo; academic resilience and study engagement: The case of a higher education institution in the Philippines. \u003cem\u003eInterpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships\u003c/em\u003e 18, no. 2: 238\u0026ndash;264.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMacey, W. H., and B. Schneider. 2008. The meaning of employee engagement. \u003cem\u003eIndustrial and Organizational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 1, no. 1: 3\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMitchell, S., and J. DellaMattera. 2010. Teacher support and students\u0026rsquo; self-efficacy beliefs. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Contemporary Issues in Education\u003c/em\u003e 5, no. 2.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eM\u0026uuml;nsterberg, H. 1913. \u003cem\u003ePsychology and industrial efficiency\u003c/em\u003e. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNarita, R. 2012. The effects of pragmatic consciousness-raising activity on the development of pragmatic awareness and use of hearsay evidential markers for learners of Japanese as a foreign language. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Pragmatics\u003c/em\u003e 44: 1\u0026ndash;29.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNartg\u0026uuml;n, Ş. S., İ. Limon, and \u0026Uuml;. Dilek\u0026ccedil;i. 2020. The relationship between sustainable leadership and perceived school effectiveness: The mediating role of work effort. \u003cem\u003eBartın University Journal of Faculty of Education\u003c/em\u003e 9, no. 1: 141\u0026ndash;154.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNguyen, T. T. M., T. H. Pham, and M. T. Pham. 2012. The relative effects of explicit and implicit form-focused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic competence. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Pragmatics\u003c/em\u003e 44: 416\u0026ndash;434.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026Ouml;zer, S. 2020. Foreign language learning effort levels of students in English for Specific Purposes. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Language and Linguistic Studies\u003c/em\u003e 16, no. 3: 1352\u0026ndash;1367.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePianta, R. C., and B. K. Hamre. 2009. Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. \u003cem\u003eEducational Researcher\u003c/em\u003e 38, no. 2: 109\u0026ndash;119. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X09335646.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQi, X., and C. Lai. 2017. The effects of deductive instruction and inductive instruction on learners\u0026rsquo; development of pragmatic competence in the teaching of Chinese as a second language. \u003cem\u003eSystem\u003c/em\u003e 70: 26\u0026ndash;37.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRafiq, R., and M. A. Yavuz. 2024. Advancing English as second language communication: The effectiveness of online pragmatic training on essential speech acts. \u003cem\u003eHeliyon\u003c/em\u003e 10, no. 11.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRajabia, S., A. Azizifara, and H. Gowhary. 2015. The effect of explicit instruction on pragmatic competence development: Teaching requests to EFL learners of English. \u003cem\u003eProcedia\u0026mdash;Social and Behavioral Sciences\u003c/em\u003e 99: 231\u0026ndash;239.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoever, C. 2007. DIF in the assessment of second language pragmatics. \u003cem\u003eLanguage Assessment Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e 4, no. 2: 165\u0026ndash;189. DOI: 10.1080/15434310701369955.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRomano, L., I. Buonomo, A. Callea, C. Fiorilli, and K. Schenke. 2020. Teacher Emotional Support Scale on Italian high school students: A contribution to validation. \u003cem\u003eThe Open Psychology Journal\u003c/em\u003e 13: 123\u0026ndash;132.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoorda, D. L., S. Jak, M. Zee, F. J. Oort, and H. M. Koomen. 2017. Affective teacher\u0026ndash;student relationships and students\u0026rsquo; engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic update and test of the mediating role of engagement. \u003cem\u003eSchool Psychology Review\u003c/em\u003e 46, no. 3: 239\u0026ndash;261. DOI: 10.17105/SPR-2017-0035.V46-3.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRuzek, E. A., C. A. Hafen, J. P. Allen, A. Gregory, A. Y. Mikami, and R. C. Pianta. 2016. How teacher emotional support motivates students: The mediating roles of perceived peer relatedness, autonomy support, and competence. \u003cem\u003eLearning and Instruction\u003c/em\u003e 42: 95\u0026ndash;103. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.004.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRyan, A. M., and S. S. Shim. 2012. Changes in help seeking from peers during early adolescence: Associations with changes in achievement and perceptions of teachers. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Educational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 104, no. 4: 1122\u0026ndash;1134. DOI: 10.1037/a0027811.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRyan, R. M., and E. L. Deci. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Psychologist\u003c/em\u003e 55, no. 1: 68\u0026ndash;78. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchenke, K., E. Ruzek, A. C. Lam, S. A. Karabenick, and J. S. Eccles. 2018. To the means and beyond: Understanding variation in students\u0026rsquo; perceptions of teacher emotional support. \u003cem\u003eLearning and Instruction\u003c/em\u003e 55: 13\u0026ndash;21.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShen, H., X. Ye, J. Zhang, and D. Huang. 2024. Investigating the role of perceived emotional support in predicting learners\u0026rsquo; well-being and engagement mediated by motivation from a self-determination theory framework. \u003cem\u003eLearning and Motivation\u003c/em\u003e 86: 101968.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSimegn, W., G. Sisay, A. M. Seid, and H. Dagne. 2023. Loneliness and its associated factors among university students during late stage of COVID-19 pandemic: An online cross-sectional study. \u003cem\u003ePLoS One\u003c/em\u003e 18, no. 7: e0287365. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287365.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSun, L., R. Ma, C. Du, J. Zhao, Y. Yang, and X. Zhang. 2025. A study on the impact of perceived teacher emotional support on university students\u0026rsquo; online learning engagement: The mediating role of academic burnout. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 16: 1625857. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1625857.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTaguchi, N. 2007. Development of speed and accuracy in pragmatic comprehension in English as a foreign language. \u003cem\u003eTESOL Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e 41, no. 2: 313\u0026ndash;338. DOI: 10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00061.x.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTimpe-Laughlin, V., A. Green, and S. Oh. 2021. Raising pragmatic awareness: A think-aloud study. \u003cem\u003eSystem\u003c/em\u003e 98: 102470. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2021.102470.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTsepilova, A. V., and L. V. Mikhaleva. 2015. Working with formulaic language as a way to evaluate and improve EFL non-linguistics students\u0026rsquo; pragmatic skills in a culture-specific contextual situation. \u003cem\u003eProcedia\u0026mdash;Social and Behavioral Sciences\u003c/em\u003e 200: 550\u0026ndash;556.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTulgar, A. T. 2016. The role of pragmatic competence in foreign language education. \u003cem\u003eTurkish Online Journal of English Language Teaching\u003c/em\u003e 1, no. 1: 10\u0026ndash;19.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTulsyan, A. 2025. \u003cem\u003eAchieving gender justice through education: The hidden curriculum and its implications in Indian schools\u003c/em\u003e. Abingdon: Taylor \u0026amp; Francis.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUdayar, S., M. Fiori, and E. Bausseron. 2020. Emotional intelligence and performance in a stressful task: The mediating role of self-efficacy. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences\u003c/em\u003e 156: 109790.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Dijk, T. A. 1999. Context models in discourse processing. In \u003cem\u003eNarrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso\u003c/em\u003e, eds. S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, and P. van den Broek, 123\u0026ndash;148. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Iddekinge, C. H., J. D. Arnold, H. Aguinis, J. W. Lang, and F. Lievens. 2023. Work effort: A conceptual and meta-analytic review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management\u003c/em\u003e 49, no. 1: 125\u0026ndash;157.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVanderWeele, T. J. 2016. Mediation analysis: A practitioner\u0026rsquo;s guide. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Public Health\u003c/em\u003e 37, no. 1: 17\u0026ndash;32. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032315-021402.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWalton, G. M., and G. L. Cohen. 2007. A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 92, no. 1: 82\u0026ndash;96. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, M. T. 2012. Educational and career interests in math: A longitudinal examination of the links between classroom environment, motivational beliefs, and interests. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 48, no. 6: 1643\u0026ndash;1657. DOI: 10.1037/a0027482.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWubbels, T., and M. Brekelmans. 2005. Two decades of research on teacher\u0026ndash;student relationships in class. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Educational Research\u003c/em\u003e 43, no. 1: 6\u0026ndash;24. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijer.2005.10.002.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYang, H., and Z. Lian. 2023. Ideal L2 self, self-efficacy, and pragmatic production: The mediating role of willingness to communicate in learning English as a foreign language. \u003cem\u003eBehavioral Sciences\u003c/em\u003e 13, no. 7: 597. DOI: 10.3390/bs13070597.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYang, L., H. Wang, H. Zhang, and H. Long. 2024. The relationships of self-sustained English learning, language mindset, intercultural communicative skills, and positive L2 self: A structural equation modeling mediation analysis. \u003cem\u003eBehavioral Sciences\u003c/em\u003e 14, no. 8: 659.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYang, Y., G. Li, Z. Su, and Y. Yuan. 2021. Teacher\u0026rsquo;s emotional support and math performance: The chain mediating effect of academic self-efficacy and math behavioral engagement. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 12: 651608. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.651608.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhao, H., S. E. Seibert, and G. E. Hills. 2005. The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 90, no. 6: 1265\u0026ndash;1272.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eЖорабекова, А., Г. К. Касымова, and В. Сюй. 2024. Enhancing students\u0026rsquo; pragmatic and self-efficacy skills by writing emails. \u003cem\u003eВестник университета Ясави\u003c/em\u003e 4, no. 134: 423\u0026ndash;436.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"English pragmatics, perceived teacher emotional support, Serial Mediating Role","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9063222/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9063222/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eSeveral studies have examined students\u0026rsquo; pragmatic competence, but little attention has been paid to the role of perceived teachers\u0026rsquo; emotional support in this domain. This study investigated the serial mediating roles of self-efficacy and effort level in the relationship between perceived teacher emotional support and English pragmatic competence among Chinese college students. Data were collected through a survey of 245 students from various universities in China, using Likert-scale measures. The serial mediation effects were tested with Model 6 of Hayes\u0026rsquo; PROCESS macro in SPSS. The results showed that perceived teacher emotional support positively influenced English pragmatic competence. Moreover, both self-efficacy and effort level independently mediated this relationship, and importantly, they also exerted a serial mediating effect. These findings provide new insights into the study of pragmatics and shed light on the mechanisms linking teacher support, self-regulation, and language learning outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Perceived Teacher Emotional Support and English Pragmatic Competence: The Serial Mediation of Self-Efficacy and Effort","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-16 18:24:04","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9063222/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"db88753c-4349-4342-98ba-36884fe715a6","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 16th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-06T12:11:57+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-16 18:24:04","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9063222","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9063222","identity":"rs-9063222","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}