不同水平学习者在显性教导下对英语请求语的习得
|
摘要
本研究的焦点在于调查不同英语水平的学习者在显性教导的条件下习得英语请求语的情况。本研究选取了48名大学生作为实验对象。根据他们学习英语的年限和水平测试的分数将他们分为高水平和低水平两个实验小组。采取前后测的方法,通过话语完形法收集了数据。实验结果表明,在显性教导后,两组实验对象在请求语的分布与前侧相比都有了改变。低水平学习者在请求语的习得方面要好于高水平的学习者,因为低水平的学习者明显地减少了直接请求语的使用,并大量增加了暗示的使用,而高水平的学习者减少了间接请求语的使用,增加了直接请求语的使用和暗示的使用。高水平学习者增加的暗示的数目要远远少于低水平学习者增加的数目。实验最显著的一个结果也正是在暗示的习得方面。在中介语语用习得的研究中,暗示似乎是不可教也很难习得的一种请求语。但是在本研究中,两组实验对象都在暗示语的习得中有着很明显的进步。Schmidt(1993)提出学习者必须注意到特定相关的语用知识和情景特征才能开始对语用知识进行编码,因此对于任何学习来说,对于输入的注意都是必须的。本研究中显性教导的有效性也给Schmidt(1993)的注意假设带来了有利的支持。研究结果也表明低水平学习者在习得语用知识方面要优于高水平的学列者。广义上来说,本研究的结果也给Bialystok(1993)的二维模式假设带来了支持。二维模式指出高级阶段的二语学习者主要面临的任务是如何控制运用已经学会的知识而低水平的学习者面临的主要任务还是习得语言知识。最终的结果表明,学习者的语法发展和语用发展是不同步的,正如Bardovi-Harlig(1999)所说的那样,语法水平高并不能保证语用水平高,本研究证明了语法水平高并不能保证习得语用的能力强。
The study was set up to investigate the acquisition of requests by learners at different proficiency levels under the condition of explicit instruction. A total of 48 college students took part in the study and the PETS 2 was adopted to measure their overall English proficiency. Then the participants were divided into high and low proficiency groups. The data were collected through DCT and were further coded with the coding scheme provided by CCSARP (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989) and Hassall (2003). Results show that both groups of learners evidenced changes in the distribution of their request strategies. But low-proficiency learners outperformed high-proficiency learners in the acquisition of request as LP learners reduced the use of direct requests and largely increased hints while HP learners increased their use of direct strategies and hints. The most noteworthy findings come from the aspect of non-conventional indirectness. Although it seems that hints are to be acquired late by learners in ILP literature, learners in the study both increased their use of hints greatly after the instruction. The effectiveness of explicit instruction gives supporting evidence to the noticing hypothesis (Schmidt, 1993). Schmidt (1993) argued that learners need to notice the specific relevant pragmalinguistic and contextual features of an event in order to trigger encoding, and that attention to input is a necessary condition for any learning at all. Results also show that LP learners outperformed HP learners in the acquisition of pragmalinguistic knowledge. In a broad sense, the results of the study also support Bialystok's (1993) two-dimensional model that advanced L2 learners mainly have to acquire processing control over already existing representations and high-proficiency learners can allocate processing resources faster and more accurately than low-proficiency learners. Results in the study show that there is a disparity between grammatical and pragmatic competence development. If high levels of grammatical competence do not guarantee concomitant high levels of pragmatic competence (Bardovi-Harlig, 1999, p. 686), high levels of grammatical competence do not guarantee greater pragmatic development either.
The study was set up to investigate the acquisition of requests by learners at different proficiency levels under the condition of explicit instruction. A total of 48 college students took part in the study and the PETS 2 was adopted to measure their overall English proficiency. Then the participants were divided into high and low proficiency groups. The data were collected through DCT and were further coded with the coding scheme provided by CCSARP (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989) and Hassall (2003). Results show that both groups of learners evidenced changes in the distribution of their request strategies. But low-proficiency learners outperformed high-proficiency learners in the acquisition of request as LP learners reduced the use of direct requests and largely increased hints while HP learners increased their use of direct strategies and hints. The most noteworthy findings come from the aspect of non-conventional indirectness. Although it seems that hints are to be acquired late by learners in ILP literature, learners in the study both increased their use of hints greatly after the instruction. The effectiveness of explicit instruction gives supporting evidence to the noticing hypothesis (Schmidt, 1993). Schmidt (1993) argued that learners need to notice the specific relevant pragmalinguistic and contextual features of an event in order to trigger encoding, and that attention to input is a necessary condition for any learning at all. Results also show that LP learners outperformed HP learners in the acquisition of pragmalinguistic knowledge. In a broad sense, the results of the study also support Bialystok's (1993) two-dimensional model that advanced L2 learners mainly have to acquire processing control over already existing representations and high-proficiency learners can allocate processing resources faster and more accurately than low-proficiency learners. Results in the study show that there is a disparity between grammatical and pragmatic competence development. If high levels of grammatical competence do not guarantee concomitant high levels of pragmatic competence (Bardovi-Harlig, 1999, p. 686), high levels of grammatical competence do not guarantee greater pragmatic development either.
引文
Achiba, M. (2002) Learning to request in a second language: Child interlanguage pragmatics. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Alicia, M. & Fukuya. Y. J., (2005), The effects of instruction on learners' production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. System 33, 463-480.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49, 449-722.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In K. Rose & G Kasper (Eds.),Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 13-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., (2003). Understanding the role of grammar in the acquisition of L2 pragmatics. In:Martínez-Flor, A., Usó, E.,Fernández, A. (Eds.), Pragmatic Competence and Foreign LanguageTeaching. Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I, Castellón, Spain, pp. 21-44.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B. (1993). Refining the DCT: Comparing open questionnaires and dialogue completion tasks. In: L.Bouton and Y. Kachru, eds., Pragmatics and language learning, monograph 4, 143-165. Urbana-Champaign, IL: DEIL.
Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Beebe, L. M., & Cummings, M. C. (1996). Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech Acts across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language (pp. 65-86). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In C. Scarcela, E. Anderson & D.Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55-73). New York: Newbury House.
Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence. In G Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 43-59). Mew York: Oxford University Press.
Bialystok, E. (1994). Analysis and control in the development of second language proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16,157-168.
Billmyer,K.& Varghese,M.(2000),Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability:Effects of enhancing discourse completion tests.Applied Linguistics 21,4,517-528.
Blum-Kulka,S.,House,J.,& Kasper,G(Eds.).(1989).Cross-Cultural Pragmatics:Requests and Apologies.Norwood,NJ:Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Bouton,L.F.(1994).Can NNS skill in interpreting implicature in American English be improved through explicit instruction? --A pilot study.In L.F.Bouton & Y.Kachru(Eds.),Pragmatics and Language Learning(Vol.5,pp.88-109).Urbana-Champaign:University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Brown,P.,& Levinson,S.(1987).Politeness:Some Universals in Language Usage.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Cohen,A.D.(1996).Developing the ability to perform speech acts.Studies in Second Language Acquisition,18,253-267.
Cohen,A.D.,& Olshtain,E.(1993).The production of speech acts by EFL learners.TESOL Quarterly,27,33-56.
Doughty,C.(1983).Second language instruction does make a difference.Studies in Second Language Acquisition,13,431-469.
Doughty,C.(in press).Instructed SLA:Constraints,compensation,and enhancement. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Ellis, R. (1992). Learning to communicate in the classroom: A study of two learners' request. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,14, 1-23.
Ellis, N. (1994). Implicit and explicit language learning -an overview. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages, (pp.1-30). London: Academic Press.
Fukuya, Y. J., & Clark, M. K. (2001). A comparison of input enhancement and explicit instruction of mitigators. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning monograph series (Vol. 10,pp. 111-130). Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language: University of Illinois.
Golato, A. (2003). Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occuring talk. Applied Linguistics 24(1), 90-121.
Groves, R. (1996). How do we know what we think they think is really what they think? In N. Schwarz & S. Sudman (Eds.), Answering Questions: Mehodology for Determining Cognitive and Communicative Processes in Survey Research (pp. 389-402).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hartford, B. & Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). Experimental and observational data in the study of interlanguage pragmatics. In: L. Bouton and Y. Kachru, (Eds)., Pragmatics and language learning, monograph 3, 33-50. Urbana-Champaign, IL: DELL.
Hassall, T. (2003). Request by Australian learners of Indonesian. Journal of Pragmatics 35,1903-1928.
Hill, T. (1997). The Development of Pragmatic Competence in an EFL Context: Digital Dissertation Consortium.
Hinkel, E., (1997). Appropriateness of advice: DCT and multiple choice data. Applied Linguistics 18(1): 1-26.
House, J., (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17, 225-252.
Kasper, G. (2000). Data collection in pragmatics research. In Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.), Culturally speaking. Continuum,London, pp. 316-341.
Kasper, G. (2001). Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied Linguistics, 22, 502-530.
Kasper, G, & Rose, K. (1999). Pragmatics and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 81-104.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K., (2002). Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Blackwell, Mahwah, NJ (Also Language Learning:Supplement 1, 52).
Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 149-169.
Kasper, G. & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13(2): 215-247.
Kobayashi, H. & Rinnert, C. (2003). Coping with high imposition requests: High vs. low proficiency EFL students in Japan. In A. Martinez Flor, E. Usó Juan, & A. Fernandez Guerra (Eds.),Pragmatic competence and foreign language teaching (pp. 161-184). Castelló de la Plana, Spain: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I.
Kubota, M. (1995). Teachability of conversational implicature to Japanese EFL learners. IRLT Bulletin, 9, 35-67.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman
Li, Qingping. (2007). The Effect of Instruction on the Development of Requests in Adolescent Learners of English as a Foreign Language in China. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Liu, J. (2004). Measuring Interlanguage Pragmatic Knowledge of Chinese EFL Learners. City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
LoCastro, V. (1997). Pedagogical intervention and pragmatic competence development. Applied Language Learning, 8,75-109.
LoCastro, V. (2000). Evidence of accommodation to L2 pragmatic norms in peer review tasks of Japanese learners of English. JALT Journal, 23(1), 6-30.
Long, M., (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of the research. TESOL Quarterly 17, 359-382.
Matsumura, S. (2003). Modelling the relationships among interlanguage pragmatic development, L2 proficiency, and exposure to L2.Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 465-491.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50:3, pp. 417-528.
Olshtain, E., & Cohen, D. A. (1990). The learning of complex speech act behavior. TESOL Canada Journal, 7(2), 45-65.
Rose, K. R., (1992). Speech acts and questionnaires: The effect of hearer response. Journal of Pragmatics 17: 49-62.
Rose, K. R. (1994). On the validity of discourse completion tests in non-western contexts. Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 1-14.
Rose, K. R. (1997). Pragmatics in the classroom: Theoretical concerns and practical possibilities. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning (Vol. 8, pp. 267-295). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Rose, K. R. (1998). Teachers and students learning about requests in Hong Kong. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 167-180). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rose, K. R. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(1), 27-67.
Rose, K. R., (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System 33: 385-399
Rose, K. R., & Kasper, G (Eds.). (2001). Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rose, K. R., & Ng, K. C. (2001). Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments and compliment responses. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 145-170). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rose, K. R., & Ono, R. (1995). Eliciting speech act data in Japanese:The effect of questionnaire type. Language Learning, 45(2),191-223.
Safont, M.P., (2003). Instructional effects on the use of request acts modification devices by EFL learners.In: Martinez-Flor, A., Usó,E., Fernández, A. (Eds.), Pragmatic Competence and Foreign Language Teaching. Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I, Castellón, Spain, pp. 211-232.
Salazar, P.C., (2003). Pragmatic instruction in the EFL context. In: Martínez-Flor, A., Usó , E., Fernández,A. (Eds.), Pragmatic Competence and Foreign Language Teaching. Servei de Publicacions de laUniversitat Jaume I, Castellón, Spain, pp. 233-246.
Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative competence: A case study of an adult. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 137-174). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
Schmidt, R., (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In: Kasper, G., Blum-Kulka, S.(Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 21-42.
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language teaching and learning (Technical Report No. 9) (pp. 1-64). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i at Manoa.
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language. A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition, (pp. 237-326) Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University.
Takahashi, S. (2001). 'The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence' in K. R. Rose and G Kasper (eds): Pragmatic in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 171-199.
Takahashi, S. (2005). Pragmalinguistic awareness: Is it related to motivation and proficiency? Applied Linguistics, 26 (1), 90-120.
Takahashi, S. and M. DuFon. (1989). Crosslinguistic Influence in Indirectness: The Case of English Directives Performed by Native Japanese Speakers. Unpublished manuscript, Department of English as a Second Language, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Tateyama, Y. (2001). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines: Japanese sumimasen. In K. R. Rose & G Kasper (Eds.),Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 200-222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Trosborg, A. (1995). lnterlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaint, and apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tran, Giao Quynh (2004). Terminology in interlanguage pragmatics. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics 143-144, 109-120.
Turnbull, W. (1997). An appraisal of pragmatic elicitation techniques for the study of talk. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.
Turnbull, W. (2001). An appraisal of pragmatic elicitation techniques for the social psychological study of talk: The case of request refusals. Pragmatics, 11 (1), 31 -61.
Walters, J. (1980). Grammar, meaning, and sociocultural appropriateness in second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 34,337-345.
Wildner-Bassett, M. (1994). Intercultural pragmatics and proficiency: "Polite" noises for cultural appropriateness. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 3-17.
Wishnoff, J., 2000. Hedging your bets: L2 learners' acquisition of pragmatic devices in academic writing and computer-mediated discourse. Second Language Studies, Working Papers of the Department of Second Language Studies, University of Hawai'i 19, pp. 119-157.
Wolfson et al. (1989) The social dynamics of native and normative variation in complimenting behavior. In Eisenstein, M. R. (Ed.), The Dynamic interlanguage. Plenum, New York, pp. 219-236.
Yang Xianju (2006). Second Language Pragmatic development: A Cross-Sectional Study on the Acquisition of English Requests by Chinese Learners. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Shanghai Foreign Language university, Shanghai.
Yoshimi, D. R. (2001). Explicit instruction and JFL learners' use of interactional discourse markers. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 223-244).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yuan, Yi (1996). Responding to compliments: A contrastive study of the English pragmatics of advanced Chinese speakers of English.The 20~(th) annual Boston University conference on language development,
Yuan,Yi(2001).An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods:Written DCTs,oral DCTs,field notes,and natural conversations.Journal of Pragmatics 33,271-292.
Alicia, M. & Fukuya. Y. J., (2005), The effects of instruction on learners' production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. System 33, 463-480.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49, 449-722.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In K. Rose & G Kasper (Eds.),Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 13-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., (2003). Understanding the role of grammar in the acquisition of L2 pragmatics. In:Martínez-Flor, A., Usó, E.,Fernández, A. (Eds.), Pragmatic Competence and Foreign LanguageTeaching. Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I, Castellón, Spain, pp. 21-44.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B. (1993). Refining the DCT: Comparing open questionnaires and dialogue completion tasks. In: L.Bouton and Y. Kachru, eds., Pragmatics and language learning, monograph 4, 143-165. Urbana-Champaign, IL: DEIL.
Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Beebe, L. M., & Cummings, M. C. (1996). Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech Acts across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language (pp. 65-86). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In C. Scarcela, E. Anderson & D.Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55-73). New York: Newbury House.
Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence. In G Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 43-59). Mew York: Oxford University Press.
Bialystok, E. (1994). Analysis and control in the development of second language proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16,157-168.
Billmyer,K.& Varghese,M.(2000),Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability:Effects of enhancing discourse completion tests.Applied Linguistics 21,4,517-528.
Blum-Kulka,S.,House,J.,& Kasper,G(Eds.).(1989).Cross-Cultural Pragmatics:Requests and Apologies.Norwood,NJ:Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Bouton,L.F.(1994).Can NNS skill in interpreting implicature in American English be improved through explicit instruction? --A pilot study.In L.F.Bouton & Y.Kachru(Eds.),Pragmatics and Language Learning(Vol.5,pp.88-109).Urbana-Champaign:University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Brown,P.,& Levinson,S.(1987).Politeness:Some Universals in Language Usage.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Cohen,A.D.(1996).Developing the ability to perform speech acts.Studies in Second Language Acquisition,18,253-267.
Cohen,A.D.,& Olshtain,E.(1993).The production of speech acts by EFL learners.TESOL Quarterly,27,33-56.
Doughty,C.(1983).Second language instruction does make a difference.Studies in Second Language Acquisition,13,431-469.
Doughty,C.(in press).Instructed SLA:Constraints,compensation,and enhancement. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Ellis, R. (1992). Learning to communicate in the classroom: A study of two learners' request. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,14, 1-23.
Ellis, N. (1994). Implicit and explicit language learning -an overview. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages, (pp.1-30). London: Academic Press.
Fukuya, Y. J., & Clark, M. K. (2001). A comparison of input enhancement and explicit instruction of mitigators. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning monograph series (Vol. 10,pp. 111-130). Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language: University of Illinois.
Golato, A. (2003). Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occuring talk. Applied Linguistics 24(1), 90-121.
Groves, R. (1996). How do we know what we think they think is really what they think? In N. Schwarz & S. Sudman (Eds.), Answering Questions: Mehodology for Determining Cognitive and Communicative Processes in Survey Research (pp. 389-402).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hartford, B. & Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). Experimental and observational data in the study of interlanguage pragmatics. In: L. Bouton and Y. Kachru, (Eds)., Pragmatics and language learning, monograph 3, 33-50. Urbana-Champaign, IL: DELL.
Hassall, T. (2003). Request by Australian learners of Indonesian. Journal of Pragmatics 35,1903-1928.
Hill, T. (1997). The Development of Pragmatic Competence in an EFL Context: Digital Dissertation Consortium.
Hinkel, E., (1997). Appropriateness of advice: DCT and multiple choice data. Applied Linguistics 18(1): 1-26.
House, J., (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17, 225-252.
Kasper, G. (2000). Data collection in pragmatics research. In Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.), Culturally speaking. Continuum,London, pp. 316-341.
Kasper, G. (2001). Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied Linguistics, 22, 502-530.
Kasper, G, & Rose, K. (1999). Pragmatics and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 81-104.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K., (2002). Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Blackwell, Mahwah, NJ (Also Language Learning:Supplement 1, 52).
Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 149-169.
Kasper, G. & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13(2): 215-247.
Kobayashi, H. & Rinnert, C. (2003). Coping with high imposition requests: High vs. low proficiency EFL students in Japan. In A. Martinez Flor, E. Usó Juan, & A. Fernandez Guerra (Eds.),Pragmatic competence and foreign language teaching (pp. 161-184). Castelló de la Plana, Spain: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I.
Kubota, M. (1995). Teachability of conversational implicature to Japanese EFL learners. IRLT Bulletin, 9, 35-67.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman
Li, Qingping. (2007). The Effect of Instruction on the Development of Requests in Adolescent Learners of English as a Foreign Language in China. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Liu, J. (2004). Measuring Interlanguage Pragmatic Knowledge of Chinese EFL Learners. City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
LoCastro, V. (1997). Pedagogical intervention and pragmatic competence development. Applied Language Learning, 8,75-109.
LoCastro, V. (2000). Evidence of accommodation to L2 pragmatic norms in peer review tasks of Japanese learners of English. JALT Journal, 23(1), 6-30.
Long, M., (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of the research. TESOL Quarterly 17, 359-382.
Matsumura, S. (2003). Modelling the relationships among interlanguage pragmatic development, L2 proficiency, and exposure to L2.Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 465-491.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50:3, pp. 417-528.
Olshtain, E., & Cohen, D. A. (1990). The learning of complex speech act behavior. TESOL Canada Journal, 7(2), 45-65.
Rose, K. R., (1992). Speech acts and questionnaires: The effect of hearer response. Journal of Pragmatics 17: 49-62.
Rose, K. R. (1994). On the validity of discourse completion tests in non-western contexts. Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 1-14.
Rose, K. R. (1997). Pragmatics in the classroom: Theoretical concerns and practical possibilities. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning (Vol. 8, pp. 267-295). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Rose, K. R. (1998). Teachers and students learning about requests in Hong Kong. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 167-180). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rose, K. R. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(1), 27-67.
Rose, K. R., (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System 33: 385-399
Rose, K. R., & Kasper, G (Eds.). (2001). Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rose, K. R., & Ng, K. C. (2001). Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments and compliment responses. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 145-170). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rose, K. R., & Ono, R. (1995). Eliciting speech act data in Japanese:The effect of questionnaire type. Language Learning, 45(2),191-223.
Safont, M.P., (2003). Instructional effects on the use of request acts modification devices by EFL learners.In: Martinez-Flor, A., Usó,E., Fernández, A. (Eds.), Pragmatic Competence and Foreign Language Teaching. Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I, Castellón, Spain, pp. 211-232.
Salazar, P.C., (2003). Pragmatic instruction in the EFL context. In: Martínez-Flor, A., Usó , E., Fernández,A. (Eds.), Pragmatic Competence and Foreign Language Teaching. Servei de Publicacions de laUniversitat Jaume I, Castellón, Spain, pp. 233-246.
Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative competence: A case study of an adult. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 137-174). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
Schmidt, R., (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In: Kasper, G., Blum-Kulka, S.(Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 21-42.
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language teaching and learning (Technical Report No. 9) (pp. 1-64). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i at Manoa.
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language. A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition, (pp. 237-326) Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University.
Takahashi, S. (2001). 'The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence' in K. R. Rose and G Kasper (eds): Pragmatic in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 171-199.
Takahashi, S. (2005). Pragmalinguistic awareness: Is it related to motivation and proficiency? Applied Linguistics, 26 (1), 90-120.
Takahashi, S. and M. DuFon. (1989). Crosslinguistic Influence in Indirectness: The Case of English Directives Performed by Native Japanese Speakers. Unpublished manuscript, Department of English as a Second Language, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Tateyama, Y. (2001). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines: Japanese sumimasen. In K. R. Rose & G Kasper (Eds.),Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 200-222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Trosborg, A. (1995). lnterlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaint, and apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tran, Giao Quynh (2004). Terminology in interlanguage pragmatics. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics 143-144, 109-120.
Turnbull, W. (1997). An appraisal of pragmatic elicitation techniques for the study of talk. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.
Turnbull, W. (2001). An appraisal of pragmatic elicitation techniques for the social psychological study of talk: The case of request refusals. Pragmatics, 11 (1), 31 -61.
Walters, J. (1980). Grammar, meaning, and sociocultural appropriateness in second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 34,337-345.
Wildner-Bassett, M. (1994). Intercultural pragmatics and proficiency: "Polite" noises for cultural appropriateness. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 3-17.
Wishnoff, J., 2000. Hedging your bets: L2 learners' acquisition of pragmatic devices in academic writing and computer-mediated discourse. Second Language Studies, Working Papers of the Department of Second Language Studies, University of Hawai'i 19, pp. 119-157.
Wolfson et al. (1989) The social dynamics of native and normative variation in complimenting behavior. In Eisenstein, M. R. (Ed.), The Dynamic interlanguage. Plenum, New York, pp. 219-236.
Yang Xianju (2006). Second Language Pragmatic development: A Cross-Sectional Study on the Acquisition of English Requests by Chinese Learners. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Shanghai Foreign Language university, Shanghai.
Yoshimi, D. R. (2001). Explicit instruction and JFL learners' use of interactional discourse markers. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 223-244).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yuan, Yi (1996). Responding to compliments: A contrastive study of the English pragmatics of advanced Chinese speakers of English.The 20~(th) annual Boston University conference on language development,
Yuan,Yi(2001).An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods:Written DCTs,oral DCTs,field notes,and natural conversations.Journal of Pragmatics 33,271-292.