Pragmatics in Language Teaching: Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines: Japanese sumimasen

By Yumiko Tateyama. 2001

171 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going (2015, background): “In this last section, I will turn to the studies that do not fit either of these patterns: Q. Li (2012) and Tateyama (2001).”
Pragmatic Transfer in Thai EFL Refusals (2008, background): “With a limited exposure to the target language norm, explicit instruction may be necessary to ensure that learners do not accidentally appear impolite to their interlocutors (Cohen 1996; Tateyama 2001).”
How can insights from conversation analysis be directly applied to teaching L2 pragmatics? (2006, background): “Classroom research focusing on pragmatic development in L2 learners strongly suggests that pragmatics are taught more successfully with an explicit approach (Tateyama, 2001).”
The relative effects of explicit and implicit form-focused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic competence (2012, background): “In many studies, implicit instruction is simply defined as mere exposure to pragmatic input (e.g. Hernandez, 2011; Pearson, 1998; Tateyama, 2001; Takahashi, 2001) or the withholding of meta-pragmatic information (e.g. House, 1996).”
Pragmalinguistic Awareness: Is it Related to Motivation and Proficiency? (2005, background): “A similar observation was made by Tateyama (2001), who found that highly motivated JFL learners showed better performance in a role-play in which a Japanese routine formula, ‘sumimasen’, had to be produced.”