Studying Compliment Responses: A Comparison of DCTs and Recordings of Naturally Occurring Talk

By Andrea Golato. 2003

448 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/df21fa63d961f2593b4089493a8a08044ae81709

How researchers see this paper

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

In Language and Linguistics

1. R. Ellis
2. R. Lyster
3. S. Loewen
4. Naoko Taguchi
5. Younghee Sheen
6. R. Erlam
7. Masatoshi Sato
8. Jennifer Bown

Citations in the corpus

• Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching (2009, background): “Golato (2003: 92) argues that a DCT is metapragmatic and suggests that it is ‘a valid instrument not for measuring pragmatic action, but symbolic action’. As such, it constitutes a measure of learners’ explicit knowledge. Roehr (2008) proposed an alternative way of measuring metapragmatic knowledge.”
• Validation of a web-based test of ESL pragmalinguistics (2006, background): “DCTs have been criticized for not eliciting discourse data that resembles natural data: respondents feel less able to opt out (Rose and Ono, 1995) and the DCT elicits formulas and strategies that occur rarely or not at all in natural data, while not eliciting some that do occur (Golato, 2003).”
• Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: What can we expect from learners? (2008, result): “For example, a study of responses to compliments among native German speakers found that DISCOURSE COMPLETION TASKS (DCTs) prompted an extension of the response beyond what was found in naturalistic data (Golato 2003).”
• How can insights from conversation analysis be directly applied to teaching L2 pragmatics? (2006, background): “However, if speakers belong to two different cultures pragmatic interference may occur due to differing conceptions of the social activity in which the speakers are engaged (Gumperz, 1982; Taleghani-Nikazm, 1999; 2002a; Golato, 2002).”
• Language learning and study abroad (2018, methodology): “Golato (2003), as cited in Félix-Brasdefer & Hasler-Barker (2015: 78) explain this is because this instrument ‘elicits single-turn responses, has a low degree of content validity, and is simulated and non-interactive’.”
• Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods (2015, background): “Golato (2003) supports this limitation by reporting stark differences between pragmatic productions elicited from DCTs and naturalistic data.”