Pragmatics in Language Teaching: Explicit instruction and JFL learner's use of interactional discourse markers
By D. Yoshimi. 2001
100 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/df593cce263dab22dfd6aca68519367f2f33616e
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
- Naoko Taguchi
- T. Hernandez
- Peter Robinson
- Minh Tam Pham
- T. Pham
- Thi Minh Nguyen
- Andrea Révész
- R. Gilabert
In Literature and Literary Theory
- Naoko Taguchi
- T. Hernandez
- Peter Robinson
- Minh Tam Pham
- T. Pham
- Thi Minh Nguyen
- Andrea Révész
- Judit Kormos
Citations in the corpus
- APTITUDE AND SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION (2005, background): “…Ward & Catts, 2002; Levinson, 1995); use of appropriate discourse markers, address forms and register shifts (Archer, 1983; Kasper & Rose, 2002; Yoshimi, 2001); and the integration of these with accommodative behavior, and interactional routines specific to the foreign culture (Bandura, 1986;…”
- The relative effects of explicit and implicit form-focused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic competence (2012, background): “…to different input conditions with or without meta-pragmatic information (e.g. Hernandez, 2011; Fukuya, 1988; House, 1996; Liddicoat and Crozet, 2001; Martinez-Flor, 2008; Rose and Ng, 2001; Safont, 2003; Takahashi, 2001; Takimoto, 2009; Tateyama et al., 1997; Tateyama, 2001; Yoshimi, 2001).”
- Re-examining the role of explicit instruction and input flood on the acquisition of Spanish discourse markers (2011, background): “The data show that, as with the participants in Yoshimi (2001), learners’ use of appropriate discourse markers provided organization, coherence, and cohesion to their narratives.”
- Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going (2015, background): “Eight studies focused on conversation devices, such as sentence final particles (Kakegawa 2009), interactional discourse markers (Yoshimi 2001; Iwai 2013), gambits (Taylor 2002), hedging (Wishnoff 2000), hearsay expressions (Narita 2012), and reactive tokens (Utashiro & Kawai 2009; Sardegna & Molle…”