An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods: Written DCTs, oral DCTs, field notes, and natural conversations

Journal of Pragmatics

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 271-292

  Yuan, Yi ^a  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

Author keywords

Compliments; Data gathering methods; DCTs; Field notes; Kunming Chinese; Natural conversations

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035256073     PISSN: 03782166     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00031-X     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen and Beverly Hartford, 1990. Congruence in native and nonnative conversations: Status balance in the academic advising session. Language Learning 40: 467-501.
2. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen and Beverly Hartford, 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.
3. Beebe, Leslie M. and Martha C. Cummings, 1996. Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In: S. M. Gass and N. Joyce, eds., Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language, 65-86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
4. Beebe, Leslie M., 1994. Field note data on power and the power of field note data. Paper Presented at the TESOL '94 Conference, Baltimore.
5. Bodman, Jean and Miriam Eisenstein, 1988. May God increase your bounty: The expression of gratitude in English by native and non-native speakers. Cross Currents 15(1): 1-21.
6. Chan, Po-hui, 1981. Modern Chinese Dialects. Wuhan: Hubei People's Publishing House.
7. Hartford, Beverly and Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig, 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: DEIL.
8. Hinkel, Eli, 1997. Appropriateness of advice: DCT and multiple choice data. Applied Linguistics 18(1): 1-26.
9. Johnston, Bill, Gabriele Kasper and Steven Ross, 1998. Effect of rejoinders in production questionnaires. Applied Linguistics 19(2): 157-182.
10. Johnson, Jeffrey C., 1990. Selecting Ethnographic Informants: Qualitative Research Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
11. Kasper, Gabriele and Merete Dahl, 1991. Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13(2): 215-247.
12. Knapp, Mark L., Robert Hopper and Robert A. Bell, 1984. Compliments: A descriptive taxonomy. Journal of Communication 34(4): 12-31.
13. Levinson, Stephen C., 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Milroy, Leslie, 1980. Language and Social Networks. Oxford: Blackwell.
15. Milroy, Leslie, 1987. Observing and Analyzing Natural Language: A Critical Account of Sociolinguistic Method. Oxford: Blackwell.
16. Norman, Jerry, 1988. Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. Rintell, Ellen M. and Candace J. Mitchell, 1989. Studying requests and apologies: An inquiry into method. In: S. Blum-Kulka, J. House and G. Kasper, eds., Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies, 248-272. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
18. Rose, Kenneth R., 1992. Speech acts and questionnaires: The effect of hearer response. Journal of Pragmatics 17: 49-62.
19. Rose, Kenneth R., 1994. On the validity of discourse completion tests in non-Western contexts. Applied Linguistics 15(1): 1-14.
20. Rose, Kenneth R. and Reiko Ono, 1995. Eliciting speech act data in Japanese: The effect of questionnaire type. Language Learning 45(2): 191-223.
21. Turnbull, William, 1997. An Appraisal of Pragmatic Elicitation Techniques for the Study of Talk. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.