The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the development of language learners' pragmatic competence

Modern Language Journal

Volumn 92, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 369-386

  Takimoto, Masahiro ^a  

^a TEZUKAYAMA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 51249107307     PISSN: 00267902     EISSN: 15404781     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00752.x     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Abraham, R. (1985). Field independence-dependence and the teaching of grammar. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 689-702.
2. Allen, L. (2000). Form-meaning connections and the French causative: An experiment in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 69-84.
3. Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
4. Benati, A. (2003). The effects of structured input activities and explicit information on the acquisition of Italian tense. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction (pp. 207-225). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
6. Bruner, J. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21-32.
7. Collentine, J. (1998). Processing instruction and the subjunctive. Hispania, 81, 576-587.
8. Decoo, W. (1996). The induction-deduction opposition: Ambiguities and complexities of the didactic reality. IRAL, 34, 95-118.
9. DeKeyser, R., & Sokalski, K. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 46, 613-642.
10. Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Erlam, R. (2003). Evaluating the relative effectiveness of structured input- and output-based instruction in foreign language learning: Results from an experimental study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 559-582.
13. Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1989). Internal and external modification in interlanguage request realization. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 221-247). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
14. Farley, A. (2003). Processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive: Is explicit information needed? In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction (pp. 227-239). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323-351.
16. Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 605-628.
17. Fukuya, Y., & Clark, M. (1999). Input enhancement of mitigators. In L. 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.
18. Fukuya, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2002). Effects of recasts on EFL learners' acquisition of pragmalinguistic conventions of request. Second Language Studies, 21(1), 1-47.
19. Herron, C., & Tomasello, M. (1992). Acquiring grammatical structures by guided induction. French Review, 65, 708-718.
20. Hill, T. (1997). The development of pragmatic competence in an EFL context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Japan.
21. House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 225-252.
22. House, J., & Kasper, G. (1987). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requesting in a foreign language. In W. Loerscher & R. Schulze (Eds.), Perspectives on language in performance (pp. 1250-1288). Tübingen, Germany: Narr.
23. Hudson, T., Detmer, E., & Brown, J. (1992). A framework for testing cross-cultural pragmatics (Tech. Rep.No. 2). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
24. Hudson, T., Detmer, E., & Brown, J. (1995). Developing prototypic measures of cross-cultural pragmatics (Tech. Rep. No. 7). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
25. Jeon, E., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development: A meta-analysis. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 165-211). Philadelphia: Benjamins.
26. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
27. Kim, S. (2001). Structured input and production practice in foreign/ second language learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Tokyo, Japan.
28. Kubota, M. (1995). Teachability of conversational implicature to Japanese EFL learners. IRLT Bulletin, 9, 35-67.
29. Lyster, R. (1994). The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students' sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 15, 263-287.
30. Nagata, N. (1998). Input vs. output practice in educational software for second language acquisition. Language Learning & Technology, 1, 23-40.
31. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2001). Does type of instruction make a difference?Substantive findings from a meta-analytic review. Language Learning, 51(Suppl. 1), 157-213.
32. Rose, K., & Ng, C. (2001). Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments and compliment responses. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 145-170). New York: Cambridge University Press.
33. Salaberry, M. (1997). The role of input and output practice in second language acquisition. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 422-451.
34. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
35. Schmidt, R. (1994a). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11-26.
36. Schmidt, R. (1994b). Implicit learning and the cognitive unconsciousness: Of artificial grammars and SLA. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of language (pp. 165-209). London: Academic Press.
37. Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (SLTCC Tech. Rep. No 9, pp. 1-64). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
38. Seliger, H. W. (1975). Inductive method and deductive method in language teaching: A re-examination. IRAL, 13, 1-18.
39. Shaffer, C. (1989). A comparison of inductive and deductive approaches to teaching foreign languages. Modern Language Journal, 73, 395-403.
40. Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165-179.
41. Shaw, P., & Trosborg, A. (2003). Sorry does not pay my bills. Customer complaints in a cross-cultural setting. In D. Lynch & A. Pilbeam (Eds.), From the past to the future in intercultural understanding (pp. 204-214). Bath, UK: LTS Training and Consulting in association with SIETAR Europa.
42. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
43. Takahashi, S. (1998). Quantifying requestive imposition: Validation and selection of situation for L2 pragmatic research. Studies in Languages and Cultures, 9, 135-159.
44. Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing interlanguage pragmatic competence. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 171-199). New York: Cambridge University Press.
45. Tanaka, T. (2001). Comprehension and production practice in grammar instruction: Does their combined use facilitate second language acquisition? JALT Journal, 23, 6-30.
46. Tateyama, Y. (2001). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines: Japanese sumimasen. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 200-222). New York: Cambridge University Press.
47. Tateyama, Y., Kasper, G., Mui, L., Tay, H., & Thananart, O. (1997). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines. In L. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 8, pp. 163-178). Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois.
48. Toth, P. (1997). Linguistic and pedagogical perspectives on acquiring second language morpho-syntax: A look at Spanish se. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
49. VanPatten, B. (1991, July). Grammar instruction and input processing. Paper presented at the special colloquium on the Role of Grammar Instruction in Communicative Language Teaching, Concordia University and McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
50. VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in SLA. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction (pp. 5-31). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
51. VanPatten, B., & Oikenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495-510.
52. White, L., Spada, N., Lightbown, P., & Ranta, L. (1991). Input enhancement and L2 question formation. Applied Linguistics, 12, 416-432.
53. Witten, C. (2000). Using video to teach for sociolinguistic competence in the foreign language classroom. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 5(1), 143-175. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED468314).
54. Wong, W. (2003). Processing instruction in French: The roles of explicit information and structured input. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction (pp. 187-205). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
55. Wong, W., & VanPatten, B. (2003). The evidence is IN: Drills are OUT. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 403-423.