Appropriateness of Advice: DCT and Multiple Choice Data1
Abstract
The validity of instruments appropriate for eliciting LI (first language) and L2 (second language) speech act data has been widely debated Over the past decade, in investigations devoted to establishing L2 learners' socio-pragramatic competence and performance, discourse completion tests (DCTs) have become increasingly common as ehcitation instruments for comparative analyses of native speaker (NS) and non-native speaker (NNS) socto-pragmattc behaviors This paper addresses the issue of what can be learned about L2 speech acts from the data obtained by means of English language multiple choice (MC) and DCT instruments in two experiments Specifically, the study focuses on the L1 responses of NSS and the L2 responses given by speakers of Chinese to MC questionnaires and DCTs dealing with the appropriateness of advice in common and observed situations When responding to the MC questionnaire, NSs selected substantially fewer options with either direct or hedged advice than the Chinese subjects did, which is congruent with the body of research on NS and Chinese L1 pragmahnguistic behaviors On the other hand, significantly more NSs than Chinese preferred direct and hedged advice in response to DCTs From this perspective, DCTs may not be the best ehcita-tion instrument for L1 and L2 data pertaining to ambiguous and situationally constrained pragmahnguistic acts
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Many second/foreign language learners fail to display pragmatic competence, even proficient ones.
“When it comes to real-life situations, many second/foreign language learners appear to fail in displaying pragmatic competence and the case is even true for proficient language learners (DeCapua & Dunham, 2007;Hinkel, 1997;Martínez Flor, 2005;Pishghadam & Sharafaddini, 2011).”
From A comparative study of the effect of teacher’s group and individual feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ learning of speech acts in apology letter writing (2020) · cites this paper as Hinkel, 1997
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pourmousavi, Z., & Mohamadi Zenouzagh, Z. (2020) · Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education · doi:10.1186/s40862-020-00088-w · Cited by 17 · see citing works
- Authors
- HINKEL, E.
- Affiliations
- Xavier University (US)
- Corresponding author
- HINKEL, E.
- Venue
- Applied Linguistics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1997-03-01
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-26
- ISSN
- 0142-6001 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-450X
- OpenAlex
- W2053662261
- Cited by
- 179
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 3.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Applied Linguistics (publishedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
- Keywords
- discourse completion test, multiple-choice questionnaires, advice, pragmatic competence
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review