The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Introduction to Second Language Pragmatic Development
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“Although Kasper and Rose (2002) suggested that L2 learners' proficiency is a possible factor that facilitates the pragmatic competence of using politeness strategies in disagreement, a noticeable correlation was not found in this study.”
From 'Sorry, I don't good English': Japanese L2 students' written peer feedback in the face-to-face and anonymous review modes (2023) · cites this paper as Kasper and Rose (2002)
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
THE CASE AGAINST THE CASE AGAINST RECASTS
Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263112000708 · Cited by 271
Kim, S. (2023) · Journal of Writing Research · doi:10.17239/jowr-2023.15.02.02 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R.
- ORCID
- Kasper, Gabriele
- Venue
- Language Learning
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-01
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- s1
- Pages
- 1-11
- ISSN
- 0023-8333 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9922
- OpenAlex
- W2969264791
- Cited by
- 76
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 2.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Language Learning (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Keywords
- second language pragmatics, pragmatic development, second language acquisition
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
