1887
image of A meta-analysis of the effects of instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pragmatics and the role of moderator
variables
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN 1783-1490
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper reports the results of a meta-analysis of 39 published studies conducted during the last decade (from 2006 to 2016) on the effects of instruction and corrective feedback on learning second language (L2) pragmatics. The study meta-analyzed the effects of instruction in terms of several moderator variables including mode of instruction, type of instruction, outcome measures, length of instruction, language proficiency, and durability of the instructional effects. It was found that (a) computer-assisted instruction generated larger effects than face-to-face instruction, (b) instruction was generally more effective for L2 pragmatic comprehension than production, (c) instruction produced larger effects when tested by selected response outcome measures although different patterns were observed across explicit-implicit categories, (d) longer treatments generated a larger effect size than shorter treatments, (e) studies conducted with intermediate level learners produced larger effect sizes than beginner or advanced level learners, and (f) the observed effects of instruction were maintained.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/itl.19012.you
2019-08-09
2019-08-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. *Alcón-Soler, E.
    (2015) Instruction and pragmatic change during study abroad email communication. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 9, 34–45. doi:  10.1080/17501229.2014.995763
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2014.995763 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2012) “Teachability and Bilingualism Effects on Third Language Learners’ Pragmatic Knowledge.” Intercultural Pragmatics9: 511–541. 10.1515/ip‑2012‑0028
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2012-0028 [Google Scholar]
  3. *Alcón-Soler, E. & Guzman-Pitarch, J.
    (2010) The Effect of Instruction on Learners’ Pragmatic Awareness: A Focus on Refusals. International Journal of English Studies, 10 (1), 65–80. 10.6018/ijes/2010/1/113981
    https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/1/113981 [Google Scholar]
  4. Alcón-Soler, E. A., & Martinez-Flor, A.
    (2008) Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847690869
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847690869 [Google Scholar]
  5. Badjadi, N. I.
    (2016) A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Instructional Tasks on L2 Pragmatics Comprehension and Production. InTang, S. F. and Logonnathan, L. (Eds.), Assessment for Learning Within and Beyond the Classroom (pp.241–268). Singapore: Springer. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑0908‑2_21
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0908-2_21 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bardovi-Harlig, K.
    (1999) Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49, 677–713. 10.1111/0023‑8333.00105
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00105 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2008) Recognition and production of formulas in L2 pragmatics. InZ.-H. Han, (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp.205–222). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (2009) Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource: Recognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 59, 755–795. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00525.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00525.x [Google Scholar]
  9. (2013) Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63 (Suppl. 1), 68–86. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00738.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00738.x [Google Scholar]
  10. Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Mahan-Taylor, R.
    (2003) Teaching pragmatics. Washington DC: Office of English Programs, U.S. Department of State.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B. A. S., Mahan-Taylor, R., Morgan, M. J., & Reynolds, D. W.
    (1991) Developing pragmatic awareness: Closing the conversation. ELT Journal, 45, 4–15. 10.1093/elt/45.1.4
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/45.1.4 [Google Scholar]
  12. *Bardovi-Harling, K., Mossman, S., & Vellenga, H. E.
    (2015) The effect of instruction on pragmatic routines in academic discussion. Language Teaching Research. 19, 324–350. doi:  10.1177/1362168814541739
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541739 [Google Scholar]
  13. *Barekat, B., & Mehri, M.
    (2013) Investigating the effect of metalinguistic feedback in L2 pragmatic instruction. International Journal of Linguistics, 5, 197–208. 10.5296/ijl.v5i2.3032
    https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v5i2.3032 [Google Scholar]
  14. Belz, J. A., & Vyatkina, N.
    (2008) The pedagogical mediation of a developmental learner corpus for classroom-based language instruction. Language Learning & Technology, 12, 33–52.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (2005) Learner corpus analysis and the development of L2 pragmatic competence in networked intercultural language study: The case of German modal particles, Canadian Modern Language Review, 62, 17–48. 10.3138/cmlr.62.1.17
    https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.62.1.17 [Google Scholar]
  16. *Chen, Y. S.
    (2011) The effect of explicit teaching of American compliment exchanges to Chinese learners of English. English Teaching & Learning, 35, 1–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Chow, S. & Liu, J.P.
    (1999) Design and Analysis of Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies Boca Raton. CRC Press. doi:  10.1201/9781420002027
    https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420002027 [Google Scholar]
  18. Culpeper, J., Mackey, A., & Taguchi, N.
    (2018) Second Language Pragmatics : From Theory to Research. NY. Routledge. 10.4324/9781315692388
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315692388 [Google Scholar]
  19. *Cunningham, J.
    (2016) Request Modification in Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication: The Role of Focused Instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 484–507. doi:  10.1111/modl.12332
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12332 [Google Scholar]
  20. Cunningham, D. J., & Vyatkina, N.
    (2012) Telecollaboration for professional purposes: Towards developing a formal register in the foreign language classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 68, 422–450. 10.3138/cmlr.1279
    https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.1279 [Google Scholar]
  21. *Dastjerdi, H. V., & Farshid, M.
    (2011) The role of input enhancement in teaching compliments. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 2(2), 460–466. 10.4304/jltr.2.2.460‑466
    https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.2.2.460-466 [Google Scholar]
  22. *Derakhshan, A., & Eslami, Z.
    (2015) The Effect of Consciousness-raising Instruction on the pragmatic Development of Apology and Request. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language. 18(4).1–24.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. *Eslami, Z. R., & Liu, C. N.
    (2013) Learning pragmatics through computer-mediated communication in Taiwan. Iranian Journal of Society, Culture, and Language, 52–73.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. *Eslami, Z. R., & Eslami-Rasekh, A.
    (2008) Enhancing the pragmatic competence of non-native English-speaking teacher candidates (NNESTCs) in an EFL context. InE. Alcón-Soler & Martinez-Flor, A. (eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters, 178–197. 10.21832/9781847690869‑011
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847690869-011 [Google Scholar]
  25. *Farahian, M., Rezaee, M., & Gholami, A.
    (2012) Does direct instruction develop pragmatic competence? Teaching refusals to EFL learners of English. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 3, 814–821. 10.4304/jltr.3.4.814‑821
    https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.3.4.814-821 [Google Scholar]
  26. *Felix-Brasdefer, J. C.
    (2008) Pedagogical intervention and the development of pragmatic competence in learning Spanish as a foreign language. Issues in Applied Linguistics16, 49–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. *Fordyce, K.
    (2014) The differential effects of explicit and Implicit Instruction on EFL Learners’ Use of Epistemic Stance. Applied Linguistics, 35, 6–28. 10.1093/applin/ams076
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams076 [Google Scholar]
  28. *Fukuya, Y., & Martinez-Flor, A.
    (2008) The interactive effects of pragmatic-eliciting tasks and pragmatics instruction. Foreign Language Annuals, 41, 478–500. 10.1111/j.1944‑9720.2008.tb03308.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2008.tb03308.x [Google Scholar]
  29. *Furniss, E.
    (2016) Teaching the pragmatics of Russian conversation using a corpus referred website. Language Learning and Technology, 20, 38–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. *Ghobadi, A., & Fahim, M.
    (2009) The effect of explicit teaching of English ‘Thanking formulas on Iranian EFL intermediate level students at English language institutes. System, 37, 526–537. 10.1016/j.system.2009.02.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.02.010 [Google Scholar]
  31. *Gu, X. L.
    (2011) The effect of explicit and implicit instructions of request strategies. Intercultural Communication Studies, 20(1), 104–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Hedges, L.
    (1992) Modeling Publication Selection Effects in Meta-Analysis. Statistical Science, 7, 246–255. Retrieved fromwww.jstor.org/stable/2246311
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Hedges, L., & Vevea, J.
    (1998) Fixed- and Random-Effects Models in Meta-Analysis. Psychological Methods, 3, 486–504. doi:  10.1037/1082‑989X.3.4.486
    https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.486 [Google Scholar]
  34. *Hernandez, T. A.
    (2011) Re-examining the role of explicit instruction and input flood on the acquisition of Spanish discourse markers. Language Teaching Research, 15, 159–182. doi:  10.1177/1362168810388694
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810388694 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L.
    (2000) Fixed effects vs. random effects meta-analysis models: Implications for cumulative research knowledge. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 275–292. 10.1111/1468‑2389.00156
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00156 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ishihara, M. & Cohen, A. D.
    (2010) Teaching and Learning Pragmatics, Where Language and Culture Meet. Harlow, UK: Pearson Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Jeon, E. H., & Kaya, T.
    (2006) Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development. InN. John & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp.165–211). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.13.10jeo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.13.10jeo [Google Scholar]
  38. *Jernigan, J.
    (2012) Output and English as a second language pragmatic development: The effectiveness of output-focused video-based instruction. English Language Teaching, 5(4), 2–14. 10.5539/elt.v5n4p2
    https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n4p2 [Google Scholar]
  39. Kasper, G., & Rose, K.
    (1999) Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 81–104. 10.1017/S0267190599190056
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190599190056 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kakegawa, T.
    (2009) Development of the use of Japanese sentence-final particles through email correspondence. InN. Taguchi (ed.), Pragmatic competence. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 301–333.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Kasper, G., & Rose, K.
    (2002) Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Khaerudin, T.
    (2012) Envisioning the use of technology to teach pragmatics. IJ-TEFL, 1, 60–69.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. *Li, Q.
    (2012) Effects of instruction on adolescent beginners’ acquisition of request modification. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 30–55. 10.1002/tesq.2
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.2 [Google Scholar]
  44. Li, S.
    (2010) The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2010.00561.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x [Google Scholar]
  45. *Li, S.
    (2012) The effect of input-based practice on pragmatic development in L2 Chinese. Language Learning, 62, 403–438. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2011.00629.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00629.x [Google Scholar]
  46. (2013) Amount of practice and pragmatic development of request-making in L2 Chinese. InN. Taguchi & J. M. Sykes (eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching (pp.43–70). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.36.04li
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.36.04li [Google Scholar]
  47. Mackey, A., & Goo, J. M.
    (2007) Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. InA. Mackey (Ed.), Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 learning (pp.379–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Martinez-Flor, A., & Alcón-Soler, E.
    (2005) Special issue: Pragmatics in instructed language learning. System, 33, 381–456. Retrieved fromhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/system/vol/33/issue/3
    [Google Scholar]
  49. *Martínez-Flor, A., & Alcón-Soler, E.
    (2007) Developing pragmatic awareness of suggestions in the EFL classroom: A focus on instructional effects. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10, 47–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. *Narita, R.
    (2012) The effects of pragmatic consciousness-raising activity on the development of pragmatic awareness and use of hearsay evidential markers for learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1–29. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.016 [Google Scholar]
  51. Nguyen, T. T. M.
    (2008) Modifying L2 criticism: how learners do it?Journal of Pragmatics40, 768–791. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.008 [Google Scholar]
  52. *Nguyen, T. T. M.
    (2013) Instructional effects on the acquisition of modifiers in constructive criticisms by EFL learners. Language Awareness, 22, 76–94. 10.1080/09658416.2012.658810
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2012.658810 [Google Scholar]
  53. *Nguyen, T. T. M., Do, T. T. H., Nguyen, A. T., & Pham, M. H.
    (2015) Teaching email requests in the academic context: a focus on the role of corrective feedback, Language Awareness, 24(2), 169–195. doi:  10.1080/09658416.2015.1010543
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2015.1010543 [Google Scholar]
  54. *Nguyena, T. T. M., Phamb, T. H., & Phamb, M. T.
    (2012) The relative effects of explicit and implicit form-focused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic competence. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 416–434. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.01.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  55. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L.
    (2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528. 10.1111/0023‑8333.00136
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136 [Google Scholar]
  56. Oswald, F. L., & Plonsky, L.
    (2010) Meta-analysis in Second Language Research: Choices and Challenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 85–110. doi:  10.1017/S0267190510000115
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190510000115 [Google Scholar]
  57. *Rafieyan, V.
    (2016) Effect of ‘Focus on Form’ versus ‘Focus on Forms’ Pragmatic Instruction on Development of Pragmatic Comprehension and Production. Journal of Education and Practice, 7, 41–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. *Rafieyan, V., Sharafi-Nejad, M., Khavari, Z., Siew Eng, L., & Mohamed, A. R.
    (2014) Pragmatic Comprehension Development through Telecollaboration. English Language Teaching, 7, 11–19. 10.5539/elt.v7n2p11
    https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n2p11 [Google Scholar]
  59. Rose, K. R.
    (2005) On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33, 385–399. 10.1016/j.system.2005.06.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.06.003 [Google Scholar]
  60. Rose, K., & Kasper, G.
    (2001) Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524797
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524797 [Google Scholar]
  61. Rosenthal, R.
    (1995) Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 183–192. 10.1037/0033‑2909.118.2.183
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.2.183 [Google Scholar]
  62. (1994) Parametric measures of effect size. InH. Cooper & L. Hedges (Eds.), Handbook of research synthesis (pp.231–244). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M.
    (Eds.) (2006) Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. NY: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Saita, I.
    (2001) Aizuchi and cut in-focusing on a situation and setting where a problem concerning cross-cultural communication often occurs. A study on two-way distance learning system of Japanese language (Research outcome report. Grant-in-aid scientific research report 1999–2000). (C) (2), 9–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. *Simin, S., Eslami, Z., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Ketabi, S.
    (2014) The effects of explicit teaching of apologies on Persian EFL learners’ performance: When e-communication helps. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning3, 71–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Spada, N., & Tomita, Y.
    (2010) Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2010.00562.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x [Google Scholar]
  67. Sykes, J.
    (2005) Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: Effects of oral and written chat. CALICO, 22, 399–432. 10.1558/cj.v22i3.399‑431
    https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v22i3.399-431 [Google Scholar]
  68. Taguchi, N.
    (2006) Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English. Pragmatics, 16, 513–535. 10.1075/prag.16.4.05tag
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.16.4.05tag [Google Scholar]
  69. (2011) Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289–310. 10.1017/S0267190511000018
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000018 [Google Scholar]
  70. (2015) Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1–50. doi: 10.1017/S0261444814000263
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000263 [Google Scholar]
  71. Taguchi, N., & Sykes, J. M.
    (2013) Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.36
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.36 [Google Scholar]
  72. Taguchi, N.
    (2005a) Comprehension of implied meaning in English as a second language. Modern Language Journal, 89, 543–562. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2005.00329.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00329.x [Google Scholar]
  73. (2015b) Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48, 1–50. 10.1017/S0261444814000263
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000263 [Google Scholar]
  74. *Tajeddin, Z., Keshavarz, M. H., & Zand Moghaddam, A.
    (2012) The Effect of Task-Based Language Teaching on EFL Learners’ Pragmatic Production, Metapragmatic Awareness, and Pragmatic Self-Assessment. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 15, 139–166.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Takahashi, S.
    (1996) Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 189–223.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. (2010a) Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics. InA. Trosborg (Ed.), Handbook of pragmatics (vol.7, pp.391–421). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. (2010b) The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance. InMart´ınez- Flor, A. & E. Us´o-Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp.127–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.26.08tak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.26.08tak [Google Scholar]
  78. Takimoto, M.
    (2006) The effects of explicit feedback on the development of pragmatic proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 10, 393–417. 10.1191/1362168806lr198oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr198oa [Google Scholar]
  79. *Takimoto, M.
    (2007) The effects of referential oriented activity in the structured input task on the development of learners’ pragmatic proficiency. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 13, 46–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Takimoto, M.
    (2008) The Effects of Deductive and Inductive Instruction on the Development of Language Learners' Pragmatic Competence. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 369–386. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2008.00752.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00752.x [Google Scholar]
  81. *Takimoto, M.
    (2012a) Assessing the effects of identical task repetition and task type repetition on learners’ recognition and production of second language request downgraders. Intercultural Pragmatics, 9, 71–96. 10.1515/ip‑2012‑0004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2012-0004 [Google Scholar]
  82. (2012b) Metapragmatic discussion in interlanguage pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1240–1253. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.007 [Google Scholar]
  83. *Tan, K. H., & Farashaiyan, A.
    (2012) The effectiveness of teaching formulaic politeness strategies in making request to undergraduates in an ESL classroom. Asian Social Science8, 189–196. 10.5539/ass.v8n15p189
    https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v8n15p189 [Google Scholar]
  84. *Tanaka, H., & Oki, N.
    (2015) An attempt to raise Japanese EFL learners’ pragmatic awareness using online discourse completion tasks. The jalt call Journal. 11(2).143–154.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. *Tateyama, Y.
    (2007) The effects of instruction on pragmatic awareness. InK. Bradford-Watts (ed.), JALT 2006 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT, 1189–1200. Available online atjalt-publications.org/archive/proceedings/2006/E128.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  86. (2009) Requesting in Japanese: The effect of instruction on JFL learners’ pragmatic competence. InN. Taguchi (ed.), Pragmatic competence. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 129–166.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Utashiro, T., & Kawai, G.
    (2009) Blended learning for Japanese reactive tokens: Effects of computer-led, instructor-led, and peer-based instruction. InN. Taguchi (ed.), Pragmatic competence. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 275–299. journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 11 Mar 2015IP address: 142.104.240.194
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Viechtbauer, W., & Cheung, M. W.
    (2010) Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods. 1(2): 112–125. doi:  10.1002/jrsm.11
    https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.11 [Google Scholar]
  89. Vyatkina, N., & Belz, J. A.
    (2006) A learner corpus-driven intervention for the development of L2 pragmatic competence. InK. Bardovi-Harlig, J. C. Fe´lix- Brasdefer, & A. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning (pp.315–357). Honolulu: National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawai’i.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Wishnoff, J.
    (2000) Hedging your bets: L2 learners’ acquisition of pragmatic devices in academic writing and computer-mediated discourse. Second Language Studies, 19, 127–157.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/itl.19012.you
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/itl.19012.you
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error