Skip Navigation

Applied Linguistics 2003 24(1):90-121; doi:10.1093/applin/24.1.90
© 2003 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (17)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Golato, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Studying Compliment Responses: A Comparison of DCTs and Recordings of Naturally Occurring Talk

Andrea Golato1

1 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

This article provides a detailed study of the differences between compliment responses collected with two different data collection procedures: naturally occurring data analysed through conversation analytic (CA) methodology, and elicited data collected via a discourse completion task (DCT). The DCT was designed to evoke the same discourse context and preceding cotext observed in the naturally occurring data. The article demonstrates that these data collection procedures do not always yield data that speak equally well to given research questions. It is argued that recording naturally occurring talk-in-interaction enables the researcher to study how language is organized and realized in natural settings, whereas responses from data elicitation procedures such as DCTs indirectly reflect the sum of prior experience with language. Additionally, the article discusses advantages and disadvantages of data collection procedures including questionnaires, recall protocols, role play, field observation, and recordings of naturally occurring talk-in-interaction. The article concludes by discussing the feasibility of generalizing findings generated from the aforementioned data-collection instruments.

Received July 2002.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Applied LinguisticsHome page
N. Markee
Toward a Learning Behavior Tracking Methodology for CA-for-SLA
Applied Linguistics, September 1, 2008; 29(3): 404 - 427.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 International Journal of BilingualismHome page
D. Pinto and R. Raschio
A comparative study of requests in heritage speaker Spanish, L1 Spanish, and L1 English
International Journal of Bilingualism, June 1, 2007; 11(2): 135 - 155.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
C. Roever
Validation of a web-based test of ESL pragmalinguistics
Language Testing, April 1, 2006; 23(2): 229 - 256.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language Teaching ResearchHome page
T. Huth and C. Taleghani-Nikazm
How can insights from conversation analysis be directly applied to teaching L2 pragmatics?
Language Teaching Research, January 1, 2006; 10(1): 53 - 79.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language and SpeechHome page
M.-c. Yu
Sociolinguistic Competence in the Complimenting Act of Native Chinese and American English Speakers: A Mirror of Cultural Value
Language and Speech, March 1, 2005; 48(1): 91 - 119.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.