Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T18:39:59.104Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 3 - Interaction as practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2010

Robert DeKeyser
By
Alison MacKey
Robert DeKeyser
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
Alison MacKey
Affiliation:
Georgetown University, USA
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Research on interaction in second language acquisition points to the importance of a range of interactional processes in the second language learning process. These processes include negotiation for meaning, the provision of feedback, and the production of modified output, as well as cognitive (learner-internal) factors such as attention, noticing, and memory for language. Research on interaction is often applied in second language classrooms through corrective feedback practices and the use of communicative tasks, and it brings together a number of related processes. Accordingly, this chapter integrates several of the constructs and processes discussed independently in other chapters in this volume, most notably input (Leow), feedback (Leeman), and output (Muranoi).

The development of the interaction hypothesis

One of the innovations in second language (L2) work over the last 25 years has been the development of research into the cognitive mechanisms that underlie second language acquisition. Research into L2 interaction can be traced to several lines originating in the 1970s. For example, Krashen's (1978) formulation of the input hypothesis suggested that adult second language learning was driven primarily by exposure to sufficient amounts of comprehensible input – that is, input that learners can understand. These ideas represented a shift in thinking from earlier claims about language learning, such as those made by Lado (1957) whose contrastive analysis hypothesis emphasized descriptions of what learners might find more or less difficult to learn.

Type
Chapter
Information
Practice in a Second Language
Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology
 , pp. 85 - 110
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ando, J., Fukunaga, N., Kurahashu, J., Suto, T., Nakano, T., & Kage, M. (1992). A comparative study on two ESL teaching methods: The communicative and the grammatical approach. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 40, 247–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayoun, D. (2001). The role of negative and positive feedback in the second language acquisition of the passé composé and imparfait. Modern Language Journal, 85, 226–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. (1990). Human memory: Theory and practice. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Birdsong, D. (1989). Metalinguistic performance and interlinguistic competence. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braidi, S. M. (2002). Reexamining the role of recasts in native-speaker/nonnative-speaker interactions. Language Learning, 52, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of learners. In Willis, J. & Willis, D. (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 134–46). London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 23–48). Harlow, UK: Pearson.Google Scholar
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing. Harlow, UK: Pearson.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H. (2005). Review of task-based language learning and teaching. The Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 297–98.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. (1995). The irrelevance of verbal feedback to language learning. In Eubank, L., Selinker, L., & Sharwood, M. Smith (Eds.), The current state of interlanguage: Studies in honor of William E. Rutherford (pp. 73–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S. (1999). Putting “input” in its proper place. Second Language Research, 15, 337–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S. (2000). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Daneman, M., & Case, R. (1981). Syntactic form, semantic complexity, and short-term memory: Influence on children's acquisition of new linguistic structures. Developmental Psychology, 17, 367–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46, 529–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 125–51). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2002). The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 137–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–57). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 91–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. (1998). Emergentism, connectionism and language learning. Language Learning, 48, 631–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. (1999). Cognitive approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 22–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–88.Google Scholar
Ellis, N., & Schmidt, R. (1997). Morphology and longer distance dependencies: Laboratory research illuminating the A in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 145–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N., & Sinclair, S. (1996). Working memory in the acquisition of syntax: Putting language in good order. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 234–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001a). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001b). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 407–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44, 449–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engle, R., Kane, M., & Tuholski, S. (1999). Individual differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence, and functions of the prefrontal cortex. In Miyake, A. & Shah, P. (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 442–81). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1988). Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics, 9, 198–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2002). Frequency effects and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 249–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (in press). Input interaction and output in SLA. In Williams, J. & Patten, B. (Eds.). Theories in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., Mackey, A., Fernandez, M., & Alvarez-Torres, M. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49, 549–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., Mackey, A., & Pica, T. (1998). The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition: Introduction to the special issue. Modern Language Journal, 82, 299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. (1985). Variation in native speaker speech modification to nonnative speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 37–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. (1989). Incorporated repairs in nonnative discourse. In Eisenstein, M. (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage (pp. 71–86). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 543–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, M., & Sawyer, M. (1992). L2 working memory capacity and L2 reading skill. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatch, E. (1978). Acquisition of syntax in a second language. In Richards, J. C. (Ed.), Understanding second and foreign language learning (pp. 34–70). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Healy, A., & Bourne, L. (Eds.). (1998). Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Iwashita, N. (2001). The effect of learner proficiency on interactional moves and modified output in nonnative-nonnative interaction in Japanese as a foreign language. System, 29, 267–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S. (1999). Promoting, noticing and SLA: An empirical study of the effects of output and input enhancement on ESL relativization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the output hypothesis: Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 421–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. (1978). Second language acquisition. In Dingwall, W. (Ed.), A survey of linguistic science (pp. 317–38). Stamford, CT: Greylock.Google Scholar
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P. (1998). Toward operationalizing the process of attention in SLA: Evidence for Tomlin and Villa's (1994) fine-grained analysis of attention. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 133–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P. M. (2002). The role of research in L2 teaching: Reply to Sheen. Applied Linguistics, 23, 529–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, G. D. (1992). Shapes of reaction-time distributions and shapes of learning curves: A test of the instance theory of automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 883–914.Google ScholarPubMed
Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In Winitz, H. (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (Vol. 379), pp. 259–78.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, pp. 413–68). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82, 357–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Journal, 4, 221–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2001). “A case of exercising”: Effects of immediate task repetition on learners' performance. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 141–62). Harlow, UK: Pearson.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998a). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998b). Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (1997). Interactional modifications and the development of questions in English as a second language. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2000, October). Feedback, noticing and second language development: An empirical study of L2 classroom interaction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 1–27.
Mackey, A. (in press). Introduction. In Mackey, A. (Ed.). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S. M., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Oliver, R. & Kanaganas, A., (in press). Task familiarity and interactional feedback in child ESL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly.
Mackey, A., & Oliver, R. (2002). Interactional feedback and children's L2 development. System, 30, 459–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53, 35–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 181–209). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K. (2001). Exploring the relationship between modified output and L2 learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners' responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103.
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (1998). Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In Healy, A. & Bourne, L. (Eds.), Foreign language learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (Eds.). (1999). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, F. (2002, March). How foreign language learners of Spanish perceive implicit negative feedback. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, Toronto, Ontario.Google Scholar
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. ELT Journal, 47, 203–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 459–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R. (1998). Negotiation of meaning in child interactions. Modern Language Journal, 82, 372–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork. Language Learning, 50, 119–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R. (2002). The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions. Modern Language Journal, 86, 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 87, 519–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573–95.
Papagno, C., Valentine, T., & Baddeley, A. D. (1991). Phonological short-term memory and foreign language vocabulary learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 331–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papagno, C., & Vallar, G. (1992). Phonological short-term memory and the learning of novel words: The effect of phonological similarity and item length. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44A, 47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Nonnative speakers' noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1988). Interlanguage adjustments as an outcome of NS-NNS negotiated interaction. Language Learning, 38, 45–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1996). Second language learning through interaction: Multiple perspectives. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 12, 1–22.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1998). Second language learning through interaction: Multiple perspectives. In Regan, V. (Ed.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 1–31). Dublin: University of Dublin Press.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 63–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plough, I., & Gass, S. M. (1993). Interlocutor and task familiarity: Effects on interactional structure. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. M. (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 35–56). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Polio, C., & Gass, S. M. (1998). The role of interaction in native speaker comprehension of nonnative speaker speech. Modern Language Journal, 82, 308–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, M. I. (1988). Structures and function of selective attention. In Dennis, M., Kaplan, E., Posner, M. I., Stein, D., & Thompson, R. (Eds.), Clinical neuropsychology and brain function: Research, measurement, and practice (pp. 169–201). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Posner, M. I. (1992). Attention as a cognitive and neural system. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, M. I., & Peterson, S. E. (1990). The attentional systems of the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 13, 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277–303.CrossRef
Ramírez, A. G. (2005). Review of the social turn in second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 292–3.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (1997). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning, 47, 45–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes and learning conditions in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 17, 368–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2002). Learning conditions, aptitude complexes, and SLA. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 113–33). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 119–40). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Sawyer, M., & Ranta, L. (2001). Aptitude, individual differences, and instructional design. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 319–53). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In Schmidt, R. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foriegn language learning. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In Day, R. R. (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237–326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Psycholinguistic approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Service, E. (1992). Phonology, working memory, and foreign language learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45A, 21–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Service, E., & Kohonen, V. (1995). Is the relation between phonological memory and foreign language learning accounted for by vocabulary acquisition? Applied Psycholinguistics, 16, 155–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shehadeh, A. (1999). Nonnative speakers' production of modified comprehensible output and second language learning. Language Learning, 49, 627–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shehadeh, A. (2001). Self and other-initiated modified output during task-based interaction. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 433–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shehadeh, A. (2002). Comprehensible output, from occurrence to acquisition: An agenda for acquisitional research. Language Learning, 52, 597–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silver, R. E. (2000). Input, output, and negotiation: Conditions for second language development. In B. Swierzbin, F. Morris, Anderson, M. E., Klee, C. A., & Tarone, E. (Eds.), Social and cognitive factors in second language acquisition: Selected proceedings of the 1999 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 345–71). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Simard, D., & Wong, W. (2001). Alertness, orientation, and detection. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 103–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sokolov, J. E., & Snow, C. E. (1994). Handbook of research in language development using CHILDES. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focussed instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30, 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–53). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren't enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–44). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–83). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 370–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second Language Research, 14, 103–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branden, K. (1997). Effects of negotiation on language learners' output. Language Learning, 47, 589–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner-Gough, J., & Hatch, E. (1975). The importance of input data in second language acquisition studies. Language Learning, 25, 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. N. (1999). Memory, attention, and inductive learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. N., & Lovatt, P. (2003). Phonological memory and rule learning. Language Learning, 53, 67–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. & Patten, B. (Eds.). (in press). Theories in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×