Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T23:55:51.267Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Negotiated interaction in the L2 classroom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2009

Johannes Eckerth
Johannes Eckerth*
Affiliation:
King's College London, UKjohannes.eckerth@kcl.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present paper reports on an approximate replication of Foster's (1998) study on the negotiation of meaning. Foster investigated the interactional adjustments produced by L2 English learners working on different types of language learning tasks in a classroom setting. The replication study duplicates the methods of data collection and data analysis of the original study, but alters the target language (L2 German) and adds a stimulated recall methodology. The results of the replication study partially confirm Foster's results, and introduce some further differentiated findings. It is concluded that the original study's concern with the transferability of laboratory findings to classroom settings should be investigated in greater detail.

Type
Replication Studies
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 109 - 130
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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

Adams, R. (2003). L2 output, noticing, and reformulations: Implications for IL development. Language Teaching Research 7.3, 347–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 29–51.Google Scholar
Allwright, D. & Bailey, K. (1991). Focus on the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aston, G. (1986). Trouble-shooting in interaction with learners: The more the merrier? Applied Linguistics 7.2, 128–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breen, M. (1987). Learner contributions to task design. In Candlin, C. & Murphy, D. (eds.), Language learning tasks. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall International, 23–46.Google Scholar
Brock, C. (1986). The effect of referential questions on ESL classroom discourse. TESOL Quarterly 20.1, 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brumfit, C. & Mitchell, R. (1990). The language classroom as a focus of research. In Brumfit, C. & Mitchell, R. (eds.), Research in the language classroom. London: Modern English Publications, 3–15.Google Scholar
Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (eds.) (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Carpenter, H., Jeon, K., MacGregor, D. & Mackey, A. (2006). Learners' interpretation of recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28.2, 209–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edn.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Coughlan, P. & Duff, P. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of SLA task from an activity theory perspective. In Lantolf, J. & Appel, G. (eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 173–193.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty, & Long, (eds.), 313–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA: Conditions, compensation and enhancement. In Doughty, & Long, (eds.), 256–310.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. (2004). Effects of instruction on learning a second language: A critique of instructed SLA research. In VanPatten, B., Williams, J., Rott, S., S. & Overstreet, M. (eds.), Form–meaning connections in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 181–202.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. & Long, M. (eds.) (2003). The handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. & Pica, T. (1986). ‘Information gap’ tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly 20.2, 305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckerth, J. (2006). Three theses on the pedagogical relevance of second language acquisition research. Dil Dergisi Turkish Language Journal 130.1, 18–36.Google Scholar
Eckerth, J. (2008a). Investigating consciousness-raising tasks: Pedagogically-targeted and non-targeted learning gains. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 18.2, 119–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckerth, J. (2008b). Task-based language learning and teaching − old wine in new bottles? In Eckerth, & Siekmann, (eds.), 13–46.Google Scholar
Eckerth, J. (2008c). Task-based learner–learner interaction: Investigating learning opportunities, learning processes, and learning outcomes. In Eckerth, & Siekmann, (eds.), 89–118.Google Scholar
Eckerth, J. & Siekmann, S. (eds.) (2008). Research on task-based language learning and teaching: Theoretical, methodological and pedagogical perspectives. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Edge, J. & Richards, K. (1998). May I see your warrants, please? Justifying outcomes in qualitative research. Applied Linguistics 19.3, 334–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, C. & Willis, J. (eds.) (2005). Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching. Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egi, T. (2004). Verbal reports, noticing, and SLA research. Language Awareness 13.4, 243–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Language emergence: Implications for Applied Linguistics. Applied Linguistics 27.4, 558–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1994). A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In Ellis, N. (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages. London: Academic Press, 79–114.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (ed.) (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewald, J. (2004). A classroom forum on small group work: L2 learners see, and change, themselves. Language Awareness 13.3, 163–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1986). The role of comprehension in second-language learning. Applied Linguistics 7.3, 184–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality. On ‘Lingua Franca’ English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 26.2, 237–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firth, A. & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA. The Modern Language Journal 81.3, 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics 19.1, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A. & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics 21.3, 354–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frantzen, D. (2003). Factors affecting how second language Spanish students derive meaning from context. The Modern Language Journal 87.2, 168–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. (ed.) (2007). Investigating tasks in formal language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In Doughty, & Long, (eds.), 224–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review 19, 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction and output in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories of second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 175–199.Google Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A. & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning 55.4, 575–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. & Madden, C. (eds.) (1985). Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gourlay, L. (2005). Directions and indirect action: Learner adaptation of a classroom task. ELT Journal 59.3, 209–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, K. (2005). Same activity, different focus. Focus on Basics 8.1, 7–10.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In Hatch, E. (ed.), Second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 401–435.Google Scholar
Hauser, E. (2005). Coding ‘corrective recasts’: The maintenance of meaning and more fundamental problems. Applied Linguistics 26.3, 293–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, B. (1985). Is an ‘appropriate response’ always so appropriate? In Gass, & Madden, (eds.), 162–178.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. (1997). Second language acquisition research in the laboratory: Possibilities and limitations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19.2, 131–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In Gumperz, J. & Hymes, D. (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehardt & Winston, 35–71.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1991). Language-learning tasks: Teacher intention and learner interpretation. ELT Journal 45.2, 98–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J. & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leaver, B. & Willis, J. (eds.) (2004). Task-based instruction in foreign language education. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, J. (2000). Tasks and communication in language classrooms. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Lindgren, E. (2002). The effect of stimulated recall on 14-year-olds' L1 Swedish and EFL writing and revision. Language Teaching Research 6.3, 267–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S. (2002). The occurrence and effectiveness of incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Auckland.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27.3, 361–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S. & Philip, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal 90.4, 536–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1983). Native-speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics 4.2, 126–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In Gass, & Madden, (eds.), 377–393.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In Beebe, L. (ed.), Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 115–141.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 413–468.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2007). Recasts: The story so far. In Long, M. (ed.), Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 75–116.Google Scholar
Long, M. (forthcoming). Task-based language teaching. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Long, M. & Crookes, G. (1987). Intervention points in second language classroom processes. In Das, B. (ed.), Patterns of classroom interaction. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, 137–152.Google Scholar
Long, M. & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly 19.2, 207–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2002). Beyond production: Learners' perceptions about interactional processes. International Journal of Educational Research 37.3/4, 379–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2006). Epilogue. From introspections, brain scans, and memory tests to the role of social context: Advancing research on interaction and learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28.2, 369–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2007). Interaction as practice. In DeKeyser, R. (ed.), Practice in a second language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2004). Second language acquisition as situated practice: Task accomplishment in the French second language classroom. The Modern Language Journal 88.4, 501–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller-Hartmann, A. & Schocker-von Ditfurth, M. (eds.) (2004). Task-based language learning and teaching. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Nabei, T. & Swain, M. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: A case study of an adult EFL student's second language learning. Language Awareness 11.1, 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakahama, Y., Tyler, A. & van Lier, L. (2001). Negotiation of meaning in conversational and information gap activities: A comparative discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly 35.3, 377–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning 51.4, 719–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nitta, R. & Gardner, S. (2005). Consciousness-raising and practice in ELT coursebooks. ELT Journal 59.1, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork. Language Learning 50.1, 119–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1987). Second language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied Linguistics 8.1, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1991). Classroom interaction, participation, and negotiation: Redefining relationships. System 19.4, 437–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about learning conditions, processes, outcomes? Language Learning 44.3, 493–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1998). Second language learning through interaction: Multiple perspectives. In Regan, V. (ed.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition in social context. Dublin: University College Dublin Press, 9–31.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (2005). Classroom learning, teaching, and research: A task-based perspective. The Modern Language Journal 89.3, 339–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. & Doughty, C. (1985). The role of group work in classroom second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7.2, 233–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly 21.4, 737–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., Berducci, D. & Newman, J. (1991). Language learning through interaction: What role does gender play? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13.3, 343–376.CrossRefGoogle 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 11.1, 63–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R. & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tools for second language instruction. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. (eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 9–34.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Kang, H. & Sauro, S. (2006). Information gap tasks: Their multiple roles and contributions to interaction research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28.2, 301–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninios, D. & Linnell, J. (1996). Language learners' interaction: How does it address the input, output and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly 30.1, 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polio, C., Gass, S. & Chapin, L. (2006). Using stimulated recall to investigate native speaker perceptions in native–nonnative speaker interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28.2, 237–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roebuck, R. (2000). Subjects speak out: How learners position themselves in a psycholinguistic task. In Lantolf, J. (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 79–95.Google Scholar
Roehr, K. (2006). Metalinguistic knowledge in L2 performance: A verbal protocol analysis. Language Awareness 15.3, 180–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuda, V. & Bygate, M. (2008) Tasks in second language learning. Houndsmill: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Seedhouse, P. (2005): ‘Task’ as a research construct. Language Learning 55.3, 533–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning 49.1, 93–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slimani-Rolls, A. (2005). Rethinking task-based language learning: What we can learn from the learners. Language Teaching Research 9.2, 195–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, & Madden, (eds.), 235–253.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (eds.), Principle & practice in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 125–144.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 471–483.Google Scholar
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics 16.3, 371–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal 82.3, 320–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In Bygate, et al. (eds.), 99–118.Google Scholar
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners' responses to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research 37.3/4, 285–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics 26.3, 376–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavakoli, P. (forthcoming). Investigating task difficulty: Learners' and teachers' perceptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (ed.) (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Den Branden, K., van Gorp, K. & Verhelst, M. (eds.) (2007). Tasks in action: Task-based language education from a classroom-based perspective. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Y. & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research 11.2, 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System 29.3, 325–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yule, G. (1997). Referential communication tasks. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Eckreth supplementary material

Eckreth supplementary material

Download Eckreth supplementary material(File)
File 233.5 KB