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-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:32:15.034Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Second Language Acquisition

Interaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 September 2021

Jennifer Behney  and
Susan Gass
Jennifer Behney
Affiliation:
Youngstown State University
Susan Gass
Affiliation:
Southeast University, Nanjing, China and Michigan State University

Summary

This Element in the Cambridge Elements in Second Language Acquisition series examines the role of interaction in Second Language Acquisition research, with a focus on the cognitive interactionist approach. The Element describes the major branches of the field, considering the importance of conversational interaction in both the cognitive interactionist framework as well as in sociocultural approaches to second language learning. The authors discuss the key concepts of the framework, including input, negotiation for meaning, corrective feedback, and output. The key readings in the field and the emphases of current and future research are explained. Finally, the authors describe the pedagogical implications that the cognitive interactionist approach has had on the teaching of second languages.
Get access

Keywords

interactioninputoutputnegotiation for meaningfeedbackattention
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Second Language Acquisition
Online ISBN: 9781108870627
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 23 September 2021

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

Abbuhl, R., Mackey, A., Ziegler, N., & Amoroso, L. (2018). Interaction and learning grammar. In Liontas, J. (ed.), The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching (pp. 1–7). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Alcón-Soler, E. & García Mayo, M. P. (eds.) (2009a). International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(3–4).Google Scholar
Alcón-Soler, E., & García Mayo, M. P. (2009b). Introduction. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(3–4), 239–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alegría, de la Colina, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2009). Oral interaction in task-based EFL learning: The use of the L1 as a cognitive tool. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(3–4), 325–345.Google Scholar
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483.Google Scholar
Allport, A. (1989). Visual attention. In Posner, M. (ed.), Foundations of Cognitive Science (pp. 631–682). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (2010, May 22). Use of the target language in the classroom [Position statement]. www.actfl.org/resources/guiding-principles-language-learning/use-target-language-language-learning (accessed December 4, 2020).Google Scholar
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines 2012. www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-and-manuals/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012 (accessed November 30, 2020).Google Scholar
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (2015). ACTFL/CAEP program standards for the preparation of foreign language teachers. www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/CAEP/ACTFLCAEPStandards2013_v2015.pdf (accessed November 30, 2020).Google Scholar
Andringa, S., & Godfroid, A. (2020). Sampling bias and the problem of generalizability in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 40, 134–142.Google Scholar
Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63(7), 602–614.Google Scholar
Asher, J. (1996). Learning Another Language Through Actions (5th ed.). Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Productions.Google Scholar
Azkarai, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2016). Task repetition effects on L1 use in EFL child task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research, 21(4), 480–495.Google Scholar
Azkarai, A., & Imaz Agirre, A. (2016). Negotiation of meaning strategies in child EFL mainstream and CLIL settings. TESOL Quarterly, 50(4), 844–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azkarai, A., & Oliver, R. (2019). Negative feedback on task repetition: ESL vs. EFL child settings. The Language Learning Journal, 47(3), 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417–423.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. (2003a). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36, 189–208.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. (2003b). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Neuroscience, 4, 829–839.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In Bower, G. H. (ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (pp. 47–90). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Baralt, M. (2013). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(4), 689–725.Google Scholar
Baralt, M., & Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2011). Comparing learners’ state anxiety during task-based interaction in computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 201–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baralt, M., Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Kim, Y. (2016). The effects of task complexity and classroom environment on learners’ engagement with the language. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning: Pedagogical Potential and Research Agenda (pp. 209–239). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I., Klein, R., & Viswanathan, M. (2004). Bilingualism, aging, and cognitive control: Evidence from the Simon task. Psychology and Aging, 19(2), 290–303.Google Scholar
Bigelow, M. H. (2007). Social and cultural capital at school: The case of a Somali teenage girl. Literacy Institute at Virginia Commonwealth University, 7–22.Google Scholar
Bigelow, M., & Tarone, E. (2004). The role of literacy level in second language acquisition: Doesn’t who we study determine what we know? TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 689–700.Google Scholar
Bigelow, M., delMas, R., Hansen, K., & Tarone, E. (2006). Literacy and the processing of oral recasts in SLA. TESOL Quarterly, 40(4), 665–689.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436–458.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral languages. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (pp. 23–48). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001). Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cerezo, L. (2021). Corrective feedback in computer-mediated versus face-to-face environments. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 494–519). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive modal of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27, 29–46.Google Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Choi, S., & Lantolf, J. (2008). Representation and embodiment of meaning in L2 communication: Motion events in the speech and gesture of advanced L2 Korean and L2 English speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 191–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of B. F. Skinner, Verbal Behavior. Language, 35, 26–58.Google Scholar
Cobb, M. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of task-based interaction in form-focused instruction of adult learners in foreign and second language teaching [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of San Francisco.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161–170.Google Scholar
Coyle, Y., & de Larios, J. R. (2020). Exploring young learners’ engagement with models as a written corrective technique in EFL and CLIL settings. System, 95, 102374.Google Scholar
Coyle, Y., Guirao, J. C., & de Larios, J. R. (2018). Identifying the trajectories of young EFL learners across multi-stage writing and feedback processing tasks with model texts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 42, 25–43.Google Scholar
De la Campa, J. C., & Nassaji, H. (2009). The amount, purpose, and reasons for using L1 in L2 classrooms. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 742–759.Google Scholar
de la Fuente, M. J. (2003). Is SLA interactionist theory relevant to CALL? A study on the effects of computer-mediated interaction in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(1), 47–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donato, R. (1988). Beyond group: A psycholinguistic rationale for collective activity in second-language learning [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. H. (eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 256–310). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eckerth, J. (2009). Negotiated interaction in the L2 classroom. Language Teaching, 42(1), 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (1998). Emergentism, connectionism and language learning. Language Learning, 48, 631–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2008). The dynamics of second language emergence: Cycles of language use, language change, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 41, 232–249.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2017). Salience in usage-based SLA. In Gass, S., Spinner, P., & Behney, J. (eds.), Saliency in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 39–58). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Wulff, S. (2020). Usage-based approaches to SLA. In VanPatten, B., Keating, G., & Wulff, S. (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (3rd ed., pp. 63–82). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom Second Language Development: A Study of Classroom Interaction and Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1999). Learning a Second Language through Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(1), 1–46.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2017). Oral corrective feedback in L2 classrooms: What we know so far. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning: Research, Theory, Applications, Implications (pp. 3–18). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339–368.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44(3), 449–491.Google Scholar
Farrokhi, F., & Gholami, J. (2007). Reactive and preemptive language related episodes and uptake in an EFL class. Asian EFL Journal, 9(2), 58–92.Google Scholar
Farrokhi, F., Ansarin, A. A., & Mohammadnia, Z. (2008). Preemptive Focus on Form: Teachers’ practices across proficiencies. Linguistics Journal, 3(2), 7–30.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. (1971). Absence of copula and the notion of simplicity: A study of normal speech, baby talk, foreigner talk and pidgins. In Hymes, D. (ed.), Pidginization and Creolization of Languages (pp. 141–150). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Frawley, W., & Lantolf, J. P. (1985). L2 discourse: A Vygotskian perspective. Applied Linguistics, 6, 19–44.Google Scholar
Fries, C. (1957). Foreword. In Lado, R., Linguistics across Cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Gallaway, C., & Richards, B. (eds.) (1994). Input and Interaction in Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Galloway, V. (1998). Constructing cultural realities: “Facts” and frameworks of association. In Harper, J., Lively, M., & Williams, M. (eds.), The Coming of Age of the Profession (pp. 129–140). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Gánem Gutiérrez, A. (2008). Microgenesis, method and object: A study of collaborative activity in a Spanish as foreign language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 120–148.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P. (2002). Interaction in advanced EFL pedagogy: A comparison of form-focused activities. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3–4), 323–341.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Alcón Soler, E. (2013). Negotiated input and output/interaction. In Herschensohn, J. & Young Scholten, M. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 209–229). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & García Lecumberri, M. L. (2003). Age and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Imaz Agirre, A. (2016). Task repetition and its impact on EFL children’s negotiation of meaning strategies and pair dynamics: An exploratory study. The Language Learning Journal, 44(4), 451–466.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Lázaro Ibarrola, A. (2015). Do children negotiate for meaning in task-based interaction? Evidence from CLIL and EFL settings. System, 54, 40–54.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1988). Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 198–217.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1997). Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (2010). Interactionist perspectives on second language acquisition. In Kaplan, R. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 217–231). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (2018). Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. In Bardovi Harlig, K. and Dörnyei, Z. (eds.), AILA Review (pp. 3–17). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2020). Input, interaction, and output in L2 acquisition. In B. VanPatten, Keating, G., & Wulff, S. (eds.), Theories of Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (3rd ed., pp. 192–222). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (1994). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1984). The effect of familiarity on the comprehensibility of non-native speech. Language Learning, 34(1), 65–89.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1985). Variation in native speaker speech modification to nonnative speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 37–57.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1989). Incorporated repairs in NNS discourse. In Eisenstein, M. (ed.), Variation and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 71–86). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283–302.Google Scholar
Gass, S., Behney, J., & Plonsky, L. (2020). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course (5th ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gass, S., Behney, J., & Uzum, B. (2013). Inhibitory control, working memory, and L2 interaction gains. In Droździał-Szelest, K. & Pawlak (eds.), M., Psycholinguistic and Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Second Language Learning and Teaching: Studies in Honor of Waldemar Marton (pp. 91–114). Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55, 575–611.Google Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2011). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning (reprint), 61, 189–220.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R., Barón, J. & Llanes, À. (2009). Manipulating cognitive complexity across task types and its impact on learners’ interaction during oral performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(3–4), 367–395.Google Scholar
Glisan, E. W., & Donato, R. (2017). Enacting the Work of Language Instruction: High-Leverage Teaching Practices. Alexandria, VA: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.Google Scholar
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474.Google Scholar
Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 127–165.Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M. (2014). Exploring learner perception and use of task-based interactional feedback in face-to-face and computer-mediated modes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 1–37.Google Scholar
Hall, J. K. (2007). Redressing the roles of correction and repair in research on second and foreign language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 511–526.Google Scholar
Hall, J. K. (2013). Teaching and Researching: Language and Culture (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. (1978a). Acquisition of syntax in a second language. In Richards, J. C. (ed.), Understanding Second and Foreign Language Learning: Issues and Approaches (pp. 34–69). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. (1978b). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In Hatch, E. (ed.), Second Language Acquisition: A Book of Readings (pp. 401–435). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. (1983). Psycholinguistics: A Second Language Perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.Google Scholar
Hlas, A. C., & Hlas, C. S. (2012). A review of high‐leverage teaching practices: Making connections between mathematics and foreign languages. Foreign Language Annals, 45(s1), s76–s97.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J., Young, R., Ortega, L., & Bigelow, M. (2014). Bridging the gap: Cognitive and social approaches to research in second language learning and teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 361–421.Google Scholar
Jeong, H., Sugiura, M., Suzuki, W., Sassa, Y., Hashizume, H., & Kawashima, R. (2016). Neural correlates of second-language communication and the effect of language anxiety. Neuropsychologia, 84, e2–e12.Google Scholar
Keck, C. M., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis. In Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 91–131). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1977). Some issues relating to the monitor model. In Brown, H., Yorio, C., & Crymes, R. (eds.), On TESOL ’77: Teaching and Learning English as a Second Language: Trends in Research and Practice (pp. 144–158). Washington, DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. London: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across Cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. (2012). Sociocultural theory: A dialectical approach to L2 research. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 57–72). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. (2014). The sociocultural perspective. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 368–374.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. (2007). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (pp. 201–224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J., Kurtz, L., & Kisselev, O. (2016). Understanding the revolutionary character of L2 development in the ZPD: Why levels of mediation matter. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 3, 153–171.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J., Thorne, S., & Poehner, M. (2020). Sociocultural theory and second language development. In VanPatten, B., Keating, G., & Wulff, S. (eds.), Theories of Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Levine, G. (2013). The case for a multilingual approach to language classroom communication. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(8), 423–436.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta‐analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 634–654.Google Scholar
Li, S., Zhu, Y., & Ellis, R. (2016). The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 276–295.Google Scholar
Liebscher, G., & Dailey-O’Cain, J. (2009). Student and teacher use of the first language in foreign language classroom interaction: Functions and applications. In Turnbull, M. & Dailey-O’Cain, J. (eds.), First Language Use in Second and Foreign Language Learning (pp. 131–144). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How Languages Are Learned (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Linck, J. A., & Weiss, D. J. (2011). Working memory predicts the acquisition of explicit L2 knowledge. In Sanz, C. (ed.), Implicit and Explicit Language Learning: Conditions, Processes, and Knowledge in SLA and Bilingualism (pp. 101–113). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Linck, J. A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 861–883.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. (2002). The occurrence and effectiveness of incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Auckland.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. (2003). Variation in the frequency and characteristics of incidental focus on form. Language Teaching Research, 7, 315–345.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., & Gass, S. (2021). Laboratory-based oral corrective feedback. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 130–146). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018). Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51, 285–329.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1980). Input, interaction and second language acquisition [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of California.Google Scholar
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. 259–278). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1983a). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126–141.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1983b). Linguistic and conversational adjustments. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(2), 177–193.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1983c). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in the second language classroom. In Clarke, M. & Handscombe, J. (eds.), On TESOL ’82: Pacific Perspectives on Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 207–225). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de Bot, K., Ginsberg, R., & Kramsch, C. (eds.), Foreign Language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1992, March). Input, focus on form, and second language acquisition. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics annual meeting, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (eds.), Handbook of Language Acquisition. Vol. 2: Second Language Acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2015). Second Language Acquisition and Task-Based Language Teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2019). Roles for corrective feedback in second language instruction. In Chapelle, C. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 36–37.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 167–184.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.Google Scholar
Macaro, E. (2001). Analysing student teachers’ codeswitching in foreign language classrooms: Theories and decision making. The Modern Language Journal, 85(4), 531–548.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, P. D. (2012). The idiodynamic method: A closer look at the dynamics of communication traits. Communication Research Reports, 29(4), 361–367.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–587.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2002). Beyond production: Learners’ perceptions about interactional processes. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 379–394.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (ed.) (2007). Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, Interaction, and Corrective Feedback in L2 Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2020). Interaction, Feedback and Task Research in Second Language Learning: Methods and Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Series of Empirical Studies (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Oliver, R. (2002). Interactional feedback and children’s L2 development. System, 30, 459–477.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Sachs, R. (2012). Older learners in SLA research: A first look at working memory, feedback, and L2 development. Language Learning, 62, 704–740.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Silver, R. E. (2005). Interactional tasks and English L2 learning by immigrant children in Singapore. System, 33, 239–260.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R., & Gass, S. (2012). Interactionist approach. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 7–23). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Adams, R., Stafford, C., & Winke, P. (2010). Exploring the relationship between modified output and working memory capacity. Language Learning, 60, 501–533.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S. M., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.Google 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.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Park, H., Akiyama, Y., & Pipes, A. (2014, March). The role of cognitive creativity in L2 learning processes. Paper presented at the Georgetown University Round Table, Washington, DC.Google 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., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693–720.Google Scholar
McDonough, K., Crawford, W., & Mackey, A. (2015). Creativity and EFL students’ language use during a group problem-solving task. TESOL Quarterly, 49(1), 188–198.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of Second Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (eds.) (1999). Models of Working Memory: Mechanisms of Active Maintenance and Executive Control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Muñoz, C. (ed.) (2006). Age and the Rate of Foreign Language Learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Nagle, C., Trofimovich, P., O’Brien, M., & Kennedy, S. (in press). Beyond linguistic features: Exploring behavioral and affective correlates of comprehensible second language speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Published online March 23, 2021, https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1241&context=language_pubs (accessed July 10, 2021).Google Scholar
Nakatsukasa, K., & Loewen, S. (2017). Non-verbal feedback. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning: Research, Theory, Applications, Implications (pp. 158–173). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (eds.) (2017). Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning: Research, Theory, Applications, Implications. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (eds.) (2021). The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
National Standards Collaborative Board (2015). World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages (4th ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 459–481.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. (1998). Negotiation of meaning in child interactions. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 372–386.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork. Language Learning, 50(1), 119–151.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. (2002). The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions. The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 97–111.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. (2009). How young is too young? Investigating negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in children aged five to seven years. In Mackey, A. & Polio, C. (eds.), Multiple Perspectives on Interaction: Second Language Interaction Research in Honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 135–156). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Oliver, R., & Azkarai, A. (2017). Review of child second language acquisition (SLA): Examining theories and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 62–76.Google Scholar
Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 519–533.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (1997). Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: Defining the research agenda for L2 computer-assisted classroom discussion. Language Learning & Technology, 1(1), 82–93.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2005). What do learners plan?: Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In Ellis, R. (ed.), Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language (pp. 77–109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Paradis, J. (2007). Second language acquisition in childhood. In Hoff, E. & Shatz, M. (eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Language Development (pp. 387–406). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google 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.Google Scholar
Philp, J., & Tognini, R. (2009). Language acquisition in foreign language contexts and the differential benefits of interaction. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(3–4), 245–266.Google Scholar
Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N. (2013). Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Philp, J., Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (eds.) (2008). Second Language Acquisition and the Younger Learner: Child’s Play? Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1987). Second language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 8, 3–21.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1988). Interlanguage adjustments as an outcome of NS–NNS negotiated interaction. Language Learning, 38, 45–73.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493–527.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1996). Second language learning through interaction: Multiple perspectives. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 12(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (2005). Classroom learning, teaching, and research: A task‐based perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 339–352.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. M. (eds.), Tasks and Language Learning (pp. 9–34). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In Nunan, D. (ed.), Applying Second Language Acquisition Research (pp. 45–141). Adelaide: National Curriculum Resource Centre, AMEP.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Mackey, A. (1993). An empirical study of children’s ESL development. In McKay, P. (ed.), ESL Development: Language and Literacy in Schools. Vol. 2: Documents on Bandscale Development and Language Acquisition (pp. 115–259). Canberra: National Languages & Literacy Institute of Australia and Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., & Brindley, G. (1988). Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 217–243.Google Scholar
Pinter, A. (2006). Verbal evidence of task related strategies: Child versus adult interactions. System, 34, 615–630.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. (2015, October). Demographics in SLA: A systematic review of sampling practices in L2 research. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum (SLRF), Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Brown, D. (2015). Domain definition and search techniques in meta-analyses of L2 research (or why 18 meta-analyses of feedback have different results). Second Language Research, 31, 267–278.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Gass, S. (2011). Quantitative research methods, study quality, and outcomes: The case of interaction research. Language Learning, 61, 325–366.Google Scholar
Polio, C., & Duff, P. (1994). Teachers’ language use in university foreign language classrooms: A qualitative analysis of English and target language alternation. The Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 313–326.Google Scholar
Quinn, P. (2014). Delayed versus immediate corrective feedback on orally produced passive errors in English [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Quinn, P. G., & Nakata, T. (2017). The timing of oral corrective feedback. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning: Research, Theory, Applications, Implications (pp. 35–47). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rassaei, E. (2015). Oral corrective feedback, foreign language anxiety, and L2 development. System, 49, 98–109.Google Scholar
Révész, A. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62(1), 93–132.Google Scholar
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, P., Mackey, A., Gass, S., & Schmidt, R. (2012). Attention and awareness in second language acquisition. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 247–267). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rudd, L. C., & Lambert, M. C. (2011). Interaction theory language development. In Goldstein, S. & Naglieri, J. A. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development. Boston, MA: Springer.Google Scholar
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 133–163). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N. (2007). From CALL to face-to-face interaction: The effect of computer delivered recast and working memory on L2 development. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 229–248). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Saito, K., & Akiyama, Y. (2017). Video-based interaction, negotiation for comprehensibility, and second language speech learning: A longitudinal study. Language Learning, 67(1), 43–74.Google Scholar
Sato, C. (1986) Conversation and interlanguage development: Rethinking the connection. In Day, R. (ed.), Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 23–45). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Saxton, M. (1997). The contrast theory of negative input. Journal of Child Language, 24, 139–161.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1993a). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–226.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1993b). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. (eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 21–42). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1994). Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars and SLA. In Ellis, N. (ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages (pp. 165–209). London: Academic Press.Google 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 Foreign Language Learning (Tech. Rep. No. 9, pp. 1–64). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google 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. (ed.), Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 237–326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263–300.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58(4), 835–874.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2010). Introduction: The role of oral and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 159–179.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (2nd ed., pp. 593–610). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shi, G. (2004). Teacher’s corrective feedback and learner repair in secondary EFL classrooms. Foreign Language and Literature, 86(4), 242–248.Google Scholar
Shrum, J., & Glisan, E. (2015). Teacher’s Handbook: Contextualized Language Instruction (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38–62.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R., Leal, T., Dudley, A., & Stack, M. (2020). Generative Second Language Acquisition (Cambridge Element). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focussed instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30(2), 73–87.Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 205–224.Google Scholar
Stevick, E. W. (1976). Memory, Meaning and Method. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2017). Sociocultural theory in the L2 classroom. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition (pp. 70–83). New York: Routledge.Google 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. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158–164.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (eds.), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf, J. P. (ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency, and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In Byrnes, H (ed.), Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum.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, 371–391.Google 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.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (pp. 99–118). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Watanabe, Y. (2013). Languaging: Collaborative dialogue as a source of second language learning. In Chapelle, C. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 1–8). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tarone, E., & Bigelow, M. H. (2005). Impact of literacy on oral language processing: Implications for second language acquisition research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 77–97.Google Scholar
Tarone, E., & Bigelow, M. H. (2007). Alphabetic print literacy and processing of oral corrective feedback in the L2. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Interaction and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 101–121). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. L., & Harrison, K. (2014). Language use in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 47(2), 321–337.Google Scholar
Tognini, R. (2008). Interaction in languages other than English classes in Western Australian primary and secondary schools: Theory, practice and perceptions [Doctoral dissertation]. Edith Cowan University.Google Scholar
Tognini, R., & Oliver, R. (2012). L1 use in primary and secondary foreign language classrooms and its contribution to learning. In Alcón Soler, E. & Safont Jordá, M. P. (eds.), Discourse and Learning across L2 Instructional Contexts (pp. 53–78). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007) How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 171–195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
US Department of State (n.d.). Foreign language training: Foreign Service Institute language difficulty categories, www.state.gov/foreign-language-training/ (accessed November 30, 2020).Google Scholar
Valmori, L. (2016). Anxiety in interaction-driven L2 learning [Unpublished PhD dissertation]. Michigan State University.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., Keating, G., & Wulff, S. (eds.) (2020). Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. (1982). The comprehensibility of non-native speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4(2), 114–136.Google Scholar
Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. (1985a). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 71–90.Google Scholar
Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. (1985b). Variation in native speaker speech modification to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Learning, 7, 35–57.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 1. Problems of General Psychology. Including the volume thinking and speech. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Wagner-Gough, K., & Hatch, E. (1975). The importance of input in second language acquisition studies. Language Learning, 25, 297–308.Google Scholar
Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar Dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wesche, M. (1994). Input and interaction in second language acquisition. In Gallaway, C. & Richards, B. (eds.), Input and Interaction in Language Acquisition (pp. 219–249). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, J. N. (1999). Memory, attention, and inductive learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 1–48.Google Scholar
Williams, J. N. (2012). Working memory and SLA. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 427–441). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wilson-Duffy, C. (2003). Creating online language activities: Putting task-based language teaching to use (Part 2). CLEAR News, 7(2), 1, 3, 6–7.Google Scholar
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.Google Scholar
Wulff, S. (2013). Input matters: The processor as a statistician. Invited commentary. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3, 356–360.Google Scholar
Wulff, S. (2021). Usage-based approaches. In Tracy-Ventura, N. & Paquot, M. (eds.), Routledge Handbook of SLA and Corpora (pp. 177–190). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wulff, S., & Ellis, N. C. (2018). Usage-based approaches to second language acquisition. In Miller, D., Bayram, F., Rothman, J., & Serratrice, L. (eds.), Bilingual Cognition and Language: The State of the Science across Its Subfields (pp. 37–56). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 235–263.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2013). Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34, 344–368.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y., & Sağdıç, A. (2019). The interaction between inhibitory control and corrective feedback timing. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 170(2), 204–227.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2016). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 553–586.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N., & González-Lloret, M. (eds.) (in press). Handbook of SLA and Technology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N., & Mackey, A. J. (2017). Interactional feedback in computer-mediated communication: A review and state of the art. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning: Research, Theory, Applications, Implications (pp. 80–94). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N., Parlak, Ö. , & Phung, H. (in press). Interactionist perspectives and the role of technology in SLA. In Ziegler, N. & González-Lloret, M. (eds.), Handbook of SLA and Technology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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.

Interaction
  • Jennifer Behney, Youngstown State University, Susan Gass, Southeast University, Nanjing, China and Michigan State University
  • Online ISBN: 9781108870627
Available formats
×

Save element 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.

Interaction
  • Jennifer Behney, Youngstown State University, Susan Gass, Southeast University, Nanjing, China and Michigan State University
  • Online ISBN: 9781108870627
Available formats
×

Save element 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.

Interaction
  • Jennifer Behney, Youngstown State University, Susan Gass, Southeast University, Nanjing, China and Michigan State University
  • Online ISBN: 9781108870627
Available formats
×