Cover not available
Part of
Expanding Individual Difference Research in the Interaction Approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors
Edited by Laura Gurzynski-Weiss
[AILA Applied Linguistics Series 16] 2017
► pp. 305–324

Chapter 13
Look who’s interacting

A scoping review of research involving non-teacher/non-peer interlocutors

 | Indiana University
 | Georgetown University
Despite the presence of non-teacher/non-peer learner interlocutors in primary (e.g., Gass and Varonis, 1985; M. H. Long, 1983; Varonis & Gass, 1985a, 1985b) and meta-analytic (Li, 2010) studies, and in interactionist theory and review articles (M. H. Long, 1996; Mackey & Goo, 2007), the individual differences (IDs) of these interlocutors have not been an explicit focus of theoretical discussion within the interaction approach. The lack of attention in this area is particularly surprising given how frequently learners interact with individuals who are not peers or teachers. The current scoping review, the final chapter of this volume, addresses this gap by systematically investigating the extent to which non-teacher/non-peer learner interlocutors and their IDs have been considered in empirical studies examining L2 interaction. We also critique the methodology employed to conduct this research, and make recommendations for future studies looking to ensure that the characteristics of all individuals who interact with L2 learners – and have the opportunity to influence L2 learning – are robustly investigated.
Keywords: interlocutors, L2 interaction, native speakers, researchers, scoping review
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Background
    • Learner individual differences
    • Instructor individual differences/characteristics
    • A case for considering non-teacher/non-peer interlocutors in L2 interaction research
    • Present study
  • Method
    • The sample
    • Data collection
    • Analysis
  • Results
  • Discussion and view to future research
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.16.13gur
References (88)
References
Basturkmen, H. (2012). Review of research into the correspondence between language teachers’ stated beliefs and practices. System, 40(2), 282–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biedrón, A., & Pawlak, M. (2016). New conceptualizations of linguistic giftedness. Language Teaching: The International Abstracting Journal for Language Teachers and Applied Linguistics, 49(2), 151–185. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cobb, M. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of task-based interaction in form-focused instruction of adult learners in second and foreign language teaching (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2013). Age effects in second language learning: Stepping stones toward better understanding. Language Learning, 63, 52–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dewaele, J. M. (2016). Personality and multi-competence. In Li Wei & V. Cook (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic multi-competence (pp. 403–419). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Díaz-Campos, M. (2016). Categoricidad y gradualidad en el análisis de la variable sociolingüística: un estudio comparativo basado en medidas acústicas. Paper presented at V Coloquio de Cambio y Variación Lingüística, UNAM, México.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2012). Pragmatic variation by gender in market service encounters in Mexico. In J. C. Félix-Brasdefer & D. Koike (Eds.), Pragmatic Variation in First and Second Languages (pp. 17–49). Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. (2016). The path I took. Language Teaching, 49, 578–591 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (2nd ed., pp. 180–206). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1985). Variation in native speaker speech modification to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7(1), 37–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeslin, K., Linford, B., Fafulas, S., Long, A. Y., & M. Díaz-Campos. (2013). The L2 development of subject form variation in Spanish: The individual vs. the group. In J. Cabrelli Amarao, G. Lord, A. Prada Peréz, & J. Aaron (Eds.) Selected Proceedings of the 16th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 156–174). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 445–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (Ed.) (forthcoming). Cross-theoretical explorations of interlocutors and their individual differences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2013). Instructor characteristics and classroom-based second language acquisition of Spanish. In K. L. Geeslin (Ed.), The handbook of Spanish second language acquisition (pp. 530–546). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Graduate instructor in-class cognition and feedback provision over time. In R. T. Miller, K. I. Martin, C. M. Eddington, A. Henery, N. M. Miguel, A. Tseng, A. Tuninetti, & D. Walter (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 2012 Second Language Research Forum, 227–239.Google Scholar
. (2015–October). Introductory remarks. Symposium on Interlocutor Individual Differences, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
(2016). Factors influencing Spanish instructors’ in-class feedback decisions. Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 255–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Instructor individual characteristics. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 451–467). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M. (2014). Exploring learner perception and use of task-based interactional feedback in FTF and CMC modes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., Geeslin, K. L., Daidone, D., Linford, B., Long, A. Y., Michalski, I., & Solon, M. (2018). L2 classrooms as multifaceted sources of input: The synergy of variationist and usage-based approaches. In A. Tyler, L. Ortega, M. Uno, & H. I. Park (Eds.), Usage-inspired L2 instruction: Researched pedagogy (pp. 293–313). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., Long, A. Y., & Solon, M. (Eds.) (2017). TBLT and L2 pronunciation: Do the benefits of tasks extend beyond grammar and lexis? [Special issue]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(2), 347–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
In’nami, Y., & Koizumi, R. (2016). Task and rater effects in L2 speaking and writing: A synthesis of generalizability studies. Language Testing, 33, 341–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jung, Y., Kim, Y., & Murphy, J. (2017). Task repetition in learning patterns of word stress through auditory priming tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(2) 319–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Junqueira, L., & Kim, Y. J. (2013). Exploring the relationship between training, beliefs, and teachers’ corrective feedback practices: A case study of a novice and an experienced ESL teacher. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69(2), 181–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keck, C., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A quantitative meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91–131). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., & Taguchi, N. (2015). Promoting task-based pragmatics instruction in EFL classroom contexts: The role of task complexity. Modern Language Journal, 99, 656–677. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larson-Hall, J., & Plonsky, L. (2015). Reporting and interpreting quantitative research findings: What gets reported and recommendations for the field. Language Learning, 65(Supp. 1), 127–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, J., Jang, J., & Plonsky, L. (2015). The effectiveness of second language pronunciation instruction: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36, 345–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language. Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 634–654. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, J., & Xie, L. (2014). Examining rater effects in a WDCT pragmatics test. Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 4(1), 50–65.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., & Isbell, D. (2017). Pronunciation in face-to-face and audio-only synchronous computer-mediated learner interactions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(2), 225–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1980). Inside the “black box”: Methodological issues in classroom research on language learning. Language Learning, 30(1), 1–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1981). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379(1), 259–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research on second language acquisition (Vol. 2, pp. 413–468). New York, NY: Academy Press.Google Scholar
Lord, G. (2015). “I don’t know how to use words in Spanish”: Rosetta Stone and Learner Proficiency Outcomes. Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 401–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lubbers Quesada, M. (2015). The L2 acquisition of Spanish subjects. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K. (2006). Action research and the professional development of graduate teaching assistants. Modern Language Journal, 90(1), 33–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2016). Second language research: Methodology and design (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 407–453). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Polio, C., & McDonough, K. (2004). The relationship between experience, education and teachers’ use of incidental focus-on-form techniques. Language Teaching Research, 8, 301–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Sachs, R. (2012). Older learners in SLA research: A first look at working memory, feedback, and L2 development. Language Learning, 62(3), 704–740. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacIntyre, P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15(1), 3–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marsden, E., Mackey, A., & Plonsky, L. (2016). Breadth and depth: The IRIS repository. In A. Mackey & E. Marsden (Eds.), Advancing methodology and practice: The IRIS repository of instruments for research into second languages (pp. 1–21). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
McKinnon, S. (2017). TBLT instructional effects on tonal alignment and pitch range in L2 Spanish imperatives versus declaratives. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(2), 287–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, P. C. (2003). The effectiveness of corrective feedback: A meta-analysis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Purdue University, Lafayette, IN.Google Scholar
Miller, P. C., & Pan, W. (2012). Recasts in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 56, 48–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., & Rodríguez-Louro, C. R. (2006). Beyond the syntax of the null subject parameter. In V. Torrens & L. Escobar (Eds.), The acquisition of syntax in Romance languages (pp. 401–418). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oswald, F. L., & Plonsky, L. (2010). Meta-analysis in second language research: Choices and challenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 85–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parlak, O. & Ziegler, N. (2017). The impact of recasts on the acquisition of primary stress in a computer-mediated environment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(2), 257–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pham, M. T., Rajić, A., Greig, J. D., Sargeant, J. M., Papadopoulos, A., & McEwen, S. A. (2014). A scoping review of scoping reviews: Advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Research Synthesis Methods, 5, 371–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs and practices. System, 37(3), 380–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493–527. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L. (n.d.). Second Language Research Corpus (L2RC).
(2011). The effectiveness of second language strategy instruction: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 61, 993–1038. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Study quality in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(4), 655–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Study quality in quantitative L2 research (1990–2010): A methodological synthesis and call for reform. Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 450–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Quantitative research methods in instructed SLA. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 505–521). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Derrick, D. J. (2016). A meta-analysis of reliability coefficients in second language research. Modern Language Journal, 100, 538–553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Gass, S. M. (2011). Quantitative research methods, study quality, and outcomes: The case of interaction research. Language Learning, 61, 325–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Gonulal, T. (2015). Methodological synthesis in quantitative L2 research: A review of reviews and a case study of exploratory factor analysis. Language Learning, 65(Supp. 1), 9–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2015, October). Interlocutor individual differences: A methodological perspective and scoping review. Plenary presented at the Symposium on Interlocutor Individual Differences, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Plonsky, L., & Kim, Y. (2016). Task-based learner production: A substantive and methodological review. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 73–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Ziegler, N. (2016). The CALL-SLA interface: Insights from a second-order synthesis. Language Learning and Technology, 20(2), 17–37.Google Scholar
Polio, C., Gass, S. M., & Chapin, L. (2006). Using stimulated recall to investigate native speaker perceptions in native-nonnative speaker interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 237–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quesada, M., & Blackwell, S. (2009). The L2 acquisition of null and overt Spanish subject pronouns: a pragmatic approach. In J. Collentine, M. Garcia, B. Lafford, & F. M. Martín (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 11th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 117–30). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Qureshi, M. A. (2016). A meta-analysis: Age and second language grammar acquisition. System, 60, 147–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reig Alamillo, A. (2009). Cross-dialectal variation in propositional anaphora: Null object and propositional lo in Mexican and Peninsular Spanish. Language Variation and Change, 21(3). 381–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Révész, A. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62(1), 93–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., & Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2016). Teachers’ perspectives on second language task difficulty: Insights from think-alouds and eye-tracking. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 182–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Russell, J. & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N. (2007). Online processing of gender agreement in low proficient English-Spanish late bilinguals. In M. J. Cabrera, J. Camacho, V. Déprez, N. Flores, & L. Sánchez (Eds.), Current Issues in Linguistic Theory Series (pp. 241–254). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Samper-Padilla, J. A. (2011). Socio-phonological variation and change in Spain. In M. Díaz- Campos (Ed). The handbook of Hispanic sociolinguistics (pp. 98–120). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serafini, E. J. (forthcoming). A dynamic approach to exploring relationships between second language motivation and interlocutor individual differences in a short-term immersion context. To appear in L. Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed.). Cross-theoretical explorations of interlocutors and their individual differences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Simard, D., Guénette, D., & Bergeron, A. (2015). L2 learners’ interpretation and understanding of written corrective feedback: insights from their metalinguistic reflections. Language Awareness, 24(3), 233–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N., & Kim, Y. (Eds.) (forthcoming). Task-based approaches to pragmatics teaching and assessment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Thomas, M. (2006). Research synthesis and historiography: The case of assessment of second language proficiency. In L. Ortega & J. M. Norris (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 279–298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. M. (1985a). Miscommunication in native/nonnative conversation. Language in Society, 14(3), 327–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1985b). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6, 71–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, L. (2014). A meta-analysis of peer-peer interaction in L2 English speaking assessment. English Teaching and Learning 38(3), 103–137.Google Scholar
Winke, P., Gass, S. M., & Myford, C. (2013). Raters’ L2 background as a potential source of bias in rating oral performance. Language Testing, 30, 231–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2016). The linguistic environment, interaction, and negative feedback. Brill Research Perspectives in Multilingualism and Second Language Acquisition, 1, 45–86.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y., & Granena, G. (2016). The role of cognitive aptitudes for explicit language learning in the relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(1), 147–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Young, R. (1999). Sociolinguistic approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 105–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2013). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A research synthesis and meta-analysis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
(2016). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 553–586. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (10)

Cited by ten other publications

Gurzynski-Weiss, Laura & YouJin Kim
2022. Chapter 1. Getting started. In Instructed Second Language Acquisition Research Methods [Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 3], ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Kim, YouJin & Laura Gurzynski-Weiss
2022. Chapter 15. Contributing to the advancement of the field:. In Instructed Second Language Acquisition Research Methods [Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 3], ► pp. 355 ff. DOI logo
Mahmoodi, Mohammad Hadi & Moslem Yousefi
2022. Second language motivation research 2010–2019: a synthetic exploration. The Language Learning Journal 50:3 ► pp. 273 ff. DOI logo
Chong, Sin Wang & Luke Plonsky
2021. A Primer on Qualitative Research Synthesis in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly 55:3 ► pp. 1024 ff. DOI logo
Hillman, Sara, Ali Fuad Selvi & Bedrettin Yazan
2021. A scoping review of world Englishes in the Middle East and North Africa. World Englishes 40:2 ► pp. 159 ff. DOI logo
SELVİ, Ali Fuad
2021. A SCOPING REVIEW OF THE “NEST/NNEST STUDIES” IN TURKEY: A COUNTRY IN FOCUS. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 21:1 ► pp. 54 ff. DOI logo
Gurzynski-Weiss, Laura
2020. Chapter 10. Synthesizing cross-theoretical explorations of interlocutors and their individual differences. In Cross-theoretical Explorations of Interlocutors and their Individual Differences [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 53], ► pp. 248 ff. DOI logo
Philp, Jenefer & Laura Gurzynski-Weiss
2020. Chapter 2. On the role of the interlocutor in second language development. In Cross-theoretical Explorations of Interlocutors and their Individual Differences [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 53], ► pp. 20 ff. DOI logo
Serafini, Ellen Johnson
2020. Chapter 9. The impact of learner perceptions of interlocutor individual differences on learner possible selves during a short-term experience abroad. In Cross-theoretical Explorations of Interlocutors and their Individual Differences [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 53], ► pp. 210 ff. DOI logo
Visonà, Mark Winston & Luke Plonsky
2020. Arabic as a heritage language: A scoping review. International Journal of Bilingualism 24:4 ► pp. 599 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.