Cover not available
Part of
Cross-theoretical Explorations of Interlocutors and their Individual Differences
Edited by Laura Gurzynski-Weiss
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 53] 2020
► pp. 3–16

Chapter 1
Introducing cross-theoretical explorations of interlocutors and their individual differences

| Indiana University
Article outline
  • Introduction to the volume
  • Interlocutors across SLA theories
    • Cognitive-interactionist approach (Chapters 2 and 3)
    • Sociocultural theory (Chapters 4 and 5)
    • Variationist approach (Chapters 6 and 7)
    • Complex dynamic systems theory (Chapters 8 and 9)
  • Intended audience and organization of the volume
  • Volume matrix
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 January 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.53.01gur
References (61)
References
Arabski, J., & Wojtaszek, A. (Eds.). (2011). Aspects of culture in second language acquisition and foreign language learning. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, D. (2011). A sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition: How mind, body, and world work together in learning additional languages. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 143–166). New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayley, R., & Preston, D. (Eds.). (1996). Second language acquisition and linguistic variation. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 185–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. Modern Language Journal, 100(Supplement 2016), 19–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. (2005). Conversation analysis. In K. Fitch & R. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 71–102). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Duff, P. A. (2007). Second language socialization as sociocultural theory: Insights and issues. Language Teaching, 40(4), 309–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 27, 558–589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frawley, W., & Lantolf, J. (1985). Second-language discourse: A Vygotskyan perspective. Applied Linguistics, 61, 19–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–225). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 175–199). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Geeslin, K. L. (2000). A new approach to the study of the SLA of copula choice. In R. Leow & C. Sanz (Eds.), Spanish applied linguistics at the turn of the millennium (pp. 50–66). Medford, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
(2003). A comparison of copula choice in advanced and native Spanish. Language Learning, 53(4), 703–764. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Variation in L2 Spanish: The state of the discipline. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 4(2), 461–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeslin, K. L., & Long, A. Y. (2014). Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition: Learning to use language in context. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2013). Instructor characteristics and classroom-based SLA of Spanish. In K. L. Geeslin (Ed.), The handbook of Spanish second language acquisition (pp. 530–546). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017a). L2 instructor individual characteristics. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 451–467). New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017c). Instructor individual characteristics and L2 interaction. In L. Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors (pp. 151–172). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. 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 (pp. 293–313). In A. Tyler, L. Ortega, M. Uno, & H. I. Park (Eds.), Usage-inspired L2 instruction: Researched pedagogy. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Han, Z. (2016). A “reimagined SLA” or an expanded SLA? A rejoinder to The Douglas Fir Group. Modern Language Journal, 100(4), 736–740. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hatch, E. M. (1978). Second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H., Young, R. F., Ortega, L., Bigelow, M., DeKeyser, R., Ellis, N. C., & Talmy, S. (2014). Bridging the gap: Cognitive and social approaches to research in second language learning and teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(3), 361–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackson, D. O., & Burch, A. R. (Eds.) (2017). Complementary perspectives on task-based classroom realities [Special issue]. TESOL Quarterly, 51(3). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2011). A conversation-analytic approach to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 117–142). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. (2011). The sociocultural approach to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 24–47). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Aljaafreh, A. (1995). Second language learning in the zone of proximal development: A revolutionary experience. International Journal of Educational Research, 23(7), 619–632. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (1995). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 108–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J., Thorne, S. L., & Poehner, M. E. (2015). Sociocultural theory and SLA. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 207–226). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). The dynamic co-adaption of cognitive and social views: A chaos/complexity theory perspective. In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on second language use/learning (pp. 40–53). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2011). A complexity theory approach to second language development/acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 48–72). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2015). Complexity Theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 227–244). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2017). Complexity Theory: The lessons continue. In L. Ortega & Z.-H. Han (Eds.), Complexity theory in language development: In celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman (pp. 11–50). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Problems in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 557–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2013). SLA for the 21st century: Disciplinary progress, transdisciplinary relevance, and the bi/multilingual turn. Language Learning, 63(s1), 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Trying out theories on interlanguage: Description and explanation over 40 years of L2 negation research. In Z. Han & E. Tarone (Eds.), Interlanguage: Forty years later (pp. 173–202). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pawlak, M. (Ed.). (2012). New perspectives on individual differences in language learning and teaching. New York, NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Overview of learner individual differences and their mediating effects on the process and outcome of L2 interaction. In L. Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed.), Expanding individual differences in the interaction approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors (pp. 19–40). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. 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
Robinson, P. (Ed.). (2002). Individual differences and instructed language learning. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237–326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. New York, NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in the study of language: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–44). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–84). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (2007). Sociolinguistic approaches to second language acquisition research 1997–2007. Modern Language Journal, 91, 837–848. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
White, L. (1989). Universal grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2015). Linguistic theory, Universal Grammar, and second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 34–53). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Calzada, Asier & Agurtzane Azkarai
2024. Exploring learner-related variables in child collaborative writing: interaction mindset, willingness to communicate and proficiency. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 october 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.