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. 19–50

Chapter 2
On the role of the interlocutor in second language development

A cognitive-interactionist approach

 | Lancaster University
 | Indiana University
In this chapter we examine the role of the interlocutor in second language (L2) learning and use from a cognitive-interactionist perspective, concentrating on oral interaction in face-to-face and (written and/or video) chat-based contexts. We center our discussion on the ways relationship, status, proficiency, or familiarity between interlocutors impact L2 interaction and opportunities for development, as well as how interlocutor individual differences play a part in the interaction. Finally, we outline ways to continue this line of work, including suggestions for researchers, teachers, and students alike.
Keywords: cognitive-interactionist approach, instructors, learners, L2 interaction, L2 development
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • The origins of the cognitive-interactionist approach
  • The interlocutor at the heart of the cognitive-interactionist approach
  • Interlocutor social relations and L2 opportunities
    • Social relations: Comparing teacher and student interactions
    • Power relationships between interlocutors
    • Social relations: Interplay between individual and group motivation
    • Role of interlocutor and proficiency
    • L2 proficiency and peer focus on form
    • Interaction with learners of the same or differing gender
    • Summary: Interlocutor social relations and L2 opportunities
  • Interlocutor individual differences in interaction
    • Anxiety
    • Engagement
    • Willingness to communicate
    • Personality
    • Attitudes
    • Motivation
    • Age
    • Working memory
    • Summary: Interlocutor individual differences in interaction
  • Future research directions
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 21 January 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.53.02phi
References (133)
References
Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 29–52). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Back, M. (this volume). Sociocultural empirical: Interlocutor differences and the role of social others. In L. Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed.), Cross-theoretical explorations of interlocutors and their individual differences. (p. 99–123). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in cognitive sciences, 4, 417–423. DOI logoGoogle 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, 689–725. DOI logoGoogle 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, 201–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baralt, M., Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Kim, Y. (2016). Engagement with the language: How examining learners’ affective and social engagement explains successful learner generated attention to form. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and L2 learning (pp. 209–239). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baralt, M. (2014). Task sequencing and task complexity in traditional versus online classes. In M. Baralt, R. Gilabert, & P. Robinson (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 95–122). London, UK: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers’ stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 25, 243–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Batstone, R., & Philp, J. (2013). Classroom interaction and learning opportunities across time and space. In K. McDonough & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts (pp. 109–125). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowles, M. A. (2011). Exploring the role of modality: L2-heritage learner interactions in the Spanish language classroom. Heritage Language Journal, 8, 30–65.Google Scholar
Bowles, M. A., Adams, R. J., & Toth, P. D. (2014). A comparison of L2–L2 and L2-Heritage learner interactions in Spanish language classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 98, 497–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cao, Y. (2009). Understanding the notion of interdependence, and the dynamics of willingness to communicate (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Auckland.Google Scholar
(2014). A sociocognitive perspective on second language classroom willingness to communicate. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 789–814. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cao, Y., & Philp, J. (2006). Interactional context and willingness to communicate: A comparison of behavior in whole class, group and dyadic interaction. System, 34, 480–493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1982). Vocabulary elaboration in L2 teachers’ speech to L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4, 170–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Csizér, K. (2017). Motivation in the L2 classroom. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 418–432). New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 9–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Lisi, R., & Golbeck, S. L. (1999). Implications of Piagetian theory for peer learning. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), The Rutgers Invitational Symposium on Education Series: Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 3–37). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Dewaele, J. M. (2004). The emotional force of swearwords and taboo words in the speech of multilinguals. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 25, 204–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dewaele, J. M., & Furnham, A. (2000). Personality and speech production: A pilot study of second language learners. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 355–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2002). The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 137–158). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. Reprinted in K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, & J. M. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 357–377). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Kormos, J. (2000). The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language Teaching Research, 4, 275–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. (2018). Cognitive language aptitude. Language Learning, 69, 101–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20, 405–428. DOI logoGoogle 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, 339–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1964). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory: By HJ Eysenck and Sybil BG Eysenck. London, UK: University of London Press.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 D. Hymes (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization of languages (pp. 141–150). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1975). Towards a characterization of English foreigner talk. Anthropological Linguistics, 17, 1–14.Google Scholar
Freiermuth, M., & Jarrell, D. (2006). Willingness to communicate: Can online chat help? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16, 189–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García-Mayo, M., & Lázaro Ibarrola, A. (2015). Do children negotiate for meaning in task-based interaction? Evidence from CLIL and EFL settings. System, 54, 40–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardner, R. C., Masgoret, A. M., Tennant, J., & Mihic, L. (2004). Integrative motivation: Changes during a year-long intermediate-level language course. Language Learning, 54, 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Spinner, P., Behney, J. & Gass, S. M. (2017). Afterword. The role of salience in second language acquisition. In S. M. Gass, P. Spinner, & J. Behney (Eds.), Salience in second language acquisition (pp. 291–297). New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. (1986). Sex differences in NNS/NNS Interactions. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 327–351). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 282–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2016). Factors influencing Spanish instructors’ in-class feedback decisions. Modern Language Journal, 100, 255–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.). (forthcoming). Investigating the dynamic nature of learner individual differences in second language learning. Invited special issue of Studies in Second Language Learning and Language Teaching.
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Plonsky, L. (2017). Look who’s interacting: A scoping review of research involving non-teacher/non-peer interlocutors. In L. Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors (pp. 305–324). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henry, A., Davydenko, S., & Dörnyei, Z. (2015). The anatomy of directed motivational currents: Exploring intense and enduring periods of L2 motivation. Modern Language Journal, 99, 329–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hernández, T. (2006). Integrative motivation as a predictor of success in the intermediate foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 39, 605–617. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hernández, T. A. (2010). Promoting speaking proficiency through motivation and interaction: The study abroad and classroom learning contexts. Foreign Language Annals, 43, 650–670. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hiver, P., Mercer, S. & Al-Hoorie, A. (Eds.). (forthcoming). Engagement in the second language classroom. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Iwashita, N. (2004). The role of conversation in SLA: Review of studies on negative feedback and directions of future research. Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language, 7, 163–185.Google Scholar
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (2011). Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language Teaching, 44, 137–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kang, D.-M. (2014). The effects of study-abroad experiences on EFL learners’ willingness to communicate, speaking abilities, and participation in classroom interaction. System, 42, 319–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kang, S.-J. (2005). Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language. System, 33, 277–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79, 457–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12, 211–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klink, M., & Klink, W. (1990). The influence of father caretaker speech on early language development: A case study. Early Child Development and Care, 62, 7–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J., & Trebits, A. (2012). The role of task complexity, modality, and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 62, 439–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. (1977). Some issues relating to the monitor model. In H. Brown, C. Yorio & R. Crymes (Eds.), On Tesol ’77 (pp. 144–158). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
(1980). The theoretical and practical relevance of simple codes in second language acquisition. In R. Scarcella & S. Krashen (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition: Selected papers of the Los Angeles Second Language Acquisition Research Forum (pp. 7–18). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
(1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Lambert, C., Philp, J., & Nakamura, S. (2017). Learner generated content and engagement in second language task performance. Language Teaching Research, 21, 665–680. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laursen, B. (2010). Capturing the peer context: The paradox of progress. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 897–902. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laursen, B., & Hartup, W. W. (2002). The origins of reciprocity and social exchange in friendships. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 95, 27–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P. M., Halter, R. H., White, J., & Horst, M. (2002). Comprehension-based learning: The limits of “do it yourself.” Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 427–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 361–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition (pp. 259–278), New York, NY: The New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
(1983). Native speaker and non/native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 125–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. (2002). Negotiation in immersion teacher–student interaction. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 237–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive processing in the second language. Language Learning, 44, 283–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacIntyre, P. D., & Serroul, A. (2015). Motivation on a per-second timescale: Examining approach-avoidance motivation during L2 task performance. In Z. Dörnyei, P. D. MacIntyre, & A. Henrys (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 109–138). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (Ed.) (2007). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.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 P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences in instructed language learning (pp. 181–209). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 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, 704–740. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R., & Gass, S. M. (2012). Interactionist approach. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 7–23). New York, NY: 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, S., & Valdivia, I. M. A. (2017). Students’ feedback beliefs and anxiety in online foreign language oral tasks. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14. > DOI logo>Google Scholar
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719–758. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, I., Segalowitz, N., Freed, B., & Collentine, J. (2007). Phonological memory predicts second language oral fluency gains in adults. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 557–582. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork. Language Learning, 50, 119–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions. Modern Language Journal, 86, 97–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R., & Grote, E. (2010). The provision and uptake of different types of recasts in child and adult ESL learners. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 26–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R., Philp, J., & Duchesne, S. (2017). Children working it out together: A comparison of younger and older learners collaborating in task-based interaction. System, 69, 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oya, T., Manalo, E., & Greenwood, J. (2004). The influence of personality and anxiety on the oral performance of Japanese speakers of English. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 18, 841–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20, 7–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Phillips, E. M. (1992). The effects of language anxiety on students’ oral test performance and attitudes. Modern Language Journal, 76, 14–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Philp, J. & Mackey, A. (2010). Interaction research: What can socially informed approaches offer to cognitivists (and vice versa)? In Batstone, R. (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 210–228). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Philp, J., & Duchesne, S. (2008). When the gate opens: The interaction between social and linguistic goals. In J. Philp, R. Oliver, & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language acquisition and the younger learner: Child’s play? (pp. 83–104) Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N. (2014). Peer interaction and second language learning. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Philp, J., Walter, S., & Basturkmen, H. (2010). Peer interaction in the foreign language classroom: What factors foster a focus on form? Language Awareness, 19, 261–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1992). The textual outcomes of native speaker-non-native speaker negotiation: What do they reveal about second language learning? Proceedings from Text and Context: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Language Study, 198–237.Google Scholar
(1998). Interlanguage adjustments as an outcome of NS-NNS Negotiated Interaction. Language Learning, 38, 45–73. DOI logoGoogle 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, 343–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poupore, G. (2018). A complex systems investigation of group work dynamics in L2 interactive tasks. Modern Language Journal, 102, 350–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rassaei, E. (2015). Recasts, field dependence-independence cognitive style, and L2 development. Language Teaching Research, 19, 499–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Révész, A. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62, 93–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross-Feldman, L. (2007). Interaction in the L2 classroom: Does gender influence learning opportunities? In A. Mackey, Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 53–77). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N. (2007). From CALL to face-to-face interaction: The effect of computer-delivered recasts and working memory on L2 development. In A. Mackey (Ed.) Conversational interaction in second language acquisition, (pp. 229–248). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Satar, H. M., & Özdener, N. (2008). The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency and anxiety: Text versus voice chat. Modern Language Journal, 92, 595–613. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. Modern Language Journal, 97, 611–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sato, M., & Ballinger, S. (2012). Raising language awareness in peer interaction: a cross-context, cross-methodology examination. Language Awareness, 21, 157–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 2–31). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serafini, E. J. (this volume). Exploring the dynamics of interlocutor IDs and language learner selves during a short-term experience abroad. In L. Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed). Cross-theoretical explorations of interlocutors and their individual differences (pp. 209–243). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
(2017). Exploring the dynamic long-term interaction between cognitive and psychosocial resources in adult second language development at varying proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 101, 369–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10, 361–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58, 835–874. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17, 95–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sulis, G., Michel, M., & Davidson, J. (in press). Dynamic changes in motivation and willingness to communicate in the second language classroom: A multiple case study. In W. Lowie, M. Michel, A. Rousse-Malpat, A. Keijzer, & S. Rasmus (Eds.), Usage-based dynamics in second language development. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Svalberg, A. M.-L. (2009). Engagement with language: Interrogating a construct. Language Awareness, 18, 242–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensive input and comprehensible output in its development, In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–256). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
(1988). Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize second language learning. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada, 6, 68–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(1997). Immersion programs in Canada. In J. Cumins & D. Corson (Eds.) Encyclopedia of language and education (Vol 5, pp. 261–269). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
(2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–484). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Tavakoli, M., & Zarrindabi, N. (2016). Differential effects of explicit and implicit corrective feedback on EFL learners’ willingness to communicate. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 3, 247–259.Google Scholar
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In A. Mackey (Ed.) Conversational interaction in second language acquisition, (pp. 171–195). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 271–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
(2004). Input processing in SLA. In B. VanPatten (Eds.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5–32). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wakamoto, N. (2009). Extroversion/Introversion in foreign language learning: Interactions with learner strategy use. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49, 583–625. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29, 325–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yanguas, I., & Navarro, G. (2014). Learners’ anxiety in L2 interaction: Video, chat, or face-to-face? European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 3, 5–23.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2012). Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34, 344–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback in the acquisition of English articles. System, 41, 691–705. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, N., & Smith, G. (2017). Teachers’ provision of feedback in L2 text-chat: Cognitive, contextual and affective factors. In L. Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach (pp. 255–280). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Hetrovicz, Lauren
2021. The effect of NNS–NNS and NNS–NS videoconferencing on the development of second language confidence. Foreign Language Annals 54:4 ► pp. 1257 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 july 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.