Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-x2lbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T02:37:04.045Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Second language acquisition through email interaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Farid Aitsiselmi
Farid Aitsiselmi
Affiliation:
University of Bradford, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper deals with the analysis of a communicative activity involving English learners of French, its advantages and drawbacks as well as the outcome that teachers can expect of such an activity. The first part examines some reasons, both theoretical and practical for using communication technology, particularly electronic mail, for promoting language acquisition and developing learner autonomy. The second pan of the paper deals with the theoretical framework within which the activity was carried out, that Is, Stephen Krashen's language acquisition theory which establishes a distinction between language acquisition and language learning. Email interaction offers the possibility of addressing both processes.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
ReCALL , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , September 1999 , pp. 4 - 11
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 1999

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Cook, V. (1991) Second language learning and language teaching, Sevenoaks: Edward ArnoldGoogle Scholar
Crook, C. and Webster, D. (1997) “Designing for informal undergraduate computer mediated communication”, Active Learning 7, 47–50Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1993) “The structural syllabus and second language acquisition”, TESOL Quarterly 27, 91–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, M. (1997) “The teacher is dead! Long live the teacher”, Active Learning 7, 35–40Google Scholar
Gregg, K.R. (1984) “Krashen's monitor and Occams's razor”. Applied Linguistics 5 (2), 79–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. (1985) The Input Hypothesis: issues and implications, London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ritchie, W.C. and Bhatia, T.K. (1996) Acquisition: introduction, foundation and overview, New York: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
Sharwood, Smith M. (1994) Second language learning: theoretical foundations, London: Longman.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995) “Three functions of output in second language learning”. In Cook, G. and Seihofer, B. (eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. (1995) “Converging evidence for the acquisition-learning distinction”, Applied Linguistics 16(1), 35–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar