Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-z2ts4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-09T03:52:39.866Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INTRODUCTION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2006

Alison Mackey  and
Susan Gass
Alison Mackey
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
Susan Gass
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Interaction research has come a long way since its beginnings nearly 25 years ago. The aim of this special issue is to demonstrate how the methodological boundaries of interaction research continue to be expanded with the use of new and interesting methodological angles and techniques. Our goal is to further our insights into the question that seems to be paramount in the interaction field at the moment—namely, how does interaction work to bring about positive effects on second language (L2) learning? The articles collected here suggest that new methodologies promise to open up avenues of research that will allow us to gain insights into the interaction-learning relationship.Our intent in this special issue is to show some of the current methodological techniques being used to provide insights about how interaction works to promote L2 learning. We would like to thank the contributing authors who have made interesting and worthwhile contributions to help us attain this goal as well as the SSLA editorial team for all their help in bringing this issue to completion.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , June 2006 , pp. 169 - 178
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

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

REFERENCES

Ayoun, D. (2001). The role of negative and positive feedback in the second language acquisition of the passé composé and imparfait. Modern Language Journal, 85, 226–243.Google Scholar
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Braidi, S.M. (2002). Reexamining the role of recasts in native-speaker/nonnative-speaker interactions. Language Learning, 52, 1–42.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. (1999). Putting ‘input’ in its proper place. Second Language Research, 15, 337–388.Google Scholar
de la Fuente, M.J. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 81–112.Google Scholar
Doughty, C.J., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. J. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281–318.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285–301.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44, 449–491.Google Scholar
Gass, S.M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Oxford: Blackwell.
Gass, S.M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gass, S.M., & Mackey, A., (in press). Input, interaction and output in SLA. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gass, S.M., & Varonis, E. (1985). Variation in native speaker speech modification to nonnative speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 37–58.Google Scholar
Gass, S.M., & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283–302.Google Scholar
Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 543–572.Google Scholar
Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 1–36.Google Scholar
Jordan, G. (2005). Theory construction in second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students' language awareness. Language Awareness, 3, 73–93.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. London: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and complications. London: Longman.
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., & Philp, J., (in press). Recasts in the adult L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal.
Long, M.H. (1980). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Long, M.H. (1983a). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177–193.Google Scholar
Long, M.H. (1983b). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.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 research on language acquisition: Vol. 2. Second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Long, M.H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82, 357–371.Google Scholar
Loschky, L. (1994). Comprehensible input and second language acquisition: What is the relationship? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 303–323.Google 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.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, 557–587.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Oliver, R. (2002). Interactional feedback and children's L2 development. System, 30, 459–477.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., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.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
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the contributions of negative feedback and learners' responses to L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103.Google Scholar
Morris, F. (2002). Negotiation moves and recasts in relation to error types and learner repair in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 35, 395–404.Google Scholar
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50, 617–673.Google Scholar
Ohta, A.S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51–78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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. Modern Language Journal, 82, 372–386.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork. Language Learning, 50, 119–151.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. (2002). The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions. Modern Language Journal, 86, 97–111.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
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., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 63–90.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language research and instruction. In G. Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C.J. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 737–758.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–300.Google Scholar
Shehadeh, A. (1999). Non-native speakers' production of modified comprehensible output and second language learning. Language Learning, 49, 627–675.Google Scholar
Shehadeh, A. (2001). Self and other-initiated modified output during task-based interaction. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 433–457.Google Scholar
Silver, R.E. (2000). Input, output, and negotiation: Conditions for second language development. In B. Swierzbin, F. Morris, M. E. Anderson, C. A. Klee, & E. Tarone (Eds.), Social and cognitive factors in second language acquisition: Selected proceedings of the 1999 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 345–371). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119–158.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thomas, M. (2005). Theories of second language acquisition: Three sides, three angles, three points. Second Language Research, 21, 393–414.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Williams, J., (in press). Introduction. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Varonis, E., & Gass, S.M. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6, 71–90.Google Scholar
Wagner-Gough, J., & Hatch, E. (1975). The importance of input data in second language acquisition studies. Language Learning, 25, 297–308.Google Scholar