Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76c49bb84f-l6pkv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-08T20:06:24.929Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 7 - Meaningful L2 practice in foreign language classrooms: A cognitive-interactionist SLA perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2010

Robert DeKeyser
By
Lourdes Ortega
Robert DeKeyser
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
Lourdes Ortega
Affiliation:
University of Hawai'i at Mānoa, USA
Get access

Summary

For many years now classroom-based SLA researchers have concerned themselves with how L2 practice contributes to L2 learning. In doing so they have produced a rich body of empirical evidence suggestive of certain qualities in practice that inherently call for the engagement of L2 competence-expanding processes within instructed contexts. The approach to L2 practice that this chapter presents rests on a number of cognitive-interactionist SLA theories that view language learning as arising from the interaction of multiple influences which are both learner-internal (e.g., attention to form) and learner-external (e.g., a task design that offers essential L2 input and feedback). Cognitive-interactionist SLA theories are also functionalist in that they assume L2 learning processes are activated in the course of engaging in meaning-making through language and action and as a result of functional requirements of specific things done with language. I draw on the assumption that meaningful use of the L2, and particularly the meaningful productive use afforded during communicative interactional practice, drives acquisition. This assumption is empirically grounded in the interaction hypothesis literature (Gass, 1997; Long, 1996; Pica, 1994; Swain, 2002) and in related cognitive approaches to L2 task performance (Robinson, 2001; Skehan, 1998).

This chapter first outlines three principles for L2 practice design gleaned from the accumulated empirical evidence contributed by cognitive-interactionist SLA studies. I then discuss some challenges and possibilities that FL teachers may want to consider when applying these SLA-based principles in foreign language classrooms, which naturally present particular constraints and potentials as contexts for formal L2 instruction.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Practice in a Second Language
Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology
 , pp. 180 - 207
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abrams, Z. I. (2001). Computer-mediated communication and group journals: Expanding the repertoire of participant roles. System, 29, 489–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Hare, V. C. (1991). Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 61, 315–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almasi, J. F., McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. (1996). The nature of engaged reading in classroom discussions of literature. Journal of Literacy Research, 28, 107–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (1998). Proficiency guidelines revised. Yonkers, NY: ACTFL.
Antón, M., & DiCamilla, F. J. (1999). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Modern Language Journal, 83, 233–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1994). Reverse-order reports and the acquisition of tense: Beyond the principle of chronological order. Language Learning, 44, 243–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 233–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beebe, L. (1983). Risk-taking and the language learner. In SeligerLong, H M. H (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 39–66). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Belz, J. A. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language Learning and Technology, 6 (1), 60–81.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Reppen, R. (2002). What does frequency have to do with grammar teaching?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, R. (1998). The role of technology in second language learning. In Byrnes, H. (Ed.), Learning foreign and second languages: Perspectives in research and scholarship (pp. 209–37). New York: The Modern Language Association of America.Google Scholar
Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning and Technology, 4(1), 120–136.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language acquisition? In Gass, S. M. & Schachter, J. (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 41–68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, F. B., & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania, 77, 262–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruton, A., & Samuda, V. (1980). Learner and teacher roles in the treatment of oral error in group work. RELC Journal, 11, 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckwalter, P. (2001). Repair sequences in Spanish L2 dyadic discourse: A descriptive study. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 380–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M., & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task repetition. In Ellis, R. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 37–74). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M. (2002). Why it makes sense to teach grammar in context and through discourse. In Hinkel, E. & Fotos, S. (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 119–33). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. (2003). English language learning and technology. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chun, A., Day, R. R., Chenoweth, A., & Luppescu, S. (1982). Errors, interaction and correction: A study of native-nonnative conversations. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 537–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A. D., Weaver, S. J., & Li, T.-Y. (1996). The impact of strategies-based instruction on speaking a foreign language. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA).Google Scholar
Crookes, G., & Gass, S. M. (Eds.). (1993). Tasks in a pedagogical context: Integrating theory and practice (2 vols.). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication, 7, 482–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, R., Chenoweth, N. A., Chun, A., & Luppescu, S. (1984). Corrective feedback in native-nonnative discourse. Language Learning, 34, 19–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 273–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Kormos, J. (2000). The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language Teaching Research, 4, 275–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986). Information gap tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition?TESOL Quarterly, 20, 305–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197–261). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eisenstein, M., & Starbuck, R. (1989). The effect of emotional investment on L2 production. In Gass, S., Madden, C., Preston, D., & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Variation in second language acquisition (pp. 125–37). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (Ed.). (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M. J., & Fernández-García, M. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49, 549–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. (1985). Task variation and nonnative/nonnative negotiation of meaning. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 149–61). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1986). Sex differences in nonnative speaker-nonnative speaker interactions. In Day, R. (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 327–52). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1989). Incorporated repairs in nonnative discourse. In Eisenstein, M. (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage (pp. 71–86). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gee, P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology and discourses (2nd ed.). London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1993). English grammar: A function-based approach. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
González-Bueno, M. (1998). The effects of electronic mail on Spanish L2 discourse. Language Learning and Technology, 1 (2), 55–70.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2003). Designing task-based call to promote interaction: En busca de esmeraldas. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 86–104.Google Scholar
Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A. N., & Kuhl, P. K. (1999). The scientist in the crib: Minds, brains, and how children learn. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
Hall, J. K., & Walsh, M. (2002). Teacher-student interaction and second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 186–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Harley, B. (1993). Instructional strategies and SLA in early French immersion. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 245–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornberger, N. H. (2002). Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: An ecological approach. Language Policy, 1, 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izumi, Y., & Izumi, S. (2004). Investigating the effects of oral output on the learning of relative clauses in English: Issues in the psycholinguistic requirements for effective output tasks. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 60, 587–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwashita, N. (2001). The effect of learner proficiency on interactional moves and modified output in nonnative-nonnative interaction in Japanese as a foreign language. System, 29, 267–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, G. (1989). Miscorrection in peer feedack in writing class. RELC Journal, 20, 68–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with network computers: Effects on quantity and characterisitcs of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79 (4), 457–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kern, R. (2002). Reconciling the language-literature split through literacy. ADFL Bulletin, 33 (3), 20–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lamy, M.-N., & Goodfellow, R. (1999). “Reflective conversations” in the virtual language classroom. Language Learning and Technology, 2 (2), 43–61.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Leaver, B. L., & Willis, J. R. (Eds.). (2004). Task-based instruction in foreign language education practices and programs. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Levine, G. S. (2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, first language use, and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 343–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebscher, G., & Dailey-O'Cain, J. (2004). Learner code-switching in the content-based foreign language classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 60, 501–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P. M. (2000). Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21, 431–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–68). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1997). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. Presentation at the Annual McGraw-Hill Teleconference in Second Language Teaching. Available at: http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/foreignlang/top.htm.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., Adams, L., McLean, M., & Castaños, F. (1976). Doing things with words: Verbal interaction in lockstep and small group classroom situations. In Fanselow, J. F. & Crymes, R. (Eds.), On TESOL '76 (pp. 137–53). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 27–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Loschky, L., & Brey-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123–67). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2002). Ten criteria for a spoken grammar. In Hinkel, E. & Fotos, S. (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 51–75). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 83–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meskill, C., & Ranglova, K. (2000). Sociocollaborative language learning in Bulgaria. In Warschauer, M. & Kern, R. (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 20–40). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musumeci, D. (1996). Teacher-learner negotiation in content-based instruction: Communication at cross-purposes?Applied Linguistics, 17, 286–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nabei, T. (2002) Recasts in classroom interaction: A teacher's intention, learners' attention, and second language learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Ohta, A. S. (2001). Peer interactive tasks and assisted performance in classroom language learning. In Ohta, A. S. (Ed.), Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese (pp. 73–128). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (1997). Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: Defining the research agenda for L2 computer-assisted classroom discussion. Language Learning and Technology, 1, 82–93.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (1999). Language and equality: Ideological and structural constraints in foreign language education in the U.S. In Huebner, T. & Davis, K. A. (Eds.), Sociopolitical perspectives in language policy and planning in the USA (pp. 243–66). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (2005). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In Ellis, R. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 77–109). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In Warschauer, M. & Kern, R. (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59–86). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning condition, processes, and outcomes?Language Learning, 44, 493–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (2002). Subject matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of classroom language learners?The Modern Language Journal, 86, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985a). Input and interaction in the communicative language classroom: A comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. G. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 115–32). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985b). The role of group work in classroom second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 233–48.CrossRef
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction and research. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9–34). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J. (1996). Language learners' interaction: How does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of language learners?TESOL Quarterly, 30, 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platt, E. J., & Brooks, F. (1994). The “acquisition-rich” environment revisited. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 497–511.Google Scholar
Polio, C. G., & Duff, P. A. (1994). Teachers' language use in university foreign language classrooms: A qualitative analysis of English and target language alternation. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 313–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, P. A. (1983) Variations in the conversations of adult learners of English as a function of the proficiency level of the participants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Porter, P. A. (1986). How learners talk to each other: Input and interaction in task-centered discussions. In Day, R. (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 200–22). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Rabie, S. R. (1996) Negative feedback, modeling, and vocabulary acquisition in task-based interaction. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.Google Scholar
Reagan, T. G., & Osborn, T. A. (2002). The foreign language educator in society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic theory of task influences on SLA. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roca de Larios, J., Murphy, L., & Manchón, R. (1999). The use of restructuring strategies in EFL writing: A study of Spanish learners of English as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 13–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, S. (1988). Accomodation in interlanguage discourse from an EFL perspective. System, 16, 347–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rulon, K. A., & McCreary, J. (1986). Negotiation of content: Teacher-fronted and small-group interaction. In Day, R. (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 182–99). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–33). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In Day, R. R. (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237–322). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schleppegrell, M. (1998). Grammar as a resource: Writing a description. Research in the Teaching of English, 32, 182–211.Google Scholar
Schulz, R. (2002). Changing perspectives in foreign language education: Where do we come from? Where are we going?Foreign Language Annals, 35, 285–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shehadeh, A. (1999). Non-native speakers' production of modified comprehensible output and second language learning. Language Learning, 49, 627–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Slimani, A. (1991). Evaluation of classroom interaction. In Alderson, J. C. & Beretta, A. (Eds.), Evaluating second language education (pp. 197–220). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focussed instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 29, 1–15.Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (1999). Instruction, first language influence, and developmental readiness in second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stepp-Greany, J. (2002). Student perceptions on language learning in a technological environment: Implications for the new millennium. Language Learning and Technology, 6(1), 165–80.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2004). Using activity theory to explain differences in patterns of dyadic interactions in an ESL class. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 60, 457–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (2002). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). Peer-peer dialogue as a means of second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 171–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E. (1993). Second language acquisition in a variationist framework. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Tarone, E., & Parrish, B. (1988). Task-related variation in interlanguage: The case of articles. Language Learning, 38, 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E., & Swain, M. (1995). A sociolinguistic perspective on second-language use in immersion classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 24–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ting, S. C. (1996). Planning time, modality and second language task performance: Accuracy and fluency in the acquisition of Chinese as a second language. The University of Queensland Working Papers in Language and Linguistics, 1, 31–64.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (Ed.). (1998). The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. (1990). Functionalism in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 155–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toyoda, E., & Harrison, R. (2002). Categorization of text chat communication between learners and native speakers of Japanese. Language Learning and Technology, 6 (1), 82–99.Google Scholar
Unsworth, L. (Ed.). (2000). Researching language in schools and communities. New York: Cassell.Google Scholar
Valdés, G., Haro, P., & Echevarriarza, M. P. (1992). The development of writing abilities in a foreign language: Contributions toward a general theory of L2 writing. The Modern Language Journal, 76, 333–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1998). Cognitive characteristics of adult second language learners. In Byrnes, H. (Ed.), Learning foreign and second languages (pp. 105–27). New York: The Modern Language Association of America.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varonis, E., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6, 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (Eds.). (2000). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, C. (2002, April). Pre-task planning: Does practice make perfect? Paper presented at the AAAL conference, Salt Lake City, UT.Google Scholar
Wendel, J. N. (1997). Planning and second-language narrative production. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University.Google Scholar
White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The Input Hypothesis and the development of L2 competence. Applied Linguistics, 8, 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49, 583–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yule, G. (1996). Referential communication tasks. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Yule, G. (1998). Explaining English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yule, G., & Macdonald, D. (1990). Resolving referential conflicts in L2 interaction: The effect of proficiency and interactive role. Language Learning, 40, 539–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×