The DOI matches its Crossref record; 323 of the 325 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 9 of the 247 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Interaction and instructed second language acquisition
Open accessAbstract
Interaction is an indispensable component in second language acquisition (SLA). This review surveys the instructed SLA research, both classroom and laboratory-based, that has been conducted primarily within the interactionist approach, beginning with the core constructs of interaction, namely input, negotiation for meaning, and output. The review continues with an overview of specific areas of interaction research. The first investigates interlocutor characteristics, including (a) first language (L1) status, (b) peer interaction, (c) participation structure, (d) second language (L2) proficiency, and (e) individual differences. The second topic is task characteristics, such as task conditions (e.g. information distribution, task goals), task complexity (i.e. simple or complex), and task participation structure (i.e. whole class, small groups or dyads). Next, the review considers various linguistic features that have been researched in relation to interaction and L2 learning. The review then continues with interactional contexts, focusing especially on research into computer-mediated interaction. The review ends with a consideration of methodological issues in interaction research, such as the merits of classroom and lab-based studies, and the various methods for measuring the noticing of linguistic forms during interaction. In sum, research has found interaction to be effective in promoting L2 development; however, there are numerous factors that impact its efficacy.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This review synthesizes instructed SLA research within the interactionist approach, covering input, negotiation, output, noticing, interlocutor and task variables, linguistic targets, contexts, and methods. It concludes that interaction generally supports L2 development, but its effectiveness depends on many learner, task, linguistic, and contextual factors.
Key findings
- Meta-analytic evidence cited in the review indicates interaction benefits L2 learning: Keck et al.’s synthesis of 14 quasi-experimental studies found a large immediate-posttest effect, and Mackey & Goo’s synthesis of 28 studies found large effects that were clearer on delayed posttests; 64% of those 28 studies were laboratory-based and 36% classroom-based.
- Interlocutor effects are mixed: L1 speakers often provide richer input, but L2 peers can provide useful feedback and modified output. For example, Sato & Lyster found learners modified errors more after peer feedback than after native-speaker feedback; Shehadeh reported that 93% of self-initiated moves led to modified output in L2–L2 interaction; Adams found 59% of peer feedback episodes led to learning, while Adams et al. found explicit corrections negatively correlated with past-tense gains.
- Task and participation structure matter: Nassaji reported 58% correct responses after focus-on-form episodes overall, with higher accuracy in dyads (69%) and small groups (66%) than whole-class interaction (48%), and student-initiated episodes (72%) outperforming teacher-initiated ones (46%). Loewen observed that about 13% of students were not involved in direct exchanges, and Newton found roughly 4 vocabulary words gained per 30 minutes of task.
- Linguistic targets and modality show uneven effects: learners tend to attend more to lexis than morphosyntax; Williams found over 80% of LREs were lexical; Brown’s meta-analysis found 43% of corrective feedback targeted morphosyntax, 28% lexis, and 22% phonology; pronunciation-focused LREs were only 14%, with 90% of those targeting segmental features. Ziegler’s meta-analysis of 14 studies found no statistically significant modality difference between SCMC and face-to-face interaction.
Methods
- Design: a narrative review of instructed SLA research conducted within the interactionist approach, including classroom and laboratory studies.
- Data: empirical studies, prior reviews, and meta-analyses on interaction, corrective feedback, negotiation, tasks, individual differences, and computer-mediated communication.
- Analysis: thematic synthesis organized around core constructs (input, negotiation for meaning/form, output, attention), interlocutor characteristics, task characteristics, linguistic targets, interactional contexts, and methodological issues; no new empirical data or formal meta-analysis are reported.
Limitations
- The paper states that replication studies are needed, that many previous studies have methodological shortcomings, and that several areas remain under-researched, including individual differences, pragmatics, pronunciation, longitudinal/delayed testing, social and sociocognitive factors, and newer communication modalities.
- The review also notes mixed or inconsistent findings across studies, for example for task complexity, proficiency pairing, anxiety, and peer feedback effectiveness.
- Evident from the text: as a narrative review, it does not describe a systematic search protocol or explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria, so coverage may be selective rather than exhaustive.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
106 No full text of the sources · 47 Sources not found · 44 Own interpretation · 25 No basis given · 22 Not checked yet · 3 Supported so far · 3 Partly supported · 2 Supported · accuracy not yet measured
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“but much of the rationale for tasks is based on the interaction approach (Bygate, Skehan & Swain 2001;Ellis 2003;Long 2016;Ellis 2017b;Kim 2017).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bygate, Skehan & Swain 2001
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ellis 2003 source
- Supportedcites Long 2016 source
Section 2.3 explicitly says the interaction hypothesis is a key component of the psycholinguistic rationale for task-based language teaching. This supports the citing sentence’s broader paraphrase that much of the rationale for tasks rests on the interaction approach. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Also, willingness to communicate (WTC), which concerns 'the probability that a learner will USE the language in authentic interaction' (emphasis in original: MacIntyre et al. 1998: 558), could considerably impact learners' interaction behaviour (see MacIntyre, Burns & Jessome 2011).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 3.4 Individual differences
What the sources say
- Supportedcites MacIntyre et al. 1998 source
The Conclusion and Future Directions section defines WTC as the probability that a learner will use the language in authentic interaction, given the opportunity. That is the point attributed to the 1998 paper; the separate claim about its impact on interaction behaviour cites MacIntyre, Burns & Jessome (2011). The indexed passage has no page label. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites MacIntyre, Burns & Jessome 2011 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The ways in which information is distributed among learners, and the ways in which they must exchange information can impact learner interaction (Doughty & Pica 1986;Foster & Skehan 1996;Ellis 2003;Pica et al. 2006;Gilabert, Barón & Llanes 2009).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 4.1 Task conditions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Doughty & Pica 1986 source
- Partly supportedcites Foster & Skehan 1996 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The task-analysis discussion (section labeled “Thames Valley University”; page unavailable) says that task design can affect negotiation of meaning and other features of conversational interaction. The Tasks section describes learners exchanging information in dyads, but the available passages do not specifically establish that how information is distributed among learners, or how they are required to exchange it, affects interaction. (LLM, conf=0.78)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ellis 2003 source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Mackey & Goo's (2007) meta-analysis of 28 interaction studies conducted both inside and outside the classroom found large effect sizes for learners who were engaged in interaction compared to those who were not.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mackey & Goo 2007
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“however, research has indicated that the positive evidence provided by recasts can also be important (Leeman 2003).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 2.3 Negotiation of form
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Leeman 2003 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Furthermore, interactionally modified input, as exemplified in the subsequent examples, has generally been found to be better for L2 acquisition than premodified or unmodified input (e.g.Ellis & He 1999;Mackey 1999).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 2.1 Input
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“In terms of comprehension, there is evidence that interactionally modified input may be more beneficial (e.g.Pica, Young & Doughty 1987;Loschky 1994).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 2.1 Input
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, Keck et al.'s (2006) meta-analysis of 14 quasi-experimental interaction studies revealed a large effect on immediate posttests for learners involved in interaction (and negotiation).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Keck et al. 2006
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Although negotiation for meaning is sometimes present during communicative interaction, it has become clear that such negotiation does not always occur frequently in the classroom (Foster 1998;Eckerth 2009).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 2.3 Negotiation of form
What the sources say
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“These results were seen more clearly on delayed posttests.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mackey & Goo 2007
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 93
- It may state two separate claims as one. 82
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“however, corrective feedback is also a central component of the interactionist approach.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Russell & Spada 2006
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Li 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Lyster & Saito 2010 source
The CF Types section discusses corrective-feedback moves, including recasts and negotiation, as subjects of interaction research. That treatment supports the broad characterization of corrective feedback as a central component of the interactionist approach, even though the paper does not use that exact phrase. The indexed passages provide no page number. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Theoretical arguments and empirical investigation have been used to support the superiority of both input-providing feedback (e.g.Long 2007;Goo & Mackey 2013) and output-prompting feedback (e.g.Lyster 2004;Lyster & Ranta 2013), although some studies have also found similar effects between the two (e.g.Loewen & Nabei 2007).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 2.3 Negotiation of form
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Long 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Goo & Mackey 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “The Case for Recasts” (page unavailable), the paper reviews empirical evidence that recasts aid learning. But its Conclusion says recasts and prompts may play different or complementary roles and discourages simple comparisons; it does not establish the superiority of input-providing feedback over output-prompting feedback. The citations for the other parts of the sentence are to different works. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Supportedcites Lyster 2004 source
The Research Questions and Predictions section gives theoretical reasons to expect an advantage for prompts over recasts. The Summary of Results reports that the prompt group significantly outperformed the recast group on written tasks, while the groups performed similarly on oral tasks. This supports the part of the citing sentence for which Lyster (2004) is cited: the case for output-prompting feedback. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The researchers compared different grammatical structures (the simple past tense, the progressive, and the possessive determiners) and discovered that more difficult-to-acquire structures were not necessarily salient in the classroom input, implying that infrequent input may partially explain why learners struggle with those features.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.1 Incidental linguistic features
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Collins et al. 2009 source
The Current Study passage reports that the difficult forms—his/her possessive determiners and simple past constructions—were relatively rare and often not salient in the instructional input. The opening passage identifies the progressive as the easier comparison structure. Together, these support the claim that infrequent input may help explain difficulty acquiring the forms studied. (LLM, conf=0.92)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Similarly, there has been a lack of research studies focusing on interaction and pronunciation; however, this lacuna is being addressed (see special issue of Studies in Second Language Acquisition Gurzynski-Weiss, Long & Solon 2017).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.2 Targeted linguistic features
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Gurzynski-Weiss, Long & Solon 2017 source
In “TBLT and L2 Pronunciation: Do the Benefits of Tasks Extend Beyond Grammar and Lexis?”, the paper says few studies had focused specifically on tasks and pronunciation and that five empirical papers in the special issue investigate this gap. Its account of the studies includes pronunciation during task-based interaction (“Pronunciation and L2 Development,” p. 14). (LLM, conf=0.93)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“The extent to which learners are engaged with tasks (engagement) is a growing research area as well (Cao & Philp 2006;Philp & Duchesne 2016;Sato 2016).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 8. Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cao & Philp 2006 source
- Supportedcites Philp & Duchesne 2016 source
The Challenges section says that research investigating engagement in task-based language teaching is growing and that studies of engagement in language classrooms are starting to appear. This supports the claim that learners’ engagement with tasks is a growing research area. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sato 2016 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Shehadeh (2001), in a follow up examination of his earlier data (1999), showed that 93% of self-initiation led to modified output during L2-L2 interaction, which was proportionally higher than L2-L1 interaction, again after extended negotiations.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 3.1 L1 status
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Shehadeh 2001 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“First, studies that compared L1 and L2 speakers as input providers reported that L1 speakers tend to provide lexically richer and syntactically more complex input than do L2 speakers.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 3.1 L1 status
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pica et al. 1996 source
- Not matchedcites Porter 1986
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In Sato's (2013) study of learners' perceptions of peer interaction, learners explained that they did not have to worry about making errors while talking to each other, especially in comparison to a teacher-centered conversation.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 3.2 Peer interaction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sato 2013 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Peer interaction is probably the most common type of interaction in many communicatively oriented classrooms.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The analysis of frequencies of lexical and morphosyntactic modifications of the two types of interlocutors revealed that L1 speakers provided more modifications after communication breakdowns but only for the picture description task (see also Porter 1986).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 3.1 L1 status
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pica et al. 1996 source
- Not matchedcites Porter 1986
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“There was also a greater amount of talk and more LREs when an HL learner was involved.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 3.1 L1 status
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bowles, Toth & Adams 2014 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Sato & Lyster found that the Japanese learners modified their erroneous utterances after feedback from their peers more often than from native speakers.This tendency was consistent across feedback types.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 3.1 L1 status
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Sato & Lyster 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“However, learners sometimes provided their partners with grammatically incorrect input or concluded their interaction with non-target-like solutions (see Bruton & Samuda 1980).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 3.1 L1 status
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bruton & Samuda 1980 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, Loewen (2003) observed that not all students in his New Zealand ESL classes participated equally in FFEs.In fact, roughly 13% of students were not involved in any direct exchanges, suggesting that any benefit for them would have to come through observing the interaction of others.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 4.3 Task participation structure
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Loewen 2003 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Yilmaz found that for the plural morpheme both receivers and non-receivers outperformed a comparison group on immediate and delayed production tests, but only the receivers outperformed the comparison group on the recognition test.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 4.3 Task participation structure
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Yilmaz 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“More recently, McDonough, Trofimovich & Neumann (2015) tested three targets in the classroom context and revealed that priming was successful for relative clauses and adverbial clauses but not for passives.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.2 Targeted linguistic features
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites McDonough, Trofimovich & Neumann 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, Fortune (2005) examined four dictogloss tasks.Eight advanced EFL learners from various L1 backgrounds worked in pairs to reconstruct texts.Although learners were not required to use the same type of syntactic structure or lexical items from the text, the analysis of the LREs revealed that the learners' attention was successfully drawn to the linguistic targets as shown by the metalang”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.2 Targeted linguistic features
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Fortune 2005 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For instance, Shintani (2014a) compared acquisition of English plural -s and copula be by providing young Japanese learners of English with focus on form tasks.The analysis of the productive knowledge tests showed that after nine lessons of 30 minutes, the learners gained knowledge of the plural -s but not copula be.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.1 Incidental linguistic features
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Shintani 2014a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Breen (1987) observed differences between outcomes derived from task design (task-as-workplan) and actual outcomes derived from learners (task-in-process).He argued that this divergence resulted from an unpredictable interaction between the learner, task, and situation.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.2 Targeted linguistic features
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Breen 1987
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“However, for the locative morpheme, there was no difference between the receivers and non-receivers.Also, neither group outperformed the comparison group.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 4.3 Task participation structure
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Yilmaz 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Finally, Li (2014) investigated relationships between feedback types, linguistic targets (Chinese noun classifiers vs perfective aspect particle le), and learners' proficiency levels.The results revealed that feedback effectiveness was mediated by linguistic targets.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.2 Targeted linguistic features
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Li 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“He found gain scores of roughly 4 words per 30 minutes of task.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.2 Targeted linguistic features
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Newton 2013 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Brown's (2016) meta-analysis of 21 studies showed that 43% of corrective feedback was directed to morphosyntactic errors, followed by lexical (28%), and phonological errors (22%).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.2 Targeted linguistic features
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brown 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In the same issue, Loewen & Isbell (2017) investigated pronunciationfocused LREs in learner-learner FTF interaction and oral SCMC, finding that only 14% of LREs addressed pronunciation with 90% targeting segmental rather than suprasegmental features.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.2 Targeted linguistic features
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Loewen & Isbell 2017 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In another study, Yilmaz (2016) found different effects for corrective feedback on Turkish plural and locative morphemes, which he attributed, in part, to their morphophonological differences.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.2 Targeted linguistic features
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Yilmaz 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Among several studies that compared different linguistic targets, Yang & Lyster (2010) examined corrective feedback on English regular and irregular past tense.Having found differential impacts on the two forms, the researchers invoked Skehan's (1998) dual-mode system which distinguishes an analytic rule-based system (e.g.regular past tense) and a memory-driven exemplar-based system (e.g.irregular”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.2 Targeted linguistic features
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Yang & Lyster 2010 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, there was also considerable improvement on vocabulary items that were not negotiated, leaving Newton to suggest that negotiation of meaning is only one way that learners can learn vocabulary during communicative tasks.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.2 Targeted linguistic features
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Newton 2013 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Brown's study also found that teachers with more experience tended to focus on lexical rather than pronunciation errors, suggesting a change in teachers' beliefs about which linguistic features to correct (Basturkmen, Loewen & Ellis 2004).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.2 Targeted linguistic features
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brown 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Basturkmen, Loewen & Ellis 2004
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Additionally, results revealed that learners perceived the SCMC context as being less stressful and more helpful for language learning.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.2 Targeted linguistic features
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Parlak & Ziegler 2017 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Basterrechea & García Mayo found that LREs were present in student interaction in both CLIL and EFL contexts, but there were more LREs in the CLIL context, suggesting that there were important differences between the two contexts (see also Llinares & Lyster 2014).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 6.1 Instructional setting
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Basterrechea & García Mayo 2013 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“They found that the teachers provided a variety of feedback, which was subsequently categorized into six types, with recasts being the most frequent.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 6.1 Instructional setting
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lyster & Ranta 1997 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Sauro found that attention to form did occur during the interaction; however, the provision of corrective feedback was not always consistent.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 6.2 Modality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sauro 2013 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For instance, Mackey & Goo (2007) were not able to include any pragmatics studies in their meta-analysis of interaction research; the studies included investigated only lexis and grammar.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.2 Targeted linguistic features
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Mackey & Goo 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“All learners viewed the conversation groups as a positive experience.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.2 Targeted linguistic features
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ziegler et al. 2013 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The study found that learners who adapted to the more German conversational style became more active interactors, while those who failed to do so became more passive, but they were still able to attend to the input and benefit from the interaction.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.2 Targeted linguistic features
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ziegler et al. 2013 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Finally, in another study, Lee & Lyster (2015) targeted perception of the /i-I/ distinction in English, comparing instruction alone with instruction plus corrective feedback.Participants were given five hours of instruction over five days, and the researchers found that the corrective feedback group improved more than the instruction alone group.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.2 Targeted linguistic features
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lee & Lyster 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Results indicated that learner uptake occurred more frequently after outputprompting feedback, suggesting that recasts were less useful than other types of feedback during interaction in promoting L2 production.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 6.1 Instructional setting
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lyster 1998a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Lyster 1998b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“For example, Loewen & Wolff (2016) examined negotiation for meaning, LREs, and recasts in task interaction in the three abovementioned modalities.They found that the oral SCMC and FTF interaction had similar numbers of interactional features; however, the numbers were significantly reduced in the written SCMC condition.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 6.2 Modality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Loewen & Wolff 2016 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Similarly, Kim (2014) found that more communication strategies, such as circumlocution and direct appeal for assistance, were present in FTF communication, while more avoidance strategies occurred in the written SCMC context.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 6.2 Modality
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kim 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“For example, Alcón (2002) investigated the development of requests in teacher-student versus student-student interaction in Spanish EFL classes.Learners were presented with role-play contexts that necessitated the use of requests.In addition, they were provided with explicit instruction and recordings of interaction focused on requests.Learners in both groups improved in their use of requests;”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.2 Targeted linguistic features
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Alcón 2002
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“More recently, Gilabert & Barón (2013) examined the effects of task complexity on the production of request and suggestions by English L2 learners in Spain.They found that learners produced more requests in more complex tasks, and the linguistic forms used to produce the requests varied according to tasks.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.2 Targeted linguistic features
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gilabert & Barón 2013 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“They found that interaction was largely similar regardless of whether the interlocutor was an HL learner or not.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 6.1 Instructional setting
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bowles et al. 2014 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Results indicated that recasts were the most common type of corrective feedback, and successful uptake of the feedback occurred roughly 75% of the time.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 6.1 Instructional setting
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ellis et al. 2001a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Ellis et al. 2001b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Loewen 2004 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Results indicated that L1 interlocutors generally provided feedback as trained.Furthermore, the interaction 'seemed to have a significant impact on comprehensibility, fluency, vocabulary, and grammar but not necessarily accentedness and pronunciation ' (2017: 23).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 6.2 Modality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Saito & Akiyama 2017 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The researchers analysed the interactions in terms of cognitive, affective, and social engagement, and showed that, first, learners' level of attention to form (language awareness) was higher in the FTF mode.Second, learners' attitude towards the task was more positive in the FTF context.In addition, learners engaged with each other more in the FTF than in the CMC interactions.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 6.2 Modality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Baralt, Gurzynski-Weiss & Kim 2016 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“While Baralt & Gurzynski-Weiss (2011) found that there was no difference in learners' anxiety during either FTF or CMC interaction, Baralt, Gurzynski-Weiss & Kim (2016) reported mode differences related to learners' affective aspects.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 6.2 Modality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Baralt & Gurzynski-Weiss 2011 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“He found a strong, positive correlation between the two measures, with learners noticing semantic and syntactic features more than morphological ones.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 6.2 Modality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Smith 2012 source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although there was a slight advantage for SCMC in terms of raw scores of L2 development tests, the meta-analysis did not reveal statistical differences between modalities, leading Ziegler to conclude that 'mode of communication has no statistically significant impact on the positive developmental benefits associated with interaction' (p.2).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 6.2 Modality
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ziegler 2016a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Learners fixated on corrective recasts 72% of the time, and there was a significant relationship between fixation and correct posttest scores for lexical and grammatical forms.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 6.2 Modality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Smith & Renaud 2013 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Indeed, the hypothesis has developed into a theoretical approach (see Mackey & Gass 2015), containing a description of multiple processes associated with L2 learning (Jordan 2005;Mackey 2012;Pica 2013).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mackey & Gass 2015 source
- Not matchedcites Jordan 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mackey 2012
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interaction is an indispensable component in second language acquisition (SLA).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Investigation into the effects of interaction on L2 development has been considered a component of instructed second language acquisition (ISLA) (e.g.Mackey 2006;Loewen 2015;Long 2017;VanPatten 2017b), which is concerned with the manipulation of the processes and mechanisms of L2 learning.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Similarly, Robinson (1995Robinson ( , 1996Robinson ( , 2003) ) claims that attention, namely the 'process that encodes language input, keeps it active in working and short-term memory, and retrieves it from long-term memory' (2003: 631), is essential for L2 learning.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 2.5 Attention
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Robinson 1995
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Robinson 1996
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Robinson 2003 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Second, Swain proposes that output allows learners to test their linguistic hypotheses and possibly receive feedback on these hypotheses (i.e. the hypothesis-testing function).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 2.4 Output
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Swain 1985
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Swain 1995 source
- Not matchedcites Swain 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Finally, as output necessarily involves language use, it facilitates production practice and, thus, the development of fluency and automaticity (see DeKeyser 2001;Lyster & Sato 2013; DeKeyser 2017a).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 2.4 Output
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites DeKeyser 2001 source
- Not matchedcites Lyster & Sato 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites DeKeyser 2017a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Third, Swain asserts that output serves a metalinguistic function, 'enabling [learners] to control and internalize linguistic knowledge' (Swain 1995: 126).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 2.4 Output
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Swain 1995 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Negotiation for meaning is at the heart of the interaction hypothesis, with a breakdown in communication being posited as the driving force in improving learner comprehension and L2 development (Long 1996).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 2.2 Negotiation for meaning
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Long 1996 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Input is a necessary component of all theories of language acquisition, including the interactionist approach (Gass & Mackey 2015).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 2.1 Input
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gass & Mackey 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Indeed, Schmidt's noticing hypothesis (1990,1995,2001) has played an integral role in the interaction approach, with the claim that L2 learning does not occur without awareness.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 2.5 Attention
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“there is general agreement that 'the cognitive constructs of attention, awareness, and the related construct of noticing are part of the interaction-L2 learning process (Gass & Mackey 2015: 191).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 2.5 Attention
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gass & Mackey 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the interactionist approach draws strongly on Swain's (1985Swain's ( , 1995Swain's ( , 2005) ) Comprehensible Output Hypothesis, which claims that output is not merely a representation of L2 development but is a causal factor for L2 development in several ways.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 2.4 Output
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Swain 1985
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Swain 1995 source
- Not matchedcites Swain 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Learners tend to process language semantically, and if they can grasp the meaning of an utterance without needing to process all of the linguistic features, they will do so.
- Not matched
In the paper
“More precisely, negotiation of form can be attributed 'a more didactic function' (Lyster 1998b: 190), often consisting of feedback with corrective intent.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 2.3 Negotiation of form
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lyster 1998b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, this is good news since opportunities for L1 speaker interaction are considerably limited for most learners.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 3.1 L1 status
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In sum, these studies indicate that L1 interlocutors can interact with L2 learners in positive ways, but it is not always the case that interaction with L1 speakers is better than interaction with L2 peers.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 3.1 L1 status
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Long & Porter 1985 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In a recent comprehensive monograph of peer interaction, for instance, Philp et al. (2014) argued that peer interaction gives learners 'a context for experimenting with the language' (p.17).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 3.2 Peer interaction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Philp et al. 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Peer interaction is probably the most common type of interaction in many communicatively oriented classrooms.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These varied findings underscore the importance of a classroom environment where learners' collaborative interaction is encouraged and, possibly, explicitly taught.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 3.2 Peer interaction
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The psycholinguistic benefits of peer interaction may include relatively longer processing time for input and output, which in turn leads to frequent feedback and opportunities for testing out or practicing the language.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 3.2 Peer interaction
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Peer interaction is probably the most common type of interaction in many communicatively oriented classrooms.
In the paper
“Philp et al. (2014) asserted that peer interaction is 'generally felt to be less stressful than teacher-led interaction, precisely because it will not be carefully monitored' (Philp et al. 2014: 198).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 3.2 Peer interaction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Philp et al. 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Peer interaction is probably the most common type of interaction in many communicatively oriented classrooms.
- Not matched
In the paper
“As early as 1985, Varonis & Gass (1985) concluded that peer interaction can be 'a good forum for obtaining input necessary for acquisition' (p.83).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 3.2 Peer interaction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Varonis & Gass 1985 source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Peer interaction is probably the most common type of interaction in many communicatively oriented classrooms.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That is, an increased comfort level may positively affect learners' L2 processing by helping them notice errors in their partners' speech, correct those errors, and modify their own errors when given feedback.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 3.2 Peer interaction
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Peer interaction is probably the most common type of interaction in many communicatively oriented classrooms.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, a greater comfort level seems to increase the amount of overall language production, which leads to more opportunities for language practice.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 3.2 Peer interaction
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Peer interaction is probably the most common type of interaction in many communicatively oriented classrooms.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In such an environment, learner psychology may be aligned to psycholinguistic processes conducive to L2 development.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 3.2 Peer interaction
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, TBLT, which will be discussed in more detail, utilizes peer interaction as a vehicle to enhance the effectiveness of tasks.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 3.2 Peer interaction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Peer interaction is probably the most common type of interaction in many communicatively oriented classrooms.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is clear that learner individual differences may affect learner interaction, as well as the effectiveness of that interaction.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 3.4 Individual differences
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Task complexity has been operationalized in several different ways.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 4.2 Task complexity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“She argued that being active listeners (observers of LREs) can help learners acquire new linguistic knowledge, possibly by engaging in sub-vocal private speech.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 4.3 Task participation structure
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Fernández Dobao 2016 source
hedgedconditionalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nonetheless, the research often lacks clear pedagogical implications, especially with task complexity being operationalized in multiple ways.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 4.2 Task complexity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only a few variables have been investigated, and these with only a handful of studies.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 3.4 Individual differences
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Thus, language learning aptitude may help compensate for the lack of explicit attention to language, whereas such aptitude is less important in more traditional classroom activities in which direct and explicit information is provided about the target language (see also Long 1996;Ranta 2002).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 3.4 Individual differences
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The relationship between interaction and psychological individual differences has been a growing, yet under-investigated, area of research.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 3.4 Individual differences
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Learners should use primarily their own linguistic resources, and the goal of the task should be non-linguistic in nature.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > Gurzynski-Weiss & Révész 2012; Baralt 2013; Nassaji 2013).
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This emphasis on communication is broadly in line with an interactionist approach.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > Gurzynski-Weiss & Révész 2012; Baralt 2013; Nassaji 2013).
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In general, learner psychology requires further research as the way in which L2 learners approach communicative tasks may influence their interaction behaviour and determines the ultimate benefit of interaction (Sato 2016).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 3.4 Individual differences
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sato 2016 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, the amount of information each learner holds and the way in which the information is exchanged during interaction have an impact on interaction behaviour.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 4.1 Task conditions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, the link between motivation and interaction has largely been overlooked (Dörnyei 2002).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 3.4 Individual differences
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Dörnyei 2002 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main focus of a task should be on communication and meaning rather than linguistic forms.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > Gurzynski-Weiss & Révész 2012; Baralt 2013; Nassaji 2013).
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Task complexity has received much attention from cognitive-interactionist researchers.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 4.2 Task complexity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Generally, whole class interaction, and sometimes small group interaction, involves learners interacting with the teacher, while dyadic interaction, and small group interaction generally involves learners interacting with their fellow L2 speaking peers.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 4.3 Task participation structure
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are other aspects that influence interactional participation structures.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 4.3 Task participation structure
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, there is still much that is unknown about individual differences and interaction.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 3.4 Individual differences
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, task complexity is affected by the attention, memory, and reasoning demands imposed by the task.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 4.2 Task complexity
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Batstone & Philp argued that such private talk has a compensatory function in that it allows learners to relate the larger interaction to their own learning needs.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 4.3 Task participation structure
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Batstone & Philp 2013 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“That learners tend to attend to lexical items more than grammatical items can be explained by the fact that nouns carry more important value when negotiating for meaning (Spada & Lightbown 2008).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.1 Incidental linguistic features
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Spada & Lightbown 2008 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In other words, the pedagogical strength of priming activities lies in the fact that they 'help students produce a difficult or infrequent structure' (McDonough et al. 2015: 78) in the classroom context.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.2 Targeted linguistic features
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites McDonough et al. 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The role of linguistic structures during interaction varies, with some tasks allowing interlocutors to target linguistic structures incidentally, while other tasks attempt to draw learners' attention to specific forms (Ellis 2003).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5. Linguistic targets
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ellis 2003 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the same vein, Shintani (2014a) argued that learners acquired plural -s but not copula be because -s was necessary to complete the task.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.1 Incidental linguistic features
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Shintani 2014a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Among different types of priming (see Trofimovich & McDonough 2011), syntactic priming concerns elicitation of specific grammatical features, and is described by McDonough & Mackey (2008: 32) as 'a speaker's tendency to produce a syntactic structure encountered in the recent discourse, as opposed to an alternate structure'.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.2 Targeted linguistic features
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites McDonough & Mackey 2008 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Ellis (2003) separates focused tasks into three types: structure-based production, comprehension tasks, and consciousness-raising tasks, among which structure-based production pertains to interaction.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.2 Targeted linguistic features
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ellis 2003 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Additionally, Long (2015) suggests that the perceptual saliency of linguistic structures combined with learners' sensitivity to input can account for 'success and failure' (p.60) in acquiring individual structures (see Gass, Spinner & Behney 2018 for a recent volume on saliency).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5. Linguistic targets
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Long 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Also, learner readiness may affect which features are more salient for a particular learner (Lightbown 2013).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.1 Incidental linguistic features
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lightbown 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“DeKeyser (2012) discussed the relationship between instruction and linguistic structures and argued that 'different structures have a differential need for instruction, in particular instruction designed to enhance their salience (by drawing learners' attention to the existence, patterning, and importance of the non-salient structures) ' (p. 196).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5. Linguistic targets
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites DeKeyser 2012 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Contrary to teachers' tendency to provide feedback more on morphosyntax errors than on lexical errors, feedback effectiveness is more observable in the development of lexis than morphosyntax.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.2 Targeted linguistic features
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Li argued that proficiency levels may also have played a role.Because learners with higher proficiency had more cognitive resources, they were able to take advantage of feedback given on the non-salient aspect makers.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.2 Targeted linguistic features
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Li 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“For example, Newton (2013) argues that 'communication tasks [are] a potentially valuable source of opportunities for incidental vocabulary learning' (p.165) because learners are likely to encounter unfamiliar words.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.2 Targeted linguistic features
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Newton 2013 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Yang & Lyster argued that the noticeability of irregular forms (e.g.bought) was higher than regular (e.g.shopped) and thus feedback affected the development of lexical items more easily than rule-based items regardless of type of feedback (recasts and prompts).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.2 Targeted linguistic features
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Yang & Lyster 2010 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Yilmaz also suggests that the relationship between the participants' L1 (English) and Turkish might also play a part.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.2 Targeted linguistic features
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Yilmaz 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, there may be less of a need for manipulation of lexical items before, during, and after interactive tasks, and a greater need to draw learners' attention to grammar.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.2 Targeted linguistic features
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This slower pace of interaction is proposed to benefit learners by giving them more time to draw on their explicit linguistic knowledge as they formulate their text.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 6.2 Modality
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although interactionist research has traditionally been interested in oral, as opposed to written, interaction, the use of technology in communication has expanded the purview of interactionist research.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 6.2 Modality
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Several researchers have proposed advantages for this context (e.g.Sauro & Smith 2010), and in fact text chat has sometimes been referred to as communication in slow motion because the modality allows for learners to take more time as they communicate.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 6.2 Modality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sauro & Smith 2010 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“In addition, researchers argue that text chat can help with noticing because there is a written record for learners to refer to, thus allowing them to scroll back through the conversation to check on linguistic forms (Beauvois 1992;Smith & Sauro 2009).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 6.2 Modality
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“a result she attributed to the additional processing time available in written chat interaction as well as the need for more linguistic responses due to the lack of paralinguistic features such as intonation and laughter.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 5.2 Targeted linguistic features
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sykes 2005 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In terms of investigating noticing, there have been several different methods used, but they can be grouped into concurrent and retrospective measures.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 7.2 Descriptive and quasi-experimental research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, learners may engage in more noticing of linguistic forms, which may result in disproportionately higher levels of L2 development.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 7.1 Laboratory and classroom research
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, these studies have acknowledged that discourse features are not equivalent to cognitive processes or to L2 learning.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 7.2 Descriptive and quasi-experimental research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, Bowles et al. (2014) is one of the first interactional studies to investigate HL learners in interactional dyads.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 7.2 Descriptive and quasi-experimental research
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bowles et al. (2014) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The former option is similar to the discourse measures mentioned in the previous paragraph, and the approach is predicated on the idea that learner production can provide evidence of noticing.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 7.2 Descriptive and quasi-experimental research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For example, eye-tracking has recently been used to measure learners' noticing of linguistic features during written SCMC (Sauro & Smith 2010;Smith & Renaud 2013) as well as during online FTF communication (McDonough et al. 2015)”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 7.2 Descriptive and quasi-experimental research
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Eye gaze focus and duration correspond with cognitive attention (an eye-mind link).
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Much research has been conducted inside the classroom, which provides high ecological validity and insight into the daily realities that face teachers and students as they interact.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 7.1 Laboratory and classroom research
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“L2 interaction can happen naturalistically outside of the classroom (e.g.Schegloff 2000)”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 7.1 Laboratory and classroom research
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schegloff 2000 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The generalizability of laboratory research to the classroom has been questioned (e.g.Foster 1998; Eckerth 2009, although see Gass et al. 2005).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 7.1 Laboratory and classroom research
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Foster 1998 source
- Not matchedcites Eckerth 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Gass et al. 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, texting via cell phones is an increasingly popular means of communication; however, no studies, to our knowledge, have investigated this context in terms of features and effectiveness of L2 interaction.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 6.2 Modality
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Other descriptive studies have investigated the influence of technology on interaction (e.g.Loewen & Wolff 2016).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 7.2 Descriptive and quasi-experimental research
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Loewen & Wolff 2016 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Mackey & Goo (2007) found that 64% of the 28 studies in their meta-analysis were laboratory-based, while only 36% were conducted in a classroom.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 7.1 Laboratory and classroom research
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Mackey & Goo (2007)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In order to ensure the validity and reliability of interactionist research, it is important to consider the methodological choices that are made (Plonsky & Gass 2011).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 7. Methodological issues
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Plonsky & Gass 2011 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is a trend within interaction research for studies to become more interventionist over time.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 7.2 Descriptive and quasi-experimental research
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Still, descriptive studies have not entirely disappeared as researchers continue to consider features affecting interaction that have not yet been investigated.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 7.2 Descriptive and quasi-experimental research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The interaction approach, with its emphasis on input, interaction, and output, has been widely investigated within the broader ISLA framework, and theorists (Mackey et al. 2012;Pica 2013;Long 2015;Mackey & Gass 2015;Long 2017) have noted that there has been a shift from investigating IF interaction is helpful for L2 development to how and under what circumstances it is effective.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 8. Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Mackey et al. 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pica 2013 source
- Not matchedcites Long 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Researchers have conducted a fair amount of research on, especially, written SCMC”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 8. Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“although these communication contexts are being used for L2 developmental purposes”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 8. Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even less attention has been paid to other types of technology-enhanced interaction, such as texting or game-based interaction”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 8. Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the benefits of interaction have been found for grammar and vocabulary”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 8. Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interaction plays a crucial role in SLA theory and pedagogy, and there appears to be no slowdown in this regard.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 8. Conclusion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Moreover, the interaction approach thus far has focused primarily on cognitive factors, but scant attention has been paid to social and sociocognitive issues (Toth & Davin 2016).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 8. Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Toth & Davin 2016 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Other technology that may provide information about noticing during interaction is brain imaging; however, we are not aware of any studies that have examined this issue yet”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 7.2 Descriptive and quasi-experimental research
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Gurzynski-Weiss & Baralt argue that full modified output is not conversationally appropriate in SCMC contexts and often, if something is repeated in full, then it is more likely to be copied and pasted, which abnegates any effects for deeper cognitive processing.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 7.2 Descriptive and quasi-experimental research
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gurzynski-Weiss & Baralt (2015) source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Other types of research methods, such as those employed in neuroscience research, can provide additional information about the cognitive effects of interaction (e.g.Morgan-Short et al. 2012).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 8. Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Morgan-Short et al. 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Finally, the role of gestures during interaction has begun to receive attention.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 8. Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the case of all retrospective measures, the challenge is to maintain the veridicality of the data, ensuring that the learners' subsequent data reports their thoughts at the time of interaction rather than at the time of reporting.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 7.2 Descriptive and quasi-experimental research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In terms of research methods, there has been an important call for longitudinal research and delayed testing to investigate the sustainability of the effects of interaction.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 8. Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Much research has investigated young adults in university contexts”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 8. Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Mackey also found that while there was some correspondence in the noticing identified by the different measures, there were also discrepancies, leading her to suggest that noticing might be best viewed as a continuum.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 7.2 Descriptive and quasi-experimental research
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mackey (2006) source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“more recently studies investigating its effects on pronunciation have appeared (Derwing & Munro 2015).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 8. Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Derwing & Munro 2015 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
Peer interaction is probably the most common type of interaction in many communicatively oriented classrooms.
“more research has recently investigated the effects of peer interaction in large part because it is probably the most common type of interaction in many communicatively oriented classrooms.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Learners tend to process language semantically, and if they can grasp the meaning of an utterance without needing to process all of the linguistic features, they will do so.
“Learners tend to process language semantically, and if they can grasp the meaning of an utterance without needing to process all of the linguistic features, they will do so.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Personality and learning styles influence interaction.
“Furthermore, individual differences such as personality and learning styles can reasonably be assumed to influence interaction (Dewaele 2017).”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Learners will report, at minimum, something that they are aware of noticing when asked to report what they were thinking at a stimulus.
“with the assumption that learners will report, at minimum, something that they are aware of noticing.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Eye gaze focus and duration correspond with cognitive attention (an eye-mind link).
“under the assumption of an eye-mind link in which the focus and duration of eye gaze is said to correspond with cognitive attention”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > References
“Brown, D. (2014). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research 20.4, 436-458.”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > References
“Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research 20, 436-458.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 2.1 Input
“interactionally modified input, as exemplified in the subsequent examples, has generally been found to be better for L2 acquisition than premodified or unmodified input (e.g.Ellis & He 1999;Mackey 1999).”
§ Interaction and instructed second language acquisition > 2.1 Input
“However, Ellis & He (1999) compared pre-modified and interactionally modified input, finding no difference between the two types of input in a task-based study of vocabulary learning.”
Citations
Cites
(2002) · Cited by 13,211
Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety
HORWITZ, E. K., HORWITZ, M. B., & COPE, J. (1986) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05256.x · Cited by 5,697
The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning1
SCHMIDT, R. W. (1990) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/11.2.129 · Cited by 5,435 · cited 1×
“…variables pertaining to interaction on (a) discourse moves such as modified output (Swain 1985, 1995, 2005), (b) cognitive constructs such as noticing (Schmidt 1990, 1995, 2001), and (c) most importantly, L2 development and acquisition (see Mackey 1999; Spada & Lightbown 2009; Mackey 2012).”
BackgroundPrinciples and Practice in Second Language Acquisition
Higgs, T. V., & Krashen, S. D. (1983) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/328293 · Cited by 5,375
Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition
Krahnke, K. J., & Krashen, S. D. (1983) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3586656 · Cited by 4,483
The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition
Long, M. H. (1996) · Handbook of Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1016/b978-012589042-7/50015-3 · Cited by 3,927
Task-based Language Learning and Teaching
Ellis, R. (2003) · Asian Journal of English Language Teaching · doi:10.65961/ajelt-2003-1-009 · Cited by 3,601
A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning
Garcia, P., & Skehan, P. (1999) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3587891 · Cited by 3,489
(1985) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,037
The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics
Weber, A., Broersma, M., & Chapelle, C. A. (2012) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781405198431 · Cited by 2,977
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Trofimovich P. , A. Ammar & E. Gatbonton (2007). How effective are recasts: The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In A. Mackey (ed.), 171–195.
- 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.), 229–248.
- Long, 1996, Handbook of research on language acquisition, 413
- Krashen, 2003, Explorations in language acquisition and use
- Carroll, 1981, Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude, 83
- Jeon K. S. (2007). Interaction-driven L2 learning: Characterizing linguistic development. In A. Mackey (ed.), 379–403.
- Long, 2007, Problems in SLA
- Gass, 1986, Talking to learn: Conversation in second language interaction, 327
- Carroll, 2002, Modern language aptitude test (MLAT). Manual 2002 edition
- 10.1177/1362168814563200 · DOI
- Loewen S. & T. Nabei (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In A. Mackey (ed.), 361–377.
- Dewaele J.-M. (2017). Personality and anxiety. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (eds.), 433–450.
- Ferguson, 1975, Toward a characterization of English foreigner talk, Anthropological Linguistics, 17, 1
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Barrot, J. S. (2023) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2021.1936071 · Cited by 248
“Another factor that may promote the improvement in students’ writing accuracy is the noticing of forms and noticing of gaps which are essential components of the acquisitional process (Ellis, Loewen, & Erlam, 2006; Loewen & Sato, 2018; Lyster, 2004).”
BackgroundExploring Two Decades of Research on Classroom Dialogue by Using Bibliometric Analysis
Song, Y., Chen, X., Hao, T., Liu, Z., & Lan, Z. (2019) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.002 · Cited by 245
Sato, M., & Loewen, S. (2018) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12283 · Cited by 195
Self-citationThe Cambridge Handbook of Task-Based Language Teaching
Nuzzo, E., & Velásquez, D. C. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108868327 · Cited by 138
Child task-supported interaction in the Spanish EFL setting. Research and challenges
Mayo, M. D. P. G. (2018) · International Journal of English Studies · doi:10.6018/ijes/2018/2/319731 · Cited by 120
Metadata
- Authors
- Loewen, S., & Sato, M.
- Affiliations
- Michigan State University (US)
- Universidad Andrés Bello (CL)
- Venue
- Language Teaching
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2018-06-07
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 285-329
- ISSN
- 0261-4448 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-3049
- OpenAlex
- W2804104977
- Cited by
- 377
- References
- 325
- Citations by year
- 2026: 49 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 77 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 5
- FWCI
- 198.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Language Teaching (publishedVersion)
- LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Americanae (AECID Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Repositorio Institucional Académico , Sistema de Bibliotecas Universidad Andrés Bello (UNAB) (Universidad Andrés Bello (UNAB)) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
- Keywords
- interactionism, instructed second language acquisition, classroom interaction, negotiation of meaning, input, output, peer interaction, task complexity, individual differences, computer-mediated interaction, noticing, second language proficiency
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
