CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 795EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Acquisition and LearningLinguistics and Language Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

INPUT, INTERACTION, AND SECOND LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT: An Empirical Study of Question Formation in ESL

Mackey, Alison·1999·Studies in Second Language Acquisition
DOI 10.1017/s0272263199004027
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between different types of conversational interaction and SLA. Long's (1996) updated version of the interactionist hypothesis claims that implicit negative feedback, which can be obtained through negotiated interaction, facilitates SLA. Similar claims for the benefits of negotiation have been made by Pica (1994) and Gass (1997). Some support for the interaction hypothesis has been provided by studies that have explored the effects of interaction on production (Gass & Varonis, 1994), on lexical acquisition (Ellis, Tanaka, & Yamazaki, 1994), on the short-term outcomes of pushed output (see Swain, 1995), and for specific interactional features such as recasts (Long, Inagaki, & Ortega, 1998; Mackey & Philp, 1998). However, other studies have not found effects for interaction on grammatical development (Loschky, 1994). The central question addressed by the current study was: Can conversational interaction facilitate second language development? The study employed a pretest-posttest design. Adult ESL learners (N = 34) of varying L1 backgrounds were divided into four experimental groups and one control group. They took part in task-based interaction. Research questions focused on the developmental outcomes of taking part in various types of interaction. Active participation in interaction and the developmental level of the learner were considered. Results of this study support claims concerning a link between interaction and grammatical developme…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0272263199004027

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 35 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–600 of 795

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Mackey, A.
Affiliations
Georgetown University (US)
Corresponding author
Mackey, Alison
ORCID
Mackey, Alison
Venue
Studies in Second Language Acquisition
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
1999-12
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
557-587
ISSN
  • 0272-2631 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-1545
DOI
10.1017/s0272263199004027
OpenAlex
W2979053679
Cited by
772
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 61 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 59 · 2015: 49 · 2014: 45 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 49
FWCI
100.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified)
Locations
Studies in Second Language Acquisition (publishedVersion)
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
second language acquisition, conversation, task-based interaction, grammatical development, negotiated interaction, ESL learners, recasts

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.

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