14. Interaction in conversation groups: The development of L2 conversational styles
Abstract
This exploratory study examines the potential learning opportunities of interactions in the naturalistic setting of a German conversation group. Eleven intermediate L2 German learners participated in weekly conversation groups, which were recorded and then transcribed. In addition, information regarding learners’ perceptions, confidence, and willingness to communicate was obtained by means of self-report surveys and interviews. A discourse analytic approach indicated that learners’ styles were more passive or active depending on their ability to identify and use, consciously or unconsciously, German conversational style in the group interactions. These findings suggest that interaction in L2 conversation groups can play an important role in providing learners with opportunities to acquire native-like conversational styles and structures in an environment representative of authentic, real world conversational contexts.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Very few studies within the cognitive-interactionist paradigm have investigated discourse level phenomenon or features that might be considered markers of interactional competence, such as turn-taking.
“Finally, very few studies within the cognitive-interactionist paradigm have investigated discourse level phenomenon or features that might be considered markers of interactional competence, such as turn-taking.”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Ziegler et al. 2013
Ziegler et al. (2013) 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.
“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.”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Ziegler et al. 2013
All learners viewed the conversation groups as a positive experience.
“All learners viewed the conversation groups as a positive experience.”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Ziegler et al. 2013
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Interaction and instructed second language acquisition
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444818000125 · Cited by 377 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ziegler, N., Seals, C. A., Ammons, S., Lake, J., Hamrick, P., & Rebuschat, P.
- Affiliations
- Georgetown University (US)
- Bangor University (GB)
- Venue
- Language Learning & Language Teaching
- Publisher
- John Benjamins Publishing Company
- Published
- 2013-02-18
- Pages
- 269-292
- ISSN
- 1569-9471 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2477446672
- Cited by
- 24
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2020: 16 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 3
- FWCI
- 4.17
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Language learning and language teaching (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
- Keywords
- conversation groups, second language conversation, conversational style, interactional learning, willingness to communicate, learner confidence, learner perceptions, naturalistic interaction
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
