Interruptions in chat
Abstract
The research on text-based synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC), while generally acknowledging the potential benefits afforded by the medium's capacity for extensive self-repair, has done little in the way of exploration of the nature of such text. Indeed, until quite recently, output logs have been favored almost exclusively at the expense of richer records of the interaction that can better account for this deleted text. Another basic aspect of SCMC interaction is the occurrence of interruptions initiated by one's interlocutor during the message composition phase. The possible effect of these interruptions on the chat interaction, however, has again been largely ignored in the literature. This study examines the relationship between these interruptions and deleted text as well as the effect such interruptions have on the subsequent output produced by learners.
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?
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).
“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).”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Smith & Sauro 2009
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 41 · Cited by 26
- Authors
- Smith, B., & Sauro, S.
- Affiliations
- Arizona State University (US)
- The University of Texas at San Antonio (US)
- Corresponding author
- Smith, Bryan
- Venue
- Computer Assisted Language Learning
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2009-07
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 229-247
- ISSN
- 0958-8221 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-3210
- OpenAlex
- W2164569586
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 5.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Computer Assisted Language Learning (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Arizona State University
- American Council on The Teaching of Foreign Languages
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Digital Communication and Language
- 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
- Keywords
- interruptions, chat, self-healing, message composition, learner output, computer-mediated language learning, interaction logs
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