A Classroom Perspective on the Negotiation of Meaning
Abstract
It is widely argud that engaging in communicative language tasks helps a leamer develop in an L2 in several ways Tasks provide an opportunity not only to produce the target language, but also, through conversational adjustments, to manipulate and modify it Checking and clanfying problem utterances (‘negotiating for meaning’) ensures that task participants receive comprehensible input and generate comprehensible output, both of which have been claimed as crucial to second language aquisition (SLA) Task type is considered significant, with those tasks requiring an exchange of information most likely to prompt negotiations for meaning This paper reports a classroom observation of the language produced by intermediate EFL students engaged in required and optional information exchange tasks in both dyads and small groups The results show no clear overall effect for task type or grouping, though there was a discernible trend for dyads doing a two-way task to produce more negotiated interaction However, it was noticeable that many students in the small groups did not speak at all, many more in both dyads and small groups did not initiate any negotiated interaction, and very few students in either setting produced, any modified utterances Such positive results as were obtained seemed to be due to the disproportionate influence of a small number of the students, and so were not typical of the group as a whole The setting of the study within a classroom, as opposed to a venue especiall…
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?
Negotiation for meaning does not always occur frequently in the classroom.
“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).”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Foster 1998
In small group and whole class interaction, not all learners engage directly in interaction or negotiation for meaning.
“Furthermore, in small group and whole class interaction, it is possible that not all learners engage directly in interaction or negotiation for meaning (e.g.Foster 1998).”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Foster 1998
The generalizability of laboratory research to the classroom has been questioned.
“The generalizability of laboratory research to the classroom has been questioned (e.g.Foster 1998; Eckerth 2009, although see Gass et al. 2005).”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Foster 1998
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 437
- Authors
- FOSTER, P.
- Affiliations
- University of West London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- FOSTER, P.
- ORCID
- FOSTER, P.
- Venue
- Applied Linguistics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1998-04-01
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-23
- ISSN
- 0142-6001 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-450X
- OpenAlex
- W2091681313
- Cited by
- 437
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 19
- FWCI
- 73.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Applied Linguistics (publishedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- 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
- negotiation of meaning, second language acquisition, EFL learners, task type, comprehensible input, classroom observation
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