Investigating L2 Performance in Text Chat
Abstract
This study examines the linguistic complexity and lexical diversity of both overt and covert L2 output produced during synchronous written computer-mediated communication, also referred to as chat. Video enhanced chatscripts produced by university learners of German (N = 23) engaged in dyadic task-based chat interaction were coded and analyzed for syntactic complexity (ratio of clauses to c-units), productive use of grammatical gender, and lexical diversity (Index of Guiraud). Results show that chat output that exhibits evidence of online planning in the form of post-production monitoring displays significantly greater linguistic complexity and lexical diversity than chat output that does not exhibit similar evidence of online planning. These findings suggest that L2 learners do appear to use the increased online (i.e. moment-by-moment) planning time afforded by chat to engage in careful production and monitoring.
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?
Several researchers have proposed advantages for written SCMC, and 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.
“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.”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Sauro & Smith 2010
Eye-tracking has recently been used to measure learners' noticing of linguistic features during written SCMC and online FTF communication.
“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)”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Sauro & Smith 2010
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 54 · Cited by 117
- Authors
- Sauro, S., & Smith, B.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at San Antonio (US)
- Corresponding author
- Sauro, Shannon
- Venue
- Applied Linguistics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-03-03
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 554-577
- ISSN
- 0142-6001 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-450X
- OpenAlex
- W2100147585
- Cited by
- 117
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 75.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Applied Linguistics (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 performance, text chat, computer-mediated communication, German as a second language, syntactic complexity, lexical diversity, grammatical gender, online planning, task-based 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
