The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Language play, language learning
Abstract
This article challenges the widespread belief in contemporary ELT that students should be exposed to authentic or natural language, and that such language is primarily focused on making meaning and achieving practical purposes. Firstly, it is argued that the terms ‘authentic’ and ‘natural’ are vaguely defined, but that if they refer to language used between native speakers and by children acquiring a first language, this is not necessarily the best type of language use for foreign learners. Secondly, it is argued that a good deal of authentic or natural language is playful, in the sense of being focused upon form and fiction rather than on meaning and reality.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Legislation by Hypothesis: The Case of Task-Based Instruction
Swan, M. (2005) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/ami013 · Cited by 481
Li, C., & Xu, J. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02453 · Cited by 156
Other-repetition as a resource for participation in the activity of playing a video game
MARSH, A. P., & TAINIO, L. (2009) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00853.x · Cited by 152
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2014) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168813519885 · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Cook, G.
- Venue
- ELT Journal
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1997-07-01
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 224-231
- ISSN
- 0951-0893 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-4526
- OpenAlex
- W2073364083
- Cited by
- 809
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 58.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
