Cited by 432EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Acquisition and LearningSubtitles and Audiovisual Media

Classroom Interaction, Comprehension, and the Acquisition of L2 Word Meanings

Ellis, Rod, Tanaka, Yoshihiro, Yamazaki, Asako·1994·Language Learning

Abstract

There are substantial theoretical and empirical grounds for believing that opportunities to negotiate meaning through interaction facilitate comprehension. However, although there are theoretical grounds for believing that meaning negotiation aids second language acquisition, these are not supported by any empirical evidence. This article reports two classroom studies, based on the same design, which investigated the effects of modified interaction on comprehension and vocabulary acquisition among 79 and 127 high‐school students of English in Japan. The main results were: (a) interactionally modified input resulted in better comprehension than premodified input, (b) interactiqnally modified input led to more new words being acquired than premodified input, (c) learners who actively participated in negotiating meaning did not understand any better than those simply exposed to modified interaction, and (d) the active participators did not learn more new words. These results are discussed in terms of the interaction hypothesis (Long, 1981). The dual‐study method in classroom research is a useful way of establishing which results are generalizable and which are subject to situational variation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01114.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Words that were negotiated during communicative activities were retained better than nonnegotiated words.

    “Words that were negotiated during communicative activities were retained better than nonnegotiated words (Ellis, Tanaka, & Yamazaki, 1994;Newton, 1995).”

    From Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition (2001) · cites this paper as Ellis, Tanaka, & Yamazaki, 1994

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A.
Affiliations
Temple University, Japan (JP)
Corresponding author
Ellis, Rod
Venue
Language Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1994-09
Volume
44
Issue
3
Pages
449-491
ISSN
  • 0023-8333 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9922
OpenAlex
W2106564889
Cited by
432
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 19
FWCI
51.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Language Learning (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 › Subtitles and Audiovisual Media
Keywords
classroom interaction, second language comprehension, vocabulary acquisition, negotiation of meaning, interaction hypothesis, Japanese learners of English

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