Classroom Interaction, Comprehension, and the Acquisition of L2 Word Meanings
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
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?
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
The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning1
SCHMIDT, R. W. (1990) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/11.2.129 · Cited by 4,910 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning
Schmitt, N. (2008) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168808089921 · Cited by 1,467 · see citing works
Task‐based language teaching: sorting out the misunderstandings
Ellis, R. (2009) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.x · Cited by 1,031 · see citing works
Self-citationSome empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition
Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00164 · Cited by 819 · see citing works
INPUT, INTERACTION, AND SECOND LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT: An Empirical Study of Question Formation in ESL
Mackey, A. (1999) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263199004027 · Cited by 772 · see citing works
Feedback, Noticing and Instructed Second Language Learning
Mackey, A. (2006) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/ami051 · Cited by 536 · see citing works
Task effectiveness and word learning in a second language: the involvement load hypothesis on trial
Keating, G. D. (2008) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168808089922 · Cited by 223 · see citing works
Comparing Focus on Form and Focus on FormS in Second-Language Vocabulary Learning
Laufer, B. (2006) · The Canadian Modern Language Review · doi:10.3138/cmlr.63.1.149 · Cited by 212 · see citing works
Calvo‐Ferrer, J. R. (2017) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.12387 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
Incidental vocabulary learning in classroom communication tasks
Newton, J. (2013) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168812460814 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Variation in the frequency and characteristics of incidental focus on form
Loewen, S. (2003) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1191/1362168803lr129oa · Cited by 76 · see citing works
1. Peer interaction and learning: A focus on the silent learner
Fernández-Dobao, A. (2016) · Language Learning & Language Teaching · doi:10.1075/lllt.45.02fer · Cited by 46 · see citing works
The Effect of Instructional Conditions on Students’ Vocabulary Retention
Kitajima, R. (2001) · Foreign Language Annals · doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2001.tb02086.x · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2014) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168813519885 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Self-citation
- 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