Task-based interaction and incidental vocabulary learning: a case study
Open accessAbstract
This case study examines the vocabulary gains made by an adult learner of English as a second language as a result of performing four communication tasks. Gains were measured on comparisons of pre- and post-tests of vocabulary from the worksheets from the four tasks. These gains are discussed in relation to the interactional processes involving unfamiliar vocabulary. Explicit negotiation of word meaning appeared less deterministic of post-test improvements than use of words in the process of completing the task. While this result may to some extent be an artifact of test design, it is also true that when the group actively used vocabulary which was unfamiliar to the subject of this study, the embedding of this vocabulary in the context of the task and its interactive use are likely to have provided not only important information about word meaning but also the conditions whereby that meaning could be acquired. The placement of a word on task worksheets and the nature of a task, whether a split information task or a shared information task, both had a strong effect on use and acquisition of new vocabulary.
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 Newton, 1995
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
Some 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
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
- Authors
- Newton, J.
- Affiliations
- Victoria University of Wellington (NZ)
- Corresponding author
- Newton, Jonathan
- ORCID
- Newton, Jonathan
- Venue
- Second Language Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1995-06
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 159-176
- ISSN
- 0165-9960 (ISSN-L)
- 0267-6583
- 1477-0326
- OpenAlex
- W2163511437
- Cited by
- 160
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Second language Research (publishedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Victoria University of Wellington
- Victoria University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Subtitles and Audiovisual Media
- Keywords
- incidental vocabulary learning, task-based interaction, English as a second language, adult learners, negotiation of meaning, vocabulary acquisition, communicative activities, unfamiliar words
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