Density and complexity of oral production in interaction: The interactionist approach and an alternative
Abstract
This study examined conversational interaction between second language (L2) learners and native speakers (NSs). While L2 interaction research has traditionally quantified interactional moves – the interactionist approach, the present study examined various surface linguistic indices (e.g., MLUs, number of verb and noun types, and TTRs) and compared learner-learner vs. learner-NS interaction. The results indicated that learners and NSs were comparable in terms of the amount of production but the NSs’ speech contained more grammatical and lexical variability with a larger mean proportion of copula omissions. This foreigner talk was found to be correlated with learners’ errors. When learners’ output in the two conditions was compared, it was found that learners produced more verb (but not noun) types with larger MLUs and TTRs in the peer interaction context.
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?
Sato (2015) found learners can provide a comparable amount and variety of input to that of L1 speakers primarily due to linguistic simplifications that L1 speakers tended to produce.
“In a more recent study, Sato (2015), by comparing the density and complexity of L1 and L2 interlocutors' speech production, found that learners can provide a comparable amount (i.e.mean length of utterance) and variety (i.e. the number of types of verbs) of input to that of L1 speakers primarily due to the linguistic simplifications that the L1 speakers tended to produce”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Sato 2015
Cites
Patterns of Interaction in ESL Pair Work
Storch, N. (2002) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00179 · Cited by 1,080 · see citing works
The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis
Li, S. (2010) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x · Cited by 941 · 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
Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x · Cited by 746 · see citing works
Toth, P. D. (2008) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00441.x · Cited by 149 · cited 2× · see citing works
“2010), and a number of facilitative features for L2 development in cognitive (Kormos 1999; Lyster et al. 2013; McDonough 2004; Philp and Iwashita 2013; Porter 1986; Sato and Lyster 2012; Toth 2008) and sociocultural (Ballinger 2013; Donato 1994; Foster and Ohta 2005; Sato and Ballinger 2012; Storch 2001, 2002; Storch…”
BackgroundPica, T. (2013) · AILA Applied Linguistics Series · doi:10.1075/aals.9.06ch3 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Interaction and instructed second language acquisition
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444818000125 · Cited by 377 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Sato, M.
- Affiliations
- Universidad Andrés Bello (CL)
- Corresponding author
- Sato, Masatoshi
- ORCID
- Sato, Masatoshi
- Venue
- International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 2015-01-01
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 3
- ISSN
- 0019-042X (ISSN-L)
- 1613-4141
- OpenAlex
- W2567209169
- Cited by
- 19
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4
- FWCI
- 13.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (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 acquisition, student-student interaction, interactionism, oral expression, grammatical complexity, lexical diversity, mean length of utterance, student errors, peer interaction, foreigner talk
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
