Language Learners' Interaction: How Does It Address the Input, Output, and Feedback Needs of L2 Learners?
Abstract
This study asked whether L2 learners' interaction with other learners can address three of their supposed needs for L2 learning-that is, their needs for L2 input modified toward comprehensibility, for feedback focused on form, and for modification of output-in ways that interaction with native speakers (NSs) has been shown to do. To Results of the comparison revealed similarities in the types of modified input and feedback the learners and NSs offered other learners in their respective dyads and in both the type and amount of output modifications they produced. The learners received less modified input from other learners than from NSs. As expected, learners' morphosyntax conformed less to standard English than did that of NSs. This pattern was found throughout the learners' input and feedback but was far less evident in feedback formed through simple segmentation of previous utterances. The study thus indicated that interaction between L2 learners can address some of their input, feedback, and output needs but that it does not provide as much modified input and feedback as interaction with NSs does.
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?
L1 speakers tend to provide lexically richer and syntactically more complex input than do L2 speakers.
“First, studies that compared L1 and L2 speakers as input providers reported that L1 speakers tend to provide lexically richer and syntactically more complex input than do L2 speakers.”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Pica et al. 1996
Pica et al. (1996) found L1 speakers provided more modifications after communication breakdowns but only for the picture description task.
“The analysis of frequencies of lexical and morphosyntactic modifications of the two types of interlocutors revealed that L1 speakers provided more modifications after communication breakdowns but only for the picture description task (see also Porter 1986).”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Pica et al. 1996
Learners are often more willing to indicate a lack of understanding when they are interacting with another learner.
“Regarding the first issue, research indicates that learners are often more willing to indicate a lack of understanding when they are interacting with another learner.”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Pica et al. 1996
Pica et al. (1996) found significantly more feedback instances in L2-L2 interaction for one of the two tasks.
“In the aforementioned Pica et al. (1996) study, the analysis of the amount of feedback showed that there were significantly more such instances in L2-L2 interaction (for one of the two tasks implemented in the study).”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Pica et al. 1996
Cites
Three Approaches to Task-Based Syllabus Design
Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3587368 · Cited by 866 · see citing works
"Information Gap" Tasks: Do They Facilitate Second Language Acquisition?
Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3586546 · Cited by 498 · see citing works
Self-citationLearner and Teacher Roles in the Treatment of Oral Error in Group Work
Bruton, A., & Samuda, V. (1980) · RELC Journal · doi:10.1177/003368828001100204 · Cited by 78 · 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
In Defense of Tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and Real Issues
Long, M. H. (2016) · Annual Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1017/s0267190515000057 · Cited by 359 · see citing works
Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning
Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2000) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/136216880000400303 · Cited by 260 · see citing works
Classroom Learning, Teaching, and Research: A Task‐Based Perspective
PICA, T. (2005) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00309.x · Cited by 179 · see citing works
Self-citationIncidental vocabulary learning in classroom communication tasks
Newton, J. (2013) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168812460814 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
- Authors
- Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Venue
- TESOL Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1996
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 59
- ISSN
- 0039-8322 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2053491421
- Cited by
- 302
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 18
- FWCI
- 73.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- TESOL Quarterly (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
- peer interaction, second language learners, formative feedback, native speaker interaction, comprehensibility, morphosyntax, second language acquisition
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
