Self- and Other-Initiated Modified Output during Task-Based Interaction
Abstract
This study examines the role self- and other-initiations play in providing opportunities for modified output (MO), which Swain (1995, 1998) and Swain and Lapkin (1995) suggest is important for successful second language acquisition. Thirty-five adult participants—8 native speakers (NSs) and 27 nonnative speakers (NNSs) of English representing 13 different L1 backgrounds—performed three tasks (picture description, opinion exchange, and decision making). The first two tasks were performed in NS-NNS and NNS-NNS pairs and were audiotaped, and the third was completed in NNS groups and was audio- and videotaped. The results showed that both self- and other-initiations provided NNSs with abundant opportunities to produce MO. However, in four of the five interactional contexts examined in the study, significantly more instances of MO resulted from self-initiation than from other-initiation. These results suggest that self-initiations play an important role in prompting MO and that learners need both time and opportunity to initiate and complete repair of their own messages.
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?
Learners tend to self-correct more while interacting with other learners than when interacting with L1 speakers.
“Finally, while much less investigated, research indicates that learners tend to self-correct more while interacting with other learners than when interacting with L1 speakers.”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Shehadeh 2001
Shehadeh (2001) showed 93% of self-initiation led to modified output during L2-L2 interaction, proportionally higher than L2-L1 interaction, after extended negotiations.
“Shehadeh (2001), in a follow up examination of his earlier data (1999), showed that 93% of self-initiation led to modified output during L2-L2 interaction, which was proportionally higher than L2-L1 interaction, again after extended negotiations.”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Shehadeh 2001
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 104
- Authors
- Shehadeh, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Aleppo (SY)
- Corresponding author
- Shehadeh, Ali
- ORCID
- Shehadeh, Ali
- Venue
- TESOL Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 2001
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 433
- ISSN
- 0039-8322 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1972012415
- Cited by
- 104
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 15.84
- 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
- self-initiation, task-based interaction, second language acquisition, second language learners, conversational repair, task-based language learning, picture description, opinion exchange, decision-making
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
