Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 573

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage

Open access
Blake, Robert·2000·Language Learning & Technology

Abstract

The Interaction Hypothesis states that the conditions for SLA are crucially enhanced by having L2 learners negotiate meaning (i.e., resolve their miscommunications) with other speakers, native or otherwise (Long & Robinson, 1998, p. 22).This study demonstrates that incidental negotiations commonly occurred in networked learner/learner discussions as well, especially with respect to their lexical confusions.Fifty intermediate L2 Spanish learners were asked to carry out networked discussions in pairs during their lab time using a synchronous chat program, Remote Technical Assistance (RTA), which records all textual entries.Each dyad carried out a series of online tasks that can be described as jigsaw, information-gap, or decision-making.The results show that jigsaw tasks appear to lead the way in promoting negotiations, as Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun (1993) had previously predicated, but that information-gap tasks were not nearly as productive as a stimulus.The findings suggest that computer mediated communication (CMC) can provide many of the alleged benefits ascribed to the Interaction Hypothesis, but with greatly increased possibilities for access outside of the classroom environment.Nevertheless, the predominance of incidental lexical negotiations, in contrast to the paucity of syntactic negotiations, leaves unanswered or unsatisfactorily addressed the issue of grammatical development.The study demonstrates, however, the value of synchronous chat records as a window for investigating interlanguage.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.64152/10125/25089

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Blake, R.
Venue
Language Learning & Technology
Published
2000-05-01
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
111-125
ISSN
1094-3501 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W12706995
Cited by
573
References
0
FWCI
88.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
diamond

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.