The Effect of Interaction on Lexical Acquisition

Journal of Teaching English Lnaguage Studies

مقاله 4، دوره 3، شماره 1، آبان 2014، صفحه 54-81   

نویسنده

Maryam Jamali

Islamic Azad University of Takestan

چکیده

This research showed that appropriate input and suitable contexts for interaction among students can lead to successful  second language acquisition (SLA). This study based on Swain's (2005) notion of collaborative dialogue, aimed to study whether EFL learners participating in negotiation of meaning based tasks collaborate with each other and, if so, to investigate the role of this behavior in the acquisition of lexical meaning. This experimental study investigates the differential effects of three conditions: nonnegotiated premodified input, negotiation without "pushed output"(Swain, 1985), and negotiation plus pushed output on L2 learners' vocabulary comprehension and acquisition (receptive and productive) . The study reported here investigated the effect of emotional involvement as compared to cognitive involvement both applied to the pre-task phase of a reading- while- listening focused task on lexical acquisition as a result of engagement with the task. Emotional involvement was operationalized as a video clips shown before the main task which elicited positive affect.  The findings imply pedagogical suggestions for task-based vocabulary teaching any development acquired through CMC might eventually be transferred to the oral mode. This study is twofold:  the first experiment examines the potential for lexical acquisition by beginning- level  learners in CMC as compared to face-to- face(FTF).Experimental 2 describes sessions between four beginning- level  learners and the researcher in regards to their saved CMC chat files from  Experimental 1. An analysis of their saved and stored "conversations" revealed that learners were able to identify errors, recognize reasons for instances of non-understanding that took place with their CMC partner,and spot , as well as correct problems in their interlanguage.

مراجع

De la Fuente, M.J., 2003. Is SLA interactionist theory relevant to CALL? A study on the effect of computer-mediated interaction in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Computer Assisted LanguageLearning, 16(1): 47-81

Gass ,S.M. and E.M. Varonis, 1986. Sex differences in non-native speaker/non-native speaker interactions.

Kitade, K., 2000. L2 learners'discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in internetchat  Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(2): 143-166

Laufer, B. and J. Hulstijn, 2001. Incidental Vocabulary acquisition in a SL: The construct of task- induced involvement. Applied Lingguistics, 22(1):1-26.

Long, M.H. and P.Robinson, 1998. Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C.Doughty & J. Williams(Eds.) , Focus on form in SLA (pp.15-41).Cambridge: Cambridge  University Press.

Pica, T., 1994 . Research on negotiation:  What does it reveal about SLL conditions, processes and outcomes? Language Learning , 44(3): 493-527.

Pica, T.,R. Kanagy and J. Falodun, 1993. Choosing and using communication tasks for SL

Porter , P.A., 1986. How learners talk to each other: Input and interaction in task-centered discussions. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: conversation in SLA. Rowley, MA: Newbury House., pp:184-199

Swain , M., 4005. The output hypothesis: Theory and research . In E. Hinkel(Ed.), Handbook on research in SLT and learning. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.,pp:471-484

Ellis,R.(2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford:OUP.

Fitz, M.(2006). Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face and Written electronic conferences. Language Learning &Technology, 10(1), 67-86.

Gass, S., &Varonis,E.(1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in SLA ,16,283-302.