社会认知视域下的课堂会话协商特征研究
|
摘要
本研究在二语习得社会认知视域下,以会话分析为工具,对中国英语学习者课堂同伴会话协商特征及其本质进行了探究。研究内容主要包括：协商话步发展特征和分布特征、协商触发源特征以及协商产出特征；各协商特征的归因及各特征对语言实践的影响；同伴协商互动本质及其影响因素；同伴协商互动对语言习得的启示。
本研究语料来自二十组英语专业学习者三学期内所完成的九次课堂同伴讨论任务的录音录像资料。研究焦点为九次互动任务中的3396项会话协商话步。九次会话语料的转写和编码均依据会话分析原则进行,组间系数为0.87,最大限度地保障了语料的规范性和统一性。会话语料采集完结后的一次问卷调查和八例访谈结果作为讨论部分的辅助语料。语料分析包含定量和定性分析。定量分析指对协商序列各部分分布特征的统计分析,旨在对各特征的量化分析。定性分析主要指对课堂同伴协商的详尽会话分析,意在剖析各协商特征在语言实践中的作用、协商互动本质及其影响因素。对问卷调查和个别访谈的定性分析结果主要用于对协商影响因素的剖析。
本研究的主要发现涉及协商话步、协商触发源和协商产出特征、各特征形成原因、各特征在语言实践的作用、同伴协商互动本质及其影响因素。
在协商话步发展及其分布特征方面,本研究发现：会话协商明显存在于九次会话任务中,且随着会话任务的多次开展其频率逐渐升高,但发展频率不等。同伴会话协商常表现为理解核查、证实核查、澄清请求以及“寻求帮助”、和“其它类协商”等五种类型。各协商启发在各次任务中的分布频率不同,证实核查频率最高,澄清请求位居第二,“寻求帮助”第三,“其它类协商”第四,而理解核查频率最低。就协商触发源而言,内容触发源总量位居第一,词汇触发源位居第二,但两者在九次任务中的分布表现不同。其中,在前五次会话任务中,词汇触发语频率均高于内容触发语,但后四次任务中的内容触发语则高于词汇触发语。排在第三位的是词法句法触发语,第五位的是语音触发语。而本研究中新归类的“其它类触发语”也明显存在于每次互动任务中,频率位于第四位,高于语音触发语。在协商产出方面,同伴会话协商常诱导修饰产出和非修饰产出两大类。修饰产出频率并非显著高于非修饰产出,但随着会话任务的逐渐展开修饰产出频率逐渐上涨。从各协商启发模式看,澄清请求和证实核查所诱导的修饰产出频率显然高出其它启发模式。另外,本研究发现,非修饰产出表现为重复触发语、重复启发、修饰失败、转移话题、表达困难等五种形式,具有不同表征。
本研究发现,同伴互动轻松、自由的本质、二人一组互动形式的特质、互动会话内容的社会认知属性设计、互动会话类型的认知难易程度等是造成课堂同伴会话协商特征的主要原因。
就同伴会话协商对语言实践的影响而言,本研究发现,会话协商实践可视为种复杂的社会认知源泉,能刺激学习者之间以及学习者与认知环境之间的互动。会话协商给语言学习者提供一种共同参与、相互学习的资源和环境,不仅有助会话任务的顺利完成而且通过讨论、协商、争辩有助学习者社会语言能力、社会互动能力和社会认知能力的共同提高。
本研究发现,同伴会话协商不仅包含意义协商、形式协商,还蕴含对社会关系、社会价值的协商。为了成功地完成互动任务,参与协商互动,学习者最常使用语码转换、借助身体语言和利用认知工具等策略。此外,语料分析发现四种明显同伴互动形式,它们是合作模式、控制-控制模式、专家-新手模式和专家-专家模式。学习者协商互动本质可表现为共同构建身份,共同参与思维和推理活动以及共同创建互文本和社会文化联系。
本研究还发现,学习者之间的社会关系、相互的信任程度、语言课堂的环境因素、以及学习者个体的社会文化背景知识等都能在一定程度上影响同伴协商互动在语言习得和认知发展过程的功效。
本研究认为,对同伴互动会话协商本质的探析有助于从微观层面更好地探究语言学习过程本质,更好地理解语言学习过程中认知、社会行为、认知环境之间的辩证联系。本研究结果对教学实践和研究有如下启示：重视同伴互动课堂语言实践本质、提高学习者对同伴互动有效性认识、合理设计课堂互动任务、加强互动策略培训、建立合作性课堂环境、利用会话分析技巧进行互动探究,以及采纳社会认知视域检测互动参与。
最后,论文总结了本研究的主要发现,同时指出了本研究的不足之处并对后续同伴会话协商研究提出了建议。
Using the methodological framework of conversation analysis (CA) as a central tool for analysis, this study investigated the features of conversational negotiations in classroom peer interactions by Chinese EFL learners from the sociocognitive perspective. It was aimed at exploring the classroom learner-learner negotiation from four perspectives:the features of learner-learner negotiation in terms of negotiation moves, negotiation triggers and negotiation output; the causes of negotiation features and effects of learner negotiation on language practice; the nature and the influencing factors of learner negotiated interaction for classroom language learning; and the implications of negotiation features for instructional practice and research.
The research data derived from audio-and-video-recorded interactions of twenty groups of English majors engaging in nine teacher-assigned in-class interactive tasks during three consecutive terms. Data analysis focused on3,396negotiation moves collected from nine interactive tasks during three terms. Schemes of transcribing and coding of data were developed from the principles of CA. The interclass correlation coefficient of0.87guaranteed the normalization and unification of transcription and coding as much as possible. The questionnaire and the interviews provided supplementary and complementary information for data analysis.
The focus of the conversation analysis was on the relationship between learner-learner negotiation and learning in the process of completing the interactive tasks. The questionnaire responses and the interview data were collected to explore the influencing factors of learner negotiated interaction for classroom language learning.
The present study produced a number of important findings. With regard to the developmental features of negotiation moves, the study found that conversational negotiation obviously existed in nine teacher-assigned interactive tasks and the frequency of negotiation moves increased over time and across tasks.
In respect of negotiation initiations, five kinds were found to frequently trigger learner negotiation and had different distribution features in nine tasks. Ranked from high to low in terms of frequency, they were confirmation checks, clarification requests,"Assistance seeking","Others" and comprehension checks. During three terms, the frequency of "Assistance seeking" rose first and descended from Term Two to Term Three. The other four kinds of initiations kept steadily rising tendency. With respect to the negotiation triggers, this study found that content triggers had the highest frequency, lexical triggers the second highest. But they had different developmental tendency among nine tasks, with lexical triggers higher than content triggers in the first five tasks but lower than global triggers in the last four tasks. Morphosyntactic triggers ranked the third, next to it was the pronouncing triggers, which were even lower than the newly-found kind of triggers in this study,"Other-kinds". As to the negotiation output, this study found that two large kinds of negotiation output were often triggered by learner-learner negotiation:modified output and non-modified output. Although the frequency of modified output was not significantly higher than that of non-modified output, the ratio of modified output went on steadily over time and across tasks. Five types of non-modified output were found to be produced by learners in the study:repetition of triggers, repetition of initiations, failure to modify, expression of difficulty and switch to topic, with different features in forms.
This study has found that the relaxing and free nature of learner-learner interaction, the special form of dyadic group, the social characteristics of the task topics and the cognitive complexity of the interactive tasks were the possible aspects that contributed to the features of learner conversational negotiations.
In terms of the effectiveness of learner negotiation on language practice, it has been found that negotiation served as a complex sociocognitive resource that enabled learner-learner interactions. During negotiating process, learners effected coordinated interaction, both with their partners and environments, situations, tools, and affordances. Conversation negotiation provided language learners with the cognitive environment where learners obtained potential for the development of learners'competence in engagement, alignment and adaption. Through negotiation, learners completed interactive tasks successfully, and improved their sociolinguistic, sociointeractive and sociocognitive abilities.
When it comes to the attributes of learner negotiation, results related to learner-learner negotiation showed that, during negotiating process, learners negotiated for meaning, for form, and for social relationships, social identities as well. To succeed in enabling the negotiating process, strategies of code-switching, constructing body language and using cognitive tools were found to be frequently managed by learners. In addition, four distinct patterns of dyadic interaction were found in the current study:the collaborative pattern, the dominant-dominant pattern, the expert-novice pattern and the expert-expert pattern. The entailments of learner-learner negotiated interaction can be reflected from co-construction of identity, co-engagement of thinking and reasoning and co-creation of intertextual and sociocultural connections.
This study has also found that the social relationships among learners, the collaborative classroom environment and the learners'social and cultural knowledge were found to be the most significant among all the possible factors that influencing the functions of learner negotiated interaction on language acquisition and cognitive development to some extent.
This study concluded that analysis of the nature of learner negotiation facilitates the exploration of language learning process and promotes the better understanding of the relationship among cognition, social action and the sociocognitive environment. The results would provide implications for instructional practice and research from the dimensions of highlighting the nature of negotiated interaction, raising the learners' awareness of the efficacy of learner negotiated interaction, designing suitable interactive tasks, strengthening interactive strategy training, establishing collaborative classroom environment, using CA for exploration of interaction and improving cognition of learner negotiated interaction from the sociocognitive perspective.
This dissertation finally presented a summary of the main findings of this study. Proposal was given to use CA for exploration of language learning practice. Limitations of this study and recommendations for future studies were finally presented.
本研究语料来自二十组英语专业学习者三学期内所完成的九次课堂同伴讨论任务的录音录像资料。研究焦点为九次互动任务中的3396项会话协商话步。九次会话语料的转写和编码均依据会话分析原则进行,组间系数为0.87,最大限度地保障了语料的规范性和统一性。会话语料采集完结后的一次问卷调查和八例访谈结果作为讨论部分的辅助语料。语料分析包含定量和定性分析。定量分析指对协商序列各部分分布特征的统计分析,旨在对各特征的量化分析。定性分析主要指对课堂同伴协商的详尽会话分析,意在剖析各协商特征在语言实践中的作用、协商互动本质及其影响因素。对问卷调查和个别访谈的定性分析结果主要用于对协商影响因素的剖析。
本研究的主要发现涉及协商话步、协商触发源和协商产出特征、各特征形成原因、各特征在语言实践的作用、同伴协商互动本质及其影响因素。
在协商话步发展及其分布特征方面,本研究发现：会话协商明显存在于九次会话任务中,且随着会话任务的多次开展其频率逐渐升高,但发展频率不等。同伴会话协商常表现为理解核查、证实核查、澄清请求以及“寻求帮助”、和“其它类协商”等五种类型。各协商启发在各次任务中的分布频率不同,证实核查频率最高,澄清请求位居第二,“寻求帮助”第三,“其它类协商”第四,而理解核查频率最低。就协商触发源而言,内容触发源总量位居第一,词汇触发源位居第二,但两者在九次任务中的分布表现不同。其中,在前五次会话任务中,词汇触发语频率均高于内容触发语,但后四次任务中的内容触发语则高于词汇触发语。排在第三位的是词法句法触发语,第五位的是语音触发语。而本研究中新归类的“其它类触发语”也明显存在于每次互动任务中,频率位于第四位,高于语音触发语。在协商产出方面,同伴会话协商常诱导修饰产出和非修饰产出两大类。修饰产出频率并非显著高于非修饰产出,但随着会话任务的逐渐展开修饰产出频率逐渐上涨。从各协商启发模式看,澄清请求和证实核查所诱导的修饰产出频率显然高出其它启发模式。另外,本研究发现,非修饰产出表现为重复触发语、重复启发、修饰失败、转移话题、表达困难等五种形式,具有不同表征。
本研究发现,同伴互动轻松、自由的本质、二人一组互动形式的特质、互动会话内容的社会认知属性设计、互动会话类型的认知难易程度等是造成课堂同伴会话协商特征的主要原因。
就同伴会话协商对语言实践的影响而言,本研究发现,会话协商实践可视为种复杂的社会认知源泉,能刺激学习者之间以及学习者与认知环境之间的互动。会话协商给语言学习者提供一种共同参与、相互学习的资源和环境,不仅有助会话任务的顺利完成而且通过讨论、协商、争辩有助学习者社会语言能力、社会互动能力和社会认知能力的共同提高。
本研究发现,同伴会话协商不仅包含意义协商、形式协商,还蕴含对社会关系、社会价值的协商。为了成功地完成互动任务,参与协商互动,学习者最常使用语码转换、借助身体语言和利用认知工具等策略。此外,语料分析发现四种明显同伴互动形式,它们是合作模式、控制-控制模式、专家-新手模式和专家-专家模式。学习者协商互动本质可表现为共同构建身份,共同参与思维和推理活动以及共同创建互文本和社会文化联系。
本研究还发现,学习者之间的社会关系、相互的信任程度、语言课堂的环境因素、以及学习者个体的社会文化背景知识等都能在一定程度上影响同伴协商互动在语言习得和认知发展过程的功效。
本研究认为,对同伴互动会话协商本质的探析有助于从微观层面更好地探究语言学习过程本质,更好地理解语言学习过程中认知、社会行为、认知环境之间的辩证联系。本研究结果对教学实践和研究有如下启示：重视同伴互动课堂语言实践本质、提高学习者对同伴互动有效性认识、合理设计课堂互动任务、加强互动策略培训、建立合作性课堂环境、利用会话分析技巧进行互动探究,以及采纳社会认知视域检测互动参与。
最后,论文总结了本研究的主要发现,同时指出了本研究的不足之处并对后续同伴会话协商研究提出了建议。
Using the methodological framework of conversation analysis (CA) as a central tool for analysis, this study investigated the features of conversational negotiations in classroom peer interactions by Chinese EFL learners from the sociocognitive perspective. It was aimed at exploring the classroom learner-learner negotiation from four perspectives:the features of learner-learner negotiation in terms of negotiation moves, negotiation triggers and negotiation output; the causes of negotiation features and effects of learner negotiation on language practice; the nature and the influencing factors of learner negotiated interaction for classroom language learning; and the implications of negotiation features for instructional practice and research.
The research data derived from audio-and-video-recorded interactions of twenty groups of English majors engaging in nine teacher-assigned in-class interactive tasks during three consecutive terms. Data analysis focused on3,396negotiation moves collected from nine interactive tasks during three terms. Schemes of transcribing and coding of data were developed from the principles of CA. The interclass correlation coefficient of0.87guaranteed the normalization and unification of transcription and coding as much as possible. The questionnaire and the interviews provided supplementary and complementary information for data analysis.
The focus of the conversation analysis was on the relationship between learner-learner negotiation and learning in the process of completing the interactive tasks. The questionnaire responses and the interview data were collected to explore the influencing factors of learner negotiated interaction for classroom language learning.
The present study produced a number of important findings. With regard to the developmental features of negotiation moves, the study found that conversational negotiation obviously existed in nine teacher-assigned interactive tasks and the frequency of negotiation moves increased over time and across tasks.
In respect of negotiation initiations, five kinds were found to frequently trigger learner negotiation and had different distribution features in nine tasks. Ranked from high to low in terms of frequency, they were confirmation checks, clarification requests,"Assistance seeking","Others" and comprehension checks. During three terms, the frequency of "Assistance seeking" rose first and descended from Term Two to Term Three. The other four kinds of initiations kept steadily rising tendency. With respect to the negotiation triggers, this study found that content triggers had the highest frequency, lexical triggers the second highest. But they had different developmental tendency among nine tasks, with lexical triggers higher than content triggers in the first five tasks but lower than global triggers in the last four tasks. Morphosyntactic triggers ranked the third, next to it was the pronouncing triggers, which were even lower than the newly-found kind of triggers in this study,"Other-kinds". As to the negotiation output, this study found that two large kinds of negotiation output were often triggered by learner-learner negotiation:modified output and non-modified output. Although the frequency of modified output was not significantly higher than that of non-modified output, the ratio of modified output went on steadily over time and across tasks. Five types of non-modified output were found to be produced by learners in the study:repetition of triggers, repetition of initiations, failure to modify, expression of difficulty and switch to topic, with different features in forms.
This study has found that the relaxing and free nature of learner-learner interaction, the special form of dyadic group, the social characteristics of the task topics and the cognitive complexity of the interactive tasks were the possible aspects that contributed to the features of learner conversational negotiations.
In terms of the effectiveness of learner negotiation on language practice, it has been found that negotiation served as a complex sociocognitive resource that enabled learner-learner interactions. During negotiating process, learners effected coordinated interaction, both with their partners and environments, situations, tools, and affordances. Conversation negotiation provided language learners with the cognitive environment where learners obtained potential for the development of learners'competence in engagement, alignment and adaption. Through negotiation, learners completed interactive tasks successfully, and improved their sociolinguistic, sociointeractive and sociocognitive abilities.
When it comes to the attributes of learner negotiation, results related to learner-learner negotiation showed that, during negotiating process, learners negotiated for meaning, for form, and for social relationships, social identities as well. To succeed in enabling the negotiating process, strategies of code-switching, constructing body language and using cognitive tools were found to be frequently managed by learners. In addition, four distinct patterns of dyadic interaction were found in the current study:the collaborative pattern, the dominant-dominant pattern, the expert-novice pattern and the expert-expert pattern. The entailments of learner-learner negotiated interaction can be reflected from co-construction of identity, co-engagement of thinking and reasoning and co-creation of intertextual and sociocultural connections.
This study has also found that the social relationships among learners, the collaborative classroom environment and the learners'social and cultural knowledge were found to be the most significant among all the possible factors that influencing the functions of learner negotiated interaction on language acquisition and cognitive development to some extent.
This study concluded that analysis of the nature of learner negotiation facilitates the exploration of language learning process and promotes the better understanding of the relationship among cognition, social action and the sociocognitive environment. The results would provide implications for instructional practice and research from the dimensions of highlighting the nature of negotiated interaction, raising the learners' awareness of the efficacy of learner negotiated interaction, designing suitable interactive tasks, strengthening interactive strategy training, establishing collaborative classroom environment, using CA for exploration of interaction and improving cognition of learner negotiated interaction from the sociocognitive perspective.
This dissertation finally presented a summary of the main findings of this study. Proposal was given to use CA for exploration of language learning practice. Limitations of this study and recommendations for future studies were finally presented.
引文
Adams, R. (2004). Learner-learner interactions:Implications for second language acquisition. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Georgetown University.
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal,78 (3), 465-483.
Alwright, D. (2005). Developing principles for practitioner research:The case of Exploratory Practice. The Modern Language Journal,89 (2),353-366.
Anton, M. (1999). The discourse of a learner-centered classroom:Sociocultural perspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second language classroom. The Modern Language Journal,83 (3),303-347.
Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal,86 (4),525-545.
Atkinson, D. (2010). Extended, embodied cognition and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics,31 (5),599-622.
Atkinson, D., Churchill, T., & Okada, H. (2007). Alignment and interaction in a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal,91 (1),169-188.
Auer, P. (1998). Code-switching in conversation:Language, interaction and identity. London and New York:Routledge.
Bannink, A., & Dam J. (2006). A dynamic discourse approach to classroom research. Linguistics and Education,17,283-301.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Bejarano Y., Levine, T., Olshtain, E., & Steiner, J. (1997). The skilled use of interaction strategies:Creating a framework for improved small group communicative interaction in the language classroom. System,25 (2),203-214.
Benson, P., & Chik, A. (2009). Qualitative research in language teaching and learning journals,1997-2006. The Modern Language Journal,93(1),79-90.
Bolden, G. (2012). Across languages and cultures:Brokering problems of understanding in conversational repair. Language in Society 41,97-121.
Borg, M. (2003). Teacher cognition language teaching:A review of research on what teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching 36,81-109.
Broner, M., & Tarone, E. (2001). Is it fun? Language play in a fifth-grade Spanish immersion classroom. The Modern Language Journal,85(3),363-379.
Brouwer, C. (2003). Word searches in NNS-NS interaction:Opportunities for language learning. The Modern Language Journal,87(4),534-545.
Buckwalter, P. (2001). Repair sequences in Spanish L2 dyadic discourse:a descriptive study. The Modern Language Journal,85(3),380-397.
Bushnell, C. (2008).'Lego my keego!':An analysis of language play in a beginning Japanese as a foreign language classroom. Applied Linguistics,30 (1),49-69.
Bygate, M., & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task repetition. In R. Ellis (Eds.), Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language (pp. 37-74). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Cao, Y., & Philp, J. (2006). Interactional context and willingness to communicate:A comparison of behavior in whole class, group and dyadic interaction. System,34,480-493.
Cekaite, A. (2007). A child's development of interactional competence in a Swedish L2 classroom. The Modern Language Journal,91(1),45-62.
Cekaite, A., & Aronsson, K. (2005). Language play, a collaborative resource in children's L2 learning. Applied Linguistics,26(2),169-191.
Chang, L. (2010). Group processes and EFL learners'motivation:A study of group dynamic in EFL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly,44 (1),129-154.
Chappell, P. (2014). Engaging learners:Conversation-or-dialogic-driven pedagogy? ELT Journal,68 (1),1-11.
Chavez, M. (2007). The orientation of learner language use in a peer work:Teacher role, learner role and individual identity. Language Teaching Research,11(2),161-188.
Cheng, T. (2013). Codeswitching and participant orientations in a Chinese as a foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal,94, (4):869-886.
Chu, H. (2005). Critical thinking through asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics,9(1),117-137.
Churchill, E., Nishino, T., Okada, H., & Atkinson, D. (2010). Symbiotic gesture and the sociocognitive visibility of grammar in second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal,79,234-253.
Colina, A., Mayo, A., & Maria, G. (2009). Oral interaction in task-based EFL learning: The use of the L1 as a cognitive tool. IRAL, (4),325-346.
Corder, P. (1967). The significance of learners'errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, (5),161-169.
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom:A pedagogy for learning and teaching?. The Modern Language Journal,94,103-115.
Cunningham, C. (2014). "Keep talking":using music during small group discussions in EAR ELT Journal,24,179-190.
DaSilva Iddings, C., & McCafferty, S. (2010). Carnival in a mainstream classroom:A Bakhtinian analysis of second language learners'off-task behaviors. The Modern Language Journal,91,31-44.
Dippold, D. (2011). Argumtentative discourse in L2 German:A sociocognitive perspective on the development of facework strategies. The Modern Language Journal,95 (2),171-187.
Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative dialogue in learner-learner and learner-native speaker interaction. Applied Linguistics, (1),1-29.
Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In J.P. Lantolf (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp.27-50). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Doughty, C. T. (2003). The handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986). Information gap tasks:Do you facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly,20, (2) 305-325.
Duff, P. (1986). Another look at interlanguage talk:Talking task to task. In R. Day (Eds.), Talking to learn:Conversation in second language acquisition (pp.147-181). Rowley, MA:Newbury House.
Duff, P. (2002). The discursive co-construction of knowledge, identity, and difference: An ethnography of communication in the high school mainstream. Applied Linguistics,23, (3) 289-232.
Duff, P. (2007). Second language socialization as sociocultural theory:Insights and issues. Language Teaching,40,309-319.
Duff, P. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,30,169-192.
Ekberg,S. (2012). Addressing a source of trouble outside of the repair space. Journal of Pragmatics 44:374-386.
Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research,4 (3),193-220.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Ellwood, C. (2008). Questions of classroom identity:what can be learned from codeswitching in classroom peer group talk? The Modern Language Journal,92, 538-557.
Farrell, T., & Maliard, C. (2006). The use of reception strategies by learners of French as a foreign language. The Modern Language Journal,90 (3),338-352.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, (3),285-300.
Fisher, E. (1997). Developments in exploratory talk and academic argument. In R. Wegerif, & P. Schrimshaw (Eds.), Computers and talk in the primary classroom (pp. 38-48). Clevedon:Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Foster, P. (1998). Classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics,19,1-23.
Foster, P., & Ohta, A. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classroom. Applied Linguistics 26,402-430.
Frazier, S. (2007). Tellings of remembrances'touched off' by student reports in group work in undergraduate writing classes. Applied Linguistics,28 (2),189-210.
Fujii, A., & Mackey, A. (2009). Interactional feedback in learner-learner interactions in a task-based EFL classroom. IRAL,47,267-301.
Gan, Z., Davison, C., & Hamp-lyons, L. (2008). Topic negotiation in peer group oral assessment situations:a conversation analytic approach. Applied Linguistics,30, 315-334.
Gao, Y. (2010). A study of teacher-learner negotiation in EFL classroom in China from a sociocultural perspective. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Normal University of Dongbei.
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty, & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp.224-255). Oxford, UK:Blackwell.
Gidden, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory:Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley:University of California Press.
Gillies, R. M. (2006). Teachers'and students'verbal behaviours during cooperative and small-group learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology,76,271-287.
Goodwin, C. (1995). Seeing in depth. Social Studies of Science,25 (2),237-234.
Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics,32,1489-1522.
Goodwin, C. (2003). The body in action. In J. Coupland, & R. Gwin (Eds.), Discourse, the body, and identity. London:Palgrave-MacMillan.
Greeno, J. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong question. Educational Researcher,26 (1),5-17.
Guerrero, M., & Villamil, O. (1994). Social-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision. MLT,78,484-496.
Guerrero, M.,& Villamil, O. (2000). Activating the ZPD:Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal,84 (1),51-68.
Guk, L., & Kellogg, D. (2007). The ZPD and whole class teaching:Teacher-led and student-led interactional mediation of tasks. Language Teaching Research,11,281 299.
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Revesz, A. (2012). Tasks, teacher feedback, and learner modified output in naturally occurring classroom interaction. Language Learning,62 (3),851-879.
Gutierrez, A. (2008). Microgenesis, method and object:A study of collaborative activity in a Spanish as a foreign language classroom. Applied Linguistics,29 (1),120-148.
Gutierrez, X. (2008). What does metalinguistic activity in learners'interaction during a collaborative L2 writing task look like. The Modern Language Journal,92(4), 519-537.
Hall, J. K. (1997). A consideration of SLA as a theory of practice:A response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern Language Journal,81 (3),301-307.
Hall, J. K. (2004). Language learning as an interactional achievement. The Modern Language Journal,88(4),607-612.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic:The social interpretation of language and meaning. London:Edward Arnold.
Hardy, I., & Moore, J. (2004). Foreign language students'conversational negotiations in different task environments. Applied Linguistics,25,340-370.
Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching. England:Longman.
Harris, A. (2005). Same activity, different focus. Focus On Basics,8,7-10.
Hellermann, J. (2006). Classroom interactive practices for developing L2 literacy:A microethnographic study of two beginning adult learners of English. Applied Linguistics,27(3),377-404.
Hellermann, J. (2007). The development of practices for action in classroom dyadic interaction:Focus on task openings. The Modern Language Journal,9J(\),83-96.
Hellermann, J., & Cole, E. (2008). Practices for social interaction in the language-learning classroom:Disengagement from dyadic task interaction. Applied Linguistics,30 (2),186-215.
Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hellermann, J. (2009). Looking for evidence of language learning in practices for repair: A case study of self-initiated self-repair by an adult learner of English. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,53,113-132.
Heritage, J. (1984). Conversation analysis. In J. Heritage (Eds.), Garfinkel and ethnomethodology (pp.233-292). Cambridge:Polity Press.
Ho, M. (2011). Academic discourse socialization through small-group discussions. System,39,437-450.
Holmes, J., & Marra, M. (2011). Harnessing storytelling as a sociopragmatic skill: Applying narrative research to workplace English courses. TESOL Quarterly,45 (3), 510-534.
Iddings, A., & Jang, E. (2008). The meditational role of classroom practices during the silent period:A new-immigrant student learning the English language in a mainstream classroom. TESOL Quarterly,2008,42 (4),567-589.
Ingold, T. (2000). Perception of the Environment. London and New York:Routledge.
Iwashita, N. (2001). The effect of learner proficiency on interactional moves and modified output in nonnative-nonnative interaction in Japanese as a foreign language. System,29,267-287.
Jenks, C. J. (2007). Floormanagement in task based interaction:The interactional role of participatory structures. System,35,609-622.
Kaanta, L., Peuronen, S., Jauni, H., Paakkinen, T. & Leppanen, S. (2013). Learning English through social interaction:The case of Big Brother 2006, Finland. The Modern Language Journal,97 (2),340-359.
Kasper, G. (1985). Repair in foreign language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7,200-215.
Kasper, G. (2004). Participant orientations in German conversation-for-learning. The Modern Language Journal,88(4),551-567.
Kasper, G. (2006). Beyond repair:Conversation analysis as an approach to SLA. AILA Review,19,83-99.
Kasper, G. (2009). Locating cognition in second language interaction and learning:Inside the skull or public view? IRAL,47,11-36.
Kim, Y. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal,92(1),114-130.
Kim, Y. (2009). The effects of task complexity on learner-learner interaction. System,37, 254-268.
Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research,12,211-234.
Kirshner, D., & Whitson, J. A. (Eds.). (1997). Situated cognition:Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal,70 (4),366-372.
Lantolf, P. (2004). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. The Modern Language Journal,78,418-420.
Lantolf, P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Smith, M. (2002). Reformulation and the learning of French pronominal verbs in a Canadian French immersion context. The Modern Language Journal,86 (4),485-507.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge:Oxford University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning:Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Leger, D., & Storch, M. (2009). Learners'perceptions and attitudes:Implications for willingness to communicate in an L2 classroom. System,37,269-285.
Leki, I. (2001). A narrow thinking system:Nonnative-English-speaking students in group projects across the curriculum. TESOL Quarterly,35(1),39-67.
Levinson, S. (2006). On the human "interaction engine". In J.N. Enfield (Eds.), Garfinkel and ethnomethodology (pp.39-69). Oxford:Berg.
Liebscher, G., & Dailey-O'cain, J. (2003). Conversational repair as a role-defining mechanism in classroom interaction. The Modern Language Journal,87,375-90.
Liebscher, G., & Dailey-o'cain, J. (2005). Learner code-switching in the content-based foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal,89 (2),234-247.
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,27,361-386.
Long, M. H. (1980). Inside the "black box":Methodological issues in classroom research on language learning. Language Learning,30 (1),1-42.
Long, M. H. (1981). Questions in foreigner talk discourse. Language Learning,31 (1), 135-158.
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics,30(4),126-141.
Long, M. H., & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly,19(1),207-227.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia (Eds), Handbook of research on language acquisition:Second language acquisition (pp.413-468). New York:Academic Press.
Lyster, R. (1981). Negotiation of form, recasts, and exp licit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning,48 (2),183-218.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake:Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,19, 37-66.
Mackey, A., & Philip, J. (1998). Conversation interaction and second language development:Recasts, response and red hearing? Modern Language Journal,82, 338-356.
Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback:An exploration of Ns-NNs and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning,53 (1),35-66.
Mackey, A. (2007). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition:A series of empirical studies. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Macky, A., Kanganas, A. P., & Oliver, R. (2007). Task familiarity and interactional feedback in child ESL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly,41(2),285-311.
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA:A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Eds.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp.407-452). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Mawah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Markee, N., & Kasper, G. (2004). Classroom talks:Introduction to the special issue. The Modern Language Journal 88 (4):491-500.
Markee, N. (2008). Toward a learning behavior tracking methodology for CA-for-SLA. Applied Linguistics,29 (3),404-427.
Marie, A., & Vandenbergen, S. (2000). The function of I think in political discourse. International Journal of Applied Linguistics,10 (1),41-63.
Martin-Beltarn, G. (2010). The two-way language bridge:Co-constructing bilingual language learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal,10,254-277.
Martin-beltran, M. (2011). The two-way language bridge:Co-constructing bilingual language learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal,94 (2),254-277.
Matsumoto, Y. (2011). Successful ELF communications and implications for ELT: Sequential analysis of ELF pronunciation negotiation strategies. The Modern Language Journal,95,97-114.
McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System,32,207-224.
McDonough, K. (2006). Responses to recasts:Repetitions primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning,56,693-720.
McHoul, A. (1990). The organization of repair in classroom talk. Language in Society,19, 349-377.
McNamara, T., & Roever, C. (2006). Language testing:The social dimension. Language Learning,56 (supplement2),1-291.
Melander, N., & Sahlstrom, F. (2009). In tow of the blue whale:Learning as interactional changes in tropical orientation. Journal of Pragmatics, (41),1519-1537.
Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children's collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, (6),359-377.
Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis:Analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics,1(2),137-168.
Mori, Y. (1999). Epistemological beliefs and language learning beliefs:What do language learners believe about their learning? Language Learning,49(3),377-415.
Mori, J. (2002). Task design, plan, and development of task-in-interaction:An analysis of a small group activity in a Japanese language classroom. Applied Linguistics,23(3), 323-347.
Mori, J. (2004a). Pursuit of understanding:Rethinking "negotiation of meaning" in view of projected action. In R. Gardner, & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversation (pp.157-177). London:Continuum.
Mori, J. (2004b). Negotiating sequential boundaries and learning opportunities:a case from a Japanese language classroom. The Modern Language Journal,88(4),536-550.
Morita, N. (2000). Discourse socialization through oral classroom activities in a TESL graduate program. TESOL Quarterly,34,279-310.
Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic communities. TESOL Quarterly,38 (4),573-603.
Morris, F. (2003). Impact of classroom dynamics on the effectiveness of recasts in second language acquisition. Language Learning,53 (2),325-368.
Nakahama, Y., Tyler, A., & van Lier, L. (2001). Negotiation of meaning in conversational and information gap activities:A comparative discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 35(2),377-405.
Nassaji, H. (2011). Immediate learner repair and its relationship with learning targeted forms in dyadic interaction. System,39,17-29.
Naughton D. (2006). Cooperative strategy training and oral interaction:Enhancing small group communication in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal,90 (2),169-184.
Noblit, W., & Hare, D. (1988). Meta-ethnography:Synthesizing qualitative studies, Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning. New York:Pearson.
Nunan, D. (1993). Task-based syllabus design:Selecting, grading and sequencing tasks. In G. Crookes, & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks in pedagogical context:Integrating theory and practice (pp.55-68). Clevedon, England:Multilingual Matters.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.
Ochs, E. (1988). Culture and language development:Language acquisition and language socialization in a Samoan village. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Ochs, E. (1996). Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In J. J. Gumperz, & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp.407-437). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom:Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Oliver R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork. Language Learning,50 (1),119-151.
Oliver, R. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, (79),519-533.
Ortega, L., & Iberri-Shea, G. (2005). Longitudinal research in SLA:Recent trends and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,25,26-45.
Park, J. (2007). Co-construction of nonnative speaker identity in cross-cultural interaction. Applied Linguistics,28(3),339-360.
Park, J. (2010). The influence of pretask instruction and pretask planning on focus on form during Korean an EFL task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research,14(1), 9-26.
Pica, T., Kanagy, R. & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language research and instruction. In G. Crookes, & G. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning:Integrating theory and practice (pp.9-34). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation:What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes?. Language Learning,44,493-527.
Pica, T. (1996a). Do second language learners need negotiation?. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching,34,1-21.
Pica, T. (1996b). The essential role of negotiation in the second language classroom. ALT Journal,78,241-68.
Pica, T. (2000). Research on negotiation:What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, outcomes? Language Learning,50,119-151.
Piirainen-marsh, A., & Tainio. L. (2009). Other-repetition as a resource for participation in the activity of playing a videogame. The Modern Language Journal,93(2), 153-169.
Pinter, A. (2007). Some benefits of peer-peer interaction:10-year-old children practicing with a communication task. Language Teaching Research,11(2),189-207.
Plonsky, L. & Gass, S. (2011). Study quality in interactionist research. Language Learning,62(2),325-366.
Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment reponses:Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In J. Schenkein (Eds.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp.57-101). New York:Academic Press.
Pomerantz, A. (1988). Offering a candidate answer. Communication Monographs,55, 360-373.
Pomerantz, A., & Nancy. B. (2007). Learning to play, playing to learn:FL learners as multicompetent language users. Applied Linguistics,28(4),556-578.
Radford, J. (2008). Practices of Other-initiated repair in the classroom of children with specific speech and language difficulties. Applied Linguistics,31,25-44.
Rassaei, E. (2014). Scaffolded feedback, recasts, and L2 development:A sociocultural perspective. The Modern Language Journal,98 (1),417-431.
Reichert, T., & Liebscher, G. (2012). Positioning the expert:Word searches, expertise, and learning opportunities in peer interaction. The Modern Language Journal,96 (4),599-609.
Reiser, J., & Garing, A. (1994). Imagery, action and young children's spatial orientation: It's not being there that counts it's what one has in mind. Children Development,45, 1043-1056.
Reigel, D. (2008). Positive feedback in pair work and its association with ESL course level promotion. TESOL Quarterly,42,79-98.
Riddiford, N., & Joe, A. (2010). Tracking the development of sociopragmatic skills. TESOL Quarterly,21(1),195-203.
Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience,27,169-192.
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production:Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics,22,27-57.
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing:Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. IRAL, (43),1-32.
Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning:Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. IRAL, (4),193-213.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language,50,696-735.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford:Blackwell.
Sandelowski, M., & Barroso. J. (2007). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. New York:Spring.
Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback:Efficacy of classroom intervention. The Modern Language Journal,97(3),611-633.
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language,53,361-382.
Schegloff, E. A. (2000). When'others'initiate repair. Applied Linguistics,21,205-243.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in Interaction:A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics,11 (2),129-158.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Eds.), Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, M. (2001). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics,11 (2),129-155.
Schrimshaw, P., & Perkins, G. (1997). Tinker town:Working together. In R. Wegerif & P. Schrimshaw (Eds.), Computers and Talk in the Primary Classroom. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom:A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA:Blackwell.
Seedhouse, P. (2005). "Task" as research construct. Language Learning,55 (3),533-570.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, (10), 209-231.
Sheen Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning,58 (6),835-874.
Shehadeh, A. (2001). Self-and other-initiated modified output during task-based interaction. TESOL Quarterly,35,433-457.
Shi, X. (2011). Negotiating power and access to second language resources:A study on short-term Chinese MBA students in America. The Modern Language Journal,95(4), 575-588.
Shin, S. J. (2009). Negotiating grammatical choices:Academic language learning by secondary ESL students. System,37,391-402.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics,17(1),38-62.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Smith, L. (2005). Cognition as a dynamic system:Principles from embodiment. Developmental Review,25,278-298.
Smotrova, T., & Lantolf, J. (2013). The function of gesture in lexically focused L2 instructional conversations. The Modern Language Journal,97(2),397-416.
Storch, N. (2001). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research,5(1),29-53.
Storch, N. (2002). Pattern of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning,52(1), 119-158.
Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the merits of pairwork on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research,11,143-159.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics (pp.125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning:Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal,82 (3), 320-337.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning:The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, (4),251-274.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond:mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp.97-114). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2001a). Examining dialogue:Another approach to content specification and to validating Integrating drawn from test scores. Language Testing,18,275-302.
Swain, M. (2001b). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review,5 (58),44-63.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002).Talking it through:Two French immersion learners' response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research,37, 285-304.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis:Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Eds.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.471-483). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
Tomita, Y., & Spada, N. (2013). Form-focused instruction and learner investment in L2 communication. The Modern Language Journal,97(3),591-610.
Tarone, E. (2007). Sociolinguistic approaches to second language acquisition research: 1997-2007. The Modern Language Journal, (7),837-848.
Toohey, K. (2001). Disputes in child L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly,35(2),257-278.
Toth, D.P. (2008). Teacher-and learner-led discourse in task-based grammar instruction: Providing procedural assistance for L2 morphosyntactic development. Language Learning,58(2),237-283.
Tsui, M. (2001). Classroom interaction. In R. Carter, & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp.120-179). Cambridge: University Press.
van den Branden, K. (1997). Effects of negotiation on language learners'output. Language Learning,47,589-636.
van Lier, L., & Matsuo, N. (2000). Varieties of conversational experience:Looking for learning opportunies. Applied Language Learning,11(2),265-287.
van Lier, L. (2002). An ecological-semiotic perspective on language and linguistics. In C. Kramsch (Eds.), Language Acquisition and Language Socialization:Ecological Perspective (pp.140-164). London:Continuum.
VanPattern, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction:Theory and research. Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
Varonis, E., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations:A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics,6,71-90.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society:The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Watson-Gegeo, K. (2004). Mind, language, and epistemology:Toward a language socialization paradigm for SLA. The Modern Language Journal,88(3),331-350.
Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning:Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, (11),121-142.
Wheeler, M. (2005). Reconstructing the Cognitive World. Cambridge:The MIT Press.
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning,49(4), 583-625.
Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System,29(3), 325-340.
Wortham, S. E. F. (2001). Interactionally situated cognition:A classroom example. Cognitive Science,25(1),37-66.
Zappa-Hollman, S. (2007). Academic presentations across post-secondary contexts:the discourse socialization of non-native English speakers. The Canadian Modern Language Review,63(4),455-485.
Zeng, G., & Takatsuka, S. (2009). Text-based peer-peer collaborative dialogue in a computer-mediated learning environment in the EFL context. System,37(1),434-446.
Zhao, H. (2014). Investigating teacher-supported peer assessment for EFL writing. ELT Journal,68(2),155-168.
Zhao, Y., & Bitchener, J. (2007). Incidental focus on form in teacher-learner and learner-learner interactions. System,35(1),431-447.
Zheng, C. (2012). Understanding the learning process of peer feedback activity:An ethnographic study of Exploratory Practice. Language Teaching Research,16(1), 109-126.
Zhu, W., & Mitchell, D. (2012). Participation in peer response as activity:an examination of peer response stances from an activity. TESOL Quarterly,46(2),362-386.
曹志希,王晓丽,刘伟.(2006).二语习得的社会认知基础.外语教学,27(5),36-39.
陈立平,李经伟,赵蔚彬.(2005).大学生英语口语自我修正性别差异研究.现代外语,(8),279-287.
陈晓湘,张薇.(2008).修正后输出对目标语发展的作用.外语教学与研究,(4),279-286.
邓秀娥,郑新民.(2008).关于大学英语课堂小组活动有效性的研究.外语电化教学,(4),41-46.
董明.(2004).大学英语课堂“生生互动”模式初探.外语与外语教学,(5),30-33.
归樱.(2004).从SLN看网络课程中互动对学习效果的影响.外语电化教学,(1),5054.
李晶洁.(2002).教师作为辅助者在外语课堂语言互动中的作用.外语界,(1),67-71.
梁文霞.(2007).英语课堂学生小组对话中的话语共建.解放军外国语学院学报,(30),42-46.
刘东楼,王祥德.(2013).二语习得的社会认知视角.当代外语研究,27(4),27-32.
刘永兵,张会平.(2011).社会认知主义视域下的外语教学与传统外语教学的关系思考与定位.中国外语,8(4),19-25.
马冬梅.(2002).英语教学中小组口语活动后的学生自我纠错.外语教学与研究,(34),131-135.
庞继贤,吴薇薇.(2000).英语课堂小组活动实证研究.外语教学与研究,(6),424430.
王宇.(2005).影响外语课堂言语互动的隐性因素-面子.外语学刊,(6),76-78.
文秋芳.(2001).应用语言学研究方法与论文写作(英文版).北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
杨党玲,李民权.(2004).对输入理论的探讨-输入、互动与二语习得之关系.外语界,(1),69-73.
汪清,谢元花.(2011).外语环境下任务类型、水平配对与意义协商研究.现代外语,(1),75-82.
汪清.(2011).意义协商中的语言输出研究.外语与外语教学,(2),43-47.
王晓燕.(2007).会话修补模式特征研究-基于PETS2为研究个案.外语与外语教学,(5),42-46.
王晓燕,王俊菊.(2012).同伴互动语码转换研究研究—基于英语学习者口语互动语料.解放军外国语学院学报,(3),85-88.
王晓燕,王俊菊.(2014).外语环境下同伴他启修正研究.现代外语,(2),210-221.
许家金,许宗瑞.(2007).中国大学生英语口语中的互动话语词块研究.外语教学与研究,(6),437-443.
徐锦芬,曹忠凯.(2010).国内外外语/二语课堂互动研究.外语界,(3),51-59.
徐锦芬,寇金南.(2011).大学英语课堂小组互动策略培训实验研究.外语教学与研究,(1),84-95.
杨柳群.(2002).英语水平对英语学生口误自我修正行为的影响.山东外语教学,(4),74-76.
张萱.(2010).英语学习者对子口语互动的形式磋商研究.解放军外国语学院学报,(1),55-60.
赵晨.(2004).基于语料库的英语课堂会话中的修正片段研究.现代外语,(4),402-409.
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal,78 (3), 465-483.
Alwright, D. (2005). Developing principles for practitioner research:The case of Exploratory Practice. The Modern Language Journal,89 (2),353-366.
Anton, M. (1999). The discourse of a learner-centered classroom:Sociocultural perspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second language classroom. The Modern Language Journal,83 (3),303-347.
Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal,86 (4),525-545.
Atkinson, D. (2010). Extended, embodied cognition and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics,31 (5),599-622.
Atkinson, D., Churchill, T., & Okada, H. (2007). Alignment and interaction in a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal,91 (1),169-188.
Auer, P. (1998). Code-switching in conversation:Language, interaction and identity. London and New York:Routledge.
Bannink, A., & Dam J. (2006). A dynamic discourse approach to classroom research. Linguistics and Education,17,283-301.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Bejarano Y., Levine, T., Olshtain, E., & Steiner, J. (1997). The skilled use of interaction strategies:Creating a framework for improved small group communicative interaction in the language classroom. System,25 (2),203-214.
Benson, P., & Chik, A. (2009). Qualitative research in language teaching and learning journals,1997-2006. The Modern Language Journal,93(1),79-90.
Bolden, G. (2012). Across languages and cultures:Brokering problems of understanding in conversational repair. Language in Society 41,97-121.
Borg, M. (2003). Teacher cognition language teaching:A review of research on what teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching 36,81-109.
Broner, M., & Tarone, E. (2001). Is it fun? Language play in a fifth-grade Spanish immersion classroom. The Modern Language Journal,85(3),363-379.
Brouwer, C. (2003). Word searches in NNS-NS interaction:Opportunities for language learning. The Modern Language Journal,87(4),534-545.
Buckwalter, P. (2001). Repair sequences in Spanish L2 dyadic discourse:a descriptive study. The Modern Language Journal,85(3),380-397.
Bushnell, C. (2008).'Lego my keego!':An analysis of language play in a beginning Japanese as a foreign language classroom. Applied Linguistics,30 (1),49-69.
Bygate, M., & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task repetition. In R. Ellis (Eds.), Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language (pp. 37-74). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Cao, Y., & Philp, J. (2006). Interactional context and willingness to communicate:A comparison of behavior in whole class, group and dyadic interaction. System,34,480-493.
Cekaite, A. (2007). A child's development of interactional competence in a Swedish L2 classroom. The Modern Language Journal,91(1),45-62.
Cekaite, A., & Aronsson, K. (2005). Language play, a collaborative resource in children's L2 learning. Applied Linguistics,26(2),169-191.
Chang, L. (2010). Group processes and EFL learners'motivation:A study of group dynamic in EFL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly,44 (1),129-154.
Chappell, P. (2014). Engaging learners:Conversation-or-dialogic-driven pedagogy? ELT Journal,68 (1),1-11.
Chavez, M. (2007). The orientation of learner language use in a peer work:Teacher role, learner role and individual identity. Language Teaching Research,11(2),161-188.
Cheng, T. (2013). Codeswitching and participant orientations in a Chinese as a foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal,94, (4):869-886.
Chu, H. (2005). Critical thinking through asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics,9(1),117-137.
Churchill, E., Nishino, T., Okada, H., & Atkinson, D. (2010). Symbiotic gesture and the sociocognitive visibility of grammar in second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal,79,234-253.
Colina, A., Mayo, A., & Maria, G. (2009). Oral interaction in task-based EFL learning: The use of the L1 as a cognitive tool. IRAL, (4),325-346.
Corder, P. (1967). The significance of learners'errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, (5),161-169.
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom:A pedagogy for learning and teaching?. The Modern Language Journal,94,103-115.
Cunningham, C. (2014). "Keep talking":using music during small group discussions in EAR ELT Journal,24,179-190.
DaSilva Iddings, C., & McCafferty, S. (2010). Carnival in a mainstream classroom:A Bakhtinian analysis of second language learners'off-task behaviors. The Modern Language Journal,91,31-44.
Dippold, D. (2011). Argumtentative discourse in L2 German:A sociocognitive perspective on the development of facework strategies. The Modern Language Journal,95 (2),171-187.
Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative dialogue in learner-learner and learner-native speaker interaction. Applied Linguistics, (1),1-29.
Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In J.P. Lantolf (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp.27-50). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Doughty, C. T. (2003). The handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986). Information gap tasks:Do you facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly,20, (2) 305-325.
Duff, P. (1986). Another look at interlanguage talk:Talking task to task. In R. Day (Eds.), Talking to learn:Conversation in second language acquisition (pp.147-181). Rowley, MA:Newbury House.
Duff, P. (2002). The discursive co-construction of knowledge, identity, and difference: An ethnography of communication in the high school mainstream. Applied Linguistics,23, (3) 289-232.
Duff, P. (2007). Second language socialization as sociocultural theory:Insights and issues. Language Teaching,40,309-319.
Duff, P. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,30,169-192.
Ekberg,S. (2012). Addressing a source of trouble outside of the repair space. Journal of Pragmatics 44:374-386.
Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research,4 (3),193-220.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Ellwood, C. (2008). Questions of classroom identity:what can be learned from codeswitching in classroom peer group talk? The Modern Language Journal,92, 538-557.
Farrell, T., & Maliard, C. (2006). The use of reception strategies by learners of French as a foreign language. The Modern Language Journal,90 (3),338-352.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, (3),285-300.
Fisher, E. (1997). Developments in exploratory talk and academic argument. In R. Wegerif, & P. Schrimshaw (Eds.), Computers and talk in the primary classroom (pp. 38-48). Clevedon:Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Foster, P. (1998). Classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics,19,1-23.
Foster, P., & Ohta, A. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classroom. Applied Linguistics 26,402-430.
Frazier, S. (2007). Tellings of remembrances'touched off' by student reports in group work in undergraduate writing classes. Applied Linguistics,28 (2),189-210.
Fujii, A., & Mackey, A. (2009). Interactional feedback in learner-learner interactions in a task-based EFL classroom. IRAL,47,267-301.
Gan, Z., Davison, C., & Hamp-lyons, L. (2008). Topic negotiation in peer group oral assessment situations:a conversation analytic approach. Applied Linguistics,30, 315-334.
Gao, Y. (2010). A study of teacher-learner negotiation in EFL classroom in China from a sociocultural perspective. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Normal University of Dongbei.
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty, & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp.224-255). Oxford, UK:Blackwell.
Gidden, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory:Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley:University of California Press.
Gillies, R. M. (2006). Teachers'and students'verbal behaviours during cooperative and small-group learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology,76,271-287.
Goodwin, C. (1995). Seeing in depth. Social Studies of Science,25 (2),237-234.
Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics,32,1489-1522.
Goodwin, C. (2003). The body in action. In J. Coupland, & R. Gwin (Eds.), Discourse, the body, and identity. London:Palgrave-MacMillan.
Greeno, J. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong question. Educational Researcher,26 (1),5-17.
Guerrero, M., & Villamil, O. (1994). Social-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision. MLT,78,484-496.
Guerrero, M.,& Villamil, O. (2000). Activating the ZPD:Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal,84 (1),51-68.
Guk, L., & Kellogg, D. (2007). The ZPD and whole class teaching:Teacher-led and student-led interactional mediation of tasks. Language Teaching Research,11,281 299.
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Revesz, A. (2012). Tasks, teacher feedback, and learner modified output in naturally occurring classroom interaction. Language Learning,62 (3),851-879.
Gutierrez, A. (2008). Microgenesis, method and object:A study of collaborative activity in a Spanish as a foreign language classroom. Applied Linguistics,29 (1),120-148.
Gutierrez, X. (2008). What does metalinguistic activity in learners'interaction during a collaborative L2 writing task look like. The Modern Language Journal,92(4), 519-537.
Hall, J. K. (1997). A consideration of SLA as a theory of practice:A response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern Language Journal,81 (3),301-307.
Hall, J. K. (2004). Language learning as an interactional achievement. The Modern Language Journal,88(4),607-612.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic:The social interpretation of language and meaning. London:Edward Arnold.
Hardy, I., & Moore, J. (2004). Foreign language students'conversational negotiations in different task environments. Applied Linguistics,25,340-370.
Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching. England:Longman.
Harris, A. (2005). Same activity, different focus. Focus On Basics,8,7-10.
Hellermann, J. (2006). Classroom interactive practices for developing L2 literacy:A microethnographic study of two beginning adult learners of English. Applied Linguistics,27(3),377-404.
Hellermann, J. (2007). The development of practices for action in classroom dyadic interaction:Focus on task openings. The Modern Language Journal,9J(\),83-96.
Hellermann, J., & Cole, E. (2008). Practices for social interaction in the language-learning classroom:Disengagement from dyadic task interaction. Applied Linguistics,30 (2),186-215.
Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hellermann, J. (2009). Looking for evidence of language learning in practices for repair: A case study of self-initiated self-repair by an adult learner of English. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,53,113-132.
Heritage, J. (1984). Conversation analysis. In J. Heritage (Eds.), Garfinkel and ethnomethodology (pp.233-292). Cambridge:Polity Press.
Ho, M. (2011). Academic discourse socialization through small-group discussions. System,39,437-450.
Holmes, J., & Marra, M. (2011). Harnessing storytelling as a sociopragmatic skill: Applying narrative research to workplace English courses. TESOL Quarterly,45 (3), 510-534.
Iddings, A., & Jang, E. (2008). The meditational role of classroom practices during the silent period:A new-immigrant student learning the English language in a mainstream classroom. TESOL Quarterly,2008,42 (4),567-589.
Ingold, T. (2000). Perception of the Environment. London and New York:Routledge.
Iwashita, N. (2001). The effect of learner proficiency on interactional moves and modified output in nonnative-nonnative interaction in Japanese as a foreign language. System,29,267-287.
Jenks, C. J. (2007). Floormanagement in task based interaction:The interactional role of participatory structures. System,35,609-622.
Kaanta, L., Peuronen, S., Jauni, H., Paakkinen, T. & Leppanen, S. (2013). Learning English through social interaction:The case of Big Brother 2006, Finland. The Modern Language Journal,97 (2),340-359.
Kasper, G. (1985). Repair in foreign language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7,200-215.
Kasper, G. (2004). Participant orientations in German conversation-for-learning. The Modern Language Journal,88(4),551-567.
Kasper, G. (2006). Beyond repair:Conversation analysis as an approach to SLA. AILA Review,19,83-99.
Kasper, G. (2009). Locating cognition in second language interaction and learning:Inside the skull or public view? IRAL,47,11-36.
Kim, Y. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal,92(1),114-130.
Kim, Y. (2009). The effects of task complexity on learner-learner interaction. System,37, 254-268.
Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research,12,211-234.
Kirshner, D., & Whitson, J. A. (Eds.). (1997). Situated cognition:Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal,70 (4),366-372.
Lantolf, P. (2004). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. The Modern Language Journal,78,418-420.
Lantolf, P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Smith, M. (2002). Reformulation and the learning of French pronominal verbs in a Canadian French immersion context. The Modern Language Journal,86 (4),485-507.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge:Oxford University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning:Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Leger, D., & Storch, M. (2009). Learners'perceptions and attitudes:Implications for willingness to communicate in an L2 classroom. System,37,269-285.
Leki, I. (2001). A narrow thinking system:Nonnative-English-speaking students in group projects across the curriculum. TESOL Quarterly,35(1),39-67.
Levinson, S. (2006). On the human "interaction engine". In J.N. Enfield (Eds.), Garfinkel and ethnomethodology (pp.39-69). Oxford:Berg.
Liebscher, G., & Dailey-O'cain, J. (2003). Conversational repair as a role-defining mechanism in classroom interaction. The Modern Language Journal,87,375-90.
Liebscher, G., & Dailey-o'cain, J. (2005). Learner code-switching in the content-based foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal,89 (2),234-247.
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,27,361-386.
Long, M. H. (1980). Inside the "black box":Methodological issues in classroom research on language learning. Language Learning,30 (1),1-42.
Long, M. H. (1981). Questions in foreigner talk discourse. Language Learning,31 (1), 135-158.
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics,30(4),126-141.
Long, M. H., & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly,19(1),207-227.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia (Eds), Handbook of research on language acquisition:Second language acquisition (pp.413-468). New York:Academic Press.
Lyster, R. (1981). Negotiation of form, recasts, and exp licit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning,48 (2),183-218.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake:Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,19, 37-66.
Mackey, A., & Philip, J. (1998). Conversation interaction and second language development:Recasts, response and red hearing? Modern Language Journal,82, 338-356.
Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback:An exploration of Ns-NNs and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning,53 (1),35-66.
Mackey, A. (2007). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition:A series of empirical studies. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Macky, A., Kanganas, A. P., & Oliver, R. (2007). Task familiarity and interactional feedback in child ESL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly,41(2),285-311.
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA:A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Eds.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp.407-452). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Mawah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Markee, N., & Kasper, G. (2004). Classroom talks:Introduction to the special issue. The Modern Language Journal 88 (4):491-500.
Markee, N. (2008). Toward a learning behavior tracking methodology for CA-for-SLA. Applied Linguistics,29 (3),404-427.
Marie, A., & Vandenbergen, S. (2000). The function of I think in political discourse. International Journal of Applied Linguistics,10 (1),41-63.
Martin-Beltarn, G. (2010). The two-way language bridge:Co-constructing bilingual language learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal,10,254-277.
Martin-beltran, M. (2011). The two-way language bridge:Co-constructing bilingual language learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal,94 (2),254-277.
Matsumoto, Y. (2011). Successful ELF communications and implications for ELT: Sequential analysis of ELF pronunciation negotiation strategies. The Modern Language Journal,95,97-114.
McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System,32,207-224.
McDonough, K. (2006). Responses to recasts:Repetitions primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning,56,693-720.
McHoul, A. (1990). The organization of repair in classroom talk. Language in Society,19, 349-377.
McNamara, T., & Roever, C. (2006). Language testing:The social dimension. Language Learning,56 (supplement2),1-291.
Melander, N., & Sahlstrom, F. (2009). In tow of the blue whale:Learning as interactional changes in tropical orientation. Journal of Pragmatics, (41),1519-1537.
Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children's collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, (6),359-377.
Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis:Analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics,1(2),137-168.
Mori, Y. (1999). Epistemological beliefs and language learning beliefs:What do language learners believe about their learning? Language Learning,49(3),377-415.
Mori, J. (2002). Task design, plan, and development of task-in-interaction:An analysis of a small group activity in a Japanese language classroom. Applied Linguistics,23(3), 323-347.
Mori, J. (2004a). Pursuit of understanding:Rethinking "negotiation of meaning" in view of projected action. In R. Gardner, & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversation (pp.157-177). London:Continuum.
Mori, J. (2004b). Negotiating sequential boundaries and learning opportunities:a case from a Japanese language classroom. The Modern Language Journal,88(4),536-550.
Morita, N. (2000). Discourse socialization through oral classroom activities in a TESL graduate program. TESOL Quarterly,34,279-310.
Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic communities. TESOL Quarterly,38 (4),573-603.
Morris, F. (2003). Impact of classroom dynamics on the effectiveness of recasts in second language acquisition. Language Learning,53 (2),325-368.
Nakahama, Y., Tyler, A., & van Lier, L. (2001). Negotiation of meaning in conversational and information gap activities:A comparative discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 35(2),377-405.
Nassaji, H. (2011). Immediate learner repair and its relationship with learning targeted forms in dyadic interaction. System,39,17-29.
Naughton D. (2006). Cooperative strategy training and oral interaction:Enhancing small group communication in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal,90 (2),169-184.
Noblit, W., & Hare, D. (1988). Meta-ethnography:Synthesizing qualitative studies, Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning. New York:Pearson.
Nunan, D. (1993). Task-based syllabus design:Selecting, grading and sequencing tasks. In G. Crookes, & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks in pedagogical context:Integrating theory and practice (pp.55-68). Clevedon, England:Multilingual Matters.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.
Ochs, E. (1988). Culture and language development:Language acquisition and language socialization in a Samoan village. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Ochs, E. (1996). Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In J. J. Gumperz, & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp.407-437). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom:Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Oliver R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork. Language Learning,50 (1),119-151.
Oliver, R. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, (79),519-533.
Ortega, L., & Iberri-Shea, G. (2005). Longitudinal research in SLA:Recent trends and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,25,26-45.
Park, J. (2007). Co-construction of nonnative speaker identity in cross-cultural interaction. Applied Linguistics,28(3),339-360.
Park, J. (2010). The influence of pretask instruction and pretask planning on focus on form during Korean an EFL task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research,14(1), 9-26.
Pica, T., Kanagy, R. & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language research and instruction. In G. Crookes, & G. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning:Integrating theory and practice (pp.9-34). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation:What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes?. Language Learning,44,493-527.
Pica, T. (1996a). Do second language learners need negotiation?. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching,34,1-21.
Pica, T. (1996b). The essential role of negotiation in the second language classroom. ALT Journal,78,241-68.
Pica, T. (2000). Research on negotiation:What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, outcomes? Language Learning,50,119-151.
Piirainen-marsh, A., & Tainio. L. (2009). Other-repetition as a resource for participation in the activity of playing a videogame. The Modern Language Journal,93(2), 153-169.
Pinter, A. (2007). Some benefits of peer-peer interaction:10-year-old children practicing with a communication task. Language Teaching Research,11(2),189-207.
Plonsky, L. & Gass, S. (2011). Study quality in interactionist research. Language Learning,62(2),325-366.
Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment reponses:Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In J. Schenkein (Eds.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp.57-101). New York:Academic Press.
Pomerantz, A. (1988). Offering a candidate answer. Communication Monographs,55, 360-373.
Pomerantz, A., & Nancy. B. (2007). Learning to play, playing to learn:FL learners as multicompetent language users. Applied Linguistics,28(4),556-578.
Radford, J. (2008). Practices of Other-initiated repair in the classroom of children with specific speech and language difficulties. Applied Linguistics,31,25-44.
Rassaei, E. (2014). Scaffolded feedback, recasts, and L2 development:A sociocultural perspective. The Modern Language Journal,98 (1),417-431.
Reichert, T., & Liebscher, G. (2012). Positioning the expert:Word searches, expertise, and learning opportunities in peer interaction. The Modern Language Journal,96 (4),599-609.
Reiser, J., & Garing, A. (1994). Imagery, action and young children's spatial orientation: It's not being there that counts it's what one has in mind. Children Development,45, 1043-1056.
Reigel, D. (2008). Positive feedback in pair work and its association with ESL course level promotion. TESOL Quarterly,42,79-98.
Riddiford, N., & Joe, A. (2010). Tracking the development of sociopragmatic skills. TESOL Quarterly,21(1),195-203.
Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience,27,169-192.
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production:Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics,22,27-57.
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing:Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. IRAL, (43),1-32.
Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning:Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. IRAL, (4),193-213.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language,50,696-735.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford:Blackwell.
Sandelowski, M., & Barroso. J. (2007). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. New York:Spring.
Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback:Efficacy of classroom intervention. The Modern Language Journal,97(3),611-633.
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language,53,361-382.
Schegloff, E. A. (2000). When'others'initiate repair. Applied Linguistics,21,205-243.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in Interaction:A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics,11 (2),129-158.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Eds.), Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, M. (2001). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics,11 (2),129-155.
Schrimshaw, P., & Perkins, G. (1997). Tinker town:Working together. In R. Wegerif & P. Schrimshaw (Eds.), Computers and Talk in the Primary Classroom. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom:A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA:Blackwell.
Seedhouse, P. (2005). "Task" as research construct. Language Learning,55 (3),533-570.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, (10), 209-231.
Sheen Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning,58 (6),835-874.
Shehadeh, A. (2001). Self-and other-initiated modified output during task-based interaction. TESOL Quarterly,35,433-457.
Shi, X. (2011). Negotiating power and access to second language resources:A study on short-term Chinese MBA students in America. The Modern Language Journal,95(4), 575-588.
Shin, S. J. (2009). Negotiating grammatical choices:Academic language learning by secondary ESL students. System,37,391-402.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics,17(1),38-62.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Smith, L. (2005). Cognition as a dynamic system:Principles from embodiment. Developmental Review,25,278-298.
Smotrova, T., & Lantolf, J. (2013). The function of gesture in lexically focused L2 instructional conversations. The Modern Language Journal,97(2),397-416.
Storch, N. (2001). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research,5(1),29-53.
Storch, N. (2002). Pattern of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning,52(1), 119-158.
Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the merits of pairwork on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research,11,143-159.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics (pp.125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning:Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal,82 (3), 320-337.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning:The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, (4),251-274.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond:mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp.97-114). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2001a). Examining dialogue:Another approach to content specification and to validating Integrating drawn from test scores. Language Testing,18,275-302.
Swain, M. (2001b). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review,5 (58),44-63.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002).Talking it through:Two French immersion learners' response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research,37, 285-304.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis:Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Eds.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.471-483). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
Tomita, Y., & Spada, N. (2013). Form-focused instruction and learner investment in L2 communication. The Modern Language Journal,97(3),591-610.
Tarone, E. (2007). Sociolinguistic approaches to second language acquisition research: 1997-2007. The Modern Language Journal, (7),837-848.
Toohey, K. (2001). Disputes in child L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly,35(2),257-278.
Toth, D.P. (2008). Teacher-and learner-led discourse in task-based grammar instruction: Providing procedural assistance for L2 morphosyntactic development. Language Learning,58(2),237-283.
Tsui, M. (2001). Classroom interaction. In R. Carter, & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp.120-179). Cambridge: University Press.
van den Branden, K. (1997). Effects of negotiation on language learners'output. Language Learning,47,589-636.
van Lier, L., & Matsuo, N. (2000). Varieties of conversational experience:Looking for learning opportunies. Applied Language Learning,11(2),265-287.
van Lier, L. (2002). An ecological-semiotic perspective on language and linguistics. In C. Kramsch (Eds.), Language Acquisition and Language Socialization:Ecological Perspective (pp.140-164). London:Continuum.
VanPattern, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction:Theory and research. Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
Varonis, E., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations:A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics,6,71-90.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society:The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Watson-Gegeo, K. (2004). Mind, language, and epistemology:Toward a language socialization paradigm for SLA. The Modern Language Journal,88(3),331-350.
Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning:Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, (11),121-142.
Wheeler, M. (2005). Reconstructing the Cognitive World. Cambridge:The MIT Press.
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning,49(4), 583-625.
Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System,29(3), 325-340.
Wortham, S. E. F. (2001). Interactionally situated cognition:A classroom example. Cognitive Science,25(1),37-66.
Zappa-Hollman, S. (2007). Academic presentations across post-secondary contexts:the discourse socialization of non-native English speakers. The Canadian Modern Language Review,63(4),455-485.
Zeng, G., & Takatsuka, S. (2009). Text-based peer-peer collaborative dialogue in a computer-mediated learning environment in the EFL context. System,37(1),434-446.
Zhao, H. (2014). Investigating teacher-supported peer assessment for EFL writing. ELT Journal,68(2),155-168.
Zhao, Y., & Bitchener, J. (2007). Incidental focus on form in teacher-learner and learner-learner interactions. System,35(1),431-447.
Zheng, C. (2012). Understanding the learning process of peer feedback activity:An ethnographic study of Exploratory Practice. Language Teaching Research,16(1), 109-126.
Zhu, W., & Mitchell, D. (2012). Participation in peer response as activity:an examination of peer response stances from an activity. TESOL Quarterly,46(2),362-386.
曹志希,王晓丽,刘伟.(2006).二语习得的社会认知基础.外语教学,27(5),36-39.
陈立平,李经伟,赵蔚彬.(2005).大学生英语口语自我修正性别差异研究.现代外语,(8),279-287.
陈晓湘,张薇.(2008).修正后输出对目标语发展的作用.外语教学与研究,(4),279-286.
邓秀娥,郑新民.(2008).关于大学英语课堂小组活动有效性的研究.外语电化教学,(4),41-46.
董明.(2004).大学英语课堂“生生互动”模式初探.外语与外语教学,(5),30-33.
归樱.(2004).从SLN看网络课程中互动对学习效果的影响.外语电化教学,(1),5054.
李晶洁.(2002).教师作为辅助者在外语课堂语言互动中的作用.外语界,(1),67-71.
梁文霞.(2007).英语课堂学生小组对话中的话语共建.解放军外国语学院学报,(30),42-46.
刘东楼,王祥德.(2013).二语习得的社会认知视角.当代外语研究,27(4),27-32.
刘永兵,张会平.(2011).社会认知主义视域下的外语教学与传统外语教学的关系思考与定位.中国外语,8(4),19-25.
马冬梅.(2002).英语教学中小组口语活动后的学生自我纠错.外语教学与研究,(34),131-135.
庞继贤,吴薇薇.(2000).英语课堂小组活动实证研究.外语教学与研究,(6),424430.
王宇.(2005).影响外语课堂言语互动的隐性因素-面子.外语学刊,(6),76-78.
文秋芳.(2001).应用语言学研究方法与论文写作(英文版).北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
杨党玲,李民权.(2004).对输入理论的探讨-输入、互动与二语习得之关系.外语界,(1),69-73.
汪清,谢元花.(2011).外语环境下任务类型、水平配对与意义协商研究.现代外语,(1),75-82.
汪清.(2011).意义协商中的语言输出研究.外语与外语教学,(2),43-47.
王晓燕.(2007).会话修补模式特征研究-基于PETS2为研究个案.外语与外语教学,(5),42-46.
王晓燕,王俊菊.(2012).同伴互动语码转换研究研究—基于英语学习者口语互动语料.解放军外国语学院学报,(3),85-88.
王晓燕,王俊菊.(2014).外语环境下同伴他启修正研究.现代外语,(2),210-221.
许家金,许宗瑞.(2007).中国大学生英语口语中的互动话语词块研究.外语教学与研究,(6),437-443.
徐锦芬,曹忠凯.(2010).国内外外语/二语课堂互动研究.外语界,(3),51-59.
徐锦芬,寇金南.(2011).大学英语课堂小组互动策略培训实验研究.外语教学与研究,(1),84-95.
杨柳群.(2002).英语水平对英语学生口误自我修正行为的影响.山东外语教学,(4),74-76.
张萱.(2010).英语学习者对子口语互动的形式磋商研究.解放军外国语学院学报,(1),55-60.
赵晨.(2004).基于语料库的英语课堂会话中的修正片段研究.现代外语,(4),402-409.