Individual versus pair work on L2 speech acts: production and cognitive processes

References

Ajabshir, Zahra Fakher & Fereidoon Vahdany. 2017. The effect of peer scaffolding on developing L2 pragmatic knowledge: A sociocultural perspective. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies 5(4). 32–40.Search in Google Scholar

Alemi, Minoo & Neda Khanlarzadeh. 2017. Native and non-native teachers’ pragmatic criteria for rating request speech act: The case of American and Iranian EFL teachers. Applied Research on English Language 6. 67–84.Search in Google Scholar

Alemi, Minoo & Atefeh Rezanejad. 2014. Native and non-native English teachers’ rating criteria and variation in the assessment of L2 pragmatic production: The speech act of compliment. Issues in Language Teaching 3. 65–88.Search in Google Scholar

Alemi, Minoo & Zia Tajeddin. 2013. Pragmatic rating of L2 refusal: Criteria of native and nonnative English teachers. TESL Canada Journal 30(7). 63–81.10.18806/tesl.v30i7.1152Search in Google Scholar

Anggraini, Rezy, Yenni Rozimela & Desvalini Anwar. 2020. The effects of collaborative writing on EFL learners’ writing skills and their perception of the strategy. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 11. 335–341. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1102.25.Search in Google Scholar

Chang, Yuh-Fang. 2011. Interlanguage pragmatic development: The relation between pragmalinguistic competence and sociopragmatic competence. Language Sciences 33. 786–798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2011.02.002.Search in Google Scholar

Chen, Yuan-shan. 2016. The effect of learner-learner interactions on a multiple-choice discourse completion task. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 9. 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2016.02.001.Search in Google Scholar

Chen, Yuan-shan & Ming-Fang Lin. 2021. Effects of peer collaboration on EFL learners’ comprehension of conversational implicatures. System 97. 102441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102441.Search in Google Scholar

Chen, Yuan-shan & Jianda Liu. 2016. Constructing a scale to assess L2 written speech act performance: WDCT and email tasks. Language Assessment Quarterly 13. 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2016.1213844.Search in Google Scholar

Chen, Yuan-shan & D. Victoria Rau. 2011. Investigating the complimenting behaviors of Chinese speakers of American English. Language and Linguistics 12. 917–950.Search in Google Scholar

Dobao, Ana Fernández. 2014. Attention to form in collaborative writing tasks: Comparing pair and small group interaction. The Canadian Modern Language Review 70. 158–187. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.1768.Search in Google Scholar

Donato, Richard. 1994. Collective scaffolding in second/foreign language learning. In James P. Lantolf & Gabriela Appel (eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second/foreign language research, 33–56. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.Search in Google Scholar

Donato, Richard. 2000. Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In James P. Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning, 27–50. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Ericsson, K. Andres & Herbert A. Simon. 1993. Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5657.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Hanjani, Alireza Memari & Li Li. 2014. Exploring L2 writers’ collaborative revision interactions and their writing performance. System 44. 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.03.004.Search in Google Scholar

Hidalgo, María Ángeles & Amparo Lázaro-Ibarrola. 2020. Task repetition and collaborative writing by EFL children. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 10. 501–522. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2020.10.3.5.Search in Google Scholar

Hidalgo, María Ángeles & Maria del Pilar Garcia Mayo. 2019. The influence of task repetition type on young EFL learners’ attention to form. Language Teaching Research 25(4). 565–586.10.1177/1362168819865559Search in Google Scholar

House, Juliane. 2018. Authentic vs. elicited data and qualitative vs. quantitative research methods in pragmatics: Overcoming two non-fruitful dichotomies. System 75. 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.03.014.Search in Google Scholar

Ishii, David N. 2011. Paired learners’ verbalised strategies for determining grammatical correctness: A turn-based system for coding metatalk. Language Awareness 20. 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2011.598525.Search in Google Scholar

Khatib, Mohammad & Hussein Meihami. 2015. Languaging and writing skill: The effect of collaborative writing on EFL students’ writing performance. Advances in Language and Literary Studies 6. 203–211.10.7575/aiac.alls.v.6n.1p.203Search in Google Scholar

Kim, Youjin. 2008. The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal 92. 114–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00690.x.Search in Google Scholar

Kim, You Jin & Kim McDonough. 2008. The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as second language learners. Language Teaching Research 12. 211–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807086288.Search in Google Scholar

Kim, You Jin & Naoko Taguchi. 2016. Learner-learner interaction during collaborative pragmatic tasks: The role of cognitive and pragmatic task demands. Foreign Language Annals 49. 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12180.Search in Google Scholar

Kormos, Judit. 1998. The use of verbal reports in L2 research: Verbal reports in L2 speech production research. TESOL Quarterly 32. 353–358. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587590.Search in Google Scholar

Lawrence, Debbie & Lee Kean Wah. 2016. Collaborative writing among second language learners using Google Docs in a secondary school context. International Journal on E-Learning Practice 3. 63–81.10.51200/ijelp.vi.712Search in Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Leeser, Michael J. 2004. Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research 8. 55–81. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr134oa.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Mimi. 2013. Individual novices and collective experts: Collective scaffolding in wiki-based small group writing. System 41. 752–769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.07.021.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Mimi & Deoksoon Kim. 2016. One wiki, two groups: Dynamic interactions across ESL collaborative writing tasks. Journal of Second Language Writing 31. 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.002.Search in Google Scholar

Lin, Ming-Fang & Yu-Fang Wang. 2020. Effects of pragmatic instruction on EFL teenagers’ apologetic email writing: Comprehension, production, and cognitive processes. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (online publication). https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/iral-2019-0116/html 10.1515/iral-2019-0116Search in Google Scholar

Neumann, Heike & Kim McDonough. 2015. Exploring student interaction during collaborative prewriting discussion and its relationship to L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 27. 84–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.009.Search in Google Scholar

Niu, Ruiying, Lin Jiang & Yuan Deng. 2018. Effect of proficiency pairing on L2 learners’ language learning and scaffolding in collaborative writing. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 27. 187–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-018-0377-2.Search in Google Scholar

Ren, Wei. 2014. A longitudinal investigation into L2 learners’ cognitive processes during study abroad. Applied Linguistics 35. 575–594. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt019.Search in Google Scholar

Richards, Jack C. & Theodore S. Rogers. 1995. Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Roever, Carsten. 2005. Testing ESL pragmatics. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.10.3726/978-3-653-04780-6Search in Google Scholar

Roever, Carsten. 2006. Validation of a web-based test of ESL pragmalinguistics. Language Testing 23. 229–256. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532206lt329oa.Search in Google Scholar

Saleem, Tahir, Uzma Anjum & TahirSummiya. 2021. The sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic strategies in L2 pragmatic competence: A case of Pakistani ESL learners. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 50(2). 185–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2021.1877176.Search in Google Scholar

Storch, Neomy. 2002. Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning 52. 119–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00179.Search in Google Scholar

Storch, Neomy. 2007. Investigating the merits of pair work on a text-editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research 11. 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807074600.Search in Google Scholar

Storch, Neomy. 2019. Collaborative writing. Language Teaching 52. 40–59. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444818000320.Search in Google Scholar

Storch, Neomy & Ali Aldosari. 2012. Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research 17. 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812457530.Search in Google Scholar

Swain, Merrill. 2006. Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In Heidi Byrnes (ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky, 95–108. London, UK: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Swain, Merrill & Sharon Lapkin. 1998. Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal 82. 320–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.x.Search in Google Scholar

Swain, Merrill & Sharon Lapkin. 2001. Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In Martin Bygate, Peter Skehan & Merrill Swain (eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing, 99–118. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Swain, Merrill & Yuko Watanabe. 2013. Languaging: Collaborative dialogue as a source of second language learning. In Carol A. Chapelle (ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics, 3218–3225. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0664Search in Google Scholar

Taguchi, Naoko & Youjin Kim. 2016. Collaborative dialogue in learning pragmatics: Pragmatic-related episodes as an opportunity for learning request-making. Applied Linguistics 37. 416–437. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu039.Search in Google Scholar

Taguchi, Naoko & Carsten Roever. 2017. Second language pragmatics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Tajeddin, Zia & Minoo Alemi. 2014. Pragmatic rater training: Does it affect non-native L2 teachers’ rating accuracy and bias? Iranian Journal of Language Testing 4. 66–83.Search in Google Scholar

Tajeddin, Zia & Marzieh Bagherkazemi. 2014. Short-term and long-term impacts of individual and collaborative pragmatic output on speech act production. TELL 8. 141–166.Search in Google Scholar

Takimoto, Masahiro. 2012. Metapragmatic discussion in interlanguage pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 44. 1240–1253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.007.Search in Google Scholar

Villarreal, Izaskun & Nora Gil-Sarratea. 2020. The effect of collaborative writing in an EFL secondary setting. Language Teaching Research 24. 874–897. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819829017.Search in Google Scholar

Vygotsky, Lev Semenovich. 1978. Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Vygotsky, Lev Semenovich. 1986. Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Wigglesworth, Gillian & Neomy Storch. 2009. Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing 26. 445–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209104670.Search in Google Scholar

Xiao, Feng. 2015. Proficiency effect on L2 pragmatic competence. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 5. 557–581. https://doi.org/10.14746/sllt.2015.5.4.3.Search in Google Scholar

Yu, Ming-Chung. 2011. Learning how to read situations and know what is the right thing to say or do in an L2: A study of socio-cultural competence and language transfer. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 1127–1147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.025.Search in Google Scholar