Density and complexity of oral production in interaction: The interactionist approach and an alternative

References

Anderson, J. 2005. Cognitive psychology and its implications, 6th edn. New York: Worth Publishers.Search in Google Scholar

Ballinger, S. 2013. Towards a cross-linguistic pedagogy: Biliteracy and reciprocal learning strategies in French immersion Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 1(1). 131–148.10.1075/jicb.1.1.06balSearch in Google Scholar

Bassano, D. 2000. Early development of nouns and verbs in French: Exploring the interface between lexicon and grammar Journal of Child Language 27(3). 521–559.10.1017/S0305000900004396Search in Google Scholar

Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing Journal of Royal Statistical Society 57, 289–300.10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.xSearch in Google Scholar

Blake, J., Quartaro, G. & Onorati, S. 1993. Evaluating quantitative measures of grammatical complexity in spontaneous speech samples Journal of Child Language 20(1). 139–152.10.1017/S0305000900009168Search in Google Scholar

Block, D. 2003. The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Brown, R. 1973. A first language: The early stages. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674732469Search in Google Scholar

Brulhart, M. 1986. Foreigner talk in the ESL classroom: Interactional adjustments to adult students at two language proficiency levels TESL Canada Journal 3. 29–42.10.18806/tesl.v3i0.992Search in Google Scholar

Buckwalter, P. 2001. Repair sequences in Spanish L2 dyadic discourse: A descriptive study The Modern Language Journal 85(3). 380–397.10.1111/0026-7902.00115Search in Google Scholar

Chaudron, C. 1983a. Foreigner talk in the classroom: An aid to learning?In H. Seliger & M.A.Long (eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition, 127–145. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Search in Google Scholar

Chaudron, C. 1983b. Simplification of input: Topic reinstatements and their effects on L2 learners’ recognition and recall TESOL Quarterly 17(3). 437–458.10.2307/3586257Search in Google Scholar

Chaudron, C. 1988. Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524469Search in Google Scholar

Cohen, J. 1992. A power primer Psychological Bulletin 112(1). 155–159.10.1037/14805-018Search in Google Scholar

Davis, R. 1997. Group work is NOT busy work: Maximizing success of group work in the L2 classroom Foreign Language Annals 30(2). 265–279.10.1111/j.1944-9720.1997.tb02348.xSearch in Google Scholar

de Bot, K. 1996. The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis Language Learning 46(3). 529–555.10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01246.xSearch in Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. 2005. What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues Language Learning 55(S1). 1–25.10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00294.xSearch in Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. (ed.). 2007. Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511667275Search in Google Scholar

Donato, R. 1994. Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research, 33–56. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, R. 2006. Modelling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The differential contributions of implicit knowledge and explicit knowledge Applied Linguistics 27(3). 431–463.10.1093/applin/aml022Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, R. 2009. The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production Applied Linguistics 30(4). 474–509.10.1093/applin/amp042Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y. & Yamazaki, A. 1995. Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meaning. In B. Harley (ed.), Lexical issues in language learning, 187–228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Ferguson, C. 1971. Absence of copula and the notion of simplicity: A study of normal speech, baby talk, foreigner talk, and pidgins. In D. Hymes (ed.), Pidginization and creolization of languages: Proceedings of a conference held at the University of the West Indies Mona, Jamaica, April 1968, 141–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Ferguson, C. 1975. Toward a characterization of English foreigner talk Anthropological Linguistics 17(1). 1–14.Search in Google Scholar

Fernández Dobao, A. 2012. Collaborative dialogue in learner–learner and learner–native speaker interaction Applied Linguistics 33(3). 229–256.10.1093/applin/ams002Search in Google Scholar

Foster, P. 1998. A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning Applied Linguistics 14(1). 1–23.10.1093/applin/19.1.1Search in Google Scholar

Foster, P. & Ohta, A. 2005. Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms Applied Linguistics 26(3). 402–430.10.1093/applin/ami014Search in Google Scholar

Fotos, S. 1998. Shifting the focus from forms to form in the EFL classroom ELT Journal 52(4). 301–307.10.1093/elt/52.4.301Search in Google Scholar

Futaba, T. 2001. A task works for negotiation of meaning JALT Applied Materials 39–58.Search in Google Scholar

García Mayo, M. & Pica, T. 2000. Interaction among proficient learners: Are input, feedback and output needs addressed in a foreign language context? Studia Linguistica 54(2). 272–279.10.1111/1467-9582.00066Search in Google Scholar

Gass, S. 2003. Input and interaction. In C. Doughty & M. Long (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, 224–255. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470756492.ch9Search in Google Scholar

Gass, S. & Mackey, A. 2007. Data elicitation for second and foreign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.10.4324/9780203826102Search in Google Scholar

Gass, S., Mackey, A. & Pica, T. 1998. The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition The Modern Language Journal 82(3). 299–307.10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01206.xSearch in Google Scholar

Gass, S. & Varonis, E. 1985. Variation in native speaker speech modification to non-native speakers Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7(1). 37–58.10.1017/S0272263100005143Search in Google Scholar

Gass, S. & Varonis, E. 1990. Miscommunication in nonnative speaker discourse. In N. Coupland, H. Giles & J. Wiemann (eds.), “Miscommunication” and problematic talk, 121–145. Newbury Park, London & New Delhi: Sage Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Gass, S. & Varonis, E. 1994. Input, interaction, and second language production Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16(3). 283–302.10.1017/S0272263100013097Search in Google Scholar

Goldfield, B. 2000. Nouns before verbs in comprehension vs. production: The view from pragmatics Journal of Child Language 27(3). 501–520.10.1017/S0305000900004244Search in Google Scholar

Gopnik, A. & Choi, S. 1990. Do linguistic differences lead to cognitive differences? A cross-linguistic study of semantic and cognitive development First Language 10(30). 199–215.10.1177/014272379001003002Search in Google Scholar

Hatch, E., Shapira, R. & Wagner-Gough, J. 1978. Foreigner talk discourse ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics 39–40. 39–60.10.1075/itl.39-40.03hatSearch in Google Scholar

Henzl, V. 1973. Linguistic register of foreign language instruction Language Learning 23(2). 207–222.10.1111/j.1467-1770.1973.tb00656.xSearch in Google Scholar

Henzl, V. 1979. Foreign talk in the classroom International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 17(2). 159–167.Search in Google Scholar

Housen, A., Kuiken, F. & Vedder, I. (eds.). 2012. Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.32Search in Google Scholar

Issidorides, D. & Hulstijn, J. 1992. Comprehension of grammatically modified and nonmodified sentences by second language learners Applied Psycholinguistics 13(2). 147–171.10.1017/S0142716400005543Search in Google Scholar

Iwashita, N., Brown, A., McNamara, T. & O’Hagan, S. 2008. Assessed levels of second language speaking proficiency: How distinct? Applied Linguistics 29(1). 24–49.10.1093/applin/amm017Search in Google Scholar

Izumi, S. & Bigelow, M. 2000. Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly 34(2). 239–278.10.2307/3587952Search in Google Scholar

Johnston, J. 2001. An alternate MLU calculation: Magnitude and variability of effects Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 44(1). 156–164.10.1044/1092-4388(2001/014)Search in Google Scholar

Kappel, G. 1991. Design and analysis: A researchers handbook,3rd edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Search in Google Scholar

Kasanga, L. 1996. Peer interaction and L2 learningThe Canadian Modern Language Review 52(4). 611–639.10.3138/cmlr.52.4.611Search in Google Scholar

Kelch, K. 1985. Modified input as an aid to comprehension Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7(1). 81–90.10.1017/S0272263100005179Search in Google Scholar

Kess, A. 1996. Predictable problems of Japanese students: In-group belonging and saving face Intensive English Program Newsletter 12, 8–9.Search in Google Scholar

Kormos, J. 1999. Simulating conversations in oral-proficiency assessment: A conversation analysis or role plays and non-scripted interviews in language exams Language Testing 16(2). 163–188.10.1177/026553229901600203Search in Google Scholar

Korst, T. 1997. Answer, please answer! A perspective on Japanese university students’ silent response to questions JALT Journal 19(2). 279–291.Search in Google Scholar

Krashen, S. 1985. The input hypothesis. Harlow: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Larsen-Freeman, D. 2009. Adjusting expectations: The study of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition Applied Linguistics 30(4). 579–589.10.1093/applin/amp043Search in Google Scholar

Larson-Hall, J. & Herrington, R. 2010. Improving data analysis in second language acquisition by utilizing modern developments in applied statistics Applied Linguistics 31(3). 368–390.10.1093/applin/amp038Search in Google Scholar

Leow, R. 1997. Attention, Awareness, and foreign language behavior Language Learning 47(3). 467–505.10.1111/0023-8333.00017Search in Google Scholar

Li, S. 2010. The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis Language Learning 60(2). 309–365.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.xSearch in Google Scholar

Long, M. 1981a. Input, interaction, and second language acquisition Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 379, 259–278.10.1111/j.1749-6632.1981.tb42014.xSearch in Google Scholar

Long, M. 1981b. Questions in foreigner talk discourse Language Learning 31(1). 135–157.10.1111/j.1467-1770.1981.tb01376.xSearch in Google Scholar

Long, M. 1983. Linguistic and conversational adjustments in non-native speakers Studies in Second Language Acquisition 5(2). 177–193.10.1017/S0272263100004848Search in Google Scholar

Long, M. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, 413–468. San Diego: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50015-3Search in Google Scholar

Long, M. 2015. Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. 2013. State-of-the-art article: Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms Language Teaching 46(1). 1–40.10.1017/S0261444812000365Search in Google Scholar

Lyster, R. & Sato, M. 2013. Skill acquisition theory and the role of practice in L2 development. In M. García Mayo, J. Gutierrez-Mangado & M. Martínez Adrián (eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition, 71–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/aals.9.07ch4Search in Google Scholar

Mackey, A. 1999. Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21(4). 557–587.10.1017/S0272263199004027Search in Google Scholar

Mackey, A. 2007. Introduction: The role of conversational interaction in second language acquisition. In A. Mackey (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies, 1–26. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Mackey, A. & Goo, J. 2007. Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies, 407–452. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

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). 35–66.10.1111/1467-9922.00210Search in Google Scholar

MacWhinney, B. 2010. The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk – Electronic edition.Search in Google Scholar

McDonough, K. 2004. Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context System 32(2). 207–224.10.1016/j.system.2004.01.003Search in Google Scholar

McDonough, K. 2005. Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27(1). 79–103.10.1017/S0272263105050047Search in Google Scholar

Meisel, J. 1980. Linguistic simplification. In S. Felix (ed.), Second language development: Trends and issues, 13–40. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Search in Google Scholar

Mitchell, R. & Myles, F. 2004. Second language learning theory, 2nd edn. London: Edward Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

Miyagi, K., Sato, M. & Crump, A. 2009. To challenge the unchallenged: Potential of non-‘standard’ Englishes for Japanese EFL learners JALT Journal 31(2). 261–273.10.37546/JALTJJ31.2-6Search in Google Scholar

Nobuyoshi, J. & Ellis, R. 1993. Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition ELT Journal 47(3). 203–210.10.1093/elt/47.3.203Search in Google Scholar

Oshima-Takane, Y. 2006. Acquisition of nouns and verbs in Japanese. In M. Nakayama, R. Mazuka, Y. Shirai & P. Li (eds.), Handbook of East Asian psycholinguistics: Japanese, 56–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511758652.010Search in Google Scholar

Philp, J., Adams, R. & Iwashita, N. 2014. Peer interaction and second language learning. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203551349Search in Google Scholar

Philp, J. & Iwashita, N. 2013. Talking, tuning in and noticing: Exploring the benefits of output in task-based peer interaction Language Awareness 22(3). 1–18.10.1080/09658416.2012.758128Search in Google Scholar

Philp, J., Walter, S. & Basturkmen, H. 2010. Peer interaction in the foreign language classroom: What factors foster a focus on form? Language Awareness 19(4). 261–279.10.1080/09658416.2010.516831Search in Google Scholar

Pica, T. 2013. From input, output and comprehension to negotiation, evidence, and attention: An overview of theory and research on learner interaction and SLA. In M. García Mayo, J. Gutierrez-Mangado, & M. Martínez Adrián (eds.), Contemporary approaches to Second Language Acquisition, 49–69. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/aals.9.06ch3Search in Google Scholar

Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. 1993. Choosing and using tasks for second language instruction and research. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice, 9–34. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar

Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D. & Linnell, J. 1996. Language learners’ interaction: How does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly 30(1). 59–84.10.2307/3587607Search in Google Scholar

Pica, T., Young, R. & Doughty, C. 1987. The impact of interaction in comprehension TESOL Quarterly 21(4). 737–758.10.2307/3586992Search in Google Scholar

Plough, I. & Gass, S. 1993. Interlocutor and task familiarity: Effects on interactional structure. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (eds.), Task and language learning: Integrating theory and practice, 35–56. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar

Porter, P. 1986. How learners talk to each other: Input and interaction in task-centered discussions. In R. Day (ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition, 200–222. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Search in Google Scholar

Rescorla, L., Dahlsgaard, K. & Roberts, J. 2000. Late-talking toddlers: MLU and IPSyn outcomes at 3;0 and 4;0 Journal of Child Language 27(3). 643–664.10.1017/S0305000900004232Search in Google Scholar

Robinson, P. 1996. Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(1). 27–67.10.1017/S0272263100014674Search in Google Scholar

Robinson, P., Sawyer, M. & Ross, S. 2001. Second language acquisition research in Japan: Theoretical issues JALT Applied Materials 3–21.Search in Google Scholar

Russell, J., & Spada, N. 2006. The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching, 133–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.13.09valSearch in Google Scholar

Sagae, K., Lavie, A. & MacWhinney, B. 2005. Automatic measurement of syntactic development in child language. In K. Knight (ed.), Annual meeting of the ACL: Proceedings of the 43rd annual meeting on association for computational linguistics, 197–204. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Computational Linguistics.10.3115/1219840.1219865Search in Google Scholar

Sato, M. 2007. Social relationships in conversational interaction: A comparison between learner-learner and learner-NS dyads JALT Journal 29(2). 183–208.10.37546/JALTJJ29.2-2Search in Google Scholar

Sato, M. 2013. Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention The Modern Language Journal 97(3). 611–633.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12035.xSearch in Google Scholar

Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. 2012. Raising language awareness in peer interaction: A cross-context, cross-method examination Language Awareness 21(1–2). 157–179.10.1080/09658416.2011.639884Search in Google Scholar

Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.). 2015. Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.45Search in Google Scholar

Sato, M. & Lyster, R. 2007. Modified output of Japanese EFL learners: Variable effects of interlocutor vs. feedback types. In A. Mackey (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies, 123–142. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Sato, M. & Lyster, R. 2012. Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34(4). 591–262.10.1017/S0272263112000356Search in Google Scholar

Scarborough, H., Rescorla, L., Targer-Flusberg, H., Fowler, A. & Sudhalter, V. 1991. The relation of utterance length to grammatical complexity in normal and language-disordered groups Applied Psycholinguistics 12(1). 23–45.10.1017/S014271640000936XSearch in Google Scholar

Segalowitz, N. & Hulstijn, J. 2005. Automaticity in bilingualism and second language learning. In J. Kroll & A. de Groot (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, 371–388. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Shehadeh, A. 2001. Self- and other-initiated modified output during task-based interaction TESOL Quarterly 35(3). 433–457.10.2307/3588030Search in Google Scholar

Shehadeh, A. 2003. Learner output, hypothesis testing, and internalizing linguistic knowledge System 31(1). 155–171.10.1016/S0346-251X(03)00018-6Search in Google Scholar

Skehan, P. 1998. A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1177/003368829802900209Search in Google Scholar

Spada, N. & Tomita, Y. 2010. Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis Language Learning 60(2). 263–308.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.xSearch in Google Scholar

Snow, C., Van Eeden, R. & Muysken, P. 1981. The interactional origins of foreigner talk: Municipal employees and foreign workers International Journal of Sociology of Language 28(1). 81–91.10.1515/ijsl.1981.28.81Search in Google Scholar

Storch, N. 2001. How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs Language Teaching Research 5(1). 29–53.10.1177/136216880100500103Search in Google Scholar

Storch, N. 2002. Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work Language Learning 52(1). 119–158.10.1111/1467-9922.00179Search in Google Scholar

Storch, N. & Aldosari, A. 2013. Pairing learners in pair work activity Language Teaching Research 17(1). 31–48.10.1177/1362168812457530Search in Google Scholar

Swain, M. 1985. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (eds.), Input in second language acquisition, 235–253. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Search in Google Scholar

Swain, M. 1995. Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson, 125–144. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Swain, M. 2005. The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 471–483. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. 1995. Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step toward second language learning Applied Linguistics 16(3). 371–391.10.1093/applin/16.3.371Search in Google Scholar

Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. 1998. Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together The Modern Language Journal 82(3). 320–337.10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.xSearch in Google Scholar

Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. 2001. Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing, 99–118. Harlow, Essex: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. 2002. Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation International Journal of Educational Research 37(3). 285–304.10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00006-5Search in Google Scholar

Terrell, T. 1990. Foreigner talk as comprehensible input. In J. Alatis (ed.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics, 193–206. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Toth, P. 2008. Teacher- and learner-led discourse in task-based grammar instruction: Providing procedural assistance for L2 morphosyntactic development Language Learning 58(2). 237–283.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00441.xSearch in Google Scholar

Tsui, A. 1985. Analyzing input and interaction in second language classrooms RELC Journal 16(1). 8–30.10.1177/003368828501600102Search in Google Scholar

Ullman, M. 2004. Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model Cognition 92(1–2). 231–270.10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.008Search in Google Scholar

Van Hout, R. & Vermeer, A. 2007. Comparing measures of lexical richness. In H. Daller, J. Milton & J. Treffers-Daller (eds.), Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge, 93–115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511667268.008Search in Google Scholar

Varonis, E. & Gass, S. 1985. Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning Applied Linguistics 6(1). 71–90.10.1093/applin/6.1.71Search in Google Scholar

Yashima, T. 2002. Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context The Modern Language Journal 86(1). 54–66.10.1111/1540-4781.00136Search in Google Scholar