Negotiation of Meaning in Conversational and Information Gap Activities: A Comparative Discourse Analysis.

By Y. Nakahama, Andrea Tyler, L. V. Lier. 2001

249 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8fde0bbf7e43e9d32c8bb734c7112ca1dc440449

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Language and Linguistics

1. P. Skehan
2. I. Nation
3. Paul Nation
4. N. Storch
5. J. Newton
6. Andrea Révész
7. Youjin Kim
8. Masatoshi Sato

In Literature and Literary Theory

1. Andrea Révész
2. P. Skehan
3. I. Nation
4. Paul Nation
5. N. Storch
6. J. Newton
7. Youjin Kim
8. A. Dobao

Citations in the corpus

• Task-based instruction (2003, result): “Nakahama et al. (2001) show that, in contrast to claims for the superiority of information gap tasks made by the Negotiation of Meaning literature (Long 1989), in fact the discussion task, too, provides many learning opportunities, with this advantage arising from what might be termed the greater…”
• Metatalk in a Pair Work Activity: Level of Engagement and Implications for Language Development (2008, background): “…of certain interaction moves rather than the quality of the interaction; that is, quality in terms of the amount and complexity of the language produced by the learner or the length of engagement with a specific linguistic item during such negotiations (Fotos & Ellis, 1991; Nakahama et al., 2001).”
• Negotiation for Meaning and Peer Assistance in Second Language Classrooms (2005, unknown): “Ohta (2001) found that adult learners of Japanese in their first two years of language classes assisted each other with a variety of peer interactive tasks.”
• Task Complexity, Focus on L2 Constructions, and Individual Differences: A Classroom-Based Study. (2011, background): “4Note that this observation does not seem to hold when negotiation is defined in a broader sense, including discourse level phenomena that help achieve global, rather than local, cohesion and coherence during interaction (see Nakahama et al., 2001).”
• Teaching ESL/EFL Listening and Speaking (2008, background): “It’s my word! (Mhone, 1988) or word detectives involves a learner reporting on a word that was learned out of class recently.”
• Incidental vocabulary learning in classroom communication tasks (2013, background): “…ignore qualitative aspects of negotiation (see, for example, Doughty & Pica, 1986), although, subsequently, research has placed greater emphasis on this (Lyster, 1998; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Nakahama et al., 2001; Pica, Lincoln- Porter, Paninos, & Linnell, 1996; Smith, 2005; Van den Branden, 1997).”