This article aims to uncover how alignment affects second language (L2) vocabulary acquisition by Chinese-speaking learners of English as they interact with various interaction loads (i.e. input text, peers and video). It also explores how tasks with varying interactional intensity in relation to the interaction loads influence the alignment magnitude and vocabulary learning outcomes. To this end, two studies were conducted. In Study 1, three groups of L2 learners were instructed to learn and use the target words while performing paraphrase, summary or continuation task. The results indicated that task-induced interactional intensity had robust effects on alignment magnitude as well as receptive and productive lexical knowledge. In Study 2, three groups of L2 learners were asked to complete a continuation task while interacting with high-proficiency peers (HL group), low-proficiency peers (LL group) or with both low-proficiency peers & video (LLM group). The results showed that interacting with high-proficiency partners had positive impact on alignment magnitude and lexical knowledge, but video exerted only a limited effect. The findings afforded evidence for the ‘interaction–alignment–learning’ research route and accounted for vocabulary acquisition from a new perspective.
AtkinsonD. (2014). Language learning in mindbodyworld: A sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 47, 467–483.
2.
AtkinsonD.ChurchillE.NishinoT.OkadaH. (2007). Alignment and interaction in a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 169–188.
3.
BraniganH.P.PickeringM.J.ClelandA.A. (2000). Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition, 75, B13–B25.
4.
de BotK. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 7–21.
5.
De GuerreroM.C.M.CommanderM. (2013). Shadow-reading: Affordances for imitation in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 17, 433–453.
6.
DobaoA.F. (2012a). Collaborative dialogue in learner–learner and learner–native speaker interaction. Applied Linguistics, 33, 229–256.
7.
DobaoA.F. (2012b). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 40–58.
8.
DobaoA.F. (2014). Vocabulary learning in collaborative tasks: A comparison of pair and small group work. Language Teaching Research, 18, 497–520.
9.
EllisR. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335–349.
10.
ElolaI.OskozA. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning and Technology, 14, 51–71.
11.
GarrodS.AndersonA. (1987). Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination. Cognition, 27, 181–218.
12.
GarrodS.PickeringM.J. (2004). Why is conversation so easy?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 8–11.
13.
HanY.HylandF. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31–44.
14.
HigginsL.FlowerL.PetragliaJ. (1992). Planning text together: The role of critical reflection in student collaboration. Written Communication, 9, 48–84.
15.
HirshD.NationP. (1992). What vocabulary size is needed to read unsimplified texts for pleasure?Reading in a Foreign Language, 8, 689–689.
16.
HollerJ.WilkinK. (2011). Co-speech gesture mimicry in the process of collaborative referring during face-to-face dialogue. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 35, 133–153.
17.
HulstijnJ.H.LauferB. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539–558.
18.
KimY. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of l2 vocabulary. Modern Language Journal, 92, 114–130.
19.
KimY.McDonoughK. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12, 211–234.
20.
LauferB.HulstijnJ.H. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 1–26.
21.
LeeserM.J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81.
22.
LiJ. (2014). Effect of task-induced online learning behavior on incidental vocabulary acquisition by Chinese learners: Revisiting involvement load hypothesis. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4, 1385–1394.
23.
MayerR.E.MorenoR. (2002). Aids to computer-based multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 12, 107–119.
24.
McNeillA. (1996). Vocabulary knowledge profiles: Evidence for Chinese-speaking ESL teachers. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 39–63.
25.
MiltonJ.JonsenS.HirstS.LindenburnS. (2012). Foreign language vocabulary development through activities in an online 3D environment. The Language Learning Journal, 40, 99–112.
26.
NassajiH.TianJ. (2010). Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research, 14, 397–419.
27.
NeumannH.McDonoughK. (2015). Exploring student interaction during collaborative prewriting discussions and its relationship to L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 84–104.
28.
NishinoT.AtkinsonD. (2015). Second language writing as sociocognitive alignment. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 37–54.
29.
NiuR.Helms-ParkR. (2014). Interaction, modality, and word engagement as factors in lexical learning in a Chinese context. Language Teaching Research, 18, 345–372.
30.
PardoJ.S. (2006). On phonetic convergence during conversational interaction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 2382–2393.
31.
PickeringM.J.BraniganH.P. (1999). Syntactic priming in language production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 136–141.
32.
PickeringM.J.GarrodS. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 169–190.
33.
QiD.S.LapkinS (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277–303.
34.
RassaeiE. (2017). Effects of three forms of reading-based output activity on L2 vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 21, 76–95.
35.
ReindersH.WattanaS. (2015). Affect and willingness to communicate in digital game-based learning. ReCALL, 27, 38–57.
36.
RocheJ.M.DaleR.CaucciG.M. (2012). Doubling up on double meanings: Pragmatic alignment. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 1–24.
37.
SchmittN. (2008). Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12, 329–363.
38.
ShahriarpourN. (2014). On the effect of playing digital games on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ motivation toward learning English vocabularies. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1738–1743.
39.
ShinS.Y.LidsterR.SabrawS.YeagerR . (2016). The effects of L2 proficiency differences on idea units in a collaborative text reconstruction task. Language Teaching Research, 20, 366–386.
40.
ShockleyK.SantanaM.FowlerC.A. (2003). Mutual interpersonal postural constraints are involved in cooperative conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 326–332.
41.
StorchN. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153–173.
42.
StorchN.AldosariA. (2012). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17, 31–48.
43.
SunY.DongQ. (2004). An experiment on supporting children’s English vocabulary learning in multimedia context. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17, 131–147.
44.
WangC. (2007). What context facilitates foreign language learning?Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 39, 190–197.
45.
WangC. (2010). Interactive alignment and foreign language teaching and learning. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 42, 297–299.
46.
WangC.WangM. (2015). Effect of Alignment on L2 Written Production. Applied Linguistics, 36, 503–526.
47.
WescheM.ParibakhtT.S. (1996). Assessing second language vocabulary knowledge: Depth vs. breadth. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 13–39.
48.
WigglesworthG.StorchN. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26, 445–466.
49.
WilliamsJ. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49, 583–625.
50.
WilliamsJ. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29, 325–340.
51.
YipF.W.KwanA.C. (2006). Online vocabulary games as a tool for teaching and learning English vocabulary. Educational Media International, 43, 233–249.
52.
ZhangX. (2017). Reading–writing integrated tasks, comprehensive corrective feedback, and EFL writing development. Language Teaching Research, 21, 217–240.
