Interactional tasks and English L2 learning by immigrant children in Singapore

System 33 (2005) 239–260

www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Interactional tasks and English L2 learning by immigrant children in Singapore

Alison Mackey a,¤, Rita Elaine Silver b

a Department of Linguistics, ICC 460, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057, USAb National Institute of Education, English Language and Literature, 1 Nanyang Walk, Block 3, Room 100,

Singapore 637616, Singapore

Received 12 August 2004; received in revised form 4 January 2005; accepted 13 January 2005

Abstract

In recent years, researchers have become increasingly interested in the relationships amongvarious kinds of conversational interaction and second language learning outcomes. Priorstudies have indicated that feedback provided during interaction is beneWcial for the learningof second language grammar. However, relatively little empirical work has been conductedwith children in linguistically diverse environments. In the current study, set in Singapore’smultilingual context, 26 children (ages 6–9) carried out pedagogical tasks involving communi-cative exchanges with adult native speakers. The experimental group (n D 14) received interac-tional feedback in response to their problems with question forms. The control group (n D 12)interacted with the native speakers using the same pedagogical tasks but did not receive feed-back. Results show that over the period of the study more learners in the experimental groupthan in the control group improved in terms of question formation. In the ongoing research onthe interaction hypothesis, this study takes a logical next step in demonstrating a relationshipbetween interactional feedback and language development for children in a multilingualenvironment. 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

¤ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Mackey), [email protected] (R.E. Silver).

0346-251X/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.system.2005.01.005

mailto: [email protected]




240 A. Mackey, R.E. Silver / System 33 (2005) 239–260

Keywords: Age eVects; Children; Feedback; Interaction hypothesis; Interaction-based learning; Interac-tion-learning; Interlanguage; Second language acquisition; Second language instruction; Second languagelearning; Task-based learning

1. Introduction

1.1. Interaction, pedagogy and SLA

In recent years, much second language (L2) pedagogical research has shiftedtowards task-based learning and teaching, with its emphasis on promoting languagedevelopment in a learner-centered context, providing exposure to authentic language,and helping learners to produce meaningful language while having opportunities toattend to the forms involved. Researchers such as Long (1996), Gass (2003) and Mac-key (in press) have argued that task-based interaction can provide the necessary con-nections between input, output, attention, feedback, and noticing, thus increasing thesaliency and comprehension of many aspects of language and ultimately driving theL2 acquisition process forward. Various aspects of the interaction-learning processhave been the subject of recent studies (see, for example, Han, 2002; Iwashita, 1999;Izumi and Bigelow, 2000; Leeman, 2003; Long et al., 1998; Loschky, 1994; Lyster,2001; Mackey and Philp, 1998; McDonough, 2005; Morris and Tarone, 2003; Ohta,2000; Panova and Lyster, 2002; Philp, 2003; Shehadeh, 1999, 2003).

Despite this work, the roles of linguistic context and educational setting in interac-tion-driven learning research remain relatively under-explored. As Oliver and Mac-key (2003) point out, much recent research has paid little attention to diVerent typesof context or to the relationships between contextual conditions and the second lan-guage learning process. Two of these contextual factors – the age of the learners andthe educational setting – will be discussed below.

1.2. Children’s SLA processes

The process of learning a second language is generally thought to be constrainedby maturational factors, making it diYcult for an older learner to reach a native-likemastery of the language. This critical period hypothesis has received support fromseveral studies (e.g., Johnson, 1992; Johnson and Newport, 1989; see Long, 1990, fora comprehensive review), and even though a number of researchers are increasinglypointing out that native-like attainment may actually be possible for older learners(e.g., Bialystok and Hakuta, 1994, 1999; Bialystok and Miller, 1999; Birdsong, 1992,1999; Birdsong and Molis, 2001; Flege et al., 1999), there remains a general consensusthat younger learners, broadly deWned as those who have not reached puberty, canoutstrip older learners in terms of ultimate levels of attainment.

Recent studies have suggested that children’s more limited processing capacitiesmay beneWt them by allowing them to encode and retain only fragments of input(Cochran et al., 1999). Building on Newport’s (1990) “less is more” hypothesis,

A. Mackey, R.E. Silver / System 33 (2005) 239–260 241

Cochran et al. (1999) explain that “children, with their limited processing capacity,would be more likely to learn the components of language rather than holistic pat-terns (Newport, 1988, 1990), would have a less complex form-to-function mappingproblem because they have registered only a limited number of forms (Goldowskyand Newport, 1993), [and] would have an easier time picking up existing correlationsbetween form and meaning due to their greater sensitivity (Kareev, 1995; Kareevet al., 1997)” (p. 32). Thus, for Cochran and her colleagues, the smaller processingcapacities and reduced attention spans of children ultimately work to their beneWt.L2 researchers exploring the role of working memory capacity in L2 learning havealso pointed to this potential advantage for children (e.g., Miyake and Shah, 1999).

Researchers investigating classroom interaction have also discussed the attentionspan of children as it relates to their L2 learning. Lyster (2001), for example, notesthat “in communicatively oriented classrooms ƒ where interactional exchanges aremotivated by a variety of purposes and foci ƒ young L2 learners may not readilynotice target–nontarget mismatches in the interactional input” (p. 268). Lyster’s(1998b) study of French immersion classroom learners aged 9–11 similarly indicatedthat children may not be able to recognize recasts as negative evidence, leading himto conclude that other forms of feedback, such as elicitations, metalinguistic cues,and clariWcation requests, may be more salient and thus more eVective for drawingchildren’s attention to their errors (see also Lyster, 1998a; Lyster and Ranta, 1997;Netten, 1991). However, a similar line of research by Mackey and Philp (1998) hasindicated that immediate output in response to recasts may not be a relevant measureof learning. In their study of adult ESL students, they found that learners demon-strated linguistic development from recasts even when they did not repeat recasts ormodify their output as a result of recasts. Of course, Lyster’s research was with chil-dren while Mackey and Philp’s was with adults; it is possible that adults and childrenmight be diVerentially aVected by recasts and that children of diVerent ages may bediVerentially impacted.

While Lyster and his colleagues have focused on the salience of recasts for chil-dren, other researchers have questioned the value of other feedback types found innegotiation for meaning on children’s language development. For example, Van denBranden (1997) investigated whether (and to what extent) 48 native speakers (NSs)and non-native speakers (NNSs) of Dutch enrolled in the 5th grade of a Flemish pri-mary school negotiated for meaning during a two-way picture-description task. Inhis experiment, the children were assigned to one of three conditions: (1) peer interac-tion (the interlocutor was a peer); (2) teacher–pupil interaction (the interlocutor wasthe researcher himself); and (3) comparison (the children described the pictures indi-vidually without interaction). Two hours later, the children completed a post-test,which consisted of an individual description of the same drawings. Although Vanden Branden found that the children did negotiate for meaning and content and thatthis negotiation led to a greater quantity of output, a wider range of vocabulary, andmore frequent mention of essential information in subsequent interactions, he alsonoted that “the negotiations had no signiWcant eVects on the syntactic complexitynor on the grammatical correctness of the learners’ output during the post-test”(p. 589).


Ellis and Heimbach (1997) reached a similar conclusion on the value of negotia-tion for young children’s comprehension and acquisition of vocabulary. In theirstudy, 10 kindergarten students in an ESL program in Japan were Wrst administereda pre-test on “color”, “bird”, and “bug” names; treatment then consisted of two lis-tening tasks. In the Wrst task, the children placed pictures of particular bugs or birdson the appropriate “cage” on a board. In the second task, the children were split intogroups to complete the same activity. In both tasks, children were told that theycould ask for assistance. A post-test 7 days later measured whether they had acquiredany of the “bug” or “bird” vocabulary items. The researchers reported that there wasconsiderable variation in the amount that children negotiated for meaning in bothtasks, with some children actively asking for assistance to complete the task whileothers simply guessed or waited for another child to ask for help. As far as compre-hension was concerned, Ellis and Heimbach reported that the children who activelyparticipated in negotiation for meaning with the teacher showed higher levels ofcomprehension (as measured by successful task completion) than those children whodid not, leading them to conclude that “negotiation seems to work for comprehen-sion for children as it does for adults” (p. 255). However, in terms of longer-termacquisition, the researchers failed to Wnd a signiWcant relationship between activemeaning negotiation and vocabulary acquisition, a result that suggested that “mean-ing negotiation may play a less prominent role in acquisition for children than it doesfor adults” (p. 247).

While these studies have failed to Wnd a signiWcant relationship between negotia-tion for meaning and language development in children, other studies have describedthe use and possible beneWts of negotiation for child learners in terms of interactionalprocesses shown elsewhere to be beneWcial. Oliver (1998), for example, found thatchildren do negotiate for meaning with their peers and that they beneWt from thisnegotiation in terms of receiving comprehensible input and feedback, as well asopportunities for producing modiWed output. In her study, 192 children weregrouped into age- and gender-matched dyads and asked to complete a picture-description task and an object-placement task. Oliver compared the percentages ofclariWcation requests, conWrmation checks, self-repetitions and other-repetitions withpreviously published data on adults and found that the children used all four strate-gies, although in diVerent proportions than adults.

Researchers have also looked at other aspects of feedback. Oliver (2000) made adirect comparison of the provision and use of negative feedback across child andadult learners and found that both groups received and used negative feedback,although the age of the learners and the context of the interactions (i.e., teacher-fronted lessons or pairwork tasks) aVected the pattern of interaction. In a similarstudy, Mackey et al. (2003) investigated the eVect of age and NS/NNS status on theprovision (both type and amount) and incorporation of feedback in task-based inter-action. Using the same tasks that were employed in Oliver (1997, 1998, 2000, 2002),the researchers examined the interactions of 48 dyads, evenly divided among adultsand children between 8 and 12 years old, and among NS–NNS and NNS–NNS pair-ings. They found that adult NSs provided signiWcantly more feedback than NNSs,although opportunities for modiWed output were signiWcantly more common


following NNS feedback than following NS feedback. In child dyads, there were nosigniWcant diVerences in the amount or type of feedback between NS–NNS andNNS–NNS dyads, although there was signiWcantly more modiWed output in responseto feedback from NNSs. As Mackey et al. (2003) explain, “although children in bothtypes of dyad were exposed to similar amounts and types of feedback, childrenseemed to utilize feedback more if their interlocutor was a NNS” (p. 55). Thus, theyconcluded that there is a complex interaction between the variables of age and NS/NNS status and argued that future research should take into account both learnerage and interlocutor type.

Given these interesting Wndings, more studies that examine acquisition as well asuse or uptake of feedback are needed. One study that examined learning (Mackeyand Oliver, 2002) found a positive relationship between interactional feedback andlanguage development for child ESL learners (N D 22) interacting in dyads with adultNSs. Half of the children (the experimental group) received feedback in response tonontarget-like question forms, while the other half (the control group) did not receivesuch feedback. The results of the immediate post-test (one day later), post-test (oneweek later) and delayed post-test (one week later) showed that signiWcantly morechildren in the experimental group improved in their formation of English questionsthan did children in the control group. Mackey and Oliver concluded that “interac-tional feedback did facilitate second language development for the child learners” (p.471) and that development occurred more rapidly for children than had been shownfor adult learners in prior studies, leading the researchers to conclude that SLAresearch Wndings should not be generalized from adult learners to children withoutadequate empirical evidence.

Given the relative paucity and mixed Wndings of studies in this area and the mixedWndings, it is clearly necessary for future research to carry out more detailed studieswith children. In the current study, we address the utility of interactional feedbackfor child second language development.

1.3. Cultural/educational contexts and SLA

Many of the studies conducted in the interaction framework have investigatedESL learning in English-speaking countries, for example, the US, Britain, and Aus-tralia (Crystal, 1995). However, as Iwashita (1999) points out, relatively few studieshave investigated learners in foreign language contexts (i.e., in localities where thereare few native speakers of the target language outside the classroom and where thereare consequently limited opportunities to practice and be exposed to the L2). Someof the interaction studies that have looked at foreign language contexts have exam-ined learners of French in immersion programs in English-speaking areas of Canada(e.g., Swain and Lapkin, 1998), Japanese as a foreign language (e.g., Iwashita, 1999,2003; Long et al., 1998; Ohta, 2000), English as a foreign language (e.g., McDonough,2004), and Spanish as a foreign language (e.g., Buckwalter, 2001; de la Fuente, 2002;Leeman, 2003; Long et al., 1998). Fewer studies still have examined the role of inter-action in multilingual and multiethnic environments such as Singapore, the site of thepresent study.


Singapore is a multiethnic and multilingual society. English is only one of fouroYcial languages, the others being Mandarin, Malay, and Tamil. According to thelatest population census, 35% of the population uses Mandarin as the most frequenthome language (Singapore Department of Statistics, 2000a,b). In addition, numerousother languages are spoken, including Teochew, Cantonese, Hainanese, Hakka, Foo-chow, Hindi, Telugu, and Malayalam (Lim, 2001). Many families are bi- or multilin-gual and bi- or multi-literate. Some have argued that English has a higher status thanthe other languages. For example, Foley states that English “has always been seen asa pathway to membership of the elite in Singapore, and has been the working lan-guage of both the colonial and independent governments” (2001, p. 12), although thegovernment has always been at pains to treat the languages as having equal status(e.g., Education Study Team, 1979; Silver, 2005; Wee, 2003). In addition, bilingualeducational policies dating from the late 1950s have aimed to ensure that childrenacquire both English and at least one other oYcial language. English is currently theprimary language of instruction and is used in an increasingly wider range of con-texts, including business, government, law, and the home (Foley, 1998a,b; Gupta,1998b; Ooi, 2001; Platt and Weber, 1980).

For this reason, some researchers (e.g., Foley, 2001) have argued that it may beinaccurate to consider English a foreign language in Singapore. Others have pointedout that Singaporean primary school classes include children who do not use Englishat home, children who use some English at home, and children who use exclusivelyEnglish at home (e.g., Kwan-Terry, 1991; Pakir, 1993; Li et al., 1997). Further compli-cating the linguistic situation is the fact that a local variety of English, SingaporeColloquial English (also known as SCE or “Singlish”) has developed, with signiWcantdiVerences from exonormative standards (i.e., British or American English) (for moreinformation about Singapore English, see, e.g., Afrendas and Kuo, 1980; AlsagoV,2001; AlsagoV and Ho, 1998; Bao, 1998, 2001; Gupta, 1994, 1998a; Lim, 2001; Plattand Weber, 1980; Wee, 1998; Yeoh and Wee, 2001).

As mentioned above, very little SLA interactional research has been carried out inmultilingual and multiethnic contexts. Furthermore, interaction research is relativelyscarce in non-Western educational contexts in which interpersonal interaction andindividual learning may not be as valued as highly as the local teacher-centeredapproaches (McKay, 2002; McDonough, 2004). In Western contexts, it is relativelyunremarkable that negotiating for meaning between peers or between the student andthe teacher is considered a valuable tool in the language learning and teaching process.However, in cultures that uphold the centrality and authority of the teacher, interactingwith either the teacher or a fellow student is often not regarded as a worthwhile orappropriate activity – and this may impact how eVective such classroom interactionsare. In Asia, for example, classroom teachers have expressed concern that “imported”methods such as communicative teaching may have limited utility (Nunan, 2003). SomeEnglish teachers in Singapore express the same concerns (Skuja-Steele and Silver, 2001)despite the fact that the Ministry of Education (MOE) has moved away from earliergrammar-translation and audio–visual approaches in favor of more communicativemethodologies (Foley, 2001; Ministry of Education, 2001a,b). Clearly, empirical work isneeded to examine the eYcacy of communicative interactions in the Singapore context.


1.4. Research question

How far claims about the interaction–L2 learning relationship can be applied todiverse linguistic and educational environments and with what age groups are inter-esting and open empirical questions within the Weld of SLA. Prior research Wndingson the role of interaction in SLA need to be tested in new environments and withyounger learners (see, e.g., Mackey and Oliver, 2002; Polio and Gass, 1998, for discus-sion).

To address this issue, the current research utilizes data from 26 primary-school-aged English L2 learners who are immigrants to Singapore’s multicultural context.The central research question asked is: “Does task-based interactional feedbackfacilitate second language development for immigrant children learning English inSingapore?” Based on previous interaction research, the central prediction was thatmore development would occur in the experimental (interaction and feedback) groupthan in the control group (interaction without feedback).

2. Methods

The design of this study is similar to that used by Mackey and Oliver (2002) intheir investigation of English L2 learning by immigrant children in Australia.

2.1. Participants

Participants were 26 Chinese immigrant children, 11 females and 15 males, whowere enrolled in Singapore primary schools and who reported that they did not useEnglish in their homes. Participants’ parents were volunteers who responded to pub-lic announcements and classiWed advertisements. As shown in Table 1, participantsall spoke a Chinese language as their L1, and their ages ranged from 6 to 9 years old1

with a mean age of 7.58 years. Average length of residence was 1.98 years with a rangefrom 4 months to 6 years.2 The child participants were randomly assigned to eitherthe treatment or the control group.

2.2. Materials

The study adapted communicative task materials utilized in similar prior researchon English language development (e.g., Mackey and Oliver, 2002). The task materials

1 One child had recently turned 10.2 Length of residence is given as reported by the parents. These Wgures do not always indicate exact time

spent in Singapore as it is common for these children to return to China to stay with extended family dur-ing their pre-school years and during school holidays. For example, in at least one case a child spent mostof his pre-school years in China living with relatives while his parents worked in Singapore; the child cameto visit in Singapore for short periods each year. Another child was reported as “living in Singapore for6 years” but was actually residing in China for up to six months of each year.


included meet-your-partner, spot-the-diVerence, picture-placement, and picture-sequencing activities. These sorts of interactive tasks are directly compatible withSingaporean MOE suggestions for oral interaction activities (Ministry of Education,2001b, pp. 2–5). The tasks employed in this study have also been shown to providecontexts for meaning-based interaction and to elicit a variety of question forms atdiVerent stages of development (e.g., Mackey and Oliver, 2002; Silver, 2000).

Question forms were chosen as the linguistic target because the focus on questionsfacilitates a Wne-grained and adequately constrained assessment of incremental(interlanguage) development. Furthermore, the development of questions has beenshown to correlate well with L2 learning in general (Pienemann, 1998), making it areliable indicator of a child’s acquisition of the target language. Questions have beenused as an indicator of linguistic development in several studies of interaction (orinstruction) and L2 development, with both children and adults (e.g., Mackey, 1999;Mackey and Oliver, 2002; Mackey and Philp, 1998; Philp, 2003; Silver, 2000; Spadaand Lightbown, 1993).

The tasks were used in both the treatment and test sessions, with at least twodiVerent examples of each task type used in each treatment session, and two diVerent

Table 1Biodata

a Length of residence in years.

Gender Age L1 LORa

1 M 7 Cantonese 1.52 M 9 Shanghai dialect 13 M 6 Mandarin 64 F 6 Mandarin 35 F 6 Mandarin 56 F 6 Mandarin 37 M 6 Mandarin 38 F 6 Mandarin 19 M 6 Mandarin 2

10 F 6 Mandarin 311 M 6 Mandarin 212 F 7 Mandarin 113 F 7 Mandarin .3314 F 7 Mandarin .615 F 8 Mandarin .516 M 8 Mandarin 317 M 8 Mandarin 218 M 9 Mandarin 419 M 9 Mandarin 120 M 9 Mandarin .521 F 9 Mandarin 122 M 9 Mandarin .7523 F 9 Mandarin 224 M 9 Mandarin 125 M 9 Mandarin 1.326 M 10 Mandarin 2


examples used in the tests. Information about the tasks, their communicative goals,and targeted linguistic structures appears in Table 2.

2.3. Procedure

2.3.1. Data collectionData were collected after classes and on Saturdays during the regular school year.

The experiment employed a pre-test, one 30-min treatment session per day for 3 days,an immediate post-test on the day following the Wnal treatment session, and adelayed post-test three weeks from the immediate post-test. During the testing andtreatment sessions, the learners worked one-on-one in a school setting with an adultnative English speaker to carry out the tasks. Each task was carried out according totask requirements: Wnding the diVerences between pictures, placing pictures accu-rately based on interlocutor instructions, sequencing pictures to make a story, ordescribing or drawing a picture. The meet-your-partner task was used only on theWrst day (pre-test) as a sort of “getting to know you” activity. Two additional taskswere used in the pre-test and two tasks were used in the post-test. Two to three taskswere used for each day of treatment. Task ordering was counter-balanced, and alltask types (except meet-your-partner) were used at least twice with each child across

Table 2Task materials used for tests and treatments

Task type (morethan one exampleof each task)

Communicative goalTargeted linguistic structures andinteractional features

Used in the study (i.e., pre-test/treatments/post-tests)

Meet your partner Familiarizing participants with eachother, getting to know you

Pre-test

Wh-/do-fronting questions, negatives(Neg & SVO, Neg & Verb)

Spot the diVerences Identifying the diVerences between similar pictures Pre-test, post-test, and delayed post-testWh-questions, copula inversion questions,

yes/no inversion questions, Wh-/do-frontingquestions, negatives (Neg & SVO, Neg & Verb),Neg-/do-2nd questions, locatives

Picture placement Working out where small cutouts are placedon an outline master

Treatments 1, 2, and 3

Wh-questions, copula inversion questions,yes/no inversion questions, Wh-/do-frontingquestions, negatives (Neg & SVO, Neg &Verb), Neg-/do-2nd questions, locatives

Picture sequencing Discovering the order of a picture story Treatments 1, 2, and 3SVO questions, negatives (Neg & SVO,

Neg & Verb)

Picture drawing Describing/drawing a picture Treatments 2 and 3Wh-questions, copula inversion questions,

yes/no inversion questions, Wh-/do-frontingquestions, negatives (Neg & SVO, Neg & Verb)


the three days of treatment. The order of task presentation can be found in Table 2.Feedback was given only to the interaction and feedback group during the treatmentsessions (described below); feedback was not incorporated into the testing sessions.The adult native speakers were trained to provide feedback by reading prior studiesof feedback, examining examples of child feedback data, and carrying out role-playswith one of the researchers and with English NS children of a similar age to those inthis study.

In addition, questionnaire data were gathered: (a) from the classroom teachers totriangulate data on the children’s school achievement and interactions, and (b) fromparents to obtain background information about the home language environment.Finally, Weld notes were kept by the NS interlocutors about their interactions withthe children.

2.3.1.1. Interaction and feedback group (experimental group). During the communi-cative tasks, learners in the experimental group (n D 14) asked questions to completethe activities; the trained interlocutors provided answers and asked their own ques-tions where necessary. Learners received interactional feedback in the form of recastsor negotiations of their nontarget-like question forms as the interlocutors deemedlinguistically and sociolinguistically appropriate (see Example 2 in Section 3).

2.3.1.2. Interaction control group (control group). Learners in the control group(n D 12) carried out the same communicative tasks as the experimental group. Theinput they received from the native speakers was carefully controlled to minimizecommunication breakdowns (avoiding the necessity for interactional feedback),while providing them with opportunities to hear and produce question forms (seeExample 5 in Section 3). If a communication breakdown occurred, the interlocutorsimply moved on to the next conversational turn, without providing feedback.

2.3.2. Data analysisData from the interactive tasks were analyzed by examining changes made by

each participant in terms of pre-test, post-test, and delayed post-test productions ofquestions forms using well-attested developmental stages of question formation forEnglish (e.g., Mackey, 1999; Mackey and Oliver, 2002; Mackey and Philp, 1998;Philp, 2003; Silver, 2000; Spada and Lightbown, 1993, 1999). For examples of theseforms taken from data in the current study, see Table 3.3

Some previous research (e.g., Lee, 1992; Sim and Lee, 1992) on English develop-ment in Singaporean children has used measures of “standard” English based on R.Brown’s (1973) classiWcations of mean length of utterance and morphological devel-opment. Gupta (1994) has pointed out that analyses such as these can underestimatechildren’s English ability since the analyses do not take into account development inthe local variety. Of particular concern for this study of immigrant children learning

3 This table is based on Mackey and Oliver (2002), Pienemann and Johnston (1987), and Pienemannet al., 1988).


English in the Singapore context (where the local variety was likely to be a factor)was whether use of SCE would skew stage ratings and inXuence the assessment ofdevelopment. Therefore, possible interaction between “standard” English questionforms and SCE was also considered in the coding.4 Five features that were deemedparticularly relevant for SCE question forms (Table 4) were examined in a subset ofthe data (i.e., one test – pre, post, or delayed post – from each subject in the study),and any question displaying one or more of these features was coded as SCE. Use ofSCE questions by each learner was tabulated and compared with the questions usedto determine the developmental stage ratings.

Although many of the phonological patterns used by the child learners were iden-tiWed by the researchers as being compatible with SCE, there were few examples of

4 Question forms in Standard Singapore English, considered to be the formal, local variety by someresearchers (e.g., Gupta, 1994; Pakir, 1994) are not distinctly diVerent from those in other “standard” Eng-lishes such as British or American English. Therefore, no distinction is made here between question formsin “standard” varieties.

Table 3Examples of developmental question forms and stage ratings

Developmental stage Example

Stage 1Single words and formulae DiVerent?

Laugh?

Stage 2SVO? I have to do?Canonical word order with question intonation They’re walking with what?

The girl is wearing Chinese shirt?The letter toys?On the wall?

Stage 3Fronting Wh-/do/Q-word Which tree?Direct questions with main verbs and some form

of frontingHow to say this?Did you have a old lady is beside the Wre?Do you have any pets?What you eat from bread?

Stage 4Pseudo-inversion: yes/no, copula (Y/N) Can you say again?In yes/no questions an auxiliary or modal is in

sentence-initial position(Y/N) Is the man shooting a arrow?(Cop) What are your languages?

In Wh-questions the copula and the subject change positions

(Cop) What person is that?(Cop) Where is the three cup?

Stage 5Do-/Aux-2nd Where were you born?Q-word ! Aux/modal ! subj (main verb, etc.) How can the boy and the man sit ah?Auxiliary verbs and modals are placed in second

position to Wh-q’s (& Q-words) and before subject (applies only in main clauses/direct q’s)

How many cup do you have?How many do you have?What did you ate for breakfast this morning?


SCE morpho-syntax in question forms. Of the 26 participants, 20 used no examplesof SCE questions in the subset of data examined. Six of the learners used between 3and 8 examples of SCE forms, all of two types: sentence Wnal placement of “what”(e.g., “Yarn is what?”) and use of “got” without an overt subject and/or without “do”support (e.g., “Inside got two people doing like that?”). Since use of these forms waslimited and in almost all cases overlapped with the targeted question forms used toanalyze development, it was concluded that use of SCE did not impact on the analy-sis of stage ratings. Therefore, the analysis of development followed standard proce-dures for second language learners, as described below.

2.3.3. Developmental stage increaseIn order to be classiWed as having developed from one stage to another for each of

the post-tests, a participant needed to have produced two diVerent questions from ahigher stage in two diVerent tasks. Table 5 displays the proportion of students from eachgroup who had moved to a higher question stage by each post-test below. Appendix Aprovides a detailed account of each participant’s developmental level for each test.

As can be seen from Table 5, a similar proportion of learners in each group (i.e., 9of 14, or 64%, in the interaction and feedback group, and 7 of 12, or 58%, in the inter-

Table 4Subset of SCE features in question forms

Based on Gupta (1994).

Description Example

Overt subject is not required wheneasily retrievable from immediate context

In your picture got a TV?In your picture have a table with a cup?

UninXected verbs esp. 3rd sing “s”; past tense if recoverable from context

Do you have a girl ƒ she don’t have mouth?

Not all “Wh” words require frontingWhat, where, who show variable fronting; The dog are doing what?Which and how many are normally in declarative position but not fronted

You got how many are playing the ball?

Why and how are always fronted but do not have inversion

Why got it?

Inversion is associated with “BE” but is not as common with other verbs; do support is more closely associated with the formal, “standard” variety of Singapore English

Is it left or right?And the kettle have wire?You also got 3 tents?

Table 5Increase at each test

Groups Interaction and feedback Interaction control

Post-test 1 9/14 7/1264% 58%

Post-test 2 10/14 4/1271% 33%


action control group) produced higher-level questions and showed stage develop-ment in the Wrst post-test, which was administered the day following the third andWnal treatment session. However, by the second post-test, which was administeredthree weeks later, the gap had widened, with relatively more learners from the inter-action and feedback group showing stage development than learners from the inter-action control group (71% as opposed to 33%). Table 6 summarizes the results of achi-square analysis (using Fisher’s exact test) utilized to determine whether learnersfrom the interaction and feedback group or the interaction control group were sig-niWcantly more likely to develop a stage in terms of their question development bypost-test 1 and by post-test 2, the delayed post-test.

As can be seen from Table 6, at post-test 1, the diVerences between the groupswere not signiWcant. However, by post-test 2, there was a signiWcant diVerencebetween the groups. The majority of the interaction and feedback group still showedan increase in stage by post-test 2, while the majority of the interaction control groupdid not. Previous research has found interactional beneWts in delayed rather thanimmediate post-tests with adults (Gass and Varonis, 1994; Mackey, 1999), and dis-cussions of timing in L2 development can be found in Lightbown (1998).

Data from the current study were also compared with the data reported for childESL learners in Australia (n D 20) by Mackey and Oliver (2002), and as can be seenfrom Fig. 1, the results are quite similar. It is possible that the Australian immigrantchildren studied by Mackey and Oliver may have developed sooner, or more rapidly,than the Singaporean children studied here. However, this claim cannot be fullytested by comparing these two datasets because Mackey and Oliver’s testing wasmore comprehensive. In their study there were three post-tests (immediately aftertreatment, one week and three weeks later), whereas in the current study a one-weekdelayed post-test was not included; instead the single delayed post-test was threeweeks later. Nevertheless, the same trends reported by Mackey and Oliver can beobserved in the current data.

3. Discussion

To summarize, interactional feedback facilitated second language developmentfor these child learners in the multilingual context of Singapore, just as it has been

Table 6Stage development

Post-test 1 Post-test 2

Experimental Control Experimental Control

Developed 9 7 10 464% 58% 71% 33%

Not developed 5 5 4 836% 42% 29% 67%

�2 D .1985 (n.s.) �2 D 4.62 (p < .05)


shown to do for adults in various contexts. In Mackey and Oliver’s study, thechildren tended to show evidence of development sooner than was the case foradults, with statistically signiWcant diVerences after one week. In the current study,a statistically signiWcant diVerence between the interaction and feedback groupand the interaction control group was found three weeks after treatment. At theWrst post-test, there was no signiWcant diVerence in the number of learners fromeach group who had increased a developmental stage. However, whereas thelearners in the experimental group either showed a further increase or remained atthe same developmental stage from the immediate to the delayed post-test, many ofthe learners in the control group lost all or some of the gains they hadmade between post-tests, or even showed a decrease in stage from the pre-test.While learners from the control group did not receive targeted feedback on theirproduction of questions, they did receive models of question forms in the testingsession input, just as the experimental group did. It is possible that this input ledto their initial increase in developmental stage. It is also possible that their ownoutput allowed them to practice forms and was responsible for their initialincrease. The interaction and feedback group had the same input and outputopportunities, but they also received opportunities to negotiate for meaning andreceive feedback on questions during the interactional sessions. Since theinteraction and feedback group developed initially and maintained that develop-ment, it seems possible that interactional feedback, in concert with the input andoutput received, allowed the experimental group to develop and maintain theirdevelopment, while the control group tended to revert to their pre-experimentallevels.

Fig. 1. Summary of development in Mackey and Oliver (2002) and the current study.

Experimental Groupfrom Mackey & Oliver

(2002)

Experimental Groupfrom Current Study

Control Group fromMackey & Oliver

(2002)

Control Group fromCurrent Study

Development No Development


Examining data from participants in each condition illustrates these Wndings. InExample 1 below, an experimental group participant produces a typical level 2 ques-tion during his pre-test. In Example 2, we see that following feedback (reformulationof the possessive and provision of a higher level question form) from the NS interloc-utor during the treatment, the child is modifying his output to produce a question ata higher level. In Example 3, from post-test 1, the child again produces this higherlevel question, this time without feedback.

Example 1. Pre-test question, level 2, experimental group participantChild NNS: It’s in the water?

Example 2. Treatment question with feedback from NSChild NNS: The father shirt is blue in color?Adult NS: Is the father’s shirt blue in color? Ã RecastChild NNS: Is the shirt blue in color?

Example 3. Post-test 1 question, level 4, experimental group participantChild NNS: Is the carpet black and white?

In contrast to this experimental group participant’s development, Example 4 istaken from the data for a child in the control group. As discussed, learners in thisgroup participated in interaction, receiving input and producing output, but with-out feedback. This participant did not move to a higher level for question forma-tion during the experiment. In Example 4, from the pre-test, we can see that thechild produces level 2 questions. He continues to produce questions at this levelduring his treatment sessions with the adult NS (Example 5) and in post-test 1(Example 6).

Example 4. Pre-test question, level 2, control group participantChild NNS: Got color?

Example 5. Treatment question with NS interaction, but no feedbackChild NNS: You only one picture?Adult NS: Yeah!Child NNS: I have two picture.

Example 6. Post-test 1 question, level 2, control group participantChild NNS: You have a tree?

As discussed earlier, there were a few examples of the local, colloquial variety ofEnglish (SCE) in the children’s speech patterns, and when these SCE question formswere used they tended to co-occur with the forms used for the developmental analy-sis, as shown in Example 7.

Example 7. Post-test 2 questions, stage rating 4, control group participantChild NNS: Your picture play what? (SCE)Child NNS: What is drinking fountain? (stage 4)

Teachers’ responses to questionnaires indicated that the immigrant children whotook part in this study were well integrated into their classes and got along well with


their classmates for the most part, so it is likely that most of the children wereexposed to SCE outside the home. However, there did not seem to be a relationshipbetween length of residence and use of SCE question forms. There are a number ofpotential reasons for why there was not more evidence of usage of the local variety inthe children’s question forms. It may be that the children in this study were success-fully acquiring some of the rules for diglossic use of SCE (Gupta, 1994). Interactionin the classroom-like settings used in this study would call for a more formal varietyof English, and the child learners may have responded to the setting. Alternatively, itmay be that SCE question forms are not well established in the interlanguage of theseimmigrant children. This is an empirical question that is beyond the scope of the cur-rent study.

These Wndings on the use of SCE may be of interest to English teachers inSingapore who have expressed concern about the utility of the types of pedagogicaltasks used in this study. They fear that communicative tasks where children interactconversationally with their teachers and each other will be ineVective and that chil-dren will use the local, colloquial variety rather than the standard English that theMOE recommends. Although the children interacted only with native speakers andnot with fellow learners in the current study, the results do suggest that children canuse both standard and local varieties of English as they carry out communicativetasks.

4. Limitations

There were a number of limitations to this research. First, it was a small-scalestudy. Replication studies with a larger participant pool would be desirable. Also,while this study is similar in design to Mackey and Oliver’s (2002) research and par-tially replicates their Wndings in Singapore, testing in other contexts, such as moretraditional foreign language contexts, is also warranted. This is especially importantbecause Singapore represents a unique linguistic context. It would also be interestingto carry out this study with children of diVerent age groups, diVerent proWciency lev-els, and diVerent interlocutors (i.e., with NNS interlocutors as well as NSs), and withchildren as well as adults. In addition, gender was not controlled in this study; how-ever, it might be interesting to investigate the possible impact of gender in futurestudies. Finally, it would be useful to replicate research like this in a classroom con-text, rather than the laboratory context utilized here.

5. Conclusion

In summary, the Wndings from this study have conWrmed Wndings from earlierresearch with children and adults, demonstrating that interactional feedback facili-tates second language development of question forms. The Wndings from the currentstudy contribute to the growing body of research documenting the beneWts of inter-


action for children. These Wndings also demonstrate that interactional feedback ishelpful in multilingual environments as well as monolingual environments.

Acknowledgments

This project was made possible by a grant from the Spencer Foundation. We also wishto thank these individuals for their help in carrying out this project: Rebekha Abbuhl,Rebecca Adams, Lauren Feldman, Nicola Green, Emmeline Payne, Amy Pogoriler,Rebecca Sachs, Siti Masturah Binte Ismail, and Donglan Zhang. The data and Wndingspresented as well as the conclusions reached are solely the responsibility of the authors.

Appendix A

Code Pre-test Post-test Delayed post-test

Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Level Task 1 Task 2 Level Task 1 Task 2 Level

C1C 3 2 3 3 4 2 2 4 3 3C2C 5 3 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4C3C 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1C4C 3 3 3 3 5 4 4 5 3 3C5C 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 3 2C7C 5 2 3 2 4 4 4 5 2 2C8C 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 4 4C9C 5 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 4C10C 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 4C12C 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2C13C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1C14C 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2C1T 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 4 4 4C2T 1 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4C4T 5 1 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4C6T 3 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4C8T 3 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3C10T 1 3 2 1 2 4 2 3 3 3C11T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1C12T 3 2 2 2 2 4 2 4 2 2C15T 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 2 4 2C16T 4 2 3 2 4 5 4 5 4 4C17T 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 5 4C19T 0 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1C20T 4 3 3 3 5 4 4 4 5 4C21T 3 2 3 2 2 4 2 5 5 5


References

Afrendas, E.A., Kuo, E.C.Y. (Eds.), 1980. Language and Society in Singapore. Singapore University Press,Singapore.

AlsagoV, L., 2001. Tense and aspect in Singapore English. In: Ooi, V.B.Y. (Ed.), Evolving Identities: theEnglish Language System in Singapore and Malaysia. Times Academic Press, Singapore, pp. 79–88.

AlsagoV, L., Ho, C.L., 1998. The grammar of Singapore English. Foley, J.A., Kandiah, T., Bao, Z., Gupta,A.F., AlsagoV, L., Ho, C.L., Wee, L., Talib, I.S., Bokhorst-Heng, W., English in New Cultural Contexts:ReXections from Singapore Oxford University Press, Oxford pp. 127–151.

Bao, Z., 1998. The sounds of Singapore English. Foley, J.A., Kandiah, T., Bao, Z., Gupta, A.F., AlsagoV, L.,Ho, C.L., Wee, L., Talib, I.S., Bokhorst-Heng, W., English in New Cultural Contexts: ReXections fromSingapore Oxford University Press, Oxford pp. 152–174.

Bao, Z., 2001. Two issues in the study of Singapore English phonology. In: Ooi, V.B.Y. (Ed.), EvolvingIdentities: the English Language in Singapore and Malaysia. Times Academic Press, Singapore, pp. 69–78.

Bialystok, E., Hakuta, K., 1994. In Other Words: the Science and Psychology of Second Language Acqui-sition. Basic Books, New York.

Bialystok, E., Hakuta, K., 1999. Confounded age: linguistic and cognitive factors in age diVerences in sec-ond language acquisition. In: Birdsong, D. (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition and the Critical PeriodHypothesis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 161–181.

Bialystok, E., Miller, B., 1999. The problem of age in second language acquisition: inXuences from lan-guage, task, and structure. Bilingualism: language and cognition 2, 127–145.

Birdsong, D., 1992. Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language 68, 706–755.Birdsong, D., 1999. Introduction: Whys and why nots of the critical period hypothesis for second language

acquisition. In: Birdsong, D. (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 1–22.

Birdsong, D., Molis, M., 2001. On the evidence for maturational constraints in second language acquisi-tion. Journal of Memory and Language 44, 235–249.

Brown, R., 1973. A First Language: The Early Stages. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Buckwalter, P., 2001. Repair sequences in Spanish L2 dyadic discourse: a descriptive study. Modern Lan-

guage Journal 85, 380–397.Cochran, B.P., McDonald, J.L., Parault, S.J., 1999. Too smart for their own good: the disadvantage of a

superior processing capacity for adult language learners. Journal of Memory and Language 41, 30–58.

Crystal, D., 1995. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge University Press,New York.

de la Fuente, M.J., 2002. Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary: the roles of input and output inthe receptive and productive acquisition of words. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24, 81–112.

Education Study Team, 1979. Report on the Ministry of Education, 1978 (a.k.a. Goh Report). Ministry ofEducation, Singapore.

Ellis, R., Heimbach, R., 1997. Bugs and birds: children’s acquisition of second language vocabularythrough interaction. System 25, 247–259.

Flege, J.E., Yeni-Komshian, G.H., Liu, S., 1999. Age constraints on second-language acquisition. Journalof Memory and Language 41, 78–104.

Foley, J.A., 1998a. Language in the school. Foley, J.A., Kandiah, T., Bao, Z., Gupta, A.F., AlsagoV, L., Ho,C.L., Wee, L., Talib, I.S., Bokhorst-Heng, W., English in New Cultural Contexts: ReXections from Sin-gapore Oxford University Press, Oxford pp. 244–269.

Foley, J.A., 1998b. The new Englishes: language in the home. Foley, J.A., Kandiah, T., Bao, Z., Gupta,A.F., AlsagoV, L., Ho, C.L., Wee, L., Talib, I.S., Bokhorst-Heng, W., English in New Cultural Contexts:ReXections from Singapore Oxford University Press, Oxford pp. 218–243.

Foley, J.A., 2001. Is English a Wrst or second language in Singapore? In: Ooi, V.B.Y. (Ed.), EvolvingIdentities: the English Language in Singapore and Malaysia. Times Academic Press, Singapore, pp. 12–32.


Gass, S.M., 2003. Input and interaction. In: Doughty, C., Long, M.H. (Eds.), The Handbook of SecondLanguage Acquisition. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 224–255.

Gass, S., Varonis, E., 1994. Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Lan-guage Acquisition 16 (3), 283–302.

Goldowsky, B.N., Newport, E.L., 1993. Modeling the eVects of processing limitations on the acquisition ofmorphology: the less is more hypothesis. In: Clark, E.V. (Ed.), The Proceedings of the Twenty-fourthAnnual Child Language Research Forum. Stanford Linguistics Association, Stanford, CA, pp. 124–138.

Gupta, A., 1994. The Step-tongue: Children’s English in Singapore. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.Gupta, A., 1998a. A framework for the analysis of Singapore English. In: Gopinathan, S., Pakir, A., Ho,

W.K., Saravanan, V. (Eds.), Language, Society and Education in Singapore: Issues and Trends, seconded. Times Academic Press, Singapore, pp. 119–132.

Gupta, A.F., 1998b. The situation of English in Singapore. In: Foley, J.A., Kandiah, T., Bao, Z., Gupta,A.F., AlsagoV, L., Ho, C.L., Wee, L., Talib, I.S., Bokhorst-Heng, W. (Eds.), English in New CulturalContexts: ReXections from Singapore. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 106–126.

Han, Z., 2002. A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly 36,543–572.

Iwashita, N., 1999. Tasks and learners’ output in nonnative–nonnative interaction. In: Kanno, K. (Ed.),The Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 31–51.

Iwashita, N., 2003. Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: diVerential eVectson L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25, 1–36.

Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., 2000. Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition?. TESOLQuarterly 34, 239–278.

Johnson, J.S., 1992. Critical period eVects in second language acquisition: the eVect of written versus audi-tory materials on the assessment of grammatical competence. Language Learning 42, 217–248.

Johnson, J.S., Newport, E.L., 1989. Critical period eVects in second language learning: the inXuence of mat-urational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology 42, 217–248.

Kareev, Y., 1995. Through a narrow window: working memory capacity and the detection of covariation.Cognition 56, 263–269.

Kareev, Y., Liberman, I., Lev, M., 1997. Through a narrow window: sample size and the perception of cor-relation. Journal of Experimental Psychology – General 126, 278–287.

Kwan-Terry, A., 1991. Home language and school language: a study of children’s language use in Singa-pore. In: Kwan-Terry, A. (Ed.), Child Language Development in Singapore and Malaysia. SingaporeUniversity Press, Singapore, pp. 12–34.

Lee, M.F., 1992. Children’s language: how do our children communicate?. In: Ko, P.S., Ho, W.K. (Eds.),Growing up in Singapore: the Pre-school Years. Longman, Singapore, pp. 52–80.

Leeman, J., 2003. Recasts and second language development: beyond negative evidence. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition 25, 37–63.

Li, W., Saravanan, V., Ng, H.L., 1997. Language shift in the Teochew community in Singapore: a familydomain analysis. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 18 (5), 364–384.

Lightbown, P.M., 1998. The importance of timing in focus on form. In: Doughty, C., Williams, J. (Eds.),Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,pp. 114–138.

Lim, L., 2001. Ethnic group varieties of Singapore English: melody or harmony? In: Ooi, V.B.Y. (Ed.),Evolving Identities: the English Language in Singapore and Malaysia. Times Academic Press, Singa-pore, pp. 53–68.

Long, M.H., 1990. Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition 12, 251–285.

Long, M.H., 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In: Ritchie, W.C.,Bhatia, T.K. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Language Acquisition. In: Second Language Acquisi-tion, vol. 2. Academic Press, New York, pp. 413–468.

Long, M.H., Inagaki, S., Ortega, L., 1998. The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: models andrecasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal 82, 357–371.


Loschky, L., 1994. Comprehensible input and second language acquisition: what is the relationship?. Stud-ies in Second Language Acquisition 16, 303–325.

Lyster, R., 1998a. Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learnerrepair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning 48, 183–218.

Lyster, R., 1998b. Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Lan-guage Acquisition 20, 51–81.

Lyster, R., 2001. Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learnerrepair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning 51 (Suppl. 1), 265–301.

Lyster, R., Ranta, L., 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: negotiation of form in communicativeclassrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19, 37–66.

Mackey, A., 1999. Input, interaction, and second language development: an empirical study of questionformation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21, 557–587.

Mackey, A., in press. Interaction and second language development: perspectives from SLA research. In:DeKeyser, R. (Ed.), Practice in Second Language Learning: Perspectives from Linguistics and Psychol-ogy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Mackey, A., Oliver, R., 2002. Interactional feedback and children’s L2 development. System 30, 459–477.Mackey, A., Philp, J., 1998. Conversational interaction and second language development: recasts,

responses, and red herrings?. Modern Language Journal 82, 338–356.Mackey, A., Oliver, R., Leeman, J., 2003. Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: an explo-

ration of NS–NNS and NNS–NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning 53, 35–66.McDonough, K., 2004. Learner–learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL

context. System 32, 207–224.McDonough, K., 2005. Identifying the contributions of negative feedback and learners’ responses to L2

development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, 79–103.McKay, S.L., 2002. Teaching English as an International Language: Rethinking Goals and Approaches.

Oxford University Press, Oxford.Ministry of Education, 2001a. English Language Syllabus 2001 for Primary and Secondary Schools. Min-

istry of Education, Singapore.Ministry of Education, 2001b. Guide to the English Language Syllabus 2001: Primary 1–4. Ministry of

Education, Singapore.Miyake, A., Shah, P. (Eds.), 1999. Models of Working Memory: Mechanisms of Active Maintenance and

Executive Control. Cambridge University Press, New York.Morris, F., Tarone, E., 2003. Impact of classroom dynamics on the eVectiveness of recasts in second lan-

guage acquisition. Language Learning 53, 325–368.Netten, J., 1991. Towards a more language oriented second language classroom. In: Makav, L., Duquette,

G. (Eds.), Language, Culture and Cognition. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, pp. 284–304.Newport, E.L., 1988. Constraints on learning and their role in second language acquisition: studies of the

acquisition of American sign language. Language Sciences 10, 147–172.Newport, E.L., 1990. Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science 14, 11–28.Nunan, D., 2003. The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the

Asia–PaciWc region. TESOL Quarterly 37, 589–644.Ohta, A.S., 2000. Re-thinking recasts: a learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in the Japa-

nese language classroom. In: Hall, J.K., Verplaeste, L. (Eds.), The Construction of Second and ForeignLanguage Learning through Classroom Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp.47–71.

Oliver, R., 1997. How diVerent is the input ESL teachers provide to adult and child learners?. TESOL inContext 7, 26–30.

Oliver, R., 1998. Negotiation of meaning in child interactions. Modern Language Journal 82, 372–386.Oliver, R., 2000. Age diVerences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork. Language Learn-

ing 50, 119–151.Oliver, R., 2002. The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions. Modern Language Journal

86, 97–111.Oliver, R., Mackey, A., 2003. Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms. Modern Lan-

guage Journal 87 (4), 519–543.


Ooi, V.B.Y., 2001. Introduction. In: Ooi, V.B.Y. (Ed.), Evolving Identities: the English Language in Singa-pore and Malaysia. Times Academic Press, Singapore, pp. ix–xvii.

Pakir, A., 1993. Two tongue-tied: bilingualism in Singapore. Journal of Multilingual and MulticulturalDevelopment 14, 73–90.

Pakir, A., 1994. English in Singapore: the codiWcation of competing norms. In: Gopinathan, S., Pakir, A.,Ho, W.K., Saravanan, V. (Eds.), Language, Society and Education in Singapore: Issues and Trends.Times Academic Press, Singapore, pp. 63–84.

Panova, I., Lyster, R., 2002. Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom.TESOL Quarterly 36, 573–595.

Philp, J., 2003. Constraints on ‘noticing the gap’: nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS–NNS inter-action. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25, 99–126.

Pienemann, M., 1998. Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory.John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., 1987. Factors inXuencing the development of language proWciency. In:Nunan, D. (Ed.), Applying Second Language Acquisition Research. National Curriculum ResourceCenter, AMEP, Adelaide, New Zealand, pp. 45–141.

Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., Brindley, G., 1988. Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for secondlanguage assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 10, 217–243.

Platt, J., Weber, H., 1980. English in Singapore and Malaysia: Status, Features, Functions. Oxford Univer-sity Press, Kuala Lumpur.

Polio, C., Gass, S.M., 1998. The role of interaction in native speaker comprehension of nonnative speakerspeech. Modern Language Journal 82, 308–319.

Shehadeh, A., 1999. Non-native speakers’ production of modiWed comprehensible output and second lan-guage learning. Language Learning 49, 627–675.

Shehadeh, A., 2003. Learner output, hypothesis testing, and internalizing linguistic knowledge. System 31,155–171.

Singapore Department of Statistics, 2000a. Keystatistics: literacy and language.<http://www.sing-stat.gov.sg/keystats/people.htm>2000 (retrieved 29.11.2004).

Singapore Department of Statistics, 2000b. Singapore census of population, 2000 – advance data releaseno. 3: literacy and language.<http://www.singstat.gov.sg/C2000/census.html>2000 (retrieved10.08.2001).

Silver, R.E., 2000. Input, output, and negotiation: conditions for second language development. In: Swierz-bin, B., Morris, F., Anderson, M.E., Klee, C.A., Tarone, E. (Eds.), Social and Cognitive Factors in Sec-ond Language Acquisition: Selected Proceedings of the 1999 Second Language Research Forum.Cascadilla Press, Somerville, MA, pp. 345–371.

Silver, R., 2005. The discourse of linguistic capital: language and economic policy planning in Singapore.Language Policy 34, 47–66.

Sim, W.K., Lee, M.F., 1992. Singapore pre-schoolers: how much do we know about them?. In: Ko, P.S., Ho,W.K. (Eds.), Growing up in Singapore: the Pre-school Years. Longman, Singapore, pp. 22–51.

Skuja-Steele, R., Silver, R.E., 2001. Six-nation Education Research Project (SNERP): Final Report onPedagogical Practices in English Language Education (PPELE). National Institute of Education, Sin-gapore.

Spada, N., Lightbown, P., 1993. Instruction and development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition 15, 205–224.

Spada, N., Lightbown, P., 1999. Instruction, Wrst language inXuence, and developmental readiness in sec-ond language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal 83, 1–22.

Swain, M., Lapkin, S., 1998. Interaction and second language learning: two adolescent French immersionstudents working together. Modern Language Journal 82, 320–337.

Van den Branden, K., 1997. EVects of negotiation on language learners’ output. Language Learning 47,589–636.

Wee, L., 1998. The lexicon of Singapore English. In: Foley, J.A., Kandiah, T., Bao, Z., Gupta, A.F.,AlsagoV, L., Ho, C.L.,Wee, L., Talib, I.S., Bokhorst-Heng, W. English in New Cultural Contexts:ReXections from Singapore Oxford University Press, Oxford pp. 175–200.

http://www.singstat.gov.sg/keystats/people.htm



http://www.singstat.gov.sg/C2000/census.html

http://www.singstat.gov.sg/C2000/census.html


Wee, L., 2003. Linguistic instrumentalism in Singapore. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Devel-opment 24, 211–224.

Yeoh, L.C., Wee, L., 2001. Reduplication in colloquial Singapore English. In: Ooi, V.B.Y. (Ed.), EvolvingIdentities: the English Language in Singapore and Malaysia. Times Academic Press, Singapore, pp. 89–101.

Interactional tasks and English L2 learning by immigrant children in Singapore

Documents

Transcript of Interactional tasks and English L2 learning by immigrant children in Singapore