2011
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00653.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Thinking‐Aloud as Talking‐in‐Interaction: Reinterpreting How L2 Lexical Inferencing Gets Done

Abstract: There is a general consensus among second-language (L2) researchers today that lexical inferencing (LIF) is among the most common techniques that L2 learners use to generate meaning for unknown words they encounter in context. Indeed, claims about the salience and pervasiveness of LIF for L2 learners rely heavily upon data obtained via concurrent think-aloud (TA) research methods. However, despite the consensus that L2 LIF involves a combination of cues, knowledge, and contextual awareness, a crucial aspect of… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0
3

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
0
7
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Beyond this, a more complex qualitative–quantitative–qualitative approach seems inadequate even when researchers use solely cognitivist approaches and information‐processing models. As discussed earlier, in the field of applied linguistics, and considering the work of Firth and Wagner () that acknowledged the need for examining language use and acquisition within the social contexts in which they are situated, it is possible to consider the socially situated nature of verbal protocols in data collection, transcription and analysis within the context of verbal reporting that focuses on literacy processes (see Deschambault, ). Researchers are already experimenting with sociocultural approaches to collecting and analysing verbal reports for the purposes of assessing culturally and linguistically diverse learners in areas such as cognitive interviewing and field methods (e.g.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Beyond this, a more complex qualitative–quantitative–qualitative approach seems inadequate even when researchers use solely cognitivist approaches and information‐processing models. As discussed earlier, in the field of applied linguistics, and considering the work of Firth and Wagner () that acknowledged the need for examining language use and acquisition within the social contexts in which they are situated, it is possible to consider the socially situated nature of verbal protocols in data collection, transcription and analysis within the context of verbal reporting that focuses on literacy processes (see Deschambault, ). Researchers are already experimenting with sociocultural approaches to collecting and analysing verbal reports for the purposes of assessing culturally and linguistically diverse learners in areas such as cognitive interviewing and field methods (e.g.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…e l s e v i e r . c o m / n e d t reliant on the long term memory (Ericsson and Simon, 1993;Deschambault, 2012).…”
Section: Contents Lists Available At Sciencedirectmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Lexical inferencing has attracted the researchers' attention. It is considered the primary activity through which lexical development occurs in the second or the forging language (Deschambault, 2012). The learners use different knowledge sources to infer meaning for unknown words they encounter in a text (Bengleil & Paribakht, 2004;Elgort, 2017;Haastrup, 1989Haastrup, , 1991Jelic, 2007;Naasaji, 2003Naasaji, , 2004Qian, 2005;Wesche & Paribakht, 2010).…”
Section: Semanticsmentioning
confidence: 99%