The research behind the game
Solvelingua isn't built on hunches. Each of its systems puts a well-studied finding from second-language
acquisition research to work. Here is what the research says, in plain language, and what we do with it.
You learn from what you can understand
People pick up a language mostly by understanding messages that are just a little beyond their level. If you
know about 98% of the words in a passage, you can follow it and guess the rest. Captions help too: studies
comparing captioned and uncaptioned video found captions improved both listening and vocabulary.
In Solvelingua: characters speak at your level and slow down when you ask. Subtitles help at
the start and fade away as your level rises.
Krashen, 1985 · Hu & Nation, 2000 · Montero Perez et al., 2013 · Peters & Webb, 2018
Conversation is where it clicks
When you talk with someone and have to be understood, you naturally check meanings, rephrase and notice gaps.
Decades of studies show this back-and-forth improves grammar and vocabulary, and the gains last. Speaking also
forces you to build sentences yourself, which is different from recognizing them.
In Solvelingua: you speak or type freely to everyone in town, with no multiple-choice menus.
Characters remember earlier conversations and ask you to clarify when they don't understand.
Long, 1996 · Swain, 1985 · Mackey, 1999 · Mackey & Goo, 2007
Feedback works, if you notice it
Correcting learners' mistakes reliably improves accuracy, across dozens of studies. But corrections only help
when learners notice them, and quick, quiet corrections in the middle of a conversation often go unnoticed.
Feedback after a task works too, and doesn't break the flow of talking.
In Solvelingua: after each conversation you see what you got right, what to fix and what to
try next time. The evening diary rounds up the patterns that keep coming back.
Schmidt, 1990 · Lyster & Ranta, 1997 · Russell & Spada, 2006 · Li, 2010 · Lyster & Saito, 2010 ·
Li, Zhu & Ellis, 2016
Words stick when you pull them from memory, spaced out
Looking up a word in the moment helps you understand and learn it. Remembering it for good takes two more
things: reviews spread out over time, and actually recalling the word rather than just re-reading it. Words
you need for something real are remembered best of all.
In Solvelingua: tap any word to hear and translate it. It's saved to your collection, and the
words you've met keep coming back in conversations, texts and jobs, so you recall them in real use.
Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001 · Cepeda et al., 2006 · Abraham, 2008 · Karpicke & Roediger, 2008 · Nation,
2013 · Uchihara et al., 2019
Learning by doing real things
Task-based language teaching builds learning around real goals, like ordering, selling or asking for
directions, where language is the tool rather than the subject. Programs built this way show clear positive
effects. A related method, learning through commands and actions, builds listening comprehension quickly.
In Solvelingua: errands, jobs and hobbies are all tasks with a real goal, each with the
vocabulary that job actually uses. Your pet learns commands only when you say them in Spanish.
Asher, 1969 · Ellis, 2003 · Long, 2015 · Bryfonski & McKay, 2019
Living there, safely
We learn by joining a community, starting at the edges and moving toward the center. Studying abroad builds
fluency, but research shows it isn't automatic: what matters is how much real contact you have with locals.
Many learners abroad never get enough.
In Solvelingua: Mexico City gives you what a real semester abroad often can't: patient locals
who always have time to talk, from shopkeepers to coworkers to friends.
Lave & Wenger, 1991 · Collentine & Freed, 2004 · Segalowitz & Freed, 2004
Confidence decides whether you speak
Anxiety about speaking a new language is common, and it is linked to lower achievement across nearly 20,000
learners. Enjoyment matters in its own right. Whether someone chooses to speak depends on confidence and on
wanting to talk to a particular person, and learners keep going when they can picture their future self using
the language.
In Solvelingua: there's no failing and no audience. Characters are patient, and they become
people you want to talk to. Your character's new life is the future self you're working toward.
Horwitz et al., 1986 · MacIntyre et al., 1998 · Dörnyei, 2009 · Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014 · Teimouri et
al., 2019
A little grammar goes a long way
Immersion alone doesn't fix every grammar mistake. Summaries of dozens of studies show focused, explicit
instruction produces large, lasting gains, especially when it targets what a learner is ready for next.
In Solvelingua: free, optional classes at the community center adapt to your level and to the
mistakes you've been making around town.
Vygotsky, 1978 · Norris & Ortega, 2000 · Spada & Tomita, 2010
Games, texting and AI characters
Good games already teach well: you take on a role, learn things just when you need them, and failure is cheap.
Frequent gamers tend to have stronger vocabularies. Text chat counts as real conversation, with benefits
similar to talking face to face. AI conversation partners are patient and always available, but early studies
found interest in them faded once the novelty wore off.
In Solvelingua: characters with memories, relationships and a city to live in keep
conversations meaningful long after the novelty wears off. Texts and voice notes count as practice too.
Payne & Whitney, 2002 · Gee, 2003 · Sundqvist & Wikström, 2015 · Ziegler, 2016 · Fryer et al., 2017 ·
Sykes, 2018 · Reinhardt, 2019 · Huang et al., 2022
Where we're careful
The research also points to traps. A translator can replace learning instead of supporting it, so ours works
best after you've tried on your own. Too much correction raises anxiety, so feedback focuses on a few patterns
at a time. Most studies happen in classrooms, not games, so we plan to measure our own players' progress.
Lee, 2020 · Boers & Faez, 2023
Sources
Every journal article below was checked against its DOI record.
-
Abraham, L. B. (2008). Computer-mediated glosses in second language reading comprehension and vocabulary
learning: A meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 199–226.
doi
-
Asher, J. J. (1969). The total physical response approach to second language learning.
The Modern Language Journal, 53(1), 3–17. doi
-
Boers, F., & Faez, F. (2023). Meta-analysis to estimate the relative effectiveness of TBLT programs: Are
we there yet? Language Teaching Research.
doi
-
Bryfonski, L., & McKay, T. H. (2019). TBLT implementation and evaluation: A meta-analysis.
Language Teaching Research, 23(5), 603–632.
doi
-
Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal
recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380.
doi
-
Collentine, J., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Learning context and its effects on second language acquisition:
Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 153–171.
doi
-
Dewaele, J.-M., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2014). The two faces of Janus? Anxiety and enjoyment in the foreign
language classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4(2), 237–274.
doi
-
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.),
Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–42). Multilingual Matters.
- Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
-
Fryer, L. K., Ainley, M., Thompson, A., Gibson, A., & Sherlock, Z. (2017). Stimulating and sustaining
interest in a language course: An experimental comparison of Chatbot and Human task partners.
Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 461–468.
doi
-
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Palgrave
Macmillan.
-
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety.
The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125–132.
doi
-
Hu, M., & Nation, I. S. P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension.
Reading in a Foreign Language, 13(1), 403–430.
-
Huang, W., Hew, K. F., & Fryer, L. K. (2022). Chatbots for language learning—Are they really useful? A
systematic review of chatbot-supported language learning.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(1), 237–257.
doi
-
Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning.
Science, 319(5865), 966–968. doi
- Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman.
-
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct
of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 1–26.
doi
-
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge University Press.
-
Lee, S.-M. (2020). The impact of using machine translation on EFL students' writing.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(3), 157–175.
doi
-
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis.
Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.
doi
-
Li, S., Zhu, Y., & Ellis, R. (2016). The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the acquisition
of a new linguistic structure. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 276–295.
doi
-
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie
& T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press.
-
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley-Blackwell.
-
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in
communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66.
doi
-
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302.
doi
-
MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to
communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation.
The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545–562.
doi
-
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.
doi
-
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 (pp. 407–452). Oxford
University Press.
-
Montero Perez, M., Van den Noortgate, W., & Desmet, P. (2013). Captioned video for L2 listening and
vocabulary learning: A meta-analysis. System, 41(3), 720–739.
doi
-
Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University
Press.
-
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and
quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528.
doi
-
Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output,
working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20(1), 7–32.
doi
-
Peters, E., & Webb, S. (2018). Incidental vocabulary acquisition through viewing L2 television and
factors that affect learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(3), 551–577.
doi
-
Reinhardt, J. (2019).
Gameful second and foreign language teaching and learning: Theory, research, and practice. Palgrave
Macmillan. doi
-
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2
grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.),
Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). John Benjamins.
-
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning.
Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. doi
-
Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition:
Learning Spanish in at home and study abroad contexts.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 173–199.
doi
-
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A
meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308.
doi
-
Sundqvist, P., & Wikström, P. (2015). Out-of-school digital gameplay and in-school L2 English vocabulary
outcomes. System, 51, 65–76. doi
-
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 (pp.
235–253). Newbury House.
-
Sykes, J. M. (2018). Digital games and language teaching and learning.
Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 219–224. doi
-
Teimouri, Y., Goetze, J., & Plonsky, L. (2019). Second language anxiety and achievement: A
meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(2), 363–387.
doi
-
Uchihara, T., Webb, S., & Yanagisawa, A. (2019). The effects of repetition on incidental vocabulary
learning: A meta-analysis of correlational studies. Language Learning, 69(3), 559–599.
doi
-
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard
University Press.
-
Ziegler, N. (2016). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta-analysis.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 553–586.
doi