Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×

Online ordering will be unavailable from 17:00 GMT on Friday, April 25 until 17:00 GMT on Sunday, April 27 due to maintenance. We apologise for the inconvenience.

Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tzmfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-27T16:48:19.165Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 2 - Output practice in the L2 classroom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2010

Robert DeKeyser
By
Hitoshi Muranoi
Robert DeKeyser
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
Hitoshi Muranoi
Affiliation:
Tohoku Gakuin University, Japan
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Most second language (L2) teachers and learners likely believe that practice in production (i.e., speaking and writing), or output practice, is crucial for developing L2 proficiency. This belief in the usefulness of output practice is reflected in conventional foreign language teaching methodologies, which typically employ teaching procedures consisting of three major stages: presentation, practice, and production (i.e., the PPP model; see Byrne, 1976; Harmer, 2001). The role of output practice, however, remains a contentious issue in second language acquisition (SLA) research as characterized by a number of ongoing debates.

Advocates of the Input Hypothesis, for instance, argue that producing output serves only for generating comprehensible input from the interlocutor (Krashen, 1982, 1985, 1998). Krashen (1998) further argues that output does not make a real contribution to the development of linguistic competence because (1) output, especially comprehensible output, is too scarce, (2) it is possible to attain high levels of linguistic competence without output, and (3) there is no direct evidence that output leads to language acquisition. In the Natural Approach, which is based upon Krashen's Input Hypothesis, teachers are guided not to force their students to produce the target language but rather to expect that “speech (and writing) production emerges as the acquisition process progresses” (Krashen & Terrell, 1983, p. 58). VanPatten (1996) also advocates abandoning mechanical output practice.

Type
Chapter
Information
Practice in a Second Language
Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology
 , pp. 51 - 84
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, J. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 4, 369–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (2000). Cognitive psychology and its implications (5th ed). New York: Worth.Google Scholar
Arevart, S., & Nation, P. (1991). Fluency improvement in a second language. RELC Journal, 22, 1, 84–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1986). Hypothesis testing in second-language acquisition theory. Language Learning, 36, 3, 353–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23–48). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Byrne, D. (1976). Teaching oral English. Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Cadierno, T. (1992). Explicit instruction in grammar: A comparison of input based and output based instruction in second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 3, 357–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, A. (2002). The effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of ser and estar. Hispania, 85, 2, 308–23.Google Scholar
Collentine, J. (2002). On the acquisition of the subjunctive and authentic processing instruction: A response to Farley. Hispania, 84, 4, 900–9.Google Scholar
Cook, V. (1985). Chomsky's universal grammar and second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 6, 2, 2–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, V. (1993). Linguistics and second language acquisition. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt's “Speaking” model adapted. Applied Linguistics, 13, 1, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46, 3, 529–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bot, K., Paribakht, T. S., & Weshe, M. B. (1997). Toward a lexical processing model for the study of second language vocabulary acquisition: Evidence from ESL reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 249–75.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules. An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies is Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 2, 195–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 125–51). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R., Salaberry, R., Robinson, P., & Harrington, M. (2002). What gets processed in processing instruction? A commentary on Bill VanPatten's “Processing instruction: An update.” Language Learning, 52, 4, 805–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R., & Sokalski, K. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 46, 4, 613–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Pietro, R. (1987). Strategic interaction: Learning languages through scenarios. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Kormos, J. (1998). Problem-solving mechanisms in L2 communication: A psycholinguistic perspective. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 349–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–57). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256–310). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C., & Long, M. (2000). Eliciting second language speech data. In Menn, L. & Bernstein, N. Ratner (Eds.), Methods for studying language production (pp. 149–77). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Eralbaum.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–38). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197–261). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1991). The role of practice in classroom learning. In Ellis, R. (Ed.), Second language acquisition and language pedagogy (pp. 101–20). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (Ed.). (1999). Theoretical perspectives on interaction and language learning. In Ellis, R. (Ed.), Learning a second language through interaction (pp. 3–31). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The role of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farley, A. P. (2001). Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania, 84, 289–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 3, 299–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M., & Fernández-García, M. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49, 4, 549–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, R. (1991). Pausological research in an L2 context: A rationale and review of selected studies. Applied Linguistics, 12, 4, 345–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, T. (2001). The psychology of language: From data to theory(2nd ed.). East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching(3rd ed.). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Huey, E. (1968). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Izumi, S. (2000). Promoting noticing and SLA: An empirical study of the effects of output and input enhancement on ESL relativization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24, 2, 168–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 2, 239–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the Output Hypothesis: Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 3, 421–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K. (1996). Language teaching & skill learning. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Johnson, K., & Johnson, H. (Eds.) (1998). Encyclopedic dictionary of applied linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students' language awareness. Language Awareness, 3, 73–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1997). From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we promote it in the immersion classroom? In Johnson, R. K. & Swain, M. (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 284–309). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koyanagi, K. (1998). The effect of focus-on-form tasks on the acquisition of a Japanese conditional “to”: Input, output, and “task-essentialness.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1998). Comprehensible input? System, 26, 175–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. (1983). The Natural Approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford: Pergamon/Alemany.Google Scholar
LaPierre, D. (1994). Language output in a cooperative learning setting: Determining its effects on second language learning. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1983). Assessing global second language proficiency. In Seliger, H. & Long, M. (Eds.), Classroom-oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 287–305). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40, 387–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1993). Language use in normal speakers and its disorders. In Blanken, G., Dittman, J., Grimm, H., Marshall, J. C., & Wallesch, C. W. (Eds.), Linguistic disorders and pathologies (pp. 1–15). Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In Hyltenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (Eds.), Modeling and assessing second language development (pp. 77–99). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In Bot, K., Ginsberg, R., & Kramsch, C. (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (Eds.), Handbook of research on second language acquisition (pp. 413–68). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 1, 27–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 357–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In Crookes, G. and Gass, S. (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123–67). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 50–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1994). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners' responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 1, 79–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 1, 83–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muranoi, H. (2000a, November). Focus on form through guided summarizing and EFL learners' interlanguage development. Paper presented at the 39th annual conference of Japan Association of College English Teachers (JACET), Okinawa, Japan.
Muranoi, H. (2000b). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50, 4, 617–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, K. (1987). Some observations from the perspective of the rare event cognitive comparison theory of language acquisition. In Nelson, K. & Kleeck, A. (Eds.), Children's language, Vol. 6. Norwood, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. S. (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. In Anderson, J. R. (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 1–55). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
O'Malley, M., & Chamot, A. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 1, 109–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1992). The textual outcomes of native speaker-non-native speaker negotiation: What do they reveal about second language learning? In Kramsch, C. & McConnell-Ginet, S. (Eds.), Text and context (pp. 198–237). Cambridge, MA: Heath.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Holliday, L.Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, M. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 63–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Faldun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language research and instruction. In Crookes, G. and Gass, S. (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9–34). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J. (1996). Language learners' interaction: How does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30, 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: a triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 1, 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, J. (1984). Universal input condition. In Rutherford, W. (Ed.), Language universals and second language acquisition (pp. 167–83). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, J. (1986). Three approaches to the study of input. Language Learning, 36, 2, 211–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, J. (1993). A new account of language transfer. In Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (Rev. ed.) (pp. 32–46). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1983). Input, acculturation and the acquisition of communicative competence. In Wolfson, N. & Judd, E. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 137–74). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1992). Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 357–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shehadeh, A. (1999). Non-Native speakers' production of modified comprehensible output and second language learning. Language Learning, 49, 4. 627–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 1, 38–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1985). Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. In Slobin, D. I. (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. 2: Theoretical issues (pp. 1157–1259). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–53). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Thee functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G., & Seidlhoffer, B. (Eds.), Principles & practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–44). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.64–81). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf, J. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–81). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takashima, H., & Ellis, R. (1999). Output enhancement and the acquisition of the past tense. In Ellis, R. (Ed.), Learning a second language through interaction (pp. 173–88). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, T., & Liu, G. Q. (1995). Situational context, variation, and second language acquisition theory. In Cook, G. & Seidlhoffer, B. (Eds.), Principles & practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 107–24). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 2, 183–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Towell, R., & Hawkins, R. (1994). Approaches to second language acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics, 17, 1, 84–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branden, K. (1997). Effects of negotiation on language learners' output. Language Learning, 47, 589–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2003). From input to output: A teacher's guide to second language acquisition. Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 2, 225–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction and communicative tasks. In Eckman, F., Highland, D., Lee, P. W., Mileham, J., & Weber, R. R. (Eds.), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy (pp. 169–85). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wheeldon, L. (Ed.). (2000). Aspects of language production. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×