0% found this document useful (0 votes)

343 views47 pages

Theories in Second Language Acquisition-196-242

This document discusses the interaction approach to second language acquisition. It defines the key components of the interaction approach as input, interaction, and output. Input refers to the language learners are exposed to, which provides evidence for learners to form linguistic hypotheses. Interaction allows learners to receive feedback on their language productions, providing negative evidence. Output involves language production by learners, which is important for pushing learners to move beyond comprehension to syntactic use of language. The interaction approach views these three components as important for stimulating language learning through communicative pressures and feedback.

Uploaded by

zaina bookshop

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

343 views47 pages

Theories in Second Language Acquisition-196-242

Uploaded by

zaina bookshop

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 47

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.

com
Input, Interaction, and Output in SLA 181

development of the interaction approach from its inception over the past two and a
half decades. In fact, Jordan (2005) suggested that the Interaction Hypothesis shows
signs of progression toward a theory, using it as an example of how “an originally
well-formulated hypothesis is upgraded in the light of criticism and developments
in the field” (p. 220). At the point when this book was published in its first edition,
various aspects of the Interaction Hypothesis had been tested and links between
interaction and learning clearly demonstrated, thereby suggesting that it was time
for a change in the term hypothesis. Its inclusion in a volume on theories of SLA,
references to it as the “model that dominates current SLA research” (Ramírez,
2005, p. 293) and “the dominant interactionist paradigm” (Byrnes, 2005, p. 296)
supported this view, together with the appearance of book-length critiques of it
(Block, 2003), which collectively showed that researchers were moving toward
thinking about the Interaction Hypothesis in terms of a model of SLA. Using the
framework of this book, for example, it is a model in the sense that it describes
the processes involved when learners encounter input, are involved in interaction,
receive feedback and produce output. However, it is moving toward the status of
theory in the sense that it also attempts to explain why interaction and learning
can be linked, using cognitive concepts derived from psychology, such as noticing,
working memory, and attention. In this chapter, then, as in much of the current
literature, including recent handbook and encyclopedia articles (García-Mayo &
Alclón-Soler, 2013; Gor & Long, 2009; Mackey, 2012; Mackey, Abbuhl, & Gass,
2012; Mackey & Goo, 2012), we refer to it as the interaction approach.
Since the early 1980s and since Long’s update in 1996, the interaction approach
has witnessed a growth in empirical research and is now at a point where meta-
analyses and research syntheses can be carried out (Keck, Iberri-Shea, Tracy-
Ventura, & Wa-Mbaleka, 2006; Li, 2010; Lyster & Saito, 2010; Mackey & Goo,
2007; Norris & Ortega, 2000; Plonsky & Gass, 2011; Russell & Spada, 2006). It
is now commonly accepted within the SLA literature that there is a robust con-
nection between interaction and learning. In the current chapter we provide an
update in which we present a description of the constructs of the interaction
approach as well as a discussion of the theoretical underpinnings that account for
the link between interaction and learning.
The interaction approach attempts to account for learning through the learner’s
exposure to language, production of language and feedback on that production.
As Gass (2003) notes, interaction research “takes as its starting point the assump-
tion that language learning is stimulated by communicative pressure and examines
the relationship between communication and acquisition and the mechanisms
(e.g., noticing, attention) that mediate between them” (p. 224). In the following
sections, we turn to an examination of the major components of this approach.

Input
Input is the sine qua non of acquisition. Quite simply it refers to the language that
a learner is exposed to in a communicative context (i.e., from reading or listening,
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
182 Gass and Mackey

or, in the case of sign language from visual language). In all approaches to second
language acquisition, input is an essential component for learning in that it pro-
vides the crucial evidence from which learners can form linguistic hypotheses.
Because input serves as the basis for hypotheses about the language being
learned, researchers within the interaction approach have sought over the years to
characterize the input that is addressed to learners, and like UG researchers (see
Chapter 3), interaction researchers also see input as providing positive evidence,
that is, information about what is possible within a language. Early interaction
researchers have shown that the language addressed to learners differs in interesting
ways from the language addressed to native speakers and fluent second language
speakers (for overviews, see Gass & Selinker, 2001; Hatch, 1983; Wagner-Gough &
Hatch, 1975). This language that is addressed to learners has been referred to as
modified input or, in the earlier literature, as foreigner talk.
One proposal concerning the function of modified input is that modifying
input makes the language more comprehensible. If learners cannot understand the
language that is being addressed to them, then that language is not useful to them
as they construct their second language grammars. An example of how individu-
als modify their speech and the resultant comprehensibility is given below (from
Kleifgen, 1985). In this example, a teacher of kindergarteners, including native and
nonnative speakers of English at varying levels of proficiency, is providing instruc-
tions to the class and to individuals.

(1) Instructions to a kindergarten class

a. Instructions to English NSs in a kindergarten class
These are babysitters taking care of babies. Draw a line from Q to q.
From S to s and then trace.
b. To a single NS of English
Now, Johnny, you have to make a great big pointed hat.
c. To an intermediate-level native speaker of Urdu.
No her hat is big. Pointed.
d. To a low intermediate level native speaker of Arabic.
See hat? Hat is big. Big and tall.
e. To a beginning level native speaker of Japanese.
Big, big, big hat.

As shown in the example, when addressing a learner of a language, speakers

often make adjustments that are likely to render the language comprehensible,

www.ebook777.com
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
Input, Interaction, and Output in SLA 183

which, in turn, ease the burden for the learner. It is important to note that sim-
plifications are not the only form of adjustments, which can also include elabora-
tions, thereby providing the learner with a greater amount of semantic detail. An
example of elaboration is seen in (2) (from Gass & Varonis, 1985). In this example,
when the NNS indicates a possible lack of understanding (Pardon me?), the NS
replies by elaborating on her original comment about nitrites, adding an example
and restating that she doesn’t eat them.

(2) Elaboration
NNS: There has been a lot of talk lately about additives and preservatives in
food. In what ways has this changed your eating habits?
NS: I try to stay away from nitrites.
NNS: Pardon me?
NS: Uh, from nitrites in uh like lunch meats and that sort of thing. I don’t
eat those.

Input, along with negative evidence obtained through interaction (to which
we turn next), is believed to be crucial for acquisition to occur, not only in the
interaction approach but in other approaches as well (e.g., input processing) (see
Chapter 7).

Interaction
Interaction, simply put, refers to the conversations that learners participate in.
Interactions are important because it is in this context that learners receive infor-
mation about the correctness and, more important, about the incorrectness of
their utterances. Within the interaction approach, negative evidence, as in the UG
literature (see Chapter 3), refers to the information that learners receive concern-
ing the incorrectness of their own utterances. For our purposes, learners receive
negative evidence through interactional feedback that occurs following prob-
lematic utterances, and provides learners with information about the linguistic
and communicative success or failure of their production. Gass (1997) presents
the model in Figure 10.1 to characterize the role negative evidence plays in the
interaction-learning process.
Interpreting this, negative evidence, which can come inter alia through overt
correction or negotiation, is one way of alerting a learner to the possibility of an
error in his or her speech. Assuming that the error is noticed, the learner then has
to determine what the problem was and how to modify existing linguistic knowl-
edge. The learner then comes up with a hypothesis as to what the correct form
should be (e.g., he wented home versus he went home). Obtaining further input (e.g.,
listening, reading) is a way of determining that in English one says he went home,
but never says he wented home. Thus, listening for further input is a way to con-
firm or disconfirm a hypothesis that he or she may have come up with regarding
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
184 Gass and Mackey

Negative Evidence

Negotiation Other correction types

Notice Error

Search Input

Input available Input not available

(confirmatory/disconfirmatory)

FIGURE 10.1 The function of negative evidence.

the nature of the target language. The learner may also use output to test these
hypotheses, which we address next.

Output
Known in the literature as the Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985, 1993, 1995, 1998,
2005), Swain’s observations about the importance of output emerged from her
research that took place in the context of immersion programs in Canada. Swain
observed that children who had spent years in immersion programs still had a level
of competence in the L2 that fell significantly short of native-like abilities. She
hypothesized that what was lacking was sufficient opportunities for language use.
She claims that language production forces learners to move from comprehension
(semantic use of language) to syntactic use of language. As Swain (1995) states,

output may stimulate learners to move from the semantic, open-ended

nondeterministic, strategic processing prevalent in comprehension to the
complete grammatical processing needed for accurate production. Output,
thus, would seem to have a potentially significant role in the development
of syntax and morphology. (p. 128)

For example, after producing an initially problematic utterance (‘what happen

for the boat?’) and receiving feedback about its lack of comprehensibility in the

www.ebook777.com
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
Input, Interaction, and Output in SLA 185

form of a clarification request (‘what?’), the NNS in (3) appears to realize that his
utterance was not understood. Pushed to reformulate his initial utterance in order
to facilitate NS understanding, he modifies his linguistic output by reformulating
the utterance in a more target-like way.

(3) Modified output (from McDonough, 2005)

LEARNER: what happen for the boat?
NS: what?
LEARNER: what’s wrong with the boat?

In addition to pushing learners to produce more target-like output, another

function of production, as mentioned earlier, is that it can be used to test hypoth-
eses about the target language. An example of hypothesis testing is provided in
example (4). This example comes from a study in which learners were involved in
interactions (videotaped) and then interviewed immediately following, using the
video as a prompt. The retrospective comments, given in the learners’ L1 which
was English (in particular, ‘I’ll say it and see’) demonstrate that the learner was
using the conversation as a forum through which she could test the accuracy of
her knowledge.

(4) From Mackey, Gass, McDonough (2000) (INT=interviewer)

NNS: poi un bicchiere
then a glass
INT: un che, come?
a what, what?
NNS: bicchiere
glass
NNS RECALL COMMENTS: “I was drawing a blank. Then I thought of a vase
but then I thought that since there was no flowers, maybe it was just a
big glass. So, then I thought I’ll say it and see.”

Another function of output is to promote automaticity, which refers to

the routinization of language use. Little effort is expended when dealing with
automatic processes (e.g., driving from home to work is automatic and does not
require much thought as to the route to take). Automatic processes come about
as a result of “consistent mapping of the same input to the same pattern of activa-
tion over many trials” (McLaughlin, 1987, p. 134; cf. Chapter 6). We can consider
the role of production as playing an integral role in automaticity. To return to the
example of driving, the automaticity of the route from home to work occurs fol-
lowing multiple trips along that route. The first time may require more effort and
more concentration. With regard to language learning, continued use of language
moves learners to more fluent automatic production.
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
186 Gass and Mackey

How Interaction Brings about Learning

The relationship among these three components can be summed up by Long’s
(1996) frequently cited explanation that

negotiation for meaning, and especially negotiation work that triggers inter-
actional adjustments by the NS or more competent interlocutor, facilitates
acquisition because it connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly
selective attention, and output in productive ways. (pp. 451–452)

Furthermore,

it is proposed that environmental contributions to acquisition are mediated

by selective attention and the learner’s developing L2 processing capacity,
and that these resources are brought together most usefully, although not
exclusively, during negotiation for meaning. Negative feedback obtained dur-
ing negotiation work or elsewhere may be facilitative of L2 development, at
least for vocabulary, morphology, and language-specific syntax, and essential
for learning certain specifiable L1-L2 contrasts. (p. 414)

In this view, through interaction, a learner’s attentional resources (selective

attention) are directed to problematic aspects of knowledge or production. First,
the learner may notice that what she says differs from what a native speaker says.
This is often referred to as noticing the gap (Schmidt & Frota, 1986). In addition,
learners may notice that since they can’t express what they want to express, they
have a hole in their interlanguage (Swain, 1998). The interaction itself may also
direct learner’s attention to something new, such as a new lexical item or gram-
matical construction, thus promoting the development of the L2.

Feedback
There are two broad types of feedback: explicit and implicit. Explicit feedback
includes corrections and metalinguistic explanations. Of concern to us here are
implicit forms of feedback, which include negotiation strategies such as

• confirmation checks (expressions that are designed to elicit confirmation that

an utterance has been correctly heard or understood, for example, Is this what
you mean)
• clarification requests (expression designed to elicit clarification of the inter-
locutor’s preceding utterances, for example, What did you say?)
• comprehension checks (expressions that are used to verify that an interlocutor
has understood, for example, Did you understand?)
• recasts (a rephrasing of a non-target-like utterance using a more target-like
form while maintaining the original meaning)

www.ebook777.com
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
Input, Interaction, and Output in SLA 187

Feedback may help to make problematic aspects of learners’ interlanguage

salient and may give them additional opportunities to focus on their production or
comprehension, thus promoting L2 development. For instance, in example (5), the
NS’s provision of implicit feedback in the form of confirmation checks (lines 2
and 4) gives the learner the opportunity to infer (from her interlocutor’s lack of
comprehension) that there was a problem with her pronunciation.

(5) Implicit feedback (from Mackey et al., 2000)

1 NNS: There’s a basen of flowers on the bookshelf
2 NS: a basin?
3 NNS: base
4 NS: a base?
5 NNS: a base
6 NS: oh, a vase
7 NNS: vase

Feedback occurs during negotiation for meaning. Long (1996) defines

negotiation as

the process in which, in an effort to communicate, learners and competent

speakers provide and interpret signals of their own and their interlocutor’s
perceived comprehension, thus provoking adjustments to linguistic form,
conversational structure, message content, or all three, until an acceptable
level of understanding is achieved. (p. 418)

Negotiation for meaning has traditionally been viewed and coded in terms of the
“three Cs”: confirmation checks, clarification requests, and comprehension checks,
each of which we defined earlier. A confirmation check was seen in example (5).
Examples (6) and (7) exemplify clarification requests. In example (6) the clarification
request and rephrasings result in input that the learner finally seems to understand.

(6) Clarification Request and Rephrasing (from Mackey, 2000)

NS: A curve slightly to the left here and then straight ahead the road goes
NNS: A Er er straight?
NS: No, it goes on a curve left first, then it goes straight ahead
NNS: No, because dry cleaner is the way is here? Curve? It means how?
NS: Exactly so go a little bit to the left, curve slightly left, then go straight
ahead with it
NNS: Oh a little bit left around then straight ahead goes first curve
NS: right, like that, exactly, right, curve, go straight ahead, no, no, no I
mean left right curve left [laughs]
NNS: [laughs] curve
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
188 Gass and Mackey

Example (7) illustrates a clarification request, in which Learner 2 needs more

information to understand Learner 1’s question about what is important to the
character in the task.

(7) Clarification Request (from Gass, Mackey, & Ross-Feldman, 2005, 2011)
LEARNER 1: ¿Qué es importante a ella?
What is important to her?
LEARNER 2: ¿Cómo?
What?
LEARNER 1: ¿Qué es importante a la amiga? ¿Es solamente el costo?
What is important to the friend? Is it just the cost?

A comprehension check is an attempt to anticipate and prevent a breakdown

in communication. In example (8) Learner 1 asks if Learner 2 needs him to repeat
what he has just said, basically checking to see if Learner 2 has understood the
previous utterance.

(8) Comprehension Check (from Gass et al., 2005)

LEARNER 1: La avenida siete va en una dirección hacia el norte desde la calle
siete hasta la calle ocho. ¿Quieres que repita?
Avenue Seven goes in one direction toward the north from Street Seven
to Street Eight. Do you want me to repeat?
LEARNER 2: Por favor.
Please.
LEARNER 1: La avenida seven, uh siete, va en una dirección hacia el norte
desde la calle siete hasta la calle ocho.
Avenue Seven, uh Seven, goes in one direction toward the north from
Street Seven to Street Eight.

Through negotiation, input can be uniquely tailored to individual learners’

particular strengths, weaknesses, and communicative needs, providing language
that is in line with learners’ developmental levels. Pica (1994, 1996) and Mackey
(2012) describe how negotiation contributes to the language learning process,
suggesting that negotiation facilitates comprehension of L2 input and serves to
draw learners’ attention to form–meaning relationships through processes of rep-
etition, segmentation, and rewording. Gass (1997) similarly claims that negotiation
can draw learners’ attention to linguistic problems and proposes that initial steps in
interlanguage development occur when learners notice mismatches between the
input and their own organization of the target language.
Interaction research, with its focus on the cognitive processes that drive learn-
ing, has augmented and in some cases replaced the three Cs with other constructs,
including recasts. Recasts are a form of implicit feedback, have received a great deal

www.ebook777.com
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
Input, Interaction, and Output in SLA 189

of attention in recent research. Nicholas, Lightbown, and Spada (2001) define

recasts as “utterances that repeat a learner’s incorrect utterance, making only the
changes necessary to produce a correct utterance, without changing the meaning”
(p. 733). In other words, recasts are interactional moves through which learners
are provided with more linguistically target-like reformulations of what they have
just said. A recast does not necessarily involve the repetition of a learner’s entire
utterance, and may include additional elaborations not present in the original
propositional content, but it is semantically contingent upon the learner’s utter-
ance and often temporally juxtaposed to it. For instance, in example (9), a NS
recasts a NNS’s utterance.

(9) Recast (from Oliver & Mackey, 2003)

NNS: A dog in here, or two of them
NS: A duck in the pond or two ducks
NNS: Yes

Recasts have been associated with L2 learning in a number of primary research

studies (e.g., Ammar, 2008; Ammar & Spada, 2006; Ayoun, 2001; Bigelow, Delmas,
Hansen, & Tarone, 2006; Braidi, 2002; Carpenter, Jeon, MacGregor, & Mackey,
2006; Egi, 2007; Ellis & Sheen, 2006; Goo, 2012; Han, 2002; Ishida, 2004; Iwashita,
2003; Kim & Han, 2007; Leeman, 2003; Loewen & Philp, 2006; Lyster, 2004; Lys-
ter & Izquierdo, 2009; Mackey & Philp, 1998; McDonough & Mackey, 2006; Morris,
2002; Nassaji, 2009; Nicholas et al., 2001; Philp, 2003; Révész, 2012; Révész & Han,
2006; Sachs & Suh, 2007; Sagarra, 2007; Sheen, 2008; Storch, 2002; Trofimovich,
Ammar, & Gatbonton, 2007) as well as meta-analyses (e.g., Mackey & Goo, 2007;
Li, 2010). Current research has also indicated that recasts and negotiation may work
to impact learning in different ways. For example, recasts are complex discourse
structures that have been said to contain positive evidence (a model of the correct
form), negative feedback (since the correct form is juxtaposed with the non-target-
like form) in an environment where the positive evidence is enhanced (because of
the juxtaposition). If learners do not selectively attend to and recognize the negative
feedback contained in recasts, then the documented contribution of recasts to learn-
ing might be attributed to the positive evidence they contain, or to the enhanced
salience of the positive evidence, which is one of Leeman’s (2003) suggestions.
While negotiation for meaning always requires learner involvement, as shown
in example (5), recasts do not consistently make such participatory demands, as
shown by the learner’s simple “yes” in response to the recast in example (9). As
a number of researchers (e.g., Lyster, 1998a, 1998b) have pointed out, reformula-
tions sometimes occur after grammatical utterances as well, and a recast may be
perceived as responding to the content rather than the form of an utterance, or as
an optional and alternative way of saying the same thing. Thus, learners may
not repeat or rephrase their original utterances following recasts, and they may
not even perceive recasts as feedback at all (Mackey et al., 2000; McDonough &
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
190 Gass and Mackey

Mackey, 2006). It also must be kept in mind that even when learners do understand
the corrective nature of recasts, they may have trouble understanding and address-
ing the source of the problem (as discussed by several researchers, including Car-
roll, 2001). However, it is possible that neither a response nor a recognition of the
corrective intent of the recast is crucial for learning (Mackey & Philp, 1998) and
a substantial body of research, using increasingly innovative methods, has linked
recasts with L2 learning of different forms, in different languages, for a range of
learners in both classroom and laboratory contexts (for a review, see Mackey &
Gass, 2006).

Language-Related Episodes
Another construct, language-related episodes (LREs), is also studied within the
context of interaction. Briefly defined, LREs refer to instances where learners
consciously reflect on their own language use, or, more specifically “instances in
which learners may (a) question the meaning of a linguistic item; (b) question the
correctness of the spelling/pronunciation of a word; (c) question the correctness
of a grammatical form; or (d) implicitly or explicitly correct their own or another's
usage of a word, form or structure” (Leeser, 2004, p. 56; see also Swain & Lapkin,
1998; Williams, 1999). LREs, as Williams (1999) notes, encompass a wide range of
discourse moves, such as requests for assistance, negotiation sequences, and explicit
and implicit feedback, and are generally taken as signs that learners have noticed a
gap between their interlanguages (or their partners’ interlanguages) and the system
of the target language. Example (10) illustrates a language-related episode where
students discuss the gender of the word for ‘map’.

(10) Language-Related Episode (from Gass et al., 2005)

LEARNER 1: Los nombres en el mapa. ¿Es el mapa o la mapa?
The names on the map. Is it the (m.) map or the (f.) map?
LEARNER 2: El mapa
The (m.) map

Based on this example, it might be possible to conclude that Learner 1 recognized

a gap in her knowledge of Spanish gender, and thus produces an LRE (an explicit
request for assistance). A number of studies investigating L2 learners’ use of LREs
have found that LREs not only represent language learning in process (Donato, 1994;
Swain & Lapkin, 1998) but are also positively correlated with L2 development (e.g.,
Basturkmen, Loewen, & Ellis, 2002; Leeser, 2004; Williams, 2001).

Attention
While input such as that provided in recasts may be regarded as a catalyst for
learning, and LREs as evidence that learning processes are being engaged, attention

www.ebook777.com
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
Input, Interaction, and Output in SLA 191

is believed to be one of the mechanisms that mediates between input and learning
(or intake, as the input-learning process is sometimes called). It is widely agreed
that second language learners are exposed to more input than they can process,
and that some mechanism is needed to help learners “sort through” the massive
amounts of input they receive. As Gass, Svetics, and Lemelin (2003) explain, “lan-
guage processing is like other kinds of processing: Humans are constantly exposed
to and often overwhelmed by various sorts of external stimuli and are able to,
through attentional devices, ‘tune in’ some stimuli and ‘tune out’ others” (p. 498).
Attention, broadly conceptualized, may be regarded as the mechanism that allows
learners to “tune in” to a portion of the input they receive.
Although generally held to be crucial for SLA, attention has nevertheless been
the focus of much recent debate in the field. Schmidt (1990, 2001), for example,
argues that learning cannot take place without awareness because the learner must
be consciously aware of linguistic input in order for it to become internalized;
thus, awareness and learning cannot be dissociated. Similarly, Robinson (1995,
2001, 2002) claims that attention to input is a consequence of encoding in work-
ing memory, and only input encoded in working memory may be subsequently
transferred to long-term memory. Thus, in Robinson’s model, as in Schmidt’s,
attention is crucial for learning, and in both models, no learning can take place
without attention and some level of awareness. An alternative and distinct per-
spective, emerging from work in cognitive psychology (Posner, 1988, 1992; Pos-
ner & Peterson, 1990), is presented by Tomlin and Villa (1994), who advocate for
a disassociation between learning and awareness. As can be seen from this brief
overview, not all researchers use the same terminology when discussing attention,
and in fact, there have been proposals that have divided attention into differ-
ent components. What is important for the current chapter is that interaction
researchers assume that the cognitive constructs of attention, awareness, and the
related construct of noticing are part of the interaction-L2 learning process.
Working memory (WM) has also been implicated as a potential explanation
for how interaction-driven L2 learning takes place, as well as language learning in
general. For example, in a study of Japanese L1 English language learners, Mackey,
Philp, Egi, Fujii, and Tasumi’s (2002) research showed that WM was associated
with the noticing of recasts, Trofimovich, Ammar, and Gatbonton (2007) sug-
gested that WM (along with attention control and analytical ability) was associ-
ated with their Francophone learners’ production of English morphosyntax. Such
research suggests that WM may play an important role in the processing and use
of recasts by L2 learners. Another factor that may relate to a learner’s ability to
benefit from interaction is their ability to suppress information, referred to as
inhibitory control. Gass, Behney, and Uzum (2013) found evidence that those
individuals who were better able to suppress interfering information were also
better able to learn from interaction.
There have been in total nearly a hundred empirical studies of the various
different aspects of interaction since the mid-1990s. As outlined in Mackey et al.
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
192 Gass and Mackey

(2012), researchers have concentrated on interaction and its impact on specific

morphosyntactic features, finding benefits for a range of features, “including arti-
cles (Muranoi, 2000; Sheen, 2007), questions (Mackey, 1999; Mackey & Philp,
1998; Philp, 2003), past tense formation (Doughty & Varela, 1998; Ellis, 2007;
Ellis, Loewen, & Erlam, 2006; McDonough, 2007), and plurals (Mackey, 2006)” (p.
10). As they also point out, these results have been found with children as well as
adults (Mackey & Oliver, 2002; Mackey & Silver, 2005; van den Branden, 1997)
and older adults (Mackey & Sachs, 2012), and in classroom as well as laboratory
settings (Gass, Mackey, & Ross-Feldman, 2005; Russell & Spada, 2006), and with
several different languages, including French (Ayoun, 2001; Swain & Lapkin, 1998,
2002), Japanese (Ishida, 2004; Iwashita, 2003), Korean (Jeon, 2007), and Spanish
(de la Fuente, 2002; Gass & Alvarez-Torres, 2005; Leeman, 2003) as well as in
CALL contexts (Smith, 2012).
The interaction research agenda now seems focused on a range of different
questions, including (a) grammatical aspects of the L2 and their likelihood of
being impacted by interaction, (b) individual difference variables, such as working
memory, inhibition, and cognitive creativity, and how these might be related to the
link between interaction and L2 development, and (c) what forms of interaction
(and in particular, what types of feedback) are the most beneficial for L2 learner
in particular contexts and settings. There has also been a move to recognize the
influence of the social context in interaction, with factors such as the relation-
ship between the learners affecting inter alia their willingness to communicate
(Dornyei, 2009) and therefore their opportunities to learn through interaction
(Philp & Mackey, 2010). The field has reached some level of maturity with the
before mentioned meta-analyses, and analyses of quality (Plonsky & Gass, 2011).

What Counts as Evidence?

As Mackey and Gass (2005) point out, the goal of much interaction-based research
involves manipulating the kinds of interactions that learners are involved in, the
kind of feedback they receive during interaction, and the kind of output they
produce, to determine the relationship between the various components of inter-
action and second language learning. Thus, longitudinal designs, cross-sectional
designs (sampling learners at different proficiency levels) and case studies are all
appropriate methods. However, the most common way of gathering data is to
involve learners in a range of carefully planned tasks.

Tasks
Various ways of categorizing task types have been discussed (for discussions of
task categorization, see Ellis, 2003; Mackey & Gass, 2007; Pica, Kanagy, & Falodun,
1993). For example, a common distinction is to classify tasks as one-way and two-
way. In a one-way task, the information flows from one person to the other, as

www.ebook777.com
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
Input, Interaction, and Output in SLA 193

when a learner describes a picture to her partner. In other words, the information
that is being conveyed is held by one person. In a two-way task, there is an infor-
mation exchange whereby both parties (or however many participants there are
in a task) hold information that is vital to the resolution of the task. For example,
in a story completion task, each learner may hold a portion of the information
and must convey it to the other learner(s) before the task can be successfully com-
pleted. Each type of task may produce different kinds of interaction, with different
opportunities for feedback and output.
Interaction researchers are usually interested in eliciting specific grammatical
structures to test whether particular kinds of interactive feedback on non-target-
like forms are associated with learning. Learning is sometimes examined through
immediate changes in the learners’ output on the particular structures about
which they have received interactional feedback, although short- and longer-term
change on posttests is generally considered to be the gold standard.
Obviously, tasks need to be carefully pilot-tested to ensure they produce the
language intended. It is also possible, and becoming more common in interaction
research, to try to examine learners’ thought processes as they carry out a task or
to interview learners on previous thought processes. For example, if a researcher
employed a dictogloss task (a type of consensus task where learners work together
to reconstruct a text that has been read to them; Swain & Lapkin, 2002), that
researcher could examine the text that learners produce (the output). Or, instead
of examining the output in isolation, the researcher could also ask the learners to
think aloud as they carry out the task (this is known as an introspective protocol
or “think aloud”). Alternatively, the researcher could ask the learners to make
retrospective comments as soon as they are finished with a task. This is often done
by providing the learners with a video replay to jog their memories (a procedure
known as stimulated recall) (Gass & Mackey, 2000).

Difficulties in Determining Learning

It is often difficult to determine if learning has actually taken place. One difficulty,
common in any approach to SLA, is in the operationalization of learning. If a
learner utters a new form once and then does not do so again for two months,
does that constitute knowledge? If a learner utters a new form two times, does
that constitute knowledge? All of these (and many more) are ones that are often
faced when conducting research on interaction and second language learning
more generally.
A second difficulty in determining learning occurs when considering actual
interactions in the absence of posttests or in the absence of some commentary, as
in a stimulated recall or a language related episode. If we consider the example
presented in (5), for instance, it might appear on the surface that the NS and NNS
have negotiated the difficulty to the point where the NS did understand that the
NNS is referring to a vase rather than a basin. But when we focus on the NNS,
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
194 Gass and Mackey

we need to ask what learning has occurred. Is she simply repeating what the NS
had said without true understanding, or did some type of learning take place? Or
was some process engaged that might eventually lead to, or facilitate, later learning.
Example (11), taken from Hawkins (1985), illustrates a similar concern:

(11) From Hawkins (1985)

NS: Number two, . . . is . . . the man . . . look for help
NNS: Uh-huh, (yes) for help.
NS: Help, you know . . .”Aah! Help” (shouts softly)
NNS: Uh-huh. (yes)
NS: No Up . . . HELP.
 NNS: Help

NS: Yeah . . . He asked, . . . he asked . . . a man . . . for . . . help.
NNS: . . . for help
NS: Yeah . . . he asked . . . the man . . . for telephone.

The question that must be addressed is what does help and for help mean. Is it
a recognition that implies comprehension? Or, can we assume that this learner
has indicated comprehension and that this is indeed an initial part of the learning
process? In fact, an interview with the participants showed that no comprehension
had taken place and hence no learning. The response was only a means for keep-
ing the social discourse from falling apart.
These examples help foreground the concern that whatever the data source,
the important point is not to rely solely on the transcript of the interaction but to
investigate the link between interaction and learning by whatever means possible.
For this reason, research designs which employ pretests and posttests (and ideally,
delayed posttests and possibly tailor-made posttests as well) and/or designs that
include introspective or retrospective protocols are of value. As research designs
progress, clearer answers to the questions about interaction and learning can be
obtained.

Common Misunderstandings
Here we will consider two common areas of misunderstanding about input, inter-
action, and SLA. These relate to the nature of the interaction approach and the
relationship of the interaction approach to teaching methods.
The first misunderstanding concerns the scope of the interaction approach.
Although occasionally criticized for not addressing all aspects of the learning pro-
cess (such as how input is processed, or the sociocultural context of the learning),
the interaction approach, like all SLA approaches and theories, takes as its primary
focus particular aspects of the second language learning process. Some theories focus
on innateness, others on the sociolinguistic context, and still others purely on the

www.ebook777.com
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
Input, Interaction, and Output in SLA 195

cognitive mechanisms involved in learning a language. The interaction approach,

for the time being, is focused primarily on the role of input, interaction, and out-
put in learning. Future research will undoubtedly be enriched by exploring the
connections between various approaches to SLA in greater depth, so as to arrive
at a more comprehensive explanation of the second language acquisition process.
A second misunderstanding is that the interaction approach can be directly
applied to classroom methodology. For example, work on task-based language
teaching (see Bygate, Skehan, & Swain, 2001; Ellis, 2003) and focus on form (Long
& Robinson, 1998) both draw heavily on the Interaction Hypothesis as part of
their theoretical basis. Task-based language teaching and the research that supports
its use, in the words of Ellis (2003), “has been informed primarily by the interac-
tion hypothesis” (p. 100). Like most SLA researchers, however, Ellis is cautious
about making direct connections between theory, research, and teaching practice,
saying both that “the case for including an introduction to the principles and
techniques of task-based teaching in an initial teacher-training program is a strong
one” and also that “if task-based teaching is to make the shift from theory to prac-
tice it will be necessary to go beyond the psycholinguistic rationale . . . to address
the contextual factors that ultimately determine what materials and procedures
teachers choose” (p. 337). The interaction approach, like most other accounts of
second language acquisition, is primarily focused on how languages are learned.
Thus, direct application to the classroom may be premature.

An Exemplary Study: Mackey, Gass, and McDonough (2000)

The study carried out by Mackey et al. (2000) illustrates many of the issues and
constructs discussed in this chapter. Their research investigated how second and
foreign language learners perceived the feedback they received in the course of
interaction. The main research questions were as follows: (a) Could learners accu-
rately perceive feedback that was offered to them during task-based interaction?
(b) Did learners perceive the feedback as feedback? (3) Did they recognize the
linguistic target(s) of the feedback?
The participants were nonnative speakers in an ESL context and in an Italian
as a foreign language (IFL) context. They were adult learners enrolled in language
courses at a U.S. university. The ESL learners (n = 10) were from a variety of L1
backgrounds including Cantonese, French, Japanese, Korean, and Thai. The IFL
learners (n = 7) had studied or were studying Italian at the same university. All
participants were classified at the beginner or lower-intermediate level.
Each learner carried out a communicative task with a native (English) or near-
native (Italian) interviewer. The tasks were two-way information exchange activi-
ties. All participants had a picture that was similar to their partners’ picture. The
tasks involved the learners and interviewers working together to identify the differ-
ences between their pictures. Each session lasted for approximately 15–20 minutes
and was videotaped. During the interaction, the English and Italian interviewers
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
196 Gass and Mackey

provided interactional feedback when the participants produced a non-target-

like utterance. The interviewers were instructed to provide interactional feedback
wherever it seemed appropriate and in whatever form seemed appropriate during
the interaction. Thus, the feedback provided during the task-based interaction
occurred in response to errors in morphosyntax, phonology, lexis, or semantics
and occurred in the form of negotiation and recasts.
Introspective data were collected from the learners using stimulated recall
methodology (Gass & Mackey, 2000). Immediately following completion of the
task-based activities, the videotape was rewound and played for each learner by
a second researcher who also gave the directions for this part of the research to
the learner. While watching the videotape, the learners could pause the tape if
they wished to describe their thoughts at any particular point in the interaction.
The researcher also paused the tape after episodes in which interactional feedback
was provided, and asked learners to recall their thoughts at the time the original
interaction was occurring. These recall sessions, which were audiotaped, were
conducted in English (the L2 for the ESL participants and the L1 for the IFL par-
ticipants). This recall procedure was aimed at eliciting learners’ original percep-
tions about the feedback episodes—that is, their perceptions at the time they were
taking part in the interaction.
The interactional feedback episodes and the stimulated-recall comments that
were provided about the episodes were coded and analyzed. The number of feed-
back episodes in the ESL data in which the learners perceived the target of the
feedback differed according to the feedback type. Whereas learners’ reports indi-
cated they often recognized the feedback for lexis and phonology (83% and 60%,
respectively), they generally did not indicate that they recognized the target of
morphosyntactic feedback (13%). In relation to morphosyntactic feedback, ESL
learners were more likely to report that they were thinking about the semantic
content of the morphosyntactic episodes (38%) or not about the content at all
(21%). With such a small percentage of morphosyntactic feedback being recog-
nized as being about morphosyntax, the window of opportunity for these learners
to notice grammar in interaction may have been relatively small. Having said this,
it is important to note that although the study did touch upon the learners’ reports
and therefore their internal processes, more focused research is necessary to exam-
ine the relationship between noticing and L2 development.
For the Italian learners, when the feedback provided to the learner during
interaction was morphosyntactic in nature, learners recognized the nature of 24%
of the feedback. Almost half of the time, they perceived morphosyntactic feed-
back as being about lexis. The amount of phonological feedback provided to the
learners was quite low (18%), with less than a quarter being perceived as related to
phonology. In contrast, lexical feedback episodes were perceived to be about lexis
almost two-thirds of the time (66%).
In summary, what this study of L2 learners’ perceptions about feedback in
conversational interaction showed was that learners were most accurate in their

www.ebook777.com
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
Input, Interaction, and Output in SLA 197

perceptions about lexical and phonological feedback, and were generally inaccu-
rate in their perceptions about morphosyntactic feedback. Morphosyntactic feed-
back was often perceived as being about semantics for the ESL learners and about
lexis for the IFL learners. Proponents of the interaction approach have suggested
that interaction can result in feedback that focuses learners’ attention on aspects
of their language that deviate from the target language. If learners’ reports about
their perceptions can be equated with attention, then the findings in this study are
consistent with the claims of the Interaction Hypothesis, at least with regard to the
lexicon and phonology.

Explanation of Observable Phenomena

As we noted in the first section of this chapter, the interactionist approach does
not address all aspects of SLA and therefore does not account for all of the observ-
able phenomena outlined in Chapter 1. In this section, therefore, we discuss the
observable phenomena that are most relevant to the interactionist approach.
Observation 1: Exposure to input is necessary for SLA. The interactionist
approach relies heavily on input to account for SLA and so is in agreement with
Observation 1. However, there is no assumption in the interactionist approach
that input alone is sufficient. In fact, it is the way that a learner interacts with
the input (through interaction) that is at the heart of this approach. If input
were sufficient, we would not have so many learners, who despite years in
a second language environment, are not highly proficient. For example, the
French immersion students Swain makes reference to in her studies should have
been able to acquire native-like proficiency in the L2 as they were consistently
exposed to the L2.
Observation 2: A good deal of SLA happens incidentally. The interactionist approach
does not deal specifically with incidental learning, but insofar as attention is seen
a driving explanatory force behind the interactionist approach, incidental learning
is not seen as major part of second language learning. Within the interactionist
approach, learning takes place through an interactive context. For example, nego-
tiation for meaning involves the learner in directing specific attention toward a
linguistic problem.
Observation 5: Second language learning is variable in its outcome. To the extent that
this observation is compatible with the idea that individuals vary in whether and
how they negotiate meaning as well as the extent to which they focus attention on
specific parts of language, it is in keeping with interactionist proposals. Keeping in
mind the importance to interaction proposals of the individual learner and their
cognitive capacity (as opposed to innate dispositions), this would suggest, then, that
individuals will have different results in terms of their outcomes.
Observation 7: There are limits on the effects of frequency on SLA. A frequency-based
explanation of SLA is compatible with some of the interactionist claims in that
one way in which interactional modifications are claimed to impact development
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
198 Gass and Mackey

is through facilitating pattern identification and recognition of matches and mis-

matches. However, input frequency is not sufficient to account for learning in the
absence of some other considerations. For example, in an interactionist approach,
the native language might play some role when trying to understand which forms
a learner might attend to following feedback, particularly implicit feedback. The
impact of frequency is dependent on a learner’s noticing the input. Other factors such
as the native language may play a role in determining what is noticed and what is not.
Observation 10: There are limits on the effects of output (learner production) on lan-
guage acquisition. At this point in SLA research, no approach or theory can account
for all learning. The interactionist approach is no exception. The interactionist
approach takes a particular perspective on output and highly values pushed or
modified output, or that output which involves a learner attempting to go beyond
his/her current level of knowledge. In other words, the most important output
is that output which stretches the limited linguistic resources of a learner. Thus,
while output that is pure practice may be important for automatization, it is less
valuable for language development.

The Explicit/Implicit Debate

Regarding the role of explicit and implicit learning in relation to the interaction
approach, the approach does not make claim about learning processes or knowl-
edge types, but it does make claims about feedback types, in particular, the roles
of implicit and explicit feedback. As has been noted in earlier discussions, one
of the central components of the interaction approach is the role of attention. If
attention is central, one must then consider how attention is drawn to language
forms and/or functions. For example, is it explicit (e.g., through metalinguistic
correction) or is it implicit (e.g., through recasts)? Both are beneficial for language
learning (see Goo & Mackey, 2013, for a review of the recast literature), but the
interaction approach, with few exceptions, does not go further to investigate the
type of knowledge that results.
One notable exception comes from Ellis, Loewen, and Erlam (2006) who mea-
sured two types of feedback on the acquisition of English past tense and their
relationship to implicit and explicit knowledge (learning processes are not dealt
with in their study). Their learning data came from three tests, an untimed gram-
maticality judgment test, a metalinguistic knowledge test, and an oral imitation
test. The first two of these were intended to provide information about explicit
knowledge and the latter about implicit knowledge. What they claim is that both
implicit and explicit knowledge benefit from feedback (more so from metalin-
guistic feedback than implicit feedback).
Thus, even though interaction-based research is centrally concerned with
development that emanates from an interactive event that includes both implicit
and explicit information, it has been silent on the result of the predicted result of
that information.

www.ebook777.com
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
Input, Interaction, and Output in SLA 199

Conclusion
In this chapter, the perspective offered by input and interaction has been pre-
sented. The central tenet of the approach is that interaction facilitates the pro-
cess of acquiring a second language, as it provides learners with opportunities to
receive modified input, to receive feedback, both explicitly and implicitly, which
in turn may draw learners’ attention to problematic aspects of their interlanguage
and push them to produce modified output.

Discussion Questions
1. The authors describe this approach as a model and not a theory. Do you
agree? Why?
2. Is the Input-Interaction-Output approach compatible with, for example, the
UG approach (Chapter 3) and frequency-based approach (Chapter 5)?
3. Describe the role of negative evidence within Gass and Mackey’s approach.
Does this differ from other approaches you have read about in this volume?
4. The concept of “negotiation of meaning” has gained wide acceptance in
language teaching circles in North America. Why do you think this is so? In
what contexts or situations do you think negotiation of meaning might not
be as enthusiastically embraced?
5. One possible critique of the Input-Interaction-Output approach is that it
ignores the broader social context of language learning variables that may
come to play in peoples’ interactions, for example, power relationships, social
status, or gender. Do you think this is a valid criticism? To what extent would
a theory of SLA need to consider such social factors?
6. Read the exemplary study presented in this chapter and prepare a discussion
for class in which you describe how you would conduct a replication study.
Be sure to explain any changes you would make and what motivates such
changes.

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). Rowley, MA: Newbury.
Swain, M. (1993). The Output Hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren't enough. Cana-
dian Modern Language Review, 50, 158–164.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook
& B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Wil-
liams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. (2005). The Output Hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Hand-
book on research in second language learning and teaching (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adoles-
cent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82,
320–337.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’
response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285–304.
Tomlin, R., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisi-
tion. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183–203.
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role
of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction
in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies. (pp. 171–195). Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Van den Branden, K. (1997). Effects of negotiation on language learners’ output. Language
Learning, 47, 589–636.
Wagner-Gough, J., & Hatch, E. (1975). The importance of input data in second language
acquisition studies. Language Learning, 25, 297–308.
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 51, 303–346.
Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29,
325–340.

www.ebook777.com
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com

11
SOCIOCULTURAL THEORY
AND SECOND LANGUAGE
DEVELOPMENT
James P. Lantolf, Steven L. Thorne, and
Matthew E. Poehner

The intent of this chapter is to familiarize readers with the principles and
constructs of an approach to learning and mental development known as Socio-
cultural Theory (SCT).1 SCT has its origins in the writings of the Russian psy-
chologist L. S. Vygotsky and his colleagues. SCT argues that human mental
functioning is fundamentally a mediated process that is organized by cul-
tural artifacts, activities, and concepts (Ratner, 2002).2 Within this frame-
work, humans are understood to utilize existing, and to create new, cultural
artifacts that allow them to regulate, or more fully monitor and control, their
behavior. Practically speaking, developmental processes take place through par-
ticipation in cultural, linguistic, and historically formed settings such as family
life, peer group interaction, and institutional contexts like schooling, organized
social activities, and workplaces (to name only a few). SCT argues that while
human neurobiology is a necessary condition for higher mental processes,
the most important forms of human cognitive activity develop through inter-
action within social and material environments, including conditions found in
instructional settings (Engeström, 1987). Importantly, and as an outgrowth of
SCT’s roots in Marxism and continental social theory (see discussion imme-
diately following), SCT and its sibling approaches, such as cultural-historical
activity theory, emphasize not only research and understanding of human
developmental processes, but also praxis-based research, which entails interven-
ing and creating conditions for development (see Lantolf & Poehner, 2014).
Indeed, contemporary SCT-informed projects increasingly weight intervention
studies and active engagement, as will be discussed in the exemplary study and
other sections of this chapter.
The intellectual roots of sociocultural theories of human development extend
back to 18th and 19th century German philosophy (particularly Hegel and
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
208 Lantolf, Thorne, and Poehner

Spinoza), the sociological and economic writings of Marx and Engels (specifically
Theses on Feuerbach and The German Ideology), and most directly to the research
of Vygotsky and his colleagues Luria and Leont’ev (see Valsiner & van der Veer,
2000). Despite the fact that Vygotsky suffered an untimely death in 1934 at only
38 years of age, he had a tremendously productive career that was profoundly
influenced by the fact that he came of age during the Russian Revolution. In his
work, Vygotsky attempted to formulate “a psychology grounded in Marxism”
(Wertsch, 1995, p. 7) that emphasized locating individual development within
material, social, and historical conditions. Wertsch (1985, p. 199) has suggested
that Vygotsky’s developmental research was inspired by three essential principles
of Marxist theory: the idea (a) that human consciousness is fundamentally social,
rather than merely biological, in origin, (b) that human activity is mediated by
material artifacts (e.g., computers, the layout of built environments) and psy-
chological and symbolic tools/signs (e.g., language, literacy, numeracy, concepts),
and (c) that units of analysis for understanding human activity and development
should be holistic in nature.
This chapter describes the major theoretical principles and constructs associ-
ated with SCT and focuses specifically on second language acquisition (SLA) as a
psychological process that should be accounted for through the same principles
and concepts that account for all other higher mental processes. Particular atten-
tion is given to development in instructed settings, where activities and environ-
ments may be intentionally organized according to theoretical principles in order
to optimally guide developmental processes. In the first section, we elaborate on
mediation—the central construct of the theory. We then discuss and relate to
SLA other aspects of SCT, namely, private speech, internalization, regulation
(closely connected to mediation and internalization), and the Zone of Proxi-
mal Development. We also consider SCT-informed L2 pedagogy, in particular
the growing bodies of work in dynamic assessment and Systemic-Theoret-
ical Instruction.

The Theory and Its Constructs

Mediation
Vygotsky developed a unified theory of human mental functioning that initiated a
new way of thinking about development. He acknowledged that the human mind
comprised lower mental processes, but the distinctive dimension of human
consciousness was its capacity for voluntary control over biology through the use
of higher level symbolic artifacts (i.e., language, literacy, numeracy, categorization,
rationality, logic, etc.). These artifacts, all of which derive from the historical accu-
mulation of human cultural activity and development (Tomasello, 1999), serve as
a buffer between the person and the environment and act to mediate the relation-
ship between the individual and the social-material world.

www.ebook777.com
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
Sociocultural Theory and SLA 209

To better understand psychological mediation via conceptual and semiotic

tools, we can consider the more obvious relationship between humans and the
physical world that is mediated by concrete tools. If we want to dig a hole in the
ground to plant a tree, it is possible, following the behavior of other species, simply
to use our hands. However, modern humans rarely engage in such nonmediated
activity; instead we mediate the digging process through the use of a shovel, which
allows us to make more efficient use of our physical energy and to dig a more
precise hole. We can be even more efficient and expend less physical energy if
we use a mechanical digging device such as a backhoe. Notice that the object of
our activity remains the same whether we dig with our hands or with a tool, but
the action of digging itself changes its appearance when we shift from hands to a
shovel or a backhoe. Physical tools imbue humans with a great deal more ability
than natural endowments alone. We are generally not completely free to use a
tool in any way we like. The design of the tool as well as the habitual patterns of
its use influence the purposes to which it is put and methods by which it is used
(Thorne, 2003, 2009).
Within SCT, an important form of mediation is termed regulation. When chil-
dren learn language, words not only function to isolate specific objects and actions,
they also serve to reshape biological perception into cultural perception and con-
cepts (see also Gibson, 1979; for an interface of SCT and language socialization, see
Duff, 2007). SCT researchers describe a developmentally sequenced shift in the
locus of control of human activity as object-, other-, and self-regulation. Object-
regulation describes instances when artifacts in the environment afford cogni-
tion/activity, such as the use of an online translation tool to look up unknown
words while reading or writing, the use of PowerPoint or an outline when mak-
ing an oral presentation, or pen and paper for making a to-do list or working
out mathematical problems. Other-regulation describes mediation by people and
can include explicit or implicit feedback on grammatical form, corrective com-
ments on writing assignments, or guidance from an expert or teacher. In our later
discussion of the Zone of Proximal Development we will illustrate how other-
regulation functions in the case of second language (L2) learning. Self-regulation
refers to individuals who have internalized external forms of mediation for the
execution or completion of a task. In this way, development can be described as
the process of gaining greater voluntary control over one’s capacity to think and
act either by becoming more proficient in the use of meditational resources, or
through a lessening or severed reliance on external meditational means (Thorne &
Tasker, 2011).
To be a proficient user of a language, first language (L1) or otherwise, is to be
self-regulated; however, self-regulation is not a stable condition. Even the most
proficient communicators, including native speakers, may need to reaccess earlier
stages of development (i.e., other- or object-regulation) when confronted with
challenging communicative situations. Under stress, for example, adult native users
of a language produce ungrammatical and incoherent utterances (see Frawley,
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
210 Lantolf, Thorne, and Poehner

1997). In this instance, an individual may become regulated by the language as

an object and instead of controlling the language; they become disfluent and may
require assistance from another person or from objects such as a thesaurus, dic-
tionary, or exemplar of a genre specific text. Each of the three stages—object regu-
lation, other regulation, and self-regulation—are “symmetrical and recoverable, an
individual can traverse this sequence at will [or by necessity], given the demands
of the task” (Frawley, 1997, p. 98).

Mediation by Symbolic Tools

Vygotsky reasoned that in a parallel fashion to the development and use of mate-
rial tools, humans also have the capacity to create and use symbols as tools to
mediate their own psychological activity. He proposed that while physical tools
are outwardly directed, symbolic tools are inwardly or cognitively directed. Just as
physical tools serve as auxiliary means to enhance the ability to control and change
the physical world, symbolic tools serve as an auxiliary means to control and reor-
ganize our biologically endowed mental processes. This control allows humans,
unlike other species, to inhibit and delay the functioning of automatic biological
processes. Rather than reacting instinctively and nonthoughtfully to stimuli, we are
able to consider possible actions (i.e., plan) on an ideal plane before realizing them
on the objective plane. Planning itself entails memory of previous actions, attention
to relevant (and overlooking of irrelevant) aspects of the situation, rational think-
ing, and projected outcomes. All of this, according to Vygotsky, constitutes human
consciousness. From an evolutionary perspective, this capacity imbues humans with
a considerable advantage over other species, because, through the creation of aux-
iliary means of mediation, we are able to assay a situation and consider alternative
courses of action and possible outcomes on the ideal or mental plane before acting
on the concrete objective plane (see Arievitch & van der Veer, 2004).
Language in all its forms is the most pervasive and powerful cultural artifact
that humans possess to mediate their connection to the world, to each other, and
to themselves. The key that links thinking to social and communicative activity
resides in the double function of the linguistic sign, which simultaneously points
in two directions—outwardly, “as a unit of social interaction (i.e., a unit of behav-
ior),” and inwardly, “as a unit of thinking (i.e., as a unit of mind)” (Prawat, 1999,
p. 268; italics original). The inward or self-directed use of language as a symbolic
tool for cognitive regulation is called private speech (see Lantolf & Thorne, 2006).
When we learn to communicate socially, we appropriate the patterns and mean-
ings of this social speech and also utilize it inwardly to mediate our mental activity.
Considerable research has been carried out on the development of private
speech among children learning their first language (see Diaz & Berk, 1992;
Wertsch, 1985). L2 researchers, beginning with the work of Frawley and Lan-
tolf (1985), have also begun to investigate the cognitive function of private
speech. Private speech is defined as an individual’s externalization of language for

www.ebook777.com
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
Sociocultural Theory and SLA 211

purposes of maintaining or regaining self-regulation, for example to aid in focus-

ing attention, problem solving, orienting oneself to a task, to support memory
related tasks, to facilitate internalization of novel or difficult information (e.g.,
language forms, sequences of numbers and mathematical computation), and to
objectify and make salient phenomena and information to the self (e.g., DiCa-
milla & Anton, 2004; Frawley, 1997; McCafferty, 1992; Ohta, 2001). Such use
of language shares empirical features that include averted gaze, lowered speech
volume, altered prosody, abbreviated syntax, and multiple repetitions. Recent
research on private speech has explored its social functions in contexts such as
collaborative play and in-class group activities in L2 classrooms. In these cases,
and in addition to its facilitation of the producer’s cognitive functioning, private
speech uttered by one individual serves as a public display that enables collective
attention to group-relevant problems and issues (e.g., Smith, 2007; Steinbach-
Koehler & Thorne, 2011). This research suggests that private speech serves both
as a cognitive affordance for an individual’s self-regulation while also helping to
make visible any ruptures or problems that may be present in the communicative
encounter at hand.

Internalization
Vygotsky (1981) stated that the challenge to psychology was to “show how the
individual response emerges from the forms of collective life [and] in contrast to
Piaget, we hypothesize that development does not proceed toward socialization,
but toward the conversion of social relations into mental functions” (p. 165). The
process through which cultural artifacts, including language, take on a psycho-
logical function is known as internalization (Kozulin, 1990). Drawing from
earlier theorists such as Janet (see Valsiner & van der Veer, 2000), Vygotsky (1981)
described the process of internalization as follows:

Any function in the child’s cultural development appears twice, or on two

planes. First it appears on the social plane, and then on the psychologi-
cal plane. First it appears between people as an interpsychological cat-
egory, and then within the child as an intrapsychological category. This is
equally true with regard to voluntary attention, logical memory, the forma-
tion of concepts, and the development of volition. (p. 163)

As this quotation makes clear, higher order cognitive functions, which include
planning, categorization, and interpretive strategies, are initially social and subse-
quently are internalized and made available as cognitive resources. This process of
creative appropriation occurs through exposure to, and use of, semiotic systems
such as languages, textual (and now digital) literacies, numeracy and mathematics,
and other historically accumulated cultural practices. In this sense, internalization
describes the developmental process whereby humans gain the capacity to perform
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
212 Lantolf, Thorne, and Poehner

complex cognitive and physical-motor functions with progressively decreasing

reliance on external mediation and increasing reliance on internal mediation.

The Zone of Proximal Development

The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) has had a substantial impact on devel-
opmental psychology, education, and applied linguistics. The most frequently ref-
erenced definition of the ZPD is “the distance between the actual developmental
level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential
development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in
collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86).
The ZPD has captivated educators and psychologists for a number of reasons.
One is the notion of assisted performance, which, though not equivalent to the
ZPD, has been a driving force behind much of the interest in Vygotsky’s research.
Another compelling attribute of the ZPD is that, in contrast to traditional tests and
measures that only indicate the level of development already attained, the ZPD is
forward looking through its assertion that what one can do today with mediation
is indicative of what one will be able to do independently in the future. In this
sense, ZPD-oriented assessment provides a nuanced determination of both devel-
opment achieved and developmental potential.
With the ZPD, Vygotsky (1978) put into concise form his more general con-
viction that “human learning presupposes a specific social nature and a process
by which children grow into the intellectual life of those around them” (p. 88).3
Vygotsky was particularly intrigued with the complex effects that schooling
had on cognitive development. One of Vygotsky’s most important findings,
and contra Piaget, is that instruction, especially formal instruction in school
precedes and shapes development. In this sense, the ZPD is not only a model
of the developmental process but also a conceptual tool that educators can use
to understand aspects of students’ emerging capacities that are in early stages of
maturation. When used proactively, teachers using the ZPD as a diagnostic have
the potential to create conditions that may give rise to specific forms of future
development.
In L2 research, the ZPD concept was used by Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994)
to analyze the relationship between corrective feedback and language learning
within learner–tutor interactions in an ESL course. They identified a number of
mechanisms of effective help, for example, that mediation should be contingent
on actual need, provided following a continuum that begins with implicit hints
and moves toward explicit correction as necessary, and that mediation should be
removed when the student demonstrates the capacity to function independently.
This process requires continuous assessment of the learner’s emerging abilities and
subsequent tailoring of help to best facilitate progression from other-regulation to
self-regulation. As we explain later in this chapter, this insight has been formalized
as Dynamic Assessment, a framework for integrating teaching and assessment.

www.ebook777.com
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
Sociocultural Theory and SLA 213

In a study that builds on conversation analysis of classroom discourse, Ohta

(2001) describes the interaction cues to which peers orient in dyad work to pro-
vide developmentally appropriate assistance to one another. A key finding in this
research is that differences in learner abilities are not fixed or located solely within
individuals. While some instances show one participant consistently providing
assistance to another, there are often expert–novice reversals over the course of one
and multiple sessions. Reiterating Donato’s (1994) notion of a collective expert,
Ohta (2001) observes that “when learners work together . . . strengths and weak-
nesses may be pooled, creating a greater expertise for the group than of any of the
individuals involved” (p. 76). Swain (2000) has made similar claims about what
she termed “collaborative dialogue,” and more recently, through the development
of the process she has termed “languaging” (Swain et al., 2009). In these works,
Swain (2000) extends her earlier formulation about communicative output “to
include its operation as a socially constructed cognitive tool. As a tool, it serves
second-language learning by mediating its own construction, and the construc-
tion of knowledge about itself ” (p. 112).

What Counts as Evidence?

Sociocultural research is grounded in the genetic method, an approach to sci-
entific research proposed by Vygotsky in which the development of individuals,
groups, and processes is traced over time. Consequently, single snapshots of learner
performance are not assumed to constitute adequate evidence of development.
Evidence must have a historical perspective. This is not necessarily an argument
for the exclusive use of long-term longitudinal studies. While development surely
occurs over the course of months, years, or even the entire life span of an individ-
ual or group, it may also occur over relatively short periods of time, where learning
takes place during a single interaction between, for example, a parent and child or
tutor and student. Moreover, development arises in the dialogic interaction among
individuals (this includes the self-talk that people engage in when they are trying
to bootstrap themselves through difficult activities such as learning another lan-
guage) as they collaborate in ZPD activity (Swain et al., 2009). Evidence of devel-
opment from this perspective is not limited to the actual linguistic performance of
learners. On the face of it, this performance in itself might not change very much
from one time to another. What may change, however, is the frequency and qual-
ity of mediation needed by a particular learner to perform appropriately in the
new language (see also the following discussion of Dynamic Assessment). On one
occasion a learner may respond only to explicit mediation from a teacher or peer
to produce a specific feature of the L2 and on a later occasion (later in the same
interaction or in a future interaction) the individual may only need a subtle hint
to be able to produce the feature. Thus, while nothing has ostensibly changed in
the learner’s actual performance, development has taken place, because the quality
of mediation needed to prompt the performance has changed.4
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
214 Lantolf, Thorne, and Poehner

Development within the ZPD is not just about performance per se; it is also
about where the locus of control for that performance resides—in someone else
or in learners themselves. As learners assume greater responsibility for appropri-
ate performances of the L2, they can be said to have developed, even when they
exhibit little in the way of improvement in their overt performance. This means
that evidence of development can be observed at two distinct levels: overt inde-
pendent performance and at the level where performance is mediated by someone
else. This second type of evidence will go undetected unless we keep in mind
that development in the ZPD is understood as the difference between what an
individual can do independently and what he or she is able to do with media-
tion, including changes in mediation over time. Finally, because SCT construes
language as a cultural tool used to carry out concrete goal directed activities, tasks
such as traditional language tests designed to elicit displays of a learner’s linguis-
tic knowledge offer only limited evidence of development. In sum, evidence of
development in a new language is taken to be changes in control over the new
language as a means of regulating the behavior of the self and of others in carrying
out goal-directed activity.

Common Misconceptions about SCT

Because of space limitations, we will focus only on misconceptions that relate
to the ZPD, easily the most widely used and yet least understood of the cen-
tral concepts of SCT (Chaiklin, 2003). There are two general misconceptions
about the ZPD. The first is that the ZPD is equivalent to scaffolding (or assisted
performance) and the second is that it is similar to Krashen’s notion of i + 1
(e.g., Krashen, 1982). Both assumptions are inaccurate. Scaffolding, a term popu-
larized by Jerome Bruner and his colleagues nearly four decades ago (Wood,
Bruner, & Ross, 1976), refers to any type of adult–child (expert–novice) assisted
performance. Scaffolding, unlike the ZPD, is thought of in terms of the amount of
assistance provided by the expert to the novice rather than in terms of the quality,
and changes in the quality, of mediation that is negotiated between expert and
novice (Stetsenko, 1999).
With regard to misconceptions about equivalences between ZPD and Krashen’s
i + 1, the fundamental problem is that the ZPD focuses on the nature of the con-
crete dialogic relationship between expert and novice and its goal of moving the
novice toward greater self-regulation through the new language. Krashen’s con-
cept focuses on language and the language acquisition device, which is assumed
to be the same for all learners with very little room for differential development
(e.g., Dunn & Lantolf, 1998; Thorne, 2000). Krashen’s hypothesis claims that lan-
guage develops as a result of learners comprehending input that contains features
of the new language that are “slightly” beyond their current developmental level.
As researchers have pointed out, there is no way of determining precisely the i +
1 of any given learner in advance of development. It can only be assumed after

www.ebook777.com
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
Sociocultural Theory and SLA 215

the fact. In terms of the ZPD, development can be predicted in advance for any
given learner on the basis of his or her responsiveness to mediation. This is what
it means to say that what an individual is capable of with mediation at one point
in time, he or she will be able to do without mediation at a future point in time.
Moreover, as we mentioned in our discussion of the ZPD, development is not
merely a function of shifts in linguistic performance, as in the case of Krashen’s
model, but is also determined by the type of, and changes in, mediation negotiated
between expert and novice. This principle is illustrated in the study described in
the following section.

An Exemplary Study: Poehner (2009)

A persistent issue in the L2 field, as in educational research more generally, con-
cerns the role of assessment and its relation to teaching. Standardized tests are
frequently employed on a large scale in educational systems to inform high-stakes
decisions such as admission to a program of study, fulfillment of requirements
for graduation, or professional licensing. With the steady increase of such testing
practices critical voices have emerged which challenge the use of tests as a means
of enforcing policy decisions and restricting access to opportunities for many
populations. These critiques are frequently accompanied by calls for assessment to
be realigned with educational objectives and better integrated with teaching and
learning. In this context, Dynamic Assessment (DA) provides a powerful frame-
work for integrating assessment and teaching as a dialectical activity aimed at
diagnosing and promoting learner development.
DA derives from Vygotsky’s conceptualization of the ZPD, which he frequently
illustrated using the example of two children whose independent performance of
age-level tasks is similar but who respond quite differently when offered prompts,
models, feedback, and leading questions. Vygotsky interpreted the children’s varied
responsiveness to mediation as indicating psychological abilities that are in the pro-
cess of emerging but are not yet within their independent control. Since Vygotsky’s
time this insight has been formalized into a set of assessment procedures collectively
referred to as DA (Haywood & Lidz, 2007). The lion’s share of DA has been con-
ducted with learners with special needs and immigrant and minority children as
these populations tend to perform poorly on conventional assessments.
The aim of DA is to move beyond judging learner performance as correct or
incorrect and to reveal the processes underlying performance so as to provide a
more nuanced picture of learner abilities. Typically, insights are shared with teach-
ers and other assessment stakeholders so that learners may be placed in appropriate
learning contexts and instructional interventions designed to provoke develop-
ment. The work of Reuven Feuerstein (e.g., Feuerstein, Feuerstein, & Falik, 2010)
stands out in that he, like Vygotsky, understood that diagnosing and promoting
development are activities that follow the same dialectical principles. Activity that
seeks to co-construct a ZPD with learners may foreground an assessment function
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
216 Lantolf, Thorne, and Poehner

or a teaching function depending upon the particular context and purpose behind
the activity but both assessment and teaching are necessarily implicated in the
activity. It is this view of DA that has been brought into the L2 field (see Lantolf &
Poehner, 2004) and that we detail in the following case study.
Poehner (2009) reports the implementation of DA principles by Tracy (pseud-
onym), a primary school L2 Spanish classroom teacher. As the sole Spanish teacher
in the school, Tracy was granted considerable latitude to develop her own cur-
riculum at each grade level, and this included the creation of instructional materi-
als, sequencing of lessons, and assessments of learning. She first encountered DA
through a professional development initiative and became interested in explor-
ing how it might help her better understand her learners’ abilities and attune
her instruction accordingly. Although she was interested in pursuing a DA-based
pedagogy, the specific constraints of her instructional context compelled her to
opt for a scripted rather than open-ended approach to mediation. In particular,
Tracy had only 15 minutes per day with each of two classes, each with approxi-
mately 20 students. Tracy carefully prepared an inventory of mediating prompts
that she could administer when learners experienced difficulties with the day’s
learning activities.
Adhering to the general principle that mediation should be sufficiently explicit
to be of value to learners but not so explicit that it deprives learners of the struggle
necessary for development, Tracy prepared six to eight prompts arranged from
most implicit (pause to allow learners to detect and correct errors) to most explicit
(provide the correct response with an explanation). Additional prompts included
repeating a learner’s response with a questioning intonation; repeating the part of a
response that contained an error; employing metalinguistic terms to direct learner
attention to the nature of the error; and offering a choice between two forms.
To maintain a record of learner performance, Tracy created a grid where she
recorded the number of prompts offered to every student during specific interac-
tions over the course of a week as well as a space for notations on the nature of
learner problems. The grid used during instruction allowed Tracy to efficiently
generate a record to which she could refer to track the level of mediation specific
individuals required and how this changed over time as well as how much sup-
port the class in general needed. This approach to DA was highly systematic and
addressed a shortcoming frequently associated with formative assessment prac-
tices. As Poehner and Lantolf (2005) explain, research into formative assessment
reports that insights gained into learner abilities are often unreliable as individual
teachers are not consistent in how they assess learners, offer feedback, and docu-
ment this process and its outcomes.
Poehner (2009) also argues that Tracy’s approach creates the potential to
understand ZPD activity at both the individual and group level. By designing
activities that were sufficiently challenging that none of the students was able to
complete them independently, the instructor was able to establish a context in
which all learners could benefit from the mediation she prepared. Moreover, she

www.ebook777.com
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
Sociocultural Theory and SLA 217

orchestrated activities that allowed one student at a time to attempt to complete

tasks while the rest of the class observed. In this way, Tracy offered mediation to
each student in turn but in the social space that included all class members as
secondary interactants. According to Poehner, this approach cannot guarantee
that all students will attend to a teacher’s interaction with another student, but this
may occur, especially when students understand that they, too, will have a turn at
the tasks. He argues that Tracy was in fact conducting a form of group Dynamic
Assessment or G-DA.
In support of this claim, Poehner (2009) documents an activity that required
students to mark substantive-modifier agreement for number and gender. Dur-
ing the class session Poehner describes, three learners attempt the task. The first
requires extensive interaction with the teacher as he initially fails to mark either
gender or number agreement. Tracy ultimately offers the learner a choice between
two forms of an adjective and although the student makes the correct selection,
it is not clear whether he was guessing or he in fact understood why number
concord was necessary. The second and third learners to carry out the activity
performed successfully with only minimal mediation. The second learner was able
to partially self-correct and then required a level two prompt (repetition of the
learner’s response with a questioning intonation). The third learner provided an
acceptable response on her first attempt. While she did not need any prompting,
her intonation indicated that she needed teacher confirmation of her response.
Poehner interprets this to mean that while the third learner is closest to full inde-
pendent performance, she may not yet have complete control over substantive-
modifier concord in Spanish. To perform in a fully self-regulated manner requires
appropriate self-evaluation.
Poehner (2009) acknowledges that it is possible that these three learners simply
happened to be in different places developmentally such that the first required
a level six prompt, the second a level two prompt, and the third required no
prompting at all. He postulates, however, that this progression may not have been
coincidental but might reflect the fact that the second learner had benefited from
observing Tracy’s interaction with the first student and that the third learner ben-
efitted from watching two teacher–student interactions. In other words, the learn-
ers were not necessarily starting from the beginning each time but were building
upon previous interactions. While further research is needed, this study has helped
to initiate inquiry into mediation that is sensitive to individual learners’ needs in
instructional formats such as teacher-fronted group and whole-class interaction.

Explanation of Observed Findings in SLA

In this section we consider if and how SCT addresses the observed phenomena in
SLA raised by the editors in Chapter 1. As a preamble to the discussion, however,
we would like to point to a fundamental difference between the observed phe-
nomena taken as a whole and how SCT approaches the learning process. It is clear
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
218 Lantolf, Thorne, and Poehner

that the 10 phenomena taken together are predicated on a theoretical assumption

(in our view, and in the view of many other researchers, scientific observations,
as Vygotsky, 1997, insightfully stated, are never theory-free) that separates indi-
viduals from the social world. In other words, the phenomena assume a dualism
between autonomous learners and their social environment represented as linguis-
tic input—a concept closely linked to the computational metaphor of cognition
and learning. SCT is grounded in a perspective that does not separate the indi-
vidual from the social and in fact argues that the individual emerges from social
interaction and as such is always fundamentally a social being (Vygotsky, 1994).
This includes not only obvious social relationships but also the qualities that com-
prise higher order mental activity that are rooted in semiotically mediated social
interaction. With this as a background we will briefly address the given observa-
tions as they pertain to an SCT perspective of L2 development.
Observation 1: Exposure to input is necessary for SLA. Since the social world is the
source of all learning in SCT, participation in culturally organized activity is essential
for learning to happen. This entails not just the obvious case of interaction with
others, but also the artifacts that others have produced, including written texts. It
also includes Ohta’s (2001) “vicarious” participation in which learners observe the
linguistic behavior of others and attempt to imitate it through private speech. How-
ever, as our discussion of DA makes clear, development may be optimally guided
when intentional effort is made to sensitize interactions to learners’ emergent needs.
Observation 2: A good deal of SLA happens incidentally. Here we believe a bit of
clarification is in order. From the perspective of SCT, what matters is the specific
subgoal that learners form in which the language itself becomes the intentional
object of their attention in the service of a higher goal. Thus, looking up a word
in a dictionary, guessing at the meaning of a word when reading a text for compre-
hension, and asking for clarification or help are subgoals that subserve higher order
goals such as writing a research paper, passing a test, or finding one’s way through
an unknown city. This process reflects the tool function of language; that is, the
use of language to achieve specific concrete goals. Thus, what is called incidental
learning is not really incidental. It is at some level a function of intentional, goal
directed, meaningful activity. Moreover, as we explain in the next section, SCT
compels us to place a premium on the explicit presentation of linguistic knowl-
edge to intentionally provoke L2 development.
Observation 4: Learners’ output (speech) often follows predictable paths with predictable
stages in the acquisition of a given structure; Observation 9: There are limits on the effects
of instruction on SLA. To consider these observations, it is important to distinguish
between learning in untutored immersion settings and highly organized educa-
tional settings. The evidence reported in the L2 literature supports the develop-
mental hypothesis position in the case of untutored learners. There is also research
that shows that learners follow the same paths in classroom settings (see Chapter
9). The question we have about this research is that as far as we are aware the
teaching did not take account of the ZPD. In other words, it provided a uniform

www.ebook777.com
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
Sociocultural Theory and SLA 219

intervention for all learners and did not engage learners in the type of negotiated
mediation demanded by the concept of ZPD. A current project (Zhang, 2014;
also Lantolf & Poehner, 2014) has uncovered evidence that instruction organized
in accordance with principles of SCT and that is sensitive to learners’ ZPD can, in
fact, impact the sequence that classroom learners follow when acquiring features
of a second language.
Observations 5: Second language learning is variable in its outcome; Observation 6:
Second language learning is variable across linguistic subsystems. As we have shown in
our discussions of the ZPD and DA, variability in the development of any given
learner as well as across learners is a characteristic of L2 acquisition. In addition,
the evidence shows that learners variably acquire different subsystems of a new
language depending on the type of mediation they receive and the specific goals
for which they use the language (see Lantolf & Aljaafreh, 1995; for a discussion
of L2 variability that takes into account both SCT and a dynamic systems theory
perspective, see de Bot, Lowie, Thorne, & Verspoor, 2013).
Observation 8: There are limits on the effect of a learner’s first language on SLA.
From an SCT perspective it is important to distinguish form from meaning when
addressing this observation. While L1 formal features may have a limited effect on
L2 learning, it is clear with regard to observations on variability that L1 meanings
continue to have a pervasive effect in L2 learning (see Negueruela, Lantolf, Jor-
dan, & Gelabert, 2004). In addition, as was discussed in regard to L2 private speech,
L2 users have a difficult time using the new language to mediate their cognitive
activity, not withstanding high levels of communicative proficiency.
Observation 10: There are limits on the effects of output (learner production) on lan-
guage acquisition. In this case it is important to distinguish between use of the L1
to mediate the learning of the L2 and the effects of L1 on L2 production. Because
our first language is used not only for communicative interaction but also to
regulate our cognitive processes, it stands to reason that learners must necessarily
rely on this language in order to mediate their learning of the L2. However, there
is also evidence showing that social speech produced in the L1 and the L2 each
impact L2 learning. In a continuing series of studies, Swain and her colleagues
have documented how classroom learners of second languages, including immer-
sion learners, push linguistic development forward by talking, either in the L1 or
L2, about features of the new language (Swain & Lapkin, 2002; Swain, Lapkin,
Knouzi, Suzuki, & Brooks, 2009).

Explicit and Implicit L2 Knowledge

Recently, Paradis (2009) and Ullman (2005) have argued that the distinction
between implicit and explicit knowledge is not supported by neurological systems
of the brain. Instead, they point out that the brain comprises two memory systems:
procedural and declarative. Among other things, the former underlies the kind
of knowledge that people have of their native language as acquired in immersion
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
220 Lantolf, Thorne, and Poehner

settings and which is not usually available to conscious inspection per se. The
latter system, on the other hand, supports lexical knowledge and other kinds of
explicit information that people generally learn through intentional and conscious
instruction (see Chapter 8).
According to Paradis (2009) as we mature into our teenage years and beyond,
learning through the procedural system declines, while learning through the
declarative system increases. Leaving aside, because of space constraints, many of
the complexities and subtleties of the processes entailed in the respective models
proposed by Paradis and Ullman, we wish to highlight two components that are
directly relevant for the SCT position. The first is that there are no neurological
pathways connecting the procedural and declarative systems, which means that
declarative knowledge cannot convert into procedural knowledge, no matter how
much practice one engages in (NB: neither researcher rules out the possibility
of developing the procedural system in immersion settings but it requires exten-
sive and intensive experiences—experiences that are not likely to occur in the
educational setting). The second is that the declarative system, with appropriate
practice, can be accessed smoothly and rapidly, although perhaps not as rapidly as
the procedural system. What this means is that explicit and systematic instruction
can result in functionally useful knowledge of a second language that learners can
access for spontaneous spoken and written communicative purposes.
SCT does acknowledge a distinction between implicit and explicit knowl-
edge, including knowledge of language. Implicit knowledge, which Vygotsky
(1987) discusses under the rubric of spontaneous concepts, is largely nonconscious
and appropriated from participation in the everyday activities of a community.
Explicit knowledge, which Vygotsky (1987) discusses under the rubric of scientific
concepts, is primarily learned through intentional and systematic instruction gen-
erally associated with formal education. The bulk of SCT research for the past
decade has largely focused on the intentional (or as Vygotsky put it, artificial)
development of second-language ability through systematic explicit instruction.
The framework through which this type of instruction is carried is called Systemic
Theoretical Instruction (STI). Again, concern with development through explicit
instruction does not deny the possibility, as argued by Ullman and Paradis, that
spontaneous development of the procedural system is possible in immersion set-
tings where implicit knowledge may be accessed.
STI, as its name suggests, is concerned with rendering such theoretical knowledge
accessible to learners in a principled, systematic manner. While differences exist
across specific approaches to STI, they share a commitment to identifying the central
concept within an academic discipline and maintaining this as the focus of instruc-
tion. A crucial tenet of STI is that the concept not be “broken-down” or “simpli-
fied” as this risks distorting it. Rather, the concept must be presented in a manner that
is age-appropriate for learners but that maintains its integrity. Additional concepts
are introduced as study continues, and the interrelations among concepts, including
their connection to the central organizing concept, are made explicit.

www.ebook777.com
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
Sociocultural Theory and SLA 221

STI is also marked by the use of schemata, images, and models to introduce
concepts to learners. In a material form, the concepts are more easily referenced
and manipulated by learners than are verbal explanations alone. STI also prompts
learners to verbalize their understanding of a concept and how they use it as
they carry out practical activities guided by the concept. As learners internalize
the meaning of the concept through appropriate forms of practice, they are less
dependent on external symbolic tools to orient their actions.
L2 STI seeks to promote learners’ conceptual understandings of language, and
this means that teaching as well as the knowledge that learners acquire is explicit
in nature. To be sure, this implies that learners who have developed an L2 through
schooling are psychologically functioning with the language in qualitatively dif-
ferent ways from how they function in their L1, which they acquired primarily in
everyday contexts and perhaps even how they acquire L2s in immersion settings
(see Paradis, 2009). More specifically, this means that while L1 knowledge remains
largely implicit for most individuals, this is not the case for knowledge of an L2
developed in school. What matters, however, is not simply that L2 knowledge is
explicit but, following Karpov (2003), that the quality of knowledge must be sys-
tematic and theoretical to provide an appropriate basis for action that generalizes
across various domains. We refer interested readers to Lantolf and Poehner (2008,
2014) for discussion of specific L2 STI studies.

Conclusion
In this chapter we have outlined the primary constructs of SCT, namely, mediation
and regulation, internalization, and the ZPD. Additionally, we have considered
Dynamic Assessment and Systemic-Theoretical Instruction and how they inform
the study of SLA and the structuring of educational interventions. Mediation is
the principal construct that unites all varieties of SCT and is rooted in the obser-
vation that humans do not act directly on the world—rather their cognitive and
material activities are mediated by symbolic artifacts (such as languages, literacy,
numeracy, concepts, and forms of logic and rationality) as well as by material
artifacts and technologies. The claim is that higher order mental functions, includ-
ing voluntary memory, logical thought, learning, and attention, are organized and
amplified through participation in culturally organized activity. This emphasis
within the theory embraces a wide range of research including linguistic relativity,
distributed cognition, and cognitive linguistics. We also addressed the concept of
internalization, the processes through which interpersonal and person–environ-
ment interaction form and transform one’s internal mental functions, and the
role of imitation in learning and development. Finally, we discussed the ZPD, the
difference between the level of development already obtained and the cognitive
functions comprising the proximal next stage of development that may be visible
through participation in collaborative activity. We emphasized that the ZPD is not
only a model of developmental processes, but also a conceptual and pedagogical
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
222 Lantolf, Thorne, and Poehner

tool that educators can use to better understand aspects of students’ emerging
capacities that are in early stages of formation.
Because of its emphasis on praxis, SCT does not rigidly separate understand-
ing (research) from transformation (concrete action). While SCT is used descrip-
tively and analytically as a research framework, it is also an applied methodology
that can be used to improve educational processes and environments (see Lantolf
& Poehner, 2008, 2011, in press; Thorne, 2004, 2005). SCT encourages engaged
critical inquiry wherein investigation into psychological abilities leads to the
development of material and symbolic tools necessary to enact positive inter-
ventions. In other words, the value of the theory resides not just in the analyti-
cal lens it provides for the understanding of psychological development, but in
its capacity to directly impact that development. Though certainly not unique
among theoretical perspectives, SCT approaches take seriously the issue of apply-
ing research to practice by understanding communicative processes as inherently
cognitive processes, and cognitive processes as indivisible from humanistic issues
of self-efficacy, agency, and the effects of participation in culturally organized
activity.

Discussion Questions
1. Both Sociocultural Theory (Lantolf, Thorne, and Poehner) and the frame-
work presented by Gass and Mackey are “interactional” in nature. How are
they different?
2. What is mediation? What is its purpose, and what tools do learners use?
3. The authors of this chapter see Sociocultural Theory primarily as way to
understand classroom language learning. How could Sociocultural Theory
account for language learning outside of the classroom?
4. Consider the Dynamic Assessment principle of providing mediation that is
initially implicit and only becomes more explicit as necessary. How does this
relate to discussions of feedback as Gass and Mackey describe in Chapter 10?
5. Systemic-theoretical instruction moves away from the presentation and prac-
tice of grammar rules and argues instead for the presentation of linguistic
concepts ways to construct meaning. In what ways is this different from the
functionalist approach Bardovi-Harlig presents in Chapter 4?
6. Read the exemplary study presented in this chapter and prepare a discussion for
class in which you describe how you would conduct a replication study. Be sure
to explain any changes you would make and what motivates such changes.

Notes
1. Scholars working in Vygotsky-inspired frameworks also use the term Cultural-Histor-
ical Activity Theory (or CHAT). However, most research conducted on L2 learning
within the Vygotskian tradition has used the term sociocultural, and for this reason, we

www.ebook777.com
free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
Sociocultural Theory and SLA 223

use this term throughout the chapter. It is also important to note that the term sociocul-
tural has been used by researchers who do not work directly within the theoretical per-
spective we are addressing in this chapter. These researchers use the term sociocultural
to refer to the general social and cultural circumstances in which individuals conduct
the business of living.
2. In this chapter, we restrict our discussion to symbolic artifacts, in particular, language.
For a more complete discussion of mediation, see Lantolf and Thorne (2006).
3. Elsewhere Vygotsky (1981) remarks that “social relations or relations among people
genetically underlie all higher functions and their relationships” (p. 163).
4. This should not be interpreted to mean that the amount of external mediation a learner
requires will diminish in a predictable and systematic manner, as has been assumed in
some cases (e.g., Erlam, Ellis, & Batstone, 2013). Rather, it is the quality of mediation
rather than a quantifiable amount that will evidence change as learners move toward
greater self-regulation. Moreover, this shift is not predicted to be the same for every
individual, with some making more rapid gains than others and some showing gradual
rather than dramatic improvement.

The Theory and Its Constructs

Complexity theorists are fundamentally concerned with describing and tracing
emerging patterns in dynamic systems in order to explain change and growth. As
such, Complexity Theory (CT) is well-suited for use by researchers who study
second language acquisition (SLA), and it is not surprising, therefore, that its influ-
ence has been increasing. In fact, the famous physicist Stephen Hawking (2000)
has called the 21st century “the century of complexity.” This chapter begins with
an overview of the constructs within CT, and then turns to how they apply to
second language acquisition, or second language development, as an adherent of
CT would prefer to call it (Larsen-Freeman, 2011).
CT has a broad reach. It is transdisciplinary in two senses of the term: first,
in that it has been used to inform a variety of disciplines, for example, epidemi-
ology in biology, dissipative systems in chemistry, stock market performance in
business—and more germane to our interests—investigations of language (e.g.,
Bybee & Hopper, 2001), language change (e.g., Kretzschmar, 2009), language evo-
lution (e.g., MacWhinney, 1999), language development (e.g., Larsen-Freeman,
2006b), discourse (e.g., Cameron, 2007), and multilingualism (e.g., Herdina &
Jessner, 2002).
The second way that it is transdisciplinary is that complexity contributes a
new cross-cutting theme to theory development, comparable to prior revolu-
tionary transdisciplinary themes such as structuralism and evolution (Halliday &
Burns, 2006). Complexity introduces the theme of emergence (Holland, 1998),
“the spontaneous occurrence of something new” (van Geert, 2008, p. 182) that
arises from the interaction of the components of a complex system, just as a
bird flock emerges from the interaction of individual birds. Since a bird flock

The Neural Basis of Reading
100% (3)
The Neural Basis of Reading
362 pages
LIDDICOAT - Five Principles of Intercultural Language Learning
100% (1)
LIDDICOAT - Five Principles of Intercultural Language Learning
2 pages
Scaffolding Language - Scaffolding Learning Teaching Second Language Learners in The Mainstream Classroom
No ratings yet
Scaffolding Language - Scaffolding Learning Teaching Second Language Learners in The Mainstream Classroom
2 pages
Foundations of Curriculum Development
100% (2)
Foundations of Curriculum Development
44 pages
How Languages Are Learned (Oxford) - Chapter 4: Learner Language
No ratings yet
How Languages Are Learned (Oxford) - Chapter 4: Learner Language
10 pages
Chaudron (1986) - WP5
100% (1)
Chaudron (1986) - WP5
39 pages
Gass, Mackey & Pica (1998) The Role of Input and Interaction in SLA Introduction To The Special Issue PDF
100% (2)
Gass, Mackey & Pica (1998) The Role of Input and Interaction in SLA Introduction To The Special Issue PDF
9 pages
Larsen-Freeman Study On Grammar
No ratings yet
Larsen-Freeman Study On Grammar
18 pages
Early Adulthood: Presented By: May Queen I. Manaois Saint Marry S. Juan
100% (1)
Early Adulthood: Presented By: May Queen I. Manaois Saint Marry S. Juan
19 pages
An Overview of Second Language Teaching Methods and Approaches
100% (1)
An Overview of Second Language Teaching Methods and Approaches
9 pages
The Nature of Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching
100% (2)
The Nature of Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching
54 pages
Human Lang Vs Animal Commun
100% (1)
Human Lang Vs Animal Commun
4 pages
3-3 Rendell Company Study Case
No ratings yet
3-3 Rendell Company Study Case
12 pages
What Is Bilingualism
No ratings yet
What Is Bilingualism
22 pages
The Differential Effects of Three Types of Task Planning On The Fluency, Complexity, and Accuracy in L2 Oral Production
No ratings yet
The Differential Effects of Three Types of Task Planning On The Fluency, Complexity, and Accuracy in L2 Oral Production
36 pages
Bock Levelt Language 1994
No ratings yet
Bock Levelt Language 1994
40 pages
Annotated Translation
100% (1)
Annotated Translation
15 pages
Skill Acquisition and Second Language Learning
No ratings yet
Skill Acquisition and Second Language Learning
17 pages
A Typology of The Prestige Language
100% (1)
A Typology of The Prestige Language
15 pages
First Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Learning Comparison
100% (1)
First Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Learning Comparison
27 pages
07 - Chapter 1 PDF
No ratings yet
07 - Chapter 1 PDF
28 pages
Heads I Win, Tails You Lose - On The Psychology of Philosophy
100% (1)
Heads I Win, Tails You Lose - On The Psychology of Philosophy
9 pages
The Relative Effects of Metalinguistic Explanation and Direct Written Corrective Feedback On Children's Grammatical Accuracy in New Writing
100% (1)
The Relative Effects of Metalinguistic Explanation and Direct Written Corrective Feedback On Children's Grammatical Accuracy in New Writing
25 pages
Merril Swain
No ratings yet
Merril Swain
21 pages
Module Handbook: BUSI1702 Organisational Decision Making
No ratings yet
Module Handbook: BUSI1702 Organisational Decision Making
14 pages
Neurobiological Theories of Consciousness
No ratings yet
Neurobiological Theories of Consciousness
14 pages
Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Acquisition: Annual Review of Applied Linguistics March 1995
No ratings yet
Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Acquisition: Annual Review of Applied Linguistics March 1995
45 pages
What Is A Dark Empath A Complete Guide To Empath Psychology
No ratings yet
What Is A Dark Empath A Complete Guide To Empath Psychology
7 pages
Chapter-3 - Thoughts Create Emotions and Stuff
No ratings yet
Chapter-3 - Thoughts Create Emotions and Stuff
6 pages
TESOL Quarterly (Autumn 1991)
No ratings yet
TESOL Quarterly (Autumn 1991)
195 pages
A Comparison Between Deductive and Inductive Appro
No ratings yet
A Comparison Between Deductive and Inductive Appro
13 pages
Bonny Norton Peirce - Social Identity and Investment
No ratings yet
Bonny Norton Peirce - Social Identity and Investment
24 pages
Group Polarization
No ratings yet
Group Polarization
10 pages
Communicative Anxiety in The Second and Third Language
100% (1)
Communicative Anxiety in The Second and Third Language
16 pages
Perspectives English As A Lingua Franca and Its Implications For English Language Teaching
No ratings yet
Perspectives English As A Lingua Franca and Its Implications For English Language Teaching
18 pages
Formal Approaches To Sla-Universal Grammar Mat-English: Ivan T. Barroga
No ratings yet
Formal Approaches To Sla-Universal Grammar Mat-English: Ivan T. Barroga
39 pages
Teaching Language in Context Chapter 2 - Parte 1
100% (2)
Teaching Language in Context Chapter 2 - Parte 1
17 pages
Analyzing Discourse
No ratings yet
Analyzing Discourse
12 pages
Input and Interaction in Second Language Learning: by Mahsa Farahanynia Allameh Tababie University, Tehran 2015
No ratings yet
Input and Interaction in Second Language Learning: by Mahsa Farahanynia Allameh Tababie University, Tehran 2015
35 pages
Subordinate Appraisal
No ratings yet
Subordinate Appraisal
5 pages
Language Is Communication
No ratings yet
Language Is Communication
6 pages
Teaching English in The Primary Grade (Language) : BEED 3-H (4) Group 6
No ratings yet
Teaching English in The Primary Grade (Language) : BEED 3-H (4) Group 6
12 pages
Language Learning With Technology - Ideas For Inte
100% (1)
Language Learning With Technology - Ideas For Inte
16 pages
Artificial Intelligence With Lab: Report: Machine Learning
No ratings yet
Artificial Intelligence With Lab: Report: Machine Learning
6 pages
ESL Teachers Use of Corrective Feedback and Its Effect On Learners Uptake
100% (1)
ESL Teachers Use of Corrective Feedback and Its Effect On Learners Uptake
23 pages
Behaviorism
No ratings yet
Behaviorism
4 pages
General Microbiology Lab 3 2020-2021: Bacterial Staining
No ratings yet
General Microbiology Lab 3 2020-2021: Bacterial Staining
22 pages
Module 3 - Anthropological Perspective
No ratings yet
Module 3 - Anthropological Perspective
7 pages
Review of From Rules To Reasons by Danny Norrington-Davies (Pavilion 2016)
No ratings yet
Review of From Rules To Reasons by Danny Norrington-Davies (Pavilion 2016)
3 pages
Languages and The Self
No ratings yet
Languages and The Self
14 pages
Eng10 1st QT Week 2.1 Noting Important Information (Without Drill)
No ratings yet
Eng10 1st QT Week 2.1 Noting Important Information (Without Drill)
20 pages
World Englishes
No ratings yet
World Englishes
34 pages
Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition
No ratings yet
Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition
7 pages
1997 Dornyei Scott LL
100% (1)
1997 Dornyei Scott LL
38 pages
Theories of Language Acquisition (Table ( (R)
100% (2)
Theories of Language Acquisition (Table ( (R)
14 pages
Principle and Strategies of Teaching - Chapter 6
No ratings yet
Principle and Strategies of Teaching - Chapter 6
7 pages
Challenges of Teaching English Language in A Multi PDF
No ratings yet
Challenges of Teaching English Language in A Multi PDF
9 pages
Introduction of Sociolinguistics
No ratings yet
Introduction of Sociolinguistics
3 pages
The Grammar-Translation Method (GTM) : Textbook: Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000) - Techniques and Principles in
No ratings yet
The Grammar-Translation Method (GTM) : Textbook: Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000) - Techniques and Principles in
23 pages
Writing1 Arw11
No ratings yet
Writing1 Arw11
1 page
Grammar Teaching-Practice or Consciousness-Raising - Ellis - Sem Comentários...
No ratings yet
Grammar Teaching-Practice or Consciousness-Raising - Ellis - Sem Comentários...
5 pages
Japanese and English Pronunciation
No ratings yet
Japanese and English Pronunciation
19 pages
Theories of Language Acquisition: Theory Central Idea Theory
100% (1)
Theories of Language Acquisition: Theory Central Idea Theory
3 pages
Identity in SLA
100% (1)
Identity in SLA
11 pages
Vygotsky D Ssociocultural Theory and The
No ratings yet
Vygotsky D Ssociocultural Theory and The
6 pages
Grossi V Teaching Pragmatic Competence Compliments and
100% (1)
Grossi V Teaching Pragmatic Competence Compliments and
10 pages
LSA3 Pron Final
No ratings yet
LSA3 Pron Final
12 pages
Covert and Overt
No ratings yet
Covert and Overt
10 pages
Problematizing The Culture of Learning English in Vietnam: Revisiting Teacher Identity
No ratings yet
Problematizing The Culture of Learning English in Vietnam: Revisiting Teacher Identity
2 pages
3 Translanguaging 1
No ratings yet
3 Translanguaging 1
3 pages
S2.3 Template of Unit Standards and Competencies Diagram
No ratings yet
S2.3 Template of Unit Standards and Competencies Diagram
1 page
The Input Hypothesis: Wan Maisarah Nurul Atiqah Liyana Farah Ahmad Tirmiezi
No ratings yet
The Input Hypothesis: Wan Maisarah Nurul Atiqah Liyana Farah Ahmad Tirmiezi
6 pages
Creating Open-Ended Questions For Student Feedback On Courses Surveys
No ratings yet
Creating Open-Ended Questions For Student Feedback On Courses Surveys
3 pages
Dicto Gloss
No ratings yet
Dicto Gloss
11 pages
Delegation
No ratings yet
Delegation
4 pages
Ambiguity of Leadership
No ratings yet
Ambiguity of Leadership
1 page
English With An Accent Language Ideology
No ratings yet
English With An Accent Language Ideology
3 pages
Behavioral Theories
No ratings yet
Behavioral Theories
2 pages
5 Formal Lesson Plan 1
No ratings yet
5 Formal Lesson Plan 1
2 pages
The Role of Repetition in CLIL Teacher Discoursce
No ratings yet
The Role of Repetition in CLIL Teacher Discoursce
10 pages
Music As An English Skills Developer
No ratings yet
Music As An English Skills Developer
5 pages
Classroom Instruction Delivery Alignment Map: RBT Leve L
No ratings yet
Classroom Instruction Delivery Alignment Map: RBT Leve L
3 pages
Holistic Grammar Through Socratic Questioning
No ratings yet
Holistic Grammar Through Socratic Questioning
12 pages
Rejecting Individualism
No ratings yet
Rejecting Individualism
3 pages
Ten Generalizations From SLA Research Activity
No ratings yet
Ten Generalizations From SLA Research Activity
2 pages
Methods and Materials: Prepared by Rami Tarawneh, Supervised by DR Anood Saraireh Mutah University
No ratings yet
Methods and Materials: Prepared by Rami Tarawneh, Supervised by DR Anood Saraireh Mutah University
1 page
English As A Lingua Franca - Seidlhofer
No ratings yet
English As A Lingua Franca - Seidlhofer
3 pages
Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching
From Everand
Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching
Thomas S.C. Farrell
1/5 (1)
Fossilization in Adult Second Language Acquisition
From Everand
Fossilization in Adult Second Language Acquisition
Nancy M. P. King
No ratings yet
Social research applied to english language teaching in Colombian contexts: Theory and Methods
From Everand
Social research applied to english language teaching in Colombian contexts: Theory and Methods
Wilder Yesid Escobar Alméciga
5/5 (1)
Insights into Task-Based Language Teaching
From Everand
Insights into Task-Based Language Teaching
Sima Khezrlou
No ratings yet
English Language, The: From Sound to Sense
From Everand
English Language, The: From Sound to Sense
CSPtrade2
No ratings yet
Academic Literacy and Student Diversity: The Case for Inclusive Practice
From Everand
Academic Literacy and Student Diversity: The Case for Inclusive Practice
Ursula Wingate
No ratings yet
Research in English Language Teaching: Mexican Perspectives
From Everand
Research in English Language Teaching: Mexican Perspectives
Ruth Roux
No ratings yet
Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning
From Everand
Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning
María del Pilar García Mayo
No ratings yet

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.

Theories in Second Language Acquisition-196-242

Uploaded by

Theories in Second Language Acquisition-196-242

Uploaded by

free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.

(1) Instructions to a kindergarten class

As shown in the example, when addressing a learner of a language, speakers

Negotiation Other correction types

Input available Input not available

FIGURE 10.1 The function of negative evidence.

output may stimulate learners to move from the semantic, open-ended

For example, after producing an initially problematic utterance (‘what happen

(3) Modified output (from McDonough, 2005)

In addition to pushing learners to produce more target-like output, another

(4) From Mackey, Gass, McDonough (2000) (INT=interviewer)

Another function of output is to promote automaticity, which refers to

How Interaction Brings about Learning

it is proposed that environmental contributions to acquisition are mediated

In this view, through interaction, a learner’s attentional resources (selective

• confirmation checks (expressions that are designed to elicit confirmation that

Feedback may help to make problematic aspects of learners’ interlanguage

(5) Implicit feedback (from Mackey et al., 2000)

Feedback occurs during negotiation for meaning. Long (1996) defines

the process in which, in an effort to communicate, learners and competent

(6) Clarification Request and Rephrasing (from Mackey, 2000)

Example (7) illustrates a clarification request, in which Learner 2 needs more

A comprehension check is an attempt to anticipate and prevent a breakdown

(8) Comprehension Check (from Gass et al., 2005)

Through negotiation, input can be uniquely tailored to individual learners’

of attention in recent research. Nicholas, Lightbown, and Spada (2001) define

(9) Recast (from Oliver & Mackey, 2003)

Recasts have been associated with L2 learning in a number of primary research

(10) Language-Related Episode (from Gass et al., 2005)

Based on this example, it might be possible to conclude that Learner 1 recognized

(2012), researchers have concentrated on interaction and its impact on specific

What Counts as Evidence?

Difficulties in Determining Learning

(11) From Hawkins (1985)

cognitive mechanisms involved in learning a language. The interaction approach,

An Exemplary Study: Mackey, Gass, and McDonough (2000)

provided interactional feedback when the participants produced a non-target-

Explanation of Observable Phenomena

is through facilitating pattern identification and recognition of matches and mis-

The Explicit/Implicit Debate

Suggested Further Reading

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and

The Theory and Its Constructs

To better understand psychological mediation via conceptual and semiotic

1997). In this instance, an individual may become regulated by the language as

Mediation by Symbolic Tools

purposes of maintaining or regaining self-regulation, for example to aid in focus-

Any function in the child’s cultural development appears twice, or on two

complex cognitive and physical-motor functions with progressively decreasing

The Zone of Proximal Development

In a study that builds on conversation analysis of classroom discourse, Ohta

What Counts as Evidence?

Common Misconceptions about SCT

An Exemplary Study: Poehner (2009)

orchestrated activities that allowed one student at a time to attempt to complete

Explanation of Observed Findings in SLA

that the 10 phenomena taken together are predicated on a theoretical assumption

Explicit and Implicit L2 Knowledge

Suggested Further Reading

The Theory and Its Constructs

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.