Wiley National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations

 

Negative Feedback as Regulation and Second Language La nguage Learning in the Zone of Proximal Development Author(s): Ali Aljaafreh and James P. Lantolf Lan tolf Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 78, No. 4 (Winter, 1994), pp. 465-483 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/328585 . http://www.jstor.org/stable/328585 . Accessed: 09/05/2013 09:17 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at  . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

 . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of  content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

 .

Wiley and National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 82 .18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 201 2013 3 09:17:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

 

Negative Feedback as Regulation and Second Language Learning in the Zone of Proximal Development

ALI ALJAAFREH DepartmentfLinguistics University fDelaware Newark, E 19716

JAMES P. LANTOLF DepartmentfModern anguages nd Linguistics Cornell niversity Ithaca,NY 14853 Email: [email protected]

SINCE THE LATE SIXTIES AND EARLY SEVwiththe the ground breaking enties, with breakingpublications publications of Pit Corder, Burt and Kiparsky,George, George, and Richards (14), one of the centralthemes central themesof of second language research has been the studyof learnererrors learner errors s a reflection reflectionof of hypothesis eston the of ofsecond second ing part learners 8; he attentionof attention of those 15; 20; 23;).1 Eventually, language learnererrorshas has moved awayfrom working n learnererrors the analysis f errors n their theirown own right s indications of hypothesis esting nd interlanguage development o concernwith uestions uestionsrelating relating to the potentialeffects fcorrective f corrective rocedures on language learning. The fundamentalquestion is: does error errorcorrection correction ead to learning, or are corrective correctivemoves moves by teachers or other caretakers neffective? neffective?n n addition, some corollaryquestions lary questions have also been addressed, ncluderrorsshould should be corrected ing how and when errors (7: p. 135). Researchaimed Research aimed at answering hese questions has been carried carriedout out in either n ethnographic or an experimental ramework.2 ramework.2hose hose working within the ethnographic approach have conducted careful carefulobservational observationalstudies studies of correctivebehaviors tive behaviorsboth both in the classroom and natural settings nvolving eachers, earners,peers, nativeand non-native peakers (7; 8; 17; 22; 24; 36). This research has shown, among other correctivefeedback feedback may be mesthings, that corrective sage-focused or code-focused; that it may be self- or other-initiated and self- or otherthatcorrective corrective eedback may occur completed; that implicitly n the form of comprehension and TheModernanguage anguageournal, ournal,88,, v 1994) 0026-7902/94/465-483 $1.50/0 ?1994The ?1994 TheModernanguageJournal

confirmation hecks,recastings nd the ike, or ike,or the correct explicitlyn the form f provision f thecorrect form by teacher, peer, or native interlocutor; that t maybe accompanied by an explanation, especially n the classroom setting; nd, that n the classroom settingmore attention s apparently ivento iven to discourse discourseand and content rrors han to either r phonological exical, grammatical, errors 7: p. 141). Despite the informative indings that have fromthe the ethnographic radition, his emerged from researchhas research has not establisheda established a strong mpirical link between corrective feedback and interlanguage development.Some authors, uch as van Lier (p. 182), argue thatcorrection s "an importantvariable in language learning" and further ssume ssumett to be a necessary, houghnot a onditionfor for earninga second lansufficient, ondition guage. Others, like Chaudron, are less sanresearch on errorcorguine, pointingout thatresearchon rectionboth rection both n and out oftheclassroom etting has uncovered nconsistencies, nd a general ineffectivenessn termsof terms mbiguities, of its effects on language learning (7: p. 145). Chaudron then calls for "longitudinalresearch .. to determinethe termine the extent of learning possible from feedback" (7: p. 152). The experimental experimentalapproach approach to the studyof error correction,derivingmuch of its impetus from the L2 research informed by Universal Grammar (UG), has squarely confronted confrontedthe the mostfundamental most fundamental f the above questions: Does negative feedback lead to L2 learning? Research on this question has been spurred, n part,by part, bytheclaim that rror orrection s apparsufficientondiondientlyneither necessarynor a sufficient tionfor tion forL1 learning n children e.g., 2; 44; 45). The controversy controversyhat hathas has arisen in the experimentalL2 mental L2 literature s whether whetherwe we can assume

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 2013 09:17:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions  

466

TheModern The Modern anguage ournal 8 (1994)

dultL2 the same situation o hold for dult L2 learning as seems to be the case forchild L1 acquisition with regard to error correction, or whether adults require corrective eedback (as van Lier assumes) in order to successfully project a theirL2. grammar f theirL2. on error correcresearchon The experimentalresearch tion, unlike its ethnographic counterpart,has ethnographiccounterpart, generatedsome generated some positive positivefindings findingson on the interrelationship between negative feedback and learning.A series of recent tudies 5; 6; 21; 23; 32; 34; 35), forexample, has demonstrated hat correctivefeedback L2 learners provided withcorrectivefeedback do indeed outperform control groups given minimalor no negative nput. DeKeyser somewhatpessimisticallyoncludes, however, hat loncludes,however, results n some perforerrorcorrection correctionresults thougherror mance improvement or some learners, t fails in the wayof across-the-board across-the-board muchin to achieve much impact on learning (p. 504 and p. 510). In his study f high school L1 speakersofDutch learning French, DeKeyser (p. 511) uncovered no but did find error correctionbut main effects or errorcorrection

How the negotiation negotiationprocess processunfolds nd how t leads, or failsto lead, to L2 development orms the principal aim of the present paper. Although the findings f both ethnographic nd correctivefeedback experimentalresearch on correctivefeedback have been informative, e are still a long way from full understanding f how feedback inwith the L2 learningprocess. From the teractswith teracts experimentalstudies experimental studies we have some evidence, DeKeyser's doubts notwithstanding, hat correctivefeedback rective feedback appears to enhance learning. hatcontrolled controlled mustbear bear in mind, We must mind,however, however, hat experimentation, s informative s it may be, individualsreact us little bout how individualsreact tellsus reallytells to and use, or fail to use, feedback to change their interlanguage. The ethnographic research, on the other hand, has provided fairly rich information bout the nature of the feedback processes at the local level, but it has not withmuchevidence of f, nd how, provided us withmuch these processesresult n learning.What s misswith outcomeswith ing is a way of linking earning outcomes specificfeedback procedures. We hope the re-

interaction ffects etween etweensuch such factors s previous experience, aptitude,motivation nd anxexperience,aptitude, iety, nd feedback. DeKeyser s hardly lone in recognizingthat correctivefeedback, f t is to have any mpact on learning,has to in some way be attuned to the ndividual earner.Birdsong p. 150),for xon error corresearchon ample, in reviewing he research rection n L2 learning, oncludes thatnegative evidence might be a question of "individual variation."Day,et al (p. 143) situationalvariation." and/or situational suggest hat earnerpersonalitymayhave somewith "the amount and type of corthingto do with"the rection supplied" by the teacher (p. 43). Sharwood Smith (30; 31) and Schachterargue that

search to be below will serve as an in discussed direction. thisdirection. this initial step As for the corollary corollaryquestions, questions, Chaudron (7: determine the need to determine p. 152),forone, pointsto theneed would best succeed feedback thatwould "the typesof feedbackthat in promoting progress n the target anguage." promotingprogress In this regard, Carroll and Swain (p. 361), rewho received explicitcorrecearnerswho port that earners tion procedures,defined as any feedback that "overtly tates that a learner's output was not part of the language-to-be-learned," enerally on their experimentaltasks betteron performed better than those learners given implicit feedback, construed as any instance of feedback from which earnershave earnershave to infer hat heir inguistic

learners'may nternal nd linguistic evelrole in deteran important play trategies opment mining the effectiveness f negative feedback and recommend that these should be investidepth than theyhave to the greaterdepth gated in greater present time. Finally, Spada and Lightbown (p. 219) wonder "whether ifferentypesof error correction strategies re more effective t imes n learners'development .. and differentimes different whether eachersgo through ifferenthases in behaviorsdepending on correctionbehaviors errorcorrection theirerror their theirperceptionsof learners' development." As we will argue on the basis of the evidence correction errorcorrection whileerror to be considered below,while feedbackto to to adjustingfeedback downto omesdown ultimately omes the individual learner,adjustmentscannot be determinedaa priori; rather, hey determined heymust must be colwith he earner. on-linewith laboratively egotiated on-line

performance performancewas was inaccurate (e. g., confirmaand reto understand, tion checks, failures and Swain reaCarrolland quests forclarification).Carroll son that explicit feedback might have been morebeneficialbecause beneficialbecause it dentifies he precise natureof erroneous performance, location and natureof while mplicit negativecorrection,requires the mplicitnegative learners to engage in a good deal of mental guesswork.3 As encouraging as the results of such research are, it would be premature o conclude, and Swain Carrolland hatCarroll and we are not implying hat will always nd everyfeedbackwill do, thatexplicitfeedback where have the upper hand over implicitcorout below, s fleshedout Our claim, to be fleshed rection.Our rection. kindsof offeedbackare feedback are relevant or inthatboth that both kinds guistic development, development,but but their theirrelevance relevancemust must and learnerand be negotiated between the novice learner

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 2013 09:17:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions  

AliAljaafrehndJames Lantolf

467

the expert knower of the language. In other words, n some cases implicit orrection s sufficient to promote earning,while n others, t is not, and in such cases, explicitfeedback is the correctionthatwill willelicit elicita reactive onlytype only typeof correctionthat earner.As As we will argue, the response from he earner. relevance of the type of feedback offered as marked bya by learner's reactiveresponse reactive response to the isa as n index of developfeedback) important ment in a second language as are the actual linguisticformsproduced by the learner.

vidual level; first between people (interthechild child (intrapsychological), nd then nside the psychological)" (39: p. 57). Centralto Central to the theevolution evolutionof of external, r social, functions nto internal, r mental,functions s the processof nternalization, r more properly or sociocultural theory, ppropriation26: p. 64).

culturalevelopment cultural evelopment follows: every unction n the child's culturalsdevelopment twice: ppears first, n the social level, and later, n the indi-

functions functionswith with ssistancefrom, ssistance from, r in collaboration with, more experienced members of society.

Zinchenko p. 106) refersand o thisprocess this processas as "the betweenexternal between externaland internal bridge ctivity." Critically,ppropriation Critically, ppropriationdoes not simply eproduce the mental activity f another ndividual; "transformsthe the process itself and rather, t "transforms tsstructurend nd functions" 38: p. 163). changes tsstructure THE ZONE OF PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT Socioculturaltheory, hen, nsists nsiststhat that internal AND MICROGENESIS IN L2 LEARNING MICROGENESISIN and externalfunctions externalfunctions re related,while whileat at the The data to be considered in this paper are same timerejecting nypresumption hatone one is nypresumption hat takenfrom taken from largerstudy n the interaction f simply copy of the other (46). The studyof errorcorrection error correction nd learningwhich tself s the development, hen, for socioculturaltheory, s first tudywe are aware of that attempts o inthe study f how mediationalmeans mediationalmeans are approresultof of dialogic vestigate he correction/learning nterface oncorrection/learningnterface priated by the individual s a result withother other ndividuals. gitudinallyfrom within a theoretical, rather interactionwith than from a phenomenological, stance. The Importantly,he appropriation appropriationprocess process s not framework o which we refer s that developed only observableduring ontogenesisof children byLev by Lev S. Vygotsky Vygotsky37), 37), his colleagues, and fol- into adults, but also during microgenesis in lowersthat lowers thathas come to be knownas the sociowhich processes processesundergo undergo change "rightbefore cultural theoryof mind. In particular,we rely one's eyes" n the space of a fewdaysor week,or on Vygotsky's otion of zoneof roximal evelop- even a few econds,or fractions f seconds (39: mentZPD) to analyze the interaction interactionbetween between p. 61). Research that overlooks microgenetic errorcorrection error correctionand the learning as it detectwhat s often hemost he most learningprocess process growth ften ails o detectwhat unfolds during the dialogic activity collabinformativeata ata on learning nd interestingnd informative onstructed earnerand earner and tutor. mental activity 41: p. 55). It is in microgenesis oratively by A fundamental enet of sociocultural theory that thatwe we will search forevidence on the interacis its thesis thesisthat thathuman human mental activitys essention betweenerror betweenerrorcorrection correction nd L2 learning. mediated n which The transition from interinter-to to intramental tially process ymbolic, nd socioculturally onstructed, rtifacts, he most functioning,whether n ontogenesisor microof reconstruction pervasive f which s language, playan essential genesis, s a dynamic dynamicprocess process ofreconstruction role in the themental mental ifeofthe of the ndividual.Hence, and qualitative whichthe thenovice noviceand and qualitativechange change in which linguistic ctivity, ctivity,ncluding ncludingspeaking speaking and writ- the expertcollaborate n constructing mutual ing, is an indispensable component of such activity rame. rame.This This activity rame, r ZPD, repmental operations as voluntarymemory, olun- resents resentsaa crucial move by byVygotsky Vygotsky o link his tary attention,planning, monitoring, he for- theoreticalconcepts with practical practicalpsychologipsychologimation of intentions, rational thought, and cal and educational problems. In formulating criticalof of learning. Furthermore, hese processes are in- the concept of the ZPD, Vygotsky as critical herently ocial in origin and theirdevelopment psychological nd educational practiceswhich in children proceeds fromthe social, or inter- assess development and guide educational inmental domain, to the individual,or intramen- tervention olely n the thebasis basis ofthe of the evelof evelof ndital domain, as a consequence of the linvidual, ndependent ndependentfunctioning. functioning.nstead,he insisted that two developmental levels of the guistically mediated interaction which arises betweenchildren between children nd other, ften ftenmore more experi- individual individualmust mustbe be taken into account: the acenced, members f their ocioculturalworld, ntual developmental evel, "established "establishedas as a recluding parents, eachers, iblings, lder peers, sult of certain already completedevelopmental etc. According to Vygotsky,he ontogenesis of cycles" (39: p. 85), and the level of potential mentalfunctions mental functions s captured n the geneticaw of development,the level at which the individual

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 2013 09:17:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions  

468

TheModern The Modern anguage ournal 8 (1994)

According to Vygotsky,he potential evel of romactual actual developmentvaries independently rom of mental indicativeof developmentand is more indicative growth han actual development.Thus, for nstance, two individualswho achieve the same score on a given test, anguage or otherwise, the help may not both be able to make use of the

highly strategic, or implicit, level and progressivelybecomes more specific, more concrete, until the appropriate evel is reached as determinedbythe novices response patterns o the help.5 Second, help should be contingent, meaning that t should be offered nlywhen t is needed, and withdrawn s soon as the novice novice

offeredby offered a tutor (e.g., teacher or other stutoby dent) generalize their earning to novel circumstances (4). In Vygotsky's iew, he learner who is able able to respond to such help must be considered to be at a more advanced developmental level than the one who fails to do so, who responds to help can because the learner learnerwho ofactual be expected to showa showa more rapid rate rateof actual he ZPD is "the development. pecifically, hen, heZPD distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solvingand the level of potential development development as determinedthrough throughproblem problem solvingunder adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers" (39: p. 86). The actual level of

shows showssigns signsof of self-control nd ability o function independently. Research and Wertschand by Wertsch his colleagues (41-43), for example, has shown thatchildren that children often overtly eject help offered by parents once the children realize that they taskalone. are capable of carrying ut a task alone. and contingencywork n tandem Graduationand Graduation in such a waythat the expert, withthe the thatthe togetherwith expert,together discover the ZPD of the novice novice, tries to discoverthe in order to determine determine fhelp is required and if it s, to ointlywork workout out the appropriate evel at which to provide t. The process is thusone thus one of continuous assessmentf the novice's needs and abilitiesand the tailoringf help to thosecondithose conditions. This process can be accomplished only the excollaborativee nteraction f theexcollaborativ through he novice,whichbringsus tothe to thethird third nd the pert ZPD. Discovering he of help in the theZPD. mechanismof mechanism of thenovice the noviceand and evelof developmental evel potentialdevelopmental potential providing ppropriatehelp ppropriate help accordingly s at its core-a dialogic ctivity hat unfolds between Diaindividuals.Diamore capable and less capable individuals. logue is an essential component of Vygotskyan of the ZPD. Without theory 40; 41), and hence ofthe virtuallympossible mpossibleto dialogic negotiation, t s virtually discoverthe novice's ZPD (42).

development developmentdefines development "retrospecthe ZPD defines develdefinesdevel87), while tively" 39: p. defines opment "prospectively" "prospectively" ibid).4 The ZPD is the framework, ar excellence, which brings all of the pieces of the learning setting ogether-the teacher, he earner, heir social and culturalhistory, heirgoals and moavailable to them, resourcesavailable tives, s well as the resources including those that are dialogically constructed together. ndeed, Vygotsky raws atthe ZPD as a tool for he tention o the utility f theZPD researcherto explore and come to an underofthe the nternal ourse of development standingof when he states: "By using this method we can take account of not onlythe cycles nd maturathat have already been comtion but also also those that thatare are currentlyn the pletedprocesses state of formation, hat are just beginning to and develop" (39: p. 87). matureand mature MechanismsfEffectiveelp elp n the PD. On the nd the empirical ofVygotsky'statements tatementsnd basisof basis and theoretical work of contemporary ociocultural researchers 9; 42), specific mechanisms of effective nterventionwithin the ZPD hould benterventionhould can be identified. irst, ntervention graduated. elp providedby providedby more experienced member in a joint activity s designed to discover the novice's ZPD in order to offerthe appropriate level of assistance and to encourage the learner to functionat his or her evelof of ability. he purpose here is to potential evel estimate the minimum level of guidance required by the novice to successfully erform given task. Help, therefore, ormally tarts t a

THE STUDY We now consider consi der some of the findingsof a study esigned to investigate he effects f negativefeedback, ative feedback, r more moreappropriately appropriatelywithin ocioculturaltheory, ther-regulation, ther-regulation,n the microgeneticdevelopmentof a second language fromwhich which among adults. Since the full studyfrom this paper is drawn is quite extensive in the to imit ur willhaveto scope of tsfindings 1),we willhave analysishere to only ome of the data that llusfeedcorrectivefeedtrate how how the negotiation of corrective ZPD promotes theZPD back, or other-regulation,n the learning.6 Subjects. s an initial endeavor to investigate second language learning in the ZPD, we dethan oral extsrather ratherthan cided to relyon written exts production, not only because we felt written performancewould expedite data collection, but also because we thought t would facilitate etweenthe theexpert researcher) the nteraction etween and the learners. Consequently, he project in-

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 2013 09:17:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions  

AliAljaaftehndJames Lantolf

469

volved studentsenrolled in an eight-week econd level (the most dvanced levelbeing 6) ESL writing and reading course offered by the English Language Institute f the Universityf Delaware. Although total totalof of nine students articipated in the full study, nly the three who were in the ZPD group are considered here. Since itwasnecessary was necessary or hisgroup hisgroup to take part in one extra tutorialper week withone of the researchers outside of their five weeklyclassroom meetings, he hecourse course instructor sked for volunteers, informingthe students that they would receive one free tutoring session per week and would be helpingthe tutor/researcher in a studyof how language teachers can help learners. They were given no additional information relevantto relevantto the nature of the research project. Since all of the studentsvolunteered, theteacher the teacherrandomly elected electedthree three ndividuals for the ZPD group-one Japanese (Y in the protocols), one Spanish (N in the protocols), and one Portuguese (F in the protocols) speaker. Two (Y and F) had been in the theUS US of forthe womonths wostudents months nd one (N) had resided in the country for six months at the time of the study.All were female.7 Procedures.ss part of the course syllabus, tuProcedures. dentswere dents were expected to write writeone one in-classessay weekon on a topic of their hoice for totalof per week eight compositions. The learners in the ZPD group were informedthat theywould receive correctivefeedback corrective feedback during their theirtutorials tutorialswith with the researcher and not from their instructor. The tutorials tutorialswere were conducted in a one-on-one format n the tutor's tutor'soffice. office.Each Each session sessionlasted lasted o inutes. A All ll sessionswere sessions were authirty forty-five in their or ater analysis. diotaped entirety

Priorto each tutorial, hetutor Priorto hetutor ead each essay in orderto ordertodetect detectproblems, ut t s mportant o note thatat that at this point he made no attempt o preparea specific etofcorrective rocedures o be followed followedwith with the student. student.Corrective Corrective procedures n the ZPD mustbe mustbe negotiatedbetween the novice and the expert.The idea is to offer just enough assistance assistanceto to encourage and guide the learnerto learner to participate n the activity nd to assume increased responsibility or arriving t the appropriate appropriateperformance. performance.One simply annotdetermine hisbeforehand,without without omprotheZPD ZPD mising hepotential hatjoint ctivityn the has to promote earning.The expert,however, must tryto be sensitive o the learners'actual learners' actual levelof level ofcompetence, nd inWertsch's in Wertsch's 41: p. 176) lure"them them ntofunctioningn an terminology,lure" appropriateway withoutmaking the task frustrating. Before beginning the collaborative phase of each tutorial, n each case the learner was asked to read her essay, nderlinewhatever errors he could find, nd correctwhatever correctwhatever he

The students' first ompositionwas omposition was not corrected. It was used to develop an initial profile of the learners' grammatical grammaticalcompetence competence and to determine, to some extent at least, likely problem areas. Although learners were given help during the tutorials n a variety f errors, for purposes of analysis,those structures hat had a high probability f recurrence n subsequence essayswere selected. Four grammatical featuresmet features met our-admittedly less than rigidcriteria: rticles, ense marking, se of preposiverbs.Since Since this thiswas was a writing tions,and modal verbs. and reading course, the particular instructor did not believe it necessaryto provide much in the way of explicit formal instruction instructionon on the grammatical properties of English. On occasion,however, sion, however, e did answergrammatical uestions posed by the students studentson on a wide arrayof topics.8

ously, hey re of dealt withas as Whenevera the pair considers each sentence thewith a target essay.Whenever error s discovered rwhenever r whenever he earner sks question about some aspect of the composition, thereading thecorrection correction rocreadingprocess processhalts nd the ess begins.The tutor tutordirects directs he learner's ttention to a particular entence containingan errorand ror and asks a general generalquestion question of the type: Do you notice any problem, or is there anything thissentence?" sentence?" f this trategy ails to wrong n this produce a response, the learner's attention s then narrowed to the line or phrase in which the error appears, using an utterance utterancesuch such as: "Is there anything anythingwrong wrong in this line or segment?" fthis f this lso fails failsto to prompt response,a more s is explicitstrategy explicit strategy until adopted. Thus, help laborated the learner learnershows shows increasingly signs of responsiveness toward the error at hand. Ifthe If the lso

could. During this thistime, time,the the tutorwas tutorwas present, but was busyinghimselfwith withother othertasks. tasks.When When the learner indicated that she had completed the reading and error correction process, the tutor oined her and collaborativ collaborativee correction began. In the following aragraphwe outline a schemataof of a prototypical utorial; generalizedschemata takenfrom from heactual he actual however, s the protocolstaken tutorialsshow, thingsdid not usually usuallyproceed proceed quite so smoothly nd the interactionswere often quite complex. At the outset,the tutor sks the earner fshe encountered ny rrorsduringher private eading of the essay. f the earner dentifies nymistakesbut takes butfails fails ocorrect o correct hem, r does so errone-

narrowing trategy

fails, spe-

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 2013 09:17:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions  

470

TheModern anguage ournal 8 (1994)

cific clue is offered offeredwhich which ndicates the nature of the error, orexample: "Pay attention o the tense of theverb." theverb." f thesubject s stillunable stillunable to recognize the error, he tutor dentifies t and the learner s asked to correct t. If the learner fails here, the tutormoves tutormovesto to even more direct forms f uch as "Use the regulation, pastpartipast partino reciple of the verb." If this also produces sponse, clues about the correct answer are given.Finally, f thisproduces no responsive ction from the learner, the tutor provides the correctanswer. correct answer.This This is accompanied by a brief the tutor eels t grammatical xplanationwhen thetutor to be helpful. criteriawereused used Developmentalriteria. wo criteriawere to determine the microgeneticgrowthof the learners' nterlanguage.The first, more traditional product-oriented riterion,was was to search forsignsof mprovementn the subjects' use of therelevant the relevant inguistic eatures n subsequentessays. Here concern focused on a reduction in erthoseerfrequency r complete eradication of those rorsas rors as well as on thegeneralization the generalizationof of earning the forwhich for which the cases earner beyond specific had received help.9 The second criterion s, we believe,quite distinct from anything eported in the L2 literature to date, and this is a criterion that falls naturally ut of earning n the ZPD-does the relearner show signs of movement wayfrom fromrend toliance on the tutor,or other-regulation, wardsreliance wards reliance on the self, r self-regulation This was determined by the frequencynd quality f the learner elicited from fromthe the tutor n thatthe help that the correctionof correctionof the same error n subsequent same tutorial ession and in subthesame episodes in the sequent tutorials dealing with new compositions. More specifically,we we observed five fivegengento transition from intermental intermentalto eral levels of transitionfrom intramental unctioning s the learnersmoved through the ZPD toward self-regulation nd over the target tructures. hese levels controlover control loosely parallel the transitional stages uncovand his colleagues for child ered by Wertsch Wertschand development 42, 43).10 The levels are characterized by varying nstantiationsof three parameters,namely,need for intervention,oticing he error. an error, nd correcting able to notice, or Level 1. The learner is not able correct the error, ven with ntervention rom At this evel, he earnerdoes not have the tutor.Atthis a sufficient asis fromwhich to interpret he

This ome degree ofdevelopment, of development, ut moreindicates ven though the learner importantly, must rely heavilyon the tutor, n contrastto level 1,an opening is providedfor forthe thetutor tutor nd the learner to begin negotiating the feedback process and for he earnerto begin to progress toward elf-regulation.he help required tends to be toward he ower, xplicit, nd of the regulatory cale given n Figure I below. Level3. Level 3. The learner s able to notice and correct an error,but only under other-regulation. The learner understands understands the tutor's ntervention and is able to react to the feedback feedbackoffered. The levels of help needed to correct the error correctthe move towardthe towardthe strategic, thee strategic,mplicit, mplicit, nd of th regulatory cale. Level4. Level 4. The learner notices and corrects correctsan an error with minimal, or no obvious feedback from the tutorand tutor and begins to assume full responsibility or error correction. However,developmenthas notyetbecome fullyntramental, since the learner often produces the target tillneed need thetutor the tutor o form ncorrectlynd may till confirmthe adequacy of the correction. T The he feedbackfrom from he tutor learnermay ven rejectfeedback when it s unsolicited unsolicited e.g., "Let me see if can do it alone"). 5. The learner becomes becomes more consistent Level5. Level in usingthe target tructure orrectlyn all contexts. n most cases, the individual'suse of the Whenever automatized.Whenever correct targetform s automatized. aberrantperformance aberrant performancedoes does arise, however, oticing and correctingof errorsdo not require intervention rom omeone else. Thus, the ndividual is fully elf-regulated. The five transitional evels represent,then, three general stages of development.The first stage, encompassing evels 1 through3, represents other-regulation in which the learner mustrely n some wayon another ndividual n order to perform.Withouthelp from omeone else, the individual s not able to notice or corThe next stage is partial errors.The his or her errors. recthis rect self-regulation, ncompassing level 4. At this stage earners re fully apable of detecting nd withoutoutside outside mistakeswithout correctingtheirown mistakes

tutor'smoves tutor's movesthat to provide providehelp, probablyhas probably has a problem. The no awareness awarenessthat there help,and s evenand

feedback; their performance,however, however, s not automatized.The automatized. Theperformance, third, nd final developmen-

viding corrective help, the tutor's task is to nto focus and, in so dobring the targetform ntofocus ing, begin the process of co-constructing he ZPD with the learner. Level2. Level 2. The learner s able to notice the error, but cannot correct t, even with intervention.

must ssume fullresponsibility tal stage, is that n which the learners' perfortutor, herefore,must correctivebehavior, forcorrecting he error.Thus, rather han probehavior, s commance, including corrective

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 2013 09:17:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions  

AliAljaafrehndJames Lantolf automatized and mispletely elf-generatednd automatizedand takes emanate from legitimate slips of the ratherthan than from incomtongue, or the pen, rather plete learning." evelsof of help, Figure presents listing f the evels or regulation,thatwere identified n the anal-

471 FIGURE I Regulatorycale-Implic Regulatory cale-Implicit it (strategic) o Explicit

0. Tutor sks sksthe the earner o read, find heerrors, read,find and correct hem ndependently, ndependently,rior riorto the ysis f the nteractions hatoccurred hatoccurred duringthe during the tutorial. tutorialsessions. tutorial sessions. The levels are arranged from "collaborativee frame" 1. Construction of a "collaborativ what we consider to be the most indirect,or the promptedby prompted by presence of the tutor s a lowernumbers), numbers), o the most direct,or implicit lower potential ialogic ialogicpartner. partner. 2. Prompted r focusedreadingof the sentence explicit (the higher numbers). We point out thatcontains that containsthe theerror errorby the earneror earneror the thatthe levels were not determined n advance tutor. of the study.Moreover, xcept for evel 0, they 3. Tutor ndicates ndicates hat omethingmaybe wrong were not rigidly ollowed n everycase. In any in a segmente.g.,sentence, segment e.g.,sentence,lause, ine)-"Is particular instance of corrective ntervention, there nything rong n this entence " the collaborati collaborative ve workof both participantsde4. Tutor rejectsunsuccessful ttempts t recogtermines he evel of assistanceto be invoked, f heerror. nizing heerror. evelswill willbe be skipped,where to stop whereto one or more evels 5. Tutor Tutornarrows narrows own the ocation ocationof ofthe theerror error and allow the learner to assume responsibility, (e.g., tutorrepeatsor points to the specific and when to withhold ssistance. Thus, microsegmentwhich ontains heerror). 6. Tutor ndicates ndicateshe henature nature fthe rror, utdoes genetic development, ccording to our second not he rror There s s evidenced criterion,moves fromthe whenever he dentify with hetense hetensemarking e.g., something ere"). feedback wrong fromthe bottomhenegotiated tonegotiated the top of Tutor 7. dentifies he error can'tuse can't use an "You the regulatoryhierarchy.12 auxiliary ere"). 8. Tutor ejects earner's nsuccessfulttemptst DATAANALYSIS DATA heerror. ANALYSIS correcting heerror. 9. Tutorprovides lues luesto to help the earner rrive Before considering protocols that thatillustrate illustrate at the correct orm e.g., "It is not really ast how microgenesisarises through ntervention but some thing hat s stillgoing on"). in the ZPD, we will ook at some protocolswhich 10. Tutorprovides hecorrect orm. demonstratehow demonstrate how feedback s negotiated n the 11. Tutor rovides omeexplanation or se ofthe correct orm. ZPD in termsof the regulatory cale given in Figure I. Errors for which implicit strategic 12. Tutor rovides xamples f the orrect attern whenother when otherforms forms f help fail to produce an feedback proved to be effective re considered appropriate esponsivection. to be high in ZPD (e.g., level 1, 2, 3), since the learner is close to independent performance, while those that require explicit feedback are said to be low in the ZPD (levels 10, 10,11, 11,12), 12),bebemal form formof of otherderived otherderivedhelp help available to the learner in the activity f error correction. In cause the learner is further wayfromproducfact,however, however, ven though Level 0 is point of fact, correctform formwithout withouthelp. ing the correct The Collaborative rame as a Source of Feed- noncollaborative, tcan not egitimately e construed as nonsocial activity.t is clearlysocial, back. evels 1 and 0 on the thescale scale entail the thesame same learnerundertakes undertakesto since, for one thing,the learner surfacebehavior;that s, reading ofthe of the essay essayby by correct her composition at the request of the the learner.At a more abstract evel, however, correcther situatedwithin withinthe tutor;thus, tutor; thus, this activity s situated the different-thedifference differencebeing theyare quite different-the eventof of error correction,which begins thatthe that the reading at level 1 takes place when the larger event tutor nd the earner earnerare are in a collaborativepos- when the student enters the tutor's office.'3 thetutor tutor nd studentmaybe Thus, even thoughthe thatthe ture,whileat Level 0 the expectation s thatthe learner is to relyon herself. herself.Level Level 1, therefore, doing differenthings t Level 0, the activity f marksthe marks the beginningof the collaborative nter- searching for errors s still social, but it need collaborative.We We examine protocol (A), action, while evel 0 is outside of the collabora- not be collaborative. ormof of tive frame. A shift n orientation thus brings as an illustration f how this strategic orm

with ta t a source of regulation regulationthat thatwas was not available to the thelearner learnerbefore. before.The The presencef a dialogic partner helps the learner in a subtle, thoughsignificant, though significant,way. way. t represents he mini-

regulation functions. regulationfunctions. (A) N3* 1. N: "It's a littledifficult littledifficult orme" orme" 2. T(utor): uhum

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 2013 09:17:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions  

TheModern The Modern anguage ournal 8 (1994)

472 3. N: 4. T: 5. N: 6. T: 7. N: 8. T: 9. N: 10. T: 11. N: 12. T: 13. N: 14. T: 15. N: 16. T: N: 17.N: 17. 18. T: 19. N: 20. T: 21. N:

Is good? It's good To tell you uhum Or tell to you said to you To tell to tell you is fine To tellyou tell you where or what .. Or ah okay to tell you "Where or whatwill do ten years later" Okay Okay? That's good "But I will try xplain to you" ... To s righthere? aah, yeah Is right? Uhum, it's right Okay Yeah, "I will try o .. ." Okay, "to explain ..."

22. T: N: To "Toexplain 23. explain to you something about [I prefer about" no] ofmy ofmy 24. inquietudes,about some inquit ... inquit..." 25. T: Okay,what s inquietudes? 26. N: I think his s Spanish (laughs) * The capital letter is the learner's initial (N=Spanish L1; Y=Japanese 1; F=Portuguese Li). The number following refers to the tutorial session from which the protocol is The text n quotes indicatesreadingof taken.The taken. the essay. In protocol (A), the learner, with selfinitiation and self-correction, replaces the she originally used, with of which preposition the more appropriate "about" in line 23. She of clarification uestions numberof also offers number and confirmation hecks n lines 3, 7,13,15, 13,15, nd 17. She had two prior opportunitiesto detect errors n her essay, nce on reading it prior to office and once on readtutor'soffice coming to the tutor's office before the tutorialbegan. ing it in the officebefore When asked if she had found any errors, he replied thatshe had not. The question, then, is what triggersher atself-correction? n? o be sure, they re tempts t self-correctio initiatedby the learner,but n the presence of tutor.When When the learner read and the expert tutor.

sumed the role of dialogic partner, he earner's orientation oward he taskof finding rrors n her essaychanged. This is important, ecause, although it may seem as if the learner continued to act alone, she did not. We referto referto the triggeredby by the dialogic presence of anhelp triggered other,more other, more expert, ndividual ndividualas as the ollaborative collaborativeframe eems to marka frame. he collaborativeframe situation s one in whichcorrection s to occur, overtmove move on the partof the even prior to anyovert tutor, nd thus represents he miminal evel of contingenthelp contingent help available to the learner in the ZPD. The learners' utterancesduring the tutorial interactionprovide clear signs of the effect f the collaborative collaborative frameas a source of implicit corrective eedback. n Protocol (A), for example, the learner clearly eems to recognize the the tutor'spresence has fortestthatthe potential that Although ing and confirmingher hypotheses.Although tell w with ith the indirect ses the v verb erb she correctly object in line 5, in line 7 she volunteers nother way of using the verb as well as an alternative with said. This is significantbeconstructionwith construction received feedcause in earlier tutorials he had receivedfeedincorrectomission of the back regarding her incorrectomission preposition to with the verb said and similar verbs before ndirectobjects as in "I have said form of the conyou." She offers he correct formof verb tell, here she structionuxtaposed to the verb appears to be engaged in testing and reformulatingher hypothesis bout the use of these verbs and the preposition. mportantly,n line (15) she is able to generalize what she has to the verb interactionto learned in the earlier interaction however, nd onfident,however, explain. he is not fully onfident, 15 confirmation rom the tutor forconfirmation for asks orienshowsanlines and 17). Generally, his earner showsan toward oint activity hat s markedly iftationtoward tation withthe the tuferent romworking lone, or even with tor physically present but not part of the collaborativedyad. on commentedon Some learners, n fact, penlycommented errorswhenworking n their nability o notice errorswhen theirown, as protocol (B) illustrates. (B) Y1 withus. Okay timewith 1. T: Yeah, you spent time "and I passed over yearwith 2. myfamily." my family."Okay,here, s there anythingwronghere ? "and"

searched for rrors n her essayon her own, the searchedfor tutorwas tutor was busying busyinghimself himselfwith withsomething somethingelse else and was, therefore, stensibly navailable as a twocame came together nto When the two collaborator.When collaborator. a social configuration in which the tutor as-

passed..,. over... year.., with myfamily." my family." 4. Y: (very oftly) oftly)passed passed over a ? 5. T: Okay,the article... mmm hismmm 6. Y: uha I forget his 3.

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 2013 09:17:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions  

AliAljaafrehndJames Lantolf 7. T: Yeah. "pass over a year." Okay. t's 8. Y: But I don't notice by myself First f all, in protocol (B) the earner s able to find and correctthe correctthe erroron erroron the basis basis of the level 3 help provided by the tutor. n line 8, importantly,he openly states thatshe was unable to notice the error by herselfduring the believe her use of "but" is espeprereading.We believeher ciallyrevealing cially revealingbecause it may ndicate a sense of frustration t not being able to detect the on her own, even thoughshe had been mistakeon mistake explicitly nstructed o do so. She clearly eems to recognize the differencebetween differencebetween the two activities-the individual working alone and the individualworking workingointly ointly n the collaborative frame-and furtherrealizes furtherrealizes that, at this point at least, she is not able to provide correctivefeedback tive feedbackforherself. forherself. he fact hatthe hatthe tutor is not ust present n the room, but is actingas a collaborator n the correctionprocess, correctionprocess, compels the learner to orient to the activity ifferently, thus enabling her,with withsome some help, to detect a of the L2 that she had taken in earlier featureof feature but had not yet fullyappropriated. fullyappropriated. Thus, in somecases-and some cases-andas far s we can tell these these are not predictable in advance-the imple act of establishing the collaborative frame is an effective formof form of other-regulation.14 DifferentPDsfor ifferentearnersnd Different Structures.n important imensionofthe of the negotiation of feedback and microgenesis in the ZPD for which we have uncovered clear evidence is that d different ifferentearners earners often often have different PDs for forthe the same target anguage form and will thereforerequire therefore require different evels evels of help. It is important o remember hat ll three learnersunder consideration n this studyhad been placed into intothe the same class on the thebasis basis of a placementexam. This is an important ointbefromour earlier cause, as the reader will recall fromour discussion of Vygotsky'sformulation of the ZPD, no matterhow sophisticated our assessment nstrumentsmaybe, we cannot arbitrarily assume thatany two earners earnerswho who attain dentical scores on a testare test are necessarily t the same stage in their nterlanguage nterlanguagegrowth, growth, f all that we assess s their ctual developmental evel. t is assessthe the earners' potential evel imperative o assess

473 errormade made by two (C) and (D) entail the same error differentearners different earnersregardinguse of the thedefinite definite articlewithUSA. (C) NI 1. T: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. N: 7. T: 8. N: 9. T: 10. 11. N: 12. T: 13. N: 14. T: 15. 16. N: 17. T: 18. N: 19. T: 20. N: 21. T: 22. N:

n was okay this,okay, this, okay, Although preparing mytravel o USA, with ome time almost always we have some thingto do in the last." Do you ... is there .. do you see any thing wrong here in this ine here ? "Although was preparing myself" I don't know Okay,"Although Okay, "Although was preparing my .. travel o USA" okay aah long travel Okay,you Okay, you say"preparing say "preparingmy..." instead of travel . . what's a betterword betterword to use ? Trip Okay Is bettertrip ? Okay. Yeah "preparing mytrip," mytrip," There is also okay. something withthe with the article here. Do you wrong knowarticles know articles?? Articles,yes Yeah so what's .. eeh on my rip to ... What is the correct correctarticle to use articleto here ? Isn't to s ... no ... eeh ... article Isn'tto What s the articlethat articlethatwe we should .. It

23. T: No. Article .. you know knowthe the articles like the r a or an 24. N: The trip .. my, s not my? no ... the trip ? 25. T: My... yeah t's okay, ousay ou saymy my rip 26. N: My Mytrip trip 27. T: Okay 28. N: To United States 29. T: Yeah USA, what whatarticle articlewe need to use with USA ? 30. N: a, an, the 31. T: the, hich hichone one ? 32. N: but the 33. T: do we use the .. ah

Okay, preparing mytrip mytrip to . . . theUSA?

of development s well. Theerrormade examples follow llustrate llustratehow how the same error made that ofearners,more bydifferent ten than not, representsdifferent roblemsfor each learner, nd consequently consequentlyrequires requires different evels evelsof ofregulationfrom he tutor. rotocols

34. N: ish) aaah ah ahokay (utters omething n SpanI use when when I use USA use witharticle witharticle 35. T: Okay 36. N: The

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 2013 09:17:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions  

TheModern anguage ournal 8 (1994) TheModern

474 (D) Fl 1. T: 2. 3. F: 4. 5. T: 6. F: 7. T:

"In the same day I mailed them ... to .. ." okayalright.What there some thing about also ... is theresome else still n this sentence sentence? To the ? hum ? The Okay,"to the" ... yeah, "to the

US."

N and F produced the of t,both bothN On theface the faceof same error in their respective compositions: US. Whenwe When we examof the articlewith articlewithUS. omissionof omission interactionthat transpired n the two ine the interactionthat protocols,however, more informative icture emerges.While in (C) a wide range of help is torealrealthe earner ven begins to eforethe necessary efore ize whatthe what the problem is, in (D) simply eading the sentence containing the error (line 1) and suggesting hat hatsomething something s wrong (lines 2 to 3) is sufficient or the learner to notice and the mistake. correctthe correct of the regulatory cale, for earner In terms termsof N, all levels of feedback are used, but for evels11 and 2 are needed. Thus, learner F, only evels PDs differentPDs wodifferent the same featurerepresents wo for hetwo he two earners. n the case of F,thefeature is high in the ZPD and the learner s very lose the featureby herself. controlthe to being able to control the otherhand, the same In the case of (N), on theother ZPD and prospects re that theZPD feature s low n the she will continue to need fairly xplicit help. the errorreprethatthe Hence, we cannot assume that sents the same problem for each learner,because the earners ach produce it itfrom from different location in the ZPD. The protocols given in (E) and (F) further exemplify ur point with regard to the imporof inking ppropriateforms fcorrective tanceof tance to the individual earner's responsive feedbackto feedback moves. (E) N3 1. N: Okay... 2. T: Okay ? 3. N: Spend...

"I would like spend in

omission ofthe the nfinitive article to. notice her omissionof was whichwas In thiscase, the collaborativeframe,which n triggering responsive ction from effectiven effective the same learner n protocol (A) forthe prepotofunctions sition to, s not effective ere when tofunctions as a particle. tutor His is actively initial into theTherefore, correctionthe drawn process. help is strategic, s he sigattempt t providing providinghelp nals throughhis intonation lone (line 2), that something is amiss. The learner immediately locates the apparentsource of trouble n line 3 and at the tutor's ecommendation, he rereads the phrase and incorporates the correction. confirms he correction. henconfirms The tutor hen Finally,we consider protocol (F), in which earner Y the the tutor ttempts o elicit from earnerY locative clause. missingpreposition missing preposition to n a locativeclause. (F) Y3 1. T: Okay. "After will study n Boston nine months, 'll return fornine for 2. 3. 4. 5. Y: 6. T: 7. Y: 8. T: 9. Y: T: 10.T: 10. 11. Y: 12. T: 13. 14.

my mycountry." country."What do mean you mean Do you here ?What "after"here "after" after his referring o previous paragraph) or after .. you studynine monthsyou go back ? nine months mean afternine Yes, after Uhum nine months Afternine After nine monthsyou go ... Afternine After "I'll back my country" mycountry" You will back be back my ountry .." "I will willbe Okay,"After will study n Boston nine months ah ... fornine for

(softly)]nine (softly)] nineOkay, months, 'll return what ountry."Okay, ountry." my is ... do you think .. is there anymissinghere ? thingmissing thing "I'll returnmy 15. country..." mycountry..." to Returnto 16. Y: Return T: Okay 17.T: 17. In (F), the sentence containing the error s readthesereadofthese On some of times.On oftimes. numberof read a number ings, the location of the error is narrowed by the preposition s wherethe focusing n the phrase where to failsto earner stillfails expected to appear; yet, he earnerstill

4. T: 5. N: 6. T: 7. N:

Read again uhum " I would like to spend" here tohere Okay,you're Okay, you're missingto "To spend in United States Statestwo twoor or threeyears."

Upon reading her composition at the outset does not learnerdoes thelearner of the interaction line 1), the

the whenthe notice that omething s missing.Only noticethat Onlywhen tutorexplicitly oints out the precise location ofthe of the problem and asks f omething s missing (lines 14and 14 and 15) is line a responsive ctionfrom ction from he the hatthe hat learner 16). It is evident triggered successful weresuccessful thatwere of feedbackthat sources offeedback subtlesources subtle N in protocol (E) are not helpful earnerN with earner for learner Y. She clearlyneeds more explicit

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 2013 09:17:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions  

AliAljaafrehndJames Lantolf help to correct the error,which comes in the form f a narrowing own of the ocation of the error nd explicitly ndicating hat omething s explicitlyndicating missing. Microgenesisn the ZPD. Now that we have some feel feelfor forhow howfeedback s negotiated n the ZPD, we can consider how developmentarises we will thiswe as a resultof resultof correctivehelp. To do this presentsome sample protocols which llustrate the impact of feedback on microgenesiswithin a particulartutorial, s well as across tutorials. In each case we will be looking for changes from intermental,or other-regulated other-regulatedperforperformance, to intramental, r self-regulated self-regulatederforerforforthe earners' ability o genmance, as well as forthe eralize what they ppropriate in one linguistic context to other relevant contexts. contexts. We begin with protocol (G), which elucidates the microgenetic process for the modal can across episodes in the same tutorial. (G) N3 1. T: "To Germany." o you see anything also wrong here ? "myfuture s can go to Germany" .. What 2. about the use of the auxiliary 3. verb here ? 4. N: Is... is... 5. T: Is can go ? 6. N: Is can go 7. T: Do you see something somethingwrong wrong here ? How to say t ? 8. N: No, I don't know 9. N: Okay,how how to use ... 10. N: Is will go 11. T: 12. N: 13. T: 14. N: 15. T: 16. N: 17. T: 18. N: 19. T: 20.

"One mydreams my dreams formy for myfuture future is . .." of(rising ntonation) Will go? No (lengthenedvowel) ... No Okay, s... what...? Is... To go To go not "can" ? Yeah, because you have here, like ... this s an auxiliary nd this s another uxiliary r modal ...

475 28. T: Okay,"One of mydreams for my future s to go ..." 29. N: To go to Germany 30. T: To Germany nd ... 31. N: One we can't do right laughs) 32. T: No, that's fine. You're doing fine 33. N: Filine ? (laughs) 34. T: Yeah 35. N: No, please, this s verybad (laughs). No very .. 36. T: Yeah, but I mean you have done a lot of... 37. N: This is ... (laughs) know.Other Other things re 38. T: Work,you know. gettingbetter, o ... 39. N: And a lot of work, work,no, no, I don't like this.Why write writebull bull shit? 40. I don't like it (laughs) In protocol G), the tutor ses several evelsof evelsof reads the relevant enimplicitregulation-he implicit hints regulation-he t thenature the natureof of the error, pecifies tence,hints tence, its ocation, dentifies ts nature, nd rejects nappropriate attemptsby attemptsby the learner to correct it-but is still unable to triggeran adequate fromthe movefrom the learner. n line 8 the responsivemove learner overtly tates that she does not know how to correctthe error, t which point the tutor begins to provide more explicit help and finally, n line 17, casts the verb phrase in its correctform. correct form.The The learnerthenfinally esponds to the tutor's tutor'smoves movesand and theyboth engage in a dialogue about the construction, which the learnerturns learner turns nto an opportunity o expressher frustration egardingher failure o appropriate the feedback. A short time later in the same tutorial, he same problem was encountered n the sentence "Anotherdream "Another dream mine is can go to Japan," but this imethe ime the earner'sresponsive ction is quite different nd shows a shift shifttoward toward self-reguin as seen lation, protocol (H). (H) N3 1. N: "Another "Anotherdream dream mine is" ... ah ah amm ... what? can change now. 2. 3. T:

21. N: Yeah 22. T: So you have them together .. 23. N: Yes, because I ... the verbform verb form and twoverbs two verbs together, es. 24. T: Yeah, so yeah two twoverbs verbstogether. together. So... 25. N: I know 26. T: One of my... is to go to Germany 27. N: Oh myGod (laughs)

Okay 4. N: Okay. "Another "Anotherdream dream mine is ... is to go" again 5. T: Okay "is to go..." 6. N: "Is to go 7. T: Okay,"Another "Anotherdream dream of mine is:" ... instead of can,"to go is to 8. go" 9. N: "is to go to Japan. I thinkJapan s an interesting ountry n

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 2013 09:17:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions  

476

TheModern The Modern anguage ournal 8 (1994)

10.

culture,metho... methodology" methodologia

In (H) the earnerdisplays vidence videnceof of approtheearlier earlierepisode priationof the help given n the presented n (G). We notice a markedreduction markedreduction in the amount of of help needed by the learnerto take over and complete the correction. The tucorrection.The tor, n fact, oes not have to provide ny nyhelp help for toself-initiate the earner,who who s able to self-initiateline line 1) and self-correcthe self-correct heerror line 4), simply n thebasis of reading the sentence n the tutor'spresence. The learner'smetacomments, metacomments,n n our view,provide additional evidence of movement movement oward self-regulation.n line (1), for nstance, he asks herself question about what she has written ("What?"), which she then proceeds to immediately nswer "I can change now"), ndicating hecorrect orm. he also appears that he knows hecorrect to indicate,by her utterance again" at the end of ineas(4), recognition hather hat hererror errorhere here the in s(G). her same discussed earlier mistake These utterances, n fact, appear to be private speech--speech hose function s not to commuwith omeone else but to assist he self n nicatewith nicate problem-solvingituations 37; 40; 41). In terms of microN shows ignsofmicroof our criterion,earner earnerN romLevel Level 1 to Level 3, or geneticdevelopment genetic development rom perhaps even Level 4. of help on microTo observe the effects effectsof willconsider we will consider protogenesis across tutorials,we the same learnerstrugcols (I) through K) as thesame gles witharticlesand mass nouns. (I) N5 1. T: can Okay, Okay,"when "when we we read and thinkwe thinkwe write day afterday [okay, 2. day afterday better. Okay] right]day right] is we have a good 3. comprehension."Do you see any"Ifwe we have ... thinghere ? "If a good comprehension" . . 4. 5. N: A good comp ... rehension 6. T: uhum, "ifwe have .. ." Do you see article ? anythingwith the article?

14. N: Because is ... if ifwe we have good ... because is no is no only one. 15. T: Okay 16. N: Is general ... T: 17.T: 17. 18. N: idea... Okay 19. T: Yeah 20. N: general generalgood good comprehension 21. T: Yeah, so it's not also count 22. N: Yeah 23. T: It's mass 24. N: It's mass 25. T: Comprehension.You can't say one comprehension, wo comprehensions 26. N: Okay In (I) the earneruses rticleaa earneruses the ndefinite rticle the mass noun comprehenwiththe inappropriatelywith sion. he relieson relieson the tutor'sfeedback tutor'sfeedbackto generate the correct correctform form of the construction. construction.The The resort to exdoes thiswithout this withouthaving to resortto tutordoes tutor of help, indicating hatthe general evelsof plicit evels location of the error is sufficient line 6). At thispoint, he earner'sresponsive ction is triggered and she is able to assume responsibility he error. t seems clear, for orrecting heerror. clear,however, however, that withoutthe withoutthe tutor's mplicit evel of interthe earner would not have noticed the ventionthe vention earnerwould ordevelerror.Again, n terms f our criterion ordevelthe learner s probably thatthe opment,we can say that correcther sinceshe at Level 3, since she does notice and correcther result of the tutor's ntererror,but only as a resultof vention. Be that as it may,even though N is able to locate and correct correcther her error errorwith with mplicit mplicithelp, help, mov e to the tutor pparently eels the need to move an explicit level of help beginning in line (8) remainderof the and extending hroughout heremainderof protocol. It could be argued that the tutor to determine f orderto engages in such a move n order the generalization t isthe learnerunderstood learnerunderstoodthe sue and was not just operating locally. Of are otherwaysof making thisdethereare course, there termination, uch as waiting until the pattern

ifwe have ... good comprehen7. N: "If ifwe sion" 8. T: Okay, "good comprehension." comprehension." You Okay,"good knowwhy Whywe are not using a? 9. when we... if 10. N: we When we read... have... "Ifwe 11. T: "If we have good comprehension" we ... don'twe 12. N: aah because ... wh whydon't 13. T: yeah, whydon't we use a ? Why t's yeah,why wrongto use a?

recurs n futureperformance nd observing f ifthe or if the learner s able enderedor it is correctly endered to rectify nyerroneouspatterns hatmay rise. rectifyny tutor'smovecould simOn the other hand, the tutor'smove waste of time,or even worse, t plyhave been a wasteof might mighthave have in confusionand confusion and the etof aresulted hypothesis tisoning perfectly ppropriatehypothesis ppropriate on articleuse. article use. We now consider the protocol given in (J), from later episode during the same tutakenfrom taken session. torialsession. torial

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 2013 09:17:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions  

Ali AljaafrehndJames Lantolf

(J) N5

what?? 1. T: aah and then you can saywhat ... "the most mport .. is ... 2. N: (softly) (softly)thing thing

3. T: is to think n the foreign anguage," right? "But but [what?] 4. make compositions s difficult ecause [let me see] . . . 5. because you need to have a good (N crosses out the article a) Okay,no a (laughs) "because you need to have good grammar, unctuation and... 10. perfectly.. ." perfectly In the above episode, the tutor eads theportion of textcontaininga target rror rrorand and then pauses ust before externalizing he noun. The reading and the pause are sufficient orrective responsive ction help to elicit the appropriate appropriateresponsive from the learner,who immediately roceeds to cross out the indefinite rticle.Actually, he tutor's pause and N's responsiveaction in line 6 occur almostsimultaneously. iven iventhat the tuthatthe tor's regulation s situatedat the upper end of the Regulatory cale, it appears that thatthe the earner is close to being able to provide corrective eedback for herself nd is, thus,developingtoward greater independence, or self-regulation. he learner's laughter n line 8 suggeststhat she is conscious of the error, and that she is conThis level nswer.This sciouslyproviding sciously providing hecorrect nswer. ofself-awareness of self-awarenessn n the process offeedbackand feedback and 6. N: 7. T: 8. N: 9. T:

error correction the transition from other- so characteristic fromotherself-regulated ferformance (16; 33). thatN is able to generFurthermore,t seems thatN alize withregard to the nonuse of articles with articleswith mass nouns, on the basis of the feedbackgiven at the outset of the tutorial,protocol (I), to a later point in the same tutorial,protocol (J). Hence, she correctly xtends the help given n

477 6. T: But what do you see wrong n these two sentences .. 7. N: Ah ust a moment."We can ... see we can ., we can ... see" 8. T: N: 9. 10. T: 11. N: 12. T: 13. N: 14. T: 15. N: 16. T: 17. N:

Uhum It... grey Okay Big Okay,grey Okay, greybig big Layers Layers Layers n the sky Uhum Because is no one only, s all the

18. T: Layers, t is not singular. singular.Right, Right, that's good 19. N: Grey Greybig big layers... yes (laughs) 20. T: In the sky 21. N: With .. dense 22. T: Okay 23. N: (Laughs) 24. T: Dense, that'sgood 25. N: Dense smoke 26. T: With dense smog 27. N: "Produced by carbon monoxide of the the vehicle." The learner s immediately ble to correct her correcther misuse of the indefinitearticle with the mass noun smogn line 1, thusproviding vidence of Of tutorials.Of generalization of feedback across tutorials. moreinterest even more interestss what whatwe we observe n lines lines66 and 7, where the learner overtly overtlynterrupts nterrupts he tutor'sutterance tutor's and subsequently nhibits utteranceand his nhibitshis attempt o offer ssistance. n so doing, she assumes fullerresponsibility orfindingand corin "a greybig layers.'"15 She errorin recting the error does this by externalizingher own corrective feedback process beginning n line 7 and endthe correctform, grey."Fiwiththe ing in line 9 with externalizesher herunderstandnally, n line 17 she externalizes thatthe the article cannot be used, in this thiscase case ing that because thenoun the noun withwhich withwhich t co-occurs, ayers,

the case of comprehension thecase o good rammar.urther extensionis extension is observed in the protocol given in fromthe final tutorialfor tutorialfor N, which (K) taken fromthe was conducted one week later. (K) N6 1. T: "We can see a greybig greybig layers n the sky skywith witha dense smog" What is ... do you 2. see anythingwrong here ? 3. N: Dense smog with withah ah heavyor... 4. T: That's fine,yeah this s good 5. N: This is good?

is singular.Here then thenwe we see evidence of psychological, as well as linguistic, linguistic,development development and N shows showsthat she has formed a generalizathatshe tionwith tion withregardto nonuse of ndefinite rticles with mass nouns and with plural count nouns. fromthe the Moreover, he curbs the offer f help from tutor nd resolves the problem problemwith withonly onlyminiminimal evaluativefeedback evaluative feedback fromthe fromthe tutor. We will consider three final protocols, in whichwe which we observe nteraction etween etweenthe thefeedback provided by the tutor tutorand and the learner's attempt o generalize across episodes as well as

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 2013 09:17:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions  

478

TheModern The Modern anguage ournal 8 (1994)

tutorials.While While the learner, n essence, has difficultiesfully ppropriatingthe help, and thus ultimatelyfails to generalize across contexts, the interaction between the tutor and the learnerstimulated learner stimulatedby bythe the failure s quite informative with regard to how generalization occurs. As Vygotsky 39) points out, we often learn more about how a cognitive ystem perateswhenwe whenwe observe tunderconditionsof conditionsoffailfailure and breakdown breakdownthan when we observe the thanwhen system unctioning moothly. moothly. n the protocols, the same tutotaken fromdifferent fromdifferentpisodes of thesame rial and from fromdifferent different utorials, he tutor nd correcttense learner attemptto workout work out the correct tense ormodal constructions. modal + main verb constructions. markings or (L) Fl 1. T: Okay,"to the ... [yeah] to the US. [Okay] In thatmoment can't 2.

... lived in the furniture." house because I didn't have any Is that .. whatwhat s wrongwith 3. thatsentence,too ? 4. What is wrongwith the sentence we just read ? ... "In that 5. moment can't lived in the house have any because I didn't didn'thave 6. furniture".... Do you see ? furniture" 7. F: No 8. T: Okay... ah there s something the verb with the withthe wrongwith verb tense in this thissentence and 9. the modal ... Do you know 10. modals ? 11. yes,o what's know what's wrongwhat's T: Ah 12. F: Okay, wrong here ? 13. F: The tense of this ive 14. T: Okay,what about'the the ... is it just in thisor in this, he whole thing? 15. 16. F: The whole this

26. F: Live 27. T: Ah exactly, kay.So when you use this n the past then the second verb s the simple .. 28. F: yes mothatmo29. T: Form,okay .. aah "in that ment could not .. ." 30. F: Live in the house In (L), the earner ncorrectly arks hemain he main ratherthan than the modal, for tense. Notice, verb, rather she correctlymarks tense in the hatshe markstense however, hat + do main verb in line 2. The case of auxiliarydo+ irst f the her error tutor sks earner an locate locateher of his reading the sentence simply n the basis ofhis learner re(lines 3 through6), whereupon the learnerresponds in line 7 that she cannot. In lines 8 byexplicitly through 0,by explicitly eferring o the modal and asking f he knows omething bout modals (to which he receivesa positive response), the positiveresponse), tutor ubsequently arrows 's search space. He then again askswhat s wrong presumablywith the tense of the modal]. The learner, learner,however, however, responds by correctingthe tense of the main verb. The tutor ccepts the response,but then refocuses the learner's attention on the full modal + verb construction nd asks a series of questions designed to elicit the correct past tense form of the modal. Finally,the learner the past tense of knowthe replies that he does not know tutormust mustprovide t resultthe the tutor can, nd so as a result forher. She does appear, at least, to recognize the correctform, n line 24. The tutorpresents tense marking n her with an explicit rule for tense F seems to understand, s whichF modal clauses,which indicatedbyher indicatedby her interruption interruptionn n line 28. In this of a lack of responsiveness interaction, ecause ofa tutoroffers offers ery on the part of the learner, he tutor The corcorrectivefeedback. feedback.The explicit evels of corrective rect tense marking s jointly constructed,but fallson the tutor. mostof most of the responsibility ere fallson The learner,with mplicit help fromthe tutor, mplicithelp markedfor main verb s not markedfor recognizesthat he mainverb

17. T: Okay,how do you correct t? ... What?? moment" . . What thatmoment" Okay, "In that 18. ... What is the past tense of can ? what was 19. happening.., .what... the past, right whatwas happening ... what .. the eventhappened 20. in the past right so what 21. is the past tense of this thisverb verb can ? know?? ... Do you know 22. F: No 23. T: Okay, h could 24. F: Ah yes 25. T: Okay,"I could not..."

tense (lines 13 and 30), but she is unable to do of correctformof anything bout generating he correctform the modal, even with explicit help. Thus, the explicithelp. tutor is forced to provide the correct form. Later in the same tutorial,the same problem resurfaces, s seen in protocol (M). (M) Fl 1. T: Okay,"I Okay, "I called other otherfriends friendswho who do the party." wentdo can't went Okay, party."Okay, what s wrong here ? 2. 3. F: To wentdo do the partybe4. T: "Who can't went workedat at cause thatnight theyworked nightthey

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 2013 09:17:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions  

AliAljaafrehndJames . Lantolf 5. 6. 7. F: 8. T: 9. 10. F: 11. T: 12. F: 13. T: 14. F: 15. T: 16. F: 17. T:

the hospital." Okay,from fromhere here "I friendswho called otherfriends other who do the party."What's wentdo can't went n this? wrong To ? whatabout about Okay,what else ? . . . what the verb and the tense ? The verb and the tense ... Could Okay,here Past tense All right, kay, who [alright] could not." Alright And ? ... To Here [points to the verb phrase], what's the rightform I... go Go. Okay, "could not go to [that's right] to the party..."

In this pisode the ntervention f the tutor s considerablyreduced from the episode examined in protocol (L). The level of explicitness elicit an appropriate required to elicitan appropriateresponsive responsive ction from he earner s also reduced. Nevertheless, the learner still has some problems focusing on the error indexed by the tutor. She initially ssumes the problem to be related to her apparent apparentslip slip of the pen, and she indicates do should be that doshould be rewrittens rewritten s to line 3). Hownce the tutormanages to get her to focus ever, on tense marking, n lines lines88 and 9, she is immecorrectthe modal, in line 10. n diately ble to correctthe thecorrect correct addition, she is also able to provide the formof form ofthe themain n line main verb, 16,although 16, with some regulationfrom hetutor. he tutor. Aalthoughwith Above bove all, however, the learner accepts more of the responsibility orcorrectingher error n protocol (M) than is the case in (L). A significant ransition occurredbetween between the first nd appears to have occurred second episodes. The learner has appropriated

479 5. T: What the verb verb .. something the verb .. wrongwiththeverb 6. F: Ah, yes... 7. T: That used. where?? Do where you Okay, you see it ? 8. F: (Points to the verb) 9. T: Took ? Okay 10. F: Take 11. T: Alright, ake 12. F: (Laughs) The learner continues to experience difficultywith the modal + verbconstruction.This, in itself, s not too surprising, ince when the structure irst ppeared, it was low in F's ZPD, as indicatedbythe need need forthe forthe tutor o provide feedbackfrom he explicit evels evelsof of the scale. As we pointed out earlier, ontrol ontrolover overfeaturesof featuresof the second language does not move from a stagewhere stage whereexplicit explicitfeedback feedback s required requiredto to full rather evolves appropriation; earning through of reliance on the other stages decreasing person toward ncreasingreliance on the self. In protocol (N) we see evidence of microbothin in production of the modal + verb genesis both construction nd the extent f responsibilityssumed by the thelearner for ts production. n the learnerfor earlier tutorials, he earner earnerwas was unable unable to mark themodal the modal for ense correctly ithout he tutor's intervention. n (N), however,we we observe that the correctform correctformwas was produced in the composition,written everaldaysafter he first utorial. F still stilldoes does not have fullmastery ver thestruchavefull the structure, ince she incorrectlymarksthe main verb for tense. The tutorfocuses tutor focuses her attention on this problem (line 5) through a question, at whichpoint she interrupts im (line 6) and indicates her recognitionof the errorand error and points to its location (line 8). She then proceeds to provide the correction n line 10. Her laughter in line 12, as in our earlier discussion, s a clue

thefeedbackprovided n (L) and shows ignsof thefeedback microgeneticdevelopment, microgenetic development,given that in (M) she elicits elicitsfeedback feedback that s less explicitand less extensive. We can now compare the same learner's performanceon formance on the same structure ne week ater. (N) F2 1. T: Is thereanything there anything wronghere here in thissentence this sentence? ? "I wrong took only Ani 2. because I couldn't took both" . . . Do you see anything 3. wrong? ... Particularly ere "because I couldn't took both" 4. F: Or Maki?

thatthe formmay not yetbe fully utomatized and that he errorwas errorwasnot notthe theresult result f nadvertent performance.All of this suggests that the learner has appropriated the feedback offered in thefirst utorial nd that he now has greater controlover control over the construction. Tracing the same modal + main verb construction n subsequent compositions for the same learnerreveals revealsevidence evidence of full ppropriaoffull tion. learner The learner used the construction ndependently nd correctly, or example, in comthree:"The "The wolfwanted wolfwantedto eat the goat position three: but he could couldnot not skhis skhis friend..,. thewolfdrank wolfdrank a lotbut lot buthe he could ot et o eat the goat." Later n the same composition,we observe: "I saw peo-

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 2013 09:17:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions  

480 ple who people who could ivewith fewmoney." we note: "Another Finally n compositionseven we thing could ee s there re lotof nterest o take money moneyfrom frompoor poor people." Most mportantly,n the final composition,we see thatshe not only extended the patternto otherverbsbut to anothermodal, as well:"If well: "If have money, would ry hard to help poor people." The problem was a complex one in which the learner appears to firston on the modal (protocol L) have focused first and then on the main verb (protocols M and N), even though the tutor offeredcorrective feedback on both parts of the complex verb phrase at the same time.

TheModern The Modern anguage ournal 8 1994) For this to happen, however, he expert must be willing to relinquish control (itselfdialoginovice at the appropricallynegotiated) to the novice

ate time. There can be no real development otherwise. From thisperspective, he typesof error correction (i.e., implicit r explicit) thatpromote learning cannot be determined ndependently of ndividual earners nteractingwith withother other ndividuals. Moreover, ll types of feedback are theirrelepotentially elevant or earning,but theirrelevance depends on where n the earner'sZPD earner's ZPD a particularpropertyof the L2 is situated. The hierarchy f regulation s an attempt o capture this dynamic character of feedback. Developcharacterof ment n a second language is therefore ot only CONCLUSIONS reflected n the learner's abilityto generalize Effective error correction and language what had been appropriated, but is also rethe kind of that s on mediation vealed learning dependndividuals, cruciallywho in consort prothrough consortwith with between expertshelp and novices.ointly vided Thus, negotiated by other able to produce a particular the learner dialogicallyco-construct zone of a learner who is able structure s a consequence of more strategic proximal development in which feedback as colthecolrelevant nd can therefore (i.e., implicit)forms f regulation e.g., the regulationbecomes relevant to modify heir n- laborativeframe) is developmentallymore adbe appropriated earnersto by earners appropriatedby this tance, earning vanced than one who needs directand explicit romthis terlanguage ystems. rom feedback for the same property.This means is not something n individualdoes individualdoes alone, but s a collaborative endeavor necessarily nvolving that linguisticformsalone do not provide us of a learner's developmenwiththe with the fullpictureofa ndividuals.166 ere we encounterwhat, n other ndividuals.1 tal level. It is essential to know the degree to the face of it at least, looks like a potential which other-regulation,r mediation, impacts problem. on the learner's production of the particular Van Lier (p. 211) worries--correctly we forms. believe-that too much guidance, or in his We are, of course, not uncritical of the rewords, "other-repair,"might might nhibit,or at least he hichhe search laid out in thispaper. For one thing,we retard, he development f self-repair, hich views as an "important earning activity." he recognize that thatone one of the shortcomings f this n formalinitial the as interaction of ZPD, attemptto investigate eedback and L2 verygoal very goal ized in Vygotsky'saw of culturaldevelopment, learning in the ZPD is that the linguisticfeais for novices to appropriate the responsibility tures considered are "surfacy" and language for their own linguistic performance. specific. Schwartz nd her colleagues (28; 29) performance. This is

what it means to move throughthe regulatory whatit hierarchy.As implicit forms of feedback become more relevant, nd explicitforms ecome less relevant n regulatingthe novice's correctivebehavior, y mplication,novicesassume nover their inguistic ctivity n controlover creased control feedback as thatfeedback the L2. This is whywe argue that other-regulationn the ZPD is not only graduated but is also contingent. At first,responsibility or henovice's inguistic erformance s

correctionmay onlystimulate he contend thatcorrection contendthat development of those properties of a second language system, uch as verb morphology nd lexis, which do not arise fromabstractprinciples specifiedby specified byUG. The latter ypeof properties (e.g., syntacticmovement), according to Schwartz 28), will be unaffectedby negative relearnersrefeedback and can only develop if learners ceive positive and contextually mbedded input.17 Carroll and Swain's study, owever, ug-

distributed etween etweenthe the novice and the theexpert, expert, controlover over this with the expert having more control withthe performance than the novice. Under the exapproprigraduallyappropripert's guidance, control s gradually novice moves novice. Eventually,henovicemoves ated bythe thenovice. fromreliance relianceon on the expert (other-repair, awayfrom towardreliance reliance on the self. in van Lier's terms) toward

gests corrective feedback conditions canadministered controlled underthat impact posf more moreabstract abstract n the yndevelopment itively tacticproperties i.e., dativealternation). t reifcollaborative collaborative nteraction n mains to be seen if the ZPD can also enhance the acquisition of of second languages. In this abstractpropertiesofsecond

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 2013 09:17:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions  

Ali AljaafrehndJames Lantolf

481

regard we intend to extend our work on the ZPD to two specific cases-unaccusative constructions in Spanish and word order in German. Another drawback of our study s that the data were collected collected exclusivelyn audio format, whicheliminated which from nalysis potentiallymeliminatedfrom ofnonverbal nonverbal nformation. ince portant ource of between individuals also entails a interactionbetween interaction rich gestural component, future research on learning in the ZPD requires the analysis of video recordings to capture the meaning distheirhands hands (25). byspeakers played by speakers on their Finally, t is not our intent to sanction the tutorial s the uniquelyendowed framework or co-constructing he ZPD. The tutorialformat represents only one means for realizing this process. It is necessary o explore the full array

whileelaboration elaboration has to do withthemanthe manrors,while ner in which the error s made salient.That is, some forms f elaboration are explicitand entail metalinguistic xplanations and othersare others are more indirect, nvolvingonly some means of wherethe theerroroccurred erroroccurredbut givingno markingwhere informationon on its nature. Sharwood specific information Smith suggests that the various levels of input enhancement should be examined through controlled experimentation (31: p. 177), preffectiveevelof of sumably o determine he most ffectiveevel input enhancement. 4 Metaphorically peaking,Vygotsky haracterizes ctual development s the "fr "fruits" uits" f the maturationalprocess and the ZPD ZPD as representing the "buds" or "flowers" f thatprocess (39: p. 87). 5 Actually, he kind of help provided is very

of ofpossibilities possibilities vailable vailablein in theclassroomsetting classroomsetting for enhancing learning n the ZPD. Collaborative interaction between learners engaged in problem-posing asks, se of portfolios, nd dialogue journals are among the other avenues through which a ZPD can be co-constructed and learning can emerge. We hope that the willstimulate stimulate dditional research research present tudywill in these domains.

much by sociocultural factors. factors.ReResearchinfluenced has shown that mothers mothersfrom fromrural rural economicallyunderdeveloped nomically underdeveloped settingstend to be more directive n helping their children perform askswhen askswhen compared to middle class,educated urban mothers,who who are much moreindimore indirect and strategic in regulating the mental activity f their hildren (42; 43). 6 Althoughthe full tudy lso entailed a comearnerswho reparison of the performance f earnerswho ceived corrective feedback in the ZPD with those who received either explicit or implicit ourselveshere with the correction,we concern ourselveshere ZPD group only and we will not consider the results from the other two groups. We point hat even out, however, thoughthree though threedifferent treatment in thedifferent roups participated study, t was not implemented as a controlled experiment. To do so, we believe, would not have allowed us to uncover the processes at work as

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thankMerrillSwain MerrillSwain for her nd useful feedinsightfuluggestions insightful back on an uggestions earlierversionof thisnegative paper. We are also gratefulfor the helpfulcommentary rovided by n anonymousreviewer. f course, the authors accept full responsibility or any short-

versionof of the paper. comings n the presentversion NOTES 1 Prior to the interest n error analysis,the general assumption of those working from a more behavioristic behavioristicslant slant had been that errors resulted from insufficient earning of target language rules (36: p. 181). 2 The inspiration inspirationfor for the distinction distinctionwe we are betweenthe between the nd drawing ethnographic experimental approaches to corrective correctivefeedback feedback we owe to thecomments the comments f an anonymous eviewer. SAlong similar ines, Sharwood Smith prothatcorrective corrective eedback,or "negative nposes that put enhancement" serves to flag specific er-

learning emerged in the ZPD. learningemerged 7 Even though we referto refer to learnerswho learners who received tutorial help as the ZPD group,we not claiming that the only way to create a ZPD is tutorials.There There are types of interacthrough tutorials. tion that can create a ZPD. For instance, research byDonato shows hat earnersworking n collaborationcan collaboration can ointlyconstruct ZPD without intervention rom tutor.We We chose the tutorial procedure, in this particular case, because itseemed it seemed to be themost the mostexpedient expedientway wayof constructing heZPD he ZPD for forpurposes purposesof ofour our study. 8 The learners' use of text-basedproperties, such as cohesive devices, were not considered forour for our purposes since we were not directly nterested n their abilityto write per se; rather our concern concernwas waswith heirgrammatical ompetence as reflected n the thewritten writtenmedium.

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 2013 09:17:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions  

482

9 The ability f learnersto learnersto generalize on the basisof basis of negativefeedback s important ecause it evidence thatthe thatthe earner's provides has changed. Vygotsky, inguistic n fact, representation insistedthat insisted that therecan there can be no mastery n learning if learners cannot extend what they have learned in one context to new contexts. n a earners,Carroll, Carroll,Swain, Swain,and study f L2 French earners, Roberge report that while negative feedback helped their ubjectsreduce their rrors n a set of morphological earnerswere were apmorphologicalendings, endings, he earners parently nable to construct he necessary necessarygengeneralizationson the basis of the corrective eedback. In their study of dative alternation in English as a second language, Carroll and Swain (5) show that earnerscan earnerscan indeed generalize fromnegative nput. 10 10The The data to be considered in the present paper do not illustrate nstancesof nstancesofall all five fivetrantransitional levels. For a full empirical account of the levels see Aljaafreh. 11 eterCoughlan (personal communication) to dismissperwantto proposes thatwe may not want errorsmerely s slips of the tongue formanceerrors formance and suggests that there may be some uncon uncon-scious intention nderlying uch behaviors.He behaviors.He raises the question of why earners earnersmake make errors even after theyhave learned a particularfeature of the L2. This question can also be extended to native speakers as well. 12The hierarchy f regulation regulationgiven given n Figure I is not intendedto intendedto be exhaustive; ather,t represents he range of help offered n the specific tutorials tudied here. 13 We acknowledgePeterCoughlan forpointing thisout.

The ModernLanguage LanguageJournal Journal 78 (1994)

us to explore the full implicationsof the two positionsfor econd language learning.Suffice it to thatsecond researchers re not in say, to which approach coragreement as language rectly characterizes nonprimary language learning n adults. 17To provide the details of Schwartz's nteresting, fnot controversial,laim would take us too far afield from our present purpose. We encourage the nterested eader to examine her writings n the topic (28; 29). BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Aljaafreh, Ali. Negative eedback eedbackn n Second anguage iss., Learningnd the one fProximalevelopment. evelopment.

Univ. David. fDelaware, fDelaware, ewark,992. ewark, 992. 2. Birdsong, nd InterMetalinguisticerformance erformance linguistic ompetence.erlin: Springer-Verlag, 1989. 3. Burt,Marina MarinaK. K. & CarolKiparsky.heGooficon: RepairManualfor nglish. owley,MA: Newbury

House,1972. nnL. 4. Campione, oseph, nn L. Brown, oberta . Ferrera& rera & Nancy . Bryant.The TheZone Zoneof ofProximal Proximal ifor ndividual Development:mplications mplications ferences n Learning." Children'searningn the "Zone of ProximalDevelopment." d. Barbara

Rogoff& JamesV. Wertsch. an Francisco: Jossy-Bass,984: 7-92. 5. Carroll, usanne& Merrill wain."Explicit nd ImplicitNegative Feedback: An Empirical Study ftheLearning fLinguistic eneralizations." Studies n Second anguage anguageAcquisition Acquisition55

(1993):357-86. 6. -, Merrill wain& wain& YvesRoberge. The Role nAdult

ofFeedback ofFeedback Adult econd anguageAcquisition: Error Correction Correction nd Morphological

14 Of the three ZPD learners,N is the only

one to have shown a responsiveaction at the ithregardto the thefour level of collaborative collaborativrame e four At this point,we have no way target tructures.At differof knowingthe potential source of this difference among the learners. 15Wertsch, nd Wertsch nd Hickmann simHickmannsimilarly howhow children, hrough heir peech, assume increased responsibility or their own problem-solving ctivity. 16 What this argues for is an "informant"based, rather than a "text" (i.e., data)-based, to second and approach language 19), hat learning anguage learning supportsthe contention someone's head does not take take place inside of someone's but arises in the interaction that is co-constructedbetween structed between ndividuals. n the atter ase, in the whilein only positive evidence is required,while former,both positive evidence and negative are necessary. pace does not permit feedbackare feedback

Generalizations." Applied Psycholinguistics3 AppliedPsycholinguistics

(1992): 73-98.

7. Chaudron, Craig. SecondLanguage Classrooms: esearch n Teachingnd Learning. ambridge: Cam-

8.

bridgeUniv. ress, 988. ofDiscourse n the -. "A Descriptive odel odelof reatmentfLearners rrors." anCorrectivereatment Corrective

guage earning 7 (1977): 29-46. 9. Children'searning n the "ZoneofProximal evelop-

ment."d. BarbaraRogoff James .Wertsch, ment."d. San Francisco: ossy-Bass,984. 10.Corder, . Pit."The SignificancefLearners' rrors." International Internationaleview eview fApplied inguistics

(1967):161-70. nnE. E. Chun& Chun& 11.Day,Richard, . AnnChenoweth,nn Feedback in "CorrectiveFeedback StuartLuppescu. "Corrective Native-Nonnative iscourse." anguageearning 34 (1984):19-45. EffectfError orrec12.DeKeyser, obertM. "The Effectf OralProon L2 Grammar nowledgendOralProtionon tion

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 2013 09:17:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions  

Ali Aljaafteh nd JamesP Lantolf

483

LanguageJournal ficiency." ModernLanguage Journal 7 (1993): 501-14. Richard. 13. aDonato, Beyond roup: sycholinguistic n Second tionale or Collective Language ctivity Univ.of of Delaware, Newark, 988. Delaware,Newark, Learning. iss., Univ. n Second anguage 14. Error nalysis: erspectives anguageAcquisiAcquisition. d. Jack C. Richards, London: Longman, 1974. 15. Fanselow, ohnF "The Treatment f Error n Oral Work." Foreign anguageAnnals Annals10 10 (1977): 58393. 16. Frawley,William. "The Cross-language Study of Private Speech." Paper, First Conference for Research. Madrid,June, 1992. Socio-culturalResearch. Socio-cultural 17. Gaskill,WilliamH. "Correction n Native SpeakerNonnative Speaker Conversation." Discourse Analysis n Second anguageResearch. d. Diane Larsen-Freeman.Rowley,MA: NewburyHouse, 1980: 125-37.

tive Evidence Causing the Unlearningof Verb Movement." econd anguage esearch (1992): 138. 30. Sharwood-Smith, ichael ichaelM. M. "Input Enhancement in Instructed LA. TheoreticalBases." Studiesn Studiesn 5 165-79. Second anguage cquisition (1993): 31. -. "Speaking to Many Minds: On the Relevance of Different ypes of Language Information for the L2 Learner." Second anguageResearch (1991): 118-32. 32. Spada, Nina & PatsyM. Lightbown."Instruction and the Developmentof Questions in L2 Classrooms." Studiesn Second anguage anguageAcquisition Acquisition5 (1993): 205-24. 33. Tharp, Richard G. & Robert Gallimore. Rousing toLife: Mindsto Minds Life:Teaching, earning nd Schoolingn Teaching,earning Social Context. ambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press,1988. 34. Tomasello, Michael & Carol Herron. "Feedback

18. George, H.MA: V. Commonrrors Common rrorsn n Language earning. 1972. House, Rowley, Newbury 19. Gold, Edward EdwardM. M. "Language Identification n the Limit." Information nd Control0 Control0 (1976): 467-74. "ErrorCorrection Correction n For20. Hendrickson,JamesM. "Error eign Language Language Teaching: Recent Theory, Research, and Practice." Modern anguage ournal 62 (1978): 387-97. 21. Herron, Carol & Michael Tomasello. "Learning Grammatical Structures in a Foreign LanTheFrench French guage: Modelling VersusFeedback." The Review 1 (1988): 910-23. 22. Kasper, Gabriele. "Repair in Foreign Language Studiesn n Second anguageAcquisition Teaching." Studies (1985): 200-15. 23. Lightbown,Patsy M. & Nina Spada. "Focus-onForm and Corrective CorrectiveFeedback Feedback in Communica-

for forLanguage Language Transfer rrors." Studiesn rrors."Studies n Second Language Acquisition1 (1989): 384-95. 35. & Carol Herron. "Down the Garden Path: Inducing and Correcting Overgeneralization Overgeneralization Errors n the ForeignLanguage Classroom. Ap(1988): 237-46. plied sycholinguistics 36. van Lier, Leo. The Classroom nd the Language Learner. ondon: Longman, 1988. 37. Vygotsky,ev S. ThoughtndLanguage. ambridge: MIT Press, 1986. 38. -. "The Genesis of Higher Mental Functions." The Concept fActivity fActivityn Soviet sychology. Ed. JamesV. Wertsch. Wertsch.New New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1981:144-88. 1981: 144-88. 39. -. Mind n Society:he evelopmentfHigher sychological rocesses. ambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1978.

tive Language Teaching: Effects on Second Language Learning." Studiesn Second anguage

40. Wertsch,James JamesV. V. Voices f the theMind. Mind. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press,1991.