Aljaafreh & Lantolf 1994 Negative Feedback as Regulation and Second Language Learning in the Zone of...

7/30/2019 Aljaafreh & Lantolf 1994 Negative Feedback as Regulation and Second Language Learning in the Zone of Proximal

1/20

Negative Feedback as Regulation and Second Language Learning in the Zone of ProximalDevelopmentAuthor(s): Ali Aljaafreh and James P. LantolfSource: 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 AssociationsStable URL: 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 andNational 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 on Thu, 9 May 2013 09:17:57 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nfmltahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/328585?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/328585?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nfmltahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/20

NegativeFeedback as Regulation andSecond Language Learning in theZone ofProximalDevelopmentALI ALJAAFREHDepartmentfLinguisticsUniversityfDelawareNewark,E 19716

JAMESP. LANTOLFDepartmentfModern anguagesndLinguisticsCornell niversityIthaca,NY 14853Email: [email protected] THE LATE SIXTIES AND EARLY SEV-enties,withthe ground breakingpublicationsof Pit Corder,Burt and Kiparsky,George, andRichards (14),one ofthe centralthemesof sec-ond language research has been the studyoflearnererrors s a reflectionofhypothesis est-ingon thepartofsecond language learners 8;15; 20; 23;).1 Eventually,he attentionof thoseworking n learnererrorshasmovedawayfromtheanalysis ferrors n theirownright s indi-cationsofhypothesis esting nd interlanguagedevelopment oconcern with uestionsrelatingto thepotentialeffects fcorrective rocedureson language learning.The fundamentalques-tion is: does errorcorrection ead to learning,or are correctivemoves by teachers or othercaretakers neffective?n addition,some corol-laryquestionshave also been addressed, nclud-ing how and when errorsshould be corrected(7: p. 135).Researchaimed at answering hesequestionshas been carriedout in either n ethnographicor an experimental ramework.2hose workingwithinthe ethnographic approach have con-ducted carefulobservationalstudies of correc-tivebehaviorsboth in the classroom and natu-ral settings nvolving eachers, earners,peers,native and non-native peakers (7; 8; 17;22; 24;36). This research has shown, among otherthings,that correctivefeedback maybe mes-sage-focused or code-focused; that it maybeself- or other-initiated and self- or other-completed; thatcorrective eedbackmayoccurimplicitly n the formof comprehensionand

confirmation hecks,recastings nd the ike,orexplicitlyn the form fprovision f thecorrectformby teacher,peer, or native interlocutor;that tmaybe accompanied byan explanation,especially n the classroomsetting; nd, that nthe classroomsettingmore attention s appar-ently iventodiscourseand content rrors hanto either exical,grammatical, r phonologicalerrors 7: p. 141).Despite the informative indingsthathaveemergedfromtheethnographic radition, hisresearchhas not establisheda strong mpiricallink between corrective feedback and inter-language development.Some authors, uch asvan Lier (p. 182), argue that correction s "animportantvariable in language learning" andfurther ssumet to be a necessary, houghnotasufficient,onditionfor earninga second lan-guage. Others, like Chaudron, are less san-guine,pointingout that researchon errorcor-rectionboth n and out of the classroom ettinghas uncovered nconsistencies,mbiguities,nda general ineffectivenessn termsof its effectson language learning (7: p. 145). Chaudronthencalls for"longitudinalresearch .. to de-terminethe extentof learning possible fromfeedback" (7: p. 152).The experimentalapproach to the studyoferrorcorrection,derivingmuch of its impetusfromthe L2 research informedby UniversalGrammar (UG), has squarely confrontedthemostfundamental fthe above questions:Doesnegative feedback lead to L2 learning? Re-search on this question has been spurred, npart,bythe claimthat rror orrection sappar-entlyneither necessarynora sufficientondi-tionforL1 learning n children e.g., 2; 44; 45).The controversyhathas arisen in the experi-mentalL2 literature s whetherwe can assume

TheModernanguageournal,8, v 1994)0026-7902/94/465-483 $1.50/0?1994TheModernanguageJournal

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/20

466 TheModern anguage ournal 8 (1994)the same situation o hold for dultL2 learningas seems to be the case for childL1 acquisitionwith regard to error correction, or whetheradultsrequirecorrective eedback (as van Lierassumes) in order to successfullyproject agrammar f theirL2.The experimentalresearchon error correc-tion,unlike its ethnographiccounterpart,hasgeneratedsome positivefindingson the inter-relationship between negative feedback andlearning.A series of recent tudies 5; 6; 21; 23;32; 34; 35), forexample,has demonstrated hatL2 learnersprovidedwith correctivefeedbackdo indeed outperformcontrol groups givenminimal or no negative nput.DeKeysersome-whatpessimisticallyoncludes,however,hat l-thougherrorcorrectionresults n some perfor-mance improvement or some learners, t failsto achieve muchin thewayof across-the-boardimpacton learning (p. 504 and p. 510). In hisstudy fhighschoolL1 speakersof Dutch learn-ing French, DeKeyser (p. 511) uncovered nomain effects or errorcorrectionbut did findinteraction ffects etweensuch factors s pre-viousexperience,aptitude,motivationnd anx-iety, nd feedback.DeKeyser s hardly lone in recognizingthatcorrectivefeedback, f t is to have any mpacton learning,has to in some waybe attunedtothe ndividual earner.Birdsong p. 150),for x-ample, in reviewing he researchon error cor-rection n L2 learning, oncludes thatnegativeevidence mightbe a question of "individualand/orsituationalvariation."Day,et al (p. 143)suggest hat earnerpersonalitymayhave some-thingto do with"the amountand typeof cor-rectionsupplied" bythe teacher (p. 43). Shar-wood Smith(30; 31) and Schachterargue thatlearners' nternal trategiesnd linguistic evel-opment mayplay an importantrole in deter-mining the effectiveness f negativefeedbackand recommend that these should be investi-gated in greaterdepth than theyhave to thepresent time. Finally, Spada and Lightbown(p. 219) wonder"whether ifferentypesofer-ror correctionstrategies re more effective tdifferentimes n learners'development .. andwhether eachersgo through ifferenthases intheirerrorcorrectionbehaviorsdependingontheirperceptionsof learners'development."As wewillargue on thebasis ofthe evidenceto be consideredbelow,whileerrorcorrectionultimatelyomesdowntoadjustingfeedbacktothe individuallearner,adjustmentscannot bedetermineda priori; rather, heymust be col-laboratively egotiatedon-linewith he earner.

How thenegotiationprocessunfolds nd how tleads,or fails to lead, to L2 development ormsthe principal aim of the present paper. Al-thoughthefindings f both ethnographic ndexperimentalresearchon correctivefeedbackhave been informative, e are still a long wayfrom fullunderstanding f how feedbackin-teractswith the L2 learning process. From theexperimentalstudies we have some evidence,DeKeyser's doubts notwithstanding, hat cor-rectivefeedbackappears to enhance learning.Wemustbear inmind,however,hatcontrolledexperimentation, s informative s it maybe,reallytellsus little bout how individualsreactto and use, or fail to use, feedbackto changetheir interlanguage. The ethnographic re-search,on the otherhand, has providedfairlyrich information bout the nature of thefeed-back processesat the local level,but it has notprovidedus withmuch evidence of f, nd how,theseprocessesresult n learning.What s miss-ing is a wayof linking earningoutcomeswithspecificfeedbackprocedures.We hope the re-search to be discussed below will serve as aninitialstep in thisdirection.As for thecorollaryquestions,Chaudron (7:p. 152),forone, pointsto theneed to determine"the typesof feedbackthatwould bestsucceedin promotingprogress n thetarget anguage."In thisregard,Carroll and Swain (p. 361), re-portthat earnerswho receivedexplicitcorrec-tion procedures,defined as anyfeedback that"overtly tatesthata learner's outputwas notpart of the language-to-be-learned," enerallyperformedbetteron theirexperimentaltasksthan those learners given implicit feedback,construed as any instance of feedback fromwhich earnershave to infer hat heir inguisticperformancewas inaccurate (e. g., confirma-tion checks, failures to understand, and re-questsforclarification).Carrolland Swainrea-son that explicit feedback might have beenmore beneficialbecause it dentifies hepreciselocationand natureof erroneousperformance,while mplicitnegativecorrection,requiresthelearners to engage in a good deal of mentalguesswork.3As encouraging as the results of such re-searchare, it wouldbe premature o conclude,and we are notimplying hatCarrolland Swaindo, thatexplicitfeedbackwillalways nd every-wherehave the upper hand over implicitcor-rection.Our claim, to be fleshedout below, sthatbothkindsof feedbackare relevant or in-guisticdevelopment,but theirrelevancemustbe negotiatedbetween the novice learnerand



4/20

AliAljaafrehndJames Lantolf 467the expert knower of the language. In otherwords, n some cases implicit orrection s suffi-cient to promote earning,while n others, tisnot, and in such cases, explicitfeedback is theonlytypeof correctionthatwillelicit a reactiveresponsefrom he earner.As we willargue,therelevance of the typeof feedback offered asmarkedbya learner'sreactiveresponse to thefeedback) is as important n index ofdevelop-ment in a second language as are the actuallinguisticformsproduced bythe learner.THE ZONE OF PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENTAND MICROGENESISIN L2 LEARNING

The data to be considered in thispaper aretakenfrom larger study n the interaction ferrorcorrection nd learningwhich tself s thefirst tudywe are aware ofthatattempts o in-vestigate hecorrection/learningnterfaceon-gitudinallyfrom within a theoretical, ratherthan from a phenomenological, stance. Theframework o which we refer s thatdevelopedbyLev S. Vygotsky37), his colleagues,and fol-lowersthat has come to be known as the socio-culturaltheoryof mind. In particular,we relyon Vygotsky's otion of zoneof roximalevelop-mentZPD) to analyze the interactionbetweenerrorcorrection and the learningprocess as itunfolds during the dialogic activitycollab-oratively onstructedby earnerand tutor.A fundamental enet of socioculturaltheoryis itsthesisthathumanmentalactivitys essen-tially mediatedprocess nwhich ymbolic, ndsocioculturally onstructed, rtifacts, he mostpervasive fwhich s language, playan essentialrole in themental ife ofthe ndividual.Hence,linguistic ctivity,ncludingspeakingand writ-ing, is an indispensable component of suchmentaloperationsas voluntarymemory, olun-taryattention,planning,monitoring, he for-mation of intentions,rational thought, andlearning.Furthermore, hese processes are in-herentlyocial in originand theirdevelopmentin childrenproceeds from the social, or inter-mentaldomain, to the individual,or intramen-tal domain, as a consequence of the lin-guisticallymediated interaction which arisesbetweenchildren nd other, ftenmoreexperi-enced,members ftheir ocioculturalworld, n-cludingparents, eachers, iblings, lder peers,etc. Accordingto Vygotsky,he ontogenesisofmentalfunctionss captured n thegeneticawofculturalevelopments follows: every unction nthechild's culturaldevelopment ppears twice:first, n the social level,and later, n the indi-

vidual level; first between people (inter-psychological), nd then nsidethechild (intra-psychological)" (39: p. 57).Centralto theevolutionofexternal, r social,functions nto internal, r mental,functions stheprocessof nternalization,r moreproperly orsociocultural theory, ppropriation26: p. 64).Zinchenko p. 106) refers o thisprocessas "thebridge betweenexternaland internal ctivity."Critically,ppropriationdoes not simply epro-duce the mentalactivityf another ndividual;rather, t "transformsthe process itself andchanges tsstructurend functions"38: p. 163).Socioculturaltheory, hen, nsiststhatinternaland externalfunctions re related,whileat thesame timerejecting nypresumption hatone issimply copy of the other (46). The studyofdevelopment, hen,forsocioculturaltheory,sthestudy f how mediationalmeansare appro-priated bythe individual s a resultofdialogicinteractionwithother ndividuals.Importantly,heappropriationprocess s notonlyobservableduring ontogenesisof childreninto adults, but also during microgenesis inwhichprocessesundergochange "rightbeforeone's eyes" n thespace of a fewdaysorweek,orevena few econds,or fractions f seconds (39:p. 61). Research that overlooks microgeneticgrowth ften ails o detectwhat soften hemostinterestingnd informativeata on learning ndmentalactivity41: p. 55). It is in microgenesisthatwe will searchfor evidenceon the interac-tion betweenerrorcorrection nd L2 learning.The transition from inter-to intramentalfunctioning,whether n ontogenesisor micro-genesis, s a dynamicprocessofreconstructionand qualitativechange inwhichthenovice andtheexpertcollaborate n constructing mutualactivity rame.This activityrame, r ZPD, rep-resentsa crucial move byVygotskyo linkhistheoreticalconceptswithpracticalpsychologi-cal and educational problems.In formulatingtheconceptof theZPD, Vygotsky ascriticalofpsychological nd educational practiceswhichassess developmentand guide educational in-terventionolely n thebasis ofthe evelof ndi-vidual, ndependentfunctioning.nstead,he in-sisted that two developmental levels of theindividualmustbe taken into account: the ac-tual developmental evel, "establishedas a re-sult of certain alreadycompletedevelopmentalcycles" (39: p. 85), and the level of potentialdevelopment,the level at which the individualfunctionswith ssistancefrom, r in collabora-tion with, more experienced members ofsociety.



5/20

468 TheModern anguage ournal 8 (1994)AccordingtoVygotsky,hepotential evel ofdevelopmentvaries independently romactualdevelopmentand is more indicativeof mentalgrowth han actual development.Thus, for n-stance, two individuals who achieve the samescore on a given test, anguage or otherwise,maynot both be able to make use of the helpofferedby a tutor (e.g., teacher or other stu-dent) to generalizetheir earningto novel cir-cumstances(4). In Vygotsky'siew, he learnerwho is able to respond to such help must beconsidered to be at a more advanced develop-mental level than the one who fails to do so,because the learnerwho respondsto help canbe expected to showa morerapidrateofactualdevelopment. pecifically,hen, heZPD is "the

distance between the actual developmentallevel as determined by independent problemsolvingand the level of potential developmentas determinedthroughproblemsolvingunderadult guidance or in collaboration with morecapable peers" (39: p. 86). The actual level ofdevelopmentdefines development "retrospec-tively" 39: p. 87), while the ZPD definesdevel-opment "prospectively" ibid).4The ZPD is the framework, ar excellence,whichbrings all of the pieces of the learningsetting ogether-the teacher, he earner, heirsocial and culturalhistory,heirgoals and mo-tives, s well as the resourcesavailableto them,including those that are dialogically con-structedtogether. ndeed, Vygotsky raws at-tention o theutility f theZPD as a tool for heresearcher to explore and come to an under-standingofthe nternal ourse ofdevelopmentwhen he states: "By using this method we cantake account of not onlythecycles nd matura-tion processes that have already been com-pleted but also those thatare currentlyn thestate of formation, hat are just beginningtomatureand develop" (39: p. 87).MechanismsfEffectiveelp n the PD. On thebasisofVygotsky'statementsnd theempiricaland theoreticalwork of contemporary ocio-culturalresearchers 9; 42), specificmechan-isms of effective nterventionwithin the ZPDcan be identified. irst,nterventionhouldbe-graduated. elp providedby moreexperiencedmember in a joint activitys designed to dis-cover the novice's ZPD in order to offer theappropriate level of assistance and to en-courage the learner to function at his or herpotential evelofability. he purpose here is toestimate the minimum level of guidance re-quired bythe novice to successfully erformgiventask.Help, therefore, ormally tarts t a

highly strategic, or implicit, level and pro-gressivelybecomes more specific, more con-crete,until the appropriate evel is reached asdeterminedbythe novicesresponse patterns othe help.5 Second, help should be contingent,meaningthat t should be offered nlywhen tis needed, and withdrawn s soon as the noviceshowssignsof self-control nd ability o func-tion independently.Research byWertschandhis colleagues (41-43), forexample,has shownthatchildren oftenovertly eject help offeredbyparentsonce the children realize that theyare capable ofcarrying ut a taskalone.Graduationand contingencywork n tandemin such a waythattheexpert,togetherwiththenovice,tries to discoverthe ZPD of the novicein orderto determine fhelp is requiredand ifit s,to ointlyworkout theappropriate evel atwhich to provide t. The process is thusone ofcontinuous assessmentf the novice's needs andabilities and the tailoringfhelp to thosecondi-tions. This process can be accomplished onlythrough hecollaborative nteraction f theex-pert nd thenovice,whichbringsus tothethirdmechanismofhelp in theZPD. Discovering hepotentialdevelopmental evelof thenoviceandproviding ppropriatehelp accordinglys at itscore-a dialogic ctivity hat unfolds betweenmore capable and less capable individuals.Dia-logue is an essentialcomponentofVygotskyantheory 40; 41),and hence ofthe ZPD. Withoutdialogic negotiation, t svirtuallympossibletodiscover thenovice's ZPD (42).THE STUDY

We now consider some of the findingsof astudy esignedto investigate he effects fneg-ativefeedback, rmoreappropriatelywithin o-cioculturaltheory, ther-regulation,n themi-crogenetic developmentof a second languageamong adults. Since thefullstudyfromwhichthis paper is drawn is quite extensive in thescope of tsfindings 1),we willhaveto imit uranalysishere to only ome of the data that llus-trate how the negotiation of correctivefeed-back,or other-regulation,n theZPD promoteslearning.6Subjects. s an initial endeavorto investigatesecond language learning in the ZPD, we de-cided to relyon written extsratherthan oralproduction, not onlybecause we felt writtenperformancewould expedite data collection,but also because we thought twould facilitatethe nteraction etweentheexpert researcher)and the learners.Consequently, heprojectin-



6/20

AliAljaaftehndJames Lantolf 469volved students enrolled in an eight-week ec-ond level (themost dvanced levelbeing6) ESLwriting and reading course offered by theEnglish Language Institute f theUniversityfDelaware.Although totalof nine students ar-ticipated in the full study, nlythe threewhowere in the ZPD group are considered here.Since it wasnecessary or hisgroupto takepartin one extra tutorialper week with one of theresearchers outside of their fiveweeklyclass-room meetings, hecourse instructor sked forvolunteers,informingthe students that theywould receive one free tutoringsession perweek andwould be helpingthetutor/researcherin a studyof how language teachers can helplearners.They were givenno additional infor-mation relevantto the nature of the researchproject. Since all of the studentsvolunteered,theteacherrandomly electedthree ndividualsfor the ZPD group-one Japanese (Y in theprotocols), one Spanish (N in the protocols),and one Portuguese (F in the protocols)speaker. Two of the students (Y and F) hadbeen intheUS for womonths nd one (N) hadresided in the countryfor six months at thetime of the study.Allwerefemale.7Procedures.s partof thecourse syllabus, tu-dentswere expected towriteone in-classessayperweekon a topicof their hoice for total ofeight compositions. The learners in the ZPDgroup were informed that theywould receivecorrectivefeedbackduring theirtutorialswiththe researcher and not fromtheirinstructor.The tutorialswere conducted in a one-on-oneformat n thetutor'soffice.Each sessionlastedthirtyoforty-fiveinutes.All sessionswere au-diotaped in theirentirety or ateranalysis.The students' first ompositionwas not cor-rected. Itwas used to develop an initialprofileof the learners' grammaticalcompetence andto determine, to some extent at least, likelyproblem areas. Although learners were givenhelp duringthetutorials n a variety ferrors,forpurposes of analysis,those structures hathad a high probability f recurrence n subse-quence essayswere selected.Four grammaticalfeaturesmetour-admittedly less thanrigid-criteria: rticles, ensemarking, se ofpreposi-tions,and modal verbs.Since thiswas a writingand reading course, the particularinstructordid not believe itnecessaryto providemuchinthe wayof explicitformal instructionon thegrammatical properties of English. On occa-sion,however, e did answergrammatical ues-tionsposed bythe studentson a wide arrayoftopics.8

Priorto each tutorial,hetutor eadeach essayin ordertodetectproblems, ut t s mportantonote thatat thispointhe made no attempt opreparea specific et of corrective rocedures obe followedwith the student.Correctivepro-cedures n the ZPD mustbe negotiatedbetweenthe novice and the expert.The idea is to offerjust enough assistanceto encourage and guidethe learnerto participate n the activitynd toassume increased responsibilityorarriving tthe appropriateperformance.One simply an-not determine hisbeforehand,without ompro-mising hepotential hatjoint ctivityntheZPDhas to promote earning.The expert,however,musttryto be sensitive o the learners'actuallevelofcompetence, nd inWertsch's41:p. 176)terminology,lure"them ntofunctioningn anappropriate waywithoutmakingthe taskfrus-trating. Before beginning the collaborativephase of each tutorial,n each case the learnerwas asked to read heressay, nderlinewhatevererrors he could find, nd correctwhatever hecould. During thistime,the tutorwas present,but wasbusyinghimselfwithothertasks.Whenthe learner indicated that she had completedthe reading and error correctionprocess, thetutor oined her and collaborative correctionbegan. In thefollowing aragraphwe outline ageneralizedschemataof a prototypicalutorial;however, s theprotocolstakenfrom heactualtutorialsshow,thingsdid not usuallyproceedquite so smoothlynd theinteractionswereof-ten quite complex.At theoutset,the tutor sks the earner fsheencountered ny rrorsduringherprivate ead-ingof theessay. fthe earner dentifiesnymis-takesbutfails ocorrect hem, r does so errone-ously, hey re dealt withas the pair considerseach sentence of the essay.Whenevera targeterror sdiscovered rwheneverhe earner sksquestion about some aspectof thecomposition,thereadingprocesshalts ndthecorrection roc-ess begins.The tutordirects he learner's tten-tion to a particular entencecontainingan er-rorand asks a generalquestionof thetype: Doyou notice any problem, or is there anythingwrong n thissentence?" f this trategy ails toproduce a response, the learner's attention sthennarrowed to the line or phrase in whichthe errorappears, using an utterancesuch as:"Is there anythingwrong in this line or seg-ment?" fthis lso failsto prompt response,amore explicitstrategys adopted. Thus,help isincreasingly laborated untilthe learnershowssigns of responsiveness toward the error athand. Ifthenarrowing trategylso fails, spe-



7/20

470 TheModern anguage ournal 8 (1994)cific clue is offeredwhich ndicates the natureoftheerror, orexample: "Payattention o thetense of theverb." fthesubject s stillunable torecognize the error, he tutor dentifies t andthe learner s asked to correct t. Ifthe learnerfailshere,the tutormovesto even moredirectforms fregulation, uch as "Use thepastparti-ciple of the verb." If this also produces no re-sponse, clues about the correct answer aregiven. Finally,fthisproduces no responsive c-tion from the learner,the tutorprovides thecorrectanswer.This is accompanied bya briefgrammatical xplanationwhen thetutor eels tto be helpful.Developmentalriteria.wo criteriawereusedto determine the microgenetic growthof thelearners' nterlanguage.The first, more tradi-tionalproduct-orientedriterion,was to searchforsignsof mprovementn thesubjects'use oftherelevantinguistic eatures nsubsequentes-says.Here concern focused on a reductioninfrequency r complete eradication of thoseer-rorsas well as on thegeneralizationof earningbeyondthespecificcases forwhich the earnerhad receivedhelp.9The second criterion s,webelieve,quitedis-tinct fromanything eported in the L2 litera-ture to date, and this is a criterion thatfallsnaturally ut of earning n the ZPD-does thelearner showsignsof movement wayfromre-liance on the tutor,or other-regulation,nd to-wardsreliance on theself, r self-regulationThiswas determinedby thefrequencynd quality fhelp thatthe learner elicitedfromthe tutor nthe correctionof the same error n subsequentepisodes in thesame tutorial ession and in sub-sequent tutorialsdealing with new composi-tions. More specifically,we observed fivegen-eral levels of transitionfromintermentaltointramental unctioning s the learners movedthrough the ZPD toward self-regulation ndcontrolover the target tructures. hese levelsloosely parallel the transitionalstages uncov-ered byWertschand his colleagues for childdevelopment 42, 43).10The levels are charac-terized by varying nstantiations of three pa-rameters,namely,need for intervention,oticingan error, nd correctinghe error.Level1. The learner is not able to notice, orcorrect the error, ven with ntervention romthe tutor.Atthis evel, he earner does not havea sufficient asis from which to interpret hetutor'smoves toprovidehelp,and probablyhasno awarenessthat there s even a problem.Thetutor, herefore,must ssumefullresponsibilityforcorrecting he error.Thus, rather hanpro-

viding correctivehelp, the tutor's task is tobringthetargetform ntofocusand, in so do-ing, begin the process of co-constructing heZPD with the learner.Level2.The learner s able to notice theerror,but cannot correct t, even withintervention.This indicates omedegreeofdevelopment, utmore importantly, ven though the learnermust rely heavilyon the tutor, n contrast tolevel1,an openingisprovidedforthetutor ndthe learner to begin negotiatingthe feedbackprocessand for he earner tobegintoprogresstoward elf-regulation.he help requiredtendstobe toward he ower, xplicit, nd of theregu-latory cale given n FigureI below.Level3. The learner s able to notice and cor-rect an error,but onlyunder other-regulation.The learner understands the tutor's nterven-tion and is able to react to the feedback offered.The levels ofhelp needed to correctthe errormove towardthe strategic,mplicit, nd of theregulatory cale.Level4. The learnernotices and correctsanerror withminimal, or no obvious feedbackfrom the tutorand begins to assume full re-sponsibility or error correction.However,de-velopmenthas notyetbecome fullyntramental,since the learner often produces the targetform ncorrectlynd may tillneed thetutor oconfirm the adequacy of the correction. Thelearnermay venrejectfeedbackfrom he tutorwhen it s unsolicited e.g., "Let me see if cando italone").Level5. The learner becomes more consistentinusingthetarget tructure orrectlyn all con-texts. n mostcases, the individual's use of thecorrecttargetform s automatized.Wheneveraberrantperformancedoes arise, however, o-ticingand correctingof errors do not requireinterventionrom omeone else. Thus,the ndi-vidual is fully elf-regulated.The five transitional evels represent,then,threegeneral stages ofdevelopment.The firststage, encompassing evels 1 through3, repre-sents other-regulationin which the learnermustrely n somewayon another ndividual norderto perform.Withouthelp from omeoneelse, the individual s notable to notice or cor-recthis or her errors.The nextstage is partialself-regulation, ncompassing level 4. At thisstage earners refully apable ofdetecting ndcorrectingtheir own mistakeswithoutoutsidefeedback; theirperformance,however, s notautomatized.The third, nd finaldevelopmen-tal stage, is that n which the learners'perfor-mance, includingcorrectivebehavior, s com-



8/20

AliAljaafrehndJames Lantolf 471pletely elf-generatednd automatizedandmis-takes emanate from legitimate slips of thetongue, or the pen, ratherthan fromincom-plete learning."

Figure presents listing f the evelsofhelp,or regulation,that were identified n the anal-ysis f the nteractions hatoccurredduringthetutorialsessions. The levels are arrangedfromwhatwe consider to be the most indirect,orimplicit lowernumbers), o the mostdirect,orexplicit (the higher numbers). We point outthat the levels were not determined n advanceof the study.Moreover, xcept for evel 0, theywere not rigidly ollowed n everycase. In anyparticularinstance of corrective ntervention,the collaborative work of bothparticipantsde-termines he evel ofassistance tobe invoked,fone ormore evelswillbe skipped,wheretostopand allow the learnerto assume responsibility,and when to withhold ssistance.Thus, micro-genetic development, ccording to our secondcriterion, s evidencedwhenever henegotiatedfeedbackmoves fromthebottom to the top oftheregulatoryhierarchy.12DATAANALYSIS

Before consideringprotocols thatillustratehow microgenesis arises through nterventionintheZPD,we will ook atsomeprotocolswhichdemonstratehowfeedback s negotiated n theZPD in terms of the regulatory cale given inFigure I. Errors forwhich implicit strategicfeedbackprovedto be effectivere consideredto be high in ZPD (e.g., level1, 2, 3), since thelearner is close to independentperformance,while those thatrequire explicitfeedback aresaid to be low in the ZPD (levels 10,11,12),be-cause the learner is furtherwayfromproduc-ing thecorrectformwithouthelp.The Collaborative rame as a SourceofFeed-back. evels 1 and 0 on thescale entailthesamesurfacebehavior;that s,readingoftheessaybythe learner. At a more abstract evel,however,theyare quite different-thedifferencebeingthatthereadingat level 1 takesplace whenthetutor nd the earnerare in a collaborativepos-ture,while atLevel 0 theexpectation s thatthelearneris to relyon herself.Level 1,therefore,marksthebeginningof the collaborative nter-action,while evel0 is outside ofthecollabora-tive frame. A shift n orientation thus bringswith ta source ofregulationthatwasnotavail-able to thelearnerbefore.The presencefa dia-logic partner helps the learner in a subtle,thoughsignificant,way. t represents hemini-

FIGURE IRegulatorycale-Implicit (strategic) oExplicit

0. Tutor sksthe earner oread,find heerrors,and correct hem ndependently,riorto thetutorial.1. Construction of a "collaborative frame"promptedbythepresenceof the tutor s apotential ialogicpartner.2. Prompted r focusedreadingof thesentencethatcontainstheerrorbythe earneror thetutor.3. Tutor ndicates hat omethingmaybe wrongin a segmente.g.,sentence,lause, ine)-"Isthere nything rongn this entence "4. Tutorrejectsunsuccessfulttemptst recog-nizing heerror.5. Tutornarrows own the ocationoftheerror(e.g., tutorrepeatsor pointsto the specificsegmentwhich ontains heerror).6. Tutorndicateshenature fthe rror,utdoesnot dentifyhe rrore.g., There ssomethingwrongwith hetensemarking ere").7. Tutor dentifiesheerror "You can'tuse anauxiliary ere").8. Tutor ejectsearner's nsuccessfulttemptstcorrectingheerror.9. Tutorprovides luestohelpthe earner rriveat the correct orm e.g.,"It is notreally astbut something hat s stillgoingon").10. Tutorprovides he correct orm.11. Tutor rovides omeexplanation or seofthecorrect orm.12. Tutor rovides xamples f the orrect atternwhenotherforms fhelp failto produceanappropriate esponsivection.mal formofotherderivedhelp available to thelearner in the activity f error correction.Inpoint of fact,however, ven thoughLevel 0 isnoncollaborative,tcan not egitimatelye con-strued as nonsocial activity.t is clearlysocial,since,for one thing,the learnerundertakes tocorrecther compositionat the request of thetutor;thus,this activitys situatedwithinthelargereventof errorcorrection,whichbeginswhen the student enters the tutor's office.'3Thus,eventhoughthetutor nd studentmaybedoing differenthings t Level 0, theactivityfsearchingforerrors s still social, but it neednot be collaborative.We examineprotocol (A),as an illustration f how thisstrategic ormofregulationfunctions.

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



9/20

472 TheModern anguage ournal 8 (1994)3. N: Is good?4. T: It's good5. N: To tellyou6. T: uhum7. N: Or tell toyou said toyou8. T: To tell to tellyou is fine9. N: To tellyouwhere or what ..10. T: Or ah okayto tellyou11. N: "Where or what will do tenyearslater"12.T: Okay13. N: Okay?14. T: That's good15. N: "But I will try xplain toyou" ...To s righthere?16. T: aah, yeah17.N: Is right?18. T: Uhum, it's right19.N: Okay20. T: Yeah, "I willtry o .. ."21. N: Okay,"to explain ..."22. T: To explain23. N: "To explain toyou somethingabout [I prefer about" no] ofmy24. 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=SpanishL1; Y=Japanese 1; F=PortugueseLi). The number following refers to thetutorial session from which the protocol istaken.The text n quotes indicatesreadingoftheessay.In protocol (A), the learner, with self-initiation and self-correction, replaces theprepositionofwhichshe originallyused, withthe more appropriate "about" in line 23. Shealso offers numberof clarification uestionsand confirmationhecks nlines3,7, 13,15, nd17. She had two prior opportunitiesto detecterrors n her essay, nce on readingitpriortocoming to thetutor'soffice and once on read-ing it in the officebeforethe tutorialbegan.When asked if she had found any errors, hereplied that she had not.The question, then, is what triggersher at-tempts t self-correction? o be sure, they reinitiatedbythe learner,but n the presence ofthe expert tutor.When the learner read and

searchedfor rrors n heressayon herown,thetutorwas busyinghimselfwithsomethingelseand was, therefore, stensibly navailable as acollaborator.When the twocame together ntoa social configurationin which the tutoras-

sumed the role ofdialogicpartner,he earner'sorientation oward he task offinding rrors nher essay changed. This is important, ecause,althoughitmayseem as ifthe learner contin-ued to act alone, she did not. We referto thehelp triggeredbythe dialogic presence of an-other,moreexpert, ndividualas the ollaborativeframe. he collaborativeframe eems to mark asituation s one inwhich correction s tooccur,evenpriorto anyovertmove on thepartof thetutor, nd thusrepresents he miminal evel ofcontingenthelp available to the learnerin theZPD.The learners' utterancesduringthe tutorialinteractionprovide clear signsof the effect fthe collaborativeframe as a source of implicitcorrective eedback. n Protocol (A), for exam-ple, the learnerclearly eems to recognize thepotentialthatthe tutor'spresencehas for test-ing and confirmingher hypotheses.Althoughshe correctly ses the verbtellwith the indirectobjectin line5, in line 7 she volunteers notherwayof using the verb as well as an alternativeconstructionwith said. This is significantbe-cause in earlier tutorials he had receivedfeed-back regardingher incorrectomission of thepreposition to with the verb said and similarverbs before ndirectobjects as in "I have saidyou." She offers he correct formof the con-structionuxtaposed to the verb tell, here sheappears to be engaged in testingand refor-mulatingherhypothesisbout the use of theseverbs and thepreposition. mportantly,n line(15) she is able to generalize what she haslearned in the earlier interactionto the verbexplain. he is notfully onfident,however,ndasks forconfirmation rom the tutor lines 15and 17). Generally, his earner showsan orien-tationtowardoint activityhat smarkedly if-ferent romworking lone, or evenwiththetu-tor physically present but not part of thecollaborativedyad.Some learners,nfact, penlycommentedontheir nability onotice errorswhenworking ntheirown,as protocol (B) illustrates.

(B) Y11. T: Yeah,you spenttimewith us. Okay"and I passed overyearwith2. myfamily."Okay,here, s thereanythingwronghere ? "and"3. passed..,. over... year.., withmyfamily."4. Y: (very oftly)passed over a ?5. T: Okay,thearticle...6. Y: uha I forget hismmm



10/20

AliAljaafrehndJames Lantolf 4737. T: Yeah. "pass over a year." Okay. t's8. Y: But I don't notice by myself

First fall, in protocol (B) the earner s abletofind and correctthe erroron the basis of thelevel 3 help provided by the tutor. n line 8,importantly,he openlystates that she was un-able to notice the errorbyherselfduring theprereading.We believeheruse of "but" is espe-ciallyrevealingbecause itmay ndicate a senseof frustration t not being able to detect themistakeon herown,even thoughshe had beenexplicitlynstructed o do so. She clearly eemsto recognize the differencebetween the twoactivities-the individual workingalone andthe individualworkingointly n the collabora-tive frame-and furtherrealizes that, at thispointat least,she is not able to providecorrec-tivefeedback forherself. he fact hatthe tutoris not ust present n theroom,butis actingas acollaborator n the correctionprocess, compelsthe learner to orient to the activity ifferently,thusenabling her,withsome help, to detect afeatureof theL2 that she had taken in earlierbut had not yet fullyappropriated. Thus, insomecases-and as far swecan tell these are notpredictablein advance-the imple act ofestab-lishingthe collaborative frameis an effectiveformofother-regulation.14DifferentPDsfor ifferentearners ndDifferentStructures.n important imension ofthenego-tiation of feedback and microgenesis in theZPD for which we have uncovered clear evi-dence is that differentearners often have dif-ferent PDs forthe same target anguage formand will thereforerequire different evels ofhelp. It is important o remember hat ll threelearners under consideration n thisstudyhadbeen placed intothe sameclasson thebasis of aplacementexam.This is an important ointbe-cause, as the readerwill recall fromour earlierdiscussion of Vygotsky'sformulation of theZPD, no matter how sophisticatedour assess-ment nstrumentsmaybe,we cannotarbitrarilyassume thatanytwo earnerswho attain denti-cal scores on a testare necessarily t the samestage in their nterlanguagegrowth, fall thatweassess s their ctualdevelopmental evel. t isimperative o assessthe earners'potential evelofdevelopment s well.

The examples that follow llustratehow thesame errormade bydifferentearners,more of-ten thannot,representsdifferentroblemsforeach learner, nd consequentlyrequiresdiffer-ent evelsofregulationfrom he tutor. rotocols

(C) and (D) entail the same errormade bytwodifferentearnersregardinguse of thedefinitearticle with USA.(C) NI1. T: okay n this,okay, Although waspreparingmytravel o2. USA, with ome time almostalwayswe have some thingto do3. in the last." Do you ... is there ..do you see any thing4. wronghere in this ine here ? "Al-though was preparing5. myself"6. N: I don't know!7. T: Okay,"Although waspreparing

my .. travel o USA" okayaah8. N: long travel9. T: Okay,you say"preparingmy..."insteadof travel . . what's10. a betterwordto use ?11. N: Trip12.T: Okay13. N: Is bettertrip?14. T: Okay.Yeah "preparing mytrip,"okay.There is also something15. wrongwiththe article here. Do youknowarticles?16.N: Articles,yes17. T: Yeah so what's ..18. N: eeh on my ripto ...19. T: What is thecorrectarticleto usehere ?20. N: Isn'tto s ... no ... eeh ... article21. T: What s the articlethatwe should ..22. N: It23. T: No. Article .. youknowthearti-cles like the r a or an24. N: The trip .. my, s notmy? no ...the trip?25. T: My... yeah t'sokay, ousaymy rip26. N: Mytrip27. T: Okay28. N: To UnitedStates29. T: Yeah USA, whatarticle we need touse with USA ?30. N: a, an, the31. T: the, hichone ?32. N: but the33. T: Okay,do we use the .. ah prepar-ing mytripto . . . theUSA?34. N: aaah ah (utters omething n Span-ish) ah okaywhenI use when I useUSA use witharticle35. T: Okay36. N: The



11/20

474 TheModern anguage ournal 8 (1994)(D) Fl1. T: "In the same dayI mailed them... to .. ." okay alright.What2. about also ... is theresome thingelse still n this3. sentence?4. F: To the5. T: hum?6. F: The7.T: Okay,"to the" ... yeah,"to theUS."On thefaceof t,bothN and F produced thesame error in their respectivecompositions:omissionof the articlewithUS. Whenwe exam-ine the interactionthattranspired n the two

protocols,however, more informative ictureemerges.While in (C) a wide range of help isnecessary eforethe earner venbeginstoreal-ize whattheproblemis, in (D) simply eadingthe sentencecontainingthe error (line 1) andsuggesting hatsomething swrong(lines 2 to3) is sufficient or the learner to notice andcorrectthemistake.In termsof the regulatory cale, for earnerN, all levels of feedback are used, but forlearnerF,only evels1 and 2 are needed. Thus,the samefeaturerepresents wodifferentPDsfor hetwo earners. n the case ofF,the featureis highin theZPD and the learner svery loseto being able to controlthe featurebyherself.In the case of (N), on theotherhand,the samefeature s low n theZPD and prospects re thatshe will continue to need fairly xplicithelp.Hence, we cannot assume thattheerrorrepre-sents the same problemfor each learner,be-cause the earners ach produce itfrom differ-ent location in theZPD.The protocolsgivenin (E) and (F) furtherexemplify ur pointwithregardto the impor-tanceof inking ppropriateforms fcorrectivefeedbackto the individual earner'sresponsivemoves.

(E) N31. N: Okay... "I would like spend in2. T: Okay?3. N: Spend...4. T: Read again5. N: uhum" I would like to spend"6. T: Okay,you'remissingtohere7.N: "To spend in United Statestwoorthreeyears."

Upon readingher compositionat the outsetofthe interaction line 1), thelearnerdoes not

noticeher omissionofthe nfinitive articleto.In thiscase, thecollaborativeframe,whichwaseffectiven triggering responsive ctionfromthe same learner n protocol (A) for theprepo-sitionto, s not effective ere when tofunctionsas a particle. Therefore,the tutor is activelydrawn into the correctionprocess. His initialattempt t providinghelp is strategic, s he sig-nals throughhis intonation lone (line 2), thatsomethingis amiss. The learner immediatelylocates theapparentsource of trouble n line 3and at the tutor's ecommendation, herereadsthe phrase and incorporates the correction.The tutor henconfirms he correction.Finally,we consider protocol (F), in whichthe tutor ttempts o elicitfrom earnerY themissingprepositionto n a locativeclause.(F) Y31. T: Okay."After willstudy n Bostonforninemonths, 'll return2. mycountry."Whatdo youmean"after"here ? Do youmean3. after his referring o previousparagraph) or after ..4. you studynine monthsyougoback ?5. Y: Yes,afternine months mean6. T: Uhum7. Y: Afternine months8. T: Afternine monthsyou go ...9. Y: "I'll back mycountry"10.T: You will back11.Y: "I willbe back my ountry .."12.T: Okay,"After willstudy n Bostonforninemonths ah ...13. (softly)]ninemonths, 'll returnmy ountry."Okay,what14. is ... do you think .. is thereany-thingmissinghere ?

15. "I'll returnmycountry..."16. Y: Returnto17.T: OkayIn (F), the sentencecontainingthe error sread a numberoftimes.On someoftheseread-ings,the location of the error is narrowedbyfocusing n thephrasewherethepreposition sexpected to appear; yet, he earnerstillfailstonoticethat omethingsmissing.Onlywhenthetutorexplicitly ointsout the precise locationoftheproblemand asks f omethingsmissing

(lines 14and 15) is a responsive ctionfrom helearnertriggered line 16). It is evident hatthesubtlesourcesoffeedbackthatweresuccessfulwith earnerN in protocol (E) are not helpfulfor learnerY. She clearlyneeds more explicit



12/20

AliAljaafrehndJames Lantolf 475help to correctthe error,which comes in theform f a narrowing own of the ocationof theerror nd explicitlyndicating hat omethingsmissing.

Microgenesisn theZPD. Now thatwe havesome feelforhow feedback snegotiated n theZPD, we can consider how developmentarisesas a resultof correctivehelp. To do thiswewillpresentsome sample protocolswhich llustratethe impactof feedbackon microgenesiswithina particulartutorial, s well as across tutorials.In each case we will be looking for changesfrom intermental,or other-regulatedperfor-mance,to intramental,r self-regulatederfor-mance,as well as forthe earners'ability ogen-eralize whatthey ppropriatein one linguisticcontext to other relevant contexts. We beginwithprotocol (G), which elucidates the micro-genetic process for the modal can across epi-sodes in the same tutorial.

(G) N31. T: "To Germany." o yousee anythingalso wronghere ? "myfuture s2. can go to Germany" .. Whatabout the use of theauxiliary3. verb here ?4. N: Is... is...5. T: Is can go ?6. N: Is can go7.T: Do you see somethingwronghere ?How to say t ?8. N: No, I don't know9. N: Okay,how howto use ...10. N: Is willgo11. T: "One ofmydreamsformyfutureis . .." (rising ntonation)12.N: Will go?13. T: No (lengthenedvowel) ...14. N: No15. T: Okay, s... what...?16. N: Is...17.T: To go18.N: To go not "can" ?19. T: Yeah,because you have here,like... this s an auxiliary nd20. this sanother uxiliary rmodal ...21. N: Yeah22. T: So you have themtogether ..23. N: Yes,because I ... the verbformand twoverbstogether, es.

24. T: Yeah, so yeah twoverbstogether.So...25. N: I know26. T: One ofmy... is to go to Germany27.N: Oh myGod ! (laughs)

28. T: Okay,"One ofmydreams formyfuture s to go ..."29. N: To go to Germany30. T: To Germany nd ...31. N: One we can't do right laughs)32. T: No, that's fine. You're doingfine33. N: Filine? (laughs)34. T: Yeah35. N: No, please, this s verybad(laughs). No very ..36. T: Yeah,but I mean youhave done alot of...37.N: This is ... (laughs)38. T: Work,youknow.Otherthings regettingbetter, o ...39. N: And a lot ofwork,no, I don't likethis.Why writebull shit ?40. I don't like it (laughs)

In protocol G), the tutor ses several evelsofimplicitregulation-he reads the relevant en-tence,hints t thenatureof theerror, pecifiesits ocation, dentifies tsnature, nd rejects n-appropriate attemptsbythe learner to correctit-but is still unable to triggeran adequateresponsivemovefromthe learner. n line 8 thelearner overtly tates that she does not knowhow to correct theerror, twhichpointthe tu-tor begins to provide more explicithelp andfinally,n line 17,casts the verb phrase in itscorrectform.The learner thenfinally espondsto thetutor'smovesand theyboth engage in adialogue about the construction, which thelearnerturns nto an opportunityoexpressherfrustrationegardingher failure o appropriatethefeedback.A short time later in the same tutorial, hesame problemwasencountered n the sentence"Anotherdream mine is can go toJapan," butthis imethe earner'sresponsive ctionisquitedifferent nd shows a shifttoward self-regu-lation, as seen in protocol (H).

(H) N31. N: "Anotherdreammine is" ... ah ahamm ... what? can change2. now.3. T: Okay4. N: Okay."Anotherdream mine is ...is to go" again5. T: Okay "is to go..."6. N: "Is to go7. T: Okay,"Anotherdream of mine is:"... instead of can,"to go is to8. go"9. N: "is to go toJapan. I thinkJapan san interesting ountry n



13/20

476 TheModern anguage ournal 8 (1994)10. culture,metho... methodology"methodologia

In (H) the earnerdisplays videnceofappro-priationofthehelp given n theearlierepisodepresentedn (G). We notice a markedreductionin the amount ofhelp needed bythe learner totake overand completethecorrection.The tu-tor,nfact, oes not have toprovide nyhelpforthe earner,who sable toself-initiateline 1) andself-correcthe error line 4), simply n the basisofreadingthe sentence n the tutor'spresence.The learner'smetacomments,n our view,pro-vide additional evidence of movement owardself-regulation.n line (1),for nstance, he asksherself question about what she has written("What?"),which she then proceeds to imme-diately nswer "I can changenow"), ndicatingthat he knows hecorrect orm. he also appearsto indicate,byher utterance again" at the endof ine (4), recognition hathererrorhere s thesame as her earliermistake discussed in (G).These utterances, n fact,appear to be privatespeech--speechhose function s not to commu-nicatewith omeone else but to assist he self nproblem-solvingituations 37; 40; 41). In termsof our criterion,earnerN shows ignsofmicro-geneticdevelopment romLevel 1 toLevel 3, orperhapseven Level 4.To observe the effectsof help on micro-genesisacross tutorials,wewillconsiderproto-cols (I) through K) as thesame learnerstrug-gleswith articles and massnouns.

(I) N51. T: Okay,"when we read and thinkwecan writedayafterday [okay,2. right]dayafterdaybetter. Okay]is we have a good3. comprehension."Do you see any-thinghere ? "Ifwe have ...4. a good comprehension" . .5. N: A good comp ... rehension6. T: uhum, "if we have .. ." Do you seeanythingwith the article?7. N: "If ifwe have ... good comprehen-sion"8. T: Okay,"good comprehension."Youknowwhy Whywe are not using9. a?10. N: Whenwe read... when we... ifwe have...11. T: "Ifwe have good comprehension"12.N: aah because ... whwhydon'twe ...13. T: yeah,whydon't we use a ?Why t'swrongto use a?

14. N: Because is ... ifwe have good ...because is no is no onlyone.15. T: Okay16.N: Is general ...17.T: Okay18.N: idea...19. T: Yeah20. N: generalgood comprehension21. T: Yeah,so it's not also count22. N: Yeah23. T: It's mass24. N: It's mass25. T: Comprehension.You can't sayonecomprehension, wocomprehen-sions26. N: OkayIn (I) the earneruses the ndefinite rticleainappropriatelywiththe mass noun comprehen-sion. he relieson the tutor'sfeedback togener-ate the correctform of the construction.Thetutordoes thiswithouthavingto resortto ex-plicit evelsofhelp, indicating hat thegenerallocation of the error is sufficient line 6). Atthispoint, he earner'sresponsive ction istrig-gered and she is able to assume responsibilityfor orrecting heerror. t seemsclear,however,that withoutthe tutor's mplicit evel of inter-

ventionthe earnerwould not have noticed theerror.Again, n terms f our criterion ordevel-opment,we can saythatthe learner s probablyat Level 3,sinceshedoes notice and correcthererror,but onlyas a resultof the tutor's nter-vention.Be that as it may,even thoughN is able tolocate and correcthererrorwith mplicithelp,the tutor pparently eelstheneed to move toan explicitlevel of help beginningin line (8)and extending hroughout he remainderof theprotocol. It could be argued that the tutorengages in such a move n orderto determine fthe learnerunderstoodthegeneralization t is-sue and was not just operating locally. Ofcourse,thereare otherwaysofmakingthis de-termination, uch as waitinguntil the patternrecurs n futureperformance nd observing fit is correctly enderedor ifthe learner s abletorectifynyerroneouspatterns hatmay rise.On the otherhand,the tutor'smove could sim-plyhave been a wasteoftime,or evenworse, tmighthave resultedin confusionand the et-tisoningof a perfectly ppropriate hypothesison articleuse.We now consider the protocol given in (J),takenfrom laterepisode duringthesame tu-torialsession.



14/20

AliAljaafrehndJames Lantolf 477(J)N51. T: aah and thenyou can saywhat?... "the most mport .. is ...2. N: (softly)thing3. T: is to think n theforeign an-guage," right? "But but [what?]4. make compositions s difficult e-cause [let me see] . . .5. because youneed to have a good6. N: (N crosses out the articlea)7. T: Okay,no a8. N: (laughs)9. T: "because youneed to have goodgrammar, unctuationand...10. perfectly.. ." perfectly

In the above episode, the tutor eads thepor-tion of textcontaininga target rrorand thenpauses ust beforeexternalizing he noun. Thereadingand thepause are sufficient orrectivehelp to elicit theappropriateresponsive ctionfrom thelearner,who immediately roceeds tocross out theindefinite rticle.Actually, hetu-tor'spause and N's responsiveaction in line 6occur almostsimultaneously. iventhatthe tu-tor'sregulation s situated at the upper end oftheRegulatory cale, itappears thatthe earneris close tobeingable toprovidecorrective eed-back for herself nd is, thus,developingtowardgreater independence, or self-regulation. helearner's laughter n line 8 suggeststhat she isconscious of the error,and that she is con-sciouslyproviding he correct nswer.This levelofself-awarenessn theprocessof feedbackanderror correction s characteristic f the transi-tion fromother- o self-regulated erformance(16; 33).Furthermore,tseems thatN is able togener-alize withregardto thenonuse of articleswithmass nouns,on thebasis of thefeedbackgivenat the outset of the tutorial,protocol (I), to alater point in the same tutorial,protocol (J).Hence, she correctly xtendsthehelp given nthecase ofcomprehensionogood rammar.urtherextensionis observed in the protocol given in(K) taken fromthefinal tutorialforN, whichwas conducted one week later.

(K) N61. T: "We can see a greybig layers nthe skywith a dense smog"What is... do you2. see anythingwronghere ?3. N: Dense smogwithah heavyor...4. T: That's fine,yeah this s good5. N: This is good?

6. T: But what do you see wrong nthese two sentences ..7. N: Ah ust a moment. "We can ... seewe can ., we can ... see"8. T: Uhum9. N: It... grey10. T: Okay11. N: Big12. T: Okay,greybig13. N: Layers14. T: Layers15. N: Layers n thesky16. T: Uhum17. N: Because is no one only, s all the18. T: Layers, t is not singular.Right,

that'sgood19. N: Greybig layers... yes (laughs)20. T: In the sky21. N: With .. dense22. T: Okay23. N: (Laughs)24. T: Dense, that'sgood25. N: Dense smoke26. T: With dense smog27. N: "Produced bycarbon monoxide ofthe the vehicle."The learner s immediatelyble tocorrecthermisuse of the indefinite article withthe massnoun smogn line 1,thusproviding vidence ofgeneralizationof feedback across tutorials.Ofevenmore interestswhatwe observe n lines6and 7,where the learnerovertlynterrupts hetutor'sutteranceand subsequently nhibitshisattempt o offer ssistance. n so doing, she as-sumes fullerresponsibilityorfindingand cor-rectingthe errorin "a grey big layers.'"15Shedoes this by externalizingher own correctivefeedbackprocess beginning n line 7 and end-ing in line 9 withthe correctform, grey."Fi-nally,n line 17 she externalizesher understand-ing thatthearticle cannot be used, in thiscasebecause thenoun withwhich tco-occurs, ayers,is singular.Here thenwe see evidence of psy-chological, as well as linguistic,developmentand N showsthatshe has formed a generaliza-tionwithregardtononuse of ndefinite rticleswithmass nouns and withplural countnouns.Moreover, he curbs the offer fhelp fromthetutor nd resolves theproblemwithonlymini-

mal evaluativefeedback fromthe tutor.We will consider three final protocols, inwhichwe observe nteraction etweenthe feed-back provided by the tutorand the learner'sattempt o generalizeacrossepisodes as well as



15/20

478 TheModern anguage ournal 8 1994)tutorials.While the learner, n essence,has dif-ficultiesfully ppropriatingthehelp, and thusultimatelyfails to generalize across contexts,the interaction between the tutor and thelearnerstimulatedbythe failure s quite infor-mative withregard to how generalizationoc-curs. As Vygotsky 39) points out, we oftenlearn more about howa cognitive ystem per-ates whenweobserve tunder conditionsoffail-ure and breakdownthanwhen we observe thesystem unctioning moothly.n theprotocols,taken fromdifferentpisodes of thesame tuto-rial and fromdifferentutorials, he tutor ndlearnerattemptto workout the correcttensemarkings ormodal + main verb constructions.

(L) Fl1. T: Okay,"to the ... [yeah] to theUS.[Okay] In that moment can't2. ... livedin the house because Ididn't have anyfurniture."3. Is that .. what what swrongwiththatsentence,too ?4. What iswrongwith the sentence wejust read ? ... "In that5. moment can't livedin the housebecause I didn't have any6. furniture".. Do you see ?7. F: No8. T: Okay... ah there s somethingwrongwiththe verb with the9. verb tense in this this sentence andthemodal ... Do youknow10. modals ?11. F: Ah yes, know12.T: Okay, o what's what'swrongwhat'swronghere ?13. F: The tenseof this ive14. T: Okay,whatabout'the the ... is it

just in this or in this, he15. whole thing?16. F: The whole this17. T: Okay,how do you correct t? ...Okay,"In thatmoment" . . What?18. ... Whatis thepast tense of can ?what was19. happening.., .what... thepast,right what was happening20. ... what .. the eventhappenedin thepast right so what21. is thepast tenseofthisverb can ?... Do you know?22. F: No23. T: Okay, h could24. F: Ah yes25. T: Okay,"I could not..."

26. F: Live27.T: Ah exactly, kay.So whenyouusethis n thepast then the secondverb s thesimple ..28. F: yes29. T: Form,okay .. aah "in thatmo-ment could not .. ."30. F: Live in thehouseIn (L), the earner ncorrectly arks hemainverb,ratherthan the modal, for tense.Notice,however, hatshe correctlymarkstense in thecase of auxiliarydo+ main verbin line 2. Thetutor irst sks fthe earner an locateher errorsimply n the basis ofhis readingthe sentence(lines 3 through6), whereuponthe learnerre-sponds in line 7 that she cannot. In lines 8through 0,byexplicitly eferringo the modaland asking f he knows omethingbout modals(to which he receives a positiveresponse),thetutor ubsequently arrows 's searchspace. Hethenagain asks what swrong presumablywiththe tense of themodal]. The learner,however,responds by correctingthe tense of the mainverb.The tutor ccepts theresponse,but thenrefocuses the learner's attention on the fullmodal + verbconstruction nd asks a series ofquestions designed to elicit the correct pasttense formof the modal. Finally,the learnerrepliesthat he does not knowthepast tense ofcan, nd so as a resultthetutormustprovide tfor her.She does appear,at least,to recognizethe correctform,n line 24. The tutorpresentsher with an explicitrule for tense marking nmodal clauses,whichF seemstounderstand, sindicatedbyherinterruptionn line 28. In thisinteraction, ecause ofa lack ofresponsivenesson thepartof the learner, hetutoroffers eryexplicit evels of correctivefeedback.The cor-rect tense marking s jointlyconstructed,but

mostof theresponsibilityere fallson the tutor.The learner,with mplicithelp from the tutor,recognizesthat he mainverb snot markedfortense (lines 13and 30), but she is unable to doanything bout generating he correctformofthe modal, even withexplicithelp. Thus, thetutor is forced to provide the correct form.Later in the same tutorial,the same problemresurfaces, s seen in protocol (M).(M) Fl1. T: Okay,"I called otherfriendswho

can'twentdo theparty."Okay,2. what swronghere ?3. F: To4. T: "Who can'twentdo thepartybe-cause thatnighttheyworkedat



16/20

AliAljaafrehndJames . Lantolf 4795. thehospital."Okay,fromhere "Icalled otherfriendswho6. can'twentdo theparty."What'swrong n this?7. F: To ?8. T: Okay,what else ? . . . whataboutthe verb and the tense ? The9. verb and the tense ...10. F: Could11. T: Okay,here12. F: Past tense13. T: All right, kay, who [alright]could not." Alright And ? ...14. F: To15. T: Here [pointsto the verbphrase],what's therightform

16. F: I... go17. T: Go. Okay,"could not go to [that'sright]to theparty..."In this pisode the ntervention f the tutor sconsiderablyreduced from the episode exam-ined in protocol (L). The level of explicitnessrequired to elicitan appropriateresponsive c-tion from he earner s also reduced. Neverthe-less,the learner still has some problemsfocus-ing on the error indexed by the tutor. Sheinitially ssumes the problem to be related to

her apparentslip of thepen, and she indicatesthatdoshould be rewrittens to line 3). How-ever, nce the tutormanagestogether tofocuson tensemarking,n lines8 and 9, she is imme-diately ble to correctthemodal, in line 10. naddition,she is also able to providethecorrectformofthemainverb, n line 16,althoughwithsome regulationfrom hetutor.Above all, how-ever,the learner accepts more of the respon-sibility orcorrectinghererror nprotocol (M)than is the case in (L). A significant ransitionappears to haveoccurred between the first ndsecond episodes. The learner has appropriatedthefeedbackprovided n (L) and shows ignsofmicrogeneticdevelopment, given that in (M)she elicitsfeedback that s less explicitand lessextensive.We can nowcompare thesame learner'sper-formanceon the same structure ne week ater.

(N) F21. T: Is thereanythingwronghere inthissentence? "I tookonlyAni2. because I couldn't took both" . . .Do you see anything3. wrong? ... Particularly ere "be-cause I couldn't tookboth"4. F: Or Maki?

5. T: What the verb verb .. somethingwrongwith theverb ..6. F: Ah,yes...7. T: Thatyou used. Okay,where? Doyou see it ?8. F: (Pointsto theverb)9. T: Took ? Okay10. F: Take11. T: Alright, ake12. F: (Laughs)

The learner continues to experience diffi-cultywith the modal + verb construction.This,in itself, s not too surprising, incewhen thestructure irst ppeared, itwas low in F's ZPD,as indicatedbythe need forthe tutor oprovidefeedback from heexplicit evelsof the scale.Aswe pointedout earlier, ontrolover featuresofthe second language does not move fromastagewhereexplicitfeedback srequiredtofullappropriation; rather earningevolvesthroughstages of decreasingreliance on the otherper-son toward ncreasingreliance on theself.In protocol (N) we see evidence of micro-genesisboth in productionof the modal + verbconstruction nd the extent fresponsibilitys-sumed bythelearnerfor tsproduction. n theearliertutorials, he earnerwas unable tomarkthemodal for ensecorrectly ithout he tutor'sintervention. n (N), however,we observe thatthe correctformwas produced in thecomposi-tion,written everaldaysafter he first utorial.F stilldoes nothavefullmastery ver thestruc-ture, ince she incorrectlymarks the main verbfor tense. The tutorfocuses her attention onthis problem (line 5) througha question, atwhichpointshe interrupts im (line 6) and in-dicates her recognitionof the errorand pointsto its location (line 8). She then proceeds toprovide the correction n line 10. Her laughterin line 12,as in our earlierdiscussion, s a cluethat theformmaynotyetbe fully utomatizedand that he errorwasnottheresult f nadvert-ent performance.All of thissuggeststhatthelearnerhas appropriated thefeedback offeredin the first utorial nd that he nowhasgreatercontrolover the construction.Tracing the same modal + main verb con-struction n subsequent compositionsfor thesame learnerrevealsevidence offull ppropria-tion. The learner used the construction nde-pendently nd correctly, orexample, in com-positionthree:"The wolfwanted toeat thegoatbut he couldnot skhisfriend..,. the wolfdranka lotbuthe could ot et oeat thegoat." Later nthe same composition,we observe: "I sawpeo-



17/20

480 TheModern anguage ournal 8 1994)plewhopeople who could ivewith fewmoney."Finally n compositionseven we note: "Anotherthing couldee s there re lot of nterest o takemoneyfrompoor people." Most mportantly,nthefinalcomposition,we see that she not onlyextended the patternto other verbs but to an-othermodal,as well:"If havemoney, wouldryhard to help poor people." The problemwas acomplex one in which the learner appears tohave focused firston the modal (protocol L)and then on the main verb (protocolsM andN), even though the tutor offered correctivefeedback on both parts of the complex verbphrase at the same time.CONCLUSIONS

Effective error correction and languagelearning depend cruciallyon mediation pro-vided byother ndividuals,who in consortwiththe learnerdialogicallyco-construct zone ofproximal development in which feedback asregulationbecomes relevant nd can thereforebe appropriatedby earnersto modify heir n-terlanguage ystems. romthis tance, earningis notsomething n individualdoes alone,but sa collaborative endeavor necessarily nvolvingother ndividuals.16 erewe encounterwhat, nthe face of it at least, looks like a potentialproblem.Van Lier (p. 211) worries--correctly webelieve-that too much guidance, or in hiswords,"other-repair,"might nhibit,or at leastretard, hedevelopment fself-repair,hichheviews as an "important earning activity." heverygoal of interaction n the ZPD, as formal-ized inVygotsky'saw ofculturaldevelopment,is for novices to appropriatethe responsibilityfor theirown linguistic performance.This iswhatitmeans to move throughthe regulatoryhierarchy.As implicit formsof feedback be-come morerelevant, nd explicitforms ecomeless relevant n regulatingthe novice's correc-tivebehavior, y mplication,novices assume n-creased controlover their inguistic ctivitynthe L2. This is whywe argue thatfeedback asother-regulationn the ZPD is not only gradu-ated but is also contingent.At first,respon-sibilityor he novice's inguistic erformancesdistributed etweenthe novice and theexpert,withthe experthavingmore controlover thisperformance than the novice. Under the ex-pert'sguidance, control s graduallyappropri-ated bythenovice.Eventually,he novicemovesawayfromrelianceon theexpert (other-repair,invanLier's terms)towardreliance on the self.

For this to happen, however, he expertmustbe willingto relinquishcontrol (itselfdialogi-cally negotiated) to the novice at the appropri-ate time. There can be no real developmentotherwise.Fromthisperspective, hetypesof error cor-rection (i.e., implicit r explicit) thatpromotelearningcannot be determined ndependentlyof ndividual earners nteractingwithother n-dividuals. Moreover, ll typesof feedback arepotentially elevant or earning,but theirrele-vance depends on where n the earner'sZPD aparticular propertyof the L2 is situated. Thehierarchyfregulation san attempt ocapturethis dynamiccharacterof feedback. Develop-ment n a second language is therefore otonlyreflected n the learner's abilityto generalizewhat had been appropriated, but is also re-vealed throughthe kind of help that s ointlynegotiatedbetweenexpertsand novices.Thus,a learnerwho is able to produce a particularstructure s a consequence of more strategic(i.e., implicit)forms fregulation e.g., thecol-laborativeframe) is developmentallymore ad-vanced thanone who needs direct and explicitfeedback for the same property.This meansthat linguisticforms alone do not provide uswiththe fullpictureofa learner'sdevelopmen-tal level. It is essential to know the degree towhichother-regulation,r mediation,impactson the learner's production of the particularforms.We are, of course, not uncriticalof the re-search laid out in thispaper. For one thing,werecognize thatone of the shortcomings f thisinitial attemptto investigate eedback and L2learning in the ZPD is thatthe linguisticfea-tures considered are "surfacy"and languagespecific.Schwartz nd her colleagues (28; 29)contendthatcorrectionmay onlystimulate hedevelopmentof those propertiesof a secondlanguage system,uch as verbmorphology ndlexis,whichdo not arise from abstractprinci-ples specifiedbyUG. The latter ypeofproper-ties (e.g., syntacticmovement),according toSchwartz 28), will be unaffectedby negativefeedback and can only develop if learnersre-ceive positive and contextually mbedded in-put.17 Carroll and Swain's study, owever, ug-gests that corrective feedback administeredunder controlled conditions can impact pos-itivelyn thedevelopment f moreabstract yn-tacticproperties i.e., dativealternation). t re-mains to be seen ifcollaborative nteractionnthe ZPD can also enhance the acquisition ofabstractpropertiesofsecond languages. In this



18/20

AliAljaafrehndJames Lantolf 481regardwe intend to extend our work on theZPD to two specific cases-unaccusative con-structions in Spanish and word order inGerman.Another drawback of our study s that thedata were collectedexclusivelyn audio format,whicheliminatedfrom nalysis potentiallym-portant ource ofnonverbal nformation. inceinteractionbetween individuals also entails arich gestural component, future research onlearning in the ZPD requires the analysis ofvideo recordingsto capture the meaning dis-playedbyspeakerson theirhands (25).Finally, t is not our intent to sanction thetutorial s theuniquelyendowedframeworkorco-constructing he ZPD. The tutorial formatrepresents only one means for realizing thisprocess. It is necessary o explore the fullarrayofpossibilities vailable in the classroomsettingforenhancing learning n the ZPD. Collabora-tive interaction between learners engaged inproblem-posing asks, se ofportfolios,nd dia-logue journals are among the other avenuesthroughwhich a ZPD can be co-constructedand learning can emerge. We hope that thepresent tudywillstimulate dditional researchin these domains.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe would like to thank MerrillSwain for herinsightfuluggestions nd usefulnegativefeed-back on an earlier version of thispaper.We arealso gratefulforthe helpful commentary ro-videdby n anonymousreviewer. f course,theauthorsaccept fullresponsibilityoranyshort-comings n thepresentversionof thepaper.

NOTES1 Prior to the interest n erroranalysis,thegeneral assumption of those workingfrom amore behavioristicslant had been thaterrorsresulted from insufficient earning of targetlanguage rules (36: p. 181).2 The inspirationforthe distinctionwe aredrawingbetweentheethnographic nd experi-mental approaches to correctivefeedback weowe to thecomments f an anonymous eviewer.SAlong similar ines, Sharwood Smithpro-poses thatcorrective eedback,or "negative n-put enhancement" serves to flag specific er-

rors,whileelaborationhas to do with theman-ner in whichthe error s made salient. That is,some forms f elaborationare explicitand en-tail metalinguistic xplanationsand othersaremore indirect, nvolving only some means ofmarkingwherethe erroroccurred butgivingnospecific informationon its nature. SharwoodSmithsuggeststhat the various levelsof inputenhancement should be examined throughcontrolled experimentation (31: p. 177), pre-sumably o determine he most ffectiveevelofinputenhancement.4 Metaphorically peaking, Vygotskyharac-terizes ctualdevelopment s the "fruits" fthematurationalprocessand the ZPD as represent-ingthe"buds" or "flowers" f thatprocess (39:

p. 87).5 Actually, he kind of help provided is verymuch influenced by sociocultural factors.Re-search has shown that mothersfromruraleco-nomicallyunderdeveloped settingstend to bemore directive n helping their children per-form askswhencompared to middleclass,edu-cated urban mothers,who are much more indi-rect and strategic in regulating the mentalactivity f their hildren(42; 43).6Althoughthe full tudy lso entaileda com-parisonof theperformance f earnerswhore-ceived corrective feedback in the ZPD withthose who received eitherexplicit or implicitcorrection,we concern ourselveshere with theZPD group onlyand we will not consider theresultsfrom the other two groups. We pointout, however, hat even thoughthreedifferenttreatment roups participatedin the study, twas not implementedas a controlled experi-ment. To do so, we believe,would not have al-lowed us to uncover the processes at workaslearningemergedin the ZPD.7 Even thoughwe referto learnerswho re-ceived tutorialhelp as the ZPD group,we notclaiming that the only wayto create a ZPD isthroughtutorials.There are typesof interac-tion that can create a ZPD. For instance,re-searchbyDonato shows hat earnersworkingncollaborationcan ointlyconstruct ZPD with-out intervention rom tutor.We chose thetu-torial procedure, in this particular case, be-cause itseemed tobe themostexpedientwayofconstructing heZPD forpurposesofour study.8 The learners' use of text-basedproperties,such as cohesivedevices,were not consideredforour purposes sincewe were not directlyn-terested n theirabilityto writeper se; ratherour concernwas with heirgrammatical ompe-tence as reflected n thewrittenmedium.



19/20

482 TheModernLanguageJournal 78 (1994)9 The ability f learnersto generalizeon thebasisofnegativefeedback s important ecauseitprovidesevidence thatthe earner's inguisticrepresentationhas changed. Vygotsky,n fact,insistedthat therecan be no masteryn learn-ing if learners cannot extend what theyhavelearned in one contextto new contexts. n astudy fL2 French earners,Carroll,Swain,andRoberge report that while negative feedbackhelped their ubjectsreduce their rrors na setofmorphologicalendings, he earnerswereap-parently nable to construct henecessarygen-eralizations on thebasis of the corrective eed-back. In their studyof dative alternation inEnglish as a second language, Carroll andSwain (5) show that earnerscan indeed gener-

alize fromnegative nput.10The data to be considered in the presentpaper do notillustrate nstancesofall fivetran-sitional levels. For a full empirical account ofthelevels see Aljaafreh.11 eterCoughlan (personalcommunication)proposes that we maynotwantto dismissper-formanceerrorsmerely s slips of the tongueand suggeststhat theremaybe some uncon-scious intention nderlyinguch behaviors.Heraises thequestion ofwhy earnersmake errorseven aftertheyhave learned a particularfea-ture of the L2. This question can also be ex-tended to nativespeakersas well.12The hierarchyfregulationgiven nFigureI isnot intendedto be exhaustive; ather,trep-resents herangeofhelp offered n thespecifictutorials tudied here.

13WeacknowledgePeterCoughlan forpoint-ing this out.14Of the three ZPD learners,N is the onlyone to have shown a responsiveaction at thelevel of collaborativerame ithregardto thefourtarget tructures.At thispoint,we have no wayof knowingthe potentialsource of this differ-ence among the learners.15Wertsch, nd Wertsch nd Hickmannsim-ilarly how howchildren, hrough heir peech,assume increased responsibility or their ownproblem-solvingctivity.16What this argues for is an "informant"-based, rather than a "text" (i.e., data)-based,approach to second language learning 19),andsupportsthe contention hat anguage learningdoes not take place inside of someone's headbut arises in the interaction that is co-con-structedbetween ndividuals. n the atter ase,only positiveevidence is required,whilein theformer,both positive evidence and negativefeedbackare necessary. pace does not permit

us to explore the full implicationsof the twopositionsfor econd language learning.Sufficeit to say,that second language researchers renot in agreement as to which approach cor-rectly characterizes nonprimary languagelearning n adults.17To provide the details of Schwartz's nter-esting, fnotcontroversial,laim would take ustoo far afield from our presentpurpose. Weencouragethe nterested eader to examineherwritings n the topic (28; 29).BIBLIOGRAPHY1.Aljaafreh,Ali. Negativeeedbackn Second anguageLearningnd the one fProximalevelopment.iss.,Univ. fDelaware, ewark,992.2. Birdsong,David. Metalinguisticerformancend Inter-linguistic ompetence.erlin: Springer-Verlag,1989.3. Burt,MarinaK. & CarolKiparsky.heGooficon:RepairManualfor nglish. owley,MA: NewburyHouse,1972.4. Campione, oseph, nnL. Brown, oberta . Fer-rera&Nancy .Bryant.TheZoneofProximalDevelopment:mplicationsor ndividual if-ferences n Learning." Children'searningn the

"Zone ofProximalDevelopment." d. BarbaraRogoff& JamesV. Wertsch. an Francisco:Jossy-Bass,984: 7-92.5. Carroll, usanne & Merrill wain."Explicit ndImplicit NegativeFeedback:An EmpiricalStudyf theLearningfLinguistic eneraliza-tions." Studies n Second anguageAcquisition5(1993):357-86.6.-, Merrill wain& YvesRoberge. The RoleofFeedbacknAdult econd anguageAcquisi-tion: Error Correction nd MorphologicalGeneralizations." AppliedPsycholinguistics3(1992): 73-98.7. Chaudron, Craig. SecondLanguageClassrooms: e-search nTeachingndLearning. ambridge:Cam-bridgeUniv. ress, 988.8. -. "ADescriptive odelof Discoursen theCorrectivereatmentfLearners rrors." an-guage earning7 (1977): 29-46.9. Children'searning n the "ZoneofProximal evelop-ment."d. BarbaraRogoff James .Wertsch,San Francisco:ossy-Bass,984.10.Corder,. Pit. "TheSignificancef Learners' r-rors." Internationaleview fApplied inguistics(1967):161-70.11.Day,Richard, .AnnChenoweth,nnE. Chun&

StuartLuppescu. "CorrectiveFeedback inNative-Nonnativeiscourse." anguageearning34 (1984):19-45.12.DeKeyser,obertM. "The EffectfError orrec-tiononL2Grammar nowledgend OralPro-



20/20

Ali Aljaafteh ndJamesP Lantolf 483ficiency." ModernLanguageJournal 7 (1993):501-14.13. Donato, Richard. Beyond roup: sycholinguistica-tionale orCollective ctivityn SecondLanguageLearning.iss.,Univ.ofDelaware,Newark, 988.

14.Error nalysis: erspectivesn Second anguageAcquisi-tion. d. JackC. Richards,London: Longman,1974.15. Fanselow, ohnF "The Treatment f Error nOralWork."ForeignanguageAnnals10 (1977): 583-93.16. Frawley,William. "The Cross-language StudyofPrivate Speech." Paper, First Conference forSocio-culturalResearch.Madrid,June,1992.17.Gaskill,William H. "Correction nNativeSpeaker-Nonnative Speaker Conversation." DiscourseAnalysisn Second anguageResearch.d. DianeLarsen-Freeman.Rowley,MA: NewburyHouse,1980: 125-37.18.George, H. V. Commonrrorsn Language earning.Rowley,MA: NewburyHouse, 1972.19.Gold, EdwardM. "Language Identification n theLimit."Informationnd Control0 (1976): 467-74.20. Hendrickson,JamesM. "ErrorCorrection n For-eign Language Teaching: Recent Theory,Re-search, and Practice." Modern anguage ournal62 (1978): 387-97.21. Herron, Carol & Michael Tomasello. "LearningGrammatical Structures in a Foreign Lan-guage: ModellingVersus Feedback." TheFrenchReview 1 (1988): 910-23.22. Kasper, Gabriele. "Repair in Foreign LanguageTeaching." Studiesn Second anguageAcquisition(1985): 200-15.23. Lightbown, PatsyM. & Nina Spada. "Focus-on-Form and CorrectiveFeedback in Communica-tive Language Teaching: Effects on SecondLanguage Learning." Studies n Second anguageAcquisition2 (1990): 429-48.24. Long, Michael H. "Teacher Feedback on LearnerError: Mapping Cognition." On TESOL '77.TeachingndLearningEnglishs a Second anguage:Trendsn Researchnd Practice. d. H. DouglasBrown, Carlos A. Yorio & Ruth H. Crymes.Washington,DC: TESOL, 1977: 278-93.25. McNeill,David. Hand and Mind. WhatGesturese-veal aboutThought. hicago: Univ. of ChicagoPress,1992.26. Newman,Dennis,PegGriffin Michael Cole. TheConstructionone:WorkingorCognitivehangenSchool.Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press,1989.27. Schachter,Jacquelyn. "Corrective Feedback inHistoricalPerspective."Second anguageResearch7 (1991):89-102.28. Schwartz, Bonnie. "On Explicit and NegativeData Effecting nd Affecting ompetence andLinguisticBehavior." Studies n Second anguageAcquisition5 (1993): 147-63.29. &8& agda Gubala-Ryzak. Learnability ndGrammarReorganizationnL2A:AgainstNega-

tive Evidence Causing the Unlearningof VerbMovement." econdanguage esearch (1992): 1-38.30. Sharwood-Smith, ichaelM. "InputEnhancementin Instructed LA. Theoretical Bases." StudiesnSecond anguage cquisition5 (1993): 165-79.31. -. "Speaking to ManyMinds: On the Rele-vance of Different ypesofLanguage Informa-tion for the L2 Learner." Second anguageRe-search (1991):118-32.32. Spada, Nina & PatsyM. Lightbown."Instructionand theDevelopmentofQuestions in L2 Class-rooms." Studies n Second anguageAcquisition5(1993): 205-24.33. Tharp, Richard G. & Robert Gallimore. RousingMindstoLife:Teaching,earning nd SchoolingnSocial Context. ambridge: Cambridge Univ.Press,1988.

34. Tomasello, Michael & Carol Herron. "FeedbackforLanguage Transfer rrors."Studiesn SecondLanguageAcquisition1 (1989): 384-95.35. - & Carol Herron. "Down the Garden Path:Inducing and Correcting OvergeneralizationErrors n theForeign Language Classroom.Ap-plied sycholinguistics(1988): 237-46.36. van Lier, Leo. The Classroom nd theLanguageLearner.ondon: Longman, 1988.37.Vygotsky,ev S. ThoughtndLanguage. ambridge:MIT Press,1986.38. -. "The Genesis of Higher Mental Func-tions." TheConcept fActivityn Soviet sychology.Ed. JamesV.Wertsch.New York:M.E. Sharpe,1981:144-88.39. -. Mind nSociety:he evelopmentfHigher sy-chological rocesses. ambridge: Harvard Univ.Press,1978.40. Wertsch,JamesV. VoicesftheMind.Cambridge:HarvardUniv.Press,1991.41. -. Vygotskynd theSocialFormationfMind.Cambridge:HarvardUniv.Press,1985.42. . "The Zone of Proximal Development:Some Conceptual Issues." Children'searningnthe Zone ofProximalDevelopment.d. BarbaraRogoff & James V. Wertsch. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass,984: 7-18.43. - & Maya Hickmann. "Problem Solving inSocial Interaction:A Microgenetic Analysis."Social and Functional pproachesoLanguage ndThought. d. Maya Hickmann. Orlando: Aca-demic Press,1987: 251-66.44. White,Lydia. "AdverbPlacement n Second Lan-guageAcquisition:Some Effects fPositive ndNegative Evidence in the Classroom." SecondLanguageResearch (1991):133-61.45. -. Universal rammarnd Second anguageAc-quisition.msterdam: ohn Benjamins,1989.

46. Zinchenko,V. P. "Vygotsky'sdeas aboutUnits forthe Analysisof Mind." Culture, ommunicationand Cognition:ygotskianerspectives.d. JamesV.Wertsch. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press,1985: 94-17.

Aljaafreh & Lantolf 1994 Negative Feedback as Regulation and Second Language Learning in the Zone of...

Documents

Transcript of Aljaafreh & Lantolf 1994 Negative Feedback as Regulation and Second Language Learning in the Zone of...