The "Acquisition-Rich Environment" Revisited Author(s): Elizabeth Platt and Frank B.

Brooks Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 78, No. 4 (Winter, 1994), pp. 497-511 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/328588 . Accessed: 09/05/2013 09:33
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 support@jstor.org.

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 on Thu, 9 May 2013 09:33:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The "Acquisition-Rich Environment"Revisited

ELIZABETH PLATT
of Curriculumand Instruction Department Florida State University Tallahassee,FL 32306-3032 Email: eplatt@garnet.acns.fsu.edu

FRANK B. BROOKS
and Instruction of Curriculum Department Florida State University Tallahassee,FL 32306-3032 Email: fbrooks@garnet.acns.fsu.edu

IN THIS ARTICLE1 WE HAVE CHOSEN TO models to dequestion the use of input-output scribe humans talkingin the presence of each other,focusing specificallyon learners of second or foreignlanguages and the term acquisition-rich environment. We find this term to be problematicforseveralreasons. Withinthe general class of input-output and interactionist views of learner-to-learner talk, the utterances of one speaker are viewedin relation to those of the other.In the case of teacher/learneror native speaker/non-native speaker interaction, comprehensible inputshould facilitate (weak version) or bring about (strong version) acquisition of the L2 (26). While challenging the notion of a direct causal link between input and acquisition, Pica and other interactionists (e.g., 49) have nonethelessadopted the same general assumption-that input fromA is acted upon by B, and vice versa. A full refutationof the applicabilityof input-outputmodels and their associated terms for descriptions both of learner talk and language learning/acquisition is beyond the scope of thispaper.2Nonetheless, we make a small beginning with the following reasons forquestioning the validity of the term environment: 1) It assumes that an acquisition-rich environmentproviding opportunities for language learningcan be determinedto be rich or 2) It does not properlyreflectthe poor a priori; newer communicative,task-basedlanguage opportunitiesin which learners are the primary in FL/SL classrooms;3) It does not interactants of adequately reveal the functionof the totality utterances observed in learner-to-learner talk; 4) What learners actually acquire is often left
TheModern 78, iv (1994) Language Journal, 0026-7902/94/497-511 $1.50/0 ?1994 TheModern Language Journal

unspecified. We use a varietyof data collected fromseveral settingsto illustratethese points. Data are presented fromtwo groups of ESL electronics studentssolving a frequencyproblem at the oscilloscope, a pair of beginning content-based Swahili students engaged in a map task,and a pair of intermediate universitylevel Spanish studentsdoing ajigsaw task.Using these data we will consider learner conversations as speech activity.3 Within such a view, learners actively construct their own environmentsthroughlanguage use when theyengage in communicativetasks in the classroom. This more social perspectiveon language, language use, and acquisition is grounded in such fields as psychology, linguistics,sociolinguistics,and It anthropology. entailsresearchpracticesstemand participantobserming fromethnography vation and does not preclude theviewingof,for Rather, example, adjacency pairs as significant. it subsumes them in a wider range of phenomena and allows for, among other things, the analysis of talk and gestures addressed to oneself, certain intonational contours, talk in the L1, and the like (see, forexample, 1; 2; 9-11; 17; 21; 22; 27; 28; 50). These oftenobserved aspects of learner-to-learnerdiscourse during problem-solvingcommunicative tasks do not simply go ignored,but are suggestedas possible important contributorsto language develop-. of the task at hand.4 ment,as well as facilitators This perspectivealso allows for a focus on the role of conceptual material and properties of tasks in learner conversations, ratherthan simply on the surface level form and function of utteranceswithrespect to one another in these interactions. Afterbrieflycharacterizingthe input-output model, we reviewliteraturerelevantto the four problems we have raised with respect to the termacquisition-rich environment. Next,we discuss

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 09:33:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

498 the threedata sets,analyzingthemin termsof a perspective that holds that learners construct theirown environments throughlanguage use. we presentour argumentsin supportof Finally, and conclude with suggestions this framework for classroom and research practice.

TheModern 78 (1994) Language Journal

Researchers in several disciplines refute the idea that messages behave in this manner. For example, schema theorists (e.g., 42) provide the insightthatpriorknowledgein the mindsof readers and listeners(3; 6) plays a profoundly role in comprehensionand thatscheimportant mata varyfromspeaker to speaker,especiallyas the likelihood of shared experience diminishes BACKGROUND (45). The problemwithinput models is thatthe Before addressing the issues raised above veritable complexityof speech activity during we tasks is reduced to "a set of with respect to acquisition-rich environments, problem-solving brieflyreviewseveral points critiquingthe nofiguresand numbersthat are manuipulated in models to describe human variousways" (11: p. 263) and "have givenus an tion of input-output verbal interaction.The model of communicaincompletepicture of second language acquisition" (28: p. 15). tion still assumed today in textbooks (e.g., 23; With respect to the four points made above 43) is implicitlybased upon an engineering we about the term acquisition-rich model designed by Shannon for machine comenvironment, have claimed in the first munication and adapted by Weaver (44) and place thatsuch an enThe vironmentcannot be determined a priori. others(e.g., 24) forhuman communicationand notion is attributableto Krashen, and its comlanguage use because of its assumed appliponents are comprehensibleinput, positive afcability to language behavior in the preChomskian paradigm. The mechanisticnature fect, and motivatingmaterials. Ellis contrasts the acquisition-rich environment with its of information and the theory'sapplication to human communication is also evident in the "poor" counterpart,one in which the learner who receives "little comprehensibleinput" (p. 131). of Weiner, originated Cybernetic writings and output The term has been elaborated often in workTheory and assigned the termsinput to the communicationprocess. Continuationof shops aimed at helping teachers understand how to work with LEP youngsters in mainthe use of terms from these early machine stream classroom settings (e.g., 20). Many models serves only to perpetuate an image of a understandsuch a term,for teachersintuitively indepen"disengaged self . . . metaphysically dent of society" (51: p. 68), and "hides from theyknowhow to design classroomsin which a viewthewayin whichan individualis constituted greatdeal of materialis available forstudentsto select activitiesaccording to their proficiency by language and culture" (47: p. 8).5 Current and goals. These teachers may communicationtheorists levels,interests, similarly question this also that the fact model, despite intuitively grasp the notion of comprehensible "argumentsequathow to make learners demonand know communication" with transfer information input ing strate what they have understood. Teachers do not seem to dislodge the model. It is "an idea framework(37) that dies hard" (23: p. 55). grounded in a constructivist derive students' conceptual models from their Problemsstemmingfromusing these models skilledlanguage teachers,listentalk. Similarly, (ofteninaccurately)arise whenwe employsuch terms in our field as comprehensible ing to learners' language production, plan acinputand tivitiesthat assist students to develop greater environment. Input seen as "lanacquisition-rich emall-around L2 proficiency. We applaud such that encodes (48: 46) p. meaning" guage teachersand the classroom climatestheyestabbodies conceptual errorsas discussed in Reddy, lish. We would never argue that one should be forexample,according to whomthenotion that to learners,just for the sake of a trick of is contained and are contain incomprehensible messages the English language.6 Reddy claims that being "natural" or "authentic." Rather, the for learning is Weaver was beguiled by the conduitmetaphor point is that the "environment" not the same for all learners. Even tasks, when he stated that messages may be "heavily whetherwell explained or not, quite often are loaded with meaning" (p. 303), and that the intoa signal"'7 restructured transmitter"changesthemessage by learners (1), as we show in the data section. (italics in the original). Misunderstandingsof this phenomenon have been perpetuated Input and interactionmodels thusdo not adthat within SLA by representingwhat happens beequately describe all of the speech activity occurs among learners in a wide range of settween speakers as "a negotiated exchange of tings,our second point. We have claimed that message meaning" (32: p. 345), for example.8

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 09:33:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

B. Brooks Elizabeth Plattand Frank second language research has assumed an outmoded model to describe talk in many of today's classrooms having second language speakers. Earlier second language classroomresearch was conducted in classrooms in which mostly teacher-centered activities take place (e.g., 13). A preoccupation with the nature of input helps to maintain the focus on the teacher as the major provider of talk in the classroom. Often, the pattern of talk to be found in such settingsconsisted of the familiar teacher initiation, student response, and teacher feedback (IRE). Although this pattern is still widely practiced today,other classroom configurations are also observed, especially when teachersmove to the perimeterand create situationswhere learners do much of the talking. With the extension of research into such interest has shiftedfromwhat teachers settings, do to whatstudentsdo in pairs or small groups (e.g., 1; 8-11;17; 18; 25; 33). Moreover,the occurrence of interview-type conversationshas been superceded in some classrooms by problemsolvingtasks,where certain language functions are undertaken that do not ordinarily occur in face-to-face conversations.Task-basedgroup or pair workis becoming a researchfocus in simulated workplace environments in vocational programs (34), in mainstream content classsecond (39) or foreignlanrooms,in innovative guage programs(11; 12; 17). Analysesof the talk that emerges in such settings has prompted some researchersto question the use of current models of SL talk and to suggest alternative waysof viewingit (e.g., 11). Our thirdpoint is that not all of a speaker's utterances necessarily function as "input" to other utterances or are even directed at listeners.As the data section will reveal, talk that occurs in learner-centered activities such as problem solving is not alwaysof the kind that can be characterized as highly interactive.In the studieswe have undertaken,learnerstalk to themselves about such things as conceptual content, task procedures, linguistic form, or even theirown language production. They also use gesturesand speak in theirown languages, whether the other participants understand them or not. A model of this talk that confines itself to utterances that are somehow "acted in a conversationdoes upon" by interlocutors not allow us to consider the importanceof such claim to be regulatory talk, which Vygotskians in function.9 We do not intend to demonstrate that such utterancesare importantbecause of their frequency, but because of theirpotential

499 value in helping learners take control of themselves, each other,theirlanguage, and the task itself in order to internalize their knowledge. Thus we feel compelled to raise the question of what is acquired as a result of participatingin these tasks. Our final point, therefore,is that language acquisition (or learning) outcomes of learnerto-learnerconversationremain unspecified in claims for the value of the acquisition-richenvironment.Use of the term obscures the fact that comprehending is a function of individuals, not of spoken or printedinput (5). Acquisitionas a by-productof information and transfer, interaction negotiated may also be problematic,in addition to the misrepresentations inherentin the terms.In the Chomskianview,acquisition applies to those aspects of language circumscribed by some innate structureor facultyof the mind, (i.e., phonology,morphology, syntax, and lexical structure) (14).1oThus, when using the term one must distinguishamong the various types of linguisticand nonlinguisticphenomena being studied and considerunder what theories an extension of the term's domain is permissible. Krashen's heavy emphasis on the role of input has led to some confusion in the fieldwithrespectto theoriesof human communication and the analysis of conversations,on the one hand, and to theories of language learning/acquisitionon the other. We believe thatit is time forclarificationof the difference in approach and of fundamentalassumptions between the two kinds of enterprise.While the SLA research community has rejected a strong version of an input-outputmodel for acquisition, we have nonethelesscontinued to use it to describe talk and its supposed benefitsfor language acquisition in the classroom (e.g., 30). What we are suggestingis a more robust view that incorporatesan understandingof talk or, more specifically,speech activityas cognitive that humans press into service in order activity to solve problems,regardlessof its communicative intent. From this perspective we can see that what learners are doing is not simplyrehearsing linguisticformsfor their eventual acto solve problems by using quisition but trying theirlanguage. ELECTRONICS ROLE PLAY In this section we discuss data collected in a technical college class entitled Technical Vocabulary in Electronics. We use these data to illustrateeach of our four points raised above,

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 09:33:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

500 the first and fourthwiththe firstexample, and the second and third points with the second example. The lesson was one of a series on the oscilloused to capture an elecscope, an instrument tronicsignal and hold it constantfor measurement. The teacher had assigned the studentsa role playingtaskin whichan electronicstechnician was demonstrating skillsto a potential suroles were to be rotated pervisor.The following among the three studentsat each oscilloscope: and an observer. the technician,the supervisor, The lattertwowould ask procedural and knowledge questions of the technician,who in turn would demonstrate familiaritywith the prorelevantto the use of cedures and terminology the instrument.To accomplish the task, students would need to do the following:use the termspertaining to both the operation of the oscilloscope and the displayon the screen; use as apstatements declarative and interrogative propriate for each role; manipulate the dials to get a stable and switcheson the instrument a formula to measand use particular display; of a givensignal. To assistthe ure the frequency The the teacherprovideda worksheet. students, studentsthushad to focusattentionon conceptual, manipulative,and linguistic phenomena Given such a complex task,it is simultaneously. not surprisingthat in each group the ways in which the learnersstructuredthe activitiesdiffered quite markedly. In the followingexcerpt, Elena (E) and Miguel (M), native speakers of Spanish, are working on the problem. A native speaker of Chinese, who does not speak during this segment, alternates between looking at the scope and sheet. looking down, possiblyat the assignment Most of the time Miguel looks at the scope, around at otherpeople in the room, or down at the paper. During the exchange withElena, he does not look her in the eye, nor does she look at him. She alternatesbetween looking at the scope and looking at the assignmentsheet and also occasionallyuses her pencil eitherto point or do a calto the scope, followthe assignment, culation. She uses risingintonationthroughout the first partof the excerpt,at the pointswhere a carat mark is placed. She pauses when she fromlooking at the scope to looking at switches the paper and back again or when she is writing a comma somethingdown. In the transcripts, representsa briefpause; a period indicatesfallrising ing intonation; a carat indicates slightly intonation;a question mark is used here in its conventional sense. Italicized items in paren-

TheModern 78 (1994) Language Journal theses indicate what speakers are doing, while those in roman type in bracketsare words the speakers were thoughtto have uttered. I Excerpt 001 M: How do you measure the (pause)frequency? Firstof all ... 002 E: Firstyou have to calibrate ^ the oscilloscope^ 003 M: Yeah 004 E: Then set the horizontal ^ (pause,lookingat paper)sweep range 005 M: Which is, where is it? 006 E: Uh sweep range control,this one here tooscilloscope). (pointing 007 uh, this is the horizontal ^ range confor a trol (reading sheet) from assignment 008 M: Ok at scope) 009 E: Rotate the variable (glancing horizontalcontrol asfrom fully(pause)clockwise (reading sheet). signment 010 M: Yeah 011 E: Count the number of horizontaldivisions ^ to the leftto the right 012 M: How manyyou have? 013 E: One, two three,four,five .. 014 We have fivepoint six (pause, pointing) times point one 015 M: One qua? 016 E: Uh milliseconds (pointing) 017 M: Point one milliseconds (nodding) 018 E: That's fivepoint six milliseconds.Uh to get the frequency^ you have to divide that ^ by one. 019 As this excerpt illustrates, Miguel begins by asking Elena the general question about measeven telling her how to begin uring frequency, her first sentence. This is more like teacher talk than like supervisor behavior. Elena then proceeds to explain how to measure frequency through a series of steps prompted by glances at the worksheet.Miguel responds as she goes along with approving marks such as "yeah" and "OK," and occasionally asks Elana a question, each of which she answersappropriately. At one point Miguel code switches,asking her "One que?" ("one what?"). By doing so he acknowledges that they both speak the same native language. Elena summarizesthispart of the problem-solving session with the statement in line 018, "That's five point six milliseconds." Essentially,this pair has complied with the

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 09:33:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Elizabeth Plattand FrankB. Brooks assignmentby playingthe supervisorand technician roles appropriatelyand demonstrating understandingof the vocabulary,the operation of the equipment, and the steps to solve the much of the talk can be problem. Furthermore, labeled easily as question, response, and feedback and can be described using an inputoutput model. However, neither participant seems really engaged in the task (11); each seems rather to be complyingwith the assignment, playing the roles as the teacher had instructed,followingthe assignmentsheet carefully,and occasionally reading from it. They may either believe it unnecessary to talk throughthe problem in order to show thatthey understand it, or they may still be insecure about the procedures and require the worksheet. Thus, forthese two studentsthe environment they create for themselves may not be maximallyrich in language learning potential. They have essentiallyengaged in what Bloome calls "procedural display" or " workingwithout necessarilyengaging in the academic substance of the lesson" (p. 73). This example illustrates the point thatthe ultimate benefit of the setting with respect to some aspect of language learning can only be determineda posteriori. Moreover,the presumed value of any kind of language activity is theory dependent. For example, if language use in an uncontrolled settingis facilitativeof language acquisition, developmental progress toward greater grammatical or other kinds of competence being assumed (the rationale underlying content-and task-basedteaching approaches), then this activity is beneficial. However,if language practice without correction facilitates of forms,then thisactivity fossilization maynot be so rich in acquisition potential. By contrast,the next excerpt highlightsthe differences between twowaysin which the role play participants have structuredthe assigned task. While the teacher has set a language teaching goal of students asking and answering questions using the technical vocabulary in a realistic scenario, the students in this group have reconstructed the task consistent with theirown goal: solve the frequencyproblem using the oscilloscope and the calculator. In this excerpt Linh (L) and Jaime (J) are non-native speakers; Cohen (Co) and the teacher (T), native speakers. As soon as the students' goal has been achieved, theydo not rocomplete thejob scenario, but immediately tate roles, as shown in Excerpt 2 when Linh is the technician.

501 turns 2. Switching Excerpt 048 L: Three point one and the range is one hundred. 049 Co: You got it Linh. (to Wanna try Jaime) again? Here Cohen confirmsthat Linh has solved his then immediately asksJaime problem correctly, ifhe wantsto take a turn.The group makes no the solution attemptto close thejob interview, of the problem superceding the role play at this point. Excerpt 3 is used to illustratethe failure of an input model to describe adequately Jaime's talk, as he is only occasionallyengaged in a conversationwith Cohen and Linh as supervisor and observer respectively. Instead, much of his talk is directed to himself, and he appears not to be payingclose attentionto what the othersare saying. tointerlocutor talk Excerpt 3. Nonattendance 056 J: Ok (begins the controls adjusting again)now I use my, variable range control to, 057 Adjustmyreferenceline ^ Now I use my ACDC control to adjust my,sine wave (pausewhile adjusting) 058 Damn! (underhis breath, thenstarting to laugh) All laugh. looks at Cohen Jaime 059 C: How about turningthaton again? (indicating signalgenerator) looks at Cohen, shakes his down,looks Jaime head,and smiles. 060 C: Think that'd help. at the However, Jaimecontinues working not what Coscope, possibly having processed henhas said. 061 J: Now I'm using myuh, horizontalsweep time control. 062 C: (laughs) How about turning this on and adagain? (pointsto signalgenerator justsit) 063 Make a difference? All laugh.Cohencontinues tolaughto himnot selfas ifhewere thinking thatJavier might betoobright. 064 L: You have to pull thisback. Because you didn't turn on, so, so. Ok? 065 J: Ok. Now I have to [startall over] 066 L: No, no, no [inaud] You have to turn this on. You have to turn this control switch 067 And reduce the magnitude 068 J: [inaud] 069 L: You have to reduce that All are making remarks sotto voceduring the next fewexchanges

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 09:33:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

502 070 J: [inaud] the verticalvoltage 071 L: Um hm and ^ reduce here 073 L: OK, yeah (turns a dial) 074 C: Do you have that five time magnifier on? 075 J: Now I'm using my, output level control switch (adjusts dial at signalgenerator) to adjust, my, 076 sine wave (makes an adjustment at the scope). I'm gonna make mysine wave 077 thatjust as the richnessof Excerpt 3 illustrates the environmentcannot be ascertained, what constitutescomprehensible inputis also problematic, as it is a functionof learner-and situationspecificvariables (45). Cohen's ratherobliquely statedcommentsin lines 059-063 to turnon the signal generatorappear not to have been processed at all byJaime, who is engaged in his own about the task (lines 056-058), and, monologue aftera shortpause to acknowledge thatCohen has said something, continues talking (line 061). Again, Cohen's question in line 074 goes unanswered as Jaime is still engaged in his comprehensible monologue. Cohen's ordinarily statement thatthe signal generatoris not yeton has meant nothingtoJaime,an indication that he is absorbed in stabilizingthe displayand setting up the problem. Jaime's talkingabout procedures aloud is an theoryis called example of what in Vygotskyan "self-regulated speech" (21) and shows that he is verymuch engaged in the task.Jaimeis not so much answering the supervisor's questions as he is troubleshootingthe problem, something he might have done even without the assignIt is not untilLinh mentgivenbythe instructor. breaks intoJaime'smonologue and begins making directsuggestions (lines 064, 066, 069, and 071) thatJaime realizes that he has been proand startsfollowingLinh's ceeding incorrectly direction.Jaime's remarksin 070 and 072 followed by Linh's words of approval in 071 and 073 are illustrative. Through the course of both this and two other opportunities to play the technician, Jaime improvedin his abilityto manipulate the controls, label some of the phenomena, and solve the mathematicalproblem. However,it is contributesto difficult to tell how this activity Jaime'slanguage learning.For example, despite the fact that on many occasions he needed to use the words "vertical" and "horizontal," he confused the two throughoutthe entire class hour.Again, the question we address in commu-

TheModern 78 (1994) Language Journal nicative classroom research is what in the long run is learned in such settings. SWAHILI MAP LESSON In thissection, data collected at the end of a twelve-hour Swahilicourse are used to show the several kinds of utterancesa pair of verybasic beginners used to solve a problemjointly.We will show that a model that merely treats A's utterancesas input to those of B is inadequate to characterizethis kind of talk. Such a model can not capture the possiblyimportantcontributions of intrapersonalutterancesto the language learningprocess. Furthermore, although the task is highlycommunicative,the learners exploit only a narrow range of linguistic and resourcesin theirrepertoire.The paralinguistic analysisgiven below allows us to focus on how learnersaccomplish a task,but leaves open the answer to the question: What in this language is learned? activity In order to performthisjigsaw task,pairs of learners were given two similar maps of East Africa with some information in common, other informationdistributedequally between the two maps, and the restunlabeled. The goal and have the same inwas to finishthe activity formationon both maps. Prior to engaging in the task, participantshad already studied the four directions, the locative verb, agreement, forthreecomand singular/plural morphology mon noun classes, question words "what" and "where," and "yes/no." The termsfor "town," "tribe," "boundary," "lake," and "mountain" like were providedin the keyalongside drawings those on the map, shownin FiguresIa and Ib. In the firstexample,Jane and Karen use the first of several task-structuring and maporientingstrategies:gesture and repetition.As in the previous transcripts,the followingare the conventionsused to indicate intonation: a comma for a brief pause, a period for falling intonation,a caratforslightly risingintonation, and a question markforrisingintonationindicating a request for information. and repetition 4. Orienting with signlanguage Excerpt so that sheand books 001 J: (laughing, adjusting readand K cannot seeoneanother's maps, Ok. her over ing map) 002 K: Kenya. 003 J: Kenya. a long 004 K: Kaskazini (after pause)no, (looking kusini up as iftogetherbearings) [north] [south] 005 J: (pointing down]Kusini?

072J: Vertical

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 09:33:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Elizabeth Plattand Frank B. Brooks FIGURE IA Map of East Africa FIGURE IB Map of East Africa

503

Sudan
S Kampala

Albert
Uganda Ruwenzori fWanyoro Victoria Kmenya y Nakuru
Rwanda a

Rudolf gganda
Cherangani

"Kuny

u n,
WWakikuyu

magharibi --

Bahari Mombasa /Y1 . ya /Y1 ya India a Tanzania Wachaga Tanzania India Funguo Wa~nyuamwezi MFugu Tanga f ~Mjiji Ziwa anganyika A Ziwa Afrika ya Afrika ya pk Mashariki Mpaka Kaskazini nchi \ ya

zA

Bahari

kusini

mashariki

Watut Milima /T1

Kaskazini

Masharkik

mashariki magharibi --kusini

Mpaka \ ya nchi

Watu F Milima/Y

006 K: Kusini. 007J: Kusini? 008 K: Nakuru.Nakuru. 009 J: OK Nakuru?(shaking head, no,as ifshedoes notunderstand what todo) 010 K: Nakuru. 011J: Na ku ru. (writing) In line 001,Jane signals her readiness to begin using English, "OK." In line 002 Karen responds by tellingJane to find Kenya.Jane acknowledgesin 003. In 004 Karen tellsJane to look in the north,but thencorrectsherself after her to visualize shifting gaze upward, probably where the place she was thinking of was located in Kenya. (When interviewedlater Karen and Jane said they had cheated because they had used hand signals.However,in the first instance Jane was not watching Karen, and Karen was not looking atJane.This behavior indicatesthat Karen more than likely used the gesture to orientherself.)In line 005,Jane gesturesdownward to ask for Karen's confirmation that "kusini" (south) was down, and received acin 006. In 007 Jane asks to know knowledgment what in the south she should look for,and Karen responds in 008, "Nakuru, Nakuru."At 009 Jane shakes her head because she does not knowwhat symbolson the map that appear in the south should be labeled "Nakuru," and indicates her doubt with the rising intonation again. Karen simplyrepeats the word in 010, and in 011 Jane spells it aloud and writes it down, although we do not knowwhere. Before the segment to be discussed below

took place,Jane told Karen in English to look at the keyin the corner of the map. Thus, in the next segmentwe can see that Karen uses this informationand employs a general-to-specific strategyto orientJane. Again theyuse intonational contours,thistime more effectively. 5. General tospecific Excerpt strategy 023 K: Uganda 024J: Uganda 025 K: Um magharibiya Uganda. Maziwa Albert. west of lakes 026J: Albert? 027 K: Albert 028 J: OK Albert. In lines 023 Karen tellsJaneto look at Uganda, and in 025 identifies whatpart of the country to look in, indicateswhat geographical featureto look for,and finally givesitsname, Lake Albert. Jane repeats it in 026 with rising intonation, and Karen confirmsin 027 withfallingintonation. Jane repeats "Albert"a thirdtime. Directlyfollowingthissequence in Excerpt 6 below,line 029,Jane tellsKaren thatshe should the begin at thatspot, Lake Albert,and identify people to the south-information she lacks on her map. Wanyorois the name of a tribe. 6 Usingintonation to signal orienting and Excerpt questioning ^ ^ 029 J: Albert kusini watu. Watu? Albert south people 030 K: Ah, Wanyoro.

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 09:33:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

504 FIGURE IIA

TheModern 78 (1994) Journal Language FIGURE IIB

$103.95

CA

Z I
CARA
...... ......

N1
CAMA

Lo
Thus, to reiteratean earlier point,Jane and Karen were not in an acquisition-richenvirona context ment, they createdor constructed throughtheiruseof the targetlanguage to solve a problem. They constructedseveral strategies to orient themselvesin the task, creating conand vergentmaps fromdivergentinformation, theygenerallyused Swahiliwords and gestures to do it. The question of what is acquired/ learned is not answered in termsof the target language but in termsof the nature of the task itselfand what theymanaged to accomplish. In the next section we use data from more adof functhe variety vanced learnersto illustrate intions thatutterancesperformbesides simply teractionin the L2. TASK JIG-SAW The followingdata were taken froma group learnersof third-semester of twouniversity-level time Spanish,Janand Kay,engaged forthe first in a jig-saw task thatrequired them to worktogether to complete a puzzle-like diagram (8). (Referto FiguresIIa and IIb.) It is assumed that because it provides this kind of task is effective is described by for what strategicopportunities Pica as "negotiated interaction."What we intend to show throughthe followingexcerpts is that other kinds of importantstrategicactivity

One mightfullyinterpret Jane's utterancesas "Do you see Albert?Can you go south? There are some people. Who are those people?" Karen responds with the name of the tribe, preJane has sought. Note cisely the information how in this excerptJane requests information fromKaren withboth risingand fallingintonation on the word "watu" (people) in line 029. Also, in this segment the participants have switched tactics, the person lacking the information requesting it fromher partner. Although Karen and Jane began using hand signals, theylater switched to other strategies thatwere both more in line withthe taskassignment and more effective. Through the course of several turnsthese participantsconstructed for themselves some rather effective means of solvingthe problem by movingfromgeneral to specific information, repeating words,varying intonation contours, and assuming directive roles in both giving and requestinginformation. They did so with single word paratacticconstructions,1typicalof learnersat such an earlystage. As Ahmed found,speakers often change map tasks entirelyin order to complete them. This is what occurred in this activity. For example, one pair of Swahili learners, on attemptingto complete the task to English switchedalmostentirely successfully, for a large portion of the time allotted.

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 09:33:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

B. Brooks Plattand Frank Elizabeth are going on, in addition to interaction.In the literature, these strategies are often overlooked or simply not reported as part of the data set (8). The following selected features fromthis conversationwill be highlighted:Situation Definition, Metatalk, and Whispering to oneself. Situation Accordingto Wertsch(50: Definition. is "the wayin which a situation definition 8), p. setting or context is represented-that is, defined-by those operating in thatsetting."It refersto speech activity during which humans co-constructa shared representationor "mental image" of a situationor orientationto a particular problem, similar to what Rommetveit (p. 94) calls achieving "states of intersubjectivity."It is important that during problemsolving speech activity participantsnot be passive recipientsof this representationfromone another.Rather,theyare active co-constructors of it (46). At the beginning of the jigsaw activity, the researcher took time and explained to the participants what they were to do during the problem-solving task. He stated that there were some figures on a diagram and that, in Spanish, as well as they could, they were to "talk back and forthto one another to find out what the other had" and to "draw in the missing pieces." Nevertheless,shortlyafter beginning the task, Jan is compelled to question what theyare supposed to do, as shown below in Excerpt 7. For the purposes of transcription, the researcher's words are in upper case while the participants' are in lower case letters, letters.

505 065 K: oh! 066 B: SO YOU'RE GOING TO FIND THAT THERE ARE SOMETIMES YOU HAVE THINGS THAT ARE SIMILAR BUT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT 067 K: uh huh 068 J: right 069 B: OR SOME THINGS THAT YOU HAVE AND SHE DOESN'T HAVE ENTIRELY 070 J: okay 071 B: OKAY 072 AND IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE THAT ALL THE SQUARES HAVE TO BE FILLED IN 073 J: oh 074 B: OKAY 075 J: all rightthat thathelps 076 B: DOES IT? 077 J: yeah like like stuff like thiswhatsquare would it be in then? 078 B: WELL THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO TRY TO NEGOTIATE BACK AND FORTH 079J: okay 080 K: so theyhave to be in the same places, too? 081 B: YEAH, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE 082 K: okay 083 B: ALL RIGHTY? 084J: so we're going to tryto come up with like the same 085 B: YEAH. IN OTHER WORDS, THEORETICALLY, YOU'D BOTH WALK OUT WITH THE SAME PICTURE 086 K: okay

In line 039 of this excerpt,Jan declares: "this "What arewesupposed paper is making little or no sense to me" and 7: Situation Excerpt Definition to bedoinghere?" wants to call the researcherback into the room to explain the task again. At this point the re039J: I thinkI'm going to call that guy back searcherreturnsto the recordingroom and ex'cause this paper is making littleor no sense to me plains more specificallywhat the participants 040 K: ha! are to do. Between lines 045 and 085, forexam041 I don't know if I'm doing this right ple, he provides a more detailed description 042 J: (incomprehensible) about the procedural demands of the task.Dur(the researcherwalks back into the room) ing this clarification (lines 062 and 064), Jan 043 B: WHAT IS IT? expresses her own ostensible understandingof the particularprocedural demands of the task 044J: I don't understand 045 B: OKAY when she declares: "oh okay so we're supposed to fill in this whole . . . block starting with the 046J: I don't understandwhat I'm supposed to be communicatingwith this paper first square." Kay then remarks: "oh!" (line 065), thus indicating her understanding. (See 062 J: oh okayso we're supposed to fillin this also lines 080 and 084.) whole In the preceding excerpt we see that,when 063 B: YEAH faced witha difficult task forthe first time,the 064J: block startingwith the firstsquare twostudentsexternalizeforthemselves the goal

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 09:33:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

506 or end-resultof theiractivity. As we can see in and 8, however, Excerpt Kay Jan-even after workingsuccessfully togetherin Spanish for a number of turns-apparently need to suspend doing the task once again and talk in English about the task and its goals. 8: Redefining situation definition Excerpt 249 J: uh well now I'm even more confused 250 K: ha! ha! 251J: see I have uh um 252 okay let me tryto do this in Spanish I'll at least put up the effort En mi papel yo tengo muchos es253 pacios algunos tienen peliculas otros blancos estfin 254 K: uh huh 255 J: y uh yo pienso que tritienes um blancos donde yo tengo peliculas 256 K: uh huh 257 J: entiendes? 258 K: uh si 259J: y but that's not happening oh well 260 261 K: ha! ha! oh well 262 J: so you have an "n" and I have a "z" 263 K: si 264 I thinkum you're supposed to draw in what I have and I'm supposed to draw um um 265 I don't know how to say this in Spanish 266J: yeah I know thatwhat I'm saying some of mine are blank and some I have picturesI'm supposed to communicate the picturesand you would have blanks where the pictures are and vice versa ^ 267 K: right 268 J: but that doesn't seem to be happening 269 K: uh sometimesat other timesit may be I thinkboth where youjust kinda do ha! ha! 270J: all rightesta bien 271 K: Ah I tried 272 J: siguiente In line 249 above, Jan expresses her confusion bystating:"well now I'm even more confused." to talkabout thisconfuShe even directsherself sion in Spanish (line 252). The studentsneed to talk to one another because the task is still not making a great deal of sense to them.The purpose of re-establishing-through externalization-the goals of the task is to make them

TheModern 78 (1994) Language Journal more understandable.In lines 253 and 255,Jan ostensiblyunderstandswhat is supposed to be happening, but she feels that "that's not happening," in line 259 and again in line 268. Kay, seems to understand,as she demnevertheless, onstratesin line 264 and whichJan confirmsin line 266, though she is also aware thatshe feels inadequate to state those particular rules for participation in Spanish (line 265). Despite these confusions, which the two participants able to conopenlydiscusshere, theyare finally tinue withthe puzzle task,as noted in line 272. To be considered here is that all tasks or problems to be solved are organized according to goals and motivations(1; 17). Their purposes and meaningsto the participantshold a central place in the definition of activitiesor events are involvedin (40; 51). When two interlocutors it is sometimes joint problem-solvingactivity, necessary for them to construct for themselves-through talk-their own intersubjective understandings of the instructions and the goals of their activity.Moreover, participants may also feel compelled to re-construct for themselves on more than one occasion what theyare supposed to be doing, how, and why. Until that intersubjective understandingis accan complished, theyreally go nowhere in the task (1; 17). Metatalk. While Kay and Jan were involvedin theirjoint activity workingtoward completion of the information-gap task, they at times talked about their own talk, as noted in Excerpts 9 and 10 below. 9: Metatalk Excerpt 211 J: en mi papel um es una [linda] horizontal en the bottom part of the space coming out of the top of the triangle ha! ha! 212 K: ha! si ha! ha! 213J: sorry 214 K: that's okay I'm just 215J: yeah thisis frustrating 216 K: yes it is 217J: okay 218 K: all right 219 J: en el um primerespacio en el tercer [linda] no tengo [nadia] withline 213 and extendingto line 218, Starting both students temporarily suspend their activityto comment on their problem-solving own language production, which for them is (lines 215 and 216). This commenfrustrating tary appears motivated by line 212, when Jan switchedto English while describinga particu-

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 09:33:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Plattand FrankB. Brooks Elizabeth lar part of her diagram. This temporary departure from the task and discussion about their own talk and about how frustrating thingsare forthemat the momentmaybe seen as a kindof activemotional release valve or self-regulating ity (27). Both students,nevertheless,conquer this momentaryimpasse in lines 217 and 218 and begin anew working on the task (line 219).12 talkopenlyabout In thisexcerpt, bothstudents their frustrationsconcerning their perceived lack of Spanish. In other words,the talkingacthatoftenensues during problem-solving tivity behavior does not alwaysnecessarilyentail response to propositional information. Rather, serves to allow the this kind of speech activity participantsto arriveat certain commonalities or intersubjective states. 10: Metatalk Excerpt 365 K: oh wait una vez mis es es near wait 366 one more time una vez mas 367J: uh 368 hmmm 369 let me thinkof another way to say this In Excerpt 10 above, we see that Kay wantsJan to repeat somethingthatshe does not quite understand (lines 365 and 366).Jan thenredirects herselfin line 369 in an effort to say something that is comprehensibleto Kay. In so doing,Jan is compelled to mediate forherselfher own language; she expresses once again what is necesthe instrucsaryin order forKay to reconstruct tions forJan. to Self In addition to the above Whispering featuresof problem-solvingdiscourse, the students in this activity were also observed whisto themselves at pering particular points in the task. This whisperingactivity seems to serve an important strategic function for their own construction of the problem-solvingtask. This whispering to the self is often referred to as "private speech" that serves to mediate or redirect an individual's own activity. Private speech emerges quite often,especially during cognitively difficult situations (27). The excerpts below are but a fewexamples. The portions of the transcript segments printed in italics indicate whispering. 11: Whispering toself Excerpt 275 J: Equ6 tienes? 276 K: tienen un [vi] um que con con- contina contina para un espacio howdo yousaythat 277 278 above

507 12: Whispering toself Excerpt 458J: si 459 K: y segundo [linea] es a a la tre tres tres um howwould yousay that en en la tiempo es (incomprehensible) es la tres 460 J: tres sense 461 K: hmit'snotmaking 13: Whispering toself Excerpt 509 K: yes si 510 J: que? 511 K: tengo uh uh cuarto cientos 512 um cugeezhowdo I saythis artos uno dos tres 513 cuatro cientos mmm cuatro ciento ciento diez d61aresy um quince 514J: cuatro cien y diez 515 K: cuatro In Excerpt 11, Kay talks to herselfwhispering: "how do you say that"when she is searchingfor how to saythe Spanish equivalentto "above." In Excerpt 12,Kay again whispers:"how do you say that" and "hmm it's not making sense." In Excerpt 13, Kay whispers:"geez how do I say this" and counts to herselfto mediate her own constructionof the dollar amount in Spanish that appears on her part of the diagram. In all these seems to coordicases, this whisperingactivity as nate Kay's own mental and linguisticactivity it relatesto solvingthe puzzle. She clearlywants to participate in the problem-solving task with her partnerin Spanish and thusspeaks to solve her own problem. What we hear is her own speech that is intended for no one other than herself.Speaking thus serves importantmediational purposes for individualsfor completing cognitively demanding tasks and for orienting themselvesand their interlocutorsto the task and to the language that is used to construct the task (2; 9; 17). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS To conclude, we would like to reiteratethe fourpointsmade at the beginningof thisarticle in the light of the data presented above. First, we claim that "environments" are not ontological realitiesbut are constructedand constituted that learnersproduce. It by the speech activity is this verydiscursiveactivity that allows us to see how individualscreate and share social realities. As implied earlier, use of the term "acquisition-richenvironment"diminishes the learner in the picture of the second or foreign language classroom and focuses on the role of the teacher as source of "comprehensible in-

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 09:33:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

508 put." In reflectingon the changing role of the language teacher as primary"input provider" in favor of that of facilitatorof the language learning process, we need to reconsider what learnerstryto accomplishwhen involvedin the kinds of problem-solving tasks now being promoted in the pedagogical literature(e.g., 29). Joint speech activityduring problem-solving tasksis not simply forthe purposes of "message but ratherprovides learners strategic transfer" opportunities to enhance the psychological processes that underlie regulation or psychological autonomy (27). As Brooks and Donato argue: "tasks cannot be externallydefined or classified on the basis of specific external task confeatures. Rather,tasksare in factinternally structed through the moment-to-moment verbal interactionsof the learners during actual performance" (p. 272; see also 15). Let us now reconsider the second and third points made at the beginning of this article. models, fromwhich First,input and interaction environment the term acquisition-rich derives, do not properlyreflectthe newer,problem-solving opportunities in which FL/SL classroom learners are the primaryinteractants. Further, these models do not reveal the functionof all utterances and gestures observed during With respect to these points, learners' activity. functionsfar bewe found that speech activity yond, and in a more complex manner than, merely the exchange of information (11; 51). The firstgroup of studentsin the electronics class seemed only to complywith the most instrumental aspects of the task, thus they appeared not to have connected withit and with each other.To be sure, theycomplied with the task as stated by the teacher.Voice intonation, hand gestures,eye gaze, and the like are feathat retures of discourse and speech activity veal importantaspects of activityin the presence of others. By contrast,the second group of studentsin the electronicsclass spoke to solve a mathematics problem, changing and co-constructing role relationships. More importantly, theydiof the teacher: task from the intended verged take specifiedroles and use the technicalvocabtask the ulary. In the Swahili information-gap two students cleverlydevised and successfully and of nonverbal, used a variety suprasegmental, and one anmovesto orientthemselves strategic otherto pointson theirmaps. In the Spanishjigsaw task,studentsfeltcompelled to step out of theirown forthemselves theirtaskto reconstruct of the and motives of the "mentalimages" goals

TheModern 78 (1994) Language Journal task.In solvingtheirtask,theytalkedabout their own talk as well as to themselves. With respect to the fourth point-what learners actually acquire is often left unspecified-we are compelled to ask the question of what is "acquired?" The tasksdescribed clearly fallwithinthe design specificationsfor activity in so-called "acquisition-rich environments." However,our theoriesof acquisition maybe influenced by, but should remain conceptually distinctfrom,our theories of communication and talk in general. Our data highlight individforexchanging uals engaged in talk,not merely propositional information, but for solving problems. What these participants acquire, then, is an understandingthat like talk in L1, talk in L2 can also be used in a wider arrayof functions than question-response sequences. For example, while Elena and Miguel seemed quite proficient in the language of problem solving (despite their dependence on the assignmentsheet),Jaime was not able to workon his problem and attend to hints in English at the same time. Clearly the "environment"his group constructedwas more challenging than the safe one Elena's group created, and the potentialforhis learningnew functionsin English was expanded. However,we do not presume to claim thatacquisition in the Chomskiansense is enabled (or impeded) in either setting. Finally,when we use a model with a set of termsthatdelineates only the most instrumenof speech functions tal aspects of the interactive we eliminate fromanalysisthe mediatactivity, ing functionsof talk in the learning process. Stated anotherway,it maybe thatas we are trythat ing to understandthe veryspeech activity unfoldswhen language learnersare involvedin we are not able to discuss tasks, problem-solving and analyze that activity with input-output we choose to acknowledgeit or models.Whether used our not, widely professionalterminology has been importedfromthe InformationTheorymodel we discussed earlier (38; 47; 51). Human communication is thus conceptualized in terms of the transmissionof information,the encoding and decoding of signals (a distortion of the model imposed by Weaver at the very beginning). The assumption, then, that tasks are merelyforthe transand task-basedactivity fer or exchange of informationbetween interlocutors does not allow for the view that much language activityis regulatoryin nature, and not necessarilycommunicativein intent.Individuals,whetherin the presence of othersdurtasks or not, often speak aloud in ing difficult

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 09:33:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ElizabethPlatt and Frank B. Brooks

509

order to solve problems. (For furtherdiscussion, see 1; 11; 18) According to currentmodels, the purpose of messages" is to allow forthe con"transmitting struction of "comprehensible input," which then becomes "linguisticdata" to be processed in the learner's "black box." (See 30 and 32.) Talk as "message transfer," language modifications as "comprehensibleinput" and "comprehensible output," and "acquisition-rich environments"-all are termsthat permeate our We accept themwithout professionalliterature. their philosophical origins and, considering the crucial ways in which more importantly, theyshape our thinkingand understandingof human communication and speech activity. These termsidentify particularwaysof describing our world and what is happening in our classrooms. Thus, theyseverelylimit and constrainwhat researchersand teachers choose to attend to. The viewwe have espoused has important imfor and In the research. teaching plications to listento learnersas classroom,it is important tasks and theyare involved in problem-solving understandwhat it is theyare tryingto accomplish. This is especially crucial with respect to the use of L1, which, as we have seen, is really the only mediational tool fully available to learners, especially at the lower proficiency levels,forsolvingthe kindsof problemswe have seen in these various examples of talk. Moreover,learners need opportunitiesto engage in analogous kinds of problem-solving tasks in order to become betterat doing them (18). With respect to research, an understanding of human communicativeactivity needs to be incorto how we view the participorated expand pants' activitythat we are investigating.The outmoded input-output model is inadequate forcomprehendingthatspeaking activity is simmore than has been ply complex recognized. NOTES 1Thisarticle waspresented underthesametitle at the Conference on Second LanguageAcquisition/ held at PurdueUniverForeign LanguageLearning,

we wish to thank the students whose importantly, voices we hear in these pages. 2 A reviewof the relevantliteratureand a studyof teachers' naive models of communication can be found in Platt (35). 3Wertsch(51) discusses the difference between the terms "language" and "speech activity." Within the formerrefersto the strucframework, Vygotsky's turesof the language system. The latter, by contrast, is understood as being part of ongoing human cognitive activity that is used in human social interaction. 4 Frawleyand Lantolf have argued elsewhere that all formsof discourse during speech activity are relevant and relevatory of the cognitive dispositions of those involved in the tasks. It is difficultand constraining,therefore,to limit analysis only to a few selected discourse features such as clarification requests, contentconfirmationrequests, overlaps,and so on (e.g., 31; 32; 36; 49). 5 Wertsch (51) and Bakhtin also address problems with such mechanisticmodels froma sociohistorical perspective. 6 Reddy claims that the channel is reified in the conduit metaphors that abound in the English language, such as "get your thoughts across" or "put your ideas into words." 7 The Information Theory model (45) does not portraymessages as travelingat all. Messages assembled in the source are reconstructed in the receiver. 8 Withina Vygotskyan perspective,human commumore on speaking as a means forindividualsto create shared social realities and mediate theirown cognitive functioning(21). 9 Within a Vygotskyan perspective,the regulatory function of language use refersto how individuals, through their speech activity,influence not only themselvesbut also othersand the object of theirac(See Wertsch[51] for a full discussion.) tivity. 10Not all linguistsagree that the term acquisition pertains only to formal structure.Gee (p. 154), for example, claims thatthe abilityto engage in anykind of discourse is acquired, in the sense that it is not learned throughexplicit instruction. successfully 11Words "linked solely throughjuxtaposition and and not throughthe use of punctuation/intonation, conjunction" (16: p. 221.) 12This same phenomenon was also noted in Brooks and Donato. Although overt frustration was exwere pressed bythe secondary-level participants, they able to continue on quite successfully with the task. problem-solving

livan. Wealsothank thevarious reviewers for thevaluon earlier drafts of thearticle. able comments Most

nicationfocusesless on messagetransmission and

most Thomas Scoveland BillVanPat- BIBLIOGRAPHY ference, notably Frederick Richard ten,as wellas with Donato, Jenks, andJames P. Lantolf. Weespecially ediacknowledge torial assistance from Lee Bradley and opportunities 1.Ahmed, Mohammed. as Cognitive "Speaking Reguto discuss various philosophical issues withMark Sullation:A Study of L1 and L2 DyadicProblem

sity,West Lafayette, Feb. 1993. We have benefited fromdiscussion withvarious participantsat the con-

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 09:33:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

510 Diss., Univ.of Delaware, NewSolvingActivity." ark, 1988. and Expository 2. Appel, Gabriela. "Li and L2 Narrative A Vygotskyan Production: Discourse Diss., Analysis." Univ. of Delaware, Newark,1986. 3. Bacon, Susan. "Listening for Real in the Foreign LanguageAnnals Language Classroom." Foreign 22 (1989): 543-51. Es4. Bakhtin,Mikael M. TheDialogic Four Imagination: says.Ed. M. Holquist. Trans. C. Emerson & M. Holquist. Austin: Univ.of Texas Press, 1981. 5. Bernhardt, Elizabeth. "ProficientTexts or Proficient Readers?" ADFL Bulletin 18 (1986): 25-28. & CharlesJames. "The Teaching and Test6. ing of Comprehension in Foreign Language in and Professionalism Policy, Learning." Proficiency, Ed. Diane W. BirckEducation. Language Foreign bichler. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Co., 1987: 65-81. 7. Bloome, David. "Building Literacy and the Classinto Practice room Community."Theory 25 (1986): 71-83. 8. Brooks, Frank B. "Can we talk?" Foreign Language Annals25 (1992): 59-71 9. . "Foreign Language Learning: A Social Interaction Perspective." SecondLanguageAcquisEd. Bill VanPatition-Foreign LanguageLearning. ten & James F. Lee. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters,1990: 153-69. . "Patternsof Instructionand StudentPar10. ticipation in Small-Group,Learner-to-Learner Speaking Opportunitiesin a Spanish Conversation Course at the College Level: A Social Interaction Perspective." Diss., Ohio State Univ., 1989. 11. & Richard Donato. "Vygotskyan Approaches to UnderstandingForeign Language Learner Discourse During Communicative Tasks." Hispania77 (1994): 262-74. & Kari A. Niendorf. "PromotingCommu12. nicative Competence Through Task-Based Language '92-'93. Speech Activity."Dimension: Ed. Robert M. Terry. Valdosta, GA: SCOLT, 1993: 43-67. New 13. Chaudron, Craig. Second LanguageClassrooms. York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1988 New York: Noam. Knowledge 14. Chomsky, ofLanguage. Praeger,1986. 15. Coughlan, Peter & Patricia Duff. "Same Task, DifferentActivities: Analysisof an SLA Task from an Activity ApTheory Perspective." Vygotskyan Ed. James P. Research. toSecond Language proaches Lantolf& Gabriela Appel. Norwood, NJ:Ablex, 1994: 173-93. and Pho16. Crystal,David. A Dictionary ofLinguistics 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, netics. 1989. RaA Psycholinguistic 17.Donato, Richard. Beyond Group: in Second-Language tionalefor Collective Activity Diss., Univ.of Delaware, Newark,1988. Learning. & Frank B. Brooks. "Looking Across Col18.

The Modern Language Journal 78 (1994) laborative Tasks: Capturing L2 Discourse Development." Paper, AAAL Conference, Baltimore,Mar. 1994. Ox19. Ellis, Rod. Instructed Second Language Acquisition. ford: Basil Blackwell,1990. 20. Florida Departmentof Education. ESOL Strategies in theContent Areas. Tallahassee, FL, META Telecourse, 1991. William & James Lantolf. "Second Lan21. Frawley, guage Discourse: A VygotskyanPerspective." 6 (1985): 143-59. Linguistics Applied and Literacies: 22. Gee, James P. SocialLinguistics Ideology in Discourse. Bristol,PA: Falmer Press, 1990. Look at Communication 23. Griffin,Em. A First Theory. 1994. New York: McGraw-Hill, 24. Hockett, Charles F. Review of "The Mathematical by Claude L. Shannon Theory ofCommunication" & WarrenWeaver,Language 29 (1953): 69-93. 25. Kinginger, Celeste. "Task Variation and Classroom Learner Discourse." Diss., Univ. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign,1989. and Practice in Second 26. Krashen, Stephen. Principles Oxford: Pergamon Press, LanguageAcquisition. 1982. "Second Lan27. Lantolf, JamesP. & WilliamFrawley. guage Performance and VygotskyanPsycholinguistics: Implications for L2 Instruction." The TenthLACUS Forum.Ed. Alan Manning, Pierre Martin & Kim McCalla. Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press, 1983: 425-40. 28. Nunan, David. "Sociocultural Aspects of Second 19 (1992): Currents Language Acquisition." Cross 13-24. New Classrooms. . Tasksfor Communicative 29. York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989. 30. Pica, Teresa. "Second Language Acquisition, Social Interaction, and the Classroom." Applied 8 (1987): 3-21. Linguistics & Catherine Doughty."Input and Interac31. tion in the Communicative Language Classroom: A Comparison of Teacher-Frontedand AcGroup Activities."Input in Second-Language Madden. Gass & Ed. Susan M. Carolyn quisition. MA: NewburyHouse, 1985: 115-32. Rowley, 32. -, Lloyd Holliday, Nora Lewis, Dom Berducci & Jeanne Newman. "Language Learning through Interaction:What Role Does Gender 13 Play?" Studiesin SecondLanguageAcquisition (1991): 343-76. 33. , Ruth Kanagy & John Falodun. "Choosing and Using Communication Tasks for Second and Language Instructionand Research." Tasks Language Learning. Ed. Graham Crookes & Susan M. Gass. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters,1993: 9-34. 34. Platt, Elizabeth. Collaboration ofLEP forInstruction Education.Berkeley: Nain Vocational Students tional Center for Research in Vocational Education, 1992. . "Toward 35. Languageand CommunicaDefining MakeaDifference?"MA tion: DoesDefinition Equiva-

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 09:33:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ElizabethPlatt and Frank B. Brooks lency Thesis, Univ. of Illinois: UrbanaChampaign, 1986. 36. Plough, India & Susan M. Gass. "Interlocutorand Task Familiarity: Effects on InteractionalStructure." Tasksand Language Learning:Integrating Theoryand Practice.Ed. Graham Crookes & Susan M. Gass. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters,1983: 35-56. 37. ThePractice in Science Ed. Education. ofConstructivism Tobin, Kenneth. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993. 38. Reddy,Michael. "The Conduit Metaphor." Metaand Thought. Ed. AndrewOrtony.New York: phor Cambridge Univ. Press, 1979: 284-324. 39. Riley, Sue. "Peer Response in an ESL Writing Class: Student Interaction and Subsequent Draft Revision." Diss., Florida State Univ.,Tallahassee (in preparation). 40. Rogoff, Barbara. Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive in Social Context. New York: Oxford Development Univ. Press, 1990. 41. Rommetveit, of InRagner. "On the Architecture Studies and tersubjectivity." ofLanguage, Thought, Verbal Ed. Ragner Rommetveit Communication. & Rolv Blakar. New York: Academic Press, 1979: 93-107. 42. Rumelhart, David E. "Schemata: The Building Blocks of Cognition." Theoretical Issues in Reading Ed. Rand Spiro, Bertram C. Comprehension. Bruce & William E Brewer.Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Earlbaum, 1980: 33-58. 43. Shames, George H., Elisabeth H. Wiig & WayneA.

511 Secord. Human Communication Disorders: An Introduction. New York: MacMillan, 1994. 44. Shannon, Claude L. & WarrenWeaver.TheMathematical Urbana, IL: Univ. Theory ofCommunication. of Illinois Press, 1949. 45. Steffensen, Margaret, C. Joag-Dev & Richard C. Anderson. "Cross-Cultural Perspective on Reading Comprehension." Reading Research 15 (1979): 10-29. Quarterly 46. Talyzina, N. The Psychology ofLearning:Theories of Instruction. Moscow: Learning and Programmed ProgressPress, 1981. 47. Taylor,Charles. HumanAgency and Language: PhilosophicalPapers1. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985. 48. VanPatten,Bill & Teresa Cadierno. "Input Processing and Second Language Acquisition: A Role for Instruction." Modern Language Journal 77 (1993): 45-57. 49. Varonis, Evangeline & Susan M. Gass. "NonConversations:A Model for native/non-native 6 Negotiation of Meaning." Applied Linguistics (1983): 71-90. 50. Wertsch, Mind: A Sociocultural James V. Voices ofthe toMediated Action. Approach Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1991. 51. . "From Social Interaction to Higher Psychological Processes:A Clarificationand Application of Vygotsky's Theory." Human Development 22 1979: 1-22. 52. Weiner,Norbert. TheHuman UseofHumanBeings: and Society. Garden City,NY: DoubleCybernetics day,1954.

No-Fee CopyingforCourse Packs MLJOffers

THE MLJIS PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THAT THERE WILL NO LONGER BE A COPYRIGHT fee for using its articles in course packs for students. We hope that this policy will encourage learning and scholarship by helping instructors make materials available to students. There will continue to be a copyright charge for other use of this material. For further information, contact: Margaret Walsh The University of Wisconsin Press 114 N. Murray Street Madison, WI 53715-1199 Tel: (608) 262-4925; Fax: (608) 262-7560

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 09:33:47 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions