Aljaafreh NegativeFeedbackRegulation 1994

Negative Feedback as Regulation and Second Language Learning in the Zone of Proximal
Development
Author(s): Ali Aljaafreh and James P. Lantolf
Source: The Modern Language Journal , Winter, 1994, Vol. 78, No. 4 (Winter, 1994), pp.
465-483
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers
Associations
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/328585
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.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations and Wiley are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal
This content downloaded from

49.181.17.57 on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 06:19:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Negative Feedback as Regulation and
Second Language Learning in the
Zone of Proximal Development
ALI ALJAAFREH JAMES P. LANTOLF
Department of Linguistics Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics
University of Delaware Cornell University
Newark, DE 19716 Ithaca, NY 14853
Email: jpl5@cornell.edu
SINCE THE LATE SIXTIES AND EARLY SEV- confirmation checks, recastings and the like, or
enties, with the ground breaking publications
explicitly in the form of provision of the correct
of Pit Corder, Burt and Kiparsky, George,form and
by teacher, peer, or native interlocutor;
Richards (14), one of the central themes that
of sec-
it may be accompanied by an explanation,
ond language research has been the study of in the classroom setting; and, that in
especially
learner errors as a reflection of hypothesis
the test-
classroom setting more attention is appar-
ing on the part of second language learners
ently (8;
given to discourse and content errors than
15; 20; 23;).1 Eventually, the attention of
to those
either lexical, grammatical, or phonological
working on learner errors has moved away from
errors (7: p. 141).
the analysis of errors in their own right as indi- the informative findings that have
Despite
cations of hypothesis testing and interlanguage
emerged from the ethnographic tradition, this
development to concern with questions relating
research has not established a strong empirical
link between corrective feedback and inter-
to the potential effects of corrective procedures
on language learning. The fundamental ques- development. Some authors, such as
language
tion is: does error correction lead to learning,
van Lier (p. 182), argue that correction is "an
or are corrective moves by teachers or other variable in language learning" and
important
caretakers ineffective? In addition, somefurther
corol- assume it to be a necessary, though not a
lary questions have also been addressed,sufficient,
includ- condition for learning a second lan-
ing how and when errors should be corrected
guage. Others, like Chaudron, are less san-
(7: p. 135). guine, pointing out that research on error cor-
Research aimed at answering these questions
rection both in and out of the classroom setting
has been carried out in either an ethnographic
has uncovered inconsistencies, ambiguities, and
or an experimental framework.2 Those working
a general ineffectiveness in terms of its effects
within the ethnographic approach have con-
on language learning (7: p. 145). Chaudron
ducted careful observational studies of correc-then calls for "longitudinal research . .. to de-
tive behaviors both in the classroom and natu- termine the extent of learning possible from
ral settings involving teachers, learners, peers,
feedback" (7: p. 152).
native and non-native speakers (7; 8; 17; 22; 24;The experimental approach to the study of
36). This research has shown, among other error correction, deriving much of its impetus
things, that corrective feedback may be mes- from the L2 research informed by Universal
sage-focused or code-focused; that it may be
Grammar (UG), has squarely confronted the
self- or other-initiated and self- or other-
most fundamental of the above questions: Does
completed; that corrective feedback may occur
negative feedback lead to L2 learning? Re-
implicitly in the form of comprehension search
and on this question has been spurred, in
part, by the claim that error correction is appar-
ently neither a necessary nor a sufficient condi-
The Modern Language Journal, 78, iv (1994) tion for L1 learning in children (e.g., 2; 44; 45).
0026-7902/94/465-483 $1.50/0
?1994 The Modern LanguageJournal The controversy that has arisen in the experi-
mental L2 literature is whether we can assume

49.181.17.57 on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 06:19:09 +00:00
466 The Modern Language Journal 78 (1994)
the same situation to hold

How for
the negotiation
adult L2 process
learning
unfolds and how it
leads, child
as seems to be the case for or fails toL1
lead,acquisition
to L2 development forms
the principal aim or
with regard to error correction, of the present paper. Al-
whether
adults require correctivethough the findings
feedback (as of van
both ethnographic
Lier and
assumes) in order to successfully experimental research project
on corrective a feedback
grammar of their L2. have been informative, we are still a long way
The experimental research from aon full understanding
error correc- of how feedback in-
tion, unlike its ethnographic teracts with the L2 learning process.
counterpart, hasFrom the
generated some positive findings experimental studieson the we have some evidence,
inter-
relationship between negative DeKeyser's doubtsfeedback
notwithstanding, and that cor-
learning. A series of recent rective feedback appears
studies (5; 6; to 21;
enhance 23;learning.
32; 34; 35), for example, has We must bear in mind, however, that
demonstrated that controlled
L2 learners provided with experimentation,
corrective as informative
feedback as it may be,
do indeed outperform control groups
really tells us little about howgiven
individuals react
minimal or no negative input. to and use, DeKeyser
or fail to use, feedback
some- to change
what pessimistically concludes, their interlanguage.
however, The ethnographic
that al- re-
though error correction results search, on theinothersome hand,perfor-
has provided fairly
mance improvement forrich information
some about the natureit
learners, of the feed-
fails
to achieve much in the way back processes at the local level, but it has not
of across-the-board
impact on learning (p. 504 providedand
us withp.much 510). Inofhis
evidence if, and how,
study of high school L1 speakers these processesof result in learning.
Dutch learn-What is miss-
ing French, DeKeyser (p. ing is511)
a way of uncovered no
linking learning outcomes with
main effects for error correction but did find specific feedback procedures. We hope the re-
search to be discussed below will serve as an
interaction effects between such factors as pre-
vious experience, aptitude, motivation and anx- initial step in this direction.
iety, and feedback. As for the corollary questions, Chaudron (7:
DeKeyser is hardly alone in recognizing that p. 152), for one, points to the need to determine
corrective feedback, if it is to have any impact"the types of feedback that would best succeed
on learning, has to in some way be attuned in to promoting progress in the target language."
In this regard, Carroll and Swain (p. 361), re-
the individual learner. Birdsong (p. 150), for ex-
ample, in reviewing the research on error cor- port that learners who received explicit correc-
rection in L2 learning, concludes that negative tion procedures, defined as any feedback that
evidence might be a question of "individual "overtly states that a learner's output was not
part of the language-to-be-learned," generally
and/or situational variation." Day, et al (p. 143)
suggest that learner personality may have some- performed better on their experimental tasks
thing to do with "the amount and type of cor- than those learners given implicit feedback,
rection supplied" by the teacher (p. 43). Shar- construed as any instance of feedback from
wood Smith (30; 31) and Schachter argue that which learners have to infer that their linguistic
performance was inaccurate (e. g., confirma-
learners' internal strategies and linguistic devel-
opment may play an important role in deter- tion checks, failures to understand, and re-
mining the effectiveness of negative feedback quests for clarification). Carroll and Swain rea-
and recommend that these should be investi- son that explicit feedback might have been
gated in greater depth than they have to the more beneficial because it identifies the precise
present time. Finally, Spada and Lightbown location and nature of erroneous performance,
(p. 219) wonder "whether different types ofwhileer- implicit negative correction, requires the
ror correction strategies are more effective learners
at to engage in a good deal of mental
different times in learners' development . .. guesswork.3
and
whether teachers go through different phases As in encouraging as the results of such re-
their error correction behaviors dependingsearchon are, it would be premature to conclude,
their perceptions of learners' development." and we are not implying that Carroll and Swain
do, that explicit feedback will always and every-
As we will argue on the basis of the evidence
to be considered below, while error correctionwhere have the upper hand over implicit cor-
ultimately comes down to adjusting feedback rection.
to Our claim, to be fleshed out below, is
the individual learner, adjustments cannot be that both kinds of feedback are relevant for lin-
determined a priori; rather, they must be col-guistic development, but their relevance must
be negotiated between the novice learner and
laboratively negotiated on-line with the learner.

49.181.17.57 on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 06:19:09 +00:00
Ali Aljaafreh and James P Lantolf 467
the expert knower of vidual
the level; first between people
language. In (inter-
other
words, in some cases implicit correction
psychological), and then inside the is
childsuffi-
(intra-
psychological)"
cient to promote learning, while (39:in
p. 57).
others, it is
Central to the evolution
not, and in such cases, explicit feedbackof external, or
issocial,
the
only type of correction functions
that into willinternal, or mental,
elicit a functions
reactive is
response from the learner. As
the process we will
of internalization, argue,
or more the
properly for
relevance of the type of feedback
sociocultural offered
theory, appropriation (26: p. (as
64).
marked by a learner's reactive
Zinchenko (p. 106)response toasthe
refers to this process "the
feedback) is as important
bridgean index
between external andofinternal
develop-
activity."
ment in a second language as are does
Critically, appropriation the actual
not simply repro-
linguistic forms produced by
duce the the
mental learner.
activity of another individual;
rather, it "transforms the process itself and
changes its structure and functions" (38: p. 163).
THE ZONE OF PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT
AND MICROGENESIS IN L2 LEARNING
Sociocultural theory, then, insists that internal
and external functions are related, while at the
The data to be considered in this paper are rejecting any presumption that one is
same time
taken from a larger study on the interaction simply aofcopy of the other (46). The study of
error correction and learning which itself is the
development, then, for sociocultural theory, is
first study we are aware of that attempts the to in-of how mediational means are appro-
study
vestigate the correction/learning interface lon-
priated by the individual as a result of dialogic
gitudinally from within a theoretical, interaction
rather with other individuals.
than from a phenomenological, stance. The
Importantly, the appropriation process is not
framework to which we refer is that developed only observable during ontogenesis of children
by Lev S. Vygotsky (37), his colleagues, into adults, but also during microgenesis in
and fol-
lowers that has come to be known as the socio- which processes undergo change "right before
cultural theory of mind. In particular, we relyone's eyes" in the space of a few days or week, or
even a few seconds, or fractions of seconds (39:
on Vygotsky's notion of zone of proximal develop-
ment (ZPD) to analyze the interaction between p. 61). Research that overlooks microgenetic
error correction and the learning process asgrowth
it often fails to detect what is often the most
unfolds during the dialogic activity collab- interesting and informative data on learning and
oratively constructed by learner and tutor. mental activity (41: p. 55). It is in microgenesis
A fundamental tenet of sociocultural theory that we will search for evidence on the interac-
is its thesis that human mental activity is essen-
tion between error correction and L2 learning.
tially a mediated process in which symbolic, and The transition from inter- to intramental
socioculturally constructed, artifacts, the most
functioning, whether in ontogenesis or micro-
pervasive of which is language, play an essential
genesis, is a dynamic process of reconstruction
role in the mental life of the individual. Hence,
and qualitative change in which the novice and
linguistic activity, including speaking and writ-
the expert collaborate in constructing a mutual
ing, is an indispensable component of such activity frame. This activity frame, or ZPD, rep-
mental operations as voluntary memory, volun- resents a crucial move by Vygotsky to link his
tary attention, planning, monitoring, the for- theoretical concepts with practical psychologi-
mation of intentions, rational thought, and
cal and educational problems. In formulating
learning. Furthermore, these processes are in-
the concept of the ZPD, Vygotsky was critical of
herently social in origin and their development
psychological and educational practices which
in children proceeds from the social, or inter-
assess development and guide educational in-
mental domain, to the individual, or intramen-
tervention solely on the basis of the level of indi-
tal domain, as a consequence of the lin- vidual, independent functioning. Instead, he in-
guistically mediated interaction which arises sisted that two developmental levels of the
between children and other, often more experi- individual must be taken into account: the ac-
enced, members of their sociocultural world, in- tual developmental level, "established as a re-
cluding parents, teachers, siblings, older peers, sult of certain already completed developmental
etc. According to Vygotsky, the ontogenesis of cycles" (39: p. 85), and the level of potential
mental functions is captured in the genetic law of development, the level at which the individual
cultural development as follows: "every function in functions with assistance from, or in collabora-
the child's cultural development appears twice: tion with, more experienced members of
first, on the social level, and later, on the indi- society.

49.181.17.57 on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 06:19:09 +00:00
According to Vygotsky, highly strategic, or implicit,
the potential level of level and pro-
development varies independently gressively becomes from moreactual
specific, more con-
development and is more crete, indicative of mental
until the appropriate level is reached as
growth than actual development. determined byThus, for
the novices in- patterns to
response
stance, two individuals who achieve the same the help.5 Second, help should be contingent,
score on a given test, language or otherwise, meaning that it should be offered only when it
may not both be able to make use of the helpis needed, and withdrawn as soon as the novice
offered by a tutor (e.g., teacher or other stu-shows signs of self-control and ability to func-
dent) to generalize their learning to novel cir-tion independently. Research by Wertsch and
cumstances (4). In Vygotsky's view, the learnerhis colleagues (41-43), for example, has shown
who is able to respond to such help must bethat children often overtly reject help offered
considered to be at a more advanced develop- by parents once the children realize that they
mental level than the one who fails to do so, are capable of carrying out a task alone.
because the learner who responds to help can Graduation and contingency work in tandem
be expected to show a more rapid rate of actualin such a way that the expert, together with the
development. Specifically, then, the ZPD is "thenovice, tries to discover the ZPD of the novice
distance between the actual developmental in order to determine if help is required and if
level as determined by independent problemit is, to jointly work out the appropriate level at
solving and the level of potential developmentwhich to provide it. The process is thus one of
as determined through problem solving under continuous assessment of the novice's needs and
adult guidance or in collaboration with moreabilities and the tailoring of help to those condi-
capable peers" (39: p. 86). The actual level oftions. This process can be accomplished only
development defines development "retrospec- through the collaborative interaction of the ex-
tively" (39: p. 87), while the ZPD defines devel- pert and the novice, which brings us to the third
opment "prospectively" (ibid).4 mechanism of help in the ZPD. Discovering the
The ZPD is the framework, par excellence,potential developmental level of the novice and
which brings all of the pieces of the learning providing appropriate help accordingly is at its
setting together-the teacher, the learner, theircore-a dialogic activity that unfolds between
social and cultural history, their goals and mo- more capable and less capable individuals. Dia-
tives, as well as the resources available to them, logue is an essential component of Vygotskyan
including those that are dialogically con- theory (40; 41), and hence of the ZPD. Without
structed together. Indeed, Vygotsky draws at-dialogic negotiation, it is virtually impossible to
tention to the utility of the ZPD as a tool for thediscover the novice's ZPD (42).
researcher to explore and come to an under-
standing of the internal course of developmentTHE STUDY
when he states: "By using this method we can
take account of not only the cycles and matura- We now consider some of the findings of
tion processes that have already been com-study designed to investigate the effects of n
pleted but also those that are currently in the ative feedback, or more appropriately within
state of formation, that are just beginning to ciocultural theory, other-regulation, on the
mature and develop" (39: p. 87). crogenetic development of a second langu
Mechanisms ofEffective Help in the ZPD. On the among adults. Since the full study from whi
basis of Vygotsky's statements and the empiricalthis paper is drawn is quite extensive in t
and theoretical work of contemporary socio-scope of its findings (1), we will have to limit
cultural researchers (9; 42), specific mechan-analysis here to only some of the data that il
isms of effective intervention within the ZPD trate how the negotiation of corrective feed
can be identified. First, intervention should be-
back, or other-regulation, in the ZPD promo
graduated. Help provided by a more experienced learning.6
member in a joint activity is designed to dis- Subjects. As an initial endeavor to investigate
second language learning in the ZPD, we de-
cover the novice's ZPD in order to offer the
appropriate level of assistance and to cided
en- to rely on written texts rather than oral
courage the learner to function at his or production,
her not only because we felt written
potential level of ability. The purpose hereperformance
is to would expedite data collection,
estimate the minimum level of guidance but re-
also because we thought it would facilitate
quired by the novice to successfully performthe interaction
a between the expert (researcher)
given task. Help, therefore, normally startsandat
thea learners. Consequently, the project in-

49.181.17.57 on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 06:19:09 +00:00
Ali Aljaafteh and James P Lantolf 469
volved students enrolled intutorial,

Prior to each antheeight-week
tutor read each essay sec-
ond level (the most advanced level
in order to detect problems, being
but it is important to 6) ESL
writing and readingnote course
that at this pointoffered
he made no attempt toby the
English Language Institute of
prepare a specific set ofthe
correctiveUniversity
procedures to of
Delaware. Although a be followed with
total of the student.
nine Corrective pro-
students par
ticipated in the full study,
cedures in the ZPD only thebetween
must be negotiated three who
were in the ZPD group the noviceare considered
and the expert. The idea is to offer here.
Since it was necessary just
for enough assistancegroup
this to encourage and to guide
take part
in one extra tutorial theper learner week
to participate inwith one
the activity and to of the
researchers outside of assumetheir five for
increased responsibility weekly
arriving at class-
room meetings, the course
the appropriate instructor
performance. One simply can- asked for
volunteers, informing the this
not determine students that they
beforehand, without compro-
would receive one free tutoring
mising the potential session
thatjoint activity in the ZPD pe
week and would be helping has to promote the tutor/researche
learning. The expert, however,
in a study of how language must try to be sensitiveteachers
to the learners' actual can hel
learners. They were given no
level of competence, and additional
in Wertsch's (41: p. 176) infor-
mation relevant to the nature of the research terminology, "lure" them into functioning in an
project. Since all of the students volunteered,
appropriate way without making the task frus-
trating. Before beginning the collaborative
the teacher randomly selected three individuals
for the ZPD group-one Japanese (Y in the
phase of each tutorial, in each case the learner
protocols), one Spanish (N in the protocols), was asked to read her essay, underline whatever
and one Portuguese (F in the protocols) errors she could find, and correct whatever she
speaker. Two of the students (Y and F) had could. During this time, the tutor was present,
been in the US for two months and one (N) had but was busying himself with other tasks. When
resided in the country for six months at the the learner indicated that she had completed
time of the study. All were female.7 the reading and error correction process, the
Procedures. As part of the course syllabus, stu- tutor joined her and collaborative correction
dents were expected to write one in-class essay began. In the following paragraph we outline a
per week on a topic of their choice for a total of generalized schemata of a prototypical tutorial;
eight compositions. The learners in the ZPD however, as the protocols taken from the actual
group were informed that they would receive tutorials show, things did not usually proceed
corrective feedback during their tutorials with quite so smoothly and the interactions were of-
the researcher and not from their instructor. ten quite complex.
The tutorials were conducted in a one-on-one At the outset, the tutor asks the learner if she
format in the tutor's office. Each session lasted encountered any errors during her private read-
thirty to forty-five minutes. All sessions were ing
au- of the essay. If the learner identifies any mis-
diotaped in their entirety for later analysis. takes but fails to correct them, or does so errone-
The students' first composition was not cor-ously, they are dealt with as the pair considers
rected. It was used to develop an initial profile
each sentence of the essay. Whenever a target
of the learners' grammatical competence and
error is discovered or whenever the learner asks a
to determine, to some extent at least, likely
question about some aspect of the composition,
problem areas. Although learners were given
the reading process halts and the correction proc-
help during the tutorials on a variety of errors,
ess begins. The tutor directs the learner's atten-
for purposes of analysis, those structures thattion to a particular sentence containing an er-
had a high probability of recurrence in subse-ror and asks a general question of the type: "Do
quence essays were selected. Four grammatical you notice any problem, or is there anything
features met our-admittedly less than rigid- wrong in this sentence?" If this strategy fails to
produce a response, the learner's attention is
criteria: articles, tense marking, use of preposi-
tions, and modal verbs. Since this was a writing
then narrowed to the line or phrase in which
and reading course, the particular instructor the error appears, using an utterance such as:
did not believe it necessary to provide much in"Is there anything wrong in this line or seg-
the way of explicit formal instruction on the ment?" If this also fails to prompt a response, a
grammatical properties of English. On occa- more explicit strategy is adopted. Thus, help is
sion, however, he did answer grammatical ques-increasingly elaborated until the learner shows
tions posed by the students on a wide array signs
of of responsiveness toward the error at
topics.8 hand. If the narrowing strategy also fails, a spe-

49.181.17.57 on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 06:19:09 +00:00
cific clue is offered which indicates the nature viding corrective help, the tutor's task is to
of the error, for example: "Pay attention to the bring the target form into focus and, in so do-
tense of the verb." If the subject is still unableing,
to begin the process of co-constructing the
recognize the error, the tutor identifies it and ZPD with the learner.
the learner is asked to correct it. If the learner Level 2. The learner is able to notice the error,
fails here, the tutor moves to even more direct but cannot correct it, even with intervention.
forms of regulation, such as "Use the past parti- This indicates some degree of development, but
ciple of the verb." If this also produces no re- more importantly, even though the learner
sponse, clues about the correct answer are must rely heavily on the tutor, in contrast to
given. Finally, if this produces no responsive ac- level 1, an opening is provided for the tutor and
tion from the learner, the tutor provides the the learner to begin negotiating the feedback
correct answer. This is accompanied by a brief process and for the learner to begin to progress
grammatical explanation when the tutor feels it toward self-regulation. The help required tends
to be helpful. to be toward the lower, explicit, end of the regu-
Developmental Criteria. Two criteria were used latory scale given in Figure I below.
to determine the microgenetic growth of the Level 3. The learner is able to notice and cor-
learners' interlanguage. The first, a more tradi- rect an error, but only under other-regulation.
tional product-oriented criterion, was to search The learner understands the tutor's interven-
for signs of improvement in the subjects' use of tion and is able to react to the feedback offered.
the relevant linguistic features in subsequent es- The levels of help needed to correct the error
says. Here concern focused on a reduction in move toward the strategic, implicit, end of the
frequency or complete eradication of those er- regulatory scale.
rors as well as on the generalization of learning Level 4. The learner notices and corrects an
beyond the specific cases for which the learner error with minimal, or no obvious feedback
had received help.9 from the tutor and begins to assume full re-
The second criterion is, we believe, quite dis- sponsibility for error correction. However, de-
tinct from anything reported in the L2 litera- velopment has not yet become fully intramental,
ture to date, and this is a criterion that falls since the learner often produces the target
naturally out of learning in the ZPD-does the form incorrectly and may still need the tutor to
learner show signs of movement away from re-confirm the adequacy of the correction. The
liance on the tutor, or other-regulation, and to-learner may even reject feedback from the tutor
wards reliance on the self, or self-regulation ? Thiswhen it is unsolicited (e.g., "Let me see if I can
was determined by the frequency and quality ofdo it alone").
help that the learner elicited from the tutor in Level 5. The learner becomes more consistent
the correction of the same error in subsequent in using the target structure correctly in all con-
episodes in the same tutorial session and in sub-texts. In most cases, the individual's use of the
sequent tutorials dealing with new composi-correct target form is automatized. Whenever
tions. More specifically, we observed five gen-aberrant performance does arise, however, no-
eral levels of transition from intermental to ticing and correcting of errors do not require
intramental functioning as the learnersintervention moved from someone else. Thus, the indi-
through the ZPD toward self-regulation and vidual is fully self-regulated.
control over the target structures. These The five transitional levels represent, then,
levels
loosely parallel the transitional stagesthree uncov-
general stages of development. The first
ered by Wertsch and his colleagues for child
stage, encompassing levels 1 through 3, repre-
development (42, 43).10 The levels are charac- sents other-regulation in which the learner
terized by varying instantiations of three mustpa-
rely in some way on another individual in
rameters, namely, need for intervention, order to perform. Without help from someone
noticing
an error, and correcting the error. else, the individual is not able to notice or cor-
Level 1. The learner is not able to notice, or rect his or her errors. The next stage is partial
correct the error, even with intervention from self-regulation, encompassing level 4. At this
the tutor. At this level, the learner does not have
stage learners are fully capable of detecting and
a sufficient basis from which to interpret the correcting their own mistakes without outside
tutor's moves to provide help, and probably hasfeedback; their performance, however, is not
no awareness that there is even a problem. The automatized. The third, and final developmen-
tal stage, is that in which the learners' perfor-
tutor, therefore, must assume full responsibility
mance, including corrective behavior, is com-
for correcting the error. Thus, rather than pro-

49.181.17.57 on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 06:19:09 +00:00
pletely self-generated and automatized and mis-
FIGURE I
takes emanate from legitimate slips of the
Regulatory Scale-Implicit (strategic) to Expli
tongue, or the pen, rather than from incom-
plete learning."
Figure I presents a listing of the levels of help,
0. Tutor asks the learner to read, find the err
or regulation, that were identified in the anal-
and correct them independently, prior to t
ysis of the interactions that occurred during the
tutorial.
tutorial sessions. The levels are arranged
1. Construction from
of a "collaborative frame"
what we consider to be the most indirect, or prompted by the presence of the tutor as a
implicit (lower numbers), to the most direct, or potential dialogic partner.
explicit (the higher numbers). We point out 2. Prompted or focused reading of the sentenc
that the levels were not determined in advance that contains the error by the learner or the
tutor.
of the study. Moreover, except for level 0, they
were not rigidly followed in every case. In any3. Tutor indicates that something may be wrong
in a segment (e.g.,sentence, clause, line)-"Is
particular instance of corrective intervention,
there anything wrong in this sentence ?"
the collaborative work of both participants de-
4. Tutor rejects unsuccessful attempts at recog-
termines the level of assistance to be invoked, if
nizing the error.
one or more levels will be skipped, where to stop
5. Tutor narrows down the location of the error
and allow the learner to assume responsibility, (e.g., tutor repeats or points to the specific
and when to withhold assistance. Thus, micro- segment which contains the error).
genetic development, according to our second 6. Tutor indicates the nature of the error, but does
criterion, is evidenced whenever the negotiated not identify the error (e.g., "There is something
feedback moves from the bottom to the top ofwrong with the tense marking here").
the regulatory hierarchy.12 7. Tutor identifies the error ("You can't use an
auxiliary here").
8. Tutor rejects learner's unsuccessful attempts at
DATA ANALYSIS correcting the error.
9. Tutor provides clues to help the learner arrive
Before considering protocols that illustrate at the correct form (e.g., "It is not really past
how microgenesis arises through intervention but some thing that is still going on").
in the ZPD, we will look at some protocols 10.which
Tutor provides the correct form.
demonstrate how feedback is negotiated11. inTutor
the provides some explanation for use of the
ZPD in terms of the regulatory scale givencorrect in form.
Figure I. Errors for which implicit strategic12. Tutor provides examples of the correct pattern
feedback proved to be effective are considered when other forms of help fail to produce an
to be high in ZPD (e.g., level 1, 2, 3), since appropriate
the responsive action.
learner is close to independent performance,
while those that require explicit feedback are
said to be low in the ZPD (levels 10, 11, mal12), form
be- of otherderived help available to the
learner in the activity of error correction. In
cause the learner is further away from produc-
ing the correct form without help. point of fact, however, even though Level 0 is
The Collaborative Frame as a Source ofnoncollaborative,
Feed- it can not legitimately be con-
strued
back. Levels 1 and 0 on the scale entail the same as nonsocial activity. It is clearly social,
since, for one thing, the learner undertakes to
surface behavior; that is, reading of the essay by
correct her composition at the request of the
the learner. At a more abstract level, however,
tutor; thus, this activity is situated within the
they are quite different-the difference being
that the reading at level 1 takes place when theevent of error correction, which begins
larger
when the student enters the tutor's office.'3
tutor and the learner are in a collaborative pos-
ture, while at Level 0 the expectation is that Thus,the
even though the tutor and student may be
learner is to rely on herself. Level 1, therefore, doing different things at Level 0, the activity of
marks the beginning of the collaborativesearching inter- for errors is still social, but it need
action, while level 0 is outside of the collabora- not be collaborative. We examine protocol (A),
tive frame. A shift in orientation thus brings as an illustration of how this strategic form of
with it a source of regulation that was not avail- regulation functions.
able to the learner before. The presence of a dia- (A) N3*
logic partner helps the learner in a subtle, 1. N: "It's a little difficult for me"
though significant, way. It represents the mini- 2. T(utor): uhum

49.181.17.57 on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 06:19:09 +00:00
3. N: Is good? sumed the role of dialogic partner, the learner's
4. T: It's good orientation toward the task of finding errors in
5. N: To tell you her essay changed. This is important, because,
6. T: uhum although it may seem as if the learner contin-
7. N: Or tell to you said to you ued to act alone, she did not. We refer to the
8. T: To tell to tell you is finehelp triggered by the dialogic presence of an-
9. N: To tell you where or whatother,
... more expert, individual as the collaborative
10. T: Or ah okay to tell you frame. The collaborative frame seems to mark a
situation
11. N: "Where or what will I do ten years as one in which correction is to occur,
later" even prior to any overt move on the part of the
12. T: Okay tutor, and thus represents the miminal level of
13. N: Okay? contingent help available to the learner in the
14. T: That's good ZPD.
15. N: "But I will try explain to you" ... The learners' utterances during the tutorial
To is right here? interaction provide clear signs of the effect of
16. T: aah, yeah the collaborative frame as a source of implicit
17. N: Is right? corrective feedback. In Protocol (A), for exam-
18. T: Uhum, it's right ple, the learner clearly seems to recognize the
19. N: Okay potential that the tutor's presence has for test-
20. T: Yeah, "I will try to .. ." ing and confirming her hypotheses. Although
21. N: Okay, "to explain ..." she correctly uses the verb tell with the indirect
22. T: To explain object in line 5, in line 7 she volunteers another
23. N: "To explain to you something way of using the verb as well as an alternative
about [I prefer "about" no] of my construction with said. This is significant be-
24. inquietudes, about some inquit ... cause in earlier tutorials she had received feed-
inquit..." back regarding her incorrect omission of the

25. T: Okay, what is inquietudes? preposition to with the verb said and similar
26. N: I think this is Spanish (laughs) verbs before indirect objects as in "I have said
* The capital letter is the learner's initial you." She offers the correct form of the con-
(N=Spanish L1; Y=Japanese L1; F=Portuguese struction juxtaposed to the verb tell, where she
Li). The number following refers to the appears to be engaged in testing and refor-
tutorial session from which the protocol is mulating her hypothesis about the use of these
taken. The text in quotes indicates reading of verbs and the preposition. Importantly, in line
the essay. (15) she is able to generalize what she has
learned in the earlier interaction to the verb
In protocol (A), the learner, with self- explain. She is not fully confident, however, and
initiation and self-correction, replaces the asks for confirmation from the tutor (lines 15
preposition of which she originally used, with and 17). Generally, this learner shows an orien-
the more appropriate "about" in line 23. She tation toward joint activity that is markedly dif-
also offers a number of clarification questions ferent from working alone, or even with the tu-
and confirmation checks in lines 3, 7, 13, 15, and tor physically present but not part of the
17. She had two prior opportunities to detect collaborative dyad.
errors in her essay, once on reading it prior to Some learners, in fact, openly commented on
coming to the tutor's office and once on read- their inability to notice errors when working on
ing it in the office before the tutorial began. their own, as protocol (B) illustrates.
When asked if she had found any errors, she
replied that she had not. (B) Y1
The question, then, is what triggers her at- 1. T: Yeah, you spent time with us. Okay
tempts at self-correction? To be sure, they are "and I passed over year with
initiated by the learner, but in the presence of 2. my family." Okay, here, is there
the expert tutor. When the learner read and anything wrong here ? "and"
searched for errors in her essay on her own, the 3. passed..,. over... year.., with
tutor was busying himself with something else my family."
and was, therefore, ostensibly unavailable as a 4. Y: (very softly) passed over a ?
collaborator. When the two came together into 5. T: Okay, the article...
a social configuration in which the tutor as- 6. Y: uha I forget this mmm

49.181.17.57 on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 06:19:09 +00:00
7. T: Yeah. "pass over a
(C) year."
and (D) entailOkay. It's
the same error made by two
different learners regarding use of the definite
8. Y: But I don't notice article
by with USA.
myself
First of all, in protocol (B) (C) the

NI learner is able
to find and correct the error on the basis of the 1. T: okay in this, okay, "Although I was
level 3 help provided by the tutor. In line 8, preparing my travel to
importantly, she openly states that she was un-2. USA, with some time almost always
able to notice the error by herself during the we have some thing to do
prereading. We believe her use of "but" is espe-3. in the last." Do you ... is there ...
cially revealing because it may indicate a sense do you see any thing
of frustration at not being able to detect the 4. wrong here in this line here ? "Al-
mistake on her own, even though she had been though I was preparing
explicitly instructed to do so. She clearly seems5. myself"
to recognize the difference between the two6. N: I don't know!
activities-the individual working alone and 7. T: Okay, "Although I was preparing
the individual working jointly in the collabora- my ... travel to USA" okay aah
tive frame-and further realizes that, at this 8. N: long travel
point at least, she is not able to provide correc- 9. T: Okay, you say "preparing my..."
tive feedback for herself. The fact that the tutor instead of travel . . . what's
is not just present in the room, but is acting as a10. a better word to use ?
collaborator in the correction process, compels11. N: Trip
the learner to orient to the activity differently,12. T: Okay
thus enabling her, with some help, to detect a 13. N: Is better trip ?
feature of the L2 that she had taken in earlier 14. T: Okay. Yeah "preparing my trip,"
but had not yet fully appropriated. Thus, in okay. There is also something
some cases-and as far as we can tell these are not 15. wrong with the article here. Do y
predictable in advance-the simple act of estab- know articles ?
lishing the collaborative frame is an effective16. N: Articles, yes
form of other-regulation.14 17. T: Yeah so what's ...
Different ZPDs for Different Learners and Different18. N: eeh on my trip to ...
Structures. An important dimension of the nego-19. T: What is the correct article to use
tiation of feedback and microgenesis in the here ?
ZPD for which we have uncovered clear evi- 20. N: Isn't to is ... no ... eeh ... article ?
dence is that different learners often have dif- 21. T: What is the article that we should ...
ferent ZPDs for the same target language form22. N: It
and will therefore require different levels of 23. T: No. Article ... you know the arti-
help. It is important to remember that all three cles like the or a or an
learners under consideration in this study had24. N: The trip ... my, is not my ? no ...
been placed into the same class on the basis of a the trip ?
placement exam. This is an important point be-25. T: My... yeah it's okay, you say my trip
cause, as the reader will recall from our earlier 26. N: My trip
discussion of Vygotsky's formulation of the 27. T: Okay
ZPD, no matter how sophisticated our assess- 28. N: To United States
ment instruments may be, we cannot arbitrarily 29. T: Yeah USA, what article we need to
assume that any two learners who attain identi- use with USA ?
cal scores on a test are necessarily at the same 30. N: a, an, the
stage in their interlanguage growth, if all that 31. T: the, which one ?
we assess is their actual developmental level. It is 32. N: but the ?
imperative to assess the learners' potential level 33. T: Okay, do we use the ... ah prepar-
of development as well. ing my trip to . . . the USA?
The examples that follow illustrate how the 34. N: aaah ah (utters something in Span-
same error made by different learners, more of- ish) ah okay when I use when I use
ten than not, represents different problems for USA use with article
each learner, and consequently requires differ- 35. T: Okay
ent levels of regulation from the tutor. Protocols 36. N: The

49.181.17.57 on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 06:19:09 +00:00
(D) Fl notice her omission of the infinitive particle to.

1. T: "In the same day I mailed them In this case, the collaborative frame, which was
... to .. ." okay alright. What effective in triggering a responsive action from
2. about also ... is there some thing the same learner in protocol (A) for the prepo-
else still in this sition to, is not effective here when to functions
3. sentence ? as a particle. Therefore, the tutor is actively
4. F: To the drawn into the correction process. His initial
5. T: hum ? attempt at providing help is strategic, as he sig-
6. F: The nals through his intonation alone (line 2), that
something
7. T: Okay, "to the" ... yeah, "to the is amiss. The learner immediately
US." locates the apparent source of trouble in line 3
and at the tutor's recommendation, she rereads
On the face of it, both N and F produced the
the phrase and incorporates the correction.
same error in their respective compositions:
The tutor then confirms the correction.
omission of the article with US. When we exam-
Finally, we consider protocol (F), in which
ine the interaction that transpired in the two
the tutor attempts to elicit from learner Y the
protocols, however, a more informative picture
missing preposition to in a locative clause.
emerges. While in (C) a wide range of help is
necessary before the learner even begins to real-(F) Y3
ize what the problem is, in (D) simply reading 1. T: Okay. "After I will study in Boston
for nine months, I'll return
the sentence containing the error (line 1) and
suggesting that something is wrong (lines 2 to 2. my country." What do you mean
3) is sufficient for the learner to notice and "after" here ? Do you mean
correct the mistake. 3. after this (referring to previous
In terms of the regulatory scale, for learner paragraph) or after ...
N, all levels of feedback are used, but for 4. you study nine months you go
back ?
learner F, only levels 1 and 2 are needed. Thus,
5. Y: Yes, after nine months I mean
the same feature represents two different ZPDs
6. T: Uhum
for the two learners. In the case of F, the feature
7. Y: After nine months
is high in the ZPD and the learner is very close
to being able to control the feature by herself. 8. T: After nine months you go ...
In the case of (N), on the other hand, the same 9. Y: "I'll back my country"
10. T: You will back
feature is low in the ZPD and prospects are that
she will continue to need fairly explicit help. 11. Y: "I will be back my country ..."
Hence, we cannot assume that the error repre- 12. T: Okay, "After I will study in Boston
for nine months [ah ...
sents the same problem for each learner, be-
cause the learners each produce it from a differ- 13. (softly)] nine months, I'll return
ent location in the ZPD. my country." Okay, what
14. is ... do you think ... is there any-
The protocols given in (E) and (F) further
exemplify our point with regard to the impor- thing missing here ?
15. "I'll return my country..."
tance of linking appropriate forms of corrective
16. Y: Return to ?
feedback to the individual learner's responsive
moves. 17. T: Okay
In (F), the sentence containing the error is
(E) N3
read a number of times. On some of these read-
1. N: Okay... "I would like spend in
ings, the location of the error is narrowed by
focusing on the phrase where the preposition is
2. T: Okay ?
expected to appear; yet, the learner still fails to
3. N: Spend...
notice that something is missing. Only when the
4. T: Read again
5. N: uhum " I would like to spend" tutor explicitly points out the precise location
of the problem and asks if something is missing
6. T: Okay, you're missing to here
(lines 14 and 15) is a responsive action from the
7. N: "To spend in United States two or
learner triggered (line 16). It is evident that the
three years."
subtle sources of feedback that were successful
Upon reading her composition at the outset with learner N in protocol (E) are not helpful
of the interaction (line 1), the learner does not for learner Y. She clearly needs more explicit

49.181.17.57 on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 06:19:09 +00:00
help to correct the error, which 28. T: Okay,
comes "Onein of the
my dreams for my
form of a narrowing down of the future location is toofgo the
..."
error and explicitly indicating 29. N: Tosomething
that go to Germany is
missing. 30. T: To Germany and ...
Microgenesis in the ZPD. Now that we have 31. N: One we can't do right (laughs)
some feel for how feedback is negotiated in the 32. T: No, that's fine. You're doing fine
ZPD, we can consider how development arises 33. N: Filine ? (laughs)
as a result of corrective help. To do this we will 34. T: Yeah
present some sample protocols which illustrate 35. N: No, please, this is very bad
the impact of feedback on microgenesis within (laughs). No very ...
a particular tutorial, as well as across tutorials. 36. T: Yeah, but I mean you have done
In each case we will be looking for changes lot of...
from intermental, or other-regulated perfor- 37. N: This is ... (laughs)

mance, to intramental, or self-regulated perfor- 38. T: Work, you know. Other things are
mance, as well as for the learners' ability to gen- getting better, so ...
eralize what they appropriate in one linguistic 39. N: And a lot of work, no, I don't like
context to other relevant contexts. We begin this. Why I write bull shit ?
with protocol (G), which elucidates the micro- 40. I don't like it (laughs)
genetic process for the modal can across epi-
sodes in the same tutorial.
In protocol (G), the tutor uses several levels of
implicit regulation-he reads the relevant sen-
tence, hints at the nature of the error, specifies
(G) N3
its location, identifies its nature, and rejects in-
1. T: "To Germany." Do you see anything
appropriate attempts by the learner to correct
also wrong here ? "my future is
it-but is still unable to trigger an adequate
2. can go to Germany" ... What
responsive move from the learner. In line 8 the
about the use of the auxiliary
3. verb here ?
learner overtly states that she does not know
4. N: Is... is... how to correct the error, at which point the tu-
tor begins to provide more explicit help and
5. T: Is can go ?
finally, in line 17, casts the verb phrase in its
6. N: Is can go
correct form. The learner then finally responds
7. T: Do you see something wrong here ?
to the tutor's moves and they both engage in a
How to say it ?
8. N: No, I don't know
dialogue about the construction, which the
learner turns into an opportunity to express her
9. N: Okay, how how to use ...
frustration regarding her failure to appropriate
10. N: Is will go the feedback.
11. T: "One of my dreams for my future
A short time later in the same tutorial, the
is . .." (rising intonation)
same problem was encountered in the sentence
12. N: Will go?
"Another dream mine is can go to Japan," but
13. T: No (lengthened vowel) ...
14. N: No this time the learner's responsive action is quite
different and shows a shift toward self-regu-
15. T: Okay, is... what...?
16. N: Is... lation, as seen in protocol (H).
17. T: To go (H) N3
18. N: To go not "can" ? 1. N: "Another dream mine is" ... ah ah
19. T: Yeah, because you have here, amm like ... what? I can change
... this is an auxiliary and 2. now.
20. this is another auxiliary or3.modal T: Okay ...
21. N: Yeah 4. N: Okay. "Another dream m
22. T: So you have them together ... is to go" again
23. N: Yes, because I ... the verb form 5. T: Okay "is to go..."
and two verbs together, yes. 6. N: "Is to go
24. T: Yeah, so yeah two verbs together. 7. T: Okay, "Another dream of mine is:"
So... ... instead of can, "to go is to
25. N: I know 8. go"
26. T: One of my... is to go to Germany
9. N: "is to go to Japan. I thinkJapan
27. N: Oh my God ! (laughs) an interesting country in

49.181.17.57 on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 06:19:09 +00:00
10. culture, metho... methodology" 14. N: Because is ... if we have good
methodologia because is no is no only one.
15. T: Okay
In (H) the learner displays evidence of appro-
16. N: Is general ...
priation of the help given in the earlier episode
17. T: Okay
presented in (G). We notice a marked reduction 18. N: idea...
in the amount of help needed by the learner to 19. T: Yeah
take over and complete the correction. The tu-
20. N: general good comprehension
tor, in fact, does not have to provide any help for 21. T: Yeah, so it's not also count
the learner, who is able to self-initiate (line 1) and 22. N: Yeah
self-correct the error (line 4), simply on the basis 23. T: It's mass
of reading the sentence in the tutor's presence. 24. N: It's mass
The learner's metacomments, in our view, pro-
25. T: Comprehension. You can't say one
vide additional evidence of movement toward
comprehension, two comprehen-
self-regulation. In line (1), for instance, she asks sions
herself a question about what she has written
26. N: Okay
("What?"), which she then proceeds to imme-
diately answer ("I can change now"), indicating In (I) the learner uses the indefinite article a
that she knows the correct form. She also appears
inappropriately with the mass noun comprehen-
to indicate, by her utterance "again" at the end
sion. She relies on the tutor's feedback to gener-
of line (4), recognition that her error hereate is the
thecorrect form of the construction. The
same as her earlier mistake discussed in (G).
tutor does this without having to resort to ex-
These utterances, in fact, appear to be private plicit levels of help, indicating that the general
speech--speech whose function is not to commu- location of the error is sufficient (line 6). At
nicate with someone else but to assist the self in
this point, the learner's responsive action is trig-
problem-solving situations (37; 40; 41). In terms
gered and she is able to assume responsibility
of our criterion, learner N shows signs of micro-
for correcting the error. It seems clear, however,
genetic development from Level 1 to Level 3, orwithout the tutor's implicit level of inter-
that
perhaps even Level 4. vention the learner would not have noticed the
To observe the effects of help on micro- error. Again, in terms of our criterion for devel-
genesis across tutorials, we will consider proto-
opment, we can say that the learner is probably
cols (I) through (K) as the same learner strug-
at Level 3, since she does notice and correct her
gles with articles and mass nouns. error, but only as a result of the tutor's inter-
vention.
(I) N5 Be that as it may, even though N is able to

1. T: Okay, "when we read and think we locate and correct her error with implicit help,
can write day after day [okay, the tutor apparently feels the need to move to
2. right] day after day better. [Okay] an explicit level of help beginning in line (8)
is we have a good and extending throughout the remainder of the
3. comprehension." Do you see any- protocol. It could be argued that the tutor
thing here ? "If we have ... engages in such a move in order to determine if
4. a good comprehension" . . . the learner understood the generalization at is-
5. N: A good comp ... rehension sue and was not just operating locally. Of
6. T: uhum, "if we have .. ." Do you see course, there are other ways of making this de-
anything with the article ? termination, such as waiting until the pattern
7. N: "If if we have ... good comprehen- recurs in future performance and observing if
sion" it is correctly rendered or if the learner is able
8. T: Okay, "good comprehension." You to rectify any erroneous patterns that may arise.
know why ? Why we are not using On the other hand, the tutor's move could sim-
9. a? ply have been a waste of time, or even worse, it
10. N: When we read... when we... if might have resulted in confusion and the jet-
we have... tisoning of a perfectly appropriate hypothesis
on article use.
11. T: "If we have good comprehension"
We now
12. N: aah because ... wh why don't we consider
... the protocol given in (J),
13. T: yeah, why don't we use a ?taken
Why from
it's a later episode during the same tu-
wrong to use a? torial session.

49.181.17.57 on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 06:19:09 +00:00
(J) N5 6. T: But what do you see wrong in
1. T: aah and then you can say what ? these two sentences ...
... "the most import ... is ... 7. N: Ah just a moment. "We can ... see
2. N: (softly) thing we can ., we can ... see"
3. T: is to think in the foreign lan- 8. T: Uhum
guage," right ? "But but [what?] 9. N: It... grey

4. make compositions is difficult be- 10. T: Okay
cause [let me see] . . . 11. N: Big
5. because you need to have a good 12. T: Okay, grey big
13. N: Layers
6. N: (N crosses out the article a) 14. T: Layers
7. T: Okay, no a 15. N: Layers in the sky
8. N: (laughs) 16. T: Uhum
9. T: "because you need to have good 17. N: Because is no one only, is all the
grammar, punctuation and...
10. perfectly.. ." perfectly ? 18. T: Layers, it is not singular. Right,
that's good
In the above episode, the tutor reads the por-
19. N: Grey big layers... yes (laughs)
tion of text containing a target error and then
20. T: In the sky
pauses just before externalizing the noun. The 21. N: With ... dense
reading and the pause are sufficient corrective
22. T: Okay
help to elicit the appropriate responsive action
23. N: (Laughs)
from the learner, who immediately proceeds to
24. T: Dense, that's good
cross out the indefinite article. Actually, the tu- 25. N: Dense smoke
tor's pause and N's responsive action in line 6
26. T: With dense smog
occur almost simultaneously. Given that the tu-
27. N: "Produced by carbon monoxide o
tor's regulation is situated at the upper end of the the vehicle."
the Regulatory Scale, it appears that the learner
is close to being able to provide corrective feed-
The learner is immediately able to correct her
back for herself and is, thus, developing toward misuse of the indefinite article with the mass
greater independence, or self-regulation. The
noun smog in line 1, thus providing evidence of
learner's laughter in line 8 suggests that she is
generalization of feedback across tutorials. Of
conscious of the error, and that she is con-
even more interest is what we observe in lines 6
sciously providing the correct answer. This level
and 7, where the learner overtly interrupts the
of self-awareness in the process of feedback and
error correction is characteristic of the transi- tutor's utterance and subsequently inhibits his
attempt to offer assistance. In so doing, she as-
tion from other- to self-regulated performance
sumes fuller responsibility for finding and cor-
(16; 33).
recting the error in "a grey big layers.'"15 She
Furthermore, it seems that N is able to gener-
does this by externalizing her own corrective
alize with regard to the nonuse of articles with
feedback process beginning in line 7 and end-
mass nouns, on the basis of the feedback given
ing in line 9 with the correct form, "grey." Fi-
at the outset of the tutorial, protocol (I), to a
nally, in line 17 she externalizes her understand-
later point in the same tutorial, protocol (J).
ing that the article cannot be used, in this case
Hence, she correctly extends the help given in
because the noun with which it co-occurs, layers,
the case of comprehension to good grammar. Further
is singular. Here then we see evidence of psy-
extension is observed in the protocol given in
(K) taken from the final tutorial for N, which chological, as well as linguistic, development
was conducted one week later. and N shows that she has formed a generaliza-
tion with regard to nonuse of indefinite articles
(K) N6 with mass nouns and with plural count nouns.
1. T: "We can see a grey big layers in Moreover, she curbs the offer of help from the
the sky with a dense smog" What is tutor and resolves the problem with only mini-
... do you mal evaluative feedback from the tutor.
2. see anything wrong here ? We will consider three final protocols, in
3. N: Dense smog with ah heavy or... which we observe interaction between the feed-
4. T: That's fine, yeah this is good back provided by the tutor and the learner's
5. N: This is good? attempt to generalize across episodes as well as

49.181.17.57 on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 06:19:09 +00:00
tutorials. While the learner, in26.essence,
F: Live has dif-
ficulties fully appropriating the 27. T:help,
Ah exactly,
and okay.
thus So when you use
ultimately fails to generalize across contexts,
this in the past then the second
the interaction between the tutor and the verb is the simple ...
learner stimulated by the failure is quite28. F: yes
infor-
mative with regard to how generalization 29. oc-
T: Form, okay ... aah "in that mo-
curs. As Vygotsky (39) points out, we often
ment I could not .. ."
30.oper-
learn more about how a cognitive system F: Live in the house
ates when we observe it under conditions of fail-
ure and breakdown than when we observe the
In (L), the learner incorrectly marks the mai
verb, rather than the modal, for tense. Notice,
system functioning smoothly. In the protocols,
however, that she correctly marks tense in the
taken from different episodes of the same tuto-
case of auxiliary do + main verb in line 2. The
rial and from different tutorials, the tutor and
tutor first asks if the learner can locate her error
learner attempt to work out the correct tense
simply on the basis of his reading the sentence
markings for modal + main verb constructions.
(lines 3 through 6), whereupon the learner re-
sponds in line 7 that she cannot. In lines 8
(L) Fl
through 10, by explicitly referring to the modal
1. T: Okay, "to the ... [yeah] to the US.
and asking if she knows something about modals
[Okay] In that moment I can't
2. ... lived in the house because I
(to which he receives a positive response), the
tutor subsequently narrows F's search space. He
didn't have any furniture."
then again asks what is wrong [presumably with
3. Is that ... what what is wrong with
the tense of the modal]. The learner, however,
that sentence, too ?
responds by correcting the tense of the main
4. What is wrong with the sentence we
verb. The tutor accepts the response, but then
just read ? ... "In that refocuses the learner's attention on the full
5. moment I can't lived in the house
modal + verb construction and asks a series of
because I didn't have any
questions designed to elicit the correct past
6. furniture" ... Do you see ?
7. F: No
tense form of the modal. Finally, the learner
replies that she does not know the past tense of
8. T: Okay... ah there is something
can, and so as a result the tutor must provide it
wrong with the verb with the
9. verb tense in this this sentence and
for her. She does appear, at least, to recognize
the correct form, in line 24. The tutor presents
the modal ... Do you know
10. modals ?
her with an explicit rule for tense marking in
modal clauses, which F seems to understand, as
11. F: Ah yes, I know
indicated by her interruption in line 28. In this
12. T: Okay, so what's what's wrong what's
interaction, because of a lack of responsiveness
wrong here ?
13. F: The tense of this live
on the part of the learner, the tutor offers very
explicit levels of corrective feedback. The cor-
14. T: Okay, what about'the the ... is it
rect tense marking is jointly constructed, but
just in this or in this, the
most of the responsibility here falls on the tutor.
15. whole thing ?
The learner, with implicit help from the tutor,
16. F: The whole this
recognizes that the main verb is not marked for
17. T: Okay, how do you correct it? ...(lines 13 and 30), but she is unable to do
tense
Okay, "In that moment" . . . What ?
anything about generating the correct form of
18. ... What is the past tense of can ?
what was
the modal, even with explicit help. Thus, the
tutor is forced to provide the correct form.
19. happening.., .what... the past, Later in the same tutorial, the same problem
right ? what was happening
resurfaces, as seen in protocol (M).
20. ... what . .. the event happened
in the past right ? so what (M) Fl
21. is the past tense of this verb can ? 1. T: Okay, "I called other friends who
... Do you know ? can't went do the party." Okay,
22. F: No 2. what is wrong here ?
23. T: Okay, ah could 3. F: To
24. F: Ah yes 4. T: "Who can't went do the party b

25. T: Okay, "I could not..." cause that night they worked at

49.181.17.57 on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 06:19:09 +00:00
Ali Aljaafreh and James P. Lantolf 479
5. T:here
5. the hospital." Okay, from What "I
the verb verb ... somethi
called other friends who wrong with the verb ...
6. can't went do the party." What's 6. F: Ah, yes...
wrong in this? 7. T: That you used. Okay, where ? Do
7. F: To ? you see it ?
8. T: Okay, what else ? . . . what about 8. F: (Points to the verb)
the verb and the tense ? The 9. T: Took ? Okay
9. verb and the tense ... 10. F: Take
10. F: Could 11. T: Alright, take
11. T: Okay, here 12. F: (Laughs)
12. F: Past tense
13. T: All right, okay, "who [alright] The learner continues to experience diffi-
could not." Alright ? And ? culty
... with the modal + verb construction. This,
14. F: To in itself, is not too surprising, since when the
15. T: Here [points to the verbstructurephrase], first appeared, it was low in F's ZPD,
what's the right form ? as indicated by the need for the tutor to provide
16. F: I... go feedback from the explicit levels of the scale. As
17. T: Go. Okay, "could not go to [that's
we pointed out earlier, control over features of
right] to the party..." the second language does not move from a
stage where explicit feedback is required to full
In this episode the intervention of the tutor is
appropriation; rather learning evolves through
considerably reduced from the episode exam-
stages of decreasing reliance on the other per-
ined in protocol (L). The level of explicitness
son toward increasing reliance on the self.
required to elicit an appropriate responsive ac-
In protocol (N) we see evidence of micro-
tion from the learner is also reduced. Neverthe-
genesis both in production of the modal + verb
less, the learner still has some problems focus-
construction and the extent of responsibility as-
ing on the error indexed by the tutor. She
sumed by the learner for its production. In the
initially assumes the problem to be relatedearlier
to tutorials, the learner was unable to mark
her apparent slip of the pen, and she indicates
the modal for tense correctly without the tutor's
that do should be rewritten as to (line 3). How-
intervention. In (N), however, we observe that
ever, once the tutor manages to get her to focus
the correct form was produced in the composi-
on tense marking, in lines 8 and 9, she is imme-
tion, written several days after the first tutorial.
diately able to correct the modal, in line 10. In
F still does not have full mastery over the struc-
addition, she is also able to provide the correct
ture, since she incorrectly marks the main verb
form of the main verb, in line 16, although with
for tense. The tutor focuses her attention on
some regulation from the tutor. Above all, how-
this problem (line 5) through a question, at
ever, the learner accepts more of the respon-
which point she interrupts him (line 6) and in
sibility for correcting her error in protocol (M)
dicates her recognition of the error and point
than is the case in (L). A significant transition
to its location (line 8). She then proceeds to
appears to have occurred between the first and
provide the correction in line 10. Her laughter
second episodes. The learner has appropriatedin line 12, as in our earlier discussion, is a clue
the feedback provided in (L) and shows signs of
that the form may not yet be fully automatized
microgenetic development, given that in (M)
and that the error was not the result of inadvert-
she elicits feedback that is less explicit and less
extensive.
ent performance. All of this suggests that the
learner has appropriated the feedback offered
We can now compare the same learner's per-
in the first tutorial and that she now has greater
formance on the same structure one week later.
control over the construction.
Tracing the same modal + main verb con-

(N) F2 struction in subsequent compositions for the
1. T: Is there anything wrong here in same learner reveals evidence of full appropria-
this sentence ? "I took only Ani tion. The learner used the construction inde-
2. because I couldn't took both" . . .
pendently and correctly, for example, in com-
Do you see anything position three: "The wolf wanted to eat the goat
3. wrong ? ... Particularly here "be-
but he could not ask his friend..,. the wolf drank
cause I couldn't took both" a lot but he could not get to eat the goat." Later in
4. F: Or Maki?
the same composition, we observe: "I saw peo-

49.181.17.57 on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 06:19:09 +00:00
For this to happen,

ple who people who could livewith however,
a few the expert must
money."
Finally in composition seven be willing
we to note:
relinquish "Another
control (itself dialogi-
cally
thing I could see is there are lotnegotiated) to the noviceto
of interest at the appropri-
take
money from poor people."ate time. There
Most can be no real development
importantly, in
the final composition, weotherwise.
see that she not only
extended the pattern to other From this verbs but
perspective, to
the an-
types of error cor-
rectionmoney,
other modal, as well: "If I have (i.e., implicitI or explicit) try
would that promote
hard to help poor people." Thecannot
learning problem wasindependently
be determined a
complex one in which the learner
of individual learnersappears
interacting with toother in-
have focused first on the modal
dividuals. Moreover,(protocol L)
all types of feedback are
and then on the main verb (protocols
potentially M and
relevant for learning, but their rele-
N), even though the tutor offered
vance corrective
depends on where in the learner's ZPD a
feedback on both parts particular
of the complex
property of the L2 verb
is situated. The
phrase at the same time. hierarchy of regulation is an attempt to capture
this dynamic character of feedback. Develop-
CONCLUSIONS
ment in a second language is therefore not only
reflected in the learner's ability to generalize
Effective error correction and language what had been appropriated, but is also re-
learning depend crucially on mediation pro- vealed through the kind of help that is jointly
vided by other individuals, who in consort with negotiated between experts and novices. Thus,
the learner dialogically co-construct a zone of a learner who is able to produce a particular
proximal development in which feedback as structure as a consequence of more strategic
regulation becomes relevant and can therefore (i.e., implicit) forms of regulation (e.g., the col-
be appropriated by learners to modify their in- laborative frame) is developmentally more ad-
terlanguage systems. From this stance, learning vanced than one who needs direct and explicit
is not something an individual does alone, but is feedback for the same property. This means
a collaborative endeavor necessarily involving that linguistic forms alone do not provide us
other individuals.16 Here we encounter what, on with the full picture of a learner's developmen-
the face of it at least, looks like a potential tal level. It is essential to know the degree to
problem. which other-regulation, or mediation, impacts
Van Lier (p. 211) worries--correctly we on the learner's production of the particular
believe-that too much guidance, or in his forms.
words, "other-repair," might inhibit, or at least We are, of course, not uncritical of the re-
retard, the development of self-repair, which he search laid out in this paper. For one thing, we
views as an "important learning activity." The recognize that one of the shortcomings of this
very goal of interaction in the ZPD, as formal- initial attempt to investigate feedback and L2
ized in Vygotsky's law of cultural development, learning in the ZPD is that the linguistic fea-
is for novices to appropriate the responsibility tures considered are "surfacy" and language
for their own linguistic performance. This is specific. Schwartz and her colleagues (28; 29)
what it means to move through the regulatory contend that correction may only stimulate the
hierarchy. As implicit forms of feedback be- development of those properties of a second
come more relevant, and explicit forms become language system, such as verb morphology and
less relevant in regulating the novice's correc- lexis, which do not arise from abstract princi-
tive behavior, by implication, novices assume in- ples specified by UG. The latter type of proper-
creased control over their linguistic activity in ties (e.g., syntactic movement), according to
the L2. This is why we argue that feedback as Schwartz (28), will be unaffected by negative
other-regulation in the ZPD is not only gradu- feedback and can only develop if learners re-
ated but is also contingent. At first, respon- ceive positive and contextually embedded in-
sibility for the novice's linguistic performance is put.17 Carroll and Swain's study, however, sug-
distributed between the novice and the expert, gests that corrective feedback administered
with the expert having more control over this under controlled conditions can impact pos-
performance than the novice. Under the ex- itively on the development of more abstract syn-
pert's guidance, control is gradually appropri- tactic properties (i.e., dative alternation). It re-
ated by the novice. Eventually, the novice moves mains to be seen if collaborative interaction in
away from reliance on the expert (other-repair, the ZPD can also enhance the acquisition of
in van Lier's terms) toward reliance on the self. abstract properties of second languages. In this

49.181.17.57 on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 06:19:09 +00:00
regard we intend to extend rors, while elaboration
our work has to doon with the
the man-
ZPD to two specific cases-unaccusative ner in which the error is made salient. That
con-is,
structions in Spanish and word order in some forms of elaboration are explicit and en-
German. tail metalinguistic explanations and others are
Another drawback of our study is that the more indirect, involving only some means of
data were collected exclusively in audio format,
marking where the error occurred but giving no
which eliminated from analysis a potentiallyspecific
im- information on its nature. Sharwood
portant source of nonverbal information. Smith
Since suggests that the various levels of input
enhancement should be examined through
interaction between individuals also entails a
controlled
rich gestural component, future research on experimentation (31: p. 177), pre-
learning in the ZPD requires the analysis
sumablyof
to determine the most effective level of
video recordings to capture the meaning dis-
input enhancement.
played by speakers on their hands (25). 4 Metaphorically speaking, Vygotsky charac-
Finally, it is not our intent to sanction the
terizes actual development as the "fruits" of the
maturational
tutorial as the uniquely endowed framework for process and the ZPD as represent-
co-constructing the ZPD. The tutorial format
ing the "buds" or "flowers" of that process (39:
represents only one means for realizing
p. 87). this
process. It is necessary to explore the full array the kind of help provided is very
5 Actually,
much
of possibilities available in the classroom influenced by sociocultural factors. Re-
setting
search has shown that mothers from rural eco-
for enhancing learning in the ZPD. Collabora-
tive interaction between learners engaged nomicallyin underdeveloped settings tend to be
problem-posing tasks, use of portfolios, more directive in helping their children per-
and dia-
logue journals are among the other avenues form tasks when compared to middle class, edu-
through which a ZPD can be co-constructed
cated urban mothers, who are much more indi-
and learning can emerge. We hope that
rect the
and strategic in regulating the mental
present study will stimulate additional research
activity of their children (42; 43).
in these domains. 6 Although the full study also entailed a com-
parison of the performance of learners who re-
ceived corrective feedback in the ZPD with
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS those who received either explicit or implicit
correction, we concern ourselves here with the
ZPD group only and we will not consider the
We would like to thank Merrill Swain for her
results from the other two groups. We point
insightful suggestions and useful negative feed-
out, however, that even though three different
back on an earlier version of this paper. We are
treatment groups participated in the study, it
also grateful for the helpful commentarywas pro-not implemented as a controlled experi-
vided by an anonymous reviewer. Of course, ment.
the To do so, we believe, would not have al-
lowed us to uncover the processes at work as
authors accept full responsibility for any short-
comings in the present version of the paper.learning emerged in the ZPD.
7 Even though we refer to learners who re-
ceived tutorial help as the ZPD group, we not
NOTES claiming that the only way to create a ZPD is
through tutorials. There are types of interac-
tion that can create a ZPD. For instance, re-
1 Prior to the interest in error analysis,search the
by Donato shows that learners working in
general assumption of those working from a can jointly construct a ZPD with-
collaboration
more behavioristic slant had been that errors out intervention from a tutor. We chose the tu-
resulted from insufficient learning of target
torial procedure, in this particular case, be-
language rules (36: p. 181). cause it seemed to be the most expedient way of
2 The inspiration for the distinction we constructing
are the ZPD for purposes of our study.
drawing between the ethnographic and experi- 8 The learners' use of text-based properties,
mental approaches to corrective feedback we
such as cohesive devices, were not considered
owe to the comments of an anonymous reviewer.
for our purposes since we were not directly in-
SAlong similar lines, Sharwood Smith terested
pro- in their ability to write per se; rather
poses that corrective feedback, or "negativeour
in-concern was with their grammatical compe-
put enhancement" serves to flag specific er-as
tence reflected in the written medium.

49.181.17.57 on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 06:19:09 +00:00
9 The ability of learners to us generalize
to explore the fullon the
implications of the two
basis of negative feedback is important
positions because
for second language learning. Suffice
it provides evidence that the learner's
it to linguistic
say, that second language researchers are
representation has changed.not Vygotsky,
in agreement as in fact,
to which approach cor-
insisted that there can be no rectly characterizes
mastery in nonprimary
learn- language
ing if learners cannot extend what
learning they have
in adults.
learned in one context to new contexts. In a 17 To provide the details of Schwartz's inter-
study of L2 French learners, Carroll, Swain, and if not controversial, claim would take us
esting,
Roberge report that while negative feedback
too far afield from our present purpose. We
helped their subjects reduce their errors in a set
encourage the interested reader to examine her
of morphological endings, the learners were ap- on the topic (28; 29).
writings
parently unable to construct the necessary gen-
eralizations on the basis of the corrective feed-
back. In their study of dative alternation in
BIBLIOGRAPHY
English as a second language, Carroll and

Swain (5) show that learners can indeed gener-
alize from negative input. 1. Aljaafreh, Ali. Negative Feedback in Second Langu
10 The data to be considered in the present Learning and the Zone ofProximal Development. Di
Univ. of Delaware, Newark, 1992.
paper do not illustrate instances of all five tran-
2. Birdsong, David. Metalinguistic Performance and I
sitional levels. For a full empirical account of
linguistic Competence. Berlin: Springer-Verl
the levels see Aljaafreh. 1989.
11 Peter Coughlan (personal communication) 3. Burt, Marina K. & Carol Kiparsky. The Gooficon: A
proposes that we may not want to dismiss per- Repair Manual for English. Rowley, MA: Newbury
formance errors merely as slips of the tongue House, 1972.
and suggests that there may be some uncon- 4. Campione, Joseph, Ann L. Brown, Roberta A. Fer-
scious intention underlying such behaviors. He rera & Nancy R. Bryant. "The Zone of Proximal
raises the question of why learners make errors Development: Implications for Individual Dif-
even after they have learned a particular fea- ferences in Learning." Children's Learning in the
ture of the L2. This question can also be ex- "Zone of Proximal Development." Ed. Barbara
Rogoff & James V. Wertsch. San Francisco:
tended to native speakers as well.
Jossy-Bass, 1984: 77-92.
12 The hierarchy of regulation given in Figure
5. Carroll, Susanne & Merrill Swain. "Explicit and
I is not intended to be exhaustive; rather, it rep- Implicit Negative Feedback: An Empirical
resents the range of help offered in the specific Study of the Learning of Linguistic Generaliza-
tutorials studied here.
tions." Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15
13 We acknowledge Peter Coughlan for point- (1993): 357-86.
ing this out. 6. -, Merrill Swain & Yves Roberge. "The Role
14 Of the three ZPD learners, N is the only of Feedback in Adult Second Language Acquisi-
one to have shown a responsive action at the tion: Error Correction and Morphological
level of collaborative frame with regard to the four Generalizations." Applied Psycholinguistics 13
(1992): 173-98.
target structures. At this point, we have no way
7. Chaudron, Craig. Second Language Classrooms: Re-
of knowing the potential source of this differ-
search on Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cam-
ence among the learners. bridge Univ. Press, 1988.
15 Wertsch, and Wertsch and Hickmann sim- 8. -. "A Descriptive Model of Discourse in the
ilarly show how children, through their speech, Corrective Treatment of Learners Errors." Lan-
assume increased responsibility for their own guage Learning 27 (1977): 29-46.
problem-solving activity. 9. Children's Learning in the "Zone of Proximal Develop-
16 What this argues for is an "informant"- ment." Ed. Barbara Rogoff & James V. Wertsch,
based, rather than a "text" (i.e., data)-based, San Francisco: Jossy-Bass, 1984.
approach to second language learning (19), and 10. Corder, S. Pit. "The Significance of Learners' Er-
rors." International Review of Applied Linguistics 5
supports the contention that language learning
(1967): 161-70.
does not take place inside of someone's head 11. Day, Richard, N. Ann Chenoweth, Ann E. Chun &
but arises in the interaction that is co-con-
Stuart Luppescu. "Corrective Feedback in
structed between individuals. In the latter case, Native-Nonnative Discourse." Language Learning
only positive evidence is required, while in the 34 (1984): 19-45.
former, both positive evidence and negative 12. DeKeyser, Robert M. "The Effect of Error Correc-
feedback are necessary. Space does not permit tion on L2 Grammar Knowledge and Oral Pro-

49.181.17.57 on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 06:19:09 +00:00
Ali Aljaafteh and James P Lantolf 483
ficiency." Modern Language tive Evidence Causing
Journal the Unlearning of Verb
77 (1993):
501-14. Movement." Second Language Research 8 (1992): 1-
13. Donato, Richard. Beyond Group: Psycholinguistic Ra- 38.
tionale for Collective Activity in Second Language30. Sharwood-Smith, Michael M. "Input Enhancement
Learning. Diss., Univ. of Delaware, Newark, 1988. in Instructed SLA. Theoretical Bases." Studies in
14. Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisi- Second Language Acquisition 15 (1993): 165-79.
31. -. "Speaking to Many Minds: On the Rele-
tion. Ed. Jack C. Richards, London: Longman,
1974. vance of Different Types of Language Informa-
15. Fanselow, John F "The Treatment of Error in Oral tion for the L2 Learner." Second Language Re-
Work." Foreign Language Annals 10 (1977): 583- search 7 (1991): 118-32.
93. 32. Spada, Nina & Patsy M. Lightbown. "Instruction
16. Frawley, William. "The Cross-language Study of and the Development of Questions in L2 Class-
Private Speech." Paper, First Conference for rooms." Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15
Socio-cultural Research. Madrid, June, 1992. (1993): 205-24.
33. Tharp, Richard G. & Robert Gallimore. Rousing
17. Gaskill, William H. "Correction in Native Speaker-
Nonnative Speaker Conversation." Discourse Minds to Life: Teaching, Learning and Schooling in
Analysis in Second Language Research. Ed. Diane Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Larsen-Freeman. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, Press, 1988.
1980: 125-37. 34. Tomasello, Michael & Carol Herron. "Feedback
18. George, H. V. Common Errors in Language Learning. for Language Transfer Errors." Studies in Second
Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1972. Language Acquisition 11 (1989): 384-95.
19. Gold, Edward M. "Language Identification in the35. - & Carol Herron. "Down the Garden Path:
Limit." Information and Control 10 (1976): 467-74. Inducing and Correcting Overgeneralizatio
20. Hendrickson, James M. "Error Correction in For- Errors in the Foreign Language Classroom. A
eign Language Teaching: Recent Theory, Re- plied Psycholinguistics 9 (1988): 237-46.
search, and Practice." Modern Language Journal 36. van Lier, Leo. The Classroom and the Lang
62 (1978): 387-97. Learner. London: Longman, 1988.
21. Herron, Carol & Michael Tomasello. "Learning 37. Vygotsky, Lev S. Thought and Language. Cambr
Grammatical Structures in a Foreign Lan- MIT Press, 1986.
guage: Modelling Versus Feedback." The French 38. -. "The Genesis of Higher Mental Func-
Review 61 (1988): 910-23. tions." The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology.
22. Kasper, Gabriele. "Repair in Foreign Language Ed. James V. Wertsch. New York: M.E. Sharpe,
Teaching." Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7 1981: 144-88.
(1985): 200-15. 39. -. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psy-
23. Lightbown, Patsy M. & Nina Spada. "Focus-on- chological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard Univ.
Form and Corrective Feedback in Communica- Press, 1978.
tive Language Teaching: Effects on Second40. Wertsch, James V. Voices of the Mind. Cambridge:
Language Learning." Studies in Second LanguageHarvard Univ. Press, 1991.
Acquisition 12 (1990): 429-48. 41. -. Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind.
24. Long, Michael H. "Teacher Feedback on Learner Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1985.
Error: Mapping Cognition." On TESOL '77. 42. . "The Zone of Proximal Development:
Teaching and LearningEnglish as a Second Language: Some Conceptual Issues." Children's Learning in
Trends in Research and Practice. Ed. H. Douglas the Zone of Proximal Development. Ed. Barbara
Brown, Carlos A. Yorio & Ruth H. Crymes. Rogoff & James V. Wertsch. San Francisco:
Washington, DC: TESOL, 1977: 278-93. Jossey-Bass, 1984: 7-18.
25. McNeill, David. Hand and Mind. What Gestures Re- 43. - & Maya Hickmann. "Problem Solving in
veal about Thought. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Social Interaction: A Microgenetic Analysis."
Press, 1992. Social and Functional Approaches to Language and
26. Newman, Dennis, Peg Griffin & Michael Cole. The Thought. Ed. Maya Hickmann. Orlando: Aca-
Construction Zone: Working for Cognitive Change in demic Press, 1987: 251-66.
School. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 44. White, Lydia. "Adverb Placement in Second Lan-
1989. guage Acquisition: Some Effects of Positive and
27. Schachter, Jacquelyn. "Corrective Feedback in Negative Evidence in the Classroom." Second
Historical Perspective." Second Language Research Language Research 7 (1991): 133-61.
7 (1991): 89-102. 45. -. Universal Grammar and Second Language Ac-
28. Schwartz, Bonnie. "On Explicit and Negative quisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1989.
Data Effecting and Affecting Competence and 46. Zinchenko, V. P. "Vygotsky's Ideas about Units for
Linguistic Behavior." Studies in Second Language the Analysis of Mind." Culture, Communication
Acquisition 15 (1993): 147-63. and Cognition: Vygotskian Perspectives. Ed. James V.
29. &8& Magda Gubala-Ryzak. "Learnability and Wertsch. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press,
Grammar Reorganization in L2A: Against Nega- 1985: 94-17.

49.181.17.57 on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 06:19:09 +00:00

Aljaafreh NegativeFeedbackRegulation 1994

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Aljaafreh NegativeFeedbackRegulation 1994

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aljaafreh NegativeFeedbackRegulation 1994

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/328585

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

the same situation to hold

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

volved students enrolled intutorial,

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

inquit..." back regarding her incorrect omission of the

This content downloaded from

First of all, in protocol (B) (C) the

This content downloaded from

(D) Fl notice her omission of the infinitive particle to.

This content downloaded from

from intermental, or other-regulated perfor- 37. N: This is ... (laughs)

This content downloaded from

(I) N5 Be that as it may, even though N is able to

This content downloaded from

guage," right ? "But but [what?] 9. N: It... grey

This content downloaded from

24. F: Ah yes 4. T: "Who can't went do the party b

This content downloaded from

Tracing the same modal + main verb con-

This content downloaded from

For this to happen,

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

English as a second language, Carroll and

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

You might also like