Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

New Directions in Research

LearnerContributionsto LanguageLearning
 APPLIED LINGUISTICS AND LANGUAGE STUDY

GENERAL EDITOR

CHRISTOPHER N. CANDLIN
Chair Professorof AjJPlied Unguistirs
Departmentof English
Centrefor English Languagef:ducation &
CommunicationResearch
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

For a complete list of books in this series see pagesv-vi

 Learner Contributions
to Language Learning
New Directions in Research
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Edited by
MICHAEL P BREEN

Routledge
Taylor & Francis Group
LONDON AND NEW YORK
 First published2001 by PearsonEducationLimited

Published2014by Routledge
2 ParkSquare,Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
711 Third Avenue,New York, NY 10017,USA

Routledgeis an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

Copyright © 2001, Taylor & Francis.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

All rights [Link] part of this book may be reprintedor reproducedor utilised in
any form or by any electronic,mechanical,or other means,now known or hereafter
invented,including photocopyingand recording,or in any information storageor
retrieval system,without permissionin writing from the publishers.

Notices
Knowledgeandbestpracticein this field are [Link] new research
and experiencebroadenour understanding,changesin researchmethods,
professionalpractices,or medicaltreatmentmay becomenecessary.

Practitionersand researchersmust always rely on their own experienceand

knowledgein evaluatingand using any information, methods,compounds,or
[Link] using such information or methodsthey shouldbe
mindful of their own safetyand the safetyof others,including partiesfor whom they
havea professionalresponsibility.

To the fullest extentof the law, neitherthe Publishernor the authors,contributors,or

editors,assumeany liability for any injury and/or damageto personsor propertyas a
matterof productsliability, negligenceor otherwise,or from any useor operationof
any methods,products,instructions,or ideascontainedin the materialherein.

ISBN 13: 978-0-582-40475-5(pbk)

British Library Cataloguing-in-PublicationData

A cataloguerecord for this book is available from the British Library

Library of CongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Breen, Michael P.
Learnercontributionsto languagelearning: new directions in research/MichaelP. Breen.
p. cm. - (Applied linguistics and languagestudy)
Inr1l1(lFs hihlio<Traphical referencesand index.
75-4
1. Secondlanguageacquisition. 2. Languageand languages-Study and
teaching. 1. Title. II. Series.

P1l8.2 .B73 2001

418'.0071-dc21 00-061390

Set in 10/12ptBaskerville by 35
 APPLIED LINGUISTICS AND LANGUAGE STUDY

C;ENER,\L EDITOR

CHRISTOPHERN. CA01DLIN
Chair ProfessorofAf)f)lird LinguLI/ics
Departmmtof English
Cmlre for English LanguageEducation &
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

CommunicationResrarch
City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Error Analysis: An Introduction to SecondLanguage

Perspectiveon SecondLanguage Acquisition Research
Acquisition llL\:\E L\RSEN-FREEI\j,\N
.JACK C RICIIARDS (ED.) lind ]\IIClI.\Fl. H 1.0N(;

Processand Experiencein the Language

ContrastiveAnalysis
Classroom
CARL JAMES
M ICI L\EI. U:C;I"TKF and

Languageand Communication IIO\\".\RLl TIlOI\[AS

JACK c: RICIIARDS and Translationand Translating:

RICHARD W SCIII\IJIlT (EDs) Theory and Practice
ROCER I RELL
Readingin a Foreign Language
.I CIL\RLES [Link]:\ and LanguageAwarenessin the Classroom
.\ II L' RQllfl,\R r (1m) CARl. J\\IES lind PETER (;ARRET I (l'IlS)

RediscoveringInterlanguage
An Introduction to DiscourseAnalysis
L.\RRY SELI"iKER
SecondEdition
i\1.\LCOI.M COlLTII.\RIl Languageand Discrimination:
,\ Study of Communicationin
Bilingualism in Education: Multi-ethnic 'Yorkplaces
Aspectsof Theory, Researchand Practice
.Jl~1
.Jl~1 Cl'\[l\ll:\S and I\IERRILL SWAIN
CEl.l.\ ROBERTS. F\Tl.Y\! I)A\IFS
IO\[Link]!PI'
({lid

SecondLanguageGrammar: Analysing (~enre:

(~enre:
Learning and Teaching Languagel Tse in ProfessionalSettings
\\"ILLL\1\1 E RL'IIIERFORIl \IJ\Y I, 1\11\11.\

Languageas Discourse:
Vocabulary and LanguageTeaching
Perspectivefor LanguageTeaching
RO:\.\LD CM<TER and
\11<:11.\1<:1. \I( C:.\I{ IllY and
I\[[ClLWI. \[cC\RTllY
RO:\.\\.I) C.\RTER

The Classroomand the SecondLanguageLearning:

LanguageLearner: Theort'tical FOllndations
Ethnographyand Second-Language \11(:11.\"'. ~II.\R\\"OO\)
~II.\R\\"OO\) SI\IITII
ClassroomResearch
LEO Y.\:\ UER Interaction in the Language
Curriculultl:
Listening in LanguageLearning Awareness,,\lltonomv and ,'\.uthenticity
l\IICfL\FL ROSI LEO \·.\N \.II.R
 Phonologyin English Language Strategiesin Learning and Lsing a Second
Teaching: Language
An InternationalLanguage A;\JIlRE\\' II COHEK
MARTIIA C PE:\NIN(;ro\:

Managing Evaluation and Innovation in

MeasuringSecondLanguagePerformance
LanguageTeaching:
TIM McNAMARA
Building Bridges
Literacy in Society PAL LINE RFA~[)JCKINS
RFA~[)JCKINS and
RLQAIYA IlASA\: andeEOFFWILLL\i\IS KE\'lN P GERMAI:S:E (EDs)
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

(EDS)
Readingin a SecondLanguage:
Theory and Practiceof Writing: Process,Productand Practice
An Applied Linguistic Perspective andC.1
A II I'RQI1l-lARD andC.1 WEIR
WILLL\'.1 GRABE andROBERT B KAPI :\:\
Writing:
Autonomy and Independencein Texts, Processesand Practices
LanguageLearning CIlRISTOPHER N CANDLIN and

PIlIL BENSO;\J and PETER \'OLLER (I·m) KEN IlYLAND (I'DS)

Language,Literature and the Learner: Disciplinary Discourses:

Social Interactionsin AcademicWriting
Creative ClassroomPractice
KF;\J IlYLA;\iD
RONALD CARTER and.10IlN '.lcRAE (Ells)

Experiential Learning in Foreign

Languageand Development:
LanguageEducation
Teachersin the ChangingWorld
\lLjO KOIlONEN, RlTTAjAATI;\iFN,
BRIAN KEN:\Y and WILLIAM SA\AGE (cos)
PAIl[.I KAIKKONE:S:, JORMA LFHTO\,AAR
CommunicationStrategies:
English as a SecondLanguagein the
Psycholinguisticand Sociolinguistic
Mainstream:
Perspectives
Teaching,Learning and Identity
GABRIELE KASPER and ERIC KELLERl\l;\;\J
IIERN.\RI) MOlL\N, CONSTANT U:t'NG
(EDs)
andClIRISTl:S:E I),\\ISON
Teachingand LanguageCorpora
ResearchingPedagogicTasks:
ANNE WICHMANrs:, STE\'E" FLl(;EL~
FLl(;EL~
SecondLanguageLearning, Teaching
STONE, TONY McENERY and CERRY
and Testing
KNOWLES (EDs)
:\IARTlt\: RYGAn:, PETER SKEHAN
Errors in LanguageLearning and Use: and l\lERRILL S\\',\LlN (EDs)

Exploring Error Analysis

LearnerContributions to Language
CARL JAMES
Learning:
Translationinto the SecondLanguage New Directions in Research
STIL\RT CAMPBELL \llClL\EL P BREEN (U).)
 Contents
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Author's Acknowledgements pageix

Publisher'sAcknowledgements x
List of Contributors Xl

GeneralEditor's Preface xv

Introduction: Conceptualization, affect, and action in context 1

1, Individual cognitive/affectivelearnercontributionsand
differential successin secondlanguageacquisition 12
Diane Larsen-Freeman

2. The role of learning strategiesin secondlanguageacquisition 25

Anna Uhl Chamot

3. Metacognitiveknowledgein SLA: the neglectedvariable 44

Anita L. Wenden

4. The metaphoricalconstructionsof secondlanguagelearners 65

Rod Ellis

5. 'The bleachedbonesof a story': learners'constructionsof

languageteachers 86
RebeccaL. Oxford

6. Overt participation and covert acquisition in the language

classroom 112
Michael P. Breen

7. (S)econd(L)anguage(A)ctivity theory: understanding

secondlanguagelearnersas people 141
JamesP. Lantolf and Aneta Pavlenko

Vll
 Vlll Contents

8. Non-participation,imaginedcommunitiesand
the languageclassroom 159
Bonny Norton

Postscript: New directions for research on learner contributions 172

References 183
Author Index 211
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

SubjectIndex 217
 Author's Acknowledgements
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

My particulargratitudeis due to two valued colleaguesand long-time friends.

First to Merrill Swain, who invited me to organize the colloquium at the
conferenceof the American Associationfor Applied Linguistics that initially
brought together most of the contributors to this volume to discuss the
significance of learner contributions within second language acquisition
[Link] Chris Candlin, who encouragedthe presentpublication
of our various perspectiveson the learner that have been developedand
refined since the colloquium. Helen Maitland is due my particular thanks
for her patience and care in her work on the manuscript. Requiring busy
academicsto conform to an agreedformat in their writing has, for her, been
a new ventureand pretty much like herding [Link] Sorley grappledwith
the indexing and I thank her for her care and [Link], special
thanks to Casey Mein, Verina Pettigrew and Sarah Bury who, on behalf of
PearsonEducation,enabledthe whole project to reach fruition.

ix
 Publisher's Acknowledgements
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

We are grateful to PearsonEducation - ELT & ISD for permission to re-

producean extractfrom THE LEARNINGSTRATEGIESHANDBOOKby Milada
Broukal.

x
 List of Contributors
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Michael P. Breenis currently Professorof LanguageEducationand Director

of the Centre for English LanguageTeachingat the University of Stirling,
[Link] worked at Edith Cowan University, WesternAustralia
and LancasterUniversity, England. He has publishedon communicativeand
task-basedapproachesto languageteaching,languageteachers'beliefs, and
the social context of language learning. More recently his research has
focused upon the educationalprovision and assessmentof young bilingual
learnersand on the relationship betweenlanguageteachers'thinking and
their classroom practices. His recent publications include, with research
colleaguesin Australia, Profiling A'SL Children: Teachen'Interpretationsand Use of
State and National Assessment Frameworks (Canberra:Departmentof Employ-
ment, Education,Training and Youth Mfairs, 1997) and Principles and Prac-
tices ofESL Teachers(Perth: Centrefor Applied Languages& Literacy Research,
1998) and, with Andrew Littlejohn, ClassroomDecision Making: Negotiation and
ProcessSyllabusesin Practice (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,2000).

Anna Uhl Chamotis AssociateProfessorof SecondaryEducationat the George

Washington University in Washington, DC. Her researchinterests include
languagelearningstrategies,content-based ESL and foreign languageinstruc-
tion, elementaryschool foreign languageimmersion, and literacy develop-
ment of adolescentimmigrant [Link] is co-director of the National
Capital Language Resource Center, a partnership between Georgetown
University, the George Washington University, and the Center for Applied
Linguistics. Dr Chamot received her PhD in ESL and Applied Linguistics
from the University of Texas at Austin, her MA in Foreign LanguageEduca-
tion from TeachersCollege, Columbia University, and her BA in Spanish
Literature from the GeorgeWashingtonUniversity.

Rod Ellis is currently Professorin, and Director of, the Institute of Language
Teachingand Learning, University of Auckland. His publishedwork includes
articles and books in secondlanguageacquisition, the most recentof which
is Learninga SecondLanguagethrough Interaction (Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins),
and also several English language textbooks, including Impact Grammar

Xl
 xii List of Contributor,

(London: Addison vVesley Longman). In addition to his current position in

New Zealand,he hasworked in teachereducationin Zambia, England,Japan
and the United States.

JamesP. Lantolf is currently Professorof Applied Linguistics and Spanish

and Director of the Center for LanguageAcquisition at The Pennsylvania·
State University. He was on the faculty of Cornell University from 1991 to
1999 and from 1980 to 1991 he was on the faculty of the University of
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Delaware. He has held visiting appointmentsat the University of Auckland,

Nottingham University, the University of Melbourne, the University of Rome
(La Sapienza)and Kassel University. He is past co-editor of Applied Linguistics
and continuesto serve on its editorial panel as well on the editorial boards
of The Modem LanguageJournal and SpanishApplied Linguistics. His research
focus is on socioculturaland activity theory and secondlanguageacquisition.

Diane Larsen-Freeman is a Professorof Applied Linguistics in the Department

of Language TeacherEducation at the School for International Training
in Brattleboro, Vermont, USA. She has published a number of articles in
the areas of second language acquisition research,English grammar, lan-
guageteachingmethodsand [Link] books include: Discourse
Analysisin SecondLanguageResearch(Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1980), The
Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher's Course (with Marianne Celce-Murcia,
Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1983, 1999), Techniquesand Principles in Lan-
guageTeaching(Oxford: Oxford University Press,1986) and An Introduction to
SecondLanguageAcquisition Research(with Michael Long, London: Longman,
1991). Dr Larsen-Freemanis also series director for Grammar Dimensions,a
four-level grammarseries for ESL university students (Boston, MA: Heinle
and Heinle Publishers, 1993, 1997, forthcoming). From 1980 to 1985,
Dr Larsen-Freeman was Editor of thejournal LanguageLearning. In 1997, she
was inducted as a Fellow into the Vermont Academyof Arts and Sciences.

Bonny Norton is Associate Professorin the Departmentof Languageand

Literacy Education of the University of British Columbia, [Link] has
published widely on the relationship between languagelearning, sociocul-
tural identity and [Link] Autumn 1997 she editedthe TESOL
Quarterly special issue on 'Languageand Identity' and has publishedIdentity
and Language Learning: Gender, Ethnicity and Educational Change (London:
Addison Wesley Longman, 2000).

RebeccaOxford is Professorat TeachersCollege, Columbia University and

the authorof a numberof books on languagelearningstrategies,motivation,
and instructional methodology,and has co-editedthe TapestryESL Program
for Heinle and Heinle Publishers. She has over 100 refereed articles and
chaptersto her credit on topics such as languageteaching,secondlanguage
acquisition, learning styles and strategies, language learning motivation,
learner-generatedmetaphors,gender and technology. She has presented
 List oj Contributors XIll

keynote speechesat conferencesfor teachersand researcherson most con-

tinents of the world. She holds a PhD in educationalpsychologyfrom the
University of North Carolina, Master'sdegreesfrom Yale University (Russian
Language)and Boston University (EducationalPsychology),and a Bachelor's
degree (RussianLanguageand History) from Vanderbilt University.

AnetaPavlenkois currentlyAssistantProfessorof TESOL at TempleUniversity,

Philadelphia. She received her PhD in 1997 from Cornell University. Her
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

researchfocuses on the relationship between bilingualism and cognition,

and on the interaction betweensecondlanguagelearning in adulthoodand
identity. Her work has appearedin Bilingualism: Languageand Cognition, The
International Journal oj Bilingualism, Annual &view of Applied Linguistics and
Issuesin Applied Linguistics.

Anita Wenden is Professorof ESL at York College, City University of New

York. She has also recently taught as Visiting Professorin the Program in
Applied Linguistics at the Regional English LanguageCentre (Singapore).
Her professional interests are in metacognitive knowledge in language
learning and the developmentof [Link] publicationsin this
areainclude LearnerStrategiesin LanguageLearning (co-editedwith JoanRubin)
(London: Prentice-Hall,1987), LearnerStrategiesJor LearnerAutonomy,a special
issue on metacognitive knowledge and beliefs guest edited for System,and
articles in Applied Linguistics, LanguageLearning, Canadian Modern Language
Journal, LanguageClassroomsoj Tomorrow (Anthology Series- RELC), Language
LearnersoJ Tomorrow (NortheastConferenceReports) and New Developmentsin
LanguageLearning: Self-Managementand Autonomy(GoetheInstitute).
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

This page intentionally left blank

 General Editor's Preface
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Michael Breen's major contribution to the study of languagelearning and

languageteachinghas always been characterisedby an intenseengagement
with the reflexivity of theory and practice. In re-reading now his earliest
work, one sensesa scholar-practitionerwho discerns from the richness of
educationaltheory and researchways forward for the teacher,ways which
are always couchedin terms of principle, not just of emulatablemodels of
[Link] focus on principle is importantsince in invests his work with a
challengeablequality; it urges reaction not some blind adoption. From his
early contributionsto the basic philosophyof what has now becomea some-
what tarnishedproduct,thoughat that time communicativelanguageteaching
shonewith some brilliance, to his most recentcharacterisationsof the social
context and culture of the classroom,the learneras a cognitive, humanand
social being has always beenat the centre of his inquiry.
So it is in this finely edited and remarkablycoherentcollection of original
chaptersfor which, quite typically, he choosesas a title Learner Contributionsto
LanguageLearning. Even from a cursory glance at the titles of the individual
chapters,contributedby some of the most distinguishedwriters in the field,
one sensesthe bones of the argument,the outline of the map, landmarks
for the reader:learnercontributionsand differential success;the importance
of metacognitive knowledge and learner beliefs; how learners construct
themselvesand their teachers;whetherto participateor not to participatein
classroomactivity as merely a learner'ssocial decision or one implicative for
relative successor failure at learning; whetherlearnersare fleople and in what
ways; how the worlds and discourseslearnersinhabit outside the classroom
impinge upon their constructionof, and participationin, the worlds and dis-
courseswithin the [Link] much, then, an orientation to the social
constructionof learning, but crucially not one which in any way downplays
the very significant contribution of more cognitively focusedresearchto our
understandingof secondlanguageacquisition. Breen is rightly very firm on
this point, as indeed are severalof his contributorsin their other published
writings, for example,Larsen-Freeman, Ellis, Lantolf, and here in their chap-
ters. Indeed, the key weight given to the constructof strategyin the book, as
in the chaptersby Chamotand Wenden,would counter any such simplistic

xv
 xv! GeneralEditor's Prefare

opposingof paradigms,with its ambiguitybenveenthe cognitive and the social.

What the authorsand the editor of the book are striving for, quite clearly, is
a positive and creative accommodationof researchpositions and paradigms
-a socio-cognitiveposition, if you like, one outlined in an exemplaryway in
the two major editorial contributionsto the collection, the editor's Introduc-
tion and his Postscript.
This desirableaccommodationnonvithstanding,the emphasisof the book
is very much on the social and the contextual,and it is these themesthat I
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

wish to take up, briefly, in this Preface.I do so in part becausein a number

of key articles Michael Breen has brought to our attention their importance
for understandingthe learner and the learners' contribution to language
learning. In part, I want to problematisewhat might be taken to be too easy
understandingsof theseterms as they relate to our study of their significance
in languageacquisition, and to suggestsome clarifications and some points
of future focus.
I begin by taking the position that languagelearning and teaching, like
languageitself, is always a social and cultural act and is always the productof
socially situated participantswho operatewith varying degreesof licensed
choice in particular settings,and are constrainedindividually and in various
ways by specific structuringsof power, by particulardistributionsof knowledge
and by their own individual investmentsof energyand [Link],
of course,the contextsof acquisition are in no way bound to the classroom,
it makessenseperhapsto arguefrom the canonicalposition of the classroom
as a social site for learning, though not be at all limited to it, and to develop
from that the constructsthat will be neededto accountfor the activities and
goings-on that envelop, and in part occasionsuch acquisition.
One first step, not always taken in the second language teaching and
learning literature, is to accept,following Duranti and Goodwin (1992), that
the key term context is differentially interpreted and used in different re-
search paradigms,and that it needs to be explained and not self-evidently
[Link] classroombehaviour,and quite generally the evid-
ence for acquisition,is describedin terms of talk, it is worth being clear first
of all whether one is talking about the contexts of talk as might a linguist,
where context is a feature of texts, somethingenduring that belongsto the
text-as-entitythat linguists seek to describe. On the other hand, as Mercer
(2000) and Candlin and Mercer (2000) indicate, one might be talking about
context as dynamic, a product of people'sthinking, more the configuration
of information that people use for making senseof languagein particular
situations. In this sense,context

is more a mental than a physical phenomenon,somethingdynamic and mo-

mentary, but dependentin the classroomon the careful constructingby the
teacherof a continuity and a communityof sharedunderstandingwith learners.
(Candlin & Mercer, 2000: 7)

Here one might say that the emotionaland the affective dimensionsof con-
text take priority over the social, certainly over the linguistic. This would be
 GeneralEditor's Preface XVIi

a position close to that, say, of Lev Vygotsky. Again, following the work of
Wertsch (1991) and of Scollon (1998), we might be talking about context as
not talk-centeredat all, but more as centeredon action, or ratheron mediated
action, where talk is merely one amongseveraltools that can be appropriated
and usedby actorsin pursuanceof their goals. Or, yet again,we might under-
stand context as Hasan (2000) does, as what she calls 'discursivecontext...
embracingAction, Relation and Contact- what social activity is being per-
formed by personsin what social relation and what is the mode of their
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

contact' (p. 29), and understandingcontext as not fixed and determined

but dynamic, open to be reclassifiedor as she puts it 'con/textuallyshifted'
as the text [Link] more widely, we may determinecontext not as
particular event-boundat all, as Duranti & Goodwin (1992) suggestwhen
they write,

when the issueof contextis raised... the focal eventcannotbe properly under-
stood, interpretedappropriately,or describedin a relevantfashion, unlessone
looks beyondthe eventitself to otherphenomena(for examplecultural setting,
speechsituation, sharedbackgroundassumptions)within which the event is
embedded.(p. 3)

As they indicate, invoking Goffman, 'the context is thus a frame' (p. 3), a
position also adoptedby Cicourel:

Verbal interaction is related to the task in hand. Languageand other social

practicesare [Link] somethingabout the ethnographicset-
ting, the perception of and characteristicsattributed to others, and broader
and local social organisationalconditions becomesimperative for an under-
standingof the linguistic and non-linguistic aspectsof communicativeevents.
(Cicourel, 1992: 294)

Such an invocation of the broader organisationalconditionsat once introduces

the political, or at least the institutional, and as in the work of JamesGee,
(Gee, 1999) engagesus in the historically and structurallyconstrainedcondi-
tions of production and reception of talk crucial for him to an understand-
ing of this local context of situation.
If we wish to probe further in to these contexts of context, especiallyin
relation to the understandingof the learners' contribution to language
acquisition, what would be for me at least some useful constructsfor such
an explanation?Firstly, the constructof communityof practice, as identified by
Lave and Wenger (1991), and by Scollon (1998), is valuable in that it marks
out communicationas essentially a community matter and allows for the
plurality of communitiesto which any person may belong. It makes an ex-
plicit connectionwith one readingof context'sconcernfor practice, in terms
of social-institutionaland discursiveacts, and it invokes the key constructof
membershipwith its implications of recruitment,apprenticeship,normative
behaviour,and power, as Cicourel and Gee'sconstructionof contextempha-
sises. In the terms of this book, not only are these communities to which
learnersand teachersbelong in dynamic interactionwith each other, as are
 xvm GeneralEditor's Preface

their practices,but they also suggestthat we should not attempt to explain

one aspectof the practicesof the membersof such a community, say their
languagepreferencesin communication,and their resistanceto others, in
isolation from thosebroaderand local social organisationalconditionswhich
impinge on languagechoice. So, as Norton, and also, more indirectly, Ellis
and Oxford, evidencein their chaptershere, communicationand commun-
ity necessarilyimpact on languagelearning practices,and vice versa.
Thereare two further termswhich we may find helpful in our understand-
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

ing of the contextsof acquisition. In any such community of practice, there

will be identified, variously by particular people and at particular times and
places, certain encounterswhich are recognisablyproblematic and highly
charged,where persons'positions,identities,face, abilities, are placedon the
line. Thesesites of engagement,in Scollon's phrase, (Scollon, 1998) or as I
have called them, crucial sites (Candlin, 1990) may vary acrossdifferent com-
munities of practiceor they may recur. One such might be thejob interview,
another, say, the application for social benefits, another the counselling
interview, anotherthe disciplining of inappropriatebehaviour, anotherthe
explanationand understandingof risk. Such crucial sites can be found, as I
say, acrossa range of communitiesof practice - in law, in social and health
care, in medicine, in surveillance,in workplace management,and, as here,
in [Link] languagelearning classroomof a migrant lan-
guagelearning community would be just such a classic case, as Norton and
others have identified. Taking this, then, as a characteristiccrucial site, we
can identify a necessarythird construct in this defining of context, what I
would call critical [Link] I have in mind here are those instances
where the themesand actions of communicationtouch most closely on the
personalitiesand ideologiesof the participants,such that they for a moment,
often quite dramatically, reveal those ideological, social and political posi-
tions through their choicesof, and responsesto [Link] a classroomthis
might be the disciplining of a student, or the handling by the teacherof
unexpectedreactions to stereotypical attitudes thought by the teacher to
be innocuous,or responsesby learnersto racially motivated slurs. Not that
such critical momentsneed be spoken. The negative commentson a piece
of writing, in school or professionalcontextswould equally serve. They are
familiar, and in the educationalcommunity of practice they have both gen-
eral and specific relevance.
It is here that I run the risk of disturbing the harmonious consensus
betweenthe cognitive and the social that the editor has skillfully designedto
establish. I dare to do so becauseit appearsto me important to highlight
what bids fair to becomea very sharp,and ultimately woundingand counter-
productive struggle in the field of second language acquisition. It is one
which essentiallyaddressesthe issuesposedin the quotation from Cicourel
(1992) earlier. At its heart lies the issue oflearneridentity, and the extent to
which acquisition can be separatedfrom the contextsof that acquisition. As
has been pointed out by severalwriters, including some in this volume, on
one current orthodoxy the learner is either conceived of as an individual
 GeneralEditor's Preface xix

with various personalattributes (,more or less motivated', 'more or less intro-

verted', 'more or less confident'), as it were independentof any relationship
to the social, or as having some kind of group identity (,female outworker
from Sri Lanka', 'young upwardly mobile male languagelearnerfrom Hong
Kong') that offers little scopefor individual [Link] alternative position,
now being canvassedstrongly, especially in communitieswith considerable
ethnic and linguistic diversity, for example,where I live in Australia, is to assert
that such mainstreamtheorieshave little explanatoryand critical adequacy,
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

basedin any case,as they are, on small, largely homogeneouspopulationsin

privileged [Link] this alternativeposition, suchpersonality
traits are held not to be fixed but dynamic, they changeover time and space;
the social group labels of orthodoxy serve to mask differentiation not to
reveal it, and they make little if any connectionto the socially and historically
constituted relations of power that create the opportunities for learners
to speak, and to learn. What we have, in fact, is a conflict among different
constructionsand interpretationsof context, and hence the importance of
deconstructingand relativising the term.
For one interpretation,then, it is notjust a matterof a Vygotskyananalysis
of the social basesfor languagelearning within the classroom,and the con-
struction of learnersas people,as Lantolf and Pavlenkoarguein their chapter,
it is the necessityto 'reconceptualizethe learner', in Norton's phrase,and
show that the opportunitiesfor learning are constrainedby inequalities of
power at home, in the workplaceand in the community, inequalitiesmarked
by inequitiesof gender,ethnicity and class. Seenthis way, languagelearning
is not a skill, but a complex social practice,itself closely bound to the defini-
tion of learner identities. Learning to communicatein anotherlanguageis
not just a matter of becoming a better and more autonomouslanguage
[Link] has to do with making the link betweenthe achievementof under-
standingand the achievementof accessto rights and [Link] road towards
exporing the topographyof that territory beginswith asking the critical ques-
tions aboutthe natureoflearneridentities, the natureoflearnercontributions,
and how both are constructedand valued in the contextsoflearningand the
contexts of languageuse. What then turns out to be crucial, as Chamot in
part indicates in her chapter, is the interplay between communicationas
both a socially and cognitively strategicact; understandingthat communica-
tion exists both as a meansof assertingidentity and of getting things done.
It means also that we need to grasp that the constructsof self and person
are frequently contestedamong learners and within each individual, that
an individual learner'suse of languageservesboth as evidenceof solidarity
with othersand as a meansof resistantstruggle againstinstitutions and their
social practices,as Canagarajah(2000) exemplifiesin the contextof Sri Lanka.
One way of accessingsuch constructsis to explore, as Wenden does in her
chapter,the relation betweenlearners'knowledgeand learners'beliefs.
However, as we may have come to feel with context, to describesuch com-
municative behavioursimply in terms of languageoffers little explanation,
although the textualisationsare important. Thus, if we are to understand
 xx GeneralEditor's Preface

even partially the behaviourof learnersin class, and appreciatetheir contri-

butions, potential and actual, we needto explore a wider context, one which
askshow the communicativepracticesin the crucial sites of classroomsrelate
to the practicesin the crucial sites of the street, the workplace and the com-
munity. We may feel that learnersdo not act out their languagelearninglives
as if cagedin some hermeticallysealedcommunicativecompartments.
Let me now take the discussionof the importanceof contextfurther, and
focus more on the data and the settingsfrom which, and in terms of which,
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

our understandingof learnercontributionscan be enriched.

If it is time to hear and listen more to the voices of the learnersas indi-
vidual personsit is also important to do so in terms of their interactionswith
[Link] is a danger,not entirely avoided,of the cognitivist emphasison
individuality creepingback in through a side door where learnersare seen
only as quasi social beings, as it were from their own individual perspective,
but not in any interaction with others. Actor is subsumedin person,just as
earlier personwas conflated with self. Nor is this blurring avoided in those
studiedencountersof learnerdiscoursewhere highly controlled interactions
are constructed,rather like rigidified enactmentsof some classic theatre, to
producesome positivist results, which are then held to be implicative of the
degree of interactionally-engendered acquisition. Breen's own chapter in
this collection warns againstthe problemswith just such [Link] the
messy practices,sites and momentsof the classroom,let alone the murky
learning worlds outside the classroom,learnerscollaborate,or not, as well
as participate, or not. Their contributions are co-constructed,as is their
[Link] selves,personsand actors, learnersoccupy institutional worlds
where their contributionsare frequently struggledover and, as Michael Breen
has shown so insightfully, displayed through contradictory and contested
discourses,ones which are by no meanslimited to classrooms,and which
strugglesare worked out in a myriad and not always overtly signalled ways.
Classroomdiscourses,as evidenceoflearnercontributions,are alwaysreflective
- whethersupportivelyor antagonistically,whetheracceptedor resisted- of
discoursesoutside the [Link], such discoursessignal inter-
discursively either solidarity with, or struggles against, the social practices
of the institution and its [Link] practiceswithin the crucial site of
engagementof the classroomare always contested,and provide critical mo-
mentsfor the re- or the disconfirmationof identities. In that sensewe cannot
easily talk of a learner'scontributionssince learnersare always in themselves
plural, and their contributions similarly differentiated and heterogeneous.
Such contributionsalso, incidentally, speakto an interpretationof contextas
talk and action. As Gee writes:
Whos and whats are not really discrete and [Link] are who you are
through what you are doing and what you are doing is partly recognized
for what it is by who is doing it. So it is better, in fact, to say that utterances
communicatean integrated,though often multiple or heteroglossicwho-doing-
what. (Gee, 1999: 14)
 GeneralEditor:~ Preface XXI

Learnerslearn to navigate thesediscourses,as Breen makesclear (Breen,

1998) through actions, linked principally to the discoursesof negotiating
and making meaning. In this process,it is not only languageand learning
that is negotiated,but also institutional structuresand practiceswhich are
consolidatedor challenged,and by all mannerof semiotic meanswhich work
to reflect and reinforce their significance to the actors involved. Such pro-
cessesalways embodying the negotiation of different forms and values of
capital. It is to this negotiationof value that the unpackingof metaphorin
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

the chaptersby Ellis and Oxford is primarily addressed,in that the metaphors
that learnersconstructabout themselves,their teachersand their learning
offer powerful semiotic evidenceof theseprocesses.
'Metaphorswe learn by' may not turn out then to be such a bad watch-
word to capture the richness of this book and also to highlight two over-
riding representations of the [Link] may say that
thesecontexts- howeverdefined- in which learnersmake their contributions
to learning,whetherin the classroomor in the world outside,represent,and
can be interpretedin referenceto, two relatedbut differently chargedmeta-
phors. The one, ecological, emphasisesCicourel's appraisal (Cicourel, 1992)
of the dynamic interconnectedness betweenlocal actionswithin the institution
and the governinghistorical and social structuresof the broaderformation,
in short how learnercontributionsare constrainednot only by the exigencies
of the interaction order but by forces external to it. The other, economic,
emphasisesthe classroomas a marketplace,where,following Bourdieu (1982,
1991), the values of participant contributions are measuredagainst the
perceivedworth of their owners'variousforms of capital: economic,cultural,
social and symbolic. Here the issue of appraising learner contributions
becomesone of understandingwho controls and manipulatesthe rates of
exchange,and againstwhat kind and extentof capital. Answeringthat question
in the light of exploring learnercontributionscompelsus to forge a connec-
tion betweenthe metaphors:evaluatingthe economyimplies understanding
the ecology. The major contribution of this exciting book is that it displays
the ways in which suchmetaphorscan be made to belongto one, rather than
to two dissentingworlds.

ChristopherN Candlin
GeneralEditor
Centrefor English LanguageEducation& CommunicationResearch
City University of Hong Kong

REFERENCES

Bourdieu, P. (1982) Ce que parler veut dire: l'economiedes echangeslinguistiques. Paris:

Fayard.
Bourdieu, P. (1991) Languageand symbolicpower. Cambridge:Polity.
 XXll General Editor's PrelaCf

Breen, M.P. (1998) Navigating the discourse: 011 what is learned in the language
[Link]/the 1997RELC [Link]. Reproducedin
Candlin, C.N. and N. Mercer (eds) (2000) op. cit.
Canagarajah,S. (1999) Resistinglinguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Candlin, C.N. (1990) What happenswhen applied linguistics goescritical? In Halliday,
M.A.K., J. Gibbons and H. Nicholas (eds) Learning, keeping and using language:
selectedpapersfrom the Eighth World Congressof applied linguistics. Amsterdam:John
Benjamins.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Candlin, C.N. and N. Mercer (eds) (2000) English languageteachingin its social context.
London: Routledge.
Cicourel, A. (1992) The interpenetrationof communicativecontexts: examplesfrom medical
[Link] Duranti, A. and C. Goodwin (eds) (1992) (op. cit.).
Duranti, A. and C. Goodwin (eds) (1992) Rethinkingcontext: languageas an interactive
[Link]:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Gee,J. (1999) An introduction to discourseanalysis: theory and [Link]: Routledge.
Hasan, R. (2000) The uses of talk. In Coulthard, M. and S. Sarangi (eds) (2000)
Discourseand social life. London: Pearson.
Lave, J. and E. Wenger (1991) Situatedlearning: legitimateperipheral participation. Cam-
bridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Mercer, N. (2000) Words and minds. London: Routledge.
Scallon, R. (1998) Mediateddiscourseas social interaction: a study of [Link]:
Longman.
Wertsch,J.v. (1991) Voices of the mind: a sociocultural approach to mediatedaction. Cam-
bridge MA: Harvard University Press.
 Introduction: Conceptualization,
affect and action in context
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

An adequateexplanationof how peoplelearn a languagein addition to their

first has to accountfor four major variables: (1) what the learnerscontribute
to the process; (2) the languagedata made available to the learnersin the
communicative environment in which the learning occurs; (3) the inter-
action betweenlearnersand environmentin terms of the situatedlearning
process;and (4) the actual outcomesfrom the learning. We can rephrase
each of thesein terms of key questionsabout languagelearning:
• What are the specific contributionsof the personsdoing the learning?
• Under what conditions or circumstancesdoes the learning take place?
• How is the learning done?
• What is actually learned?
This book primarily focuses upon the first of these [Link], as
the chapterswithin it reveal, eachof the four variablesconstantlyinterrelate.
Learnerswork selectivelywithin their environmentof learning and upon the
linguistic and communicativedata made available to them in that environ-
ment. This selectivity derives from the learners' conceptualizationof the
conditions that they see as facilitating or hindering their learning and their
conceptualizationof the languageto be [Link] conceptualizationsare
imbued with the learners'feelings and attitudes. We may explore how the
learning is done with regard to internal psycholinguisticand cognitive pro-
cesses,including discrimination,attentionand memory. Even these,however,
are selectivebecauseof both the relative salienceor accessibilityof the lan-
guagedatamadeavailableand the potentialsand constraintsof the learners'
internal [Link], it is likely that the learners' affective attributes
will influence such selectivity. We may therefore regard what the learners
actually learn - the outcomesfrom languagelearning- as significantly shaped
by what they bring and contribute to the whole process.
The chaptersin this book collectively provide a picture of the language
learnersas thinking, feeling, and acting personsin a contextof languageuse
groundedin social relationshipswith other people. The origin of these ac-
countsoflearnercontributionswas a colloquium at the AmericanAssociation

1
 2 LeamerContributions to LanguageLearning

for Applied Linguistics in 1998 which addressed,from different research

perspectives,the issue of how current second languageacquisition (SLA)
researchconstructsor defines the [Link],eachof the authors
of the chaptersthat follow were invited to develop their accountsfrom their
own researchstancewith regard to two main questions: (1) What contribu-
tions of the learnersappearto have a significant impact upon their learning
of a language?and (2) What do we remain unsureof concerningthe contribu-
tions of the learners - in other words, what do we still need to discover
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

throughresearch?The presentbook thereforeprovidesa reflection on diverse

areas of research on language learners, undertaken mainly in the final
decadeof the twentieth century, and offers, at the dawn of the new century,
a detailed agendafor future research.
All of the writers in this collection acknowledgethat a full picture of
learner contributions would include the psycholinguistic dimension of the
[Link] a focus upon the direct interface betweenlinguistic data and
learners' internal cognitive processeshas exemplified a psycholinguistic
approachto SLA [Link] endeavouringto accountfor this interface,the
priority has been to uncoverwhat may be universal in the processin terms
of, for instance,a commonorder of acquisition or consistentdevelopmental
patterns.A concernfor what is common among learnersnecessarilyidenti-
fies as crucial those contributions that all learnersshare as human beings;
contributions that exemplify their inherent biological and psychological
[Link] the learning of a first language,however, successin learn-
ing a subsequentadditional languageis remarkablyvariable. Therefore, as
severalof the chaptersin this book point out, a psycholinguisticfocus in SLA
is likely to be partial becauseit filters out a range of conceptual,affective,
and social contributionsof learnersin interactionwith featuresof the second
languagelearning context that are more likely to account for the different
learning outcomes among learners. An underlying theme of the present
book, therefore,is how we may explain why different learnerswork in differ-
ent ways under what appearto be the samelearning conditions,with access
to what appearsto be the samelanguagedata, and who differentially achieve.
Therefore,in also acknowledgingthat no single theory of languagelearning
will fully accountfor the complexity of the process,the writers offer partiCll-
lar perspectiveson learnercontributionsthat may be seenas complementary
to the psycholinguistic. (Recent exemplificatory psycholinguistic accounts
are found in Bayley and Preston,1996; Cook, 1993; Ritchie and Bhatia, 1996;
White, 1989.)
Given the collective explorationof learners'thinking, affects, and actions
for languagelearning in context, what do each of the chaptersthat follow
specifically focus upon? By way of introduction to the perspectivesoffered
by the chaptersin this book, it is helpful to identify them by posing the
main questionsthat each [Link] we shall see, the chaptersoffer an
unfolding narrative of learner contributions, each one in turn extending
our perspectivesfrom the individual to the individual in relationship to
a widening context and the other people within it. We will summarizethis
 Introduction: Conceptualization,affect and action in context 3

narrative after briefly describing each of the perspectivesprovided in the

chaptersthat follow.

WHICH COGNITIVE/AFFECTIVE LEARNER CONTRIBUTIONS

HAVE BEEN FOUND TO RELATE TO LANGUAGE LEARNING?

In Chapter 1, Diane Larsen-Freemanexplicitly addressesthe major under-

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

lying theme of differential successin language learning. She focuses on

particular learner contributions that have been under investigation for a
good while and providesan updateof an earlier review of this work (Larsen-
Freeman,1991) through an analysis of the researchin the final decadeof
the twentieth century. She addressesthese contributions in terms of her
distinction betweenlearnerattributes,learnerconceptualizations and learner
actions. Learners'attributes include age, aptitude, personality,learning dis-
abilities and social identity. Learners' conceptualizationof the process of
languagelearning includesmotivation, attitudes,cognitive styles and beliefs.
Finally, she evaluatesthe researchon learner action in terms of learning
[Link]-Freemanhighlights the fact that each of these has tended
to be studiedin isolation. She arguesthat each of thesefacets of the learner
needsto be seen in relation to the others and that researchwould benefit
from a theoreticaland investigativeperspectiveon the learnersthat is more
integrative. She identifies researchperspectiveswhich addressthe complex
of learnercontributionsgroundedin an accountof the context of learning
as a possible meanstowards this integration.

DOES LEARNERS' STRATEGIC LEARNING BEHAVIOUR MAKE

A DIFFERENCE?

In Chapter2, the focus sharpensupon what Larsen-Freemanidentified as a

crucial aspectof learner action - the strategieslearnersadopt in order to
make the learning of a languagemore manageableto them. Here, Anna
Chamot also provides a review of recent research,which is appropriately
comprehensivein relation to this much explored aspectof learner action.
She evaluates how strategieshave been investigated, identifies influential
studies of first languagelearning strategies,and reviews in turn what she
categorizesas descriptive, longitudinal and intervention studies. She traces
the descriptive work from the early focus on effective strategies,through
strategiesin task work, to studies comparingmore or less effective strategy
use. Learning strategies,like all learnercontributions,are subjectto adapta-
tion and changethroughoutthe languagelearning [Link] of
the developmentaldynamic of learners' strategieshas led Chamotand her
co-workers to trace changesin strategyuse longitudinally. The third part of
her review focuseson recentcomprehensiveresearchthat seeksto answera
key pedagogicquestionas to whethereffective strategiescan be taught. For
 4 Learner Contributions to LanguageLearning

Chamot, the provision of appropriate intervention dependsupon the rel-

evant expertiseof the [Link] her detailed review of this
pivotal aspectof learneractivity, she raisesa numberof questionsthat future
researchneedsto address,including the teacher-learner relationshipin learn-
ing strategydevelopment.

ON WHAT BASIS DO LEARNERS REGULATE THEIR OWN

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

ACTIONS DURING LEARNING?

In Chapter3, Anita Wendenexaminesthe researchthat exploreswhat actu-

ally underlieslearners'strategicbehaviour. She identifies the characteristics
of metacognitiveknowledge as guiding the learners'consciousand deliber-
ate regulatory control of how the learning is to be done. She specifies this
significant conceptualcontribution in terms of three superordinateareas
of knowledge: personknowledge, task knowledge, and strategic knowledge.
Within each of these,other forms of metacognitiveknowledgeare mobilized
by the learnersto enablethem to regulate their actions. Wendenillustrates
this process in detail with reference to learners' analysis of a task and its
perceiveddemandsupon them and through their ongoingmonitoringof their
processof [Link] it is surprisingthat suchmeta-
cognitive learner contributions appearto have been neglectedin research
given that they are formative prerequisitesfor learner self-regulation and
autonomousaction. They also reveal languagelearningas a necessarilyreflect-
ive processin which learnersconstantlysuperimposeexperientiallyinformed
meaningand purposeupon it. Wenden concludeswith implications of this
crucial metacognitivecontribution for theory, researchand practicein second
languageacquisition.

WHAT CONCEPTUALIZATIONS DO LEARNERS HAVE OF

THEMSELVES AND THEIR TEACHERS?

The ways in which learnersmake senseof their experienceof languagelearn-

ing are very likely to influence selectivelyboth the kinds of metacognitionto
which Wendendraws our attentionand, indeed,their whole approachto the
[Link] conceptualizations are both anticipatoryand
reflective in relation to [Link] are shapedby learners'
past experienceof learning and by interpretationsof their own role and the
role of significant others, such as the teacher,in the immediate context in
which they work. The psychologistGeorge Kelly arguedthat we make sense
of our experiencein ways that would enableus to anticipate how we would
act in new situations through our personal constructs (Kelly, 1955). Such
constructs,althoughopen to adaptationthrough new experiences,enableus
to reduce the relative unpredictability of events and situations, particularly
when we are learningsomethingnew, so that they becomemore manageable
to us. The ways we constructthe world in which we live and our actionswithin
 Introduction: Conceptualization,al1('(t and action in context 5

it are therefore both a potentially enabling and potentially constraining

effort towards personalequilibrium. Clearly, persons'constructsare a deep
and fairly resilient aspectof their conceptualizationin a learning situation.
More recently, there is a significant body of work which explores how our
experienceof the world, including scientific knowledge,is socially constructed,
particularly through how we converseabout it (Gergen, 1985; Harre, 1983;
Potter, 1996; Shotter, 1993a, 1993b inter alia). The possibilities of social con-
structivist perspectiveson the natureof languagelearninghave yet to be fully
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

explored in SLA [Link], as Rod Ellis explains in Chapter4, the

work of Lakoff and Johnson (1980) initiated a focus upon our everyday
metaphoricaluse of languageas one means of accessingthe constructsthat
shapeour thinking and the ways in which we act in certain situations.
Chapters 4 and 5 both address learner conceptualizationin terms of
metaphorical constructsand both make the important point that, just as
metaphorsprovide clues to ways of perceiving, there is the possibility that
our metaphoricalconstructsbecomethe windows throughwhich we may come
to interpret things literally. In Chapter4, Rod Ellis offers an interestingcom-
parison betweenhow a numberof researchersin the field of SLA appearto
be constructing'the learner'and how a sampleof adult learnersappearedto
construct themselvesin relation to their languagelearning [Link]
appliesmetaphoranalysisto nine mostly recentarticlesby leadingresearchers
in the field and discoversa paradoxbetweenconstructsof learnersas lacking
agency and those of learnersas having to be active [Link]
of the learners' own accountsof their key roles during languagelearning
echo the researchers'use of languagebut a major contrast appearsto be
learners' specific emphasisupon the emotional or affective impact of their
[Link] concludesby identifying the potential of metaphoranalysis
for SIA researchand pedagogy.
Relating to the notion that the languagelearning experienceis created
throughsocial relationshipsand social interaction,RebeccaOxford's account
of how learnersconstructedtheir teachersconfirms Ellis's discoverythat the
experience,from their point of view, reverberateswith strong feelings. She
reveals in detail the extent to which teachershave a very significant effect
upon the students'definition of what it is to learn a languagein the classroom
context. Through a comprehensivemetaphoranalysis of a large sample of
learner narratives she also reveals a clustering of learner accountsso that
different teachersappearto be positionedin one of threeways: as autocratic,
democratic/participatory,or laissezfaire. Oxford suggeststhat learners'per-
ceptionsderive from the interface betweentheir own self image, including
cultural identity, dynamic social relationshipsin the classroom,and the con-
text of learning in terms of its perceived demailds upon them and their
[Link] highlights issuesthat she believesare insufficiently exploredin
languagelearning research:the significance of power and affect within the
'learning alliance' between teachersand studentsand the likelihood that
studentsfrom different cultureswill have different expectationsof the teacher
- and of themselves- in the classroomsituation.
 6 LeamerContributions to LanguageLearning

DOES THE ACTION OF OVERT PARTICIPATION IN

THE CLASSROOM HAVE AN EFFECT UPON LEARNERS'
ACQUISITION OF LANGUAGE?

Pursuingthe significanceattributedby Oxford's study to social relationships

in the learning process,in Chapter6 Michael Breen focuses upon the spe-
cific interaction of the languageclassroom,Pedagogicinnovations such as
communicativelanguageteaching or task-basedlearning and current SlA
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

theories such as the interaction hypothesis and the output hypothesis all
assert that learners' productive participation in classroom talk will have a
beneficial effect upon their linguistic and communicative competencein
the target [Link] is the evidence that we can glean from research
in order to support these pedagogic innovations and these hypotheses?
Breen addressesthis question by evaluating the theoretical argumentsand
the researchevidenceboth for and against the positive impact of learners'
overt contributions to classroom and task work. Also echoing Ellis's and
Oxford's discovery of the significance attributed by learnersto the affective
experienceof languagelearning, Breen challengesthe partiality of current
researchperspectiveson classroomcommunicationthat appearto overlook
its [Link] arguesthat the evidencederived
by researchersfrom classroomand task interaction will remain inadequate
and unconvincinguntil the actual natureof learners'contributionsto it and
the outcomesacquired from it are addressedin more subtle and context-
sensitiveways. Currently, influential perspectiveson SlA locate the learners'
comprehension,expressionand negotiationof meaningas pivotal in the pro-
cesswhile adheringto a superficial view of what may be meaningful and sig-
nificant to the learnersduring classroomand task interaction. He proposes
that one meansof accessingthe meaningand significanceof interactionand,
crucially, their likely impact upon learning, is through a discoursalperspect-
ive on the interactionand the learners'participationwithin it. He concludes
with a numberof implications for future researchthat derive from adopting
this perspective.

WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEARNERS' ACTIONS

IN THE LEARNING CONTEXT, THEIR EXPERIENCE OF
LANGUAGE LEARNING, AND THEIR LEARNING OCTCO~IES?

Continuingthe narrativeof the book which, from chapterto chapter,widens

the lens upon the contextof learningas an arenafor discoveringwhy learners
might differentially achieve, the final two chaptersbroadenour perspective
upon learner participation. In Chapter7, Lantolf and Pavlenko addressthe
learning of language in terms of the learners' active engagementwithin
activity. Offering a sociocultural perspectiveon learner thinking and action
drawing upon activity theory, they argue that context is the sourceof mental
development,including the developmentof a new language,and not merely
 Introduction: Conceptualization,affect and action in context 7

a backdrop to this [Link] the basis of their elaboration of the

principles of activity theory, they arguethat researchon languagelearning, if
it is to account for differential learner achievement,must focus upon the
learners'variable exerciseof agencywithin context. This entails seeingboth
the activities, in a location such as a languageclass, and learners'participa-
tion within them as having personal, biographical-historical significance
groundedwithin particularcultural valuesand [Link] this research
stance,Lantolf and Pavlenko see learning a languageas learning 'new ways
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

of mediatingourselvesin our relationshipswith othersand to ourselves'.The

processcan be explored, therefore,as the complex transition from one lin-
guistic identity to [Link] this transition, what mattersto learnersis what
they see as significant for them and not their 'performance'during activities
or 'outputs' from them. And what is significant for the learnerswill shape
how they act, how they define the contextin which they act, and why they act
in the ways that they do. Quoting from case studies, Lantolf and Pavlenko
illustrate how languagelearnersdifferentially exerciseagencyduring learn-
ing on the basisof their interpretationof, accessto, and participation in the
targetlanguagecommunity. Through this, they identify the possibilitiesof an
agencyof resistanceas comparedwith an agencyof [Link] the
perspectiveof activity theory and agency, Lantolf and Pavlenko conclude
with a number of radical agendasfor future researchin SLA and for lan-
guage pedagogy.
Bonny Norton, in Chapter8, picks up the themesof learneragencyand
the transition of linguistic identity directly in terms of the possible clash of
agenciesas anticipated by Lantolf and Pavlenko. She does so by linking
learner conceptualization,in terms of perceived or 'imagined' community
identity, to learner action in terms of engagedparticipation or the actual
withdrawal of participation. Norton introducesinto our narrative the notion
of learners moving between different communities of practice. She argues
that different learnershave different imagined communities; 'imagined' in
the senseof the learners'constructof [Link], Norton also
extends our account of learner conceptualizationsin terms of their con-
structs; from Ellis's accountof learner self-constructsand Oxford's account
of teacher-constructs to a learner'sconstructsof the communitiesof which
the self is a memberor seeksto becomea member.
Through the analysis of case studies of learners,Norton identifies three
intenveavingcommunities between which languagelearners move concur-
rently and with which, to different extents, languagelearnerswill identify.
First, there is the learners'own biographical-historicalcommunity. Secondly,
there is the learning community that languagelearnersmay chooseto enter,
such as a particular classroomand its unfolding curriculum, for instance.
And, thirdly, there is the wider speechcommunity which the learnersmay
seek to join; a community immediately outside the classroomfor a recent
migrant, perhaps,or identified at a distance by learners in a foreign lan-
guage class through, possibly, a greaterexerciseof the imagination. Norton
argues that different learnersin different circumstanceswill conceptualize
 8 Learner Contributions to Lang;uageLearning

each of these communities in different ways, particularly in terms of how

they identify themselveswith them. And, crucially, such conceptualizations
will influence the extent to which they invest their participationin the learn-
ing of the languageor, indeed,withdraw their participation completely.

WHAT OVERALL PROFILE OF THE LEARNERS' CONTRIBUTION

TO LANGUAGE LEARNING IS PROVIDED BY THE CHAPTERS
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

THAT FOLLOW?

The particular learner contributions to their languagelearning which are

focused upon in the chapters that follow are summarized in Figure 1
(authors'namesare indicatedalongsidethe main learnercontributionsthat
they directly address).The purposeof this book is to provide acornprehens-
ive account and evaluation of the researchrelating to such contributions
and to identify further directions which researchmight take. As Figure 1
illustrates, the narrative of researchthat we presentextendsoutwardsfrom
the attributes of individual learners, such as age or aptitude for example,
through conceptualizationsand affects that they superimposeupon the lan-
guagelearning experience,thence through the specific actions they under-
take in the learning context, to ongoingparticipationas a personwithin and
[Link] of thesecontributionsare enactedin ongoingways
and to different extentsduring languagelearning.
We have identified the languageclassroomas a particular context of the
learning [Link] Lantolf's, Pavlenko'sand Norton's terms it can be seen
as a specific community of practice for learnerswhich gravitateswithin the
wider communitiesfrom which they come, to which they currently belong,
and to which they [Link] this sense,a languageclass mediates
betweenthe learners'being and [Link],the samelearnercon-
tributions that we have identified will be enactedin those other contextsin
which learnersseek to use and develop a new language.
What is hard to conveyin diagrammaticform is the fact that thesecontribu-
tions will constantly interrelatewith one [Link] Lantolf and Pavlenko
illustrate in Chapter7, activity theory provides us with an informative means
of perceiving these kinds of [Link] in a diagram tend to
imply a lack of permeabilitybetweenthe things within and thosewithout the
box. We might better adopt a metaphorin terms of, for example, sound
wavesand their returningechoesin endeavouringto expressthe reverberative
and iterative effect of each learnercontribution in relation to others and in
different [Link], for instance,aptitude,personality
or identity relate to how learnerswill conceptualizethemselvesas learners
and the situation which they enter that provides a potential for learning -
more obviously a classroomand less obviously, perhaps,othersocial eventsin
wider [Link] of these,in turn, will shapetheir agency,participation
and strategy use as a contributor to the linguistic-communicativeenviron-
ment available to themselvesand [Link], the engagementof all such
 Introduction: Conceptualization,affect and action in context 9

Learnerattributes,conceptualizations
andaffects

Innate languageacquisitioncapacity
Psycholinguisticprocesses
Gender(Lantolf & Pavlenko;Norton)
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Age (Larsen-Freeman)
Aptitude (Larsen-Freeman)
Cognitive style (Larsen-Freeman)
Learningdisabilities (Larsen-Freeman)
Personality(Larsen-Freeman)
Self/social/culturalidentity (Larsen-Freeman;Oxford; Norton)
Agency (Lantolf & Pavlenko)
Metacognitiveknowledge (Wenden)
Beliefs (Larsen-Freeman)
Attitudes (Larsen-Freeman)
Motivation (Larsen-Freeman)
Constructsof self as learner& of teacheretc. (Ellis; Oxjirrd)

,
Conceptualizationsof classroom& communities(Breen; Norton)
t
Learneraction in context

Exerciseof agencyduring learning (Lantolf & Pavlenko)

Autonomy (Wenden;Oxford)
Self-regulation(Wenden)
Languagelearningstrategies(Larsen-Freeman;Chamot)
Participationin overt interaction,discourse,
activity (Breen; Lantolf & Pavlenko)

Classroomcontext: a particularlearningcommunity

Active contributor to specific linguistic/communicative

environment(Breen; Lantolf& Pavlenko;Norton)

Wider communityidentity and participation

Experiencedstatesof transition (Lantolf & Pavlenko;Norton)

1 1 -I
To which previously To which currently To which seeks
belonged belongs to belong

Figure 1 The profile of learner contributionsto languagelearning

contributions will relate to the state of transition the learners experience

in seekingmembershipof [Link] all of theseinter-
relationships are, for the learners, imbued with significant emotions and
meanings.
 10 LeamerContributions to LanguageLearning

The interrelationshipis, of course,reflexive in the sensethat people take

their wider communityidentity and history into the classroom- as the chap-
ters by Oxford, Lantolf and Pavlenko, and Norton reveal. This classroom
context will be seen by learnersto facilitate or constrain their own actions
which, in turn, have an impact upon their conceptualizations,affects, and
even those attributeswhich researchtends to constructas relatively resilient
or stable learner capacities,such as their [Link] lan-
guagelearning researchwe have hardly commencedthe investigationof the
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

ways in which even a few of these contributions may interrelate.A further

purposeof this book is to begin to identify some possiblerelationshipsand,
crucially, how thesemay have an effect upon languagelearning.
There is a further importantcharacteristicof the learnercontributionson
which we gradually widen the spotlight from chapter to chapter. They are
dynamic both in the ways in which learnersengagethem in any momentof
learning and they are open to changeover time, especiallyas the language
learning unfolds. This implies that virtually all of them are mutable and,
thereby,susceptibleto learneragencyand, to differing extents,the influence
of [Link] relevanceof this for languagepedagogyis clear.
Pedagogyhas the capacity to provide those opportunities and conditions
within which learner contributions that are found to have a positive effect
upon learning may be more fully [Link] also has the potential to con-
strain them or sometimeseven attribute to them an assumedlimitation - as
in a learner'sage, strategyuse, classroomparticipation,or previouscommun-
ity membership,for example. Researchand theory in SLA, as we have seen,
seeksto identify that which is stable,consistentand commonamonglearner
contributions. For instance,it may be that our innate languageacquisition
capacityis immutable,although it functions in a different way when we learn
an additional language, the learners' accessto it being through the first
language. However, the further we widen our lens from what might be
describedas relatively stableattributesof learners,it is more likely that we will
find that their interaction revealsa dynamic which is mutual; that a change
in strategyuse or classroomparticipation, for example,can effect a change
in self-identification both as learners and as potential members of a new
speechcommunity - and, of course,vice versa.
As indicated earlier, one underlying purposeof this book is to begin to
explain why learnersof an additional languagewill achievedifferentially. In
doing so, the chaptershelpfully reveal different facets of the samekey learner
variables. For example, learner identity is explored in terms of personality,
self-image, community and culture. Overt language learning behaviour is
exploredin terms of agency,engagementin joint activity, classroomand task
interaction, and strategyuse. And learner thinking is explored in terms of
knowledge,beliefs, attitudes,constructsand conceptualizationsof the learn-
ing contextand communityand cultural [Link] presenta compre-
hensive and complex picture of learners,revealing them as contributing to
their learning of a languagein comprehensiveand complex ways. A further
motive, therefore,is to offer an enrichedresearchperspectiveon the learner
 Introduction: Conceptualization,affect and action in context 11

which we believe has been missing from much of the researchliterature

in SlA to date. We acknowledgethat the picture of the learner which is
presentedhere remainsitself incompleteand perceivedas 'through a glass,
darkly' (Corinthians, 13.1). However, to borrow Burke's concept,as quoted
by Lantolf and Pavlenkoin Chapter7, the particular 'terministic screen'or
investigative lens through which we have tried to understandthe language
learner in our narrative has been rarely used to date, and the new ways of
perceivingthat it allows may helpfully complementand extendtheoriesand
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

researchthat have so far precededit.

 Chapter 1

Individual cognitive/affective learner

contributions and differential success
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

in secondlanguage acquisition
Diane Larsen-Freeman,Schoolfor International
Training, Vermont

INTRODUCTION

It is significant that the central theme of this book is learnercontributions.

For while the learner has not been ignored in secondlanguageacquisition
(SLA) research,more attention has been paid to characterizingan acquisi-
tion processthat is common to all [Link] 'mainstream'SLA research
hasbeenlargely concernedwith the role of the L1, acquisitionorders,develop-
mental sequences,negotiated input, the role of a biologically-specified
universalgrammar(UG), sequencelearning, etc. From a UG perspective,the
only 'contribution' of the learner is an innate predispositionfor language
acquisition, at least with regard to the acquisition of core grammar. From
an interactionist perspective,the learner's 'contribution' is a willingness to
utilize secondlanguageinput, obtainedusually throughnegotiatingmeaning
with a more proficient speakerof the [Link] course, it is recognized
by advocatesof both perspectivesthat unlike first language acquisition,
successin learning a secondlanguageis considerablymore variable, and it is
left to the researchon individual learnerfactors to explain this differential
success.
For sometime, it seemsto me, we have underestimatedthe significanceof
the learners'role in the SLA [Link] first languagelearners,second
languagelearners can, and sometimesdo, refuse to engagewith the SLA
processat all. Conversely,some learnerswill succeedwhen the conditions of
learningdo not appearconduciveto [Link] twenty yearsago (Larsen-
Freeman,1983), I arguedthat the learnerwas not merely a passiverecipient
of customizednative speakerinput. I did not question the value of compre-
hensibleinput in the SLA process,but I questionedwhy the responsibilityfor
increasingthe comprehensibilityof the input shouldbe perceivedas a unilat-
eral [Link] illustrate my point, I reportedon the caseof a Dutch speaker
who claimed to have successfullyacquired German without receiving any
modified input. The Dutch speaker'ssole sourceof input was from German

12
 Individual (o{;nitive/a//ectivelearner contributions 13

radio [Link] course the learnerwas aided in the SLA endeavourby

the similarity between the two languages;however, I cited this admittedly
unusualcaseto supportmy contentionthat a secondlanguagelearnerhas a
great deal to do with the outcomeof the processand is not merely passively
dependenton some benevolent,skilful, more proficient interlocutor.
This volume signals an increasedappreciationof the role of secondlan-
guage learners, affecting not just how much they succeed,but what they
do to meet with [Link] what follows, I review the largely experimental
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

researchliterature of the last decade(updatingLarsen-Freeman,1991) from

the perspectiveof individual cognitive/affectivelearner contributions.I am
defining 'contributions'to include what learnersbring, that is, who they are
(attributes: age,aptitude,personality,learningdisabilities,social identities),how
they conceptualizesecondlanguageacquisition (conceptualization:motivation,
attitude,cognitive style, beliefs), and what they do (actions: learningstrategies).
Mter addressingthesethree categoriesin turn, I concludeby making a more
global commentregarding the evolution of the constructionof the learner
in the secondlanguageacquisition field.

LEARNER ATTRIBUTES

Age
In my 1991 survey of the literature, I concludedthat the available evidence
for an age-relatedeffect in SLA was inconsistent. However, the evidence
seemedto favour the critical period hypothesis (CPH), whereby only those
who begin the acquisitionof an L2 before the end of a limited developmental
period, coinciding about the time of the onsetof puberty, can attain native-
like levels of proficiency, at least for pronunciationin the L2. This position
continuesto receive support (Long, 1993b; Patkowski, 1994). For instance,
Hurford and Kirby (1999) have used computersimulationsto show how lan-
guagecomplexityand speedof acquisitionconvergeat puberty,demonstrating
that a critical period for languageacquisition is an evolutionary advantage.
Then, too, Weber-Foxand Neville (1999) presentevidencefrom event-related
brain potential differences and grammaticaljudgementtasks to show that
neural organization is different for early and late languagelearners. Most
recently, Moyer (1999) reported that, with one exception, highly proficient
L2 learners,who had begun their study of German after puberty, were not
judged native-like in their pronunciationof Germandespite their high level
of motivation and the fact that they had been immersed in the language
while residing in Germany.
However,severalrecentstudieshave also challengedthe CPH (seeBirdsong,
1999 for a collection of papers divided evenly between supporters, for
example,Eubankand Gregg (1999) and detractorsof the CPH, for example,
Bialystok and Hakuta (1999)). Flege (1995) and Yeni-Komshian,Flege and
Liu (1997) found that L2 learners'ability to pronouncea foreign language
 14 Learner Contributions to LanguageLearning

does decline with age; however, they maintain that the ability declines lin-
early, that is, there is no suddendrop at puberty, which one might expect,
given the CPH. Flege (1999) does acknowledge,however, that none of the
240 native Italian participantsin his 1995 study, who beganlearning English
after the age of fifteen, could be said to have learned to speak English
without a detectableforeign accent. In contrast, loup, Boustagui, EI Tigi
and Moselle (1994) report on a case of an adult English learner who has
apparentlyacquired native proficiency in Egyptian Arabic in an untutored
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

setting. The authorsaccountfor this individual's successby arguing that the

woman'slanguagelearningtalent is an innate, inherited trait, associatedwith
characteristicsbelonging to the Geschwindcluster such as left-handedness,
twinning and allergies,[Link] not all the native speakerjudges
rated the woman'spronunciationas native, in a study by Bongaerts,Planken
and Schils (1995), native English-speakingjudges were indeed unable to
distinguish ten highly proficient Dutch learnersof English from a group of
native speakersof English. None of the learnershad begunstudying English
before the age of twelve. However, there was also speculationon the part of
the researchersthat since the learnersspoke the supraregional,prestigious
dialect of British English, called Received Pronunciation, the judges may
have been persuadedto award higher scoresthan they would have had the
subjectsspokena less prestigiousdialect. Thus, in a follow-up study in 1997
(Bongaertset ai., 1997),judgesand learnerswere matchedin the dialect of
British English that they spoke. The main result from the secondstudy was
that some, although not all, learnersreceived ratings from judges compar-
able to those given the native speakersin a control group. Finally, Bongaerts
(1999) reportsthat four ofa pool of nine Dutch learnersof Frenchachieved
Flege, Munro and MacKay's (1995) criterion of native-likenesson their speech
samplesjudged by native speakersof French. Bongaertsargues that such
results may be interpretedas evidencesuggestingthat claims concerningan
absolute biological barrier to the attainment of a native-like accent in a
foreign languageare too strong. Having said this, Bongaertsacknowledges
that native-like attainmentin the domain of pronunciationseems to be a
fairly exceptionalphenomenon.
Researchin the area of syntax, basedon grammaticalityjudgements,also
shows that native-like performance is possible in postpubertal learners
(Birdsong, 1992; White and Genesee, 1996; but see Pulvermuller and
Schumann,1994). It should be noted, however, that all these learnerswere
specially selectedbecauseof their exceptionalability. For instance,in Bird-
song's study, all of the subjects,foreign languagelearnersof French, were
fluent and had beenliving in Francefor at least three continuousyearsprior
to being tested.
Recenthypothesesabout what helps some postpubertallearnerssucceed
include brain organization(Ioup et ai., 1994), high motivation and training,
~Ioyer,
(Bongaertset ai., 1995; Klein, 1995; 1999), continuedaccessto abund-
ant, authenticL2 input (Klein, 1995), training in speechperception(Flege,
1995), and multiple explanations, including possibly sociocultural factors
 Individual cognitive/aflertivelearner rontributions 15

and sustainedaccessto auditory perception (Wode, 1994). Such findings

remain to be corroboratedwhen the Ll and L2 are less typologically closely
related (Bialystok, 1997; Bongaertset al., 1997; Kellerman, 1995).
Another age-relatedhypothesisthat has beenchallengedis Krashen,Long
and Scarcella's(1979) generalization,basedon a synthesisof researchstud-
ies published up to that time, that older children are initially faster than
younger learnerswhen it comes to the acquisition of [Link]
andJohnson(1995) report that their subjects'age of arrival played no role
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

in predicting the subjects' rate of acquisition. Performancewas very similar

betweenthe two age groups they examined- 7-9 and 10-12-yearolds upon
arrival - throughoutthe three years of their study. Thus, there was no initial
older learner [Link] offer as an explanation for their contrary
finding the fact that their learnerswere acquiringa language- English - that
was very different typologically from the L1 's of their subjects - Chinese,
Japanese,Korean andVietnamese- and of the L1's studiedpreviously. Clearly,
many questions remain to be investigated with regard to age effects and
secondlanguageacquisition.

Aptitude
As I stated in 1991, it is obvious to even the most casual observerthat indi-
vidual learnerslearn at different rates. Skehan (1989) has called language
aptitude'one ofthe centralindividual differencesin languagelearning' (1989:
25) and 'consistentlythe most successfulpredictor of languagelearning suc-
cess' (1989: 38). What constitutesan aptitude for languagelearning and its
preciserelationshipto IQ has beenunclear,however,with previous research
finding correlationsbetweenaptitudeand IQ that varied from low to moderate
(for discussion,seeSkehan,1998). Mter testing 160Japanesecollegestudents
studying EFL, Sasaki (1993a) found a high correlation between a general
secondlanguageproficiency factor and a general cognitive or intelligence
factor. But while they were correlated, they remainedmutually distinct. In
a subsequentqualitative study, Sasaki (1993b) observedthat the generalpro-
ficiency factor may be related to her subjects'ability to use the information
available to them to find the correct answersto a cloze test. This observa-
tion is supportedby Sasaki's(1996) factor analytic study of aptitude,showing
a relationship among verbal intelligence, reasoningand foreign language
aptitude.
Relevantto a discussionof researchaddressingthe fonner issue, the ques-
tion of the nature of aptitude,is Skehan's(1989) contentionthat there exist
two different profiles of languageaptitude - some learnerspossessan ana-
lytic aptitude, and others are more [Link] researchon
aptitude had tacitly assumedthat the componentsof aptitude aggregatein
cumulativefashion to influence language-learning [Link]
that analytic and memoryorientationsrepresentdifferent routesto the same
languagelearning success,and that successis achievableby either, provided
that learnersplay to their [Link] memory route to proficiency draws
 16 Learner Contributions to Lanf!:1wr;e Learning

some support from the suggestionby N. Ellis (1996) that differences in

learners'short-termmemoriesmay accountfor learners'differential success.
Another question that has persistedwith regard to aptitude is whether
componentsof aptitude are relevantfor informal as well as formal learning
environments (Krashen, 1981; Skehan, 1989). Work by Robinson (1997),
who looked at individual differencesin aptitude under different conditions
of learning, would suggestthat they are. Robinsonfound that when an indi-
vidual's aptitudematchedthe demandsof a task performedunderany condi-
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

tion, incidental or instructed, rule-searchor implicit, the aptitude often led

to awareness,which was associatedwith superior levels of learning. Earlier
Robinson (1995) found the highest correlationsbetweenaptitude and per-
formancewhen subjects'focus was away from form and towards meaning.
Although strictly speaking distinct from language aptitude, Howard
Gardner'sconceptof multiple intelligencesis relevanthere. Gardner (1983)
grouped human capabilities into seven categorieswhich he called 'intelli-
gences':verbal-linguistic,logical-mathematical,visual-spatial,body-kinesthetic,
musical-rhythmic, interpersonal,and [Link] to Gardner,
each person possessesall seven intelligencesto varying [Link] I am
unawareof any SLA researchthat relatesmultiple intelligencesto individual
differencesin languagelearning outcomes,I agreewith Schmidt (1997) that
it would seemthat this areawarrantsfurther investigation,especiallysince it
has attracteda great deal of attention in languageteachingcircles.

Personality
In my 1991 review of the research literature, I discussedmany different
individual personalitytraits thought to facilitate or inhibit SLA: self-esteem,
extraversion,anxiety, risk-taking, sensitivity to rejection, empathy,inhibition,
and toleranceof ambiguity. Since then, althougha greatdeal of researchhas
beenconducted,most has centredon learners'reactionsto anxiety. Perhaps
this should not be surprising for Gardner and MacIntyre claim that 'the
single bestcorrelateof achievementis languageanxiety' (1993: 183). Anxiety
not only causesdifficulty in oral performance,but also in secondlanguage
reading (Saito et aI., 1998) and writing (Cheng et aI., 1999). Its influence
also seemsto extendto different [Link] (1994) found that consistent
with researchusing westernlanguages,languageanxiety was found to be sig-
nificantly negatively related to American students'performancein Japanese.
Its effects are so pervasive that one researchstudy has shown that it even
interferes with students' estimation of their L2 competence,'vith anxious
studentsunderestimatingtheir competencerelative to less anxious students
(MacIntyre et aI., 1997).
In fact, it may be that the study of languageanxiety no longer belongsin
a discussionof generalpersonalityfactors at all. For while it was once thought
that anxiety was a trait factor, indicative of a person'stendencyto become
anxious in any situation (MacIntyre and Gardner, 1991a), a more likely
explanationaccording to Maclntyre and Gardner (1991b) is that there is a
 Individual cognitive/affectivelearner contributions 17

special form of anxiety, language anxiety, or 'the feeling of tension and

apprehensionspecifically associatedwith secondlanguagecontexts', which
MacIntyre and Gardner (1994) claim can be discriminated reliably from
other types of anxiety and which many people experience.
One of the interesting issues debatedin the researchon the effect of
anxiety on second language achievementis the controversy sparked by
Ganschow,Javorsky, Sparks,Skinner,Andersonand Patton (1994) andGanshow
and Sparks (1996), raising the now familiar questionof directionality: 'Does
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

anxietyimpair secondlanguageperformanceas MacIntyre and Gardnerclaim,

or does poor performancelead to anxiety as a consequence?'(1994: 42). In
MacIntyre's (1995) responseto Ganschowet aI.'s challenge,he affirms his
beliefs that the evidencesupportsa stronginitial influence of affective factors
on studentperformance,not only in the learning of a secondlanguage,but
also in demonstratingwhat he or she has learned. He also adds, however,
that 'the cyclical relation betweenanxiety and task performancesuggeststhat
as studentsexperiencemore failure, their anxiety level may increaseeven
more' (MacIntyre, 1995: 97).
Another personalitytrait which has receivedsome recentattention in the
researchliterature is extraversion (for a review, see Dewaele and Furnham,
1999). Dewaeleand Furnham (2000) discovereda significant positive corre-
lation betweenextraversion,as measuredby the EysenckPersonalityInvent-
ory, and the fluency of French-Englishbilinguals, especiallyin interpersonally
stressful situations. However, other researchconductedby Carrell, Prince
and Astika (1996), Ehrman (1993,1995,1996),Ehrmanand Oxford (1995),
and Oxford and Ehrman (1993), in which the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
has been used to assesspersonality type and learning style, has found that
extraversionis not an especiallygood predictor of languagelearningsuccess.
Therewere very few other direct relationshipsbetweenpersonalitytraits and
languageperformancemeasuresin this research,although in their sample
of 855 languagelearners, mainly adult learners of varying languagesfrom
the US Departmentof State, Ehrman and Oxford found that 'studentswho
reported themselvesas defiant were slightly aheadof their compliant class-
mates in both speakingand reading' (Ehrman and Oxford, 1995: 80). For
the same two skills, 'thin' ego boundaries(an operationalizationof the con-
cept of toleranceof ambiguity, as determinedby the subjects'answerson the
HartmannBoundaryQuestionnaire(Hartmann,1991»,were associatedwith
proficiency [Link],in supportof Skehan's(1989) claim, far
more robust correlationsheld for the aptitude measures(the MLAT) than
for any personalitytraits.
A personalitytrait that was not mentionedin the earlier review is 'willing-
ness to communicate'.Willingness to communicateis said to reflect a stable
predispositionto talk in various situationsand is thereforeessentiallya per-
sonality trait (MacIntyre et aI., 1998). Using path analysis, MacIntyre and
Charos (1996) concludedthat each of the 'Big Five' personalitytraits (extra-
version, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
emotionalstability and opennessto
new experiences)contributesto developingmotivation for languagelearning
 18 Learner Contributions to LanguageLearning

or to willingness to communicate,or to both. They argue, though, that the

effect of personalityseemsto be channelledthrough more specific variables,
such as intergroup attitudesand confidencein the secondlanguage.

Learning disabilities
Since the 1991 review, much has been written in the general education
literature on [Link] studentswho have foreign language
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

learning difficulties, no differenceshave been found betweenthe Ll skills

and foreign languageaptitudeof studentsclassifiedas learning disabledand
studentsnot classified as learning disabled (Sparks et aI., 1998). Whether
or not such studentswith learning disabilities achievedifferentially in an L2
from studentswithout learning disabilities is an empirical question (Sparks
and Javorsky, 1999). However, it is the case that learning disabilities can
manifestthemselvesas language(decoding/encoding)difficulties (Ganschow
and Sparks, 1993, 1995). And this might well have repercussionsfor differ-
ential achievement,unless certain modifications to instruction are made
(Arries, 1999).

Social identities
This review thus far has focused on factors which have receivedmost of the
attention in SLA researchon individual differencesuntil recently. We are
more aware now, though, of the importance that social identity plays in
affecting learner [Link] Peirce (1995) and Norton, in Chap-
ter 8 of the presentvolume, argues that a comprehensivetheory of social
identity which integratesthe language learner and the languagelearning
contextis neededin SLA [Link] Norton, communitymembershipand
learner transitions between communities of speakersis a crucial aspectof
social identity. She also maintains that SLA researchhas not paid sufficient
attention to the issue of power relations between language learners and
target [Link] (1996) examinesthe intersectionof learner
identity, social position and SLA in a white woman learning Japanesein
Japan. She points out that both native and non-native speakersengagein
the act of 'impressionmanagement'as they interact in the target language.
Recentdiscussionson the effect of social identity include Ibrahim (1999) on
the relationshipbetweenracial identity and learning, Nelson (1999) on sexual
identity, and Carrier (1999) on social status.

LEARNER CONCEPTL'ALIZATIONS

Motivation
Motivation continues, rightfully, to receive a great deal of respect among
SLA [Link] to this point, Pulvennullerand Schumann(1994), in
their parsimoniousneurobiologicalmodel of languageacquisition, attest to
 Individual cognitive/affectivelearner contributions 19

the importance of learner motivation by considering it as the only other

factor besidesgrammaticalacquisitional ability that will accountfor the dif-
ferencebetweenLl and L2 acquisitionand variablesuccessin SU. Schumann
(1998), however, proposesthat L2 motivation, in turn, is multifaceted, con-
sisting of various permutationsof five stimulus appraisal patterns: novelty,
pleasantness, goal/needsignificance,coping potential, self and social image.
Many researcherstoday acknowledgethat our current conceptualizations
of motivation are too simplistic. While someresearchhassupportedLukmani's
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

observation (1972) that instrumentalmotivation can be just as powerful as

integrative motivation for explaining learners'differential success(Gardner
and MacIntyre, 1991; seealso Samimyand Tabuse,1992), other researchhas
called into questionthe simple binary distinction betweeninstrumentaland
integrative motivation. Gardnerand Tremblay (1994a, 1994b), for instance,
make the casefor a contrastbetweenintegrativeand instrumentalorientations,
an orientationbeing a classof reasonsfor studyinga languagewhich includes,
but is not the sameas, motivation. Clement,Dornyei and Noels (1994) report
an association, rather than an independence,between instrumental and
integrativemotivation basedon an analysisof factors accountingfor the success
of foreign language learners of English in Hungary. And Belmechri and
Hummel (1998) also provide evidencethat orientationsamongfrancophone
high school studentslearningEnglish in Quebecare contextdependent,not
exclusively instrumentalnor integrative.
But beyondchallengingthe simple binary distinction with regardto motiva-
tion and secondlanguageacquisition,work by Crookesand Schmidt (1991),
Dornyei (1994, 2001), Fotos (1994), Oxford and Shearin (1994), Schmidt,
Boraie and Kassabgy (1996), Tremblay and Gardner (1995), and Williams
and Burden (1997) has observedin generalhow narrow our view of motivation
has been. Dornyei, for example,has arguedthat in determiningthe motiva-
tion of second language learners, we need to take into account not only
social group factors (for a review see Dornyei, 1998), as important as they
may be, but also personalfactors such as the needfor achievementand self-
confidence,and situationalfactors suchas the interestand relevanceof course-
specific [Link] example of the influence of local factors comes
from Noels, Clementand Pelletier's (1999) recentstudy demonstratingthat
students'perceptionsof their teachers'communicativestyle were related to
intrinsic motivation, such that the more controlling and less informative
studentsperceivedtheir languageteacherto be, the lower students'intrinsic
motivation was. One thing that is clear is that motivation is multifacetedand
that no available theory has yet managedto representits complexity.

Attitude
This samegeneralconcernfor inclusivity has characterizedthe work on the
influence of learner attitudes on secondlanguagelearning [Link] in-
stance,in the earlier review (Larsen-Freeman,1991), I pointed out that it was
not sufficient to look at the attitudesof the learnersalone, especiallyin the
 20 Learner Contributions to LanguageLearning

caseof young learners;we neededalso to examinethe attitudesof influential

others such as parents, peers and [Link] they looked at parental
attitudes,Lambertand Taylor (1996) found that the social classof parentsof
languagelearnersaffected their attitudes towards their children's language
learning, which in turn affected issues of [Link]-
mothers of Cuban heritage living in the United States encouragedtheir
children to learn English in order to succeedin America, an attitude that
led to advancesin English at the expenseof the children's Spanishfluency.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

In contrast, for middle-classmothers, successwas associatedmore with the

encouragementof Spanish competence,not English, resulting in their
children'senjoying an additive, ratherthan a subtractive,bilingualism. Then,
too, Flowerdew, Li and Miller (1998) found that despite the rather ambi-
valent attitude towards the study of English indicative of the sociolinguistic
tensionscurrently within the Hong Kong society at large, parentsstill desire
their children to be educatedin English-mediumschoolsin order to maxim-
ize their careerprospects.
Another issue that begs for further attention is the question of the direc-
tion of the influence: Does a positive attitude underlie better achievements,
or do better achievementscontribute to a more positive attitude, or is there
a reciprocalrelationship (Hermann,1980; Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991)?
This question motivated a recent study by Kuhlmeier, van den Bergh and
MeIse (1996). What theseresearchersfound was that studentswho entereda
first-year Germancoursewith a positive attitude rated higher in achievement
than thosehaving a negativeattitude both at the beginningand at the end of
the school year. Direct effects of students' attitudes on achievement(and
vice versa) could not be established,however, still leaving us with the ques-
tion of reciprocity.
One of the contributionsof the Kuhlmeier, van den Bergh and Melse study
is to remind us of the importanceof measuringlearnerfactors at more than
one point in time. So far researchdesigns have often included self-report
measuresadministeredonce during the study. A longitudinal perspective
should be encouragedin order to obtain a better picture of how different
motivational or attitudinal influencesevolve. Mantle-Bromley (1995), for ex-
ample,showedhow students'attitudesand misconceptionsaboutthe language
learning processcould be altered by a systematicinstructional program, so
that they would not hinder students'progressand persistencein language
study. It is conceivablethat as we searchfor an enhancedconceptualization
of learnerfactors, we will also find that they are not only mutablebut that they
also vary in their influence, dependingon the learners'stageof acquisition.
We haveyet to determine,for instance,if Spolsky (1989) was right that aptitude
has more of an effect in early languageacquisition than at later stages.
The final point I will make relevant to the discussion of the socio-
psychologicalfactors stems from the need not only to assessthe impact of
these and other factors longitudinally, sensitive to their mutability, but also
to recognize that the variables do not likely operateindependentlyof one
[Link] clearly needmore integrativeresearchon learnerfactors. Looking
 Individual cognitive/affertivelmrner rontributions 21

at one factor at a time obscuresrelationshipsamong them. For example,

Harley and Hart (1997), integratingthe first two learnerfactors in this review,
found that there was a statistically significant relationship betweenage and
the componentsof [Link] discovereda positive relationshipbetween
L2 outcomesand an analytic dimensionof languageaptitude for adolescent
(Grade 11) learnersof French and a positive relationship betweenL2 out-
comesand memoryability for youngerlearners(Grade1). Noels and Clement
(1996) and Noels, Pon and Clement(1996) have also conductedstudiesexam-
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

ining the interrelationshipamong various types of variable: social context

variables,attitudinal/motivationalfactors, self-confidence,and L2 acquisition/
acculturationprocesses.
Simple univariate, and even multivariate correlations, are misleading in
that they do not distinguish direct from indirect paths of [Link]
powerful causalmodelling techniquesexist today that will allow specification
of indirect paths of causation,with one variable (e.g., attitude) influencing
another (such as motivation), which in turn influences the final dependent
variable (e.g., achievement)(Skehan,1991). For example,Wen andJohnson
(1997) were able to establish a hypothetical causal model for sixteen L2
learnervariablesthat have beenassumedto accountfor someof the variance
in English achievementamong ChineseEFL learners. Of the sixteen, only
three unmodifiable variables (sex, and previous L1 and L2 proficiency) and
three modifiable variables (strategiesof vocabulary acquisition, tolerating
ambiguity and mother-tongueavoidance)were found to be direct. Gardner,
Tremblay, and Masgoret (1997) were also able to evaluatethe contributions
of a number of affective measuresto secondlanguageachievementusing a
causal model. Such models permit one way of understandinghow the vari-
ables interrelateand complementone another.

Cognitive style
Another significant challenge in working on individual difference factors
has beenoperationalizingand measuringthe factors. The difficulty in doing
so has meant that researchon learner factors has sometimesbeen suspect.
Oller and Perkins (1978), for example,attackedGardner'smethodsof measur-
ing motivation, claiming that insteadof detectingmotivation, subjects'scores
on Gardner'sscales reveal such characteristicsas languageproficiency and
verbal intelligence. While Oller and Perkins'scriticism has been countered
by Gardnerand others (see,for example,Gardner,1980), contentionaround
measuringlearnerfactors has beenrenewed,this time with regard to cognit-
ive style. Articles by Chapelle (1992), Chapelle and Green (1992), Griffiths
and Sheen (1992), and Sheen (1992) have all centred on whether or not
subjects'performanceon the Group EmbeddedFiguresTest is a valid meas-
ure of field independence,ironically the one cognitive style factor that has
been demonstratedin the past to correlatewith languagelearning success.
The controversycentresaroundwhetherthe GEFT is really a test of cognitive
style or simply an ability test.
 22 LeamerContlibutions to LanguageLearning

What perhapsbest sums up what we are left with at this point is Chapelle's
(1992) statementthat the existenceof cognitive styles remains a matter of
opinion. In actual fact, the argument over what the GEFT measuresmay
prove irrelevant since researchby Elliott (1995), who used the same Group
EmbeddedFigures Test to measure 66 undergraduateSpanish learners'
phonologicalacquisition, showed that students'GEFT performancewas not
a significant predictor of improvementin pronunciation.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Beliefs
During the past decade,researchershave begun to investigatelearners'be-
liefs about the nature of languageand languagelearning in an attempt to
account for individual differences (Cotterall, 1995; Elbaum et ai., 1993,
Grotjahn, 1991; Kern, 1995). Educationalresearchconsistentlyindicatesthat
students'epistemologicalbeliefs can have significant influence on learning
and comprehension(Jehng et ai., 1993). For instance, Schommer (1990)
demonstratedthat a strong belief in quick all-or-nothing learning predicts
oversimplification of complex knowledgeand failure on the part of students
to integrate new information with existing knowledge.
Mori (1999a) explored the relationship between languagelearners' be-
liefs and the strategiesthey use to deal with new words. More specifically,
Mori examinedwhetherthere is any connectionbetweenthe beliefs of native
English-speakingcollege studentslearning to readJapaneseand their ability
to infer meaningfrom componentKanji charactersand information from
context. Mori found modest,but statistically significant, correlationsto sug-
gest that languagelearners'word inferencestrategiesat least partially reflect
their beliefs about learning in generaland languagelearning in particular.
Mori (1999b) noted that learnerswho considera foreign languageeasyare
more likely to outperform those who view it as being difficult. Then, too,
Williams and Burden (1999) discoveredthat a languageteachercan playa
significant role in the developmentof students' conceptionsof language
learning successand failure and how these are judged. Oxford's detailed
accountof students'perceptionsof their teachers,in Chapter5 of the present
volume, suggeststhat the teachereffect upon languagelearners'beliefs about
themselvesas learners and how they actually undertake learning may be
highly significant.

LEARNER ACTIONS

Learning strategies
The chapterthat follows this one is devotedentirely to the themeof learning
[Link] such, I will be brief here. Much of the researchon learning
strategiescontinuesto be descriptive. For example,work by Green and Ox-
ford (1995) found that overall strategyuse varied significantly by proficiency
level, with more strategyuse by more successfulstudentsand more strategy
 Individual cognitive/affectivelearner contributions 23

use by females than by males. On the other hand, Huda (1998) reports that
good language learners use fewer learning strategies than less proficient
[Link] incongruencewith previousresearchis explainedby speculating
that good languagelearnersmay learn a secondlanguagemore efficiently
and may better know what works and doesn'twork for them.
In addition to describingstrategyuse, the other thrust of the researchthat
has been conductedin this area has been on whether or not learners at
varying levels of instruction can learn how to improve their comprehension
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

and production of a foreign languagethrough strategies-based instruction

(Chamotand O'Malley, 1994a;Cohenet aI., 1998; Dornyei, 1995; McDonough,
1995; Mendelsohn, 1994; Nunan, 1996; Oxford, 1993). Results have been
somewhatpositive. Cohen,Weaverand Li, for example,reportedthat on one
of three post-tests,the experimentalgroup who had receivedinstruction in
learning strategiesoutperformed the comparison group (Chamot, in the
following chapter, provides a detailed review of this kind of intervention).
Contradictory findings exist though, suggestingthat strategy use does not
relate strongly to proficiency (cited in Oxford 1996a) and that proficiency
differencesmay have more to do with appropriatechoice of strategiesthan
sheerstrategyuse (Vann and Abraham, 1990). Wenden,in Chapter3 of the
presentvolume, addressesthe important question of the influence upon
strategychoice of students'[Link] also been raised
about whether findings concerning strategy use apply to other cultures
(LoCastro, 1994; M. Richards, 1997; Wenden,Chapter3).
With regard to the last point, Donato and McCormick's (1994) research
on language learning strategiesshould be singled out. These researchers
bring a socioculturalperspectiveto the study of languagelearningstrategies.
In so doing, they argue that the developmentof languagelearning strategies
is mainly a by-product of mediation and socialization into a community of
[Link] such,strategiesare situatedin a particularcon-
text and are continually under [Link] to theseresearchers,
since languagelearning strategiesare particular to a given context, it makes
no senseto expectthat they can be directly exportedfrom one context into
anotherand implementedwith uniform success.

CONCLUSION

To what extent individual differencefactors are alteredby contextualfactors

is, of course, an enormouslyimportant, yet vexing, question.A similar con-
cern has been raised recently with regard to the SLA [Link]
'mainstream'SLA fails to take into account the social reality of SLA (see,
for example, the Fall 1997 and Spring 1998 issuesof The Modern Language
Journal) call into questionhow truly universal the SLA processis. The critics
not only object to the decontextualizationof SLA research,they also object
to the etic view of the languagelearner, a view representedby much of the
researchI have reviewed here. Breen (1996), for example,suggeststhat only
 24 Learner Contributions to I~anguage Lmrning

part of the variation in learning outcomesis due to the diversity of learner

contributions. He adds, 'variation will also have to be explainedwith refer-
ence to the context in which the learning occurred so that input, process,
and outcomesare seen as extensionsof how the learnersvariously defined
that context and acted in it' (Breen, 1996: 86).
Sucha view of the languagelearner,representedby severalof the chapters
in this volume, clearly needsto be taken seriously,as there will be far-reaching
consequences if learners' construal of the context and their action is what
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

determinesthe courseof [Link] the very human

processoflanguageacquisitionitself varies accordingto contextualfactors is
a large claim. Ironically, thosecalling for a more socialperspectiveon SlA may
actually contribute to foregrounding the uniquenessof individual learners
engagedin SlA in different contexts.
As I wrote in 1991, we need more ethnographicresearchthat takes the
social contextinto [Link] this review, I add that it is not likely that we
can overlay learnerfactors on somecommonunderstandingof the acquisition
process,shouldwe ever endorseone (Larsen-Freeman, 1997). In my opinion,
we need more holistic researchthat links integrated individual difference
researchfrom emic and etic perspectivesto the processes,mechanismsand
conditions of learning within different contextsover time (Larsen-Freeman,
1998).
 Chapter 2

•
The role of learning strategies In
secondlanguage acquisition
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Anna Uhl Chamot,

The George WashingtonUniversity

INTRODUCTION

An important contribution that learners make to acquiring a second lan-

guageis their use of learning strategies- the techniquesor proceduresthat
facilitate a learning task. Learningstrategiesare directedtowards a goal and,
as mental procedures,are not directly observable, though some learning
strategiesmay result in specific [Link] example,an individual might
decideto attendto certain aspectsof incoming information, such as listening
for a specific event or time, or scanninga text to find a particular piece of
information. This selective attention is a learning strategy that has the goal
of understanding,storing or retrieving information. During the processof
selective attention, the individual may also decide to write down important
information for future referenceor as a memoryaid. Thus, note-takingis an
observablelearning strategypaired with the unobservablestrategyof select-
ive attention. Studentswho try to take notes without deciding to attend
selectively to specific aspectsof input quickly fall behind as they try to write
down everything they are listening to or copy everything they are reading.

Learning strategiesare important in second languageacquisition for two

major [Link], in investigatingthe strategiesused by secondlanguage
learners during the language learning process, we gain insights into the
cognitive, social and affective processesinvolved in languagelearning. These
insights can help us understandthese mental processesas they relate to
secondlanguageacquisition, and can also clarity similarities and differences
betweenlanguagelearningand [Link] secondreason
supporting research into language learning strategies is that it may be
possible to teach less successfullanguagelearnersto use the strategiesthat
characterizetheir more successfulpeers,thus helping studentswho are experi-
encing difficulty in learning a second language become better language
[Link], two major goals in languagelearning strategyresearch
are to (1) identity and comparethe learningstrategiesusedby more and less

25
 26 Learnfr Contributions to LanguawLearning

successfullanguagelearners, and (2) provide instruction to less successful

languagelearnersthat helps them becomemore successfulin their language
study.
In order to achievethesegoals, the first stepis to gain a clear understanding
of the learning strategiesused by languagelearnersand differencesbetween
learning strategiesof more and less effective [Link] secondstep is to
find the most effective approachto teaching languagelearning strategies.
Finally, we need to discover whether instruction in languagelearning strat-
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

egies actually has an impact on proficiency and achievementin the second

language.
This chapter first provides a brief overview of methods used by various
researchersto identifY languagelearning strategiesand discussthe strengths
and weaknessesof each. The secondsection presentsrepresentativelearn-
ing strategiesstudiesin first languagecontexts,and discussesaspectsof this
body of researchthat have applicationsto secondlanguagelearning. This is
followed by an overview of major studies of learning strategiesin second
languageacquisition research(see also Chamot, Barnhardtet ai., 1999, for
an earlierversion of sectionstwo and three of this chapter).The final section
is a summaryof what we have learnedaboutlanguagelearningstrategies,and
suggestionsfor moving forward in this area of research.

HOW ARE LEARNING STRATEGIES INVESTIGATED?

In the more than twenty years of investigation of languagelearning strat-

egies,researchershave useda variety of approachesfor identifying the mental
processesused by learnersas they seek to understand,rememberand use a
new [Link] studentsin languageclassroomshas proved
singularly fruitless as a method of identifYing learning strategies (Cohen,
1998; Naiman et ai., 1978, 1996; O'Malley and Chamot, 1990; Rubin, 1975;
Wenden,1991a).The reasonwhy classroomobservationyields little informa-
tion about students'use of learning strategiesis that most learning strategies
are mental processesand as such are not directly observablein terms of
outward [Link],researchin this area has relied for the most
part on learners' self-reports. These self-reports have been made through
retrospectiveinterviews, stimulated recall interviews, questionnaires,written
diaries and journals, and think-aloud protocols concurrentwith a learning
task. Each of thesemethodshas limitations, but at the presenttime the only
way to gain any insight at all into the unobservablemental learningstrategies
of learnersis by asking them to reveal their thinking processes.
In retrospectiveinterviews, learnersare askedto reflect on a learning task
and recall what strategiesor 'special tricks' they used to carry out the task
(see O'Malley et ai., 1985a).The task may be a recently completedone or a
typical task with which the learneris familiar, such as learning and remem-
bering new vocabularywords or reading a story in the target [Link]
questionsaskedmay be open-ended('What do you do when you are reading
 The role of learning strategiesin secondlanguageacquisition 27

and you see an unfamiliar word?') or specific (,When you are reading and
see an unfamiliar word, do you make inferencesabout the meaningor just
read on?'). The advantagesof retrospectiveinterviews are that they provide
a great deal of flexibility, as the interviewer can clarity the questions if
necessary,ask follow-up questions,and commenton the student'sresponses.
In addition, if the retrospectiveinterview is conductedwith a small group of
three or four students,one student'scommentscan spur the memoriesof
other students about their uses of learning strategies. The disadvantages
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

of retrospectiveinterviews are that studentsmay not report their strategy

use accurately,that they may report what they perceive as the interviewer's
preferred answers,or that they may claim to use strategiesthat have been
encouragedby teachersrather than actually used by students.
A stimulated recall interview is more likely to accuratelyreveal students'
learning strategiesbecauseit is conductedimmediatelyafter the studenthas
engagedin a learning task. The actual task is videotaped,the interviewer
then plays back the videotape,pausingas necessary,and asks the studentto
describehis or her thoughtsat that specific momentduring the learningtask
(Robbins, 1996). Studyinglearningstrategiesthrough stimulatedrecall inter-
views can producetask-specificstrategydescriptionswith corroboratingevid-
ence of their use. However, this method is time-consumingand only yields
the strategiesused on one occasionfor a specific task. It doesnot reveal the
range of students'strategiesor their frequencyacrosstasks.
Questionnairesare the easiestway to collect dataaboutstudents'reported
use of learning strategies,and questionnairessuch as Oxford's StrategyIn-
ventory for LanguageLearning (SILL) have beenused extensivelyto collect
data on large numbersof languagelearners (Oxford, 1996c). The SILL is a
standardizedmeasurewith versionsfor ESL studentsand studentsof a variety
of foreign languagesand, as such, is extremely useful for collecting and
analysinginformation about large numbersof [Link] studies have
developedquestionnairesfocused on particular learning activities in which
their subjects were engaged (Chamot and Kupper, 1989; O'Malley et aI.,
1985a). One of the advantagesof questionnaires,aside from their ease of
administration,is that studentsare asked to rate the frequencywith which
they use a particular strategy,rather than only indicating whetherthey use it
at all. The drawbacksof questionnairesare that studentsmay not understand
the intent of a question,that they may answeraccordingto their perception
of the 'right answer',and that the questionnairemay not fully elicit all of a
student'sstrategies.
A think-aloud protocol involves a one-on-oneinterview in which the lan-
guagelearneris given a targetlanguagetask and askedto describehis or her
thoughtswhile working on it. The interviewer may prompt with open-ended
questionssuch as, 'What are you thinking right now? Why did you stop and
start over?' Think-aloud interviews are recordedand transcribedverbatim,
then analysed for evidence of learning [Link] think-aloud pro-
ceduresoften provide a very clear picture of a learner'son-line processing
strategies,they also have [Link] include the presenceof the
 28 Learner Contributions to LanguageLearning

interviewer and the somewhat artificial situation, which may affect the
learner'[Link] example, the learner may not engagein his or her
usual amountof planning before engagingin the task becauseof a percep-
tion that the interviewer wants the task to be completedquickly. Similarly,
once the task is completed,the learnermay not (without a direct prompt) take
the time to look back on the task and evaluatehis or her [Link]
additional drawbackof think-aloud proceduresis that individual interviews,
transcription, and analysis are extraordinarily [Link] spite of
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

thesedifficulties, however,data collectedthrough think-aloud protocolspro-

vide rich insights into language-learningstrategies.
Researchon self-reports of the use of learning strategieshas provided
important information about learners'understandingof their own learning
[Link], a weaknessin learning strategyresearchis that all data
collection methodsare subjective in nature, dependingas they do on self-
report from the learner.A secondareaof researchon learning strategieshas
examinedapproachesto teachingstudentseffective strategiesfor a variety of
learning tasks. This secondarea has been most thoroughly investigatedin
first-languagecontexts.

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT LEARNING STRATEGIES IN

NATIVE LANGUAGE CONTEXTS?

A substantial body of researchsupports the explicit teaching of learning

strategiesfor academic achievementin different content areas in native
languagecontexts (Pressleyet aI., 1995; Weinstein and Mayer, 1986). For
example,teachingstudentsto use problem-solvingstrategieshas had a positive
effect on their mathematicsachievement(Carpenteret aI., 1989; Silver and
Marshall, 1990). Instruction in reading strategieshas significantly improved
students' comprehension,especially for poor readers (Brown et aI., 1994;
Collins, 1991; DuffY et aI., 1987; Gagne et aI., 1993; Palincsarand Brown,
1986). Reading strategiesthat have been successfulin these first language
settings include using prior knowledge, predicting, inferencing, visualizing, self-
questioning, verifYing one's understanding,and [Link], improve-
mentsin writing performancehave beenreportedin severalstudiesin which
learningdisabledstudentswere explicitly taughtstrategiesfor planning, com-
posing and revising their writing (Englert et aI., 1991; Harris and Graham,
1992; Schumakerand Deshler, 1992).
Learningstrategyinstructionstudiesin native languagecontextshaveshown
that studentscan learn to use strategiesand that the use of the instructed
strategiesresults in more effective learning and school achievement(see
Pressleyet aI., 1989 for a review). Such validations of learning strategy in-
struction inspired the developmentof instructional models that incorporate
learning strategiesfor content instruction for native English-speakingstu-
dents (Bergman,1992; Gaskinsand Elliot, 1991;Jonesand Idol, 1990; Palincsar
 The role of learning strategiesin secondlangua[{e acquisition 29

and Brown, 1986; Snyder and Pressley, 1990). Further researchexamined

how theseinstructionalmodelswere implementedin the classroom(see,for
example,Derry, 1990; Dole et ai., 1991; EI-Dinary et ai., 1995; Idol andJones,
1991; Palincsarand Klenk, 1992; Pressleyet ai., 1995; Wood et ai., 1995).
This literature extended the scope of learning strategiesinstruction and
revealedthe many complexitiesinvolved in trying to understandhow learners
processinformation and skills.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

WHAT DO DESCRIPTIVE STUDIES OF LANGUAGE LEARNING

STRATEGIES REVEAL?

Researchon languagelearning strategieshas focused mainly on descriptive

studiesthat have identified characteristicsof 'the good languagelearner'and
comparedthe strategiesof more effective and less effective languagelearners.
Thesestudieshave beenimportant in understandinghow languagelearners
use strategies,and they have providedimportantinformation to guide experi-
mental studies to identify the effects of learning strategiesinstruction on
students.
Descriptivestudiesof languagelearningstrategieshave takenseveralforms.
This line of researchbegan with studies of the characteristicsof effective
[Link] the role of strategiesbecameclear, researchersbegan
developinginstrumentsfor measuringstudents'strategiesuse. Other studies
have used individual, group, or think-aloud interviews to characterizehow
studentsapply strategieswhile working on languagelearning tasks. These
descriptive studiesinclude comparisonsof learning strategiesused by more
and less effective languagelearnersand, more recently, studiesof how learn-
ing strategiesdevelop over time.

Who is the 'good language learner'?

In 1975, Rubin suggestedthat a model of 'the good languagelearner' could

be identified by looking at special strategiesusedby studentswho were suc-
cessful in their second language learning. Stern (1975) also identified a
number of learner characteristicsand strategic techniquesassociatedwith
good [Link](1976) further elaboratedthesecharacter-
istics, using think-aloud protocols, to investigatestudents'mental processes
while they worked on language tasks. These studies were followed by the
work of Naiman, Frohlich, Stern and Todesco (1978, 1996), which further
pursuedthe notion that secondlanguagelearning ability residedat least in
part in the strategiesone uses for learning. Taken together, these studies
identified the good languagelearneras one who is an active learner, mon-
itors languageproduction, practisescommunicatingin the language,makes
use of prior linguistic knowledge,usesvarious memorizationtechniques,and
asks questionsfor clarification.
 30 Lmrner Contributions to LanguageLmrning

How do we measurestrategyuse?
The catalogingof characteristicsof the good languagelearnermadeit possible
to develop instrumentsfor measuringthe use of learning [Link]
(1986) usedmore than sixty strategiesidentified from the literature on second
languagelearning to develop the StrategyInventory for LanguageLearning
(SILL), a Likert-type instrumentwhich classifiesstrategiesas cognitive, com-
pensation,metacognitive,social or affective. The SILL has versionsin seven-
teen languagesand has beenadministeredto about 10,000languagelearners
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

in mainly foreign languagecontexts (e.g., French or Spanishin the United

States,English in Japan)both in the United Statesand internationally(Oxford,
1999). The SILL studieshave revealedcorrelationsbetweenlearningstrategies
and other variables such as learning styles, genderand culture (Bedell and
Oxford, 1996; Greenand Oxford, 1995; Oxford and Burry-Stock, 1995). In one
such study, the SILL was administeredto 1,200 university studentsstudying
variousforeign languages(Nyikos and Oxford, 1993). The analysisof responses
revealedthat languagestudentsmay not use the strategiesthat researchindic-
ates would be most effective - such as strategiesthat promote self-regulated
learning and strategiesthat provide meaningful practice in communication.
The SILL has been used in Japan in a number of studies of students
learningEnglish as a foreign language(EFL). For example,Takeuchi (1999)
conducteda seriesof studiesof 2,683 college studentsof EFL and twenty-five
of their instructors, using their responseson the SILL to determinewhich
types of strategywere used most frequently and which were consideredim-
portant for languagelearning. Kimura (1999) also used the SILL with 1,399
Japanese college studentsof EFL to comparereportedstrategyuse of students
who had not lived outsideJapanand 'returnees',or studentswho had hadat
least two years' residencein an English-speakingcountry. He found that the
returneesin general used significantly more learning strategies,especially
communicativestrategies,than their peerswithout overseasresidence.
The large number of SILL studies have yielded important information
about the reportedlanguagelearning strategyuse of a large numberof lan-
guagelearnersaroundthe world, and provide useful insights aboutlearning
strategiesthat might help studentsbecomebetter [Link]
questionnairesdesignedto measurefrequencyof learning strategyuse have
been developed for various studies and books for language learners and
teachers(e.g., Chamotand O'Malley, 1994a;Chamot,Barnhardtet aI., 1999;
G. Ellis and Sinclair, 1989; O'Malley and Chamot,1990; PadronandWaxman,
1988; Rubin and Thompson,1994; Weaverand Cohen, 1997). Theseinstru-
ments have been developedto assessstudents'use of learning strategiesfor
specific contextualizedtasks, rather than the more general approachtaken
by the items in the SILL.

What strategiesdo learnersuse during languagetasks?

While questionnairessuch as the SILL are useful for gatheringinformation
from large numbersof subjectsfor quantitativecomparisons,in-depthinterview
 The role of lrarning strategiesin secondlanguageacquisition 31

studieshave elicited rich descriptionsof students'use of learning strategies.

For example, in a longitudinal EFL study, Robbins (1996) investigatedthe
learning strategies of Japanesecollege students as they developed their
ability to carry on conversationsin English. Paired with a native speakerof
English, the Japanesestudentswere videotapedbefore and after an eight-
month period of [Link] studentswatched videotapesof
their conversationsand provided a verbal report on their thoughts during
them. Despite their reputation for reticence, the students reported their
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

thought processes,and therefore their learning strategies,in great detail. It

was found that fewer learning strategieswere reportedas the studentspro-
gressedtowards being more at easewith conversationin English; probably
becauseof fewer challengesand pausesto recall the problemwhen reviewing
the [Link] the experienceof watching
themselvesconverseon video madethem more awareof what aspectsof their
speakingability they neededto improve.
An early study of seventy high school ESL studentsidentified the range
and variety of learning strategiesused for different tasks by successfulstu-
dents. The study revealedthat thesegood languagelearnerswere active and
strategic,and could focus on the requirementsof a task, reflect on their own
learning processes,and transfer previously learned conceptsand learning
strategiesto the demandsof the English as a second language (ESL) or
generaleducationcontentclassroom(Chamot, 1987; O'Malley et aI., 1985a).

Do more and less language effective learners use strategies

differently?
A follow-up investigationto O'Malley, Chamot,Stewner-Manzanares, Kupper
and Russo (l985a) comparedthe learning strategyprofiles of more and less
successfulstudentsin ESL classroomsand discoveredsignificant differences
in the listening approachesof the two groups (O'Malley et aI., 1989). The
more effective studentsmonitoredtheir comprehensionby asking themselves
if what they were hearingmadesense,they related new information to their
own prior knowledge,and they made inferencesabout possible meaningswhen
encounteringunfamiliar words. In addition, the more successfulstudents
were able to transfer their prior academicknowledge in Spanishto the re-
quirementsof the English-languageclassroom. Thus, these more effective
ESL listenerswere displaying a numberof learning strategiesthat are typical
of good readers in native English-speakingcontexts (e.g., Pressley et aI.,
1995).
The body of researchon secondlanguagereading and writing processes
also includes descriptionsand comparisonsof strategyuse by more and less
effective readersand writers (see, for example, Barnett, 1988; Cohen and
Cavalcanti, 1990; Devine, 1993; Krapels, 1990). This researchindicates that
good secondlanguagereadersare able to monitor their comprehensionand
take action when comprehensionfalters, and that composingstrategiesare
more important than languageproficiency in good secondlanguagewriting.
 32 Learner [Link] to LangtwgeLearning

A study of high school foreign languagestudentsused individual, group,

and think-aloud interviews in which studentsidentified the learning strat-
egies they used for a variety of languagetasks, including listening, reading,
grammar cloze, role-playing and writing (Chamot et al., 1988a; Chamot,
Dale et al., 1993). Differencesbetweenmore and less effective learnerswere
found in the numberand rangeof strategiesused,in how the strategieswere
applied to the task, and in whetherthey were appropriatefor the task. In these
studies,students'understandingof the task's requirementsand whetherthey
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

could match a strategy to meet those requirementsseemedto be a major

determinantof effective use of learning strategies.
Other studies comparingmore and less effective languagestudentshave
revealed a recurring finding that less successful learners do use learning
strategies,sometimeseven as frequently as their more successfulpeers, but
that the strategiesare used differently (Abraham and Vann, 1987; Chamot
and EI-Dinary, 1999; Chamotet al., 1988b; Keatley et al., 1999; Padronand
Waxman, 1988; Vandergrift, 1997a,1997b;Vann and Abraham,1990). These
studies confirmed that good languagelearners demonstratedadeptnessat
matchingstrategiesto the task they were working on, while the less successful
languagelearnersseemedto lack the metacognitiveknowledge about task
requirementsneededto select [Link] trend was appar-
ent with children in foreign language immersion classrooms,high school
ESL and foreign languagestudents,and adult languagelearners.

How do learning strategies develop over time?

More recently, as we have seen,think-aloud researchhas beenusedto under-
standthe developmentof languagelearningstrategies.A study of elementary
school languageimmersion studentsrevealeda developmentalsequencein
the acquisition of learning strategiesfor reading and writing tasks, in that
younger languagelearnersresembleolder, less effective learners (Chamot,
1999; Chamot and EI-Dinary, 1999; Chamot, Keatley et al., 1996; Keatley
et al., 1999). In fact, theseyoung readersand writers in immersionprograms
develop readingand writing abilities in much the sameway that children do
in non-immersionnative [Link] children (even some first
graders)were able to describetheir thinking processes,demonstratingmeta-
cognitive awarenessin their ability to describetheir own thinking, usually in
the [Link] further evidenceof metacognition,studentsoften
had thoughtful responsesabout when and why they think in L2 or in Ll.
In summary,the descriptivestudiesof languagelearning strategiesexem-
plified here have revealed some differences between successful and less
[Link] to be not so much in numberof
strategiesused, but in the choice and flexible application of strategiesthat
are appropriateto the learning task at hand. Can less successfulstudentsbe
taughtto use learningstrategiesin ways that can contributeto higher achieve-
ment levels? This is the basic question addressedby intervention studies in
languagelearning strategies.
 The role oj learning strategiesin secondlanguageacquisition 33

CAN LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES BE TAUGHT?

Most learningstrategyresearchconductedwith languagelearnershas sought

to identify learner'sstrategiesthrough questionnairesand other self-report
[Link] provided us with an understanding
of the types of learningstrategygenerallyusedby languagelearnersand have
also revealeddifferencesbetweenmore and less effective learners.A number
of intervention studies have also been conducted,often as a follow-up to
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

[Link] soughtto teachlanguagelearn-

ing strategiesand to measuretheir effects on [Link] of the inter-
vention studieshave been either quasi-experimental(treatmentand control
groups not selected randomly) or non-experimental(no control group),
althougha very few have attempteda true [Link]
have taken place in classroomsettingsin which teachersand/or researchers
have provided more or less explicit instruction to studentson strategiesto
help them [Link] effects investigatedinclude
performanceon languagetests, increasein reported use of learning strat-
egies, attitudesand self-efficacy.
A number of researchershave also suggestedapproachesand developed
models for teaching languagelearning strategiesand for helping teachers
teachlearningstrategies,as reviewedby Wenden (1998b). This sectionreviews
examplesof interventionresearchin which studentswere taughtto use learn-
ing strategiesfor various types of languagelearningtask, including vocabulary
learning,listening comprehension,readingcomprehension,speaking,writing
and learning contentsubjects.

What strategies can help students learn vocabulary?

Techniquesaboundfor learning vocabulary, both in one's native language
and in a second language. For instance, the effectivenessof the keyword
method, in which learners pair the word to be learned with a similar-
soundingword in their native language,then link the two with a visual image,
has beeninvestigatedin a seriesof nearly fifty experimentalstudies(reviewed
by Pressleyet a!., 1982). This body of researchhas revealedthat the keyword
methodis particularly effective for vocabularyrecognition,especiallyof read-
ily imageablewords, but is less effective in helping studentslearn accurate
pronunciationor spelling (Ellis and Beaton, 1993).
Other strategieshave also proven quite useful for vocabulary learning.
Cohen and Aphek (1981) taught studentsof Hebrew to remembervocabu-
lary words by making paired mnemonic associationsand found that those
who made associationsrememberedvocabularywords more effectively than
studentswho did not make [Link] the first experimentalstudy of
languagelearningstrategiesinstruction, O'Malley and his colleagues(1985b)
taught high school ESL studentshow to apply learning strategiesto three
different types of task, and comparedtheir performanceto that of students
in a non-strategiescontrol group. In the vocabulary task, studentshad to
 34 Learner Contributions to LanguageLearning

make their own groupings of words to be learnedand then make a mental

image of eachgroup of relatedwords. Thesestrategies(grouping/classification
and imagery/visualization)were effective for studentswho had not developed
alternativestrategies,but not for thosewho alreadyhad strongmemorization
strategies.A similarly designedstudy was conductedwith Arabic-speaking
studentsat a university intensiveEnglish program,in which studentsreceived
different types of strategy instruction for vocabularylearning. On post-test,
the group receiving a combinationof strategiesdesignedto provide depth of
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

processingthrough visual, auditory and semanticassociationshad a signific-

antly higher rate of recall (Brown and Perry, 1991). In his review of vocabu-
lary intervention studies, N. Ellis (1994) concludedthat the most effective
strategiesfor vocabulary learning are: 'inferring word meaningsfrom con-
text, semantic or imagery mediation between the FL word (or a keyword
approximation)and the L1 translation,and deep processingfor elaboration
of the new word with existing knowledge' (1994: 263).

How have learnersbeentaught listening strategies?

Instruction in learning strategiesfor listening comprehensionhas been the
focus of a number of languagelearning studies (for a review, see Chamot,
1995a). In many of the studies on listening, the task was listening to and
viewing a video, then completinga [Link] the O'Malley
et al. (1985b) study describedabove,anotherof the three taskswas listening
to and viewing a video, then answeringcomprehensionquestionsabout it.
Studentsin the intervention group were taught to use selectiveattention, take
notesand cooperatewith a classmateto review their notes after listening. Re-
sults showed that the strategieswere helpful for the videos that students
found personallyinteresting,but not for those that were less interestingor
for which studentslacked appropriateprior knowledge.
Additional studieshave revealedother aspectsof learningstrategy instruc-
tion, suggestingimplications for teaching. Rubin, Quinn and Enos (1988)
taught high school students of Spanish to use learning strategies while
listening to/viewing a video, and comparedthree different types of strategy
instruction to the control group, which had no strategyinstruction. This study
documentedmany of the problems associatedwith classroom-based experi-
mental studies. For example, teachersoften had difficulty in implementing
the learning strategy lessons, and students used the instructed strategies
only when the video was [Link] implications of theseproblemsare
that teachersneed to design their own learning strategy lessons,and they
needto teachstudentsto use strategiesfor tasksthat cannotbe accomplished
otherwise.
Ross and Rost (1991) used a ground-upapproachto developinginstruc-
tion in their listening comprehensionstudy of communicationstrategiesused
by Japanesecollege studentslearning English. Researchersfirst identified
differences in clarification strategiesused by higher and lower proficiency
level [Link] studentswere randomly assignedfor learning strategy
 The role oj learning strategiesin secondlanguageacquisition 35

training to one of three different videos and taught the strategiespreviously

identified for higher proficiency students. The results showed that lower
proficiency level studentscould successfullylearn to use the same question-
ing strategiesthat were usedby more proficient studentsto increaselistening
comprehension.
Another study of listening comprehensionmeasuredfor transfer of the
strategiestaught (Thompsonand Rubin, 1996). Third-year college students
of Russianviewed a variety of authenticRussianvideo clips over the courseof
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

an academicyear. One classwas taughtmetacognitiveand cognitive strategies

for improving comprehensionof the video material,and the otherclassviewed
the samevideos but had no strategyinstruction. Studentsreceiving strategy
instruction showed significant improvement on the video comprehension
post-testcomparedto the studentsin the control group. A standardizedaudio-
only listening comprehensiontest was also administeredto participatingstu-
dents, and on this measure(which did not test what had been taught), the
improvement of the experimentalgroup approached,but did not reach,
[Link] addition, studentsin the strategiesgroup demonstratedmeta-
cognitive awarenessthrough their ability to selectand managethe strategies
that would help them comprehendthe videos.

Does instruction in reading strategies improve comprehension?

Reading comprehensionstrategieshave been the focus of several instruc-
tional studies in foreign languagelearning. In an early study, high school
studentsof French were taught explicit reading strategieswhich improved
their readingcomprehension(Hosenfeldet aI., 1981). An experimentalstudy
of metacognitive reading strategy instruction for college-level ESL taught
studentsin the experimentalgroups to use either semanticmapping or an
explicit technique for relating prior knowledge to the text (Carrell et aI.,
1989). Studentsin both experimentalgroupsshowedsignificant comprehen-
sion gains over the control group when answering open-endedquestions,
though not for multiple choice questions.
In anotherexperiment,third-grade Spanish-speakingchildren who were
taught reading strategiesin Spanish improved in reading performanceon
standardizedtests in both Spanishand English, and they were able to trans-
fer the instructedmetacognitivestrategiesto their secondlanguage(Muiiiz-
Swicegood,1994). A recentstudy with seventh-gradenative Spanish-speaking
low-level readersinvolved a numberof strategicinterventions(Jimenezand
Gamez,1998). First, students'metacognitiveawarenessof their own thinking
was developedby teachingthem to think aloud (in either Spanishor English
or a mixture) abouta Spanishtext. Next, the researchersprovided culturally
relevant stories in English and taught students how to use strategiesfor
unknown vocabulary, how to ask themselvesquestionsabout the text, and
how to make [Link] studentsafter the intervention indic-
ated that they had more metacognitiveunderstandingof their own reading
processesand were awareof strateg-iesthey could use to assistcomprehension.
 36 LeamerContributions to LanguageLearning

Can speakingand writing strategiesbe taught successfully?

Learning strategy intervention studies for speakingand writing are few in
number,as much of the researchin theseareashas beendescriptiveand has
tended to focus on communicationstrategiesor composingprocesses(for
example,Cohenand Cavalcanti,1990; Cohenand Olshtain, 1993; Leki, 1995;
Robbins, 1996; Zamel, 1983).
In the first experimentalstudy on the effects of languagelearning strat-
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

egies instruction on studentachievementdescribedearlier (O'Malley et aI.,

1985b), strategies-trainedstudentsperformedsignificantly better on a trans-
actional speaking task than studentsin the control group. This study was
conductedwith seventy-five high school ESL studentswho were randomly
assignedto experimentalor control [Link] two weeks the experimental
group studentswere taughtvarious strategiesfor academictasks (vocabulary,
listening and speaking).Significant differencesin oral proficiency favouring
the strategies-trainedgroupswere found for the transactionalspeakingtask,
in which students had to prepare a brief oral report on a topic of their
choice and presentit to a small group of [Link] practice sessions
as well as pre- and post-tests were tape-recordedand evaluated on pre-
establishedcriteria by outsidejudges. The experimentalgroupswere taught
organizationalplanning for their reports and techniquesfor cooperatingwith
classmatesto elicit feedback. The experimental groups were judged to
be significantly more comprehensibleand organized in their reports than
control group [Link] all studentswrote out their reports before
presentingthem orally, so it is likely that instruction in thesesamestrategies
would be equally helpful for writing reports.
The effectivenessof learning strategiesinstruction for speakingwas also
investigatedin EFL settingsin Egypt andJapan(Dadourand Robbins, 1996).
Learning strategieswere explicitly taught to college-level EFL students in
both [Link] study in Egypt was experimental,with studentsrandomly
assignedto intervention or control groups. The experimentalgroups parti-
cipated in a special strategyinstruction course, and the results on post-test
showed that their speaking ~kills and use of the strategieswere significantly
superiorto thoseof studentsin the control [Link] interventionstudy in
Japantaughta variety of strategiesfor speakingto studentsfor three months,
then assessedthe value of the instruction through a studentquestionnaire.
The results showed that most students understoodthe value of strategies
instruction and wanted to learn more strategiesfor speaking.
Cohenand his associates(1998) investigatedthe impactof strategies-based
instruction on college studentsof French and Norwegian during ten weeks
of instruction. The interventiongroupsreceivedinstruction in learningstrat-
egiesthat focusedon using speakingstrategies,while the comparisongroups
received languageinstruction only. Studentswere pre- and post-testedon
three different speakingtasksin the targetlanguage:a self-description,retell-
ing of a fairy tale they had read, and a description of a favourite city. Mter
each task, studentscompleteda checklist reporting the strategiesthey had
 The role of learning strategiesin secondlangua[!;e acquisition 37

used. Studentswere also pre- and post-testedwith the StrategyInventory for

LanguageLearning (SILL). In addition, a sampleof studentsat differing levels
of proficiencywere askedto describetheir reasonsfor their choiceson learning
strategychecklists, thus providing think-aloud data as they were completing
the checklists. The results indicated that integrating strategiesinstruction
into the languagecoursewas beneficial to students,though the relationshipof
reportedstrategyuse to performancewas complex. For example,some stu-
dents in the comparisongroup reportedusing strategies,even though they
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

had not received strategiesinstruction and, in some instances,the increase

in reportedstrategyuse by comparisonstudentsseemedto be detrimentalto
[Link] reasonssuggestedfor these findings were that (1) some
studentsare able to acquire effective learning strategieswithout instruction;
and (2) systematicinstruction and practicewith learning strategiesis needed
for many studentsin order to learn how to apply strategieseffectively.
An experimental study involving writing in conjunction with reading
comprehensioninvestigatedthe effects of learning strategy instruction on
third- and fourth-grade limited English proficient children (Bermudezand
Prater, 1990). Strategiestaught to the experimentalgroup were brainstorming
and clustering. Before readingan expositorytext (story), children usedthe title
and illustrations to brainstorm or predict what it might be about, and the
teacherrecordedthe results on a graphic [Link] reading, experi-
mental children were taught to cluster connectedideasin the text by colour-
coding similar ideas. Finally, all studentswrote a paragraphabout the text.
The results showed that the strategiesgroup produced significantly more
elaborationsin their essays,and that their paragraphstended to be better
organizedthan those of the control group.

Can learning strategies be taught in a content-based

language program?
Learningstrategyinstruction in content-based ESL has beeninvestigatedin a
number of studies based on the Cognitive Academic Language Learning
Approach (CALLA), an instructional model that integratescontentsubjects,
academiclanguageand learningstrategiesinstruction (Chamotand O'Malley,
1994a). Evaluationsof the CALLA model were conductedfor five different
CALLA programs, and though all reported the successfuluse of learning
strategiesby students,reliable assessmentof the effect of learning strategy
instruction was provided ill only two (O'Malley and Chamot, 1998). In the
first, teachersin ESL-mathematicsclassroomsimplementedlearning strategy
instruction to assiststudentsin solving word problems (Chamot, Dale et aI.,
1993). Studentswere taught to use planning, monitoring, problem-solvingand
Pl)(tiuating strategiesin a sequential order for solving word problems. Stu-
dents in high-implementationclassrooms(in which teachershad provided
explicit and frequent strategyinstruction) performedsignificantly better on
a word problem think-aloud interview than studentsin low-implementation
classrooms(in which the instruction was mainly implicit and infrequent).
 38 Learner Conlribuliolls 10 LanguageLmrning

In the second study, Varela (1997) recently investigated the effects of

CALlA learning strategy instruction in a middle school ESL-scienceclass-
room comparedwith a similar classroomthat receivedequivalentinstruction
without the learning strategies component. This study was based on the
transactionalspeakingcomponentof the O'Malley et ai. (l985b) study. In
the Varela (1997) study, studentsin the intervention classroomwere taught
strategiesto assist them in presentingan oral report on their science fair
projects. The strategiesincluded usinggraphic organizers, selectiveattention, self
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

assessmentand selftalk. Mter two weeks of instruction, studentsin the strat-

egiesgroup not only reportedusing significantly more strategiesthan control
group students,but their videotapedperformanceof their sciencefair re-
ports showed significant improvementover their performanceprior to the
strategiesinstruction.

How do teachersbecomeexpertin teachinglearning strategies?

Until recently, the preparationof language teachershas not included in-
struction and practice in the teaching of language learning strategies.A
focus of my own researchhas been the developmentof effective procedures
for helping teachersincorporatelearning strategy instruction in their own
classrooms(Chamot, Barnhardt et ai., 1999). A series of studies has been
conductedwith foreign languageteachersin the United Statesat both the
school and university levels.
In the first of thesestudies,researchersand teachersdevelopeda learning
strategiescurriculum which was then pilot-testedin high school and univer-
sity Russianand Spanishclassrooms(Chamotand Kupper, 1989, 1990; Chamot
et ai., 1988a, 1988b). The curriculum was then revisedaccordingto feedback
from teachersand, in a follow-up study, was implementedby different teachers
and for different languages. Findings from these two studies indicated
that learning strategiesinstruction calls for a special type of teaching and
that teachersmay need support in its [Link] addition, student
responsesto the instruction indicated that they enjoyed learning strategies
activities and had individual preferencesfor different strategies,but that
they were confusedwhen too many strategieswere introducedat [Link]
studies revealed some of the practical realities and challengesof learning
strategyinstruction.
In two subsequentparallel studies, high school teachersand university
foreign languageinstructors implementedlearning strategiesinstruction in
Japanese,Russianand Spanishforeign languageclassrooms(Chamot, 1993,
1994; Chamot, Barnhardt et ai., 1996; Chamot and O'Malley, 1994b). Re-
searchersdeveloped resource guides for teaching learning strategiesand
provided ongoing professionaldevelopmentworkshopsand conferencesto
help teachersimplement the instruction. After implementing the sample
lessonplansdevelopedby the researchers,teachersthen beganto developtheir
own [Link] teacher-developed lessonswere integrated
into their regular course of study and were focused on the needs of the
 Thf role of Imming strategiesin secondlanguage acquisition 39

particular group of [Link] learning strategyinstruction was evaluated

through interviews and questionnaireswith teachersand [Link]
reportedthat the strategiesinstruction helpedtheir students,especiallytheir
weaker students, make greater achievementsin the language class. Most
studentsreportedthat the strategiesinstruction had hada positive effect on
their languagelearning, and some (but not all) studentsindicated that they
also used the strategiesoutside class. Students'metacognitiveawarenessof
their own approachesto learning was reflected in their commentson the
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

strategiesthey usedor did not use, and reasonsfor using or not using them.
This research direction was continued in another instructional study
conductedwith foreign language teachersin the United States (Chamot,
Barnhardtet aI., 1996). The objective of this particular study was to investig-
ate how to best support instructors of Chinese,French, German,Japanese,
Russianand Spanishso they could effectively teach languagelearning strat-
egies in classes of different levels ranging from elementary immersion
programs through higher education. Researchersworked with participant
teachersfor threeyearsto provide professionalsupportfor teachinglearning
strategies. Classroom observations,student group interviews, and teacher
interviews and questionnaireswere the methodsof [Link] work-
shopsmotivatedteachersto try learningstrategyinstruction,follow-up support
suchas model lessons,one-to-onecoaching,andpeerdiscussionswere invaluable
in integratinglearningstrategiesinto languageinstruction. Severalaspectsof
learningstrategyinstruction provedto be especiallytroublesomefor teachers.
First, most teachersbelieved that they were actually teachingstrategieswhen
in fact they were not providing explicit instruction by naming, modelling or
describingthe [Link] it was difficult for teachersto move from
implicit to explicit strategy instruction, those who did reported that their
studentsseemedto be much more aware of the purpose of the strategies.
A secondarea of difficulty for teacherswas in integrating learning strategy
instruction into their regular course work. Many teachers saw learning
strategy instruction as a separateactivity from their normal teaching, and
tendedto use learning strategyactivities as somethingfun to do when time
permittedor as a breakfrom the regularcoursework. Teachersalso struggled
with determiningan appropriatescopeand sequenceof strategiesto teachat
various levels, and they wanted guidancein how to scaffold strategieseffect-
ively at upper levels and for high achievers.
Overall, however,the coachingthat was providedenabledteachersto adapt
instruction to their own languagesand levels. Teachersin the study cited a
variety of positive impacts that strategiesinstruction was having on their stu-
dents, including improving understandingof the target language,helping
studentsbecomemore responsibleand active learners,improving motivation
for languagelearning, and building independentuse of [Link]
teachersalso said that strategiesinstruction had improved their teachingin
general.
In sUIllmary, the effectivenessof learning strategiesinstruction has been
well establishedin first language contexts and shows promise in second
 40 LeaTnPr Contributions 10 LanguageLearning

languagelearning. Researchin first languagecontextshas movedfrom valid-

ating instruction in individual strategiesto identitying elementsof effective
strategiesinstruction integratedinto a curriculum. Many of the samelearning
strategiesthat have been identified and successfullytaught in first language
contexts have also proven useful in second language learning. Studies in
secondlanguagelearningbeganby focusing on the strategiesthat distinguish
effective [Link] now moving towardsan understanding
of strategiesdevelopment,validationsof languagelearning strategiesinstruc-
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

tion in the classroom, and an understandingof the professional support

teachersneedfor developingeffective learning strategyinstruction.

WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING

STRATEGIES RESEARCH?

The study of languagelearning strategieswill continue to develop as second

languageacquisition researchersseek to understanddifferent learner char-
acteristicsand the complex cognitive, social and affective factors involved in
processinglanguageinput and using the languagefor a variety of purposes.
Likewise, languageeducatorsand methodologistswill continue their quest
for more effective instructionalapproachesand, with the increasingemphasis
on learner-centredinstruction and learner empowermentin all areas of
education, instruction in learning strategieswill assumea greater role in
teacherpreparationand curriculum design. How successfulfuture research
in languagelearning strategieswill be dependsin large part on the develop-
ment and adaptationof instrumentsthat are reliable and valid in identifying
the strategies(whetheracquiredindependentlyor through instruction) that
learnersuse, and on the design of researchstudies that addressquestions
that as yet have not been [Link] current research on
languagelearning strategiesinclude those related to researchmethodology
and to unansweredquestionsaboutdevelopmentalstagesand individual and
cultural variations in the acquisition and use of strategies.

How should research methodology be improved?

As describedearlier in this chapter,the instrumentsused to collect data on
languagelearningstrategiesare all basedon learners'[Link] present
there does not seem to be any other possible approach,since behavioural
observation is not an effective way to identify internal mental processes.
However, the instruments used to collect verbal reports can certainly be
[Link],for example, can be made more context-
specific to include questionsabout languagelearning tasks that studentsare
actually engagedin. Questionnairesthat include a large number of items
referring to unfamiliar learning experiencesare difficult for respondentsto
understandand [Link] a communicativelanguageclassroom,
studentswould provide more accurateinformation on a questionnairethat
asks questionsabout learning strategiesframed within descriptionsof typical
 The role of learning strategiesin secondlanguageacquisition 41

communicative activities. Similarly, students from different language and

cultural backgroundswould probably respondwith greater understanding
to questions that reflect their own learning experiencesand educational
or cultural values. In addition, learning strategy questionnairesneed to be
developedfor different developmentalstagesand ages of students,includ-
ing adaptationsfor studentswith low levels of literacy in both the L1 and the
L2. Once such learnerand context-specificlearning strategyquestionnaires
are developed,they needto be standardizedon a large group of the types of
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

studentfor whom they are [Link] types of standardizationproced-

ure need to be developedfor interview protocols that reflect factors such as
age, L1 and type of languageprogram.
Another methodologicalchallengein much of the researchis the estab-
lishmentof a correlationbetweenthe use of learningstrategiesand increased
proficiency and achievementin the target [Link] researchershave
had to rely on teacheror researcher-constructed testsof languageproficiency
to show that studentswho use learning strategieslearn more effectively than
studentswho do not use [Link] the reasonis that the researchis
conductedon beginning-level students,and standardizedtests do not dis-
tinguish small differencesin proficiency in [Link]
difficulty with languagetests is that the test-taking or languageproficiency
interview situationsmay actually discouragethe use of learning strategies,as
these typically call for responsesthat have been learned to the point of
automaticity and there is little time available to applying learning strategies
(rapid recall strategiesmight be the exception).A betterlanguagetest might
be one in which the learneris given time to solve a languagelearning prob-
lem rather than having to perform quickly and correctly on a languagetask.
In addition to refining the instrumentsusedin learning strategyresearch,
researchdesignsneed to include multiple sourcesof data, both quantitative
and qualitative, as the convergenceof evidencestrengthensclaims to causal
effects. Since languagelearning is a slow process,studies of the effects of
learning strategiesneedto be conductedover a long enoughperiod of time
for languagegains to be demonstratedunequivocally. Finally, intervention
studiesneed to include frequent observationsof both the experimentaland
control classroomsto make certain that the teachersare indeedteachingthe
strategies,and that the control teachersare not in fact also teachingstrat-
egies! This type of sustainedresearcheffort brings with it a host of difficulties,
but the resultsare more credible than very short studiesand studiesin which
no control is exercisedover instructional implementation.

What questions still need to be answered?

Although we have learned a great deal about languagelearning strategies
in the last twenty or more years, there is a need for further studies that
describelearners'current strategies,that teach learnersnew strategies,and
that develop teachers'ability to provide learning strategy instruction in the
languageclassroom.
 42 Learner Contributions to LanguageLearning

Even though the bulk of languagelearning strategiesresearchto date has

been descriptive, there still remain some tantalizing puzzles. For example,
descriptive researchis neededwith young languagelearnersin a variety of
settings,including children in bilingual, secondlanguage,and non-immersion
foreign [Link] studiesare neededto confirm differ-
encesin learningstrategyuse betweenyoungerand older children identified
in the foreign languageimmersion study describedearlier (Chamot, 1999;
Chamot and EI-Dinary, 1999; Keatley et aI., 1999) and to discover whether
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

similar developmentalfeatures are found in children in other types of lan-

guagelearning program. In general,studiesof the developmentof learning
strategiesover time in both children and older learnerswould provide needed
information about changesin use of strategiesrelated to age and to increas-
ing proficiency in the target language.
Another aspectof descriptive researchthat would have implications for
learning strategyinstruction is the investigation of the transfer of learning
strategiesfrom the L1 to the L2 - and from the L2 to additional languages
and even back to the Ll. In native languagecontexts, transfer of learning
strategieslearned in one context has proven difficult to achieve, though
explicit instruction has been beneficial in assistingtransfer.
More descriptive researchis neededon studentsfrom different language
and cultural [Link] work has begun in this area (see, for
example, Oxford, 1996c), but additional information is neededabout the
actual relationshipbetweenlearningstrategiesand cultural beliefs andvalues.
For example,are learning strategiesthat seek to develop learnerautonomy
perceivedas valuable universally or only in some cultures?Are collaborative
social strategiesvalued in competitive societies?Do metacognitionand meta-
cognitive strategiesplay an important role in languageand generallearning
for all individuals, regardlessof their cultural, linguistic and educational
background?These are important questions that have direct implications
for learning strategyinstruction and curriculum development.
Finally, a crucial issue in investigatingthe strategicbehaviourof learnersis
learnerchoice and control of specific strategies,and Wenden,in the follow-
ing chapter,addressesthis in examining the role of learners'metacognitive
knowledgein relation to ongoing strategyuse.
Relatively few intervention studies have been conductedon the effect of
learningstrategiesinstruction on languagelearningand proficiency. Further
rigorous intervention studies like those conductedby Cohen et ai. (1998),
O'Malley et ai. (1985b), Thompson and Rubin (1996), and Varela (1997)
would provide information about the effects of learning strategyinstruction.
Most intervention studies have been conductedwith high school or college
students (Varela's study is the only one conductedwith middle school stu-
dents). Similar studiesneed to be conductedwith different agesof language
[Link] example,the effect of learningstrategiesinstruction on children
in different second and foreign language learning contexts (immersion,
non-immersion,bilingual, ESL, EFL) is as yet unknown. vVe do not know
which learningstrategiescould be taught successfullyto youngerstudentsor,
 17ze role oj learning strategiesin secondlanguageacquisition 43

indeed, at what age languagelearning strategyinstruction could be success-

fully initiated.
In addition to younger students,strategyintervention studies need to be
conductedwith adolescentand adult immigrant studentswith limited aca-
demic backgroundsin their native [Link] learning strategiesa func-
tion of schooling, or can they also be applied successfullyto functional and
occupationallanguagelearning contexts?Can studentsof any age learn to
use effective languagelearning strategiesor is there an upper age limit to
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

learning new strategies?The need for older individuals to learn a new lan-
guagebecomesurgentwhen wars and civil unrestdisplacepeoplefrom their
native countriesto seekasylum in WesternEurope,the United Kingdom, the
United States, or other countries. How does learning strategy instruction
apply to theserefugees?Theseare questionsthat needto be exploredthrough
learning strategiesexperimentalintervention studies.
A third areafor future researchis in the developmentof languageteacher
expertisefor integratinglearning strategiesinto their [Link] type
of professional developmentactivities are most useful to novice language
teachers?Are the same or different activities of greatestuse to experienced
teachers?On average,how long doesit take for a teacherto becomesuccess-
ful in teachinglanguagelearningstrategies?The evaluationof different models
for teacherpreparationin learning strategiesinstruction could lead to refin-
ing and improving such models. In addition, studiesneed to be undertaken
to identity the relationshipof effective learningstrategyinstruction to teacher
characteristicssuchas teachingapproach,attitudeand teacherbeliefs, amount
and type of pre-serviceand/or in-service preparationin learning strategies
instruction,and yearsof teachingexperience,including length of time teach-
ing learning [Link] purpose of such studies would be to discover
whethereffective learningstrategyinstructionis closely tied to specific teacher
characteristics.A first step in undertaking this type of researchshould be
the developmentof an operational definition of what constituteseffective
learning strategy instruction. Is it merely instruction that results in both
greatervariety and higher frequencyof strategyuse by students?Or, should
the definition of effective learning strategy instruction also consider the
achievementof higher levels of proficiency in the target language in a
shorter period of time than average?Once effective strategyinstruction has
been defined, information about effective teaching of strategiescould be
gatheredthrough classroomobservationsand videotapes,teacherinterviews,
and use of existing measuresof languageteacherbeliefs. The relationships
between teacher and learner in the area of language learning strategies
has only begun to be explored, and much remains to be accomplishedin
this area.
It is important that learning strategiesresearchcontinue, both in these
and other directions, for only through a better understandingof the learn-
ing and teaching processcan more languagelearnersachieve the level of
SUCCeSS that currently characterizesonly a small proportion of all of the
studentsstudying a foreign or secondlanguagearound the world.
 Chapter3

Metacognitive knowledge in SLA:

the neglectedvariable
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

A nita L. Wenden, York College,

City University of New York

INTRODUCTION

Most of the theories that have been developedto explain secondlanguage

acquisitionacknowledgethe influence of learnerdifferenceson the process.
Referring to child languageacquisition, proponentsof Universal Grammar
(UG) note that a learner's developing perceptual abilities and memory
capacity will limit the rate of acquisition (see McLaughlin, 1987; L. White,
1989). The impact of age on languagelearning has been consideredfrom
the perspectiveof neurolinguistic (e.g., Beebe, 1988) and cognitive theory
(e.g., Ellis, 1986), while creative construction theory introducesthe notion
that personalityand experiencemay influence both affective and cognitive
processes(e.g., Dulay and Burt, 1977). The role of affective factors - attitudes,
motivation, ethnic identity - have been highlighted by social psychological
theories (e.g., Gardner and Lambert, 1972; Giles, 1977) and though not
explicitly linked to cognitive theory, language aptitude, intelligence and
cognitive style are cognitive factors that have beenput forth to explain differ-
encesin the rate and successof SLA (e.g., Genesee,1976; Wescheet aI., 1982;
Willing, 1988). Finally, emphasizingthe role of social setting and the inter-
action which takes place within a setting, sociocultural theory provides an
explanationof the mannerin which learnersacquire the ability to regulate
their learning (see Lantolf and Appel, 1994). While focusing on different
learnervariables,all of these theoriesrefer to cognitive and affective factors
that operatebelow consciousness.
In contrast,with the introduction of learning strategies,cognitive theory
introducedinto the discourseon learnerdifferencesthe notion of deliberate
and autonomousaction on the part of the learner (Naiman et aI., 1978;
O'Malley and Chamot, 1990; Rubin, 1981). Implying that consciousness
plays a role in SLA, this notion of languagelearners engagedin the con-
scious regulation of their learning was controversialat the outset. However,
as Chamot makes clear in the previous chapter, learning strategies have
now becomean acceptedfield of researchand is included as one type of

44
 iVletacognitiveknowledgein SLA: the neglectedvariable 45

learnerdifference in SIA texts used as standardreferencesby studentsand

instructors (Brown, 1994; Cook, 1996; R. Ellis, 1986, 1994; Larsen-Freeman
and Long, 1991; Lightbown and Spada,1993; McLaughlin, 1987; inter alia). On
the other hand, the metacognitiveknowledge learnersbring to the task of
learning,which the cognitive literature recognizesas essentialto the effective
use oflearningstrategies(Wenden,1998aoffers a review of this literature) and
which foreign/secondlanguageteachersagree is key to the regulation of
learning (see Wenden,1998b), remainsunrecognizedin the SIA literature.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to enhanceour understand-

ing of this relatively unknown learner difference: metacognitiveknowledge.
After defining the term, I will briefly summarizewhat studieshave documented
about the metacognitiveknowledgeof FL/SL [Link] the body
of the chapter,I will illustrate and explain the role that metacognitiveknow-
ledge plays in the self-regulationor self-direction of languagelearning and
in the conclusion, I will briefly outline what the insights on metacognitive
knowledgeprovidedby this discussionimplies for theory, researchand practice
in SIA.

CHARACTERISTICS OF METACOGNITIVE KNOWLEDGE

Metacognitiveknowledgeis a specializedportion of a learner's acquired knowledge

base (Flavell, 1979). It is that part of long-term memory that contains what
learnersknow about learning. Thus it is a stablebody of knowledge though,
of course,it may changeover time. It developsearly. Researchhas shown that
elementaryand secondaryschool children (e.g., Chinn and Brewer, 1993;
Paris and Byrnes, 1989) and even pre-schoolers(e.g., Kreutzer, Leonardand
Flavell, as cited in Brown et al., 1983) have developedsomeknowledgeabout
learning. This knowledge may be acquired unconsciously,the outcome of
observationand imitation, or it may also be [Link]
rememberwhat their teachersor parents tell them about how to learn, or
they may reflect on their processand make generalizationsabout it. The
researchhas shown that learnersare capableof bringing this knowledge to
consciousness and talking aboutit. It is statable. Moreover, while learnersmay
make somestatementsabout languagelearning that appeararbitrary, in fact,
their acquired knowledge consistsof a systemof related ideas, some accepted
without question and othersvalidated by their experience.
The characteristicsof metacognitiveknowledgeoutlined abovealso define
the nature of learner beliefs about languagelearning. In addition, beliefs
are value-relatedand will be held more tenaciously,one characteristicwhich
distinguishesthem from metacognitive knowledge (Alexander and Dochy,
1995; Wenden, 1998a). Researchfindings on the metacognitiveknowledge
of languagelearners are more frequently referred to as beliefs. However,
since the latter are considereda subsetof the former (Flavell, 1987), in the
discllssion that follows, metacognitive knowledge will be used to refer to
both.
 46 Learner Contributions to /JIllguage Lmming

TYPES OF METACOGl\'ITIVE Kl\'OWLEDGE

The different types of metacognitiveknowledge referred to in the cognitive

and FL/SL literature usually focus on either learner,task or processvariables.
Flavell (1979, 1981) refers to these three categoriesrespectivelyas person,
task and strategicknowledge.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Personknowledge (PK)
Personknowledgeis knowledgelearnershave acquiredabout how cognitive
and affective factors, such as age, languageaptitude, personality,motivation,
may influence learning. In addition, it includes specific knowledge about
how the abovefactors apply in their [Link] example,is it their view
that they do or do not have the aptitude for learning another language?
Or that their type of personalitywill inhibit or facilitate languagelearning?
Person knowledge also refers to knowledge learners have acquired about
their proficiency in a given area, for example, how well they read or write,
what they know or don't know about a certain subject.

Task knowledge (TK)

Task knowledgerefers, first of all, to knowledgeof task purpose- what learners
know about the pedagogicalintent of a task and their expectationsof how it
will serve their languagelearning [Link] it improve their writing skills?
Expand their vocabulary?Develop their fluency in oral communication?It
also includes knowledgeabout task (}pes, that is a recognition of the similarity
and/or the differences between the demandsof a new languagelearning
task and tasks previously done, for example taking notes while reading and
while listening to a lecture; an open-endedtask vs a structuredtask. Know-
ledge about a task:5 demandsis the third and most complex facet of task know-
ledge. It includes knowing what knowledge and skills are required to do a
particular task; how to go about doing it; its anticipatedlevel of difficulty;
and awarenessof the learning plan that is the outcomeof this analysisof the
task's [Link] knowledge should be distinguishedfrom domain know-
ledge (DK), which is not a category of mctacognitive knowledge. Rather,
domain knowledge is conceptualand factual knowledge about the subject
matter of learning.

Strategicknowledge (SK)
Strategic knowledge refers to general knowledge about what strategiesare,
specific knowledgeabout when and how to use them, and their effectiveness.
It also includes knowledge about how best to approachlanguagelearning,
that is generalprinciples about languagelearning that can guide a learner's
choice of [Link] examplewould be that practice is important.
 l\1etaCO[!;llilive knowledgein SLA: tit£' neglectedvariable 47

~IETACOGNITIVE KNOWLEDGE IN SECOND

LANGUAGE LEARNING

In contrast to the body of researchon learning strategies,the researchon

the metacognitiveknowledge of languagelearnershas been relatively scant
althoughrecentinterestin the topic has begunto make up for the lack. Most
of this researchhas documentedthe contentof learners'metacognitiveknow-
ledge. Generally,the subjectsof the studieshave beenstudentsof high school
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

and college-agelearning English or a foreign language in formal settings

and, to a lesser extent, adults acquiring English in informal settings. The
most common approach to data gathering has been semi-structuredand
open-endedinterviews and [Link] latter have been
devised through focus group interviews and/or by adapting instruments
devisedfor the samepurposein other fields. Most use a Likert Scale,requiring
learnersto indicate to what extentthey agreeor disagreewith someaspectof
languagelearning representedin the statementsthat make up the question-
naire. A few researchershave utilized an ethnographicapproach,including
participant observation and informal discussionswith informants as well.
Some form of contentanalysis has been applied to findings from the more
qualitatively orienteddatawhile the structuredsurveyshave beenreportedin
terms of descriptivestatisticsand, in somecases,factor analysishas beenused
to identify how subsetsof beliefs were [Link] 3.1 providesa listing
of thesestudies.
v\11ile also documentingthe contentoflearners'metacognitiveknowledge,
other studieshave further attemptedto establisha relationshipbetweenthis
knowledge and learners' approach to learning, specifically their readiness
for autonomy, choice and use of learning strategies,setting of goals, and
evaluationof their learning. A few have also demonstratedthe link between
knowledge and learning outcomes, for example reading comprehension,
writing and effective completion of other learning tasks. These studies are
listed in Table 3.2.
V\Thile Tables 3.1 and 3.2 outline what has been typical in the research,
there have beena few studieswhich have made original contributionsto this
small, but growing body of [Link] this smaller group, somehave
sought to demonstratehow metacognitiveknowledge develops and evolves
(e.g., Enkvist, 1992; Host'nfeld, 1999; Shaw, 1998; White, 1999). There have
been two intervention studieswhich implementedproceduresto revise and
expandlearnersmetacogllitiveknowledge (IIo, 1996), and a specializedsurvey
instrumentwhich focusesexclusivelyon languagelearnersself-efficacybeliefs
has been developed(Huang et ai., 1998).
In addition, some researchershave addressedthe question of methodo-
logy. Sakui and Gaies (1999) report on a processto develop and validate a
structuredquestionnairethat focuseson a wide range of beliefs, while Tittle
(personalcommunication)reportson a similar validation processthat draws
upon sourcesfrom both languagelearningand generaleducationto develop
a structuredquestionnairethat focuseson epistemologicalbeliefs of language
 48 Learner Contributions to LrmgIUl{!;e Learning

Table 3.1 Y1etacognitiveknowledge in languagelearning: contentand instrumentation

Researcher(s) Contentof metacognitive Instrumentation

knowledge

Barcelos,A.M. 1995 nature of language in terviews

teacherrole/studentrole questionnaire
TL setting vs NL setting classroomobservation
Elbaum, B. et al. 1993 Efficacy of strategies rating tasks
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Horowitz, E. 1987, languagelearning aptitude/process structuredquestionnaire

1988 difficulty of languagelearning
effective approaches
Horowitz, E. 1999 cultural & situational differences structuredquestionnaire
Kern, R.G. 1995 languagelearning aptitude/process structuredquestionnaire
difficulty of languagelearning
effective approaches
Mantle-Bromley, C. languagelearning aptitude/process structuredquestionnaire
1995 difficulty of languagelearning
effective approaches
Mori, Y. 1999a epistemologicalbeliefs and their structuredquestionnaire
relationship to LL beliefs factor analysis
Richards,J.c. and nature of languagelearning, structuredquestionnaire
Gravatt, B. 1998 languageaptitude, strategies
Sakui, K. and languageteachingmethodology structuredquestionnaire
Gaies, S. 1999 quality & sufficiency of classroom interviews
instruction
foreign languageaptitude
Tumposky, N.R. 1991 aptitude, process,difficulty, structuredquestionnaire
effective approaches
Victori, M. 1995 strategic, task, personknowledge structuredquestionnaire
in writing interviews, think-aloud
protocols
Wenden,A. 1986, nature of language,personal focused interviews
1987 factors, effective approaches
Wenden,A. 19911> task and person knowledge in introspectivereports
writing
White, C. 1999 relationship betweenlearner & interviews, open-ended
setting, toleranceof ambiguity, questionnaire,ranking &
locus of control scenano
exercises,yoked subject
procedures

[Link] (1999) describesa longitudinal study which utilized a five-

phaseapproachto data collection that chose,developedand adaptedappro-
priate instruments(i.e., interviews, ranking exercises,questionnaires,scenarios
and yoked subject procedures)during the researchcycle in responseto the
 Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Table 3.2 Metacogllitive knowledge in languagelearning: content, relation, instrumentation

Researcher(s) Contentof knowledge Relationshipto learning Instrumentation

lknson, \1J. 1989 conceptionof learning approachto learning interviews, responseto taped
lectures,studentnotes, observation
BCllson, P. and Lor. '''-'. 1998 conceptionsof language& readinessfor autonomy classroomobservation
languagelearning informal discussion
interviews
Carrell. P.L. et al. 1989 metacognitiveawarenessin reading reading outcomes structuredquestionnaire
Cotterall, S. 1995 role of teacher/feedback readinessfor autonomy focusedinterviews
approachesto studying structuredquestionnaire
learnerconfidence/independence factor analysis
experiencein languagelearning
Cotterall, S. 1999 role of teacher,feedback,senseof autonomy structuredquestionnaire
self-efficacy, effective strategies&
attitudes towards strategyuse
Elbaum. B. et aJ. 1993 nature of languagelearning choice of strategies rating tasks
Holce, II. 1987 student/teacher roles goal setting interviews
function of materials
Park, G. 1994 aptitude, learning process, self-direction structuredquestionnaire
nature of language factor analysis
Vann, R. and Abraham, R. 1990 task knowledge effective task completion focusedinterviews
Victori, \1. 1999 strategic, task, person knowledge effective writing interviews
in writing think aloud protocols
'''enden,A. 1987 theories of languagelearning goal setting, strategy focused interviews
choice, evaluation
Yang, XD. 1999 self-efficacy beliefs, value & nature use of learning strategies structuredquestionnaire,interviews,
l\1etaCO[!;llilive knowledgein SLA: tit£' neglectedvariable

of LL, languageaptitude, formal factor analysis

structural study
49
 50 Learner Contributions to LanguageLeaminr;

kinds of information that emergedin a previous [Link] contribu-

tion to the methodology of researchinglearner beliefs and knowledge is
an approach to classification developedby Benson and Lor (1998) which
distinguishesconceptionsof learningfrom languagelearners'specific beliefs
and, further, organizesthese conceptionsaccording to whether they imply
a quantitative or qualitative view of the nature of languageand of language
learning.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

THE FUNCTION OF METACOGNITIVE KNOWLEDGE IN

THE SELF-REGULATION OF LANGUAGE LEARNING

The theory and researchin the cognitive literaturemaintain that metacognitive

knowledgeis critical to the self-regulationoflearning (Wenden,1998a).It is
maintainedthat while metacognitivestrategies,such as planning, monitoring
and evaluatingare essentialto self-regulation,if thesestrategiesfail to make
contact with a rich knowledge base, they are weak (Perkins and Salomon,
1989). Furthermore,the researchhas shown that self-regulatedlearnersare
distinguishedby their ability to use metacognitive knowledge in a flexible
manner (Brown et aI., 1981; Pressleyet aI., 1987). This literature supports
results from the L2 researchcited above which has shown a relationship
betweenwhat learners know about languagelearning and their approach
to the task (Benson and Lor, 1998; Elbaum et aI., 1993; Holec, 1987; Park,
1994; Wenden, 1987; Yang, 1999).
To provide further insight on the function of languagelearners' meta-
cognitive knowledgein learning, the analysisto be presentedin this chapter
intends to clarify the nature of the interaction that defines the relationship
between what learners know and how they self-regulate their learning.
Excerpts from introspectiveand retrospectivelearner accountswill be ana-
lysed to illustrate how the three main categoriesof metacognitiveknowledge
- person,task and strategicknowledge- come into play in the operationof
two key self-regulatoryprocesses:task analysis, and monitoring. The intro-
spective Excerpts that follow (1, 2, 4, 5, 6) have been taken from data
collected for an exploratory study reported in Wenden (1991b) and the
retrospectiveExcerpts (3, 7, 8) are from data reported in Wenden (1982).
Self-regulation,a term usedin the cognitive literature, refers to the processes
by which learnersplan how they will approacha task, their task analysisand
how they actually monitor its [Link] L2 literature on learner
autonomyrefers to the sameprocessesas self-direction.

TASK ANALYSIS

Task analysis is the planning that takes place prior to task engagementas
learners:
 Metacognitiveknowledgein SLA: the neglectedvariable 51

1. Considerthe task'spurjJose- determinewhat they expectto learn from the

task and its relevanceto their learning needsand goals.
2. Classify the task type - identify the nature of the problem it poses and
considerwhetherit is similar to tasks they've alreadydone.
3. Assessa task's demands- considerhow to do the task, that is what to do
and in what order, the knowledgeand skills they will need to do so, and
the anticipateddifficulty of the task.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

The outcome of a task analysis is a learning plan that will guide the imple-
mentationof the task. (For a more extendeddiscussion,seeWenden,1995.)

Excerpt 1: Dina
In Excerpt 1, Dina, a languagelearnerof intermediateproficiency, illustrates
how task knowledgeand subject matter knowledge are brought into playas
she performs a task analysisprior to writing an essay.

Compositiontopic: Should immigrants be expectedto return to their native countries?

[She had looked at the list of topics, selectedone and quickly had written the
first sentenceof her composition, 'One of the biggest problems that exists
today in the US is the problem of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.' She stopped
and looked at the sentence.I said 'You startedwriting right away. You didn't
have to think about it?']
'.....1 was thinking of the way how to write and everything. . .I was thinking before
of the topic. ..
1 was thinking about the title. 1 decided it's a big problem and my ideas is that
1 ....think they don't have to go back to their native countries. But I'm going to give
first why is the problem and then I'm going - uh - you know - the against - the plus
and against but my opinion 1 will try to support my opinion that they don't have to go
back to their countries. But now I'm just trying to put it in the way that 1 am thinking
to give first a general idea to put everythingthat 1 want . .. and maybeI'm going to
change. Usually 1 changethem you know. 1 wrote somethingthen 1 put all the correc-
tions that 1 want.. '

In this task analysis, completed after the first sentenceof the essay had
beenwritten, Dina is analysingthe task'sdemands- how to go aboutwriting
the essay- the knowledge she draws upon to do so being implicit in the
decisionsshe [Link], she decideswhat her view is on the statedquestion
- whetherillegal immigrantsshouldbe allowed to stay in the United Statesor
return to their native [Link] basisfor this decisionis her subjectmatter
knowledge, that is what she knows about the topic. Then, guided by her
rhetorical knowledge,she outlines the proceduresshe will follow in writing the
[Link] will state the reasonfor the problem. Then, she will argue for the
pros and consof allowing immigrantsto stay and provide supportinginforma-
tion for her opinion. Finally, referring explicitly to her strategic knowledge,
 52 Learner Contributions to LanguageLeaming

she indicates the strategy she usually uses to complete a first draft: first to
write down everything she's thinking and then to make [Link] final
outcomeof this analysisis new knowledge:of a writing plan which will guide
her as she proceedswith the task. The following summarizesthe metacognitive
knowledgeand subjectmatter knowledge Dina uses in Excerpt 1:

Task analysis lVIetacognitiveand domain knowledge

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Analysing task demands- Dina's view on the topic

I was thinking beJore oj the topic. . .l was thinking subjectmatter (DK)
ahout the title. I derided it's a big prohlem and my
idea is that I . ...think they don't have to go back to
their native countries.
Analysing task demands- how to do the task
I'm going to give first why is the problem then I'm going rhetorical (TK)
- uh - you know - the against - the j)lus and against,
but my oj)inion I will try to suj)j)ort my opinion that
they don't have to go back to their countries.
Choosinga strategy
but now I'm just trying to put it in the way that I am strategic (SK)
thinking to give first a general idea to put everything
that I want . . .and maybe I'm going to change.
U~ually I changethnn you know. I wrote something
then I put all the corrections that I want.

Excerpt 2: Jen
In Excerpt 2, Jen, a languagelearner of intermediateproficiency, also illus-
trates how task knowledgeis broughtinto playas he performsa task analysis
prior to writing an essay.

Compositiontopic: VVhy peoplesteal?

'.... .Now I start writing my composition[pausel I've neverwritten this composition

before. .. .this toPic. .. .I'm thinking how to start [10 seconds}. .. I think maybe I
supposethere are threefactors makepeoplesteal. .. I suppose . . .so I say [types} "there
are three factors that makepeoplesteal. . " ,
I have a topic sentencehere. .. OK that's good. . that's a requirement. ...
VVhat will be the threefactors I will think about? eh ...maybeeducation, the first one
(uh huh) Ok. . . the secondfactor might be thefamily and, the third factor (15 seconds)
friend (uh huh). ... no friends (uh huh) OK . .........this is my topic sentence . . .I
have to write about thesethreefactors. . '
[I asked him why he wrote down three factors, that is if he had education,
family and friends in mind when he decidedon three. He responded:]
'..... .No I want to write a good comjJositionthat has severalparagraphs. Two is more
common,but three is good. ... .I supposethree, so I sayfamily, educationandfriends. '
 Metarogniti(}l' knowlai,£!/ in SIA: the ne[{ll'rted variable 53

In his task analysis,J en beginsby classifying the task. ""lIen he says 'I've never
written this compositionbefore....this topic. ...', it may be inferred that he
has referred to his knowledgeof (writing) task typesand attemptedto see if this
one was similar to others he had written [Link], then considershow he
will tackle writing about this topic, referring explicitly to the rhetorical know-
ledgethat guides the writing of his first sentence'There are three factors that
make peoplesteal.' That is, an essayneedsa 'topic sentence',which determines
the length of the essay,that is the numberof [Link] addition, a good
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

essayhas severalparagraphsand three is better than two. The metacognitive

knowledgeJen has used in this Excerpt is summarizedbelow.

Task analysis 1\1[etamgnitiveknowledge

ClassifYing the task

I've never 1VrittPn this comjJOsitionbefore. ... this topir. ... task types (TK)

Analysing task demands:how to approachthe task

I'm thinking how to start [10 sel'Ondsj... J think, maybe, rhetorical (TK)
J sup/Jose,there are threefartors makepeople steal. .. J
sujJjJose. . ..10 I say [types] "there are threefartors that
makejieojile steal. .. " J have a tOjJir sPnteYlrehere. .. OK
that's good.. that '5 a requirnnent. ...
I want to write a good compositionthat has several rhetorical (TK)
paragraphs. Two is more common, but three is good. ... .
What will be the threefactors I will think about? ell, .. . rhetorical (TK)
maybeeducation, the first one (uh huh) OK the serond
j(ll'tor might be the j(l1nily and, the third fflrtor (15 smmds)
friPnrl (uh huh). .. . no friends (uh huh) OK. , . , .. , , . this
.
is my topic sPn/mceI have to write about thesethreefartors. ,

Excerpt 3: Oshi
In Excerpt 3, Oshi, a languagelearnerof intermediateproficiency, refers to
the task and strategicknowledgethat is associatedwith his analysisof how to
read the New York Times.

'J read theJapanesenewspaperand then whenI read the summaryon Sunday(i.e., the
New York Sunday Times), it's easyfor me. ... .Readingthe paper is like an English
comprehensiontest. If I read the questionsfirst and then read the passa[{e, I can
completeit in half the time. But if I read and then look at the questionsit takes longer.
It's the sameif I read the newsfirst in Japaneseand then in English.'

Oshi's statement,'readingthe paperis like an English comprehensiontest',

suggeststhat he has referred to his knowledgeof (comprehension)task typesand
perceivedthe similarity betweenthis readingtask and readingcomprehension
tests in English. Then, drawing upon his strategic knowled[{e, he has chosena
strategysimilar to the one he useswhen he doesan English readingcompre-
hension test: [Link], he will read the news in a Japanese
 54 LeamerContlilmtions to Lallf!:uar;e Learning

newspaper;then he will read the Times. Finally, it may be further inferred that
has led him to anticipatethat readingthe
knowledgeof this strategy'seJJectiveness
New York Times will be easy. The following summarizesthe metacognitive
knowledge Oshi refers to in Excerpt 3.

Task analysis MetacognitiveknowlPdge

ClassifYing the task

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Readingthe paper is like an English (reading) task type (TK)

comprehensiontest.

Analysing task demands:how to do the task

I read the newsfirst in Japaneseand then in English. task appropriatestrategy (SK)
I read the questionsfirst and then read the passage
(reading com/nehensiontest).

Analysing task demands:level of difficulty

I read thejapanesenewspaperand then when I read the strategyeffectiveness(SK)
summaryon Sunday, it's eas)' for me. ... If I read the
questionsfirst and then read the passage,I can complete
it in half the time.

MONITORING

Monitoring consistsof five sub-processes: self-observation,assessment,decid-

ing whether to take action, deciding how and when to take action, imple-
menting the action (Wenden, 1997). Se/fobsfl1Jationrefers to the ongoing
attentionlearnersmust pay to various aspectsof the task they are completing,
their progressin completingit, and to the factors that may facilitate or impede
this progress.
Assessmentrefers to the evaluationslearnersmake about:
• what they know and understand;
• the effectivenessof a learning method or strategy;
• whetheror not their pre-setgoals are being met;
• whetheror not they expect that they will be.
As a result of their evaluationlearnersmust determineif it is necessaryto take
action and if so how and when. Then having made a plan learnersmust act to
implementit. New remedial strategiesmay be deployed; strategiesalready in
use may be modified; new goals may be established;the cognitive task may be
redefined.

Excerpt 4: Dina
Excerpt 4 points to the strategicand task knowledge that is the basis of the
monitoring process that accompaniedDina's writing of sentence2 of her
compositionon immigrants.
 Metarognilive !mowledgein SLA: the neglertedvariable 55

Thousandspeople of different nationality enter every day in the U.S. and

that makes the citizens very confused to wonder if all those new people
should be stay or returnedto their native country.
Speaksoutloud as she types the sentence;rereadsit outloud and says: 'I always
try to say outloud. I like to hear my ideas. ...... .In a minute I'm going to change
[Link] then I'm going to go over it and I'm going to changeit again. ... I
like my ideas but I don't like the place. I'm going to changethe place. ... but now I'm
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

just want to put down my ideas in the right order. '

In monitoring the writing of this sentence,Dina's report suggeststhat she has

been attendingto her ideas and order (i.e., the place), implicitly revealing
her rhetorical knowledge: that theseare aspectsof written prose that one must
attendto. Sheassesses what shehaswritten. Her positive evaluationof the ideas
suggeststhat she has drawn upon her knowledgeof her w1iting plan devised
during the task analysis (Excerpt 1) to note whether they convey the mean-
ing [Link] in her assessment of placeas needingto be changed
is rhetorical knowledgeregardingthe organizationof [Link], basedon this
latter assessment, shedecidesto take remedialaction later and to continuewrit-
ing her ideasdown in the right order. The former decision,it may be inferred,
will be basedpartly on the samerhetorical knowledgethat provided the criteria
for her earlier assessment of this problem (inappropriateorder). The second
decisionappearsto be basedon knowledgeof her writing plan (Excerpt 1): first
to put everything down as she thinks about it and then make revisions. The
Excerptalso revealsher knowledgeof a strategythat she always usesto attendto
her ideas, that is she [Link] metacognitiveknowledgeDina used
to monitor her writing of sentence2 is summarizedbelow.

Monitorin[; processes Metaro[;nitive knowledge

Self-observation
I always try to say outloud. task appropriatestrategy (SK)
J like to hear my ideas.
Assessment
J like my iriPas writing plan (TK)
- but J don't like the piau. rhetorical (TK)
Decision to take action
I'm [;oing to changethe place. In a minute rhetorical (TK)
I'm going to changesomething
- but now I'm just want to put down my writing plan (TK)
ideas in the right order.

Excerpt 5: Dina
Excerpt 5 points to the task and person knowledge that is the basis of the
monitoring processthat accompaniedDina's writing of sentences5 and 6 of
her composition.
 56 Lfarnfr Contributions to LmlE{uagf Lmrning

The biggest immigrant's number is also uneducatedpeople who try to find

any kind of job and they don't offer anything in the American society. They
don't pay any taxes and they don't vote. In other words they don't meet the
responsibilitiesof an American citizen.
[writes sentences5 and 6, pauses,rereadsthem outloud and in responseto
my question, 'What were you thinking?']
'I was just thinking, you know, if I had to add something . .. Becausereally I'm not
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

with this side. But I have. .. .you know. .. the illegal immigrants must stay. .I have
more, but I don't want to say more becausethen I change another meaningthat I
(don't) want to give. I'm not going to say more than this. . .Now I'm goinE{ to say the
other side. . . .. '

In monitoring the writing of thesetwo sentences,Dina's report suggeststhat

she is attendingto the supportingideas she'swritten to make a case against
illegal immigrants. She is assessingthe adequacyof thesesupports,trying to
decidewhetheror not she could and shouldadd more. Implicit is her rhetorical
knowledgethat an adequatenumber of supporting details are necessaryto
supporta main idea. At the sametime, she refers to her personknowledge,that
is what she knows about the topic and concludesthat she has the knowledge
requiredto add more details should she decide to do so. However, referring
to her writing plan - that she will argue in favour of immigrants remaining
in the United States- and realizing that supportsare intendedto influence
readers (rhetorical knowledge), she decides not to add more supports as it
would changethe meaningshe intends to convey. Finally, again, referring to
her writing plan, she decidesto proceedwith the developmentof the other
point of view on [Link] following is a summaryof the metacognitive
knowledgeDina used to monitor her writing of sentences5 and 6.

Monitoring jJrocesses Metarognitive knowlNlge

seU:obselvation/ assessmen t
I was just thinking, you know, if I had to add rhetorical (TK)
something.
Decision regardingadding supports
I have more what she knows about the topic (PK)
I'm not with this side. ... the illegal immigmnts writing plan (TK)
must stay
I don't want to say more bemuse,then, I change rhetorical (TK)
another mmningthat meaningJ (don't) want to
give. I'm not going to say more than this.
Decision to continue
Now, I'm going to say the other siriP. writing plan (TK)

Excerpt 6: Dina
Excerpt 6 points to the personknowledgethat guided Dina's monitoring of
sentence8.
 MPlacognitive knowledgein SUi: the neglectedvariable 57

They came here and the work very hard with all the news and strangesitu-
ations trying to understandhow the things are going in the 'new home' and
what the new society expectfor them.
[writes sentence8 to situations, rereadsit with a gestureof disgust and con-
tinues to 'new home', which she has put in quotes]
'..... .I don't know. ..........you don't usethosethings (i. e. the quotation marks)
but I can't use my words when I want to emphasizesomething . ... .So I try to find -
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

you know - all thosethings I find on the computer.. the punctuationto emphasizemy
idea becauseI don't have the words to give you or somebodywhat I want to say . ..
In my languageI don't useso much becauseI can expressall the things that I want to
say. In this languageI can't. '

In monitoring the writing of sentence8, Dina's report suggeststhat she is

attendingto the meaningshe wishes to emphasizeand becomesaware of an
obstaclepreventingher progress,that is her inability to find a word to express
her meaning(the gestureof disgust).She, therefore,decideson a production
strategyto deal with the problem:sheputs quotationmarksaroundthe ideashe
wantedto [Link] this ExcerptDina refers to personknowledgeto explain
the problem that is encounteredin completingthe writing task. Her English
linguistic proficiency is inadequate- she does not have the vocabularyneces-
sary to emphasizeher ideas. This same knowledge explains her choice of
[Link] addition, it brings to awarenessher knowledgeof her
superiorability in her language(person knowledge).The following summarizes
the metacognitiveknowledgeDina usedto monitor her writing of sentence8.

Monitoring processes MPlacognitive knowledge

assessment of reasonfor problem

1 can't use my words when 1 wanf to proficiency in English (PK)
emphasizesomething.

decision to take action and how

. . . . . 50 1 try to find - you know - all
thosethings I find on the computeT ..
the punctuation to emphasizemy idea.
1 don't have the wOTds to give you proficiency in English (PK)
or somebodywhat 1 want to say..
In my language. ... I can express proficiency in native language(PK)
all the things that I want to say.
In this language1 can't.

Excerpt 7: Oshi
While it is tme that the monitoring of a task can only be capturedthrough
introspectivereporting, retrospectivereportscan reveal someof the knowledge
that has guided the [Link], in Excerpt 7, Oshi revealsthe personand
task knowledgethat, it may be inferred, influencesthe selectionof a strategy
 58 Learner Contributions to LanguageLearning

in responseto problemsencounteredas he monitors his conversationswith

an employee.

(a)
'If he usesnew words, I ask the meaning- stop the discussion. Then he usesanother
word - easier, and the discussioncontinues.'
[What do you do about the word?]
'I am very old. My ability to learn by heart becomesworse. But I'm trying to. .. It's
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

better to write it down and try to use it. '

(b)
[When you talk do you worry about making mistakes?]
'There are severalways to say things. I'm very careful becauseI don't want to disturb
relations betweenpeople. I don't want to offend them.'
(c)
[Referring to his employee]
'.....when he corrects me. ... .I try to understandthe reason and check the reason
and if it's not satisfactory, I ask him for the reason. He explains. That discussionis
helpful to understandgrammar. '

In Excerpt (a), Oshi reveals the person knowledge- that age affects one's
memory - which guides his choice of a learning strategy for remembering
new words encounteredas he talks with his [Link] (b), it is his under-
standingof the social appropriateness of language- his task knowledge- that
influenceshis choice of production strategywhen communicatingwith him
and [Link] is very deliberatein choosingthe socially appropri-
ate word. Finally, in (c), he provides the reasonfor the strategyhe uses to
deal with correctionsof his spokenEnglish made by his [Link] he
cannot determine the reason for the explanation himself, he asks for an
explanation,noting that this feedbackis very useful for understandinggram-
mar (task knowledge).The metacognitiveknowledgeOshi uses to selectthese
strategiesis summarizedbelow.

j\1onitoring processes Metacognitiveknowledge

Choosinga plan of action, i.e. a strategy

If he uses new words, J ask the meaning- stop the discussion.
Then he uses another word - easier, and the disrussion (()ntinues.
("What do you do about the word?)
Jam vny old. My ability to learn by heart bermnesworse. But effect of age on
I'm trying to. . .1t's better to write it down and try to use it. learning (PK)
[When you talk do you worry about making mistakes?)
There are several ways to say things. I'm vprj rareful berauseJ don't social appropriateness
want to disturb relations betweenpeople. J dOIl'/ want to o/Jpnd them. of languageuse (TK)
[Referring to his employee).... .whm he rorrects rJtP. ... . J importanceof
try to understandthe (fflSOn and check the reason and if it's not feedback (SK)
satisfactory, J ask him for the reason. He explains. That discussion
is helpful to understandgrammar. ..
 Metacognitiveknowledgein SLA: the neglectedvariable 59

Excerpt 8: Oshi
In contrast to Excerpts 4-6, the monitoring process suggestedby the
Oshi's report in Excerpt 8 extendsbeyondone instancein time and beyond
one discrete task to a series of instancesextendedover a period of time
and consistingof multiple languagelearning activities. In this Excerpt, Oshi
makes explicit the strategic and task knowledge he used to evaluate these
activities.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

(a)
'I went to a language school in Germany. ....the teacher camefrom England. If ]
tried to use a new word in class, the teachertold meyou'd better use it in this way and
she wrote it on the blackboard. That was very helpful. '

(b)
[Referring to an English course in the US] '] must be able to write essaysto
completemy admissionform to get into an MBA program. After classes]have exercises
to do. They teach grammar. That's helpful. '
'...my job requires that ] make telephone contacts and arrange interviews to sell
my products. My businessclients are not too well educated. They speak very quickly
and if ] don't understand,they becomeangry and hang up and] lose a client. The
people in the class also have that type of English and so ] have an opportunity to
practice.'

(c)
[Referring to a GMAT course] 'StudyingGMAT is good cause]mustcompetewith
American people not foreigners. If ] get into an MBA class, ] must say something.
Otherwise,] can't graduate. That's very hard to argue with Americanpeopleto under-
stand the argumentgoing on betweenAmericanpeople, then get into the conversation
...very hard but helpful. '

In example (a), Oshi refers to the importance of feedback (strategic know-

ledge) to explain why he found his teacher'sstyle of teachinguseful. In the
other two examples, Oshi explains how his English class in the United
States and the GMAT course consist of activities and/or opportunitiesfor
languageuse that are relevantto his languagelearningneedsand goals. That
is, his knowledge of task purpose (task knowledge) provides the criteria for
judging the utility of these self-selectedlanguagelearning activities. Sum-
marized below is the metacognitiveknowledge Oshi uses to evaluate these
activities.
 60 Learner Contributions to LanguageLearning

Monitoring processes Mrtacognitive knowledge

assessinga chosenstrategy/activity
[referring to languageschool in Germany]
the teacher camefrom England. If I tried to use a new word, importanceof feedback (SK)
the teachertold me you'd better use it in this way and she
wrote it on the blackboard. That was very helpful.

[referring to an English coursein the US]

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

After classesI have exercisesto do. They teach grammar. task purpose/utility (TK)
That's helpful. My businessclients are not too well educated.
They speakvery quickly. ... The peoplein the class alm have task purpose/utility (TK)
that type of English and so I have an opportunity to practice.

[referring to a GMAT course]

StudyingGMAT is good museI must competewith task purpose/utility (TK)
A merimn people not foreigners. That's very hard to argue
with Americanpeople to understandthe argnmentgoing on
betweenA merican people, then get into the conversation.

SUMMARY

The purposeof this chapterhas beento clarifY the natureof the relationship
betweenmetacognitiveknowledge and self-regulationin languagelearning.
The analysis of the learner accounts has shown that metacognitive know-
ledge is a prerequisiteto the implementationof two sets of regulatory pro-
cessesin languagelearning: the task analysiswhich guidespre-taskengagement
planningand the monitoringwhich overseestask [Link] relationship
betweenthe specific sub-typesof metacognitiveknowledgeand the individual
processesthat constitutetask analysisand monitoring, which were illustrated,
explained,and summarizedin the body of the chapter,are outlined in more
generalterms in Table 3.3.
According to the summaryoutline in Table 3.3, task knowledge appears
to be the most complex of the three main categories of metacognitive
knowledge - the reports of the three learnerstogetherillustrating five sub-
types. Knowledge of task types and rhetorical knowledgewere utilized in the
task analysis, the former to classifY a task and the latter to determinea task's
demands,that is how to do the writing task. To monitor the completion of
their tasks, the learnersdrew upon (1) rhetorical knowledge to determine
what aspectsof the task to observe, to assesstheir progressand to decide
whether or not to take action; (2) metalinguistic knowledge to choose a
strategy; (3) perceptionof a task's purpose to assessthe effectivenessof a
languagelearning activity; and (4) awarenessof their writing plan to assess
their progressand decide whether to take action and how.
In addition, three sub-typesof person knowledge were illustrated in the
Excerpts, each one utilized in monitoring: to determine the choice of a
strategy (age and learning; linguistic proficiency); to assessthe cause of a
 Metacognitiveknowledgein SLA: the neglectedvariable 61

Table 3.3 Metacognitive knowledge and regulatoryprocesses

Metacognitiveknowledge Regulatoryprocesses

Types and sub-types Task analysis Monitoring

TASK KNOWLEDGE
knowledge of task types classitying a task
rhetorical analysingtask demands: self-observation
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

how to do the task assessment of progress

decision to take action
metalinguistic decision how to take action:
choice of strategy
task purpose assessment of a language
learning activity
writing plan assessment of progress
decision to take action
decision how to take action

PERSONKNOVVLEDGE
age and learning decision how to take action:
choice of strategy
linguistic proficiency in assessment of problem
Ll and L2 decision how to take action:
choice of strategy
subjectmatter knowledge decision to take action

STRATEGIC KNOWLEDGE
task appropriatestrategy analysingtask demands: self-obselvation
choice of strategy decision how to take action
assessment of an activity
strategyeffectiveness analysingtask demands:
level of difficulty
guidelinesfor learning decision how to take action:
choice of strategy

problem (linguistic proficiency); and to determinewhether to take action

(subjectmatterknowledge).The learners'Excerptsalso pointed to threesub-
types of [Link] knowledgewas usedas learnersanalyseda
task's demands- providing insight on the difficulty of a task (strategyeffect-
iveness)and guiding the choice of a strategyto completeit (task appropriate
strategy).In addition, while monitoring, strategicknowledgewas usedby the
learnersto facilitate the self-observationprocessand to assessthe effectiveness
of a languagelearning activity (task appropriatestrategy); to decide how to
take action (task appropriatestrategyand guidelinesfor learning).
In sum, the analysisof these eight Excerptsillustrates how metacognitive
knowledge was utilized by learners to self-regulate their completion of an
assignedwriting task (Jen and Dina) and of self-selectedlanguagelearning
 62 Learner Contributions to LanguageLearning

tasks, that is reading the newspaper,conversingwith an employee, taking

languagecoursesand college preparatorycourses(Oshi). At the same time,
it should be noted that, in her task analysis (Excerpt 1), Dina also used
knowledge she had acquired about immigration, the topic of her composi-
tion. This suggeststhat other than metacognitiveknowledge,subject matter
or domain knowledge is also necessaryin the regulation of learning and
communicationtasks.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

CONCLUSION

This chapter has summarizedresearchon the metacognitiveknowledge of

languagelearnersand analysedselectedExcerpts from learner accountsto
illustrate how this knowledge functions in the self-regulation of language
learning. To conclude I would like to suggestbriefly what this implies for
theory, researchand practice in SLA.

Theoretical implications
As noted at the beginning of the chapter, thus far SLA theories have not
included metacognitiveknowledgeamong the learnerdifferencesproposed
as influencing the processof acquiring another [Link] developing
body of researchsummarizedin this chaptersuggeststhat it is a cognitive
variable that should be [Link] providing data that may be
used to correlatewhat learnersknow with learneroutcomes,the analysisof
the eight learneraccountssuggestsan addedbenefit. The mannerin which
metacognitiveknowledgeinfluencesthe self-regulationof learning,illustrated
by such accounts,can provide an explanation for a learner'sapproachto
SLA, thus enhancingconclusionsdrawn from the correlations.
Secondly,a recognitionof the function of metacognitiveknowledgein the
self-regulation of learning should contribute to a clearer understandingof
learner autonomy, specifically how it can be developedand [Link]
indicatedin the literature on adult learning, autonomyis a potential and a
goal towardswhich all humansstrive in their various life roles, for exampleas
children, parents,professionalsand as learners (Knox, 1977). The realiza-
tion of this potential for languagelearnersis in part dependentupon their
ability to self-regulate or self-direct their learning (see Holec, 1981). This
meansbeing able to conduct a task analysis that contributesto the overall
planning of a task and, then, monitoring the task's implementation;a set of
sub-processes which includes the evaluationof progressand meansof learn-
ing. As illustrated in this chapter,metacognitiveknowledgeis a prerequisite
to the deploymentof [Link] is the basisfor planning
and monitoring. Thus, it is essentialto the developmentand enhancement
of a learner'spotential for [Link] is the possessionof and the ability to
apply such a body of knowledge that is one characteristicof autonomous
learners (Benson, 2000). As the Excerptshave suggested,such learnersare
 Mftacognitive knowledgf in SLA: the neglectedvariable 63

rejlectivf in their approachto learning. They draw upon acquiredmetacognitive

knowledgeto betterunderstandthemselvesas [Link] reflect
upon their experienceto form their own theoriesaboutthe natureof language
and effective approachesto languagelearning, that is to developfurther their
body of [Link],they are self-directed,drawing
upon the knowledgethat is the outcomeof their reflective processto analyse
a task, devise a learning plan, and to monitor its implementation.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Research implications
To refine and expand our understandingof the function of metacognitive
knowledge in languagelearning further, researchon metacognitiveknow-
ledge in languagelearning needs to be expandedand diversified in con-
tent. Thus far, most studies have documentedgeneral knowledge language
learners hold about various aspectsof their languagelearning. There is a
need for researchwhich documentsthe metacognitiveknowledge learners
bring to specific tasks of languagelearning and languageuse (e.g., reading,
listening in formal and informal settings,acquiring vocabulary).
Insights gained from the analysis of the eight Excerpts in this chapter
suggestsa secondareafor [Link]-basedstudiesshouldalso document
how metacognitive knowledge comes into playas learners self-direct their
learning. What kind of knowledge is utilized as learners plan to do a task
(conduct a task analysis) and implement it (task monitoring)? How is the
knowledgeutilized? The outcomeof such researchshould also contribute to
our understandingof learning [Link] date most learning strategy
researchhas been isolated from the processesof self-regulationthat deploy
them and the metacognitiveknowledgethat motivatesand guides thesepro-
[Link] the use of metacognitiveknowledgein the self-regulation
of learning should also explain which strategiesare selected,when they are,
and why. How metacognitiveknowledge is acquiredand changedis a third
researcharea that [Link] does this knowledge changeover
time? Why does it change?To what extent and how might teacherinterven-
tions lead to these changes?How can changesin metacognitiveknowledge
lead to learners'more active involvementin the regulation of their learning?

Pedagogicalimplications
Finally, FL/SL instruction should benefit by acknowledgingthis hidden vari-
able. First of all, the recognition of metacognitiveknowledge as a learner
difference and of its role in the self-regulation of learning should remind
teachersthat there is a rationale underlying learners'approachto language
learning. There is a reasonfor what they chooseto learn, the strategiesand
learning activities they prefer, and the mannerin which they approachand
completea task.
It is to this rationale that they can turn in order to understandbetter how
learnersapproachthe completionof languagelearningtasksand, ultimately,
 64 Learner Contributions to LanguageLearning

why somelearnersare successfuland othersare not. Teachersshouldattempt

to discover this rationale., through their learners'metacognitiveknowledge.
Applying to this enterprise the various techniquesused by researchersto
elicit introspectiveand retrospectivereporting, they can expectto gain insights
that will enhancetheir attemptsto facilitate the processof secondlanguage
learning within the classroom and to provide learners with guidance for
pursuing their learning independentlyin informal settings.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017
 Chapter 4

The metaphorical constructions

of secondlanguage learners
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Rod Ellis, University of Auckland

INTRODUCTION

How do second language acqulSltlOn (SLA) researchersconstruct second

language(L2) learners?How do L2 learnersconstructthemselves?The aim
of this chapteris to explore these two questionsand, in particular, to high-
light differences in the constructionsof researchersand learners. Such a
comparisonis compatible with the postmodernistconviction that the study
of L2 acquisition is a highly complex phenomenonthat can best be under-
stood by examining its multiple realities. This chapter,then, reports an ini-
tial study of how SLA researchersconstructL2 learnersand how L2 learners
constructthemselves.
In order to undertakesuch a study it is necessaryto addresstwo problems
- one conceptualand the other [Link] evidencedby someof the
classic papersin SLA (e.g., Corder, 1967), it is clear that SLA researchersdo
not so much talk about learnersas about learning. Lantolf (1996) recently
reacheda similar conclusion,noting that SLA talks of 'systemsand processes'
that 'are independentof the very people who are trying to learn a second
language'(1996: 717). Furthermore,as Tollefson (1991) has pointedout, even
when SLA does acknowledgethat learnersexist, it adopts the neo-classical
view that they make choicesby weighing up personalbenefits and costsand,
typically, ignoreshow social context [Link],then,
are not so much constructedby SLA researchersas both deconstructedand
decontextualized!However, it is also apparentthat there are indeedimplicit
constructionsof learnersin the models and theories of SLA and that these
implicit constructionswere preciselywhat need to be teasedout.
The secondproblemconcernedthe kind of methodologyfor achievingthis.
One intriguing possibility wasto examinethe metaphorsthat SLA researchers
have used to write about languagelearning. Such an approachis warranted
in part by Lantolf's demonstrationthat SLA theory, contrary to the claim of
some researchers,is inherently metaphoricaland in part by the practical
needfor a tool to comparethe constructionsof researchersand learners.
This chapterwill begin, therefore,with a brief discussionof metaphorand
the use of metaphoranalysisin appliedlinguistic [Link] will then examine

65
 66 LeamerContributions to LanguageLearning

someof the key metaphorsthat have figured in SLA researchand in so doing

attemptto identify researchers'implicit constructionsof L2 [Link], a
numberof journals kept by a group of L2 adult learnerswill be analysedto
examine the metaphorsthey used to talk about languagelearning. Finally,
the chapterwill considerto what extent the researchers'and learners'con-
structionsare similar and different and considerthe relevanceof this kind of
enquiry for SLA research.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

METAPHOR ANALYSIS IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS

What Steen(1994) calls 'metaphorology'has undergonea remarkablerevolu-

tion in the last twenty years or so. Traditionally, metaphorwas viewed as a
unique form of linguistic expressionassociatedwith literature, in particular
poetry. It involved 'fancy language'that was in someway unusualor deviant.
As such, it was largely ignored by linguists. At the end of the 1970s,a number
of publications,in particularLakoff andJohnson'sMetaphorsWe Live By (1980),
convincingly argued the case for metaphoras central to not just language
but to human cognition as well. Lakoff and Johnson'sarguments,subse-
quently repeatedand developedin a series of publications throughoutthe
1980s (e.g., Lakoff, 1986, 1987; Lakoff and Turner, 1989), are basedon two
principal contentions.
The first is that metaphoricaluse far from being specialand rare is in fact
very ordinaryand [Link] and Turner (1989) arguethat 'meta-
phor is a tool so ordinary that we use it unconsciouslyand automatically,with
so little effort that we hardly notice it' (1989: xi). They note that peoplehave
the potential to constructand understandan infinitely large range of meta-
phors but, in fact, draw on a fairly well-defined and limited set. They refer
to these as 'conventionalizedmetaphors',some of which are 'basic' in the
sensethat they are conceptuallywell-established,very widely used, and often
realized linguistically by means of formulaic [Link] metaphors
are 'conceptuallyindispensable'accordingto Lakoff and Turner. Examples
of such metaphors,of which we will find versions operatingwidely in SLA,
are PEOPLEARE CONTAINERS and PEOPLEARE MACHINES.
Lakoff and Turner's secondcontention is that metaphorsare 'a matter
of thought not language' (1989: 107). That is, people store metaphorical
mappingsas mental schematawhich they draw on automaticallyin order to
process metaphoricalexpressionsin understandingand production. Such
metaphors,therefore,are reflective of the modesof thought of the members
of the linguistic community that employ them. Metaphor, then, is not just a
linguistic embellishment,but a primary meansby which people make sense
of the world around them. Metaphorhelps us to constructreality, to reason
about it and to evaluateit.
These contentionsare not uncontroversial. It is not clear, for example,
whetherexpressionssuch as 'input', a term in common usagein SLA, is best
seenas metaphorical(i.e., a slot in the particular form of the PEOPLEARE
 The metaphoricalconstructionsof secondlanguagelearners 67

MACHINES metaphor)or as polysemous,with the specific meaningattached

to it in SLA asjust one of [Link],Keysar and
McGlone (1992) have argued that many conventionalizedmetaphorscease
to function as metaphors(i.e., they are no longer processedanalogically).
The 'analytic' methodsused by Lakoff to investigatemetaphoronly demon-
strate the existenceof two semanticdomains in a metaphor,not two con-
ceptual domains. It is a moot point, then, whether a semantic mapping
correspondsto a conceptual mapping. However, this is not the place to
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

pursue this controversyhere. The position adoptedin this chapter is that

linguistic metaphorsare potentially conceptual metaphorsand that, even
with overuse,the metaphoricalvalue of an item such as 'input' is potentially
still available to us.
Of much greaterinteresthere is how metaphorsstructurecognition and,
most importantly, how the study of metaphorcan serve as a tool for invest-
igating the way we construct reality. Conceptual metaphors, particularly
the conventionalkind, demonstratehow we view reality - how we cognize
matters of vital concern to us. In western thought (and perhapsin other
cultures as well), for example, 'life' is viewed as a Journey', 'love' as 'fire',
and death as 'night'. Shortly, it will be shown that the metaphorsthat SLA
researchersand L2 learnersuse to talk about languagelearning, many of
which are highly conventionalized,reflect their particularorientationsto this
phenomenon- that they function as windows throughwhich we can view the
mentalconstructsthey work with. But conventionalmetaphorsdo more than
construct particular realities; they also channel and constrain thought. As
Lakoff and Turner (1989) put it, 'anything we rely on constantly,unconsci-
ously, and automaticallyis so much a part of us that it cannotbe easily resisted,
in large part becauseit is barely noticed' (1989: 63). Highly conventional
metaphorstend to lose their metaphoricalpower and be understooddirectly
without awarenessof their non-literal nature (Hoffman and Kemper, 1987);
they become 'literalized'. The danger, here, as Lantolf (1996) has pointed
out, is that we lose sight of the metaphoricalorigins of our theories, and
treat them as literal statementsabout reality. Of course, new metaphors
have the potential to expandone'sthinking. Metaphorcan liberate as well as
constrain.
It follows that metaphoranalysis can serve two primary functions in the
epistemologicalstudy of SLA. First, it can help to clarifY the nature of the
constructsthat SLA researchers work with. Secondly,it can assistin the process
of demythologizingSLA by revealingwhat has becomehidden as metaphors
are literalized. In particular, as we will see, it can serve to show how deep-
rooted the assumptionis in SLA that the learner functions as some kind
of computer,processinginput and producingoutput in a machine-likeway.
A metaphoricalanalysis can also help to demonstratethe dubious nature
of the often-madedistinction betweenanalogicaland scientific thought (Leary,
1990).
In fact, metaphoranalysis has become an acceptedtool in both educa-
tional and applied linguistic enquiry. Briscoe (1991), for example,showsin a
 68 Learner Contributions to LanguageLearning

casestudy of a scienceteacherstruggling to changehis style of teachingthat

'the metaphorsteachersuse to make senseof their roles have a substantial
affect on classroom practice' (1991: 197). The images teachersuse meta-
phorically help to organizetheir belief sets and serve as an aid to reflection-
[Link] (1997) reportsclear differencesin the metaphorsusedby
teachersand L2 learnersto conceptualizewhat languagelearning involves
and their roles in the [Link] and Deetz (1981) show how an ana-
lysis of the metaphorsused by people to talk about organizationalsystems
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

revealshow they perceivesuch systemsand their roles in them. They identifY

two main metaphors;ORGANIZATION AS MACHINE and ORGANIZATION
AS LIVING ORGANISM and note that the former implicitly downplays the
role of human ideation in organizations,a point we will find relevant later
when we examine the PEOPLE AS MACHINE metaphorwhich is so pro-
minent in SlA. Koch also makes the important point that it is valuable to
identifY the entailmentslatent in key metaphorsin order to discover which
options afforded by a metaphor are or are not exploited. More recently,
Cameronand Low (1999) have collecteda numberof papersillustrating the
use of metaphoranalysis in applied linguistic fields, including SlA (Block,
1999) and teachingand teachereducation (Cortazzi andJin, 1999).
Metaphoranalysishas also beenseenas important in English for Specific
[Link]-Mayer(1990) reports the results of an analysis of meta-
phorical usagein medical texts in English, Frenchand [Link],
she finds the samemetaphorsoccurring in all three languagesand suggests
that this supportsWiddowson's (1979) claim regarding the universality of
scientific [Link](1991) adaptsCorson's'lexical bar' theory
to suggestthat L2 learnersfrom a non-Germanicbackgroundare likely to
experiencedifficulty in understandingconventional metaphorin English.
He points out that metaphorintroduces'extraneousand unpredictablelexis'
into field-specific discoursewhich may posea greaterproblem than technical
lexis. He arguesthat TESOL has been neglectful in viewing metaphoras 'a
feature of poetry and somewhatextravagantprose' (1991: 218).
A numberof researchershave noted the role that metaphorplays in SlA.
In a discussion of the 'discourse problem' that arises in communication
betweenresearchersand teachers,Kramsch (1995) notes that'each domain
has its own metaphors'and that this [Link] focuses
on the 'input-black box-output' metaphor, so dominant in SlA and notes
that the choice of a metaphordrawn from the source domain of electrical
engineeringwas expeditious becauseit linked SlA to an upcoming and
prestigiousfield and thus ensuredboth respectabilityand funding. The meta-
phor was also useful to researchersin that its entailmentsled them to ask
importantquestionssuch as 'what is the nature of input?' and 'what rounts as
input?' But Kramsch also notes that the metaphorsoon took on 'a life of its
own' (1995: 11) with the result that it limited the scopeof SlA researchand,
also, ultimately reinforced the divide between researcherswho study input
and teacherswho mediate it. Lantolf (1996) seesall theories as inherently
[Link] points out that ,,,hile the traditional view of scientistsis that
 The metaphoricalconstructions0/ secondlanguagelearnplS 69

discourse(including metaphor) is a processof putting thoughtsinto words,

an equally tenable (and from Lantolf's perspectivemore convincing) view is
that discourseimposesstructureon the mind. Like Kramsch,he seeswhat he
calls the 'mind-as-computer'metaphoras having achievedan unhealthydomin-
ance in the field of linguistics and SLA. He also warns against the dangers
of literalized metaphorsrestrictingthoughtand limiting theory development.
He argues,as I have done (R. Ellis, 1994), for an acceptanceof plurality of
theories in SLA, and suggeststhat to keep the field fresh and vibrant it is
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

necessarycontinually to createnew [Link] (1999) also usesmeta-

phor analysis to show how SLA has been 'framed' as 'monotheistic'. His
analysis indicates that SIA has been characterizedas problematicand anar-
chic becauseof the existenceof multiple theories (as opposedto a single,
widely-acceptedtheory), of the applicationof multiple criteria for evaluating
theories,and of the absenceof replication [Link] arguesthe need to
study the 'framing' function of metaphors.
The general drift of these argumentsis that SLA has become narrowly
psycholinguisticbecauseof the power of metaphorto direct and constrain
the field. The same point is made by Firth and Wagner (1997). However,
they draw attention to a different metaphor which has characterizedthe
thinking of SLA researchers- the metaphor of the learner-as-defective
[Link] note that learners are typically viewed as non-native
speakerswho are 'handicapped'by the 'problem' of an underdeveloped
[Link] suggest that this metaphor has enabled researchersto
ignore the contextualand interactionalaspectsof languageuse and acquisi-
tion in favour of [Link] Lantolf, they call for a widen-
ing of the researchagendato include approachesthat view the learnermore
holistically by taking into accountthe social context in which learnerslearn,
that adopt an emic perspective(i.e., take the learner'sperspective)and that
are more critically sensitiveto fundamentalconceptssuch as 'native speaker'
and 'interlanguage'.
From this brief review of someof the work basedon metaphoricalanalysis,
we can see clearly that the study of metaphorprovidesa basisfor identifying
the mental constructsthat underlie our thinking about the world and, im-
portantly, for evaluatingthem. In the eyes of some,SIA has becomemyopic
as a result of its domination by a restricted set of metaphors,in particular
those of the LEARNER AS A MACHINE and LEARNER AS DEFECTIVE
COMMUNICATOR.

THE METHODOLOGY OF METAPHOR ANALYSIS

None of the commentatorson SLA referred to above comment explicitly

011 the methodologythey used to identify and analyse the metaphorsthey
describe. One is left with the impression that they adopteda rather ad hor
approach,relying primarily on their own generalunderstandingof what SLA
is about to select metaphorsfor analysis. Thus, while their accountof these
 70 I,earner Contributions to LanK/JaKeLpauzinK

metaphorsis convincing, their generalcommentsabout the stateof affairs in

SLA, as it standstoday, may be somewhatpartial. A more rigorous approach
to metaphoranalysis is desirable.
Following standarddefinitions of metaphor(see, for example,Cameron,
1999), an expressionwill be consideredmetaphoricalif it contains an ex-
plicit and implicit comparisoninvolving an attemptto expresssome kind of
anomalousrelationshipbetweena Topic and a Vehicle. Metaphor can take
many linguistic forms. Cameron notes that verb metaphorsmay be more
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

common than noun [Link] Lakoff andJohnson(1980), it is

assumedthat metaphorsare notjust linguistic expressionsbut are reflections
of the ways in which people (researchersand learners) conceptualizelan-
guagelearning.
The [Link] be followed here is that outlined by Koch and Deetz
(1981), which is summarizedas follows:
1. Choosea representativecorpora of texts.
2. Isolate metaphoricalexpressionsin the texts and list them.
3. Decide which metaphorsare worth analysing in accordancewith the
researchpurpose.
4. Reduce the metaphoricalexpressionsto the metaphorsthey display by
identifying the sourceand target domains.
5. Sort thesemetaphorsinto coherentgroups,therebyestablishingthe 'main
metaphors'in the corpora.
6. Considerthe possibleentailmentsof eachmain metaphorand examineto
what extent these are or are not expressedin the corpora.
This approachwill be followed to examine,first, the metaphorsin common
use in SIA and, secondly,the metaphorsemployedby a group of learnersto
talk about their own learning of an L2.

THE METAPHORICAL CONSTRlJCTIONS OF LEARNERS IN SLA

A total of nine articles were selectedas the corporaof texts (seeTable 4.1 for
a list). The choice was motivatedby severalconcerns.(1) The articles should
be written by leading researchersin SLA - Corder, Gregg, Kasper, Krashen,
Long, Norton Peirce, Pica, Schmidt, Swain. (2) They should reflect a variety
of theoretical orientations, including those that were psycholinguistic and
those that were more social. However, a decision was taken not to include
any article dealing with individual learner differences, partly to economize
on the size of the corporabut mainly to ensurethat the articles reflectedthe
metaphorsin use in 'mainstreamSIA', which has been primarily concerned
with the universalaspectsof L2 acquisition. (3) The preponderance of articles
should be recent (i.e., published since 1990) so that the corpora reflected
current metaphorsand, thereby, current conceptualizationsin SLA.
Many of the key terms found in SIA, and thereforein the corpora,are, in
fact, metaphoricalin origin, a testimony to the power of metaphorto shape
 The mefajJluJ1iral constructionsof secondlanguagelearners 71

a field of enquiry. Two such terms are transfer and interlanguage. However,
thesewill not be consideredhere as they have becomeso literalized that they
no longer function [Link] is worth noting, however, that, as meta-
phors, both are [Link] notion of transfer implies that something
(a featureof the learner'sL1) is moved to somewhereelse (into the L2), but,
as we well know, this is not what happens;learnersdo not generallylose their
L1 when they learn an L2 so nothing is in fact [Link] was one
reasonwhy Kellerman and SharwoodSmith (1986) suggestedan alternative
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

term - crosslin[!;Uistic influence - a suggestionthat has not caught on. The

interlanguagemetaphoris problematictoo. It suggeststhat the grammarwhich
a learner mentally constructs lies in between something. But in between
what? And what exactly is the starting point for the learner'sconstructionof
a mentalgrammar?Interestingly,thesequestions,which originate directly from
the metaphoricalvalue of interlanguage,have arousedconsiderableattention
amongSLA researchers(see, for example,Selinker, 1992).
Determining exactly what was metaphoricalin a text did not prove easy.
This was becauseit is was often not clear whethera particular expressionwas
metaphoricalor [Link] example,does'construct',as usedin phrases
like 'constructan interlanguagegrammar',draw on a building metaphoror
is it simply a lexical item, one whose literal meaningsis 'to put together'?
Following Lakoff and Turner (1989), a linguistic expressionwas deemed
metaphorical if it was linked conceptually to an obvious source domain.
Therefore,'construct'can be consideredmetaphoricalbecauseit is associated
strongly with the idea of 'building construction';interlanguage(the target
domain) was in effect being comparedto a building. In practice, however, it
was not always so easy to classif} [Link] this reason, no statistical
breakdown of the metaphorical expressionsidentified in the texts will be
provided. Instead,a more interpretativeaccountwill be providedby describing
and discussingthe 'main metaphors'that were identified. These metaphors
will be referred to using the frame LEARNER AS X, even though in many
casesthe target domain of the metaphorsused in the corpora was learning
(or, in some cases,languageuse) rather than [Link] 4.1 summarizes
the basic metaphorsllsed by the nine SLA researchers.

Learneras container
This metaphor figures in Corder's seminal paper in his reference to 'the
capacityof the learner'.It is maintainedin many of the more recentpublica-
tions (e.g., in Gregg, Krashen,Long and Schmidt). Long, for example,refers
to 'processingcapacity' and 'attentional space'. This metaphor has three
obvious entailments,all of which are exploited. The first is that a container
must contain something. In Gregg's case this is 'linguistic competence'.In
Schmidt'scase it is 'memory' and 'primary consciousness'.Secondly, a con-
tainer presupposesthat things can be put into and taken out of it. Thus,
Schmidt talks about 'unattendedform enteringmemory' and 'retrieval from
memory'. In this respect,the LEARNER AS CONTAINER metaphorcan be
 72 Learner Contributions to LanguageLearning

Table 4.1 Basic metaphorsused by nine SLA researchers

Researcher Date of 1 2 34 34 5 6 7
Publication

Corder 1967 * * *
Gregg 1989 * *
Kasper 1996b * *
Krashen 1994 * *
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Long 1996 * * * * *
Norton Peirce 1995 * * *
Pica 1994 * * * *
Schmidt 1994 * * *
Swain 1995 * * * *
Key to metaphors:
1. LEARNER AS CONTAINER
2. LEARNER AS MACHINE
3. LEARNER AS NEGOTIATOR
4. LEARNER AS PROBLEM-SOLVER
5. LEARNER AS BUILDER
6. LEARNER AS STRUGGLER
7. LEARNER AS INVESTOR

seenas related to, and perhapspart of, the more generalconduit metaphor
discussedby Reddy (1993). The third entailment is that a container has a
fixed, limited capacity. Schmidt talks quite explicitly of the 'limited resource
metaphorof attention'.
The LEARNER AS CONTAINER metaphorpresentslearners as passive
and restricted. Learnersare passivein the sensethat they have things done
to them rather than do things [Link] are restricted in the sense
that they have limited capacitiesfor learning, both in the senseof what they
can attend to and what they can remember. There are other possible
entailments of this metaphor, for example a container can be damaged,
broken, thrown away, but there were no metaphoricalexpressionsrelating to
these [Link] metaphor,then, was fairly narrowly developed.
An extension of the LEARNER AS CONTAINER metaphoris, perhaps,
the LEARNER AS A PLACE. Long, for example,frequently refers to learners
'accessing'L2 data while Schmidt and Long talk of 'gaps'. This idea of the
learner as a place finds its clearest expressionin Bialystok and Sharwood
Smith's (1985) use of an extendedlibrary analogy in their discussion of
interlanguagein terms of 'knowledge' and 'control'.

Leamer as machine
The LEARNER AS MACHINE metaphorprovedby far the most ubiquitousin
the corpora,thus bearingout the observationsof Kramsch (1995) and Lantolf
(1996). Frequentuse of it occurred in all the articles, the one exception
 The metaphoricalconstructionsof secondlanguagelearners 73

being Norton [Link]'s accountof acquisitionas involving 'input, inter-

nal learnercapacities,particularly selectiveattention, and output' is typical.
There are numerousentailmentsof this metaphor,one reason,perhaps,
for its popularity. We can talk aboutwhat goesinto the machine(input) and,
of course, how this must be preparedto suit the way the machine works
(environmentalconditions). We can considerhow the machine starts up -
Long's frequent mention of a 'trigger'. We can refer to the actual parts of
the machine (internal structure; components;mechanisms;devices; filters)
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

and how they work (functions; operations;systems;processes;procedures).

We can speakof what comesout of the machine (constructions;products;by-
products; output). What comes out can also have things done to it (we can
reprocessor modiry output). Also, of course, we can control machinesby
speedingthem up or slowing them down (processingcontrol).
There is also the question of what kind of machine it is. Lantolf (1996)
specifically seesit as a computer. So too does Schmidt when he notes that
'the computeris the dominant metaphor' (1994: 13). However, in many of
the articles I examinedthe machineseemsto exist more genericallyas some-
thing that takesin material, processesit and comesout with a product. It can
be a computer,a gun (as with the referenceto a 'trigger') or even somekind
of lathe. There are advantagesin this kind of [Link] removesany need
to speciry in any preciseway what the machineconsistsof or how it works. In
the caseof theorieslike Krashen'sInput Hypothesisthis has obvious advant-
ages; Krashen'sinterestdoesnot lie in telling us how the machineworks on
the input.
Like the LEARNER AS CONTAINER metaphor, the LEARNER AS MA-
CHINE metaphorpositionslearnersas lacking control over what they do and
how they learn. They have no say in the componentsof their machinesor in
the processesthese componentsare capable of performing. They have to
learn in accordancewith how the machine works. Of course, they are not
entirely [Link] can influence the input that goes into the machine
and they can, if they so choose, decide to 'reprocessoutput' from the
[Link] the machineitself remainsa black box that they can do nothing
about. They are not even in chargeof switching it off, this being something
that happensautomaticallywhen they reacha certain age (Long, 1990). One
wonders whether mainstream SlA researchers(among whom I include
myself) really do wish to position learnersas so unempoweredand whether
the time has come to free ourselvesfrom this metaphor,as Kramsch (1995)
and Lantolf (1996) [Link] course,such a step would require the use of
alternativemetaphors,which, as a numberof commentators(e.g., Firth and
Wagner, 1997) have pointed out, are not readily available.

Leamer as negotiator
The notion that learnersfunction as negotiatorshas figured prominently in
those branchesof SLA that treat L2 acquisition as a social phenomenon.
Referenceto 'negotiation' was found in Kasper, Long, Norton Peirce, Pica
 74 Learner Contributions to Lang;uageLearning

and Swain, although the precise meaningattributed to it varied somewhat,

reflecting the particular theoreticalorientationsof thesewriters. Kaspertalks
of learnersengagingin 'the joint negotiationof illocutionary goals'. Norton
Peirce refers to a learnerwho 'negotiatesa senseof self'. Pica and Long, as
might be expected,talk about the 'negotiation of meaning' and how this
assistslearnersto accessform. Swain refers to the 'negotiationabout form'.
What gets negotiated,then, in this metaphoris highly variable.
Apart from what is negotiated,other obviousentailmentsof the LEARNER
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

AS NEGOTIATOR metaphorare who does the negotiating, how the nego-

tiation takes place and what is accomplishedvia negotiation. In SLA, the
negotiatorsare L2 learners (more often than not referred to as 'non-native
speakers') interacting with either other learners or with native speakers.
Researcherscommonly speak of Joint negotiation', thus emphasizingthe
collaborativenatureof [Link] not somethingthat is done
to learners but rather something that they do themselveswith others. As
Long puts it, it involves 'work'.
The way in which negotiation takes place is itself conceptualizedmeta-
phorically, particularly by Pica. In her review article, she views negotiationat
one time or anotheras a 'commodity' (,negotiationappearsto be a powerful
commodity'), as some kind of containerout of which linguistic information
can be 'extracted'and as somekind of machineequippedwith an 'indicator',
'signal' and 'trigger'. Similar terms are found in Long. A more pervasivemeta-
phor in Pica's article (but not Long's) is of negotiationas a journey down a
river or along a road. She talks of 'the flow of interaction','longerstretchesof
input', 'the smoothflow of an even exchange'.On this journey the travellers
can be 'reroutedby a new topic' and experience'breakdowns'which needto
be 'repaired'. Pica, then, seemsto vary betweenviewing negotiation as an
object, reflecting perhapsthe chunks of transcribedconversationthat serve
as her data,and as a processthat is accomplishedthrough 'work'. Long more
consistentlytreatsnegotiationas involving 'work' in 'repairingthe discourse'.
What is achieved by negotiation varies according to the purpose of the
negotiation. Thus, in Norton Peirce, learnersnegotiate identities they feel
comfortable with and in Swain they negotiate an understandingof how a
grammaticalform works. In the case of Long and Pica, negotiation has two
[Link] is the means by which learnerscan successfullycomprehend
othersand it is a meansby which they come to attendto particulargrammat-
ical propertiesof the input. Negotiation in interactionisttheoriesof the kind
Long and Pica adhereto servesto provide input for the acquisition machine
to work on.
Clearly, the LEARNER AS NEGOTIATOR metaphorputs the learnerin a
much more active role than the two [Link], contraryto
Firth andWagner's(1997) claim that SLA has characterizedlearnersas defect-
ive communicators,this metaphor,potentially at least, treats the learner as
someonewho contributesequally to the processof making meaningin an L2.
However, the LEARNER AS NEGOTIATOR metaphoris probably best seen
not as an alternative to the LEARNER AS CONTAINER and LEARNER AS
 The metajJ/lOrical constructionsoj secondlanguagelearners 75

MACHINE [Link], it is complementaryand, in some cases,even

ancillary to them, for as we have seen,negotiationservesas the meansby which
'data' becomesavailablefor the learner'sinternal mechanismsto work on.

Learner as problem-solver
It is perhapsnot so surprisingthat anothervery commonmetaphoris that of
the LEARNER AS PROBLEM-SOLVER. It was prominent in Corder, Long,
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Pica, Schmidt and Swain. In this respect, researchersare perhapscreating

learnersin their own [Link] as they seek to solve problems about learn-
ing so learnerssolve problemsin order to learn.
The entailmentsof this metaphorconcern (1) what the problem consists
of and (2) how the problem can be solved. In fact, (1) is often specifiedvery
generallyas 'difficulties' (Corder), 'communicativetrouble' (Long), 'linguistic
limitations' (Swain), 'a linguistic problem' (Swain), 'difficulties in producing'
(Swain) and 'noticing target languageforms' (Pica). Schmidt refers to two
general problems: the 'matching problem' (i.e., the problem of identifying
how output differs from input) and 'the problem of control' (i.e., the prob-
lem learnersface in accessingand using what they know).
The methods by which learners can solve their learning problems are
dealt with more fully. The learner is frequently seen as a kind of scient-
ific investigatorwho tests out [Link] Corder talks of the learners
'investigatingthe systemsof the new language'by 'testing hypotheses'.Long
refers to the learners' use of 'positive' and 'negative evidence',terms that
have becomewidely usedin SLA. Pica also seeslearnersas 'discoveringrules
through hypothesistesting'.In general,theseauthorsare neutralas to whether
an obvious entailment of the LEARNER AS HYPOTHESIS-TESTERmeta-
phor applies,namely that the processof testing hypothesesis intentionaland
conscious. However, Schmidt talks of 'forming and testing conscioushypo-
theses,while Swain argues that learners' hypothesis-testingis both implicit
(,output as the hypothesisitself') and explicit as when learnersconsciously
identifY linguistic problemsand seeksolutions.
The LEARNER AS PROBLEM-SOLVER metaphoralso entails the notion
of the actions that the learnerperforms to solve a problem. As Swain notes,
'to test a hypothesis learners need to do something'. Here, of course, is
where the idea of 'strategies'fits in. In fact, the literature on learner strat-
egies typically views them as meansfor solving problems,either of commun-
ication or learning (see,for example,F;erch and Kasper, 1983; Oxford, 1990;
Chamotin Chapter2 and Wendenin Chapter3 of this book).
It is also possibleto seecurrentideasaboutthe role of 'noticing' in SLA as
an extensionof the LEARNER AS [Link], for
example, talks about 'noticing a problem'. The metaphoricalnature of the
idea of 'noticing' is evident in the fact that it commonly appearsin citation
form in the texts. Noticing can be seenas an action performedby learners
that enablesthem both to construct new hypothesesand to test them out
(,noticing-the-gap').These referencesto 'noticing' might also be seen as
 76 LeamerContributions to LanguageLearning

belonging to the very generalmetaphor,SEEING IS KNOWING (see Lakoff

and Turner, 1989). Schmidt, for example,talks of 'not only hearinga gram-
matical marker but also "noticing" it' (1994: 17). The 'problem' of how to
get learnersto notice linguistic features in the input is what motivates cur-
rent work on focus-on-formin L2 classrooms(see,for example,Doughty and
Williams, 1998).
The LEARNER AS PROBLEM-SOLVERmetaphorcastslearnersin a very
different light from the first two metaphorswe [Link] positions them
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

as cognitively active in shapingboth what they learn and how they learn it. It
credits learnerswith [Link], it potentially acknowledgeslearnerdiffer-
encesboth with regardto what particularproblemsindividual learnerschoose
to focus on and how they set about solving them.

Learner as builder
Learners'construct' and 'restructure'their [Link] engagein
'syntax building' (Pica); they 'build syntactically' (Long). The metaphorof
the LEARNER AS BUILDER is a common one in SlA but it remains relat-
ively [Link] obvious entailmentsare the materials and tools a
builder works with and the kinds of buildings that get constructed,but with
one exception these go [Link] exception is Swain when she
draws on socioculturaltheory (e.g., Vygotsky, 1986) to explain how learners
arrive at a metalinguistic understandingof grammaticalrules in the course
of carrying out communicativetasks. Here she resorts to the metaphorof
'scaffolding'. This metaphor is central to the Vygotskyan notion of inter-
mental activity as a source of intra-mental [Link], borrowing
from Vygotskyan vocabulary, talks of 'the construction of co-knowledge'
which is achievedby meansof the 'collective scaffolding' that arises out of
interaction. One learneroffers another'scaffoldedhelp'.
It is somewhatsurprising that the LEARNER AS BUILDER metaphorre-
mains so under-represented in SIA. It would seem capableof representing
some of the key features of L2 acquisition - the developmentalaspectsof
interlanguage,the active contribution of the learner,the importanceof tech-
nical skills, the needfor support,etc. The LEARNER AS BUILDER metaphor
would in many ways seem better suited to conveying what SlA has found
out about the way peopleacquire a languagethan the more fully developed
LEARNER AS CONTAINER and LEARNER AS MACHINE [Link]
LEARNER AS BUILDER metaphormay have failed to mature becauseit is
not a favourite in the primary sourcedisciplines of SLA - generativelinguist-
ics and cognitive psychology.

Learner as struggler
The analysisconcludeswith two metaphorsfound only in Norton [Link]
Norton Peircearticle was includedbecauseof the wish to include at leastone
article that directly addressedhow learnersacquirean L2 and yet lay outside
 The ntetajJ/wriml constructionsof secondlanguagelearners 77

the mainstreamof SLA. It was anticipatedthat the critical social perspective

that Norton Peirce espouseswould be reflected in the metaphorsshe works
with. Indeed it is.
Norton Peirce exploits the LEARNER AS STRUGGLER metaphorfully.
English, the targetlanguageof the learnersshe was investigating,becomes'a
meansof defence'.The social contexts in which the learnersfind themselves
are 'sites of struggle'. The learnershave rights ('the right to speak') which
they need to defend. To do so they must be preparedto show 'resistanceto
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

inequitableforces' and find ways of 'resisting the subject position' they are
often assignedin communicationwith native [Link] must be pre-
pared to 'challengeand transform social practices'.Furthermore,taking on
the role of fighter is no easyoption; learnersneed 'courage'.
Norton Peirceis, of course,talking aboutimmigrant learnerswho face the
need to learn an L2 to survive. The LEARNER AS STRUGGLER metaphor
seemsparticular appropriatefor such learnersbut it may be less well-suited
to many classroomlearnersof foreign [Link] observationsuggests
that we may needrather different metaphorsto describethe learningexperi-
encesof learnersin different social [Link] may prove possible
to identity a numberof core metaphorsto reflect the universal aspectsof L2
acquisition, SLA researcherswill also need to employ more specific meta-
phors to characterizethe kinds of learnersfound in different settings.

Leamer as investor
Norton Peirce'sother main metaphoris the LEARNER AS INVESTOR. This
is also quite substantially exploited. Learners need to make an 'affective
investment'in the targetlanguageby drawing on their symbolic and material
'resources'.Such investment does not take place in a vacuum but is con-
nected to the 'ongoing production of a languagelearner'ssocial identity'.
Sometimes'investmentsmay conflict with a desire to speak'.
Norton Peirce'schoice of this metaphoris somewhatsurprising. The idea
that learnersare investorsseemsironic in the context of an article about the
impact that the inequities which learnersface in a capitalist society has on
acquisition. Is this irony intentional? Or is the metaphorsimply borrowed
from the literature Norton Peirce draws on (e.g., Bourdieu (1977) makes
extensiveuse of metaphorsdrawn from the field of economics,such as 'cul-
tural capital'). No matter, it is a powerful metaphor,capturing the ideas of
sacrifice and risk learnersmust face as well as the idea of the benefits that
accrue when they are successful. Unlike the LEARNER AS STRUGGLER
metaphor,this metaphormay be universally applicable.

The basic metaphorsso far describedare, of course,not the only metaphors

evident in the corpora. A multitude of metaphorsoccur, some quite idio-
[Link] example,Swain, whosestyle of writing proved to be particularly
rich in metaphoricalexpressions,employsa LEARNER AS CHEAT metaphor
(,learnerscan fake it' and they 'passthemselvesoff'). Long seemsto view the
 78 Learner Contributions to LanguageLearning

learner'smental representations of the L2 grammaras [Link] he talks

of 'overgeneralizationfrom which it is impossibleto rerover', of 'the prognosis
for recovery', of 'premature IL stabilization' and, more optimistically, of
negativeevidenceas a 'remedy'.The metaphoris a surprisingone given the
emphasisSLA in generalhas attachedto recognizinginterlanguagesystems
as natural languagesin their own right and errors as tools for learning (see,
for example,Corder, 1967). Gregghas a tastefor [Link] his
article he draws on chess-playing,digestionand the liver in his [Link]
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

taste for metaphorsits somewhatuneasily with Gregg's (1993) dismissal of

theoriesin SLA as mere 'metaphors'(i.e., they are not real theories).Krashen
employs metaphorsto describethe field of SIA itself. He seesthis as a kind
of competitive game involving 'rival hypotheses'and 'consistentwinners'.
What then does this analysis show us about how SIA constructs L2
learners?A number of generalizationsare possible. The first is the obvious
tendencyof mainstreamSIA to view L2 learnersas objects that have learn-
ing done to them rather than as agentsresponsiblefor their own learning.
This is the messageconveyedby the dominant LEARNER AS CONTAINER
and LEARNER AS MACHINE [Link],somemetaphorsthat are
apparentlyvery different are, in fact, compatiblewith eachother. For example,
the LEARNER AS NEGOTIATOR metaphor was found to be compatible
[Link] the LEARNER AS CONTAINER and LEARNER AS MACHINE meta-
phors in so far as learnersdo not negotiatelearning but can negotiatethe
data they needfor learning. This is reflected textually in the intenveavingof
one set of metaphorswith anotherto producequite complex patterns,as in
Pica'sand Long's articles. Thirdly, it is also clear that some of the metaphors
in use in SIA are contlictual. Thus, the same researcherscan conceive the
learneras a passive(or even sick) object and as an active investigatorforming
and testing [Link] obvious questionarisesas to how a learnercan
be at one and the sametime a containeror a machineand a problem-solver.
SLA researchersfailed to explain this paradox- in fact, they have not even
addressedit. Fourthly, the metaphoranalysishas shown that psycholinguistic
and social accountsof 1,2 acquisition are indeedconceptuallyvery different.
Thus although Gregg and Norton Peirce share a taste for metaphoras a
methodof argument,there is an enormousdivide in the metaphoricalworlds
they inhabit. Thus, whereasthe psycholinguisticperspectiveconstructslearners
as machineswho are acted upon, the social perspectiveviews learners as
human beingswho can function as agentsin their own learning. Such differ-
ent conceptualizationswould seem to be irreconcilable. Yletaphor analysis,
then, may constitute a tool for helping to decide which theoriesare indeed
complementan'and which ones are oppositional (see Long, 1993a).

LEARNERS' I\1ETAPHORICAL CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE~lSELVES

THE~lSELVES

In order to investigate how learners construct themselvesmetaphorically

as languagelearners the diaries kept by six adult learnersof German as a
 The mffajJllOrical constructionsof secondlanguagelearners 79

foreign language in two tertiary colleges in London were analysed. The

learnerswere enrolled in intensive ab initio coursesdesignedto develop a
high level of proficiency within one academicyear. At the end of the year
the learnerswere able to choosewhetherthey wished to continuewith or drop
[Link] of the learnerswere female and two male. Two of them were
bilingual (English and Spanish),anotherspoke Creole French as her native
language,while the other threewere native speakersof English. All six learners
were completebeginnersof German.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

The learnerswere membersof a group of thirty-nine learners,who were

part of a larger study of classroomlanguagelearning (seeEllis and Rathbone,
1987). Five of the learnerswere chosen as diarists becausethey evinced a
positive attitude to learning German (as shown in their responsesto a pre-
course questionnaire)and becausethey expressedan interest in keeping a
journal. The sixth learner (Monique) volunteered.
The six learnerswere asked to keep a journal of their reactions to the
course,their teachers,their fellow-studentsand any other factors which they
consideredwere having an effect on their language learning. They were
issuedwith an exercisebook and a set of guidelinesabout how to keep their
journals and what to look out for and were assuredthat their journalswould
be treated in full confidentiality. The diaries were collected in at regular
intervals for photocopyingand then returned immediately to the learners.
They wrote their journals for approximatelysevenmonths.
The analysis of the diaries was carried out using the same procedureas
that for the researcharticles. It resulted in the identification of five main
[Link] the discussion of these metaphors,the learners will be re-
ferred to using fictitious names.

Learneras sufferer
Five of the learnersreferredto learningas suffering in the senseof experien-
cing anxiety, pain or [Link] useda variety of metaphoricalexpressions
to do so. Maria talks of her brain being "wrecked' while at anothertime she
says she was "literally pulled to pieces'. Monique found herself frequently
"quite at a loss', "panicked', "trapped' and "bemused'.Robert was "swamped'
and frequently "not comfortable'. Caroline talks of the "pressure'which she
found "almost too much to bear' and commentsthat shehasbeen"pushedtoo
hard'. Manuel found "the whole experiencea shock to the system' and also
refersfrequently to 'pressures'.Only :Maggie did not seemto suffer. In contrast,
she refers to her learning experienceas a "comfortable' and "relaxed' one.
The agents and instrumentsof this suffering are varied. Sometimesit is
the teacherswho go too fast, make fun of their students,ask questionsof them
in class, or set too much homework. :More often, however, it is the learners'
senseof not being able to understanda grammarpoint, not being able to do
a learning activity, a failure to remembervocabularyor a poor performance
on a test. V\'ith some learners,Monique and Caroline in particular, it was the
conviction that they were not as good as the other studentsin their class.
 80 Contributions
I~earneT Contributions to Langllagf' L('([rning

The LEARNER AS SUFFERER metaphor emphasizesa dimension of

language learning which is clearly very salient and important to language
learners- the affective dimension. Learnersthink of their learning experi-
encesin terms of how they feel in class and, more generally, how they feel
they are coping. In this respect,then, the metaphoricalanalysissupportsthe
findings of previous diary studies which emphasizeaffective factors such as
anxiety and competitiveness(seeBailey, 1983). What the metaphoricalanalysis
revealedis the intensity of the inhibitive feelings that are often aroused.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Learner as problem-solver
All six learnerssaw learning Germanas a problem or a puzzle to be tackled
and [Link] seeslanguagelearning as a 'test', talks of 'obstacles'to
her progressand of 'mental blocks'. Monique refers to the need to 'deci-
pher' the [Link] is concernedthat Germanis 'illogical' and there-
fore 'confusing'. Robert had 'grammatical problems'. Caroline sometimes
found German 'really confusing'. Like Maria, Manuel experienced'mental
blocks' and struggledto discover 'how Germanworks'.
The learnersalso all had ways of talking abouttheir successin overcoming
their [Link] struggledto 'get to grips' with a problem, they 'sorted
out' things, they 'grasped'somethingor 'got the hangof' somethingthat was
difficult for them, they 'cracked'a problem. Sometimes,however, problems
seemedto solve [Link] Manuel put it, 'words are beginning to fall
into place'. 'I'm beginning to click into how Germanworks', he comments.
Caroline talks of a grammar rule 'starting to come naturally'. In general,
though, solving problemsneededconsciousapplication and perseverance.
The main problem for these learners was grammar. In part, this was
becausethe course they were taking was quite traditional in emphasizing
explicit grammatical explanation,but also it seemsto reflect the learners'
preferred orientation. They all felt a strong need to understandhow the
grammarof Germanworked. They all refer to quite specific areasof grammar
- such as prepositions,cases,verb tensesand word order rules - and displayed
[Link] of theselearnersworked with the
assumption that consciously knowing a grammatical rule was a necessary
part of languagelearning.
Whereasthe LEARNER AS SUFFERERmetaphoremphasizesthe affective
dimensionoflanguagelearning,the LEARNER AS PROBLEM-SOLVERmeta-
phor views learning as a cognitive [Link] two aspectsare related;
the problemsof understandinghow Germanworked was a major sourceof
suffering for theselearners.

Leamer as traveller
All the learnersexcept Maggie view learning German as a kind of journey
or voyage. Manifestationsof this metaphorare in fact extremelycommon in
the journals. Maria, for example,talks of 'sailing through' a lesson,of having
 The rnetajJhoTiral constructionsof secondlanguageieaTneTs 81

'shot off in the wrong direction' and, at anothertime of 'being miles away'.
Robert, in particular, draws extensivelyon this [Link] refers to 'cover-
ing a great deal of ground', 'catching up', 'not being able to keep up',
'lagging behind', 'being left behind' and 'grinding to a halt'. Manuel, too,
usesthe metaphorto describehis senseof lack of progress:'I'm not getting
anywhere',he wrote. In contrast, Caroline, usesit to refer to her own sense
of success.'I'm getting there', she writes at the end of the first term. Several
learnersrefer to the speedof the journey. For example, Manuel complains
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

'we have been going too fast'. In referring to lessonswhere studentswho

have been absent suddenly reappear,Caroline says 'the pace slows down
when they decide to turn-up so they can catch up'. This metaphorclearly
affords a rich number: of entailmentswhich learnerscan exploit to refer to
different aspectsof the learning [Link] learnersin this study used it
to refer to their own ability as learners,their senseof progressor lack of it
through the teachingsyllabus, their speedof learning, their misunderstand-
ings, the studentsthey are learning with (fellow travellers) and barriers to
[Link] LEARNER AS TRAYELLER metaphorcan be seenas an adjunct
of the more generalLIFE IS A JOURNEYmetaphor,which Lakoff and Turner
(1989) claim is one of the major ways in which we conceptualizegoal-oriented
behaviour.

Learner as struggler
Three of the learnersemploy this [Link], the referencesare not
so much to what they do as to what is done to them, however. For example,
Manuel talks of his 'pride being bashed'.He writes about 'the injuries that
learning German causedme'. Referring to a particular lesson, Robert com-
plains that he 'got grilled' by being 'bombardedwith questions'.Caroline
stubbornly insists 'I'm not going to be defeated'. Thus, the learners see
themselvesas fighters who 'struggle'to staveoff 'injuries' and 'defeat'.In this
respect,the ground of this metaphoris similar to that of the LEARNER AS
SUFFERERmetaphor.

Learner as worker
Two of the learners make use of the LEARNER AS WORKER metaphor.
Maria talks about the 'extra work' she put in 'paying off'. She sees the
teacheras a kind of bosswho 'pushes'the studentsto their 'limits'. Caroline
also seeslearninga languageas work. She notes that her senseof competing
with other studentsobliged her to work harder, that for her 'work is very
important', and sadly, when she eventually decided that she would not con-
tinue with Germanthat there was 'no point in working hard anymore'.
However, this metaphoris not fully exploited by even those learnerswho
employ it. It seemsto be used to refer to the idea of self-directedeffort in
learning and as such is clearly closely related to the technical constructof
motivation (which the learnersneverrefer to directly). Potentialentailments,
 82 Learner Contributions to LanguageLearning

Table 4.2 Basic metaphorsoccurring in the learners'journals

Learner Metaphors

34 2 3 4 5

Maria * * * *
Monique * * *
Maggie *
Robert * * * *
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Caroline * * * * *
Manuel * * * *
Key to metaphors:
1. LEARNER AS SUFFERER
2. LEARNER AS PROBLEM-SOLVER
3. LEARNER AS TRAVELLER
4. LEARNER AS STRUGGLER
5. LEARNER AS WORKER

like different kinds of work, work tasks,work positions,salary, promotion,are

not referred to at all or are exploited only weakly.

A summaryof the distribution of the five basic metaphorsin the learners'

journals can be found in Table 4.2. Other metaphorsalso figure in the
journals of individual [Link] of the learnersmake passinguse of the
LEARNER AS MACHINE [Link],though, they refer to their
own agency in relation to the machine - 'I switched off totally' - which
contrastswith the view taken by the [Link] seeslearning in
terms of a harvestmetaphor- she talks of 'reaping the seeds'of her studies
during the vacation. Three of the learners make occasional metaphorical
referenceto the idea of learners as risk-takers. Monique talks of how she
'adventured'into using new [Link] talks about how she believes
she should volunteer in class even if it means 'making an idiot' of herself.
The image schemametaphorof 'up an down' is used by Manuel to describe
the changesin his affective orientation to learning German. In general,
however, the metaphoricalexpressionsfound in the six journalsbelongedto
the five main metaphorsdescribedabove.
Two generalpoints can be madeabout the learners'choice of metaphors.
First, most of the metaphorscharacterizethe learnersas agentsin their own
learning (the LEARNER AS PROBLEM-SOLVER, LEARNER AS TRAVEL-
LER and LEARNER AS WORKER metaphors)but there are also metaphors
which construct them as patients who undergo experiencesof which they
have no control (the LEARNER AS SUFFERERand LEARNER AS STRUG-
GLER metaphors).Thus, although the learnersin this study learnedin what
were by and large very teacher-centred classrooms(i.e., the interactionswere
teachercontrolled, with little opportunity for small-group work), they con-
structedthemselvesas self- as well as [Link] knew the journey
 The metaphoricalconstructionsof secondlanguagelearners 83

was mappedout for them but they also knew they had to make it themselves.
Interestingly, they are as critical of themselvesas learnersas they are of their
[Link], the metaphorsshow the learners' awarenessof the two
dimensionsof learning- the affective and the cognitive - and of the relation-
ship betweenthe two. They were very aware of their feelings and how these
affected their [Link] were also constantlymonitoring their conscious
understandingof how Germanworked as a language.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

CONCLUSION

To summarize,this studyhasexaminedthe metaphorsusedby SlA researchers

in a numberof key publicationsand those usedby adult classroomlearners
of L2 German in their diaries. The dominant researchermetaphorswere
those of the LEARNER AS CONTAINER and the LEARNER AS MACHINE.
In contrast,the dominantmetaphorsin the learnerdiarieswere the LEARNER
AS SUFFERER, the LEARNER AS PROBLEM-SOLVER and the LEARNER
AS TRAVELLER. Therewere two metaphorsin common- the LEARNER AS
PROBLEM-SOLVER and LEARNER AS STRUGGLER - although only one
researcher(Norton Peirce) employed the latter. There were also a number
of less widely used metaphorsthat were specific to the researchersand the
learners(e.g., LEARNER AS NEGOTIATOR was usedby the researchersand
LEARNER AS TRAVELLER by the learners).
Two questionsarise out of this study. The first is to what extent the meta-
phorical constructionsof researchersand learnersare the sameor different.
The secondis whethermetaphoricalanalysisof the kind I have employedis
a useful addition to the tools available for SlA research.
How similar are the metaphoricalresearchers'and learners'constructions
of L2 learning? One similarity is that both researchersand learnersview
languagelearnersas problem-solvers;both see learnersas 'discovering' the
rules of the grammar. However, whereasmost of the researchersgenerally
viewed this discoveryas an automaticand unconsciousprocess,all the learners
conceptualizedit as a highly consciousmental activity. The other similarity
is more apparentthan real - the learnerssaw learning as a struggle, a view
that just one of the researchers(Norton Peirce) shared. Overall, it is the
differencesbetweenthe researchersand the learnersthat are [Link]-
streamSlA, as Kramschand Lantolf have pointedout, constructsthe process
of languageacquisition mechanistically- somethingthat is seen to happen
automaticallywhen the right conditions prevail. It depicts learnersas con-
tainers and as machineswho are acted on by data with little acknowledge-
mentof the role of humanideationand affective statesin learning. In contrast,
the six adult learners constructedthemselvesprimarily as sentient beings
who experiencedfear, frustration and sometimespersonal gratification as
they struggledto learn [Link] saw themselvesas travellers on a long
journey, coping with the affective and cognitive problems that confronted
them. The journeywas mappedout for them but they are the onesthat must
 84 Learner Contributions to LanguageLearning

make it and in this respect they were the agents of their own learning.
Perhapsthe researcherconstruction of learners that most closely matches
that of the learnersthemselvesis Norton Peirce'[Link], Norton Peirce
was more concernedwith the social identity of learners and there is no
evidence that the classroomlearnersshowed much concern for this. What
Norton Peirce'sand the learners'visions do shareis a senseof the import-
ance of learners'agencyin their learning.
Of course, these differences may not matter. Researchersand learners
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

have different agendas- learnersto learn and researchersto describe and

explain learning. At the very least, however, information about the ways in
which learnersconceptualizelanguagelearning constitutesone kind of data
that researcherswould do well to [Link] Block (1997) has pointed out,
'listening to learners' should be an essentialpart of both teachingand re-
[Link] the previouschapter,Wendenrevealedhow learners'metacognitive
knowledgeguideshow they work during learning. Minimally, accessinglearner
perceptionscan thereforelead to a greaterawarenessof how learnersthink
and, maximally, it can result in changesin researchpractices. One such
changemight be to pay more attention to the metacognitionsof learners,as
[Link]'s account,in the following chap-
ter, of learners' metaphoricalconstructionsof their teachersis an example
of this. It is less clear, however, that learnershave much to gain by 'listening
to researchers'.To do so would entail viewing themselvesas containersor
machines! However, there may be more benefit if learnersare encouraged
to see themselvesas negotiators and fighters, as Norton Peirce proposes.
Making learnersawareof the metaphorsthey use to conceptualizetheir learn-
ing may be one way of increasingtheir control over learning.
How useful is metaphoricalanalysis as a methodologicaltool? Koch and
Deetz (1981) claim that 'by isolating the predominantmetaphorsand their
entailments, the current reality and conceptions of the members of an
organizationcan be describedin varying degreesof detail' (1981: 13). The
analysesreportedin this chaptergo some way to demonstratingthe validity
of this claim. It has proved possible to identify the main metaphorsused by
both SlA researchersand a group of L2 learnersand to show how thesemeta-
phors reveal the underlying conceptualizationsof the worlds they inhabit.
The main doubts,however,centrenot so much on validity, althoughas Steen
(1994) rightly points out, analysis cannot demonstratethat linguistic meta-
phors have a conceptualbasis in the minds of the people, as on reliability,
an issue not discussedby Koch and Deetz. The key procedurein metaphor
analysis is the identification of metaphorical expressionsin a text. How
can researchersensure that this is done accurately and comprehensively?
Accuracy is a special problem given the difficulty in distinguishingbetween
metaphoricaland [Link] may be more easily
managed,perhapsby meansof the techniquesemployedin corpus linguist-
ics, as suggestedby Deignan (1999). Ultimately, though, reliability may have to
be establishedas in other types of interpretativeresearch- through extensive
illustration and through replication.
 Till' me/ajJlwrical rons/rurtions oj secondlanguagelearners 85

Another questionof some importanceconcernsthe extentto which meta-

phorical worlds vary culturally. It is to be expected,perhaps,that researchers
who belong to different 'discoursecommunities' (Swales, 1990) will employ
different [Link] precedinganalysis has demonstratedthis (com-
pare, for example, the metaphorsof Long and Norton Peirce). As noted
earlier, metaphoranalysismay serveas a tool for identifying theoriesthat are
complementaryand those that are conflictual. Do learnersalso vary in their
choice of metaphor?In general, the learnersinvestigatedhere shared the
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

same metaphors,even though they came from very different cultural and
learning [Link] LEARNER AS TRAVELLER metaphorhas also
been reportedin studies of Japaneselearnersof English (Cortazzi andJin,
1999). It is likely, however, that differences will emergein the metaphors
usedby classroomand [Link] in choice of metaphor
is obviously an issue in need of further study.
Irrespectiveof the methodologicalproblems that applied metaphorana-
lysts face, it is likely that metaphoranalysiswill figure more strongly in future
[Link] the very least, it serves as an important consciousness-raising
tool, encouragingresearchersand learnersalike to examine their construc-
tions critically and, perhaps,to modifY them.
 Chapter5

'The bleached bones of a story':

learners' constructions of
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

language teachers
RebeccaL. Oxford, TeachersCollege,
Columbia University, New York

INTRODUCTION

In her award-winning1997 novel, The God ofSmall Things,Arundathi Roy spoke

of 'Little events,ordinary things ... imbuedwith new [Link]
becomethe bleachedbonesof a story.' This chaptershareslittle events,ordin-
ary things about languageteachersin stories written by [Link]
the bones- the peopleand eventsdepictedin a student'stale - show harmony
of line and [Link] boneslie in jarring, grating disarray,
telling a story that gives us pauseas we come close. In some of the narratives,
the 'story-bones'form intricate patterns,while in others they are as sparse
and lean as lines on a Celtic rune. In every case, the story offers us insight
into the learner'sunderstandingsor constructionsof the languageteacher.
Why is it importantto know what learnersthink or believe about their lan-
guageteachers?Students,like all other individuals, createtheir own construc-
tions of the world through social interaction (Vygotsky, 1956, 1978, 1987;
Williams and Burden, 1997). One of the most intenseand important forms
of social interaction occurs betweenteacherand student. How the student
perceivesand constructsthat interaction has a direct influence on learning
(Beebeand Butland, 1994; Ehrmanand Dornyei, 1998; Oxford et ai., 1998).
The significant trend towards learner-centredness in language instruction
(Ehrman, 1996; Magnan, 1990; Nunan, 1988; Tudor, 1996 inter alia) and in
educationin general (Hargreaves,1996; McCombs and Whistler, 1997) sup-
ports the need to understandlearners' constructionsof, and engagement
with, languageteachers.
Beyondtheseabstractreasons,the bestjustification for exploring learners'
constructionsof their languageteacherscomesfrom the studentsthemselves.
In the investigation reported here, studentsrevealed that teachersstrongly
influencedtheir lives. The commentmadeby Jenny,a US high schoolstudent,
typified the viewpoint of many learnersin this study: 'I wish that teachers
could realize what an impact they have on our lives.' Many of the effects were

86
 'Thr blrarhrd bonl's oj a story': learners' constructionsoj languagr teachers 87

positive, as witnessedby the remarks of Tamer and [Link], an

Egyptian teachingcandidatein English as a foreign language(EFL), wrote, 'He
[the English teacher] becamelike water ... and without it we will die.' 'You
have madeall the differencein the world to me', wrote Christopher,a master's
degreestudentwho now teachesEFL in Turkey. However, someof the influ-
enceswere [Link] harrowingexperienceswith a witch-like high
school Spanish teacher,Jayla commented,'Now I don't remembera single
thing Ms. _ taught me. The worst part is, this woman is still allowed to cast
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

her horrid lessonplans upon unsuspectingchildren.' We needto know what it

is about languageteachersand about teacher-student relationships- which
'little events,ordinary things' causesuch powerful reactionsin students.
Fascinatedby questionsaboutlearners'responsesto, and interactionswith,
their teachersand the possible effects of these upon languagelearning, I
beganto collect written narrative casestudiesfrom current and former lan-
guagelearnersas early as 1991. As a professorof undergraduateand gradu-
ate coursesin Foreign LanguageTeachingMethods,masters'degreecourses
in TeachingEnglish to Speakersof Other Languages,and doctoral courses
in Social and PsychologicalFactors in Teaching, I gradually gathered162
such [Link] subsequent years,other researchers
joined me in the quest
(see Acknowledgementsat the end of this chapterfor details), bringing the
current total of narrativesto 473.
The key questionsof the presentchapterare:
• What do learners'written narrativesreveal aboutlearners'constructionsof
their languageteachers?
• What major themesarise in these narratives?
• How do learnersemotionally respondto their languageteachers?
• What theoriesand implications can be drawn?

THEORETICAL AND RESEARCH FRAMEWORK:

TEACHING APPROACHES

Table 5.1 identifies three major [Link] autocratic approach

puts total power in the handsof the teacherand demonstrateslarge social
[Link] democratic/participatoryapproachinvolves power sharedbetween
the teacherand the studentsand allows the intimacy of the 'learningalliance'
to develop (Ehrmanand Dornyei, 1998; Wool, 1989). The laissezjaireapproarh,
which embodies the exercise of little teacher power and enablesstill less
studentpower, typically setsstudentsadrift in confusionand showsno teacher-
student intimacy. It is important not to confuse the laissez-faire approach
with learner-centredteachingor autonomouslearning. It is the democratic/
participatoryapproach,not the laissez-faireapproach,that emphasizeslearner-
centrednessand has the potentialfor learnerautonomy(Nunan, 1988, 1999;
Scarcellaand Oxford, 1992; Tudor, 1996 inter alia). In contrastto the demo-
cratic/participatoryapproach,the laissez-faireapproachdoes not centre on
the learner, nor does it give the learnerany real control.
 88 LeamPr Contributions to LanguageLearning

Table 5.1 Three major Leaching approaches*

• Autocratic approach- reflects strong teacherpower relying on official position,

coercion/punishment/threats, extrinsic rewards (manipulative,such as bribes or
flattery, or non-manipulative),task-control,or some combination;can be useful for some
forms of fact-learning. Might or might not involve malice on the part of the teacher.A
basic belief is that studentsare not to be Husted. In some westernstudies,the autocratic
approachincreasestime-on-taskin the teacher'spresence,dependency(work stops
when the teacherleaves),hostility, aggressionand competition. Intimacy is low.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

• Democratic/participatoryapproach- reflects sharedteacher-student power relying

on mutual respectand expertise;allows learnersto participatein decisionsabout
curriculum and how it is taught, encouragesstudentsto take responsibilityfor
learning and move towards autonomy,and recognizesindividual differencesin
learning styles and interests;involves intrinsic rewards, not just extrinsic. Is sometimes
called [Link]/participatOlYapproachoften results in
superiorwork, but this could be [Link] is moderateto high.
• Laissez-faireapproach- shows little or no direct teacherpower, with none grantedto
[Link] psychologicallyor physically absent,and learnersare left without
mechanismsor guidanceto help them assumeresponsibility. Despite this, some
learnerscreatetheir own strategiesand counter-culturesfor academicsurvival. Laissez-
faire approachoften results in poor learning, high stressand low group cohesion.
Intimacy is low.
*There are differencesin the acceptabilityof each learning approachin various cultures.

Source: Partly drawn from Ehrman and Domyei (1998);Johnsonet al. (1996); Lewin et al.
(1939); Oxford et al. (1998); Woolfolk et al. (1990), and elaboratedby the presentauthor.

Early researchin the USA - not necessarilygeneralizableto all cultures-

demonstratedthat an authoritarianteachingapproachprovokedhostility and
[Link]'hostility was thirty times higher under an authoritarian
teacherthan undera democratic/participatoryteacher,while aggressionwas
eight times higher (Lewin et aI., 1939, cited in Ehrmanand Dornyei, 1998). In
the samestudy, an authoritarianteachingapproachincreasedstudents'dedica-
tion to work while the teacherwas [Link] autocratic mode increased
competitionand dependencyand did not result in excellentwork by students.
In contrast,the democratic/participatory approachproducedsuperiorstudent
work. The laissez-faireapproachresultedin the leastlearning, the leastgroup
cohesionand the moststress.(In this study, studentsdid not directly resistany
of the situationsin which they were placed,but the studentsin the autocratic
situation quit working when their teacherleft the room -a form of indirect
resistance.)
Researchhasalso highlightedessentialfeaturesof 'good teaching'as inter-
pretedin the westerncultural context. McCombsandWhistler (1997) reviewed
educationalstudies going back to the 1920s. Theseinvestigatorsfound that
concern for students' specific needs is one of the most essential qualities
of a good [Link] features of good teaching in the western context
include demonstratinginterestand enthusiasmabout the subject,explaining
it in clear and interestingways, stimulating curiosity, being concernedand
 The blearhedbonesoj a story': learners' constructionsoj languageteachers 89

available, providing obvious structure and organizationand offering useful

feedback (McCombs and Whistler, 1997).
Oser, Dick and Patry (1992) conducteda tri-cultural study of expert ele-
mentary school teachersin New York, London and Vienna. Results showed
that such teacherssharedcertain [Link] teacherssaw themselvesas
valuing their personalcaring and moral responsibilitymore than their know-
ledge and competentpresentationof the subject matter. 'It is clear that the
large majority of them see themselvesas caring individuals ... [and show] an
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

attitude of taking moral responsibility for their students' (Oser et ai., 1992:
285, original emphasis).In addition, theseexpert instructors:
[R] evealed themselvesas optimistic, outreaching, loving personalities,inter-
estedin children and concernedabout their needs,able and happy in relating
with them and willing to put in any amount of time and effort necessaryto
make a successof this. Furthermore,the expert teachershad a firm picture of
what they wanted the individual learnersto achieveacademicallyand in social
and personalitygrowth ... [T]he teacherswere able and eagerto produce... a
'powerful learning environment,' fashioning the standardizedcurriculum to
the requirementsof their pupils. (Oser et aI., 1992: 288)
Despite some differencesin emphasis,expert teachersin the three cultures
revealeda greatmany similarities. The researcherswere careful not to gener-
alize beyond the western cultural tradition.
Hofstede (1986, 1991) applied a four-dimensionalmodel of cultural dif-
ferencesto the teaching-learningenvironmentsin countriesaroundthe world.
The dimensionsincluded:
• small vs large powerdistance,or the extent to which less powerful peoplein a
society acceptinequality in power and considerit normal;
• acreptancevs avoidanceoj uncertainty, with greateravoidanceof uncertainty
being related to greaterneedfor formal rules, consensusand structure;
• individualismvs collectivism,or whetherone perceivesone'sprimary respons-
ibility to the self or to the group; and
• assertiveness/advancement/success vs nurturance/humanrelations/quality oj life.
(Hofstedesummarizedthis dimensionas masculinity vs. Jemininity, but that
label seemsunduly stereotypic.)
Hofstedeassignedeachof 53 countriesan index scoreon eachof the four
[Link] correlationaldata (1991) showedthat in large powerdistance
countries, teacherswere treatedwith great respect,and respectincreasedas
teachersbecameolder. Classroomsshowedstrict order and the teacherinitiated
all [Link] small power distancecountries,teacherstreatedstudents
in a more egalitarianway andyoungerteacherswere preferredover older ones.
Studentsfrom uncertainty-avoidancecountriesfavoured structured,precise
teachingassignmentsand teacherswho were viewed as [Link]
countriesthat accepteduncertaintyliked open-endedlearningsituationsand
did not mind their teacherssaying, 'I don't know'. In classroomsin collectivist
countries, harmony and 'face' were primary values, while in classroomsin
individualist countries, differing points of view were encouragedand 'face'
 90 LeamerContributions to LanguageLearning

was of minimal [Link] assertiveness-oriented countriesfocusedon

competition,statusand instrumentalmotivation, while studentsin nurturance-
orientedcountriesdemonstratedmutual solidarity, friendlinessand intrinsic
motivation. Therefore,culture strongly influencesthe form in which teaching
and learninggenerallyoccur in any given country, althoughindividuals might
differ from the generalcultural patternsin a given country. The aboveremarks
have concernedteachersand teachingin [Link] next segmentdiscusses
existing constructionsof languageteachers.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Existing constructions concerning language teachers

Appendix 5.1 illustratesthat many contrastingconstructionsexist concerning
[Link] drawn from a variety of sources,
such as:
• narrativecasestudies (e.g., Block, 1992; Cortazzi andJin,1996; Katz, 1996;
Oxford, 1999);
• statementsaboutvarious languageteachingmethodsand approaches(e.g.,
Herron, 1982; Krashen and Terrell, 1983; O'Malley and Chamot, 1990;
Scarcellaand Oxford, 1992; Stevick, 1980, 1990);
• commentaryaboutteachers'sometimesfetishistic responsesto, and participa-
tion in, constantlychangingmethodologicalfads (e.g., Brown, 1994; Clarke,
1982; Kumaravadivelu,1994; Maley, 1984; Pennycook,1989); and
• descriptions of language teachers' roles in the classroom context (e.g.,
Breen, 1985, 1996; Breen and Candlin, 1980; Dornyei, 1994; Dubin and
Olshtain, 1986; Ehrman and Dornyei, 1998; Kramsch, 1993; Nunan, 1992;
Oxford, 1990; Rivers and Temperley, 1978 in Block, 1992).
Many constructionsconcerninglanguageteachersare metaphoricalin nature.
Metaphorscan createnew understandingsof a [Link] are seen
as so significant that writers have entitled their works Metaphors We Live By
(Lakoff andJohnson,1980), 'Metaphorswe teachand learn by' (Block, 1992),
and 'Metaphorswe work by' (Thornbury, 1991). Cameronand Low (1999)
have devoted an entire book to the researchand application of metaphors
in the field of applied linguistics. In one sense,all languageis metaphor-
ical in that 'Languageworks by means of transferencefrom one kind of
reality to [Link] is thus essentiallyratherthan incidentally or decoratively
or even illegitimately - metaphorical'(Taylor, 1984: 8). However, this chapter
uses the more constraineddefinition of metaphoras 'any comparisonthat
cannotbe taken literally' (Bartel, 1983: 3) or a figure of speechin which a
nameor quality is attributed to somethingto which it is not fully applicable.
Humanistic approachesto languageteaching (e.g., Suggestopedia,Com-
munity LanguageLearning, and the Silent Way) have producedsome of the
most colourful metaphorsabout [Link] therapist,
loving parent,infantilizer, gardener,suggestor,liberator, facilitator, reflective
listener, assistant to students in bursting cocoons and nurturer of souls
(Atkinson, 1989; Stevick, 1980, 1990; Underhill, 1989). Humanistic educator
 The bleachedbonesof a story ': learners' constructionsof languageteachers 91

CharlesCurran (1972), who strongly influenced the creation of Community

LanguageLearning,assertedthat teachersare not gods,must 'give up the god-
project', and must serve the learner as [Link] his 'insem-
inational model', Curran (1972) pictured the teacheras the inseminatorwho
passes'living knowledge' to the learner via 'mutual "love'" (Stevick, 1980:
109). Similarly, humanistic teacherAshton-Warner (1963) depicted herself
as a spouseor lover of her students('When I teachpeopleI marry them.... All
the rules of love-makingapply to thesespiritual and intellectual fusions').
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

The social context of the classroom- often neglectedby researchers,as

pointedout by Breen (1985) - has also spawneda numberof eloquentmeta-
phorical [Link] instance,Breen (1985)
envisionedlanguageteachers,alongwith their students,as inhabitantsof intric-
ately complex 'coral gardens'(a metaphorfor the cultural significanceof the
classroom),where interrelatinglinguistic, psychological,social and political
influencesexist. In a different field - scienceteaching- one teacherwrote:
'The teaching/learningprocessis like a symbiotic relationshipbetweencorals
and the plants that live within them. The plants captureenergyfrom the sun
and leak out carbohydratesto nourish the corals' (Gurney, 1995: 571).
Breen (1985) portrayed languageteachers,with their students,as joint
conspiratorsin maintainingrelatively predictableroutinesand proceduresof
the 'surfacetext' oflessonsas part of the classroomculture. Similarly, Kramsch
(1993) describedlanguageteachersand studentsas potential prisonersof
social expectationsin the [Link], Kramschsaid that domination
by the traditional classroomculture is not inevitable. In the classroom,many
studentsconspireagainstteacher-imposedsocial expectations:

The dominant culture of the classroomis constantly contested,avoided, put

into question, confrontedwith linguistically deviant 'minority' cultures. Many
learners resist the self-evident and invisible culture teacherstry to impose. As
observershave abundantlydemonstrated... learnersfind the most ingenious
ways of playing with schismaticmeanings,pretendingthey do not understand,
double-guessingthe grammaticalexercise,beating the system,sneakingin the
forbidden native tongue, creating a counter-culturewith foreign soundsand
shapes. (Kramsch, 1993: 48-9)

As Kramsch demonstrates,descriptionsof languagelearnersare also some-

times [Link] instance,Ellis, in Chapter4 of the presentvolume,
discovers conflicting metaphorsthat researchershave used to describe the
learner while, according to Ellis, learners' own constructionsof themselves
often contrastedwith those of researchers.

RESEARCH PROCEDURESAND PERSPECTIVES

The study describedherewas composedof a seriesof relatedsub-investigations

taking place in various locales. Similar researchproceduresand perspectives
unified theseefforts.
 Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Table 5.2 Summaryof participants,institution, native country, participant type, genderand data sources(total = 473)

Group Number Institution Native country/participanttype Gender Data Sources

A 36 Egyptian teachertraining All Egyptian teachingcandidatesin EFL 72% F Written essays:'Describea language
college at a major university 28% M teacheryou especiallyliked (or
in the north of Egypt disliked)'; requirement:must give
essaya title, must limit essayto
1 page.
B 80 State university in US born (mixed ethnicities) teaching 60% F Written essays:'Describea language
southeasternUS candidatesin ESL, EFL, French, 40% M teacher,past or present,whom
German,Spanish (seeking you especiallyliked (or disliked).'
undergraduate,master's,specialist 'Describea particular language
and doctoral degrees) teacherwith whom you have
experiencedserious harmony
(or conflict).'
Anonymousstudentevaluationsof
92 LeamerContributions to LanguageLearning

the teacher
Unsolicited letters to the teacher
Dialoguejournals
C 30 State university in US born (mixed ethnicities) teaching 70% F Written essayssameas for Group B
southeasternUS candidatesin English (as a native 30% M
language) (seekingundergraduate
and master'sdegrees)and in other
fields (seekingdoctoral degrees)
D 20 State university in Languageteachersor teaching 50% F Written essayssameas for Group B
southeasternUS candidatesfrom Chile, Germany, 50% M
Egypt, Korea,Japan,Taiwan, People's
Republic of China
 Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

E 12 State university in central US US born (mixed ethnicities) teaching 67% F Written essay: 'Describea language
candidatesin English (as a native 33% M teacheryou especiallyliked (or
languge),physical education,social disliked).'
studies,businessand art
F 150 State university on Mostly US born, although some born 50% F Written essays:'Describea language
east coastof US in India, Mexico, Japanand other 50% M teacherwith whom you have had a
countries;studentsenrolled at the time style conflict (or with whom you had
in foreign languagecourses;80% were style harmony).'
in introductory or intermediate
undergraduatecourses;10% were in
more advancedundergraduatecourses;
10% were graduateteachingassistants
in foreign languages
G 125 High school in Mostly US born (mixed ethnicities), 51% F Written essayssameas for Group B;
southeasternUS though some foreign exchange 49% M addedinstruction: write another
students;all were enrolled in English paragraphabout why the teacher
classes(19 in honoursEnglish, the was the way he or she was, why the
balancein regular English) situation occurred,and what might
have happeneddifferently.
H 32 State university in Iceland, Finland, Bangladesh,Pakistan, 25% F Written journal entries about recent
southeasternUS India, Japan,Republic of China, 75% M US learning experiencescompared
People'sRepublic of China; to learning experiencesin the home
international teachingassistants, country (no emphasison specific
mostly in science,mathematics,and teachers).
technology

Note: Approximately 120 of the narrativesare presentedin the current [Link] representwell the overall tendenciesof the full sampleof
473 narratives.
The bleachedbones0/ a stoty': leamprs'constructions0/ languageteachen
93
 94 LeamerContributions to LanguageLearning

Participants
So far the researchhas involved 473 participants,each of whom contributed
a narrative. Information about the participants' groups, institutions, native
country, gender and data sourcesis summarizedin Table 5.2. Participants
came from places as diverse as Mexico, Germany, Iceland, Finland, Egypt,
Bangladesh,India, Pakistan, Chile, Korea, Japan, the People'sRepublic of
China, Taiwan and the USA. Not all of their narrativescould be included in
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

this chapter for reasonsof space. A whole volume would be required to

report and interpret all the stories in a comprehensiveway. However, the
results presentedin the current chapterrepresentas clearly as possible the
generaltendenciesof the narrativesfrom all of the participantsin the study.
Participantswere not chosento be a representativesamplewith the aim of
systematicallygeneralizing the results to a larger population. Instead they
comprised a purposive sample, selected to provide a wide range of con-
structions about languageteachers.A number of participantswere current
or future teachersof second/foreignlanguagesand wrote about their own
[Link] other subject fields (in roles such as
teachingcandidate,teachingassistantor ordinary university student)provided
narratives about their second/[Link] school par-
ticipants who had not yet studieda second/foreignlanguagewere included
if their narrativeswere about teachersof their native language,English.

Qualitative research using narratives

I recognizedearly that qualitative researchwas necessaryto capturethe rich-
ness of learners' constructionsconcerning their language teachers. Qual-
itative researchis field-focused (uses the classroomrather than controlled
laboratorysettings),interpretative(tries to explain why), expressive(presents
real 'voices' rather than depersonalizedlanguage) and detailed (attendsto
particulars) (Eisner, 1991). Criteria for judging the successof qualitative
researchinclude coherence,insight, practical utility, persuasivepower and
multiple sources(Eisner, 1991).
Narrative case studies (Kelchtermans, 1996; Schulman, 1992; Witherell
and Noddings, 1991) were employedhere to explore learners'constructions
of their [Link] approachhas been used in the language
field to investigatethe following:
• learners'perceptionsof themselves,their teachersand the languagelearning
process;and
• teachers',studentteachers'and teacherdevelopers'constructionsof them-
selves,of studentsand of the languageclassroom.
Narrative casestudiesin languageclassroomsaroundthe world populatethe
book by Bailey and Nunan (1996). A few examplesof researcherswho have
used narrative casestudies to study languagelearning and teachinginclude
Bailey (1983), Block (1992, 1996), Ehrman (1996), Oxford (1996b), Oxford
and Nam (1997) and Schmidt and Frota (1986).
 The bleachedbones0/ a stoty': leamprs'constructions0/ languageteachen 95

In narrative case studies, data may come from various sources: essays,
diaries, dialoguejournals,letters, field observations,ordinaryinterviews,inter-
views assistedby video-recall of events, think-aloud procedures,and other
forms of verbal report. In the study reportedhere, four sourcesof narrative
data were used: essayswritten in responseto general instructions, dialogue
journal entries,anonymousevaluationsof teachersand unsolicitedletters to
[Link] 5.2 above, shows the data sourcesfor each group of particip-
ants. I worked collaborativelywith others to elicit data from a wider range of
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

learnersin many locations than would have been possibleif I were the only
data gatherer.(SeeAcknowledgementsat the end of this chapterfor a list of
thesecolleagues.)
The narratives in the current study have retained their original, some-
times idiosyncratic grammarand spelling. Only in caseswhere there could
be some confusion for readerswere any special notations made. These are
clearly marked. For example,when breath should have beenspelled breathe, I
signified this by using breath{e].
By far the greatestnumberof narrativeswere in the form of essayswritten in
responseto [Link] most commonlyusedinstructionswere:
• Describea languageteacher,pastor present,you especiallyliked or disliked.
• Describe a languageteacherwith whom you have experiencedsignificant
harmonyor conflict.
In most cases, participants were free to decide whether to focus on the
positive or the [Link] instructionsabout using
any particular form of expression(e.g., metaphor,literal description,and so
forth) in the narratives. No restrictions in length were applied, except with
the Egyptian EFL teachingcandidates,who were limited to one page. Most
participantswrote essaysranging from one to three pages, although some
essayswere as short as three sentencesand otherswere as long as six single-
spaced, typed pages. In all cases, confidentiality was [Link]
explicitly told participantsthat their essayswould not affect course grades,
teachingcandidacy,or any other aspectof academicor professionalprogress.
They encouragedparticipants to be as open and candid as possible. With
several groups, official institutional research-participantagreementswere
completedand signed by respondents.
A few minor cross-groupdifferences occurred in the essay procedures.
The high school participantswere given the usual essayinstructionsbut were
also askedto add an extra paragraphexplainingwhy they thoughtthe teacher
was the way he or she was, why the situation occurred,and what could have
been done differently. The Egyptian EFL teachingcandidateswere askedto
provide titles for their essays.
Two kinds of dialoguejournal were involved. In one type, US doctoral
candidateskept dialoguejournals in which they spontaneouslycommented
on specific teachersand class eventswithout any prompting or instructions.
In the other type, internationalteachingassistantsreceiveda specific task for
their dialoguejournals. They were asked to write in their dialoguejournals
 96 i"earner Contributiolls to Lrlllgu([{!;r' Lmmillf!;

abouttheir experienceswith classroomsin the USA as comparedto classrooms

in their home countries. The journal entries from international teaching
assistants,while not about specific teachers, were included because they
offered different cultural perspectives.
Undergraduateand graduatestudentstaking various coursesat a south-
easternUS university were requiredby the university to completeanonymous
evaluationsof the coursesand the [Link] evaluationforms contained
mostly closed-ended,quantitativeitems, but there was spaceat the bottom of
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

the forms for studentsto write commentsabout the [Link] students

at the same institution, without prompting, wrote letters to their teacher
after they had completedtheir undergraduateor [Link]
evaluationsand letters offered additional narrativesfor the presentinvestiga-
tion. The evaluations and letters actually concerneda language teaching
methodologyprofessorrather than a languageteacher.

Analysing/interpreting the narratives

Content analysis (Huberman, 1989, 1993; Miles and Huberman, 1984;
Silverman, 1993; Stempel,1989; Strauss,1987) was usedto analyseand inter-
pret the data. This analysis was a non-linear, highly complex process. 'It is
necessaryto do detailed, intensive, microscopic examinationof the data in
order to bring out the amazing complexity of what lies in, behind, and
beyond those data' (Strauss,1987: 10).
I began the study with a theoretical emphasison learning styles and on
'style wars', my term for conflicts between teachers' instructional styles
and students'learning styles. This emphasiswas fruitful and producedsome
intriguing interpretations (e.g., Nam and Oxford, 1998; Oxford, 1996b;
Oxford and Lavine, 1991; Oxford et aI., 1991; Oxford and Nam, 1997;
Wallace and Oxford, 1992). However, theoriesoflearningstyles and style con-
flicts were not expansiveenoughto explain all of the narrativedata that I was
continually gathering. Therefore, I moved to a groundedtheory approach
(Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Strauss, 1987), in which theories or hypotheses
arosefrom the data rather than the data being interpretedin light of a pre-
set theory. Such an approachis basedon the conceptthat

(T) heoryat various levels of generalityis indispensiblefor deeperknowledgeof

social phenomena... [and] that such theory ought to be developedin intimate
relation with the data,with researchersfully awareof themselvesas instruments
for developingthat groundedtheory. (Strauss,1987: 6)

Theory is groundedwhen it emergesfrom the data through 'successively

evolving interpretationsmadeduring the courseof the study' (Strauss,1987:
10). Groundedtheory is conceptuallydense,with lots of conceptsand inter-
nal linkages, and it is filtered through researchers'own experiencesand
understandings as 'experientialdata' (Eisner, 1991; Strauss,1987). The inter-
pretationsmade in this chapterare examplesof groundedtheory in action.
 'The blmchrd bonrs of a story': learner:~'ronstrurtions of languagetearhers 97

The groundedtheory mode suggeststhat researchersnecessarilyinterpret

data through the lens of their own experienceand valuesand that this needs
to be stated. Therefore,I admit that I have personaland professionalbiases
towardsdemocratic/participatory teaching.I use versionsof this approachin
all of the instruction I provide, whether it occurs in courses, workshops,
speeches,or my own [Link], becauseof this stronginstructional
preference,I was constantlyvigilant during this study not to over-interpretthe
dataor castan artificially glowing light on democratic/participatory teaching.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

I included both positive and negativecommentsfrom participantsregarding

this teachingapproach,althoughin the narrativesthe positive remarksabout
this approachwere much more frequent than the negative.
I benefitedfrom early discussionswith [Link] example,EI Sayed
Dadour offered certain commentsabout the narrativesof the Egyptian EFL
teaching [Link], all the interpretationspresentedbelow are
my own, except as otherwise noted. (I take responsibility for any errors in
interpretation.)
The first phasesof analysis showed that the data could be understood
thematically through metaphorsabout [Link] contentana-
lysis of the metaphorsfollowed six generalsteps. These were: (1) choosea
representativecorporaof texts; (2) isolate metaphoricalexpressionsin texts
and list them; (3) decide which metaphorsare worth analysing depending
on the researchpurpose;(4) reducethe metaphoricalexpressionsto broader
metaphors;(5) sort thesemetaphorsinto coherentgroups,therebyestablish-
ing the 'main metaphors';and (6) consider possible entailmentsof each
main metaphorand the extentto which theseare or are not expressedin the
corpora of texts (Koch and Deetz, 1981, cited by Ellis in Chapter 4 of the
presentvolume).
Thus, the metaphorswere not pre-establishedbut insteadarosethrough a
long-termseriesof intensiveinteractionswith the [Link] narrat-
ives were read, re-read, and gradually organizedinto sets with metaphorical
names,such as Teacheras HangingJudge, Teacheras Nurturer/Inspirer/
Role Model and Teacheras Witch. Many of the metaphorswere explicitly
mentionedin the narratives,for example,'the hungry monsterwho shouted
for food'. In such cases,it was very easy to identifY and label the metaphor.
However, other metaphorswere inferred from the [Link] instance,
if several narrativesdescribed (in various ways) languageteachersmechan-
istically pushing to cover all the material in the textbook in the shortest
possibletime, thesecommentswere taken to imply a concernfor factory-like
efficiency and therefore led to metaphorof Teacheras [Link]
type of labelling occurred if the studentsthemselvesdid not use a specific
metaphorbut if they neverthelessexpresseda consistentset of qualities or
characteristicsof the teacher that pointed towards a particular metaphor.
This kind of metaphoriclabelling is an interpretativepractice usedby Block
(1992), Munby (1986) and Thornbury (1991).
The narrativesand metaphorswere then organizedinto four philosophical
orientationstowards languageteaching: social order, cultural transmission,
 98 Leamrr Contributions to LanguageLearning

learner-centredgrowth and social reform. This early philosophicalanalysisof

representativesamplesof that portion of the datais reportedin Oxford et al.
(1998) and is not repeatedhere.

INTERPRETATIVE FINDINGS

Table 5.3 summarizesthe metaphorsderived from the studentnarrativesas

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

identified within the three different [Link] data can be

divided into general findings and findings according to the three different
teaching [Link] will consider some of these in more detail, but
some generalfindings include the following:
• The vast majority of the EgyptianEFL teachingcandidatesemployedexplicit
metaphors,sometimesvery sensoryin nature, to describe their language
[Link] metaphorof Teacheras Forceof Nature (water, sun andfood-
provider) is a good example. Although other groups employed explicit

Table 5.3 Metaphorsrepresentingeach teachingapproach

AUTOCRATIC TEACHING APPROACH

Teacheras Manufacturer
Teacheras Witch
Teacheras HangingJudge
Teacheras Tyrant
Teacheras Arrogant Animal or Person
Teacheras Preacheror Moralist
Teacheras Patron
Teacheras Gossip

DEMOCRATIC/PARTICIPATORYTEACHING APPROACH
Teacheras Challengerand Catalyst
Teacheras Force of Nature
Teacheras Entertainer
Teacheras Nurturer/Inspiration/RoleModel/Counsellor
Teacheras Egalitarian or Co-learner
Teacheras Family Member
Teacheras Prophetor God's Gift
Teacheras Tool Provider

LAISSEZ-FAIRE TEACHING APPROACH

Teacheras Blind Eye
Teacheras Bad Babysitter
Teacheras Whirlwind
Teacheras Guardianof the Door
Teacheras Sleep Inducer
Teacheras Piece of Cheese
Teacheras UninterestedFootdragger
Teacheras Tool Withholder
Teacheras Absentee
 The bleachedbonesof a story': learners' constructionsof languageteachers 99

metaphorsto some extent, such frequenciesof use could not compareto

the degreeto which Egyptians used these [Link] might well be
relatedto the generaluse of languagein the homeculturesof the participants.
• The metaphorsof Teacheras Bad Babysitter and Teacheras Gossip were
found only among the US high school [Link] doubt classroomcul-
ture and age played a role here.
• The metaphorsof Teacheras Family Member and Teacheras Prophetor
God's Gift were evidentonly amongthe Egyptian EFL teachingcandidates.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Thesereflect the generalcultural values about family and religion.

• It is interesting that although the Teacheras Prophetwas valued in the
Egyptian environment,the Teacheras Preacheror Moralist was generally
disparagedin various environments.
• International studentsin the USA used the metaphorof the Teacheras
Egalitarianor [Link] balance-of-powerconceptseemed
remarkableto theseinternationalparticipants.
• Some participants presentedmany different explicit (or clearly implicit)
metaphorsin their own individual narratives,whereasother participants
did not. Thus, the metaphoricalrichnessof the narrativesvaried greatly.
• Narratives showed that few studentswere indifferent. Most participants
displayedfairly strong emotional responsesto the teachersthey described.
The more specific findings are organized below in terms of dominant
metaphorsreflecting the three teachingapproaches:autocratic,democratic/
participatory and [Link], it is impossiblein this chapter
to explore eachof the emergentmetaphorsin [Link],only selected
metaphorsare illustrated from the narratives,with the others being merely
listed.
The democratic/participatory approachwas by far the most popularamong
the participantsin the study. In contrast,the autocraticand laissez-fairemodes
evokedresponsessuch as disgust,fear and [Link] finding must be viewed
with some caution, however, as noted later. Possibly the pure forms of these
last two modesare not viewed favourablyby manyor most students,but when
temperedwith the democratic/participatory approachthesetwo modesmight
have somethingto offer the classroom.

METAPHORS RELATED TO THE AUTOCRATIC

TEACHING APPROACH

In this study, the autocratic teaching approachwas much more complex

and multi-facetedthan is usually depictedin the literature. Although all the
seeminglyautocratic teachersdescribedhere maintainedutmost control in
the classroom, no single 'autocratic teaching approach'was identified, al-
though there were somecommonalitieswhich will be identified at the end of
the analysisof this approach.
Eight relevantmetaphorsarosefrom the narratives:Teacheras (a) Manu-
facturer, (b) Witch, (c) HangingJudge, (d) Tyrant, (e) Arrogant Animal or
 100 LeamerContributions to Lallguafie Lmrnillg

Person,(f) Preacheror Moralist, (g) Patron,and (h) Gossip. There is room

to discussonly the first four here.
The metaphorof Teacheras Manufacturerwas [Link] example,David,
a US graduatestudent preparing to teach ESL, describeda university lan-
guageteacherwho initially claimedshe would only speakthe targetlanguage,
and promised numerouschancesfor studentsto practise dialoguesin 'real
life' situations but who, in fact, was required to cover the entire language
textbookwithin a given period of time. What could have beena democratic/
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

participatorysituation turned into a factory-like operationwith mechanistic

work quotas:

Pages and pages of material, including dialogues, vocabulary lists, and new
grammaticalstructures,were required for memorizationeach day, and nearly
all of this was without being practicedor heard, and out of any context.

The 'racing syndrome'was evident in many other narratives,too, such as

that of Edward, a high school studentin the USA:

The worst problem I have had has beenwith the teacherswho rush through the
material. They care more about where they are in the book by the end of the
year than how much their studentshave learned.... What is the use of cover-
ing the material if no one learns anything?

Clare, a US university student, stated: 'I have difficulty in my Spanish

classeswhen the classis rush rush rushbecauseit doesn'tgive [me] anytime
to think through what's being taught.' Nagla, an Egyptian EFL teaching
candidate,describedher worst English teacheras a mechanisticauthoritarian
who wantedstudentsto act like machines'which sew words for one day'. The
perceived, non-reflective, constant propulsion described by these students
generateda range of negative emotions.
A contrastingmetaphorwas Witch, reflected in the words of Seth, a US
high school studentwho describedhis English teacheras a 'demon-ladywho
would trap us in that room, for at least 55 minutesof torture [per day]. I was
helplessagainstsuch a great beast.'Salvation came by meansof the counsel-
lor, whom Seth called the 'knight, hero, angel'.Jayla, a US university student
preparingto teach secondaryschool English, describeda Teacheras Witch:

I'm going to tell you about the worst teacherI have ever had.... She was my
SpanishI and II [Link] breath smelled awful. The room was hauntedby
this awful stench. I was one of those kids who got bored with her very quicklv
and tried to liven the class a little. 'AThen I did, she would get right in mv face
and yell at me.... I hated her class.... Now, I don't remembera single thing
Ms. _ taught me. The worst part is, this woman is still allowed to cast her
horrid lesson plans UPOll ullsuspectingchildren.

A third metaphorwas T('([c/zer as HanginfiJlIdfie. In the pioneeringdays of

the USA, a hangingjudgewas one who servedasjudge,jury and executioner
all rolled into one. The Teacheras HangingJudgeis expectedto be dictator-
ial and punish students,sometimesunjustifiably. This often happenswhen
 'Thf bl('([clifd bones of a stOIY': learnn:\' constructionsof langua{!;f t('([chers 101

the teacherhasspied the students'errors and wants to eradicatethoseerrors.

The Teacheras HangingJudgeis reflected in several of the narratives.
Carrie describeda teacherwho 'will single out peoplein the classand yell
at them for half the time'. Her emotionalresponseswere angerand a strong
desire for revenge. Kay portrayed her teacher'sbrutal and indiscriminant
responseto the infraction of not appearingto be taking notes: 'I was taking
notes, but he didn't know. He came to me and startedyelling at me. It hurt
my feelings so bad that I started crying.' Mindy describedthe Teacheras
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

HangingJudge in terms of using several particularly harsh forms of evalu-

ation and punishment,such as beingforced to sit on 'The Block', wheresocial
ostracismand physical discomfortwere [Link], Sonia, a Chilean
EFL teacher,describedthe teacher-inducedterror that for her has reverber-
ated through the years:

Whenever each of us made a mistake she screamedat us, saying, 'You are
potato sacks,'and ... 'No mistake is allowed here.' ... 1 turned little by little to
becomeshy and astonishinglyintroverted,sweatingeachtime 1 had classeswith
her. ... That professorwonderedhow 1 could be so shy. Years after, 1 gave her
the answer, 'I was so afraid of YOll that somethingin my mind didn't work and
got stuck in there, becominga blank space,unable to think.' ... 1 am marked
by this experience.

The Teachrr as Tyrant was the metaphorarising from several narratives.

For instance,Mohamed, an EFL teaching candidatein Egypt, talked about
a teacherwho was a warlike tyrant who 'wanted to make us feel ultimate
inferiority in order to practice a kind of sadistic invasion on our minds and
souls'. Larissa, a US high school student,describedher English teacheras a
bellicose tyrant who was 'still in a war'. Susie, a US master'sstudent and
experiencedteacher,wrote about her tyrannical English professorin these
words: 'When he cameto classhe was readyfor war!' Elham, an EFL teaching
candidatein Egypt, believed her tyrannical teacherfailed at getting students
interestedin the English languagebecauseof being filled with hate: 'It was
not easyfor me even to look at my teacher'sface; shewas always giving us the
impressionthat she does not like English, hatesherself, and hatesus.'
In sum, the participants' accountsof their autocratic teachersrevealed
lack of concern or empathy for the student, belief that the studentswere
basically stupid or inferior, a focus on errors and single interpretations,the
use of threatsand insults, and an externalreward [Link] such teachers
the studentsexpressedfeelings of disgust, repulsion, fear, embarrassment,
angerand helplessness.

METAPHORS RELATED TO TIlE DEMOCRATIC/PARTICIPATORY

TEACHING APPROACH

The next teaching mode, democratic/participatory,aroused much more

positive responses,although not in all [Link] the democratic/participatory
 102 Learner Contributions to LanguageLearning

teaching approach,teacherswere seen to treat the studentsas if they had

well functioning, intelligent minds. Teachersand learnersworked together.
The eight metaphorsdeducedin relation to this teachingapproachincluded:
Teacheras (a) Challengerand Catalyst, (b) Force of Nature, (b) Entertainer,
(c) Nurturer/lnspiration/RoleModel/Counsellor, (e) Egalitarian or Co-
learner, (f) Family Member, (g) Prophet or God's Gift and (h) Tool Pro-
vider. The first five of theseare explainedbelow.
Some students,such as Sharon, a US university student, suggestedthe
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

metaphor of Teacher as Challenger or Catalyst. She described her university

Germanteacher:
He was an excellent teacher,very fluent in the language,he also challengedus
everydayin [Link] he had spentsometimeliving and teachingin Germany,
he was verv knowledgeableabout the German language,culture, and people.
Painting out maps on the classroom, Dr. D would show us where he had
visited.... The teaching and \earning did not stop in the [Link] ate
[together on campusand at Dr. D's house], speakingGerman. The German
languagewas so fascinating and Dr. D was such an excellent instructor that I
continuedon and took a total of twenty-four hOllrs in Germanstudies.
A secondmetaphorwas Teacheras Force of Nature, appearingin three narrat-
ives from Egyptian EFL teaching candidates,Tamer, Amal, and Dina. In
Tamer'swords:
He rthe English professor1 treatedus as human beings or as friends. He know
the psycholo~'"Yof his students.... He becamelike water everyonelike to drink
it and without it we will die .. .
Amal describedher English professorin exuberant,sensory,nature-oriented
terms: 'This teacherlooks like the sun ... when she entersthe class the light,
the warm, the beauty, the flower enterwith her.' Dina describedher English
teacheras teachingher to 'taste languageas I taste food'. She admired the
teacherfor putting the English languagein her mouth and giving her the
opportunity to really taste it. She declaredhis influence on her, saying, 'He
createda good personout of me.'
The TeacJwras Entertainer; as describedin the narratives,offered entertain-
ing languageactivities in an effort to put more fun into the [Link]
seemedto be an implicit distinction between 'tasks' (work) and 'activities'
(fun). The entertainingteacheroften usedsurpriseand cultural experiences
as part of instruction. Usually the entertaining teacherreduced social dis-
tance and warmly invited studentsto [Link] US high school student
Gay stated: 'I enjoyedevery minute of [this class] becauseof the [Link]
made learning fun and easywith jokes and sayings.' Brant, a future physical
educationteacherstudyingat a US university, describeda high schoolSpanish
teacheras:
A big, jolly lIlan who loved to tell stories. IIe would alwavs come into class
everyday with his guitar around his back and a big grin. He would make liS
practice songs in Spanish.... He was always in a good mood and seemedto
always make everyonelaugh.
 'TIle blmchedbones0/ a story': learners' constnlrtionsoj languageteachers 103

However, for some students,classroomentertainmentbecameexcessive.

Young, a Korean doctoral candidateeamingher US doctoratein teachingEFL,
expressedmisgivings aboutone of her university professors,who 'liked to act,
dance,mime, and move aroundin the classroom'but rarely wrote anythingon
the chalkboard.'Personally,I had difficulties adaptingto suchactivities because
I am an introvert.' Mickey, an adult studentstudyingSpanishat a US university,
commented:'I learnedvery little in the class. It was more of an atmosphere
of fun and [Link] the star [Link] studentswere an audience.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

We often felt it was time to get down to work, but it never quite came.'
The Teacher as NuTfurer/lnspimtion/RoleModel/Counsellormotif appeared
numeroustimes. For example, US graduatestudentAI commentedon his
former Latin teacher:
I had a very patient instructor who taught step-by-stepand helped me extens-
ively. I wantedpersonalattention,and he gave it in [Link] was aJesuit
priest from Mexico who had taught for 30 years. He could be very strict, so
somestudentsthought he was an asshole,but I didn't. He called on us in class
and wanted us to have our homework done on time. He guided me very well,
told lots of stories of the old country, was very nostalgic, and showed tremend-
ous patience,following the pace of every student. He made sure I understood
everything. I got a B in the courseand was happy, not anxious at all.

Journal entries from graduatestudents developing into teachersreflected

an appreciation of the Teacheras Nurturer/Inspiration/Role Model. For
instance,Joe'sjournal stated:
Very inspiring! ... Wow! Another amazingclass! ... The dedicationyou model as
an educatorhas really madean impact on me.... You arc a model for teachers
and professors,always looking at the good side of everyoneand building them
up from their good points.

A difI(>rent metaphor was Tearher as Egalitarian or Co-lmmer. Paulo Freire

(1970) suggestedthe role reflected ill this metaphor. Richard-Amato de-
scribed Freire's concept in the following way: 'Sometimesthe teacheris a
studentand the studentsare teachersin a dialogue through which all indi-
viduals can benefit' (Richard-Amato, 1988: 33). This metaphoremergedin
the essaysof Sanchao, who said:
I am from China, a country with vcry old and deep-rootedculture.... American
teachersseem to be more democraticand have more two-way communication
with [Link] America, studentscan talk with the teacherand dress more
casually, but not without respect to the teacher. Meanwhile, teacherscan also
be more relaxed in a class.

The even-handednature of the instructor as a co-learnerwas obviolls in the

narrative of Hitoshi, a Japanesehigh school exchangestudentin the USA:
I do believe that the teacheris also one of the studellts. There is llO end in
!caming. And if the teacher... stoppedlistening to students'ideas and opin-
ions, and ignored what studentswhat to !carn, there would be llO interest in
the class.
 104 I,eamer Contributions to LanguageLearning

Those narrativesthat exemplified the democratic/participatoryapproach

generallyportrayedteacherswho were compassionate, loving, interesting,warm,
sustaining,empoweringand accepting. Most responsesto the democratic/
participatory approachwere positive (e.g., confidence, 'learning pleasure'
and appreciation),although somestudentsexpresseddiscomfort, seemingly
due to personalityor cultural differencesbetweenteacherand student.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

METAPHORS RELATED TO THE LAISSEZ-FAIRE

TEACHING APPROACH

Nine metaphors clustered together to reflect the laissez-faire teaching

approach: Teacher as (a) Blind Eye, (b) Bad Babysitter, (c) Whirlwind,
(d) Guardianof the Door, (e) SleepInducer, (f) Pieceof Cheese,(g) Uninter-
estedFootdragger,(h) Tool Withholderand (i) [Link] will explore
only the first five of thesemetaphors.
According to Wright (1987), laissez-faireteacherscan be viewed as simply
not doing their jobs. Certainly this teachingmode raisesquestionsabout the
degreeof caring and interest possessedby the teacherswho adopt it. Some
laissez-faireteachersclosedtheir eyes to what was going on in the classroom,
thus leading to the metaphor Teacher as Blind Eye. Donna, a US university
teaching candidate who planned to teach high school social science, de-
scribed the behaviourof her high school teacherof Spanish: 'I remember
one test day, the guy that sat in front of me had his book open on the
floor beside him and the teacherwent to the back of the room for some-
thing and she cameback up our row and shejust steppedover his book and
never said a word.' According to several narratives, teacherswho turned a
blind eye to this kind of cheatingdemonstratedthat they did not care about
the students.
Some teachers treated adolescent or adult students like children or
infants without exerting proper control. Such an instructor could be called
the Teacher-as Bad Babysitter-. US high school studentCraig stated: 'Oh, and
she treats us like elementarystudents, [saying] "super-duper!", "hot-dog!'"
According to Mitch, anotherUS high school student, 'A teachershould not
baby-sit' because:
There is no order in her classroom. The students carry on like immature
preschoolers.... Becauseshe docs not administer any form of punishment,
they continue their exploits without concernfor rules.

A third metaphorunifying many narrativeswas the Teacher-as WhiT/wind. In

a whirlwind, everythingbecomesconfused,mixed lip and out of order. The
following narrativesdemonstratedthe out-of-control feeling studentsexperi-
encedin encounterswith this kind of [Link],a US doctoral student
in education,depicteda university languageteacheras being confusing be-
causeof disorganization:
 'The bleachedbonesof a story': learners' constructionsof languageteachers 105

My teacher never gave precise directions for any [Link] was very
unorganized,unpreparedfor daily [Link] might announcea certain topic
we might cover during the next [Link] preparefor that topic and
then she would cover somethingentirely different.

The fourth metaphor,Teacheras Guardian of theDoor, [Link],

an Egyptian EFL teachingcandidatein Egypt, wantedhelp from her English
teacherin secondaryschool, but the teacherdid not give it. 'All I wanted is
someoneto open the door for me to enter. ... I wanted him to respectmy
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

efforts. He never took notice of who we really are, we were vessels,we were
faces or may be names.'
Teacher as Sleep Inducer, the fifth metaphor,was popular with many stu-
dents. For example, Maysa, a female EFL teaching candidatefrom Egypt,
complainedthat her worst secondaryschool English teachermade students
want to sleep in the teacher'sdark atmosphere.
[W]e were always yawning through his lesson,and by the end of the period we
fclt that we arc about to sleep. He was lazy and his lazinesswas creepingupon
our minds till we felt it is dark and we wanted to say, 'good night.' I hated his
classto the extentthat I hopedhis classto be the last classin the schedualto go
home directly and sleep.
A US high school student, Hanna, said, 'One clue that a teacher should
notice is if more than one half of a classis in a deepcoma, maybeit's time to
take a look at her style of teaching.'
In short, in the eyesof the learners,laissez-faireteachersdid not appearto
care about studentsor teaching. The laissez-faireteachingapproachelimin-
ated the possibility of classroom closenessbetween teacher and student.
Some laissez-faireteacherswere perceivedas unhelpful or indifferent to the
needs of their students. Many appearedto be so disorganized that they
did not provide the structure that many studentscraved, while others did
not impose any classroomdiscipline. Still otherswere interpretedas boring,
uninterestedin the subject,unwilling to provide the necessarytools for learn-
ing or unenthusiasticabout everything they did in the [Link] of
the studentswere happywith the false freedom that the laissez-faireclassroom
offered.

SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS

This chapter has illustrated some of the plethora of constructionsof the

languagetcacherderived from a study of [Link] a long
period of assessing,sorting and weighing, the themes of these narratives
were captured in particular mctaphorsabout language [Link] nar-
ratives and their explicit or framing metaphorswere eventually interpreted
in terms of three general teaching approaches:autocratic, democratic/par-
ticipatory and [Link] autocraticteachingapproachemergedquite
 106 LeamerContributions to LanguageLearning

distinctly in many of the [Link] highly autocratic teachermaintains

a large distancefrom the studentsand offers sharp,sometimesharshdiscipline.
With the autocraticteachersdescribedin this investigation,variousparticipants
felt powerless,unhappy,disgusted,angry or rebellious.
Generally speaking,teachersdescribedas using the democratic/particip-
atory approachappearedto form personalbondswith students;bondswhich
helpedmotivate and activatestudentsto learn. The democratic/participatory
teachingapproachdid not obviate the needfor discipline, structureor order.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

In fact, teacherswho worked in a democratic/participatorymode appeared

to pay attention to their students'needs and provided the structuresthat
were seenby the studentsas necessaryfor their learning. At the same time,
such teachersoften allowed studentsto take an increasedpart in classroom
[Link] participants expressedpositive feelings towards the
teacherswho appearedto use the democratic/participatorymode.
The laissez-faireteachingapproachwas evidentin a numberof metaphors
although this approachhas not been extensivelyresearchedwith regard to
languageinstruction. However, as shown by the students'vivid descriptions
in the currentstudy, this teachingapproachmight occur more often than is
[Link] this ultimately dysfunctionalapproacharose
in stories about both high school and university teaching. In each case, the
participant'sresponsewas negativeand participantswere especiallycondem-
natory of the lack of concern, caring or interest shown by the laissez-faire
teacher.

Implications for language teaching

What featuresrelate to satisfying, motivating instruction?Crookesand Schmidt
(1991) and Dornyei (1994) agreedupon some essentialelementsthat stimu-
late motivation for languagelearning: interest, relevanceand expectancyof
[Link] and Schmidt (1991) added: intrinsic or extrinsic rewards,
decision to learn, persistenceand high behavioural involvement. Dornyei
also identified some aspectsof studentmotivation particularly influencedby
the languageteacher:affiliation, power or authority, modelling, task presenta-
tion and feedback.
The featuresof good teachingidentified by McCombsandWhistler (1997)
are comparableto Dornyei's list:
• interest,enthusiasm,clarity and stimulationof curiosity (relatedto Dornyei's
task presentationand modelling);
• concernand availability (relevant to Dornyei's affiliation);
• provision of obvious structure (part of Dornyei's power or authority, in the
good sense);
• provision of useful feedback (identical to Dornyei's feedback).
Findings in this study suggestedthat, when the attributeslisted abovewere
identified and positively interpreted by students, they saw themselvesas
motivated, buoyed, eager, energizedand happy. They felt connectedto the
 '17u-' blmchedbonesof a story': leamer,'constructionsof languageteachers 107

teacher,the language,and eachother. When negativity crept in by meansof

teachers'behavioursor attitudes (e.g., sarcasm,frenetic pace, preachingor
punitiveness,disinterest,inattention to students'needs,lack of organization
or imagination, and so on), learners clearly became negative themselves.
Under such circumstances,various students appearedto be demotivated,
deflated, frustrated, bored, unhappy, isolated and/or resistant. Self-efficacy
was low (Bandura,1982), and the locus of control (Weiner, 1986) was outside
the helpless,[Link] to the narratives,reactionssuch as
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

these occurredwhen there was either too much control or too little control
by the teacher.
The findings from this study thereforesuggestmany implications for the
classroom.A few of theseare:

• Teachersshould recognize the major role they play in many language

students'lives and the responsibility that this entails. Above all, teachers
need to be alert to the strong links between their own behavioursand
attitudesand the motivation and performanceof their students.
• Learnersneedopportunitiesto give voice to the importanceof the teacher-
[Link] also needchancesto expresstheir specific needs
and [Link] createsuch opportunities,teacherscould use classroom
discussions,interviews, one-to-oneinformal conversations,journals,letters,
formative evaluationsheets,or other means.
• vVhenever possible, teachersshould consciouslycreate a bond with each
[Link] is difficult in very large languageclasses,but it is nonetheless
possiblevia personallydirectedcommentsand through certainassignments,
stich as dialogue journals, which increase the communication between
teacherand student.
• Teachersshould consider their exercise of power and intimacy in the
languageclassroomand should ask themselveswhetherhow they exercise
theseconstitutea messagethat teacherswant to perpetuate.
• Teachersshould reflect on which generalteachingapproach- autocratic,
democratic/participatory,or laissez-faire- is their prevalentmode in the
eyesof their studentsand query themselvesaboutwhetherthis is what they
intend and whetherit is the most effective mode.
• Perhapsa combinationof teachingapproachesmight be useful in certain
[Link] instance,selectedcharacteristicsof the autocraticteach-
ing approach, which appearsas a whole to be largely dysfunctional in
its purest form, might be effectively combined with a more democratic
approachin a back-and-forthmovementas dictated by the occasion, the
languagetask and the characteristicsof the [Link] characteristics
might include a concernfor structure,systematizationand precision.
• Teachereducation and in-service faculty developmentshould provide a
forum for current and future teachersto discuss the issuesraised in this
[Link] study the data presentedhere and corne
up with their own different interpretations,possibly to reflect on their own
teachingstyles.
 108 Learner Contributions to LanguageLearning

This chapter has focused on what occurs in classrooms,especially the

creative constructions by students of their language teachers. The study
reportedhere has shown the great significance of the classroomteacherin
the life and learning of [Link] Christopherwrote to his professor,'You
made all the difference in the world to me.' As the presentstudy revealed,
such strong responses- both positive and negative- are very common and
the teachersappearedto have a huge influence upon their students.
Going beyondjust the regularclassroomor the tutorial setting, it is fair to
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

say that the teacheris importantin virtually every formalized languagelearn-

ing situation that can be imagined. Even in environmentsthat rely on auto-
nomouswork by students,such as certain self-accesscentresand particular
kinds of individualized, technology-assisted distanceeducation,the language
teacheroften plays a significant role in terms of e-mail, teleconferencingand
the shapingof materials, procedures,and technology.

Future research
Looking broadly at the classroomsituation, it will be importantin the future
to consider two-way or multi-way influences among students and their
[Link] mutual effects of peeron peer, as well as the mutual influence
of studentsand teacherson each other, are still to be more fully exploredin
languageclassroomsand especiallyin terms of the effects of theseupon the
processof languagelearning.
In addition, future researchshould considerwhich characteristicsof lan-
guage teachingare the most honouredin different cultures. Some cultures
might differ from other culturesin terms of educationalvaluesand the roles
of the teacherand the learner (Hofstede,1986, 1991). Even when two differ-
ent cultures seemingly share certain values and roles, these cultures might
give different weights to them. For instance, an instructional aspect that
appearsprimary in one culture, for example,affiliation or closenessbetween
teacherand student,might be less importantin anotherculture emphasizing
the teacher'sprovision of organization and structure. However, the whole
conceptof culture is problematic from a postmodernview in that what we
often know as a culture is not a homogeneousentity but rather a dynamic
amalgam of factors, often analysed in terms of privilege and oppression.
Differencesalso exist in the receptivity of individual studentsto certain teach-
ing [Link] trends are a fascinating and potent variable, but
future researchersmust not forget to look for individual attitudes, beliefs
and thoughts. The narrative case study presentsand preservesthe voice of
the person within the social context. In making this point, the chapter has
now come full circle. The 'bleached bones' of the narratives have been
displayed, poked and studied from various angles to discern their inner
meaningsconcerninglearners'constructionsof [Link]
commonalitieswere found, each story was unique in its forms of expression
and in its specialtwists and turns. As Aundathi Roy stated,'Never again will a
single story be told as if it were the only one.'
 'The blearhed bones of a story': lmrl/ers' ronstrurtions o/languagetearhers 109

APPENDIX 5.1 CONSTRUCTIONS OF LANGUAGE TEACHERS

(a partial list only)

contractedprofessional Block (1992)

devotedprofessional Block (1992)
parent Block (1992), Ehrman & Dornyei
(1998), Oxford (1999)
enforcer Block (1992)
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

orchestradirector, musical director Block (1992)

play director Oxford (1990)
choreographer Katz (1986)
entertainer Katz (1986)
researcher Block (1992), Breen & Candlin (1980)
all-seeking,omniscientgod Block (1992)
not a god Curran (1972)
memberof a priesthood Maley (1984)
grail seekers Maley (1984)
salvation seekers Maley (1984)
treasurehunters Cortazzi & Jin (1996)
obscuritanists Maley (1984)
friend Block (1992), Scarcella& Oxford
(1992)
comrade Block (1992)
co-learner Freire (1970, referring to any teacher,
not just a languageteacher),Breen
& Candlin (1980)
earth mother Katz (1996)
professor(content-focused) Katz (1996)
vessel-filler Willing (1991)
journeyer Cortazzi & Jin (1996)
cook Cortazzi & Jin (1996)
plant cultivator, gardener Cortazzi &Jin (1996), Oxford (1999)
puppeteer Oxford (1999)
doctor Oxford (1999)
parrot-trainer(for Audiolingual) Oxford (1999)
factory manager Oxford (1999)
zookeeper Oxford (1999)
input provider Krashen & Terrell (1983), O'Malley &
Chamot (1990), Scarcella& Oxford
( 1992)
strategyinstructor O'Malley & Chamot (1990), Oxford
(1990), Scarcella& Oxford
(1992)
scaffolder Scarcella& Oxford (1992)
tapestryweaver Scarcella& Oxford (1992)
guide Scarcella& Oxford (1992)
 110 Learner Contributions to Lan!,Tfwge ["eaminff

decision-maker Nunan (1992), Scarcella& Oxford

(1992)
motivator Dornyei (1994), Oxford & Shearin
(1994)
m ul ticulturalist Scarcella& Oxford (1992)
aid in bursting the cocoon Stevick (1980)
inseminator Curran (1972)
spouseor lover Ashton-Warner(1963, referring to
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

any teacher,not just a language

teacher)
mental-gymnasticsteacher Herron (1982)
nurturer of souls Gadd (1998)
infantilizer Lozanov in Stevick (1980, 1990)
organizer,co-ordinator Breen & Candlin (1980), Oxford
(1990)
facilitator Breen & Candlin (1980), Oxford
(1990), Scarcella& Oxford (1992)
negotiator Breen & Candlin (1980)
seer of potential Breen & Candlin (1980)
monitor Breen & Candlin (1980)
coach Rivers & Temperleyin Block (1992)
resourceperson,idea person Dubin & Olshtain (1986), Oxford
(1990)
needsanalyst Richards & Rodgers (1986)
group processleader/manager Ehrman & Dornyei (1998), Richards
& Rodgers (1986)
consultant Oxford (1990)
diagnostician Oxford (1990)
memberof classroomculture with Breen (1985)
students
joint conspirerfor maintaining Breen (1996)
routines
potential prisonersof social Kramsch (1993)
expectations
recipient of resistance Kramsch (1993)
personcaughtin a web of method Kurnaravadivelu (1994)
personwatching an endlesscycle KumaravadiveI u (1994)
of life, death, rebirth of method
consumerbuying repackaged Kumaravadivelu (1994)
methods
toiler in trenches Clarke (1982)
sailor ill tempestuoussea Clarke (1982)
tyrant-follower Clarke (1982)
individual vulnerable to the Clarke (1982)
pendulumof method
investor .Maley (1984)
 'TIll' blrarhed bones 0/ (l .1101),': Immers' construrtions 0/ languagetradlfrs III

fortress defender Maley (1984)

rnanoeuverer Maley (1984)
acceptorof prescriptionsfrom Pennycook(1989)
educationalimperialists
memberof learning alliance with Ehrman & Dornyei (1998), Wool
student (1989, referring to any teacher,not
just a languageteacher)
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I deeply appreciatethe help of my colleague RebeccaMassey"in the final

editing stagesof this chapter.I also give great thanks to thosecolleagueswho
provided narratives, In addition to my own 162 learner narratives,Roberta
Lavine, CassandraHarrington, Amany Saleh, and El SayedDadourgathered
an additional 311 additionalstoriesfrom their students,In alphabeticalorder,
all of the colleaguesto whom I addressmy gratitude are: Barcelos, Univer-
sidade Federal de Vic;:osa, Brazil; Dadour, Mansoura University, Damietta,
Egypt; Harrington,Athens High School,Alabama,USA; Lavine, University of
Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA; Longhini, University of Rio Cuarto,
Argentina; Massey,North Carolina StateUniversity, Raleigh, NC, USA; Saleh,
University of Arkansas,Jonesboro,Arkansas,USA; and Tomlinson, University
of Alabama, Tuscaloosa,Alabama, USA. In addition, great thanks go to the
studentswho provided the narratives, Finally, thanks to novelist Arundathi
Roy for her wonderful, thought-provokingimages.
 Chapter 6

Overt participation and covert

acquisition in the language classroom
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Michael P. Breen, University of Stirling

Languagelearning evolves out oJ learning how to carry on conversations.

(Hatch. 1978: 404)

The focus (in SLA) should be ... on observing the construction of co-
knowledge and how this co-constructionprocess results in linguistic change
amongand within individuals during joint activity. (Donato. 1994: 39)

INTRODL'CTION

In the twenty-two years since Hatch introducedto secondlanguageacquisi-

tion researchthe potential contributionsto the processoflearners'participa-
tion in discoursetherehasbeencontinuedinvestigationoflearnerinteraction
with teachersand otherlearners,with native speakersand non-nativespeakers.
Several researchershave identified such interaction as the crucible wherein
the linguistic and communicativeenvironmentmadeavailable to the learners
will shape the process and outcomes of language [Link] ,'lith
first languageacquisition research,this reliance, even in part, upon the sig-
nificance for learning of the language made available to learners during
interactionis challengedby those who give primacy to the learners'internal
cognitive processes(Durkin, 1987). This latter stance is exemplified by the
theory that learnersare biologically endowedwith a Universal Grammar,the
principles and some of the parametersof which remain accessibleto 1,2
learners through their first language (Chomsky, 1981, 1986; White 1989).
Such a theoretical starting point is taken by Braidi in identifying what she
seesas the failure of interaction researchto reveal its affect upon grammat-
ical developmentin particular. She suggeststhat such researchneedsto focus
more specifically upon the actual grammaticalstructureswithin interaction
with the primary purposeof uncoveringUniversal Grammar'triggers' (Braidi,
1995). Researchers who have assertedparticularcontributionsof the learners'
'linguistic environment'to acquisition certainly recognizethat it is the inter-
face between such contributions and the learners' internal capacity for

112
 Overt j)(utiripation and rovert arquisition in the languageclassroom 113

language that is pivotal in the acquisition process (Krashen, 1985; Long,

1996). However, the identification of the particular observablefeatures of
the linguistic and communicative environmentwhich may best tune into
these capacities,thereby enabling a developmentalchangein learner com-
petence,is a project yet to be completed in second language acquisition
(SlA) research.
The issue is clearly an urgent one for languagepedagogyand particularly
in any examinationof the contributionsof the [Link]
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

coinciding with Hatch's identification of the potential role of learner par-

ticipation in discourseand Long's influential specification of this in terms
of overt interaction (Long, 1981), the theoreticaland pedagogicrationales
for communicativelanguageteaching (CLT) placed a premium upon overt
learner participation in the interaction afforded by the classroomand its
activities. Since that time, despitean ongoing diversity of interpretationsand
its later fragmentationinto approachessuch as 'task-based','learner-centred'
or 'autonomouslanguage learning', many language teacherswould assert
that the teacher'sengagementof learnersin overt participationis a defining
characteristicof CLT. This is not to say that overt participation in the lan-
guageclassis a characteristicunique to CLT, before its introduction or since.
Previous approachesor methods advocatedlearner output - constrained,
perhaps,by the rigours of imitation and repetitive practice of teacher or
textbook models. One of CIT's innovations was to advocate spontaneous
learnercommunicationthrough talk abouttopics and issuesthat were imme-
diately meaningfulto them. The pedagogicemphasisshifted from the verbal-
izing of de-contextualizedlanguageitems or forms to the purposeslanguage
serves in the interpretation and expressionof meaning in social contexts
(Widdowson, 1978).
Therefore, in addition to seeking clear justifications for what has be-
come a relatively widespreadpedagogicpractice, there are two contributory
motivationsfor examininglearners'overt participationin the languageclass-
room. The first is to identify its actual characteristicsand the secondis to
trace its impact upon languageacquisition. These two motivations are the
concerns of the present chapter. Its particular focus will be upon overt
participation in terms of learner talk, specifically in the context of the
[Link] chapterbegins with a review of some of the key arguments
in SLA researchwhich either support or question the contributory role of
learner talk. This provides a context for an evaluation, in the secondpart
of the chapter, of research evidence on the relationship between overt
contributions of learners in classroom interaction and the outcomes for
their learning. From this evaluation, it is deduced that the evidence for
the impact upon acquisition of learner participation in classroom inter-
action may be constrainedby the particular perspectivesof the research.
The chapter concludesby identifying potential avenuesfor future studies
of learners' participation that may better reveal the actual relationships
betweenthe external communicativeenvironmentand learners'developing
competence.
 114 [Link] Contributions to LanguageLearning

DOES OVERT PARTICIPATION CONTRIBUTE TO

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION?

Particular contributions of the learners' overt production or output to lan-

guage developmenthave been identified in terms of two influential hypo-
theses and the researchthat has informed them. Both hypothesesassert
the insufficiency of input from the linguistic environmentas a condition for
languageacquisition. Both identify as exemplaryevidencefor this assertion
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

the relative under-achievement in speechproduction as comparedwith re-

markableprogressin listening and readingof studentswho have participated
for several years in content-basedFrench immersion programmes(Lapkin
et al., 1991; Swain, 1985, 1991; Wesche, 1994). Each hypothesis therefore
identifies additional necessaryconditionsfor acquisition to occur. The inter-
action hypothesisproposesthat learnersneed to participateovertly in inter-
action of a certain quality and the output hypothesisproposesthat learners
can benefit in particular ways from their own languageoutput.
The interaction hypothesisarguesthat, during communication,learners
and more competentspeakersare likely to adjust their languageproduction,
conversationalstructure,messagecontent,or all of thesewhen they recognize
a lack of comprehensionon the part of their interlocutor (Long, 1981, 1996).
This 'negotiationfor meaning'is overtly revealedin the ways that interlocutors
either avoid or repair communicationbreakdownsthrough such devices as
repeating, reformulating, requestingclarification, checking on comprehen-
sion, or confirming understanding,etc. (comprehensivereviews of research
on negotiationfor meaningare provided by Long (1996) and Pica (1994)).
Long arguesthat: 'The semantictransparancyachievedby interactionalmodi-
fications as speakersnegotiatefor meaningis important... not just because
it makesinput comprehensible,but becauseit makes complexinput compre-
hensible' (Long, 1996: 451, original emphasis).Therefore,overt negotiation
for meaningduring interaction rendersinput accessibleto a learner which
would not usually be comprehensible,either becauseof meaning content
or relative complexity of form or both. Such accessibility, according to this
hypothesis,can engagethe learners'internal capacitiesfor languagedevel-
opment.A crucial function claimed for overt interaction of this kind is that,
becauselearners may intend to share meaning that is, at the time, trans-
parent to them, they have the attentional space to focus on the form of
both their own production and an interlocutor's responseand are thereby
enabledto compare the two - to 'notice the gap' between their own pro-
duction and a more target-like version of it. It is at such moments that
potential for a refinementin an aspectof the learners'own languagesystem
can occur (Doughty and Williams, 1998; Long, 1991). Researcherswho
regard negotiation during interaction as having these characteristicsclaim
that such negotiation can reveal the developmentalrelationship between
learners'overt participationin communicationand their innate capacityfor
acquisition.
 OVelt jJarticilmtion alld covert acquisition in lhe languageclassroom 115

In sum, on the basis of a growing foundation of evidence,the interaction

hypothesis proposes that learner participation in interaction that entails
negotiation for meaning has the potential to alert learners to failures in
making themselvesunderstoodand, from this, to adopt devices both in
how they converseand in the form of their [Link] very failure to
understandor make oneselfunderstoodimmediately may therefore 'push'
learners to reformulate and refine what they say. Through this, they may
analyse input and refine their own output in more conscious ways and,
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

thereby, attain greaterawarenessand control of the new language.

The output hypothesisechoessome of [Link] addition to the
possible contribution of learners' regular language production to emerg-
ing fluency, Swain identifies three major functions of learneroutput (Swain,
1995). Referring to studiesof even relatively young learners,she arguesthat
they can notice and become alert to particular deficiencies in their own
languageoutput even without feedback(Swain and Lapkin, 1994). Secondly,
when obtaining even implicit corrective feedback of various kinds to their
output during negotiationfor meaning,it appearsthat learnerswill modify
about one-third of their output in reaction to it - will produce'comprehens-
ible output' - and that there is some evidence that these modifications
becomepart of the learners'productive system (Nobuyoshi and Ellis, 1993;
Pica et aI., 1989). Swain thereforeattributesto learneroutput an hypothesis-
testing potential. She regards learners' modification of only a proportion
of their output in responseto feedback as evidence of a selectivefocusing
which itself suggeststhat learners test very particular hypothesesabout the
target language at different times. The third potential of learner output
is that it can serve a metalinguistic purpose in the sense that learners,
given the appropriate conditions, are capable of negotiating with each
other about form. During such negotiation,particularly within collaborative
tasks requiring the planning and constructionof written texts in the target
language,learnerscan articulate their emergingcontrol over aspectsof lan-
guagethrough consciousanalysisand reflection. Referring to studiesof this
kind of collaborative activity by Donato (1994) and LaPierre (1994), Swain
suggeststhat they provide good evidencethat a significant proportion of the
specific aspectsof the target language,which are identified by the learners
as problematicand aboutwhich they overtly negotiatea solution, are actually
acquiredand [Link] instance,in the caseof the LaPierrestudy of grade
eight early immersionlearners,over 70 per cent of both correct and incorrect
targetlanguagesolutionsearlier negotiatedby them were recalledin post-tests
a week later. However, the episodesin which the beginnerlearnersnegoti-
ateda correct solution outnumberedepisodesin which incorrectsolutionswere
negotiatedby almost seven to one. A crucial observationhere is that such
overt metalinguisticwork, like hypothesis-testingthrough output, is selective.
Both are spontaneouswithin interaction and we cannotpredict what aspect
of languagemay warrant, for the learners,a negotiatedresolution. Similarly,
we cannotbe sure from our analysis of an interaction whether learnersare
 116 Learner Contributions to LanguageLearning

actually focusing upon form or upon meaning or, indeed, devoting most
effort to maintainingface or social solidarity with their interlocutorsby merely
appearingto keep the conversationgoing. We can be more confident in
assumingthat different learnersare very likely to learn different things through
their output and even from the sameinteraction.
While the interaction hypothesisdoes not question the primacy of com-
prehensionof input from the linguistic environmentbut articulatescertain
conditionsunderwhich input is renderedcomprehensiblethrough conversa-
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

tional work, the output hypothesismakes a pivotal distinction between the

processesof learnercomprehensionand productionof [Link] (1995)
reminds us of the characteristicredundancyof speechto a listener and the
other non-linguistic clues that face-to-faceinteractioncan provide, and quotes
Lightbown and Halter as concludingfrom their study of a comprehension-
basedESL programme:

[T] hat the kind of processingwhich is necessaryfor comprehensionis different

from the kind of processingwhich is required for production and, ultimately,
for acquisition... the ability to decodelanguage,that is, the ability to under-
stand the meaningconveyedby a particular sentence,is not the same as code
breaking, that is, discovering the linguistic systemswhich carry the meaning.
(Lightbown and Halter, 1993: 23, original emphasis)

In specifying the developmentof syntax and morphologyas the foundations

of accurateproduction which is, for her, evidence of genuine acquisition,
Swain gives primacy to output as a code-breakingprocesswhich demands
greater analytic control over the language on the part of the learners in
contrast to what she sees as the more open-ended,meaning-focusedand
selectiveprocessingthat typifies comprehension.
In sum, on the basis of both the evidence that is taken to support the
interactionhypothesisand additional evidenceoflearners'negotiationsabout
form, the output hypothesisproposesthat learner talk can facilitate fluency,
generatefeedbackwhich enablesnoticing gaps in current languageproduc-
tion as comparedwith target forms, test the learners'hypotheses,and focus
upon metalinguistic features when planning written production. Like the
interaction hypothesis,those learner modifications of output during inter-
action that appearto seek to avoid or repair failures in understandingare
hereinterpretedas evidenceof learnerawarenessand, thereby,greateranalytic
control over the form of the new [Link] addition, the output hypo-
thesis highlights the unpredictableselectivity of learners'hypothesis-testing,
noticing and attention to form and/or meaning during the flow of inter-
action. Perhapsmore so than the interaction hypothesis,it gives significant
weight to languageproduction in the acquisition processalongside that of
comprehension,not only as the accessibleevidenceof genuine acquisition,
but also as the processthat transformsinput into the acquiredsystemthrough
more effortful learneranalysisand control.
Both of these influential h)pothesesare not, of course, immune from
problems. For instance,both proposetwo particular phenomenaas pivotal:
 Ovel1 j)(II1iopation and muer1 arquisition in the languagerlassroom 117

first, a level of analytical attention that enableslearners to notice the gap

betweentheir own outputs and well-formed and appropriatefeedbackand,
secondly,that the immediatemodifications learnersmay make in their own
talk carry a strong likelihood of being retained over time as part of the
acquiredsystem. On the issue of noticing, Pica concludedher review of the
researchon negotiationduring interaction with the following caution:

[TJhese data show how learners' attention mn be brought to differences be-

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

tween their own production and a target model. However, we must emphasize
can, becausenegotiation data seldom obviously show whether or not learners
perceive these [Link], we can safely say that negotiation provides
the ojJjJortunities to attend to L2 form and to the relationships of form and
[Link] indeeddo cannotbe observed,or even inferred, most
of the time. This may not reflect a fault of negotiation,but rather the current
state of researchinstruments. (Pica, 1994: 520, original emphasis)

On the issue of the retention of modifications in the learners' output

subsequentto negotiation, Pica concludedin an earlier paper that we cur-
rently lack sufficient and appropriatelongitudinal data of the accommoda-
tion of such changesin the learners' interlanguage(Pica, 1992). It is this
current lack of data on the impact of learners' modified talk upon longer-
term acquisition which Krashen also identifies as undermining the output
hypothesisin particular. It is, perhaps,not surprising that the SLA theorist
who has assertedthat it is only comprehensibleinput which is consistently
effective in increasing language proficiency should fail to appreciate the
significanceof Swain's emphasisupon the differencesbetweenthe processes
of comprehensionand productionand the specific contribution of the latter
to acquisition. Krashen (1994, 1998) acknowledgesthat interactionmay have
a contributory function in languageacquisition; essentiallyas a good source
of comprehensibleinput. However, he offers two further challengesto the
output hypothesis. First, he cites evidence suggestingthat acquisition can
occur without learneroutput. Perhapsa limitation of the evidencehe offers
is that it is mainly derived from studies of vocabulary acquisition through
written input or literacy developmentthrough reading. Nevertheless,his sec-
ond challengeappearsto be more strongly supportedby available research.
He assertsthat learner output and, particularly, modified learner output
occursvery rarely during interaction,citing evidencefrom studiesof learner-
native speaker interviews, and from learner-learnerand learner-teacher
interactions in classroom situations. This seeming scarcity of opportunity
for learnersto modifY their own production implies, for Krashen, that it is
not a necessarycontribution to acquisition. There is a problem with the
scarcity argument,of course. Some plants need very little rain in order to
grow, but they do need rain if they are to grow at all. Just as we require con-
firmatory evidence that learner output facilitates later acquisition, we also
need evidence from those learnerswho have rare opportunities to modifY
their talk while participatingin interaction to discover whetheror not their
language developmentis consequentlydelayed. Indeed, this is precisely
 118 LrarneT Contributions to LanguageLrarninl!:

Swain's conclusion from the disparity between immersion students' high

levels of understandingcompared to their relative under-achievementin
production. Krashen concludeshis argumentagainstthe output hypothesis
by urging an increasein learneraccessto comprehensibleinput. An altern-
ative conclusion might be to urge an increasein learner opportunities to
produce language,not least to enable us to confirm, through longitudinal
research,whetheror not it actually has an impact upon the rate and quality
of acquisition.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Thereis one componentof Krashen'stheory of languageacquisitionwhich

is strangely lacking from both the interaction hypothesis and the output
hypothesis. He identified this as the 'affective filter hypothesis' (Krashen,
1994). The lack of an affective dimensionin interaction and learneroutput
is all the more incongruousgiven the primacy attributed to the sharing of
meaningas the catalyst for everything else that the hypothesesidentify as
significant for acquisition. The effort towards meaningful communication
and the processoflearningto achieveit engagesdeeperlevels of interactants'
socio-cognitiveidentity than may be transparenton the surfaceof talk. Sim-
ilarly, the hypothesesattach crucial significance to cognitive processessuch
as attention and awareness,even straying into the notoriously complex phe-
nomenonof [Link] is a long-establishedliterature on
human cognition wherein processessuch as attention, memoryand the con-
struction of knowledgeare rarely discussedwithout referenceto the fact that
such processesare permeatedwith emotion or affect. Anxiety, fear, arousal,
avoidance,empathy, motivation, self-esteem,etc., will be presentto varying
degreesin any interaction, and such affects certainly characterizelearning
(Bransford, 1979; Claxton, 1984; Eysenck, 1986; Neisser, 1976; Stevick, 1976
inter alia). Krashen'saffective filter may be interpretedas narrowly mechan-
istic as someSLA researchers'relianceon the metaphoricaldiscourseof 'inputs'
and 'outputs',but it enableshim to make a crucial observationin relation to
the scarcityof the latter. He cites evidenceto suggestthat classroomactivities
or techniquesthat 'force output' from learners,which is beyondtheir acquired
competence,generatelevels of anxiety that appear to distract them from
genuinelanguageuse and its development(Krashen,1994: 67). There is some
sleight of hand here, of course,for the proponentsof both the interaction
hypothesisand the output hypothesismake a clear distinction betweenre-
quiring learners to mimic de-contextualizedchunks of languagewhich are
beyond their current competence,which are seen to be typical of pedagogy
that focuseson languageforms, and the kinds of classroomtasks that 'push'
learners to modify their output through negotiation for meaning (Long,
1996: 448). However, the omission of the socio-affective dimension of lan-
guage learning, particularly in the analysis of talk that occurs in the public
spaceof the classroomor the interpersonalspaceof task work, remains as
a hindrance to both hypothesesin fully explaining how language may be
acquiredspecifically through classroominteractionin context. This issuewill
be returnedto later, while our attentionnow turns to examiningmore closely
the evidencerelating to learner participation within languageclassrooms.
 Ovnt jJartirijJation and (Overt arquisition in the languageclassroom 119

DOES OVERT PARTICIPATION IN THE CLASSROOM FACILITATE

LANGUAGE ACQUISITION?

If we look at the linguistic and communicative environment provided by

many languageclassroomswith a view to seekingevidenceof learners'overt
participationthrough their interactionand output, both Swain'sand Krashen's
observationson its scarcityappearto bejustified. However, even the seeming
scarcity of such opportunitieshas to be explained, not least for pedagogic
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

reasons.A brief evaluationof the evidencemay help to reveal, as with Pica's

recognitionof the limitations of the 'currentstateof researchinstruments'as
applied to negotiation,whetheror not the scarcity of learnerparticipationis
a function of how classroomdata is currently obtainedand [Link] this
evaluation, we will first focus upon classroomtalk more broadly, and then
follow by focusing upon the evidencefrom classroom-based task work.

Classroom talk
As Chaudron(1988) and van Lier (1988) make clear in their earlier reviews
of the researchin secondlanguageclassrooms,interaction in the language
class appearson the surface very much like lessonsin other [Link]
confirmed a dominant pattern of the interaction in which teachersinitiate,
learnersrespond,and teachersfollow-up their responsesby repetition, refor-
mulation or other forms of more explicit [Link],in certain
language classesin particular, a teacher'sreformulation is often repeated
verbatim by a learneror the whole class becausethey have learnedto inter-
pret its illocutionary force as being as a model to be overtly imitated. Van
Lier pointed out that such interactions are located within a kind of com-
munal monologuedirectedby the teacherat the whole classwherein learner
contributionsare woven into the teacher'stext. Although our focus here is
less upon a teacher'sparticipationin the interactionthan that of the learners,
how teacherscommunicatein the classroomprovidesthe frame within which
learner overt participation is attributed particular significance or value. For
instance,researchsuggeststhat some teachersexercisethe right to two-thirds
more fluency practice in the classroom than all the learners put together,
although, perhaps not surprisingly, teacher talk is often characterized
by modifications found in native-speakerspeech to non-native speakers
outside [Link] direct relevance,however, such modifications appear
to be more emphaticwhen teachersaddresslearnerswhom they regard as
having lower proficiency (Dahl, 1981; R. Ellis, 1985; Griffiths, 1991; Hamayan
and Tucker, 1980; Henzel, 1979; Kliefgen, 1985; Wong-Filmore 1982). It
seems,therefore,that the degreeof modification in a teacher'sdirect inter-
action with an individual learner conveys other messagesbeneathwhat is
actually said; in this case a judgementof a learner'sperceivedcapabilities.
This layered meaningof many teacherutterancesalso residesin the prevail-
ing pattern of error correction subsequentto certain learners' utterances.
The apparentinconsistencyof error correction is only partly explained by
 120 Learner Contributiolls to LanguageLl'flmin{';

the real-time pressureof classroom interaction. Many teachersselectively

correct errors dependingupon who makes them and on the basis of their
judgementof a learner'sability, resilience and emotional state. There are
likely to be two outcomesat least from this very common aspectof teacher
talk. First, different learnersmay attach different values to teacherreactions
to what they say and may either fail to distinguisha teacher'scorrectionfrom
other kinds of teacherutteranceor assumethat almost all teacherresponses
to what they say are an evaluation of their languageabilities (Lyster, 1998;
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Nystrom, 1983; van Lier, 1996). Secondly,and more significantly, how teachers
respondto their participation may superimposea degree of risk for many
learnersand the possibility of threatto their self-esteemin a public situation.
However, classroom communication reveals further complications not
usually identified in the analysisof [Link] Lier (1988)
suggeststhat the observabletalk of the languageclass constantlyshifts due
to its being characterizedby four types of interaction that servedifferent pur-
poses: teacherinstructions, teacher'selicitations of student responses,and
procedurallystructuredlearneractivities such as small group or dyadic tasks,
all of which are occasionallypunctuatedby small talk or [Link]
Lier indicates that these different types of talk reflect different degreesof
teachercontrol over topics or activities. We may also deducethat eachof the
four types of interactionwill facilitate or delimit types of participationon the
part of [Link] inter-textual nature of classroomcommunicationhas
beenidentified at a deeperlevel by Allwright as a 'discoursaldilemma' wherein
a teacherand studentsare engagedin a constantbalancing of conflictual
pressuresbetween the social and the pedagogical (Allwright, 1989, 1996).
The social pressurepushesthe interaction towards an eventwhich is socially
acceptableand even socially productive to everyonein the classroomso that
any face-threateningact is likely to be avoided. On the other hand, the
assumedpurposeof a languageclassgeneratespedagogicpressurethat pushes
the interactiontowardsan eventwhich is pedagogicallyacceptableand, prefer-
ably, pedagogicallyproductive so that it is likely to becomeface-threatening
and cognitively demandingbecauseit will reveal the limits of knowledge of
at least some of the [Link] dilemma results in an almost constant
ambiguity inherentin the interactionwith the likely result of different under-
standingsor interpretationsof the functions of certain [Link]'s
identification of the social significanceof classroominteractionis confirmed
by Senior'srecentdetailedstudy of teachers'views on what they regardedas
a 'goodlanguageclass' (Senior, 1999). On the basisof a study involving initial
questionnairesand classroomobservation,and a seriesof interviewsover almost
a year, Senior discovered that the teachersalmost unanimously defined a
good languageclass as one that exhibited 'social cohesion' in the senseof
a collaborative and supportive classroommilieu and that teachersadopted
a range of social strategiesand ways of communicatingthat they believed
facilitated its [Link] Seniorfocusedmainly upon the teachers'
perceptionsof their classesfor adult learners,she also obtainedevidencethat
the studentsalso gave a high priority to the social atmospherein their classes.
 Overt participation and (overt acquisition in the languageclassroom 121

It seems,therefore,that the opportunitiesfor participationmadeavailable

to the learners occur within at least four interweaving types of text: com-
munication through the target language, metacommunicationabout the
targetlanguage,communicationaboutthe teaching-learningprocess(its pro-
ceduresand classroomroutines), and spontaneousasidesabout any of these
things, all of which may be more or less orchestrateddirectly or indirectly
by the [Link] learnershave to navigate through this inter-textuality,
identifYing the textual cues which signal a transition from one kind of talk
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

to anotherand, crucially, the particular significanceand potential meanings

of each type of talk. It is very likely that different learners,as a group and
individually, will be more or less skilled in such [Link], however,
this inter-textualityis framedwithin what Allwright has identified as 'discoursal
dilemmas'within the interaction,which is an ongoing tensionbetweensocial
and pedagogicpurposesthat render the text of lessonspotentially ambigu-
ous for those who overtly engagein it and for those who chooseto interpret
it more covertly. Adopting Allwright's distinction, any momentin the inter-
action, regardlessof teacherintention, may be interpretedby one learneras
serving pedagogicpurposeswhile, for another learner, it may be seen as
serving social purposesand both are likely act upon their interpretationsin
different ways.
We might conclude from observablepatterns of the interactive text of
languageclassesthat learnersare not actually required to participate very
much, not leastbecauseof the pressureto devote much attentionto keeping
track of the teacher'stext and being alert to the momentswhen they have to
contributeto it and, occasionally,to the teacher'sreactionsto their contribu-
tions. In essence,learnersseem to be most often positionedin a responsive
role within the frame of classroomcommunication (Politzer et aI., 1981).
However, what can we glean from the researchon the outcomesfor learning,
even from their overt participation in this responsiverole? Strong (1983,
1984), for example,discoveredthat a high responserate from certainlearners
to teacherquestionsand elicitationscorrelatedwith their higher achievement
in tests largely basedupon the grammar, pronunciationand vocabulaIY of
classroomtalk. Seliger (1977) suggestedthat those learnerswhich he identi-
fied as 'high input generators'performedbetteron an aural comprehension
task than did less [Link] their study of 'the good language
learner', Naiman, Frohlich, Stern and Todesco (1978) found that learners
who raisedtheir handsmore and more often respondedto teacherelicitations
did better on tests than other learners.
Studies by Lightbown (1980, 1991), Snow and Hoefnagel-Hohle(1982),
and Spadaand Lightbown (1993), while confirming the finding in earlier
studies that learnerswere often able to produce accuratelythose linguistic
forms that occurred frequently in classroom communication, particularly
showedhigh retentionratesof [Link] the prevalenceof teacher
questionsin the text of lessons,this may not be [Link],frequency
of occurrence of aspects of language may not be the only explanation.
Learners are obliged to be particularly alert to questionsin case they are
 122 LeamerContributions to LanguageLearning

directed to them individually. These studies also found that not only ques-
tions but other kinds of utterancedirected specifically to individual learners
correlatedwith higher gain scoresin tests of the forms of these utterances
taken by the sameindividuals. It appearsthat, while it may not be surprising
that frequency of certain forms of languagein the text of lessons render
them more accessible,teachers'requestsfor overt responsesfrom learners,
such as questioningor nominatedturns or even personalobservations,may,
in turn, influence the learning outcomesof individuals.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

In general,therefore,overt learnerparticipationin the classroomis most

often orchestratedby the teacherand is occasionallyspontaneouslyoffered
by certain [Link] possible effects upon acquisition remain ambiguous,
however. Day's (1984) replication of Seliger's study of 'high input gener-
ators' (Seliger, 1977) and Ely's (1986) investigation of learner-initiated
utterancesfound no relationship between overt learner participation and
later test [Link] tracing learners''uptake' from lessonsof previously
unknown vocabulary, studiesby Slimani (1989, 1992) and Dobinson (1996)
confirmed Allwright's hypothesisthat, while overt interaction in a class may
provide learningopportunities,different learnersare likely to learn different
things from it (Allwright, 1984). Both researchersdiscoveredthat low particip-
ating and even non-participatingstudentsoften recalled as much or more
from lessonsas did [Link] found that students
recalled more previously unknown linguistic items from lessons if they
were topicalized or introducedinto the text of the lesson by studentsrather
than those topicalized by the teacher. She deducedthat low-participating
learners were directly benefiting from their high-participating colleagues.
This suggeststhat the more proficient studentsin a class, who appearedto
be those more willing to participate,were taking on the burdenof interactive
work but without gaining from it. In other words, proficiency in the lan-
guage may enable greater participation rather than participation leading
to gains in proficiency. Slimani's study also cast some doubt on the claim
that conversational modifications lead to greater comprehensibility and,
thereby, increasedlikelihood of acquisition. In fact, she found no relation-
ship betweenthe numberof conversationaladjustmentsoccurringin the text
of lessonsaroundspecific linguistic items and the 'uptake' of theseitems by
learners.
Dobinson traced the 'uptake' immediately after lessons of particular
vocabularywhich 24 studentsrecalled as previously unknown to them. She
further testedstudentsto find out whetherthe vocabulary,embeddedwithin
a VocabularyLevels Test (Nation, 1982), was retainedby them after two and
six weeks and she found very high retention rates across the sample. (She
softenedthe likelihood of test-effectby testing half her sampleonly after six
weeks.) As in Slimani's study, she discoveredthat different learnersmostly
recalled and retained different new vocabulary from the same lessonswith
152 words recalled as new acrossall 24 [Link] the 61 words recalled
by over half the students,only 17 were identical. This may not be surprising,
of course,becausedifferent learnersentera classwith different gapsin their
 OVf11 tJarticipation and (overt acquisition in the languf1f!;e classroom 123

knowledge. Interestingly, 92 per cent of vocabulary items recalled as new

by three-quartersof the studentswere overtly mentionedduring classroom
interactionby the teacher,the students,or through a tapedaudio input, and
75 per cent of recalled vocabulary had been repeatedmore than once at
some point in the [Link] Dobinson did not trace recalled items in
conversationalmodificationsby the students,she discovereda different pattern
from Slimani regarding the topicalization of items. For instance,of the 17
identical words identified as new by more than half the students,thesewere
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

topicalized a remarkablenumber of 257 times during interaction- an aver-

age of just over 15 topicalizationsfor eachword - of which 163 were teacher
topicalizationsand 94 [Link] addition, Dobinson found
that thesewords had involved an averageof 14.7 turns per word, of which 7.5
were teacherturns and 7.2 were studentturns. It thereforeseemsthat, if the
studentstook about the samenumberof turns as the teacherin mentioning
a particularvocabularyitem that was seento be new by more than half of the
students,it was likely to be recalled and retained by them. However, there
appearedto be an optimum amount of both topicalization and turn-taking
aroundnew words associatedwith recall, where somewords occurringin well
over the average number of topicalizations or turns were recalled by few
students,while other words rarely topicalized or occurring in few turns were
recalled as new by over three-quartersof the sample.
Dobinson also confirmed Slimani's finding that it was not necessaryfor
somelearnersto participateovertly in the interactionat all in order for them
to recall and successfullyretain vocabulary. For instance, the five students
who did not contribute a single turn in their lessons recalled a total of
27 previously unknown words, while the five studentswho contributed the
most turns in their lessons- an averageof 37.2 turns a lesson- only recalled
a total of 30. More startling, perhaps,was the finding that the 12 students
who took least turns in lessons (only 25 overall) recalled exactly the same
number of new words (76) as the twelve studentswho took most turns in
lessons(224 turns overall). In essence,somestudentswho rarely participated
recalled as many new words as those who participateda great deal. In both
studies, therefore, some learners appearedto gain from teacher-student
interaction in which they themselvesnever overtly [Link] therefore
seems, at least from these two studies of vocabulary retention, that overt
participation is not necessaryfor acquisition. It also appearsthat the overt
interactionof a classwill not clearly predict what is uptakenand acquiredby
individual [Link] is not the saliencegiven to an aspectof lan-
guagethrough interactivework that makesa differencefor its 'uptake'but its
relative significancefor those who work on it in covert ways. When Dobinson
asked the students in her study why they thought they had recalled the
particular new vocabularythat they did, they mostly replied that it was those
items which were initially incomprehensibleto them and to which they there-
fore had to devotefocusedindividual work during the class to find out their
meaningsthrough the dictionary, through associationwith familiar words, or
whatever.
 124 Learner Contributions to LanguageLearning

Task interaction
A high proportion of recent classroom-basedresearchhas becomefocused
on learner-learnerinteractionsduring tasks, thereby building upon earlier
quasi-experimentalstudiesof [Link] kinds
of classroomtask that may facilitate interactionamonglearnersconfirms the
significanceof the kind of 'pushedoutput' (Long, 1996: 448) which we find
in learnerresponsesto teacherelicitations.A task that entails an information
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

gap betweeninterlocutors that is unfamiliar to them, that engageslearners

in social exchangesabout sharedgoals and problems,that is undertakenby
learnersof different levels of proficiency, and that demandsa single, closed
solution for successfulcompletion appearsto encouragelearners to have
longer turns, produce more complex language and devote more time to
explicit negotiationfor meaningthan any other kinds of task (Berwick, 1990;
Long, 1989, 1996; Mackey, 1996; Pica, 1992; Plough and Gass, 1993).
However, researchon interaction during task work within the classroom
context revealsa similar ambiguity in terms of its effects upon leaning as we
have seenin teacher-frontedinteraction. For instance,echoing Musumeci's
(1996) discovery that, when incomprehension occurs during teacher-
studentinteraction in content-basedlessons,the problem is often by-passed
rather than leading to further negotiation, Foster (1998) found the similar
avoidancein classroom-locatedtasks. Studentswere simply not predisposed
to negotiatefor meaningwhen they confrontedmomentsof incomprehension.
Some studieshave also revealedthat the quality of learnerlanguageduring
task work may be lesswhat they are actually capableof producing (Higgs and
Clifford, 1982; Seedhouse,1999). Seedhouse's analysisof a large numberof
learner interactionsduring task work in a range of classroomsituations re-
vealedthat studenttalk appearedto be constrainedboth by the natureof the
turn-taking and the linguistic forms that seemedto be required to complete
the task. He found a high proportion of indexical or single-wordinteractions
in which meaningswere not negotiatedovertly becausestudentsrelied more
upon the often unspoken, implicit content and procedure of the task.
Seedhousededucedthat much task work might actually encouragelearners
to communicatein a particularvariety of languagebeneaththeir productive
capability. That is, learner interaction is embeddedwithin the text of the
specific task rather than facilitative of learners'developmentof the language
beyondthe immediatecontext. This is an important observationto which we
will return in the next section of this chapter.
Of course,the characteristicsof the tasks undertakenby studentsin these
studiesmay not have had the designfeaturesof those taskswhich have been
identified as facilitating 'pushed output'. Tasks that encouragesomewhat
open-endedconversationsare more likely to enablelearnersto avoid prob-
lems in understandingrather than modifY their talk (Long, 1996). Skehan
suggeststhat certain tasks may facilitate fluency in learner languageat the
resultant cost to accuracy and complexity (Skehan, 1996). The particular
demandsof a task, as with the demandsof classroomtalk betweenteacher
 Over1 jJartirijHltion and rovert arquisition in the languageclassroom 125

and students,will certainly frame its potential interactivity and, therefore,

what may be learnedfrom it. This recognition that some tasks may encour-
age learnersto focus too much on what may be meaningfulfor them at the
cost of the form of their utterancesis one of the motivationsfor the current
interestin tasks that encouragea more explicit focus on form.
But it is not only the designof tasks that shapehow learnersinteractwhile
undertakingthem. Block (1994) and Kumaravadivelu(1991) discoveredthat
learnersmay interpret the purposesand proceduresof task work differently
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

from what teachershad [Link], Kasanga(1996) and Newton and

Kennedy (1996) found that studentslearneddifferent things from task work
dependingon how they defined the task. Student perceptionsof task re-
quirementsstrongly influenced how they actually worked upon it through
their interaction. Students' definitions of a task are, of course, framed by
their definitions of the contextin which they are working (Breen, 1985). The
classroom,for the learner,is not a neutral environmentmade up of 'inputs'
and 'outputs' that carry only literal meaningand immediatevalue. Indeed,
even the quasi-experimentalsituation in which native speakersare requested
to interact with non-nativespeakersis embeddedwithin its own social prag-
matics, perhapsincluding the requirementwillingly to suspenddisbelief for
the researcher's [Link] context-appropriate pragmaticsare likely to frame
and select the specific meaningsthat attract the negotiativeeffort of the par-
ticular [Link] addition, as Aston pointed out when evaluatinginter-
action data from learnerdyads, a significant amount of negotiation may, in
fact, be a function of the incomprehensibilityof the task or a lack of clarity
to the interlocutors concerningits proceduresrather than expressingtheir
effort to render each others' input more comprehensible(Aston, 1986).
Applying conversational analysis to interaction data, he indicated that
learnerswerejust as likely to modify their talk in order to establishand main-
tain rapport and to signal interpersonalacceptanceof what one anotherwas
saying regardlessof whether they [Link] deducedthat a social
perspectiveon learner conversationaladjustmentsduring interaction would
reveal that they are likely to serve more functions than making a potential
[Link] concludedthat too much negotiationfor meaningmight
actually underminemutual comprehensibility,not leastbecauseof its impact
upon the [Link] Dobinson's
(1996) findings on repetition and turn-taking in relation to 'uptake' sug-
gestedthat there was not a clear relationship and that too much of either
appearedto be dysfunctional.
There is growing evidence that a broader socio-affective perspective
on task work in the classroomsituation can reveal much that is missedin a
focus upon the interactionalone. Coughlanand Duff (1994) discoveredthat
learners'willingness to go beyondmerely getting the task over and donewith
as quickly as possiblewas highly [Link] they interactedwas
influencedby their mutual familiarity, the time they saw as being allocatedto
the task and, crucially, the location of the task itself within other classroom
activities. Tasks, like momentaryinteractionsin lessons,are also embedded
 126 Learner Contributions to LanguageLmrning

within the wider lesson-by-lessonnarrative of classroomwork, and their sig-

nificance for the learnersis never merely immediate but related in various
ways to the larger narrative of thinking and acting in the particularsituation.
This implies that any task, however well designedto 'push output', may be
redefinedand worked upon by studentsin ways that might actually constrain
and hide their spokenlanguagepotential. Platt and Brooks (1994) seem to
confirm this in finding that students'own purposesare critical in influencing
both their experienceof a task and how they perform within it. They found
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

studentsadopting strategiessuch as merely going through the motions of

interaction, using the first languagewhere they could to clarify task pro-
cedures,relying on single-word exchangesand other paralinguistic clues to
solve the problem, and slipping out of the interaction to indulge in private
speechto sort things out individually. Not all of thesestrategiesmay be non-
productive, of course. For instance,Ohta (1999), building on the ideas of
Vygotsky (1987), arguesthat private speechduring classroomwork provides
evidenceof studentsformulating their own responseseven though the teacher
may not directly seekthesethrough elicitation. In task work, such reformula-
tions may be available to partnersin the task ratherlike the interactiveefforts
of the higher participating studentsin the Slimani and Dobinson studies.
However, Platt and Brooks suggestthat studentswithin a particularclassroom
culture may give such high priority to task completionand solving its inher-
ent problem that, in doing so, they avoid or hurry past comprehensibility
troubleswhich require them to modify their speech.
This recent evidencefrom studies of interaction in tasks appearsto sup-
port Liddicoat's observation regarding earlier studies of 'negotiation for
meaning' that there is:

[T]he need for a more sophisticated understandingof what is meant by

interaction and of the relationship betweeninteraction and social context. In
particular, there needsto be a more careful discussionof the identitiesavailable
for participantsin a particular interaction. (Liddicoat, 1997: 316)

He goeson to questionSLA researchers'relianceon the mere quantification

of thosefeaturesof interactionthat are taken as typifYing participants'efforts
to modifY their input as failing to capturewhat actually occurs during inter-
action. Focusingonly upon the presenceor absenceof conversationaladjust-
ments in data might therefore distract us from other aspectsof interaction
that are highly significant to learners and which, in turn, have an impact
upon languagedevelopment- be it positive or [Link] different inter-
pretation attributed by Firth and Wagner (1997: 295) to the same short
stretchesof interaction originally provided by Gass and Varonis (1985) sug-
gest that any meaningsthat are salient for learnersduring interaction (the
'insider' perspective)may be different from those that are salientto different
researchers(,outsiders" perspectives).In fact, as Firth and Wagner suggest,
someovert conversationalmodifications taken as evidencefor negotiationof
meaningmay have less to do with comprehensibilityof input and more to do
with the social pragmaticsof the task situation. Conversely,as we have seen
 Overt jJarticijJation and covert acquisition in the languageclassroom 127

from evidenceof classroominteraction,meaningsthat becomesalientto one

or other participant during task work and that do have a positive impact
upon that person'slanguagedevelopmentmight neverbe overtly negotiated.
That thesepoints may be obvious does not underminethe key issue that, if
interaction during task work is to be taken as a sourceof evidencefor what
may contribute to languageacquisition, the actual significance in context of
both the task and the interaction for the participatinglearnersneedsto be
further explored.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Conclusions from classroom research

What can be concluded from the studies here reviewed on teacher-
orchestratedinteraction and learner-learnerinteraction during classroom-
basedtasks regardingthe benefits to languageacquisition through learners'
overt participation?This is an urgentquestionfor languageteachersbecause,
unlike the priority of the researcherto discover which particular aspectsof
learnertalk might correlatewith later acquisition, the teacherneedsto know
how to create those conditions in the classroomwhere overt learner par-
ticipation will maximize the likelihood of [Link] of
the main conclusionsfrom thesestudiescan be summarizedas follows:

• It remains to be proved that overt participation by learnersin classroom

or task interaction can lead to the acquisition of previously unacquired
aspectsof the languagewhich are generatedby that interaction. To date,
evidence for this is ambiguous, even regarding very specific aspects of
languagesuch as vocabularyor particular forms of languagechosenby a
teacheras a deliberatefocus within interactive work.
• Overt classroomand task interaction is inter-textual and multi-functional
in being madeup of, at least, communicationaboutcontent,languageand
classroomproceduresand spontaneous asidesboth in teacher-orchestrated
talk and in learner-learnertalk. Learners have to navigate through this
inter-textuality identifYing and adopting textual cues which may signal a
transition from one kind of talk to another and, thereby, the potential
meaningsof eachkind of talk. It is probablethat different learners,both as
a group and as individuals, will be more or less skilled in such navigation.
Their task is further complicated by the extendedtext of lessonsbeing
continuouslyambiguousin serving both a social and pedagogicpurpose.
Therefore any moment of interaction may be interpreteddifferently by
different studentsdependingupon the purposethey superimposeupon it.
• Teachercommunicationthat 'pushes'learneroutput by demandingovert
responsesfrom learners,such as questioningor nominatedturns or even
personal observations,may, in turn, influence their individual learning
outcomes.
• How teachersrespondto their participation may superimposea degreeof
risk for many learnersand the possibility of threat to their self-esteemin a
public situation.
 128 L('{[rnn Contributions to J"allff/Wf{f [,('{[rning

• Perhaps more proficient students in a class are those more willing to

participate, thereby taking on the burden of interactive work but not
necessarilygaining from it. Therefore, proficiency in the languagemay
enable greaterparticipation rather than participation leading to gains in
proficiency.
• It is possible that non-participatinglearners,who may be less proficient,
are gaining from others' participation in class.
• The overt interactionof a classwill not clearly predict what is uptakenand
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

acquired by individual learners. It may not be the salience given to an

aspectof languagethrough interactive work - such as topicalisation and
repetition, extended turn-taking, or conversationalmodifications - that
makesa differencefor its 'uptake'but its relative significanceor incompre-
hensibility for those who work on it in covert ways.
• Certain task work in the classroomsituation might encouragelearnersto
communicatein a particular variety of language or forms of language
beneaththeir productive capability. Interaction is embeddedwithin the
discourseof the specific task and may not enablethe developmentof the
languagebeyond the immediateinteractive requirementsof the task.
• Even in a task which exemplifiesdesignfeaturesthat entail negotiationfor
meaninglearnersmay give such high priority to the task's completion, or
solving its inherent problem, or maintaining face that, in doing so, they
avoid or by-passcomprehensibilitytroubles which might require them to
modifY their speech.
• Student definitions of a task are framed within their definitions of the
classroomcontext in which they are working. These definitions in turn
encouragelearners to interact on the basis of what they deduce as a
context-appropriatepragmatics,which are likely to frame and select the
specificmeaningsthat attract the negotiative effort of learners.
• Conversationaladjustmentsduring interaction are likely to serve other
social functions in addition to, or instead of, making clearer a potential
meaning. Too much negotiation for meaning might actually undermine
mutual comprehensibility,not least becauseof its impact upon the socio-
affective relationshipbetweeninterlocutors.
• As with Pica'sdeductionfrom her review of the researchon whetheror not
learnersnotice the gap betweentargetforms and their own interlanguage
production (Pica, 1994: 520, op. cit.), what learnersactually acquire from
overt participation in the classroomcannot be observednor confidently
predictedor inferred from the interaction. EchoingPica's conclusion,this
may not reflect a fault within learners'participation in the classroom,but
rather the current state of researchperspectivesupon it.

Allwright's identification of the 'discoursaldilemmas' in classroomcom-

munication for teacher and learners and recent studies, such as those of
Coughlanand Duff (1994) and Platt and Brooks (1994), suggestthat we need
to look beyond the surface of the teacher-learnerand learner-learnertalk
to at least uncover its diverse meaningsand significance in terms of what
 Overt partiriflation and rovert arquisition in the languageclassroom 129

participantsintend by it and how they interpretit. Both the interactivehypo-

thesisand the outputhypothesistend to encouragethe attribution of a particular
force to conversationalmodifications: that they primarily manifest negoti-
ation for those meaningswhich are seeminglyunclear to the interlocutors.
Further, such meaningsare at risk of being interpretedby the researcherin
a paradoxicallydecontextualizedway in the sensethat their transparencyis
taken to reside in the immediatetopic or content about which teacherand
learnersor learnerand learnerare assumedto be [Link] analysisonly
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

of the surface text of exchangesin classroom or task work can result in

decontextualizationin 1:;'10 ways. First, the interactions are often extracted
from the more extendedtext of a lessonor task work and, indeed,from the
extendedtext which teacherand studentshave createdover the series of
lessonsin their work together.A more extensiveanalysisof even the text of
lessonsor of dyads working togetheron a series of tasks over time is more
likely to reveal the specific functions of a momentary interaction that is
embeddedwithin them. And, crucially, such extendedtexts are more likely
to reveal the layeredand changingnatureof the functions of talk as the culture
of the particular classroom or the relationship between dyads of learners
[Link],and more important, the surfacetexts providedas evidence
to supportthe two hypothesesare most often analysedin literal terms, devoid
of even their potentialsocial and affective significanceor value for thosewho
actually generatedthem. Such a partial view of the meaningpotential within
teacher-learnerand learner-learnerinteractionsin context seriouslydilutes
what is claimedto be a crucial variable in the researchand, therefore,weakens
its explanatorypower. Classroomand task interaction has meaningpotential
that is layered in being both superficially immediate and traceable to an
explicit topic or contentyet also always framed intrapersonallywithin both the
consciousand unconsciouslearning agendaof the individual learnersand
framed interpersonally within the discourse of the [Link]
former is, of course, less accessibleto the [Link] latter, however,
may be more accessibleand, therefore,a mediumthroughwhich we may better
understandboth the processand outcomesof learnerparticipation.

BEYOND INTERACTION TO DISCOL'RSE

If we seek to trace the possible impact upon acqulSltlOn of the linguistic

and communicativeenvironmentof a classroomand, more particularly, the
learners' overt participation in it, we have to move beyond perceiving it as
seemingly 'non-negotiable'(Long, 1996: 453), wherein rarity in learnerout-
put seems to be the norm (Krashen, 1998; Swain, 1995). We also have to
explain such things and, more significantly, how it is that some learnersare
neverthelesssuccessfulacquirers and producersof language as a result of
having accessto it primarily through a [Link] argue that
they had the good fortune to enter a class that was particularly input-rich.
Proponentsof Universal Grammarmight well dismiss classroomsas merely
 130 Learner Contributions to LanguageLearning

sources of degenerateperformance data wherein the learners' inherent

acquisition device doesvirtually all of the work in any [Link] we try to trace
aspectsof the observablesurfacetalk of the classroomor a task in the subse-
quent output of learnerswith a view to proposinga causalrelationship, this
may be seen as an impoverishedperspectiveon the learning process that
reduceslanguagedevelopmentto an input stimulus and output or uptake
[Link] was preciselythis view oflearningthat Chomsky(1959)
dismissedas an inadequateaccountof languageacquisition. The ambiguity
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

of findings from current classroom-basedresearchmight encourageus to

deduce that, if a learner develops aspectsof languageas a result of overt
participation in classroominteraction, this developmentis little more than
chance or mere [Link] still need to try to explain why learners
learn different things from the interactionand why somelearnerslearn from
classroominteraction while some do not. And the answersare not likely to
be available in the observabletext alone.

The research perspective

I suggestedearlier that both the interactionand output hypothesesoverlook
the socio-affective significance of the data on which they rely and of the
contexts from which they obtain such data. I have argued elsewherethat
research on language acquisition in the classroom is constrained by an
asocial perspectiveon the interaction that occurs within it (Breen, 1985,
1996). Recently,Firth andWagner (1997) urgeda reconceptualizationofSLA
researchby locating the study of acquisition within discourseas a broader
frame for the analysisof learnerinteraction,especiallyin settingsother than
experimentalsettings, that would more accurately uncover the constraints
upon, and actual achievementsof, communication for learning. Such a
reconceptualization,they argued, would enable researchersto 'understand
and explicate how languageis used as it is being acquired through interaction'
(Firth and Wagner, 1997: 296, original emphasis). In reply to Firth and
Wagner, Long expressedscepticism 'as to whether greaterinsights into SL
use will necessarilyhave much to say about SL acquisition' (Long, 1997: 322,
original emphasis).Gass (1998) replied to Firth and Wagner in essentially
the same terms:
[T Jhe emphasisin input and interaction studies is on the languageused and
not on the act of communication.... The researchquestioncentral to SLA that
I and others ask is: How do people learn a L2? - The questionis not: How do
people usea L2, unless the latter questionis a meansof getting at the former.
(Gass, 1998: 84 and 85, original emphasis)

Gass'sreferenceto 'use'as the window on to 'acquisition'is preciselythe matter

at issue. Long's assertionthat SLA researcherswho have studiedinteraction
have 'often explicitly focusedon at leastsomedimensions(of context) in their
work' (1997: 318) also begs the questionsas to which dimensionsof context
and how thesedimensionshave beenanalysedand [Link]
 Overt jJartiripation and covert arquisition in the languageclassroom 131

interchangeswithin SIA researchhave beenlittle more than the rehearsalof

rathermisleadingdichotomiesbetweenlanguage'use'versus'acquisition'and
'language'versus 'communication'that merely constrainthe researchenter-
prise. Gass appearsto reflect a commonly held view in much SIA research
that 'language'is synonymouswith 'grammar' and acquisition is, therefore,
acquisition of the rules of grammar (1998: 83-4) and not, seemingly, the
developmentof communicativecompetencein a new language(Canaleand
Swain, 1980). We shall return to this issue later. But the blunt distinction
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

between 'use' and 'acquisition' merely blinds us to much finer distinctions

than exist betweenusing languagein everydaycommunicationin a range of
contexts and using languagein order to acquire it or refine one's control
over it in, for example,the context of a languageclass or learning task.
If we learn a languagein the companyof others in a classroom,then we
cannot avoid participating, even silently, in social activity that is not just a
superficial frame for our work on languagedata. Social relationshipsin the
classroomorchestratewhat is made available for learning, how learning is
done and what we achieve. These relationshipsand the purposeful social
action of teachingand learning are realized through the jointly constructed
discourse of lessons. The data in terms of both the form and meaning
of language made available to learners are socially filtered through this
discourseand, thereby, renderedsubtly distinctive from what researchhas
described as 'naturally occurring' language data in a different context.
Furthermore,becausethe forms and meaningsmade available to learnersin
a classroomare a collective productwith which teacherand learnersinteract
actively as both creatorsand interpreters,and becausewhat learnersactually
learn from the classroomis discursively constructed,any explanationof how
languageis acquired in a classroommust locate the processwithin the dis-
course of that class. Outcomesfrom task work, if undertakenin a classroom
context, also have to be explainedwith referenceto the discursive context
which generatedthem. In essence,language 'use' in a classroomis woven
within the discourseof that [Link] the perspectivesof teacherand
learners,the opportunitiesfor, and processesof, its 'acquisition' are simul-
taneouslywoven within the [Link] replying to Firth and Wagner's(1997)
criticism of SIA researchin its seemingconstructionof the learneror non-
native speakeras deficient, both Gass(1998) and Long (1997) justifiably point
out that the stanceof a learnerin relation to languageuse is, by definition,
different from that of a proficient user of the [Link], within the
discourseof a classroom,the learners'stancerenders'use' and 'acquisition'
as not clearly separable;there is a constant [Link] of the
defining featuresof a classroomcontextis that 'use' and 'acquisition' co-occur
within discoursein a mutually informing or dialectical process.
How, therefore, might we characterizeclassroomdiscoursein ways that
may better reveal this dialectic and its socio-affectivesignificance for those
participating in it? Fairclough (1989, 1992) has provided a particular frame-
work for the analysis of discoursewhich is made up of three related levels
or [Link] him, any instance of discourse can be seen as being
 132 LeamerContributions to LanguageLearning

simultaneouslya piece of text, an instance of discursive practice and an

instanceor realization of social practice(s).Applying this framework to the
language classroom, the text of lessons is all the observablelanguage or
communicativedata, be they spoken,written or in other visual media from
pictures and diagramsto facial [Link] is this dimensionof discourse
upon which both the interaction and output hypothesesand much class-
room researchhave tendedto focus. Discursivepracticesare how such text is
producedand interpretedand how the different types of text are combined
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

or entwined in a particular context. Teachersand learnersin the classroom

produce, interpret and combine texts just as teaching materials, in what-
ever medium, are also producedand combined by people not presentin
the classroombut for teacherand learnersto incorporateand interpret in
ways that serve their [Link], social practices refer to the
organizational and institutional circumstancesthat generate and delimit
both the specific text and discursive practices of lessons. Social practices
include not only those broadercultural and situational factors which locate
classroomsas having a particularfunction and identity, but also those taken-
for-granted but significant practicessuch as how the furniture is organized,
or how long a lesson should last, or whether learners will be tested on
the completion of their studies. More crucially, perhaps,both teacherand
learners are actually positioned and constructedas teachers and as learners
by the discursive and social practices of the classroom group. The daily
routines and procedureswhich teachers and learnersjointly establish in
order to work together in a relatively harmoniousway are also significant
social practices constructedthrough the discourse of lessons that further
realize the underlyingculture of the languageclass (Breen, 1985). This three-
dimensional nature of classroom discourse, therefore, is made up of the
social practices of the classroomgroup that shape the discursive practices
of teacherand learnersand these discursive practicesgeneratethe text of
classroominteraction. However, the processis also reflexive in the sensethat
the text of lessonsmay, as it unfolds, expressor limit alternative discursive
practices and these, in turn, may facilitate or constrain alternative social
[Link] meaningduring interactionand task work is there-
fore the surfacetext embeddedwithin, and generatedby, the discursiveand
social practicesof any classroom.
To date there are no studies of the possible relationshipsbetween lan-
guage classroomdiscoursedefined in this way and languageacquisition. In
consideringhow SLA researchappeal-sto constructthe learners,I suggested
in an earlier paperthat an importantlearnercontribution that remainsto be
investigatedis that of the learneras a discursivepractitionerwithin the class-
room (Breen, 1996). The main conclusionsfrom researchon learners'overt
participationin the classroomoffered in the previoussection of this chapter
suggesta more detailed elaboration of the likely discursive contributions of
learners. From the researchwe may deduce that learners appear obliged
to adopt, to varying degreesand at various times, at least the following dis-
cursive practicesduring classroomwork:
 OVPTt jJOrtirljJalion and (oVPTt ([(qulsition in til£' languageclassroom 133

• Adopt a responsiverole to the teacher'smanagementof the text of the

lesson, being particularly alert to nominated turns, questionsand other
proceduralrequirementsseeminglyaddressedto you and be ready to act
appropriately.
• Look out for those cues in the text that reveal its different and changing
purposesso that you can appropriatelyinterpret the function or functions
of a particular moment so that, if you are called upon to participate or
you choose to participate, your contribution will be appropriate and
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

acceptable.
• With the teacherand other learnersobserveroutinesand procedureswhich
have beengradually establishedin the class so that lessonsunfold as man-
ageablesocial eventsas well as being useful to your own learning agenda.
• Manageself-presentationby trying to contributeovertly only at times when
the risk to your image, as you see it in the eyes of the teacheror fellow
students,seemsto you to be low.
• If you understandwhat is being asked of the class and you are confident
you know how to respond,volunteerthe information [Link] you
don't understand,avoid saying anything and, if you wish to avoid being
nominated,perhapsindicate that you understand.
• If the teacheraskssomethingof you directly which you understand,respond
[Link] you don't understand,wait in silence for a moment until
someoneelse is nominatedor indicate in some way that you don't know
the answeror, if you are more confident, say that you don't understand.
• Look out for things in the interaction that are familiar to you and use
theseas cuesto interpretwhat is [Link] somethingis incom-
prehensiblethat seemsto you important to know, do your own work on
this either immediatelyor when you have the chance.
• Listen particularly to what fellow learners say in the class in case their
communicationwith the teachermay make some things clearerthat serve
your own purposesand learning agenda.
• Dependingon your estimateof the difficulty of a task, your fellow students'
ability in the language and their self-confidencein the situation, adapt
your own overt contributionsaccordingly. If you don't understandwhat a
fellow studentis saying during task work, either indicate that you don't, if
you can, or indicate that the studentshould continueso that things might
becomeclearer. If you find the task particularly difficult, rely as much as
you can on what your [Link] both of you seemto be finding it
difficult, seek ways around it that make it easier to complete or agree to
abandonit.

Learners' capacity to managetheir intrapersonaland interpersonalactivity

within the context of a languageclass may therefore be summarizedas the
successfulnavigation of its discoursethrough discursive practices that may
maximize personalbenefit and minimize personalcost. Researchin language
classrooms to date suggests that learners overtly participate in language
lessonsthrough pragmaticrelianceon such [Link] is also on the basisof
 134 Lmrner Contributions to LanguageLmrning

such practicesthat learnersjointly constructlessonswith a [Link],

being pragmatically appropriate in the language class mayor may not
facilitate language acquisition. If we accept Hatch's claim that language
learning evolves out of learning how to participatein conversations(Hatch,
1978: 404, op. cit.) and Donato'sproposalthat languagedevelopmentarises
from the co-constructionof knowledgein joint activity (Donato, 1994: 39), a
crucial issuethat warrantsinvestigationis: In what ways might learners'seemingly
appropriate navigation of classroomdiscourseand the tasks within it relate to success
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

in languagedevelopment?

The pedagogicperspective
Clearly, different learnersmay be more or less successfulat such navigation
not least because,from their personalperspectives,the text and discursive
practices of the discourse are potentially dynamic. However, both teacher
and studentsas a group are likely to work at making the discourse more
predictableand, therefore, [Link], the underlying social prac-
tice of gradualandjoint establishmentof routines,proceduresand taken-for-
grantedvalues and meaningsthat will characterizethe emergingculture of
the particularclassroomgroup. As a contributoryfactor, learnersare likely to
have prior experiencein applying many of the discursive practicesI have so
far tried to articulate. If they are older than the early gradesof elementary
school, they will have had a good deal of practice in navigating classroom
discoursebefore enteringthe languageclass. It is likely that the requirement
to exercisesuch practicesdefinesfor them what a classroomis. Learnerswill
superimposeupon any language class the expectation of exercising such
practices regardlessof what they may be encouragedto do that might be
different. If learning a languageis embeddedin the discourse of the lan-
guage class, a key pedagogicquestion is whether or not this discourse en-
ables learnersto participatein other contextswherein the discoursemay be
different. The pedagogic challenge may be to build upon and extend in
particular ways the discursive practicesthat learnersassumethey must exer-
cise in many classroomsso that the distinctions betweenclassroomdiscourse
and other realmsof [Link] appearsto be the signific-
ant matter of enabling opportunitiesfor discursive practicesthat transform
classroomdiscourseinto a mml/s of {lrrpss ratherthan somethingthat is folded
in upon itself (Breen, 1998; Duff, 1996; van Lier, 1996).
It is on the issue of a specific discourseembeddedin the classroomcon-
text that a researchagendaand a pedagogicagendamay be seento overlap.
The discursive practicesI have identified Illay appear,at first sight, to place
limits upon learners' overt participation which is proposedas beneficial for
language acquisition by both the interaction and output [Link]
example, building upon Long's identification of the characteristicsof tasks
that "push output' (Long, 1996: 448), we could envisage classroom inter-
action as a kind of macro-taskwithin which learners'work on specific tasks
may occur. Seeing classroomcommunicationin this way, we can ask whirh
 OVe1t participation and (oval acquisition ill the lal/[!;lla[!;e classroom 135

of learners' discursive practicesare likely to constrain or create the kind of

interaction in which they may:

• Identify sharedgoals in their learning and within classroomwork;

• Undertakeunfamiliar ways of working and deal with unfamiliar contentas
part of classroomwork;
• Work together in mixed proficiency dyads wherein the more proficient
interlocutor and the less proficient interlocutor have equal opportunity to
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

take on the sendingand the receiving roles;

• Undertake the kind of cooperation that is required when they have to
sharedifferent information in order to completeclassroomwork;
• Seek and achieve specific predeterminedor pre-plannedpurposesand
solutions within tasks and other activities in the classroom;
• Communicatein the classroomin ways in which topics and sub-topicsare
recycled in seekingto solve particular problemsor issues.

If these conditions have been identified as facilitative of negotiation for

meaning in tasks, their implementation in the macro-task of classroom
interactionis an [Link] the relatedresearchissueis:
what interpersonal meanin[!;s and signifirance actually generateand sustain the
interactionfor the participantsalthoughthesemay not be observabledirectly
in its surface text? This question leads to more specific researchquestions
such as:

• How is a sharedgoal identified and to what extent may it be shared?

• Do learnersrender seeminglyunfamiliar content and tasks more familiar
in how they define and work on them?
• How do learnersof different proficiency levels actually define and exercise
their role in a dyadic interaction?
• How do learners compensatefor information that is lacking or is not
sharedduring classroominteraction or within a task?
• Is what appearsto be a single purpose or solution the same purpose or
solution that an individual learner seeks or derives from a task within
classroomwork?
• v\11at do learnersdefine as the contextually appropriateextent of negoti-
ation on a particular topic or problem?And so on.

In essence,we needto be alert to the fact that the conditions that we have so
far identified as enabling negotiationfor meaningand the evidencewe cite
for this are very much a particular interpretationof both the conditionsand
the evidence. Learnersmayor may not attach similar significance to them
and it is likely to be the conditions to which they attach significancefor their
own learningagendasthat have an impact upon their languagedevelopment.
In general, therefore,how learnersexercisetheir discursive practicesin a
learning context will relate to the value they attribute to some conditions
rather than othersand this may changeover time dependingupon the socio-
affective and psycholinguisticcharacteristicsof the learners,such as relative
 136 Lmrner Contributiolls to LanguageI~earning

proficiency, confidence,self-image,motivation, and so on. The text of negoti-

ation for meaningin task work, for example, can therefore be seen as the
surface realization of a complex of individual learner contributions within
joint activity. Crucially, what mediatesbetweenthe surface text of interaction
and such deepercontributionsis how learnersact discursivelyin contextand
why they act in the ways they do. Hence the need to investigatethe text of
interaction in the context of the discourseof both the classroomand the task
work within it. The investigationof discursivepracticesin the languageclass-
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

room therefore allows us greater access to the learning process as social

action and affective engagementin an ongoing relation to psycholinguistic
development.

BEYOND OVERT PARTICIPATION AND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

So far this chapterhas focused upon the learners'overt participation in the

classroom,the argumentsand evidence relating to its contribution to lan-
guage acquisition, and the limits of a researchfocus upon only the text of
teacher-learneror learner-learnerinteraction. I have proposedthat, if we
perceive negotiationfor meaningas the catalyst for languagedevelopment,
we needto explore deeperthan the surfaceinterpretationsof an interaction
by investigating the discursive practicesof learners that both generateand
sustainthe interactionand imbue it with situatedsignificanceand meaning.
I have also suggestedthat an explanation of how languageis learned in a
classroomthat rests upon meaningful interaction has to take accountof the
socio-affective dimensionsof the processin relation to the psycholinguistic
and that a focus upon learnerdiscursivepracticeswithin classroomdiscourse
providesa meansfor doing so. In the light of this foregoing discussion,I wish
to concludeby offering some key implications for future researchon learner
participation in the classroomin relation to languageacquisition.

Redefining the variable of learner participation

One conclusionfrom reflecting on the researchon learner participation is
that a significant proportion of it is not likely to be overt much of the time.
Overt participation may appear relatively scarce or constrainedin many
teacher-frontedclassroomsand it may need certain kinds of interaction to
'push' it to the surface,but most learnersin thesecircumstancesare continu-
ally participating. Consciouslyand unconsciouslythey are engagingcertain
discursive practicesframed within and, in turn, shaping the social practices
they regardas appropriateto the [Link] even broaderresearchagenda
would be to analyse language classroom discourse to trace further those
socio-political influencesupon the discoursethat may facilitate or constrain
certainkinds of teacherand learnerparticipation (Chouliarakiand Fairclough,
1999; seealso Norton, Chapter8 in the presentvolume). Overt participation
may sometimesprovide us \\ith clues as to the discursive significance and
 Overt particijJation and covert acquisition in Ihe langttage classroom 137

meaning- in addition to the immediatesurface meanings- which learners

give to, and derive from, classroomand task [Link] may also be
able to trace particular discursive practicesthrough an examinationof how
learnersparticipate,both explicitly in what they do or say and implicitly in
their seeminginaction or silence. And we may trawl through thesekinds of
data in order to seek relationshipsbetween them and particular language
learning [Link], at least three conditionswould be required of
the researchif we seekvalid evidencefor relationshipsbetweenparticipation
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

- as more broadly defined- and [Link], interactionfrom the same

classroom must be studied over time. Subtle shifts in interaction and its
underlying meaningsare not revealedby extractedsamplesof talk in lessons
or tasks that manifest instancesof [Link] the sur-
face text of classroomtalk has a dynamic that entails longitudinal study for
this to be [Link] the day a class meetsfor the first time through to
when a degreeof equilibrium is reachedin routines and procedures,there
are likely to be critical momentsat which underlying social and discursive
practices become more explicit. Access to the layers of meaning in inter-
action becomespossiblethrough close study of the evolution of the culture of
the classbecauseteacher-learner and learner-learnerinteractionare framed
within this evolution.
Secondly,becausethe actual significanceand meaningof momentsof the
text may not be transparentmuch of the time, the researchermust get as
close as possibleto the participatinglearner'sinterpretationof that text. Any
text carries potential meaningsarising out of its discursive significance in
context, and the researcher'simposition of a particular meaningor function
of an utteranceis always at risk of being either partial or flawed. The actual
meaningaboutwhich negotiationappearsto occur or the actual meaningor
significancewhich learnersattribute to the different momentsof interaction
reside with the learnersand not in the text, except in a superficial sense.
What will be salient to a learner during interaction - what will be 'noticed'
- may be unpredictablefrom moment to moment. However, adopting a
discoursalperspectiveon the classroomenablesus to study the interactionas
arising out of particularsocial positions,actionsand perspectivesthat learners
- and teachers- attribute specifically to classroomwork. We are necessarily
involved in an investigation of a complex of variables, but the study of the
meaningand significancegiven to, and derivedfrom, classroominteractionby
its participantsdoesnot entail a relativist stanceon the part of the researcher.
The searchis for particular discursivepractices,and the texts that both realize
and generatethem, that may facilitate or inhibit languagedevelopment.
A third condition for obtaining valid evidence on the relationship be-
tween participationand acquisition is that the researchmust break out from
the current risk of circularity. This risk residesin the prediction that certain
conversationaladjustmentsin interaction will lead to acquisition because
evidence of acquisition from some previous study suggestedthat the same
conversational adjustments were responsible. We need to discover what
learnersactually acquirefrom having participatedin [Link] some
 138 LeamerContributions fo I,anguageLearning

evidence to suggestthat learnersdo retain different things from even the

samesharedinteraction. Therefore,it may be more beneficial to start from
evidenceof whateverlearnersacquirefrom interactionand, from these,trace
back to the discursive features of the interaction to uncover their possible
influence upon what has [Link] may appearto save time focusing
upon learners'interactive work that stimulatesthe use of a particular aspect
of languageto discoverwhetheror not it is producedin a post-testor within
spontaneoustalk at somelater date. However, it is almosta truism to suggest
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

that other interveningcircumstancesmay havejust as likely enabledthe later

production of the particular aspect of language as did the original inter-
action. More important,a focus on a selectedaspectof languagethat occursin
the text of lessonsmay distract the researcherfrom unexpected,diverse and
even more resilient learning [Link] uncoveringof outcomesleadsus
to reconsiderhow a good proportionof SLA researchdefineswhat is acquired.

Redefining outcomes
The debateaboutpossibledistinctionsbetweenacquisitionand learningand
the relationshipbetweenthem has occupieda numberof SLA researchersin
past years and this is not the place to rehearsethe arguments(for a recent
discussion,see Zobl, 1995). However, the issue has becomemuddiedof late
with the appearanceof the term 'uptake' in a number of researchstudies
(Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Slimani, 1989 inter alia). The term is generally
applied to aspectsof languagewhich learnersappearto have retainedfrom
explicit data, usually during interaction, and which can be traced through
immediate post-testsor recall at some later time. However, its operational
definition across studies is ambiguous and its relationship to the more
generic concept of acquisition remains unclear. For instance, immediate
uptake from interaction during a lesson or task is not reliable evidence of
acquisition. We cannot be sure if such uptake is either evidence of some-
thing previously acquired, merely imitated rather than acquired, or actually
acquired. The appearanceof the notion of uptake may be symptomaticof
some uncertaintyin SLA researchabout what constitutesadequateevidence
for genuinelonger-termacquisitionfrom classroomor task [Link]
is little doubt that such evidence remains sparse and the intervention of
variables other than the interaction itself complicatesthe issue. A common
rationale offered in those instanceswhere learners apparentlyfail later to
produce forms of language, despite previous interactive work that either
implicitly or explicitly focusesupon them, is the appealto learnerreadiness,
or failures on the part of the learnersto 'notice', or the learnability of the
particularforms in relation to the currentstateof the learners'interlanguage.
Of course,such explanationsmay be correct in certain [Link] we
believe that interaction does make a difference, however, a clear distinction
needsto be made betweeninteraction that merely enableslearnersto pro-
ducewhat they have alreadyacquiredor merely imitated and interactionthat
genuinely 'pushes'their [Link], of course, entails
 Overt partiripation {[nd rovnt ([rquisition ill the l([II{(lIage classroom 139

pre-testing and longitudinal investigation to avoid the risk of assuming a

prior lack on the part of a learner for which interaction may compensate.
Nevertheless,a question arises here with regard to pre- and post-testing.
Should testing compriseas closely as possiblethe kinds of interactionwhich
we identifY as revealing negotiation for meaning? (This particular issue is
discussedfrom a testingperspectiveby McNamara(1997) ). If this is not seen
to be necessary,then we are displacing the influence of context upon lan-
guage production and, thereby, assumingthat the capacity for meaningful
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

and appropriateinteractionis not a componentof the languagebeinglearned.

A major implication, therefore, of adopting a discoursal perspectiveon
the relationship betweenlearner participation and languageacquisition re-
lates to how we may define the dependentvariable in the whole process;the
languagethat the [Link] seeminglypreservingits own territory,
SLA researchin the main has pursuedits endeavoursas if over twenty years
of sociolinguistic, pragmatic and discoursal perspectiveson the nature of
languagehad hardly existed. There are exceptions,of course,as in the stud-
ies of secondlanguagepragmaticsand sociolinguistic influences upon sec-
ond languageuse as exemplifiedin Beebeand Takahashi(1989), Blum-Kulka,
House and Kasper (1989), Kasper (1996a), Kasper and Kellerman (1997),
Tollefson (1995), Wolfson (1989) and Wolfson and Judd (1983). We saw
earlier how Gassassertedthat SIA researchwas primarily concernedwith the
acquisition of language- as contrastedwith 'communication'- and that, for
her at least, 'language'is synonymouswith the rules of [Link] has
similarly argued that, in contrast to the domain of grammar, 'any attempt
to constructa theory of languageacquisition in the domain of pragmaticsor
communicationis going to be handicappedby the lack of a well-articulated
formal characterizationof the domain' (Gregg, 1989: 24). However, it is
questionablewhether all grammarianswould agreewith his premise. Some
sociolinguists and discolll'se analysts would certainly challenge his conchl-
sion. We cannot deny the complexity of the task of investigating language
acquisition that defines languageas characteristicallyframed within its social
use and the learning of it as being thereforedependent,as Donato expresses
it, uponjoint activity that co-constructs'linguistic changeamongand within
individuals' (Donato, 1994: 39). The interactionand output hypotheseshinge
upon evidence groundedin contexts of use yet they appearnot to follow
through the implications of doing so. The kind of discoursal view of lan-
guage acquisition explored in this chapter locates languageas the text of
social activity that is imbued with potential meaningsand, thereby, potential
learningopportunitiesconstantlygeneratedby the discursiveand social prac-
tices of the creatorsof that text. Languagedevelopmentthrough interaction
is inseparablefrom thesepracticesenactedin particularcontexts.A discoursal
perspective on language developmentidentifies such developmentas the
capacity to communicatein particular contexts wherein the rules of gram-
mar are a contributory part of such a capacity. Grammatical knowledge is
located as a meansfor the production and interpretation of text through
discursive practicesin social [Link] contributing to a more precise
 140 Lmmer Contlibutions to LanguageLearning

characterizationof the kind of classroomdiscoursethat can be directly bene-

ficial to acquisition, the kind of discoursalperspectiveon languagedevelop-
ment that is offered heremay also extendour understandingof the acquisition
processitself and what we define as the outcomesof the process.
If the proposalsoffered here appearto render the study of the relation-
ship betweenlearner participation in interaction and languageacquisition
more complex than the interaction and output hypothesesallow, then, to
adaptPica's conclusionon studies of negotiation (Pica, 1994: 520, op. cit.),
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

the limitations may residemore in the hypothesesand the researchprocesses

upon which they currently rely rather than in the actual nature of interac-
tion. The study of discoursehas progressedmarkedlysince Hatch recognized
the learning of how to undertakeconversationsas the crucible for acquisi-
tion. It is time, perhaps,to reconsiderwhat this actually implies if we seekto
relate contextand acquisitionand, thereby,realign learners'social and affect-
ive contributionsto languagedevelopmentin mutual relationshipwith their
psycholinguisticcontribution.
 Chapter 7

(S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity

theory: understanding second
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

language learners as people

JamesP. Lantolf, The PennsylvaniaState
University and Aneta Pavlenko, Temple University

INTRODUCTION

In her interestingand reasonedresponseto the controversialpaperby Firth

and Wagner (1997), Kasper (1997) discussesone of the core assumptionsof
Anglo-Saxonscientific tradition: that the object of study of any (social) scient-
ific enterpriseis constructedby distilling out featuresconsideredto be irrel-
evant to the specific goal of the given scientific [Link] the case of
secondlanguageacquisition (SLA), accordingto Kasper,researchersneedto
peel away the multiple and complex layers that constitutereal individuals in
order to focus attention on one or two featuresof interestto us - specifically
people'sidentities of a 'learner' and/or a 'non-native speaker'of a given
[Link] admits that this is a 'highly reductionist', though appar-
ently necessary,move, for without it we would not be able to determine
clearly 'the aspectthat is common to the studiedagents,and relevantin the
global researchcontext (or discourseuniverse) of L2 study generallyand L2
acquisition (SLA) specifically' (Kasper, 1997: 309).
We do not want to dispute the legitimacy of the scientific methodand its
extensionsinto the social sciences;nor do we wish to argue that progresshas
not been made in explaining aspectsof SLA through the implementation
of the scientific methodin our field. However, we believe there is also much
to be gained by considering the relevance of an alternative approach to
research- an approachsometimesreferredto as the hermeneutictradition, or
romantic science(seeLuria, 1979). The foundationfor this tradition was laid
in the writings of the eighteenth-centuryItalian scholar, GiambatistaVi co,
especiallyin his monumentalwork Scifllza Nuova, which appearedin English
for the first time in 1948. In his New Science,Vico challengedthe validity of
the Cartesianapproachto scientific researchin general,but most specifically
with regard to the study of human culture, society, history and mind. This is
not the place to go into the details of Vico's argumentsagainst Cartesian
science."Ve will simply borrow the words of Isaiah Berlin, who in his superb

141
 142 Lmmer Contlibutions to LanguageLearning

presentationof Vico's complex, and at times confusing, statementson the

humansciences,remarksthat for Vico the study of the non-physicalfeatures
of human beings clearly required moving beyond the search'for and from
generalizationsand idealizedmodelsderivedfrom the uniformities of the co-
presencesand successionsof phenomena'and to a concernover describing
'human experience as concretely as possible, and therefore to emphas-
ize variety, differences,change,motives and goals, individuality rather than
uniformity or indifference to time or unaltering repetitive patterns' (Berlin,
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

1976: 89),
Vico has had a rather remarkabledegreeof direct and indirect influence
on such important thinkers as Dilthey, Herder, von Humboldt, Hegel and
Marx (see Berlin, 1976; Taylor, 1985), and probably through Hegel and
Marx on the greatRussianpsycholinguist,L,S, Vygotsky (1987), whose theory
we adopt to carry out our project. During an approximatelyten-yearperiod
following the RussianRevolution,Vygotsky addressedhimself to the problem
of constructinga unified psychology. In his view, the discipline had become
fractured as a consequenceof the jockying for dominancethat aroseamong
the various schools in their quest to claim the mantle as the only legitim-
ate 'scientific' approach to the study of psychological processes(Vygotsky,
1997). Briefly, Vygotsky perceivedthat the various currentswithin psychology
could be divided according to two postulates:sUlface psychology and dejJth
psychology. The fOrIner was representedby Gestalt theories, and other
phenomenologicallybasedtheories,such as those of V\'ilhelm ''''undt, which
assumedthat 'mental phenomenaare immediately given to the subject \\"ho
experiencesthem' (Yaroshevskyand Gnrgenidze,1997: 351). The latter, rep-
resentedprimarily by Freudian psYchoanalysis,attemptedto explain mental
behaviour on the basis of unconsciousforces that were vaguely rooted in
biological drives. Vygotsh rejectedsurfacepsychologybecauseit simply could
not 'discover the regularities behind the surface of the phenomenathat
determinethem' (Yaroshevshand Gurgenidze,1997: :~52). Indeed, if ever'Y-
thing were on the surface, science"'ould be a tautological exercise,at best.
V\Thile Vygotsky acknmdedged,in agreementwith depth psychology, that
biological factors clearly played an important function in ps\'Cholob'Tactivity,
they were insufficient to accountfor uniquely human "'a\,s of thinking.
Vygotsky argued that to understandthe specifically human mind it was
essential to bring meaning, sense,emotion, t'xprt'ssi\"clless and with these,
culture and history, which '\Yundt had exiled to disciplines such as anthro-
polog) and history, back into the picture in a central way (see Cole, 1996;
Danziger, 1990, 1997). He referred to this nt'w unified approach as heip,ht
jJs)'cholo[!,y - a psychologywhich not anI\" took accountof our natural biological
cndowments,b\lt at the samc timc recognizedthe importanceof 'the supra-
individual world of developinghumanculture' (Yaroshe\"shand Gurgenidze,
1997: 3S~~). Some modern scholars,such as Wertsch (1985), have criticizcd
Vygotsky for failing to explort' fully the role of hiological factors in human
psychological processes.V\'hile "'c do not wish to quarrt'l with v\'ertsch on
this point, we would like to point out that in a previously unpublishedpaper
 (S)I'Colld (1~)(fllgll(fgP
(A)rlillity lIil'ul), 143

by Vygotsky, which appearsas a separatechapter entitled 'The historical

meaning of the crisis in psychology: a methodological investigation', in
Vygotsky (1997), he strongly underscoresthe importanceof biology in the
formation of human [Link],a cornerstoneof sociocul-
tural theory is that it is our cultural history and not our biology that endows
us with uniquely human ways of thinking. Eventually, Vygotsky, along with
his colleagues,A.N. Leont'evand A.R. Luria, succeededin laying the founda-
tion for what was to become the sociocultural theory of mind -a theory
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

of real individuals rather than idealized abstractionsthat approachesits

objects of study much more from the hermeneutic(interpretative) and his-
torical standpointthan it does from the traditional experimentalapproach
to research.
Perhapsone of the most lucid characterizationsof romantic sciencewas
offered by A.R. Luria in his intellectual biographywritten near the end of his
life:

Romantics in science want neither to split living reality into its elementary
componentsnor to represcntthe wealth of life's concrete events in abstract
models that lose the properties of the phenomenathcmselves. It is of the
utmost importance to romall tics to preserve the wcalth of living reality, and
they aspire to a scicnce that retains this richness. (Luria, 1\)79: 17,1)

The task we setfor ourselveshereis to explore the implications ofVygotsky's

theory in its contemporaryformulation, activity theory, for understanding
the nature of the relationshipsbetweenreal individuals and languagesother
than their first. It is, to cite Berlin again, abolit looking for what is unique
and different rather than distilling 'the common kernel of dissimilar cases'
(1976: 89).
A theory which considershumansfrom a more holistic, concreteand less
idealized perspectivecan gcncratesignificant insights, as is becomingappar-
ellt from researchin discllrsive psychology,generaleducationand even cer-
tain areasof cognitive [Link],we believe that spacemust be
openedup within our field for a historical-interpretativeapproachto scient-
ific research.V\'e w(mld, howen')', also like to remind everyone, ourselves
inclllded, that just as with other theories and models. we arc constructinga
particular view of people through what Burke (l9Gb: 'El) calls a Il'[Link]
,ln1'l'Il, or particular type of lens which directs our attention in certain direc-

tions and deflect it from [Link] observationswe make, or indeedanw»)c

makes, are but implications of the particular tCfminology in terms of which
the observationsare made.

ACTIVITY THEORY

Severalscholars,building on the original work ofVygotsky, have contributed

to current thinking on activity theory. Among these arc Davydov (1999),
Engestrom (1987, 1999), AN. Leont'ev (1978, 1981), Wertsch (1998), and
 144 Leamer Contributiolls to Lallf{lI([f{e Learllillf{

Zinchenko (1995, 1996). Our summaryof activity theory relies heavily on the
work of these scholars,if not explicitly, then certainly implicitly. There is a
fundamentaldifference betweenactivity theory and other theories of mind
that is important to [Link] theory differs from the Piagetianview
in arguing that the social environmentis not the context in which mind is
formed, but the very source out of which specifically human kinds of mind
[Link] differs from the neo-nativistposition in that while it acknowledges
the importantrole of our biologically endowedmentalarchitecture,it assigns
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

precedenceto the contentof mind (see Frawley, 1997). Hence,higher forms

of mental functioning, including voluntary attention and memory, plan-
ning, logical thinking and learning, arise as a consequenceof the appropri-
ation of culture - earlier humanexperienceas accumulatedthrough time in
a society. The task of scientific investigation is to determine how general
mental conceptsdevelop out of specific activities, and this task is accom-
plished through the investigation of the history of human beings, either as
individuals, societies,cultures, or as a species,and of the activities through
which they transform their worlds and are in turn transformedby their worlds.
Activity theory insists that any analysis of human mental activity must be
carried out in its natural environment,which encompasses natural and cul-
turally constructedobjects or artifacts, abstractobjectsor ideas,as well as the
world of other human beings, that is, the socioculturalworld. In this, it is in
agreementwith contemporarypoststructuralistapproachesto languagelearn-
ing which examinediscursivepracticesin their local contexts,demonstrating
that different meaningsmay be assignedto the 'same' practicesin different
contexts (McKay and Wong, 1996; Norton Peirce, 1995; Pavlenko,forthcom-
ing). The fundamentalinsight of the theory is the inseparabilityof thinking
and activity (Zinchenko, 1996). Thinking and doing are not construedas
polarities, since thinking is always motivated by some need and directed at
some object designedto fulfil that need. Thus, while traditional approaches
to the study of mind and mental behaviourfocus on the study of the indi-
vidual and what the individual is doing, sociocultural theory incorporates
three additional dimensionsto this enterprise:how the personis acting (i.e.,
in consortwith artifacts or other individuals), wherethe personis acting (e.g.,
the experimentallaboratory, the classroom, the public domain, etc.), and
why the personis acting (i.e., the motives and goals underlying the activity)
(Wertsch, 1998). Although Wertsch, following Burke's (1966) pentad, or five
questionsnecessaryto understandhuman social and psychological behavi-
our, does not include when the activity occurs, we believe that there is some
merit in including this as a sixth question. V\'e base this on the work of
Coughlanand Duff (1994), who show how the same person carries out the
same task in a markeelly different way at two different points in time. The
dimensions above are incorporated in the six fundamental principles of
activity theory:

1. The human minel is formed and functions as a consequenceof human

interaction with the culturally constructedenvironment.
 (S)econd(L)anguage(A)ctivity theoTY 14S

2. The cultural environmentis as objective as physical, chemical and biolo-

gical properties.
3. Activities are oriented to objects (concrete or ideal) and impelled by
motives or needs (physical, social and psychological). Actions are dir-
ectedat specific goals and are socioculturallydesignedmeansof fulfilling
motives. Operationsare the specific processesthrough which actions are
carried out and are determinedby the actual conditions in which the
activity unfolds.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

4. Mental processesare derived from externalactions through the courseof

appropriationof the artifacts madeavailable by a particular culture, both
physical and semiotic (signs, words, metaphors,narratives). Internaliza-
tion is not simply a matter of a verbatim copy of what was carried out, but
a transformationof this activity as the mediation becomesprivate.
S. Mediation through the use of culturally constructedtools and others'
voices (or discourses)shapethe way people act and think as a result of
internalization. The mechanism underlying mediation is a functional
organ or system (Luria, 1973, 1979) formed through the intertwining of
biologically endowedhuman abilities and the capacitiespassedon to us
by our predecessorsin the form of culturally constructedartifacts of a
physical and symbolic nature. For example, we can think of a native or
expert user of a languageas forming a functional system in which the
languageceasesto be a tool separablefrom the personbut is so tightly
intertwinedwith who the personis that to interfere in someway with their
language is to interfere with the person. On the other hand, second
languagelearnerscan be viewed as individuals attemptingto learn how to
use a secondsemiotic tool and thus it is much easier to distinguish the
personfrom the tool. Becoming a proficient user of the languagefrom
this perspectiveis aboutforming a compositefunctional organ of person-
artifact in which one can no longer determinewhere the personendsand
the tool begins or vice versa.
6. To understandhuman activity, including mental activity, meansto know
how it developedinto its existing form.

ACTIVITY THEORY AND SLA AGENCY

We would now like to considersomeimplications of activity theory for second

languagelearning, which from this perspectiveis about much more than the
acquisition of forms: it is aboutdeveloping,or failing to develop,new ways of
mediating ourselvesand our relationshipsto others and to ourselves.
We believe that learnershave to be seenas more than processingdevices
that convert linguistic input into well-formed (or not so well-formed) out-
puts. They needto be understoodas people,which in turn meanswe needto
appreciatetheir human agency. As agents, learnersactively engagein con-
structingthe termsand conditionsof their own learning. Recently,McGroarty
(1998) and ~rcKay and Wong (1996) have madesimilar arguments,although
 146 L(,{LnIPr Contributions 10 LallKlwKf Lf(lrnillK

from a slightly different theoreticalstancethan we espousehere. McKay and

Wong, in particular,have arguedfor a more contextualistand poststructuralist
perspective on agency, whereby 'the learners' historically specific needs,
desires,and negotiationsare not simply distractionsfrom the proper task of
languagelearning or accidentaldeviationsfrom a 'pure' or 'ideal' language
learning situation, rather, 'they must be regardedas constituting the very
fabric of students'lives and as determiningtheir investmentin learning the
target language'(McKay and Wong, 1996: 603). Our view of agencyis based
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

on Taylor's (1985) proposal that human agency is about more than per-
formance,or doing; it is intimately linked to [Link] is, things and
eventsmatter to people- their actions have meaningsand [Link]
is agencythat links motivation, more recently conceptualizedas investment
by Norton Peirce (1995), to action and defines a myriad of paths taken by
[Link], in turn, is socially and historically constructedand is part of
a person'shabitus (Taylor, 1985), or dispositionsappropriatedin childhood
that incline us to act and reactin specific ways (Thompson,1991: 12). Thus,
the views of any given individual with regard to language learning would
be influenced by languageideologies available to them (Lippi-Green, 1997;
McKay and Wong, 1996; Schieffelin et aI., 1998). Changein one'shabitus is
possiblebecause'humanagentsare capable (given the right circumstances)
of critically analyzing the discourseswhich frame their lives, and of claiming
or resisting them according to the effects they wish to bring about' (Burr,
1995: 90).
Our first illustration of the importanceof agencyin conceptualizinglan-
guage learning outcomes comes from Gillette (1994), who considers the
relevance of an individual's history in the formation of their motives and
goals for studying a [Link] of her central argumentsis that
the kinds of learning strategy people deploy in learning anotherlanguage
are heavily influenced by their histories, in which the motives or reasonsfor
studying a second languageand their related goals are rooted. From our
perspectiveon agency,we would arguethat the motives are aboutthe signific-
ance languagesand languagestudy have for the individuals in their lives as
[Link] such a perspective,the actions of all of those involved in
the behaviourwe call languagelearning in a given classroomare frequently
assumedto be directedat the samegoal - learning the [Link] is why
virtually all of the studies, experimentalor otherwise, carried out on SLA,
generallyrefer to the participantsas language'learners'.We contendthat in
many casesthis may well be a misnomer.
Considerthe commentsfrom two of Gillette's students,one, R, deemedto
be a successfullearner,and the other,J, judged to be unsuccessful.R, whose
parents are from a Francophoneregion of Canada, makes the following
commenton the significance of languagesin her life: 'My earliest impres-
sion of anotherlanguagegoes back to about when I was seven or so. I was
enrolled in Hebrew School ... I rememberdoing well, learning and retain-
ing the language,and used the languagea bit when I went to Israel with my
family in 1980' (Gillette, 1994: 199). Gillette points out that R consistently
 (S)econd(L)anguage(A)ctivity theol), 147

attempts to use what she learns and this in turn stimulatesher to progress
further in her language ability. And even though R reports enrolling in
a French class to fulfil a university language requirement, she sees clear
relevanceof languagestudy for her major interest which is to be a writer:
'Although I am taking this classas a requirement,I appreciatethe exposure
to another language becauseI am a writer, and the more I learn about
different languages,the betterI can be as a writer' (ibid.). In fact, languages
seemto matterso much for R that she persistsin her study of French,despite
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

an apparentlynegativeexperiencein her previoussemester'sclass: 'Unfortu-

nately, I didn't like the instructorsI had for 102, and they didn't teachmuch
(the lab instructor treatedus like two-year olds!)' (ibid.).
], on the other hand, projects a very different history -a history in which
languagestudy, and perhapseven university study, do not have the same
significancefor him as they seemto have for R.] comments:'I am not a big
fan of learning French, or other foreign [Link] reasonwhy I am in
this class is to fulfil the languagerequirementfor Arts and Sciencemajors'
(Gillette, 1994: 198). Notice that] ostensiblygives the same reasonas R for
enrolling in the class. And similarly to R he seemsto have had a bad earlier
experiencewith languagestudy. In speakingof the terror he experiencesat
coming to French class each day, he remarks: 'I got this way from taking FR
101 last year. The teacherI had was very tough and [Link] way she
taught the class turned me off from day one, and I have struggledwith the
languageever since' (ibid.).
Rand] both had prior negative experience,and while they were appar-
ently not identical experiences,] claims that his turned him off studying
French, while R did not let her experiencedeter her from pursuing her
interestin [Link] believe this is becauselanguagesmatter for R (i.e.,
they have significance in her life), while for ] they do not. Consequently,
while both learnersclaim they are in the classbecauseof a languagerequire-
ment, R has the goal of learning the language,but] does not. For instance,
],s diary contains the following entry with regard to a class assignment:

It's 1:30 a.m. I just finished our homework that is due 9:05 Monday morning.
Like usual, I put off all my homework all weekend until now.... Despite mv
late start I feel I did all right on the homework. I realize thesestudy habits are
wrong, but when it comes down to French or watching the NCAA Basketball
Tournament,basketballwins outright. (Gillette, 1991: 201)

One of],s final commentsin his diary makes quite clear that language
study has little meaningin his life, even though he is required to learn, or
should we say, 'study', one in order to exit from the university:

Tonight I tried to do the prestorv so I can attempt to participate ill class

tomorrow. I got part of it done, but two things are preventingme from caring
whetheror not I finish it. One, I'm still dejectedabout my exam, and two, it's
[Link] Phillies open their seasontonight against the Pirates. My
life has purposeagain. Earh spring I get excited about baseballseason,and I
tend to let my school work slip. (Gillette, 1994: 204)
 148 Learner Contributions to LanguageLearning

Similarly, McKay andWong (1996) discussthe relationshipbetweenagency

and language development of four adolescentChinese immigrants in a
Californian high school. They demonstratethat the students'previous his-
tories, socioeconomicbackgroundsand discoursesof powersurroundingthem
contribute to developmentof very different agenciesand learning pathsfor
the four studentsin superficially similar [Link] instance,one of
the students,Michael, derived satisfactionand agencyfrom being positioned
as an athlete and a popular friend (to both Chineseand non-Chinese)and
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

thus did not feel the need to develop his academicEnglish skills any further.
Norton, in the following chapter, reveals how adult students' community
identities in particular have a significant influence upon how they exercise
agencyas learnersof language.
In sum, from the perspectiveof activity theory, it is not necessarilythe case
that all of the people in language classes have the goal of learning the
languageand the reasonfor this is becausethey have different motives for
being in the class, becausein turn they have different histories. It doesn't
matter that in the operationaldomain they are all engagedin the sameovert
behaviours,for example,listening and repeating,reading and writing, com-
municative/task-based group work. Cognitively, they are not all engagedin
the sameactivity. And this is ultimately what matters,becauseit is the activity
and significance that shapethe individual's orientation to learn or not. This
orientation,it tllrn, is perceivedby us as dynamic and flexible and subjectto
possible changeonce the individual's circumstanceschange.

Mediation and peripheral participation

While above we emphasizedthe individual and socio-historicallY shaped
nature of agency,in what follows we argue that agencyis never a 'property'
of a particular individual; rather, it is a relationship that is constantly co-
constructedand renegotiatedwith those around the individual and with the
society at large. This view of agency as both unique to individuals and co-
constructedallows us to ponder upon the nature of mediatedrelationship
between learners and communities of practice and its two possible stages:
peripheraland full participation in a particular community of practice.
According to Engestrom's(1987) formulation of activity theory, the rela-
tion betweenthe subjectand the object is not only mediatedby the immedi-
ate tools (materialsas well as ideas) that are employedby the individual, but
also by the community in which the individual is embeddedand ultimately
formed as a [Link], Lave andWenger (1991) arguethat learningis
fundamentally a situated activity and that as such 'learnersinevitably par-
ticipate in communitiesof practitionersand that the masteryof knowledge
and skill requiresnewcomersto move toward full participation in the socio-
cultural practicesof a community' (1991: 29). In essence,learning is about
[Link] communitycan be an entity as broadas a society
or culture, or as narrow as a particular [Link] the socio-
cultural stance,an isolatedhumanmind functioning with completeautonomy
 (S)mmri (L)al/guaw (A)rtizJity th('OJ), 149

from other minds is an impossibility. This is not to deny that people think
when they are alone, but this activity already carries with it the historical
consequences of other mediation.
The key concept that capturesthe mediated relationship between new-
comersand old-timers in a given communityof practiceis that of 'legitimate
peripheral participation', conceptualizedby Lave and Wenger as 'a set of
relations amongpersons,activity and worlds, over time and in relation with
other tangential and overlapping communities of practice' (1991: 98). By
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

allowing others to participatelegitimately from the peripheryand from their

move towards full participation,communitiesof practice,including cultures,
ensuretheir own [Link] is, from the perspectiveof Engestrom's
model, individuals do not simply position themselvesin a community; rather,
there is a dialectic struggle betweenthe learner and the community out of
which emergesthe learner'sposition and identity. From Lave and Wenger's
perspective,much rides on the nature and extent of accessoffered to the
individual by the communityof [Link] is, is full and legitimate participa-
tion made available or not?
A recent study of ESL students'transitions to mainstreamclassroomsin
Australia (Miller, 1999) illustrates the problems encounteredin the move
from the peripheryto the full membership,and different attitudesthat may
be espousedby different communitiesof practicewith regard to newcomers.
Miller (1999) tracesthe pathwaysof three students,new arrivals from Bosnia,
Salvadorand Vietnam, who first study English at the intensive English recep-
tion centre and then are transferred to the mainstreamhigh school. She
demonstratesthat while Newnham,the intensive ESL centre,is perceivedby
the studentsas a very supportiveand positive environment,their faith in the
newly acquired linguistic skills is immediately shatteredupon transition to
the Yarra high school:
But when you come to high school, it's really diHicult, it's ... you think you
know English when you're at Newnham, or if you're getting really good, but
when you come to high school, you just, you're just lost ...
(From the intelvicw with Neta, a Bosnian student,in Miller, 1999: 156)

The interactionswith Australian studentswho are not making the same

efforts as the ESL instructorsto understandand supportthe learning efforts
of the new studentsmay prove shocking and result in a long, difficult and
isolated transition phase:

We came to school and like, I didn't have, I didn't have many friends, or most
of the time I just stayedup here, up in ESL, becausethere was no peoplewho
spokemy languagethen. It was only me. So all theseAustralian people,they are
nice but like, now they really won't, you know, talk to you.
(From the interview with Neta, a Bosnian student,in Miller, 1999: 156)

As both McKay and Wong (1996) and Miller (1999) point out, what is at
stake in these linguistic, social and cultural transitions is the learners'mul-
tiple identities which becomesites of contestationand [Link]
 150 Lfflmn COlltributioll.1 to iJlIIgu([P:e L'amillg

complexity of 'a multitude of fluctuating, at times conflicting, needs and

desires' (YrcKay and Wong, 1996: 603) cannotbe adequatelycapturedby the
view that assignsa single 'learner' identity to all learners,since, as pointed
out recently by Rampton, 'social, cultural, and ethnic border fences transect
the zone of proximal development'(1999: 335).
The importanceof consideringlearners'multiple identities in discussing
languagelearning outcomesis underscoredin a number of recent studies
which discuss the role of gender as a system of social relations in second
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

languagelearning (Ehrlich, 1997; Pavlenko,forthcoming; Polanyi, 1995; Siegal,

1996). These studies demonstratethat differences in gender relations be-
tween different communitiesof practice result in genderedagency and, in
turn, in genderedlanguagelearning outcomes (for an in-depth discussion,
see Pavlenko,forthcoming). To begin with, cross-culturaldifferencesin gen-
der ideologies and practicesmay propel some learners to change commu-
nities of practice, while discourageothers from doing so. This gendered
agencyis expressedin an interview conductedby one of the authors of the
presentstudy with Christina, a 27-year-old Polish woman who arrived in the
USA as a graduatestudentand stayedon, earninga doctoral degreefrom an
Ivy Leagueinstitution. While discussingthe reasonsfor which she left Poland
and chose the USA and English as her everydaymedium of communication,
Christina suddenlyturned to gender,indicating that her disassociationfrom
Poland may have been 'gender-based':
I have no natural desire to go back, no natural desire at all ... uhm ... to be
Polish and to live in Poland, no connectionto the land.... I have connections
to my family but they are of a completelv different nature, they seem to be
unconnectedto ... to the country ... uhm ... the sense of what a woman is
supposedto do with her life ... and even though my mother is pretty inde-
pendentand hasan intellectualjob,still, I have a sensethat I wouldn't be ... uhm
... [Link] here I am not really gender-free,to any extent, I am
probably much less independentthan most American women ... uhm ... but
still ... I am ... more in control, I suppose,of what I do with my life than I
would in Poland... uhm ... I really would be an old maid in Poland by now,
whereas here my choice to ... uhm ... choice, it's again a ... a problematic
word ... but the fact that I am, I don't know, not married or don't have a
family ... uhm ... at mv age is not a problem ...
(Interview in English by A. Pav\enko,June 1998)

An oppositesituation is describedin a study by Siegal (1996) who argues

that western women studyingJapanesein Japanperceive certain gendered
linguistic behaviours(e.g., use of honorific morphologyto indicate speakers'
relative status) as unacceptableand engagein [Link] terms
of a more traditional view of proficiency and its assessment,one might be
obliged to evaluatethe performanceof thesewomen as erroneousand un-
successful,since at times their behaviourwas neitherculturally nor linguistic-
ally [Link], thesetraditional views fall short when it comesto
the explanationof why thesewomen chosethe particular positions vis-ii-vis a
particular community of practice.
 (S)p(Olld (I")allguage (A)rti1lit)' thpOI), 151

A co-constructednature of agency,as influencedby genderas a systemof

social relations, is also visible in Polanyi's (1995) description of the study
abroad [Link] researcherreanalysedthe findings of Brecht and
Davidson (1995), who reported that despite no significant differences in
speakingand listening skills betweenAmerican university men and women
before departingfor a study abroadexperience,upon returningfrom Russia,
the men outscoredthe women on the sametests. On the basisof close study
of the students'written and tape-recordedjournals, Polanyi concludedthat
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

the sexual harassmentcontinually experiencedby the women in their inter-

action with Russianmen severelyrestrictedtheir movementswithin the com-
munity and thus preventedtheir full participation,which was not the casefor
the men in the program. Kline (1993) reacheda similar conclusion in her
study of American study abroadstudentsin France. However, in this case,it
was found that the women improved in their literacy skills to a greaterextent
than did the men, becauseas a defenceagainst the sexist and hostile atti-
tudes they encounteredwithin the French-speakingcommunity, the women
sought refuge in books and other reading materials. Both studies report a
situation in which women were deniedfull accessto the respectivecommun-
ity of practice and insteadwere kept on the peripheryof the community as
a result of the activities of the male representatives
of the host community. In
our view, this hardly qualifies as legitimate peripheral participation. In the
Russiancase,the kind of languageabilities and verbal defenceskills that the
women were able to develop while marginalized,and thus left on the peri-
phery, are not the kinds of abilities generallytestedin most proficiency tests,
since most such tests are interestedin assessingexchangevalue (display)
rather than use value of knowledgeand abilities.
Another study which explored an American experiencein Russia is the
researchconductedby Blender (1997), who attempted to help American
university studentsovercome 'culture shock' in a study abroad program in
Russia. Blender's goal was to help studentsavoid culture shock through a
pre-studysessionon group dynamicsand by integratingseveralRussiansinto
the students'travel group once the group [Link] motivation for
taking such action aroseout of an experiencein which a group of students,
after an initial period of euphoria upon arriving in Russia, settled into a
period of considerablehostility towards Russiansand their culture. The stu-
dents formed their own support group in which several, though not all,
of the studentsexpressedextremely negative and abusive attitudes towards
Russia. They criticized everythingRussianfrom the metro to food to behavi-
our of Russiansin an openly hostile and [Link] all, they
resistedattemptsof those accompanyingthe group to establish interaction
with Russians(e.g., they insisted on eating their meals togetherin isolation
from Russians). One of the findings of the study is that the majority of
studentsfailed to show any gains in scoreson readingand speakingtests as a
result of their stay [Link] our perspective,the circumstancesdescribed
by Blender representa case of people resisting accessto a community of
practice by intentionally and aggressivelyremaining on the periphery. They
 152 LMrllpr Contributions to LanguagpLPamillf{

managedcollaboratively to construct a barrier that blocked all attemptsat

mediation. It is very important to underscorethat thesewere American uni-
versity studentswho were planningto return homeas soonas possible;clearly,
immigrantsand refugeesin the majority of the casesdo not have this freedom
of choice, and have to make attemptsto becomeintegratedin the society.
It is instructive to compare the Russian study abroad situation with the
Siegal's (1996) account consideredearlier. Both cases are similar to the
extent that they are about resistanceto accessto a community of practice;
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

but they are also crucially different in the ways the resistancewas constructed.
Westernwomen in Siegal'sstudy actively soughtaccessto the communitybut
without mediation by the rules and norms of [Link]'s
Russianstudents,on the other hand, actively sought to avoid any accessto
the community - rules and norms for accesswere not even an issue. Thus,
Siegal'sstudy is about resistancewith participation, while Blender'sis about
resistancewithout [Link]'s (1995) study, in turn, demonstrates
how bids for participation may be differentially acceptedby the host society
based on the gender identities of the participants - American men were
more welcome than women and thus participated in a greater number of
positive and helpful interactions.
Based on the evidence discussedabove, we argue that agency is a co-
[Link] learners'histories do not justify an investment
in a particular language,the learnersmay remain on the margins of a par-
ticular communityof practiceas unwilling temporaryvisitors (Blender, 1997;
Gillette, 1994). Similarly, the learnersmay position themselveson the peri-
phery if they choosemarginal participationin the target community (McKay
and Wong, 1996; Siegal, 1996). The learnersmay also remain on the peri-
phery, if their attempts to participate are rejected by the host community
(Miller, 1999). On a larger, societal level the latter case is particularly well
describedby Lippi-Green (1997) who discusseshow US ideologiesof mono-
lingualism and monoculturalismlead to discriminationagainst,and marginal-
ization of, non-nativespeakersin contemporaryAmerican society. Finally, as
will be discussedbelow, if/earners'bids for participationare positively viewed
by the membersof the target community, L2 learnersand usersmay become
full participantsin their secondlanguagecommunity.

Full participation
In what follows, we would like to explore the relationship betweenagency
(or rather agenciesinvolved) and full participation in the host community.
An excellent description of what negotiation of such accessmay involve is
presentedin the celebratedlanguagelearning accountby Eva Hoffman, Lost
In Translation: A Life in a New Language(1989). Briefly, at the age of thirteen,
Hoffman and her family emigratedfrom their native Poland to Vancouver.
Her narrative documentsthe struggle she experiencedto reconstructher
identity as a North American intellectual woman, which, as theoretically
analysedin Pavlenko (1998) and Pavlenko and Lantolf (2000), entailed the
 (S)erond (L)anguage (A)rtivity theory 153

necessity of constructing a new inner voice through the appropriation of

other voices in the new community. As in Siegal's case, this process for
Hoffman was quite [Link] differencesbetweenher original and new
communitieswere stunninglytransparentfor her. Again, as in Siegal'sexperi-
ence, it is the transparency- and the support from the communities of
practice along the way - that enabledHoffman to make choicesthroughout
her [Link] critical realization that she neededto overcomewas
the fact that her history up to the age of thirteen, a history of a Polish girl, no
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

longer served her in her new community, and she was forced to begin to
build a new North American narrative. This necessitatedher actively seek-
ing out old-timers, artifacts and resourcesto mediate her integration into
the community and of the community into her. Sadly, her mother seemed
unable to do this and as a consequencelost her capacity to deal with her
children, especially Eva's younger sister, as a parent. Eventually, Hoffman,
following a good deal of struggle and psychological pain, was successfulin
gaining full accessto her new community which meantthat she was able to
construct new ways of meaning and a new inner voice. Here again, as in
Siegal'scase, successis a matter for the individual (interactingwith others)
to [Link] other words, it is non-observerdependent.
The co-constructednature of agency is always presentin the successful
casesof secondlanguagelearning and discursive assimilation. Some under-
standing of what these transitions entail comes from a series of life-story
interviews with late, post-pubertybilinguals conductedby one of the authors
for this project. The story of one of the participants,a previously mentioned
Polish female, almost mirrors Hoffman's story, except that Christina started
learning English as a teenagerin Poland and then came to England as an
adult out of her own volition:
I think I've always had a lot of ambition, a lot of drive, and ... urn ... (laughs)
and the Westernworld was, was it, I mean, that's where you got a good educa-
tion, that's where you got a life, and, of course,I grabbedthe first opportunity
that came around, and, and somehow that became a big project, I, I ... a
project, I think, that's what I would call it ... I sort of remembermy first year,
um ... in London, that was when I just went to, to work on the black market,
and worked in all, in all these,you know, pizza places,and I was standingclose
to the WestminsterAbbey, on the Thames,and looking at the Thames, and
kind of making silent promisesto myself, that, you know ... I am coming back!
(laughs) ... you know, I am coming back, I am gonna, I am gonna live here,
work here, learn here, and, and I came back the following year to Sussexto
study ... urn ... urn ... it was like 'I'll make it' and it was like the most difficult
thing to do, and it seemedthat that's what I, what I had to do, and, of course,
from, from then on it was also a questionof ... never giving up and ... kind of
doing the impossible (smiles), never going back ...
(Inte[\~ewed
in English by A. Pavlenko,June 1998)

Clearly, the sllccessof a transition from one linguistic identity to another

will dependon the interaction betweenone's own intentions and those of
the people in one's [Link] happensin a casewhen there is no
 154 Learllfr Contriliutiolls to IJIlIgll(f{!/ Lmmillg

resistanceto linguistic assimilationfrom a particularenvironmentis illustrated

by the story of the well-known French writer, historian and literary scholar,
Tzvetan Todorov, who did not begin learning French, exceptfor some half-
heartedattemptsat the university, until he arrived in France at the age of
twenty-four:
So, um ... so, then I arrived in France,I was twenty-four years old at that time,
and ... I ... started,um ... well, I continuedstudying Frenchfor a little while,
I went to the Alliance Fran<;:aisefor four months, and soon I felt that I wasn't
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

learning anything anymore, so I continuedjust using the language,I didn't

know many Bulgarians,I knew a few, but ... only saw them rarely and very soon
all my friends ... were non-Bulgarianso I couldn't speakany other language
with them or at least it, it couldn't, couldn't occur to me, um ... and we spoke
[Link] so French became,little by little, mv ... my first language...
(Interviewed in English by A. Pavlenko, March 1997)

Similarly, Christina, once she came to England, chose to interact with

English-speakingpeopleonly, attemptingto renounceall her connectionsto
Poland:
I rememberbeing put off by the idea of meetingPolish people in Britain and
it seemedlike, well, that's not the rPason why I am there, I am there not to meet
Polish people,and the idea that I should get along with Poles,just becausethev
arc Polesseemedkind of off putting, to say the least... and ... So, I don't seck
out friendships with Polish people, I know very few around here, in fact ... I
have no natural desire to go back, no natural desire at all ... uhm ... to be
Polish and to live in Poland, no connectionto the land ... I have connections
to my family but they arc of a completely different nature, they seem to be
unconnectedto ... to the country ...
(Interviewed in English bv A. [Link] 1')98)

As seen in the excerpts above, the two informants did not experience
much resistanceto their linguistic assimilation from the host communities.
A different situation is presentedin an interview with a twenty-year-old
Russian-Englishbilingual majoring in industrial and labour relations at a
North American university, and whose family had emigrated to the USA
when he was thirteen years of age. His story is a poignantexampleof some-
one who encounteredresistancefrom the community but was nevertheless
still able to find ways to participatein its life:
I mean, if I had any other way, if I had to do it all over again, I'd probably pick
the same experience,becausejust the whole emigration experience,it taught
me a lot ... so, I'd pick the sallie wav ... I guessit taught me to be persistent,
go through a lot before I camehere, and then, once you come here, you don't
really - the obstaclesnever stop, you keep meeting people that might lIot like
you, and don't wanna talk to YOll . . . One thing, I mean, they never let you
forget, becausethey treat you like a Russianperson,the fact that you may have
that little accent,you know, they keep bringing it up, so it is reallv hard for you
to forget that you arc Russian,that you arc not from over here ... they remind
you that you arc Russianand you can't get awav from that ...
(Interviewed in English by A. Pavknko. March 1997)
 (S)prond (L)aIlKuaKe (A)rlivily Ihemy 155

""'hen askedwhom 'they' refers to, the speakerresponded:

Well, one thing is, just the American people in general... vou know, the way
you talk to them, they kind of let you know that you are different, whetherit's
your language,whether it's the way you dress, whether it's the kind of music
YOIl listen to. . . (Interviewedin English by A. Pavlenko,March 1997)

In this brief narrative we observe a clash of [Link] is an agency

of resistancefrom the community of practice and the other an agency of
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

engagementon the part of the Russian. Unlike Blender'sAmerican univer-

sity students,who in a sensewere not risking a great deal in the long run as
a consequenceof their resistanceto Russian culture, the Russian student
here was risking his entire life if he could not find a way of accessingthe
new community. Clearly, the resistancehe encounteredwas and is memor-
able. Despite the persistentresistance,the student neverthelessappearsto
have found ways of negotiatingaccess,while at the same time preservinghis
Russianidentity, which was also important to him.

CONCLUSION

While we could discussin more detail these and other examples,we believe
that the evidencepresentedabove is important enoughto encouragefuture
researchersto develop robust and detailed case studies documentingthe
activities of people on the periphery of linguistic communities of practice
and how they gain or are denied (full) participation in these communities.
We also hope that the evidenceprovided by us and by others working in a
similar direction (McKay and Wong, 1996; Miller, 1999; Norton, 1997; Norton
Peirce, 1995; Polanyi, 1995; Siegal, 1996) warrants a more complex view of
secondlanguagelearnersas agents,whose actions are situatedin particular
contextsand are influencedby their dynamic ethnic, national, gender,class
and social identities.
We have consideredhow socioculturaltheory in generaland activity theory
in particular construessecond languagelearners. The general theory con-
ceives learnersfirst and foremostas individuals whose formation as thinking
and learningbeingsdependscrucially on the concretecircumstancesof their
specific historiesas languagelearnersand as membersof the communitiesof
practice to which they belong and to which they aspire. The general theory
maintains that human beings develop specifically human ways of behaving
(socially, physically and psychologically) as a consequence of the mediational
means (artifacts and social relations) made accessibleto them or by them.
The specific theory of activity consistsof a set of principles that accountsfor
the dynamic formation of the functional organs (systems) of the human
mind(s). These functional organs comprise the integration of biologically
specifiedcapacities(e.g., natural, unmediatedmemory, involuntary attention)
with the artifacts constructedand the discursiverelationsspecifiedby commu-
nities of practicethrough history. An essentialelementin all of this is humans
 156 Learnrr Contributions to LanguageLearning

as agents;that is, as beingsfor whom things have meaningand makesenseand

who have the potentialto alter the physicalas well as symbolic conditionsunder
which we live. In this way, we can also potentially changehow we make sense
of ourselvesas agentsthat participatein concretecommunitiesof practice.
We have attemptedto show how the theory can be extendedto people
struggling to learn languagesother than their first. One of the important
claims of the sociocultural perspective,and this point emergesclearly in
activity theory, is that since cognition is situatedand distributed, we should
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

not expectany two individuals to learn and developin preciselythe sameway

even if the material circumstances,or conditions, of their learning appear
similar. Activity theory tells us that we also need to take into consideration
the individual's goals and motives for engagingin any particularactivity, be it
cognitive, emotive or physical. The interaction among these features influ-
encesthe course that learning/development will ultimately take. Thus, our
first contention is that agency is not an 'anything goes proposition', but is
instead shapedand reshapedby a learner's unique concrete history. This
point is exemplifiedby Norton'saccount,in the chapterthat follows, of adult
students'experienceof transitionsbetweendifferent communities.
Our secondcontentionis that activity is a distributed processand hence
we must take account not only of the individual agent, but we must also
recognize that other agenciesare involved in the mental life of humans
as well. The relations among agenciesare variable - at times they can be
conflictive and at times collaborative. The co-constructednature of agency
clearly has profound consequences for how we understandthe outcomesof
learningand development,and ultimately identity. To begin with, it allows us
to reconceptualizeand to foreground in more detail different motives and
goals that learnersmay have as they undertaketo learn a foreign or a second
languageand to appreciatefully the ways in which learnersseek to exercise
their agency,sometimesunsuccessfully,to shapetheir own learning experi-
ences (see Lantolf and Genung, 2000). Next, it also allows us to see their
motivations, goals and actions as dynamic and subjectto change,predicated
on the attitudesespousedby those aroundthe [Link], while we may
see that one'sinitial desire to learn a languagemay becomeextinguishedin
the process,wherebya learnersettlesfor an intermediatelevel of proficiency
(Siegal, 1996), we can also postulatethat learners'agenciescan be positively
reshapedin the processof agency-enhancement (McKay and Wong, 1996).
Thus, the secondpart of Blender's(1997) study demonstratesthat as a result
of his efforts at pre-training, the second group of American students in
Russiadid indeedseekaccessto the communityand were apparentlysuccess-
ful given the improvementin their test scoresupon return.
This outcomeillustrates our third contention,that activity theory and, in
particular, the notion of agencyhave implications for the pedagogicalenter-
prise. In fact, becausethe theory is derived from principles of historical-
dialectic materialism, it refuses to privilege one site over any other as a
testing ground for its [Link], activity theoreticresearch
is carried out in such normal settings as governmentoffices, milk packing
 (S)erond (L)anguage(A)rtivity them] 157

plants, airplane cockpits, banks, computer companiesand classrooms(see

Engestromand Middleton, 1996). The experimentallaboratory has no spe-
cial statusand is seenasjust anothersite where things [Link] fact, some
have even arguedthat the laboratorymay be a place where less than normal
human activity unfolds (see Danziger, 1990).
Becausethe theory insists on unifYing theory and practice, and because
the theory is fundamentallydialectic (not in the Hegleianidealistic sensebut
in the Marxist materialistic sense),it is committed to the proposition that by
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

changing the material circumstances(artifacts and social relations) under

which individuals operate,it is possible to help people move their learning
and developmentfonvard. Hence,to test this claim, it is not sufficient only to
observewhat transpiresin those places,such as languageclassrooms,where
learninghappens,but the theory compelsthe researcherto intervenein com-
munities of practicein order to help find ways of ensuringthat all individuals
have accessto full participation and with it the opportunity to develop to
their fullest potential.
A.A. Leont'ev, in specifically addressingsecondlanguagepedagogy,argues
that any normal learnershould be able to learn and freely communicatein
the languageand assertsthat if the learnerfails, 'the fault would most prob-
ably be with us - textbooks, authors, methodologists,teachers' (1981: 81).
The task of pedagogy,for Leont'ev, is to organizeand reorganizethe mater-
ial circumstancesthat allow for maximal developmentin each individual.
Leont'ev is not arguing for a universal magic bullet that works always and
everywhereand for every learner,nor is he taking a stancethat deniesagency.
This would be antithetical to the principles of the theory. On the contrary,
he is advocatinga pedagogythat not only recognizesbut builds upon the
uniquenessof the concreteindividuals that come togetherto form the com-
munity of practice known as the [Link] writes: 'if all are
reducedto the same common pedagogicaldenominator,the successfulout-
come of the learning processwill be put in jeopardyand, what is more, the
developmentof the pupil's personalitymay be handicapped'(ibid.). This is
not merely an acknowledgementof learner variables. Indeed, focusing on
variablesis, if nothing else, misguided,since it is not the variablesthat should
be our concern,but the concreteindividuals who come to the learning site
with specific histories, personalitiesand [Link] is our task to discover
these through observationand interaction with the learners and to build
upon what we find in ways that enhancethe likelihood that any given person
will have the opportunity to learn and develop. Leont'ev poignantly reflects
this perspectivein his remark that languageaptitude,or as he puts it 'gift for
language' (ibid.), is an ability that emergesin the course of the activity of
learning and is not a prerequisitefor it. Education, second language, or
othenvise,has the responsibility of organizing the classroomcommunity in
ways that allow students to become aware of this and then to be actively
engagedin co-constructingtheir own learningwith othersin the community.
Finally, the view of L2 learnersand usersas agentsinteractingwith other
agentsallows us to argue that the learning processwill necessarilyresult in
 158 Lmrllfr COll/film/iol/.\ /0 Lallgllagf Lmmillp;

different outcomesfor different people. Thus, standardizationis anathema

to the them)' and its [Link] making the precedingstatement,we are in
no way intending to argue that sociocultural them)' is the only way to con-
strue learners and the learning process. Nevertheless,we believe that the
theory allow us to explore the processesand consequences of learning lan-
guageshoth in the natural as well as classroomsettingsthat mightothenvise
remain hidden.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017
 Chapter 8

Non-participation,
imagined communities and
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

the language classroom

Bonny Norton, University of British Columbia

INTRODUCTION

A practice that has begun to receive some attention in the languageeduca-

tion literature is that of resistanceand non-participationin secondand for-
eign [Link](1993), for example,reports on the
non-participation of students in a Sri Lankan classroom in which he was
teachingEnglish as a secondlanguage(ESL). By the third month in the year-
long course, participation had fallen to 50 per cent, while commentsand
drawingsin textbooksprovided convincingevidenceof the students'ambival-
ence towards learning English. Giltrow and Calhoun report that most of
their forty Guatemalanrefugee informants had 'retired from the ESL class-
room, either by physically removing themselvesand no longer attending
regularly, or by adopting an aloof, unengagedway of attending' (1992: 63).
Norton Peirce, Harper and Burnaby (1993) note the complex reasonswhy
workers resisted participation in a workplace ESL program, linking n011-
participationto larger [Link] other con-
texts, such as a South Mrican university, have resentedbeing labelled as
'disadvantaged'(Thesen, 1997), while others have used code-switchingas
forms of resistance(Lin, 1997; Rampton, 1995b). In this chapter,I examine
the relationship between non-participation and what I call the 'imagined
communities' of two ESL learnersin Canada,linking the discussionto the
learners'changingexpectationsof ESL courses,their shifting identities and
their unique investmentsin the target language.
My use of the term 'non-participation'is drawn from the work of Wenger
(1998: 164), who, working within a community of practice framework (Lave
and Wenger, 1991), arguesas follows:

We not only produceour identities through the practiceswe engagein, but we

also define ourselvesthrough the practiceswe do not engagein. Our identities
are constitutednot only by what we are but also by what we are not. To the ex-
tent thatwe can come in contactwith other ways of being, what we are not can
even becomea large part of how we define ourselves. (Wenger, 1998: 164)

159
 160 Leamer COlltributiolls to Lallf!:ll{/f!:e Learnillg

This perspectiveon non-participation,and in particular its relationship to

questionsof identity, has theoreticalpromisein the analysisof non-participa-
tion of learnersin the [Link] offers explanatorypotential to
aspectsof overt and covert participation identified by Breen in Chapter 6
and it exemplifies learner agency in action as discussedby Lantolf and
Pavlenkoin Chapter7. Indeed,as Faltis (1997) has argued,the work of Lave
and Wengeroffers interestingtheoreticalperspectivesfor future researchin
languageand education,a trend that has alreadyachievedsomemomentum
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

(see,for example,Toohey, 1998,2000).In this chapter,I take the opportun-

ity to draw on the work of Lave and Wenger (1991) and Wenger (1998), in
particular, to analysedata from a study I conductedwith immigrant language
learnersin Canada(Norton Peirce, 1995; Norton, 2000) which addressesthe
conditions under which two learners, on two separateoccasions,withdrew
entirely from participationin their ESL [Link] dra....ing on a commun-
ity of practice perspective,I do not proposea definitive analysisof the data,
however. My purposeis to examinethe data through a new theoreticallens,
with a view to enhancingmy understandingof the learners'stories of non-
[Link] stories,which are seldomheardand rarely analysed,offer
an important contribution to research on second language learning and
teaching,focusing as they do what works - and doesnot work - in classrooms.
I begin the chapterwith a more detailed examinationof Wenger'stheor-
ies of non-participation,linking this theory to his conceptionof identity and
modesof [Link],I turn my attentionto the storiesof Katarina
and Felicia, whose experiencesof marginality led to the most extremeform
of non-participation:withdrawal from the languageclass. I discussand ana-
lyse the data with referenceto the notion of imagined communities,which
helps to explain the learners'acts of [Link] examiningthe relation-
ship between imagined communities, investmentand languagelearning, I
concludewith somereflectionson the pedagogicalimplicationsof my research.

THEORIZING NON-PARTICIPATION

Lave and Wenger (1991), working \\ithin an anthropologicalframework, are

centrally concernedwith the relationship between learning and the social
situation in which it occurs, a relationshipthey refer to as situatedlearning.
Througha processof legitimatejJeripheral jJ(f1ticipation newcomersinteractwith
old-timers in a given communitysetting, becomeincreasinglyexperiencedin
the practicesthat characterizethat community, and gradually move towards
fuller participationin that community. Lave andWengerrecognize,however,
that particularsocial arrangements in any communitymay constrainor facilit-
ate movementtowards fuller participation, noting as follows:

The key to legitimate peripheral participation is accessby newcomersto the

community of practice and all that membershipentails. But though this is
essentialto the reproductionof the community, it is always problematicat the
 Non-participation, imagined communitiesand the languagedassroom 161

same time. To become a full member of a community of practice requires

accessto a wide rangeof ongoingactivity, old-timers, and other membersof the
community; and to information, resourcesand opportunitiesfor participation.
(Lave and Wenger, 1991: 100)

They present data from a variety of communities of practice, illustrating

variability in the accesseachprovidesto activities, other peopleand resources
for participation. In more recentwork, Wenger (1998) has developedmore
fully the notions of participation and non-participation,focusing in particu-
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

lar on their relationshipto the constructionof a learner'sidentity. He argues

that our relation to communitiesof practice involves both participationand
non-participation,and that our identities are shapedby combinationsof the
two. Non-participationin somecommunitiesis inevitable becauseour experi-
encesinclude coming into contact with communities to which we do not
belong, in Wenger'sgraphic words, 'catching,as we peekinto foreign cham-
bers, glimpsesof other realities and meanings'(1998: 165). This kind of non-
participationdiffers from that when we are non-participatoryin the practices
of communities to which we do belong. In the latter case, his distinction
between peripherality and marginality is a useful one. By 'peripherality', he
refers to the fact that some degreeof non-participationcan be an enabling
factor of participation,while 'marginality' is a form of non-participationthat
preventsfull participation.

STORIES OF NON-PARTICIPATION

The two stories of non-participationare drawn from a study of immigrant

languagelearnersin Canada,conductedin the early 1990s (Norton, 2000;
Norton Peirce,1995). The purposeof the study was to investigatethe relation-
ship betweenidentity and languagelearning, focusing on languagelearning
practices in the home, workplace and school. The five participants in the
study included Mai from Vietnam, Katarina and Eva from Poland, Felicia
from Peru, and Martina from Czechoslovakia,all of whom were recentimmig-
rants to the country. Data was collectedover a twelve-month period through
interviews, a diary study and participant [Link] and Felicia's
storiesof non-participation,which receivemore elaboratetreatmentin Norton
(2000), follow.

Katarina's story
Shortly after their arrival in Canada,all of the five learnersparticipatedin
the same six-month ESL [Link] the course was complete, two of the
learners,Katarina and Martina, were given the opportunity to take an addi-
tional nine-month subsidizedEnglish skills upgrading course. Katarina and
Martina were in the sameclassand had the [Link] four months
in this course,Katarina droppedout of the coursein angerand indignation.
At a diary study meeting, Katarina explained why she no longer wished to
 162 Learrlfr Contributions to LanguageLearninK

participate in the class. She said that she had come into conflict with her
teacherbecauseher teacherhad said that Katarina'sEnglish was not 'good
enough' to take a computercourse,intimating that Katarina spoke 'immig-
rant English'. Katarina was angry and never returnedto the class.
At the diary study meeting, Katarina indicated that she felt her instructor
did not take her teachingjob seriously becausethe studentswere immig-
rants, and Katarina said she was made to feel 'stupid' in class. Katarina had
liked her first ESL class, where she learnt new vocabulary, read the news-
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

paper and learnt grammar. But with the secondESL teacher,she felt like
a studentin first grade, objecting to having to learn '72 definitions for test'
and listen to the teacherall day. At the meetingshe askedMartina how she
felt about the teacher,saying, '''Immigrants, immigrants" - Martina, maybe
you think this is normal?' In addressingMartina this way, Katarina imitated
the teacher'svoice, saying 'immigrants, immigrants' in a dismissive tone of
voice. She then sought affirmation from Martina that her interpretationof
her teacher'sattitudewas a valid one. Receivingno satisfactionfrom Martina,
she positioned Martina as someonewho had limited expectationsof her
teachers,acquiescingto the identity 'immigrant' without struggle. Martina,
indeed,had other investmentsat stake and remainedin the courseuntil she
was awarded a certificate. Katarina, having left the ESL class, entered the
computercourseand successfullycompletedthe IS-month program.

Felicia's story
At anotherdiary study meeting, Felicia describedher unhappyexperiences
in a Grade 12 ESL course that she was taking with a group of adult immig-
rants in a local school. The teacherhad askedeach of the studentsto bring
in information about their home country to share with the class. Mter the
session,the teachersummarizedthe main points that had been raised, but
neglectedto mention the points that Felicia had made about Peru. Felicia
was angry, and asked the teacherwhy she had not included Peru in her
summary. The teacherexplained that Peru was not a major country under
[Link] never returnedto the class.

NON-PARTICIPATION AND 1.\1AGINED COMYIUNITIES

In developing their theories of situated learning and communitiesof prac-

tice, Lave and Wenger (1991) draw on researchin which newcomersto a
community, such as a community of midwives, tailors or insurance claim
agents,participatein attenuatedways with old-timers in the performanceof
community [Link] purposeof suchjoint participation is for the less
experiencedparticipants to increasetheir expertisein the performanceof
community activities. Thus communitiesare composedof participantswho
engagein differential ways with the practicesof their communities,engage-
ment which constituteslearning.
 Non-jJartirijJation, illlaginfd communitiesand the lang:uagf rlassroom 163

In conceptualizing the language classroom, such theories seem par-

ticularly apt in situations in which secondlanguagelearners (newcomers)
entera classroomin which speakersof the target language(old-timers) con-
stitute the more experiencedmembersof the community. It is important
to note, however, that school classroomsare characterizedby many kinds
of expertise, and that native English speakers- like language learners -
would be newcomersto a variety of school practicesand [Link]'s
(1998, 2000) researchwith ESL children in a public school, who attend
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

classroomsin which the majority of children are native English speakers,

shows a community which includes many 'mentors' who are experienced
English [Link] my research,however, the classroomsin which Katarina
and Felicia participatedwere not communitiesin this [Link] of the members
of their classroomcommunities,apart from the teacher, were newcomers;
the only old-timer was the teacher. The question that arises then is what
community practicesdid Katarina and Felicia seek to learn? What, indeed,
constituted'the community' for them?
In this regard,Wenger'sdiscussionon identity and modesof belongingis
a useful one. Drawing on his research with insurance claims processors,
Wenger notes that the claims processors'experienceof both participation
and non-participationreachedbeyond the walls of their office:

They see themselvesas participantsin social processesand configurationsthat

extend beyond their direct engagementin their own practice. They have to
make some senseof the many artifacts they encountercoming from practices
they do not have accessto. They may have to use their imagination to get a
picture of thesebroaderconnections. (Wenger. 199R: 173)

Wenger developsthis point by hypothesizingthat there are three modes of

belonging, referred to as engagement,imagination and alignment, respect-
ively. By 'engagement'he refers to active involvement in mutual processes
of negotiationand meaning; 'imagination' addressesthe extent to which we
createimages of the world and see connectionsthrough time and spaceby
extrapolatingfrom our experience;'alignment'addressesthe extentto which
we coordinateour energiesand activities in order to fit within broaderstruc-
tures and contribute to broaderenterprises.
It is the secondmode, that of 'imagination',that I believe is central to an
understandingof the non-participationof Katarina and Felicia. As Wenger
notes:

My usc of the conceptof imagination refers to a processof expandingour self

by transcendingour time and space and creating new images of the world
and [Link] this senseis looking at an apple seedand seeing
a tree. (Wenger. 199R: 176)

As Wenger notes, imagination should not be confusedwith misleadingfan-

tasy or withdrawal from reality. This mode of belonging, he argues, is a
creative process of producing new images of possibility and new ways of
understandingone's relation to the world that transcendmore immediate
 164 Lparner Contributions to LanguagpLearning

acts of [Link] the sametime, however, imagination does not neces-

sarily result in the coordinationof action. It is here that the notion of align-
ment becomescentral, becauseit is through alignmentthat learnersdo what
they have to do to take part in a larger community.
It is possibleto argue that the communitiesof practice that characterized
Katarinaand Felicia's learning trajectorieswere communitiesof the imagina-
tion - what could be called imaginedcommunities.~en Katarinaand Felicia
enteredtheir languageclassrooms,they not only saw a classroomwith four
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

walls, but envisioneda community that transcendedtime and space. Thus

although these learnerswere engagedin classroompractices, the realm of
their community extendedto the imagined world outside the classroom-
their imaginedcommunity. It is importantto note further that while Katarina
and Felicia has similar investmentsin their imaginedcommunities,they each
had differential accessto these [Link] had almost no con-
nection with her imagined community of professionalsin Canada, while
Felicia's connectionto Peruvianexpatriates,although tenuousat times, held
greaterpromise for access.

Katarina and Felicia's imagined communities

More specifically, then, what exactly were Katarina and Felicia's imagined
communities,and how does this notion help to explain theselearners'non-
participationin the ESL classroom?In order to addressthesequestions,it is
necessaryto considerKatarinaand Felicia's particularhistoriesand changing
identities. In her native country, Katarina had beena teacherwho had taught
for seventeenyears. In this position, she was a highly respectedprofessional.
When she came to Canada,she could not find employmentas a teacher,and
el~oyed little statusor respectas a part-time homemakerfor the Community
Service, a job that was only good 'for now'. She eagerly sought recognition
from people who were fellow professionals,and wished to have a profes-
sion in Canadain which she could meet like-minded people. Her imagined
community, then, was a community of [Link] essence,Katarina's
imagined community was as much a reconstructionof her past as it was
an imaginative constructionof the future; as in Poland, it was only members
of her imaginedcommunity (the teacher,the doctor) who could validate her
history and her identity as a [Link] Katarina's ESL teacherwas
not only a languageteacher,active in practicesof engagement,but an old-
timer in an imagined community, a community in which Katarina believed
she had already achievedold-timer [Link] Katarina felt that her ESL
teacherfailed to acknowledgeher professionalhistory, positioning her as a
newcomer,shewas angry. vVhen, indeed,the teacherappearedto discourage
Katarinafrom taking a computercoursethat would give her greateraccessto
her imaginedcommunity,she refusedto continueparticipatingin the course.
It is significant that ylartina, on the other hand,whose imaginedcommunity,
history and investmentswere distinct from those of Katarina, successfully
completedthe upgradingcourse.
 Non-j){frtirijJation, imaginpd ronanullities and the languageclassroom 165

vVith referenceto Felicia's responseto her ESL teacher'somissionof Peru

in a summing-upexercise,I thought at the time that Felicia had overreacted
to this event. However, when I understandthe event within the context of
Peru and Peruviansas central to Felicia's imaginedcommunity, the teacher's
marginalizationof Peru takes on addedsignificance. Felicia had been very
reluctantto leave Peru. She had led a privileged life in her native countryand
had left only becauseof the increasingturmoil in the country. As she wrote,
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

We downed our standardof living in [Link] used to have a relaxed life in

our country. My husbandhad a very goodjob. Canadadoesn'tgive my husband
the opportunityto work. I never will understandwhy the governmentgave him
the professionalvisa.

Felicia vehementlyresistedthe immigrant label, summingup her feelings as

follows, 'I've never felt an immigrant in Canada,just as a foreigner person
who lives here by accident.' Felicia's friends at work validated her Peruvian
identity, but it appearedthat her ESL teacherdid not appreciatethe signific-
ance of Peru to her. Indeed, the very reason why Felicia may have been
acceptedby her friends at work was becauseshe positioned herself as a
'wealthy Peruvian' rather than a recent immigrant in the workplace.
I was talking with the ladies who work with me, about a land that I'm selling in
Peru. Last month there was a person interestedto buy it. My sister in law was
talking with her for many days, and called me by telephonecollect, receiving
my instructionsto sell, but at last the lady didn't buy the land. And I have to pay
about $600 for calls.
In sum, for both Felicia and for Katarina, their extreme acts of non-
participationwere acts of alignmenton their part to preservethe integrity of
their imagined [Link]-participation was not an opportunity for
learning from a position of peripherality, but an act of resistancefrom a
position of marginality.

IMAGINED COMYlUNITIES. INVESTMENT AND

LANGUAGE LEARNING

I have arguedthus far that while Katarina and Felicia were actively engaged
in classroompractices,the realm of their community extendedbeyond the
four walls of the [Link] imagined community was not accessibleto
the teacher,who, in each case, focused her energy on practicesof engage-
ment, rather than on practicesof the imagination. It was for this reasonthat
Katarina and Felicia ultimately withdrew from their ESL [Link] second
argumentI wish to make, however, is that different learnershave different
imaginedcommunities,and that theseimaginedcommunitiesare bestunder-
stood in the context of a learner'sunique investmentin the target language
and the conditions under which he or she speaksand practisesit.
The concept of investment, which I have introduced in Norton Peirce
(1995), signals the socially and historically constrncted relationship of
 166 Lroml'r COlltriblltio/LI to {allglf(lgr Lmmillg

learners to the target language,and their often ambivalent desire to learn

and practise it. The notion presupposesthat when languagelearnersspeak,
they are not only exchanginginformation "ith targetlanguagespeakers,but
they are constantlyorganizingand reorganizinga senseof who they are and
how they relate to the social world. Drawing on Bourdieu (1977), I have
taken the position that if learners invest in a second language, they do
so with the understandingthat they will acquire a wider range of symbolic
and material resources,which will increasetheir value in the social world.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Learnerswill expect or hope to have a good return on their investmentin

the target language-a return that will give them accessto the privileges of
target [Link] an investmentin the target languageis also
an investment in a learner's own identity, an identity which is constantly
changingacrosstime and space.
It is interestingto note, by way of example,that for all the participantsin
the study, their motivation to speakwas mediatedby investmentsthat con-
flicted with the desire to speak. Although all the participants took extra
coursesto learn English, participatedin the diary study, and wished to have
more social contactwith anglophoneCanadians,all the learnersfelt uncom-
fortable talking to people in whom thp)' had 0 j)(l11irular symbolir or material
[Link] symbolic investment, I refer to the desire and need learners
had for friends, educationand religion, while material investmentreferences
the desire [or capital goods, real estateand money. I wish to argue that the
very people to whom the learnerswere most uncomfortablespeakingEng-
lish were the very people who were memberso[ - or gatekeepersto - the
learners'imagined [Link] to supportthis position was obtained
in responseto the question: 'In general,when do you feel comfortablespeak-
ing English and when do you feel uncomfortableusing English?' In response
to this question, the data from K"tarina and Felicia is compelling. It is signi-
ficant that Katarina, who had a great affective investmentin her status as a
professional,said that she felt most uncomfortable talking to anglophone
professionals:'I feel comfortable using English when I speakwith my school
friends. I fed uncomfortableusing English when I speakwith my teacher,
,,·ith the doctor', she said. Felicia, on the other hand,who had greataffective
investment in hfT Peruvian identity, felt most uncomfortablespeakingEng-
lish in front of Peruvianswho speakEnglish fluently. As she said:

I feci cOllli()rtabk \Ising English with pcople I know anc! han: confidencewith
them, specially with the ladies who I mcet cach \\Tek to practicc English and
Spanish cOll\ersation. I feci llllcom/()rtable with new people anc! nC\cr can
speak English in fron t of Permianpeople who speakEnglish correctly.

The central point here is that a learner'simagined community invited an

imagined identity, and a learner'sinvestmentin the target languagemust be
understoodwithin this context. Both Katarina and Felicia \"ere highh in-
vested in the target language,but for different historical reasonsand with
different consequences for their engagementwith speakersof the targetlan-
guage. Both learnersbelieved that they had a legitimate claim to old-timer
 SOIl-j)(frlirij)(flioll, illlap,7l1cd rolllllllll/ilil',\ fllld Ihl' lrlllK/Wfil' classroolll 167

statusin their imagined communities,but had learnt, at the same time, that
they could not take this statusfor [Link] was this ambivalencethat led to
their discomfort in the companyof experiencedparticipantsin their imag-
ined communities.V'I'hile both learnerscould speakEnglish in the company
of friends, they were both silenced in different ways by different kinds of
old-timer.
In this regard,the study providesconvincingevidencethat languagelearn-
ing is a social practice that engagesthe identities of learnersin complex and
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

sometimescontradictoryways. By 'social practice' I refer in particular to its

formulation by Lave and V'I'enger:
In contrastwith learning as internalization,learningas increasingparticipation
in communities of practice concerns the whole person acting in the world.
Conceiving of learning in terms of participation focuses attention on wavs in
which it is an evolving, continuouslyrenewedset of relations.... Insistenceon
the historical natureof motivation, desire and the verv relations by which social
and culturally mediatedexperienceis available to persons-in-pranice is one kev
to thc goals to be mct in developinga theorv of practice.
(L\\'c and "'enger, E)91: 4\)-50)

In this view, the anxiety Katarina and Felicia experiencedwhen they at-
tempted to speak to membersof their imagined communitiesmust not be
seell as an invariant characteristicof their ability in the target language.
Their difficulty was differently constructedin diverse encounterswith target
languagespeakersand must be understoodwith referenceto their invest-
ment in particular kinds of social relatioJlship.

CIL\NGING EXPECTATIONS OF L\;,,\(;L\GE COCRSES

If learners' imagined COllllllllllities are best understoodin the contcxt of

their im'estmentsin the target language,what are the implications for class-
rOOlll teaching? How can teachers address the imagined comlllunities of
learnersin classroomsin which there lila\, be onT thirty learners,each with
her or his own investmcnts,histories and desiresfor the future? This CJues-
tion is a suhsetof a larger qucstion concerningthe ('xpecatioJlsthat learners
ha\'(~of their laJlguageclassesaJld the kiJld of CUlTintill1ll they might fiJld
most useful in seeking old-timcr status in a given cOllllllunity. In order to
addressthis issue,at least for adult immigrants,I draw OllCC again on the con-
tributions of the langllage learnersin Ill\' stuck In a qllcstionnaire, admin-
istered ill December1990, I asked the follm\'ing question:
Pleaseexaminethe coursc descriptionsf()r thrcc differcnt English langllagc
COllrscs for lie,,' adnit illlllligrants in [Link] the courscsfrolll I
to :1, starting \"ith the onc \OU think wOllld lw lIlost useful to nc\,' adult
illlllligrants who do Hot spcak English as a Illother tongue.

COl'RSF A. /11 Ihil UllinI', 1/1U11 oj Ihl' Ii/III' will 1i1'1/1I'1I1 1I'IIIIIillg /';lIg!ilh p:mllllllllr,
jimlllllltilliiol/, al/d lIo(({li II itl II', 'fi/I'lP will iiI' 11111/1' .11Ft' (ollvl'rlalilJll Illld III'WI/iIljll'l'
 168 Learnf/' Contributions to Langllagf Lmming

work. Students will work Inostl\' from languagf Ipxlbookl and b'1mnmar pxprcise
books.

COURSEB. In this murse, mosl oj the lime will bf sjJPnt learning English by warning
about Canadiansociety: the health care .I}stem, schooling, housing, transportation, work.
Studentswill work mainly jrom material designpdjor new immigrants to Canada.

COURSEC. In this mune, mostoj the time will be .Ipent learning aboutjob opportunities
in Canada: how to read advertisements,how to jill out job applications, how to interview
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

jor jobs. Studentswill work jrom community newspapersand classified advertisements,

and take part in role plays.

CourseA can be broadly identified as a traditional ESL course,in which the

focus of instruction is on the linguistic code of the targetlanguage;CourseB
is characteristicof a more communicativeapproachto languageteaching;
while CourseC could be definedas a coursein English for Specific Purposes.
Clearly there are important overlaps betweenthe courses,but for the pur-
posesof the research,I wished to make them prototypically distinct.
It is interesting that in December1990, four of the learnersindicated a
preferencefor CourseA, while Felicia preferredCourseC, sayingthat 'Course
C is one of the ways a personcan learn English and at the sametime to learn
somethingimportant'.The reasonwhy most of the learnerspreferredCourse
A is best summedup by Katarina:

If somebodywant to live for good in Canada,should be spoken the English

[Link] this course,people will spendmost of the time learning English
grammar,pronunciation,and vocabularybecauseit is baseEnglish.

At that time (December1990) all the learners,including Felicia, drew sharp

distinctions betweenlanguageas a linguistic systemand languageas a social
[Link] learnershoped that the linguistic code could be masteredwith
little referenceto the conditionsof its use, and they assumedthat interaction'
with other Canadianswould give them the information they neededabout
the way of life in Canada,job opportunitiesin Canada,and accessto resources
in Canadiansociety. It is significant that by December1991, however, only
twelve monthslater, the participantshad begunto questionthe usefulnessof
a more traditional second language course. By that time, all the learners
indicated that they wanted more practice using English in the classroomso
that they could transfertheir skills to learningcontextsoutsidethe classroom,
In an interview on 23 January1991, Eva said that the lack of opportunity to
practiseEnglish in the classroommeant that she felt 'scared'when she had
to use the languageoutside the classroom:
Practiceis the best thing to learn. \\11enwe were by the schoolwe were in a lot
of contact with English, but whell I had to go out to work and speak the
language,I was so [Link] dOll't have the practice,just the structures.
Although all the learners agreed they neededthe opportunity to practise
English in the classroom,they did not agreeon what kind of curriculum the
languageteachershould develop. The learnershad different expectationsof
 Non-partirijJation, imagined communitiesand the languageclassroom 169

formal languageclassesbecauseof their unique experiencesof natural lan-

guage learning outside the [Link] looked to the formal language
classroomto complementthe kind of learning that took place in other sites.
Thus Mai, for example, who had the opportunity to speak English in the
workplace, wanted the opportunity to write in the ESL class: 'SpeakingI can
learn every way - outside,in the bus, on the bus, or on the train. Everywhere.
But for reading and writing I have to go to school.' Martina, on the other
hand, who had a great deal of writing practice in her upgrading courses,
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

wanted the opportunity to talk in the ESL class: 'If I wrote, I can correct by
myself and I can think about it. The problem with speaking-I don't have
time to think about it. But if I write something,it's not big problem.'
As a result of experiencesin their communities,the learnersalso indic-
ated that they would like an ESL courseto familiarize them with the cultural
practices of Canadiansociety. The learnerssuggestedthat the ESL course
had given them a rather idealized picture of the kinds of communicative
contexts in which they would be required to use English outside the class-
room. Martina wrote the following in her diary entry of 17 February1991:
'Mter the ESL coursewhen I had the interview, they askedme very different
questions,the ones that we didn't study in school and I was very surprised.'
Such a commentwas an echo of a previous statementshe had made in an
interview on 17 January1991:

Va, I was there. I had interview about two hours long. They want to know
everythingabout me. They askeddifferent questions.I never heardtheseques-
tion. Some questionwas 'What I will do if the bosswas shoutingat me'. And I
was very surprised.I thought 'My boss never, never shoutedat me'.
And I don't know, I said 'If I do somethingbad, I try to do better. And I will
apologize'. But I don't know becausenever, never,I don't think about it.

Of particular concern is that all of the learnershad come to the realiza-

tion that their accessto anglophoneCanadianswas compromisedby their
position as immigrants in Canadiansociety. Martina said that Canadiansare
'fed up' with peoplewho don't speakEnglish. Eva said that a co-worker had
indicated that he didn't like working with people who 'aren't Canadian'.
Felicia said that Canadians'look down' on [Link],all the learners
noted that whenevera breakdown in communicationoccurred, it was they
who felt ashamed,while the target languagespeakerexpressedimpatience.
Like the learnersin the EuropeanScienceFoundationProject (Bremeret aI.,
1996; Perdue,1993), the learnersin my study had found that the onus is on
the learner to understandand be understood,and not on the native speaker
to ensurethat the learner understands.
In sum, despite their initial enthusiasmfor CourseA, the learnersfound
that intensive instruction in grammar, pronunciationand vocabularywas of
limited value when they had little opportunity to interact with the wider
community. Even when opportunities did arise, as I have indicated above,
they found that there were particular social conditions under which they
were most uncomfortable and unlikely to speak. (On this issue see also
 170 Lmrner ContlibutiollS to ]JllIglWf.!/ ]f(lrIlillg

Auerbach and McGrail, 1991; Cumming and Gill, 1992; Goldstein, 1996;
Rockhill and Tomic, 1995.) It is important to note, further, that Katarinaand
Felicia's acts of resistancetook place ajier their initial exposureto a course
similar to CourseA. As Katarina said, she liked her first ESL class,where she
learnt grammar and vocabulary and occasionally read the newspaper,but
in the secondESL class, in which she resisted participation, she felt like a
studentin first grade. It could be argued,in fact, that as languagelearners
seekmore contactin the wider community, their investmentsin their imag-
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

ined communitiesmay grow stronger, and the risk of non-participationin

languagecoursesmay [Link] addition, as Toohey (per-
sonal communication)notes,while languagelearnersmay be comfortablein
being positionedas newcomersto the knowledgeand skills of the grammar
teacher, some may resist being positioned as newcomers to the practices
of being an adult, such as renting an apartment,going to the doctor and
taking a bus.

BEYOND THE IMAGINED COMMUNITY

Thus far I have argued that a languagelearner'snon-participationin a sec-

ond languageclassmay result from a disjuncturebetweenthe learner'simag-
ined communityand the teacher'scurriculum goals. This disjunctureis made
more complex by the fact that a learner'sexpectationsof the secondlan-
guagecurriculum will likely changeover time, partly as a result of the nature
of the learner'sinteractionsin the wider target languagecommunity. While
non-participationis a highly complex practice, there are two points, drawn
from my research,that may have pedagogicaland [Link]
first point to note is that whether or not learnerinvestmentsare recognized
as an integral part of the second language curriculum, the methods that
a teacher uses in the classroom will neverthelessengage the identities of
learnersin diverseand sometimesunsettlingways. If we do not acknowledgethe
ilnagined communitiesof the learnersin our classrooms,we may exacerbate
their [Link] researchsuggeststhat teachersmight encourage
learnersto think of themselvesas living in multiple communities,including
the classroomcommunity, the target languagecommunity and the imagined
community. As teachershelp learnersinterrogatetheir investmentsin their
iinagined community, with its unique possibilities and limitations, they may
simultaneouslyaddressthe risk of non-participationin the languageclassroom.
My secondand concludingpoint concernsthe implications of my findings
for further [Link] key to such researcharises from the finding that
learnershave different investmentsin particular membersof the target lan-
guagecommunity, and that learnersmay be most uncomfortablespeakingto
people in whom they have the greatestinvestment. Further, the people in
whom learnershave the greatestinvestment, my researchsuggests,may be
the very peoplewho representor provide accessto the imaginedcommunity
of a given learner. I think it would be interestingfor teachers,learnersand
 Non1Jarticipation, imaginpd communitiesand thp languageclassroom 171

researchersto ask to what extentsuch investmentsare productivefor learner

engagementin the wider target language community. To the extent that
such investmentsare productive, they could be fostered and encouraged.
However, if such investmentscompromisea learner'sengagementwith the
wider target language community, in general, and second language class-
rooms, in particular, they raise important questionsfor teachers,learners
and researchersalike. Thus, while we may acknowledgea learner'simagined
community, it may be problematicto celebratethis communityuncondition-
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

ally. This point is madeconvincingly by Simon (1992) who arguesthat mem-

ories, imagesand desiresshould be the sourcefor radical renewal, and that
studentsshould be encouragedto interrogatewhy they desire what they do,
and whethersuch desiresare consistentwith a vision of future possibility. I
hope that further researchwill shed light on the intriguing relationship
betweenlearners'non-participationand their imagined communities.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Many thanks to Kelleen Toohey for her insightful commentson an earlier

draft of this chapter.
 Postscript: new directions for
research on learner contributions
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

This postscriptis a reflection on the particular researchperspectivesoffered

in the [Link] addressesthree issuesin turn:
• How might research on the social and affective contributions of the
language learners relate to research that focuses upon psycholinguistic
contributions?
• What further specific questionsfor researchhave been raised by the per-
spectivesoffered here?
• What broaderchallengesto the researcherare highlightedby a focus upon
learnercontributions?
My considerationof each of these will be necessarilybrief. I will conclude
with a tentative proposalregardingthe basis on which both socially-oriented
and psychologically-orientedapproachesto secondlanguageacquisition (SLA)
researchmay becomemutually informing.

LEARNER CONTRIBUTIONS AND SLA THEORY AND RESEARCH

In introducing the chaptersin this book, it was suggestedthat an adequate

explanationof how people learn a secondlanguagehas to accountfor four
major variables: (1) what the learners contribute to the process, (2) the
languagedata made available to the learnersin the communicativeenviron-
ment in which the learningoccurs, (3) how the learningis done through the
interaction betweenlearnersand environment,and (4) the actual outcomes
from the learning. Although taking the first of thesevariablesas the explicit
focus, severalof the precedingchaptershave exploredthe interrelationships
betweenlearners,languagedata and the situated learning process.A com-
mon purposehas been to inform, from different perspectives,an explana-
tion of how these interrelationshipsmay have an impact upon learning
outcomes. The foregoing accounts of learner contributions to their own
learning provide us with a comprehensivepicture of the languagelearners
as thinking, feeling and acting personsin a context of languageuse that is
groundedin social relationshipswith other people. A key characteristicof

172
 PostsClipt: new directionsJor research on learner contributions 173

the secondlanguageacquisitionprocess,as comparedwith the acquisitionof

a first language,is that outcomesvary in significant ways. The closer study of
how the contributions of the second language learners - engagedwithin
both the limitations and opportunitiesof the available communicativeenvir-
onment - may account for differential learning outcomes is one of the
crucial agendasfor future SLA research.A further purpose of the present
book has been to contribute to this agenda.
Two major contributionsof the learnershave not beendirectly addressed
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

in this volume. We have not consideredin detail the possiblecontribution of

the learners'first languageknowledgeand abilities, including the prior socio-
linguistic and pragmatic competenciesthat they bring to the learning of a
new language(seeespeciallyKasperand Kellerman, 1997; Rampton,1995b).
Nor have we explicitly addressedthe crucial role of the learners' inherent
languageacquisition capacitiesand related psychologicalprocesses.A focus
upon both theseareashas exemplifiedimportantSLA researchto the present
time. Perhapsone of the remarkableachievementsof the last thirty years of
the twentieth century was the significant intensification of researchin SLA,
building on, and contributing to, a gradual sophisticationof theory. How-
ever, it may be argued that, becauseboth theory and researchreceived a
good deal of its initial impetusfrom first languageacquisitionstudies,strongly
influenced at the time by a Chomskyan paradigm, their primary psycho-
linguistic focus on the interaction between the learners' mental processes
and languagedata accessedfrom the linguistic environmenthas tended to
prevail over broadersocial perspectiveson learner, languageand context.
With somejustification, Long has recently claimed:

Social and affective factors, the L2 acquisitionliterature suggests,arc important,

but relatively minor in their impact, in both naturalisticand classroomsettings,
and most current theories of and in SLA reflect that fact.... Simply asserting
that this is not so ... will not make it so. Nor will repeating the assenioIlS,
however often, as opposedto producingsome evidencefor them.
(Long. 1997: 319, original emphasis)

It is the case, however, that those 'current theories' prevalent in the last
thirty years that have promoted and accountedfor language acquisition
as primarily the interface between learners' mental processesand the
grammaticalsystem of the target languagehave pursueda researchagenda
that seeks to account for generalizablepatterns of developmentacross all
learners. Intervening variables other than the cognitive and linguistic that
may either enhanceor seriously inhibit such developmentare likely to be
positionedas a distraction from this [Link] may be claimed that a differ-
ent, complementaryand equally valid researchpurposeis to uncover those
variables that are very likely to accountfor differencesin the achievementsof
[Link] amongsuchvariableswill be a range of social
and affective factors. Although many of the chaptersin the presentbook
have pursuedthis objectiveand proposednew directionsin how such research
may be undertaken,Long is right in assertingthat we need more evidence
 174 Learnpr Contributions to JJ/Ilguagp Lmrning

that reveals the actual impact upon language acquisition of the kinds of
learnerconceptualizations,affects and actions that have beenexploredhere.
That social and affective factors may appear'relatively minor in their impact'
may be, of course,a function of the relative lack of researchupon them - or
its lack of acceptability, perhaps- as comparedwith psycholinguistically
[Link] Long's claim about 'naturalistic and class-
room settings', currently influential SLA theory is derived from a relatively
limited data base typified by texts of native speaker-non-nativespeaker,
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

teacher-learner,or learner-learnertalk. Furthermore, the activities from

which such texts emergeare interpretedby some researchersand, thereby,
naturalizedin the literature as 'controlled' eventstaken to be affectively and
interpersonallyneutral for their participants. The data may be taken from
settings other than the experimental,but prevalentinterpretationsof such
dataassumethe emotionaland social dimensionsof the settingas constantor
peripheraland, as a result, theseare displacedas having little impact on how
talk is conductedandwhat may be acquiredfrom it. But evenwithin this rather
reductive view of the appropriateenvironmentalconditions for acquisition,
SLA researchis still struggling to provide convincing evidence of genuine
long-term acquisition in relation to such conditions. It thereforeseemsthat
the presentstateof SLA researchin generalsuggeststhat we cannotafford to
be exclusive in the paradigmsupon which the researchmay be based.
In proposingcertain new directionsfor researchthat may be complement-
ary to psycholinguistic studies and that may offer a fuller explanation for
differential achievementin the learning of language, it appears that the
chaptersin this book have raised as many new researchquestionsas those
that they have tried to [Link] the section that follows, I will identify
questionsthat seemto me particularly importantin addition to thosealready
proposedwithin the foregoing chapters.

SOME UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

What is the actual relationship between learner thinking and

learner action?
Thereis little doubt that we needmore researchon learners'representations
of reality, not least their views of the target language,how languageis best
learned,and of the benefits and limits of the classroomas a languagelearn-
ing [Link], the purposeof such researchshouldbe to reveal
how learnersselectivelywork to facilitate their learning on the basis of such
[Link] Chapter 3, Wenden illustrates this in tracing links be-
tween learnerinterpretationsof task demandsand their subsequentstrategy
selection. The question remains as to whether learners' interpretationsof
task demandsmay themselvesbe constrainedby the specific repertoire of
strategiesto which the learnershave accessfrom prior [Link] other
words, perhapsthe strategiesalreadyfamiliar and available to me shapemy
 PostsrrijJt: new directionsfor research on learner contributions 175

definition of the task that confronts me. Therefore,how does interpretation

of a task, itself basedupon changingmetacognitiveknowledge,relate to the
specific actions that are alreadywithin the control of the learnersgiven that
this relationshipmay be two-way?
Chamot'sdetailedaccountof the researchon languagelearningstrategies
in Chapter2 indicatesthe diverse and imaginativeways in which researchers
have tried to gain accessto learners' descriptionsof their own behaviours
that they seeas helpful to them but which are unobservableto the researcher.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

While, as Chamotindicates,even very young learnerscan articulate the strat-

egies they use, can we infer that learnerswho do not articulate certain stra-
tegic behaviouras part of their ways of working will not adoptsuchbehaviour?
This is an extensionof the previouspoint in the sensethat meta-awareness or
consciousnessmay not only derive from the trying out of new ways of acting
but also that it can sometimesfunction independentlyof action. Further-
more, somelearnersmay not only be unable to articulatewhat they do, they
may be unawareof what they do - whether it is strategicallyhelpful or not.
Degrees of consciousnessand how these actually interrelate with learner
action are, therefore,key issueswithin the investigationof strategiesand also
for researchthat claims that learnerscan 'notice the gap' betweentheir own
non-target-likeproductionand how it may be reformulatedby them in target
form.
The puzzle confronting SlA researchwhen uncovering the relationships
between learner conceptualizationand learner action is unlikely to be re-
solved by seeking uni-directional causal [Link] anxiety, for ex-
ample, lead to poor performanceor doespoor performancelead to anxiety?
Does willing participation in classroomdiscourselead to greaterproficiency
or vice versa?Or does noticing the gap precedeor follow acquisition?Such
interrelations are more likely to be two-way and dynamic in their mutual
influence while causal explanationshave, in the past, served merely to mis-
lead rather than enlighten us. And this has implications for pedagogicinter-
vention, howeverwell [Link] strategytraining as an example,if
some learnersdevelop seeminglybeneficial strategieswithout explicit train-
ing while othersappearto require it, why might this be? Is the issue a matter
of accessto appropriateaction, or having an appropriatedefinition of a task
in hand, or is it both? And which may be a prerequisitefor the other? It
seems that to explore the actual interface between learner thinking and
action we need to trace the developmentof both over time in order to dis-
cover mutual effects without assumingthe primacy of either.

How should 'context' be defined?

A trend ",'ithin recentdebateson SIA researchhas been the condemnation
of a generationof SlA researchas invalid becauseit is seen to have relied
upon evidence from experimentalsituations (see, for example, Firth and
Wagner and replies to their paper in The Modern LanguageJournal, 81/3,
1997 and 82/1, 1998). The argumenthere is that an experimentalsituation
 176 LeamerContributions to Langu~ageLearning
is a particular context that has a particular discourseand that both are differ-
ent in certain ways from the more usual contexts in which people learn a
language,such as classroomsor communitiesof target languagespeakers.
This argumentcan be extended:different contextsare defined differently by
participants;what is meaningful and significant to them is likely to be con-
text specific; and how they act in them - including how they interact and
what and how they learn through such interaction - is also likely to be
contextspecific. Therefore,the argumentconcludes,findings from one con-
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

text, such as those from an experimental task undertakenin a university

observationlaboratory, should not be generalizedto all learning situations.
This argument has significant implications for language pedagogyin the
[Link] issue here is the extent to which learning a languagein a
classroomis so constrainedby the conventionsof classroomdiscoursethat
learnersmay fail to develop both the languageand the discursive practices
that would enable them to communicatein other contexts. Is the commun-
icative competencethat learnersdevelop in a classroomgeneralizableacross
other communicativeevents and situations?Clearly, different contexts pro-
viding opportunities for language learning, like different contexts of lan-
guage use, are not discrete. However, it remains the case that, if only from
the evidence of recent debatesabout the social dimensions of language
acquisition, SLA research needs to develop a much more sophisticated
definition of contextthan we appearto have at present.'Context' is attributed
with often quite distinct theoretical perspectiveswithin researchrelated to
languagelearning and the conceptneedsto be problematizedif researchis
to [Link] capacity to find evidenceof particular contextualvariables
that do make a difference for languageacquisition dependsupon this.
One starting point may be to regard context as layered, metaphorically
speaking,like the skin of an onion. Someof the chaptersin this volume have
consideredfour such layers that may have direct relevanceto languagelearn-
ing. Focusingupon the specific context of a classroom,we might regard the
interaction between learners during a particular task as the heart of the
onion (Chapters2 and 6), this interaction is located within activity (Chap-
ter 7), both are located within discourse in terms of discursive and social
practicestypical of classrooms(Chapter6), and a classroomis but one com-
munity within and, for the learner,betweenother communities(Chapter8).
Questionsthat remain to be answeredby researchcan be applied to eachof
these layers. For instance, Oxford's (Chapter 5) account of how learners
constructedtheir languageteacherssuggesteda 'teaching-learningalliance'
that we may regardas part of the discursivepracticesof [Link],
what is the nature of such an alliance and how is it jointly arrived at? Sim-
ilarly, in what ways do learnersexerciseagencywithin activity in the classroom
context?What may enableor limit the exerciseof agencyin such a context?
If we applied a discoursalperspectiveon the classroom,what discursiveprac-
tices do teachers and learners actually adopt and develop in their work
together? In what ways might such discursive practices provide us with a
window on to the co-constructionof knowledge during joint activity?
 PostscrifJt: IWW directionsfor research on learner contributions 177

At the outer layer of context there is the community or communitiesof

which the learneris a memberor seeksto becomea [Link] doesthe
classroomas a 'learning community' relate to wider communitiesbeyond it
in terms of the impact of both upon a learner'stransitions in membership
and identity? If learning can be seenas the 'increasingparticipation in com-
munities of practice' (Norton, Chapter8), how do learnersconceptualizethe
costs and benefits of investing themselvesin the classroomcommunity and,
more widely, in the learning of the languageof a new community? Issuesof
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

membershipand identity perhapsmost clearly remind us of the likely signific-

anceof motivation in [Link] it is only very recently that some
researchershave begun to explore the workings of motivation within specific
contextssuch as the classroomgroup (see especiallyDornyei, 1998, 2001).
Once we seek to discover relationshipsbetweencontextualvariables and
languagelearning, two major challengesto [Link],
recalling Oxford's accountof learners'sometimesstartling constructsof their
teachers(Chapter5), we might considerwhetherteachersare not only posi-
tioned by learnersin certain ways through classroominteraction,but also by
the immediateinstitutional and externalcurriculum constraintsupon them.
Similarly, Norton's accountof learnersas migrantswithin a new community
(Chapter8) suggeststhat the broadersocial-political context as perceivedor
'imagined' by them is very likely to impact upon people'slinguistic identity
and, thereby, their whole approachto learning the languageof the wider
community. Even if we seek to investigate what may be described as the
micro-context of classroom interaction, certain theoretical and research
approachesto the discoursewould imply that our account will be partial
and seriously flawed unless the socio-political dimensionsof interaction -
such as power, authority, identity, access,and so on - are not also recognized
and their influence explained(see,for example,Chouliaraki and Fairclough,
1999; Pennycook,1994; Tollefson, 1995). In essence,even approachingthe
classroomas context may entail an investigative alertnessto both the wider
social-political influences upon it and how social and political positions
and values of participantsin the languageclassroom,not least the teacher's,
will shape the learning that occurs there. The first major challenge to an
adequateand researchabledefinition of contextappears,therefore,to specify
its dimensions- the extent of its reach - in ways that are both valid and
informative for the languagelearning process.
The second,and related, challengein how we may account for context
concernsthe pivotal role widely attributed to meaningin languagelearning
process.V\'hat is meaningful and significant to learnerswill reverberatewith
cultural value. Culture clearly influences the conceptualizationsof learners
and, probably, their affective engagement in learning. Learners- and teachers
- approachtheir tasks within the narrative of their cultural histories and, it
may be claimed, construct together an interim culture of collective work
in a [Link] essence,culture and contextare indivisible. Their
mutual entailmentimplies that the contextuallayers of interaction, activity,
discourse,community and the wider society in which the languagelearning
 178 Learner Contributions to LanguageLearning

may occur are all locationsfor the articulation, limitation and re-working of
cultures and the meaningsand significancesthat they entail. The fact that
languageitself is a crucial mediatorof culture surely compoundsthe import-
ance of the latter in the study of languagelearning. Nevertheless,for all the
current talk about the need to be alert to cultural difference or our own
potential cultural myopia as researchers,SLA researchhas hardly begun to
try to relate a theory or operationaldefinition of culture to the focus of its
investigation.A possible reasonfor this may be that the prevailing cultural
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

stanceof much SLA researchis largely modernistand 'western'in its psycho-

logical, social and cultural values and [Link] to a reliance
upon 'rationalism', the 'scientific' method, 'objectivity' and the like merely
postponeseriousdiscussionof conceptsthat are inherentlycultural constructs
and, thereby, open to different and, crucially, changinginterpretationand
[Link] 'culture', like 'context',is itself a multi-dimensionalconcept
that is largely unproblematizedin both the researchand pedagogicliterature.
SLA theory and researchto date seemsto lack sufficient critical reflection
within its own discipline, which is, perhaps,a symptom of its immaturity. It
seemsthat the time is right for uncoveringour underlying assumptions(see,
for example,Pennycook,1994; Rampton, 1987, 1995b). What, for instance,
are the constructsof the learner, the environment of learning (including
communicativedata made available there), the learning processand its out-
comesthat currently characterizemuch SLA research?In what ways may these
be enlighteningor constrainingin our understandingof languagelearning?
How we define and frame the layers of context and the meaningsand
significancesthat culture weaves into each layer therefore seem to be two
current prerequisitesfor the future progressin how we conceptualizeand
investigate the learning of a new [Link] a consequence,it is more
likely that the ways in which, and the extent to which, social and affective
variablesactually do have an impact on the processwill reveal themselves.

TOWARDS A SYNTHESIS

This book has offered perspectiveson researchthat representsome initial

stepsin working towards a more integratedview of the languagelearnersas
thinking and feeling people acting with purpose that is generatedby what
they seeas significant and meaningfulfor them as learnersin particularsocial
and cultural [Link], the chaptersin this book collectively
signal the needfor researchthat seeksout evidenceof the interdependency
betweenpsycholinguistic,affective, cultural and social variablesin relation to
languagelearning. However, in addition to unansweredquestionsconcerning,
in particular, how we may be defining context and meaning in language
learning, this book highlights two difficulties that need to be addressedin
such an [Link] first is the potential complexityof investigatinglearner
contributionsand how they relate to each other. The secondproblem, en-
tailed in accountingfor differencesin the outcomesof languagelearning, is
 PostscrijJt: new directionsfor research on learner contributions 179

the likely discovery of variables that are relative as comparedwith variables

and patternsof acquisition that may be [Link] this
concludingsection, thesetwo difficulties will be elaboratedupon briefly as a
means of identifying how we may begin to frame the interdependencyof
learnercontributionsin order to relate them to learning outcomes.

Complexity
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

In anticipatingthe chaptersin this book in the introduction, a diagrammatic

profile of learner contributionswas offered as a summary. It is reproduced
here (Figure 1) as a reminder,if one was needed,of the rangeof variableswith
which we are concernedin taking accountof learnercontributionsand their
[Link] profile certainly presentsa significant chal-
lenge to the constructionof a theory of SlA that meetsthe possibly desirable
criteria of simplicity or elegance!It is understandablethat some researchers
shy away from this challengein favour of investigatingwhat might be inter-
pretedas universal,stableand predictableacrosslanguagelearners,although
this appearsto entail disregardingmost of the learnercontributionsthat this
book has [Link] has beenarguedhere,however,that all of theselearner
attributes,conceptualizations,affects and actionsare, at least potentially and
to differing extents,engagedwhen learners'mental capacitiesand processes
work upon linguistic data in a particular setting. It follows that the outcomes
from such work are, at least potentially and to differing extents,constrained
or facilitated by all of [Link] way of containingthe seeming
complexity of studying learnercontributionswill be to confirm overlapsand
more local relationships between several of them. For example, although
distinctive in their own ways, there are likely to be strong links between
learnerbeliefs, attitudesand motivation. Similarly, in terms of learneraction,
the exerciseof agency,strategicbehaviourand participatorypracticesduring
learning are likely to be mutually related. Therefore,a contributory way of
reducingthe seemingcomplexity of tracing the impact of learnervariableson
learning is to explore how particular clustersof learnervariablesinterrelate
one with the other. It is also here that both context, appropriatelydefined
(see above), and time are crucial to the facilitation of [Link] is very
likely that the learnerswill engagespecific contributionsin specific ways in
relation to how they interpretparticularaspectsof context. In addition, most
learnercontributionsare dynamic and mutable and imply the need to trace
how they shift during learning over time. Researchthat is not longitudinal
will not achieve this and is likely to miss momentsof 'crisis' or important
changesin learningthat require of the learnersreconceptualization, significant
affective investmentor adaptationin actions taken. Paradoxically,perhaps,
the very dynamism of learner contributions renders them potentially more
accessibleto the researcherif the investigation is longitudinal. So, internal
clusters of relationships among learner contributions, how they variously
come into play underspecific contextualconditions,and how they change-
often in mutual ways - all reduce the seemingcomplexity of investigating
 180 LeamerContributions to LanguagfLpaming

Learnerattributes,conceptualizations
and affects

Innatelanguageacquisitioncapacitv
Psycholinguisticprocesses
Gender(Lantol[ &' Pavlmko; Norton)
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Age (Larsen-Freeman)
Aptitude (Larsen-Frmnan)
Cognitive style (Lanrn-Fref/nan)
Learningdisabilities (L(men-FrePlnan)
Personality (Lanen-Frmnfln)
Self/social!CIlltural identity (Larsen-Freell/an;OxfOld; Norton)
Agency (I~flntolf&
Pavlmho)
Metacognitiveknowledge (llpnden)
Beliefs (!Jmen-Frnmflll)
Attitudes (Lanen-FrPrllwn)
Motivation (Lanen-Freell1an)
Constmctsof self as learner& of teacheretc. (l~'l/is;
OxjimJ)
Conceptualizationsof classroom& communities(Breen; Norian)
t
Learneraction in context

Exerciseof agencyduring learning (Lan/olf & Pal!lenko)

Autonomy (I\'enrltr/; Oxjrml)
Self-regulation(ll'fllrlrn)
Languagelearningstrategies(IJIISI'n-FrPrI/IfIII; Chamot)
Participation in overt int~raction, discourse,
activity (Breell; Lalltolf &' ['(lvlmko)

Classroomcontext: a particularlearningcommunity

Active contributor10 specific linguistic/communicative

environment(BIPPII; [J(lItol/ &' I'm'll'llko; Norton)

Wider communityidentity and participation

Experiencedstatcsof transition (iJllitol/ & Pm'lfllko; Nortoll)

1 1 ·1
To which previously To ,,-hich cUITentlv To which seeks
belonged helongs to belong

Figure 1 The profile of learner contributions to languagelearning

them. Complexity of our task may be further reduced if we can identify

a kind of anchor or unifying means of integrating learner contributions
in some way rather than divorcing them along dichotomouslines such as
'psychological'versus 'social' or 'innate' versus 'learned',and so on.
 Postscript: new directionsfor research on learner rontributions 181

Relativism
One of the motives for a book that focuses upon learnercontributionsis to
begin to explain the universal phenomenonof differencesbetweenlearners
in their outcomesfrom second languagelearning. We are necessarilyen-
gaged in the discovery of variables that accountfor relativity in relation to
acquisition as comparedwith variables and patternsof acquisition that may
be seenas seeminglymuch more [Link] theoret-
ical position and, therefore,the findings from the latter endeavourare some-
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

times claimed to be 'real' - rather than 'relative' - and, it is argued,entitled

to greatertrust. To assertthat all or any theoriesof SLA - and the research
related to them - are equally good or bad constructionsof the 'reality' of
SLA is clearly a matterof judgementalrelativism that gravely hindersprogress
in our [Link], we could acceptas complementarya theory
that accountsfor differences between learners in their attainmentof pro-
ficiency alongside a theory that accountsfor universalsin SLA. This would
not be a matter of merejudgementalrelativism. Epistemic relativism, on the
other hand, requiresus to recognizethat any theory and its relatedresearch
derive from the ways in whirh we discourse about reality and that different dis-
coursesare positioneddifferently in our society and culture (Bhaskar, 1986;
Collier, 1994). Different discoursesare generatedby, and reflect particular
positionsin, for instance,an academiccommunitywithin a particularsociety.
From this perspectiveon relativism, the comparativestrengthsor limitations
of a theory can be open to constantevaluation in the course of ongoing
[Link] can thereforecontinually enquireof any theory how it
may accessreality as it gradually shapesthe researchand how the emergent
evidencemay, in turn, force a reconceptualizationof the theory; whetheror
not it fits with experiencedreality of languagelearning, whether or not it
renders the reality of learning a language more transparent,and so on.
Assertinga theoreticalposition as somehow'given' is to position the discourse
that generatedit as beyondquestionor doubt. Epistemicrelativism, therefore,
can be seenas a positive check on theoreticaland researchstancesthat may
be positioned by the discourseof a particular place and time as being sole
arbiters of what counts as reality. As Ellis (Chapter 4), Breen (1996) and
Firth and "'Tagner (1997) suggest,perhapswe are at an opportunemoment
to reassesshow SLA researchis itself constructing language learners and
languagelearning in the ways in which we discourseabout these things.

A TENTATIVE CONCLUSION

In reflecting briefly upon the particular contribution the presentbook pro-

vides to a richer understandingof the learner ill the language learning
process, this postscript has addressedthe seeming irreconcilability of psy-
cholinguistic and social and affective perspectiveson the processby arguing
for a complementaryrelationshipin the future. It has also raised a number
of questionsfor future SL\ researchor elaboratedupon those identified as
 182 Learner Contributions to LanguageLearning

important by authors of some of the foregoing chapters. Further, it has

suggestedthat future researchand theory are confronted by certain chal-
lengesthat have been highlighted by our particular focus upon learnercon-
tributions and that there are solutions to the complexity and relativism that
might be attributed to the task.
A non-tentative conclusion is that we need to be wary of conceptual
inclusivity in [Link] this momentin time, we may have more evidence
concerningcertain things - rather than others- that do have an important
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

influence on learning outcomesand which may encourageus to be more

confident in a particular theoretical rationale rather than ones that, as yet,
are not strongly confirmed by evidence. However, the goal of research,by
definition, is to keep looking. A conceptualopennesson the basisof a reflex-
ive stance in relation to how we discourse about language learning may
enable us to look into the dynamic of variables that it involves both more
deeply and in different ways. One exampleof this may be that SLA research
releasesitself from its dependencyon the paradigmof first languageacquisi-
tion, recognizing the possibility that the key differencesbetweenlearning a
first languageand an additional languagemay significantly outweigh their
similarities.
I suggestedearlier that there may be ways in which the seemingcomplex-
ity of our task may be reduced,if we can identifY a unifYing meansof integ-
rating learnercontributionsand, thereby,integratingtheoreticaland research
perspectivesrather than retreating behind misleading [Link] our
profile of learnercontributions (Figure 1) implies, there are relationshipswe
need to explore between learner thinking and affect, learner action, and
layers of context that might inform a more holistic accountof the language
learning [Link], the tentative conclusionis that the roots of such
an accountalreadyexist in prevalenttheoriesof SLA. Meaning is recognized
as the pulse of languagelearning, and especiallythe ways in which learners
comprehend, express and negotiate meanings when they interact with
others. Thereforethe learners'strugglesto makemeaningcan be seenas the
mediator in the language learning process. Earlier, I argued that what is
likely to be meaningful and significant for learnersis threadedwith cultural
value. I also proposed that what is invested with particular meaningsand
what becomessignificant for the learnersderive from their definition of the
layers of context within which they position themselvesas [Link] sum,
meaningand significanceseenas actively constructedand reronstructedby learners
and these processesseen as grounded simultaneously within interaction,
activity, discourse and the communities in which the learners participate,
offer the potential for a more integratedexploration of languagelearning
than we have been able to achieve so far. From this perspective,language
learning is, in essence,cultural action towards meaningwithin context. And
such action entails mental processesand affective [Link] is hoped
that the foregoing accountsof what learners bring to their learning may
inform such a perspective.
 References
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Abraham,R.G. and Vann, RJ. 1987. Strategiesof two languagelearners:A casestudy.

In A. WendenandJ. Rubin (Eds), Leamerstrategiesin languagelearning. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Aida, Y. 1994. Examination of Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope's construct of foreign
languageanxiety: The case of studentsof [Link] Modern Language/oumul
78/2: 155-68.
Alexander, P.A. and Dochy, F. 1995. Conceptions of knowledge and beliefs: A
comparisonacrossvarying cultural and [Link]-
tional ResearchJournal 32/2: 413-42.
Allwright, D. 1984. Why don't learners learn what teachersteach? The interaction
[Link] D. Singleton and D. Little (Eds), Languugl' learning in formal und
informal rontexts. Dublin: IRAL.
Allwright, D. 1989. Interaction in the languageclassroom:Social problemsand ped-
agogic possibilities. Languageteaching in today's world: Vol. 3 of Proreedings of the
1989 SymjJosiumof LanguageTeachingund Learning. Paris: Les Etats Genreauxdes
Langues.
Allwright, D. 1996. Social and pedagogicpressuresin the languageclassroom:The
role of [Link] H. Coleman (EeL), Societyand the [Link]-
bridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Arries, J. 1999. Learningdisabilities and foreign languages:A curriculum approachto
the design of inclusive courses.17w Modern LanguageJournal 83/1: 98-110.
Ashton-Warner,S. 1963. Teacher. New York: Simon and Schuster.
A.~ton, G. 1986. Trouble-shootingin interactionwith learners:The more the merrier?
AjJjJlied Linguistics 7/2: 128-43.
Atkinson, PJ. 1989. Humanisticapproachesin the adult classroom:An affective reac-
tion. ELTJournal43/4: 268-73.
Auerbach, E. and McGrail, L. 1991. Rosa's challenge: Connecting classroom and
community contexts. In S. Benesch (Ed.), ESL in America: Myths and jJossibilitips.
Portsmouth,NH: Heinemann.
Bailey, KM. 1983. Competitivenessand anxiety in adult secondlanguagelearning:
Looking at and through the diary [Link] H.W. Seligerand M.H. Long (Eds),
Classroom-orientedrl'search in secondlanguageacquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Bailey, KM. and Nunan, D. (Eds) 1996. Voicesfrom the languager/assroom. Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversity Press.
Bandura,A. 1982. Self~efficacy mechanismin humanagency.AmericanPsyrholobrist37:
122-47.

183
 184 Referenres

Barcelos, A.M. 1995. The culture of learning a foreign language (English) of lan-
[Link]'sThesis, UNICA.I\1P, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Barnett, M.A. 1988. Teachingreadingstrategies:How methodologyaffects language
coursearticulation. Foreign LanguageAnnals 21/2: 109-19.
Bartel, R. 1983. Metaphorsand ,ymbols:Forays into [Link],IL: National Coun-
cil of Teachersof English.
Bayley, R. and Preston,D.R. (Eds) 1996. Secondlanguageacquisition and linguistic vari-
ation. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Bedell, DA. and Oxford, R.L. 1996. Cross-culturalcomparisonsof languagelearning
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

strategiesin the People'sRepublic of China and other [Link] R.L. Oxford

(Ed.), Language lraming strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives.
Honolulu, HI: SecondLanguageTeachingand Curriculum Center,University of
Hawaii Press,pp. 47-60.
Beebe,L. (Ed.) 1988. Issuesin secondlanguageacquisition: Multiple [Link],
MA: Heinle and Heinle.
Beebe,L. and Takahashi,T. 1989. Sociolinguisticvariation in face-threateningspeech
acts. In M. Eisenstein (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage:Empirical studies in second
languagevariation. New York: Plenum Press.
Beebe,S. and Butland, M. 1994. Emotional responseand learning: Explainingaffinity-
seeking behaviorsin the [Link] the Annual Meeting of
the InternationalCommunicationAssociation,Sydney,Australia.
Belmechri, F. and Hummel, K 1998. Orientationsand motivation in the acquisition
of English as a second languageamong high school studentsin QuebecCity.
LanguageLearning48: 219-44.
Benson,MJ. 1989. The academiclistening task: A casestudy. TESOL Quarterly 23/3:
421-46.
Benson,P. 2000. Teachingand [Link]: PearsonEducation.
Benson, P. and Lor, W. 1998. Making senseof autonomouslanf.,ruage learning. English
Centre, Monograph,No.2. Hong Kong University, Hong Kong.
Bergman,J.L. 1992. SAIL -A way to successand independencefor low-achieving
readers.ReadingTeacher45/8: 598-602.
Berlin, 1. 1976. Vico and Herder: Two studiesin the history of ideas. London: Hogarth.
Bermudez,A.B. and Prater, D.L. 1990. Using brainstormingand clusteringwith LEP
writers to develop elaborationskills. TESOL Quarterly 24: 523-8.
Berwick, R. 1990. Task variation and repair in English as a foreign [Link],Japan:
Kobe University of Commerce,Institute of Economic Research.
Bhaskar,R. 1986. Scientific rralism and human [Link]: Verso.
Bialystok, E. 1997. The structure of age: In search of barriers to second-language
acquisition. SecondLanguageResearch13: 116-37.
Bialystok, E. and Hakuta, K 1999. Confoundedage: Linguistic and cognitive factors
in age differencesin secondlanguageacquisition. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second
languageacquisition and the critical period [Link], NJ: LawrenceErlbaum
Associates.
Bialystok, E. and Sharwood-Smith,M. 1985. Interlanguageis not a state of mind: An
evaluationof the constructfor secondlanguageacquisition. Applied Linguistics6/
2: 101-17.
Birdsong, D. 1992. Ultimate attainmentin secondlanguageacquisition. Language68:
706-55.
Birdsong, D. (Ed.) 1999. Second language acquisition and the critiwl period hypothesis.
Mahwah, l'U: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.
 RPjef{'n({'s 185

Blender, E. 1997. Group dynamicsand studv abroadgroups: Practicalapplicationsof

theory. Paperpresentedat the annualconferenceof the AmericanAssociationof
Teachersof Slavic and East EuropeanLanguages,1997.
Block, D. 1992. Metaphorswe teach and learn by. Pro~pPl;t
7/3: 42-55.
Block, D. 1994. A day in the life of a class: Teacher/learnerperceptionsof task
purposein conflict. System22/4: 473-86.
Block, D. 1996. A window on the classroom:Classroomeventsviewed from different
angles. In K Bailey and D. Nunan (Eds), Voicesfrom the [Link]-
bridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Block, D. 1997. Learning by listening to languagelearners.System25: 347-60.

Block, D. 1999. Who framed SIA research?Problem framing and metaphoric ac-
countsof the SLA [Link] L. Cameronand G. Low (Eds), Researching
app~ving
and metaphor. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Blum-Kulka, S., House,]. and Kasper, G. (Eels) 1989. Cross-rultural prabrrrtatics: Requests
and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bongaerts, T. 1999. Ultimate attainment in L2 pronunciation: The case of very
advancedlate L2 [Link] D. Birdsong (Ed.), Secondlanguage acquisition and
the critical period [Link], NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bongaerts,T., Planken,B. and Schils, E. 1995. Can late learnersattain a native accent
in a foreign language?A test of the critical period [Link] D. Singleton
and Z. Lengyel (Eds), The agefactor in secondlanguageacquisition. Clevedon,UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Bongaerts,T., van Summeren,G., Planken,B. and Schils, E. 1997. Age and ultimate
attainmentin the pronunciationof a foreign [Link] SecondLanguage
Acquisition 19: 447-65.
Bourdieu, P. 1977. The economicsof linguistic [Link] Science Information
16/6: 645-68.
Braidi, S.M. 1995. Reconsideringthe role of interaction and input in second lan-
guageacquisition. LanguageLearning 45: 141-75.
Bransford,].D. 1979. Human coguition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Brecht, R. and Davidson, D. 1995. Predicatorsof foreign languagegain during study
abroad. In B. Freed (Ed.), Sewnd language acquisition in a study abroad context.
Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Breen, M.P. 1985. The social context for languagelearning: A neglectedsituation?
Studiesin SecondLanguageAcquisition 7: 135-58.
Breen, M.P. 1996. Constructions of the learner in SIA research. In ].E. Alatis,
C.A. Straehle,M. Ronkin and B. Gel\enberger(Eds), GeorgetownUniversity Round
Table on Languagesand Linguistics 1996. Washington,DC: GeorgetownUniversity
Press.
Breen, M.P. 1998. Navigating the discourse: On what is learned in the language
[Link] W.A. Renandyaand G.M. Jacobs(Eds), Learners and languagelearn-
ing. Anthology Series39. Singapore:SEAMEO Regional LanguageCentre.
Breen, M.P. and Candlin, C. 1980. The essentialsof a communicativecurriculum for
languageteaching. Applied Ling11istics 1/2: 89-112.
Bremer, K, Roberts,G., Vasseur,M.-T., Simonot, M. and Broeder,P. 1996. Achieving
undnstanding:Discoursein interrultural [Link]: Longman.
Briscoe,C. 1991. The dynamic interactionsamongbeliefs, role metaphorsand teaching
practices:A casestudy of [Link] 75: 185-99.
Brown, A.L., Campione,].[Link] Day,].D. 1981. Learning to learn: On training stud-
ents to learn from texts. Edwational Leadenhip10: 14-2l.
 186 References

Brown, A, Bransford,J.D.,Ferrara,R. and Campione,J.C.1983. Learning, remember-

ing and [Link] J.E. Flavell and E.M. Markman (Eds), Carmichael's
manual of child psychology:Volume 1. New York: Wiley.
Brown, H.D. 1994. Principles oflanguagelearning and teaching(Third edition). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P. and Schuder, T. 1994. A quasi-experimental
validation of transactional strategies instruction with previouslV low-achieving grade-2
readers. Amherst, NY: University at Buffalo, SUNY, Departmentof Educational
Psychology.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Brown, T.S. and Perry, F.L., Jr. 1991. A comparisonof three learning strategiesfor
ESL vocabularyacquisition. TESOL Quarterly 25/4: 655-70.
Burke, K. 1966. Languageas symbolicaction: Essayson life, literature, and [Link],
CA: University of California Press.
Burr, V. 1995. An introduction to social [Link]: Routledge.
Cameron, L. 1999. Operationalising'metaphor' for applied linguistic [Link]
L. Cameron and G. Low (Eds), Researchingand applying metaphor. Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversity Press.
Cameron,L. and Low, G. (Eds) 1999. Researchingand ajJPlying metaphor. Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversity Press.
Canagarajah,AS. 1993. Critical ethnographyof a Sri Lankan classroom:Ambiguities
in student opposition to reproduction through ESOL. TESOL Quarterly 27/4:
601-26.
Canale, M. and Swain, M. 1980. Theoretical basesof communicativeapproachesto
secondlanguageteachingand testing. Applied Linguistics 1: 1-47.
Carpenter,T., Fennema,E., Peterson,P.L., Chiang, C. and Loef, M. 1989. Using
knowledgeof children'smathematicsthinking in classroomteaching:An experi-
mental study. AmerimnEducationalResearchJournal 26: 499-532.
Carrell, P.L. 1989. Metaeognitiveawarenessand secondlanguagereading. The Modern
LanguageJournal 73/2: 122-34.
Carrell, P.L., Pharis, B.G. and Liberto, J.c. 1989. Metacognitivestrategytraining for
ESL reading. TESOL Quarterlv 23/4: 647-78.
Carrell, P., Prince, M. and Astika, G. 1996. Personalitytypes and languagelearningin
an EFL context. LanguageLf'arning 46: 75-99.
Carrier, K. 1999. The social environmentof secondlanguagelistening: Does status
playa role in comprehension?The Modern LanguageJournal83/1:65-79.
Chamot, AU. 1987. The learning strategiesof ESL students. In A Wenden and
J. Rubin (Eds), Learner strategips in languagl' learning. Englewood Cliffs, l'U:
Prentice-Hall.
Chamot,AU. 1993. Studentresponsesto learning strategyinstruction in the foreign
[Link]'ign LanguageAnnals26/3: 308-21.
Chamot,AU. 1994. A model for learningstrategyinstruction in the foreign language
[Link].E. Alatis (Ed.), GeorgetownUniversity Round Table on Languagesand
Linguistics 1994. Washington,DC: GeorgetownUniversity Press.
Chamot, A.U. 1995a. Learning strategies in listening comprehension: Theory
and [Link] D. Mendelsohnand J. Rubin (Eds), The theory and practice of
listening comprehensionfor the second languagp learner. San Diego, CA: Dominie
Press.
Chamot, AU. 1995b. Learning strategiesof elementaryforeign-language-immersion
[Link] J.E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languagesand
Linguistics 1995. Washington,DC: GeorgetownUniversity Press.
 R{ferfl/ces 187

Chamot,A.U. 1999. Readingand writing processes:Learning strategiesill immersion

[Link] MA. Rassen(Ed.), LanguagplNlrnrrs of tomorrow: Procpssand Promise.
Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.
Chamot, A.U. and El-Dinary, P.B. 1999. Children's learning strategiesin immersion
[Link] Modrrn LanguageJournal 83/3: 319-4l.
Chamot,A.U. and Kupper, L. 1989. Learning strategiesin foreign languageinstruc-
tion. Foreign LanguageAnnals 22: 13-24.
Chamot,A.U. and Kupper, L. 1990. A study of lNlrning strategy instruction in the foreign
languageclassroom:Secondyear report. McLean, VA: InterstateResearchAssociates.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

ERIC Clearinghouseon Languagesand Linguistics.

Chamot,A.U. and O'Malley, J.M. 1994a. The CALLA handbook:Implementingthe cognit-
ive academiclanguagelearning [Link] Plains,NY: Addison WesleyLongman.
Chamot,A.U. and O'Malley,J.M. 1994b. Languagelearnerand [Link]
N.C. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and f'xlJlirit If'flrning of [Link] Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Chamot, A.U., Kupper, L. and Impink-Hernandez,M.V. 1988a. A study of learning
Flnding~
strategiesin foreign lanf.,ruageinstrurtion: 0/ the longitudinal study. McLean, VA:
[Link] Clearinghouseon Languagesand Linguistics.
Chamot, A.U., Ktipper, L. and Impink-Hernandez,M.V. 1988b. A study o/learning
strategiesin foreign languageinstrur:tion: The third year and final report. McLean, VA:
[Link] Clearinghouseon Languagesand Linguistics.
Chamot,A.U., Dale, M., O'Malley,J.M. and Spanos,GA. 1993. Learningand problem
solving strategiesof ESL [Link] REsearchQuarterly 16/3 and 4, Summer/
Fall: 1-38.
Chamot,A.U., Barnhardt,S., El-Dinary, P.B. and Robbins,]. 1996. Methodsfor teach-
ing learning strategiesin the foreign [Link] R.L. Oxford (Ed.),
Languagelearning stratpgiesaround the world: [Link], HI:
SecondLanguageTeachingand Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii Press.
Chamot,A.U., Keatley, c., Barnhardt,S., El-Dinary, P.B., Nagano,K. and Newman,C.
1996. LParning stratf'gies in elf'mentary language immrrsion programs. Final report
submittedto Centerfor InternationalEducation, US Departmentof Education.
ERIC Clearinghouseon Languagesand Linguistics.
Chamot, A.U., Keatley, C. and Mazur, A. 1999. Literacy developmentin adolescent
English languageleafllers: Project AcceleratedLiteracy (PAL). Paperpresented
at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the American EducationalResearchAssociation,
Montreal, Canada.
Chamot,A.U., Barnhardt,S., El-Dinary, P.B. and Robbins,]. 1999. Thp learning strat-
egies [Link] Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
Chapelle, C. 1992. Disembedding'disembeddedfigures in the landscape.. .': An
appraisalof Griffiths and Sheen's'reappraisalofL2 researchon field dependence/
independence'.Applied Lin!-,'1listics 13: 375-84.
Chapelle, C. and Green, P. 1992. Field independence/dependence in second-
languageacquisition research.LanguageLearning42: 47-83.
Chaudron,C. 1988. Secondlanguagf' classrooms:RFsNlrrh on tPaching and learning. Cam-
bridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Cheng, Y-S., Horwitz, E. and Schallert, D. 1999. Languageanxiety: Differentiating
writing and [Link].,ruageLearning 49: 417-46.
Chinn, c.A. and Brewer, W.F. 1993. The role of anomalousdata in knowledgeacquisi-
tion: a theoreticalframework and implications for scienceinstruction. Rroiew of
EducationalResearch63/1: 1-50.
 188 References

Chomsky, N. 1959. Review of 'Verbal Behavior' by B.F. Skinner. Language35: 26-58.

Chomsky, N. 1981. Ler:tures on governmPntand binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.
Chouliaraki, L. and Fairclough, N. 1999. Discoursein late modernit.w Rethinkingcritical
discourseanalysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Clarke, P. 1982. On bandwagons,tyranny, and [Link]'IOL Quarterly 16/4:
437-48.
Claxton, G. 1984. Live and learn: An introduction to the psychologyof brrowth and changein
everydaylife. London: Harper and Row.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Clement, R., Dornyei, Z. and Noels, K. 1994. Motivation, self-confidence,and group

cohesionin the foreign languageclassroom.LanguageLearning44: 417-48.
Cohen, A.D. (Ed.) 1998. Strategies in learning and using a second languagp. London:
Longman.
Cohen,A.D. and Aphek, E. 1981. Easifying secondlanguagelearning. Studiesin Second
LanguagpLparning 3: 221-36.
Cohen, A.D. and Cavalcanti, M.e. 1990. Feedbackon composition: Teacher and
studentverbal reports. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Secondlanguagewriting: Resparchinsights
for the [Link]:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Cohen,A.D. and Olshtain, E. 1993. The production of speechacts by EFL learners.
TESOL Quarterly 27/1: 3:3-56.
Cohen,A.D., Weaver,S. and Li, T.-Y. 1998. The impact of strategies-based instruction
on speakinga foreign [Link] A.D. Cohen (Ed.), Strategiesin learning and
using a secondlanguage. London: Longman.
Cole, M. 1996. Cul/uraljJsycholob'Y'A once and future discipline. Cambridge,MA: Belknap
Books.
Collier, A. 1994. Cultural realism. London: Verso.
Collins, C. 1991. Readinginstruction that increasesthinking abilities. Journal of Read-
ing 34: 510-16.
Cook, V. 1993. Linguistics and secondlanguagp (l('quisition. Basingstoke:Macmillan.
Cook, V. 1996. Second languagp lPllming and language tpacking. London: Edward
Arnold.
Corder, S.P. 1967. The significance of learners'errors. International Reviewof Applied
Linguistics 5: 161-9.
Cortazzi, M. andJin, L. 1996. Metaphorsof teaching, learning, and [Link]
presentedat the Symposiumon Applying Metaphor, University of York, UK. In
P. Riley (Eel.), 'Bats' and 'balls': Belief5 ahout talk and beliPj5 about language[parning:
Mflangups CRAPEL, No. 23. Nancy, France: Universite Nancy II.
Cortazzi, M. and Jin, L. 1999. Bridges to learning: :\1etaphorsof teaching, learning
and [Link] L. Cameronand G. Low (Eds), Resrarrh and ajJjllying mptaphor.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Cotterall, S. 1995. Readinessfor autonomy: Investigating learner beliefs. Systfln 23:
195-205.
Cotterall, S. 1999. Variables affecting successin languagelearning: what do learners
believe? III A. Wenden (Ed.), Special Issue on Metarognitive Knowledge and
Beliefs in LanguageLearning. SnIp/II 27/4: 493-514.
Coughlan,P. and Duff, P. 1994. Different activities: Analysis of an SLA task from an
acthity theory [Link] J.P. Lantolf and G. Appel (Eels), Fl'gotsliian approac/zps
to seronri languageresearch. Nom'oO(I, l'{J: Ablex.
Crookes, G. and Schmidt, R. 1991. Language learning motivation: Reopeningthe
[Link] 41: -±6~)-512.
 RPjPrenCfS 189

Cumming, A. and Gill, J 1992. Ylotivatioll or accessibility?Factors permitting Indo-

Canadian women to pursue ESL literacy instruction. In B. Burnaby aml A.
Cumming (Eds), Sucio1IUlitical (LljJeets of EW, educatiun in Canada. Toronto: OISE
Press.
Curran, C.A. 1972. Counsrlin[!;-lfflrrlin[!;: A whole-personmodel for education. New York:
Grune and Stratton.
Dadour, E.S. and Robbins,J 1996. University-level studies using strategyinstruction
to improve speakingability in Egypt [Link] R.L. Oxford (Ed.), [,an[!;ua[!;e
per~jJectives.
learning strate[!;ies around the world: Cross-cultural Honolulu, HI: Second
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

LanguageTeachingand Curriculum Center, Universitv of Hawaii Press.

Dahl, D. 1981. The role of experiencein speechmodifications for secondlanguage
[Link] in Linguistics and PhilosojJhy ofLangua[!;p 7: 78-93.
Danziger,K. 1990. Conslruetin[!; the subject. Historical ori[!;ins ofpsy:holo[.,rical resparch. Cam-
bridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Danziger, K. 1997. Namin[!; the mind. How psycholo{!J'found its language. London: Sage.
Davydov, V.v. 1999. The content and unsolved problems of activity theory. In
Y. Engestri"nIl, R. Miettinen and R.-L. Punamaki (Eds), Penpectivrs on activity
theory. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Day, R. 1984. Studentparticipation in the ESL classroom,or some imperfectionsin
practice. [,anguageLearnin[!; 34: 69-102.
Deignan, A. 1999. Corpus-basedresearchin [Link] L. Cameronand G. Low
(Eds), &searchingand ajJjJlying mrtajJhur. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Derry, SJ. 1990. Learning strategiesfor acquiring useful knowledge. In Jones,B.F.
and Idol, L. (Eds), Dimensionsof thinking and cognitivp instruction. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Devine,J 1993. The role of metacognitionin secondlanguagereadingand writing.
In JG. Carson and I. Leki (Eds), &ading in the composition classroom: Secondlan-
[Link], MA: Heinle and Heinle.
Dewaele,J-M. and Furnham,A. 1999. Extraversion:The unloved variable in applied
linguistic [Link] 49: 509-44.
Dewaele,J-M. and Furnham, A. 2000. Personality and speechproduction: A pilot
study of second language learners. Prrsonality and lndividual Diffrrencps 28/4:
355-65.
Dobinson, T. 1996. The rpwll and rrtrntion of npw vocabulary from second language
[Link] [Link], WesternAustralia: Edith Cowan
University.
Dole, J, DuffY, G., Roehler, L. and Pearson,P.D. 1991. Moving from the old to the
new: Researchin reading comprehensioninstruction. Rrvirw of Edumtional Rp-
smrch 61/2: 239-64.
Donato, R. 1994. Collective scaffolding in secondlanguagelearning. In JP. Lantolf
and G. Appel (Eds), VygotskianajJpro(Irhrs to SP(()nri languagl' rpsmrch. Norwood, NJ:
Ablcx.
Donato, R. and McCormick, D. 1994. A sociocultural perspectiveon languagelearn-
ing strategies:The role of mediation. niP Alodrrn La ngu{/[!;p'/o llrrlal 78/4: 453-64.
Dornyei, Z. 1994. Motivation and motivating in the foreign [Link]
Modern Lang"uagr./0urn al 78/3: 273-84.
Dornyei, Z. 1995. On the teachability of cOllllllunication strategies. Tlc~<';Ol, Quartrrly
29: 55-85.
Diirnyei, Z. 1998. .Motivation in second and foreign language learning. L(mguagp
Tmching31: 117-35.
 190 He/PInlces

Diirnyei, Z. 2001. 1P(lIhillf.i ([fld [Link].i //lolivation. [Link]: PearsonEducation.

Doughty, C. and Williams, J. (Eds) 1998. FO(lls Oil j(mll ill classroo//l setolld [Link]
arql1isition. New York: CambridgeUnhersitv Press.
Dubin, F. and Olshtain, E. 1986. Counedesit,rrl. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Duff, P.A. 1996. Different languages,different practices: socialization of discourse
competencein dual-languageschool classroomsin Hungary. In K.M. Bailey and
D. Nunan (Eds), ,'oirps/rom the [Link]:CambridgeUniver-
sity Press.
DuffV, G.G., Roehler, L.R., Sivan, E., Rackliffe, G., Book, c., l\kloth, M.S., Vavrus,
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

L.G., Wesselman,R., Putnam,J. and Bassiri, D. 1987. Effects of explaining the

reasoningassociatedwith using [Link]/y 22/
3: 347-68.
Dulay, H. and Burt, M. 1977. Remarkson creativity in languagelearning. In M. Burt,
H. Dulay and M. Finocchiaro (Eds), Viwj}()ints on English as a serond language.
New York: RegentsPublishingCompany.
Durkin, K. 1987. Minds and language: Social cognition, social interaction and the
acquisition of language.i'vlind (uul Language2/2: 105-40.
Ehrlich, S. 1997. Genderas a social [Link] for secondlanguageacquisi-
tion. Studiesin SetondLanguageArquisition 19: 421-46.
Ehrman, M. 1993. Ego boundaries re\isited: Toward a model of personality and
learning. In J. Alatis (Ed.), (;POIgetown Univasil), Roulld Talilp Oil Languagesand
Linguistics 1993. Washington,DC: GeorgetownLni\'ersity Press,pp. 331-62.
Ehrman,M. 1995. Personality,language-learning aptitude,and program [Link]
J. Alatis, C. Straehle,B. Gallenbergerand ~1. Ronkin (Eds), (;emgetown Univmil),
995.
Round Table on Languages find Linguistif'.l i 995. vrashington, DC: Georgetown
University Press,pp. 328-45.
Ehrman, M. 1996. Unrlmtanding Sf((iIId lanp;lla/1/ Imming diflimitil'S. ThousandOaks,
CA: Sage.
Ehrman, M. and Di'>rnyei, Z. 1998. InleljJPIs(JlI{/1 (hn{/II/in ill se(,()lIr/ IUlIguage eriumtion:
nIP visibip and illvisiNe r/flSSroolll. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.
Ehrman, M. and Oxford, R. 199". Cognition pillS: Correlatesof languagelearning
sliccess. The Modem L(lIIguaw'/ollrlIfl179/1: ti7-S9.
Eisner, E.v\'. 1991. The enlightellPd I'l'e: (2u{/lilatil!f illquil}' ([lid Ihl' PIIh(l1Irl'lllenl oj edw{/-
tional jJmrlire. ~e\\' ~lanniIlan.
York:
Elbaum, B.E.,Berg,[Link], [Link]. 19~)3. PrC'\'iouslearningexperience,stratCf..,"Y
beliefs,andtaskdefinitionin self~rcgulatcd foreign langllagc learning. COIltell/jJOIe
an f~'durati()lI(Ji Pn'cllOiog\'18: 318-36.
EI-Dinary, P.B.,Brown,R. andVan ~Ictcr, ~)!)5.
P. 1 Strategyinstruction for imprm'ing
[Link] E. Wood,V.E. Woloshvn and T. Willollghby (Eds), CO[.illiliw Ilmtpgr
illstl'llrtiolljhr lIliridle ([nd [Link],[Link],:\L\: Brooklinc Books.
Elliott, A.R. [Link] langnage phollology: field indepcndence,attitllde, and thc
success of formalinstrllctionin Spanish pronllnciation. nil' ,\lOr/P/'lI Lallguage
.Journal 7~l/ 4: 530--l2.
Ellis, G. and Sinclair, B. 198~)' l~'lIglislz:
i,Pllllling to IPllm A (()lIr,IP ill Immel' tmillil/g.
Trrllher\ book. Cambridge:Cambridge Lni\{~rsitv Press.
Ellis, N.C. 1994. Vocabularvacquisition: The implicit ins and outs of explicit cognitive
mediation. In N.C. Ellis (Ed.), IIlIjJlicit {/ lid pxjJlirit i('mlli IIg ujl([lIguages. San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Ellis, N.C. 1996. Phonological memorv, chunking, and points of order. Sturiil's in
Se(,()lIdI~({ngllage ltcfjllisiliorl 18: 91-126.
 Rf'jPlP IICfS 191

Ellis, N.C. and Beaton, A. 1~)93. Psycholinguisticdeterminantsof foreign language

Psycholinguistic
vocabularylearning. hmguagr[,parning 43: 559-617.
Ellis, R 1984. Classroomsf('()nd lflnguagr dfVrlojnnent. Oxford: Pergamon.
Ellis, R 1985. Teacher-pupilinteraction in [Link] S. Gass
and C. Madden (Eds), InlJUt in serond languagr arquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Ellis, R. 1986. Undmtandingsfrond languagl' (l(:quisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. 1994. The study ofsPCImdlanguageacquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. and Rathbone, M. 1987. TI!l' acquisition of Grrman in a rlassroom wntext.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Mimeograph. London: Ealing College of Higher Education.

Ely, C. 1986. An analysis of discomfort, risk-taking, sociability and motivation in the
secondlanguageclass. LmguageLrarnillg 36: 1-25.
Engestriim,Y. 1987. Lmrning by undrrstanding. An activity-theoreticalapjJro{lch to dfVelop-
mental researrh. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
EngestriJm, Y. 1999. Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In
Y. Engestr(im,R. Miettinen and R.-L. Punamiiki (Eds), PmpfI'tivfSon activity theory.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
EngestriJm,Y. and Middleton, D. (Eds), 1996. Cognition and I'mmnunication at work.
Cambridge:CambridgeCniversity Press.
Englert, C.S., Raphael,T.E., Anderson,L.~1., 995. Anthony, H.M. and Stevens,D.O. 1991.
Making strategiesand self-talk visible: Writing instruction in regular and special
[Link] Edlll:ational Resrarchjou 171al 28: 337-72.
Enkvist, I. 1992. Conrfjltiofls of 1m171 illg and studygoals: First semestrrstudentsof Spanishat
Il Swedishunivrrsit),. Studiesof Higher Educationand Research3. Stockholm: The

Council for Studiesof Higher Education,Sweden.

Eubank, L. and Gregg, K. 1999. Critical periods and (secondlanguageacquisition):
Divide et impera. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Se({)fld language([cljuisition and thr aitim/
Ileriori hyjJOlhesis. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.
Eysenck, M.W. 1986. it handbook of rognitive jJs}l'h%,!.,,)'. London: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
F<t'rch, C. and Kasper,C. (Eds) 1983. Stratrgifs in inlrrlrLrl,I.,J1wgP (,{)lI!lI!unimlirJrl. London:
Longman.
Fairclough, N. 1989. Lrlllgllagr and j){)wer. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. 1992. Dis(oune alld soria/ ('hallge. Cambridge:Polity Press.
Faltis, C. 1!)!)7. Casestudy methodsin researchinglanguageand [Link]/ojll'-
riia offJmguagrand f,'ducatioN, Vollime 8: 145-52.
Firth, A. and V\'agner,J.1997.011discourse,comlllunication,and (some) fundamental
conceptsin SIA [Link] Mor/rrll LangllageJollrtlrLi 81/~): 285-300.
Flavell,.J. 1979. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitiYC
dcvelopmentalinquirY. American l'wclwiogisl ~)4: !l06-11.
Flavell,.J. 1981. Monitoring social cognitiH' enterprises:something else that may
develop in the area of social coglJition. In JH. Flavell and L. Ross (Eds), Soria/
(ogllitiw r!rve/oj))nPIII: Frlllltins rllld jJ(}lsih/Pjiilll/PS. New York: CambridgeCniversity
Press.
Flavell, JH. 1987. Speculationabout the nature and developmentof metacognition.
In F.E. v'{einert and RH. Kluwe (Eds), Mpl(J({)gnilioll, molivatioll and ulldrrstrmrlillg.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaulll Associates.
Flege,J 1995. Sccondlanguagespeechlearning. Theorv, findings, and [Link]
W. Strange (Ed.), SjlfPl'h jirrcejitiofl alld ii nguislir eX/laimfr. Timonium, MD: York
Press.
 192 HEleIP//c{'s

Flege,J. 1999, Age of learning and [Link] D. Birdsong (EeL),

Sprond languageacquisitioll alld tlip (Titirat/laior! h'j}()lhpsis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Flege, J., Munro, M. and MacKay, I. 1995. Factors affecting strength of perceived
foreign accentin a [Link] 0/ the AccuustiwlSociety oj Ammra97:
3125-34.
Flowerdew,J., Li, D. and Miller, L. 1998. Attitudes towards English and Cantonese
amongHong Kong Chineseuniversity lecturers. TESOL Quartaly 32: 201-31.
Foster, P. 1998. A classroomperspectiveon the negotiationof meaning. APPliN/ Lin-
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

guistics 19/1: 1-23.

Fotos, S. 1994. Motivation in second language learning: A critical review. Senshu
Universitv Annual Bulletin oj the Humanities24: 29-54.
Frawley, WJ. 1997. Fygotsky and cognitivp scimC!'. Cambridge,MA: Harvard L'niversitv
Press.
Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy0/ thp [Link] York: Seaburv.
Gadd, N. 1998. Toward less humanistic teaching.ELTJournal52/3: 223-35.
Gagne, E.D., Yekovich, C.W. and Yekovich, F.R. 1993. The rognitivp psychologyoj school
learning (Secondedition). New York: HarperCollins.
Ganschow,L. and Sparks, R. 1993. 'Foreign' languagelearning disabilities: Issues,
research and teaching implications. In S.A. Vogel and P.B. Adelman (Eds),
Sw:cpssJor rollrgp studmtswith lmrning disahilitirs. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Ganschow,L. and Sparks,R. 1995. Effects of direct instruction in Spanishphonology
on the native-languageskills and foreign-languageaptitude of at-risk foreign-
[Link] oj Lmrning Disabilities 28: 107-20.
Ganschow,L. and Sparks, R. 1996. Anxietv about foreign languagelearning among
high school women. The Modan LanguagpJournal80/2:199-212.
Ganschow, L., Javorskv, J., Sparks, R., Skinner, S., Anderson, R. and Patton, J.
1994. Differences in language performanceamong high-, average-, and low-
anxIOus college foreign language learners. Thp Alor!ern Languagr journal 78/1:
41-55.
Gardner, H. 1983. Frmnfs 0/ mind: Tlu thfOry 11/ /Ill/lIijlle intplligenees. New York: Basic
Books.
Gardner, R. 1980. On the validity of affective variables in secondlanguageacquisi-
tion: Conceptual,contextual,and [Link]-nagrLearning30:
255-70.
Gardner,R. 1985. Socialjl.I.'lChology and sp('(md language learning: The role 0/ attiturie anri
motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R.c. and Lambert, \It'.E. 1972. Attitude.1 and motivalion in srcund language
learning. Rowley, Mass: Newburv IIouse.
Gardner, R. and MacIntyre, P. 1991. An instrumentalmotivation ill languagestudy.
Studiesin SecondiJmgllage Acquisilion 13: 57-72.
Gardner, R. and MacIntyre, P. 1993. On the measurementof affective variables in
secondlanguagelearning. Lrlllguagp Lmrning 43: 157-94.
Gardner,R. and Tremblav, P. 1994a. On motivation, researchagendas,and theoret-
ical frameworks. The iHorian Lrmgllagp./ournal78/3: 359-68.
Gardner, R. and Tremblay, P. 1994b. On motivation: measurementand conceptual
[Link]' AlodeTII i"(/nguagr JOllrnal78/4: 524-7.
Gardner, R., Tremblav, P. and Masgoret, A. 1997. Towards a full model of second
languagelearning: An empirical im'Cstigation. The AIoril'rn LanguagejouTllal81/3:
344-62.
 RpjPren(Ps 193

Gaskins, LW. and Elliot, T.T. 1991. Implnnmting rognitive strategy instruction [Link] thf'
school: The benchmarkmanualfor [Link],MA: Brookline Books.
Gass,S.M. 1998. Apples and oranges:Or, why applesare not orangesand don't need
to be. A responseto Firth andWagner. The Modern LanguageJournal 82/1: 83-90.
Gass, S.M. and Varonis, E.M. 1985. Task variation and nonnative/nonnativenegoti-
ation of [Link] S.M. Gassand CG. Madden (Eds), Input in serond language
acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Genesee,F. 1976. The role of intelligence in second languagelearning. Language
Learning 26/2: 267-80.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Gergen,KJ. 1985. The social constructionistmovementin modern [Link]-

ican P,ychologist40: 266-75.
Giles, H. (Ed.) 1977. Language, ethnicity and inter;e;roup rf'lations. New York: Academic
Press.
Gillette, B. 1994. The role of learnergoals in L2 [Link]].P. Lantolf and G. Appel
(Eds), Vygotskianappmachesto sPClmd languageresearch. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Giltrow,]. and Colhoun, E. 1992. The culture of power: ESL traditions, Mayan resist-
[Link] B. Burnabyand A. Cumming (Eds), Sorio-fJolitiml asfJertsofESL in Canada.
Toronto: OISE Press.
Glaser, B. and Strauss,A.M. 1967. Discovery of groundedtheory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Glucksberg,S., Keysar, B. and McGlone, M. 1992. Metaphor understandingand ac-
cessingconceptualschema;Reply to Gibbs. PsychologimlRevino99: 578-81.
Goldstein, T. 1996. Two languagf's at work: BilingualliF: on thf' productionfloor. Mouton
de Gruyter: New York.
Green,].M. and Oxford, R. 1995. A closer look at learningstrategies,L2 proficiency,
and gender. lE'WL QuartPrly 29/2: 261-97.
Gregg, K. 1989. Secondlanguageacquisition theory: The case for a generativeper-
[Link] S. Gassand]. Schachter(Eds), Linguistic [Link] sewndlanguage
acquisition. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Gregg, K. 1993. Taking explanation seriously: or, let a couple of flowers bloom.
ApfJlied Linguistics 14: 276-94.
Griffiths, R. 1991. Pausologicalresearchin an L2 context: a rationale and review of
[Link]/ Linguistics 12: 276-94.
Griffiths, R. and Sheen,R. 1992. Disembeddedfigures in the landscape:A reappraisal
of L2 researchon field dependence/independence. AjJj;/ied Ling·uistirs 13: 133-
48.
Gro~jahn, R. 1991. The re-searchprogrammesubjective theories:A new approachin
[Link] SecondLanguagf'Acquisition 13: 187-214.
Gurney, B.F. 1995. Tugboatsand tennis games: Preserviceconceptionsof teaching
and learning revealed through [Link] of Res('([rth in SelmeeTeaching
32/6: 569-83.
IIamayan, E. and Tucker, R. 1980. Languageinput in the bilingual classroomand its
relations to [Link]()!, QuartPrly 14: 453-68.
Hargreaves,A. (Ed.) 199G. Rtlhinhing pdumtiol/rtl dumge with heart and mind. Alexan-
dria, VA: Association for Supenisionand Curriculum Development.
Harley, B. and Hart, D. 19~)7. Languageaptitude and secondlanguageproficiency in
classroomlearnersof different startingages. Siudiesin SpcondLanguageAcquisition
19: 379-400.
Harre, R. 198:1. PnllJllrd btillK: Athl'Ory/i!l individual/JsycllOlo,I.,'l'. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
I farris, K.R. and Graham,S. 19!)2. HpljJinK JOIIIIK wrill'1s mastPJ" thp crafi: Stratp[!J illstruc-
~A:
tion (Llld .IPIFI"I'gIl/atiol/ ill the writing Inocpss. Cambridge, Brookline Books.
 194 RRferenrps

Hartmann, E. 1991. Boundmiesin Ihe mind: A new jlSl'riwlogy of jH7'Sonalily. New York:
Basic Books.
Hatch, E. 1978. Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In E. Hatch
(Ed.), Secondlanguageacquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Henzel, V. 1979. Foreigner talk in the classroom.IntP17lational Review of Applied Lin-
guistics 17: 159-65.
Hermann,G. 1980. Attitudes and successin children'slearningof English as a second
language:The motivational versus the resultative [Link] Language
Teachingjournal34:247-54.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Herron, C. 1982. Foreign languagelearning: Approachesas metaphor. The ModP17l

Languagejournal 66/2: 235-42.
Higgs, T. and Clifford, R. 1982. The push [Link] T. Higgs (Ed.),
Curriculum, competence,and thp forpign languageteacher. Skokie, IL: National Text-
book Company.
Ho, B. 1996. Developingstrategic knowledge about technical report-writing through
reflective activities. Paperpresentedat the InternationalConference,The Develop-
ment of Learning Independencein LanguageLearning, King Mongut Institute
of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand.
Hoffman, E. 1989. Lost in translation. A life in a nl"w language. New York: Penguin.
Hoffman, R. and Kemper, S. 1987. What could reaction-time studies be telling us
about metaphorcomprehension?Metaphor and SymbolicActivity 2: 149-86.
Hofstede,G. 1986. Cultural differencesin teachingand learning. IntP17latiunalJuurnal
of Intercultural Eduratiun 10: 301-20.
Hofstede, G. 1991. Cultures and urganizatiuns: Suj/ware of the mind. London: McGraw-
Hill.
Holec, H. 1981. Autonomyand foreign languagelearning. Oxford: PergamonPress.
Holec, H. 1987. The learneras manager:managinglearningor managingto learn. In
A. Wenden and J. Rubin (Eels), LmTfwr strategips in language learning. London:
Prentice-Hall.
Horowitz, E.K. 1987. Surveyingstudentbeliefs aboutlanguagelearning. In A. Wenden
andJ. Rutin (Eds), Learn" strategies in languagelearning. London: Prentice-Hall.
Horowitz, E.K. 1988. The beliefs about language learning of beginning university
foreign [Link] ModP17l. Languagejournal 72/3: 283-94.
Horowitz, E.K. 1999. Cultural and situational influenceson learnerbeliefs about lan-
guagelearning. In A. Wenden (Ed.), Special Issue on Matacognitive Knowledge
and Beliefs in LanguageLearning. 5J'ystem27/4: 557-76.
Hosenfeld, C. 1976. Learning about learning: Discovering our students'strategies.
Foreigu LanguageAnnals 9: 117-29.
Hosenfeld, C. 1999. Some beliefs of languagelearners are emergentphenomena.
Paperpresentedat the 12th World Congressof Applied Linguistics, Tokyo,Japan.
Hosenfeld, C., Arnold, V., Kirchofer, J., Laciura, J. and Wilson, L. 1981. Second
languagereading: A curricular sequencefor [Link]
LanguageAnnals 14/5: 415-22.
Huang, S.c., Lloyd, P. and Mikulecky, L. 1998. AssessingESL learners'perceptionsof
self-efficacyin readingand writing. Paperpresentedat the American Association
for Applied Linguistics Annual Conference,Miami, Florida.
Huberman,M. (Ed.) 1989. Researchon teachers'professionallives. Special issue of
IntP17lationaljournal a/EducationalResearch13/4.
Huberman,M. 1993. The lives of tPrlchm. New York: TeachersCollege Press.
 RPjrml{(,S 195

Huda, N. 1998. Relationship between speaking proficiency, reflectivity-impulsivity,

and L2 learning [Link] W. Renandyaand G. Jacobs (Eds), Ifarnrrs and
languagelearning. Singapore:SEAMEO Regional LanguageCentre.
Hurford, J. and Kirby, S. 1999. Co-evolutionoflanguagesize and the critical period.
In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Secondlanguage acquisition and the critical prriod hY/JOthesis.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ibrahim, A. 1999. Becoming Black: Rap and hip-hop, race, gender,identity and the
politics of ESL learning. T~'SOL Quarterly 33: 349-69.
Idol, L. andJones,B.F. 1991. l~ducational valuesand cognitive instruction: Implicationsfor
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

reform. Hillsdale, r-.u: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ioup, G., Boustagui,E., El Tigi, M. and Moselle, M. 1994. Re-examiningthe critical
period hypothesis:A casestudy of successfuladult SIA in a naturalistic environ-
ment. Studiesin SecondLanguageAcquisition 16: 73-98.
Jehng,J.-C.,Johnson, S.D. and Anderson,RC. 1993. Schoolingand student~' epistemo-
logical beliefs about learning. ContemporaryEducationalPsychology18: 23-35.
Jimenez,RT. and Gamez,R. 1998. Literature-basedcognitive strategyinstruction for
middle school Latino [Link] RM. Gerstenand R.T. Jimenez(Eds), Promot-
ing learningforcultuml~y and linguistically divrrse [Link], CA: Wadsworth.
Johnson,J.A., Dupuis, Y.L., Musial, D., Hall, G.E. and Gollnick, D.N. 1996. Introdur:-
tion to the fundamentalsuf Ammcaneducation (Tenth edition). NeedhamHeights,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Jones,B.F. and Idol, L. 1990. Introduction. In [Link] L. Idol (Eds), Dimensions
of thinking and cognitive instruction. Hillsdale, r-.u: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kasanga, L.A. 1996. Peer interaction and L2 learning. Canadian Modrrn I~anguage
Review52/4: 611-39.
Kasper, G. (Ed.) 1996a. The developmentof [Link] of
Siudips in SecondLanguageAcquisition 18/2.
Kasper, G. 1996b. Introduction: Interlanguagepragmaticsin SL\.. Studies in Secund
LanguageAcquisition 18/2: 145-8.
Kasper, G. 1997. 'A' stands for acquisition. A responseto Firth and Wagner. The
Modern LanguageJournal 81/3: 307-12.
Kasper, G. and Kellerman, E. (Eds) 1997. Communicationstmtegies:Psycholinguisticand
sociolinguistic [Link]: Longman.
Katz, A. 1996. Teaching style: A way to understandinstruction in language class-
rooms. In K.M. Bailey and D. Nunan (E<1s), VoiCfs from the language classroom.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Keatley, c., Chamot,A.U., Barnhardt,S. and El-Dinary, P.B. 1999. Learning strategy
usc by children in [Link] Language
Learning.
Kelchtermans,G. 1996. Teachervulnerability: Understandingits moral and political
roots. CambridgeJournal (if Eduration 26/3: 307-23.
Kellerman, E. 1995. Age before beauty:Johnsonand Newport revisited. In L. Eubank,
L. Selinkerand M. SharwooclSmith (Eds), The current stalp of intrrlanguage: Studies
in Honor of William E. Ruthrrj(ml. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Kellerman, E. and SharwoodSmith, M. (Eds) 1986. Cross-linguistic influPrice in second
languageacquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Kelly, G. 1955. The psychologyof pmunal construr:is (Vols 1 and 2). New York: Norton.
Kern, R.G. 1995. Stuclents' and teachers' beliefs about language learning. F'oreigu
LanguageAnnals28: 71-92.
 196 Referrnces

Kimura, M, 1999. A cross-sectionalstudy of Japanesecollege students'English profici-

ency and their strategiesfor foreign language learning: Differences between
generalstudentsand [Link] AILA 1999, Tokyo, Japan.
Klein, W. 1995. Languageacquisition at different ages. In D. Magnusson(Ed.), The
lifespan developmentoj individuals: Behavioral, neurobiological, and [Link]-
tives. A synthesis. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Kliefgen, J. 1985. Skilled variation in a kindergartenteacher'suse of foreigner talk.
In S. Gassand C. Madden (Eds), Input in secondlanguageacquisition. Rowley MA:
Newbury House.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Kline, R. 1993. ThF social practicp oj literacy in a program oj study abroad. Unpublished
PhD dissertation,PennsylvaniaState University, Philadelphia,PA.
Knox, A.B. 1977. Adult developmentand Imming. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.
Koch, S. and Deetz, S. 1981. Metaphor analysis of social reality in organizations.
Journal of Applied CommunicationResearch9: 1-15.
Kramsch, C. 1993. Context and culture in languageteaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Kramsch, C. 1995. The applied linguist and the foreign languageteacher: Can they
talk to each other? AIHtmlian Reviw of Applied Linguistics 18: 1-16.
Krapcls, A.R. 1990. An overview of second languagewritmg process approach. In
B. Kroll (Ed.), Secondlanf.,FUage writing. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Krashen, S. 1981. Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Krashen,S. 1985. The in/JUt hyjlOthesis: ImlPs and implications. London: Longman.
Krashen,S. 1994. The input hypothesisand its rivals. In N.C. Ellis (Ed.), imjJlicit and
explicit learning oj [Link] Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Krashen,S. 1998. Comprehensibleoutput? System26: 175-82.
Krashen, S. and Terrell, T. 1983. The natural ajJfJT(mch: Language acquisition in the
[Link]: Pergamon.
Krashen, S., Long, M. and Scarcella,R. 1979. Age, rate, and eventual attainmentin
secondlanguageacquisition. TESOL Quarterlv 13: 573-82.
Kuhlmeier, H., van den Bergh, II. and ~1else,L. 1996. Attitudes and achievementsill
the first year of Germanlanguageinstruction in Dutch [Link]
Modem LanguageJournal 80/4: 494-508.
Kumaravadivelu, B. 1991. Language-learningtasks: Teacher intention and learner
interpretation.A'LTJournal45/2: 98-107.
Kumaravadivelu, B. 1994. The postmethod condition: (E) merging strategies for
second/foreignlanguageteaching. TESOL Quarterly 28/1: 27-48.
Lakoff, G. 1986. A figure of thought. MPlajJ}wr and SvmbolicArtivity 1: 215-25.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women,fire and dangerousthingl·. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1980. i'vletajJhors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. and Turner, M. 1989. Alore than ((Jol reason: A Jield l.,FUide to poetic metaphor.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lambert, W. and Taylor, D. 1996. Languagein the lives of ethnic minorities: Cuban
American families in Miami. Applied Linguis/irs 17: 477-500.
Lantolf, J. 1996. SlA theory building: 'Letting all the flowers bloom!' Larlf.,'1tage
Leaming46: 713-49.
Lantolf,J. and Appel, G. 1994. ':vgotskiaf/ ajijJm(u:hesto [Link],
NJ: Ablcx.
 RPjflt'nrfS 197

Lantolf, ].P. and Genung, P.B. 2000. An actIVItv theoretic perspectivc Oil j()reigll
languagelearning in the classroolIl scttillg: A case study. In S. Pekarek (Ed.),
Special issue of Acquisition et II/tarlction m LmgueElmngrrf. April 2000.
LaPierre, D. 1994. Languageoutput in a cooperativelearning setting: Determinillg
its effects on second languagelearning. UnpublishedMA thesis, University of
Toronto (OISE), Toronto.
Lapkin, S., Hart, D. and Swaill, M. 1991. Early and middle Frenchimmersionprograms:
French [Link] Madan Languagr Revirw 48/1: 11-40.
Larsen-Freeman,D. 1983. The importanceof input in secondlanguageacquisition.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

In R. Andersen(Ed.), Pidginizalion and crealization as languageacquisition. Rowley,

MA: Newbury House. pp. 87-93.
Larsen-Freeman,D. 1991. Second language acquisition research: Staking out the
territory. TE'lOL QuarlPrly 25: 315-50.
Larsen-Freemall,D. 1997. Chaos/complexitysciencein secondlanguageacquisition.
APtJfied Linguisties 18: 141-65.
Larsell-Freernan,D. 1998. 011 the scope of second language acquisition research:
The learnervariety' and beyolld. I"anguage Lrarning 48: 551-6.
Larsen-Freeman,D. and Long, M. 1991. An introduction to srmnd lang"1wgr acquisition
rpsPllrch. London: Longman.
Lave,]. 1988. Cognition in jlmcticr. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Lave,]. and Wenger, E. 1991. Situatpd framing. Legitimatej)('rijJhrm{j)(lfticij)(ltion. Cam-
bridge: CambridgeVniversity Press.
Leary, D. 1990. Psyche'smuse: The role of metaphorill the history of [Link]
D. Leary (Ed.), MPlajlhors in the history ojjlsvcho{ogy. New York: CambridgeUniver-
sity Press.
Leki, I. 1995. Coping strategiesof ESL studentsin writing tasksacrossthe curriculum.
iE,)OJ" QuartPrly 29/2: 235-60.
Leont'ev,AN. 1978. Activity, consciousness, and jm'[Link] ClifIs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Leont'ev, AN. 1981. PI),chology and the languagelrarning jmJCf'ss. Oxford: PergamonPress.
Lewin, K, Lippitt, R and White, R. 1939. Patternsof aggressivebehavior in experi-
mentally created'social climate'. journal r11\vcho{0{!J 10: 271-99.
Liddicoat, A 1997. Interactioll, social structure,alld secondlanguageuse: A response
to Firth and Wagner. TlIP i'v[odrm Languagefournal81/3: 313-17.
Lightbown, P.M. 1980. The acquisition and use of questionsby French1,2 learnersof
Ellglish. In S. Felix (EeL), ,Se(()ndlanguagedevelojJlr/PrlI: TrPrlds and iSSllf'S. Tubingen:
Gunter Narr.
Lightbown, P.M. 1991. vvl1at have we here? Some observationson the effect of
instruction on L2 learning. In R Phillipsotl et a!. (Eds), Foreign/secondlan,lfllagp
pedagogyresrarch. Cleve<ion, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Lightbown, P.M. and Halter, RH. 1993. ComjmhPrlsion-lJllsedj,'SL prof.,rrrlm in Nrw Bruns-
wick: Grade 8. Ottawa: Departmentof the Secretaryof State for Education.
Lightbown, P. and Spada,N. 1993. How languagrsare [('({med. Oxford: Oxford UniYer-
sity Press.
Lin, A. 1997. Bilingual ed\lcationin Hong Kong. }~nc)'rlojJedi(l
ojLrl1lguage and Education.
Volume 5: 281-90.
Lindstromberg, S. 1991. Metaphor and ESP: A ghost ill the machine. English jor
SjJfCijiC Purj)()ses 10: 207-25.
Lippi-Green, R. 1997. },·ngli.l/z with an (lIanl: Language,idrology and discrimination in the
United [Link]: Routledge.
 198 Rf'Jpr{'//(PS

LoCastro, V. 1994. Leaming strategiesand learning ell\·ironmcnts. l1~SOJ~ Qllarlnly

28: 409-14.
Long, M.H. 1981. Input, intcranion anc! secondlanguageacquisition. In H. Winitz
(EeL), Native lan/-r;llage and fOlpign language ([{quisition. New York: Annals of the
New York Academyof Sciences,379.
Long, M.H. 1989. Task, group, and task-group interactions. Univnlity of Hawaii
Working PajJm in ESL 8: 251-86.
Long, M.H. 1990. Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in
SecondLanguageAcquisition 12: 251-86.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Long, :vI.H. 1991. Focuson form: A designfeature in languageteachingmethodology.

In K. deBot, R. Ginsbergand C. Kramsch (Eds), Foreign lang'uageresearch in cross-
[Link]:John Benjamins.
Long, M.H. [Link] SIA [Link] Linguistics 14: 225-
49.
Long, M.H. [Link] a function of age. Researchfindings
and [Link] K. Hyltenstamand A. Viberg (Eds), Progressionand
regressionin language: Sociocultuml, neurojJsycholobriwland linguistic [Link]
York: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Long, M.H. 1996. The role of the linguistic environmentin secondlanguageacquisi-
tion. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (Eds), Handbook of secondlanguage([cquisition.
New York: Academic Press.
Long, :vI.H. 1997. Constructvalidity in SIA research:A responseto Firth and Wagner.
The Modnn LangllageJournal81/3:318-23.
Lukmani, Y. 1972. Motivation to learn and languageproficiency. Language J~earning
22: 261-73.
Luria, A.R. 1973. The working brain: An introdu{tion to [Link] York: Basic
Books.
Luria, A.R. 1979. The making(if mind. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.
Lyster, R. 1998. Recasts,repetition, and ambiguity in L2 [Link]
in SpcondLanguagel1cquisition 20/1: 51-81.
Lyster, R. and Ranta, E. 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation
of form in [Link] in SecondLanguagpAcquisition 19:
37-61.
MacIntyre, P. 1995. How does anxietv aflect secondlanguagelearning? A reply to
Sparksand [Link] Modnn Languagejournal 79/1: 90-9.
MacIntyre, P. and Charos, C. 1996. Personalitv, attitudes, and affect as predictors
of [Link] of Languageand Social P~ycholog)' 15:
3-26.
MacIntyre, P. and Gardner, R. 1991a. Methods and results in the study of anxietv
and languagelearning: A review of the literature. LanguageLearning41: 85-117.
MacIntvre, P. and Gardner, R. 1991b. Languageanxiety: Its relationship to other
anxieties and to processingin native and [Link]
41: 513-34.
MacIntyre, P. and Gardner,R. 1994. The subtle effects of languageanxiety on cognit-
ive processingin the [Link] 44: 283-305.
MacIntyre, P., Noels, K. and Clement,R. 1997. Biasesin self-ratingsof secondlanguage
proficiency: The role of languageanxiety. Language J~earning 47: 265-87.
MacIntyre, P., Clement,R., Dornyei, Z. and Noels, K. 1998. Conceptualizinga willing-
nessto communicatein a L2: Situational model of L2 confidenceand affiliation.
The Modem Lrmguagpjournal 82/4: 545-62.
 Rr,/erPIi ces 199

Mackey, A. 1996. Can interaction step lip the pace? An empirical study of conver-
sational interaction and interlanguagedevelopment. Paper given at the 1996
Annual American A.~sociation for Applied Linguistics Conference,Chicago, IL.
Magnan,S. (Ed.) 1990. Shifting lhl' instru{tionaljil{us to the languagelmrnl'l. Middlebury,
VT: NortheastConferenceon the Teachingof Foreign Languages.
Maley, A. 1984. 'I got religion' - Evangelism in languageteaching. In SJ. Savignon
and M.S. Berns (Eds), Initiativps in {ommllniwtivp languagetf(1{hing: A book oj rrad-
ings. Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley.
Mantle-Bromley, C. 1995. Positive attitudesand realistic beliefs: Links to proficiency.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Thp Modrrrl Languagl'jOllrna{ 79/3: 372-86.

McCombs, B. and Whistler, J.S. 1997. Thp lmrnl'l-{Pntl'lpd classroom and school. San
Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mc Donough, S. 1995. Strategy lind skill in lmrning a JOTpigll {ang'uage. London: Edward
Arnold.
McGroarty, M. 1998. Constructiveand constructivistchallengesfor applied linguistics.
/,anguageLearning48: 591-622.
McKay, S. and Wong, S. 1996. Multiple discourse,multiple identities: Investmentand
agency in second-languagelearning among Chineseadolescentimmigrant stu-
dents. Hanlan[ EdllUltional Rroil'w 66: 577-608.
McLaughlin, B. 1987. TheoTil's of smind lllng'uage learning. London: Edward Arnold.
McNamara,T.F. 1997. 'Interaction'in secondlanguagepertormanceassessment: Whose
performance?AjJPliPii /jn,l.,r uistirs 18/4: 446-66.
Mendelsohn,D. 1994. LPrlrning to listen: A stratl'b,)'-basedaP1mJachjilT the sl'ronri-lrmgllagp
lmrnl'l. San Diego, CA: Dominie Press.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, M. 1984. Qllalitativp data analysis: 11 sourcebook oj new
ml'thods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Miller, J. 1999. Becomingaudible: social identity and [Link] of
/ntl'l{llltural Studies20: 149-65.
Mori, Y. 1999a. Epistemologicalbeliefs and languagelearning beliefs: What do lan-
guage learnersbelieve about their learning? LanguagpLearning49: 377-415.
Mori, Y. 1999b. Beliefs aboutlanguagelearningand their relationshipto the ability to
integrate information from word parts and context in interpreting novel Kanji
words. The ModPrn /,ang'uagpjournal 83/4: 534-47.
Moyer, A. 1999. Ultimate attainment in L2 phonology. Studies in Spcond Language
Acquisition 21: 81-108.
Munby, II. 1986. Metaphorin the thinking of teachers:An exploratorystudy. Curric-
ulum Studies18/2: 197-206.
Muiliz-Swicegood, "1. 1994. The effects of metacognitivereadingstrategytraining on
the reading performanceand studentreading analysis strategiesof third grade
bilingual [Link],l.,r ual RPsearch/ournalI8/1and 18/2: 83-97.
Musumeci, D. 1996. Teacher-learnernegotiationin content-basedinstnlction: Com-
munication to cross purposes?AjJjllied Linguistics 17/3: 286-325.
Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H.H. and Todesco,A. 1978. Thp good languagelPllmPr.
Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studiesin Education.
Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern,[Link]. and Todesco,A. 1996. Thp good languagelrarnrr.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. (Original work published 1978.)
Nam, C. and Oxford, R.L. 1998. Portrait of a future teacher: Case study of learning
styles, strategies,and learning disability. System26/1: 52-72.
Nation, I.S. 1982. Beginning to learn foreign vocabulary:A review of [Link]
.IoumalI3/1: 14-33.
 200 Rr,/erPIi ces

Neisser, C. 1976. Cognition (Ind fmlity. San Francisco,CA: W.H. Freemanand Co.
Nelson, C. 1999. Sexualidentities in ESL: Queertheory and classroominquiry. TESOL
Quarlerl~'33: 371-91.
Nelson, G.L. and Brown, K. n.d. Hofstede'sfour-dimensionalmodel of cultural differ-
ences:[Link],GeorgiaState Univer-
sity, Atlanta, GA.
Newton, J. and Kennedy, G. 1996. Effects of communicationtasks 011 grammatical
relations marked by secondlanguagelearners. Sy~tem 24/3: 309-22.
Nobuyoshi,[Link] Ellis, R 1993. Focusedcommunicationtasks and secondlanguage
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

acquisition. ~LTJollrnal47 /3: 203-10.

Noels, K. and Clement,R. 1996. Communicationacrosscultures: Social determinants
and [Link] of Behavioural SciPnce28: 214-
28.
Noels, K., Pon, A. and Clement, R. 1996. Language,identity, and adjustment:The
role of linguistic seU:confidellcein the [Link] of Language
and Social P5ychology15: 246-64.
Noels, K., Clement, R and Pelletier, L. 1999. Perceptionsof teachers'communicat-
ive style and students' intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The Modern Language
journal 83/1: 23-34.
Norton, B. 1997. Language,identity, and the ownershipof English. n;;SOI. QuarterZ,
31: 409-29.
Norton, B. 2000. IrlPnlit)' and language fearning: Gender, ethnicily and educationalchange.
London: Longman.
Norton Peirce, B. 1995. Social identitv, investment,and languagelearning. TESOL
Quarterly 29/1: 9-31.
Norton Peirce, B., Harper, H. and Burnaby, B. 1993. Workplace ESL at Levi Strauss:
'Dropouts' speakout. TESL Crll1adajoumall0/2: 9-30.
Nunan,D. 1988. Thp Immer-{PnIPlw/ [Link]:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Nunan, D. 1992. The teacher as [Link] J. Flowerdew, :vi. Brock and
S. Hsia (Eds), PPI~\j)ertives
on se('()nd larlgliage lpa(her pdu((llion. Bong Kong: City
Polytechnicof Hong Kong.
Nunan, D. 1996. Learnerstrategytraining in the classroom:An action researchstudy.
TESOLJoumaI6/1:35-41.
Nunan, D. 1999. Secondlanguageteachingand learning. Boston,:vIA: Heinle and Heinle.
Nyikos, M. and Oxford, RL. 1993. A factor analytic study of languagelearningstrategy
use: Interpretationsfrom information-processingtheory and social psychology.
The lVlodern Languagejournal77 /1: 11-22.
Nystrom, N. 1983. Teacher-student interactionin bilingual classrooms:four approaches
to error [Link] H. Seliger and M. Long (Eds), Classroomoriented resrarrh in
se('()nrllanguageacquisition. Rowlev, MA: Newbury lIouse,
Ohta, A.S. 1999. Broadening the notion of 'uptake': What private speech reveals
about the role of correctivefeedbackin L2 [Link] at the 1999
Annual American Associationfor Applied Linguistics Conference,Sta'mford,CT.
Oller, J. and Perkins, K. 1978. Intelligence and languageproficiency as sourcesof
variance in self-reportedaffective variables. LanguageLparning 28: 85-97.
O'Malley,J.M. and Chamot,A.U. 1990. /,earningstratfgiesin serondlanguageacquisition.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
O'Malley, J.M. and Chamot, A.U. 1998. Accelerating academic achievement of
English languagelearners:A synthesisof five evaluationsof the CALIA model.
Submittedto Bilingual [Link](LrchJournal.
 RpjPrf'llres 20 I

O'Malley, ].M" Chamot, A.u., Stewner-Manzanares, G" Kiipper, L. and Russo, R.P.
1985a. Learning strategiesused by beginning and intermediateESL students.
LanguageLearning 35: 21-46.
O'Malley, ].M., Chamot, A.U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R.P. and Kiipper, L.
1985b. Learning strategyapplicationswith studentsof English as a secondlan-
guage. TESOL Quarterly 19: 285-96.
O'Malley, ].M., Chamot, A.U. and Walker, C. 1987. Some applications of cognitive
theory to second languageacquisition. Studies in SecondLanguageAcquisition 9:
287-306.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

O'Malley, ].M., Chamot, A.U. and Kupper, L. 1989. Listening comprehensionstrat-

egies in secondlanguageacquisition. Applied Linguistics 10/4: 418-37.
Oser, F.K., Dick, A. and Patry, ].-L. 1992. ~JJective and mponsibleleaching. San Fran-
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Oxford, R.L. 1986. DevelojJmentand jJ~ychometric testing of the Strategy Inventory for Lan-
guage Learning. Alexandria, VA: US Army ResearchInstitute for the Behavioral
and Social Sciences.
Oxford, RL. 1990. Languagel{'arning strategies: What evFry teachershould know. Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.
Oxford, R.L. 1993. Researchon [Link]
Applied Linguistics 13: 175-87.
Oxford, R.L. [Link] a questionnaireto assessthe use oflanguagelearning
[Link] Lanf.,ruag{' Learning 7: 25-45.
Oxford, RL. 1996b. When emotion meets (meta)cognitionin languagelearning his-
tories. In A. Moeller (Ed.), The teachingof culture and languagein the secondlanf.,ruage
classroom: Jior:us on the lparner. Special issue of InternationalJournal of Educational
RPsmrch,23/7: 581-94.
Oxford, R.L. 1996c. Languagelrarning strategiesaround the world: Cross-cultural per~per:t­
ives. Honolulu, HI: SecondLanguageTeachingand Curriculum Center,University
of Hawaii Press.
Oxford, R.L. 1999. Strategy Inventory for LanguageLearning: Theoretical context,
research,and [Link] AliA 1999, Tokyo, Japan.
Oxford, RL. 2000. ESL/EFL learning strategies:Synthesisof [Link] R Carter
and D. Nunan (Eds), Hnglish languagetPaching [Link]:Cambridge
University Press.
Oxford, R.L. and Burry-Stock,].A. 1995. A~sessing the use of languagelearning strat-
egies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy inventory for Vmguage
LParning. S~stpm 23/2: 153-75.
Oxford, R.L. and Ehrman, M. 1993. Second language research on individual
differences. In W. Grabe (Ed.), ilnnual Rf'vi{'w IIf AjJtJlied i,inguistics XIII: 188-
205.
Oxford, R.L. and Lavine, RZ. 1991. Teacher-student'style wars' in the language
classroom:Researchinsights and [Link] of limerican Departmentsof
Foreign Languages23/2: 38-45.
Oxford, R.L. and Leaver, B.L. 1996. A synthesisof strategy instruction for language
[Link] R.L. Oxford (EeL), LanguaiI;p learning strategif's around the world: Cross-
cultural [Link], HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Oxford, R.L. and Nam, C. 1997. Learningstyles and strategiesof a 'partially bilingual'
studentdiagnosedas learningdisabled:A casestudy. In]. Reid (Ed.), Understand-
ing learning styles in th£' secondlanf:i1tage classrooln. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prenticc-
Hall.
 202 Rejerenc('s

Oxford, R.L. and Shearin,.J. 1994. Language learning motivation: Expanding the
theoreticalframework. TIlE' Modf'rfl Lrlllglwge!o urn III 78/1: 12-28.
Oxford, R.L., Ehrman, M.E. and Layine, R.Z. 1991. Style wars: Teacher-student
style conflicts in the language classroom. In S.S. :Magnan (Ed.), Challengesfor
the 1990sforrollege languageprograms. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle/Thomson
International.
Oxford, R.L., Tomlinson, S.c., Barcelos,A, Harrington, c., Lavine, R., Saleh,A and
Longhini, A 1998. Clashing metaphorsabout classroomteachers:Toward a sys-
tematic typology for the languageteachingfield. Svstrm26/1: 3-51.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Padron,Y.N. and Waxman, H.C. 1988. The effects of ESL students'perceptionsof

their cognitive strategieson reading achieyement.n~SOL Quartrrly 22: 146-50.
Palincsar,AS. and Brown, AL. 1986. Interactiye teaching to promote independent
learning from text. The ReadingTeachrr 39/2: 771-7.
Palincsar, AS. and Klenk, L. 1992. Examining and influencing contexts for inten-
tional literacy learning. In C. Collins and.J.N. Mangieri (Eds), Teachingthinking:
An agendafor the twentv:/irst century. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.
Paris, S.G. and ByrnesJ.Y.P. 1989. The constructi\ist approachto self-regulation of
learning in the classroom. In BJ. Zimmerman and D.H. Schunk (Eds), Seif~
regulated learning and aradnnic achironnent. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Park, G. 1994. Beliefs and learningstrategies:What can we do to help our studentsbe
more effective self-directedleamers? Unpublishedmanuscript,University of Texas
at Austin, Austin, TX.
Patkowski, M. 1994. The critical age hypothesis and interlanguagephonology. In
M. Yavas (Ed.), First and secondlanguagephonology. San Diego, CA: Singular Pub-
lishing Group. pp. 205-2l.
Paylenko, A. 1998. Second language learning bv adults: Testimonies of bilingual
writers. !ssups in Applied Linguistics 9: 3-19.
Paylenko,A (forthcoming). Bilingualism, gender,and ideology. Thp ![Link]
of Bilingualism.
Pavlenko,A and Lantolf, J.P. 2000. Secondlanguagelearning as participation and
the (re)constructionof selves. In .J.P. Lantolf (Ed.), Socioruliuml thmry and sE'cond
lang;uage learning. Oxford: Oxford UniYersity Press.
Pennycook,A. 1989. The conceptof method, interestedknowledge, and the politics
of languageteaching. TESOL Quartrrly 23/4: 589-618.
Pennycook,A. 1994. The cultural/JOtitics o/English as an intrrnationallanguagE'.London:
Longman.
Perdue,C. (Ed.) 1993. Adult lilnguagr acquisition: Cross-linguisticperspectives(Vols I and
II). Cambridge:CambridgeUniyersity Press.
Perkins, D.N. and Salomon,G. 1989. Are cognitive skills context-bound?Educational
Researchrr1: 16-25.
Pica, T. 1992. The textual outcomes of native speaker/non-nativespeakernegoti-
ation: What do they reveal about secondlanguagelearning? In C. Kramsch and
S. McConnell-Ginet (Eds), Trxt in contE'xl: Crossriisci/Jlinllry prrsprclivrs on language
study. Lexington, !'vIA: D.C. Heath.
Pica, T. 1994. Researchon negotiation: V\'hat docs it reveal about second-language
learning, conditions,processes,and outcomes?LanguageLearning44/3: 493-527.
Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N. and Morgenthaler,L. 1989. Comprehensibleoutput
as an outcome of linguistic demandson the learner. Studirs in Srcond Lanf.,T1wge
Acquisition 11/1: 63-90.
 RFjelFllrfs 203

Platt, E. and Brooks, F.B. 1994. The 'acquisition-rich environment' revisited. The
Modern Language/ournal78/4: 497-511.
Plough, 1. and Gass,S. 1993. Interlocutor and task familiarity: effects on interactional
[Link] G. Crookesand S. Gass (Eds), Tasksand languagelearning: Integrating
theory and practice. Clevedon,UK: Multilingual Matters.
Polanyi, L. 1995. Languagelearning and living abroad: Stories from the field. In
B. Freed (Ed.), Snowi language acquisition in a study abroad context. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Politzer, R., Ramirez, A. and Lewis, S. 1981. TeachingstandardEnglish in the third
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

grade: classroomfunctions of [Link] 31: 171-93.

Potter,]. 1996. RPpresentingreality: dis('(}urse, rhetoric and social [Link]: Sage.
Pressley,M., Levin, ].R. and Delaney, ILD. 1982. The mnemonic keyword method.
Rp'uiew ujle'ducatiunal Research52: 61-91.
Pressley,M., Borkowski,].G. and Schneider,W. 1987. Cognitive strategies:good strat-
egy userscoordinatemetacognitionand [Link] R. Vastaand G. Whitehurst
(Eds), AnnaLI oj child development:Volume 5. Greenwich,CT: JAr Press.
Pressley, M., Johnson, e., Svmons, S., McGoldrick, ]. and Kurita,]. 1989. Strat-
egies that improve memory and comprehensionof what is read. ElementarySchool
.Iournal90: 3-32.
Pressley,M., Woloshyn, V. and Associates.1995. Cognitive strategy instruction that really
improveschildren:1 aauiemicjierjiJrmance (Secondedition). Cambridge,MA: Brookline
Books.
Pulvermuller, F. and Schumann,J. 1994. Neurobiological mechanismsof language
acquisition. LanguageLearning 44: 681-734.
Rampton,B. 1987. Stylistic variability and not speaking'normal' English: Some post-
Labovian approachesand their implications for the study of [Link] R.
Ellis (Ed.), Snond language acquisition in context. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Rampton,B. 1995a. Crossing: Languageand ethnicily [Link]: Longman.
Rampton, B. 1995b. Politics and change in researchin applied linguistics. Applied
Ling'uistics 16: 233-56.
Rampton, B. 1999. Dichotomies, difference and ritual in secondlanguagelearning
and teaching. A/iPliNi Lin!.,ruistics 20: 316-40.
Reddy, M. 1993. The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language
[Link] A. Ortony (EeL), Mptaphor and thought (Secondedition). Cam-
bridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Richard-Amato,P.A. 1988. iVlaking it hajJ/Nn: Interaction in the secondlanguageclassroom
- From theory to jJractice. London: Longman.
Richards,J. and Gravatt, B. 1998. University of Auckland Students' beliefs about
foreign [Link] of LanguageTeaching & Learning OemsionalPapers II.
Auckland: Institute of LanguageTeachingand Learning.
Richards,]. and Rodgers,1'. 1986. Approachesand methodsin language tmching. Cam-
bridge: CambridgeL'niversity Press.
Richards, M. 1997. Learner strategiesand teacherresponsesin languagelearning.
Paperpresentedat the ISATT '97 Meeting, Kiei, Germany.
Ritchie, W.e. and Bhatia, T.K. 1996. Handbook of second language acquisition. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Rivers, W. and Ternperley,M. 1978. A practical guide to lhp teachingoj English as a second
or jimign language. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
 204 REferenres

Robbins,J 1996. Between 'hello' and 'see you later': Developmentof strategiesfor
interpersonalcommunicationin English by JapaneseEFL students. Published
PhD dissertation,University Microfilms, International. UMI number: 9634593.
Ann Arbor, MI: University of :v1ichigan.
Robinson, P. 1995. Aptitude, awareness,and the fundamentalsimilarity of implicit
and explicit secondlanguagelearning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and aware-
nessin foreigu languagelearning (TechnicalReport No.9). Honolulu, HI: Univer-
sity of Hawaii Press.
Robinson, P. 1997. Individual differencesand the fundamentalsimilarity of implicit
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

and explicit adult secondlanguagelearning. LanguageLearning47: 45-99.

Rockhill, K and Tomic, P. 1995. Situating ESL between speech and silence. In
J Gaskell and J Willinsky (Eds), Gender in/forms curriculum: From enrichment to
transformation. Toronto: OISE Press/Teachers College Press.
Ross, S. and Rost, M. 1991. Learner use of strategiesin interaction: Typology and
teachability. Language!.earning 41/2: 235-73.
Rubin, J 1975. What the 'good languagelearner' can teach us. 'lK'lOL Quarterly 9:
41-51.
Rubin, J 1981. The study of cognitive processesin secondlanguagelearning. Applied
Linguistics 11/2: 117-31.
Rubin, J and Thompson,I. 1994. How to be a more sucres5jill languagelearner (Second
edition). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
Rubin,J, Quinn,J and Enos,J 1988. hnprovingforeignlanguagelisteningcomprehension.
Report to US Department of Education, International Researchand Studies
Program.
Saito, Y., Horwitz, E. and Garza, T. 1998. Foreign language reading anxiety. Thl'
Modrrn /,anguageJournal83/2:202-18.
Sakui, K and Gaies, S. 1999. InvestigatingJapaneselearners'beliefs about language
learning. In A. Wenden (Ed.), Svstl'm. Special Issue on Learner Beliefs. 27/4:
473-92.
Salager-Mayer,F. 1990. Metaphors in medical English prose: A comparative study
with French and [Link] for Specific Purposl's9: 145-59.
Samimy, KK and Tabuse, M. 1992. Affective variables and a less commonly taught
language:A study in [Link] 42: 377-98.
Sasaki,M. [Link], foreign language
aptitude, and intelligence: A structural equation modeling [Link]
Learning43: 313-44.
Sasaki,M. 1993b. Relationshipsamongsecondlanguageproficiency, foreign language
aptitude, and intelligence: A protocol analysis. LanguageLearning 43: 469-505.
Sasaki, M. 1996. SI'f:ond language profirienry, foreign language ajltitwie, and intPlligenre:
Quantitative and qualitative [Link] York: PeterLang.
Scarcella,R. and Oxford, R. 1992. Thl' tapestry of languagf' lmrning: Thf' individual in the
[Link], ~: Heinle and Heinle.
Schieffelin, B.B., Woolard, KA. and Kroskrity, P.V. 1998. Languageideologies. Prar:ticl'
and thl'ory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, R. 1994. Deconstructingconsciousnessin search of useful definitions for
applied linguistics. In J Hulstijn and R. Schmidt (Eds), Consciousnessin serond
languagelearning. A/LA Revirw 11. Brussels:AlIA.
Schmidt, R. 1997. Commenton SLART-L listseITe, 27 August.
Schmidt, R. and Frota, S. 1986. Developing basic conversationalability in a second
language:A case study of an adult learner of [Link] R.R. Day (Ed.),
 &jpret/rcs 205

Talking to lmrn: ConvrrsatilJII in sP('()nd languagp urquisitiof!. Rowley, MA.: Newbury

House,
Schmidt, R., Boraie, D, and Kassabgy,[Link] languagemotivation: Internal
structureand [Link] R.L. Oxford (Ed.), LanguagefRarning motiva-
tion: Pathwaysto the new cmtury. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Schommer,M. 1990. Effects of beliefs about the natureof knowledgeon comprehen-
sion. Journal ofEdurationalPsychology82: 498-504.
Schulman, L.S. 1992. Toward a pedagogyof cases. In lH. Schulman (Ed.), Case
methodsin {eaehrr education. New York: TeachersCollege Press,
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Schumaker,[Link] Deshler, D.D, 1992, Validation oflearningstrategyinterventions

for studentswith learning disabilities: Resultsof a programmaticresearcheffort.
In B.Y.L. Wong (Ed.), Contemj)()rary intervention research in learning disahilities: An
international [Link] York: Springer-Verlag,
Schumann,lH. 1998. The neurobiologyof affect. LanguageLearning48: Supplement
1.
Seedhouse,P. 1999. Task-basedinteraction. EI,T!ournal53/3: 149-56.
Seliger, H. 1977. Does practice make perfect?A study of interaction patternsand L2
[Link] 27: 263-78.
Selinker, L. 1992. Redisroveringintrrlanguage. London: Longman.
Senior, R. 1999. The good languageclass: Teachers'[Link]
thesis, Perth, WesternAustralia: Edith Cowan University.
Shaw,l 1998. The eJJect of eX/Jeriential language lmrning on epistenwlogiwlbelie/i: A rase
study of lrmg'uage learnrrs in an MBA program. Vnpublished manuscript, Asian
Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand.
Sheen, R. 1992. A rebuttal to Chapelle'sresponseto Griffiths and Sheen. Applied
Linguistics 14: 98-100.
Shotter, l 1993a. Cultuml j)()litirs of everyday lip: Social constructionism, rhetoric, and
knowing of the third kind. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Shotter,l 1993b. Conversational realities: Construtting life through language. London:
Sage.
Siegal, M. 1996. The role of learner subjectivity in secondlanguagesociolinguistic
competency:Western women [Link]/ Linguistirs 17: 356-82.
Silver, E.A. and Marshall, S.P. 1990. Mathematical and scientific problem solving:
Findings, issues,and instructional implications. In B.F. jones and L. Idol (Eds),
Dimensiow of thinking Ilnd mgnitivp instruction. IIillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Silverman, D. 1993. Intrrpreting qualitative data: i'vlf'fhods for analysing talk, text, and
interaction. London: Sage.
Simon, R. 1992. Te(l(:hing against thl' .£.;min: Texisfor Il jm/agogy of possibility. New York:
Bergin and Garvey.
Skehan, P. 1989. Individual dijfrrences in semnd-languagelfllrning. London: Edward
Arnold.
Skehan,P. 1991. Individual differencesin secondlanguagelearning. Studiesin Second
LanguageAcquisition 13: 275-98.
Skehan, P. 1996. A framework for the implementation of task-basedinstruction.
AfJplied Linguistics 17/1: 38-61.
Skehan,P. 1998. A cognitive ajJjmJllch to languagelearning. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
SlavotI, G. andjohnson,l 1995. The effects of age on the rate of learning a second
[Link] SecondLanguageArquisition 17: 1-16.
 206 Rlfe/Pllces

Slimani, A. 19R~). The role of topicalisationill classroomlanguagelearning. Systelll 17:

223-34.
Slimani, A. 1992. Evaluation of classroominteraction. In j. Alderson and A. Beretta
(Eds), Evaluating sprond language Ilcquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Snow, C. and Hoefnagel-Hohle,M. 19R2. School age secondlanguagelearners'access
to simplified linguistic input. LanguagpLearning 32: 411-30.
Snyder, B. and Pressley,M. 1990. Introduction to cognitive strategyinstruction. In M.
Pressley,V. Woloshyn and Associates, Cognitivp stratpf!)' instruction that really illl-
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

jJroves children's acar/plIlir prrformanre. Cambridge,MA: Brookline Books.

Spada,N. and Lightbown, P.M. 1993. Instruction and the developmentof questions
in L2 [Link] in SecondLanguagpAcquisition 15: 209-3l.
Sparks, R. and Javorsky, j. 1999. A responseto Arries: 'Learning disabilities and
foreign languages:A curriculum approachto the designof inclusive courses'.Thp
Modern Lang1wgpJournal 83/4: 569-75.
Sparks,R., Artzer, M., Javorsky,J, Patton,j., Ganschow,L., Miller, K. and Hordubay,
D. 1998. Studentsclassified as learning disabled (LD) and non learning disabled
students:Two comparisonstudiesof native languageskill, foreign languageapti-
tude, and foreign languageproficiency. Fore(i.,rrI Lan{.,'1wgpAnnals 31: 535-5l.
Spolsky, B. 1989. Conditionsfor semndlanguagelearning. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Steen,G. 1994. Undrrstanding lIletaphor in litrrature. London: Longman.
Stempel,G.H. III. 1989. Contentanalvsis. In G.H. StempelIII and B. Westley (Eds),
Researchmethods in mass communication (Second edition). Englewood Cliffs, l\ij:
Prentice-Hall.
Stern, H.H. 1975. What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian
Modern LanguagpRevipw31: 304-18.
Stevick, E. 1976. Mf'mo1)', mPrlning and mp/hod: Slimp t)s\'cho{ogiral j)Prspeclivpson language
leaming. Rowley, !'vIA: Newburv House.
Stevick, E. 1980. Teachinglanguages:A way and ways. Rowley, !'vIA: Newbury House.
Stevick, E. 1990. Humanism in lan{.,'1wgp tPriching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Strauss,A.M. 1987. Qualitative rmal\'sis for sorial sriPlltists. Cambridge:CambridgeUni-
versity Press.
Strong, M. 1983. Social stvles and second languageacquisition of Spanish-speaking
kindergarteners.TESOI_ Quartrrlv 17: 241-58.
Strong, M. 1984. Integrative motivation: Causeand result of successfullanguageac-
quisition. LanguagpLraming 34: 1-14.
Swain, M. 1985. Communicativecompetence:some roles of comprehensibleinput
and comprehensibleoutput in its [Link] S. Gassand C. Madden (Eds),
IntJUt in sewndlanguagf' acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. 1991. French immersion and its offshoots: Getting two for one. In
B.F. Freed (Ed.), FOrflj,rrI lang"uage arquisition resmrrh and the [Link],
!'vIA: D.C. Heath.
Swain, M. 1995. Three functions of output in secondlanguagelearning. In G. Cook
and B. Seidlhofer (Eds), For H. G. Widdowson: Principlps and practice in thp study of
language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. 1994. Problemsin output and the cognitive processesthey
generate:A step towards secondlanguagelearning. Manuscript of the Modern
LanguageCentre, University of Toronto (OISE), Toronto.
Swales,j. 1990. Genre analysis. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
 Rr,/erPIi ces 207
Takeuchi,O. 1999. LanguagelearningstrategieslIsed by Japanesecollege studentsof
English: A svnthesis of four empirical studies. Paper presentedat AIL\, E)99.
Tokyo, Japan.
Taylor, C. 1985. Human agenty and language. Philosophiral jmprrs I. Camhridge:Cam-
bridge University Press.
Taylor, W. 1984. Metaphorsof [Link] W. Taylor (Eel.), Metaphorsin
eduration. London: Heinemann.
Thesen, L. 1997. Voices, discourse,and transition: In search of new categoriesin
EAP. TESOL Quartrrly 31/3: 487-512.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Thompson,1. and Rubin,]. 1996. Can strategyinstruction improve listening compre-

hension?Foreign LanbruageAnnals29/3: 331-42.
Thompson,].B. 1991. Editor's introduction. In ].B. Thompson (Ed.), Pierre Bourdieu.
Languageand symbolit j)()wer. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.
Thornbury, S. 1991. Metaphors we work by: EFL and its [Link] Journal
45/3: 193-200.
Tittle, M. 1998. Assessingforeign languagestudents' epistemologicalbeliefs about
languagelearning. Researchin [Link] EducationalPsychology,
University of Urbana-Champaign.
Tollefson,].W. 1991. Planning language, planning inequality. London: Longman.
Tollefson, ].W. (Eel.) 1995. Powrr and equality in language education. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Toohey, K. 1998. 'Breaking them up and taking them away': ESL studentsin Grade 1.
TESOL Quartrrly 32: 61-84.
Toohey, K. 2000. I,earningEnglish in school\.'Idpntity, sorial relations, and rlassroompractice.
Clevedon,UK: Multilingual Matters.
Tremblay, P. and Gardner, R. 1995. Expanding the motivational construct in lan-
guagelearning. The ModPrn LanguageJournal 79/4: 505-20.
Tudor, 1. 1996. Learnrr-tentrrpdnessas languagp eduration. Cambridge:CambridgeUni-
versity Press.
Tumposky, N.R. 1991. Students' beliefs about languagelearning. Carlton Paprrs in
Ajljllieri LanguageStudy 8: 50-65.
Underhill, A. 1989. Processill [Link]!ourna143/4: 250-60.
van Lier, L. 1988. The classroomand the languagelmrnrr. London: Longman.
van Lier, L. 1996. IntrrattirJr/ in thp lanbruage curriculum. London: Longman.
Vandergrift, 1,. 1997a. The comprehensionstrategiesof secondlanguage (French)
listeners:A descriptivestudy. Foreign LanguageAnnals30/3: 387-409.
Vandergrift, L. 1997b. The Cinderella of communicationstrategies:Receptionstrat-
egies in interactive listening. Thp Modprn LanbruageJournal81/4:494-505.
Vann, RJ. and Abraham, R.G. 1990. Strategiesof unsuccessfullanguage learners.
mSOL Quartrrly 24/2: 177-98.
Varela, E.E. 1997. Speakingsolo: Using learning strategyinstruction to improve Eng-
lish languagelearners'oral presentationskills in content-basedESL. Unpublished
doctoral [Link],DC: GeorgetownVniversity.
Victori, M. 1995. ESL writing knowledgeand strategies:An integrative study. Unpub-
lished doctoral [Link] English Philology, AutonomousUni-
versity of Barcelona,Spain.
Victori, M. 1999. An analysisof writing knowledgein EFL composing:A casestudy of
two effective and two less effective writers. In A. Wenden (Ed.), Special Issue
on Metacognitive Knowledge and Beliefs in Language Learning. Systpm27/4:
537-56.
 208 &j('ren{('s

Vvgotskv, L E)56. lzbmllllip jJ,lir/i%girhrsi<ip ilslfllm/allia (Selnlpd jJs)'rhologiwl rpsPrlrrh).

Moscow: Izdatcl'styo Akac\emii PedagogicheskikhNauk.
Vygotsky, L. 1978. AIind ill sorifl\': Thp dpvplojJIIll'llt of highn pS}fhological tHorpSSl's. Ed.
and Trans. by M. Cole, V. John-Steinerand E. [Link]: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. 1986. Thought !lnd languagp(New edition). Ed. by A. Kozulin. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Vygotskv, I" 1987. Thp collertpd works ojL.S. Fvgotsky: Fol. I. Problnns ojgfnrral psychology.
Trans. N. Minick. New York: Plenum.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Vygotsky, L. 1997. Thl' colll'cled works oj L.S. \iygolsky: \'01. 3. Prohlrms of the thmry and
history of [Link]. R. van der Veer. Eel. by R.W. Rieber andJ. Wollock.
New York: Plenum.
Wallace, B. and Oxford, R.L. 1992. Disparity in learning styles and teachingstyles in
the ESL classroom:Does this meanwar? AAl11~'SOLJoumall/l: 45-68.
Weaver,SJ. and Cohen,A.D. 1997. Stratej.,ril'[Link] instrurtion: A tearha-trainingmanual.
Minneapolis, MN: Centerfor AdyancedResearchon LanguageAcquisition, Uni-
versity of Minnesota.
Weber-Fox, C. and Neville, H. 1999. Functional neural subsystemsare differentially
afI'ected by delavs in secondlanguageimmersion: ERr and behavioralevidence
in bilinguals. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), SmmdIrUlgl/agp arquisition and thl' eritiml jJrr70d
hyjlothesis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
'Weiner, B. 1986. An attri/mtional thl'OI)' of motivation and pmotion. New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Weinstein, C.E. and Mayer, R.E. 1986. The teaching of learning strategies. In
M.R. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook oj (Pseareh on tPrlrhing (Third edition). New York:
Macmillan.
Wen, Q. andJohnson,R. 1997. L2 learnervariablesand English achievement:A study
of tertiary-level English majors in China. Ajijilipd Linguistics 18: 27-48.
Wenden,A.L. 1982. The processesof sel!~directed learning: A casestudy of adult lan-
guage [Link] dissertation,TeachersCollege, Columbia
University, New York.
Wenden,A.L. 1986. V.'hat do secondlanguagelearnersknow about their language
learning? A secondlook at [Link] Linguistirs 7/2: 186-
205.
Wenden,A.L. 1987. How to be a successfullanguagelearner: Insights and prescrip-
tions from L2 learners. In A. V.'enden and J. Rubin (Eels), Learnn strategips m
[anguagf leaming. London: Prentice-Hall.
Wenden,A.L. 1991a. Leamnslrate,l,riesjiH lfampr autonolllY. London: Prentice-Hall.
Wenden, A.L. 1991b. Metacognitive strategiesin L2 writing: A case for task know-
ledge. In J.K Alatis (Ed.), GPOrgetowlI Roundtableon JJlIIgUllgl'S and Unguisties1991.
V.'ashington,DC: GeorgetownUniversity Press.
Wenden, A.I" 1995. Learner training in context: A [Link]
L. Dickinson and A. V.'enden (Eds), S)',I/fm.. Special Issue on LearnerAutonomy.
23/2: 183-94.
Wenden,A.L. 1997. The nature and function of monitoring. Paperpresentedat the
Conferenceof the American Association of Applied Linguistics, .Miami, Florida.
V.'enden, A.L. 1998a. Metacognitive knowledge and languagelearning. AptJlifd Lin-
guistics 19/4: 515-37.
Wenden, A.L. 1998b. Lrarllrr training in jiJrfign/sl'wnd languagp lpaming: 11 rurr7wlar
jJPrsjJl'ctivefor thp 21st cPT/tury. Eric DocumentReproductionServiceNo. ED 416 673.
 RPjPrfru:es 209

Wenger, E. 1998. Communitieso/jmu"/ice: Lmrning, mmning, and identity. Cambridge:

CambridgeUniversity Press.
Wertsch,j.V. 1985. l)gotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge,MA: Harvard
University Press.
Wertsch,j.V. 1998. Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wesche,M.B. 1994. Input, interactionand acquisition: The linguistic environmentof
the languagelearner. In B. Richardsand C. Gallaway (Eds), Input and interaction
in languageacquisition. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Wesche,M.B., Edwards,H. and Wells, W. 1982. Foreign languageaptitude and intel-
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

ligence. Applied Plycholinguistics3: 127-40.

White, C. 1999. Expectationsand emergentbeliefs ofself~instructed languagelearners.
In A. Wenden (Ed.), Special Issue on Metacognitive Knowledge and Beliefs in
LanguageLearning. System27/4: 443-58.
White, L. 1989. Universal grammar and secondlanguage acquisition. Amsterdam:John
Benjamins.
White, L. and Genesee,F. 1996. How native is near-native?The issue of ultimate
attainment in adult second languageacquisition. Second LanguageResearch12:
233-65.
Widdowson, H. 1978. TeachinglanguagE' as [Link]: Oxford University
Press.
Widdowson,H. 1979. jlxplomtions in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, M. and Burden, R. 1997. Plychologyfor language teachers. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Williams, M. and Burden,R. 1999. Students'developingconceptionsof themselvesas
languagelearners. The 1V1odf'rn LanguageJournal 83/2: 193-201.
Willing, K. 1988. Learning styles in adult migrant E'ducation. Adelaide: National Curric-
ulum ResourceCenter ResearchSeries.
Willing, K. 1991. Learning-how-to-learn:A review of currentlearningstrategiespublica-
tions. ProsjJect 6/2: 51-7.
Witherell, C. and Noddings, N. (Eds) 1991. Stories livps tpll: Narrative and dialogue in
pducation. New York: TeachersCollege Press.
YlTode, H. 1994. Nature, nurture, and age in languageacquisition. The caseof speech
[Link] Sfrond [,anguageAcquisition 16: 325-45.
TL~·OL.
Wolfson, N. 1989. Perl/JPetives:Sociolinguisticsand Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Wolfson. N. and Judd, E. (Eds) 198:,)' ,'iociolinguislics and sewnd language acquisition.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
YI'ong-Filmore, L. 1982. Instructional languageas linguistic input: secondlanguage
learningin [Link] L. Wilkinson (Eel.), COlflmunimtingin the [Link]
York: Academic Press.
Wood, E., Woloshyn, V.E. and Willoughby, T. 1995. Cognitive strategy instruction for
middle and high schoo[,. Cambridge,MA: Brookline Books.
Wool, G. 1989. Relational aspectsof learning. In K. Field, BJ. Cohler and G. Wool
(Eds), Varning and education: PI),choanai),tic perspectivE's. Madison, CT: Inter-
national Universities Press.
Woolfolk, A.E., Rosoff, B. and Hoy, W.K. 1990. Teachers'senseof efficacy and their
beliefs about managingstudents. Teachingand TeacherA'ducation 6/2: 137-48.
Wright, A. 1987. Roles 0/ languagp [Link]: Oxford University Press.
Yang, N.D. 1999. The relationshipbetweenEFL learners'beliefs and learningstrategy
lise. In A. Wenden (EeL), Special Issue on Metacognitive Knowledge and Beliefs
in LanguageLearning. System27/4: 515-36.
 210 References

Yaroshevsky,M.G. and Gurgenidze,G.S. 1997. Epilogue. In L. Vygotsky, The collected

works oj L.S. Fygotsky. 1'ol. 3. Problnns oj the theory and history oj [Link].
R. van der Veer. Ed. by R.W. Rieber and]. Wollock. New York: Plenum.
Yeni-Komshian, G., Flege,]. and Liu, H. 1997. Pronunciationproficiency in Ll and
L2 among Korean-English bilinguals: The effect of age of arrival in the US.
Journal oJ the AcousticalSociety oj America l102(A): 3138.
Zamel, V. 1983. The composingprocessesof advancedESL students:Six casestudies.
1ESOL Quarterly 17: 165-87.
Zinchenko,V.P. 1995. Cultural-historicalpsychologyand the psychologicaltheory of
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

activity: Retrospectand prospect. In ].V. Wertsch, P. del Rio and A. Alvarez

(Eds), Socioculturalstudiesoj mind. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Zinchenko,V.P. 1996. Developingactivity theory: The zone of proximal development
and [Link] B. Nardi (Ed.), Contextand consciousness:Activity theory and human-
computerinteraction. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.
Zobl, H. 1995. Convergingevidencefor the 'acquisition-learning'distinction. Applied
Linguistics 16: 35-56.
 Author Index
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Abraham, R.G. 23, 32, 49 Bongaerts,T. 14-15

Aida, Y. 16 Bourdieu, P. 77, 166
Alexander, P.A. 45 Braidi, S.M. 112
Allwright, D. 120-2 Bransford,J.D. 118
Aphek, E. 33 Brecht, R. 151
Appel, G. 44 Breen, M.P. 6, 9, 23-4, 90-1, 109-10,
Arries, J. 18 112, 125, 130, 132, 134, 160,180-1
Ashton-Warner,S. 91, 110 Brewer, W.F. 45
Aston, G. 125 Briscoe, C. 67
Atkinson, PJ. 90 Brooks, F.B. 126, 128
Auerbach,E. 170 Brown A 45
Brown, AL. 28-9, 50
Bailey, KM. 80, 94 Brown, H.D. 45, 90
Bandura,A. 107 Brown, R. 28
Barcelos,AM. 48 Brown, T.S. 34
Barnett, M.A 31 Burden, R. 19, 22, 86
Bartel, R. 90 Burke, K ll, 143
Bayley, R. 2 Burr, V. 146
Beaton,A 33 Burry-Stock,J.A. 30
Bedell, DA 30 Burt, M. 44
Beebe,L. 44, 86, 139 Butland, M. 86
Belmechri, F. 19 ByrnesJ.Y.P. 45
Benson,MJ. 49
Benson,P. 49-50, 62 Cameron,L. 68, 70, 90
Bergman,J.L. 28 Canagarajah,AS. 159
Berlin, 1. 141 Canale,M. 131
Bermudez,AB. 37 Candlin, C. 90, 109-10
Berwick, R. 124 Carpenter,T. 28
Bhaskar,R. 181 Carrell, P.L. 35, 49
Bhatia, T.K 2 Carrell, P. 17
Bialystok, E. 13, 15, 72 Carrier, K 18
Birdsong, D. 13-14 Cavalcanti,M.C. 31, 36
Blender, E. 151-2, 156 Chamot,AU. 3-4, 9, 23, 25-7, 30-2, 34,
Block, D. 68-9, 84, 90, 94, 96, 109-10, 37-9,42,44,75,90,109,175,180
125 Chapelle,C. 21-2
Blum-Kulka, S. 139 Charos,C. 17

211
 212 Author illd('x

Chaudron,C. 119 Eisner, E.V\'. 94 96

Cheng,Y.-S. 16 Elbaum, B.E. 22, 48-50
Chinn, C.A. 45 El-Dinary, P.B. 29, 32, 42
Chomsky, N. 112, 130 Elliot, T.T. 28
Chouliaraki, L. 136, 177 Elliott, A.R. 22
Clarke, P. 90, 110 Ellis, G. 30
Claxton, G. 118 Ellis, N. 16, 34
Clement, R. 19, 21 Ellis, N.C. 33
Clifford, R. 124 Ellis, R. 5-9, 44-5, 65, 69, 79, 91, 97,
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Cohen,A.D. 23, 26, 30-1, 33, 36, 42 115,119,180-1

Cole, M. 142 Ely, C. 122
Collier, A. 181 Engestrom,Y. 144, 148-9, 157
Collins, C. 28 Englert, C.S. 28
Cook, V. 2, 45 Enk\1st, I. 47
Corder, S.P. 65, 70, 72, 75, 78 Eubank, L. 13
Cortazzi, M. 68, 85,90, 109 Eysenck, M.W. 118
Cotterall, S. 22, 49
Coughlan,P. 125, 128, 144 Faerch,C. 75
Crookes, G. 19, 106 Fairclough, N. 131, 136, 177
Cumming, A. 170 Faltis, C. 160
Curran, C.A. 91, 109-10 Firth, A. 69, 73, 74, 126, 130-1, 141,
175,181
Dadour, E.S. 36, 97 Flavell, J. 45-6
Dahl, D. 119 Flege,J. 13-14
Danziger, K 142, 157 Flowerdew,J. 20
Davidson, D. 151 Foster, P. 124
Davydov, V.V. 143 Fotos, S. 19
Day, R. 122 Frawley, WJ. 144
Deetz, S. 68, 70, 84, 97 Freire, P. 103, 109
Deignan,A. 84 Frota, S. 94
Derrv, SJ. 29 Furnham,A. 17
Deshler, D.D. 28
Devine,J. 31 Gadd, N. 110
Dewaele,J.-M. 17 Gagne, E.D. 28
Dobinson, T. 122-3, 125-6 Gaies. S. 47-8
Dochy, F. 45 Gamez,R. 35
Dole, J. 29 Ganschow,L. 17, 18
Donato, R. 23, 112, 115, 134, 139 Gardner,II. 16
Dornyei, Z. 19,23,86,87,88,90,106, Gardner,R. 16-17, 19,21
109-11, 177 Gardner,R.C. H
Doughtv, C. 114 Gaskins, LV\'. 28
Dubin, F. 90, 110 Gass, S.~1. 124, 126, 130-1
Duff, P. 125, 128, 144 Genesee,F. 14, 44
Duif, PA 134 Genung,P.B. ]56
Duffv, G.G. 28 Gergen, KJ. 5
D\llav, H. 44 Giles, H. 44
Durkin, K 112 Gill. J. 170
Cillcttc, B. 146-7. ];")2
Ehrlich, S. 150 Glaser. B. 9()
Ehrman. 1\1. 17, 86-8, 90. 94, 109-111 Ghlckshcrg. S. ()7
 Author Index 213

Goldstein, T. 170 Jones,B.F. 28-9

Graham,S. 28 judd, E. 1:)9
Gravatt, B. 48
Green,].M. 22, 30 Kasanga,L.A 125
Green, P. 21 Kasper, G. 70, 72-5, 139, 141,
Gregg, K. 13, 70, 71-2, 78, 139 173
Griffiths, R. 21,119 Katz, A 90, 109
Grotjahn, R 22 Keatley, C. 32, 42
Gurgenidze,G.S. 142 Kclchtermans,G. 94
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Gurney, B.F. 91 Kellerman, E. 15, 71, 139, 173

Kelly, G. 4
Hakuta, K. 13 Kemper, S. 67
Halter, RH. 115 Kern, RG. 22, 48
Hamayan,E. 119 Kimura, M. 30
Hargreaves,A 86 Kirby, S. 13
Harley, B. 21 Klein, W. 14
Harre, R. 5 Klenk, L. 29
Harris, K.R 28 Kliefgen,]. 119
Hart, D. 21 Kline, R 151
Hartmann,E. 17 Knox, AB. 62
Hatch, E. 112-13, 134 Koch, S. 68, 70, 84, 97
Henzel, V. 119 Kramsch, C. 68-9, 72-3, 83, 90-1,
Hermann,G. 20 110
Herron, C. 90, 110 Krapels, AR. 31
Higgs, T. 124 Krashen, S. 15-16, 70-2, 78, 90, 109,
Ho, B. 47 113,117-19,129
IIoefnagel-Hohle,M. 121 Kuhlmeier, H. 20
Hoffman, E. 152-3 Kmnarvadivclu, B. 90, 110, 125
Hoffman, R. 67 Kiipper, L. 27, 38
Hofstede, G. 89, 108
Holcc, H. 49-50, 62 Lakoff, G. 5, 66-8, 71, 76, 81, 90
Hosenfcld, C. 29, 34, 47 Lambert, W.E. 20, 44
Huang, S.C. 47 Lantolf,].P. 6-11, 44, 65, 67-9, 72-3,
Huda, N. 23 83, 152, 156, 160, 180
Hakuta, K. 13 LaPierre, D. 115
Huberman,M. 96 Lapkin, S. 114, 115
HumlIlel, K. 19 Larsen-Freeman,D. 3,9, 12-13, 19-20,
Hurford,]. 13 24,45, 180
Lave,]. 148-9, 159-60, 162, 167
Ibrahim, A. 18 Lavine, R.Z. 96
Idol, L. 28-9 Leary, D. 67
loup, G. 14 Leki, 1. 36
LeoIlt' e\', AN. 143, 157
Javorsky,]. 18 Lewin, K. 88
Jehng,].-c. 22 Liddicoat, A. 126
jimenez, R.T. 35 Lightbown, P.M. 45, 116, 121
Jin, L. 68, 85, 90, 109 Lin, A 159
johnson,].A. 15, 88 Lindstromberg,S. 68
johnson, M. 5, 66, 68, 90 Lippi-Green, R. 146, 152
Johnson,R. 21 LoCastro,V. 23
 214 Author Index

Long, M.H. 13, 20, -i5, 70-6. 7R, i-E), Ohta, A.S. 126
113-14, llR, 12-i-:), 129-31, 13-i, Oller, l 21
173-4 Olshtain, E. 3G, 90, 110
Lor, W. 49-50 O'Ylalley, lM. 23, 26-7, 30, 31, 33-4,
Low, G. 68, 90 3G-8, 42, 44, 90, 109
Lukmani, Y. 19 Oser, F.K. et al. 89
Luria, A.R. 141, 145 Oxford, R.L. 5-G, 9-10,17,19,
Lyster, R. 120, 138 22-3, 27, 30, 42, 75, 84, 86-7,
88, 90, 94, 9G, 109-10, 17G-7,
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

MacIntyre, P.16-17, 19 lRO

Mackey, A. 124
Magnan, S. 86 Padron,Y.N. 30, 32
Maley, A. 90, 109-10, 116 Palincsar,A.S. 28-9
Mantle-Bromley, C. 20, 4R Paris, S.G. 45
Marshall, S.P. 28 Park, G. 49-50
Mayer, R.E. 28 Patkowski, M. 13
McCombs, B. 86, 88-9, 106 PaYlenko,A. G-ll, 144, 150, 152-5,
McCormick, D. 23 180
McDonough, S. 23 Pennycook,A. 90, Ill, 177-8
McGrail, L. 170 Perkins, D.N. 50
McGroarty, M. 145 Perkins, K. 21
McKay, S. 144-6, 148-:)0, 152, Perry, F.L., .Ir. 34
155-G Pica, T. 70, 72-6, 78,114,115,117,124,
McLaughlin, B. 44-5 140
McNamara,T.F. 139 Platt, E. 12G, 128
Mendelsohn,D. 23 Plough, 1. 124
Middleton, D. 157 Polanvi, L. 150-1, 155
Miles, :'v1.B. 96 Politzcr, R. 121
Miller, l 20, 149, 152, 155 Potter,l5 5
Mori, Y. 22, 4R Prater, D.L. 37
Moyer, A. 13-14 Pressley,:'vI. 2R-9, 31, 33, 50
Munby, II. 97 Preston,D.R. 2
Muiiiz-Swicegood, M. ,Ei PulvcrInuller, F. 14, lR

Naiman, N. 2G, 29, H, 121 Ralllpton, B. 150, 159, 173, 178

Naill, C. 9-i, 96 Ranta, E. 13-i
Nation, 1.S. 122 Rathbone,:'vI. 7~)
Neisser, U. llR Reddy, M. 72
Nelson, C. lR Richard-Amato,P.A. 103
Ncvillc, II. 13 Richards,l -iR, 110
Nobllvoshi, l 115 Richards,:'vI. 23
Noddings, N. 9-i Ritchie, "r.c. 2
Noels, K. 19, 21 Rivers, 'Y. 90, 110
Norton, B. 7-10, lR, 13G, 155-G, Robbins,l 27, 30, 36
159-161 177, 1RO Robinson, P. 16
Norton Peirce, B. 1R, 70, 72--i, 76-8, Rockhill, K. 170
83-5, 1H, 155, 1:)9, 160-1 Rodgers,1'. 110
Nunan, D. 23, R6-7, 90, 9-i, 110 Ross, S. 3-i
Nyikos, M. 30 Rost, M. 34
Nystrom, N. 120 Rubin, J. 26, 30, 34, 35, 42, H
 Author II/rlpx 215

Saito, Y. Hi Taylor. W. 90
Sakui, K 47-8 Ternperley, M. 90. 110
Salager-Mayer,F. 68 Thesen,L. 159
Salomon,G. 50 Thompson,1. 30, 35, 42
Samimy, KK 19 Thompson,lB. 146
Sasaki, M. 15 Thornbury, S. 90, 97
Scarcella,R. 87, 90, 109-10 Terrell, T. 90, 109
Schicflellin, B.B. et al. 146 Tittle, M. 47
Schmidt, R. 16, 19,70-3, 75,94, 106 Tollefson,l 65
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Schommer,:\1. 22 Tollefson,J.W. 139, 177

Schulman,L.S. 94 Toohey, K 160, Hi:), 170
Schumaker,lB. 28 TOIHic, P. 170
Schumann,lB. 14, 18-19 Tremblay, P. 19
Seedho\lse,P. 124 Tucker, R. 119
Seliger, B. 121-2 Tudor, 1. 86-7
Selinker, L. 71 Tumposky, N.R. 48
Senior, R. 120 Turner. M. 66-7, 71, 76,81
ShamoodSmith M. 71-2
Shaw,J.47 Underhill, A. 90
Shearin,[Link], 110
Sheen,R. 21 van Lier, L. 119-20. 134
Shotter,J. 5 Vandergrift, L. 32
Siegel, M. 18, 150, 152, 155 Vann, RJ. 23, 32, 49
Silver, EA 28 Varela, E.E. 38, 42
Silverman, D. 96 Varonis, E.:\1. 126
Simon, R. 170 Victori, M. 48-9
Sinclair, B. 30 Vygotskv, L 7G, 8G, 126, 142-3
Skehan,P. 15-17,21,124
Sla\off, G. 15 Wagner,J.G9, 73-4, 126, 130-1, 141,
Slim<lni, A. 122-3, 126, 138 148, 175, 181
Snow. C. 121 Wallace, B. 9(j
SnYder, B. 2!) Waxman, II.e. 30, 32
Spada,N. 4:J, 121 Weaver, SJ 30
Sparks, R. 18 Weber-Fox, C. 13
Spolskv. B. 20 Weiner, B. 107
Stecn. G. 66 Weinstein, C.E. 28
Stcmpel, G.B. 96 Wcn. Q. 21
Stern, H.H. 29 Wcndcn, A.L. 4, 9, 23, 2(i, 33, 42, 44-5,
StC'\ick. E. !lO-l. 110, 118 48-51, 54, 75, 174. 180
Strauss,A.M. 96 Wenger, E. 149, 159-63, 167
Strong, I\L 121 Wertsch,lV.142-4
Swain, M. 70, 72. 74-7,114-19,129, Wesche.,\I.B. 44, 114
I:H v"histler, lS. 86, 88-9, 106
Swales,J. 8!'l White, C. 47-8
Vll1itc, L. 2, 14,44,112
Tabuse.1\1. 19 Widdowson. H. 68, 113
Takahashi,T. 139 Wiliiams . .J. 76. 114
Takeuchi. O. 30 Williams, M. 19, 22, 86
Taylor, C. 142, 146 Willing, K 44, 10!)
Taylor, D. 20 Witherell, C. !)4
 216 Author IlId('x

Wodc, H. 15 Yang. N.D. 49-50

Wolfson, N. 139 Yaroshc\'sky,:vI.G. 142
Wong, S. 143, 145-6, 148-50, 152, 155-6 Ycni-Komshian, G. 13
Wong-Filmore, L. 119
Wood, E. 29 Zamel, V. 36
Wool, G, 87, III Zinchenko,V.P. 143-4
Woolfolk, AE. 88 Zobl, H. 138
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017
 Subject Index
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

acculturation,L2, 21 inhibition, 16
age, 3, 8, 13-15, 44, 46 input, 12, 24-5, 40, 66-8, 73, 114, 115,
agency, 7-10, 76, 82, 84, 145-58, 160 121,123,130,145
anxiety, 16-17, 79, 118 comprehensible,12, 114, 117-18, 125,
aptitude, 3, 8, 13, 15-1~15-1~ 21, 4~ 46 126
attitude, 3, 10, 13, 19-21,44,79 modified, 12, 126
negotiated,12
beliefs, 3, 10, 13,22,45,47-8 interaction, 1, 5-6, 10, 112-21, 123-30,
bilingualism, 20 132-40

cognitive style, 2-3, 13, 21-2, 44 knowledge, 10

constructions as interlanguage,72
of L2 learners,4-5, 10, 66-85, 91 domain (DK), 46, 62
of L2 researchers,5, 66-78, 83-5, 91 metacognitive,4, 44, 45-64
oflanguageteachers,5, 86-111 person (PK), 4, 46, 50, 55-8,
context, 2, 5, 10, 19,23-4,26,28-9, 60
113, 130 rhetorical, 51, 53, 55-6, 60
of classroom,5, 8, 10, 113, 118-23, subject matter, 51, 52, 61, 62
129, 131-7 strategic (SK), 4, 46, 50, 51, S3, 54,
of community, 7-10, 148-58 59,61
imagined communities,7, 159-71 task (TK), 4, 46, 50, S3, 54, 55, 57,
58, 59, 60
developmentalsequences,12
dialect, 14 languageacquisition/learning
Ll, 12, 44, 112
empathy, 16, 118 L2, 4, 12, 20, 22, 44, 70, 73, 77, 83,
extraversion,16, 17 112-18,122-3,127,129-31 134,
136-40, 145
field independence,21 all-or-nothing, 22
conditions of, 24
grammar of core grammar, 12
core, 12 mechanismsof, 24
universal(UG), 12,44,112,129 of lIlorphosyntax, 15
orders, 2, 12
identity, 5-8, 149-50, 153, ISS, 156, outcomes,1,21,24,112-13,122, 137,
IS9-71 146, IS6

217
 218 Subjer( Indfx

process(es),3-4,10, 12,21,23, output, I 13-l-1, 115-18, 124, 130

24-5,28, 112-13, 117, 130, 140
speedof, 13, 15, 44 participation, 5, 7-8, 10, 17-18, 112-15,
vocabulary, 21, 117 118-40
languageacquisition theory, 69 personality,3, 8, 10, 13, 16-18, 44,
affective filter hypothesis,118 46
cognitive, 44, 50 pronunciation,13, 14,22, 121, 169
creative construction,44
critical period hypothesis,13 rejection, sensitivity to, 16
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 04:30 16 March 2017

Input Hypothesis,73 researchmethodology,26, 27-8, 40-1,

interaction hypothesis,5, 114-15, 47,48,69-70,94-6
116, 129-30, 132, 134, 139 risk-taking, 16
interactionist, 74, 112, 130-4
neurolinguistic,44 selectiveattention, 25
non-participation,160-1 self-esteem,10, 16, 118, 120, 127
output hypothesis,5, 114-18, 129-30, SLA research,2-11, 12, 14, 16, 23,
132, 134, 139 25-6,45,47,50,112-13,130-4,
SecondLanguageActivity theory, 136-40
6-8, 141-58 emic and etic perspectives,24, 69
social psychological,44 ethnographic,24, 47
sociocultural,5, 76 experimental,13, 130
languageteaching holistic, 24, 69, 143
contentinstruction, 28, 31, 37-8 on individual differences,7, 16, 24,
FL/SL instruction, 63 44,45,70
learning strategiesinstruction, 23, 26, psycholinguistic,2, 69, 70
28-9, 33, 34-7, 38-40 qualitative, 15, 94
learning disabilities, 3, 13, 18 social identities, 3, 13, 18, 155
strategies,3, 4, 8, 10, 13, 22-3, 25-43,
metaphor,5, 8, 66-85, 95, 145 44, 46, 63, 75, 126, 146
monitoring, 54-60
motivation, 3, 13-14, 18-19,21,44,46, task interaction, 5, 10, 124-9,
67, 82, 118, 136, 148, 156 138
teachingapproaches,87-90
negotiation, 12,73-5,114-15,117, 119, toleranceof ambiguity, 16, 21
135, 136, 140
non-participation,159-71 uptake, 122, 130, 138