Talking it through: Two French immersion learners' response to reformulation

International Journal of Educational Research

Volumn 37, Issue 3-4, 2002, Pages 285-304

  Swain, Merrill ^a   Lapkin, Sharon ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Immersion; Output; Reformulation; Second language learning; Sociocultural theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 23844543797     PISSN: 08830355     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00006-5     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Allen, P., Swain, M., Harley, B., & Cummins, J. (1990). Aspects of classroom treatment: towards a more comprehensive view of second language education. In B. Harley, P. Allen, J. Cummins, & M. Swain (Eds.), The development of second language proficiency (pp. 57-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Allwright, R. L., Woodley, M.-P., & Allwright, J. M. (1988). Investigating reformulation as a practical strategy for the teaching of academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 9, 236-256.
3. Brooks, L., & Swain, M. (2001). Collaborative writing and expert feedback: How they support second language learning. Toronto: OISE/UT.
4. Cohen, A. (1982). Writing like a native: The process of reformulation. ERIC ED 224 338. Retrieved, from the World Wide Web.
5. Cohen, A. (1983). Reformulating second-language compositions: A potential source of input for the learner. Retrieved, from the World Wide Web.
6. de Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46, 529-555.
7. De Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51-68.
8. DeKeyser, R. M., & Sokalski, K. J. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 46, 613-642.
9. DiCamilla, F. J., & Anton, M. (1997). Repetition in the collaborative discourse of L2 learners: A Vygotskian perspective. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(4), 609-633.
10. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf, & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Press.
11. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Gal'perin, P. Y. (1967). On the notion of internalization. Soviet Psychology, 5, 28-33.
13. Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual education. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
14. Harley, B. (1992). Patterns of second language development in French immersion. Journal of French Language Studies, 2, 159-183.
15. Izumi, S. (2000). Promoting noticing and SLA: An empirical study of the effects of output and input enhancement on ESL relativization. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
16. Kinginger, C. (2000). Learning the pragmatics of solidarity in the networked foreign language classroom. In J. K. Hall, & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 23-46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1997). From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we promote metalinguistic awareness in the French immersion classroom? In R. K. Johnson, & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 284-309). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1972). Bilingual education of children: The St. Lambert experiment. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
19. Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Abstracts, 33, 79-96.
20. Lantolf, J. P. (2001). Private speech and internalization in second language learning: A theoretical argument with some empirical evidence. Paper presented at the eighth annual meeting of the sociocultural and second language learning research working group, Toronto: OISE/UT.
21. Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (1994). Theoretical framework: An introduction to Vygotskian approaches to second language research. In J. P. Lantolf, & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 1-32). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
22. Lapkin, S., & Swain, M. (2000). Task outcomes: A focus on immersion students' use of pronominal verbs in their writing. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3, 1001-1017.
23. Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Smith, M. (2002). Reformulation and the learning of French pronominal verbs in a Canadian French immersion context. Modern Language Journal, 86, 485-507.
24. Levenston, E. A. (1978). Error analysis of free comparison: The theory and the practice. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4, 1-11.
25. Lightbown, P. (1992). Getting quality input in the second/foreign language classroom. In C. Kramsch, & S. McConnell-Ginet (Eds.), Text and context: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on language study (pp. 197-198). New York, NY: D.C. Heath.
26. Lyster, R. (1995). Instructional strategies in French immersion: An annotated bibliography. Canada: Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers.
27. Mantello, M. A. (1996). Selective error correction in intermediate extended French writing programs: A comparative study of reformulation and coded feedback. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto.
28. Ohta, A. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29. Piper, A. (1995). Reformulation, evaluation and revision: Do they help academic writers? In M. L. Tickoo (Ed.), Reading and writing. Theory into practice, Vol. 35 (pp. 20-38). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
30. Qi, D., & Lapkin, S. (2001). An inquiry into the effects of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Toronto: OISE/UT Modern Language Centre (mimeo).
31. Sanaoui, R. (1984). The use of reformulation in teaching writing to FSL students. Carleton Papers in Applied Language Studies, 1, 139-146.
32. Spielman Davidson, S. (2000). Collaborative dialogues in the zone of proximal development: Grade eight French immersion students learning the conditional tense. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto.
33. Stetsenko, A., & Arievitch, I. (1997). Constructing and deconstructing the self: Comparing post-Vygotskian and discourse-based versions of social constructivism. Mind, Culture, and Activity, An International Journal(4), 159-172.
34. Storch, N. (1999a). Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System, 27(3), 363-374.
35. Storch, N. (1999b). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 5(1), 29-53.
36. Storch, N. (2000). Is pair work conducive to language learning? The nature of assistance in adult ESL pair work and its effect on language development. Paper presented at the conference: scaffolding and language learning in educational contexts: Socio-cultural approaches to theory and practice, at the Centre for language and literacy, University of Technology, Sydney, December 6-8, 2000.
37. Storch, N. (2001). An investigation into the nature of pair work in an ESL classroom and its effect on grammatical development. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
38. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass, & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
39. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook, & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41. Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). Peer-peer dialogue as a means of second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 171-185.
42. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1982). Evaluating bilingual education: A Canadian case study. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
43. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391.
44. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320-337.
45. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99-118). Harlow, England: Longman.
46. Tang, G. M., & Tithecott, J. (1999). Peer response in ESL writing. TESL Canada Journal, 16(2), 20-38.
47. Thornbury, S. (1997). Reformulation and reconstruction: Tasks that promote 'noticing'. ELT Journal, 51, 326-335.
48. Tocalli-Beller, A. (in press). Cognitive conflict, disagreement and repetition in collaborative groups: Insights into the affective and social dimensions. Canadian Modern Language Review.
49. Tudge, J. (1990). Vygotsky, the zone of proximal development and peer collaboration: implications for classroom practice. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education (pp. 155-172). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50. Villamil, O., & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 491-514.
51. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky. Volume I: Thinking and speaking. New York, NY: Plenum.
52. Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. In C. D. Lee, & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.