Note on Translation Introduction by Michael Holquist Response to a Question from the Novy Mir Editorial Staff The Bildungsroman and Its Significance in the History of Realism (Toward a Historical Typology of the Novel) The Problem of Speech Genres The Problem of the Text in Linguistics, Philology, and the Human Sciences: An Experiment in Philosophical Analysis From Notes Made in 1970-71 Toward a Methodology for the Human Sciences Index

Speech Genres and Other Late Essays

https://waseda.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=repository_action_common_download&item_id=12133&item_no=1&attribute_id=162&file_no=1

言語運用能力(Communicative Competence)

Acknowledgements Introduction PART ONE - BACKGROUND Introduction 1. Second language acquisition research: an overview PART TWO - THE DESCRIPTION OF LEARNER LANGUAGE Introduction 2. Learner errors and error analysis 3. Developmental patterns: order and sequence in second language acquisition 4. Variability in learner language 5. Pragmatic aspects of learner language PART THREE - EXPLAINING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: EXTERNAL FACTORS Introduction 6. Social factors and second language acquisition 7. Input and interaction and second language acquisition PART FOUR - EXPLAINING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: INTERNAL FACTORS Introduction 8. Language transfer 9. Cognitive accounts of second language acquisition 10. Linguistic universals and second language acquisition PART FIVE - EXPLAINING INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Introduction 11. Individual learner differences 12. Learning strategies PART SIX - CLASSROOM SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Introduction 13. Classroom interaction and second language acquisition 14. Formal instruction and second language acquisition PART SEVEN - CONCLUSION Introduction 15. Data, theory, and applications in second language acquisition research Glossary Bibliography Author index Subject index

第二语言习得研究 = The study of second language acquisition

Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections

In this article, we examine current practices in the measurement of syntactic complexity to illustrate the need for more organic and sustainable practices in the measurement of complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) in second language production. Through in-depth review of examples drawn from research on instructed second language acquisition, we identify and discuss challenges to the evidentiary logic that underlies current approaches. We also illuminate critical mismatches between the interpretations that researchers want to make and the complexity measures that they use to make them. Building from the case of complexity, we point to related concerns with impoverished operationalizations of multidimensional CAF constructs and the lack of attention to CAF as a dynamic and interrelated set of constantly changing subsystems. In conclusion, we offer suggestions for addressing these challenges, and we call for much closer articulation between theory and measurement as well as more central roles for multidimensionality and dynamicity in future CAF research.

Towards an Organic Approach to Investigating CAF in Instructed SLA: The Case of Complexity

This study investigated the nature of dyadic interaction in an adult ESL classroom. The study was longitudinal, classroom based, and examined the nature of interaction between 10 pairs of adult ESL students over a range of language tasks and over time (a semester). Four distinct patterns of dyadic interaction were found. These patterns are distinguishable in terms of equality and mutuality (Damon & Phelps, 1989). More importantly, the findings suggest that certain patterns of dyadic interaction are more conducive than others to language learning. These findings are explained by reference to Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development.

Patterns of Interaction in ESL Pair Work

The assessment of oral language is now quite commonly done in pairs or groups, and there is a growing body of research which investigates the related issues (e.g. May, 2007). Writing generally tends to be thought of as an individual activity, although a small number of studies have documented the advantages of collaboration in writing in the second language classroom (e.g. DiCamilla & Anton, 1997; Storch, 2005; Swain & Lapkin, 1998). Particularly in university contexts, group or pair assignments are widely used in many disciplines. In addition, collaborative writing could be used in second language classroom assessment contexts as formative assessment. However, research which compares texts produced by learners collaboratively to texts produced individually, and the implications of this for assessment practices, is rare.This study is a first step in the investigation of using collaborative writing in second language contexts and comparing the performance of two groups of second language learners: one grou...

Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy

Language learners are usually discouraged from using their shared L1 in L2 classroom activities. Brooks and Donato (1994) note that teachers are sometimes reluctant to use group work because they feel that students will use their L1 in group situations. A major motivation for this reluctance has been the widespread adoption of communicative approaches to language teaching in which classroom activities are designed to maximize learners' use of the target language.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3588224.pdf

Is There a Role for the Use of the L1 in an L2 Setting

The literature on corrective feedback (CF) that second language writers receive in response to their grammatical and lexical errors is plagued by controversies and conflicting findings about the merits of feedback. Although more recent studies suggest that CF is valuable (e.g., Bitchener, 2008; Sheen, 2007), it is still not clear whether direct or indirect feedback is the most effective, or why. This study explored the efficacy of two different forms of CF. The investigation focused on the nature of the learners’ engagement with the feedback received to gain a better understanding of why some feedback is taken up and retained and some is not. The study was composed of three sessions. In session 1, learners worked in pairs to compose a text based on a graphic prompt. Feedback was provided either in the form of reformulations (direct feedback) or editing symbols (indirect feedback). In session 2 (day 5), the learners reviewed the feedback they received and rewrote their text. All pair talk was audio-recorded. In session 3 (day 28), each of the learners composed a text individually using the same prompt as in session 1. The texts produced by the pairs after feedback were analyzed for evidence of uptake of the feedback given and texts produced individually in session 3 for evidence of retention. The learners’ transcribed pair talk proved a very rich source of data that showed not only how learners processed the feedback received but also their attitudes toward the feedback and their beliefs about language conventions and use. Closer analysis of four case study pairs suggests that uptake and retention may be affected by a host of linguistic and affective factors, including the type of errors the learners make in their writing and, more importantly, learners’ attitudes, beliefs, and goals. The findings suggest that, although often ignored in research on CF, these affective factors play an important role in uptake and retention of feedback.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0272263109990532

Neomy Storch

Papers

Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections

Patterns of Interaction in ESL Pair Work

Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy

Is There a Role for the Use of the L1 in an L2 Setting

Learners' processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing