Platt & Brooks 1994 the 'Acquisition-Rich Environment' Revisited

7/30/2019 Platt & Brooks 1994 the 'Acquisition-Rich Environment' Revisited

1/16

The "Acquisition-Rich Environment" RevisitedAuthor(s): Elizabeth Platt and Frank B. BrooksSource: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 78, No. 4 (Winter, 1994), pp. 497-511Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/328588 .

Accessed: 09/05/2013 09:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley andNational Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations are collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 on Thu, 9 May 2013 09:33:47 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nfmltahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/328588?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/328588?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nfmltahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/16

The "Acquisition-RichEnvironment"RevisitedELIZABETH PLATTDepartment fCurriculum nd InstructionFlorida StateUniversityTallahassee,FL 32306-3032Email: [email protected]

FRANK B. BROOKSDepartment fCurriculumnd InstructionFlorida StateUniversityTallahassee,FL 32306-3032Email: [email protected]

IN THIS ARTICLE1 WE HAVE CHOSEN TOquestion the use ofinput-outputmodels to de-scribe humanstalking n thepresenceof eachother,focusing specifically n learners of sec-ond or foreign anguages and the termacquisi-tion-richnvironment. e find this term to beproblematicfor everalreasons. Within hegen-eral class of input-outputand interactionistviewsof learner-to-learneralk,the utterancesof one speakerare viewed nrelation to those oftheother. n the case ofteacher/learner r na-tive speaker/non-native speaker interaction,comprehensiblenput hould facilitate weak ver-sion) or bring about (strongversion) acquisi-tion of the L2 (26). While challengingthe no-tion of a direct causal inkbetween input andacquisition,Pica and other nteractionistse.g.,49) have nonetheless dopted the same generalassumption-that inputfromA is acted uponby B, and vice versa. A full refutationof theapplicabilityof input-outputmodels and theirassociated terms for descriptions both oflearner talkand language learning/acquisitionis beyondthescope of thispaper.2Nonetheless,we make a small beginningwith the followingreasons forquestioningthevalidity f thetermacquisition-richnvironment:) It assumes that anenvironmentprovidingopportunitiesforlan-guage learningcan be determined obe rich orpoor a priori; ) It does not properly eflect henewercommunicative, ask-based anguage op-portunities n which learners are the primaryinteractantsnFL/SL classrooms;3) It does notadequatelyreveal thefunction f thetotality futterancesobserved in learner-to-learneralk;4) What learnersactually acquire is oftenleft

unspecified.We use a variety f data collectedfrom everalsettings o illustrate hesepoints.Data are presentedfromtwogroups of ESLelectronics studentssolvinga frequencyprob-lem at the oscilloscope, a pair of beginningcontent-basedSwahili students engaged in amap task, nd a pair of ntermediate niversity-levelSpanishstudents oingajigsawtask.Usingthese data we will consider learner conversa-tions as speech activity.3Within such a view,learners actively constructheir own environ-mentsthrough anguage use whenthey ngagein communicative asks n the classroom. Thismore social perspectiveon language, languageuse, and acquisition is grounded in such fieldsas psychology, inguistics, ociolinguistics, ndanthropology.t entails researchpractices tem-mingfromethnographynd participant bser-vation and does notpreclude theviewing f,forexample,adjacencypairsas significant.Rather,it subsumes them n a widerrange ofphenom-ena and allows for,among other things,theanalysis of talk and gestures addressed tooneself,certain intonationalcontours,talk intheL1,and the ike (see, forexample, 1; 2; 9-11;17; 21; 22; 27; 28; 50). These oftenobserved as-pects of learner-to-learnerdiscourse duringproblem-solvingcommunicative tasks do notsimply o ignored,but are suggested s possibleimportantcontributorsto language develop-.ment, s well as facilitators f the taskat hand.4This perspective lso allows fora focus on therole of conceptual materialand propertiesoftasks n learnerconversations, ather han sim-plyon the surfacelevel form and functionofutteranceswithrespectto one another n theseinteractions.Afterbriefly haracterizing he input-outputmodel,we review iterature elevant o the fourproblems we have raised with respect to theterm cquisition-richnvironment.ext,wediscuss

TheModern anguage ournal,8, iv (1994)0026-7902/94/497-511 $1.50/0?1994 TheModern anguage ournal

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/16

498 TheModern anguage ournal 8 (1994)the threedata sets, nalyzing hem n terms f aperspectivethat holds that learners constructtheirown environments hrough anguage use.Finally,we presentour argumentsn supportofthis frameworknd conclude withsuggestionsforclassroomand researchpractice.BACKGROUND

Before addressing the issues raised abovewithrespect to acquisition-richnvironments,ebriefly eview everalpointscritiquingthe no-tion of nput-outputmodels to describe humanverbal interaction.The model of communica-tion still assumed today n textbooks e.g., 23;43) is implicitlybased upon an engineeringmodel designedbyShannon for machine com-municationand adapted byWeaver (44) andothers e.g.,24) forhuman communication ndlanguage use because of its assumed appli-cability to language behavior in the pre-Chomskianparadigm. The mechanisticnatureof information nd the theory's pplication tohuman communication is also evident in thewritings fWeiner,who originated CyberneticTheoryand assignedtheterms nputnd outputto the communicationprocess.Continuationofthe use of terms from these early machinemodels servesonlyto perpetuatean image ofa"disengaged self . . . metaphysicallyndepen-dent of society" (51: p. 68), and "hides fromview heway nwhich n individual s constitutedby language and culture" (47: p. 8).5 Currentcommunication heorists imilarlyuestion thismodel, despite the factthat"arguments quat-ing information ransferwithcommunication"do notseem todislodgethemodel. It s "an ideathat dies hard" (23: p. 55).Problems temming romusingthese models(often naccurately) risewhen we employ uchterms in our field as comprehensiblenput ndacquisition-richnvironment.nputseen as "lan-guage that encodes meaning" (48: p. 46) em-bodies conceptualerrors s discussed n Reddy,for xample,accordingto whomthenotion thatmessagescontainand are containedisa trick fthe English language.6 Reddy claims thatWeaver was beguiled by the conduitmetaphorwhen he stated thatmessagesmaybe "heavilyloaded withmeaning" (p. 303), and that thetransmitter changes hemessagentoa signal"'7(italics in the original). Misunderstandings fthis phenomenon have been perpetuatedwithinSLA byrepresentingwhathappens be-tween speakers as "a negotiated exchange ofmessage meaning" (32: p. 345), forexample.8

Researchers in several disciplines refutetheidea thatmessages behave in thismanner.Forexample, schema theorists (e.g., 42) providethe nsight hatpriorknowledge n the mindsofreaders and listeners 3; 6) playsa profoundlyimportant ole ncomprehension nd that che-matavary rom peakertospeaker, specially sthelikelihoodof shared experiencediminishes(45). The problemwith nputmodels is thattheveritablecomplexity f speech activity uringproblem-solving asks is reduced to "a set offigures nd numbers that are manuipulated nvariousways" 11:p. 263) and "havegivenus anincompletepictureof second language acquisi-tion" (28: p. 15).Withrespectto the fourpointsmade aboveabout the term acquisition-richnvironment,ehave claimed in thefirst lace that uch an en-vironment annot be determined a priori. henotion is attributable o Krashen,and itscom-ponentsare comprehensible nput, positiveaf-fect,and motivatingmaterials. Ellis contraststhe acquisition-rich environment with its"poor" counterpart, ne in which the learnerreceives "littlecomprehensible nput" (p. 131).The term has been elaborated oftenin work-shops aimed at helping teachers understandhow to work with LEP youngstersin main-stream classroom settings (e.g., 20). Manyteachers ntuitivelynderstand uch a term, ortheyknow howto designclassrooms nwhichagreatdeal of material s availablefor tudents oselect activities ccording to theirproficiencylevels, nterests,nd goals. These teachersmayalso intuitivelyraspthe notionofcomprehensibleinput nd knowhow to make learnersdemon-strate what theyhave understood. Teachersgrounded in a constructivist ramework 37)derive students'conceptualmodels fromtheirtalk.Similarly,killed anguage teachers, isten-ing to learners' language production,plan ac-tivitiesthat assiststudentsto develop greaterall-around L2 proficiency.We applaud suchteachers nd the classroomclimatesthey stab-lish.We would neverargue that one should beincomprehensibleo learners,ust forthe sake ofbeing "natural" or "authentic." Rather, thepointis that the "environment" or earning snot the same for all learners. Even tasks,whetherwell explained or not,quite oftenarerestructured ylearners (1), as we showin thedata section.Inputand interactionmodels thusdo notad-equatelydescribe all ofthespeech activityhatoccurs among learners n a wide range of set-tings,our second point.We have claimed that



4/16

Elizabethlatt nd Frank . Brooks 499second language researchhas assumed an out-moded model to describe talk in manyof to-day's classrooms having second languagespeakers.Earliersecond language classroom re-search was conducted in classrooms in whichmostlyteacher-centered activities take place(e.g., 13). A preoccupation withthe nature ofinput helps to maintain the focus on theteacher as the major provider of talk in theclassroom. Often, the pattern of talk to befound n such settings onsistedofthe familiarteacher initiation, student response, andteacher feedback (IRE). Althoughthispatternis stillwidelypracticed today,other classroomconfigurations are also observed, especiallywhen teachersmove to theperimeter nd createsituationswhere learners do much of the talk-ing. With the extension of research into suchsettings,nterest as shifted romwhatteachersdo to whatstudentsdo in pairsor smallgroups(e.g., 1;8-11; 7;18; 25; 33). Moreover, heoccur-rence of interview-typeonversationshas beensuperceded in some classrooms by problem-solvingtasks,where certain anguage functionsare undertaken that do not ordinarily ccur inface-to-face onversations.Task-basedgrouporpairwork s becominga researchfocus n simu-lated workplace environmentsin vocationalprograms (34), in mainstream content class-rooms, n innovative econd (39) orforeign an-guage programs 11;12;17).Analyses fthe talkthat emerges in such settingshas promptedsome researchers o question the use ofcurrentmodels of SL talk and to suggest alternativewaysofviewing t (e.g., 11).Our thirdpointis that not all of a speaker'sutterancesnecessarilyfunction as "input" toother utterances or are even directed at lis-teners.As thedata sectionwillreveal,talk thatoccurs in learner-centeredactivities such asproblem solving s not alwaysof the kind thatcan be characterized as highly nteractive. nthestudieswe haveundertaken, earners alk tothemselves about such things as conceptualcontent, task procedures, linguisticform,oreven theirown language production.Theyalsouse gestures nd speak in theirown languages,whether the other participants understandthem or not. A model ofthis talkthatconfinesitself to utterances that are somehow "actedupon" by interlocutors n a conversationdoesnotallowus to considerthe mportanceofsuchtalk,whichVygotskians laim to be regulatoryin function.9We do not intendto demonstratethat such utterances re importantbecause oftheirfrequency, ut because of theirpotential

value in helpinglearnerstake controlofthem-selves,each other, heir anguage, and the taskitself n order to internalize theirknowledge.Thuswe feelcompelledto raise thequestionofwhat is acquired as a resultofparticipating nthesetasks.Our final point, therefore,s thatlanguageacquisition (or learning) outcomes of learner-to-learner onversationremain unspecifiedinclaims for the value of the acquisition-rich n-vironment.Use of the term obscures the factthat comprehendingis a functionof individ-uals,not ofspokenorprinted nput (5). Acquisi-tion s a by-product f informationransfer,ndnegotiatednteractionayalso be problematic, naddition to themisrepresentationsnherent nthe terms. n the Chomskianview, cquisitionp-plies to those aspects of language circum-scribed bysome innate structureor faculty fthemind, i.e., phonology,morphology, yntax,and lexical structure) 14).1oThus,whenusingthe termone mustdistinguish mong the var-ious typesof linguistic nd nonlinguisticphe-nomena beingstudied and consider under whattheories an extension of the term's domain ispermissible.Krashen's heavy emphasis on therole of inputhas led to some confusion n thefield withrespectto theoriesof humancommu-nication and the analysisof conversations, nthe one hand, and to theories of languagelearning/acquisitionon the other. We believethat t s timeforclarification fthedifferencein approach and of fundamental ssumptionsbetween the two kinds ofenterprise.While theSLA researchcommunity as rejecteda strongversion of an input-outputmodel foracquisi-tion,we havenonetheless ontinued touse ittodescribe talkand itssupposed benefitsfor an-guage acquisition in the classroom (e.g., 30).Whatwe are suggesting s a more robustviewthat ncorporatesan understandingof talk or,more specifically, peech activity s cognitiveactivityhathumanspress ntoservice n orderto solveproblems, egardless fitscommunica-tive intent. From this perspectivewe can seethatwhat learnersare doing is not simplyre-hearsing inguisticformsfortheireventual ac-quisitionbut trying o solveproblemsbyusingtheirlanguage.ELECTRONICS ROLE PLAY

In thissectionwe discussdata collected in atechnical college class entitled Technical Vo-cabulary in Electronics.We use these data toillustrate ach ofour fourpointsraised above,



5/16

500 TheModern anguage ournal 8 1994)the first nd fourthwiththefirst xample,andthe second and thirdpointswith the secondexample.The lessonwas one of a serieson the oscillo-scope, an instrument sed to capture an elec-tronicsignaland hold itconstantformeasure-ment. The teacherhad assignedthestudentsroleplaying ask nwhichan electronics echni-cian was demonstratingkillsto a potentialsu-pervisor.The following oles were to be rotatedamong the three students t each oscilloscope:thetechnician, hesupervisor,nd an observer.The latter wowould askproceduraland knowl-edge questions of the technician,who in turnwould demonstrate familiaritywith the pro-cedures and terminology elevant o the use ofthe instrument.To accomplish the task, stu-dents would need to do the following:use thetermspertainingto both the operation of theoscilloscope and thedisplayon the screen;usedeclarativeand interrogativetatements s ap-propriatefor each role; manipulate the dialsand switches n the instrument o get a stabledisplay;and use a particularformulato meas-ure thefrequency fa given ignal.To assist hestudents, he teacherprovided worksheet. hestudents hushad to focusattention n concep-tual, manipulative,and linguistic phenomenasimultaneously. ivensuch a complextask, t snot surprising hatin each group the ways nwhichthe learners structured he activitiesdif-feredquite markedly.In the following xcerpt,Elena (E) and Mi-guel (M), nativespeakersofSpanish,are work-ing on the problem.A native speaker of Chi-nese,who does not speak duringthissegment,alternates between looking at the scope andlookingdown,possibly t theassignment heet.Most of the time Miguel looks at the scope,aroundat otherpeople in theroom,or downatthepaper. During theexchangewithElena, hedoes not look her in theeye,nor does she lookat him. She alternatesbetween looking at thescope and lookingat the assignment heetandalso occasionallyuses herpencil eithertopointto thescope, follow heassignment, r do a cal-culation.She uses rising ntonation hroughoutthe first artoftheexcerpt, t thepointswherea carat mark is placed. She pauses when sheswitches romookingat thescope to lookingatthepaper and backagain or whenshe iswritingsomethingdown. In the transcripts, commarepresents briefpause; a period indicatesfall-ing intonation;a carat indicatesslightly isingintonation;a question mark s used here in itsconventionalsense. Italicized items in paren-

theses indicatewhatspeakersare doing,whilethose in roman type n brackets are wordsthespeakerswerethought o have uttered.Excerpt001 M: How do youmeasurethe (pause)fre-quency?Firstof all ...002 E: Firstyouhave to calibrate^ theoscilloscope^003 M: Yeah004 E: Then set thehorizontal^ (pause, ook-ing tpaper) weep range005 M: Whichis,where s it?006 E: Uh sweep range control,this one here(pointingooscilloscope).007 uh, this s the horizontal^ range con-trol (readingrom ssignmentheet) or a008 M: Ok009 E: Rotatethevariable (glancingtscope)horizontal controlfully pause) lockwise readingroms-signmentheet).010 M: Yeah011 E: Count the numberof horizontal divi-sions ^ to the left o theright012 M: How manyyouhave?013 E: One, twothree,four, ive .014 We have fivepointsix (pause, ointing)timespointone015 M: One qua?016 E: Uh milliseconds pointing)017 M: Pointone milliseconds nodding)018 E: That's fivepointsixmilliseconds.Uhto get thefrequency youhave to di-vide019 that^ byone.As this excerpt illustrates,Miguel begins byaskingElena thegeneral question about meas-uringfrequency, ven tellingher how to beginher first sentence. This is more like teachertalk than like supervisorbehavior.Elena thenproceeds to explain howto measurefrequencythrougha series ofstepspromptedby glancesat theworksheet.Miguel respondsas she goesalong with approving marks such as "yeah"and "OK," and occasionallyasksElana a ques-tion,each of whichshe answersappropriately.At one pointMiguel code switches, skingher"One que?" ("one what?"). By doing so heacknowledges that theyboth speak the samenative anguage. Elena summarizesthispartofthe problem-solving session with the state-ment in line 018, "That's fivepoint six milli-seconds."Essentially, his pair has complied withthe



6/16

Elizabethlatt ndFrank . Brooks 501assignment yplayingthesupervisor nd tech-nician roles appropriately nd demonstratingunderstanding f thevocabulary, heoperationof the equipment, and the steps to solve theproblem.Furthermore,muchofthetalk can belabeled easilyas question, response, and feed-back and can be described using an input-output model. However, neither participantseems really engaged in the task (11); eachseems ratherto be complyingwith the assign-ment,playingthe roles as the teacher had in-structed,followingthe assignment heet care-fully, nd occasionally reading fromit. Theymay either believe it unnecessary to talkthrough heproblem n order to show thattheyunderstand it, or theymay still be insecureabout the procedures and require the work-sheet.Thus,forthesetwostudents he environ-ment theycreate for themselvesmay not bemaximally ich in language learningpotential.Theyhave essentially ngaged in what Bloomecalls "procedural display"or " workingwithoutnecessarily ngaging n the academic substanceof the lesson" (p. 73).This example illustrates hepointthatthe ul-timate benefit of the settingwithrespect tosome aspect of language learningcan onlybedetermined posteriori.oreover, hepresumedvalue of anykindof language activitys theorydependent. For example, if anguage use in anuncontrolledsetting s facilitative f languageacquisition, developmental progress towardgreater grammaticalor otherkinds of compe-tence being assumed (the rationaleunderlyingcontent- nd task-basedteachingapproaches),then thisactivitys beneficial.However, f an-guage practice withoutcorrection facilitatesfossilization fforms, hen this ctivitymaynotbe so rich in acquisition potential.Bycontrast,the next excerpthighlights hedifferences etween twoways nwhichthe roleplayparticipantshave structured he assignedtask. While the teacher has set a languageteaching goal of studentsasking and answer-ing questions using the technical vocabularyin a realistic scenario, the students in thisgroup have reconstructed the task consistentwiththeirowngoal: solve thefrequencyprob-lem using the oscilloscope and the calculator.In this excerpt Linh (L) and Jaime (J) arenon-native speakers; Cohen (Co) and theteacher (T), native speakers. As soon as thestudents' goal has been achieved, theydo notcompletethe ob scenario,butimmediately o-tate roles,as shown in Excerpt2 when Linh isthe technician.

Excerpt. Switchingurns048 L: Three pointone and therange is onehundred.049 Co: You got it Linh. (toJaime)Wanna tryagain?Here Cohen confirms hat Linh has solved hisproblemcorrectly,hen mmediately sksJaimeif he wantsto take a turn.The groupmakesnoattempt o close the ob interview,hesolutionof theproblem supercedingthe roleplayat thispoint. Excerpt3 is used to illustrate hefailureof an input model to describe adequatelyJaime'stalk,as he is onlyoccasionallyengagedin a conversationwith Cohen and Linh as su-pervisor and observer respectively. nstead,much of his talkis directedto himself, nd heappears not to be paying lose attention owhatthe others are saying.Excerpt. Nonattendanceo nterlocutoralk056J: Ok (beginsdjustinghe ontrolsgain)nowI use my, ariablerange controlto,057 Adjust my eference ine ^ Now use myACDC control to adjustmy, inewave(pausewhiledjusting)058 Damn! (underhisbreath,hen tartingolaugh)All augh. aimeooks t Cohen059 C: How about turning haton again? (indi-catingignal enerator)Jaimeooks own,ooks t Cohen,hakes ishead, nd smiles.060 C: Think that'dhelp.However, aimecontinuesworkingt thescope, ossiblyothaving rocessedhatCo-henhas said.061J: NowI'm using myuh,horizontal weeptimecontrol.062 C: (laughs) How about turning this onagain? (points osignalgeneratornd ad-justs t)063 Make a difference?All laugh.Cohen ontinueso aughto him-self s ifhewerehinkinghatJavierightotbe toobright.064 L: You have topull thisback. Because youdidn't turnon, so, so. Ok?065J: Ok. Now I have to [start ll over]066 L: No, no, no [inaud] You have to turnthison. You have to turnthiscontrolswitch067 And reduce themagnitude068J: [inaud]069 L: You have to reduce thatAllaremakingemarksotto oce uringhenextew xchanges



7/16

502 TheModern anguage ournal 8 (1994)070J: [inaud] the verticalvoltage071 L: Um hmand ^ reduce here072J: Vertical073 L: OK, yeah (turns dial)074 C: Do you have thatfive time magnifieron?075J: NowI'm using my, utput evelcontrolswitch adjusts ial at signal enerator)076 to adjust,my, ine wave (makesn adjust-ment t the cope).077 I'm gonna make my ine waveExcerpt3 illustrates hatust as the richnessofthe environment annot be ascertained,whatconstitutescomprehensiblenput s also problem-atic,as it s a function f earner- nd situation-specificvariables 45). Cohen's rather bliquelystated comments n lines059-063 to turnon thesignal generator appear not to have been pro-cessedat all byJaime,who sengaged in hisownmonologueabout the task lines 056-058),and,after shortpause to acknowledgethatCohenhas said something, continues talking (line061). Again, Cohen's question in line 074 goesunanswered as Jaime is still engaged in hismonologue.Cohen's ordinarily omprehensiblestatement hat hesignal generator s notyetonhas meantnothingtoJaime,an indication thathe is absorbed in stabilizing hedisplay nd set-ting up theproblem.Jaime's talking bout procedures aloud is anexample of what nVygotskyanheory s called"self-regulated peech" (21) and showsthat heisverymuchengaged in thetask.Jaimesnot somuch answeringthe supervisor'squestions ashe is troubleshooting he problem,somethinghe mighthave done even withoutthe assign-mentgiven bythe nstructor.t is not untilLinhbreaks ntoJaime'smonologueand beginsmak-ingdirect uggestions lines 064, 066, 069, and071) thatJaimerealizes that he has been pro-ceeding incorrectlynd startsfollowing inh'sdirection.Jaime's remarks n 070 and 072 fol-lowed byLinh's wordsof approval in 071 and073 are illustrative.Through the course of both this and twoother opportunities to play the technician,Jaime mproved n his ability omanipulatethecontrols,label some of the phenomena, andsolve the mathematicalproblem.However, t isdifficult o tell how thisactivity ontributes oJaime's anguage learning.Forexample,despitethe factthaton manyoccasions he needed touse the words "vertical"and "horizontal,"heconfused the two throughoutthe entire classhour.Again,thequestionweaddress ncommu-

nicativeclassroom research swhat n the longrun is learned in such settings.SWAHILIMAPLESSON

In this ection,data collected at the end ofatwelve-hour wahilicourse are used toshow theseveral kindsof utterances pair ofverybasicbeginnersused to solve a problem ointly.Wewill show that a model thatmerelytreatsA'sutterances s inputto those ofB is inadequateto characterize this kind of talk. Such a modelcan not capturethe possibly mportant ontri-butionsof intrapersonalutterancesto the lan-guage learningprocess.Furthermore,lthoughthe task is highly ommunicative, he learnersexploit only a narrowrange of linguisticandparalinguistic esources n their epertoire.Theanalysisgivenbelow allows us to focuson howlearners ccomplisha task,but leavesopen theanswer to the question: What in this anguageactivitys learned?In order to perform his igsaw task,pairs oflearners were given two similarmaps of EastAfrica with some information in common,other nformation istributed quallybetweenthe twomaps,and the rest unlabeled. The goalwas to finishtheactivitynd have the same in-formation n both maps. Prior to engaging inthe task,participantshad alreadystudied thefour directions,the locative verb, agreement,and singular/pluralmorphology orthreecom-mon noun classes, question words "what" and"where,"and "yes/no."The termsfor"town,""tribe," "boundary,""lake," and "mountain"wereprovided n thekey longsidedrawingsikethoseon themap, shown n Figures a and Ib.In thefirst xample,Janeand Karen use thefirst of several task-structuring and map-orienting trategies: estureand repetition.Asin the previous transcripts, he following rethe conventionsused to indicate intonation:acomma fora briefpause, a period forfallingintonation, caratfor lightlyising ntonation,and a questionmarkforrising ntonation ndi-catinga requestfor nformation.Excerpt. Orientingithign anguagendrepetition001J: (laughing,djustingookso that he ndK cannoteeone nother's aps, ndread-ingover ermap)Ok.002 K: Kenya.003J: Kenya.004 K: Kaskazini (after long ause)no, (lookingup as iftogetherbearings)usini[north] [south]005J: (pointingown]Kusini?



8/16

Elizabethlatt nd Frank . Brooks 503FIGURE IAMap of EastAfrica

UgandaAlbertfWanyoro y

KmenyaRuwenzoriVictoria Nakuru

Rwanda a Bahari/Y1 yazA IndiaTanzaniaachagaTangaunguof MjijiAfrikaa Ziwaasharikipakaaskazini yachimagharibi-- mashariki Watutkusini Milima/T1

FIGURE IBMap of EastAfricaSudanRudolfgganda

S Kampala Cherangani"Kuny n,WWakikuyu Bahari/Y1ombasaaIndiaTanzania

Wa~nyuamweziFuguanganyika ZiwaAfrikaa pkasharkik Mpaka \Kaskazini | yanchimagharibi--- mashariki Watu Fkusini Milima/Y006 K: Kusini.007J: Kusini?008 K: Nakuru.Nakuru.009J: OK Nakuru? shakingead, o, s if he oesnot nderstandhat odo)010K: Nakuru.011J: Na ku ru. (writing)In line 001,Jane signalsher readinessto beginusing English, "OK." In line 002 Karen re-sponds bytellingJane to findKenya.Jane ac-knowledges n 003. In 004 Karen tellsJane tolookin thenorth, utthencorrectsherself ftershifting er gaze upward,probablyto visualizewhere theplace shewas thinking fwas locatedin Kenya. (When interviewed aterKaren andJane said theyhad cheated because theyhadused hand signals.However, nthe firstnstanceJane was not watchingKaren, and Karen wasnotlooking atJane.This behavior ndicates hatKaren more than likelyused the gesture toorientherself.) n line 005,Janegesturesdown-ward to ask for Karen's confirmation that"kusini" (south) was down, and received ac-knowledgmentn 006. In 007Janeasksto knowwhatin the south she should look for, nd Ka-ren respondsin 008, "Nakuru,Nakuru."At 009Jane shakes her head because she does notknow whatsymbolson themap thatappear inthesouthshould be labeled "Nakuru,"nd indi-cates her doubt with the rising intonationagain. Karen simplyrepeats the word in 010,and in 011Jane spells it aloud and writes itdown,althoughwe do not know where.Before the segment to be discussed below

tookplace,JanetoldKaren inEnglishto lookatthe key n the cornerof themap. Thus, in thenext segmentwe can see thatKaren uses thisinformation nd employsa general-to-specificstrategy o orientJane.Again theyuse intona-tional contours, histime more effectively.Excerpt. Generalo pecifictrategy023 K: Uganda024J: Uganda025 K: Um magharibiya Uganda. MaziwaAlbert.westof lakes026J: Albert?027 K: Albert028J: OK Albert.In lines023 Karen tellsJaneto look at Uganda,and in025 identifieswhatpartofthecountry olook in, indicateswhatgeographicalfeaturetolook for, nd finally ives tsname,Lake Albert.Jane repeats it in 026 withrisingintonation,and Karen confirms n 027 withfalling ntona-tion.Jane repeats "Albert" thirdtime.Directly ollowing his equence in Excerpt6below, ine 029,JanetellsKaren that he shouldbeginat that pot,Lake Albert, nd identifyhepeople to thesouth-information she lacksonhermap. Wanyoro s thename ofa tribe.Excerpt Using ntonationosignalorientingndquestioning029J: Albert^ kusini^ watu.Watu?Albertsouthpeople030 K: Ah,Wanyoro.



9/16

504 TheModern anguage ournal 8 (1994)FIGURE IIA

$103.95

CA Z ICARA

...... ......

FIGURE IIB

o N1CAMA

LoOne mightfully nterpret ane's utterances as"Do you see Albert? Can you go south?Thereare some people. Who are those people?" Ka-ren respondswiththe name of the tribe,pre-cisely the informationJane has sought. Notehow in thisexcerptJane requests informationfromKarenwithbothrising nd falling ntona-tion on theword "watu" people) in line 029.Also, in this segment the participants haveswitchedtactics,the person lackingthe infor-mationrequesting tfromherpartner.AlthoughKaren andJane began usinghandsignals,they ater switchedto other strategiesthatwerebothmore n linewith he task ssign-ment and more effective. hrough the courseof severalturnsthese participants onstructedfor themselves some rather effectivemeansofsolvingtheproblemby movingfromgeneralto specific nformation, epeatingwords,vary-ing intonationcontours,and assuming direc-tive roles in both giving and requestingin-formation. They did so with single wordparatacticconstructions,1 ypical f earners tsuch an early tage.AsAhmed found, peakersoften change map tasks entirely n order tocomplete them.This is what occurred in thisactivity. For example, one pair of Swahililearners,on attempting o complete the tasksuccessfully,witched lmostentirely o Englishfora large portionof the time allotted.

Thus, to reiterate n earlierpoint,Jane andKaren were not inan acquisition-rich nviron-ment, they created r constructed contextthrough heiruse fthetarget anguage to solvea problem.They constructed everalstrategiesto orientthemselvesn the task,creatingcon-vergentmaps fromdivergentnformation,ndtheygenerallyused Swahili wordsand gesturesto do it. The question of what is acquired/learned is not answeredin termsof the targetlanguage but in terms fthenature ofthetaskitself nd whattheymanaged to accomplish. nthe next section we use data frommore ad-vanced learnersto illustrate hevariety f func-tionsthatutterances erform esides simplyn-teraction n theL2.JIG-SAW ASKThe following ata weretakenfrom groupoftwouniversity-levelhird-semesterearners fSpanish,Jan nd Kay, ngagedfor hefirst imein a jig-sawtaskthatrequiredthemtoworkto-getherto complete a puzzle-likediagram (8).(RefertoFigures Ia and IIb.) It is assumedthatthiskind oftask s effective ecause itprovidesstrategic pportunities orwhat s describedbyPica as "negotiated interaction."What we in-tendto showthroughthefollowing xcerpts sthatotherkindsof important trategic ctivity



10/16

Elizabethlatt ndFrank . Brooks 505are going on, in addition to interaction. n theliterature, these strategies are often over-looked or simplynot reported as part of thedata set (8). The followingselected featuresfromthisconversationwill be highlighted:Sit-uation Definition, Metatalk, and Whisperingto oneself.Situation efinition.ccordingto Wertsch 50:p. 8), situationdefinition s "theway n whichasetting or context is represented-that is,defined-by thoseoperating n that etting." trefers o speech activity uringwhich humansco-construct shared representation r "men-tal image" ofa situationor orientation o a par-ticular problem, similar to what Rommetveit(p. 94) calls achieving "states of intersubjec-tivity." t is importantthat during problem-solvingspeech activity articipantsnot be pas-sive recipientsof thisrepresentationfromoneanother.Rather, hey re active co-constructorsof it (46).At the beginning of the igsaw activity, heresearcher took time and explained to thepar-ticipants what theywere to do during theproblem-solving task. He stated that therewere some figureson a diagram and that, nSpanish, as well as theycould, theywere to"talk back and forth oone another tofindoutwhat the otherhad" and to "drawin the miss-ing pieces." Nevertheless, hortly fterbegin-ning the task,Jan is compelled to questionwhatthey re supposed to do, as shownbelowin Excerpt 7. For the purposes of transcrip-tion, the researcher's wordsare in upper caseletters,while theparticipants'are in lowercaseletters.Excerpt: SituationefinitionWhat rewe upposedtobedoinghere?"039J: I think 'm going to call thatguyback'cause thispaper is making ittleor nosense to me040 K: ha!041 I don't know f 'm doing thisright042J: (incomprehensible)(the researcherwalksback intotheroom)043 B: WHAT IS IT?044J: I don't understand045 B: OKAY046J: I don't understandwhat I'm supposedto be communicatingwiththispaper062J: oh okayso we're supposed to fill n thiswhole063 B: YEAH064J: block startingwith thefirst quare

065 K: oh!066 B: SO YOU'RE GOING TO FIND THATTHERE ARE SOMETIMES YOU HAVETHINGS THAT ARE SIMILAR BUTSLIGHTLY DIFFERENT067 K: uh huh068J: right069 B: OR SOME THINGS THAT YOU HAVEAND SHE DOESN'T HAVE ENTIRELY070J: okay071 B: OKAY072 AND IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THECASE THAT ALL THE SQUARESHAVE TO BE FILLED IN073J: oh074 B: OKAY075J: all right hatthathelps076 B: DOES IT?077J: yeah ikelike stuff ikethiswhat quarewould it be in then?078 B: WELL THAT'S WHAT YOU'REGOING TO TRY TO NEGOTIATEBACK AND FORTH079J: okay080 K: so theyhave to be in the same places,too?081 B: YEAH, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE082 K: okay083 B: ALL RIGHTY?084J: so we're going to try o come up withlike the same085 B: YEAH. IN OTHER WORDS, THEO-RETICALLY, YOU'D BOTH WALKOUT WITH THE SAME PICTURE086 K: okayIn line 039 of thisexcerpt,Jan declares: "thispaper is making little or no sense to me" andwantsto call theresearcherback intotheroomto explain the taskagain. At thispoint the re-searcherreturns o therecordingroomand ex-plains more specificallywhat the participantsare todo. Between ines045 and 085,for xam-ple, he provides a more detailed descriptionabout theprocedural demandsofthetask.Dur-ing thisclarification(lines 062 and 064), Janexpressesher own ostensibleunderstanding fthe particularprocedural demands of the taskwhenshe declares: "oh okayso we're supposedto fill in this whole . . . block starting with thefirstsquare." Kay then remarks: "oh!" (line065), thus indicatingher understanding. Seealso lines 080 and 084.)In the preceding excerptwe see that,whenfaced with difficultaskforthe first ime,thetwo tudents xternalizefor hemselves hegoal



11/16

506 TheModern anguage ournal 8 1994)or end-result f their ctivity. s we can see inExcerpt 8, however,Kay and Jan-even afterworking uccessfully ogether n Spanish foranumberof turns-apparentlyneed to suspenddoing the task once again and talk in Englishabout the task and itsgoals.Excerpt: Redefiningituationefinition249J: uh well now I'm even more confused250 K: ha! ha!251J: see I have uh um252 okay etme try o do this n SpanishI'll at leastput up theeffort253 En mi papel yo tengomuchos es-pacios algunos tienenpeliculas otrosestfin lancos254 K: uh huh255J: yuh yopienso que tri ienes umblancos donde yo tengo peliculas256 K: uh huh257J: entiendes?258 K: uh si259J: ybut that'snothappening260 oh well261 K: ha! ha! oh well262J: so youhave an "n" and I have a "z"263 K: si264 I thinkumyou're supposed to draw

inwhat have and I'm supposed todrawum um265 I don't know howto saythis n Span-ish266J: yeah I know thatwhat 'm sayingsome of mine are blank and someI have pictures 'm supposed to com-municatethepictures nd youwould have blankswhere thepicturesare and vice versa ^267 K: right268J: but that doesn't seem to be happen-ing269 K: uh sometimes t other times tmaybeI thinkboth whereyou ust kinda doha! ha!270J: all right sta bien271 K: Ah I tried272J: siguiente

In line 249 above,Jan expressesher confusionby tating: wellnow 'm evenmore confused."She evendirectsherself o talk boutthis onfu-sion inSpanish (line 252). The studentsneed totalkto one another because thetask s stillnotmakinga greatdeal of sense to them.The pur-pose of re-establishing-through externaliza-tion-the goals of the task is to make them

moreunderstandable. n lines253 and 255,Janostensibly nderstandswhat is supposed to behappening,but she feels that "that's not hap-pening,"in line 259 and again in line 268. Kay,nevertheless,eems to understand, s she dem-onstratesn line 264 and whichJanconfirms nline 266, thoughshe is also aware that he feelsinadequate to state those particularrules forparticipation in Spanish (line 265). Despitethese confusions,which the two participantsopenlydiscusshere,they re finally ble to con-tinue withthepuzzle task, s noted in line 272.To be considered here is that all tasks orproblemsto be solved are organized accordingtogoals and motivations 1; 17).Theirpurposesand meaningsto theparticipantshold a centralplace in the definition of activities or events(40; 51).When two nterlocutorsre involved njoint problem-solving ctivity,t is sometimesnecessary for them to construct for them-selves-through talk-their own ntersubjectiveunderstandings of the instructions and thegoals of theiractivity.Moreover,participantsmay also feel compelled to re-constructforthemselves on more than one occasion whatthey re supposed to be doing, how,and why.Until thatintersubjective nderstanding s ac-complished, theyreallycan go nowhere n thetask (1; 17).Metatalk.WhileKayandJanwere involved ntheir oint activityworking owardcompletionof the information-gap task, they at timestalked about their own talk, as noted in Ex-cerpts9 and 10below.Excerpt: Metatalk211J: en mi papel um es una [linda] hori-zontal en thebottompartof thespace comingout of the top of the tri-angle ha! ha!212 K: ha! si ha! ha!213J: sorry214 K: that'sokay 'm just215J: yeahthis s frustrating216 K: yes t is217J: okay218 K: all right219J: en el um primerespacio en el tercer[linda] no tengo [nadia]Startingwith ine213and extending oline 218,both students temporarily suspend theirproblem-solvingctivity o commenton theirown language production,which for them isfrustratinglines 215 and 216). This commen-tary appears motivatedby line 212,whenJanswitched o Englishwhiledescribinga particu-



12/16

Elizabethlatt ndFrank . Brooks 507lar partof her diagram.This temporary epar-ture from the task and discussionabout theirown talkand about howfrustratinghings refor hem t themomentmaybe seen as a kindofemotional release valve or self-regulatingctiv-ity (27). Both students,nevertheless, onquerthis momentary mpasse in lines 217 and 218and begin anew working on the task (line219).12In this xcerpt, oth students alkopenly bouttheir frustrations oncerning theirperceivedlack ofSpanish. In otherwords,the talking c-tivityhatoftenensues duringproblem-solvingbehavior does not always necessarily ntail re-sponse to propositional information.Rather,this kind of speech activityerves to allow theparticipants o arrive at certaincommonalitiesor intersubjectivetates.Excerpt0:Metatalk365 K: oh wait una vez mis es es near wait366 one more time una vez mas367J: uh368 hmmm369 letme thinkof anotherwayto saythisIn Excerpt10 above,we see thatKaywantsJanto repeatsomething hat he does notquite un-derstand lines 365 and 366).Jan then redirectsherself n line 369 in an efforto saysomethingthat s comprehensibleto Kay. n so doing,Janiscompelled tomediateforherselfher own an-guage; she expressesonce again what s neces-sary n order forKaytoreconstruct he nstruc-tions forJan.Whisperingo Self In addition to the abovefeaturesofproblem-solving iscourse, the stu-dents in thisactivitywere also observed whis-peringtothemselves tparticular points n thetask.Thiswhispering ctivityeems to serve animportant strategic function for their ownconstruction of theproblem-solving ask. Thiswhisperingto the self is often referred to as"privatespeech" thatserves to mediate or re-direct an individual's own activity.Privatespeech emergesquite often,especiallyduringcognitivelydifficultsituations (27). The ex-cerptsbelow are but a fewexamples. The por-tions of the transcript segments printed initalics indicatewhispering.Excerpt1:Whisperingo elf275J: Equ6 tienes?276 K: tienen un [vi] um que con con-con-tina continapara un espacio277 howdoyou aythat278 above

Excerpt2: Whisperingo elf458J: si459 K: y segundo [linea] es a a la tretrestres um howwould ou aythaten en la tiempo es (incomprehens-ible) es la tres460 J: tres461 K: hmit'snotmakingense

Excerpt3: Whisperingo elf509 K: yessi510J: que?511 K: tengo uh uh512 geezhowdo saythis uarto ientosmcu-artos no dos tres513 cuatro cientosmmmcuatrocientociento diez d61aresyum quince514J: cuatrocien ydiez515 K: cuatroIn Excerpt11,Kay talksto herselfwhispering:"howdo you saythat"when she is searchingforhow tosaytheSpanish equivalentto "above." InExcerpt12,Kay again whispers: how do yousaythat"and "hmmit's notmakingsense." In Ex-cerpt13,Kaywhispers: geez how do I saythis"and counts to herself o mediate her own con-structionof the dollar amount in Spanish thatappears on herpartof thediagram. n all thesecases, thiswhispering ctivity eems to coordi-nate Kay's ownmental and linguistic ctivitysit relatestosolving hepuzzle. She clearlywantsto participate n the problem-solving ask withherpartner n Spanishand thus peaks to solveher own problem. What we hear is her ownspeech that s intended forno one other thanherself. peaking thus serves mportantmedia-tional purposes for ndividualsforcompletingcognitively emanding tasks and fororientingthemselves nd their nterlocutors o the taskand to the language that s used to constructthe task (2; 9; 17).CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONSTo conclude, we would like to reiterate thefourpointsmade at thebeginningofthis rticlein the lightof the data presentedabove. First,we claim that"environments" re notontologi-cal realitiesbut are constructed nd constitutedbythe speech activity hat earnersproduce. Itis thisverydiscursive ctivity hat allows us tosee how ndividuals reateand share social real-ities. As implied earlier, use of the term"acquisition-rich nvironment"diminishes thelearner n thepictureof the second or foreignlanguage classroomand focuses on the role ofthe teacher as source of "comprehensiblein-



13/16

508 TheModern anguage ournal 8 (1994)put." In reflecting n thechangingrole of thelanguage teacher as primary input provider"in favorof that of facilitator f the languagelearningprocess,we need to reconsider whatlearnerstry o accomplishwhen nvolved n thekinds of problem-solvingasksnow being pro-moted in the pedagogical literature e.g., 29).Jointspeech activityduring problem-solvingtasks snotsimply orthepurposesof"messagetransfer" ut ratherprovides earnersstrategicopportunities to enhance the psychologicalprocesses that underlie regulationor psycho-logical autonomy 27). As Brooks and Donatoargue: "tasks cannot be externallydefined orclassifiedon the basis ofspecificexternal taskfeatures Rather, asks re infact nternallyon-structedthroughthe moment-to-momenter-bal interactionsof the learnersduring actualperformance" p. 272; see also 15).Let us now reconsider the second and thirdpoints made at the beginningof this article.First,nputand interactionmodels,fromwhichthe termacquisition-richnvironmenterives,donotproperly eflect henewer, roblem-solvingopportunities in which FL/SL classroomlearnersare the primary nteractants. urther,these models do not reveal the functionof allutterances and gestures observed duringlearners' activity.Withrespectto these points,we found thatspeech activity unctions arbe-yond, and in a more complex manner than,merelythe exchange of information 11; 51).The firstgroup of students n the electronicsclass seemed onlyto complywith the mostin-strumentalaspects of the task, thus theyap-peared not to have connected with t and witheach other.To be sure,they ompliedwith thetaskas statedbythe teacher.Voice intonation,hand gestures,eye gaze, and the like are fea-turesof discourse and speech activity hatre-veal important spects of activityn the pres-ence of others.Bycontrast, he second group ofstudents ntheelectronics lass spoke to solve a mathema-tics problem, changing and co-constructingrole relationships.More importantly,heydi-vergedfrom the intendedtaskof the teacher:takespecifiedroles and use thetechnicalvocab-ulary. n the Swahili information-gapask thetwo studentscleverlydevised and successfullyused a varietyfnonverbal, uprasegmental,ndstrategicmovestoorient hemselvesnd one an-other opointson theirmaps. n theSpanish ig-saw task, tudents eltcompelled to stepout oftheir ask o reconstructor hemselvesheir wn"mental mages" ofthegoals and motives f the

task. n solving heir ask, hey alked bout theirown talk as well as to themselves.With respect to the fourth point-whatlearners actuallyacquire is often leftunspec-ified-we are compelled to ask the question ofwhat s "acquired?"The tasks describedclearlyfallwithin hedesignspecificationsforactivityin so-called "acquisition-richenvironments."However, ur theoriesofacquisition maybe in-fluenced by,but should remain conceptuallydistinctfrom,our theories of communicationand talk ngeneral.Our data highlightndivid-uals engaged in talk,notmerely or xchangingpropositional information, but for solvingproblems. What these participants acquire,then, s an understanding hat ike talk in L1,talk n L2 can also be used in a widerarrayoffunctions than question-response sequences.For example,while Elena and Miguel seemedquite proficient n the language of problemsolving (despite theirdependence on the as-signment heet),Jaimewasnot able to workonhis problemand attendto hints n English atthe same time. Clearlythe "environment"hisgroup constructedwas more challengingthanthe safeone Elena's groupcreated,and thepo-tentialforhis earningnewfunctionsnEnglishwas expanded. However,we do not presumetoclaim that cquisition ntheChomskian ense isenabled (or impeded) in eithersetting.Finally,when we use a model witha set ofterms hat delineatesonlythe most nstrumen-talaspectsof the nteractiveunctions fspeechactivity, e eliminatefrom nalysis he mediat-ing functionsof talk in the learning process.Statedanotherway,tmaybe that s we are try-ing to understandthevery peech activityhatunfoldswhenlanguage learners re involved nproblem-solvingasks,we are not able todiscussand analyze that activitywith input-outputmodels.Whetherwechoose toacknowledget ornot, our widelyused professionalterminologyhas been importedfromthe InformationThe-orymodel we discussedearlier (38; 47; 51).Hu-man communication s thusconceptualized intermsof the transmission f information, heencodingand decoding ofsignals (a distortionof the model imposed byWeaver at the verybeginning). The assumption,then, that tasksand task-based ctivityre merely or the trans-feror exchange of information etween inter-locutors does not allowfor the viewthatmuchlanguage activitys regulatory n nature,andnot necessarily ommunicative n intent. ndi-viduals,whether n thepresence of others dur-ing difficult asksor not,oftenspeak aloud in



14/16

ElizabethPlatt and FrankB. Brooks 509order to solve problems. (For furtherdiscus-sion, see 1; 11;18)Accordingto currentmodels,thepurpose of"transmittingmessages" is to allow for thecon-struction of "comprehensible input," whichthenbecomes "linguisticdata" to be processedin the learner's "black box." (See 30 and 32.)Talk as "message transfer,"anguage modifica-tions as "comprehensible nput" and "compre-hensible output," and "acquisition-rich en-vironments" all are terms hatpermeateourprofessional iterature.We accept themwithoutconsidering their philosophical origins and,more importantly, he crucial ways in whichthey hape our thinking nd understandingofhuman communication and speech activity.These terms dentify articularways fdescrib-ing our world and what is happening in ourclassrooms.Thus, they everely imitand con-strainwhat researchers nd teachers choose toattend to.The viewwehaveespoused has importantm-plications for teaching and research. In theclassroom, t s important olistento learners sthey re involved n problem-solving asks andunderstandwhat t is they re trying o accom-plish. This is especiallycrucial withrespecttothe use ofL1,which,as we have seen, is reallythe only mediational tool fullyavailable tolearners, especially at the lower proficiencylevels,for olving he kindsofproblemswe haveseen in these various examples of talk. More-over, earners need opportunitiesto engage inanalogous kinds of problem-solving tasks inorder tobecome better tdoingthem 18).Withrespect to research, an understandingof hu-man communicative ctivity eeds to be incor-porated to expand how we view the partici-pants' activity hat we are investigating.Theoutmoded input-outputmodel is inadequatefor omprehending hat peakingactivityssim-plymore complex than has been recognized.NOTES

1This rticlewaspresentednder he ame itle ttheConference n SecondLanguageAcquisition/Foreign anguageLearning, eldatPurdueUniver-sity,West Lafayette,Feb. 1993. We have benefitedfromdiscussionwithvariousparticipants t the con-ference,most otablyhomas covel nd BillVanPat-ten, swell s with rederickenks, ichard onato,andJames .Lantolf.Weespeciallycknowledgedi-torial ssistance rom ee Bradleyndopportunitiestodiscussvariousphilosophical issues withMarkSul-

livan.We lso thank he arious eviewersor he alu-ablecommentsn earlier rafts f the rticle.Mostimportantly,we wish to thank the studentswhosevoices we hear in thesepages.2 A reviewof the relevant iterature nd a study fteachers' naive models of communication can befound in Platt 35).3Wertsch 51) discusses the difference etweentheterms "language" and "speech activity."WithinVygotsky'sramework,heformer efers o thestruc-tures of the language system. he latter, ycontrast,is understood as beingpartofongoinghumancogni-tiveactivity hat s used in human social interaction.4 Frawley nd Lantolfhave argued elsewherethatall formsofdiscourse during speech activityre rele-vant and relevatoryf the cognitive dispositions ofthose involved in the tasks. It is difficult nd con-straining,therefore, o limitanalysisonly to a fewselected discourse featuressuch as clarification re-quests, contentconfirmation equests,overlaps, ndso on (e.g., 31; 32; 36; 49).5Wertsch 51) and Bakhtin also address problemswithsuch mechanistic models from sociohistoricalperspective.6 Reddy claims that the channel is reified in theconduit metaphorsthat abound in the English lan-guage, such as "get your thoughtsacross" or "putyour deas intowords."7 The InformationTheory model (45) does notportraymessagesas traveling t all. Messages assem-bled in the source are reconstructedn the receiver.

8 Within Vygotskyanerspective,humancommu-nication ocuses ess on message ransmissionndmore on speakingas a means for ndividuals o createshared social realities and mediate their own cogni-tivefunctioning 21).9Withina Vygotskyan erspective, he regulatoryfunction of language use refersto how individuals,through their speech activity, nfluence not onlythemselves ut also others nd theobject of their c-tivity.See Wertsch 51] for a fulldiscussion.)10Not all linguists gree that the termacquisitionpertains onlyto formalstructure.Gee (p. 154), forexample,claimsthattheability oengage in anykindof discourse is acquired, in the sense that it is notsuccessfullyearned throughexplicit nstruction.11Words"linked solelythroughuxtaposition andpunctuation/intonation,nd not throughtheuse ofconjunction" (16: p. 221.)12 his samephenomenonwas also noted inBrooksand Donato. Although overt frustration was ex-pressed bythesecondary-level articipants, heywereable to continue on quite successfully with theproblem-solvingask.

BIBLIOGRAPHY1.Ahmed,Mohammed.SpeakingsCognitiveegu-lation:A Study fL1 andL2 DyadicProblem



15/16

510 TheModernLanguage Journal 78 (1994)SolvingActivity." iss.,Univ.ofDelaware,New-ark,1988.2. Appel, Gabriela. "Li and L2 NarrativendExpositoryDiscourseroduction: Vygotskyannalysis." iss.,Univ. ofDelaware, Newark,1986.

3. Bacon, Susan. "ListeningforReal in the ForeignLanguage Classroom." Foreign anguageAnnals22 (1989): 543-51.4. Bakhtin,Mikael M. TheDialogic magination:our s-says. d. M. Holquist. Trans. C. Emerson & M.Holquist. Austin:Univ. of Texas Press,1981.5. Bernhardt,Elizabeth. "ProficientTexts or Profi-cientReaders?"ADFLBulletin 8 (1986): 25-28.6. - & CharlesJames."The Teaching and Test-ing of Comprehension in Foreign LanguageLearning." Proficiency,olicy,ndProfessionalismnForeign anguage ducation. d. Diane W. Birck-bichler. Lincolnwood, IL: National TextbookCo., 1987: 65-81.7. Bloome, David. "Building Literacyand the Class-roomCommunity." heorynto ractice5 (1986):71-83.8. Brooks,Frank B. "Can we talk?"Foreign anguageAnnals 5 (1992): 59-719. - . "Foreign Language Learning:A Social In-teractionPerspective."Second anguageAcquis-ition-ForeignanguageLearning. d. Bill VanPat-ten & James F. Lee. Clevedon: MultilingualMatters, 990: 153-69.10.- . "Patternsof Instruction nd Student Par-ticipation n Small-Group,Learner-to-LearnerSpeaking Opportunities n a SpanishConversa-tionCourse at theCollege Level:A Social Inter-action Perspective." Diss., Ohio State Univ.,1989.11. & Richard Donato. "Vygotskyan Ap-proaches to UnderstandingForeignLanguageLearner Discourse During CommunicativeTasks." Hispania77 (1994): 262-74.12.- & Kari A. Niendorf."PromotingCommu-nicative Competence Through Task-BasedSpeech Activity."Dimension: anguage 92-'93.Ed. Robert M. Terry.Valdosta, GA: SCOLT,1993: 43-67.13. Chaudron, Craig. Second anguageClassrooms.ewYork:CambridgeUniv.Press,198814. Chomsky,Noam. KnowledgefLanguage.New York:Praeger,1986.15. Coughlan,Peter & PatriciaDuff."Same Task,Dif-ferentActivities:Analysis f an SLA Task froman Activity heoryPerspective."Vygotskyanp-proachesoSecond anguageResearch.d. JamesP.Lantolf& GabrielaAppel. Norwood,NJ:Ablex,1994: 173-93.16.Crystal,David. A Dictionaryf Linguisticsnd Pho-netics.nd ed. Cambridge,MA: Basil Blackwell,1989.17.Donato, Richard.Beyond roup: Psycholinguistica-tionale orCollective ctivityn Second-LanguageLearning.iss.,Univ.ofDelaware,Newark, 988.18. & Frank B. Brooks. "Looking AcrossCol-

laborative Tasks: CapturingL2 Discourse De-velopment." Paper, AAAL Conference, Bal-timore,Mar. 1994.19.Ellis,Rod. Instructedecond anguage cquisition.x-ford: Basil Blackwell,1990.20. Florida Departmentof Education. ESOL Strategiesin the ontent reas. allahassee,FL, META Tele-course, 1991.21. Frawley,William& JamesLantolf. "Second Lan-guage Discourse: A Vygotskyan erspective."Applied inguistics (1985): 143-59.22. Gee,JamesP. Social inguisticsndLiteracies:deologyin Discourse.ristol,PA: FalmerPress,1990.23. Griffin, m. A First ookat Communicationheory.New York:McGraw-Hill, 994.24. Hockett, Charles F. Review of "The MathematicalTheoryfCommunication"yClaude L. Shannon& WarrenWeaver,Language 9 (1953): 69-93.25. Kinginger,Celeste. "Task Variation and Class-room Learner Discourse." Diss., Univ. of Illi-nois,Urbana-Champaign,1989.26. Krashen, Stephen. Principlesnd Practicen SecondLanguageAcquisition.xford: Pergamon Press,1982.27. Lantolf, amesP. & WilliamFrawley.Second Lan-guage Performance and VygotskyanPsycho-linguistics: mplications for L2 Instruction."The Tenth ACUS Forum.Ed. Alan Manning,Pierre Martin & Kim McCalla. Columbia, SC:Hornbeam Press,1983: 425-40.28. Nunan, David. "SocioculturalAspects of SecondLanguage Acquisition." Cross urrents9 (1992):13-24.29. - . Tasksfor Communicativelassrooms. ewYork:CambridgeUniv.Press,1989.30. Pica, Teresa. "Second Language Acquisition,So-cial Interaction,and the Classroom." AppliedLinguistics (1987): 3-21.31.- & CatherineDoughty. Input and Interac-tion in the Communicative Language Class-room: A Comparison of Teacher-Fronted ndGroup Activities." nput n Second-Languagec-quisition.d. Susan M. Gass & CarolynMadden.Rowley,MA: NewburyHouse, 1985: 115-32.32. -, Lloyd Holliday, Nora Lewis, Dom Ber-ducci &JeanneNewman."Language Learningthrough nteraction:What Role Does GenderPlay?" Studies n Second anguageAcquisition3(1991): 343-76.33. - ,RuthKanagy& JohnFalodun. "Choosingand Using Communication Tasks for SecondLanguage Instruction nd Research." TasksndLanguage Learning.Ed. Graham Crookes &Susan M. Gass. Clevedon, UK: MultilingualMatters, 993: 9-34.34. Platt,Elizabeth. Collaborationor nstructionfLEPStudentsn Vocationalducation.Berkeley: Na-tional Centerfor Research in Vocational Edu-cation,1992.35. - . "Towardefininganguage nd Communica-tion: oesDefinitionake Difference?"MAquiva-



16/16

ElizabethPlatt and Frank B. Brooks 511lency Thesis, Univ. of Illinois: Urbana-Champaign, 1986.36. Plough,India & Susan M. Gass. "Interlocutor ndTaskFamiliarity: ffects n Interactional truc-ture." Tasks nd Language Learning: ntegratingTheory nd Practice.Ed. Graham Crookes &Susan M. Gass. Clevedon, UK: MultilingualMatters, 983: 35-56.37. ThePracticefConstructivismnScience ducation. d.Tobin, Kenneth. Washington,DC: AmericanAssociation for the Advancementof Science,1993.38. Reddy,Michael. "The Conduit Metaphor."Meta-phor ndThought.d. AndrewOrtony.NewYork:CambridgeUniv.Press,1979: 284-324.39. Riley,Sue. "Peer Response in an ESL WritingClass: Student Interaction and SubsequentDraftRevision." Diss., Florida State Univ.,Tal-lahassee (in preparation).40. Rogoff, arbara.ApprenticeshipnThinking: ognitiveDevelopmentn SocialContext. ew York: OxfordUniv.Press,1990.41. Rommetveit, agner."On theArchitecture f In-tersubjectivity."tudiesf anguage, hought,ndVerbalommunication.d. RagnerRommetveitRolv Blakar.New York:Academic Press, 1979:93-107.42. Rumelhart,David E. "Schemata: The BuildingBlocks ofCognition." Theoreticalssues nReadingComprehension.d. Rand Spiro, Bertram C.Bruce & WilliamE Brewer.Hillsdale,NJ:Law-rence Earlbaum,1980: 33-58.43. Shames,GeorgeH., Elisabeth H. Wiig& WayneA.

Secord. Human Communicationisorders: n ntro-duction. ewYork:MacMillan, 1994.44. Shannon,Claude L. & WarrenWeaver.TheMathe-matical heoryfCommunication.rbana, IL: Univ.of Illinois Press,1949.45. Steffensen,Margaret,C. Joag-Dev& Richard C.Anderson. "Cross-Cultural Perspective onReading Comprehension." ReadingResearchQuarterly5 (1979): 10-29.46. Talyzina,N. ThePsychologyfLearning:TheoriesfLearningand Programmednstruction.Moscow:ProgressPress,1981.47. Taylor,Charles. HumanAgencyndLanguage: hilo-sophical apers1. New York: Cambridge Univ.Press,1985.48. VanPatten,Bill & Teresa Cadierno. "Input Proc-essing and Second Language Acquisition: ARole for Instruction."Modern anguage ournal

77 (1993): 45-57.49. Varonis, Evangeline & Susan M. Gass. "Non-native/non-native onversations:A Model forNegotiation of Meaning." Applied inguistics(1983): 71-90.50. Wertsch, amesV. VoicesftheMind:A SocioculturalApproachoMediated ction. ambridge:HarvardUniv.Press,1991.51. - . "From Social Interactionto Higher Psy-chologicalProcesses: A Clarification ndAppli-cation of Vygotsky's heory." HumanDevelop-ment2 1979: 1-22.52. Weiner,Norbert. The Human UseofHumanBeings:Cyberneticsnd Society.arden City,NY: Double-day,1954.

MLJOffersNo-FeeCopyingforCourse PacksTHE MLJIS PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THAT THERE WILL NO LONGER BE A COPYRIGHTfee for using its articles in course packs for students. We hope that this policy will encouragelearning and scholarship by helping instructors make materials available to students. There willcontinue to be a copyright charge for other use of this material. For furtherinformation, contact:

Margaret WalshThe Universityof Wisconsin Press114 N. Murray StreetMadison, WI 53715-1199Tel: (608) 262-4925; Fax: (608) 262-7560

Documents

Platt & Brooks 1994 the 'Acquisition-Rich Environment' Revisited