Interaction and Second Language Learning: Two Adolescent French Immersion Students

Working Together
Author(s): Merrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin
Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 82, No. 3, Special Issue: The Role of Input and
Interaction in Second Language Acquisition (Autumn, 1998), pp. 320-337
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/329959 .
Accessed: 14/10/2013 16:50
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 support@jstor.org.
.
Wiley and National 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 200.130.19.137 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:50:40 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Interaction and Second Language
Learning:
Two Adolescent French
Immersion Students
Working Together
MERRILL SWAIN
Ontario
Institute
for
Studies in Education
University of
Toronto
252 Bloor St. West
Toronto,
Ontario
M5S 1V6 Canada
Email: mswain @oise. utoronto. ca
SHARON LAPKIN
Ontario
Institute
for
Studies in Education
University of
Toronto
252 Bloor St. West
Toronto,
Ontario
M5S 1V6 Canada
Email:
slapkin
@oise. utoronto. ca
This article
provides support
for a theoretical orientation toward
viewing dialogue
as both a
means of communication and a
cognitive
tool. Data to
support
this
position
come from an
analysis
of the
language-related episodes
isolated in the
dialogue
of two
grade
8 French im-
mersion students as
they carry
out
ajigsaw
task.
During
the
task,
the students work out a
story
line and write it out. As
they
do
so,
they
encounter
linguistic problems.
To solve
them,
the stu-
dents use their first
language (L1)
and second
language (L2)
in order to communicate to
each other and as tools to aid their L2
learning.
The
language-related episodes
discussed
pro-
vide evidence of
language
use as both an enactment of mental
processes
and as an occasion
for L2
learning.
Variation in how other
pairs
of students in the class
perform
the task
supports
existing
evidence that the same task does not
provide
similar occasions for L2
learning
to all
student
dyads.
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE
We take the
position
in this article that lan-
guage
use is both communication and
cognitive
activity. Language
is
simultaneously
a means of
communication and a tool for
thinking. Dialogue
provides
both the occasion for
language learning
and the evidence for it.
Language
is both
process
and
product.
When
language
use is considered as communi-
cation,
the
concepts
of
input, comprehensible
input,
and
comprehensible output
are
appropri-
ate
metaphors
because
they conjure up images
of
messages.
These
messages
are transmitted as out-
put
from one source and received as
input
else-
where. When there are difficulties in
encoding
or
decoding
these
messages, language
users mod-
ify
and restructure their interaction to achieve
message comprehensibility.
'As
they negotiate,
they
work
linguistically
to achieve the needed
comprehensibility,
whether
repeating
a
message
verbatim,
adjusting
its
syntax, changing
its
words,
or
modifying
its form and
meaning
in a
host of other
ways" (Pica, 1994,
p.
494).
The
hy-
pothesis underlying
this
perspective
is that the ac-
tivity
of
negotiation
leads to second
language
(L2) learning
because it
provides
learners with
comprehensible input (e.g.,
Krashen, 1985;
Long,
1983).
Recent research such as that conducted
by
Mackey
(1995)
and
Mackey
and
Philp
(this issue)
provides supportive
evidence for this view. Yet we
are still left with the issue of how
comprehensible
input
leads to L2
learning:
What are the mecha-
nisms
by
which
comprehensible input
is con-
verted into L2
knowledge
and use?
A
complementary perspective
is that
language
serves not
only
a communicative function,
but
is,
itself,
a
psychological
tool. Like
any
tool,
it facili-
tates task
performance by mediating
between us
and the
accomplishment
of the task. The tool
may
facilitate our
performance
of the task and
may
make some
things possible
that were not oth-
erwise. It
may qualitatively change
the nature of
The Modern
Language Journal,
82, iii, (1998)
0026-7902/98/320-337 $1.50/0
@1998 The Modern
Language Journal
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.137 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:50:40 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Merrill Swain and Sharon
Lapkin
321
the
activity
and it
may change
the
subsequent
outcome. One
only
needs to think of the com-
puter
as a
tool,
and the
profound ways
in which it
is
transforming
our
everyday
activities,
as for ex-
ample,
in
writing (e.g.,
Cummins, 1990).
In this
article,
we wish to
explore
this
comple-
mentary perspective.
Our
exploration
takes the
form of
examining
the
dialogue
that occurs be-
tween two learners as
they attempt
to solve the
linguistic problems they
face while
writing
a
short narrative.
By taking
the
perspective
that the
students are
using language
as a
psychological
tool,
we will need to examine their
dialogue
for
evidence of
language being
used as a tool in aid
of L2
learning (see
also Platt &
Brooks, 1994).
That
is,
we will examine the data for
examples
of
students' use of
language
that mediates their
learning-for example,
the use of
language
to
generate
and test
hypotheses.
This is still consid-
ered
"output"
(Swain, 1995),
but it is
output
used
for a
cognitive
function. It is
speaking
as a
cogni-
tive
activity,
instantiated in
dialogue.
The
expectation
that
cognitive activity
will be
apparent
in
dialogue
is
supported by
the work of
Vygotsky
and other more recent sociocultural
theorists
(e.g.,
Lantolf &
Appel,
1994; Newman,
Griffin,
&
Cole, 1989; Wertsch, 1991),
who
argue
that
cognitive processes
arise from the interac-
tion that occurs between individuals.
Language
becomes a
mediating
tool
by
its first
having
been
used
by
others in order to
regulate
behavior,
in-
cluding cognitive
behavior.
Through
a
gradual
process
of
internalization,
one comes to be able
to use the
language
of others
(and
the mental
processes
that interaction has
constructed)
to
regulate
one's own
cognitive functioning.
As
Leont'ev
(1981)
states:
Higher psychological processes unique
to humans
can be
acquired only through
interaction with
others,
that
is,
through interpsychological processes
that
only
later will
begin
to be carried out
independently by
the individual. When this
happens,
some of these
processes
lose their
initial,
external form and are con-
verted into
intrapsychological processes. (p. 56)
In
ajoint problem-solving activity,
what
normally
remains hidden in
individually
internalized
thought
may
manifest itself in
dialogue.
This theoretical
claim is discussed in Donato and Lantolf
(1990),
who
suggest
that
cognitive processes,
because
they
are derived and constituted
dialogically, "...
can
be observed
directly
in the
linguistic
interactions
that arise
among speakers
as
they participate
in
problem-solving
tasks"
(p. 85). One of the
pur-
poses
of this article is to examine to what extent
the conversation of two students as
they
collabo-
ratively produce
a
story may
be considered di-
rectly revealing
of mental
processes.
In the first
section of our literature review we therefore con-
sider a
study (Goss, Ying-Hua,
&
Lantolf, 1994)
whose
purpose
was to demonstrate that the men-
tal
processes
used to solve a
linguistic problem
are
manifested in
dialogue.
The
present study pro-
vides additional evidence for this
position.
A further
implication
of the consideration of
language
as a
mediating
tool, as Donato
(1994)
has
argued,
is that "The focus
[in SLA] should
be . . . on
observing
the construction of co-
knowledge
and how this co-construction
process
results in
linguistic change among
and within in-
dividuals
during joint
activity"1
(p.
39).
That
is,
in
joint activity, language
serves to coconstruct
knowledge.
This
knowledge
can be inferred from
the
changes
observed in
linguistic performance.
In the
present study,
one of our
goals
is to
try
to
trace the
linguistic change
that occurs as learners
engage
in the sort of collaborative
dialogue
to
which Donato
(1994)
refers. We wish to
suggest
that collaborative
dialogue provides
the occasion
for L2
learning (see Swain, 1997).
Unlike the
claim that
comprehensible input
leads to learn-
ing,
we wish to
suggest
that what occurs in col-
laborative
dialogues
is
learning.
That
is, learn-
ing
does not
happen
outside
performance;
it oc-
curs in
performance.
Furthermore,
learning
is
cumulative,
emergent,
and
ongoing,
sometimes
occurring
in
leaps,
while at other times it is im-
perceptible.
Therefore,
in the second
part
of the literature
review,
we consider two studies
(Donato, 1994;
LaPierre, 1994)
that offer evidence that the co-
construction of
linguistic knowledge
in
dialogue
is
language learning
in
progress.
Those studies
suggest
that the use of either the first
language
(L1)
or the L2 as a mediational tool creates new
language
or new
knowledge
about
language
and
consolidates
existing knowledge (proceduraliza-
tion) (see
de
Bot, 1996;
Nobuyoshi
&
Ellis, 1993).
RELATED RESEARCH
As indicated
above,
there are two
aspects
of
previous
research related to the
present study
that we wish to consider:
(a)
dialogue
as an en-
actment of mental
processes,
and (b) dialogue
as
occasions for L2
learning.
We will also refer to
several studies conducted in
functioning
class-
rooms as corroborative evidence to our own of
the
range
of
performances present
in
typical
classroom activities.
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.137 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:50:40 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
322 The Modern
Language Journal
82
(1998)
Dialogue
as an Enactment
of
Mental Processes
Goss et al.
(1994)
conducted a
study
to investi-
gate
the
validity
of claims about what
grammati-
cal
judgments represent:
Do "learners access
abstract
grammatical knowledge
or do
they rely
on some other
knowledge
source,
such as mem-
ory
of what someone
(e.g.,
a
language
teacher)
has told
them,
memory
of what
they
think some-
one has told
them,
their own folk
knowledge,
or
L1 equivalents,
when
carrying
out such tasks?"
(p.
263).
What is
important
to our
argument
here
is Goss et al.'s
methodology
and their rationale
for
using
it. Rather than
having
L2 learners in-
trospect
about how
they
reached
ajudgment,
the
researchers asked learners to decide
jointly
on
the
grammaticality
of sentences.
They rejected
the use of think-aloud tasks because of their de-
mand on learners to both solve a mental
problem
(cognitive
level)
and to
report
on the
solving
of
the
problem (metacognitive
level)
simultane-
ously.
Under these
circumstances,
one of the
processes (solving
or
reporting)
is
likely
to break
down
(Vygotsky,
1979). However,
by using
a col-
laborative
procedure,
learners use
language
as
they
would
normally,
as a
mediating
tool: ". ..
they
have a
single goal,
the
solving
of a
problem,
[and]
they
solve it
through dialogic
interaction with an-
other
person"
(Goss
et
al.,
p.
267).
In
addition,
because of the social
origin
of
cog-
nition and
cognitive processes,
Goss et al.
(1994)
note that ". . . the talk
spontaneously generated
by
individuals in collaborative
problem-solving
situations offers a window into intramental
pro-
cessing" (p.
166).
In other
words,
the window into
intramental
processing
is more
transparent
than
the window
provided through introspective
tech-
niques.
With
dyadic problem solving,
the window
is also
potentially larger
because it is
likely
to
gen-
erate more talk.
In the Goss et al.
(1994) study, elementary-
and
advanced-level students of
Spanish
were
given
a
grammaticality judgment
task to
perform
either
individually
or with a
partner. Response patterns
were similar across those who
performed
the task
individually
or
jointly
within the
elementary
group
and within the advanced
group.
(In
addi-
tion,
error rates were
slightly higher
for those
who
performed
the task
individually.)
Goss et al.
concluded, therefore, that similar mental
pro-
cesses are at work in
joint activity
and in individ-
ual
activity
when individuals from the same
pop-
ulation
respond
to the same task. Their
study
suggests
that
language
mediated students'
judg-
ments as revealed in their
making
use of trans-
lations and
making explicit
their metaknowl-
edge.
The students relied on
memory (language
mediated)
and "feel"
(an
indication of
relying
on abstract
linguistic principles,
unmediated
by
language).
This
study (Goss
et
al., 1994)
is
important
to
our work for its conclusion that the
dialogue
that
arises
during
collaborative
problem-solving
is an
enactment of
cognitive activity.
The
study sup-
ports
our use of collaborative tasks and our in-
terpretation
of
language-related episodes.
Dialogue
as Occasions
for
L2
Learning
Two studies have looked
specifically
at the lan-
guage learning
evident in collaborative
dialogue.
Donato
(1994)
studied what he referred to as "col-
lective
scaffolding."
LaPierre
(1994)
examined the
occasions for L2
learning
in
peer
interaction-in
this
case,
interaction about the
language
that stu-
dent
dyads
were
producing.
One of the
goals
of
Donato's
(1994) study
was to reveal how L2 learn-
ing
is
brought
about on the social
plane.
In
par-
ticular,
the
study sought
to:
answer the
question
of whether learners can exert
a
developmental
influence on each other's inter-
language system
in observable
ways.
That
is,
rather
than to theorize that interaction has the
potential
to
result in L2
development,
this
study attempts
to ex-
amine how social interactions in the classroom result
in the
appropriation
of
linguistic knowledge by
the
individual.
(p.39)
The students involved in the
study
were third se-
mester students of French at an American uni-
versity.
The data
analyzed
consisted of a 1-hour
session in which three students
planned
for an
oral
activity (the presentation
of a
skit)
that
would take
place
the
following
week. The stu-
dents had been told that
they
could not use notes
in their
presentation,
nor were
they
to memorize
their
lines,
but
they
could make notes while
preparing
if
they
wished. Donato examined the
transcripts
for
examples
of
scaffolding,
defined
as a situation
where,
"in social interaction a
knowledgeable participant
can
create,
by
means
of
speech, supportive
conditions in which the
novice can
participate,
and extend current skills
and
knowledge
to
higher
levels of
competence"
(p.
40).
In
all,
32 cases of scaffolded
help
were
identified in the
hour-long planning
session.
A
key question
here is whether this collective
scaffolding
offered occasions for
linguistic
devel-
opment
in the individual learner. That is, could
linguistic development
be traced back to the col-
lective
scaffolding episodes?
To determine this,
evidence for
independent
L2
performance
was
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.137 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:50:40 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Merrill Swain and Sharon
Lapkin
323
sought
in the actual oral
activity performed
the
following
week. Of the 32 cases of collective scaf-
folding
observed in the
planning
session, 75% of
the
language
structures involved in the scaffold-
ing
were used
correctly
the
following
week.
Thus,
through
collaborative
dialogue
of this
sort,
learn-
ers added to their own L2
knowledge
and ex-
tended that of their
peers.
Learners
provided
for
each other the
support
needed to
outperform
their
competence
and,
in the
process, develop
their
interlanguage (IL).
Donato
(1994) points
out that his results are not
surprising
"in
light
of
Vygotskyan theory
which
argues
that individual
knowledge
is
socially
and
dialogically
derived,
the
genesis
of which can be observed
directly
in
the interactions
among speakers during problem-
solving
tasks"
(p.
51).
The LaPierre
study (1994; Swain, 1998)
involved
grade
8
early
French immersion students and
served as a
pilot study
to the one
reported
on,
in
part,
in this article. In LaPierre's
study,
it was
hy-
pothesized
that when L2 learners
engage
in a task
in which
they
need to talk about the
language
they
are
producing
(metatalk)
in order to com-
plete
the
task,
that metatalk
may
be a source of
L2
learning.
The task the students
engaged
in
was a
story
reconstruction task
(dictogloss;
see
Wajnryb,
1990).
Second
language learning
was tested
by
means
of tailor-made
dyad-specific posttests. Language-
related
episodes
were isolated from the tran-
scripts
of the students' talk as
they attempted
to
solve
linguistic problems
that
they
encountered
while
jointly reconstructing
the
passage.
On the
basis of these
episodes,
items were
developed
to
test the
language
discussed.
Thus,
every pair
of
students had a set of test items that reflected
specifically
what
they
had discussed in recon-
structing
the
passage.
These tests were adminis-
tered
approximately
1
week after the students
had
completed
the task.
The results of LaPierre's
(1994)
study
show
that when students solved a
linguistic problem
that
they
had
encountered,
the solution corre-
sponded
to their
responses
1
week later. More
specifically,
of the 140
episodes
where,
through
collaborative
dialogue,
a correct solution was at-
tained,
approximately
80% of the relevant
post-
test items were
correct. Furthermore,
and
equally
as
telling,
when students co-constructed an in-
correct solution (21 such
episodes), approxi-
mately 70% of the answers on the
posttest
were
wrong, although they
matched the solutions
pro-
vided
by
the
pairs.
In other words, the students
tended to retain the
knowledge
that
they
had con-
structed
collaboratively
the
previous
week. These
results
suggest
rather
forcefully
that these lan-
guage
related
episodes,
where students reflected
consciously
on the
language
that
they
were
pro-
ducing,
were the occasion for L2
learning.
Classroom-Based Research
Two studies exist that are of
particular
rele-
vance to our work because
they,
too,
were con-
ducted in
functioning
classrooms and were fo-
cused on
input
and
output:
Foster
(1993)
and
Jacob, Rottenberg,
Patrick,
and Wheeler
(1996).
These studies
support
the view that
conducting
research in an
ongoing
classroom context
may
provide
a different
perspective
on the
implemen-
tation of theoretical
principles
than research con-
ducted in a
laboratory-type setting.
If one
goal
of
the research is to understand better the relation-
ship
between
theory
and
practice,
then research
conducted in a classroom
setting
will
likely
allow
for a more realistic assessment of L2
learning
than that conducted in a
laboratory-type setting.
Foster
(1993) investigated (a)
the amount and
distribution of
language produced by dyads
and
small
groups working
on
language
tasks, (b)
the
degree
to which these students
negotiated
for
comprehensible input,
and
(c)
the extent to which
they
modified their
language
in order to make it
comprehensible
to others. Her
study
is different
from most of those
reported
in the research lit-
erature because it was conducted in her own
classroom
(with
part-time
intermediate-level adult
English
as a second
language [ESL] learners).
The
study
was
designed
to
preserve
the
setting
of
an
ongoing
class
during
which students
partici-
pated
in
group
tasks that were
part
of their sched-
uled
syllabus.
With the
exception
of a
grammar-
based
(optional
information
exchange)
task,
the
tasks were communicative
meaning-based (op-
tional and
required
information
exchange)
tasks.
Of the
tapes
of the students' interaction that
were not too
noisy
for
transcription
and where
the students
correctly attempted
the
task,
ap-
proximately
5 minutes of interaction
per group
were transcribed and coded. Foster found
that,
overall,
dyads
with an
obligation
to
exchange
in-
formation were most
likely
to talk and to
negoti-
ate
meaning.
However,
as she
points
out:
when the individual scores are taken into account, it
is clear
that... many
students
preferred
to contribute
little to the interaction; only
a few
attempted
to
nego-
tiate for
comprehensible input;
and even fewer
pro-
duced
any
modified
output.
The
range
in the indi-
vidual scores is so wide, and the lack of
participation
by
some students is so
striking
as to make statistics
based on
group
totals
very misleading. (p. 25)
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.137 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:50:40 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
324 The Modern
LanguageJournal
82
(1998)
Investigating
another
"everyday
classroom,"
Jacob
et al.
(1996)
reached a similar conclusion.
The classroom that
they
observed was a sixth-
grade
social studies one.
They
were interested in
exploring
the extent to which a
particular
form
of
cooperative learning (Johnson, Johnson,
&
Holubec, 1986)
provided
the L2 learners in the
class
opportunities
for
learning
academic
Eng-
lish. Their
study
shows that a wide
range
of
op-
portunities
was
available,
including (a)
the
provi-
sion of assistance in
decoding
academic terms
and
instructions, (b)
the clarification of
pronun-
ciation and
meaning, (c)
help
with the conven-
tions of written
English,
and
(d)
invitations to
contribute to the
ongoing
task.
Jacob
et al. con-
clude that
Cooperative learning gave
L2 learners a wide
range
of
opportunities
to
acquire
academic
English
... which
included both
input
and
output opportunities,
with
L2 learners
helping
others as much as
they
were
helped.
However,
except
for
help
with
decoding
aca-
demic
terms,
the various kinds of
opportunities
oc-
curred
relatively infrequently.
Moreover,
there were
some missed
opportunities... (p.
253)
In the
present study,
we, too,
observed consider-
able variation from student
pair
to student
pair
in how
they approached
the task and how
they
carried it out. This is shown in the classroom-
level data
provided.
In our current
research,
our theoretical ori-
entation is towards
understanding why
collabora-
tive tasks
might promote
L2
learning.
Our re-
search is concerned with whether these tasks in
fact do
promote learning.
Our
practical
interest
is in the
feasibility
of
implementing
such
proce-
dures in an
ongoing
classroom of active French
immersion students.
THE STUDY
Design
The data to be
analyzed
in this article were col-
lected in the context of a
larger study involving
four
grade
8 French immersion
classes,
each un-
dergoing
a different treatment. The class fo-
cused on here was
given ajigsaw
task. In this
task,
student
dyads
received a set of numbered
pic-
tures
(each
member of the
dyad got
half the
pic-
tures)
that told a
story.
The students were to work
out the
story together
and then write it out. Prior
to
doing
the
task,
the class was
given
a short mini-
lesson
(5 minutes)
on French reflexive verbs.
Time Frame and Activities
The time frame and activities of the
study
are
shown in Table 1. In Week
1,
a
pretest
(described
below)
was
given.
In Week
2,
a session was held to
familiarize the students with the
jigsaw
task. The
students were first
given
a minilesson to focus
their attention on the
agreement
of
adjectives (in
this
case,
all
colors)
with nouns.
Following
this,
the students worked in
pairs
with a series of
pic-
tures,
generating
the
story
told
by
the
pictures
and then
writing
it as
ajointly
constructed
story.
In the third
week,
a
prerecorded
minilesson
about French reflexive verbs
(5 minutes)
was
pre-
sented on video. The video also showed two stu-
dents
working together
to reconstruct a
story
from a series of
pictures
(5 minutes);
their inter-
action was intended to serve as a model for what
the students were to do when
they
received their
pictures.
The
modeling
included
dialogue
about
linguistic
form and
grammatical
rules.
Next,
the
pictures (provided
in
Appendix
A)
were distrib-
TABLE 1
Research Time Frame and Events
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5
Pretests Informal
Videotaped Tapes
Posttests
(oral
developed
from instructor-led lesson and transcribed and and
written)
pilot study
were
training
session instructions:
class-specific
administered
administered
Modeling
of
posttests
task
developed
performance
Task done in Task done in
pairs pairs
and
tape-
recorded
(Focus
on
(Focus
on
adjective
reflexive
agreement)
verbs)
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.137 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:50:40 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Merrill Swain and Sharon
Lapkin
325
uted so that one student in each
pair
received
pictures
numbered
1, 3, 5,
and 7 and the other
student received
pictures
2, 4, 6,
and 8.
Taking
turns,
the students first
generated
the
story orally
and then wrote it out. As the students worked in
pairs,
their conversations were
tape-recorded.
This was a
large
class of 35 students and all
recording
had to be done
simultaneously
in the
classroom
(no
other
space
was available in this
overcrowded
school).
Even with our best
(we
think
heroic)
efforts to
tape-record
under these
conditions,
the data from five
pairs
of students
were lost due to loud
background
noise and stu-
dents
playing
with the
tape
recorders.
In the fourth
week,
the
tapes
were transcribed.
Based on the content of the
taped
oral interac-
tions,
additional test items were
developed
to be
included in the
posttest.
In the fifth
week,
the
posttest,
which included all
pretest
items and the
new
posttest
items,
was administered.
Participants
The students were
grade
8 students who had
been in an
early
French immersion
program
since
kindergarten.
All of their initial instruc-
tion,
through grade
3,
had been in French.
After
that,
instruction in
English
was introduced and
by grade
8,
approximately
50% of their instruc-
tion was in
English,
50% in French.
During
the
time
spent
in
French,
the
teaching
of academic
content in
French,
along
with French
language
arts,
was the instructional
priority.
In
spite
of the overall
experiential
nature of L2
learning
in
immersion,
formal
grammar
instruc-
tion occurs in French immersion classrooms.
The focus in
grammar
lessons
appears
to be on
isolated
rules,
paradigms,
and the
manipulation
of form rather than on
relating
form to function
(Allen, Swain,
Harley,
&
Cummins, 1990).
There
are few materials for the
teaching
of
grammar
that have been
produced expressly
for the im-
mersion classroom, so
L1 teaching
materials and
teacher-made activities are
frequently
used. As
Kowal and Swain
(1997) note,
"It is
highly likely
that students
entering
the intermediate
grades
(grades
7-9)
will have been
exposed
to an eclec-
tic
language-teaching approach consisting
of
learner-centred activities fortified with a
regular
dose of
traditional,
prescriptive grammar
activi-
ties"
(p.
288).
In this
article,
we examine in
depth
the lan-
guage-related episodes
(for
a
definition,
see the
section on "Data
Analysis
and
Results")
occur-
ring
in the conversations of one
pair
of students
as
they carry
out the
jigsaw
task based on the
pic-
tures in
Appendix
A. From those
pairs
for which
we had a
complete
data
set,
we chose a
pair
of stu-
dents whose written
story
was much better than
average, yet
where a difference in
proficiency
lev-
els
suggested
that a
possible "expert/novice"
re-
lationship might
exist.
Listening
to the
taped
in-
teraction, however,
suggests
that neither student
dominated
during
their
pair
work and that both
contributed in
important ways
to the collabora-
tive
activity.
The information used to select the student
pair
(pretest
scores and their teacher's
ratings
of over-
all
ability
in
French)
is
given
in Table 2. Table 2
also shows the
average
score and
rating
on these
measures for the students in the class for whom
we also have usable
recordings,
as well as the
ranges
observed within the class.
The classroom teacher had rated each student
in his class on a
7-point
scale,
with 7
representing
the
highest proficiency
level. For the
pair
that we
selected
(given
the
pseudonyms
Kim and
Rick),
the teacher's
ratings
of overall
ability
in French
indicated that Kim was
stronger
than
Rick;
the
pretest
scores reflect the teacher's
judgment.
In
TABLE 2
Test Scores and Teacher
Ratings
for Kim and Rick and Their Class
Target
Pair Class
(n
=
24)
Range Average
Kim Rick
Highest
Lowest
Pretest
(Total Correct) (Max.
=
72)a
70 51 70 33 48.0
Posttest
(Total Correct) (Max.
=
102)a
95 63 95 58 72.0
Teacher's
Rating
of Overall
Ability
in Frenchb
7 5 7 2 4.9
1.7.7.1......
Note.
a
The
pre-and posttest
scores cannot be
compared directly
because the
posttest
includes additional
class-specific
items.
b
7-point
scale with 7
representing
the
highest proficiency
level.
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.137 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:50:40 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
326 The Modern
LanguageJournal
82
(1998)
fact,
Kim obtained the
highest pre-
and
posttest
scores in the class and was one of two students to
be
given
a
rating
of 7
by
her teacher. Rick is rated
as
average
with
respect
to the rest of the class in
overall
ability
in French.
Pre- and Posttests
We conducted a
pilot study
with the set of
pic-
tures shown in
Appendix
A with a different class
of
grade
8 immersion students than those involved
in the main
study.
Based on the transcribed
tape-
recorded interactions of the students in the
pilot
classroom,
and on the
assumption
that the con-
tent of some of these interactions would be similar
between the
pilot
students and the main
study
stu-
dents,
a
pretest
was constructed for use in the
main
study.
The three item
types
used are illus-
trated in
Figure
1.
The first item
type (Type
A)
was used because
discussion about the
gender
of nouns occurred
quite frequently
in the students' conversations.
Type
A items
require
students to choose the mas-
culine or feminine form of the indefinite article
(un/une)
or to indicate that
they
do not know
(Je
ne sais
pas).
The second item
type (Type
B)
was intended to
capture
movement
along
a continuum of not
knowing something
or not
being
certain of some-
thing
to
greater certainty.
Thus,
Type
B items in-
volve a
"certainty
scale" in which students evaluate
the
grammaticality
of a
given
sentence
by
indicat-
ing
that it is
definitely wrong
(certainement
incor-
rect),
probably wrong (probablement
incorrect),
prob-
ably
correct
(probablement
correct),
or
definitely
correct
(certainement correct).
Students also had the
option
of
indicating
that
they
do not know
(Je
ne
sais
pas). Aspects
of
many
of the sentences
judged
in this
way
had,
in one
way
or
another,
been a
point
of focus for some students in the
pilot study.
The third item
type (Type
C)
was
initially
con-
structed in order to allow for the measurement of
aspects
of
vocabulary knowledge. Type
C items
are
multiple
choice in format
(4 choices). Many
of the distractors had
appeared
in the conversa-
tions of the students in the
pilot study.
In the item
depicted
in
Figure
1,
students must
recognize
l'oreiller as the correct word for
"pillow."
As mentioned above, based on the content of
the conversations of the student
pairs
that were
tape-recorded
in the third week of the
study,
ad-
ditional test items were
developed
and added to
the
pretest
items in order to form the
posttest
ad-
ministered in the fifth week. Because the tran-
scriptions
and new item
development
were done
under considerable time
pressure (approximately
10
days
for a total of 39
pairs
across all
classes),
and because the identification of
language-re-
lated
episodes
in the conversations of these L2
speakers
turned out to be a
complex
and time-
consuming
task,
only
the clearest and most obvi-
ous
examples
were
incorporated
into items for
the
posttest.
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Language-Related Episodes
Although
the
tapes
of each
pair
of students had
been transcribed
immediately following
their
recording,
a second transcriber later checked
each
tape
at a more
leisurely pace.
Because the
pair
considered in this article consisted of a male
and a female
student,
we were able to
identify
the
speakers
and relate each one's
part
in the dia-
logue
to test
performance.
Below,
we examine Kim and Rick's
dialogue
in
terms of
language-related episodes
(LREs)
in an
attempt
to understand their conversation as L2
learning.
A LRE
episode
is defined as
any part
of
a
dialogue
where the students talk about the lan-
guage they
are
producing, question
their lan-
guage
use,
or correct themselves or others
(Swain
&
Lapkin,
1995).2
For all the student
pairs,
LREs were classified
as either "lexis-based" or "form-based." The lexis-
based LREs involved students
seeking
French vo-
cabulary
or
choosing among competing
French
vocabulary
items. The form-based LREs involved
students
focusing
on
spelling
or an
aspect
of
French
morphology, syntax,
or
discourse,
usually
in the context of
writing
out their
story
rather
than in the initial
telling
of it. The interrater re-
liability
obtained in the identification and cate-
gorization
of LREs for Kim and Rick was
100%,
following
considerable discussion about the iden-
tification and
categorization
of the LREs of all
the student
dyads.
The results are discussed in the
following
order:
First,
in order to
place
Kim and Rick in
context and to indicate the variation in task
per-
formance
amongst
student
dyads,
we
provide
general
information about what the other stu-
dent
dyads
in this class did on the same task. Sec-
ond,
we examine in detail selected LREs from
excerpts
of Kim and Rick's conversation.
Variation in
Task Performance
Table 3
presents
information about
aspects
of
the
performance
of student
pairs (n
=
12). The
stories written
collaboratively by
each
pair
of stu-
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.137 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:50:40 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Merrill
Swain and Sharon
Lapkin
327
FIGURE 1
Examples
of Test Item
Types
Type
A. Pour
chaque
mot
franCais
ci-dessous,
choisissez la forme correcte de
l'article
indefini
(un, une)
et
cochez la case
appropriee.
Si vous ne savez
pas,
cochez la case
Je
ne sais
pas
a droite.
(For
each French word
below,
choose the correct form of the indefinite article
[a, an]
and mark
the
appropriate
box. If
you
do not
know,
mark the box I do not know at
right.)
un une mot
Je
ne sais
pas
couverture
gant
chandail
table
Type
B. Pour
chaque phrase
ci-dessous,
indiquez
si la
phrase
est correcte ou incorrecte selon
l'image.
In-
diquezjusqu'a quel point
vous etes certain de votre
reponse
en cochant la case
appropri&e.
Dans
chaque groupe
il
y
a au
moins
une
phrase
correcte,
mais il est aussi
possible
d'avoir
plusieurs
phrases qui
sont correctes dans
chaque groupe.
(For
each sentence
below,
indicate whether the sentence is correct or incorrect
according
to the
picture.
Indicate how certain
you
are of
your
answer
by marking
the
appropriate
box.
In each
group
there is at least one correct
sentence,
but it is also
possible
to have several correct
sentences in each
group.)
Certainement Probablement Probablement Certainment
Je
ne
correct correct
incorrect
incorrect sais
pas
1. Le clown sort de la boite.
2. Le clown se sort de la boite.
Type
C. Choisissez la meilleure
reponse
dans
chaque groupe.
Cochez la case
approprie ta
droite de la
phrase.
(Choose
the best answer in each
group.
Mark the
appropriate
box to the
right
of each
sentence.)
1. Voila mon
horloge. [ ]
2.
Voilat
mon reveille-matin.
[ ]
3. Voila mon
rive-matin.
[ ]
4. Voila ma cloche.
[ ]
I-~
Note.
English
translations
(in
parentheses)
not
supplied
to students.
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.137 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:50:40 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
328 The Modern
LanguageJournal
82
(1998)
dents were rated
by
two French immersion teach-
ers.
They
rated the stories on a
5-point
scale with
1
representing very poor performance
and 5
rep-
resenting
excellent
performance
on five dimen-
sions:
content,
organization, vocabulary,
mor-
phology,
and
syntax.
In
addition,
the number of
idea units
(maximum
of
21)
was counted. Table 3
shows the
ratings given
to these
aspects
of Kim
and Rick's
story,
the
range
of
ratings
for the stu-
dent
pairs
in their
class,
and the
average ratings.
As can be
seen,
Kim and Rick's
story
was
highly
rated. It is
provided
as it was
written,
with a trans-
lation,
in
Appendix
B.
The
average
time students
spent
on task was
ap-
proximately
10.2 minutes
(SD= 6.9).
Kim and Rick
spent
the most amount of time on task: 23 min-
utes. The least amount of time
spent
on task was
3.5 minutes. The
average
number of LREs was 8.8
(SD
=
8.0),
with a
range
of 26 to 1. Kim and Rick
produced
23 LREs. The
average
number of form-
based LREs was 4.8
(SD
=
4.5),
with a
range
of 15
to 1. Kim and Rick
produced
15. The
average
number of lexis-based LREs was 4.0
(SD
=
3.7),
with a
range
of 12 to 0. Kim and Rick
produced
8.
As a further indication of variation
among
pairs,
one
pair spent approximately
17 minutes
on task and
generated
2
LREs,
whereas another
pair spent approximately
4 minutes on task and
generated
5 LREs. In
spite
of this
variation,
we
found a correlation between time on task and
number of LREs of .78
(p
=
.002).
It is
interesting
to note
that,
although
the cor-
relation between
pretest
scores
(total
for each
pair)
and the number of LREs was not
significant
(.41;
p
=
.10),
the correlation between
posttest
scores
(total
for each
pair)
and the number of
LREs was
significant
(.62;
p
=
.04).
This
suggests
that,
quantitatively
at
least,
the number of LREs
and the
posttest
scores are
positively
related. The
qualitative analysis
of individual LREs
provided
in the next section
suggests
that the LREs
may
have
positively
influenced the
posttest
scores.
Kim and Rick's LREs
In the
qualitative analyses
that
follow,
a selec-
tion of Kim and Rick's LREs are discussed in
terms of the three strands of research as
they
TABLE 3
Performance of Student Pairs
Target
Pair Class
(N=
12
dyads)
Range Average
Highest
Lowest
Ratings
of
Story
Writtena
Content 5b 5 1 2.9
Organization
4.5 4.5 1 3.1
Vocabulary
5 5 1 3.1
Morphology
5 5 1 2.9
Syntax
5 5 1 2.8
Number of Idea Units 16 19 7 12.5
(Max.
=
21)
Time on Task
(in Minutes)
23 23 3.5 10.2
#LREsc 23 26 1 8.8
#Form-Based LREs 15 15 1 4.8
#Lexis-Based LREs 8 12 0 4.0
Note. a
5-point
scale with 1
representing very poor performance
and
5 representing
excellent
performance.
b
Average
of two raters'
ratings (never
more than 1
point apart).
c LREs
=
Language-related episodes.
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.137 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:50:40 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Merrill
Swain and Sharon
Lapkin 329
appear
in the literature section of this article:
(a) dialogue
as an enactment of mental
processes,
(b) dialogue
as occasions for L2
learning,
and
(c)
LREs and their
implications
for classroom-based
research.
Dialogue
as an Enactment
of
Mental Processes. Sev-
eral
excerpts
from Kim and Rick's transcribed
interaction will be examined as instantiations of
the
following
mental
processes
that mediate L2
learning: (a)
generating
alternatives
(or
hypoth-
esis
generation), (b)
assessing
alternatives
(or
hy-
pothesis testing),
and
(c)
applying
rules or ex-
tending knowledge
to new L2 contexts
(Swain
&
Lapkin, 1995).
We will also
point
to other
ways
in
which Kim and Rick's
language
use mediates
their
learning;
that
is,
ways
in which their lan-
guage
use serves as a tool
supporting
L2
learning
by consciously singling
out the L2 as an
object
to
be
monitored,
reflected
upon,
and
manipulated.
Excerpt
A contains
parts
of two LREs. The first
relates to the use of reveille-matin: Turns
2-4, 9,
55-72,
and 92-95 were all considered as
part
of a
single
LRE. Turns 68-72 and 92-93 also consti-
tute
part
of a second LRE
focusing
on le sonnement.
Excerpt
A:
Turn 2 Kim: On
peut pas
diterminer
qu'est-ce que
c'est.
(One
can't
figure
out what it
is.)
3 Rick: Riveille-matin.
(Alarm clock.)
4 Kim: Et il
y
a un
roveille-matin rouge...
sur une table
brune,
et le
roveille-
matin dit six
heures,
et c'est tout.
(And
there is a red alarm clock
. on a brown
table,
and the
alarm clock
says
six
o'clock,
and
that's
all.)
This
exchange
continues for another four
turns,
with Kim
using
"roveille-matin"
three more times
and Rick once
more;
Rick
then,
for some
reason,
switches to
"la/le
rove-matin"3
in Turn 9. His hesi-
tation in
producing
it
suggests
his
uncertainty.
Turn 9 Rick: Elle est en train de dormir
apris que
... la
rove-matin
est encore sonne. Et
le re-. .
. rove-matin
dit six heures un.
(She
is
sleeping
after the alarm
clock
rang again.
And the alarm
clock
says
one minute after six
o'clock.)
This
uncertainty
continues:
Turn 55 Kim: ...
ily
a un
roveille-matin.
(...
there is an alarm
clock.)
56 Rick: Riveille-matin ?
(Alarm clock?)
57 Kim: Riveille-matin.
(Alarm clock.)
Turn 66 Rick: Se riveille a cause... du son...
(Wakes
up
because . . . of the
sound. ..)
67 Kim: Riveille-matin.
(Alarm clock.)
68 Rick: A cause du. ...
(Because of...)
69 Kim: Du
roveille-matin
qui
sonne? Does
that sound
OK?
(Of the alarm-clock that
rings?
Does that sound
OK?)
70 Rick: Or what about ...
Jacqueline
se
live
a cause
du...
du riveille-.
..
yeah,
quz
sonne.
(Or what about . .
. Jacqueline
[the
girl
in their
story] gets up
be-
cause of the ... of the alarm-...
yeah,
that
rings.)
71 Kim: OK. Or
you
can
say
du reveille-
matin or du sonnement du reveille-
matin.
(OK.
Or
you
can
say
of the alarm
clock or the
ring
of the alarm
clock.)
72 Rick: No,
roveille-matin
qui
sonne.
(No, alarm clock that
rings.)
Turn 92 Rick: Sur la rev-. .
.rove-matin.
(On
the alarm
clock.)
93 Kim: Sur le
roveille-matin pour
arriter le
sonnement.
(On the alarm clock to
stop
the
ring.)
94 Rick: Rve-matin ?
(Alarm clock?)
95 Kim: REVEILLE-matin.
(Alarm clock.) [Stresses
compo-
nent
meaning "wake."]
We do not know
why
Rick sometimes used "reve-
matin" after
he, himself,
initially suggested using
"reveille-matin"
to Kim
(Turn 3). However,
it is
clear from the
dialogue
that Rick is uncertain as
to which is the correct
vocabulary
item. This is in-
dicated
by
the
pauses prior
to,
or even
during,
the use of
"reve-matin" (Turns
9 and
92)
and
"riveille-matin"
(Turn 70); by
his need for reassur-
ance before
writing "riveille-matin" (Turn 56);
and
finally by overtly asking
if "rive-matin" is OK
(Turn 94) and
getting
immediate feedback from
Kim that it should be "REVEILLE- matin." In writ-
ing
the
story,
Rick
correctly
uses
"roveille-matin"
three times, although
it is
misspelled
each time as
"
riveil-matin."
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.137 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:50:40 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
330 The Modern
Language Journal
82
(1998)
There was a relevant
multiple-choice pre-
and
posttest
item. Students saw a
picture
of an alarm
clock and were asked to choose the best
response
from:
1.
Voild
mon
horloge.
2. Voilk mon reveille-matin.
3.
Voild
mon reve-matin.
4.
Voild
ma cloche.
As a
pretest
item,
Kim
correctly
chose
reveille-
matin and Rick chose
reve-matin.
In the
posttest,
both students chose the correct
response.
In this collaborative
dialogue,
we are able to
observe
change
in Rick's use of the correct term
for "alarm clock." It is not a one-time shift from
wrong
to
right,
but a
wavering
between alterna-
tives. The source of his
learning
is not
only input,
although
Kim used
"reveille-matin"
17 times dur-
ing
their entire conversation. Nor was the source
of his
learning only output, although
it
may
have
been Rick's
attempt
to write it
(Turn 56)
that fo-
cused his attention on his own
uncertainty
about
which term to use. We wish to
argue
that it is the
joint
construction of
knowledge
that resulted
from Rick's
questioning
and Kim's
responses
that,
in
part,
accounts for Rick's shift from in-
correct to correct
usage.
Here Rick's
questions
serve as
hypotheses
and Kim's
responses
serve to
confirm or disconfirm them.
The sonnement LRE
(in
Turns 66-72 and con-
tinued in Turns 92 and
93)
is
particularly
inter-
esting
because le sonnement is not a word in
French
(le
son or la
sonnerie
are the relevant words
here). Although
the word sonnement does not
exist in
French, Kim,
in
creating
this
word,
ap-
plies
a
productive morpho-phonological
rule in
French
(-ment
is a suffix which marks
many
mas-
culine
nouns).
Elsewhere in the
transcript,
Rick
questions
whether it is "la
sonnement"
or "le son-
nement,"
and Kim
immediately
assures him that it
is "LE sonnement." Here we see Kim and Rick
ap-
plying
rules to new
contexts,
albeit
incorrectly.
They
solve a lexical
problem
in much the same
way
as native
speakers might
coin a new
word,
by
using
their
existing language knowledge
as a tool
to create new
knowledge.
In
addition,
Turns 69-72
provide
clear exam-
ples
of
language
used as a tool to
regulate
Kim's
and Rick's
cognitive activity.
Here Kim and Rick
use their
L1
to
help
them to consider what
they
are
trying
to
express
in their L2
by setting up
their L2 as an
object
to be reflected
upon
and
manipulated.
Kim asks "Does that sound OK?"
(Turn 69). Rick
responds
with "Or what
about...?" (Turn 70).
Kim
replies
"OK. Or
you
can
say 'X'
or 'Y'" (Turn 71). Rick, however,
prefers
his own rendition
(Turn 72)
and writes it
down.
This, too,
is an
example
of collaborative
dialogue,
where Kim and Rick stretch their IL in
the
generation
of new
vocabulary
and alternative
subordinate structures.
Excerpt
B is
interesting
because Kim
proposes
"garcon" (boy)
and Rick
suggests
a
refinement,
"gars,"
which
represents
a more informal
register
that is
certainly appropriate
in this context.
Excerpt
B:
Kim:
... elle
voit un
garcon qui.
..
(...
she sees a
boy
who
...)
Rick: un GARS.
(a GUY)
[emphasis
on
"guy"]
Kim:
OK,
un
gars.
(OK,
a
guy.)
In this LRE
(Excerpt
B), although
no metalin-
guistic terminology
is used
explicitly,
Rick and
Kim are nevertheless
talking
about
register
varia-
tion. This LRE illustrates how a task of this sort
draws on the students'
understanding
of the rela-
tionships among meaning,
form,
and function in
context.
Excerpt
C relates to the
meaning
and
syntax
of the verb suivre
(to follow):
Excerpt
C:
Rick: Elle se... et elle
se.
.. how do
you say
fol-
low?
(She [reflexive
pronoun] ...
and she
[reflexive
pronoun]
... how do
you say
follow?)
Kim: Hmmm?
Rick: How do
you say
follow?
Kim: Suit.
(Follows.)
Rick: Suit. Elle se suit or elle suit ?
(Follows.
She follows
[reflexive form]
or she follows?
[nonreflexive form])
Kim: Elle se. . . elle LE suive.
(She [reflexive
pronoun]
... she follows
HIM.)
Rick: Elle le?
(She [follows] him?)
Kim: Elle LE suive.
(She
follows
HIM.)
Rick:
Jusqu
'ci l'cole.
(To school.)
In
asking
which of two alternative forms to use
("Elle
se suit" or
"Elle suit"), Rick is
consciously
drawing
attention to this
linguistic
structure and
articulating
two different
hypotheses,
from which
Kim chooses the correct one, supplying
the cor-
rect
pronoun object
as she does so. Kim's intona-
tional
emphasis
on the direct
object pronoun
le
may help
to make the
syntactic
frame of suivre
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.137 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:50:40 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Merrill
Swain and Sharon
Lapkin
331
more salient for Rick. Rick writes the
syntactic
structure
correctly
and on the relevant
posttest
items
(see
Table
4), although
not
certain,
cor-
rectly
marks Le chat se suit
(The
cat follows
itself)
as
probably wrong
and Le chat les suit
(The
cat fol-
lows
them)
and Le chat suit les chiens
(The
cat fol-
lows the
dogs)
as
definitely
correct.
What Kim does in this LRE is a
particularly
in-
teresting
feat from a
processing perspective.
She
seems to know that suivre is a transitive verb and
therefore takes a direct
object pronoun
rather
than a reflexive
pronoun.
She thus switches from
using
the reflexive
pronoun
to a direct
object
pronoun,
le,
emphasizing
it for Rick's benefit and
perhaps
also for her own benefit. In
doing
so,
however,
Kim "loses control" over the correct
form of the verb. This would
appear
to be an ex-
cellent
example
of
cognitive
overload:
processing
capacity
is limited and in
carrying
out this com-
plicated processing operation,
Kim is unable also
to
process
the verb form
correctly, falling
back on
the form of the
high frequency
-er verb
type
rather than
using
the correct
present
tense of
suivre,
which she had
just produced.4
In
Excerpt
D,
two alternatives are
generated
and assessed. Each of the subordinate clauses
that the students
generate
and assess
("pour
se
laver"
[to
wash
herself]
and
"ozu
elle se lave"
[where
she
gets
washed])
is
acceptable
and accurate in
this context.
Excerpt
D:
Kim:
Et.
..
et,
yeah,
et s'en va au salle de bain.
(And
...
and,
yeah,
and
goes
to the
bathroom.)
Rick: Salle de
bain.
. .
pour
se
la-
(Bathroom
... to
wa-)
Kim: OU elle se lave.
(WHERE
she
gets
washed.)
Rick chooses to write Kim's solution. Each of
these
grammatical
alternatives also serves a dis-
course
function,
allowing
Kim and Rick to se-
quence
the elements of their narrative.
Excerpt
E relates to the
personal
care verb se
brosser
(to brush).
French has
many
verbs
(comb-
ing
hair,
brushing
teeth,
washing
one's
face, etc.)
that must be
expressed by
the reflexive form of
the relevant verb.
Excerpt
E:
Rick: ... et brosse.
(...
and
brushes.)
Kim: Et SE brosse les dents... les ch-.
No,
wait a
second. Isn't it elle se brosse les dents? And
it's SE
peigne.
Elle se
peigne.
(And
brushes
[emphasizes
the reflex-
ive]
her teeth ... her hair.
No,
wait a sec-
ond. Isn't it she brushes her teeth? And
it's combs
[again emphasizes
the reflex-
ive].
She combs her
hair.)
In this
excerpt,
as in
Excerpt
A,
we
again
see how
language
is
mediating
task
performance.
It is so
clear here because of Kim's use of
English.
Kim
tells herself
(not Rick,
although
it
may
have an ef-
fect on
Rick)
to "wait a second." This act of self-
TABLE 4
Kim and Rick's Performance on
Certainty
Scale Items
Relating
to the Reflexive Construction
Posttest Item Correct
Response
Actual
Response
Kim Rick
re:
Excerpt
C
Le chat les suit.
definitely
correct
definitely
correct
definitely
correct
Le chat se suit.
definitely wrong definitely wrong probably wrong
Le chat suit les chiens.
definitely
correct
definitely
correct
definitely
correct
re:
Excerpt
E
Je
me
coupe
les
ongles.
*
definitely
correct
definitely
correct
probably
correct
(same
on
pretest) (same
on
pretest)
Elle se lave le
visage. definitely
correct
definitely
correct
definitely
correct
(same
on
pretest) (same
on
pretest)
Jacques
se
peigne
les cheveux.
definitely
correct
definitely
correct
definitely
correct
Je
me
coupe
mes
ongles. definitely wrong definitely wrong probably
correct
re:
Excerpt
G
Le clown sort de la boite.
definitely
correct
definitely
correct
definitely
correct
Le clown se sort de la boite.
definitely wrong definitely wrong probably
correct
Note. *This is an
analogue forJe
me
brosse les
cheveux/les
dents,
in that reflexive verbs
relating
to
personal
care be-
have
syntactically
in the same
way
in French. Therefore this and the other items in this set relate to
Excerpt
E.
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.137 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:50:40 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
332 The Modern
Language Journal
82
(1998)
regulation gives
her time to work out the correct
form.
English (her L1)
frames her French and
sets it
up
as an
object
to be
manipulated
and re-
flected
upon.
Her "Isn't it
elle
se brosse les dents?
And it's SE
peigne"
is not
language being
used to
communicate with
Rick;
it is
language being
used to
hypothesize
and to confirm.
In their
story,
Rick has
correctly
written these
personal
care verbs in their reflexive form. On
the four relevant
posttest
items
(see
Table
4),
Kim is both correct and confident of her re-
sponses.
Rick, however,
is correct and certain of
his correctness on
only
two of the four
items,
those
using
the
very
same verbs
(se laver
and se
peigner)
that had been the focus of their attention
at some
point
in their
conversation,
and that Rick
had written
correctly
in their narrative. With the
sentences
'Je
me
coupe
les/mes
ongles,"5
which in-
troduced a new
verb,
Rick was less certain. Per-
haps
his
posttest responses
indicate a tentative
extension of
knowledge
to new L2 contexts.
Dialogue
as Occasions
for
L2
learning.
We have al-
ready
cited LREs for which there were both
pre-
and
posttest
items
(reveille-matin
and
analogues
for se
brosser)
and for which
only posttest
items ex-
isted
(suivre
and other reflexive
verbs).
In the for-
mer
cases,
it will be
recalled,
there is evidence of
learning
on Rick's
part,
because he moves from
an incorrect to a correct
response
from
pre-
to
posttest.6
In this
section,
we examine other ex-
amples
where
learning
has occurred. The first of
these is found in
Excerpt
E
In
Excerpt
F,
Rick falters as he realizes that he
does not know the word for
"pillow:"
Excerpt
F:
Rick: Et elle est encore au. .. au. .. uh ...
d
l'autre
bout du lit
avec,
avec ses
pieds
sur
le. ..
sur
la.
.. how do
you say "pillow"?
(And
she is
already
at the other end of
the bed
with,
with her feet on the ... on
the
...
how do
you say "pillow"?)
Kim: Oreiller.
(Pillow.)
Rick: Avec ses
pieds
sur
l'oreiller.
(With
her feet on the
pillow.)
Later,
Kim uses the word
"oreiller,"
which
gives
Rick the
opportunity
to check his
comprehen-
sion and, as he is
writing,
to write it down:
Kim:
Quelque
chose uh .
.
. est sur
l'.
. .
quelque
chose est sur l'oreiller.
(Something...
is on
the..,.
something
is on the
pillow.)
Rick: Is that l'oreiller?
(pointing
to
something
in the
picture.)
(Is
that the
pillow?)
Kim:
No,
this is l'oreiller.
(No,
this is the
pillow.)
Rick: Pillow?
Kim:
Yeah,
pillow's
oreiller.
There was no
pretest
item,
although
the above di-
alogue
would
suggest
that Kim would have
got-
ten the item correct and Rick
might
not have. On
the
posttest
item
(see
Item C in
Figure 1),
both
students choose the correct
response.
The word
oreiller is also used
correctly
in their written text
(see
Appendix
B).
Excerpt
G focuses on the verb
sortir,
which does
not exist in the reflexive form in French.
Excerpt
G:
Rick: Un
bras. .
. wait...
mecanique...
sort?
(An
arm . . .wait ... a mechanical
[arm]
comes
out?)
Kim:
Sort,
yeah.
(Comes out,
yeah.)
Rick: Se sort?
(Comes out?) [incorrect
reflexive
form]
Kim:
No,
sort.
(No,
comes
out.) [correct
nonreflexive
form]
As Rick
produces
the first utterance in this
LRE,
he orders
himself,
and
possibly
Kim,
to
"wait,"
giving
himself time to work out what follows. His
rising
intonation
suggests
that once
again
he is
testing
a
hypothesis.
As shown in Table
4,
both
Kim and Rick
judge correctly
"Le clown sort de la
boite"
(The
clown comes out of the
box)
as defi-
nitely
correct
(see
Test Item B in
Figure 1).
Kim
correctly
marks the related item "Le clown se sort
de la
boite"
as
definitely wrong.
Rick, however,
marks it as
probably
correct. We consider it note-
worthy
that he did not mark it as
definitely
cor-
rect. In other
words,
the choice of the
response
as
"probable"
rather than "definite"
suggests
that
Rick has moved toward
recognizing
sortir as
grammatical
and se sortir as
ungrammatical
as a
result of the collaborative reconstruction of this
part
of the narrative.
LREs and Their
Implications for
Classroom Practice.
One of the LREs in
particular gives
rise to an im-
portant pedagogical
issue related to collabora-
tive work. In
Excerpt H, Rick
suggests s'en
aller
and Kim
proposes
marcher to
express
the notion
of
walking
to school:
Excerpt
H:
Kim:
[Elle
voit un] gars
(She sees a
guy)
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.137 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:50:40 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Merrill Swain and Sharon
Lapkin 333
Rick:
...
gars, qui
s'en
va a
l'ecole
(guy,
who is
going
to
school)
Kim:
qui
marche vers
l'cole.. .marche
(who
is
walking
towards
school,
walking)
Both verbs exist in the French
lexicon,
but in this
context,
it is nonnative-like to use marcher.7 Per-
haps
because marcher is the alternative that Kim
(the
usual
"expert"
in this
pair) suggests,
and be-
cause it conforms to their
L1 usage,
it is the al-
ternative
they agree
on and write in their
story.
Here is an
example
where the solution that the
pair
reaches is
wrong
even
though
a correct al-
ternative has been
suggested.
Without teacher
feedback,
both students will
either remain uncertain about the functional dis-
tinction between marcher and s'en aller or
they
will
have "learned" the
wrong
lexeme,
given
the con-
text. For this
reason,
we believe that the sort of
task used in our data collection must be followed
by opportunities
for teacher feedback on the
recorded oral
dialogue
or the written
product,
or both.
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
The data offered in this article
provide support
for a theoretical orientation toward
viewing
dia-
logue
as both a means of communication and a
cognitive
tool. In the LREs discussed
here,
we see
Kim and
Rick,
as
theyjointly develop
the
story
line
and write it
out,
using language
to co-construct
the
language they
need to
express
the
meaning
they
want and to coconstruct
knowledge
about
language.
Their
dialogue
serves as a tool both for
L2
learning
and for
communicating
with each
other. In Kim and Rick's
language
use,
we can
see
simultaneously
the
process
of
language
learn-
ing
and the communicative outcome.
Like the students in the Goss et al.
(1994)
study,
Kim and Rick use
language
as
they
would
normally
and we are able to observe evidence of
cognitive processes
instantiated in their talk.
They continually generate alternatives,
assess al-
ternatives,
and
apply
the
resulting knowledge
to
solve a
linguistic problem.
Often Rick
generates
alternatives
(e.g.,
"le
gars"
in
Excerpt
B,
the hesi-
tation over
reflexive/nonreflexive
forms),
and
Kim
helps
him to
assess these.
In
many cases, she
provides
correct information to Rick about the
linguistic
form or rule he has
brought
to their
joint
attention.
Although
Kim
generally
takes the
lead, Rick makes
equally important
contribu-
tions (it is he, for
example,
who
suggests
the use
of "le
gars"
in
Excerpt B). Applying
their knowl-
edge
to new contexts
may
also create new
jointly
constructed
knowledge,
as we saw in the son-
nement LRE, where a
productive
rule of word for-
mation in French was
applied
and its
gender in-
ferred from a characteristic suffix. Kim and Rick
also use their L1, a mediational tool
fully
avail-
able to them, to
regulate
their own behavior, to
focus attention on
specific
L2 structures, and to
generate
and assess alternatives.
Kim and Rick's interaction
supports
the value
and
unique
role of collaborative
activity
in the
classroom as articulated
by
Wells (1996):
... it is not
necessary
for there to be a
group
member
who is in all
respects
more
capable
than the others.
... in
tackling
a difficult task as a
group, although
no
member has
expertise beyond
his or her
peers,
the
group
as a whole,
by working
at the
problem together,
is able to construct a solution that none could have
achieved alone. In other words, each is "forced to rise
above himself" and,
by building
on the contributions
of individual members, the
group collectively con-
structs an outcome that no
single
member
envisaged
at the outset of the collaboration.
(p. 10)
From a research
perspective,
this
study provides
empirical
data to
suggest
that collaborative dia-
logue (consisting
of one or more
LREs)
is a use-
ful
concept
for
understanding
L2
learning.
In
terms of
methodology,
we think it would be valu-
able in future work to combine an
analysis
of stu-
dents' collaborative
dialogue
with
follow-up
inter-
views in order to derive a more
fine-grained
under-
standing
of the mental
processes
discussed above.
In the data
analyzed
here,
we were able to link
each student to his or her test
performance
be-
cause of the
gender
difference in the student
dyad
and because it was clear which student was
writing.
In the
majority
of cases, it was
impossible
to
identify
the individual students in their
dyads,
so that test data could not be
interpreted
in rela-
tion to individual contributions to
dialogues.
It
will be
important
to
incorporate
technical im-
provements
in future studies.
Kim and Rick work
effectively
in their
dyad,
and both are
strong
students. From a
pedagogi-
cal
perspective,
one wonders if their relative suc-
cess would extend to student
dyads
with different
proficiency
levels. Detailed
analyses
of such stu-
dent
dyads (e.g.,
two
low-proficiency students)
are needed to
help
teachers make
principled
decisions about how to
group
students effec-
tively.
Affective variables also
appear
to be
key:
On several occasions, Rick looks to Kim for
sup-
port (e.g.,
the
riveille-matin example)
as well as
for information.
One of the
striking
features of our data is their
variability.
Like Foster
(1993), we found some
pairs
of students whose low
production
of LREs
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.137 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:50:40 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
334 The Modern
Language Journal
82
(1998)
and limited time on task
suggest
that students
ap-
proach
the task
differently
and will
profit
differ-
entially
from the collaborative activities
imple-
mented in classrooms. In future
studies,
it will be
important
to interview students
shortly
after
such activities have been
completed
to
discover,
for
example,
what
aspects
individual students
find
appealing
or
unappealing,
conducive or un-
conducive to
learning.
Also,
it
may
be that col-
laborative tasks such as the one used in this
study
should be
implemented selectively
or
only
with
several
dyads
at a
time,
so that the teacher can
monitor on-task behavior and
provide linguistic
guidance.
We
hope
that the kind of information
presented
in this article will better
equip
teachers
to
provide
the sustained intervention needed to
foster
continuing target language development.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was made
possible by
a
grant (#410-
93-0050)
to Merrill Swain and Sharon
Lapkin
from the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada.
Many people
contributed to the data collec-
tion,
transcription,
and
analysis
of the main
study
in
which the two students described in this article
partici-
pated.
We would
particularly
like to thank
Doug
Hart,
Joan
Howard,
Shelley Taylor,
and Iva
Baltova,
who have
been
unfailing
in their
help,
even when called
upon
at
untimely
moments. Iva Baltova also drew the cartoons
shown in
Appendix
A. For comments on a draft version
of this
article,
we are
grateful
to Alister
Cumming,
Rick
Donato,
Birgit Harley, Jim
Lantolf,
Tere
Pica,
Miles
Turnbull,
and the editors of this
special
issue,
Sue Gass
and Alison
Mackey.
A
special
thank
you
is also ex-
tended to Gordon
Wells,
who allowed Merrill to sit in
on his course on Sociocultural
Theory
and
engage
in
collaborative
dialogue
with him and the
class,
while she
was on sabbatical
during
1996.
NOTES
S"Joint activity"
can include
interacting
with text. In
some theories this would be called "individual learn-
ing."
We would
argue, along
with Wertsch
(1991)
and
others,
that
interacting
with text is a social
activity.
2
Usually
we were able to
identify
which of the two
students were
speaking (although
the
similarity
of
voices at this
age
sometimes created
problems
in iden-
tification). However,
we were not
usually
able to relate
accurately
the student
speaking
in a
dyad
to his or her
set of test scores.
Being
able to do so was a fortuitous re-
sult of the
dyad
we selected.
The word rive means dream and the
compound
rive-
matin is not a word. We believe that
Rick,
in
using
"rWve-
matin,"
means alarm
clock,
and we have used that
meaning
in the translations. A number of
people
who
commented on a first draft of this article
suggested
that Rick
may
have been influenced
by
the relevant
pretest
item in which one of the distractors
(derived
from the
pilot data)
was
Voild
mon
r?ve-matin.
This is cer-
tainly
a
possibility
and does not detract from our
argu-
ment.
Indeed,
Rick
may
have taken
away
from the
pretest
the
knowledge
that
reve-matin
is a
possible way
to
say
"alarm clock." The fact that our readers were keen
on this
explanation
for Rick's use of
r~e-matin suggests
that,
implicitly, they
have
accepted
the
possibility
that
even one
single
test item of
many may
lead to
change
in
a learner's
linguistic performance.
This
parallels
our
claim that
learning
occurs in
dialogue.
As we wish to
argue,
at least some
learning
occurs in
performance,
not afterwards.
4 There are three verb
conjugations
in French: first
conjugation
-er verbs such as
donner,
second
conjuga-
tion -ir verbs such as
finir,
and third
conjugation
-re
verbs such as suivre. Of the three verb
conjugations,
the
first is the most
frequent
and is often
generalized
to
verbs of the second and third
conjugations (Harley
&
Swain, 1978.)
5 The second of these
(je
me
coupe
mes
ongles)
is un-
grammatical
because the
possessor
of the nails is ex-
pressed
in the
pronoun
me,
and
may
not be
expressed
again
in the
possessive adjective
mes.
6
As each LRE
represents
the collaborative
working
through
of a
linguistic problem
that Kim and Rick en-
counter,
it is of note that in Kim and Rick's 23
LREs,
21
resulted in a correct
solution,
1 in a
wrong
solution
(see Excerpt H),
and 1 in no solution at all. Of the 23
LREs,
there were 15 relevant
posttest
items. Of those
15,
Kim was
always
accurate in her
response.
Rick was
either accurate or marked a
"probable" category (see
Item
Type
B in
Figure
1).
That
is,
Rick never marked
"definitely
correct" when the accurate
response
was
"definitely wrong,"
and he never marked
"definitely
wrong"
when the accurate
response
was
"definitely
cor-
rect."
7
In
English,
"she walks to school" is
grammatical,
and it is this structure that is
likely being incorrectly
transferred to the French elle marche d l'ecole. In
French,
the correct structure would be elle s'en va d l'ecole. For a
discussion of this issue and of what French immersion
students
generally
do when
using
verbs of motion in
French,
see
Harley (1989).
REFERENCES
Allen, P., Swain, M.,
Harley,
B.,
&
Cummins,
J.
(1990).
Aspects
of classroom treatment: Towards a more
comprehensive
view of second
language
educa-
tion. In B.
Harley,
P.
Allen,
J.
Cummins,
& M.
Swain
(Eds.),
The
development of
second
language
proficiency (pp.
57-81). Cambridge: Cambridge
University
Press.
Cummins,
J. (1990).
From the inner
city
to the
global
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.137 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:50:40 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Merrill
Swain and Sharon
Lapkin
335
village:
The
microcomputer
as a
catalyst
for col-
laborative
learning
and cultural
interchange.
Language
Culture and
Curriculum, 1,
1-13.
de
Bot,
K.
(1996).
The
psycholinguistics
of the
output
hypothesis. Language Learning,
46,
529-555.
Donato,
R.
(1994).
Collective
scaffolding
in second lan-
guage learning.
In
J.
Lantolf & G.
Appel (Eds.),
Vygotskian approaches
to second
language
research
(pp.
33-56). Norwood,
NJ:
Ablex.
Donato, R.,
&
Lantolf,J. (1990).
The
dialogic origins
of
L2
monitoring.
In L.
E
Bouton & Y Kachru
(Eds.), Pragmatics
and
language learning (Vol. 1,
pp. 83-97). Urbana-Champaign,
IL: Division of
English
as an International
Language.
Foster,
P.
(1993).
Discoursal outcomes of small
group
work in an EFL classroom: A look at the interac-
tion of non-native
speakers.
Thames
Valley
Univer-
sity Working Papers
in
English Language Teaching,
2,
1-30.
Goss, N.,
Ying-Hua,
Z.,
&
Lantolf,
J. (1994).
Two heads
may
be better than one: Mental
activity
in sec-
ond-language grammaticality judgments.
In E.
Tarone,
S.
Gass,
& A. Cohen
(Eds.),
Research
methodology
in
second-language acquisition (pp.
263-
286). Hillsdale,
NJ:
Erlbaum.
Harley,
B.
(1989).
Transfer in the written
composition
of French immersion students. In D. W. Dechert
& M.
Raupach (Eds.), Transfer
in
language produc-
tion
(pp.
3-19).
New York: Ablex.
Harley,
B.,
&
Swain,
M.
(1978).
An
analysis
of the verb
system
used
by young
learners of French. Inter-
language
Studies
Bulletin, 3,
35-79.
Jacob,
E.,
Rottenberg,
L., Patrick, S.,
&
Wheeler,
E.
(1996). Cooperative learning:
Context and
op-
portunities
for
acquiring
academic
English.
TESOL
Quarterly,
30,
253-280.
Johnson,
D.
W., Johnson,
R.,
&
Holubec,
E.
(1986).
Cir-
cles
of learning: Cooperation
in the classroom.
Edina,
MN: Interaction Book.
Kowal, M.,
&
Swain,
M.
(1997).
From semantic to
syn-
tactic
processing:
How can we
promote
it in the
immersion classroom? In R. K.
Johnson
& M.
Swain
(Eds.),
Immersion education: International
perspectives (pp. 284-309).
Cambridge:
Cam-
bridge University
Press.
Krashen, S. (1985).
The
Input Hypothesis:
Issues and im-
plications.
London:
Longman.
Lantolf,
J.,
&
Appel,
G.
(Eds.). (1994). Vygotskian ap-
proaches
to second
language
research.
Norwood,
NJ:
Ablex.
LaPierre,
D.
(1994). Language output
in a
cooperative
learning setting: Determining
its
effects
on second lan-
guage learning. Unpublished
master's
thesis,
On-
tario Institute for Studies in
Education,
Univer-
sity
of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Leont'ev, A. N. (1981). The
problem
of
activity
in
psy-
chology.
In
J.
V. Wertsch (Ed.), The
concept of
ac-
tivity
in Soviet
psychology (pp. 37-71). Armonk, NY:
Sharpe.
Long,
M. (1983). Native
speaker/non-native speaker
conversation and the
negotiation
of
comprehen-
sible
input. Applied Linguistics,
4, 126-141.
Mackey,
A.
(1995).
Stepping up
the
pace: Input,
interaction
and
interlanguage development:
An
empirical study of
questions
in ESL.
Unpublished
doctoral disserta-
tion,
University
of
Sydney,
Australia.
Mackey,
A.,
&
Philp, J. (1998).
Conversational interac-
tion and second
language development:
Recasts,
responses,
and red
herrings?
Modern
Language
Journal,
82,
338-356.
Newman, D., Griffin, P.,
&
Cole,
M.
(1989).
The con-
struction zone.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Nobuyoshi, J.,
&
Ellis,
R.
(1993).
Focused communica-
tion tasks and second
language acquisition.
ELT
Journal,
47,
203-211.
Pica,
T.
(1994).
Research on
negotiation:
What does it
reveal about
second-language learning
condi-
tions,
processes,
and outcomes?
Language
Learn-
ing,
44,
493-527.
Platt,
E. &
Brooks,
E
B.
(1994).
The
"acquisition-rich
environment" revisited. Modern
Language Journal,
78,
497-511.
Swain,
M.
(1995).
Three functions of
output
in second
language learning.
In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer
(Eds.),
Principle
and
practice
in
applied linguistics:
Studies in honour
of
H. G. Widdowson
(pp.
125-
144).
Oxford: Oxford
University
Press.
Swain,
M.
(1997).
Collaborative
dialogue:
Its contribu-
tion to second
language learning.
Revista
Canaria
de Estudios
Ingleses,
34, 115-132.
Swain,
M.
(1998).
Focus on form
through
conscious re-
flection. In C.
Doughty &J.
Williams
(Eds.),
Focus
on
form
in classroom second
language acquisition (pp.
64-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Swain, M.,
&
Lapkin,
S. (1995).
Problems in
output
and
the
cognitive processes they generate:
A
step
to-
wards second
language learning. Applied Linguis-
tics, 16,
371-391.
Vygotsky,
L.
(1979).
Consciousness as a
problem
of
psy-
chology
of behavior. Soviet
Psychology,
17,
3-35.
Wajnryb,
R.
(1990).
Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford
University
Press.
Wells,
G.
(1996).
The zone
of proximal development
and its
implications for learning
and
teaching. Unpublished
manuscript,
Ontario Institute for Studies in Edu-
cation,
University
of
Toronto, Ontario,
Canada.
Wertsch,
J. V.
(1991).
Voices
of
the mind: A sociocultural
ap-
proach
to mediated action.
Cambridge,
MA: Har-
vard
University
Press.
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.137 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:50:40 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
336 The
Modern
LanguageJournal
82
(1998)
APPENDIX A
Pictures Used
by Dyads
in
Jigsaw
Task
1 2
/
31 ( 4
'
(j' ~
IZ
dc`
i'
c
I
6
;i
n ,i
7
51 1 61
I
A f1
1
*
*
II
-a
',
-.-,, I -
"The
tricky
alarm clock"
?I.
Baltova
(1994)
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.137 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:50:40 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Merrill
Swain and Sharon
Lapkin
337
APPENDIX B
Kim and Rick's Written
Story
(exactly
as
written)
L'histoire de
Jacqueline
mai 3 1995
Le soleil se
leve
au matin et c'est une tr's belle
journ&e. Jacqueline
est en
train de dormir dans son lit sous
sa couverture bleu. A
c6te
du lit il
y
a une
petite
table brune et en dessus il
y
a un reveil- matin
rouge qui
dit
6:00 du matin.
Jacqueline
se reveille a cause du reveil-matin
qui
sonne. Sa tate avec les cheveux friss's est
'
l'autre
bout du lit avec les
pieds
sur l'oreiller. Elle sort
sajambe
de la couverture
pour pousser
un boutton
sur le reveil-matin
pour
arreter le sonnement. Puis elle se met a dormir
apres que
le sonnement est
arrit&.
Un bras
mechanique
sort du reveil matin
pour
chatouiller le
pied
de
Jacqueline
avec une
plume qui
est tenue
par
une
mainjaune.
Elle se
1ive
lentement et s'en va a la salle de bain oui elle se live et se brosse les dents et
se
peigne
les cheveux. Puis elle semble desatreuse
apres
de dormir. Elle est
prete pour
aller a
1'&cole
quand
sur la rue elle voit un
gars qui
marche vers
1'&cole
et elle le suive
jusqu'a
1'&cole.
English
Translation
of
Kim and Rick's
Written
Story
The
Story ofJacqueline
May
3,
1995
The sun rises in the
morning
and it's a
very
beautiful
day. Jacqueline
is
sleeping
in her bed under her blue
blanket. Beside the bed there is a small brown table and on it there is a red alarm clock that
says
6 a.m.
Jacque-
line wakes
up
because of the alarm clock that is
ringing.
Her
curly-haired
head is at the other end of the bed
with her feet on the
pillow.
She sticks her
leg
out from under the blanket in order to
push
a button on the
alarm clock to
stop
the
ringing.
Then she
begins sleeping
after the
ringing
has
stopped.
A mechanical arm
comes out of the alarm clock to tickle
Jacqueline's
foot with a feather that is held
by
a
yellow
hand. She
gets
up slowly
and
goes
to the bathroom where she washes and brushes her teeth and combs her hair. Then she
looks disastrous after
sleeping.
She is
ready
to
go
to school when in the street she sees a
guy
who is
walking
toward school and she follows him to school.
Upcoming
Conference Sessions on
Publishing
THE
MLJEDITOR
INVITES READERS TO SESSIONS ON PUBLISHING IN THE
MLJ.
American Council on the
Teaching
of
Foreign Languages
Chicago,
Illinois
November
20-22,
1998
actflhq@aol.com
www.actfl.org
Central States Conference on
Foreign Language Teaching
Little
Rock,
Arkansas
April
15-18,
1999
rmcheatham@ualr.edu
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.137 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:50:40 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions