Verbalisation as a mediational tool for understanding tense-aspect marking in English: an application of Concept-Based Instruction

This article was downloaded by: [University of Maastricht]On: 06 July 2014, At: 00:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Language AwarenessPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmla20

Verbalisation as a mediational tool forunderstanding tense-aspect markingin English: an application of Concept-Based InstructionGabriela Adela Gánem-Gutiérrez a & Haliza Harun aa Department of Language and Linguistics , University of Essex ,Wivenhoe Park, Colchester, UKPublished online: 08 Aug 2011.

To cite this article: Gabriela Adela Gánem-Gutiérrez & Haliza Harun (2011) Verbalisation as amediational tool for understanding tense-aspect marking in English: an application of Concept-Based Instruction, Language Awareness, 20:2, 99-119, DOI: 10.1080/09658416.2010.551125

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2010.551125

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmla20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09658416.2010.551125

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2010.551125

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Language AwarenessVol. 20, No. 2, May 2011, 99–119

Verbalisation as a mediational tool for understanding tense-aspectmarking in English: an application of Concept-Based Instruction

Gabriela Adela Ganem-Gutierrez∗ and Haliza Harun

Department of Language and Linguistics, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester, UK

(Received 4 September 2010; final version received 14 December 2010)

According to Vygotsky, we use tools both to shape and make sense of the world and toexercise control over others and over ourselves. Importantly, the very use of those toolsto mediate and regulate our actions has developmental repercussions in our cognitivecapabilities. From a sociocultural theory perspective on second language learning, theseideas are fundamental to our understanding of theoretical, pedagogical, and method-ological issues. This paper reports on a pilot study framed within the principles ofConcept-Based Instruction (CBI). The study involved six L2 advanced English learn-ers doing postgraduate courses at a British university. Drawing on tests and protocolsobtained by transcribing individual (think-aloud) and dyadic (pair-work) activity, ourfindings revealed that the CBI process helped most of our participants gain a deeperunderstanding of the concept of tense-aspect marking in English. Insights into the roleof verbalisation as a regulatory tool were also gained through microgenetic analysisof the data. On the basis of our findings, some implications of CBI are also discussedin relation to grammar teaching and the value of metalinguistic knowledge in the L2learning and teaching context.

Keywords: EFL; language awareness; pedagogical grammar; sociocultural theory;Concept-Based Instruction; microgenetic analysis

Introduction

It is well documented that the English tense-aspect system is a major problematic area forsecond/foreign (L2) English learners even at the advanced proficiency levels (see Housen,2002; Kennedy, 2003 among others). However, a problem that some L2 English learnersface, particularly at the intermediate and advanced levels, is not that they have failed tointernalise verb morphology associated with the tense-aspect system, but that they havenot developed an adequate understanding of the semantic implications of morphosyntacticchoices at a conceptual level. In other words, they have not fully developed their functionalconcepts, concepts which ‘orient communication’ (Negueruela, 2008, p. 204). When weengage in communication with other people, all the participants in the communicativeact co-create what Fauconnier (1998, p. 252) describes as ‘mental spaces’. These ‘mentalspaces’ contain relevant information about both the objects or people we are talking aboutand about the time span which is relevant for the propositions being made by the speakers.The tense-aspect system, therefore, enables speakers to refer to and describe the specificsituations and events they wish to focus on.

∗Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 0965-8416 print / ISSN 1747-7565 onlineC© 2011 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/09658416.2010.551125http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 00:

07 0

6 Ju

ly 2

014

100 G.A. Ganem-Gutierrez and H. Harun

It has been argued that course books, and general pedagogical grammars, tend toplace too much emphasis on form and use at the expense of helping students realise the‘meaningfulness of grammatical constructions’ (Niemeier & Reif, 2008, p. 326). Concept-based instruction (henceforth CBI) is an application of Vygotskian thought to L2 pedagogy,which might offer an alternative approach to enhance L2 grammar learning and teaching. Asdiscussed below, to date, few studies investigating the potential of CBI for L2 acquisitionhave been published. This study aims to build on the work of those scholars who havebeen investigating CBI, in general, and verbalisation, in particular, in the L2 context. Tothis end, we first provide an overview of the theoretical underpinnings of CBI and relatedkey publications informing our study. We then report on the findings of a pilot studythat investigated the potential of our CBI materials to help L2 English learners betterunderstand the concept of tense-aspect in English. Finally, some pedagogical implicationsof our findings are discussed.

Background

A fundamental notion in sociocultural theory (SCT) is that of mediation (Lantolf, 2000;Lantolf & Appel, 1994; Lantolf & Poehner, 2008; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Human activity,according to Vygotsky, is always mediated by physical and psychological tools such ascomputers, charts, diagrams, and language, the latter being one of the most important ones(Vygotsky, 1978). Language is essential for regulation, a form of mediation which allowsus to exercise control over other people and ourselves (see Lantolf & Thorne, 2006).

Verbalisation as a mediational tool

Swain and colleagues (e.g. Brooks & Swain, 2009; Lapkin, Swain, & Knouzi, 2008; Swain,2006, 2010; Tocalli-Beller & Swain, 2005) have argued that ‘languaging’, or producinglanguage, is an act which mediates cognitive activity. In other words, by engaging incollaborative activity through speaking or writing, as well as by interacting with physicaland psychological tools such as diagrams, charts, and so on, human beings develop theirthinking ability. Importantly, in the context of L2 learning, languaging or verbalisingobjectifies thought and language and renders them ‘available for scrutiny’ (Swain, 2000, p.104); language simultaneously becomes an enabling tool for, and a matter of, development.

Understanding in as much detail as possible the precise, and multiple, ways in whichverbalisation mediates both cognitive and linguistic development is, therefore, crucial at thetheoretical and practical levels. At a theoretical level, verbalisation can serve as a windowinto specific processes that might be enabling for L2 learning, and, at a practical level,this knowledge can eventually serve as a basis for informed pedagogical practice in the L2classroom. Microgenetic analysis, which involves observing and analysing the processessupporting and leading development (see Wertsch, 1985, p. 55), provides, in our view, anoptimal means for a systematic approach to understanding verbalisation.

Certain semiotic tools such as reading aloud, repetition, discourse markers, and L1 havebeen identified as particularly important for L2 learners to gain regulation (see Ganem-Gutierrez, 2003, 2009; Ganem-Gutierrez & Roehr, forthcoming). These tools can play apositive role in mediating L2 learning while students are verbalising during collabora-tive activity or while working individually on either or both cognitively or linguisticallydemanding tasks.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 00:

07 0

6 Ju

ly 2

014

Language Awareness 101

Reading aloud, and particularly repetition, that is, verbatim replication of either whatothers say or self-repetition, have been claimed to help sustain interaction and act as toolsfor problem-solving (Frawley, 1992; McCafferty, 1994; Roebuck, 2000). Repetition canserve as a tool for reasoning (Buckwalter, 2001), and it can act as a regulatory tool forthe appropriation of language and for achieving intersubjectivity, that is, a co-created orshared perspective on the task, which is essential for a successful collaborative activity, forexample, for the co-construction and maintenance of scaffolding (see DiCamilla & Anton,1997).1

The use of the L1 has often been attended to as part of the study of interaction andcollaborative activity in general (Buckwalter, 2001; De Guerrero & Villamil, 2000; Garcia& Asencion, 2001; Lee, 2008; Swain & Lapkin, 1982 among others). The importance ofthe first language as a mediational tool has become so apparent during investigations intocollaborative activity that researchers have also investigated it in its own right (Anton &DiCamilla, 1998; Ohta, 2001; Swain & Lapkin, 2000).

Discourse markers such as and, but, or, oh, now, then, y’know, I mean (see Schiffrin,2006, p. 321; Travis, 2006, p. 220) have been found to be: (1) verbal aids which supportand enable task handling and (2) aids supporting reasoning processes while L2 learnersare working either collaboratively or verbalising individually, for example, thinking aloud(Ganem-Gutierrez, 2009; Ganem-Gutierrez & Roehr, forthcoming). For instance, interjec-tions and similar particles can act as transitional tools which help students move the taskalong. Markers of cause-and-result relationships such as so, because, and various coor-dinate conjunctions such as and, tend to support reasoning and are, therefore, importantregulatory mechanisms during verbalisation.

Concept-Based Instruction (CBI)

Negueruela (2008) and Negueruela and Lantolf (2006) argue that verbalisation in the formof self-explanation can play an important role in learning grammatical concepts. Takingthe Vygotskian construct of CBI (Gal’perin, 1969; Vygotsky, 1978, 1987) as a theoreticalframework, they propose an instructional approach for L2 learning which respects thefollowing principles:

• Concepts are seen as the minimal pedagogical unit.• Those concepts have to be materialised, for example, by means of diagrams or charts,

which serve as didactic mediational tools for learners.• As part of this pedagogical model, concepts must be verbalised, as the act of (self)

explanation becomes a psychological tool for gaining regulation.

To date, few empirical studies investigating the potential value of CBI in the contextof L2 learning have been published. As part of a larger longitudinal (16-week) study at anAmerican university, Negueruela and Lantolf (2006) reported on a study of 12 intermediate-level L2 Spanish learners. The class worked on CBI activities during an academic semester,with the aim of helping students develop their understanding and use of aspect in Spanish.The authors reported that ‘all the learners . . . exhibited development in both domains . . .

[although] development was not uniform across learners’ (Negueruela & Lantolf, 2006,p. 98). Similar treatment and results are reported in Negueruela (2008) who describes acase study of an adult learner at the intermediate-level L2 Spanish and the development ofthe concept of mood. According to the study, the participant benefited from CBI by gaininga deeper understanding of the complexity of meaning underlying this concept.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 00:

07 0

6 Ju

ly 2

014


A series of publications by Swain, Lapkin and colleagues (e.g. Knouzi, Swain, Lapkin,& Brooks, 2010; Lapkin et al., 2008; Swain, 2010; Swain, Lapkin, Knouzi, Suzuki, &Brooks, 2009) have investigated the potential of CBI, and in particular of verbalisation or,their preferred term ‘languaging’, to help L2 learners of French develop their understandingof the concept of voice. Their project involved nine Canadian students who were presentedwith 36 cards explaining the concept of voice; as a treatment session, the students wereasked to self-explain the content of each card. Results from pre- and post-tests on theconcept of voice as well as pre- and post-cloze tests assessing the applied knowledge ofvoice demonstrate the potential of CBI as an approach to teaching L2 language concepts.Importantly, microgenetic analysis of the participants’ languaging activity provides evi-dence of the facilitating role of verbalisation as a mediational tool for the internalisation ofthe concept, for example, through self-scaffolding (Knouzi et al., 2010, p. 45). This projectis also valuable because it provides a detailed methodological account of how CBI can bepedagogically implemented and how a systematic investigation of languaging as a media-tional tool can be carried out. Specifically, Knouzi et al.’s (2010) analysis demonstrates howtheir participants’ languaging activity helped them construct conceptual understandingsand manage the task at hand through paraphrasing, inferencing, analysing, self-assessing,and re-reading (see also Ganem-Gutierrez, 2008, 2009).

Tense-aspect marking in English

The well-attested difficulties that L2 English learners face regarding the acquisition of thetense-aspect system highlight an important area that requires particular attention from apedagogical perspective (Garret, 1986, p. 142). For English as a Second Language (ESL)learners to be able to ‘develop a feel for the meanings conveyed by the components of thesystem’, it is necessary that they understand conceptual distinctions between ‘tense’ and‘aspect’ (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999, p. 111).

The foundations for understanding how the tense-aspect system in a given languageworks lie in understanding how we use grammar to describe a particular view of a situation(aspect) and how we ground or locate situations in time by means of tense. In other words,grammatical markers are tools that enable speakers to locate an event or a situation in timeand highlight the speaker’s view or perspective of a situation (see Radden & Dirven, 2007,p. 22).

More specifically, tense relates to the situation or to the representation of a situation inwhat Fauconnier (1998, p. 252) describes as a mental space (base space) in the speaker’sand hearer’s mind. It is in this ‘mental space’ where the relationships between tense andtime are anchored. The mental space includes both ‘speech time’ or the speaker’s momentof speaking, and ‘event time’ or the time of the occurrence and the viewpoint from whichthe speaker can ‘see’ the situation he/she is referring to, that is, an ‘external’ reality. Tenseis, therefore, the grammatical tool that enables the speaker to locate, select, or highlight atime span which is relevant for what he/she wants to say (Niemeier & Reif, 2008).

Aspect, on the other hand, has been defined as ‘a way of viewing the internal temporalconstituency of a situation’ (Comrie, 1976, p. 3). Niemeier and Reif (2008) point outthat aspect normally allows the speaker to choose between two contrastive construals2: forexample, the progressive versus the non-progressive form. A speaker will use the non-progressive form of a verb to signal his/her distant viewing position. The event on whichthe speaker is focusing is, therefore, ‘seen from outside’ and is seen by the speaker asa complete event or an event with clear ‘boundaries’. By contrast, a speaker will use aprogressive verb form (+ ing) to signal his/her closer viewing position. The event in this

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 00:

07 0

6 Ju

ly 2

014


case is an ‘unbounded’ event ‘seen from the inside’ or in a ‘closer view’ because the speakersees the situation as being in progress when another action occurred, as in ‘I was reading abook when the telephone rang’ (Radden & Dirven, 2007, p. 22).

Finally, the present perfect aspectual meaning depicts a situation or period in the pastthat is inclusive of the present and the past. The speaker’s choice of present perfect canconvey various meanings: use of present perfect can imply that the situation begins inthe past and extends to include the present; the perfect is also used for describing pastevents in which the actual time of occurrence is unimportant. In this case, the speaker isinstead focusing on the event taking place within the experience of the event’s participants.Accomplishment verbs, for example, ‘to jog’, and achievement verbs, for example, ‘to win’,are used with a perfect aspect to convey prior events that are completed. In this case, theperfect aspect is often used for recent events since it is their very recency which providesthe connection with the present (Huddleston, 1984).

In summary, the tense-aspect system represents a challenging area for L2 learnersof English, particularly at the conceptual and semantic levels. Framed within a socio-cultural theory approach to second language learning, this paper reports on the findingsof a pilot study that investigated the potential of CBI for enhancing the understanding ofaspect by advanced L2 English speakers. From this perspective, physical and psychologicaltools – embodied in this study in the CBI materials and procedures – are fundamentalfor development. While there is an increasing body of research into mediated activityand second language acquisition in general (see Lantolf & Beckett, 2009 for an excellentoverview), accounts of verbalisation in the L2 context are needed in order to furtherunderstand its value as a mediational tool. This study therefore aims to build on the fewstudies on CBI published to date since there is still much to be understood about how wecan best operationalise the Vygotskian principles to promote L2 development.

The study

The research design for this study was based on Lapkin et al. (2008) and Knouziet al. (2010). The overall aim was to investigate the potential of our CBI materials, and therole of verbalisation as an intrinsic aspect of CBI, to help the participants gain a deeper un-derstanding of the concept of tense-aspect marking in L2 English, with a specific referenceto simple past, past continuous, and present perfect. To this end, two research questionswere addressed:

• RQ1: Did CBI, as operationalised in the present study, help participants gain a deeperunderstanding of tense-aspect marking in English?

• RQ2: What is the role of verbalisation as a mediational tool for constructing a deeperunderstanding of the concept of tense-aspect marking in English?

Participants and research design

The participants were six female volunteers who were doing postgraduate courses at aBritish university and had been living in the UK for an average of 12.8 months. They wereall L2 English speakers (five L1 Arabic and one L1 Thai) who had studied English for anaverage of 12 years in a formal school setting. Their IELTS scores were 6.5/7; they were,therefore, considered advanced/C1 level (CEFR).3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 00:

07 0

6 Ju

ly 2

014


Materials and data collection procedures

(1) Biodata questionnaire. The biodata questionnaire contained a total of 12 questionsto determine the participants’ age, information about their current studies, and theirlanguage learning history.

(2) Tense-aspect pre/post-tests. The tense-aspect pre- and post-tests, which were iden-tical, consisted of six questions:(a) Based on your understanding, what is a verb in English?(b) Based on your understanding, what is tense in English?(c) How many verb tenses can you name?(d) What do you understand by grammatical aspect in English?(e) Look at the questions below. Are there any differences in their meaning? If so,

can you briefly explain those differences?(i) Have you watched the movie?(ii) Did you watch the movie?

(f) Look at the sentences below. Are there any differences in their meaning? If so,can you briefly explain those differences?(i) He read the book last night.(ii) He was reading the book last night.

(3) CBI materials and verbalisation protocols. The CBI materials consisted of 23PowerPoint slides, which included diagrams and animation (see Appendix 1). Thedesign and construction of the materials followed an extensive series of stagesand revisions, both by the researchers and a linguist. The explanations of tense-aspect marking in English were primarily based on Radden and Dirven’s (2007)cognitive linguistics model, but other grammar books were also consulted; animportant consideration was to facilitate a semantically grounded understanding ofthe concept.

Data were collected during two consecutive daily sessions on an individual (two par-ticipants) or pair basis (two dyads) and under supervised conditions. All tense-aspect pre-and post-tests were completed individually and all verbalisations were audio-recorded withthe participants’ consent. Data collection for all the participants, who were randomly as-signed to either the individual condition or to the dyadic condition, followed the sameprocedures and instructions: firstly, the participants completed the pre-test, which took anaverage of 13 minutes; then they were asked to work on the CBI materials, which wereon a laptop controlled by the participants, that is, there was no time restriction and theycould go through the PowerPoint slides at their own pace. The materials were written inEnglish, and although no language restrictions for the verbalisation were imposed, all theparticipants verbalised in English with extremely sporadic comments in their L1. Individ-uals were asked to verbalise their thoughts and explain what they understood while goingthrough the slides. Similarly, dyads were asked to discuss and explain what they understoodwhile going through the slides; on an average, the verbalisations lasted for 40 minutes. Theday after the CBI treatment, participants completed the tense-aspect post-test (18 minutesaverage).

Analytical procedures

The tense-aspect tests were independently scored by the authors based on a prepared keyand a scoring scheme ranging from 0 to 3 points to assess the level of accuracy and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 00:

07 0

6 Ju

ly 2

014


Table 1. Tense-aspect test scoring scheme.

Level Operationalisation/criteria

0 No evidence of knowledge or awareness regarding the concept; no examples provided,and/or

Completely inaccurate answer.1 Minimal evidence of knowledge or awareness regarding the concept, which could be at

the level of exemplification exclusively.Description/explanation not necessarily accurate.

2 Evidence of knowledge or awareness regarding the concept expressed coherently even ifdescription/explanation not fully accurate.

3 Knowledge about the concept is evident. Coherent and fully accuratedescription/explanation provided.

sophistication of the participants’ understanding of the concept of tense-aspect marking inEnglish. Interrater reliability was 84%. The differences were resolved through discussion.The hierarchical scheme shown in Table 1 was adapted from Roehr (2008).

On the basis of the above scoring scheme and given that the tests consisted of sixquestions, the maximum possible score was 18 points. Table 2 exemplifies the procedure.

The recorded verbalisations were transcribed in full to produce protocols for analysis.Microgenetic analysis was carried out to examine the role of verbalisation, and specificsemiotic mechanisms, as a mediational tool for constructing a deeper understanding of theconcept in question. As discussed in the ‘Background’ section, this type of Vygotskiangenetic analysis aims to trace the history of a particular event (Ganem-Gutierrez, 2008;Lantolf, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978), in this case, the construction of understanding during theCBI treatment.

Results and discussion

RQ1: Did CBI, as operationalised in the present study, help participants gain adeeper understanding of tense-aspect marking in English?

Figure 1 provides a summary of the scores obtained by the participants for the pre- andpost-tests on the concept of tense-aspect marking in English. As described above, the

Table 2. Tense-aspect concept pre- and post-tests (scoring example).

Question example Key

What do you understand bygrammatical aspect inEnglish?

Aspect refers to the grammatical form which shows how a speakerviews a situation or event. It has been defined as ‘a way of viewingthe internal temporal constituency of a situation’ (Comrie, 1976,p. 3).

Scored examples Level

I heard but I do not know what does it mean. 0Aspect in English is how the speaker express the completeness of an event. 3

It’s up to the speaker’s view and experience of that event whether he reportsthe event as a whole complete one or just some part of a whole situation, or inrelation to other events, and it relates to the present time of speaking.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 00:

07 0

6 Ju

ly 2

014


02468

1012141618

S1 S2 D1 D2 D3 D4

Pre-test Post-test

Figure 1. Understanding the concept of tense-aspect marking.

tests consisted of six questions asking the participants to outline their understanding ofrelated concepts (verb, tense, aspect) and to describe the meaning of two questions andtwo sentences contrasting present perfect, simple past, and past progressive. The maximumscore possible was 18.

As Figure 1 shows, five of the six participants gained a higher overall score after theCBI treatment while one participant (D2) obtained the same overall scores before and aftertreatment. Importantly, clear improvement is in evidence in the post-test for the item thatspecifically required them to describe the concept of ‘aspect’. Table 3 shows the descriptions

Table 3. Describing the concept of ‘aspect’.

Participant Pre-test Post-test

S1 Aspect is related to the completenessof the action whether it is complete(perfect) ongoing at the time ofbeing described (progressive).

Aspect in English is how the speakerexpresses the completeness of an event. It’sup to the speaker’s view and experience ofthat event, whether he reports the event as awhole complete one or just some part of awhole situation, or in relation to otherevents, and it relates to the present time ofspeaking.

S2 Yes, I think it means categories oftense.

Aspect is the view of the event.

D1 Grammatical aspect is thegrammatical structures of asentence.

Grammatical aspect is the mental process ofthe action when it happens for the speakerand the hearer.

D3 Yes, actually but I can’t rememberanything about it.

Yes, aspect refers to the position of thespeaker in relation to the event. If thespeaker views the event as complete thenhe/she use the non-progressive aspect. Ifthe speaker views the past event as beingrelated to the present in some way, thenhe/she would use the perfective aspect.

D4 I heard but I do not know what doesit mean.

Aspect – viewing frames of the speaker.How the speaker views the event (maximal

view – past / restricted view – progressive).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 00:

07 0

6 Ju

ly 2

014


provided by those participants when asked to explain what their understanding of ‘aspect’was.

On the basis of these results, it can be concluded that the CBI treatment helped mostof the participants improve their understanding of the conceptual definition of aspect. Thistype of knowledge can be seen as an important foundation which could arguably be drawnupon as a resource for L2 speakers during communicative activity (see Negueruela &Lantolf, 2006, p. 87). It is also important for L2 learners to appreciate the significance ofform as a meaning-making device (see Larsen-Freeman, 2003). In order to assess the par-ticipants’ metalinguistic awareness at that level, they were asked to explain the ‘differencesin meaning’ between the following contrasting items in the pre- and post-tests:

(1) Have you watched the movie?(2) Did you watch the movie?(3) He read the book last night.(4) He was reading the book last night.

Most of the participants seem to have also benefited from the CBI treatment whenanalysing form-meaning contrasts. However, the changes observed in the post-test werenot as marked as the changes evident in the participants’ definitions of the concept of‘aspect’ revealed in Table 3. Improved scores in relation to these items were recordedfor four participants while two gained the same scores in both pre- and post-tests. Theexamples shown in Table 4 are drawn from participant S1 and exemplify changes regard-ing form-meaning contrasts with reference to simple past, past progressive, and presentperfect.

Table 4. Describing form-meaning contrasts.

Pre-test Post-test

Both are meant to ask about the past. (a) The speaker wants to know from the past, upto the time of speaking, whether the personhas watched the movie without referring to aspecific time in the past.

Different tense is used in (a) and (b).(a) The question is meant to ask whether the

action of watching the movie has occurredat some point in time until the present time.

(b) The question is more specific (compared to(a) in the sense of timing.

(b) The speaker (probably) refers to a specifictime in the past although not mentioned in thesentence. Also, he may want to know if theperson watched the whole movie(?)

Different aspect(c) Describes the action of reading that

happened at one point in specific time inthe past (i.e. last night).

(c) The speaker just reports that an event orsituation (reading the book) happened lastnight. And perhaps, he (the speaker) was thereand saw the guy (he) started reading until hefinished (i.e. the whole process).

(d) Describes the action of reading is inprogress at one point in specific time in thepast (i.e. last night).

(d) The speaker at the time of speaking wants toreport that he saw the action of reading but didnot know when exactly it had started andended.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 00:

07 0

6 Ju

ly 2

014


Judging by the representative example shown in Table 4, it can be argued that, althoughsubtle, those modifications between the pre- and post-test explanations instantiate changein understanding of the concept of ‘aspect’ at a fundamental level. Firstly, when S1 focuseson the non-progressive (perfective) form in the pre-test, there is only a reference to the‘time schema’ component of the concept of ‘aspect’. In other words, S1 refers exclusivelyto the specificity of the event; in her words: ‘in the sense of timing’, ‘one point in specifictime in the past’. By contrast, in the post-test as well as referring to the ‘time schema’:‘specific time in the past’, she introduces the ‘viewing frame’, which is the crucial secondcomponent of the concept of ‘aspect’: the perception of the event as having clear boundariesor what she describes as ‘the whole movie’ and ‘the whole process’.

Secondly, and crucially, S1’s post-test shows that she has become aware of the role ofgrammar both to describe a particular view of a situation, the essence of ‘aspect’ (items[a]–[d]), and to ground or locate a situation in time by means of ‘tense’ as evident in items([a]–[d]). In the post-test, the all-important speaker’s view is at the foreground of S1’sexplanations: ‘the speaker wants’, ‘the speaker refers to’, and ‘the speaker reports’. Thisfactor was completely absent in the pre-test explanations.

In summary, the CBI treatment seems to have gone some way into moving learners frombeing able to cite fragments of pedagogical grammar rules as provided in course books,for example, to at least beginning to grasp part of the essence of tense-aspect marking inEnglish. Changes in the participants’ understanding of the concept of tense-aspect marking,as evidenced in the pre/post-tests, vary in degree, but the results are encouraging overall.These observations are of course based on immediate (one day after treatment) post-testresults. It is, therefore, necessary to ascertain the effect of this pedagogical approach in thelong term.

In this section, we have reported the study findings based on the end results of the CBImaterials treatment. In other words, we have alluded to the observable – and when relevant –quantifiable changes evident in the participants’ tests. Judging by these results, the materials(slides, diagrams, and general ‘materialisation’ of the concept of tense-aspect marking)seem to have fulfilled their pedagogical aims, that is, to support further understanding ofthe concept in question. We now turn our attention to the second issue of enquiry in thisinvestigation: the role of verbalisation to mediate understanding.

RQ2: What is the role of verbalisation as a mediational tool for constructing adeeper understanding of the concept of tense-aspect marking in English?

As explained in the ‘Analytical procedures’ section, the role of verbalisation as a media-tional tool was investigated in this study through microgenetic analysis. This section fo-cuses on only two of the participants whose pseudonyms are Faride and Ada (D3 and D4 inTable 2). These participants were selected because they gained the most from the CBI treat-ment (see Table 3); however, the general strategic behaviour highlighted below was sharedto varying degrees by all the participants, including those who verbalised individually.

As shown in Table 3, the definitions of aspect provided by Faride and Ada (D3 and D4)in their post-tests captured the essence of the concept:

Faride: Yes, aspect refers to the position of the speaker in relation to the event. If the speakerviews the event as complete then he/she use the non-progressive aspect. If the speaker viewsthe past event as being related to the present in some way, then he/she would use the perfectiveaspect.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 00:

07 0

6 Ju

ly 2

014


Ada: Aspect – viewing frames of the speaker. How the speaker view the event (maximal view– past/restricted view – progressive).

The ultimate goal of microgenetic analysis is to trace the origins of development. Atthe core of this methodological approach is the Vygotskian argument that ‘Speech doesnot merely serve as the expression of developed thought. Thought is restructured as it istransformed in speech. It is not expressed but completed in the word’ (Vygotsky, 1987, p.150). For Vygotsky, it is by means of speaking (or writing) that our ideas become fullydeveloped and finalised (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p. 48). In the following analysis of threerepresentative excerpts in our participants’ verbalisations, we aim to highlight how languagewas used as a regulatory tool for increasing their understanding of the concept of aspect.

Excerpt 14: Preliminary stages

3 Faride: aha . . . what do you understand from this?4 Ada: I think . . . aspect is . . . ‘a grammatical form which shows how the speaker views

the situation or event’.5 Faride: and . . . from the previous . . . page I understand that . . . um . . . like when you,

you have the past tense, the present tense . . . but inside the present . . . you cantalk about something that was continuing in the past . . . or something that was. . .

6 Ada: [continuing7 Faride: [or something that was . . . takes time . . . or . . . so how do I view this event in

the past . . . and the same applies to the present . . . maybe it’s the same . . .((mouse clicks)) hm . . . ((mouse clicks)) so there are only 2 aspects? . . . ahh . . .I remember seeing something about . . . perfective?

8 Ada: yeah

In this opening excerpt, Ada uses reading aloud (Turn 4) to answer Faride’s question(Turn 3). These are the preliminary stages for the students to attempt an understanding ofthe concept. While, at this stage, Ada can only resort to using the text on the screen, that is,to read aloud in order to isolate and highlight information which she considers importantfrom the slide they are looking at, Faride (turns 5 and 7) begins using the kind of strategicbehaviour which will characterise most of her verbalisation patterns – and which willeventually be apparent in Ada’s verbalisation as well: (1) she tries to incorporate her currentknowledge, and the few insights gained from the preceding slides into an explanation, byexpressing in her own words what they have been reading on the slides; (2) she deploysa variety of discourse markers (and, but, or, so) as semiotic devices that simultaneouslyreflect and support reasoning processes (see also Ganem-Gutierrez, 2009); (3) she tries togain regulation by positioning herself closer to the impersonal ‘speaker’ mentioned in theconceptual explanation of ‘aspect’ provided in the cards (see Appendix 1); this regulatorybehaviour is reflected in her use of pronouns; instead of referring to ‘the speaker’, she uses‘you’ and ‘I’: ‘. . . like when you, you have . . . you can . . . ’ (Turn 5) and even a personal I ,‘ . . . so how do I view this event . . . ’ (Turn 7).

Excerpt 2: Making connections

40 Ada: ‘mental space’ (. . .) aha (. . .)41 Faride: so this is aspect?42 Ada: here tense . . .43 Faride: yeah I know but that’s [means that it’s related to our view]44 Ada: [yeah, yeah45 Faride: which tense you choose46 Ada: ‘mental space (base space) includes both . . . speech time . . . event time’ . . . mmm

. . .

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 00:

07 0

6 Ju

ly 2

014


47 Faride: speech time . . . so ‘speech time’ is [when you say when you say the sentence48 Ada: [different49 Faride: but the ‘event time’ it means . . . that when did this event action happens50 Ada: yes

This excerpt illustrates crucial moments in the participants’ understanding of aspect.Their dialogue while looking at slide 13 (Figure 2) shows how a change in their understand-ing is unfolding through, and because of, language, albeit supported by the materials.

In Turn 40, Ada uses reading aloud to isolate ‘mental space’ – a newly introduced termin the explanatory slides. This shows where her attention is, while the pauses preceding andfollowing the interjection ‘aha’ presumably indicate that she is working out the meaningof the term in relation to aspect and tense (t42). Turn 41, in our view, marks the momentwhen Faride makes the necessary links between the various pieces of information theyhave been juggling with. The marker ‘so’ indicates a ‘sudden moment of insight’ or a‘click of comprehension’ (McLaughlin, 1987, p. 138; see also Ganem-Gutierrez, 2006).However, the rising intonation at the end of this turn indicates that her understanding is stillin formation. Ada’s mention of ‘tense’ in Turn 42 probably prompts Faride’s completion ofthe connections she is at the verge of establishing. The utterance of ‘yeah I know’ in Turn43 indicates that she is already working on the relationship between ‘aspect’ and ‘tense’and that an important factor for ‘which tense you choose’ (t45) is ‘our view’ (t43). In otherwords, throughout these turns, Faride is engaging in the process identified by Knouzi et al.(2010, p. 30): inferencing, which allows her to use the information previously presented inthe materials (elaboration) and integrate it into her knowledge of the system (integration),ultimately enabling her to establish the crucial connections.

Once those connections have been worked out, she is able to move on with Ada tothe next piece of information: ‘mental space’. Faride uses paraphrasing to regulate herunderstanding of the contrasting concepts of ‘speech’ and ‘event’ time (turns 46–50).Importantly, the explanation of ‘aspect’ provided by both learners in their post-test (see thebeginning of this section) clearly incorporates the kind of knowledge co-constructed duringtheir verbalisation and demonstrates their self-regulation, not least in the ability to detach

Figure 2. Making connections.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 00:

07 0

6 Ju

ly 2

014


Figure 3. Diagrams for verbalisation.

themselves when explaining the concept: notice the use of ‘the speaker’ in the post-test –a third person – as opposed to the use of ‘our view’, ‘you’, and ‘I’ when they were usingthese pronouns to gain regulation, which presumably helps them position themselves in therole of ‘the speaker’ and ultimately appears to bridge their understanding of the concept.

The final excerpt we would like to consider for analysis illustrates and confirms, inour view, the importance of deploying diagrams as part of the CBI. Negueruela (2008)regards the use of diagrams as an important tool in the process of concept verbalisation.While his diagrams are based on a different didactic model from ours, that of Whitley’s(2002), our diagrams are mainly based on cognitive linguistics as explained in ‘The study’section above. Nonetheless, we found that the diagrams used in our study (see Figure 3)successfully supported the participants in what Negueruela advocates, that is, engaging inexplanations ‘using the concept as a tool for understanding and not just verbalising theconcept aloud’ (2008, p. 211).

Excerpt 3: The supporting role of diagrams for verbalisation

53 Ada: Let’s see . . . ‘event one, Anne lived with her parents for two years’ . . . it’s ‘E one’,this one . . .

54. Faride: What does it mean? . . .55 Ada: now this is the speech time . . . this is when the sentence was said . . . said in the

present of course . . . but the event time . . . is . . . in the past . . . and it is in . . .maximal viewing frame

56 Faride: yes57 Ada: because we know when58 Faride: yes . . . when it started59 Ada: when it started and ended in the past60 Faride: and number two

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 00:

07 0

6 Ju

ly 2

014


61 Ada: ‘Anne was living with her parents when I met her’ . . . yeah . . . so it is also in thepast but we don’t know

62 Faride: the boundaries63 Ada: yeah . . . it’s restricted viewing frame . . . ‘Anne has lived on her own for ten years’

. . . it’s . . . E three . . . yeah . . . event three64 Faride: E three . . . [present perfect’65 Ada: [we know that it started three years ago . . . yeah?66 Faride: yeah . . .67 Ada: it said she has lived [with68 Faride: [ah OK69 Ada: on her own for . . . sorry ten years . . . so it means that . . . ten years ago she started

living on her own but it still continuing until70 Faride: in the future [Ok I know . . . until71 Ada: [until the moment of the speech time ((mouse click))

Most of the verbalisation patterns observed in the excerpt are similar to the kind ofregulatory behaviour highlighted in the analyses of the two previous excerpts, including:(1) reading aloud (e.g. t53) used for interpersonal purposes, for example, not only toindicate to the partner where the focus of attention is but also to support regulation byselecting specific information and ‘holding’ it overtly for consideration; and (2) use ofdiscourse markers that play an important role as semiotic tools supporting regulation, forexample, ‘now’ (t55) and ‘OK I know’ (t68, t70) to index transitions undergone in termsof knowledge or understanding; ‘because’ (t57), and ‘so’ (t61, t69), which are markersindexing cause/result relationships and tend to support reasoning. In addition, this excerptillustrates what we consider another benefit of CBI as implemented in this study, that is, theimportance of collaborative activity for the co-construction of knowledge and understanding(as widely reported in the literature, e.g. Ohta, 2001; see also Storch, 2001 for furtherinsights into the dynamics and nature of pair/group interaction). While in this excerptAda is leading the explanations, Faride not only contributes key observations, such as themention of boundaries in Turn 62, but also keeps Ada’s verbalisation flowing throughout.Importantly, the use of diagrams enables the students to piece together various fragments ofinformation they had been verbalising upon to scaffold their understanding of the slide asa whole and, crucially, to work on establishing the form – meaning relationships associatedwith the concept of tense-aspect marking by connecting the examples on the slide to themeanings expressed diagrammatically, see in particular turns 61–71.

In summary, the argument presented here is that verbalising, as an intrinsic aspect of thepedagogical approach embodied in CBI, afforded our participants opportunities to developa deeper understanding of the concept of tense-aspect marking in English. Microgeneticanalysis of our participants’ protocols helped us trace the history of their post-test outcome:the definition of ‘aspect’. The brief analysis of three representative excerpts in our dataillustrates some key roles of verbalisation in general, and of specific semiotic mechanismssuch as reading aloud and discourse markers, in particular, as mediational tools supportingcognitive processes, for example, inferencing skills. These key roles of verbalisation wereobserved in both modes of implementation, that is, individual and dyadic. Importantly,for students working in pairs, these semiotic mechanisms also helped them establish andmaintain intersubjectivity (see DiCamilla & Anton, 1997), that is, the use of these verbaltools also helped participants create and maintain a space for cooperation and scaffold theirunderstanding of the concept through the materials.

Conclusion and implications

Two main issues were addressed in this paper: the first one aimed at investigating the valueof a set of CBI materials designed to help advanced L2 English learners gain a better

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 00:

07 0

6 Ju

ly 2

014


understanding of the concept of aspect in English. In other words, the first aim was toinvestigate the potential of a pedagogical model based on Vygotskian principles (CBI) as amediational tool for enhancing the knowledge of a grammatical concept. The second aimof this paper was to examine the role of verbalisation as part of the CBI, since verbalisationis claimed to be a crucial mediational tool for cognitive (Vygotsky, 1978, 1987) and L2development (e.g. Swain, 2010 among others).

With regard to the value of CBI for mediating a better understanding of tense-aspectmarking in English, the results of the post-tests show that most of our participants benefitedfrom the materials and procedure. In particular, they were able to provide definitions ofaspect that included key conceptual factors relating to the concept and which they didnot appear to have been aware of prior to having participated in the study. However, therewere differences in relation to the extent of the gains. The students who appeared to havebenefited the most from CBI were the ones who had not been able to define aspect at allbefore the CBI treatment, while students who had some preliminary idea about the conceptunderstandably gained less in terms of quantifiable evidence. Overall, the quality of themajority of our participants’ definitions improved since they were ultimately able to identifykey factors, such as the role of the speaker’s perspective, in selecting grammatical markers.

The ultimate goal of pedagogical grammar is to help L2 learners realise that they canuse language to convey their meanings and communicative needs. Therefore, materialsand approaches to grammar teaching in the L2 classroom should be aimed at creatingawareness about the meanings implied by certain linguistic choices (see Lantolf, 2008;Larsen-Freeman, 2003; Negueruela, 2008, p. 211). This paper focused exclusively on thepotential value of CBI for gaining a deeper understanding of the concept of aspect anddid not include measures of form production, but studies such as Swain et al. (2009, p.22) report that some of their participants ‘were able to apply the conceptual knowledgethey had internalised in their post-test language use’. Furthermore, it has been argued thatconceptual and metalinguistic knowledge of this type might be drawn upon by L2 speakersduring communicative activity (Negueruela & Lantolf, 2006, p. 87). Nonetheless, the valueof explicit grammatical knowledge in the L2 context is a much debated issue (see Ellis,2006a, 2006b; Macaro & Masterman, 2006).

In relation to the second aim of the paper, that is, to examine the role of verbalisation asa fundamental principle in CBI, we found that verbalisation played an important role in: (1)forming the bases for the participants to manage the task at hand, and (2) helping them gainregulation or control in relation to their understanding of the concept. It is also importantto highlight that the explanations, and particularly the diagrams, in the CBI materialswere fundamental in supporting verbalisation as a guiding or orienting mechanism thatfacilitated understanding. More specifically, certain semiotic tools, for example, readingaloud, repetition, and the use of discourse markers, supported individual and collaborativereasoning through functions such as focusing, questioning, explaining, inferencing, and soforth. The use of socially rooted semiotic tools as reasoning aids for self-scaffolding by L2students verbalising individually has been documented in studies such as Ganem-Gutierrez& Roehr (forthcoming) and Knouzi et al. (2010, p. 26).

Understanding how verbalisation mediates the processes described in this paper hastheoretical and pedagogical implications. Theoretically, describing and explaining howlearners deploy language during cognitive and linguistic activity can offer insights intothe use of language to organise and enhance thinking on the one hand, and the use oflanguage to develop a deeper understanding of the L2 on the other hand. Pedagogically,knowledge about the role of verbalisation should lead to better-informed tasks and taskimplementation, for example, by supporting L2 teachers when making strategic decisions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 00:

07 0

6 Ju

ly 2

014


to maximise the potential of classroom-based activity. Therefore, we hope that the findingsreported here can contribute to the body of research into the potential of verbalisation or‘languaging’ (Swain, 2010) in L2 learning.

As acknowledged in ‘The study’ section above, our research design was based on thework of pioneer scholars in this area (e.g. Eduardo Negueruela, Merrill Swain, SharonLapkin and colleagues); to echo Lantolf (2008), other possibilities as to how to bestoperationalise the Vygotskian principles upon which CBI is conceived will be welcomedin the field. What appears to be crucial, in our view, is that we work together to supportlearners by promoting a move away from seeing grammar as a series of discrete pedagogicalrules to be memorised and into an understanding of how the system works in order toconvey meaning. We also recognise that our small-scale study represents only a preliminarydescriptive stage into CBI investigation. Further work is necessary to determine the relativevalue of CBI when compared with other approaches to grammar instruction. In particular,we need to ascertain: (1) whether or not the CBI materials lead to significant gains in theunderstanding of tense-aspect marking; that is, larger scale trials, and trials with participantsat different stages of L2 proficiency, have to be implemented; and (2) whether gains aresustained over time.

Notes1. The neo-Vygotskian metaphor of scaffolding refers to those facilitating actions that the tutor or

more expert peer brings into the interaction in order to help the novice through their process ofinternalisation (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976).

2. This concept refers to the use of form to convey what Aronson, Wilson, and Akert define as ‘theway in which people perceive, comprehend, and interpret the world around them’ (2005, p. 7).

3. Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR).4. Transcription conventions:

‘ ’ = Reading aloud,. . . = Pause,? = Rising intonation,# = Line number in excerpt,(()) = Comments,[ = Overlapping

Notes on contributorsGabriela Adela Ganem-Gutierrez is a lecturer in the Department of Language and Linguistics at theUniversity of Essex. Her main research interests include the role of language as a psychological toolfor the construction of L2 knowledge, the role of inter-psychological activity in the L2 classroom, thestudy of different tasks as pedagogic and research tools, and the use and application of technologyfor second language learning and teaching.

Haliza Harun is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Language and Linguistics at the Universityof Essex. Her main research interests include the acquisition of tense-aspect marking in English as asecond/foreign language, pedagogical grammar, the application of CBI in the L2 classroom, and theuse of technology for second language learning and teaching.

ReferencesAnton, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the

L2 classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 314–342.Aronson, E., Wilson, T.D., & Akert, R.M. (2005). Social psychology (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Pearson Education International.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 00:

07 0

6 Ju

ly 2

014


Brooks, L., & Swain, M. (2009). Languaging in collaborative writing: Creation of and response toexpertise. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second languageresearch in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 58–89). New York: Routledge.

Buckwalter, P. (2001). Repair sequences in Spanish L2 dyadic discourse: A descriptive study. ModernLanguage Journal, 85(3), 380–397.

Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: ESL/EFL teacher’s course(2nd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.De Guerrero, M.C.M., & Villamil, O.S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer

revisions. Modern Language Journal, 84, 51–68.DiCamilla, F.J., & Anton, M. (1997). Repetition in the collaborative discourse of L2 learners: A

Vygotskian perspective. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 609–633.Ellis, R. (2006a). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly,

40, 83–107.Ellis, R. (2006b). Modelling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The differential

contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27, 431–463.Fauconnier, G. (1998). Mental spaces, language modalities, and conceptual integration. In M.

Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches tolanguage structure (pp. 251–280). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Frawley, W. (1992). Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Gal’perin, P.I. (1969). Stages in the development of mental acts. In M. Cole & I. Maltzman (Eds.), A

handbook of contemporary Soviet psychology (pp. 249–273). New York: Basic Books.Ganem-Gutierrez, G.A. (2003). Beyond interaction: The study of collaborative activity in computer-

mediated tasks. ReCALL, 15(1), 94–112.Ganem-Gutierrez, G.A. (2006). Sociocultural theory and its application to CALL: A study of the

computer and its relevance as a mediational tool in the process of collaborative activity. ReCALL,18(2), 230–251.

Ganem-Gutierrez, G.A. (2008). Microgenesis, method and object: A study of collaborative activityin a Spanish as a foreign language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 120–148.

Ganem-Gutierrez, G.A. (2009). Repetition, use of L1, and reading aloud as mediational mechanismsduring collaborative activity at the computer. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(4),323–348.

Ganem-Gutierrez, G.A., & Roehr, K. (forthcoming). Use of L1, metalanguage, and discourse markers:A window into the regulatory processes of L2 learners during individual task performance.International Journal of Applied Linguistics.

Garcia, P., & Asencion, Y. (2001). Interlanguage development of Spanish learners: Comprehension,production, and interaction. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 377–401.

Garret, N. (1986). The problem with grammar: What kind can the language learner use? ModernLanguage Journal, 70(2), 133–148.

Housen, A. (2002). The development of tense-aspect in English as a second language and the variableinfluence of inherent aspect. In R. Salaberry & Y. Shirai (Eds.), The L2 acquisition of tense-aspectmorphology (pp. 155–198). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Huddleston, R. (1984). Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Kennedy, G. (2003). Structure and meaning in English: A guide for teachers. Harlow: PearsonLongman.

Knouzi, I., Swain, M., Lapkin, S., & Brooks, L. (2010). Self-scaffolding mediated by languaging:Microgenetic analysis of high and low performers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics,20(1), 23–49.

Lantolf, J.P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J.P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory andsecond language learning (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lantolf, J.P. (2008). Praxis and classroom L2 development. Estudios de Linguıstica Inglesa Aplicada,8, 13–44.

Lantolf, J.P., & Appel, G. (Eds.). (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Lantolf, J.P., & Beckett, T.G. (2009). Research timeline: Sociocultural theory and second languageacquisition. Language Teaching, 4(42), 459–475.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 00:

07 0

6 Ju

ly 2

014


Lantolf, J.P., & Poehner, M.E. (Eds.). (2008). Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second lan-guages. London: Equinox Press.

Lantolf, J.P., & Thorne, S.L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language devel-opment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Knouzi, I. (2008). Postsecondary French as a second language studentslearn the grammatical concept of voice: Study design, materials development, and pilot data. InJ.P. Lantolf & M. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp.228–55). London: Equinox Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston, MA: Heinle& Heinle.

Lee, L. (2008). Focus-on-form through collaborative scaffolding in expert-to-novice online interac-tion. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3), 53–72.

Macaro, E., & Masterman, L. (2006). Does intensive explicit grammar instruction make all thedifference? Language Teaching Research, 10, 297–327.

McCafferty, S.G. (1994). The use of private speech by adult ESL learners at different levels ofproficiency. In J.P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research(pp. 117–134). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second-language acquisition. London: Edward Arnold.Negueruela, E. (2008). Revolutionary pedagogies: Learning that leads (to) second language devel-

opment. In J.P. Lantolf & M.E. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of secondlanguages (pp. 189–227). London: Equinox Press.

Negueruela, E., & Lantolf, J. (2006). Concept-Based Instruction and the acquisition of L2 Spanish.In R. Salaberry & B.A. Lafford (Eds.), The art of teaching Spanish: Second language acquisitionfrom research to praxis (pp. 79–102). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Niemeier, S., & Reif, M. (2008). Making progress simpler? Applying cognitive grammar to tense-aspect teaching in the German EFL classroom. In S. De Knop & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitiveapproaches to pedagogical grammar (pp. 325–356). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Ohta, A.S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Roebuck, R. (2000). Subjects speak out: How learners position themselves in a psycholinguistic task.

In J.P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 79–95). Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Roehr, K. (2008). Metalinguistic knowledge and language ability in university-level L2 learners.Applied Linguistics, 29(2), 173–199.

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Schiffrin, D. (2006). Discourse marker research and theory: Revisiting ‘and’. In K. Fischer (ed.),

Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 315–338). Oxford: Elsevier.Storch, N. (2001). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language

Teaching Research, 5(1), 29–53.Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative

dialogue. In J.P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114).Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency.In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp.95–108). London: Continuum.

Swain, M. (2010). ‘Talking-it-through’: Languaging as a source of leaning. In R. Batstone (Ed.),Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 112–130) Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1982). Evaluating bilingual education: A Canadian case study. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language.Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251–274.

Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Knouzi, I., Suzuki, W., & Brooks, L. (2009). Languaging: University studentslearn the grammatical concept of voice in French. Modern Language Journal, 93, 6–30.

Tocalli-Beller, A., & Swain, M. (2005). Reformulation: The cognitive conflict and L2 learning itgenerates. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15, 5–29.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 00:

07 0

6 Ju

ly 2

014


Travis, C.E. (2006). The natural semantic metalanguage of discourse markers. In K. Fischer (Ed.),Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 219–242). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1987). The genetic roots of thinking and speech. In R.W. Reiber & A.S. Carton (Eds.),The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky (Vol. 1). Problems of general psychology (pp. 101–120).New York: Plenum Press.

Wertsch, J. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Whitley, M.S. (2002). Spanish/English contrasts. A course in Spanish linguistics. Washington, DC:Georgetown University Press.

Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of ChildPsychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.

Appendix 1. Sample slides

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 00:

07 0

6 Ju

ly 2

014


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 00:

07 0

6 Ju

ly 2

014


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 00:

07 0

6 Ju

ly 2

014

Documents

Verbalisation as a mediational tool for understanding tense-aspect marking in English: an application of Concept-Based Instruction