社会文化视域下的中国英语课堂师生协商话语研究
|
摘要
课堂协商是二语习得领域一个重要的研究课题。从二语习得社会文化视域出发，本文在文献回顾的基础上对协商的概念作了重新界定。在本研究中，协商主要指意义协商和形式协商。其中，意义协商不仅包括由交际失误引发的协商，同时还包括以成功交际为目的的协商；同样，形式协商不仅包括由语言错误引发的对语言使用的协商，同时包括任何针对语言形式和显性语言规则的互动式对话。不同于以往局限于‘问题驱动’协商的研究，本研究的协商定义更为宽泛，相对于课堂也更加具有针对性。
本研究的理论依据来源于社会文化理论、二语习得生态观（van Lier2000,2004）、情境学习观（Lave&Wenger1991）、参与隐喻（Sfard1998）、以及隐性、显性语言知识理论。尽管这些理论各有差异和侧重，它们共同构成了本研究从社会文化视域对课堂协商话语进行研究的理论基础。二语习得两大主流派系认知与社会文化视域在理论来源和研究方法上都存在很多分歧，但二者都认同课堂互动在语言学习中的作用。二者的区别是：认知派认为，互动对学习有辅助作用；而社会文化派认为，互动不仅仅是对学习有益，互动即是学习本身。在社会文化视域中，二语习得是‘参与’而不是‘习得’（Donato2000），学习不仅是学习者个体大脑对知识的建构过程，同时也是意义建构和同化到社会生活实践的过程。因此，协商是语言发展过程的载体，协商过程本身就是学习的过程。
在研究方法上，课堂录音观察、学习者问卷、学习者显性与隐性语言知识测试卷、及教师访谈共同构成了本文的研究工具。本研究的语料转写全部在转写软件中完成，最大限度地保障了转写的规范性和统一性。语料分析工具采用的是重新建构的社会文化话语分析法。该研究方法以Mercer（1995，2004）提出的社会文化话语分析法为基础，通过融合维果斯基的历史方法、Wells（1999）的对话方法、以及Kumpulainen&Wray（2002）的功能分析法，针对‘外语型’中国英语教学的现状、存在的问题及中国英语课堂互动话语的特点，采用会话分析与话语分析相结合的方式，在建立语料库的基础上，对语料进行细致质化分析和对预设分类的量化分析。定量分析中，在数字统计的基础上，采用SPSS17.0对学生隐性与显性语言知识测试结果进行了相关性分析。总体上，本文对语料的分析以定性分析为主、定量分析为辅。定性与定量研究方法的有机融合是当前学术界的一种普遍共识，两者的有机融合有效地保障了社会科学研究中对“科学性”与“人文性”的兼顾。
本文的研究对象是两所师范大学英语教育专业的师生。之所以把本研究落脚于英语教育专业一是为了深入了解和解决教育教学中遇到的问题，同时也是为突出英语教育专业特色找到突破口。近年来，尤其是自2007年教育部推出高等教育‘质量工程’和试行免费师范教育以来，教育教学中遇到的问题及国家对高等教育的关注，极大地促进了中国英语教学界对提高英语专业教学质量和英语教育专业教学改革的重视。在英语教育专业，如何在基础课教材编写中突出师范特点，如何在基础课教学中融入‘教师’因素，从专业基础课程入手培养学生的教师素养和能力成为热点议题。从‘未来教师’的职业需求来看，在英语教育专业，专业基础课程的任务不仅要培养学生的语言使用能力和交际能力（隐性语言知识），同时还要突出培养学生的‘教学’能力--即，讲解和示范语言的能力（显性语言知识），使‘师范’概念贯穿到师范英语专业教学的全过程。
为了深入了解英语教育专业基础课教学的现状与存在的问题，本研究以课堂师生互动中的话语协商为研究内容，探究英语教育专业课堂师生协商的特点及其所反映出来的教学性质和教学理念，并在此基础上展开对英语教育专业教学及课堂互动模式的反思。结合研究问题与假设，本文的研究发现主要体现在以下四个方面：
（1）在语言分析层面，语料中的师生间意义协商明显多于形式协商。在意义协商中，只有少量是由交际失误引发的协商，大多数是为保持成功交际而展开的协商；在形式协商中，多数协商并非由语言错误引发而是师生针对语言使用展开的协商，但是语料中对语言规则及显性语言知识的协商与讲解数量非常少。这个结果证明，本文对协商概念的重新界定是有道理的，以往研究对协商概念的界定过于狭窄、过于侧重协商的对话性质。
（2）在认知分析层面，协商的加工过程体现在三种类型的协商当中：同意式、探究式、及争论式。其中，探究式协商，尽管数量有限，对调动学习者对学习的积极投入与探究式学习非常有益，但是，学习者的学习被动性是阻碍此类协商发展成为有效协商话语的重要因素。
（3）在社会分析层面，协商过程主要采纳的交互模式是合作式和专家/新手模式，较少使用主导/被动模式。这一发现与中国社会文化中尊重权势，提倡合作精神的传统相吻合。值得注意的是，教师动允支架，一旦被学习者接纳，即可有效发挥其引导共建协商过程和知识共建的功能。
（4）以上研究发现引发我们对中国英语教育专业的反思。师生协商意义领先的性质反映了交际法教学对中国高校英语教学的影响。对学生交际能力的重视导致了对课堂教学中语言技能学习的过分强调及对语言形式的忽视。学生隐性与显性语言知识间的落差表明，学生对显性语言知识的掌握需要特殊的专门学习。在英语教育专业中突出‘教师’因素意味着要强调语言知识的科学性。此外，外语学习不是认知派所倡导的学习者个体头脑中知识累积的过程，而是学习者以探索、批评的方式在与他人的交往中共同建构知识的过程。因此，在学习过程中，培养学生思维能力和逻辑推理能力也是课堂教学中不可或缺的组成部分。
综上所述，本研究很好地证实了二语习得社会文化视域在课堂互动话语领域研究的优势，同时证明，以往研究中对协商概念的界定过于强调自然会话的特点，范围过窄，不适用于外语课堂协商话语研究。此外，本文使用的社会文化话语分析法对语料的分析不仅兼顾了定性定量分析的优点，而且可操作性强，是一个可以广为应用的课堂话语分析方法。本研究结果显示，在中国等亚洲文化中，有必要重新思考外语教学以学习者为中心、提倡小组及同伴互动、夸大学习者作用而淡化教师作用的教学理念。在教学实践上，本研究的发现有利于语言教师及教育研究者更好地了解课堂师生协商的复杂性与偶然性，发现决定学习者课堂活动参与程度的协商互动在语言、认知及社会层面的现状与存在的问题。同时，本研究所反映出的英语教育专业重视技能型教学、师范特色不突出，及忽视思维能力培养等方面的问题将为后续的英语师范专业改革提供有力的证据。在实证研究的基础上，本文提出反思中国英语教育专业教学，并尝试性地提出了协商式互动模式。尽管该模式的理论与应用价值还有待进一步验证，其提出为中国英语教育专业突出‘师范’特色提供了一条可探索的路径。
本研究的不足之处有必要在后续研究中进一步完善。在技术路线上，尽管考虑到了研究的持续性，本研究还不是理想的跟踪性研究；转写软件的使用很好地保障了转写的统一性与规范性，但转写与标注的准确性还有待提高。本文提出的对协商概念的界定以及本文所使用的语料分析工具社会文化话语分析法还需在今后针对不同对象在各种社会文化和学习环境中的研究来加以验证。二语习得社会文化视域，作为对主流认知传统的挑战派，其理论与实践价值已经得到一些研究的证实，但针对涉及诸多社会文化变量的协商互动方面的研究还有待进一步深入开展。最后，在本研究的基础上，后续的干预性研究可以更加深化协商话语研究，同时验证本文提出的英语教育专业课堂协商互动模式及其有效性。
This study explores the nature of teacher-learner negotiations in EFL classrooms in Englishteacher education programs in China. Participants in this study are teachers and learners fromtwo teachers’ universities in northeast China. Perceiving learners in these programs as pre-service teachers, this research aims at revealing the concept of EFL teaching in the interactiveactivities of negotiation, and reconceptualizing the interaction model in teacher educationprograms in terms of both the co-construction of knowledge and the necessity of emphasizingthe ‘teacher’ element in this special program. As a problem-driven research, this study is atimely answer to EFL teaching reform in higher education in China, especially to the QualityProject launched in2007and the Non-tuition Teacher Education Program initiated since2007in the six ‘211Project’ teachers’ universities nationwide.
Theoretically, this study is mainly informed by the sociocultural line of thinking in SLAresearch. Sociocultural theory, an ecological view of SLA (van Lier2000,2004), a situatedview of learning (Lave&Wenger1991), a participation metaphor (Sfard1998) and theoriesof implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge together form the theoretical sources of thisresearch. In justifying this theoretical standing, the cognitive-sociocultural debate in SLAinitiated by Firth&Wagner (1997), the cognitive and sociocultural perspectives of interactionare critically reviewed. As the literature shows, in spite of the fact that both the cognitive andsociocultural school recognize the significance of classroom interaction in learning,interaction is perceived as facilitative to learning in the cognitive tradition, whereas toscholars from the sociocultural school, interaction does more than just facilitating learning,rather, interaction is perceived as learning itself. From the sociocultural perspective, learningis conceptualized as participation rather than acquisition (Donato2000). It is taken not only asa constructive process that takes place in the mind of the learner but also as a process ofmeaning-making and enculturation into social practices.
Adopting the sociocultural perspective, negotiation is taken as the embodiment of languagedevelopment in process, it is the very site where learning happens. In criticizing the earlierdefinitions of NOM and NOF in the literature as too narrow in confining negotiation to onlyproblem-driven instances of negotiation, this research proposes to redefine NOM and NOF. Inthe new definitions, NOM includes not only instances of negotiation initiated bycommunicative failures, but also instances of negotiation sustained for communicativesuccess; while NOF refers to the interactive moves in which interlocutors discuss issuesrelating to the linguistic form of the target language either in language use or linguistic rules,with or without the occurrence of learner errors.
Methodologically, classroom recording and observation, a learner questionnaire, a learner implicit and explicit linguistic test, and a teacher interview protocol are used as researchinstruments. In transcribing the recorded data, a Transcriber software is adopted so that theprecision of the transcription is maximally achieved. An adapted sociocultural discourseanalysis (SDA) is applied as the analytical tool in the qualitative analysis of the transcribeddata, while in quantitative analysis, not only quantification of numbers is used, but also thestatistics software SPSS17.0is used for correlation studies. The application of both qualitativeand quantitative means in the interpretation and explanation of data together well maintainsthe balance between the humanistic and scientific aspect of research in this study.
In accordance with the research questions and hypotheses in this dissertation, the findings ofthis study can be summarized into four aspects:
(1) Linguistically, instances of NOM are found to overwhelm those of NOF in the corpus,suggesting that the focus of teacher-learner negotiation is on meaning not on form. Withininstances of NOM, few are initiated by communicative failure, rather, many are sustained forcommunicative success. Within instances of NOF, more are conducted on language use, veryfew contains explanations to explicit linguistic knowledge. This finding well justifies theredefinition of NOM and NOF in this study since the earlier definitions are too narrow andconversational.
(2) Cognitively, processing of negotiation is revealed in all three types of negotiations:cumulative, exploratory, and disputational in a descending order. Exploratory negotiation,though not many in number, is found most facilitating in engaging learners actively andexploratorily. However, in spite of teacher effort, passive learner agency often obstructs thedevelopment of such activities into well-sustained instances of exploratory negotiation.
(3) Socially, processing of negotiation mostly follows the collaborative and the expert/novicepattern, and only rarely does it follow the dominant/passive pattern. This finding is inconsistency with the sociocultural tradition in China where teacher power is respected andcooperativeness is expected. Prominently, it is found that, in the expert/novice pattern, teacheraffordances, once picked up by learners, function effectively in guiding joint contribution tothe negotiating process and the co-construction of knowledge.
(4) In reconceptualizing classroom interaction in English teacher education programs, it isbelieved that the meaning-oriented nature of teacher-learner negotiated interactions reflectsthe heavy impact of CLT on EFL teaching in university English programs in China. Theemphasis on promoting communicative competence in learners has resulted in the over-emphasis on learning English as a skill, rather than a subject knowledge, as well as the neglectof linguistic form in classroom teaching. The gap between learner implicit linguisticknowledge and explicit linguistic knowledge further reveals that, for explicit linguisticknowledge, a kind of conscious, systematic knowledge, to go into learner knowledgerepertoire, special attention from both the teachers and the learners is needed. In strengthening the ‘teacher’ element in English teacher education programs, an adjusted emphasis on thescientific aspect of linguistic knowledge seems to be primary. Abandoning the concept oflanguage learning as the accumulation of knowledge in the mind of the individual from thecognitive perspective, this research is in support of the sociocultural view of co-constructionof knowledge in critical and exploratory ways. Therefore, the cultivation of critical thinkingand logical reasoning through interactive work should be a necessary component of classroomteaching.
In conclusion, the significance of this research lies in the following aspects. Firstly, resultsfrom this study well justifies the strengths of the sociocultural perspective of SLA. Theparticipation metaphor, SCT, the ecological view of SLA, and the situated view of learningwhich together form this line of thinking are found to be effective and applicable theories innegotiation research. Secondly, the proved redefinitions of NOM and NOF in this studycontributes to a broader understanding of negotiation in SLA literature. Thirdly, theeffectiveness of SDA as an analytically tool is well verified and can become a useful tool infuture research. Fourthly, this research highlights the necessity of rethinking learner-centeredness in EFL classroom teaching and learning, particularly in Asian cultures like China.The CLT concept in minimizing teacher roles and maximizing learner roles through group orpair work among peers in classroom interaction is challenged. Fifthly, this study provideslanguage teachers and educational researchers with a better understanding of the complexitiesand contingencies of teacher-learner negotiation in the classroom, as well as a betterunderstanding of the linguistic, cognitive and social dimensions of negotiated interaction thatdetermine the extent to which learners are engaged in classroom activities. Lastly, theproposed tentative negotiating interaction model in classroom teaching highlights a means togive prominence to the ‘teacher’ element in English teacher education programs in China.
Despite of the effort made, the limitations of this study are self-evident and are to beconquered in future research. Technically, though time-line has been considered, this researchis not an ideal longitudinal study. In addition, the precision in data transcription and coding isin need of improvement. To further prove the validity of the redefinition of NOM&NOF asproposed in this study, and the applicability of SDA as an effective analytical tool fordiscourse studies, more research with different participants in various sociocultural andlearning contexts are needed. Arising as a challenger to the dominant cognitive tradition in thefield of SLA, the strengths of sociocultural line of thinking has been proved by many studies,but it is still necessary for more studies to be conducted, especially in studies concerningsociocultural variables such as negotiated interaction. Lastly, the findings of this observationalstudy suggest that interventional research on classroom negotiation can be conducted tofurther testify the effectiveness of the proposed negotiating interaction model for teachereducation programs in China.
本研究的理论依据来源于社会文化理论、二语习得生态观（van Lier2000,2004）、情境学习观（Lave&Wenger1991）、参与隐喻（Sfard1998）、以及隐性、显性语言知识理论。尽管这些理论各有差异和侧重，它们共同构成了本研究从社会文化视域对课堂协商话语进行研究的理论基础。二语习得两大主流派系认知与社会文化视域在理论来源和研究方法上都存在很多分歧，但二者都认同课堂互动在语言学习中的作用。二者的区别是：认知派认为，互动对学习有辅助作用；而社会文化派认为，互动不仅仅是对学习有益，互动即是学习本身。在社会文化视域中，二语习得是‘参与’而不是‘习得’（Donato2000），学习不仅是学习者个体大脑对知识的建构过程，同时也是意义建构和同化到社会生活实践的过程。因此，协商是语言发展过程的载体，协商过程本身就是学习的过程。
在研究方法上，课堂录音观察、学习者问卷、学习者显性与隐性语言知识测试卷、及教师访谈共同构成了本文的研究工具。本研究的语料转写全部在转写软件中完成，最大限度地保障了转写的规范性和统一性。语料分析工具采用的是重新建构的社会文化话语分析法。该研究方法以Mercer（1995，2004）提出的社会文化话语分析法为基础，通过融合维果斯基的历史方法、Wells（1999）的对话方法、以及Kumpulainen&Wray（2002）的功能分析法，针对‘外语型’中国英语教学的现状、存在的问题及中国英语课堂互动话语的特点，采用会话分析与话语分析相结合的方式，在建立语料库的基础上，对语料进行细致质化分析和对预设分类的量化分析。定量分析中，在数字统计的基础上，采用SPSS17.0对学生隐性与显性语言知识测试结果进行了相关性分析。总体上，本文对语料的分析以定性分析为主、定量分析为辅。定性与定量研究方法的有机融合是当前学术界的一种普遍共识，两者的有机融合有效地保障了社会科学研究中对“科学性”与“人文性”的兼顾。
本文的研究对象是两所师范大学英语教育专业的师生。之所以把本研究落脚于英语教育专业一是为了深入了解和解决教育教学中遇到的问题，同时也是为突出英语教育专业特色找到突破口。近年来，尤其是自2007年教育部推出高等教育‘质量工程’和试行免费师范教育以来，教育教学中遇到的问题及国家对高等教育的关注，极大地促进了中国英语教学界对提高英语专业教学质量和英语教育专业教学改革的重视。在英语教育专业，如何在基础课教材编写中突出师范特点，如何在基础课教学中融入‘教师’因素，从专业基础课程入手培养学生的教师素养和能力成为热点议题。从‘未来教师’的职业需求来看，在英语教育专业，专业基础课程的任务不仅要培养学生的语言使用能力和交际能力（隐性语言知识），同时还要突出培养学生的‘教学’能力--即，讲解和示范语言的能力（显性语言知识），使‘师范’概念贯穿到师范英语专业教学的全过程。
为了深入了解英语教育专业基础课教学的现状与存在的问题，本研究以课堂师生互动中的话语协商为研究内容，探究英语教育专业课堂师生协商的特点及其所反映出来的教学性质和教学理念，并在此基础上展开对英语教育专业教学及课堂互动模式的反思。结合研究问题与假设，本文的研究发现主要体现在以下四个方面：
（1）在语言分析层面，语料中的师生间意义协商明显多于形式协商。在意义协商中，只有少量是由交际失误引发的协商，大多数是为保持成功交际而展开的协商；在形式协商中，多数协商并非由语言错误引发而是师生针对语言使用展开的协商，但是语料中对语言规则及显性语言知识的协商与讲解数量非常少。这个结果证明，本文对协商概念的重新界定是有道理的，以往研究对协商概念的界定过于狭窄、过于侧重协商的对话性质。
（2）在认知分析层面，协商的加工过程体现在三种类型的协商当中：同意式、探究式、及争论式。其中，探究式协商，尽管数量有限，对调动学习者对学习的积极投入与探究式学习非常有益，但是，学习者的学习被动性是阻碍此类协商发展成为有效协商话语的重要因素。
（3）在社会分析层面，协商过程主要采纳的交互模式是合作式和专家/新手模式，较少使用主导/被动模式。这一发现与中国社会文化中尊重权势，提倡合作精神的传统相吻合。值得注意的是，教师动允支架，一旦被学习者接纳，即可有效发挥其引导共建协商过程和知识共建的功能。
（4）以上研究发现引发我们对中国英语教育专业的反思。师生协商意义领先的性质反映了交际法教学对中国高校英语教学的影响。对学生交际能力的重视导致了对课堂教学中语言技能学习的过分强调及对语言形式的忽视。学生隐性与显性语言知识间的落差表明，学生对显性语言知识的掌握需要特殊的专门学习。在英语教育专业中突出‘教师’因素意味着要强调语言知识的科学性。此外，外语学习不是认知派所倡导的学习者个体头脑中知识累积的过程，而是学习者以探索、批评的方式在与他人的交往中共同建构知识的过程。因此，在学习过程中，培养学生思维能力和逻辑推理能力也是课堂教学中不可或缺的组成部分。
综上所述，本研究很好地证实了二语习得社会文化视域在课堂互动话语领域研究的优势，同时证明，以往研究中对协商概念的界定过于强调自然会话的特点，范围过窄，不适用于外语课堂协商话语研究。此外，本文使用的社会文化话语分析法对语料的分析不仅兼顾了定性定量分析的优点，而且可操作性强，是一个可以广为应用的课堂话语分析方法。本研究结果显示，在中国等亚洲文化中，有必要重新思考外语教学以学习者为中心、提倡小组及同伴互动、夸大学习者作用而淡化教师作用的教学理念。在教学实践上，本研究的发现有利于语言教师及教育研究者更好地了解课堂师生协商的复杂性与偶然性，发现决定学习者课堂活动参与程度的协商互动在语言、认知及社会层面的现状与存在的问题。同时，本研究所反映出的英语教育专业重视技能型教学、师范特色不突出，及忽视思维能力培养等方面的问题将为后续的英语师范专业改革提供有力的证据。在实证研究的基础上，本文提出反思中国英语教育专业教学，并尝试性地提出了协商式互动模式。尽管该模式的理论与应用价值还有待进一步验证，其提出为中国英语教育专业突出‘师范’特色提供了一条可探索的路径。
本研究的不足之处有必要在后续研究中进一步完善。在技术路线上，尽管考虑到了研究的持续性，本研究还不是理想的跟踪性研究；转写软件的使用很好地保障了转写的统一性与规范性，但转写与标注的准确性还有待提高。本文提出的对协商概念的界定以及本文所使用的语料分析工具社会文化话语分析法还需在今后针对不同对象在各种社会文化和学习环境中的研究来加以验证。二语习得社会文化视域，作为对主流认知传统的挑战派，其理论与实践价值已经得到一些研究的证实，但针对涉及诸多社会文化变量的协商互动方面的研究还有待进一步深入开展。最后，在本研究的基础上，后续的干预性研究可以更加深化协商话语研究，同时验证本文提出的英语教育专业课堂协商互动模式及其有效性。
This study explores the nature of teacher-learner negotiations in EFL classrooms in Englishteacher education programs in China. Participants in this study are teachers and learners fromtwo teachers’ universities in northeast China. Perceiving learners in these programs as pre-service teachers, this research aims at revealing the concept of EFL teaching in the interactiveactivities of negotiation, and reconceptualizing the interaction model in teacher educationprograms in terms of both the co-construction of knowledge and the necessity of emphasizingthe ‘teacher’ element in this special program. As a problem-driven research, this study is atimely answer to EFL teaching reform in higher education in China, especially to the QualityProject launched in2007and the Non-tuition Teacher Education Program initiated since2007in the six ‘211Project’ teachers’ universities nationwide.
Theoretically, this study is mainly informed by the sociocultural line of thinking in SLAresearch. Sociocultural theory, an ecological view of SLA (van Lier2000,2004), a situatedview of learning (Lave&Wenger1991), a participation metaphor (Sfard1998) and theoriesof implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge together form the theoretical sources of thisresearch. In justifying this theoretical standing, the cognitive-sociocultural debate in SLAinitiated by Firth&Wagner (1997), the cognitive and sociocultural perspectives of interactionare critically reviewed. As the literature shows, in spite of the fact that both the cognitive andsociocultural school recognize the significance of classroom interaction in learning,interaction is perceived as facilitative to learning in the cognitive tradition, whereas toscholars from the sociocultural school, interaction does more than just facilitating learning,rather, interaction is perceived as learning itself. From the sociocultural perspective, learningis conceptualized as participation rather than acquisition (Donato2000). It is taken not only asa constructive process that takes place in the mind of the learner but also as a process ofmeaning-making and enculturation into social practices.
Adopting the sociocultural perspective, negotiation is taken as the embodiment of languagedevelopment in process, it is the very site where learning happens. In criticizing the earlierdefinitions of NOM and NOF in the literature as too narrow in confining negotiation to onlyproblem-driven instances of negotiation, this research proposes to redefine NOM and NOF. Inthe new definitions, NOM includes not only instances of negotiation initiated bycommunicative failures, but also instances of negotiation sustained for communicativesuccess; while NOF refers to the interactive moves in which interlocutors discuss issuesrelating to the linguistic form of the target language either in language use or linguistic rules,with or without the occurrence of learner errors.
Methodologically, classroom recording and observation, a learner questionnaire, a learner implicit and explicit linguistic test, and a teacher interview protocol are used as researchinstruments. In transcribing the recorded data, a Transcriber software is adopted so that theprecision of the transcription is maximally achieved. An adapted sociocultural discourseanalysis (SDA) is applied as the analytical tool in the qualitative analysis of the transcribeddata, while in quantitative analysis, not only quantification of numbers is used, but also thestatistics software SPSS17.0is used for correlation studies. The application of both qualitativeand quantitative means in the interpretation and explanation of data together well maintainsthe balance between the humanistic and scientific aspect of research in this study.
In accordance with the research questions and hypotheses in this dissertation, the findings ofthis study can be summarized into four aspects:
(1) Linguistically, instances of NOM are found to overwhelm those of NOF in the corpus,suggesting that the focus of teacher-learner negotiation is on meaning not on form. Withininstances of NOM, few are initiated by communicative failure, rather, many are sustained forcommunicative success. Within instances of NOF, more are conducted on language use, veryfew contains explanations to explicit linguistic knowledge. This finding well justifies theredefinition of NOM and NOF in this study since the earlier definitions are too narrow andconversational.
(2) Cognitively, processing of negotiation is revealed in all three types of negotiations:cumulative, exploratory, and disputational in a descending order. Exploratory negotiation,though not many in number, is found most facilitating in engaging learners actively andexploratorily. However, in spite of teacher effort, passive learner agency often obstructs thedevelopment of such activities into well-sustained instances of exploratory negotiation.
(3) Socially, processing of negotiation mostly follows the collaborative and the expert/novicepattern, and only rarely does it follow the dominant/passive pattern. This finding is inconsistency with the sociocultural tradition in China where teacher power is respected andcooperativeness is expected. Prominently, it is found that, in the expert/novice pattern, teacheraffordances, once picked up by learners, function effectively in guiding joint contribution tothe negotiating process and the co-construction of knowledge.
(4) In reconceptualizing classroom interaction in English teacher education programs, it isbelieved that the meaning-oriented nature of teacher-learner negotiated interactions reflectsthe heavy impact of CLT on EFL teaching in university English programs in China. Theemphasis on promoting communicative competence in learners has resulted in the over-emphasis on learning English as a skill, rather than a subject knowledge, as well as the neglectof linguistic form in classroom teaching. The gap between learner implicit linguisticknowledge and explicit linguistic knowledge further reveals that, for explicit linguisticknowledge, a kind of conscious, systematic knowledge, to go into learner knowledgerepertoire, special attention from both the teachers and the learners is needed. In strengthening the ‘teacher’ element in English teacher education programs, an adjusted emphasis on thescientific aspect of linguistic knowledge seems to be primary. Abandoning the concept oflanguage learning as the accumulation of knowledge in the mind of the individual from thecognitive perspective, this research is in support of the sociocultural view of co-constructionof knowledge in critical and exploratory ways. Therefore, the cultivation of critical thinkingand logical reasoning through interactive work should be a necessary component of classroomteaching.
In conclusion, the significance of this research lies in the following aspects. Firstly, resultsfrom this study well justifies the strengths of the sociocultural perspective of SLA. Theparticipation metaphor, SCT, the ecological view of SLA, and the situated view of learningwhich together form this line of thinking are found to be effective and applicable theories innegotiation research. Secondly, the proved redefinitions of NOM and NOF in this studycontributes to a broader understanding of negotiation in SLA literature. Thirdly, theeffectiveness of SDA as an analytically tool is well verified and can become a useful tool infuture research. Fourthly, this research highlights the necessity of rethinking learner-centeredness in EFL classroom teaching and learning, particularly in Asian cultures like China.The CLT concept in minimizing teacher roles and maximizing learner roles through group orpair work among peers in classroom interaction is challenged. Fifthly, this study provideslanguage teachers and educational researchers with a better understanding of the complexitiesand contingencies of teacher-learner negotiation in the classroom, as well as a betterunderstanding of the linguistic, cognitive and social dimensions of negotiated interaction thatdetermine the extent to which learners are engaged in classroom activities. Lastly, theproposed tentative negotiating interaction model in classroom teaching highlights a means togive prominence to the ‘teacher’ element in English teacher education programs in China.
Despite of the effort made, the limitations of this study are self-evident and are to beconquered in future research. Technically, though time-line has been considered, this researchis not an ideal longitudinal study. In addition, the precision in data transcription and coding isin need of improvement. To further prove the validity of the redefinition of NOM&NOF asproposed in this study, and the applicability of SDA as an effective analytical tool fordiscourse studies, more research with different participants in various sociocultural andlearning contexts are needed. Arising as a challenger to the dominant cognitive tradition in thefield of SLA, the strengths of sociocultural line of thinking has been proved by many studies,but it is still necessary for more studies to be conducted, especially in studies concerningsociocultural variables such as negotiated interaction. Lastly, the findings of this observationalstudy suggest that interventional research on classroom negotiation can be conducted tofurther testify the effectiveness of the proposed negotiating interaction model for teachereducation programs in China.
引文
Adger, C. T.2001. Discourse in educational settings. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen&H. E.Hamilton (Ed.). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Alexander, R.2008. Towards Dialogic Teaching: Rethinking Classroom Talk (4thEd.). York,England: Dialogos.
Alexander, R.2000. Culture and Pedagogy: International Comparisons in PrimaryEducation. Oxford: Blackwell.
Aljaafreh, A.&J. P. Lantolf.1994. Negative feedback as regulation and second languagelearning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal78(4).
Allwright, D.1984. The importance of interaction in classroom language learning. AppliedLinguistics (5):156-171.
Anderson, R.1983. Pidginization and Creolization as Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.:Newbury House.
Antón, M.1999. The discourse of a learner-centered classroom: sociocultural perspectives onteacher-learner interaction in the second-language classroom. The Modern LanguageJournal83(3).
Aston, G.1986. Trouble-shooting in interaction with learners: The more the merrier? AppliedLinguistics7(2).
Atkinson, D.2002. Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. TheModern Language Journal86(4):525-545.
Austin, J. L.1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bailey, K., C. Madden,&S. Krashen.1974. Is there a “natural sequence” in adult secondlanguage learning? Language Learning21:235-43.
Bakhtin, M. M.1986. Speech genres and other late essays. In C. Emerson,&M. Holquist(Ed.) V. McGee (Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bannink, A.&J. V. Dam.2006. A dynamic discourse approach to classroom research.Linguistics and Education17:283–301.
Basturkmen, H., S. Loewen,&R. Ellis.2004. Teachers’ stated beliefs about incidental focuson form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics25(2):243.
Borg, S.1998. Teacher’s pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: A qualitative study.TESOL Quarterly32:9-38.
Boulima, J.1999. Negotiated Interaction in Target Language Classroom Discourse.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Branden, K.V.1997. Effects of negotiation on language learners. Language Learning47(4):589-563.
Breen, M. P.1985. The social context for language learning: A neglected situation? Studies inSecond Language Acquisition7(2).
Breen, M. P.&A. Littlejohn.2000. Classroom Decision-making. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Brooks, F. B., R. Donato,&J. V. McGlone.1997. When are they going to say “it” right?Understanding learner talk during pair-work activity. Foreign Language Annals30(4):524-541.
Brown, R.1973. A First Language: the Early Stages. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UniversityPress
Bruner, J. S.1985. Vygotsky: a historical and conceptual perspective. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.).Culture, Communication and Cognition: Vygotskian Perspectives. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Bruner, J. S.1978. The role of dialogue in language acquisition. in A. Sinclair, R. Jarvella,&W. Levelt (Ed.). The Child’s Conception of Language. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Cazden. C. B.2001. Classroom Discourse: The Language of Learning and Teaching (2ndEd.).Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cazden, C. B.1983. Can ethnographic research go beyond the status quo? Anthropology&Education Quarterly14(1):33-41.
Chang-Wells, G. L. M.&G. Wells.1993. Dynamics of discourse: Literacy and theconstruction of knowledge. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick,&C. A. Stone (Ed.). Contexts forlearning: Sociocultural dynamics in children’s development. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.
Chaudron, C.1988. Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chaudron, C.1983. Foreigner talk in the classroom–an aid to learning? In H. Seliger,&M.Long. Classroom-oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition (Ed.). Rowley, Mass.:Newbury House.
Chavez, M.2007. Students’ and teachers’ assessments of the need for accuracy in the oralproduction of German as a foreign language. The Modern Language Journal91(4):537-563.
Chomsky, N.1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Christie, F.2002. Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Functional Perspective. London:Continuum.
Clark, S.1995. The generation effect and the modeling of associations in memory. Memory&Cognition23:442-455.
Clark, U.2005. Bernstein’s theory of pedagogic discourse: Linguistics, educational policyand practice in the UK English/literacy classroom. English Teaching: Practice and Critique4(3):32-47.
Cole, M.1996. Cultural Psychology. A Once and Future Discipline. Cambridge, MA:Belknapp Press.
Corder, S. P.1967. The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Appliedlinguistics5:161-9.
Coughlan, P.&P. Duff.1994. Same task, different activities: Analysis of a second languageacquisition task from an activity theory perspective in J. P. Lantolf,&G. Appel.(Ed.).Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Press.
Dalton-Puffer, C.2005. Negotiating interpersonal meanings in naturalistic classroomdiscourse: directives in content-and-language-integrated classrooms. Journal of Pragmatics37:1275–1293.
Daniels, H.2001. Vygotsky and Pedagogy. London: Routledge/Falmer.
de Bot, K.1996. The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning46:529-555.
Donato, R.2000. Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and secondlanguage classroom. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.). Sociocultural theory and second languagelearning. New York: Oxford University Press.
Donato, R.1994. Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf,&G.Appel (Ed.). Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research.
Doughty, C.&T. Pica.1986. Information gap tasks: Do they facilitate second languageacquisition? TESOL Quarterly20:43-63.
Elder, C.2009. Validating a test of metalinguistic knowledge. In R. Ellis, et al.(Ed.) Implicitand Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching. Bristol,Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Elder, C.&D. Manwaring.2004. The relationship between metalinguistic knowledge andlearning outcomes among undergraduate students of Chinese. Language Awareness13:145-162.
Ellis, N.2008. Implicit and explicit knowledge about language. In J. Cenoz,&N. Hornberger(Ed.). Encyclopaedia of Language and Education. New York: Springer.
Ellis, R.2009a. Implicit and explicit learning, knowledge and instruction. In R. Ellis, et al.(Ed.) Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching.Bristol, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R.2009b. Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language. In R. Ellis,et al.(Ed.) Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing andTeaching. Bristol, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R. et al.2009. Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testingand Teaching. Bristol, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R.2004. The definition and measurement of L2explicit knowledge. Language Learning54(2):227–275.
Ellis, R.2000. Second Language Acquisition. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching andResearch Press.
Ellis, R.1999. Learning a Second Language through Interaction. Philadelhia, PA, USA: JohnBenjamins Publishing Company.
Ellis, R.1994. A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In N. Ellis.(Ed.) Implicitand Explicit Learning of Language. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ellis, R., H. Basturkmen,&S. Loewen.2001a. Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons.Language Learning51:281–318.
Ellis, R., H. Basturkmen,&S. Loewen.2001b. Preemptive Focus on Form in the ESLClassroom. TESOL Quarterly35(3):407-432.
Ellis, R.&S. Loewen.2007. Confirming the operational definitions of explicit and implicitknowledge in Ellis (2005)–Responding to Isermonger. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition29:119-126.
Ellis, R., Y. Tanaka,&A. Yamazaki.1994. Classroom interaction, comprehension, and theacquisition of L2word meanings. Language Learning44:449-491.
Ehrlich, S., P. Avery,&C. Yorio.1989. Discourse structure and the negotiation ofcomprehensible input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition11:397-414.
Erlam, R. J. Philp,&C. Elder.2009. Exploring the explicit knowledge of TESOL teachertrainees: Implications for focus on form in the classroom. In R. Ellis, et al.(Ed.) Implicitand Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching. Bristol,Buffal, Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Firth, A.&J. Wagner.2007. Second/Foreign language learning a s a social accomplishment:elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. The Modern Language Journal91(Focus Issue):800-819.
Firth, A.&J. Wagner.1997/2007. On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamentalconcepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal81:288-300;91(Focus Issue):757-772.
Fisher, R. and S. Larkin.2008. Pedagogy or ideological struggle? An examination of pupilsand teachers’ expectations for talk in the classroom. Language and Education22(1):1-16.
Foster, P.1998. A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics19(1):1-23.
Foster, P.&A. S. Ohta.2005. Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in secondlanguage classroom. Applied Linguistics26(3):402–430.
Foster, P., A. Tonkyn,&G. Wigglesworth.2000. Measuring spoken language: A unit for allreasons. Applied Linguistics21(3):354-375.
Freeman, D.2007. Research “Fitting” practice: Firth and Wagner, classroom languageteaching, and language teacher education. The Modern Language Journal91(focus issue):893-906.
Gallimore, R.&R. Tharp.1990. Teaching mind in society: Teaching, schooling and literatediscourse. In C. M. Luis (Ed.). Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications andApplications of Sociohistorical Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gass, S. M.1998. Apples and oranges: Or, why apples are not oranges and don’t need to be.The Modern Language Journal1.
Gass, S.1997. Input, Interaction, and Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.
Gass, S.&A. Mackey.2006. Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review19:3-17.
Gass, S. M., A. Mackey,&T. Pica.1998. The role of input and interaction in secondlanguage acquisition: Introduction to the sepecial issue. The Modern Language Journal82:299-305.
Gass, S. M.&E. M. Varonis.1985. Task variation and non-native/non-native negotiation ofmeaning. In S. M. Gass,&C. Madden (Ed.). Input in Second Language Acquisition.Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Gass, S.,&L. Selinker.1994. Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gibbons, P.2003. Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in acontent-Based classroom. TESOL Quarterly37(2):247-273.
GOH, H. H.2006. Adapted Core Transcription Process Manual (For Chinese Transcription)Vol.1,2&3. Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice.
Grabois, H.2008. Contribution and language learning: service-learning from a socioculturalperspective. In J. P. Lantolf,&M. E. Poehner (Ed.). Sociocultural Theory and the Teachingof Second Languages. London, Oakville: Equinox Publishing Ltd.
Hall, J. K.2007. Redressing the roles of correction and repair in research on second andforeign language learning. The Modern Language Journal91(4):511-526.
Hall, J. K.2007. The devel’s in the details: a response to Seedhouse. The Modern LanguageJournal91(4):534-536.
Hall, J. K.&L. S. Verplaetse.2000. Second and Foreign Language Through ClassroomInteraction (Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Hanks, W. F.1991. Foreward by William F. Hanks. In Situated learning: legitimateperipheral participation. By Lave, J.&E. Wenger. Cambridge: Cambridge Universitypress.
Hatch, E.1978. Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
He, A. W. Y.2004. CA for SLA: Arguments from the Chinese Language Classroom. TheModern Language Journal88(4).
Hymes, D.1971. On Communicative Competence. Philadelphia, P. A.: University ofPennsylvania Press.
Jacknick, C. M.2009. A Conversation-analytic Account of Student-initiated Participation inan ESL Classroom. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Columbia University.
Ji, P. Y.2008. Pragmatics and Pedagogy in College English Teaching. Shanghai: ShanghaiForeign Language Education Press.
Johnson, K.1995. Understanding Communication in Second Language Classrooms.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
John-Steiner, V.&H. Mahn. Sociocultural Approaches to Learning and Development: AVygotskian Framework. A paper submitted to a special issue of Educational Psychologiston theoretical approaches to learning and their implications for the classroom (onlineresources).
Kasper, G.2001. Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics (Ed.). In K. R. Rose,&G.Kasper. Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kasper, G.1997.“A” stands for acquisition: A response to Firth and Wagner. The ModernLanguage Journal81(3).
Kleifgen, J. A. and M. Saville-Troike.1992. Achieving coherence in multilingual interaction.Discourse Processes15:183-206.
Ko, J.2001. The Effect of Negotiation of meaning on the Storytelling of Adult Students in ESLClassrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Texas, Austin.
Ko, J., D. L. Schallert,&K. Walters.2003. Source rethinking scaffolding: Examiningnegotiation of meaning in an ESL storytelling task. TESOL Quarterly37(2):303-324.
Krashen, S.1994. The input hypothesis and its rivals. In N. Ellis (Ed.). Implicit and ExplicitLearning of Languages. London: Academic Press.
Krashen, S.1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implication. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S.1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:Pergamon.
Krashen, S.1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford:Pergamon.
Kumpulainen, K.,&D. Wray.2002. Classroom Interaction and Social Learning: FromTheory to Practice. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Kumpulainen, K.&M. Mutanen.1999. Social interaction and learning–Interaction researchwithin the framework of sociocultural and constructivist perspectives to learning. Kasvatus,Finnish Journal of Education Research1:5-17.
Lafford, B. A.2007. Second language acquisition reconceptualized? The impact of Firth andWagner (1997). The Modern Language Journal91(Focus Issue):735-756.
Lantolf, J. P.2007. Sociocultural source of thinking and its relevance for second languageacquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition10(1):31–33.
Lantolf, J. P.2006. Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics—Asociocultural perspective. Applied Linguistics27(4):717–728.
Lantolf, J. P.2004. Sociocultural theory and second and foreign language learning: Anoverview of sociocultural theory. In K. van Esch,&O. St. John (Ed.). New Insights intoForeign Language Learning and Teaching. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Lantolf, J. P.2000. Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Lantolf, J. P.1996. Second language theory building: Letting all the flowers bloom!Language Learning46:713-749.
Lantolf, J. P.&A. Aljaafreh.1995. Second language learning in the zone of proximaldevelopment: A revolutionary experience. International Journal of Educational Research23:619-632.
Lantolf, J. P.&K. E. Johnson.2007. Extending Firth and Wagner’s (1997) ontologicalperspective to L2classroom praxis and teacher education. The Modern Language Journal91(Focus Issue):877-892.
Lantolf, J. P.&M. E. Poehner.2008. Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of SecondLanguages. London, Oakville: Equinox Publishing Ltd.
Lantolf, J.&S. Thorne.2006. Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second LanguageDevelopment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D.2007. Reflecting on the Cognitive-Social Debate in Second LanguageAcquisition. The Modern Language Journal91(Focus Issue):773-787.
Larsen-Freeman, D.2002. Language acquisition and language use from a chaos/complexitytheory perspective. In Kramsch (Ed.). Language Acquisition and Language Socialization.London: Continuum.
Larsen-Freeman, D.&M. Long.1991. An Introduction to Second Language AcquisitionResearch. London: Longman.
Lave, J.&E. Wenger.1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Lazaraton, A.2004. Conversation analysis and the nonnative English speaking ESL teacher: Acase study. In D. Boxer,&A. D. Cohen (Ed.). Studying Speaking to Inform SecondLanguage Learning. Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Lazaraton, A.&N. Ishihara.2005. Understanding second language teacher practice usingmicroanalysis and self-reflection: A collaborative case study. The Modern LanguageJournal89(4):529-542.
Leeser, M. J.2004. Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue.Language Teaching Research8(1):55–81.
Leontiev, A. N.1981. The problem of activity in psychology, in J. V. Wertsch (Ed.). TheConcept of Activity in Soviet Psychology. Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
Leontiev, A. N.1978. Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.
Lepper, M., L., Aspinwall, D. Mumme,&R. Chabay.1990. Self-perception and social-perception processes in tutoring: Subtle social control strategies of expert tutors. In J. Olson,&M. Zanna (Ed.). Self-inference Processes: The Ontario Symposium. Vol.6. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Li, D. L.2008. Scaffolding and Its Impact on Learning Grammatical Forms in TertiaryChinese EFL Classrooms. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Hong Kong Baptist University.
Liebscher, G.&J. Dailey-O’Cain.2003. Conversatonal repair as a role-defining mechanismin classroom interaction. Modern Language Journal87:375-390.
Lightbown, P. M.1998. The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty,&J.Williams (Ed.). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lightbown, P. M.1992. Can they do it themselves? A comprehension-based ESL course foryoung children. In Courchene et al.(Ed.). Comprehension-based Second LanguageTeaching. Ottowa: University of Ottawa Press.
Lightbown, P. M.1991. What have we here? Some observations on the role of instruction insecond language acquisition. in R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. SharwoodSmith,&M. Swain (Ed.). Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy research： ACommemorative Volume for Claus Ferch. Clevedon, London: Multilingual Matters.
Lightbown, P.&N. Spada.1990. Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicativelanguage teaching: effects on second language learning. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition.12:429-48.
Liu, Y. B.&D. B. Zhang.2006. Regulative discourse in Singapore primary English classes:Teachers’ choice of directives. AERA Conference.
Liu, Y. C.2009. Learning as Negotiation in Communities of Practice–An EthnographicStudy of Teachers’ Learning in the Workplace in a University Department of EnglishEducation in China. Unpublished Ph D Dissertation. Faculty of Education. University ofCambridge.
Long, M. H.2007. Problems in SLA. New York/London: Taylor&Francis Group.
Long, M. H.1997. Construct validity in SLA research: A response to Firth and Wagner. TheModern Language Journal81(3).
Long, M. H.1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. InW. C. Ritchie,&T. K. Bhatia (Ed.). Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego,CA: Academic Press.
Long, M. H.1991. Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology. In deBot et al.(Ed.). Foreign Language Research in Cross-cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Long, M. H.1983. Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studiesin Second Language Acquisition5(2).
Long, M. H.1980. Inside the “black box”: methodological issues in classroom research onlanguage learning. Language Learning30:1-42.
Long, M. H.&P. Robinson.1998. Focus on form: theory, research and practice. In C.Doughty,&J. Williams (Ed.). Focus on form in classroom SLA. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Loewen, S.2009. Grammaticality judgment tests and the measurement of implicit and explicitL2knowledge. In R. Ellis, et al.(Ed.). Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in SecondLanguage Learning, Testing and Teaching. Bristol, Buffal, Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Loewen, S.2005. Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition27:361-386.
Loschky, L.1994. Comprehensible input and second language acquisition: What is therelationship? Studies in Second Language Acquisition16:303-323.
Lyster, R.2008. Interactional feedback in content-based instruction. Lecture at NortheastNormal University, Changchun, China.
Lyster, R.2007. Learning and Teaching Languages through Content: A CounterbalancedApproach. Amsterdam/Philadalphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Lyster, R.2004. Research on form-focused instruction in immersion classrooms: Implicationsfor theory and practice. French Language Studies14:321–341.
Lyster, R.2002. Negotiation in immersion teacher–student interaction. International Journalof Educational Research37:237–253.
Lyster, R.1998. Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error typesand learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning48:183-218.
Lyster, R.&H. Mori.2006. Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. SSLA.28:269-300.
Lyster, R.&R. Ranta.1997, Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form inCommunicative Classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition19:37-66.
Mackey, A.2006. Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. AppliedLinguistics27(3):405–430.
Mackey, A., S. Gass,&K. McDonough.2000. How do learners perceive implicit negativefeedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition22:471-97.
Magnan, S. S.2008. The unfulfilled promise of teaching for communicative competence:insights from sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf,&M. E. Poehner. Sociocultural Theoryand the Teaching of Second Languages. London, Oakville: Equinox Publishing Ltd.
McCarthey, S. J.1991. The influence of classroom discourse on student texts: the case of Ella.Paper presented at the National Reading Conference in Palms Springs, California.
McCarthy, M., C. Matthiessen,&D. Slade.2002. Discourse Analysis. In N. Schmitt (Ed.).An Introduction to Applied Linguistics. London: Arnold.
McDonough, K.2005. Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses onESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition27(1):79-103.
McHoul, A.1990. The organization of repair in classroom talk. Language in Society.19:349-377.
Mehan, H.1979. Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Mercer, N.2008. The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis.Journal of the Learning Sciences17(1):33-59.
Mercer, N.2004. Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analysing classroom talk as a social modeof thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics1(2):137-168.
Mercer, N.2000a. Language for teaching a language. in English Language Teaching in ItsSocial Context (ed.). Florence, KY, USA: Routledge.
Mercer, N.2000b. Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together, London:Routledge.
Mercer, N.1995. The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners.Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Mercer, N.&K. Littleton.2007. Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: Asociocultural approach. London: Routledge.
Mercer, N., L. Dawes,&J. K. Staarman.2009. Dialogic teaching in the primary scienceclassroom. Language and Education23(4):353-369.
Mitchell, R.&F. Myles.2004. Second Language Learning Theories (2ndEdition). London:Arnold, a member of the Hodder Headline Group.
More, A.2000. Teaching and Learning: Pedagogy, Curriculum and Culture. London, UK:RoutledgeFalmer.
Mori, J.2007. Border crossing? Exploring the intersection of second language acquisition,conversation analysis, and foreign language pedagogy. The Modern Language Journal91(Focus Issue):849-862.
Mori, J.2004. Negotiating sequential boundaries and learning opportunities: A case from aJapanese language classroom. Modern Language Journal88:536–550.
Morris, F.2002. Negotiation and recasts in relation to error types and learner repair. ForeignLanguage Annals35:395–404.
Musumeci, D.1996. Teacher-learner negotiation in content-based instruction: communicationat cross-purposes? Applied Linguistics17(3):286-325.
Nakahama, Y., A. Tyler,&L. van Lier.2001. Negotiation of meaning in conversational andinformation gap activities: A comparative discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly35(3):377-405.
Nasir, N. S.&V. M. Hand.2006. Exploring sociocultural perspectives on race, culture, andlearning. Review of Educational Research76(4):449-475.
Nassaji, H.&M. Swain.2000. A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: Theeffect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. LanguageAwareness9:34-51.
Neves, I., A. Morais,&M. Afonso.2004. Teacher training contexts: Study of specificsociological characteristics. In J. Muller, B. Davies,&A. Morais (Ed.). Thinking withBernstein, working with Bernstein. London: Routledge.
Newman, D. Griffin, P.&M. Cole.1989. The Construction Zone: Working for CognitiveChange in School. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nobuyoshi, J.&R. Ellis.1993. Focused communication tasks and second languageacquisition. ELT Journal47:203-210.
Norris, J. M.&L. Ortega.2000. Effectiveness of L2instruction: A research synthesis andquantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning50:417-528.
Norwood, N. J.&R. Ellis.1990. Researching classroom language learning. In C. Brumfit&R. Mitchell (Ed.). Research in the Language Classroom: ELT Documents. London: ModernEnglish Publications in association with British Council.
Ohashi, Y.2005. Teaching and Learning through Interaction: A Case study of JapaneseChildren Learning English as a Foreign Language. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Schoolof Education, The University of Leeds.
Ohta, A.2001. Second Language Acquisition in the Classroom: Learning Japanese. NewJersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ohta, A. S.2000. Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance inthe Zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2grammar. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.).Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ohta, A. S.1995. Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse: Learner-learner collaborative interaction in the zone of proximal development. Issues in AppliedLinguistics6:93-121.
Oliver, R.2002. The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions. The ModernLanguage Journal86:97-111.
Oliver, R.1995. Negative feedback in child NS/NNS conversation. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition18:459-481.
Olshtain, E.&M. Celce-Murcia.2001. Discourse Analysis and Language Teaching in D.Schiffrin, D. Tannen,&H. E. Hamilton [Ed.]. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis.Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Panova, I.&R. Lyster.2002. Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESLclassroom. TESOL Quarterly36:573-595.
Paradis, M.1994. Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: Implications forbilingualism and second language acquisition. In N. Ellis (Ed.). Implicit and ExplicitLanguage Learning. London: Academic Press.
Piaget, J.1975. The Origin of the Idea of Chance in Children. London: Routledge and KeganPaul.
Pica, T.1994. Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learningconditions, processes and outcomes? Language Learning44(3).
Pica, T.1992. The textual outcomes of native speaker-non-native speaker negotiation: whatdo they reveal about second language learning. In C. Kramsch,&McConnell-Ginet (Ed.).Text and Context: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Language Study. Lexingtong, Mass.:D. C. Heath and Company.
Pica, T.1987. Second language acquisition, social interaction in the classroom. AppliedLinguistics7:1-25.
Pica, T.&Doughty.1985. Input and interaction in the communicative language classroom: Acomparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In S. M. Gass,&C. G. Madden (Ed.).Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Pica, T., L. Holliday, N. Lewis, D. Berducci,&J. Newman.1991. Language Learning throughinteraction: what role does gender play? Studies in Second Language Acquisition13:343-76.
Pica, T., L. Holliday, N. Lewis,&L. Morgenthaler.1989. Comprehensible output as anoutcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition11:63-90.
Pica, T.&M. Long.1986. The linguistic and conversational performance of experienced andinexperienced teachers in R. Day (Ed.). Talking to Learn: Conversation in SecondLanguage Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Pica, T., R. Young,&C. Doughty.1987. The impact of interaction on comprehension.TESOL Quarterly21:737-757.
Poehner, M. E.&J. P. Lantolf.2005. Dynamic assessment in the language classroom.Language Teaching Research9(3):233–265.
Prabhu, N. S.1987. Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Renou, J.2001. An examination of the relationship between metalinguistic awareness andsecond language proficiency of adult learners of French. Language Awareness4(10):248-267.
Rogoff, B.1998. Cognition as a collaborative process. In W. Damon, D. Kuhn,&R. S.Siegler (Ed.). Handbook of Child Psychology. Vol.2. New York: Wildy.
Rogoff, B.1994. Developing undersftanding of the idea of communities of cearners. Mind,Culture, and Activity1(4):209-29.
Rogoff, B.1990. Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rogoff, B.&W. P. Gardner.1984. Guidance in cognitive development: An examination ofmother-child instruction. In B. Rogoff&J. Lave (Ed.). Everyday Cognition: ItsDevelopment in Social Context. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.
Rojas-Drummond, S.2000. Guided participation, discourse and the construction ofknowledge in Mexican classroom. In H. Cowie&G. van der Aalsvoort (Ed.). SocialInteraction in Learning and Instruction. Oxford: Pergamon.
Rojas-Drummonda, S.&N. Mercer.2003. Scaffolding the development of effectivecollaboration and learning. International Journal of Educational Research39:99–111.
Rulon, K.&J. McCreary.1986. Negotiation of content: teacher-fronted and small groupinteraction in R. Day (Ed.). Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second LanguageAcquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Schmitt, N.2002. An Introduction to Applied Linguistics. London: Arnold.
Schmitt, N.&M. Celce-Murcia. An overview of applied linguistics. In N.Schmitt (Ed.). AnIntroduction to Applied Linguistics. London: Arnold.
Schmidt, R.2001. Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.). Cognition and Second LanguageInstruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R.1994. Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars andSLA. In N. Ellis (Ed.). Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages. San Diego: AcademicPress.
Schmidt, R.1993. Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of AppliedLinguistics13:206-226.
Schmidt, R.1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics11:129-58.
Scollon, R.&S. W. Scollon.2001. Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach.Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Seedhouse, P.2007. On ethnomethodological CA and Linguistic CA: a reply to Hall. TheModern Language Journal91(4):527-533.
Seedhouse, P.2005. The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: AConversation Analysis Perspective. Blackwell.
Seedhouse, P.1997. The case of the missing ‘no’: The relationship between pedagogy andinteraction. Language Learning47(3):547-583.
Selinker, L.1972. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics.10:209-31.
Sfard, A.1998. On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one.Educational Researcher27(2).4-13.
Shim, Y.2003. The Nature of Negotiation of Meaning between Teacher and Student in theSecond Language Classroom. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation. University of Texas atAustin.
Short, D. J.2000. Teacher Discourse in Social Studies Classrooms: How Teachers PromoteAcademic Literacy for English Language Learners. Unpublished Ph D Dissertation.GeorgeMason University, Fairfax, Virginia.
Sinclair, J.&M. Coulthard.1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Slimani, A.1989. The role of topicalization in classroom language learning. System17(2):223-234.
Spada, N.1997. Form-focussed instruction and second language acquisition: A review ofclassroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching30:73-87.
Spada, N.&P. M. Lightbown.2002. Second Language Acquisition. In N. Schmitt (Ed.). AnIntroduction to Applied Linguistics. London: Arnold.116-129.
Spada, N.&P. M. Lightbown.1993. Instruction and the development of questions in L2classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition15:205-224.
Storch, N.2002. Patterns of Interaction in ESL Pair Work. Language Learning52(1):119–158.
Swain, M.2006. Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language learning.In H. Byrnes (Ed.) Advanced Language Learning: The Contributions of Halliday andVygotsky. London: Continuum.
Swain, M.2005. The output hypothesis: Theory and practice. in E. Hinkel.(Ed.). Handbookof Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. New Jersey: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Inc.
Swain, M.2000. The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediationg acquisition throughcollaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.). Sociocultural Theory and Second LanguageLearning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M.1995. Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook&B.Seidlhofer (Ed.). Principles and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honour of H.G.Widdowson. New York: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M.1993. The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. TheCanadian Modern Language Review50(1).
Swain, M.1985. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input andcomprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass&C. G. Madden (Ed.). Input inSecond Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M.&L. X. Yang.2008. Output Hypothesis: Its History and Its Future. ForeignLanguage Teaching and Research40(1).
Swain, M.&P. Deters.2007.“New” mainstream SLA theory: expanded and enriched. TheModern Language Journal91(Focus Issue):820-836.
Swain, M.&S. Lapkin.1995. Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate:A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics16(3).
Tamara, B.&G. Wells.2009. Running cars down ramps: learning about learning over time.Language and Education23(4):371-390.
Tharp, R.&R. Gallimore.1988. Rousing minds to life, Teaching, Learning and Schooling inSocial Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, J.1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London, New York:Longman.
Thoms, J. J.2008. Teacher-initiated talk and student oral discourse in a second languageliterature classroom: A sociocultural analysis. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. GraduateCollege of University of Iowa.
Truscott, J.1999. What’s wrong with oral grammar correction. The Canadian ModernLanguage Review55:437-456.
Tudini, V.2007. Negotiation and intercultural learning in Italian native speaker chat rooms.The Modern Language Journal91(4):577-601.
van Lier, L.2004. The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning: A SocioculturalPerspective. Boston/Dordrecht/New York/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
van Lier, L.2000. From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecologicalperspective. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van Lier, L.1988. The Classroom and the Language Learner. London: Longman.
Van Patten, B.1990. Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition12:287-301.
Varonis, E.&S. Gass.1985. Non-native/non-native conversations: a model for negotiation ofmeaning. Applied Linguistics6:71-90.
Vygotsky, L. S.1987. Thinking and speech. In R. Rieber (Ed.). The Collected Works of L. S.Vygotsky. New York and London: Plenum Press.
Vygotsky, L. S.1962/1986. Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S.1978. Mind in Society: the Development of Higher Psychological Processes.Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Walsh, S.2006. Talking the talk of the TESOL classroom. ELT Journal60(2).
Walsh, S.2002. Construction or obstruction: teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFLclassroom. Language Teaching Research6(1):3–23.
Wang, J.1996. Same Task: Different Activities. Unpublished research report, University ofPitttsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Wang, Q., X. T. Cheng, C. Moen,&Adamson, B.2000. A Course in English LanguageTeaching. Beijing: Higher Education Press.
Waring, H. S. Z.2008. Using Explicit Positive Assessment in the Language Classroom: IRF,Feedback, and Learning Opportunities. The Modern Language Journal92(4):577–594.
Wegerif, R.&N. Mercer.1997. Using computer-based text analysis to integrate qualitativeand quantitative methods in the investigation of collaborative learning. Language andEducation11(4):271-286.
Wells, G..1999. Dialogic Inquiry: Towards a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wells, G..1993. Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories ofactivity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguisticsand Education5:1–37.
Wells, G..1987. The Meaning Makers: Children Learning Language and Using Language toLearn. Portmouth: Heinemann Educational Books Inc.
Wertsch, J. V.1991. Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V.1985. Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.
Wertsch, J. V.1979. From social interaction to higher psychological processes: A clarificationand application of Vygotsky’s theory. Human Development22:1-22.
White, J.1998. Getting learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In C.Doughty,&J. Williams (Ed.). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition.New York: Cambridge University Press.
White, L.1987. Against comprehensible input: the input hypothesis and the development ofsecond language competence. Applied Linguistics8:95-110.
Widdowson, H. G.1978/1996. Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press; Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Williams, J.2005. Learning with awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition27:269-304.
Williams, J.1999. Memory, attention and inductive learning. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition21:1-48.
Wood, D., J. Bruner,&G. Ross.1976. The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal ofChild Psychology and Psychiatry17:89-100.
Wu, Y. A.2001. English language teaching in China: trends and challenges. TESOL Quarterly35(1):191-194.
Young, R.1984. Negotiation of meaning and negotiation of outcome in the reading classroom.Paper presented at the Tenth World Congress on Reading. Hong Kong.
戴炜栋，2009.我国外语教育60年：回顾与展望[J]《中国外语》第5期：10-15.
戴炜栋，2008.解放思想，实事求是，推动我国外语教育事业发展[J]《外语界》第5期：24－29.
戴炜栋、王雪梅，2006.建构具有中国特色的外语教育体系[J]《外语界》第4期：2-12.
高等学校外语专业教学指导委员会英语组，2000.高等学校英语专业英语教学大纲[S]北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
高一虹，1998.《语言文化差异的认识与超越》北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
高瑛，2009.认知与社会文化视域下的课堂互动话语研究述评[J]《外语教学理论与实践》第4期：76-83.
何其莘、殷桐生、黄源生、刘海平，1999.关于外语专业本科教育改革的若干意见[J]《外语教学与研究》第1期：24-28.
胡文仲，2009.新中国六十年外语教育的成就与缺失[J]《外语教学与研究》第3：163-169。
胡文仲、孙有中，2006.突出学科特点，加强人文教育[J]《外语教学与研究》5：243-247.
蓝仁哲，2009.高校外语专业的学科属性与培养目标[J]《中国外语》第6期：4-8.
梁文霞、朱立霞，2007.国外二语课堂实证研究20年述评[J]《外语界》第5期：58-67.
束定芳，2004.《外语教学改革:问题与对策》[M]上海：上海外语教育出版社。
王初明,运用写长法应当注意什么[J]《外语界》第5期：7-12.
文秋芳，2008a.评析二语习得认知派与社会派20年的论战[J]《中国外语》第3期：13-20.
文秋芳，2008b.输出驱动假设与英语专业技能课改革[J]《外语界》第2期:2-9.
文秋芳，1999.口语教学与思维能力的培养[J]《国外外语教学》第2期：1-4.
文秋芳，1996.传统和非传统学习方法与英语成绩的关系[J]《现代外语》第1期：37-43．
文秋芳、周燕.评述外语专业学生思维能力的发展[J]《外语学刊》第5期：76-80.
吴庄、文卫平，2009.英语专业本科生的第二语言交际意愿--社会环境、动机指向、性格与情感意识的影响[J]《外语教学理论与实践》第1期：32-35.
徐飞，2005.国内外课堂互动研究状况述评[J]《国外外语教学》第2期：55-63.
杨雪艳，2003.外语教师课堂策略研究：状况和意义[J]《外语教学与研究》第1期：54-61.
杨忠，2007.培养技能，发展智能—外语教育工具性与人文性的统一[J]《外语学刊》第6期：133-137.
郑佩芸，2007.形式协商的多视角研究和思考[J]《外语界》第5期：76－82.
张绍杰，2010.全球化背景下的外语教学－行动与反思[J]《外语与外语教学》第1期：9-12.
张绍杰，2007.对舶来教学法说“不”[J]《中国外语》第3期：4-9.
章振邦，2003.也谈我国外语教改问题[J]《外国语》第4期：1-6.
钟美荪，2006.以精英教育理念深化外语教育改革[J]《外语教学与研究》第5期：254-256.
邹为诚、赵飞，2008.论二语习得理论的建设[J]《中国外语》第4期：46-56.
国家教育指导委员会，1992.《英语教学大纲》[S]北京：人民教育出版社。
Alexander, R.2008. Towards Dialogic Teaching: Rethinking Classroom Talk (4thEd.). York,England: Dialogos.
Alexander, R.2000. Culture and Pedagogy: International Comparisons in PrimaryEducation. Oxford: Blackwell.
Aljaafreh, A.&J. P. Lantolf.1994. Negative feedback as regulation and second languagelearning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal78(4).
Allwright, D.1984. The importance of interaction in classroom language learning. AppliedLinguistics (5):156-171.
Anderson, R.1983. Pidginization and Creolization as Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.:Newbury House.
Antón, M.1999. The discourse of a learner-centered classroom: sociocultural perspectives onteacher-learner interaction in the second-language classroom. The Modern LanguageJournal83(3).
Aston, G.1986. Trouble-shooting in interaction with learners: The more the merrier? AppliedLinguistics7(2).
Atkinson, D.2002. Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. TheModern Language Journal86(4):525-545.
Austin, J. L.1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bailey, K., C. Madden,&S. Krashen.1974. Is there a “natural sequence” in adult secondlanguage learning? Language Learning21:235-43.
Bakhtin, M. M.1986. Speech genres and other late essays. In C. Emerson,&M. Holquist(Ed.) V. McGee (Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bannink, A.&J. V. Dam.2006. A dynamic discourse approach to classroom research.Linguistics and Education17:283–301.
Basturkmen, H., S. Loewen,&R. Ellis.2004. Teachers’ stated beliefs about incidental focuson form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics25(2):243.
Borg, S.1998. Teacher’s pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: A qualitative study.TESOL Quarterly32:9-38.
Boulima, J.1999. Negotiated Interaction in Target Language Classroom Discourse.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Branden, K.V.1997. Effects of negotiation on language learners. Language Learning47(4):589-563.
Breen, M. P.1985. The social context for language learning: A neglected situation? Studies inSecond Language Acquisition7(2).
Breen, M. P.&A. Littlejohn.2000. Classroom Decision-making. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Brooks, F. B., R. Donato,&J. V. McGlone.1997. When are they going to say “it” right?Understanding learner talk during pair-work activity. Foreign Language Annals30(4):524-541.
Brown, R.1973. A First Language: the Early Stages. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UniversityPress
Bruner, J. S.1985. Vygotsky: a historical and conceptual perspective. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.).Culture, Communication and Cognition: Vygotskian Perspectives. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Bruner, J. S.1978. The role of dialogue in language acquisition. in A. Sinclair, R. Jarvella,&W. Levelt (Ed.). The Child’s Conception of Language. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Cazden. C. B.2001. Classroom Discourse: The Language of Learning and Teaching (2ndEd.).Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cazden, C. B.1983. Can ethnographic research go beyond the status quo? Anthropology&Education Quarterly14(1):33-41.
Chang-Wells, G. L. M.&G. Wells.1993. Dynamics of discourse: Literacy and theconstruction of knowledge. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick,&C. A. Stone (Ed.). Contexts forlearning: Sociocultural dynamics in children’s development. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.
Chaudron, C.1988. Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chaudron, C.1983. Foreigner talk in the classroom–an aid to learning? In H. Seliger,&M.Long. Classroom-oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition (Ed.). Rowley, Mass.:Newbury House.
Chavez, M.2007. Students’ and teachers’ assessments of the need for accuracy in the oralproduction of German as a foreign language. The Modern Language Journal91(4):537-563.
Chomsky, N.1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Christie, F.2002. Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Functional Perspective. London:Continuum.
Clark, S.1995. The generation effect and the modeling of associations in memory. Memory&Cognition23:442-455.
Clark, U.2005. Bernstein’s theory of pedagogic discourse: Linguistics, educational policyand practice in the UK English/literacy classroom. English Teaching: Practice and Critique4(3):32-47.
Cole, M.1996. Cultural Psychology. A Once and Future Discipline. Cambridge, MA:Belknapp Press.
Corder, S. P.1967. The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Appliedlinguistics5:161-9.
Coughlan, P.&P. Duff.1994. Same task, different activities: Analysis of a second languageacquisition task from an activity theory perspective in J. P. Lantolf,&G. Appel.(Ed.).Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Press.
Dalton-Puffer, C.2005. Negotiating interpersonal meanings in naturalistic classroomdiscourse: directives in content-and-language-integrated classrooms. Journal of Pragmatics37:1275–1293.
Daniels, H.2001. Vygotsky and Pedagogy. London: Routledge/Falmer.
de Bot, K.1996. The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning46:529-555.
Donato, R.2000. Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and secondlanguage classroom. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.). Sociocultural theory and second languagelearning. New York: Oxford University Press.
Donato, R.1994. Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf,&G.Appel (Ed.). Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research.
Doughty, C.&T. Pica.1986. Information gap tasks: Do they facilitate second languageacquisition? TESOL Quarterly20:43-63.
Elder, C.2009. Validating a test of metalinguistic knowledge. In R. Ellis, et al.(Ed.) Implicitand Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching. Bristol,Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Elder, C.&D. Manwaring.2004. The relationship between metalinguistic knowledge andlearning outcomes among undergraduate students of Chinese. Language Awareness13:145-162.
Ellis, N.2008. Implicit and explicit knowledge about language. In J. Cenoz,&N. Hornberger(Ed.). Encyclopaedia of Language and Education. New York: Springer.
Ellis, R.2009a. Implicit and explicit learning, knowledge and instruction. In R. Ellis, et al.(Ed.) Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching.Bristol, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R.2009b. Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language. In R. Ellis,et al.(Ed.) Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing andTeaching. Bristol, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R. et al.2009. Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testingand Teaching. Bristol, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R.2004. The definition and measurement of L2explicit knowledge. Language Learning54(2):227–275.
Ellis, R.2000. Second Language Acquisition. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching andResearch Press.
Ellis, R.1999. Learning a Second Language through Interaction. Philadelhia, PA, USA: JohnBenjamins Publishing Company.
Ellis, R.1994. A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In N. Ellis.(Ed.) Implicitand Explicit Learning of Language. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ellis, R., H. Basturkmen,&S. Loewen.2001a. Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons.Language Learning51:281–318.
Ellis, R., H. Basturkmen,&S. Loewen.2001b. Preemptive Focus on Form in the ESLClassroom. TESOL Quarterly35(3):407-432.
Ellis, R.&S. Loewen.2007. Confirming the operational definitions of explicit and implicitknowledge in Ellis (2005)–Responding to Isermonger. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition29:119-126.
Ellis, R., Y. Tanaka,&A. Yamazaki.1994. Classroom interaction, comprehension, and theacquisition of L2word meanings. Language Learning44:449-491.
Ehrlich, S., P. Avery,&C. Yorio.1989. Discourse structure and the negotiation ofcomprehensible input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition11:397-414.
Erlam, R. J. Philp,&C. Elder.2009. Exploring the explicit knowledge of TESOL teachertrainees: Implications for focus on form in the classroom. In R. Ellis, et al.(Ed.) Implicitand Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching. Bristol,Buffal, Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Firth, A.&J. Wagner.2007. Second/Foreign language learning a s a social accomplishment:elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. The Modern Language Journal91(Focus Issue):800-819.
Firth, A.&J. Wagner.1997/2007. On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamentalconcepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal81:288-300;91(Focus Issue):757-772.
Fisher, R. and S. Larkin.2008. Pedagogy or ideological struggle? An examination of pupilsand teachers’ expectations for talk in the classroom. Language and Education22(1):1-16.
Foster, P.1998. A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics19(1):1-23.
Foster, P.&A. S. Ohta.2005. Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in secondlanguage classroom. Applied Linguistics26(3):402–430.
Foster, P., A. Tonkyn,&G. Wigglesworth.2000. Measuring spoken language: A unit for allreasons. Applied Linguistics21(3):354-375.
Freeman, D.2007. Research “Fitting” practice: Firth and Wagner, classroom languageteaching, and language teacher education. The Modern Language Journal91(focus issue):893-906.
Gallimore, R.&R. Tharp.1990. Teaching mind in society: Teaching, schooling and literatediscourse. In C. M. Luis (Ed.). Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications andApplications of Sociohistorical Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gass, S. M.1998. Apples and oranges: Or, why apples are not oranges and don’t need to be.The Modern Language Journal1.
Gass, S.1997. Input, Interaction, and Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.
Gass, S.&A. Mackey.2006. Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review19:3-17.
Gass, S. M., A. Mackey,&T. Pica.1998. The role of input and interaction in secondlanguage acquisition: Introduction to the sepecial issue. The Modern Language Journal82:299-305.
Gass, S. M.&E. M. Varonis.1985. Task variation and non-native/non-native negotiation ofmeaning. In S. M. Gass,&C. Madden (Ed.). Input in Second Language Acquisition.Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Gass, S.,&L. Selinker.1994. Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gibbons, P.2003. Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in acontent-Based classroom. TESOL Quarterly37(2):247-273.
GOH, H. H.2006. Adapted Core Transcription Process Manual (For Chinese Transcription)Vol.1,2&3. Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice.
Grabois, H.2008. Contribution and language learning: service-learning from a socioculturalperspective. In J. P. Lantolf,&M. E. Poehner (Ed.). Sociocultural Theory and the Teachingof Second Languages. London, Oakville: Equinox Publishing Ltd.
Hall, J. K.2007. Redressing the roles of correction and repair in research on second andforeign language learning. The Modern Language Journal91(4):511-526.
Hall, J. K.2007. The devel’s in the details: a response to Seedhouse. The Modern LanguageJournal91(4):534-536.
Hall, J. K.&L. S. Verplaetse.2000. Second and Foreign Language Through ClassroomInteraction (Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Hanks, W. F.1991. Foreward by William F. Hanks. In Situated learning: legitimateperipheral participation. By Lave, J.&E. Wenger. Cambridge: Cambridge Universitypress.
Hatch, E.1978. Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
He, A. W. Y.2004. CA for SLA: Arguments from the Chinese Language Classroom. TheModern Language Journal88(4).
Hymes, D.1971. On Communicative Competence. Philadelphia, P. A.: University ofPennsylvania Press.
Jacknick, C. M.2009. A Conversation-analytic Account of Student-initiated Participation inan ESL Classroom. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Columbia University.
Ji, P. Y.2008. Pragmatics and Pedagogy in College English Teaching. Shanghai: ShanghaiForeign Language Education Press.
Johnson, K.1995. Understanding Communication in Second Language Classrooms.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
John-Steiner, V.&H. Mahn. Sociocultural Approaches to Learning and Development: AVygotskian Framework. A paper submitted to a special issue of Educational Psychologiston theoretical approaches to learning and their implications for the classroom (onlineresources).
Kasper, G.2001. Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics (Ed.). In K. R. Rose,&G.Kasper. Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kasper, G.1997.“A” stands for acquisition: A response to Firth and Wagner. The ModernLanguage Journal81(3).
Kleifgen, J. A. and M. Saville-Troike.1992. Achieving coherence in multilingual interaction.Discourse Processes15:183-206.
Ko, J.2001. The Effect of Negotiation of meaning on the Storytelling of Adult Students in ESLClassrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Texas, Austin.
Ko, J., D. L. Schallert,&K. Walters.2003. Source rethinking scaffolding: Examiningnegotiation of meaning in an ESL storytelling task. TESOL Quarterly37(2):303-324.
Krashen, S.1994. The input hypothesis and its rivals. In N. Ellis (Ed.). Implicit and ExplicitLearning of Languages. London: Academic Press.
Krashen, S.1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implication. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S.1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:Pergamon.
Krashen, S.1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford:Pergamon.
Kumpulainen, K.,&D. Wray.2002. Classroom Interaction and Social Learning: FromTheory to Practice. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Kumpulainen, K.&M. Mutanen.1999. Social interaction and learning–Interaction researchwithin the framework of sociocultural and constructivist perspectives to learning. Kasvatus,Finnish Journal of Education Research1:5-17.
Lafford, B. A.2007. Second language acquisition reconceptualized? The impact of Firth andWagner (1997). The Modern Language Journal91(Focus Issue):735-756.
Lantolf, J. P.2007. Sociocultural source of thinking and its relevance for second languageacquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition10(1):31–33.
Lantolf, J. P.2006. Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics—Asociocultural perspective. Applied Linguistics27(4):717–728.
Lantolf, J. P.2004. Sociocultural theory and second and foreign language learning: Anoverview of sociocultural theory. In K. van Esch,&O. St. John (Ed.). New Insights intoForeign Language Learning and Teaching. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Lantolf, J. P.2000. Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Lantolf, J. P.1996. Second language theory building: Letting all the flowers bloom!Language Learning46:713-749.
Lantolf, J. P.&A. Aljaafreh.1995. Second language learning in the zone of proximaldevelopment: A revolutionary experience. International Journal of Educational Research23:619-632.
Lantolf, J. P.&K. E. Johnson.2007. Extending Firth and Wagner’s (1997) ontologicalperspective to L2classroom praxis and teacher education. The Modern Language Journal91(Focus Issue):877-892.
Lantolf, J. P.&M. E. Poehner.2008. Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of SecondLanguages. London, Oakville: Equinox Publishing Ltd.
Lantolf, J.&S. Thorne.2006. Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second LanguageDevelopment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D.2007. Reflecting on the Cognitive-Social Debate in Second LanguageAcquisition. The Modern Language Journal91(Focus Issue):773-787.
Larsen-Freeman, D.2002. Language acquisition and language use from a chaos/complexitytheory perspective. In Kramsch (Ed.). Language Acquisition and Language Socialization.London: Continuum.
Larsen-Freeman, D.&M. Long.1991. An Introduction to Second Language AcquisitionResearch. London: Longman.
Lave, J.&E. Wenger.1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Lazaraton, A.2004. Conversation analysis and the nonnative English speaking ESL teacher: Acase study. In D. Boxer,&A. D. Cohen (Ed.). Studying Speaking to Inform SecondLanguage Learning. Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Lazaraton, A.&N. Ishihara.2005. Understanding second language teacher practice usingmicroanalysis and self-reflection: A collaborative case study. The Modern LanguageJournal89(4):529-542.
Leeser, M. J.2004. Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue.Language Teaching Research8(1):55–81.
Leontiev, A. N.1981. The problem of activity in psychology, in J. V. Wertsch (Ed.). TheConcept of Activity in Soviet Psychology. Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
Leontiev, A. N.1978. Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.
Lepper, M., L., Aspinwall, D. Mumme,&R. Chabay.1990. Self-perception and social-perception processes in tutoring: Subtle social control strategies of expert tutors. In J. Olson,&M. Zanna (Ed.). Self-inference Processes: The Ontario Symposium. Vol.6. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Li, D. L.2008. Scaffolding and Its Impact on Learning Grammatical Forms in TertiaryChinese EFL Classrooms. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Hong Kong Baptist University.
Liebscher, G.&J. Dailey-O’Cain.2003. Conversatonal repair as a role-defining mechanismin classroom interaction. Modern Language Journal87:375-390.
Lightbown, P. M.1998. The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty,&J.Williams (Ed.). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lightbown, P. M.1992. Can they do it themselves? A comprehension-based ESL course foryoung children. In Courchene et al.(Ed.). Comprehension-based Second LanguageTeaching. Ottowa: University of Ottawa Press.
Lightbown, P. M.1991. What have we here? Some observations on the role of instruction insecond language acquisition. in R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. SharwoodSmith,&M. Swain (Ed.). Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy research： ACommemorative Volume for Claus Ferch. Clevedon, London: Multilingual Matters.
Lightbown, P.&N. Spada.1990. Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicativelanguage teaching: effects on second language learning. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition.12:429-48.
Liu, Y. B.&D. B. Zhang.2006. Regulative discourse in Singapore primary English classes:Teachers’ choice of directives. AERA Conference.
Liu, Y. C.2009. Learning as Negotiation in Communities of Practice–An EthnographicStudy of Teachers’ Learning in the Workplace in a University Department of EnglishEducation in China. Unpublished Ph D Dissertation. Faculty of Education. University ofCambridge.
Long, M. H.2007. Problems in SLA. New York/London: Taylor&Francis Group.
Long, M. H.1997. Construct validity in SLA research: A response to Firth and Wagner. TheModern Language Journal81(3).
Long, M. H.1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. InW. C. Ritchie,&T. K. Bhatia (Ed.). Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego,CA: Academic Press.
Long, M. H.1991. Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology. In deBot et al.(Ed.). Foreign Language Research in Cross-cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Long, M. H.1983. Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studiesin Second Language Acquisition5(2).
Long, M. H.1980. Inside the “black box”: methodological issues in classroom research onlanguage learning. Language Learning30:1-42.
Long, M. H.&P. Robinson.1998. Focus on form: theory, research and practice. In C.Doughty,&J. Williams (Ed.). Focus on form in classroom SLA. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Loewen, S.2009. Grammaticality judgment tests and the measurement of implicit and explicitL2knowledge. In R. Ellis, et al.(Ed.). Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in SecondLanguage Learning, Testing and Teaching. Bristol, Buffal, Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Loewen, S.2005. Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition27:361-386.
Loschky, L.1994. Comprehensible input and second language acquisition: What is therelationship? Studies in Second Language Acquisition16:303-323.
Lyster, R.2008. Interactional feedback in content-based instruction. Lecture at NortheastNormal University, Changchun, China.
Lyster, R.2007. Learning and Teaching Languages through Content: A CounterbalancedApproach. Amsterdam/Philadalphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Lyster, R.2004. Research on form-focused instruction in immersion classrooms: Implicationsfor theory and practice. French Language Studies14:321–341.
Lyster, R.2002. Negotiation in immersion teacher–student interaction. International Journalof Educational Research37:237–253.
Lyster, R.1998. Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error typesand learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning48:183-218.
Lyster, R.&H. Mori.2006. Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. SSLA.28:269-300.
Lyster, R.&R. Ranta.1997, Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form inCommunicative Classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition19:37-66.
Mackey, A.2006. Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. AppliedLinguistics27(3):405–430.
Mackey, A., S. Gass,&K. McDonough.2000. How do learners perceive implicit negativefeedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition22:471-97.
Magnan, S. S.2008. The unfulfilled promise of teaching for communicative competence:insights from sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf,&M. E. Poehner. Sociocultural Theoryand the Teaching of Second Languages. London, Oakville: Equinox Publishing Ltd.
McCarthey, S. J.1991. The influence of classroom discourse on student texts: the case of Ella.Paper presented at the National Reading Conference in Palms Springs, California.
McCarthy, M., C. Matthiessen,&D. Slade.2002. Discourse Analysis. In N. Schmitt (Ed.).An Introduction to Applied Linguistics. London: Arnold.
McDonough, K.2005. Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses onESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition27(1):79-103.
McHoul, A.1990. The organization of repair in classroom talk. Language in Society.19:349-377.
Mehan, H.1979. Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Mercer, N.2008. The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis.Journal of the Learning Sciences17(1):33-59.
Mercer, N.2004. Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analysing classroom talk as a social modeof thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics1(2):137-168.
Mercer, N.2000a. Language for teaching a language. in English Language Teaching in ItsSocial Context (ed.). Florence, KY, USA: Routledge.
Mercer, N.2000b. Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together, London:Routledge.
Mercer, N.1995. The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners.Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Mercer, N.&K. Littleton.2007. Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: Asociocultural approach. London: Routledge.
Mercer, N., L. Dawes,&J. K. Staarman.2009. Dialogic teaching in the primary scienceclassroom. Language and Education23(4):353-369.
Mitchell, R.&F. Myles.2004. Second Language Learning Theories (2ndEdition). London:Arnold, a member of the Hodder Headline Group.
More, A.2000. Teaching and Learning: Pedagogy, Curriculum and Culture. London, UK:RoutledgeFalmer.
Mori, J.2007. Border crossing? Exploring the intersection of second language acquisition,conversation analysis, and foreign language pedagogy. The Modern Language Journal91(Focus Issue):849-862.
Mori, J.2004. Negotiating sequential boundaries and learning opportunities: A case from aJapanese language classroom. Modern Language Journal88:536–550.
Morris, F.2002. Negotiation and recasts in relation to error types and learner repair. ForeignLanguage Annals35:395–404.
Musumeci, D.1996. Teacher-learner negotiation in content-based instruction: communicationat cross-purposes? Applied Linguistics17(3):286-325.
Nakahama, Y., A. Tyler,&L. van Lier.2001. Negotiation of meaning in conversational andinformation gap activities: A comparative discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly35(3):377-405.
Nasir, N. S.&V. M. Hand.2006. Exploring sociocultural perspectives on race, culture, andlearning. Review of Educational Research76(4):449-475.
Nassaji, H.&M. Swain.2000. A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: Theeffect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. LanguageAwareness9:34-51.
Neves, I., A. Morais,&M. Afonso.2004. Teacher training contexts: Study of specificsociological characteristics. In J. Muller, B. Davies,&A. Morais (Ed.). Thinking withBernstein, working with Bernstein. London: Routledge.
Newman, D. Griffin, P.&M. Cole.1989. The Construction Zone: Working for CognitiveChange in School. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nobuyoshi, J.&R. Ellis.1993. Focused communication tasks and second languageacquisition. ELT Journal47:203-210.
Norris, J. M.&L. Ortega.2000. Effectiveness of L2instruction: A research synthesis andquantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning50:417-528.
Norwood, N. J.&R. Ellis.1990. Researching classroom language learning. In C. Brumfit&R. Mitchell (Ed.). Research in the Language Classroom: ELT Documents. London: ModernEnglish Publications in association with British Council.
Ohashi, Y.2005. Teaching and Learning through Interaction: A Case study of JapaneseChildren Learning English as a Foreign Language. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Schoolof Education, The University of Leeds.
Ohta, A.2001. Second Language Acquisition in the Classroom: Learning Japanese. NewJersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ohta, A. S.2000. Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance inthe Zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2grammar. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.).Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ohta, A. S.1995. Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse: Learner-learner collaborative interaction in the zone of proximal development. Issues in AppliedLinguistics6:93-121.
Oliver, R.2002. The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions. The ModernLanguage Journal86:97-111.
Oliver, R.1995. Negative feedback in child NS/NNS conversation. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition18:459-481.
Olshtain, E.&M. Celce-Murcia.2001. Discourse Analysis and Language Teaching in D.Schiffrin, D. Tannen,&H. E. Hamilton [Ed.]. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis.Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Panova, I.&R. Lyster.2002. Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESLclassroom. TESOL Quarterly36:573-595.
Paradis, M.1994. Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: Implications forbilingualism and second language acquisition. In N. Ellis (Ed.). Implicit and ExplicitLanguage Learning. London: Academic Press.
Piaget, J.1975. The Origin of the Idea of Chance in Children. London: Routledge and KeganPaul.
Pica, T.1994. Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learningconditions, processes and outcomes? Language Learning44(3).
Pica, T.1992. The textual outcomes of native speaker-non-native speaker negotiation: whatdo they reveal about second language learning. In C. Kramsch,&McConnell-Ginet (Ed.).Text and Context: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Language Study. Lexingtong, Mass.:D. C. Heath and Company.
Pica, T.1987. Second language acquisition, social interaction in the classroom. AppliedLinguistics7:1-25.
Pica, T.&Doughty.1985. Input and interaction in the communicative language classroom: Acomparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In S. M. Gass,&C. G. Madden (Ed.).Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Pica, T., L. Holliday, N. Lewis, D. Berducci,&J. Newman.1991. Language Learning throughinteraction: what role does gender play? Studies in Second Language Acquisition13:343-76.
Pica, T., L. Holliday, N. Lewis,&L. Morgenthaler.1989. Comprehensible output as anoutcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition11:63-90.
Pica, T.&M. Long.1986. The linguistic and conversational performance of experienced andinexperienced teachers in R. Day (Ed.). Talking to Learn: Conversation in SecondLanguage Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Pica, T., R. Young,&C. Doughty.1987. The impact of interaction on comprehension.TESOL Quarterly21:737-757.
Poehner, M. E.&J. P. Lantolf.2005. Dynamic assessment in the language classroom.Language Teaching Research9(3):233–265.
Prabhu, N. S.1987. Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Renou, J.2001. An examination of the relationship between metalinguistic awareness andsecond language proficiency of adult learners of French. Language Awareness4(10):248-267.
Rogoff, B.1998. Cognition as a collaborative process. In W. Damon, D. Kuhn,&R. S.Siegler (Ed.). Handbook of Child Psychology. Vol.2. New York: Wildy.
Rogoff, B.1994. Developing undersftanding of the idea of communities of cearners. Mind,Culture, and Activity1(4):209-29.
Rogoff, B.1990. Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rogoff, B.&W. P. Gardner.1984. Guidance in cognitive development: An examination ofmother-child instruction. In B. Rogoff&J. Lave (Ed.). Everyday Cognition: ItsDevelopment in Social Context. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.
Rojas-Drummond, S.2000. Guided participation, discourse and the construction ofknowledge in Mexican classroom. In H. Cowie&G. van der Aalsvoort (Ed.). SocialInteraction in Learning and Instruction. Oxford: Pergamon.
Rojas-Drummonda, S.&N. Mercer.2003. Scaffolding the development of effectivecollaboration and learning. International Journal of Educational Research39:99–111.
Rulon, K.&J. McCreary.1986. Negotiation of content: teacher-fronted and small groupinteraction in R. Day (Ed.). Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second LanguageAcquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Schmitt, N.2002. An Introduction to Applied Linguistics. London: Arnold.
Schmitt, N.&M. Celce-Murcia. An overview of applied linguistics. In N.Schmitt (Ed.). AnIntroduction to Applied Linguistics. London: Arnold.
Schmidt, R.2001. Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.). Cognition and Second LanguageInstruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R.1994. Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars andSLA. In N. Ellis (Ed.). Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages. San Diego: AcademicPress.
Schmidt, R.1993. Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of AppliedLinguistics13:206-226.
Schmidt, R.1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics11:129-58.
Scollon, R.&S. W. Scollon.2001. Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach.Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Seedhouse, P.2007. On ethnomethodological CA and Linguistic CA: a reply to Hall. TheModern Language Journal91(4):527-533.
Seedhouse, P.2005. The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: AConversation Analysis Perspective. Blackwell.
Seedhouse, P.1997. The case of the missing ‘no’: The relationship between pedagogy andinteraction. Language Learning47(3):547-583.
Selinker, L.1972. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics.10:209-31.
Sfard, A.1998. On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one.Educational Researcher27(2).4-13.
Shim, Y.2003. The Nature of Negotiation of Meaning between Teacher and Student in theSecond Language Classroom. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation. University of Texas atAustin.
Short, D. J.2000. Teacher Discourse in Social Studies Classrooms: How Teachers PromoteAcademic Literacy for English Language Learners. Unpublished Ph D Dissertation.GeorgeMason University, Fairfax, Virginia.
Sinclair, J.&M. Coulthard.1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Slimani, A.1989. The role of topicalization in classroom language learning. System17(2):223-234.
Spada, N.1997. Form-focussed instruction and second language acquisition: A review ofclassroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching30:73-87.
Spada, N.&P. M. Lightbown.2002. Second Language Acquisition. In N. Schmitt (Ed.). AnIntroduction to Applied Linguistics. London: Arnold.116-129.
Spada, N.&P. M. Lightbown.1993. Instruction and the development of questions in L2classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition15:205-224.
Storch, N.2002. Patterns of Interaction in ESL Pair Work. Language Learning52(1):119–158.
Swain, M.2006. Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language learning.In H. Byrnes (Ed.) Advanced Language Learning: The Contributions of Halliday andVygotsky. London: Continuum.
Swain, M.2005. The output hypothesis: Theory and practice. in E. Hinkel.(Ed.). Handbookof Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. New Jersey: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Inc.
Swain, M.2000. The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediationg acquisition throughcollaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.). Sociocultural Theory and Second LanguageLearning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M.1995. Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook&B.Seidlhofer (Ed.). Principles and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honour of H.G.Widdowson. New York: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M.1993. The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. TheCanadian Modern Language Review50(1).
Swain, M.1985. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input andcomprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass&C. G. Madden (Ed.). Input inSecond Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M.&L. X. Yang.2008. Output Hypothesis: Its History and Its Future. ForeignLanguage Teaching and Research40(1).
Swain, M.&P. Deters.2007.“New” mainstream SLA theory: expanded and enriched. TheModern Language Journal91(Focus Issue):820-836.
Swain, M.&S. Lapkin.1995. Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate:A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics16(3).
Tamara, B.&G. Wells.2009. Running cars down ramps: learning about learning over time.Language and Education23(4):371-390.
Tharp, R.&R. Gallimore.1988. Rousing minds to life, Teaching, Learning and Schooling inSocial Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, J.1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London, New York:Longman.
Thoms, J. J.2008. Teacher-initiated talk and student oral discourse in a second languageliterature classroom: A sociocultural analysis. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. GraduateCollege of University of Iowa.
Truscott, J.1999. What’s wrong with oral grammar correction. The Canadian ModernLanguage Review55:437-456.
Tudini, V.2007. Negotiation and intercultural learning in Italian native speaker chat rooms.The Modern Language Journal91(4):577-601.
van Lier, L.2004. The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning: A SocioculturalPerspective. Boston/Dordrecht/New York/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
van Lier, L.2000. From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecologicalperspective. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van Lier, L.1988. The Classroom and the Language Learner. London: Longman.
Van Patten, B.1990. Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition12:287-301.
Varonis, E.&S. Gass.1985. Non-native/non-native conversations: a model for negotiation ofmeaning. Applied Linguistics6:71-90.
Vygotsky, L. S.1987. Thinking and speech. In R. Rieber (Ed.). The Collected Works of L. S.Vygotsky. New York and London: Plenum Press.
Vygotsky, L. S.1962/1986. Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S.1978. Mind in Society: the Development of Higher Psychological Processes.Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Walsh, S.2006. Talking the talk of the TESOL classroom. ELT Journal60(2).
Walsh, S.2002. Construction or obstruction: teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFLclassroom. Language Teaching Research6(1):3–23.
Wang, J.1996. Same Task: Different Activities. Unpublished research report, University ofPitttsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Wang, Q., X. T. Cheng, C. Moen,&Adamson, B.2000. A Course in English LanguageTeaching. Beijing: Higher Education Press.
Waring, H. S. Z.2008. Using Explicit Positive Assessment in the Language Classroom: IRF,Feedback, and Learning Opportunities. The Modern Language Journal92(4):577–594.
Wegerif, R.&N. Mercer.1997. Using computer-based text analysis to integrate qualitativeand quantitative methods in the investigation of collaborative learning. Language andEducation11(4):271-286.
Wells, G..1999. Dialogic Inquiry: Towards a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wells, G..1993. Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories ofactivity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguisticsand Education5:1–37.
Wells, G..1987. The Meaning Makers: Children Learning Language and Using Language toLearn. Portmouth: Heinemann Educational Books Inc.
Wertsch, J. V.1991. Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V.1985. Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.
Wertsch, J. V.1979. From social interaction to higher psychological processes: A clarificationand application of Vygotsky’s theory. Human Development22:1-22.
White, J.1998. Getting learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In C.Doughty,&J. Williams (Ed.). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition.New York: Cambridge University Press.
White, L.1987. Against comprehensible input: the input hypothesis and the development ofsecond language competence. Applied Linguistics8:95-110.
Widdowson, H. G.1978/1996. Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press; Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Williams, J.2005. Learning with awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition27:269-304.
Williams, J.1999. Memory, attention and inductive learning. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition21:1-48.
Wood, D., J. Bruner,&G. Ross.1976. The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal ofChild Psychology and Psychiatry17:89-100.
Wu, Y. A.2001. English language teaching in China: trends and challenges. TESOL Quarterly35(1):191-194.
Young, R.1984. Negotiation of meaning and negotiation of outcome in the reading classroom.Paper presented at the Tenth World Congress on Reading. Hong Kong.
戴炜栋，2009.我国外语教育60年：回顾与展望[J]《中国外语》第5期：10-15.
戴炜栋，2008.解放思想，实事求是，推动我国外语教育事业发展[J]《外语界》第5期：24－29.
戴炜栋、王雪梅，2006.建构具有中国特色的外语教育体系[J]《外语界》第4期：2-12.
高等学校外语专业教学指导委员会英语组，2000.高等学校英语专业英语教学大纲[S]北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
高一虹，1998.《语言文化差异的认识与超越》北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
高瑛，2009.认知与社会文化视域下的课堂互动话语研究述评[J]《外语教学理论与实践》第4期：76-83.
何其莘、殷桐生、黄源生、刘海平，1999.关于外语专业本科教育改革的若干意见[J]《外语教学与研究》第1期：24-28.
胡文仲，2009.新中国六十年外语教育的成就与缺失[J]《外语教学与研究》第3：163-169。
胡文仲、孙有中，2006.突出学科特点，加强人文教育[J]《外语教学与研究》5：243-247.
蓝仁哲，2009.高校外语专业的学科属性与培养目标[J]《中国外语》第6期：4-8.
梁文霞、朱立霞，2007.国外二语课堂实证研究20年述评[J]《外语界》第5期：58-67.
束定芳，2004.《外语教学改革:问题与对策》[M]上海：上海外语教育出版社。
王初明,运用写长法应当注意什么[J]《外语界》第5期：7-12.
文秋芳，2008a.评析二语习得认知派与社会派20年的论战[J]《中国外语》第3期：13-20.
文秋芳，2008b.输出驱动假设与英语专业技能课改革[J]《外语界》第2期:2-9.
文秋芳，1999.口语教学与思维能力的培养[J]《国外外语教学》第2期：1-4.
文秋芳，1996.传统和非传统学习方法与英语成绩的关系[J]《现代外语》第1期：37-43．
文秋芳、周燕.评述外语专业学生思维能力的发展[J]《外语学刊》第5期：76-80.
吴庄、文卫平，2009.英语专业本科生的第二语言交际意愿--社会环境、动机指向、性格与情感意识的影响[J]《外语教学理论与实践》第1期：32-35.
徐飞，2005.国内外课堂互动研究状况述评[J]《国外外语教学》第2期：55-63.
杨雪艳，2003.外语教师课堂策略研究：状况和意义[J]《外语教学与研究》第1期：54-61.
杨忠，2007.培养技能，发展智能—外语教育工具性与人文性的统一[J]《外语学刊》第6期：133-137.
郑佩芸，2007.形式协商的多视角研究和思考[J]《外语界》第5期：76－82.
张绍杰，2010.全球化背景下的外语教学－行动与反思[J]《外语与外语教学》第1期：9-12.
张绍杰，2007.对舶来教学法说“不”[J]《中国外语》第3期：4-9.
章振邦，2003.也谈我国外语教改问题[J]《外国语》第4期：1-6.
钟美荪，2006.以精英教育理念深化外语教育改革[J]《外语教学与研究》第5期：254-256.
邹为诚、赵飞，2008.论二语习得理论的建设[J]《中国外语》第4期：46-56.
国家教育指导委员会，1992.《英语教学大纲》[S]北京：人民教育出版社。