This article explores the microgenetic development of learners’ understanding of sociolinguistic variation in French during an instructional conversation (IC) that followed a language analysis task in which learners attempted to formulate hypotheses about the nature of language variation. During the IC, the instructor led students toward a conceptual understanding of variation in French by providing appropriate graduated (i.e. from implicit or strategic to explicit) mediation that was sensitive to the class’s zone of proximal development (ZPD). Teacher–student collaborative interaction within a group’s ZPD has the potential to develop learners’ conceptual understanding of variation, which can provide an important orienting basis for the development of their performance abilities. The transcript of the IC is analysed and discussed with regard to the amount and type(s) of mediation the instructor provides and opportunities for development created in this type of collaborative interaction.
AljaafrehA.LantolfJ. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–83.
2.
BayleyR.PrestonD.R. (Eds.) (1996). Second language acquisition and linguistic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
3.
BayleyR.ReganV. (Eds.) (2004). The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence. Special issue of Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8.
4.
BelzJ.KingingerC. (2002). The cross-linguistic development of address form use in telecollaborative language learning: Two case studies. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 189–214.
5.
BourboulonF.DumasS.FrappierR.VandalL.ZeitounA. (Producers) (2003). Père et fils [Father and sons] [motion picture]. Paris: Ajoz Films.
6.
CanaleM. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In: RichardsJ.SchmidtR.W. (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2–27). New York: Longman.
7.
CanaleM.SwainM. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.
8.
Celce-MurciaM.A.DörnyeiZ.ThurrellS. (1995). Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specification. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6, 5–35.
9.
Centeno-CortésB. (2003). Private speech in the second language classroom: Its role in internalization and its link to social production. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
10.
CookH.M. (2001). Why can’t learners of JFL distinguish polite from impolite speech styles? In RoseK.KasperG. (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 80–102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
CoveneyA. (2000). Vestiges of nous and the 1st person plural verb in informal spoken French. Language Sciences, 22, 447–81.
12.
CoveneyA. (2003). ‘Anything you can do tu can do better’: Tu and vous as substitutes for indefinite on in French. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7, 164–91.
13.
DewaeleJ.-M. (2001). Une distinction mesurable: Corpus oraux et écrits sur le continuum de la deixis. Journal of French Language Studies, 11, 179–99.
14.
DewaeleJ.-M. (2004a). The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence in French as a foreign language: An overview. Journal of French Language Studies, 14, 301–19.
15.
DewaeleJ.-M. (2004b). Vous or tu: Native and non-native speakers of French on a sociolinguistic tightrope. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 42, 383–402.
16.
DewaeleJ.-M.MougeonR. (Eds.) (2002). L’appropriation de la variation en français langue étrangère. Special issue of Acquisition et interaction en langue étrangère, 17.
17.
DewaeleJ.-M.MougeonR. (Eds.) (2004). Patterns of variation in the interlanguage of advanced second language learners. Special issue of International Review of Applied Linguistic, 42.
18.
DonatoR. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In LantolfJ. P.AppelG. (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
19.
EckertP. (2005). Variation, convention, and social meaning. Unpublished plenary talk at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Oakland, CA, USA. Retrieved from: http://www.stanford.edu/~eckert/EckertLSA2005.pdf (October2011).
20.
EckertP. (2008). Variation in the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12, 453–76.
21.
EtienneC.SaxK. (2006). Teaching stylistic variation through film. French Review, 79, 934–50.
22.
FirthA.WagnerJ. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81, 285–300
23.
Fonseca-GreberB. (2007). The emergence of emphatic ne in conversational Swiss French. Journal of French Language Studies, 17, 249–75.
24.
Fonseca-GreberB.WaughL. (2003). On the radical difference between the subject personal pronouns in written and spoken European French. In: LeistynaP.MeyerC. F. (Eds.), Corpus analysis: Language structure and language use (pp. 225–40). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
25.
GoldenbergC. (1991). Instructional conversations and their classroom applications. Educational Practice Report 2. Paper EPR02. Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6q72k3k9 (October2011).
26.
GuikemaJ.P. (2004). Learners as agents of development: An activity theory and folk linguistic analysis of foreign language literacy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
27.
HallJ.K. (2001). Methods for teaching foreign languages: Creating a community of learners in the classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
28.
HymesD. (1971). Competence and performance in linguistic theory. In: HuxelyR.IngramE. (Eds.), Language acquisition: Models and methods (pp. 3–28). New York: Academic Press.
29.
Journal télévisé de 20 heures [television broadcast] (2006, October8). Paris: France Télévisions SA.
30.
KingingerC. (1998). Videoconferencing as access to spoken French. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 502–13.
31.
KingingerC.BelzJ. (2005). Sociocultural perspectives on pragmatic development in foreign language learning: Microgenetic and ontogenetic case studies from telecollaboration and study abroad. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2, 369–421.
32.
LantolfJ.P. (Ed.). (2000a). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33.
LantolfJ.P. (2000b). Introducing sociocultural theory. In LantolfJ.P. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34.
LantolfJ.P. (2007). Conceptual knowledge and instructed second language learning. In: FotosS.NassajiH. (Eds.), Form-focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honour of Rod Ellis (pp. 35–54). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35.
LantolfJ.P.PoehnerM.E. (2004). Dynamic assessment: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 49–74.
36.
LantolfJ.P.PoehnerM.E. (Eds.) (2008a). Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages. London: Equinox.
37.
LantolfJ.P.PoehnerM.E. (2008b). Introduction to sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages. In: LantolfJ.P.PoehnerM.E. (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 1–30). London: Equinox.
38.
LantolfJ.P.ThorneS.L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39.
LantolfJ.P.Yáñez-PrietoC. (2003). Talking yourself into Spanish: Intrapersonal communication and second language learning. Hispania, 86, 97–109.
40.
LysterR. (1994). The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 15, 263–87.
41.
McCourtC.A. (2009). Pragmatic variation among learners of French in real-time chat communication. In: OxfordR.OxfordJ. (Eds.), Second language teaching and learning in the Net Generation (pp. 143–154). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
42.
MorfordJ. (1997). Social indexicality in French pronominal address. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 7, 3–37.
43.
MougeonR.RehnerK.NadasdiT. (2004). The learning of spoken French variation by immersion students from Toronto, Canada. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8, 408–32.
44.
MühlhäuslerP.HarréR. (1990). Pronouns and people: The linguistic construction of social and personal identity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
45.
NegueruelaE. (2003). A sociocultural approach to teaching and researching second language: Systemic-theoretical instruction and second language development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
46.
NegueruelaE. (2008). Revolutionary pedagogies: Learning that leads (to) second language development. In: LantolfJ.P.PoehnerM.E. (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 189–227). London: Equinox.
47.
NegueruelaE.LantolfJ.P. (2006). Concept-based pedagogy and the acquisition of L2 Spanish. In: SalaberryR.LaffordB.A. (Eds.), The art of teaching Spanish: Second language acquisition from research to practice (pp. 79–102). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
48.
NiedzielskiN.A.PrestonD.R. (Eds.) (2000). Folk linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
49.
OhtaA. (2001a). A longitudinal study of the development of expression of alignment in Japanese as a foreign language. In: RoseK.KasperG. (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 103–120). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50.
OhtaA.S. (2001b). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
51.
PaveauM.-A. (2007). Les normes perceptives de la linguistique populaire [Perceptive norms in folk linguistics]. Langage & Société, 119, 93–109.
52.
PoehnerM.E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting second language development. Berlin: Springer.
53.
PoehnerM.E.LantolfJ.P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9, 1–33.
54.
PrestonD. (1989). Variation and second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.
55.
ReganV.HowardM.LeméeI. (2009). The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence in a study abroad context. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
56.
RoseK.KasperG. (Eds.) (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
57.
SavignonS. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice: Texts and contexts in second language learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
58.
SwainM.LapkinS. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of first language use. Language Teaching Research, 4, 253–76.
59.
SwainM.LapkinS.KnouziI.SuzukiW.BrooksL. (2009). Languaging: University students learn the grammatical concept of voice in French. Modern Language Journal, 93, 5–29.
60.
TaroneE. (1997). Analyzing IL in natural settings: A sociolinguistic perspective on second-language acquisition. Communication and Cognition, 30, 137–49.
61.
TaroneE.SwainM. (1995). A sociolinguistic perspective on second language use in immersion classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 79, 166–78.
62.
TateyamaY. (2001). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines: Japanesesumimasen. In: RoseK.KasperG. (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 200–222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
63.
TharpR.G.GallimoreR. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
64.
TharpR.G.GallimoreR. (1991). The instructional conversation: Teaching and learning in social activity. Research Reports: 2. Paper rr02. Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for Research and Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/5th0939d (October2011).
65.
ValsinerJ. (2001). Process structure of semiotic mediation in human development. Human Development, 44, 84–97.
66.
van CompernolleR.A. (2008a). Nous versus on: Pronouns with first-person plural reference in synchronous French chat. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11, 85–110.
67.
van CompernolleR.A. (2008b). Morphosyntactic and phonological constraints on negative particle variation in French-language chat discourse. Language Variation and Change, 20, 317–39.
68.
van CompernolleR.A. (2009). Emphatic ne in informal spoken French and implications for foreign language pedagogy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 47–65.
69.
van CompernolleR.A. (2010). Towards a sociolinguistically responsive pedagogy: Teaching second-person address forms in French. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 445–63.
70.
van CompernolleR.A.WilliamsL. (2009a). Variable omission of ne in real-time French chat: A corpus-driven comparison of educational and non-educational contexts. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65, 413–40.
71.
van CompernolleR.A.WilliamsL. (2009b). Learner versus non-learner patterns of stylistic variation in synchronous computer-mediated French: Yes/no questions andnous versus on. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 471–500.
72.
van CompernolleR.A.WilliamsL. (2011). Metalinguistic explanations and self-reports as triangulation data for interpreting L2 sociolinguistic performance. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21, 26–50.
73.
van CompernolleR. A.WilliamsL. (in press). Reconceptualizing sociolinguistic competence as mediated action: Identity, meaning-making, agency. Modern Language Journal.
74.
van LierL. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy, and authenticity. Harlow: Longman.
75.
van LierL. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
76.
van LierL. (2006). Appropriate uses of the L1 in L2 classes. In: NakahamaY. (Ed.), The effect of the learners’L1 on the acquisition of Japanese: Research from a functional linguistics perspective (pp. 97–111). Nagoya: University of Nagoya, Graduate School, Department of International Language and Culture Research.
77.
van LierL. (2008). Agency in the classroom. In: LantolfJ.P.PoehnerM.E. (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 163–86). London: Equinox.
78.
VygotskyL.S. (1934). Myshlenie i rech’: Psikhologicheskie issledovania [Thinking and speech: Psychological investigations]. Moscow and Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe sotsial’no- ekonomicheskoe izdatel’stvo.
79.
VygotskyL.S. (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
80.
VygotskyL.S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
81.
WertschJ. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
82.
WilliamsL. (2003). The nature and complexities of chat discourse: A qualitative case study of multi-level learners of French in an electronic environment. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
83.
WilliamsL.van CompernolleR. A. (2009). On versus tu and vous: Pronouns with indefinite reference in synchronous electronic French discourse. Language Sciences, 31, 409–27.
84.
YoshimiD.R. (2001). Explicit instruction and JFL learner’s use of interactional discourse markers. In: RoseK.KasperG. (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 223–44) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
