Dyskurs edukacyjny w klasie językowej z perspektywy teorii społeczno-kulturowej

• Authors: Katarzyna Rokoszewska

Title variants

EN

Educational discourse in the foreign language classroom from the perspective of Sociocultural Theory

• Languages of publication: PL

Abstracts

EN

The present paper focuses on classroom discourse from the perspective of Sociocultural Theory. This theory, represented mainly by Vygotsky (1978), Leont'ev (1978) and Wertsch (1985), has been applied to second language acquisition by researchers such as Lantolf (1994). Firstly, the paper presents the view of language and language learning and the main constructs in sociocultural SLA, such as mediation through social interaction, mediation by means of private speech, internalization, the zone of proximal development, and Activity Theory. The methodology of sociocultural research is also taken into consideration. Secondly, the paper describes a number of studies into classroom discourse which are discussed in reference to the constructs mentioned above. Thirdly and finally, the paper provides some evaluation of the theory in question.

Keywords

PL

dyskurs edukacyjny; podejście społeczno-kulturowe; teoria działania

EN

educational discourse; Sociocultural Theory; Activity Theory; educational discourse; Sociocultural Theory; Activity Theory

• Publisher: Polskie Towarzystwo Neofilologiczne
• Journal: Neofilolog
• Year: 2012
• Issue: 38/1
• Pages: 27-42

Dates

published

2019-09-24

Contributors

author

Katarzyna Rokoszewska

• Instytut Filologii Obcych, Akademia im. J. Długosza, Częstochowa

References

• Aljaafreh, A. i Lantolf, J. 1994. „Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development", [w:] Modern Language Journal 78: 465-483.
• Artigal, J. 1992. „Some considerations on why a new language is acquired by being used", [w:] International Journal of Applied Linguistics 2 221-240.
• Bruner, J. 1983. Child's talk: Learning to use language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• DiCamilla, F. i Anton, M. 1997. „The function of repetition in the collaborative discourse of L2 learners", [w:] Canadian Modern Language Review 53: 609-633.
• Donato, R. 1994. „Collective scaffolding in second language learning", [w:] Lantolf, J. i Appel, G. (red.). Vjgotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. 453-464.
• Donato, R. i McCormack, D. 1994. „A sociocultural perspective on language learn­ing strategies: the role of mediation", [w:] Modern Language Journal'78: 453-464.
• Ellis, R. 2008. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Ellis, R. i Barkhuizen, G. 2005. Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford Uni­versity Press.
• Fodor, J. 1983. Modulańty of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
• Frawley, W. i Lantolf, J. 1985. „Second language discourse: A Vygotskyan per­spective", [w:] Applied Linguistics 6: 19-44.
• Halliday, M. 1973. Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.
• Hatch, E. 1978. „Discourse analysis and second language acquisition", [w:] Hatch, E. (red.). Second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 401-435.
• Hopper, P. 1998. „Emergent grammar", [w:] Tomasello, N. (red.). The new psy­chology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Mah-wah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. 155-175.
• Kowal, M. i Swain, M. 1994. „Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students' language awareness", [w:] Language Awareness 3: 73-93.
• Kramsch, C. 1993. Context and culture in language teaching Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Krashen, S. 1981. Second language acquisition and second language learning Oxford: Pergamon.
• La Pierre, D. 1994. „Language output in a cooperative learning setting: deter­mining its effects on second language learning". Unpublished MA thesis, University of Toronto, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
• Lakoff, G. i Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
• Lantolf, J. 1994. „Sociocultural theory and second language learning: Special issue", [w:] Modern Language Journal 1&. 418-420.
• Lantolf, J. 2000. Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lantolf, J. i Thorne, S. 2006. Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language devel­opment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Leont'ev, A. N. 1978. Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Long, M. 1983. „Native speaker/nonnative speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input", [w:] Applied Linguistics A 126-141.
• McCafferty, S. G., Roebuck, R. F. i Wayland, R. P. 2001. „Activity theory and the incidental learning of second-language vocabulary", [w:] Language Teaching Research 10: 289-294.
• Mercer, N. 2000. Words and minds. London: Routledge.
• Nassaji, H. i Swain, M. 2000. „A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: the effect of random versus negotiated help in the learning of Eng­lish articles", [w:] Language Awareness 9: 34-51.
• Newman, F i Holzman, L. 1997. The end of knowing: A new developmental way of learning. London: Routledge.
• Ohta, A. S. 2001. Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Piatt, E. i Brooks, R. 1994. „The "acquisition rich environment" revisited", [w:] Modern Language Journal 78: 497-511.
• Poehner, M. i Lantolf, J. 2005. „Dynamic assessment in the language class­room", [w:] Language Teaching Research 9: 233-265.
• Reddy, M. 1979. „The conduit metaphor", [w:] Ortony, A. (red.). Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 284-324.
• Roebuck, R. 2000. „Subjects speak out: how learners position themselves in a psycholinguistic task", [w:] Lantolf, J. (red.). Sociocultural Theory and second language learning Oxford: Oxford University Press. 79-96.
• Samuda, V. 2001. „Guiding relationship between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher", [w:] Bygate, M., Skehan, P. i Swain, M. (red.). Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Longman. 119-140.
• Saville-Troike, M. 1988. „'Private speech': Evidence for second language learning strategies during the 'silent period"', [w:] Journal of Chi Id Language 15: 567-90.
• Storch, N. 2002. „Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work", [w:] Language Tearn-ing 52: 119-58.
• Swain, M. 2000. „The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue" [w:] Lantolf, J. (red.). Soâocultural Theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 97-114.
• Swain, M. i Lapkin, S. 2001. „Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: exploring task effects", [w:] Bygate, M., Skehan, P. i Swain, M. (red.). 'Researchingpedagogic tasks, second language learning teaching and testing Harlow: Longman. 98-118.
• Tharp, R. i Gallimore, R. 1988. Rousing minds to life: Teaching learning and schooling in a social context. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Ushakova, T. 1994. „Inner speech and second language acquisition: an experi­mental-theoretical approach", [w:] Lantolf, J. i Appel, G. (red.). Vjgotskian approaches to second language research. Hillsdale, N.J.: Ablex. 135-156.
• Van Lier, L. 1992. „Not the nine o'clock linguistics class: Investigating contin­gency grammar", [w:] Language Awareness 1: 91-108.
• Vocate, D. (red.). 1994. Intrapersonal communication, different voices, different minds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Wells, G. 1999. Dialogical enquiry: Toward a socio cultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Wells, G. 2000. „Dialogic enquiry in education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky". [w:] Lee, C. i Smagorinsky, P. (red). Vjgotskian perspectives on literacy research. New York: Cambridge University Press. 51-85.
• Werts ch, J. 1985. Vygotsky and the so dal formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Wood, D., Bruner, J. i Ross, G. 1976. „The role of tutoring in problem-solving", [w:] Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 17: 89-100.

Identifiers

DOI

10.14746/n.2012.38.1.3