System 33 (2005) Interlanguage pragmatics in the zone of proximal development. Amy Snyder Ohta *

System 33 (2005) 503 517 SYSTEM www.elsevier.com/locate/system Interlanguage pragmatics in the zone of proximal development Amy Snyder Ohta * Department of Asian Languages and Literature, University of Washington, Box 353521, Seattle, WA 98195-3521, United States Received 14 March 2005; received in revised form 25 April 2005; accepted 24 May 2005 Abstract VygotskyÕs zone of proximal development (ZPD) has been fruitfully applied in L2 research that examines second and foreign language learning. This paper considers the applicability of the ZPD to interlanguage pragmatics instruction and research. First, the ZPD is defined [Vygotsky, L.S., 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA], and definitions are queried in light of differences between second language learning/development from the child development context for which the ZPD was developed [Ohta, A.S., 2001a. Second Language Acquisition Processes in the Classroom: Learning Japanese. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ; Ohta, A.S. The zone of proximal development and second language acquisition: Beyond social interaction. In N. Negishi, T. Umino, A. Yoshitomi, (Eds.), Readings in Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Pedagogy in a Japanese Context. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, in press]. Then, three interlanguage pragmatics research studies involving instructional intervention are considered through the framework the ZPD provides. These are [Takahashi, S., 2001. The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In: Rose, K.R., Kasper, G. (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 171 199.], a study of explicit/implicit instruction of English biclausal requests; [Samuda, V., 2001. Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In: Bygate, M., Skehan, P., Swain, M. (Eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. Longman, New York, pp. 119-140.], a * Tel.: +1 206 543 6315; fax: +1 206 685 4268. E-mail address: aohta@u.washington.edu. 0346-251X/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.system.2005.06.001

504 A.S. Ohta / System 33 (2005) 503 517 study of the impact of teacher intervention on task-based instruction in English modals; and [Yoshimi, D.R., 2001. Explicit instruction and JFL learnerõs use of interactional discourse markers. In: Rose, K.R., Kasper, G. (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 223 244.], which examines the impact of instruction on Japanese conversational storytelling. Analysis suggests how the zone of proximal development impacted the development observed in the three studies and how instructional methods tested did nor did not tap into the potential of the ZPD. The paper concludes with recommendations for researchers and teachers, suggesting how the notion of the ZPD can be used both to better understand pragmatic development and to improve instruction in L2 pragmatics. Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Zone of proximal development; Pragmatics; Classroom language learning 1. Introduction This paper examines how VygotskyÕs zone of proximal development (ZPD), originally intended to assess the educative potential of children, can be applied to the teaching and learning of interlanguage pragmatics. The ZPD has been fruitfully applied to other areas of foreign and second language (L2) development. For example, Donato (1994) has shown how college-level learners of French pool their knowledge in group work, while BrooksÕ (1992a,b) studies of college students studying Spanish show how pairs assisted one another in classroom language learning tasks. Swain (2000) describes language-related episodes in the talk of French immersion middle-schoolers working on a dictogloss task. Her data shows how the grammatical knowledge peers constructed in collaborative pairs was retained on a subsequent quiz (Swain and Lapkin, 1998). Ohta (2000) examines the language of a pair of college students as they worked on a Japanese language grammar task. Findings show how peer interaction resulted in higher levels of grammatical accuracy and complexity for both learners; most interesting was that gains were made by students who provided most of the assistance as well as the one who struggled. OhtaÕs (2001a) longitudinal study of learners of Japanese found that peers, working together, not only built upon each othersõ grammatical and lexical knowledge, but also were able to perform beyond the level that each was able to attain individually. The ZPD has also been used in research on English as a Second Language (ESL) writing, both peer revision (Guerrero and Villamil, 2000) and dialogue journals (Nassaji and Cumming, 2000). Guerrero and VillamilÕs data showed how students used a variety of scaffolding strategies during the revision process. These studies all show the veracity of the ZPD for language acquisition 1 contexts. Findings show that learners boost their performance through collaboration, whether working with peers with stronger or weaker skills. And, some studies used data sets which also show how what is accomplished in collaborative contexts builds into later 1 The terms acquisition and learning are both used in this paper to refer to language development. No acquisition/learning distinction is presumed.

A.S. Ohta / System 33 (2005) 503 517 505 individual L2 production (Swain, 2000; Swain and Lapkin, 1998; Ohta, 2001a). Application of the ZPD to second and foreign language development has been a productive and exciting bend in the road for second language acquisition (SLA), continuing to generate new scholarly activity. The purpose of this paper is to consider further how the ZPD may be applied to interlanguage pragmatics. In the classroom context, one can examine how the learner performs with and without assistance, seeing how working in the ZPD leads to language development. It makes sense that the assistance a learner receives through collaboration or interaction with an L2 expert might also push pragmatics development forward. The paper begins by considering definitions of the ZPD and how the ZPD can be better conceptualized for application to the interlanguage pragmatics context. Second, some research on interlanguage pragmatics is examined in order to determine how the ZPD might apply to the development observed. The paper concludes with recommendations for researchers and teachers, suggesting how the notion of the ZPD can be used both to better understand pragmatic development and to improve instruction in L2 pragmatics. 2. Defining the ZPD VygotskyÕs zone of proximal development describes how cognitive growth occurs in children. Rather than considering a childõs potential in terms of a static measure such as an IQ 2 score, Vygotsky felt that a developmental measure was needed to better assess childrenõs educative potential. The ZPD provides a conceptualization of how developmental potential might be understood. Vygotsky (1978, p. 86) defined the ZPD as the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers. As this definition was created with child development in mind, it includes adult guidance. Vygotsky also allowed that more capable peers may provide the nudge of assistance in the ZPD that showed a childõs potential. Assistance in the ZPD may be called scaffolding (Wood et al., 1976), and the accomplishments made with assistance may be termed assisted performance (Tharp and Gallimore, 1991). Assistance in the ZPD functions most effectively when it is tailored to the learner, adapted and eventually withdrawn in response to learner development (Lantolf and Aljaafreh, 1996). VygotskyÕs definition of the ZPD was designed as a way to consider the developmental potential of children. However, in the L2 learning context, many learners are adults. Prompted by this fact as well as the finding that adult peers need not necessarily be more capable in order to provide assistance in the ZPD, VygotskyÕs 2 IQ stands for Intelligence Quotient.

506 A.S. Ohta / System 33 (2005) 503 517 definition has been adapted to better suit the adult L2 developmental context (Ohta, 2001a, p. 9). The adapted definition states that the ZPD is the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by individual linguistic production, and the level of potential development as determined through language produced collaboratively with a teacher or peer. This revised definition of the ZPD, while helpful, has remaining weaknesses: First, it assumes a classroom instructional setting. Certainly adult learners may develop proficiency in classrooms, but the out-of-classroom learning setting is also relevant; foreign language learners may practice with exchange partners, at conversation tables, and, as more advanced speakers, use the L2 with friends and colleagues. For some adults who acquire a foreign language abroad, classroom study may be secondary, if such opportunities occur at all. Second, the adapted definition, like VygotskyÕs original, seems only to apply to a social interactive context. This is a problem because literate adults may spend a great deal of time using L2 materials outside of interaction with another person. And, the definition ignores the impact of assistance that is received via literary sources. Learner comprehension and production may both be scaffolded by materials such as textbooks, worksheets, and dictionaries. Ohta (in press) proposed that rather than understanding the ZPD as a strictly interpersonal space, it may be more useful to consider how the mechanisms of the ZPD may be internalized over the course of development such that literate adults become able to manage the ZPD for themselves as they interact both with people and with other L2 sources. Ohta (in press) asked how the ZPD functions in the learning of Asian languages, analyzing in-depth interviews with learners of Japanese, Chinese, Sanskrit, and Korean. While for children the ZPD is managed by the adult or more expert peer, Ohta found that adult learners were able to operate in a self-managed fashion, seeking and obtaining assistance from a variety of sources, as shown in Table 1. The ZPD functioned as a tool utilized by the adults interviewed. These learners were able to assess their own needs, find appropriate assistance in an appropriate modality to solve a problem, and adjust the source of help if needed. They also adjusted the nature of their assistance-seeking behavior with growing proficiency. Table 1 Assistance in the ZPD: other-management and self-management Other-management Self-management Assess Helper assesses learner needs Learner assesses own needs Tailor Adjust Withdraw Helper provides developmentally appropriate assistance Helper adjusts assistance in response to learner needs Helper provides less assistance as learner skill grows Learner chooses an appropriate modality and level of help (peer, teacher, other L2 expert, bound or on-line dictionary, Google, reference book, textbook, etc.) Learner adjusts source of help as needed to solve problem. Learner seeks less assistance as skill level grows, or avoids previously created helps

A.S. Ohta / System 33 (2005) 503 517 507 This research did not generate yet another adapted definition of the ZPD. Rather, results point to the internalization of the ZPD as a process that may occur as people mature cognitively. Internalization involves a gradual increase in the individualõs skill in managing their own ZPDs and creating developmentally rich settings for themselves (Ohta, in press). Whether the ZPD emerges in talk-in-interaction between people, or as more cognitively mature learners interact with L2 artifacts, the fundamental ingredients of the ZPD remain unchanged. That is, that the learner is, with assistance, able to out-perform what s/he could do without assistance. 3. Previous research on interlanguage pragmatics: making connections with the ZPD The ZPD as an analytic tool to examine L2 instruction seems to have been used exclusively in observational studies. Some of these studies touch on pragmatics in some way, whether looking at how learners build upon each othersõ knowledge (Donato, 1994), how learner pragmatics improves in peer interaction as compared to teacher-fronted interaction (Ohta, 1995, 1997, 1999), how learners develop the ability to act as good listeners (Ohta, 2001a,b), or collaborate with native speakers in conversational interaction (Shea, 1994). In observational studies involving the ZPD, pragmatics has been less a focus of the research than a finding along the way: The main findings relate to language acquisition processes in the ZPD. While studies of the ZPD have been observational, much of the research in interlanguage pragmatics involves instructional intervention. None of these studies looks at the role of the ZPD in development of pragmatic knowledge. The question of whether or not pragmatics can be taught has been a subject of much research (see Rose, 2005). Researchers conducting intervention studies have been interested in the impact of instruction on particular areas of pragmatics such as implicature (Bouton, 1994), discourse markers (Yoshimi, 2001), and speech acts (Billmyer, 1990). Some research has focused on instructional methods (Lyster, 1994; Yoshimi, 2001). Another area of pragmatics research has been strongly influenced by the SLA literature on explicit versus implicit instruction (Robinson, 1996, 1997) in the classroom teaching of pragmatics (Alcón, 2005; Fukuya and Clark, 2001; House, 1996; Koike and Pearson, 2005; Martínez-Flor and Fukuya, 2005; Tateyama, 2001; Tateyama et al., 1997; Takahashi, 2001). None of these studies uses the ZPD in the design of interventions or analysis of data. This is unsurprising, since the analytic underpinnings of these studies are based in cognitive theories of language acquisition, not sociocultural psychology. Even so, the ZPD does not cease to exist just because it is not being studied. It is possible to look at studies which do not draw upon the ZPD as an analytic category in order to determine how the ZPD may function in the pragmatics instruction presented. Here, three studies will be considered: TakahashiÕs (2001) study of the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of biclausal requests, SamudaÕs (2001) study of the impact of task-based instruction on learner use of modals in English, and YoshimiÕs (2001) study of the role of instruction in learner development of Japanese discourse markers used in storytelling.

508 A.S. Ohta / System 33 (2005) 503 517 3.1. English biclausal requests Satomi Takahashi (2001) investigated the impact of explicit versus implicit instruction on learnersõ use of biclausal request forms in English. Her finding that only the explicit instruction was effective raises questions about the role of assistance in the ZPD in language learning, even though her study did not draw upon the ZPD in its design or analysis. Four groups of Japanese college students (138, in all) enrolled in four intact general English classes were given instruction under four conditions in this study. Instructional sessions for the four conditions were carried out 90 min/week for four weeks. The four conditions were as follows: One group received explicit instruction, a traditional grammar lecture followed by translation exercises; metapragmatic information on the request forms was provided via handouts. Two groups were given implicit instruction. In one, learners compared their own written discourse-completion test (DCT) responses with transcripts of native-speakers role-playing the same situations; in the other, learners were asked to search for native-like request forms or strategies in role plays, but input was not enhanced through provision of the learnersõ own production for contrast. A fourth group of students was given a meaning-focused task that did not draw attention to request forms. In all cases, learners worked on the tasks individually at their desks (Takahashi, personal communication). The study conditions for the four groups are summarized in Table 2. One of the implicit instruction groups, the form comparison group that guided learners to compare their own production with a native model, involved input enhancement. The idea of enhancement is built upon the concept of noticing (Schmidt, 1990), which emphasizes the role of conscious awareness in SLA. Input enhancement is a curricular and instructional design strategy which guides students to notice features of the L2. Enhancement is designed and managed by a teacher or researcher who uses this technique because he or she thinks it is unlikely for students to notice particular L2 features on his or her own. When considered from the perspective of the ZPD, the enhancement used here a task requiring learners to Table 2 Instructional conditions for teaching biclausal requests in English in TakahashiÕs (2001) study Condition Description Explicit teaching One hour teacher-fronted lecture using handouts detailing forms with explanations. 30-min of in-class work on target forms using translation exercises Form comparison Learners filled out discourse completion tests for two request situations. They were then asked to compare their answers with the requests used by native speakers during role-plays of the same two request situations Form search Learners were given two tasks: (1) To analyse transcripts of Japanese learner (not themselves) role-plays and native English speaker role plays and list requests used which differed. (2) To list expressions the native speakers used which seemed distinctively native (distracter task) Meaning focused Learners required to listen to and read the role plays by native English speakers and answer six to eight comprehension questions about each. Questions related to the content of the request situations

compare their own production with a native model may be viewed as a type of assistance, or scaffold. TakahashiÕs results show that only the Explicit Teaching condition resulted in improvement in use of biclausal request forms. Those in the other conditions did, however, learn from their experiences and change how they did requests. But, they did not, on their own, focus on the biclausal nature of the requests in the materials they were provided to analyze. Considered from the perspective of the ZPD, the implicit conditions, while allowing learners to access data containing the target forms, did not provide enough developmental support. In the form comparison group, on a few occasions students used biclausal forms on the post-test. This condition gave students the opportunity to compare their own production with native production, providing enough assistance for some students to notice and learn to use biclausal forms, but not enough for most of the students. When asked simply to search for native-like forms, it appears that the learners did not notice the biclausal requests, or at least they were not salient enough for the learners to realize their importance and try to use them. Considering these tasks and the ZPD, TakahashiÕs results show the importance and power of a teacherõs expertise in a classroom setting; a teacherõs lecture can serve as a scaffold upon which learners can construct new knowledge, functioning as assistance in the ZPD. With regard to the other conditions, the question arises as to how students might have done if they had worked collaboratively rather than individually. Might they have noticed the forms if they had had the opportunity to work in groups? Seatwork likely made the tasks less effective than they would have been were students able to pool their knowledge and assist one another. Another question worth raising is how else the teacher might have guided students to make formmeaning links. A form search activity like that used here might be effectively supplemented with form-focused instruction, whether a mini-lecture or guidance in the form of questions that lead students to attend to the particular forms used. Of course, all of these matters are beyond the scope of TakahashiÕs study, which deliberately avoided group work in order to focus on questions related to explicit and implicit instruction. This discussion is raised simply to consider how the ZPD could be better harnessed in an instructional setting to promote development of pragmatics. 3.2. English modals A.S. Ohta / System 33 (2005) 503 517 509 There is an interesting study, however, that shows what can happen when a teacher intervenes to provide instruction as students are well underway in a task involving pragmatics. Virginia SamudaÕs (2001) study looks at how teacher intervention impacted learners as they worked with a task involving expression of probability and possibility in English. The study examines how a group of false beginners improved in their expression of modality in English, considering the teacherõs impact in guiding relationships between L2 form and meaning during an instructional unit on modals. SamudaÕs study is important as task-based instruction has tended to place emphasis on students using the L2 in tasks they conduct with one another, leaving the role of the teacher somewhat ambiguous. In fact, Markee (2000) found

510 A.S. Ohta / System 33 (2005) 503 517 that teacher reticence to intervene and provide assistance resulted in students becoming bogged down in unproductive discussions. SamudaÕs study does not draw upon the ZPD in any way, but the ZPD is certainly relevant both to the design of the instructional unit she presents and to the results of the study. SamudaÕs study involved nine Japanese and Korean students in an intact ESL class, with the analysis for the study focusing on one task and the instructional work surrounding it that occurred during a unit on modality. It is not clear from the paper how many class periods the instructional sequence involved. Students were all enrolled in an intensive ESL program for 25 hours per week, with 10 hours per week of Grammar/Communication, during which this instructional sequence occurred. Prior to beginning the instructional sequence, Samuda observed the class for a semester, collecting audio and video samples. After the unit on modality was selected as the intervention site, a task, Things in Pockets, requiring use of modals was selected. This task presented groups of students with samples of things that might have been found in an individualõs pockets. Students were to work in small groups to figure out the identity of the person based on the items in his/her pockets, come to a consensus, and present their findings to the class. Although the task itself did not guide students to use modals, in a pilot of the task with a group of native speakers and highly proficient nonnative speakers, these proficient speakers all used a variety of expressions of possibility and probability including modal auxiliaries and other expressions. This information provided a guide for instructional intervention during the task. Table 3 shows the instructional phases of SamudaÕs study. In contrast to the pre-focus phase, in the post-focus phase the target models must, may, might, and could were used in learner talk. Students also used the target forms in the captions on their posters. The instructional design presented here allowed the teacher to assess the current level of functioning of students and provide support for students to move to a higher level of functioning. With assistance provided through the teacherõs implicit and explicit focus on the target forms, learners began using them in their discussion and writing. The teacherõs intervention shows expert use of scaffolding as she built on what learners already knew and did with confidence, interweaving new forms and Table 3 Instructional phases for teaching English modals in SamudaÕs (2001) study Phase Description Pre-focus Learners worked with the task in small groups prior to receiving any guidance on use of modals in English. The teacher did not intervene or assist in any way Implicit focus Teacher intervened in groups, responding to meaning but not form of learner utterances, though she did incorporate new forms in her talk Explicit focus Teacher guides students to focus on form, rephrasing utterances using target modals, writing targets on the board, and providing direct instruction. The teacher also gives corrective feedback Post-focus Teacher in standby role as students resume discussion and prepare posters showing their conclusions

then providing explicit instruction on appropriate use of those forms. This instructional design also exploits the ZPD in providing assistance to students after their need for such assistance was established in the pre-focus phase. In this phase, the students relied on language mined from the task worksheet, using lexical expressions of probability rather than modal auxiliaries. It was clear to the teacher that students were unlikely to use the forms without assistance; this exemplifies the ZPD, what a person can do with assistance that they could not have done unaided. The salience of the new forms was also increased because the teacher provided them at the point where they were needed. Using the modals helped students to communicate more effectively, a factor which may make the instructional experience even more powerful in moving students toward retention of the target forms. 3.3. Japanese discourse markers A.S. Ohta / System 33 (2005) 503 517 511 Of the three studies considered here, Dina Rudolph YoshimiÕs (2001) includes the most extensive instructional intervention. Yoshimi (2001) presents a model of instruction in interlanguage pragmatics and is an example of a study that considers instructional design and its impact on learners. YoshimiÕs intervention focused on conversational storytelling in Japanese, helping learners to use discourse markers that native speakers use in conversational narratives. The components of the instructional sequence are shown in Table 4. These components were repeated every three weeks as new elements of storytelling were introduced. Table 4 Instructional sequence for Japanese conversational storytelling in YoshimiÕs (2001) study Phase Description Baseline assessment Students asked to tell a story in Japanese Modeling Students watch a Japanese native speaker tell an ad-libbed story to a native listener. The story is video recorded for future reference and analysis Instruction Students receive a 2 3 page handout containing accessible descriptions of target discourse markers and examples Story planning Pairs and triads of students work with a teacher or assistant, telling their stories in English and discussing story components Communicative practice Students practice telling their stories in Japanese in front of the class with the instructor acting as listener Immediate corrective feedback The instructor gives feedback following each student telling. The focus of this feedback is discourse markers, organization, and story coherence Expanded corrective feedback Students are given a transcription of their stories with a corrected and expanded transcription also provided. The revised version corrects grammatical errors but focuses on how to better use the targeted discourse markers Discussion of feedback Pairs and triads of students meet with the Japanese teacher or assistant to discuss their expanded feedback

512 A.S. Ohta / System 33 (2005) 503 517 Results showed that studentsõ use of the targeted discourse markers improved through this instructional unit. While the ZPD was not drawn upon in study design or analysis, it is worthwhile to consider the role of instructional support and assistance in the studentsõ development. At onset of the study and each of the subsequent instructional cycles, the research team examined what students were able to do without assistance by asking them to tell a story in Japanese. Assistance was provided through individually tailored feedback delivered in small groups and through descriptive handouts. As students planned and developed their oral narratives, they had practice opportunities with feedback designed to help them to notice problems and improve their tellings. Small group work with L2 experts tailored feedback to individuals and was responsive to individual questions and concerns. The instructional process included what Yoshimi calls expanded feedback opportunities for students to directly compare their own production with a more native-like revision containing the target features. This is a similar strategy to that used in TakahashiÕs (2001) form comparison group, where students were provided with transcripts of native speaker performances of the same role plays students worked on. YoshimiÕs technique differs, however, because the materials provided for comparison here were not of native quality, but were improved versions of the students own production. From the perspective of the ZPD, it is possible that these rewrites were more developmentally tuned to studentsõ needs because they were created from the studentsõ own work targeting areas in which the learners clearly needed assistance. A more effective re-phrasing of the studentsõ own thoughts might also increase the salience of target forms if students were able to grasp how inclusion of more natural discourse features improved their expressive capacity. The expanded feedback revisions provided in the study had the potential to, in and of themselves, function as a scaffold, but students were not left to digest these unaided. Small group sessions with an L2 expert increased the likelihood of developmentally appropriate assistance. Seen through the framework of the ZPD, the impact of being able to see a transcription of oneõs own oral performance side by side with a re-write that more fully and appropriately expressed the studentõs own thoughts, followed by an opportunity to discuss key features with the teacher must have been powerful, indeed. This technique not only allowed students to see how target markers may have been used, but also to get a glimpse of their own potential as L2 speakers. The instructional model presented in this study incorporates a variety of techniques that scaffold development, assisting learners in moving beyond current abilities. Like observational classroom studies of the ZPD, this study includes group work. Here, however, an L2 expert was included in the group work sessions. This feature of the instructional design appears to be critical because the non-referential discourse features taught were unlikely to be very salient to students; intermediatelevel language users tend to be able to focus on referential meaning and have difficulty with discourse cohesion. In addition, some of the features taught were phonetically quite subtle. YoshimiÕs instructional technique foregrounded target features of the discourse for studentsõ attention. And, results show that over a term

A.S. Ohta / System 33 (2005) 503 517 513 of instruction the learners were better able to incorporate these discourse markers into their conversational storytelling. 4. Discussion The ZPD is a key developmental space for language learning and acquisition. As learners bump up against their own limitations and are assisted to move beyond them with the help of teacher, peer, or written source, development follows. The ZPD has not been used in studies involving instructional intervention. As shown through analysis of three interventional studies, however, the ZPD is indeed relevant. Moreover, it is easy to see how the ZPD could be part of the instructional design and analysis of interventional studies for researchers interested in how the ZPD functions in pragmatic development. The notion of the ZPD and its related notions of scaffolding or assisted performance, could prove to be quite useful to research in interlanguage pragmatics. In fact, although Takahashi (2001), Samuda (2001), and Yoshimi (2001) did not explicitly draw on the ZPD to discuss their results, their work reveals sensitivity to issues directly related to it. The benefits of explicit instruction and comparative failure of implicit conditions in TakahashiÕs (2001) study may have their roots in the assistance that explicit instruction supplied to learners already familiar with the forms taught but unable to use them effectively TakahashiÕs learners were in need of scaffolding in this particular area in order to move ahead. Likewise, the comparative failure of implicit instruction may relate to scaffolding not provided. In my opinion, what is most interesting about this study is not its testing of the notions of explicit versus implicit instruction, but rather how explicit instruction via lecture or handout functioned as a mode of assistance and how the various opportunities for noticing provided in the implicit groups were not effective in producing linguistic change. The importance of the notion of the ZPD is evident in the form comparison group where the task of comparing their own production with native models allowed a few students to try out new forms. This condition provided a nudge of assistance that moved some learners forward. SamudaÕs (2001) study showed the effectiveness of developmentally sensitive instruction that steps in to provide assistance at a point where learners have shown their inability to use forms that would help them express themselves more effectively. As with all three studies, the targeted forms had been previously taught to learners, but they were not, as yet, accessible parts of the learnersõ L2 productive repertoires. SamudaÕs scaffolding helped learners to use these forms appropriately in class, hopefully a step on the way to their appropriate use elsewhere. Of the three studies examined here, YoshimiÕs (2001) instructional intervention was the most extensive, dominating a term-long language course. Yoshimi had learners work with their stories in contexts where assistance was provided via instruction, revisions, and interaction with L2 experts. These instructional contexts provided a linguistic challenge while at the same time making available the handholds or footholds needed to move up to higher ground; when students did not know enough to

514 A.S. Ohta / System 33 (2005) 503 517 do the reaching, an expert hand was available to guide them upward. These opportunities are the essence of the ZPD. And, the studies participants all improved in an area of Japanese pragmatics that is very difficult for intermediate learners. 5. Conclusion and pedagogical implications As a developmental space, the ZPD is intrinsically relevant to instructional design and effectiveness; it is a part of all human learning that cannot be excluded, whatever the instructional conditions. Researchers and scholars of interlanguage pragmatics understand the impact of instruction and the need for pragmatics to be taught in language courses rather than being left to be picked up (or likely not) along the way. However, the ZPD has not been included in consideration of why instruction is effective (or ineffective) or how instruction might be made more effective. Research can be designed to explicitly consider the role of the ZPD. In order for this to happen, interested researchers would allow their questions about the ZPD and how it functions in the learning of pragmatics to guide them as they create instructional interventions. In studying the impact of such interventions, then, data would need to be collected in a way that development in the ZPD would be evident. From the perspective of the ZPD, there are many interesting questions that might be investigated. For a particular group of learners (as well as for individuals in the group), it is useful to consider what the gap is between what it is that students can do with and without assistance this is the essence of the ZPD. If learners do not notice particular forms or pragmatic strategies, what sorts of assistance might help them to notice? Assistance involves not only the materials and the teacher, but also may involve interactional configurations that include grouping students with one another or with expert speakers and exploiting resources both inside and outside of the classroom. In considering assistance, one might also ask: What support is needed to help students move toward independent functioning? How can support be provided and withdrawn so as to provide a developmentally appropriate challenge? How do students make use of textual and interactional resources as scaffolds as they begin to make use of the new forms or strategies? How do learners assist one another, and how can student student support be guided so that it is maximally useful? Also interesting for investigation might be how students with different strengths and weaknesses serve as resources (or not) to one another in the learning of pragmatics. In terms of research methodology to investigate the role of the ZPD, methods which are sensitive to classroom and interactional processes are needed. It is beyond the scope of this short section to provide a detailed description of methodologies that would be effective research tools, but qualitative methods including discourse analysis, interview, stimulated recall, and collection of studentsõ written production and classroom materials could be used. Methods should, of course, be selected based on the sorts of questions of most interest to the researcher. Finally, conducting research on the role of the ZPD in interlanguage pragmatic development may also draw some researchers to consider alternative paradigms of second language learning and acquisition. There are a variety of sociocognitive

A.S. Ohta / System 33 (2005) 503 517 515 approaches to language development that spring from the sociohistorical school of psychology such as language socialization (see Ochs, 1988), and sociocultural approaches to SLA (see Lantolf, 2000; Ohta, 2001a; Van Lier, 2000) that include the ZPD as an integral part of human developmental processes. Considering how pragmatics is learned in the ZPD involves more than adding the ZPD to oneõs existing conceptual tool-kit. Rather, some may find it helpful to move toward a more holistic and process-oriented view of what it means to acquire a language. In this way, expanding interlanguage pragmatics research to include the ZPD may also result in a richer understanding of the depth and variety of developmental processes that learners experience. Future research provides an opportunity to bring the ZPD out from the shadows, to consider openly what the zone of proximal development has to say regarding the potential effectiveness of instruction in interlanguage pragmatics. Such studies offer the hope of even deeper insight into how learners become pragmatically appropriate speaker-hearers of second and foreign languages. References Alcón, E., 2005. Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the foreign language context? System 33 (3). Billmyer, K., 1990. I really like your lifestyle : ESL learners learning how to compliment. Penn Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 6, 31 48. Bouton, L.F., 1994. Can NNS skill in interpreting implicature in American English be improved through explicit instruction? A pilot study. In: Bouton, L. (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, vol. 5. Division of English as an International Language Intensive English Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, pp. 88 109. Brooks, F.B., 1992a. Spanish III learners talking to one another through a jigsaw task. Canadian Modern Language Review 48, 696 717. Brooks, F.B., 1992b. Communicative competence and the conversation course: A social interaction perspective. Linguistics and Education 4, 219 246. Donato, R., 1994. Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In: Lantolf, J.P., Appel, G. (Eds.), Vygotsian Approaches to Second Language Research. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 33 56. Fukuya, Y.J., Clark, M.K., 2001. A comparison of input enhancement and explicit instruction of mitigators. In: Bouton, L. (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, vol. 10. Division of English as an International Language Intensive English Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, pp. 111 130. Guerrero, M.C.M.de., Villamil, O., 2000. Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. Modern Language Journal 84 (1), 51 68. House, J., 1996. Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language. Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 225 252. Koike, D.A., Pearson, L., 2005. The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence. System 33 (3). Lantolf, J.P. (Ed.), 2000. Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Lantolf, J.P., Aljaafreh, A., 1996. Second language learning in the zone of proximal development: A revolutionary experience. International Journal of Educational Research 23, 619 632. Lyster, R., 1994. The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion studentsõ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics 15, 263 287. Markee, N., 2000. Conversation Analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

516 A.S. Ohta / System 33 (2005) 503 517 Martínez-Flor, A., Fukuya, Y.J., 2005. The effects of instruction on learnersõ production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. System 33 (3). Nassaji, H., Cumming, A., 2000. What is a ZPD? A case study of a young ESL student and teacher interacting through dialogue journals. Language Teaching and Learning 4, 95 121. Ochs, E., 1988. Culture and Language Development: Language Acquisition and Language Socialization in a Samoan Village. Cambridge University Press, New York. 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 Applied Linguistics 6, 93 121. Ohta, A.S., 1997. The development of pragmatic competence in learner learner classroom interaction. In: Bouton, L. (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, vol. 8. Division of English as an International Language Intensive English Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, pp. 223 242. Ohta, A.S., 1999. Interactional routines and the socialization of interactional style in adult learners of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 31, 1493 1512. Ohta, A.S., 2000. Re-thinking interacton in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In: Lantolf, J.P. (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 51 78. Ohta, A.S., 2001a. Second Language Acquisition Processes in the Classroom: Learning Japanese. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Ohta, A.S., 2001b. A longitudinal study of the development of expression of alignment in Japanese as a foreign language. In: Rose, K.R., Kasper, G. (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 103 124. Ohta, A.S. The zone of proximal development and second language acquisition: Beyond social interaction. In: N. Negishi, T. Umino, A. Yoshitomi, (Eds.), Readings in Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Pedagogy in a Japanese Context. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, in press. Robinson, P., 1996. Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rulesearch and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 27 67. Robinson, P., 1997. Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning 47, 45 99. Rose, K.R., 2005. On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System 33 (3). Samuda, V., 2001. Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In: Bygate, M., Skehan, P., Swain, M. (Eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. Longman, New York, pp. 119 140. Schmidt, R., 1990. The role of consciousness in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 11, 129 158. Shea, D.P., 1994. Perspective and production: Structuring conversational participation across cultural borders. Pragmatics 4, 357 389. Swain, M., Lapkin, S., 1998. Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal 82, 320 337. Swain, M., 2000. The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In: Lantolf, J.P. (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 98 114. Takahashi, S., 2001. The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In: Rose, K.R., Kasper, G. (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 171 199. Tateyama, Y., 2001. Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatics routines: Japanese sumimasen. In: Rose, G., Kasper, G. (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 200 222. Tateyama, Y., Kasper, G., Mui, L.P., Tay, H., Thananart, O., 1997. Explicit and implicit teaching of Japanese pragmatics routines. In: Bouton, L. (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, vol. 8. Division of English as an International Language Intensive English Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, pp. 163 177.

A.S. Ohta / System 33 (2005) 503 517 517 Tharp, R.G., Gallimore, R., 1991. Rousing Minds to Life: Teaching, Learning, and Schooling in Social Context. Cambridge University Press, New York. Van Lier, L., 2000. From input to affordance: social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In: Lantolf, J.P. (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 245 259. Vygotsky, L.S., 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Wood, D., Bruner, J., Ross, G., 1976. The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines 17, 89 100. Yoshimi, D.R., 2001. Explicit instruction and JFL learnerõs use of interactional discourse markers. In: Rose, K.R., Kasper, G. (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 223 244.