Qi Lapkin 2001

8/9/2019 Qi Lapkin 2001

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/qi-lapkin-2001 1/27

8/9/2019 Qi Lapkin 2001


Introduction

Noticing may be of crucial importance to human development. As Bennett (1976) has asserted: ‘‘Unless we notice, we cannot be in a position to choose or

act for ourselves. It is a transition from one state of existence to another’’ (p. i). In

the past decade or two, ‘‘noticing’’ has been receiving an increasing amount of

attention from applied linguistics researchers (e.g., Ellis, 1993, 1995; Robinson,

1995; Schmidt, 1990, 1994; Schmidt & Frota, 1986; Sharwood Smith, 1981,

1991, 1993; Swain, 1985, 1995; Swain & Lapkin, 1995). Its significance for

second language (L2) acquisition can be seen and understood from such claims as

‘‘those who notice most, learn most’’ (Schmidt & Frota, 1986, p. 313) and ‘‘no

noticing, no acquisition’’ (Ellis, 1995, p. 89).1

Noticing is also an important cognitive process in L2 composing. Issues such

as how noticing is related to L2 composing and what impact it has on L2 writing

improvement still need to be further addressed and investigated, especially

through empirical research studies. Indeed, in order to help learners improve

their L2 writing skills and assist them to achieve native-like writing proficiency,

teachers need a better understanding of the L2 writer, the native-speaker reader,

the L2 text, and the context, as well as their interactions (Silva, 1990). Due to the

complex nature of writing itself and the unique characteristics inherent in L2

writing (Silva, 1993), comprehension of these interrelations requires researchstudies at various analytic levels and from both sociolinguistic and psycholin-

guistic perspectives (Cumming, 1998). This article examines some of the

interactions that take place as L2 writers engage in composing an L2 text and

then compares the text to a reformulated version of it. In particular, this article

attempts to investigate, using think-aloud protocols produced by L2 learners,

what learners notice when they are composing by themselves and when they are

comparing their own written text to a reformulated version of it, and what effects

such noticing has on their resulting L2 text.

Noticing and writing

Research on noticing in L2 acquisition has largely focused on input. Based on

Schmidt (1990), Batstone (1996) defines ‘‘noticing’’ as ‘‘the intake of grammar

as a result of learners paying attention to the input’’ where ‘‘intake’’ refers to

‘‘input which becomes part of the learning process’’ (p. 273). In this definition,

noticing is equated with intake that is derived from the source of input . It can be

argued, however, that in the broader context of language acquisition, it is not just

intake that stems from an input source that can become part of the learning

1 Although specific functions of noticing with respect to L2 acquisition are not without

controversy (see, e.g., Truscott, 1998, for a critical review), the researchers investigating the concept

of noticing, including Truscott, all seem to agree that noticing could play a helpful role in the process

of L2 learning.

D.S. Qi, S. Lapkin / Journal of Second Language Writing 10 (2001) 277–303278

8/9/2019 Qi Lapkin 2001


process. There are types of intake that do not stem from the input source but are

generated in output (Swain, 1985) that may also be significant for L2 acquisition.

For the purpose of this article, we would like to define ‘‘noticing’’ broadly asawareness of a stimulus via short-term memory (see Robinson, 1995, for a

comprehensive review and discussion of various dimensions and constructs of

noticing). We refer to ‘‘stimulus’’ as anything that rouses one’s attention, in

particular, for our purposes, with respect to language (input or output). Our stance

in this article is that while noticing of input is exceedingly important, noticing as

a result of producing the target language (TL), as in the context of L2 composing,

also has important roles to play in L2 development.

Swain (1985) has proposed the output hypothesis and argues that compre-

hensible output is a necessary mechanism of acquisition independent of the roleof comprehensible input. She points out that producing the TL may be the trigger

that forces the learner to pay attention to the means of expression needed in order

to successfully convey his or her own intended meaning. This will move the

learner from a purely semantic analysis of the language to a syntactic analysis of

it. Swain (1995, 1998) further argues that the noticing/triggering function of

output can prompt L2 learners to recognize consciously some of their linguistic

problems. It may make them aware of something they need to find out about their

L2. L2 writing studies that employ think-aloud research techniques support the

claim that output stimulates noticing of problems that prompts learners to engagein some kind of analysis of their existing linguistic resources in order to resolve

these problems (e.g., Cumming, 1990; Qi, 1998; Swain & Lapkin, 1995).

Swain and Lapkin’s (1995) study examines directly the noticing function of

output in the context of L2 writing, asking if learners’ own output can lead them

to a conscious awareness of language problems they are experiencing, if

cognitive processes are triggered in response to the problems they are aware

of, and if learners engage in grammatical analysis in the processes. Eighteen

Grade 8 French-immersion students (average age 13) participated in that study.

The participants were asked to think aloud while composing in response to awriting task. Language-related episodes (LREs, the unit of analysis developed by

the researchers) were identified from the think-aloud protocol data and then

classified into descriptive categories according to the cognitive processes the

researchers thought were reflected in the changes the participants made to their

output. The study demonstrated that the young French-immersion L2 writers did

indeed notice gaps in their linguistic knowledge while producing their L2 in the

composing process. The researchers also found that when they encountered

difficulties in producing the TL, they did engage in certain thought processes that

may play a role in L2 learning, including grammatical analysis that wasconsidered essential to accurate production.

This study also yielded other findings. One of the results is that for these

learners, the substance of their thoughts was sometimes faulty, leading to

incorrect hypotheses and inappropriate generalizations. This suggests that rel-

evant feedback can play a central role in improving L2 writing development.

D.S. Qi, S. Lapkin / Journal of Second Language Writing 10 (2001) 277–303 279

8/9/2019 Qi Lapkin 2001


Another finding was that the most proficient participants appeared to pay more

attention to grammar and relied more on applying grammatical rules than the least

proficient participants, suggesting that L2 proficiency may play a role inlinguistic awareness. These results pointed to some important issues that need

further consideration in future research. These include what feedback teachers

should provide to promote the L2 writer’s noticing and learning, and how L2

proficiency is related to the L2 learner’s noticing in composing and his/her

reactions to feedback. Our study attempts to address these issues. Before we turn

to our study, we will first briefly review some relevant literature about feedback

and its relation to noticing.

Feedback and noticing

When L2 learners’ incorrect hypotheses and inappropriate generalizations lead

to errors in their written texts, appropriate feedback from the teacher is needed in

order to help learners correct these errors. Zhang’s (1995) research indicates that

L2 learners genuinely and overwhelmingly welcome feedback, especially from

the teacher. Error correction is also what most learners want. For example, Leki’s

(1991) research found that 70% of the 100 learners surveyed expected all their

errors to be corrected. In the context of L2 acquisition, error is referred to as the

discrepancy between the learner’s interlanguage (IL) and the native speaker’sversion, i.e., the TL (James, 1998, p. 63). However, research results regarding

what is considered to be appropriate and effective feedback on students’ errors in

writing ‘‘have been inconclusive, sometimes contradictory, and in L2 writing,

sparse’’ (Leki, 1990, p. 66).2

Some research has tried to identify factors that may influence the effectiveness

of written feedback. One such factor is that the teacher’s feedback may be

unclear, inaccurate, and may lack balance among form, content, and style (Cohen

& Cavalcanti, 1990, p. 155). A second factor may relate to a possible lack of

sensitivity of teachers to different contexts as well as to varying levels of need,ability, and other individual differences of students in providing feedback (e.g.,

Conrad & Goldstein, 1999; Ferris, Pezone, Tade, & Tinti, 1997; Hyland, 1998).

Another critical factor, as we view it, is that the type of feedback the teacher

offers to the learner does not provide optimal conditions to help learners notice

their errors, i.e., the gap between their IL and the TL when they receive and

2 Issues discussed in the literature on feedback concern whether the focus of feedback should be

on form or content (see Fathman & Whalley, 1990; Hyland, 1998), if written commentary is useful(see Leki, 1990, pp. 60–63), if editing instruction and grammar correction are effective (see Polio,

Fleck, & Leder, 1998), or if teachers’ feedback is what learners need (Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990). A

review of research in the literature suggests that there seems to be a debate over issues such as form/

meaning focus (e.g., Horowitz, 1986; Hyland, 1998; Paulus, 1999; Zamel, 1988) and effectiveness of

teachers’ comments or error correction (e.g., Ferris, 1999; Polio et al., 1998; Semke, 1984; Truscott,

1996; Zamel, 1985).


8/9/2019 Qi Lapkin 2001


process the feedback. James (1998) compares noticing the gap as similar to

learners doing their own error analysis (EA), as both entail making a comparison

between IL and TL (p. 258). Ellis’ (1995) notion of ‘‘cognitive comparison’’roughly refers to this same idea. However, James has identified a difference

between Ellis’ ‘‘cognitive comparison’’ and EA. Cognitive comparison refers to

the learner’s noticing of a linguistic entity in TL input before comparing it with

his/her own IL version of it. However, EA proceeds in the converse direction:

The learner first notices a problematic formulation in his/her own production

before comparing it with a TL version of it (p. 258). According to James, it is not

just preferable but necessary that the forms learners notice and cognitive

comparisons they make ‘‘are based on their own recent learning experience,

particularly where that experience is negative’’ (p. 258).3

This EA sense of cognitive comparison is consistent with the output hypothesis in that both

emphasize the important role of noticing derived from output in L2 learning.

Reformulation and noticing

The idea of reformulation was first proposed by Levenston (1978) to challenge

Corder’s (1971) notion of reconstruction.4 Reformulation refers to a native

speaker’s rewriting of an L2 learner’s composition such that the content the

learner provides in the original draft is maintained, but its awkwardness,rhetorical inadequacy, ambiguity, logical confusion, style, and so on as well as

lexical inadequacy and grammatical errors are tidied up (Levenston, 1978). The

rewritten text provides a TL model so that the learner can make a comparison of

his/her own draft with a native writer’s version of it.

In the early 1980s, Cohen (1982, 1983a, 1983b) conducted several research

studies to investigate the effectiveness of reformulation and reported that learners

at intermediate levels and above seem to benefit from using this technique

(Cohen, 1983b, p. 5). His research results show that the L2 writers benefited from

reformulation in such aspects as vocabulary, syntax, and paragraphing, as well ascohesion. Through reformulation, the learners gained insights about problems of

cohesion, grammatical rules, precision in the use of vocabulary, and differences

in levels of formality in the TL. Cohen (1989) concludes that despite some

potential problems as with any pedagogical technique, reformulation has much

3 It needs to be pointed out, however, that James’ (1998) use of the term error analysis here is

different from the orthodox use of the term error analysis that has been established and recognized in

the field as a research approach rather than something a learner does.

4 Corder’s (1971) notion of reconstruction refers to replacement of a learner’s idiosyncraticsentence that carries grammatical errors with a well-formed sentence with the same meaning. The

focus of this notion of reconstruction is on correction of surface grammatical errors at the sentence

level only. Reformulation, as defined by Levenston (1978), addresses more than what reconstruction

does. A reformulator of a learner’s writing needs to take into consideration such issues as lexical

choice, syntactic blend, conceptual clearness, rhetorical adequacy, stylistics, and so on as well as

spelling and grammatical correctness.


8/9/2019 Qi Lapkin 2001


promise. It provides an opportunity for the learner ‘‘to obtain deeper feedback

than in the simple correction of surface errors, which is often what learners

receive as feedback on their essays’’ (p. 9).5

Reformulation has advantages that other types of feedback may lack. For one

thing, it provides relevant TL structures to allow the learner to appropriate from

them according to his/her own needs and interests and to the context they

themselves provided for a particular writing task. This is important because

preferences for the teacher’s feedback may vary from student to student (Cohen

& Cavalcanti, 1990, p. 165) and the teacher’s response should respect the

students’ right to their own expression and their intention in a given piece of

writing (Leki, 1990, p. 64). Secondly, a text reformulated by a competent TL

writer provides appropriate TL forms for the given context. Without this, L2learners are left to figure out the solutions themselves since they ‘‘have a smaller

backlog of experience with English grammatical or rhetorical structure to fall

back on, not having had the same exposure to those structures as native speakers

have had’’ (Leki, 1990, p. 58). Thirdly, this type of feedback provides a good

balance between focus on form and focus on meaning since it exploits both the

meaning-driven and form-focused potential: ‘‘By the manipulation of task design

or the choice of text,’’ teachers can harness the technique for either meaning-

driven or form-focused needs (Thornbury, 1997, p. 334). It needs to be noted,

nevertheless, that reformulation may give rise to problems (e.g., text appropri-ation); every effort should be made by the reformulators to ensure maximal

respect for the content of the original text (e.g., through conferencing with the

writer before or after reformulation).

Sanaoui (1984) studied the use of reformulation in a classroom setting. The

results indicate that although there are differences between better writers and

poorer writers, all her French-as-second-language students benefited from the

use of the reformulation approach in such areas as selection of vocabulary,

syntactic structures, markers of cohesion, discourse functions, overall organ-

ization, and stance towards the reader. She reports that ‘‘the results obtainedover a short period of time surpass results I have achieved with other students

through any type of explicit or direct instruction in teaching creative writing’’

(p. 145). Similar findings with respect to the effectiveness of reformulation

were made in Mantello’s (1996) research exploring the use of reformulation in

a classroom setting. Allwright, Woodley, and Allwright (1988) conducted a

5 The idea of reformulation has also been largely employed and researched in the context of

promoting learners’ TL accuracy at the oral level through the use of corrective feedback called‘‘recasts’’ in the course of conversational interaction (e.g., Farrar, 1992; Long, 1996; Mackey & Philp,

1998; Wilberg, 1987). In addition to potential usage differences between speaking and writing in terms

of genre and style, recasts generally address a speaker’s lexical and grammatical problems at a

sentence or a specific local level, given the nature of the context in which the technique is used,

whereas reformulation, as written feedback, provides the writer with a model for analysis at the textual

as well as sentence levels.


8/9/2019 Qi Lapkin 2001


study investigating nonnative writers’ texts resulting from reformulation fol-

lowed by a class discussion. They found that while the reformulation strategy

may be a viable way of helping nonnative writers move nearer to native-writer norms, the class discussion that follows the provision of the reformulated

version may be more influential than the reformulation itself. As the study did

not directly examine the relationship of the students’ reaction to reformulation

to the subsequent class discussion, it is hard to evaluate what direct and

indirect effects the reformulation technique itself had on the students’ final

written texts.

A key function of reformulation is its provision of opportunity for noticing. If

cognitive comparison is essential to learning as discussed earlier, we should select

feedback types on the basis of their capacity to promote noticing and EA. Somecriteria for appropriate types of feedback should be their potential to encourage

learners to pay attention to form and, moreover, provide learners with TL data so

that they can make comparisons between their IL and a TL model of it.

Thornbury (1997) proposes that reformulation is one feedback type that meets

these criteria. Johnson (1988, cited in Thornbury, 1997) argues that ‘‘exposing

learners to the target behavior after the event — rather than providing a model

beforehand — has greater psychological validity, in that the learners are predis-

posed to look out for (and notice) those features of the modeled behavior that

they themselves had found problematic in the initial trial run (or first draft)’’ (seeThornbury, 1997, p. 328.). This idea is also argued for in output theory. That is,

the problems learners encounter in output could ‘‘trigger an analysis of incoming

data, that is, a syntactic analysis of input’’ (Swain & Lapkin, 1995, p. 375). The

purpose of the study reported below is to investigate the processes underlying the

learners’ initial output and the relationship of these processes to those occurring

as they confront the reformulated version. We also examine the impact of these

processes on the resulting text in a three-stage L2 writing task. Including two

participants with two different L2 proficiency levels permits us to explore the

relationship of L2 proficiency level to the qualities of noticing in a particular writing task.

The study

This research is the result of one of the pilot studies conducted for a large-scale

research project. One of its objectives is to explore the roles played by output

(speaking and writing) through collaborative dialogue in L2 learning. Preliminary

to the main research, this particular case study was to investigate the roles of

output in a three-stage L2 writing task performed on an individual basis by twolearners with two different levels of L2 proficiency.

The writing task consisted of the following three stages (see detailed

description under ‘‘Procedure’’ below). First, a participant wrote an L2 text in

response to a picture prompt (Stage 1). Then he/she was asked to engage in a

comparison of his/her written draft with a reformulated version of it followed by


8/9/2019 Qi Lapkin 2001


an immediate retrospective interview intended to clarify what he/she had noticed

(Stage 2). Finally, we gave the participant his/her original text and asked him/her

to revise it (Stage 3). By examining each of the three stages, we intended toinvestigate the effects of noticing in output: (a) as each individual participant

composed an L2 text (Stage 1); (b) as he/she subsequently compared his/her L2

text with a reformulated version of it (Stage 2); and (c) as he/she revised the L2

text (Stage 3). Thus, our research questions in this study were as follows:

1. What aspects of language do L2 learners notice in/during an output-only

writing condition (Stage 1 of a three-stage writing task)?

2. What do L2 learners notice as they compare their text to a reformulated

version of it while thinking aloud (Stage 2 of a three-stage writing task)?3. How is such noticing related to changes in the written product from Stage 1

to Stage 3 (posttest) of the L2 writing task?

Methodology

Participants

The participants in this study were two adult Mandarin-speaking English-as-a-second language (ESL) learners. The first participant (hereafter Wu), male, aged

27, had a bachelor’s degree in textile engineering from China, had been in

Canada for 3 years, and had never been to any other English-speaking countries

before. He had studied English as a foreign language for over 10 years before

immigrating to Canada. One year after he arrived in Canada, he enrolled in a

2-year computer network and technical support diploma program at a Toronto

community college. At the time of our data collection for this study, he was in his

last semester of the program. An analysis of his oral sample based on the ACTFL

(American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages) proficiency guide-lines (1986) as well as an analysis of his written text based on global scales for

writing (Hamp-Lyons, 1991) revealed that his oral English was at an advanced

level on the ACTFL scale and his written English was intermediate-high on the

global scale for writing. The second participant (hereafter Su), female, aged 32,

had a diploma in fine arts from a college in Taiwan, had been in Canada for 5

months, and had never been to any other English-speaking countries before. She

had studied English as a foreign language for 1 year before immigrating to

Canada. One month after her arrival in Canada, she enrolled in an ESL class at

the Toronto District School Board and was placed in a high-basic level class. At the time of the data collection, she was in her fourth month of an ESL class. An

analysis of her English oral sample and her written text indicated that she had a

low-intermediate level of English proficiency on these scales. In short, Wu had a

relatively high level of ESL proficiency and Su had a relatively low level of ESL

proficiency. Both participants were interested in being involved in our research


8/9/2019 Qi Lapkin 2001


after they were informed of the general purpose of the study, i.e., to document

what L2 learners think while doing a writing task in order to help teachers

understand their learners’ needs.

Procedure

Each participant wrote a narrative in response to a picture prompt of ‘‘The

Scene of the Crime’’ (see Appendix A). The picture prompt was chosen for two

reasons.6 First, the picture did not provide any verbal data so the participant

would have to produce the TL in an output-only writing condition. Second, it was

open-ended so the participants could compose the story in whatever way they

liked, thus giving them control over the content. Before the data collection, each participant was trained to produce think-aloud protocols; that is, each was given

two multiplication problems and was asked to think aloud while solving these

problems. Each was asked to think out loud in the language of his/her choice

(following procedures in Cumming, 1989, p. 89). The picture prompt was not

given to the participant until he or she practiced the think-aloud method several

times and felt comfortable enough to use the method. Each participant was given

30 minutes to do the composing (Stage 1), and each did the writing task at about

the same time of day. We used audiotape to record think-aloud verbalizations and

videotape to capture the participants’ writing of texts. The audio-track of thevideotape also recorded the think-aloud and provided a backup copy of the

verbalizations (following procedures in Bracewell & Breauleux, 1994, p. 58).

One of the researchers was present to operate the video camera and to remind the

participant to keep thinking aloud if he/she stopped talking for very long. To

reduce possible psychological reactivity effects caused by the use of video

camera and audio recorder as well as the presence of a researcher, we consulted

both participants in advance. Both expressed the opinion that this would not

affect their performance so long as it was for research purposes only. When asked

about the same questions concerning the reactivity effects after they finished their tasks, Su confirmed in Chinese that her mind ‘‘was too busy with the task itself to

be affected,’’ and Wu said that ‘‘I really don’t think they were affecting my

thinking and writing at all.’’

Each participant was asked to proofread his/her writing in the end before

submitting it to us. The purpose was to make sure that the draft represented the

participant’s best possible version and that the errors were not ‘‘slips’’ of the

tongue or pen that could be self-corrected by the author (James, 1998; Poulisse,

1999). As in Swain and Lapkin’s (1995) study, the participants in this study were

also advised that they could not have access to a dictionary or any other aid andthat the researcher would not be able to help either. We intended to find out what

6 This type of picture prompt has drawbacks in that its open-ended nature does not provide any

particular focus for the task.


8/9/2019 Qi Lapkin 2001


students would do without such resources and whether they would try to work

out solutions on their own.7

After the task was completed, the researchers collected the draft andreformulated it from beginning to end to produce a native-like model. In the

reformulated version, the participant’s original ideas were maintained. We

corrected all the syntactic and morphological errors, and removed any problems

in stylistics and logical sequencing at the discourse level. Four days later, we

gave each participant his/her own original draft along with the reformulated

version of it and asked him/her to think aloud while comparing his/her own

draft with the reformulated version of it and noticing the differences between

the two versions (Stage 2). Again both the audiotape and videotape were used

to record the comparison process. Immediately following the comparison stage,a researcher rewound the videotape and showed the participant the video of the

comparison and noticing process that had just been taped. The researcher

stopped the tape wherever noticing took place before asking the participant to

clarify what he/she was noticing specifically at that particular moment (imme-

diate retrospective interview). The evidence on which we based our judgement

of the occurrence of a noticing episode includes their pointing to a specific line

in a text, their exclamatory utterances such as ‘‘oh,’’ ‘‘yeah,’’ ‘‘right,’’ etc., their

hesitation, and their thinking pauses. The researcher who could speak both

English and Mandarin conducted the interviews primarily in English,8

and thelearners used the language of their choice to respond.

Each participant did a posttest 1 week after Stage 2. The participant was not

informed of the posttest in advance. For the posttest, each participant received his/

her own original written draft, which was typed in a triple-spaced format, and was

asked to revise his/her draft right on the triple-spaced typed version (Stage 3) based

on what he/she had learnt throughout this entire task process. In sum, each partici-

pant produced two protocols, one from Stage 1 and the other from Stage 2. The four

think-aloud protocols, produced by the two participants both at Stage 1 and Stage 2,

were transcribed for analysis. Formal permission to use the think-aloud protocolsand produced texts was given by the participants (see Appendix B for the texts

produced by the participants as well as the reformulated versions of the draft texts).

Data analysis

Researchers have proposed the use of concurrent think-aloud protocols as a

useful source of information about cognitive processes in L2 research (e.g.,

Cohen, 2000; Leow, 1997). Schmidt (1990) also mentions that noticing can be

operationally defined as availability for verbal report, and it can sometimes even

7 Because this was a pilot study in the context of a Swain/Lapkin project on ‘‘Extending the

Output Hypothesis,’’ we followed the same method here as that planned for the main study.

8 Conducting the interviews in English in this pilot study made the data more accessible to the

project team.


8/9/2019 Qi Lapkin 2001


take place when it cannot be easily verbalized (p. 132). In other words, what is

verbalized is normally what has been attended to. Moreover, it has been argued

that the very act of producing a written form itself may allow a writer to bringaspects of speech, such as sentences, words, and phonemes, into consciousness

(Olson, 1994). In our study, we focused our analysis on LREs from the four

think-aloud protocols produced by the two participants.

Swain and Lapkin (1995) defined LRE as any segment of the protocol in

which a learner either spoke about a language problem he/she encountered while

writing and solved it either correctly or incorrectly, or simply solved it (again,

either correctly or incorrectly) without having explicitly identified it as a problem

(p. 378). As our study involved both writing and comparing (a draft to a

reformulated text of it), we extended the definition so it could be applied tothe comparison stage as well. Thus, in addition to what is defined in Swain and

Lapkin’s research, an LRE in our study refers to a segment of the protocol in

which a learner noticed a language-related problem he/she encountered while

comparing his/her text to a reformulation and addressed it either by accepting the

reformulation and providing a reason, or only noticing the difference without

giving a reason.

In this study, we did not count as LREs verbalizations of segments of the

text as they were being produced, as we had no evidence that they represented

the cognitive process of solving language-related problems; with Cumming(1990, p. 504) we considered these verbalizations to be an automatic act of

writing behavior that may present L2 learners little opportunity to develop

linguistic knowledge. However, we counted language-related noticing which

was not verbalized (e.g., self-correction, see Leow, 1997) but captured in the

videotape and verified in the interview as LREs. For example, in Stage 1, while

proofreading her initial draft, Su crossed out the word ‘‘discussed’’ and wrote

‘‘disscused’’ above it without verbalizing the process.

The first author of the present article identified the LREs in the writing (Stage 1)

and noticing (Stage 2) transcripts, and discussed any problematic cases with thesecond author. Each of the authors then coded the LREs into three broad categories

as follows: (1) lexical — includes adjective, adverb, noun, preposition, pronoun,

and verb; (2) form — includes comparative (adjective), superlative (adjective),

plural, possessive marker, possessive pronoun, punctuation, sentence structure,

spelling, subject– verb agreement, verb form, and verb tense; (3) discourse —

includes achieving logical sequencing (cohesion, coherence), achieving intersen-

tential clarity, and stylistics (see Swain & Lapkin, 1995). The interrater reliability

for identification and coding of LREs was 91% (based on simple percentage

agreement) before the two researchers conferenced until an agreement on thecoding for each LRE was reached. The categorization of the lexical and form

LREs depended on the linguistic focus of the LREs (e.g., searching for a lexical

item, applying a grammatical rule, noticing a morphological difference in Stage 2,

etc.), and the categorization of the discourse LREs depended on the way in which

ideational unity across the text was achieved through the appropriate use of


8/9/2019 Qi Lapkin 2001


language. The following three examples serve to illustrate briefly the way in which

we coded the LREs into the three categories. In all the examples, we use words in

boldface italics to represent a participant’s L1 (Mandarin) use. Words that areunderlined represent written text.

1. Lexical (verb — resolving the problem incorrectly) — Wu (Stage 1):

‘‘Console Mike’s mother. Console console how to say it? What word should

I use? The maid is helping them console his mother. It will be fine enough by

using help his mother.’’

Wu was searching for the word ‘‘console’’ in his first language. But he failed

to translate it successfully into English and then decided that use of ‘‘help’’ would

suffice. In this example, Wu first talked about a lexical problem he encountered.

Then he conducted the lexical search in memory by using his L1. He came upwith the word ‘‘help.’’ Since ‘‘console’’ and ‘‘help’’ were not synonyms, Wu’s

solution as displayed in this LRE was counted as incorrect.

2. Form (verb tense — resolving the problem incorrectly) — Su (Stage 1): ‘‘So

they asked the second son but he didn’t, no should be now, doesn’t want to take

it out.’’

The focus of this LRE was on the tense. Su first used the verb form ‘‘didn’t.’’

Then she felt that she might have used the wrong verb tense as it ‘‘should be now.’’

So she changed it into ‘‘doesn’t,’’ which happened to be an incorrect solution.

3. Discourse (logical sequencing — accepting reformulation with a reason) — Su

(Stage 2): ‘‘Oh yeah I forgot to ‘turn on’ the light.’’

Earlier in her draft text, Su mentioned that the light suddenly went out and the

room became dark. Later in the text, she described the scene in such a way as it

could only have been observed after the light was turned on. However, she did not

mention when the light was turned on. This gap was resolved in the reformulated

text. While comparing the two texts, she noticed the flaw in her original. This

example indicates that in Stage 2 the participant noticed a language-related problem she encountered while comparing her own draft text with a reformulated

text and then addressed it by accepting the reformulation with a good reason. We

refer to ‘‘reason’’ as a participant’s verbalizing the nature of a difference in a point

being compared between the learner’s draft text and its reformulated text.

Although in our instructions we did not ask the participants to provide a reason

while they were comparing, we asked them to verbalize their thoughts in their

comparing processes. Their ‘‘reasons’’ were clarified and verbalized in the

retrospective interview and are reflected and incorporated in the coding results.

Findings

Noticing in the composing stage (Research Question 1)

It took each participant about the same length of time (30 minutes each) to

complete the composing task. Table 1 presents the number of LREs generated in


8/9/2019 Qi Lapkin 2001


Stage 1 in each broad category (lexical, form, and discourse) and the number resolved correctly or incorrectly. The table indicates that while almost half of the

total 41 language-related problems encountered in the composing stage were

resolved correctly (16 for Wu and 4 for Su, a total of 49%), just over half of the

problems were identified but not resolved correctly (9 for Wu and 12 for Su,

accounting for 51% of the LREs).

We assume that the failure to reach a satisfactory solution to a problem with

existing linguistic knowledge may result in a sense of uncertainty or lack of

fulfillment on the part of a learner. For example, Wu recalled a noticing

experience during the interview when he was referring to the difference betweenhis choice of ‘‘talk about’’ in the composing stage and the reformulator’s choice

of the word ‘‘chat’’ in the reformulated text: ‘‘. . . I tried to use a good word for

‘talk about’. I knew that’s not a good use here ‘talk about’. But I couldn’t find a

better word. The teacher used ‘chat’. That’s a good word. But I couldn’t find that

at the moment when I wrote the article.’’ It is perhaps this sense of lack of

fulfillment that may push a learner to look out for any future relevant information

available that he/she believes might help solve the problems in a better way.

An important characteristic of the LREs in Stage 1 is the identification of

problems followed by the modification of a linguistic form in the meaning – formmapping process; that is, Step 1, the writer verbalized an idea, and Step 2, the

writer modified the linguistic realization of the idea before mapping the idea onto

what he/she thought was an appropriate form of the target language. For example:

4. Form (spelling — resolving the problem incorrectly) — Wu (Stage 1): From

where he received the phone call? From um um the famous bullfighter . . . bull

fighter John’s home.

Wu first verbalized the idea of bullfighter in Chinese. After writing down

‘‘bull-fighter John’s home,’’ he crossed out the word ‘‘bull-fighter’’ (compoundword) and wrote ‘‘bull fighter’’ (two words) above it without verbalizing the

process. The more appropriate form should be one word.

Although the LRE indicates that the modification turned out to be an incorrect

one, Wu’s output had triggered his noticing of the form of this particular word.

Thus, this type of noticing may promote an L2 writer’s search for an appropriate

Table 1

Number of LREs for the two participants in Stage 1

Wu Su

LRE

categories

Correctly

resolved

Incorrectly

resolved Total

Correctly

resolved

Incorrectly

resolved Total

Lexical 8 5 13 1 3 4

Form 6 4 10 3 9 12

Discourse 2 – 2 – – –

Total n 16 9 25 4 12 16

Percent 64 36 100 25 75 100


8/9/2019 Qi Lapkin 2001


match between ideational content generated in thought and a linguistically

appropriate form available in memory, a process that is essential to improving

L2 writing proficiency or even L2 proficiency in general.As we know, Wu had a relatively high level of English (L2) proficiency, and

Su had a relatively low level of English (L2) proficiency. The results shown in

Table 1 reveal differences between the two participants both in the quantity and

quality of their Stage 1 LREs. As shown in Table 1, 25 LREs were identified for

Wu while the corresponding figure for Su was 16. This suggests that L2 writers

with a relatively high level of L2 proficiency might engage more in language-

related noticing than L2 writers with a relatively low level of L2 proficiency.

Table 1 shows that for Wu 64% of the language-related problems noticed in Stage

1 were resolved, and 36% were not resolved, whereas for Su 25% were resolvedand 75% not resolved. In this case study, the L2 writer with a higher level of L2

proficiency seems more capable of solving language-related problems on his own

than the lower-proficiency L2 writer.

Noticing in the reformulation task (Research Question 2)

It took Wu about 9 1/2 minutes to complete the comparing task and Su about

12 minutes. By viewing the videotapes, we found that both participants focused

more on reading the reformulated text than reading their own draft while

comparing. This seems to indicate that they were more interested in lookingout for anything that was different from what they were familiar with, or anything

that was new to them. Most of the episodes we identified in this stage included

such exclamatory utterances as ‘‘Oh!,’’ ‘‘Yeah!,’’ ‘‘Ha!,’’ etc. as well as such

comments as ‘‘I forgot this,’’ ‘‘this one is better,’’ ‘‘I was supposed to use . . .,’’

‘‘Oh, it’s much clearer,’’ etc. to express realization of a difference he/she noticed.

This demonstrates that the noticed features of the modeled TL behavior were

being constantly compared to the learner’s own written text and that the

participant’s own recent experience of output in Stage 1 was an important factor

in influencing what he/she noticed in Stage 2. Example 5 provides part of thetranscript from Stage 2 that builds directly on example 1 (from Stage 1):

5. Lexical (verb — accepting reformulation with a reason). Wu (Stage 2): ‘‘Yes,

‘console’ is good. Console Mike’s mother. Yes. It is much better than this one

[referring to the incorrect solution ‘help’ he came up with in Stage 1].’’

In Stage 2, Wu immediately and readily accepted the reformulation by

commenting that ‘‘console’’ in the reformulated text represented ‘‘much better’’

the meaning he had struggled to express in Stage 1.

Table 2 summarizes the LREs identified for the two participants in Stage 2.More importantly, the table reveals that the participants were able to provide

reasons for accepting the reformulation in 28 cases (21 for Wu and 7 for Su for a

total of 47% of the LREs). In over half of the LREs produced by the two

participants in Stage 2, however, they merely noticed the differences between the

reformulation and their own text or accepted the reformulation without stating a


8/9/2019 Qi Lapkin 2001


reason. Examples 6, 7, and 8 illustrate these three ways in which language-relatednoticing occurred.

6. Lexical (noun — accepting reformulation with a reason) — Wu S2: ‘‘Gunshot,

It’s ‘gunshot’ not ‘gun fighting’. Heard the gunshot. Simply use a noun.’’

Wu accepted the reformulated noun and verbalized a correct explanation for

doing so.

7. Form (subject– verb agreement — noticing only) — Su S2: [Original: Some

parents they doesn’t want to share theirs wealth/Reformulation: Some parents do

not want to share their wealth]. ‘‘Here is different: ‘don’t’ and ‘doesn’t’.’’

As Su does not make any judgmental comment or indicate any sign of

accepting the reformulation, this LRE was coded into ‘‘noticing only.’’

8. Form (superlative adjective — accepting reformulation without stating a

reason) — Su S2: [Original: The older is short guy/Reformulation: She has three

sons. Her eldest son is the short guy]. ‘‘Yeah. Eldest.’’

Su seemed to have accepted the reformulation but did not provide a reason or

rationale. So the LRE was coded into ‘‘noticing only.’’

These examples suggest that while reformulation may generally prompt learners to notice differences between two texts, the quality of that noticing is

variable. For the purpose of this study, we refer to the ‘‘quality’’ of noticing as the

extent to which an instance of noticing is perfunctory (i.e., noticing only and

without giving reasons) or substantive (i.e., noticing and providing reasons). As

shown below in our study, the quality of the learners’ Stage 2 noticing generally

has a direct impact on the final product (see our discussion under Research

Question 3 below).

Table 2 illustrates the quality of noticing identified from the LREs for each

participant in the comparison stage (Stage 2). It shows that although Wu (with ahigher level of L2 proficiency) and Su (with a lower level of L2 proficiency)

produced a similar number of LREs (29 for Wu and 31 for Su), Wu provided a

reason for accepting the reformulation more frequently than Su (72% vs. 23%).

On the other hand, 77% of Su’s LREs involved noticing the differences without

making any comments, while for Wu, the noticing-only episodes accounted for a

Table 2

LREs by the two participants in Stage 2

Wu Su

Accepting

reformulation

Accepting

reformulation

LRE categories Notice only with a reason Total Notice only with a reason Total

Lexical 8 9 17 10 1 11

Form 0 8 8 10 5 15

Discourse 0 4 4 4 1 5

Total n 8 21 29 24 7 31

Percent 28 72 100 77 23 100


8/9/2019 Qi Lapkin 2001


relatively small proportion of his LREs (28% of his own total). These results

indicate that a learner with a lower level of L2 proficiency may not be so capable

as a learner with a higher level of L2 proficiency of understanding the nature of noticed gaps despite the availability of a model text. This seems to support the

finding from Mantello’s (1996) study that lower-level learners would not benefit

as much from reformulation as higher-level learners. In short, the results of our

study suggest that the quality of noticing in the reformulation task may be directly

related to level of L2 proficiency.

The results from both Tables 1 and 2 demonstrate that there were substantially

more LREs in Stage 2 than in Stage 1 (especially for Su), suggesting that

learners’ engaging in a comparison of their own text with a reformulated version

of it could greatly promote noticing. In Stage 2, the participants’ memory wasshown to be fresh from their earlier experience (Stage 1) of problem solving,

when they did not always reach a satisfactory solution. An item-to-item

comparison between the two stages of noticing revealed that of the nine problems

that Wu noticed and failed to resolve correctly in Stage 1, seven (78%) were

noticed in Stage 2, and that of the 12 problems that Su noticed and did not resolve

correctly in Stage 1, nine (75%) were noticed in Stage 2. The fact that most of the

problems that were noticed and not resolved correctly in Stage 1 were noticed in

Stage 2 confirms our earlier assumption that the participants’ failure to reach a

satisfactory solution to a problem with existing linguistic knowledge may lead toa sense of lack of fulfillment. They hoped to check out their earlier solutions

against their reformulated texts. This suggests that the output process that takes

place in an early stage of a writing task may play an important role in influencing

noticing of the related language data at a later stage.

Relationship of noticing to changes in the revision stage

(Research Question 3)

Table 3 illustrates the effects of the LREs in Stage 2 on the changes in the

posttest (Stage 3). The table shows that in the case of Wu, of his 21 ‘‘with-reason’’ LREs, 15 (71%) contributed to an improvement in written product, 1

Table 3

Relationship between the LREs in Stage 2 (S2) and the changes in Stage 3 (S3, posttest)

Quality of Total number of

Relationship to

changes in S3

No relationship to

changes in S3

LREs in S2 LREs in S2a Better Percent Same Percent n Percent

Wu noticing only 8 3 38 – – 5 62

accepting with

a reason

21 15 71 1 5 5 24

Su noticing only 24 4 17 7 29 13 54

accepting with

a reason

7 5 71 – – 2 29

a The figures correspond to those in Table 2.


8/9/2019 Qi Lapkin 2001


Table 4

Examples of written product in Stages 1 and 3 and the underlying noticing processes

Example

S1

written product LRE in S1 LRE in S2

9 Wu: Detective Jack received a phone call

from the famous bull fighter John’s home.

[bull fighter — incorrect spelling]

From where he received the phone

call? from um um the famous

bullfighter . . . the famous bull

fighter John’s home [wrote down

‘‘bull-fighter John’s home,’’ and

crossed it and rewrote ‘‘bull fighter’’

above it. [incorrect solution]

Oh, ‘‘bullfighter’’ is

It should be one wor

they were two words

[accepts with a reaso

10 Su: So they asked the second son, but hedoesn’t want to take it out.

[incorrect tense]

So they asked the second son, but he didn’t, no um should be now um,

doesn’t want to take it out.

[incorrect solution]

Here [referring to ‘‘dgrammar changed.

[accepts with a reaso

11 Wu: John’s niece Mike is dead

[niece incorrect word choice according

to the picture prompt]

John’s niece, I don’t know

[referring to the word ‘‘niece’’],

is dead. [incorrect solution]

Oh, it’s a spelling mi

[referring to ‘‘niece’’

‘‘nephew.’’ [accepts

12 Su: . . . father who was die many years ago.

[incorrect verb form]

[verbalization of the text while it is

being produced — No LRE

was identified]

‘‘Who was die’’ chan

‘‘who died’’ [noticin

13 Su: The older is short guy . . . [incorrect

superlative adjective]

The older um is short short one

who . . .

[No LRE was identified]

Eldest. It’s good. [no

a Though Wu called it a ‘‘spelling mistake,’’ it was actually coded as a lexical LRE due to the nature of the probl

8/9/2019 Qi Lapkin 2001


LRE (5%) resulted in a change but not an improvement, and 5 LREs (24%) were

not linked to any changes in Stage 3. There were similar findings for Su. That is,

of her total of seven ‘‘with-reason’’ LREs in Stage 2, five (71%) resulted inimprovements to her written story and two (29%) were not linked to any changes

in Stage 3. These results suggest that while some of the LREs where participants

accept the reformulation and provide a reason may not effect a change in the final

product, most of them play a positive role and contribute directly to L2 writing

improvement. Table 3 also shows that while some of the noticing-only LREs may

lead to improvement of the final written product (38% for Wu and 17% for Su),

most of the noticing-only LREs led either to no changes (62% for Wu and 54%

for Su) or to changes that did not represent an improvement in the written product

(e.g., 29% for Su).Table 4 provides some examples of the changes in Wu/Su’s written product

from Stage 1 to Stage 3 (posttest) along with relevant LREs from his/her think-

aloud protocol. Examples 9, 10, and 11 trace the relationship of Stage 1 LREs to

Stage 2 (noticing) LREs and show the effect of accepting the reformulation with a

reason on the written product in Stage 3 (the posttest). They indicate how LREs

in Stage 1 triggered noticing of relevant data in Stage 2 and then led to

improvement in Stage 3. Examples 12 and 13 indicate that noticing only without

providing a reason or demonstrating an understanding of the nature of the gap

between the learner’s IL and the TL may not lead to improvement. All theseresults demonstrate that noticing without understanding or noticing for no

articulated clear reason does not have the same impact on learning in L2 writing

performance as does noticing with understanding. In turn, this suggests that the

quality of noticing in the reformulation task has direct implications for the written

product in a three-stage L2 writing task.

Discussion

Given that only two participants were involved in this case study, we consider

that the above results constitute ‘‘tentative rather than definitive answers’’

(Allwright et al., 1988, p. 250) to our three research questions. Overall, the

results of the study have shown that in a three-stage L2 writing task, language-

related noticing may contribute to the improvement of L2 writing. Furthermore,

the results indicate that language-related noticing in an output-only writing

condition, along with production in the process, may not only promote sub-

sequent problem-solving performance during the solo composing activity but

also trigger noticing of relevant information from the modeled TL data whenavailable in the later stage of a writing task. The results of the study also

demonstrate that quality of noticing in Stage 2 has direct implications for the final

written product in Stage 3. This finding suggests that while promoting noticing in

a reformulation task may be important, improving the quality of noticing may be

even more important.


8/9/2019 Qi Lapkin 2001


As shown in this study, due to the availability of a relevant text model (based

on their own prior written expression), learners were often able to notice the gap.

However, the quantity of language-related noticing in the output-only composingstage, and the quality of such noticing in both composing and reformulation

comparison stages of the writing, may be different for learners with different

levels of L2 proficiency. The results demonstrate that learners with a higher level

of L2 proficiency may be able to conduct more language-related noticing while

composing alone than learners with a lower level of L2 proficiency. Further,

learners with a higher level of L2 proficiency may be more capable of solving the

noticed problems by themselves while composing alone than learners with a

lower level of L2 proficiency. When comparing their own written draft with a

reformulated version of it, learners with a higher level of L2 proficiency mayaccept more reformulated items or structures, verbalizing the reasons for doing

so, than learners with a lower level of L2 proficiency. This suggests that learners

with a lower level of L2 proficiency may have more difficulty identifying the

nature of the gap between their IL and the TL even though a TL model is

provided to them. Thus, quality of noticing may be related to level of L2

proficiency: i.e., the higher the L2 proficiency, the better the Stage 2 noticing may

be in a three-stage L2 writing task. This finding is in line with Cohen’s (1983b)

claim that reformulation may benefit ‘‘learners at intermediate levels and above’’

and ‘‘may have its greatest impact among advanced students’’ (p. 5, also cf.Mantello, 1996). One explanation for the influence of the level of L2 proficiency

on the quality of noticing may be that learners with a low level of L2 proficiency

have limited linguistic knowledge of the TL, which may affect their judgement

about what is right or wrong and why (Swain & Lapkin, 2000).

While the results of the study generally point to some positive effects of

noticing conducted on an individual basis, they also reveal that some problems or

differences remain unnoticed in Stage 1 or Stage 2. As many of the problems that

were noticed and not resolved in the composing stage were noticed and addressed

correctly in Stage 2, and the correct form was maintained in Stage 3, promotingnoticing in composing might be important. It might also help to enhance the

quality of noticing in Stage 2.

The fact that some LREs where the reformulation was accepted for the right

reason were not utilized in the revision stage (Stage 3) suggests that even noticing

with comprehension may need some reinforced rehearsal in memory (Robinson,

1995). Moreover, despite the availability of the native speaker’s model text, there

was still a substantial percentage of differences (28% for Wu and 77% for Su)

that were noticed without the participants’ demonstrating evidence of under-

standing, particularly for the learner with the lower level of L2 proficiency.Based on the above findings, we derive several implications for L2 writing

pedagogy. Like Cohen (1989) and Thornbury (1997), we suggest that reformu-

lation is a valid pedagogical tool: The positive modeling of native-like writing

may be more helpful to the learner than error correction (negative feedback). It

appears important for teachers to promote language-related noticing in L2


8/9/2019 Qi Lapkin 2001


composing. Teachers of writing routinely assess individual learners and identify

which L2 problems each learner needs to work on before completing a writing

task. This pilot study suggests the usefulness of directing learners to pay particular attention to certain areas (e.g., lexical, grammatical, and discourse)

according to their needs. The research of Polio et al. (1998) demonstrates that if

L2 writers are given more time to reflect on their drafts, they can be given an

additional chance to focus on the accuracy of their language, thus promoting their

noticing in composing. Teachers could also teach the learner some language-

related noticing strategies in composing by demonstrating them using the

thinking-aloud method. Verbalization itself may be an effective strategy. For

example, asking learners about what they are thinking and the rationale for their

grammatical decisions can promote metacognitive processing and lead toeffective problem solving (Dominowski, 1998). Our study indicates that even

though a noticed problem is not resolved successfully, such experience may lead

to noticing of relevant information in incoming input data.

Second, the teacher may need to train learners, especially those with a lower

level of L2 proficiency, how to notice the gap between their own draft text and

the reformulated text. This may mean that the teacher may need to organize some

awareness-raising activities in reformulation tasks. A list of such proposed

activities can be found in Thornbury (1997, p. 333).

Third, since quality of noticing in reformulation tasks may be crucial for improvement of L2 writing, learners should be encouraged to work collaboratively

with the teacher or with both peers and native speakers to increase opportunities

for noticing as well as to improve the quality of noticing (Swain & Lapkin, 2001).

This may be indispensable for learners with a lower level of L2 proficiency.

In conclusion, the results of the study suggest that language-related noticing

does have a direct impact on students’ written products, and that output can

promote opportunities for such noticing both in an output-only writing condition,

and via the feedback provided by a reformulation of learners’ written texts.

Further, the quality of the noticing may differ according to the learners’ level of proficiency and may affect their capacity to benefit from the reformulation. In

short, how to improve noticing quality especially for learners with a lower level of

L2 proficiency may be a crucial issue to be addressed in L2 writing pedagogy.

References

Allwright, R. L., Woodley, M. P., & Allwright, J. M. (1988). Investigating reformulation as a practical

strategy for the teaching of academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 9, 236–256.Batstone, R. (1996). Noticing. ELT Journal , 50, 273.

Bennett, J. G. (1976). Noticing . Sherborne, England: Coombe Springs Press.

Bracewell, R. J., & Breauleux, A. (1994). Substance and romance in analysing think-aloud proto-

cols. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology

(pp. 55–88). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Cohen, A. D. (1982). Writing like a native: The process of reformulation (ERIC ED 224 338).


8/9/2019 Qi Lapkin 2001


Cohen, A. D. (1983a). Reformulating second-language compositions: A potential source of input for

the learner (ERIC ED 228 866).

Cohen, A. D. (1983b). Reformulating compositions. TESOL Newsletter , 17 (6), 1 –5.

Cohen, A. D. (1989). Reformulation: A technique for providing advanced feedback in writing.Guidelines: A Periodical for Classroom Language Teachers, 11 (2), 1–9.

Cohen, A. D. (2000). Exploring strategies in test-taking: Fine-tuning verbal reports from respond-

ents. In G. Ekbatani, & H. Pierson (Eds.), Learner-directed assessment in ESL (pp. 127–150).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cohen, A. D., & Cavalcanti, M. C. (1990). Feedback on compositions: Teacher and student verbal

reports. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp.

155–177). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Conrad, S. M., & Goldstein, L. M. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher-written comments: Text,

contexts and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing , 8, 147–179.

Corder, S. P. (1971). Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis. International Review of Applied Lin-

guistics, 9, 147–160.

Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second language proficiency. Language Learning , 39,

81–141.

Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written

Communication, 7 , 482 – 511.

Cumming, A. (1998). Theoretical perspectives on writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18,

61–67.

Dominowski, R. L. (1998). Verbalization and problem solving. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A.

C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 25–45). Mahwah,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Ellis, R. (1993). Interpretation-based grammar teaching. System, 21, 69–78.

Ellis, R. (1995). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 87 – 105.

Farrar, M. J. (1992). Negative evidence and grammatical morpheme acquisition. Developmental

Psychology, 28, 90–98.

Fathman, A. K., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to students writing: Focus on from versus

content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp.

178–190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott

(1996). Journal of Second Language Writing , 8, 1 –11.

Ferris, D. R., Pezone, S., Tade, C. R., & Tinti, S. (1997). Teacher commentary on student writing:

Descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language Writing , 6 , 155–182.

Hamp-Lyons, L. (1991). Reconstructing academic writing proficiency. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 127–153). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Horowitz, D. (1986). Process, not product: Less than meets the eye. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 141– 144.

Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second

Language Writing , 7 , 255–286.

James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use. Essex, UK: Addison Wesley Longman.

Johnson, K. (1988). Mistake correction. ELT Journal , 42, 89–96.

Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second

language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 57–68). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes.

Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203–318.Leow, R. P. (1997). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behaviour. Language Learning , 47 ,

467–505.

Levenston, E. A. (1978). Error analysis of free comparison: The theory and the practice. Indian

Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4 (1), 1–11.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C.


8/9/2019 Qi Lapkin 2001


Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Second language

acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic.

Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational Interaction and second language development: Re-

casts, responses and red herrings? Modern Language Journal , 82, 338–356.Mantello, M. A. (1996). Selective error correction in intermediate extended French writing programs:

A comparative study of reformulation and coded feedback. Unpublished master’s thesis, Ontario

Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.

Olson, D. R. (1994). The world on paper: The conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and

reading . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second

Language Writing , 8, 265–289.

Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). ‘‘If I only had more time’’: ESL learner’s changes in

linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing , 7 , 43–68.

Poulisse, N. (1999). Slips of the tongue: Speech errors in first and second language production.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Qi, D. S. (1998). An inquiry into language-switching in second language composing. Canadian

Modern Language Review, 54, 413–435.

Robinson, P. (1995). Review article: Attention, memory, and the ‘‘noticing’’ hypothesis. Language

Learning , 45, 283–331.

Sanaoui, R. (1984). The use of reformulation in teaching writing to FSL students. In L. Young (Ed.),

Carleton papers in applied language studies (pp. 139–147). Ottawa, ON: Carleton University.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11,

129–158.

Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguis-

tics. AILA Review, 11, 11– 26.

Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case

study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second

language acquisition (pp. 237–326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Semke, H. D. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17 , 195–202.

Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness raising and the second language learner. Applied Lin-

guistics, 2, 159–168.

Sharwood Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language

information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 7 , 118– 132.

Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165–179.

Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues, and directions inESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing ( pp. 11 – 23). Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press.

Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and

its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27 , 657–677.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehen-

sible output in its development. In S. M. C. Gass, & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second

language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook, & B.

Seidhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Swain, M. (1998). Focus of form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step

towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16 , 371–391.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). What two learners notice in their reformulated writing, what they


8/9/2019 Qi Lapkin 2001


learn from it, and their insights into the process. Paper presented at the annual conference of the

Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers (mimeo).

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects.

In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language

learning, teaching and testing ( pp. 99 – 118). London: Longman.

Thornbury, S. (1997). Reformulation and reconstruction: Tasks that promote ‘‘noticing’’. ELT Journal ,

51, 326–335.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar journal correction in L2 writing classes. Language

Learning , 46 , 327–369.

Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second Language

Research, 14, 103–135.

Wilberg, T. (1987). One-to-one. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.

Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 195–202.

Zamel, V. (1988). The author responds to comments on Vivian Zamel’s ‘‘Recent research on writing

pedagogy’’. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 520–524.

Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class.

Journal of Second Language Writing , 4, 209–222.

Appendix A. The writing prompt

Balas, R., & Rice, D. Qu’est-ce que se passe, Second Edition. Copyright 1984 by Houghton Mifflin

Company. Used with permission.


8/9/2019 Qi Lapkin 2001


Appendix B

B.1. Wu’s draft text

It’s ten o’clock at the weekend. Twenty minutes ago, detective jack received a

phone call from the famous bull fighter John’s home. He said that his niece has

stolen his money from his house and was shoot by him by accident.

When the detective Jack and his colleague come to his house, John’s niece

Mike is dead and laying on the floor with the money in his hand in the dining

room. There is a gun around him and a box is sitting beside him. His parents are

so sad and his uncle and aunty in law are so angry. The table clock was falling

down the floor. The servant is helping Mike’s mother.Bull fighter John who has earned a lot of money tell the detectives that his

brother family come to visit him today. His brother is old and retire and his niece

is twenty years old and doesn’t work at the moment. They had a great dinner at

8 o’clock after that they went to the meeting room and talk about the family.

About 9:20 Mike get out the meeting room and go to the washroom. About ten

minute later, they heard some sound from bedroom. and then John left to take a

look. He found Mike get out of his bed room and carrying a box. Also there is

some cash in his hand. He realize that he’s stealing. Then he try to stop him doing

that. But Mike is so crazy and fight his uncle and try to escape. John followedhim to the dinning room and get a gun on the wall and ask him not to move. Mike

try to get the gun. In the mess, the gun fight and Mike is shoot by accident.

When all the people heard the gun fighting and get out from meeting room to the

dining room. Mike’s parents are so sorry and sad about what happened. Then John

let the servant to call the detective. Mike is dead. The things like that happened

every day. So I think the money is the source of crime. Even between the relative.

B.2. Reformulated version of Wu’s written draft

It is ten o’clock at the weekend. Twenty minutes ago, Detective Jack received

a phone call from John’s home. John is a famous bullfighter. He told the detective

that he had shot his nephew by accident when his nephew was stealing his money

in his house.

When detective Jack and his colleague arrived at the scene, John’s nephew

Mike was already dead. Now the body lies on the floor of the dining room with

some money in the left hand. Near the right hand is a suitcase. A gun is sitting on

the floor, just beside the left side of the body. A table clock has been knocked

over and has fallen to the floor. Mike’s parents look miserable and his uncle andaunt look very angry. A housemaid is trying to console Mike’s mother.

Bullfighter John who has earned a lot of money tells the detectives that his

brother’s family came over to visit him today. His brother is old and retired and his

nephew is twenty years old and does not have a job at the moment. They had a

great dinner at 8 o’clock this evening. After that, they went to the living room and


8/9/2019 Qi Lapkin 2001


had a good chat. At around 9:20, Mike left the living room for the washroom.

About ten minutes later, they heard some noise from the bedroom. John decided to

go there and take a look. When John got there, he saw Mike coming out of his bedroom, carrying a suitcase in his right hand and some cash in his left hand. He

realized that Mike was stealing from him. So John tried to stop him. But Mike was

so crazy at that time. He fought his uncle and at the same time tried to escape. John

chased Mike to the dining room. When John found that he was unable to stop his

nephew, he took a gun off the wall and asked him not to move. Mike tried to grab

the gun. In the midst of the fight, the gun was fired and Mike was shot by accident.

When all the people heard the gunshot, they rushed to the dining room. John

let his maid call the police. Now Mike’s parents are so sad about what has

happened to their son. Mike is dead. Things like this happen almost every day. I believe that money is a source of crime, even among relatives.

B.3. Wu’s revised text

It’s ten o’clock at the weekend. Twenty minutes ago, detective Jack received a

phone call from the famous bullfighter John’s home. He said that his nephew has

stolen his money from his house and was shot by him by accident.

When the detective Jack and his colleague come to his house, John’s nephew

Mike is dead and laying on the floor with the money in his left hand in the diningroom. There is a gun around him and a suitcase is sitting beside him. His parents

are so sad and his uncle and aunty-in-law are so angry. The table clock was

knocked down to the floor. The servant is helping console Mike’s mother.

Bullfighter John who has earned a lot of money tells the detectives that his

brother family came to visit him that day. His brother was old and retired and his

nephew is twenty years old and doesn’t work at the moment. They had a great

dinner at 8 o’clock. Then they went to the meeting room and had a chat. About

9:20 Mike went to the washroom. About ten minutes later, they heard some noise

from John’s bedroom. John left to take a look. He found Mike coming out fromhis bedroom and carrying a suitcase. Also there was some cash in his left hand.

He realize that Mike’s stealing from him. He try to stop Mike. But Mike is so

crazy that he fought his uncle and tried to escape. John followed him to the

dinning room, grab a gun on the wall and ask him not to move. Mike try to get

the gun. In the mess, the gun was shot and Mike was shot by accident.

When all the people heard the gunshot, they ran out from the meeting room to

the dining room. Mike’s parents are so sorry and sad about what happened. Then

John let the servant to call the detective. Mike is dead. Things like that happened

every day. So I believe the money is the source of crime, even among relatives.

B.4. Su’s draft text

There is a rich family. The old woman who she has three sons. The older is

short guy He was married. And he’s wife is a chill weman. She felt angry about


8/9/2019 Qi Lapkin 2001


her’s husband get a little money. The dead guy is the old women second son. He

staied at home no job lives with his mother. The third one who sit at the table he

drank. He didn’t care about anything.One day, they have a dinner and meeting because their mother want to share

her’s wealth after dinner the old mother think they need share all of the family

wealth. Because of the old mother is too old. So after dinner. They discussed

about how to share their’s money. The sister’s-in-law was very angry because

she though they just got a little bit. So they asked their mother about a big bag

where is it? No boday can find it. it is belong their’s father who was die many

years ago. So they asked the second son, but he doesn’t want to take it out.

Finelly he took it out. and suddenly the light off. There is dark. Then they heard

a gun ‘‘bomn.’’They found the second son lie down. nobody found who kill him. So the

witness called the police. In a short time police came in. They told about the

situation then the smoking police saied: The third son killed then second son. So

their’s mother was very sad. I think that is a sad family story. Right now, some

parents hey doesn’t want to share theirs wealth to give their children. They think

about if they keep their money, they can keep theirs children. If they shared their

money, they loose their children.

B.5. Reformulated version of Su’s written draft

There is a rich family. The mother of the family is an old woman. She has

three sons. Her eldest son is the short guy in the picture. He is married. His wife is

a greedy woman. She feels unhappy because she thinks her mother-in-law has not

given her husband enough money. The dead guy is the old woman’s second son.

He did not have a job and lived with his mother. The third son is the one who sits

at the table. He is drunk. He does not seem to care about anything.

That day, the family had dinner together at the mother’s home. After dinner,

the mother wanted to have a family meeting to discuss how to divide her moneyamong her three sons. She wanted to share all her money with her sons because

she felt she was too old. So after dinner, the family discussed how to divide the

money. The eldest son’s wife was very angry because she thought she and her

husband only got a little bit. So she and her husband asked the mother where the

suitcase was. They were unable to find it. The suitcase belonged to their father

who died many years ago. So they asked the second son, but he did not want to

get it. Finally he brought it out. Suddenly the light went out. The room turned

dark. Then a gunshot was heard.

After the light was turned on, the second son was found lying dead on thefloor. It was not known who killed him. Someone called the police. A little while

later, two detectives arrived. The family reported what had happened before the

gunshot. Then the detective who smoked a pipe said: ‘‘The third son killed the

second son.’’ The mother was very sad. I think this is a sad family story.

Nowadays, some parents do not want to share their wealth with their children.


8/9/2019 Qi Lapkin 2001


They believe if they keep their money, they can keep their children. If they share

their money with their children, they can lose their children.

B.6. Su’s revised text

There is a rich family. The old woman who she has three sons. The older is

short guy He is married. And he’s wife is a greedy weman. She felt angry about

her’s husband get a little money. The dead guy is the old mother’s second son. He

staied at home no job lives with his mother. The third one who is sitting at the

table he drunk. He didn’t care anything.

One day, they have a family meeting because their mother wants to share her’s

wealth. After dinner, they discussed their family wealth. Because of the oldmother is too old. So after dinner. They discussed how to share their’s money.

The sister-in-law was very angry because she just got a little bit. So they asked

their mother about a big bag where it is? It is belong their’s father who was died

many years ago. So they asked the second son, but he didn’t want to take it out.

Finelly he took it out. Suddenly the light off. There is a dark. Then they heard a

gun sound.

When the light turned on, they found the second son lay down. Nobody found

who killed him. Someone called the police. In a short time two police came in.

They told him about the situation. The policeman with a pipe saied: ‘‘The thirdson killed the second son.’’ So the old mother was very sad. I think that this a sad

family story. These days, some parents they don’t want to share theirs wealth with

their children. They think if they keep their money, they can keep theirs children.

If they shared their money. They lost their children.


Documents

Qi Lapkin 2001