No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The Zone of Proximal Development has been one of the most misunderstood features of Sociocultural Theory. It has been inappropriately equated with Krashen’s i+1 and with the concept of ‘scaffolding’. Based on an empirical study where learners seemed to require the same degree of explicit mediation at two different points in time, Erlam, et al. (2013) have questioned Aljaafreh and Lantolf’s (1994) regulatory scale and have instead supported a one-size-fits-all use of explicit mediation. This article provides a theoretical and empirical counter argument to Erlam, et al.’s (2013) proposal. Given Vygotsky’s (1987) claim that development is revolutionary, on theoretical grounds alone, we would not expect that because at time 1 a learner required explicit mediation at time 2 that same learner would require less explicit (or more implicit) mediation to recognize and correct use of an inappropriate L2 feature. We also present empirical evidence from a close analysis of Aljaafreh’s (1992) dissertation that supplements the data considered in Lantolf and Aljaafreh (1995), which showed that even when mediation regresses from more implicit to more explicit levels on the regulatory scale, it does not regress to the beginning of the process where mediation is maximally explicit. Progress, overall, is forward, even if it requires some backtracking.

The concept of linguistic complexity, understood broadly as a range of basic and elaborate structures available and accessible to learners as evidenced in their production of speech and writing (Ortega, 2003), has featured prominently in second language development research since the inception of the field. The field of heritage language acquisition, however, has only recently begun to engage linguistic complexity as a comprehensive lens for studying heritage language development. The current study contributes to this fledgling area of research by investigating automatically extracted measures of syntactic complexity in the written language of heritage learners of Russian at various developmental levels. The analysis of 12 measures of syntactic complexity allows us to conclude that the majority of automatically extracted indices differentiate proficiency levels of heritage speakers in the study. The study results provide important insights into the nature of heritage language development and are readily applicable for assessment and pedagogical purposes.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract