Emotions in SLA: New Insights From Collaborative Learning for an EFL Classroom

Emotions in SLA: New Insights From Collaborative Learning for an EFL ClassroomAuthor(s): YASUHIRO IMAISource: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 94, No. 2 (Summer 2010), pp. 278-292Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers AssociationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40856131 .

Accessed: 24/06/2014 23:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.162 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 23:31:14 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nfmlta

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40856131?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Emotions in SLA: New Insights From Collaborative Learning for an EFL Classroom YASUHIRO IMAI Sophia University Centre for the Teaching of Foreign Languages in General Education 7-1 Kioicho, Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 102-8554, Japan Email: yashiroimai@gmail. com

What is the role and meaning of emotions in the second language learning process? To respond to this question, this article focuses on how learners' emotions manifest in their verbal communication over the course of a semester-long joint task. Recognizing interpersonal, functional, and developmental aspects of emotions, I illustrate how a group of English-as-a- foreign-language learners discursively constructed and shared their emotional attitudes toward their group work and how such emotional intersubjectivity pushed the group, in their knowledge co-construction, to challenge assigned tasks and material. I argue that emotions do not merely facilitate, filter, or hinder an individual's inner cognitive functioning; rather, they can in any forms mediate development, especially when learning is embedded in an interpersonal transaction. I end by considering implications of the study and its limitations.

RESEARCHERS IN THE FIELD OF SECOND language acquisition (SLA) have acknowledged affect as a crucial component of individual differences in learning outcomes (Ellis, 1994). The range of affective variables covered by this term has expanded to touch not only emotional and motivational aspects of human behavior (e.g., Dörnyei, 1998, 2003, 2005; Gardner, 1985, 2001; Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Horwitz, 1986, 2001) but also personality characteristics (e.g., Chapelle 8c Roberts, 1986; Dewaele 8c Furnham, 1999; Ehrman, Leaver, & Oxford, 2003). However, SLA researchers have hardly brought the integral component of affect-emotions in their own right-to the foreground of their research foci in a holistic manner. In the field of psychology, emotions and moods are considered to be two essential constituents of affect (e.g., Forgas, 2000, 2001). Emotions are "intense, short-lived and usually

The Modern Language Journal, 94, ii, (2010) 0026-7902/10/278-292 $1.50/0 ©2010 The Modern Language Journal

have a definite cause and clear cognitive content (e.g., anger, or fear)," whereas moods are "low-intensity, diffuse and relatively enduring affective states without a salient antecedent cause and therefore little cognitive content (e.g., feeling good or feeling bad)" (Forgas, 1992, p. 230). Thus, the meaning of affect primarily lies in its emotional and mood dimensions. In agreement with this understanding, SLA researchers often refer to emotions as the principal element of affect, along with feeling and mood (Arnold 8c Brown, 1999; Brown, 2000). Nevertheless, they have essentially "reduce [d] emotions to a laundry list of decontextualized and oftentimes poorly defined sociopsychological constructs, such as attitudes, motivation, anxiety, self-esteem, empathy, risk- taking, and tolerance of ambiguity" (Pavlenko, 2005, p. 34) and dealt with these as individual factors.

It should be fully recognized that the con- tribution of previous work has advanced our knowledge on specific affective factors in SLA. However, I call for more substantial attention to the wide range of emotions toward the fuller



Yasuhiro Imai 279

understanding of the role and meaning of affect in SLA. Furthermore, if a learner's success depends on "what goes on inside and between the people in the classroom" (Stevick, 1980, p. 4) rather than on techniques and materials, shed- ding light on emotions between the people-or the social aspects of emotions-is clearly needed to complement our knowledge base formed by previous SLA research exploring affective factors within a learner.

This article introduces an exploratory study that examined the social aspects of emotions in the context of language learning. In doing so, first I highlight mainstream assumptions preva- lent in SLA research that are individualistic, cognitive, dichotomous, and product-oriented. Second, I frame the social aspects of emotions by intro- ducing several conceptions from contemporary thinking on emotions in interpersonal contexts. Although recognizing wide disagreement among theorists as to the definition of emotions (e.g., Fehr & Russell, 1984), I take a particular view: Emotions are not just an individual's private inner workings in response to external stimuli but are socially constructed acts of communication that can mediate one's thinking, behavior, and goals. Third, I provide findings from a study (Imai, 2007) informed by these conceptions. According to the sociocultural theory of mind (Vygotsky, 1978, 1986; Wertsch, 1985), collaborative relationships are consequential to an individual's learning. Thus, emotions are possibly implicated in the ways that collaboration takes place and ultimately in one's cognitive development. With this view, I examine how emotions come into play in the way a group of Japanese university students jointly organize tasks and procedures in their collaborative work for an English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) class and co-construct new knowledge. The main analytical concern here is not to identify causation between emotions and learning outcomes. Rather, it is to understand whether and how the participants' emotions are discursively manifested, co-constructed, and shared with each other while being closely interwoven with their collective thinking process. Finally, I end by considering implications of the study and acknowl- edging its limitations.

ASSUMPTIONS OF THE MAINSTREAM SLA RESEARCH ABOUT AFFECTIVE FACTORS

To highlight mainstream assumptions in SLA research on affective factors, I limit the scope by adopting Scovel's (1978) definition of affective factors: "emotional reactions and motivations of

the learner; they signal the arousal of the limbic system and its direct intervention in the task of learning (p. 131). Specifically, I briefly review relevant work in three major affective domains: Lan- guage anxiety, second language (L2) motivation, and neurobiological factors.

SLA researchers have viewed language anxiety as the most influential emotional factor in language learning (Oxford, 1999) , and many authors have extensively documented the phenomenon (e.g., Clément, Gardner, 8c Smythe, 1977, 1980; Gardner, 1985; Horwitz, 1986, 2001). Language anxiety has been considered essentially situation- specific (i.e., apprehension and fear about communication, negative social evaluation, or poor test or academic performance) and a measurable individual variable that "interfere [s] with the acquisition, retention, and production of the new language" (Maclntyre & Gardner, 1991, p. 86). Accordingly, researchers have principally adopted quantitative approaches to seek causality between numerous related variables and language proficiency and/or achievement.1 To this end, various measurement instruments have been developed, such as the French Class Anxiety Scale (Gardner & Smythe, 1975) and Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (Horwitz, Horwitz, 8c Cope, 1986), most of which rely on scaled self-report questionnaires. Not all anxiety is negative, however. Some researchers suggest the existence of helpful or fa- cilitating anxiety (e.g., Ehrman 8c Oxford, 1995; Young, 1992), whereas others propose a more op- erational concept, tension, to denote multiple dimensions of anxiety that could be either detrimental or conducive to language learning (Guy 8c Radnovsky, 2001).

Another affective domain of SLA that has cap- tured considerable scholarly attention is L2 motivation. L2 motivation research has traditionally centered on combinations of two motivation dichotomies: Integrative/instrumental and intrinsic/extrinsic (e.g., Dòrnyei, 1998; Dörnyei 8c Ottó, 1998; Gardner, 2001; Gardner 8c Maclntyre, 1991, 1993). In this milieu, the integrative and intrinsic constructs are considered the most powerful predictors of successful language learning. More recently, researchers have developed alternative conceptualizations of L2 motivation, such as self- determination theory (e.g., Noels, 2001; Noels, Clément, 8c Pelletier, 2001), attribution theories (e.g., Williams, Burden, 8c Al-Baharna, 2001), and willingness to communicate (e.g., Clément, Baker, 8c Maclntyre, 2003; Maclntyre, Baker, & Donovan, 2002). Analogous to the language anxiety research tradition, major L2 motivation research has conventionally treated motivation as a



280 The Modern Language Journal 94 (2010)

measurable variable and predominantly adopted quantitative approaches to see how the sustenance of motivation, or lack thereof, influences language learning and outcomes (Ushioda, 2003). Yet, some researchers also call for conducting qualitative and ethnographic studies that complement the quantitative research paradigm (e.g., McGroarty, 2001; Ushioda, 2003).

Finally, based on neurobiological and psy- chophysiological studies (e.g., Damasio, 1994; LeDoux, 1986) and the appraisal theory of emotion (e.g., Ellsworth, 1991; Lazarus, 1982, 1984), Schumann (1998, 2001) claimed that stimulus appraisal (one's evaluation of potential harms or benefits of external stimuli in any given situation) forms the basis of motivation, which, in turn, de- termines the degree of success in language learning. Positive appraisals facilitate success, whereas negative alternatives hinder it. The generation of stimulus appraisal is subject to an individual's neurocerebral mechanism, which is also respon- sible for motor and somatosensory behavior. As such, individual differences in motivation and achievement are ascribed to differences in neurocerebral processing and neurobiological functioning across learners. Inspecting questionnaire items and texts in memoirs, Schumann (1998) contended that it is essentially stimulus appraisals that constitute the rubric of major L2 motivation research and autobiographical and diary studies in SLA. His contemplation has recently culmi- nated in the conception of learning as a form of foraging for knowledge, skills, and information (Schumann, 2001).

Through this brief overview of the literature emerge several assumptions intrinsic to the mainstream SLA research on the affective domains. First, affective factors are viewed as essentially intrapsychic phenomena; they take place within an individual in response to external stimuli. Although there has been a call for incorporating situational or social factors, such as tasks, learning environments, and social groups (e.g., Julkunen, 2001; McGroarty, 2001), they are often treated as another external measurable variable that supposedly constitutes or influences an individual's affective state associated with language learning and outcomes. Second, although mutual interplay between cognition and affect has been acknowledged (Arnold, 1999), cognition is prioritized. This priority is particularly implied in Schumann's (1998) contention that cognitive appraisals are the sole antecedent of emotion, motivation, and, accordingly, subsequent actions. Third, mainstream SLA researchers examine a given affective phenomenon using dichotomies;

they determine whether its characteristics are positive or negative, beneficial or harmful, or existent or nonexistent. This dualistic treatment ultimately feeds affectively sensitive pedagogical interventions that aim for increasing positive affective variables while decreasing negative ones (e.g., Moskowitz, 1999; Richard-Amato, 1988). Fi- nally, underlying all these assumptions is a view that conceives learning as mastering knowledge and skills or seeking and processing information. In sum, the mainstream SLA research on the major affective domains can be characterized as individualistic, cognitive, dichotomous, and product-oriented in its assumptions and foci.

Although the mainstream research paradigm described has certainly advanced the field of SLA, there are several limitations for a fuller understanding of the complexity of affect - emotions in particular - in the learning process. First, the mainstream SLA investigations have prioritized a particular type of negative emotion (language anxiety), whereas other emotions that one may experience over the course of language learning and use, such as enjoyment, relief, anger, happiness, hope, gratitude, jealousy, love, and so on, have been sidelined. Second, the individualistic view of affect and language learning dismisses the interpersonal and communicative dimension of one's emotionality. Some emotion researchers argue that whereas emotions are aroused in people's adaptation and survival, they are most likely, if not exclusively, aroused in interpersonal relationships (Berscheid, 1987; Ellis & Harper, 1977; Simon, 1967) and in sharing emotion-laden experiences with others (Rime, Corsini, & Her- bette, 2002) . Third, a large majority of researchers rely on reflective appraisal methods to measure learners' affective states, such as retrospective self-report questionnaires or reflection in interviews, or memoirs, instead of observing learners' real-time emotional experiences in naturalistic settings. Accordingly, most research findings are not so much the respondent's real-time emotional experience of the moment but rather an essentially abstracted representation of emotionally colored past memories. Fourth, stimulus appraisal researchers argue the cognitive appraisal to be the sole antecedent of emotion and motivation. How- ever, an array of psychological research provides empirical evidence that moods can affect one's judgment and interpretation of a situation. This reverse causal relationship is known as the mood- congruent effect (Johnson & Tversky, 1983) or affect- infusion (Forgas, 1995). Particularly, Johnson and Tversky showed that not only is a causal relationship between appraisals and moods or emotions



Yasuhiro Imai 281

far from straightforward, but, when mediated by moods or emotions, the appraisal of a given object or situation may not always have a one-to-one mapping. As such, the interplay of cognition and affect is more complex and nonlinear than mainstream SLA research has assumed.

In sum, although mainstream affect studies in SLA have contributed to increasing knowledge in the field, they illuminate only a small corner of the complexity of affect in language learning. To offer a complementary understanding, the field needs holistic, interpersonal- communicative, and nonlinear perspectives to study emotions in naturalistic settings of language learning.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Definitions of emotion vary greatly in both commonsense and scholarly understandings. Yet, all acknowledge either one or more of four characteristics of emotion - namely, situational appraisals, action tendencies, bodily sensations, and expressive or display behaviors (Parkinson, 1995). Conventionally, these characteristics are seen as one's private, inner experiences. Thus, I introduce complementary understandings of emotion - ones that incorporate more interpersonal and communicative dimensions.

Emotions in Social Interaction

Oatley (1992, 2000) argued that the essential function of emotion is to serve specific social goals - protection, affiliation, and dominance - that are integral to the establishment of society and, more fundamentally, to human cooperation. In achieving these social goals, corresponding emotions emerge: Attachment on the basis of fear or anxiety that serves the goal of protection, affection or warmth based on happiness that is directed to the goal of affiliation, and assertion or aggression accompanying anger that feed the goal of dominance. The emergence of these emotions depends on the extent to which these social goals are achieved in the course of human activities. In serving the three social goals, over time these emotions become enduring emotional states called sentiments. A "sentiment commits the person to a course of action and a certain set of beliefs" (Oatley, 2000, p. 86), which are implicated in three modes of distributed cognition in human activity: Social distribution (i.e., cooperating with each other to accomplish what one cannot do individually); externalization (i.e., translating abstract thoughts or difficult task ideas within an

individual's mind into a manageable form, with the help or mediation of technology or cultural artifacts); and temporal distribution (i.e., transmit- ting human discoveries and procedures as cultural forms from the expert to the novice, or from one generation to the next) (Hutchins, 1995, 1998).

In Oatley's (2000) explanatory model, emotions are manifested, shaped, and constructed as people pursue the three fundamental social goals in conjunction with the three modes of distributed cognition that encompass human activity. These emotions in turn structure relationships between people as they move within the interactional space that is afforded by the configuration of the social goals and the different modes of distributed cognition.

Thus, altogether, emotions are not mere byproducts of human social interaction; they un- derpin it, ultimately configuring how human activity is organized, operated, and accomplished. As such, emotions should be given a more central position in the study of human activity. In doing so, it is important to understand the synthesis of an individual's cognition, emotion, and behavior within social interaction and with their environments, in addition to viewing these phenomena as discrete components of an individual's inner properties.

Emotional Intersubjectivity

Emotional intersubjectivity is another concept in which emotions are seen as a social phenomenon. According to Denzin (1984), emotional intersubjectivity is "an interactional appropriation of another's emotionality such that one feels one's way into the feelings and intentional feeling states of the other" (p. 130). It is understood as the emotional arena of social interaction whereby people interpret each other's expressions of emotions from their own and/or others' points of view. Note, however, that emotional intersubjectivity does not necessarily refer to a static, purely vicarious exchange of a given emotion or feeling between individuals. Rather, it denotes various levels of joint emotional attention to specific objects or events, which evolve as the interaction unfolds. Denzin (1984) categorized six modes of emotional intersubjectivity by their contents: (a) Feelings in common (sharing the emotional value and meaning of a feeling or experience), (b) fellow feeling (perceiving another's feelings but not sharing the emotional value and meaning), (c) emotional infection (involuntarily spreading one's emotional state to others), (d) emotional identification (with the feelings of another), (e)



282 The Modern Language Journal 94 (201 0)

emotional embracement (primary and intimate emotional and relational bonding), and (f) spu- rious emotionality (egocentric or erroneous pro- jection of one's own feelings onto another). Each mode of emotional intersubjectivity is time- and context-specific; no mode is isolated from another. In fact, people may experience all of these modes as a sequence with no specific order within the same interaction.

The notion of intersubjectivity has been discussed predominantly in terms of its cognitive aspect and considered particularly important in relation to knowledge construction through symbolic interactions in dyads or collectives (Matusov, 1996; Rommetveit, 1985). According to the sociocultural theory of mind (Vygotsky, 1978, 1986; Wertsch, 1985), social interaction is the foundation of an individual's learning and development because it potentially enables intersubjectivity. Through intersubjectivity, new ways of seeing and understanding are possible, based on a union of all participants' perspectives (Donato, 1988).

This notion that learning takes place through individuals' intersubjective encounters is closely linked to the concept of the zone of proximal development (ZPD; Vygotsky, 1978). The ZPD is explained as the distance between the learner's potential level of development when assistance from more capable others is available and his or her actual level of development without such assistance. Within the ZPD, the learner's dia- logical interaction (mediated by the use of cultural tools and signs, including language) with the more capable person during joint activities serves as scaffolding (Donato, 1994; Gibbons, 2002; Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). It facilitates the less capable person's knowledge internaliza- tion while enabling the more capable person to reach a higher level and different quality of understanding.2 Thus, being semiotically mediated, intersubjectivity, which ultimately enables mutual understanding or shared definition of the situation, is key to the emergence of the ZPD and knowledge co-construction.

It is important to note that knowledge co-construction through intersubjectivity - which takes place within the ZPD - is not just purely an intellectual and cognitive transaction but very likely emotional, as well. In fact, Vygotsky (1986) problematized the separation of cognition and affect as a major weakness of traditional psychology.3 The dialectic relationship between cognition and affect has been empirically documented by many current streams of psychological research (e.g., Damasio, 1994; Forgas, 2001). In relation to the ZPD, Mahn and John-Steiner (2002) il-

lustrated the emergence of ZPD between the students and the teacher in English-as-a-second- language (ESL) writing classes as an affectively colored process, which ultimately generated a sense of confidence among the students. From this perspective, learning can be conceived of not only as the acquisition of knowledge or skill mastery but also as a process of both cognitively and affectively participating in such an intersubjectively established social encounter, one that affords co- construction of knowledge and, ultimately, its in- ternalization by an individual (see also Sfard, 1998).

Emotions and Language

Berscheid (1987) argued that verbal communication with immediate others is probably the principal source of one's emotional experiences. If one takes this view, the relationship between emotions and language comes to the fore when considering emotions in one's real-life encounters with others.4 In the following discussion on emotions and language, I focus particularly on the notion of linguistic emotivity (Maynard, 2002) because the concept offers important insights into the ontogenesis of emotion and knowledge construction implicated in social fields intersubjectively achieved through verbal mediation.

Anchored in the Aristotelian notion of rhetoric (i.e., logos, pathos, and ethos) and a long tradition in European linguistics, such as the Prague Linguistic Circle, Maynard (2002) argued that the function of language is not limited to refer- encing and conveying facts and propositions (a logos-centered view), but it also expresses and ex- poses human emotions (a pathos-centered view). In the latter view, emotions are constructed and manifested in the space of social interactions semiotically - not only through emotion words, metaphors, and metonymies but also through linguistic signs and strategies that are normally considered propositional and even nonemotional. All linguistic systems are potentially emotional across varied levels such as the lexicon, syntax, text, and discourse (see also Ochs & Schieffelin, 1989). These linguistic signs and strategies are called émo- tives, and they index the speaker's identity as a "feeling self socioculturally and interactionally situated in the locus of communication. Here, the concept of tópica (or place) becomes signif- icant because it refers to the very place where emotive meanings are foregrounded, negotiated, and intersubjectively determined by participants. The potential meaning of language allows these actions on the basis of cues and information afforded by the context. In the conception of



Yasuhiro Imai 283

linguistic emotivity, language is viewed not just as representation but as the very experience of emotion that emerges in the socially and culturally established, intersubjective worlds between people. Thus, from a linguistic viewpoint, it plausibly endorses the notion of emotional intersubjectivity.

Drawing on the described concepts, I argue that emotions do not solely come from an individual's inner psyche but are socially constructed through people's intersubjective encounters as well, as they engage in a certain activity to pursue a certain goal. Here, although language semiotically medi- ates such an activity, guiding one's thinking and knowledge construction, it can also be considered the very experience of creating emotions in certain circumstances. Therefore, studying the emotional speech of participants in a real-life, intersubjective encounter in the context of L2 learning may offer a new insight into the role and meaning of affect in SLA.

THE INTERPLAY OF EMOTION AND COGNITION IN COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

I conducted two case studies (Imai, 2007) track- ing two different groups of Japanese university EFL students who engaged in a series of out- of-class meetings to prepare for an oral group presentation in English. The studies took place over a semester (3 months) in a setting of collaborative learning (e.g., Crandall, 1999; Johnson & Johnson, 1994; McGroarty, 1989; Nunan, 1992; Olsen & Kagan, 1992). 5 Collaborative learning involves social interaction where learners work together to achieve task goals. Emotions associated with such distributed cognition are expected to emerge in the goal achievement process. In these studies, I used multiple data collection procedures: Videotaping the students' conversations during their out-of-class group work, emotion logs (the participants described any sort of emotional experiences during the group work), emotional temperature questionnaires (the participants recorded types and intensity of their emotionality at the beginning and end of each meeting session), and stimulated recall interviews (I played the videotapes and checked with the participants to see if my identification and interpretation of the participants' emotionally charged moments were plausible). Triangulating these data, I examined how these students discursively constructed and shared their emotionality and how such emotionality related to

their collective thinking process and task organi- zation.

The data presented here are taken from the fifth meeting of one case study group consist- ing of three female students - Tomoyo, Naomi, and Nana (all pseudonyms) - who had high En- glish proficiency and extensive international experiences. The students self-formed their group and held seven meetings in total (comprising 307.3 min, M = 43.9 min) on an almost weekly basis to discuss their reading assignments and prepare for their group presentation.6 In their previous meetings, the members expressed how boring their EFL class was while intensifying their anger and frustration with their native English-speaking teacher as they verbally co-constructed their negative perception of him. With this emotional background, at their fifth meeting the members discussed how to incorporate the teacher's feedback into their presentation. Originally, the group planned to perform a skit based on Nana's English learning experience in an American high school, emphasizing the importance of explicit grammar and vocabulary instruction. However, in his feedback, the teacher requested that the group revise their proposal by drawing on ideas from an article that he thought would be useful to refine their argument. However, the members perceived the assigned article rather irrelevant to the point they wanted to make, expressing confusion as well as complaining (see Excerpt 1; transcription conventions can be found in the Appendix).

Despite the group's perceived difficulty in incorporating the assigned article into their presentation, Tomoyo is concerned with grounding their argument in literature in (l).In (2) and (7), Naomi maintains that they can somehow embel- lish the accounts of Nana's learning experience, if not pure fabrication, without rigorously following the teacher's feedback. Naomi justifies her position that the teacher has given little attention to the group's proposal. Naomi emotionally strengthens her rationale with a disrespectful use of a vocative ano hito 'that man' in (2) to refer to the teacher, who should normally be addressed sensei, and a derisive remark, sore gurai kizuke yo 'He should have noticed something so obvious' in (7). Nana implicitly shows her doubt of the teacher's knowledge in (6) while conforming to Naomi's complaint in (8).

Under predominantly Tomoyo's and Naomi's direction, the group eventually réévaluâtes the meaning of Nana's English learning experience from their own theoretical viewpoint. In (11) in Excerpt 2, Naomi articulates her train of thought that Nana's socialization in the United States




EXCERPT 1

(1) Tomoyo: Dou shiyou. Nanka dokka ni kore (1) Tomoyo: I wonder what we should do. jyanai yatsu ni, nanka, nan Somewhere, not in this article, I yattakkena. Sono, eigo no reberu no mean, what was it? In my takai ko wa bokyaburan: wo recollection there was mention narattan suru no ga taisetsu da that it is important for a child toka kaite atta no atta youna ki ga with a high level of English suru. proficiency to learn vocabulary.

(2) Naomi: Demo sa, kore sa, sensei sa, zenbu sa:, (2) Naomi: But the teacher didn't read all of chanto mitenai jyan. Dakara this, [our proposal] very well, n:dingu to zenbu terashi awasete right? So I think perhaps that miru tte koto, ano hito tabun man is unlikely to check [the anenai to omou no yo. Kore doko content of the skit] against the kara totta kara tte, mdingu wo reading material. I think he zenbu yominaoshite koko kara, koko probably will not read the kara datta mitaina tte tabun nai to material all the way through omou. again and locate the source of

our idea. (3) Tomoyo: Demo haaku wa shiteru to omou yo, (3) Tomoyo: But I suppose he knows the content

kono naiyou wa. of this [article] . (4) Naomi: Ma:, haaku wa shiteru to omou (4) Naomi: Well, I think he does, so ...

kara//. . . (5) Tomoyo: //Kore senmon nan yaw? (5) Tomoyo: This is his specialization, isn't it? (6) Nana: Ichiou ((laugh)) (6) Nana: Kind of? ((laugh)) (7) Naomi: Kokkara chotto toridashite yatte, ato (7) Naomi: We could take some idea from this,

wa ma: . . . Datte uchira ga sajibun and well, the rest is But he tachi de tsukutta tte iu no didn't notice that we had made kizukanakatta wake jyan. Are jibun up, as you know, that story [of tachi de tsukutta no. Jya kore wa the skit] we made up. He asked dokkara totte kita no mitaina koto something like where we had itte ta jyan. Futsuu jibun tachi de taken that from, right? I felt like tsukutta kedo sore garai kizuke yo he should have noticed mitaina kanji datta kara. something so obvious.

(8) Nana: Bucchake ne. (8) Nana: Frankly speaking, yes.

provided her with numerous opportunities to develop her English communicative competence informally, as opposed to learning the language only in a formal setting that is typical for ordinary Japanese English learners. Although they acknowledge that oral communication is the key to learning a language, as suggested in an array of SLA research, the members, however, do not blindly advocate this commonly accepted idea. They also credit formal grammar and vocabulary instruction for Nana's total English proficiency in (16), (17), and (31). From (37) to (41) they hy- pothesize that the lack of formal instruction could have led to fossilization of Nana's errors. At this point, the members are able to successfully incorporate the knowledge about fossilization that they have located in their assigned reading, despite their somewhat emotional reaction to the assigned material at the beginning of the meeting.

In the process of constructing collective knowledge and perspective as the members' verbal interaction unfolds, Naomi's personal, vague thought

about the outline of the group's argument is sub- stantiated by Tomoyo, who occasionally attempts to relate the members' emerging thoughts to the content of the assigned material in (27) and (41). Additionally, the exchange of positive backchan- neling (the use of un, sou, hun, and da ne) among the members suggests mutual approval on their comments- in (10), (12), (17), (18), (20), (21), (23), (24), (25), (28), (30), (32), (33), (34), (38), and (40) - solidifying the group's joint thinking. Such mutual approval is also indicated nonver- bally by Nana's and Naomi's gestures (holding a thumb up and making a V sign) in (19), (35), and (36).

The formation of collective thinking is also implicated in the way the members jointly search for the thread of an idea as they attempt to verbal- ize it. In (37), Tomoyo tries to explain the value of the grammar and vocabulary lessons Nana had received by assuming the consequence without such an opportunity, but her idea is not fully consolidated yet. Naomi gets Tomoyo's point and



Yasuhiro Imai 285

EXCERPT 2

(9) Naomi: Hanbun garai wa mai tsukutte mo (9) Naomi: I think perhaps there shouldn't be tabun daijoubu da to omou-n dayo any problem that about half of ne. Dakedo, datte sa, Nana wa sa, the skit would be fiction. But, amenka ni zutto sundeta wake Nana lived in the States for quite jyan.// a long time, right?

(10) Nana: //Un. (10) Nana: Yeah (11) Naomi: De, futsuu no hito no sekando range:ji (11) Naomi: And that's different from second

ramingu to wa chigau wake jyan. language learning of ordinary Dakar a sugoi omou no wa people. So what I really feel is komyunikeishon ga daiji datte koto that many argue communication wa hoka no toko ni mo takusan is important elsewhere and kaiteta jyan. Komyunikeishon wa people think communication is tabun kono sekando rangeiji perhaps most important in SLA. akuwizishon no naka de tabun But Nana had a lot of other ichiban daiji mitaina koto ni opportunities to have [English] natte-η jyan. Demo komyunikeishon communication [outside the wa Nana wa hoka de tassei suru classroom] . Taking advantage of bamen ga takusan atta wake desho. those opportunities as a Soko wo bakkuguraundo tte iuka background, or more truthfully, beisu to shite oite// based on that . . .

(12) Tomoyo: //[Un. (12) Tomoyo: Yeah. (13) Nana: [Soide ... (13) Nana: And. . . (14) Naomi: Tomodachi to komyunikeishon suru (14) Naomi: Like speaking with friends, when it

toka, tsune ni komyunikeishon to comes to acquiring English for shite no eigo no shuitoku tte iu no communicative purposes, she wa ikura demo chansu ga had a lot of chances.

[atta wake dakara (15) Tomoyo: [Chansu ga ne. (15) Tomoyo: Chances, right. (16) Naomi: Sore wofumaeta ue de, bokya (16) Naomi: Based on that, [we could argue

[burarii ga sugoku daiji datte. that] learning vocabulary is very important.

(17) Tomoyo: [Sono naka de, sou, sou, sou, guramai (17) Tomoyo: In that process, that's right, that's toka mo soudayo ne. Un. right. It's the same with things

like grammar, yeah. (18) Naomi: Un, to omou-n dakedo. (18) Naomi: Yeah, I think so. (19) Nana: ((Holding a thumb up)) Sore wo (19) Nana: ((Holding a thumb up)) We could

intorodakushon toka de ieba, mention that in our introduction intorodakushon to konkuruijon . . . introduction and conclusion. de//

(20) Tomoyo: //Un. (20) Tomoyo: Yeah. (21) Naomi: Un, to omotta-n dakedo, uchi wa (21) Naomi: Yeah, that's what I thought (22) Nana: [Tsukaeru, ichiou. (22) Nana: That would work, sort of. (23) Tomoyo: Un, [koremo tsukaeru to wa omou.// (23) Tomoyo: Yeah, I think that would work, too. (24) Naomi: Sou. Dakara, kore ni sou iufuu ni (24) Naomi: Right. So this article said that, it is

hatte atta wake, tatoeba kouiu important to do a lesson like this, ressun mo daiji dakedo, I mean, the author argued komyunikeishon ga yappari daiji da something, like, communication mitaina koto ga kakarete mashita is most important after all. But as kedo, Nana ni totte, Nana ni far as Nana is concerned, she had komyunikeishon toshite no many chances to learn English ingunsshu ramingu tte iu no wa, [as a medium of] hoka no bamen de takusan atta communication outside school, node, de, kanojo no ingunsshu no and her level of English was reberu wa sugoku hai datta wake pretty high. While realizing the dakara, sono komyunikeishon toka importance of communication, wofumaeta ue de, eigo no reberu ga we could argue that this was the hai datta kanojo ni hitsuyou datta class Nana needed, whose level of kurasu wa kore datta tte.// English was already high.




(25) Tomoyo: //Un, sou, sou. (25) Tomoyo: Yeah, that's right. (26) Nana: [Ketteiteki dayo ne. (26) Nana: That's crucial, isn't it? (27) Tomoyo: [Koko ni mo nanika kaite atta kedo, (27) Tomoyo: This also mentions something. I

nandakkena, ano, komyunikeishon wonder what it was. Well, even in no kurasu demo, sono, gurama: a communication-oriented class, toka, ano, bokya no ressun wo issho I mean, it said that the ni kumiawasete yatta hou ga, sono, combination of grammar and komyunikeishon ryoku tte iu no mo vocabulary lessons develops a agaru tte iufuu ni kaite atta-n learner's communicative yo.// competence.

(28) Naomi: //Hun, hun, hun, hun. (28) Naomi: Okay. (29) Tomoyo: Dakara komyunikeishon dake de litte (29) Tomoyo: So communication doesn't take

wakejyanai kara.// care of everything, and . . . (30) Nana: //Un, un, [sore mo hairu ne. (30) Nana: Yeah, yeah, that should count. (31) Tomoyo: [Guramai toka (31) Tomoyo: I guess we should emphasize the

bokyaburarii tte iu no wa sugoku, point that things like grammar komyunikeishon no ue demo sugoku and vocabulary are very crucial in daijina koto tte iu men wo kyouchou communication. suru beki dayo ne.

(32) Nana: Da ne.// (32) Nana: That's right. (33) Naomi: //Sou, sou. Dakara heikou shite Nana (33) Naomi: That's right. So Nana had

wa dekita tte koto jy an.// opportunities for both studying grammar and vocabulary and speaking English with friends, right?

(34) Nana: //Da ne. (34) Nana: That's right. (35) Naomi: Komyunikeishon wo tomodachi to (35) Naomi: Her English skills were developed

shitsutsu, guramai toka because she had an opportunity bokyaburarii wo XXX heikou shite to formally study grammar and benkyou dekita kara, eigoryoku ga vocabulary, while practicing the appu shita tte koto jy an. ((Looking skills in communication with her at Nana and making a V sign) ) . friends. ( (Looking at Nana and

making a V sign)). (36) Nana: ( (Holding a thumb up) ) Sugei!// (36) Nana: ( (Holding a thumb up) ) Cool! (37) Tomoyo: //Sono bokyaburarii toka, no kurasu (37) Tomoyo: If she hadn't had that class to learn

ga nakattara, mai iu tara// things like vocabulary, I should say.

(38) Naomi: //Sou, sou, nante iu no. (38) Naomi: That's right, that's right. How do I put it?

(39) Tomoyo: Nante iu no, dakara machigai wo (39) Tomoyo: How should I put it? She might zutto onaji machigai shitete, have made the same mistake kurikaeshite/ / repeatedly all the time . . .

(40) Naomi: //Sou, sou. [Roi reberu na machigai (40) Naomi: That's right. She wouldn't have wo shitete kaiwa ga dekinakatta. been able to manage a

conversation because of basic errors.

(41) Tomoyo: [Sore ga nan datta kke, (41) Tomoyo: And I guess that might lead to, fossilization, fossilization of errors what was it called? Fossilization, ka, ni tsunagaru to iufuu ni fossilization of errors. natte-η no kana.//

(42) Naomi: //Kakanakya, sore. (42) Naomi: I have to write that down.

joins in the attempt to articulate the emergent thought in (38). Tomoyo formulates a plausible conclusion in (39), to which Naomi conformingly responds by paraphrasing in (40) . Finally, Tomoyo connects the jointly shaped idea to the concept of fossilization introduced in the group's assigned reading in (41).

In short, throughout Excerpt 2, one member's personal, vague idea, verbally presented almost in the form of monologue at the outset, is occasionally guided and complemented by other members in the course of collaborative dialogue and, by the end, has taken shape as a collectively formulated thought.



Yasuhiro Imai 287

EXCERPT 3

(43) Tomoyo: Sore de itte miyou. Aa:, darui kono (43) Tomoyo: Let's go ahead with that idea. Gee, kurasu. A::: tte kanji.// this class is so draggy. I have a

feeling like "Oh, my." (44) Naomi: //Hontou ni shippai shita. Hontou ni (44) Naomi: I really made a mistake [in

shippai shita. choosing the class] . I really made a mistake.

(45) Nana: [Ne. (45) Nana: Indeed. (46) Tomoyo: [Ate. (46) Tomoyo: Indeed.

Finally, having accomplished what they had in- tended for the meeting, signaled by Tomoyo 's utterance sorede itte miyou 'Let's go ahead with that idea' in (43) in Excerpt 3, the members release their pent-up frustration about the class. Naomi's repetition of the same utterance hontou ni shippai shita Ί really made a mistake' in (44) reveals her intense regret that she took the class. The interactional particle ne in (45) and (46), which conveys the sense of empathy and intimacy (May- nard, 2005), signals that the members are on the same emotional plane, as well - namely, establish- ing emotional intersubjectivity.

Noticeably, despite its negativity, the members' emotionality toward the joint task and the class pushed the group to organize task procedures and design their presentation to critically challenge the content of the assigned reading. This point is implied in the members' accounts during their exit interviews. When asked whether certain emotions, such as boredom, affected the group's orientation toward the group work as well as de- signing the presentation, Tomoyo responded:

Well, I guess perhaps that was the case with us. Some- thing like . . . how do I put it? I don't think that we were very conscious of other groups and tried to make our presentation lively. But no matter what, we were tired of sitting in that class. Like, if you don't enjoy the class, you can learn little, right? But rather than resigning ourselves to the low motivation for learning, like, I mean, you get bored and give it up by saying 'Ahhh, I can't do it.' Instead, perhaps, we also sought a possibility to improve the situation on our own, I think. So that speaks to our attitude that we wanted to make our meetings something enjoyable, while staying fo- cused on what we ought to do. And based on that, I guess we were somehow convinced that we should improve our task and situation so that we can enjoy them. Not just wasting time simply because we are getting bored, yeah. (Tomoyo, exit interview, July 30, 2005, my translation)

Nana suggested that by taking a completely different position, her group would be able to impress

others in the class. When asked whether any emotions, particularly boredom, affected the group's position in the presentation, she replied:

Well, not that seriously, I mean, I think probably we didn't give it that much thought. But it could be the case to some extent. Like, maybe we felt that this way we could make our presentation interesting, you know. (Nana, exit interview, July 19, 2005, my translation)

Naomi denied any possibility of emotion affect- ing her thinking or the content of the group's product. Yet, she also implied that she wanted to differentiate her group from other student groups. She questioned the general tendency to advocate the communicative approach, which permeated the class and was endorsed by the teacher. At one point in the group discussion car- ried out in English, Naomi was observed to be the one who suggested that their presentation should be entertaining, saying, "We should have some points that, you know, to get people to laugh. I'll bet no laugh [sic] . It will be like [inaudible] . We're supposed to laugh here" (group discussion, third meeting) . Naomi later explained this point as fol- lows:

I wanted to do something different [from other student groups] . That was because everybody's presentation was so similar to each other that it was boring ... If we have to do it anyway, I thought that, while ac- knowledging the importance of communication, we would take some counter-position to argue it's not just communication. By doing so, I thought we could make our presentation something positive. (Naomi, exit interview, July 15, 2005, my translation)

Thus, considering the members' accounts, the group's joint activity and goal setting were not solely cognitive transactions to accomplish the assigned task but considerably emotional as well, whereby the members acted toward bringing the change in their affective climate in the immediate learning environment.




The data show that various emotions, such as confusion, boredom, frustration, regret, and empathy, were verbally manifested, shaped, and constructed as the members pursued their task goal in the immediate learning setting. In doing so, their cognition was distributed, most evidently through social distribution and externalization. Each of the manifested emotions was not simply a reaction to the members' perceived objects and events, but the members communicated to each other and formed emotional intersubjectivities. The level of those emotional intersubjectivities is considered to be feelings in common (Denzin, 1984); that is, the members felt the same way about the same object or topic, sharing the same emotional value and meaning. Such emotional value and meaning were not indicated by the use of specific emotion words or a meta-emotional reference to a certain feeling state, such as saying "I'm getting mad." Rather, they were embedded in linguistic cues, such as a vocative and a sentence-final particle, and in references to concrete objects and events in the group's learning context. In short, the value and meaning of the members' emotionality were not predeter- mined but locally situated and intersubjectively negotiated by the individuals participating in the collaborative learning activity.

Meanwhile, the members' conversations prompted their collective thinking, which allowed the group to reach a new understanding of an unfamiliar SLA concept (fossilization) as well as one member's L2 learning history. Here, the members' emotionality did not simply emerge as a psychological byproduct of the joint activity and filter the group's goal accomplishment. Rather, it mediated the group's collective thinking in a way that transformed the content of the goal, from simply revoicing the idea of the assigned reading material and the teacher's implicit expectation to critically challenging the contents of the text. In other words, intersubjectively foregrounded and negotiated in the group, the members' emotions ultimately led them to exercise their agency as readers and regulators of the information in the wider instructional context in setting a new goal in their activity. This point implies that, at least in the case of the observed group, the relationship between the emergent emotions and the goal of the joint activity was not straightforward; they were not mapped one-to-one, as postulated in the Oatley (2000) model mentioned earlier (i.e., types of goals and the degree of their achievement determine emotions). Instead, they were more complex, in the sense that the emotions

also adjusted the group's goal as the collaborative group work proceeded.

CONCLUSION

The findings of my study are primarily interpretive although they are grounded on the tri- angulation of the multiple data obtained. Yet, they broaden the discussion of emotions in SLA from viewing them as intrapsychological workings simply filtering an individual's cognition and behavior to recognizing the aspect of emotions as socially and discursively constructed acts of communication that mediate learning and development.

The participants demonstrated that even emotions supposedly detrimental to an individual's learning, such as boredom and frustration, could become a psychological resource for development, depending on how individuals participating in a given learning activity make sense of and appropriate (or ignore) these emotions interactionally (i.e., whether and of what quality the learners achieve emotional intersubjectivity). Here, what gives real significance to a language learner's own learning is notjust a particular meaning that the researcher assigns to a specific type of emotion a priori, such as language anxiety and willingness to communicate, but the sense that each language learner interactively constructs, negotiates, and appropriates regarding an emotional experience within a goal-directed activity. If so, investigations of the role and meaning of emotions in SLA should go beyond examining whether a specific emotion, positive or negative, facilitates or hinders language learning, especially when learning is considered a fundamentally interpersonal transaction.

In my study, the participants' knowledge co- construction took place as they were confronted with the need to reconfigure their affective level of participation in the immediate joint learning task. In doing so, they attempted to employ their own emotionality to their advantage rather than succumbing to it. This point suggests that emotions can be considered not just as simple reactions to the cognitive demands of acquiring a language but as mediators between such demands and subsequent learning behavior that allows or inhibits a learner to participate in a given language learning activity. Thus, the interplay of emotion, cognition, and action is far more complex and nonlinear than mainstream SLA research has assumed. As such, the dynamics of emotions may not be amenable to investigations solely relying on



Yasuhiro Imai 289

decontextualized laboratory experiments de- signed to identify causal relations among relevant variables that elicit specific emotions. We need a more holistic approach - one that brings back into consideration the whole range of emotions associated with learning to examine the nonlinear dynamics of learners' emotionality, thinking, and action and their interplay in naturalistic settings of L2 learning and use.

Finally, limitations need to be acknowledged. First, the data for the case study were collected from the particular participating individuals; therefore, the focal students' emotions and verbal behavior cannot be generalized to those of other student populations or collaborative learning situations. Second, the analysis is predominantly monomodal', that is, I deliberately limited my focus on the participants' linguistic utterances in interaction to explore the discursive construction of emotionality in the collective thinking process. However, this traditional text-oriented discourse analysis has recently been criticized in the light of multimodal discourse analysis (e.g., Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2001; Norris, 2004). This new line of conception calls for expanding analytical focus not just on speech and written text but also on multiple modes of communication and semiotic means, such as gestures, gaze, head movement, posture, layout of a setting where interaction takes place, and so on. Thus, by incorporating this new perspective, there is a need for a more fine-tuned analysis of emotions manifested, constructed, and shared between people in the context of language learning.

This article is an initial attempt to explore emotions between people in the context of SLA. De- spite its interpretive nature and limitations, I hope the study presented here will become a catalyst to invite further discussions on the affective universe underlying the complexity of SLA.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Merrill Swain for her mentorship throughout the evolution of my study and her valuable comments on a previous draft of this article. I would also like to thank the editor and three anonymous reviewers of The Modern Language Journal, whose insightful feedback helped shape this article. My gratitude also goes to Richard Donato and Penny Kinnear, who generously offered their top-notch comments on the earlier draft, and Mitsuyo Sakamoto, whose constant encouragement allowed this article to be completed.

NOTES

1 There are a few studies that are qualitatively oriented. See Price (1991) and Guy and Radnovsky (2001) for examples. 2 Donato (1994) pointed out that scaffolding is not limited to a typical expert-novice or teacher-student interaction but can also take place between learners with a similar level of ability. 3 Vygotsky (1987) clearly recognized the integral role affect plays in one's cognitive development. He claimed,

Thought has its origins in the motivating sphere of consciousness, a sphere that includes our in- clinations and needs, our interests and impulses, and our affect and emotions. The affective and volitional tendency stands behind thought. Only here do we find the answer to the final "why" in the analysis of thinking. (Vygotsky, 1987, p. 282)

Vygotsky's thinking on emotions and the interplay between affect and intellect can also be found in his "Lec- ture 4: Emotions and Their Development in Childhood" (Vygotsky, 1987) and "The Teaching About Emotions" (Vygotsky, 1999). 4 1 am fully aware that emotions can be expressed and communicated through nonverbal and paralinguistic channels as well, such as facial expressions, gaze, gestures, body posture, voice characteristics, and speech rate (e.g., Ekman, 1980, 1992, 2003; Williams & Stevens, 1972, 1981). However, in this article I particularly focus on the verbal mode because the goal of my initial exploration is to document how learners linguistically manifest, co-construct, and share their emotions in their collective thinking process, which has not received suf- ficient attention in SLA literature.

^Sorne of these authors use another expression - cooperative learning. I treat the terms collaborative and cooperative as interchangeable, although some practi- tioners view that these labels index distinct theoretical or philosophical backgrounds and, therefore, different pedagogical orientations and goals (see Oxford, 1997, for further discussion) .

The students scheduled their meetings solely on their own. At the beginning of each meeting, I set a video camera on a tripod in the corner of a conference room in a university building where the students held the meetings. Once the meeting started, I left the room so as not to affect the students' discussion and sponta- neous interaction.

Arnold,J. (Ed.) . (1999) . Affect in language learning. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Arnold, J., & Brown, H. D. (1999). A map of the ter- rain. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language learning (pp. 1-24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

REFERENCES




Berscheid, E. (1987). Emotion and interpersonal communication. In M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research (pp. 77-88). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.

Chapelle, C, & Roberts, C. (1986). Ambiguity tolerance and field independence as predictors of proficiency in English as a second language. Language Learning, 36, 27-45.

Clément, R., Baker, S. C, 8c Maclntyre, P. D. (2003). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The effects of context, norms, and vitality. Jour- nal of Language and Social Psychology, 22, 190- 209.

Clément, R., Gardner, R. C, & Smythe, P. C. (1977). Motivational variables in second language acquisition: A study of Francophones learning English. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 9, 123- 133.

Clément, R., Gardner, R. C, & Smythe, P. C. (1980). Social and individual factors in second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 12, 293-302.

Crandall,J. (1999). Cooperative language learning and affective factors. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language learning (pp. 226-245). Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press.

Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

Denzin, N. K. (1984). On understanding emotion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

DewaeleJ. M., &Furnham, A. (1999). Extraversion: The unloved variable in applied linguistic research. Language Learning, 49, 509-544.

Donato, R. (1988). Beyond group: A psycholinguistic rationale for collective activity in second-language learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware.

Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. InJ. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Westport, CT: Ablex.

Dörnyei, Ζ. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 31, 117- 135.

Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning: Advances in theory, research, and applications. Language Learning, 53, 3-32.

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah. NI: Erlbaum.

Dörnyei, Ζ., & Ottó, I. (1998). Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 4, 43-69.

Ehrman, M. E., Leaver, B. L., & Oxford, R. L. (2003). A brief overview of individual differences in second language learning. System, 31, 313-330.

Ehrman, M., 8c Oxford, R. L. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of adult language proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 79, 67-89.

Ekman, P. (1980). The face of man: Expressions of uni- versal emotions in a New Guinea village. New York: Garland STMP Press.

Ekman, P. (1992). Are there basic emotions? Psychologi- cal Review. 99. 550-553.

Ekman, P. (2003) . Emotions revealed: Recognizing faces and feelings to improve communication and emotional life. New York: Henry Holt.

Ellis, Α., & Harper, R. (1977). A guide to successful mar- riage. Los Angeles: Wilshire.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellsworth, P. C. (1991). Some implications of cognitive appraisal theories of emotion. In Κ. Τ. Strongman (Ed.) , International review of studies on emotion (Vol. 1, pp. 143-161). New York: Wiley.

Fehr, B., 8c Russell, J. A. (1984). Concept of emotion viewed from a prototype perspective. Journal of Ex- perimental Psychology: General, 113, 464-486.

Forgas, J. P. (1992). Affect in social judgments and deci- sions: A multi-process model. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.) , Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 227-275). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The Affect Infusion Model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 116, 39-66.

Forgas, J. P. (2000). Feeling is believing? The role of processing strategies in mediating affective influences on beliefs. In N. H. Frijda, A. S. R. Manstead, 8c S. Bern (Eds.), Emotions and beliefs: How feelings influence thoughts (pp. 108-143). Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press.

Forgas, J. P. (Ed.). (2001). Handbook of affect and social cognition. London: Erlbaum.

Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitude and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

Gardner, R. C. (2001). Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. In Z. Dörnyei 8c R. Schmidt (Eds.) , Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 1-19). Honolulu: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai 'i at Manoa.

Gardner, R. C, & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation on second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Gardner, R. C, & Maclntyre, P. D. ( 1991 ) . An instrumental motivation in language study: Who says it isn't effective? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 57-72.

Gardner, R. C, & Maclntyre, P. D. (1993). On the measurement of affective variables in second language learning. Language Learning, 43, 157-194.

Gardner, R. C, & Smythe, P. C. (1975). Second language acquisition: A social psychological approach. London: The University of Western Ontario.

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners



Yasuhiro Imai 291

in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Guy, S., & Radnovsky, M. L. (2001). Learning language under tension: New directions from a qualitative study. Modern Language Journal, 85, 259-278.

Horwitz, Ε. Κ. (1986). Preliminary evidence for the re- liability and validity of a foreign language anxiety scale. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 559-562.

Horwitz, Ε. Κ. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 112-126.

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. A. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Lan- guage Journal, 70, 125-132.

Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hutchins, E. (1998, May). The scope of distnbuted cognition. Paper presented at the Colloquium, De- partment of Psychology and Centre for Applied Cognitive Science, University of Toronto.

Imai, Y. (2007). Collaborative learning for an EFL classroom: Emotions, language, and communication. Un- published doctoral dissertation, The Ontario In- stitute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn 8c Ba- con.

Johnson, E. J., 8c Tversky, A. (1983). Affect, generaliza- tion, and the perception of risk. Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 45, 20-31.

Julkunen, K. (2001). Situation- and task-specific motivation in foreign language learning. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 29-41). Honolulu: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, Uni- versity of Hawai 'i at Manoa.

Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Hodder Arnold.

Lazarus, R. S. (1982) . Thoughts on the relations between emotion and cognition. American Psychologist, 37, 1019-1024.

Lazarus, R. S. (1984). On the primacy of cognition. Amer- ican Psychologist, 39, 124-129.

LeDoux, J. E. (1986). The neurobiology of emotion. In J. E. LeDoux & W. Hirst (Eds.), Mind and brain: Dialogues in cognitive neuroscience (pp. 301-354). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Maclntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C, & Donovan, L. A. (2002). Sex and age effects on willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among junior high school French immer- sion students. Language Learning, 52, 537-564.

Maclntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991). Methods and results in the study of anxiety and language learning: A review of the literature. Language Learning, 47,85-117.

Mahn, H., & John-Steiner, V. (2002). The gift of confidence: A Vygotskian view of emotions. In G. Wells

& G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century (pp. 46-58). Oxford: Blackwell.

Matusov, E. (1996). Intersubjectivity without agreement. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3, 25-45.

Maynard, S. K. (2002). Linguistic emotivity: Centrality of place, the topic-comment dynamic, and an ideology of pathos in Japanese discourse. Amsterdam: Ben- jamins.

Maynard, S. K. (2005). Expressive Japanese: A reference guide to shanng emotion and empathy. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.

McGroarty, M. (1989). The benefits of cooperative learning arrangements in second language instruction. NABE Journal, 13, 127-143.

McGroarty, M. (2001). Situating second language motivation. In Z. Dörnyei 8c R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 69-91). Honolulu: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai'i at Manoa.

Moskowitz, G. (1999). Enhancing personal development: Humanistic activities at work. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language learning (pp. 177-193). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Noels, K. A. (2001). Learning Spanish as a second language: Learners' communication style. Language Learning, 51, 107-144.

Noels, Κ. Α., Clément, R., 8c Pelletier, L. G. (2001). In- trinsic, extrinsic, and integrative orientations of French Canadian learners of English. Canadian Modern Language Review, 5 7, 424-444.

Norris, S. (2004). Multimodal discourse analysis: A con- ceptual framework. In P. LeVine 8c R. Scollon (Eds.), Discourse and technology: Multimodal discourse analysis (pp. 101-115). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Nunan, D. (1992). Collaborative language learning and teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oatley, K. (1992). Best laid schemes: The psychology of emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oatley, K. (2000). The sentiments and beliefs of distributed cognition. In S. Bern (Ed.), Emotions and beliefs: How feelings influence thoughts (pp. 78-107). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ochs, E., 8c Schieffelin, B. (1989). Language has a heart. TEXT: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 9, 7-25.

Olsen, R. E., 8c Kagan, S. (1992). About cooperative learning. In C. Kessler (Ed.), Cooperative language learning: A teacher's resource book (pp. 1-30). Engle- wood Cliffs, NT: Prentice Hall.

Oxford, R. L. (1997). Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and interaction: Three communicative strands in the language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 81, 443-456.

Oxford, R. L. (1999). Anxiety and the language learner: New insights. In J. Arnold & H. D. Brown (Eds.), Affect in language learning (pp. 58-67). Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Parkinson, B. (1995). Ideas and realities of emotion. Lon- don: Routledge.




Pavlenko, A. (2005). Emotion and multilingualism. Ox- ford: Oxford University Press.

Price, M. L. (1991). The subjective experience of foreign language anxiety: Interviews with highly anxious students. In E. K. Horwitz 8c D. J. Young (Eds.), Language anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications (pp. 101-108). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Richard-Amato, P. (1988). Making it happen: Interaction in the second language classroom: From theory to prac- tice. New York: Longman.

Rime, B., Corsini, S., & Herbette, G. (2002). Emotion, verbal expression, and the social sharing of emotion. In S. R. Fussell (Ed.), The verbal communication of emotions: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 185-208). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rommetveit, R. (1985). Language acquisition as increasing linguistic structuring of experience and symbolic behavior control. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 183-204). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schumann, J. H. (1998). The neurobiology of affect in language. Language Learning, 48(Supp'. 1), 1- 321.

Schumann, J. H. (2001). Learning as foraging. In Z. Dòrnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 21-28). Honolulu: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Cen- ter, University of Hawai'i at Manoa.

Scovel, T. (1978). The effect of affect on foreign language learning: A review of the anxiety research. Language Learning, 28, 129-142.

Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Re- searcher, 27, 4-13.

Simon, H. A. (1967). Motivational and emotional con- trols of cognition. Psychological Review, 74, 29-39.

Stevick, E. W. (1980) . Teaching languages: A way and ivays. Rawley, MA: Newbury House.

Ushioda, E. (2003). Motivation as a socially mediated process. In D. Little, J. Ridley, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: Learner, teacher, curriculum and assessment (pp. 90- 103). Dublin: Authentik.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Har- vard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cam- bridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected zvorks of L S. Vygot- sky: Vol. 1. Problems of general psychology. New York: Plenum Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1999). The collected works of L. S. Vy- gotsky: Vol. 6. Scientific legacy. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Williams, C, 8c Stevens, K. (1972). Emotions and speech: Some acoustical correlates. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 52, 1238-1250.

Williams, C, 8c Stevens, K. (1981). Vocal correlates of emotional states. In J. Darby (Ed.), Speech evaluation in psychiatry (pp. 221-240). New York: Grune & Stratton.

Williams, M., Burden, R. L., & Al-Baharna, S. (2001). Making sense of success and ailure: The role of the individual in motivation theory. In Z. Dörnyei 8c R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language learning (pp. 171-184). Honolulu: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, Uni- versity of Hawai'i at Manoa.

Wood, U.J., BrunerJ. à., 6c Koss, U. (iy/b). lhe role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.

Young, D. J. (1992). Language anxiety from the foreign language specialists' perspective: Inter- views with Krashen, Omagio, Hadley, Terrell, and Rardin. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 157- 172.

APPENDIX Transcription Conventions

[ ] words, phrases or descriptions inserted by the transcriber for clarification purposes ( ( ) ) nonverbal behavior [ overlap // latched utterances XXX inaudible utterances ? rising intonation : vowel lengthening word emphasis by loudness or high-pitched sound



Documents

Emotions in SLA: New Insights From Collaborative Learning for an EFL Classroom