Understanding Learner Talk About Writing: The Second Language Peer Response (L2PR) Corpus

  • Eric Friginal
  • Joseph J. Lee
  • Brittany Polat
  • Audrey Roberson


In the next three chapters (Part IV, Chaps. 11, 12, and 13), we examine spoken learner language by exploring the patterns of social interaction in a corpus of university-level ESL students’ spoken feedback to each other about their writing in a first-year composition course, as well as by triangulating corpus findings with student writing and student interviews. This task, called peer response, is widely used by practitioners and has been thoroughly examined by language learning theorists and researchers. The current chapter reviews relevant literature on learner interaction from SLA and L2 Writing traditions, and argues for a corpus-based approach to further examine these interactions. It also describes the compilation and composition of Roberson’s (2015) Second Language Peer Response (L2PR) Corpus.


  1. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  2. Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Casanave, C. P. (2006). Controversies in second language writing: Dilemmas and decisions in research and instruction. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  4. Connor, U., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision? Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(3), 257–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Guerrero, M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language research. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood: Ablex Publication Corporation.Google Scholar
  7. Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Flower, L. (1990). Introduction: Studying cognition in context. In L. Flower, V. Stein, J. Ackerman, M. J. Kantz, K. McCormick, & W. C. Peck (Eds.), Reading-to-write: Exploring a cognitive and social process (pp. 3–32). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Gan, Z. (2010). Interaction in group oral assessment: A case study of higher-and lower-scoring students. Language Testing, 27(4), 585–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hyland, F. (2008). Scaffolding during the writing process: The role of informal peer interaction in writing workshops. In D. D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), The oral-literate connection: Perspectives on L2 speaking, writing, and other media interactions (pp. 168–190). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  12. Jacobs, G. M., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S. Y. (1998). Feedback on student writing: Taking the middle path. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 307–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kim, Y. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 114–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 211–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leki, I. (1990). Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes. CATESOL Journal, 3, 5–17.Google Scholar
  17. Liu, J. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms (Michigan series on Teaching Multilingual Writers). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: Stances, functions, and content. Language Learning, 45(4), 605–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mangelsdorf, K., & Schlumberger, A. (1992). ESL student response stances in a peer-review task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 235–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mendonca, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 745–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nelson, G. (1993). Reading and writing: Integrating cognitive and social dimensions. In J. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives (pp. 315–330). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
  23. Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1992). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 135–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1993). An L2 writing group: Task and social dimensions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ohta, A. S. (2000). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom setting: Learning Japanese. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Ortega, L. (2012). Epilogue: Exploring L2 writing–SLA interfaces. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 404–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rabiee, M. (2010). Facilitating learning together in Iranian context: Three collaborative oral feedback models in EFL writing classes. Sino-US English Teaching, 7(3), 9–22.Google Scholar
  28. Roberson, A. (2015). The second language peer response (L2PR) corpus. Atlanta: Georgia State University.Google Scholar
  29. Rollinson, P. (2004). Experiences and perceptions in an ESL academic writing peer response group. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 12, 79–108.Google Scholar
  30. Storch, N. (1999). Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System, 27(3), 363–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text-editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 143–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(1), 158–164.Google Scholar
  34. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). Peer-peer dialogue as a means of second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tang, G. M., & Tithecott, J. (1999). Peer response in ESL writing. TESL Canada Journal, 16(2), 20–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tsui, A., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Villamil, O. S., & De Guerrero, M. C. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 491–514.Google Scholar
  40. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Williams, J. (2012). The potential role (s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhu, W., & Mitchell, D. A. (2012). Participation in peer response as activity: An examination of peer response stances from an activity theory perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 362–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric Friginal
    • 1
  • Joseph J. Lee
    • 2
  • Brittany Polat
    • 3
  • Audrey Roberson
    • 4
  1. 1.Applied Linguistics and ESLGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Ohio UniversityAthensUSA
  3. 3.Georgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  4. 4.Hobart and William Smith CollegesGenevaUSA

Personalised recommendations