Chapter published in:
Usage-inspired L2 Instruction: Researched pedagogy
Edited by Andrea E. Tyler, Lourdes Ortega, Mariko Uno and Hae In Park
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 49] 2018
► pp. 3–26

Usage-inspired L2 instruction

An emergent, researched pedagogy

| Georgetown University
| Georgetown University
A new ethos for second language (L2) instruction is offered in this volume, one that gathers key instructed second language acquisition (SLA) scholars around usage-based perspectives grounded in over twenty years of exciting discoveries in psychology, psycholinguistics, cognitive science, linguistic theory, and other related fields. All authors contribute theoretical and empirical answers to two general questions: What might a usage-inspired language pedagogy look like? And does it work? In this chapter, we first outline five tenets of usage-based approaches that we consider foundational for the design of usage-inspired L2 instruction. We then present the chapters in the volume, highlighting their respective contributions.
Published online: 13 February 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.49.01tyl
References

References

Achard, M.
(forthcoming) Teaching usage and concepts: Toward a cognitive pedagogical grammar. In A. E. Tyler, L. Huang, & H. Jan (Eds.), What is applied cognitive linguistics? Answers from current SLA research. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S.
(Eds.) (2000) Usage-based models of language. Stanford, CA: CLSI.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W.
(2016) On staying grounded and avoiding Quixotic dead ends. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(4), 1122–1142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Behrens, H., & Pfänder, S.
(2016) Experience counts: Frequency effects in language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B. K.
(2012) Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R.
(2009) The evolving context of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(2), 175–198. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boulton, A., & Cobb, T.
(2017) Corpus use in language learning: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 67, 348–393. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.
(2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cadierno, T., & Eskildsen, S. W.
(Eds.) (2015) Usage-based perspectives on second language learning. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Canale, M., & Swain, M.
(1980) Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N.
(2016) Creating language: Integrating evolution, acquisition, and processing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cintrón-Valentín, M. C., & Ellis, N. C.
(2016) Salience in second language acquisition: Physical form, learner attention, and instructional focus. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, article 1284. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Daems, J., Zenner, E., Heylen, K., Speelman, D., & Cuyckens, H.
(Eds.) (2015) Change of paradigms – New paradoxes: Recontextualizing language and linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E.
(2012) Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2(3), 219–253. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R.
(2007) Introduction: Situating the concept of practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practicing in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 1–18). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Knop, S., & Gilquin, G.
(Eds.) (2016) Applied construction grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Douglas Fir Group
(2016) A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. Modern Language Journal, 100 (Supplement 1, Centenary Anniversary), 19–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C.
(2002) Frequency effects in language processing: A Review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 164–194. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Implicit and explicit SLA and their interface. In C. Sanz & R. P. Leow (Eds.), Implicit and explicit language learning: Conditions, processes, and knowledge in SLA and bilingualism (pp. 35–47). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
(2015) Implicit AND explicit language learning: Their dynamic interface and complexity. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 1–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Cadierno, T.
(2009) Constructing a second language: Introduction to the special section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7(1), 111–139. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. B.
(2016) Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of construction grammar. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W., & Theodórsdóttir, G.
(2017) Constructing L2 learning spaces: Ways to achieve learning inside and outside the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 38(2), 143–164. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, V.
(2014) The language myth: Why language is not an instinct. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P. & Ohta, A. S.
(2005) Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 402–430. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frankenberg-Garcia, A., Aston, G., & Flowerdew, L.
(Eds.) (2011) New trends in corpora and language learning. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W.
(2015) Metaphor. In E. Dąbrowska & D. S. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 167–189). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E.
(1974) Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T.
(2015) Polysemy. In E. Dąbrowska & D. S. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 472–490). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grüter, T., & Paradis, J.
(Eds.) (2014) Input and experience in bilingual development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. J.
(1982) Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Interactional sociolinguistics: A personal perspective. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (2nd ed., Vol. I, pp. 309–323). Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I .M.
(2014) Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Helms-Park, R., & Dronjic, V.
(2016) Crosslinguistic lexical influence: Cognate facilitation. In R. Alonso Alonso (Ed.), Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition (pp. 71–92). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Hoff, E.
(2006) How social contexts support and shape language development. Developmental Review, 26(1), 55–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. H.
(1972) On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S.
(2016) The scope of transfer research. In L. Yu & T. Odlin (Eds.), New perspectives on transfer in second language learning (pp. 17–47). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K.
(2007) Is speech learning ‘gated’ by the social brain? Developmental Science, 10(1), 110–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1991) Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L.
(2006) Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D.
(2006) Second language acquisition and the issue of fossilization: There is no end, and there is no state. In Z. Han & T. Odlin (Eds.), Studies of fossilization in second language acquisition (pp. 189–200). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
(2012) The emancipation of the language learner. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 2(3), 297–309. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leńko-Szymańska, A., & Boulton, A.
(Eds.) (2015) Multiple affordances of language corpora for data-driven learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lowie, W.
(2017) Lost in state space? Methodological considerations in Complex Dynamic Systems Theory approaches to second language development research. In L. Ortega & Z. Han (Eds.), Complexity Theory and language development: In celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman (pp. 123–141). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M.
(2015) Variability and variation in second language acquisition orders: A dynamic reevaluation. Language Learning, 65(1), 63–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B.
(2015) Multidimensional SLA. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 19–48). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mahon, B. Z., & Hickok, G.
(Eds.) (2016) Arguments about the nature of concepts: Symbols, embodiment, and beyond [Special Issue]. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(4). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D.
(2008) Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Masuda, K., Arnett, C., & Labarca, A.
(Eds.) (2015) Cognitive linguistics and sociocultural theory in second and foreign language teaching. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meltzoff, A. N., & Williamson, R. A.
(2013) Imitation: Social, cognitive, and theoretical perspectives. In P. R. Zelazo (Ed.), Oxford handbook of developmental psychology (pp. 651–682). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ortega, L.
(2015) Usage-based SLA: A research habitus whose time has come. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 353–374). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L., Tyler, A. E., Park, H. I., & Uno, M.
(Eds.) (2016) The usage-based study of language learning and multilingualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Reif, M., & Robinson, J. A.
(Eds.) (2016) Cognitive perspectives on bilingualism. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, T. T., & Wolmetz, M.
(Eds.) (2016) Conceptual knowledge representation: A cross-section of current research [Special Issue]. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 33(3–4),Google Scholar
Rowe, M. L.
(2012) A longitudinal investigation of the role of quantity and quality of child‐directed speech in vocabulary development. Child Development, 83(5), 1762–1774. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
San Roque, L., Kendrick, K. H., Norcliffe, E., Brown, P., Defina, R., Dingemanse, M., … Majid, A.
(2015) Vision verbs dominate in conversation across cultures, but the ranking of non-visual verbs varies. Cognitive Linguistics, 26, 31–60. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saffran, J. R.
(2003) Statistical language learning mechanisms and constraints. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4), 110–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N.
(2007) Communicative language teaching: Current status and future prospects. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 271–288). New York, NY: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M.
(2006) Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E.
(1999) Compositionality and blending: Semantic composition in a cognitively realistic framework. In G. Redeker & T. Janssen (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope, and methodology (pp. 129–162). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. R.
(2002) Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, A. E.
(1994a) The role of repetition in perceptions of discourse coherence. Journal of Pragmatics, 21(6), 671–688. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1994b) The role of syntactic structure in discourse structure: Signaling logical and prominence relations. Applied Linguistics, 15(3), 243–262. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tyler, A. E., & Evans, V.
(2003) The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A. E., & Ortega, L.
(2016) Usage-based approaches to language and language learning: an introduction to the special issue. Language and Cognition, 8, 335–345.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., & Norris, J. M.
(Eds.) (2009) Task-based language teaching: A reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, J.
(2015) Designing for language learning in the wild: Creating social infrastructures for second language learning. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 75–102). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, S., Lester, N. A., & Martinez-Garcia, M. M.
(2014) That-variation in German and Spanish L2 English. Language and Cognition, 6, 271–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zima, E., & Brône, G.
(Eds.) (2015) Cognitive linguistics and interactional discourse [Special Issue]. Language and Cognition, 7(4). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 11 other publications

Baicchi, Annalisa & Paolo Della Putta
2019. Constructions at work in foreign language learners’ mind. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 17:1 ► pp. 219 ff. Crossref logo
Becker, Shannon R. & Jessica L. Sturm
2018.  In Usage-inspired L2 Instruction [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 49], ► pp. 165 ff. Crossref logo
Byrnes, Heidi
2020.  In Complex Dynamic Systems Theory and L2 Writing Development [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 54], ► pp. 241 ff. Crossref logo
Davies, Catherine Evans
2018.  In Usage-inspired L2 Instruction [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 49], ► pp. 75 ff. Crossref logo
Edmonds, Amanda
2019. Le développement de l’expression du genre grammatical en français L2. Language, Interaction and Acquisition 10:2 ► pp. 229 ff. Crossref logo
Edmonds, Amanda, Aarnes Gudmestad & Thomas Metzger
2020. A Longitudinal Study of Grammatical-Gender Marking in French as an Additional Language. Applied Linguistics 41:5 ► pp. 733 ff. Crossref logo
Kraut, Joshua
2018.  In Usage-inspired L2 Instruction [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 49], ► pp. 187 ff. Crossref logo
Lantolf, James P. & Mei-Hsing Tsai
2018.  In Usage-inspired L2 Instruction [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 49], ► pp. 29 ff. Crossref logo
McManus, Kevin
2019. Awareness of L1 form-meaning mappings can reduce crosslinguistic effects in L2 grammatical learning. Language Awareness 28:2 ► pp. 114 ff. Crossref logo
ORTEGA, LOURDES
2019. SLA and the Study of Equitable Multilingualism. The Modern Language Journal 103 ► pp. 23 ff. Crossref logo
Römer, Ute
2019. A corpus perspective on the development of verb constructions in second language learners. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24:3 ► pp. 268 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 february 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.