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. 55–73

Chapter 3. Foreign language instruction from a dynamic usage-based (DUB) perspective

| University of Groningen
| University of Groningen

In this chapter we combine ideas of usage based linguistics and dynamic systems theory to argue that language is a dynamic usage based system and L2 learning is a dynamic process. Two teaching approaches based on Dynamic Usage-based (DUB) principles with mainly implicit attention to form – a movie approach and the Accelerative Integrated Method – were compared with two more traditional teaching approaches. The results show that if effectiveness is operationalized as gain in general proficiency, both in spoken and written production, and if the intervention is at least one semester long, the DUB approaches are more effective than their traditional semi-communicative counterparts. We also argue that effects of such methods should not be measured in one-off interventions because implicit learning may take longer than explicit learning.

Published online: 13 February 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.49.03rou
References

References

Achard, M.
(2007) Usage-based semantics: Meaning and distribution in the three French “breaking” verbs. In M. Nenonen, & S. Niemi (Eds.), Collocations and Idioms, 1: Papers from the First Nordic Conference on Syntactic Freezes, Joensuu, 19–20 May, 2007 (Studies in Languages, University of Joensuu, Vol. 41). Joensuu: Joensuu University.Google Scholar
Bourdages, J., & Vignola, M. J.
(2009) AIM: La communication orale chez les élèves de l’élémentaire en français de base. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65, 731–755. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bui, M. C., Nguyen, T. P. H., Ly, T. B. P., & Truong, K. T.
(2010) Learning Breakthrough, 1. Can Tho: Can Tho University Publishing House.Google Scholar
Council of Europe Modern Languages Division Strasbourg
(2001) Common European framework of reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M.
(2007) A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 7–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M.
(1995) Learning second language grammar rules. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379–410. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. J.
(2003) Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 1–11). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C.
(2002) Frequency effects in language acquisition: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.Google Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W.
(2009) Constructing another language- usage-based linguistics in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30, 335–357. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure constructions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harley, B., Hart, D., Lapkin, S., & Scane, J.
(1988) Testing outcomes in core French: The development of communicative instruments for curriculum evaluation and research. Toronto: Modern Language Centre, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.Google Scholar
Hong, N.
(2013) A dynamic usage-based approach to second language teaching. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Irshad, M.
(2015) A dynamic approach to autonomous second language development. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Krashen, S.
(1982) Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Volume 1: theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2000) A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D.
(2011) A complexity theory approach to second language development/acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 48–72). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N.
(2013) How languages are learned (1nd ed.) Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H.
(1991) Focus-on-form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, G. Ginsberg & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mady, C., Arnott, S., & Lapkin, S.
(2009) Assessing AIM: A study of Grade 8 students in an Ontario school board. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65, 703–729. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, W.
(2001) Evaluating the effectiveness of the accelerative integrated method for teaching french as a second language. Unpublished MA thesis. University of London Institute in Paris.Google Scholar
Myles, F., Mitchell, R., & Hooper, J.
(1999) Interrogative chunks in French L2: A basis for creative construction? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 49–80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L.
(2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, I., Lowry, H., Sellers, D., Werber, C. Producers & Rosman, M. Director
) (2004) A cinderella story [motion picture]. United States: Warner Brothers.Google Scholar
Rousse-Malpat, A., & Verspoor, M. H.
(2012) Measuring effectiveness in focus on form versus focus on meaning. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 263–276. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rousse-Malpat, A., Verspoor, M. H., & Visser, S.
(2012) Frans leren met AIM in het voortgezet onderwijs [Learning French with AIM in high school]. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 3, 3–14.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L.
, & (1988) Parallel distributed processing (Vol. 1, pp. 354–362). IEEE.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.
(2015) A blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 3, 1–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. W.
(1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, L., Kenyon, D., & Rhodes, N.
(2002) A validation study of the student oral proficiency assessment (SOPA) (No. ED465287). Washington, DC: Center for International Education (ED).Google Scholar
Tilma, C.
(2014) The dynamics of foreign versus second language development in Finnish writing. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen/University of Jÿvaskyla, Groningen/Jÿvaskyla.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(2000) First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 61–82.Google Scholar
(2003) Constructing a language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
van Geert, P., & Verspoor, M.
(2015) Dynamic systems and language development. In B. Mac Whinney & W. O’Grady (Eds.), The handbook of language emergence (pp. 537–556). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B.
(2002) Processing instruction, prior awareness and the nature of second language acquisition: A (partial) response to Batstone. Language Awareness, 11, 240–258. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., & Hong, N. T. P.
(2013) A dynamic usage-based approach to communicative language teaching. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 22–54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., & Lowie, W. M.
(2003) Making sense of polysemous words. Language Learning, 53, 547–586. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., de Bot, K., & Lowie, W.
(2008) Input and second language development from a dynamic perspective. In T. Piske, & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Input matters in SLA (pp. 62–80). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
West, L. & Verspoor, M.
(2016) An impression of foreign language teaching approaches in the Netherlands. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 17, 26–36.Google Scholar