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.
Article outline
Introduction
Theoretical underpinnings for a dynamic usage based (DUB) approach to language development
(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.
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.
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.
Council of Europe Modern Languages Division Strasbourg
(2001) Common European framework of reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M.
(2007) A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 7–21.
DeKeyser, R. M.
(1995) Learning second language grammar rules. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379–410.
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.
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.
Eskildsen, S. W.
(2009) Constructing another language- usage-based linguistics in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30, 335–357.
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure constructions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. E.
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Hong, N.
(2013) A dynamic usage-based approach to second language teaching. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands.
Irshad, M.
(2015) A dynamic approach to autonomous second language development. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands.
Krashen, S.
(1982) Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Volume 1: theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.
(2000) A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
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.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N.
(2013) How languages are learned (1nd ed.) Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
(2009) Assessing AIM: A study of Grade 8 students in an Ontario school board. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65, 703–729.
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.
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.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L.
(2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.
Goodman, I., Lowry, H., Sellers, D., Werber, C. Producers & Rosman, M. Director
) (2004) A cinderella story [motion picture]. United States: Warner Brothers.
(2012) Frans leren met AIM in het voortgezet onderwijs [Learning French with AIM in high school]. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 3, 3–14.
Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L.
, & PDP Research Group (1988) Parallel distributed processing (Vol. 1, pp. 354–362). IEEE.
Schmid, H.
(2015) A blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 3, 1–27.
Schmidt, R. W.
(1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.
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).
Tilma, C.
(2014) The dynamics of foreign versus second language development in Finnish writing. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen/University of Jÿvaskyla, Groningen/Jÿvaskyla.
Tomasello, M.
(2000) First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 61–82.
Tomasello, M.
(2003) Constructing a language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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.
VanPatten, B.
(2002) Processing instruction, prior awareness and the nature of second language acquisition: A (partial) response to Batstone. Language Awareness, 11, 240–258.
Verspoor, M., & Hong, N. T. P.
(2013) A dynamic usage-based approach to communicative language teaching. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 22–54.
Verspoor, M., & Lowie, W. M.
(2003) Making sense of polysemous words. Language Learning, 53, 547–586.
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.
West, L. & Verspoor, M.
(2016) An impression of foreign language teaching approaches in the Netherlands. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 17, 26–36.
Cited by
Cited by 4 other publications
Ayhan, Erçin & Asma Altrhoni
2024. Unveiling the Impact of Language Input and Regular Exposure to Language in Turkish (Second Language) and English (Foreign Language) Education Through a Dynamic Usage-Based Approach. Korkut Ata Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi :15 ► pp. 846 ff.
Carey, Michael D., Ojars Rugins & Peter R. Grainger
2023. Investigating the effects of varying Accelerative Integrated Method instruction on spoken recall accuracy: a case study with junior primary learners of French. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 0:0
2024. Empirical Research. In Usage-Based Second Language Instruction, ► pp. 159 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 june 2024. 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.