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. 117–142

Student perception and different performance in a combined usage-based and sociocultural theory approach to learning Japanese polysemous particles

| Georgia Institute of Technology
| Georgia Institute of Technology
Recent second language studies have explored the implementation of a usage-based approach in the classroom (Csábi, 2004; Lam, 2009; Masuda, 2013; Tyler, Mueller, & Ho, 2010; Tyler, 2012; White, 2012). Adding to this research, Masuda and Labarca (2015, 2018) have investigated the effects of usage-based instruction supported by schematic aids and conceptual explanations of usages when teaching Japanese polysemous particles to English-speaking college students (N = 28). Following sociocultural theory (SCT) tenets, it is equally necessary to explore the interaction between peers, given the role that working together plays in concept development (Lantolf, 2010). In this chapter, we examine student perception of such innovative teaching and pair-work from a SCT perspective along with student different performance by comparing usage-based instruction to traditional instruction. When perceptions were collected through a questionnaire, one-to-one interviews, and recorded pair exchanges or languaging, evidence was found for the value of visualization of the concept driven by schematic diagrams and guided conceptual tasks that had differential effects on student progress and longer retention.
Published online: 13 February 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.49.06mas
References

References

Akiba-Reynolds, K.
(1984) Internal construction in pre-Japanese syntax. In J. Fisiak & W. Winter (Eds.), Trends in linguistics: Historical syntax (pp. 1–23). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Beréndi, M., Csábi, S., & Kövecses, S.
(2008) Using conceptual metaphors and metonymies in vocabulary teaching. In F. Boers & S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (pp. 65–99). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Boers, F., De Rycker, A., & De Knop, S.
(Eds.) (2010) Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.
(2008) Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 216–213). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & Hopper, P.
(Eds.) (2001) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Csábi, S.
(2004) A cognitive linguistic view of polysemy in English and its implications for teaching. In M. Achard & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 234–259). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Robinson, P.
(2008) An introduction to cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and language instruction. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 4–24). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.
(1995) A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hashimoto, S.
(1969) Hashimoto shinkichi hakase chosakushuu: Jyoshi jyodooshi no kenkyuu. [A study of particles and auxiliaries]. Tokyo: Iwanami.Google Scholar
Hasuike, I.
(2012) Nihongo no kuukanhyoogen ni to de no sentaku ni mirareru bogo no eikyoo: Joshisentakutesuto no kekkabunseki [Influence of the mother tongue observed in the choice between spatial expression ni and de in Japanese: Analysis of the results from the particle choice test]. Kotoba to Bunka, 13, 59–76.Google Scholar
Herskovits, A.
(1986) Language and spatial cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Holme, R.
(2007) Sociocultural approaches to second language learning: The contribution of cognitive linguistic approaches. In R. Alanen & S. Poyhonen (Eds.), Language in action: Vygotsky and Leontievian legacy today (pp. 203–222). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Kabata, K.
(2000) Japanese ni: A cognitive analysis of a lexically complex particle. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Alberta, Calgary, Canada.Google Scholar
Kabata, K., & Rice, S.
(1997) Japanese ni: The particulars of a somewhat contradictory particle. In M. Verspoor, K. Lee & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning (pp. 109–127). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kumashiro, T.
(2000) The conceptual basis of grammar: A cognitive-grammar approach to Japanese clausal structure. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of California, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, N.
(2002) Nihongo nooryoku kanishiken (SPOT) no tokuten to ACTFL kootoonooryoku (OPI) no reberu no kankei ni tsuite [Simple performance-oriented test (SPOT) vs. oral proficiency interview (OPI)]. Nihongo Kyooiku, 114, 100–105.Google Scholar
Lam, Y.
(2009) Applying cognitive linguistics to teaching the Spanish prepositions por and para . Language Awareness, 18, 2–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(2000) A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp.1–64). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P.
(2007) Sociocultural source of thinking and its relevance for second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 31–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 163–177). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M.
(2014) Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lehmann, E. L., & Romano, P. J.
(2008) Testing statistical hypotheses (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Mabuchi, Y.
(2000) Kakujoshi de no imikakuchoo ni kansuru ichikoosatsu [A case study of semantic extention of the particle de ]. Kokugogaku, 51, 15–30.Google Scholar
Makino, S., Abe-Hatasa, Y., & Hatasa, K.
(1998) Nakama 1. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Masuda, K.
(2007) Japanese postpositions ‘ni’ and ‘de’: cognitive linguistic approach. Chicago Linguistic Society, 39, 14–25.Google Scholar
(2013) Applying cognitive linguistics to grammar teaching: The case of Japanese particles ni and de . Sophia Linguistica, 60, 105–122.Google Scholar
Masuda, K., & Labarca, A.
(2015) Schemata use and languaging quality in learning Japanese polysemous particles ni and de . In K. Masuda, C. Arnett. & A. Labarca (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and sociocultural theory: Applications to foreign and second language teaching (pp. 203–232). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Masuda, K., Arnett, C., & Labarca, A.
(Eds.) (2015) Cognitive linguistics and sociocultural theory: Applications to foreign and second language teaching. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Masuda, K., & Labarca, A.
(2018) A usage-based approach for presentation of polysemous particles in JFL instruction. In K. Masuda. (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics and Japanese pedagogy: A usage-based approach to language learning and instruction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Markstein, L., & Grunbaum, D.
(1981) What’s the story? Sequential photographs for language practice. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Martin, S.
(2004) A reference grammar of Japanese. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Moriyama, S.
(2008) Ninchigengogaku kara mita nihongo kakujyoshi no imikoozoo to shuutoku [The semantic structures and acquisition of Japanese case particles from perspectives of cognitive linguistics]. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Negueruela, E.
(2003) A sociocultural approach to the teaching and learning of second languages: Systemic-theoretical instruction and L2 development. Unpublished PhD dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.Google Scholar
(2008) Revolutionary pedagogies: Learning that leads (to) second language development. In J. Lantolf & M. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp.189–227). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
(2013) The being and becoming of metalinguistic knowledge: Rules and categories of grammatical description as functional tools of the mind. In K. Roehr & G. Ganem-gutierrerz (Eds.), The metalinguistic dimension in instructed second language learning (pp. 221–242). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Negueruela, E., & Lantolf, J. P.
(2006) Concept-based instruction: Teaching grammar in an intermediate-advanced Spanish L2 university classroom. In R. Salaberry & B. Lafford (Eds.), The art of teaching Spanish: Second language acquisition from research to praxis (pp. 79–102). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Pica, T.
(1984) Methods of morpheme quantification: Their effect on the interpretation of second language data. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 69–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sakoda, K.
(2001) Gakushuusha no bumpoo shori [Learners’ grammar strategies]. In H. Noda, K. Sakoda, M. Shibuya & N. Kobayashi (Eds.), Nihongo gakushuusha no bumpoo shuutoku [Acquisition of grammar by learners of Japanese] (pp. 25–44). Tokyo: Taishuukan shoten.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W.
(1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In Byrnes, H. (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Knouzi, I., Suzuki, W., & Brooks, L.
(2009) Languaging: University students learn the grammatical concept of voice in French. Modern Language Journal, 93, 5–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
(2000) Toward a cognitive semantics, Volume 2. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, A. E.
(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. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A. E., Mueller, C., & Ho, V.
(2010) Applying cognitive linguistics to instructed L2 learning. AILA Review, 23, 30–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
White, B.
(2012) A conceptual approach to the instruction of phrasal verbs. Modern Language Journal, 96, 419–438. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M. H., & Lowie, W.
(2003) Making sense of polysemous words. Language Learning, 53, 547–586. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S.
(1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(1986) Thought and language (newly revised and edited by A. Kozulin). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar