Cover not available
Part of
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. 143–164

Chapter 7
The impact of prior knowledge on second language grammar practice

 | Columbia University
Both the skill building paradigm of language learning known as skills acquisition theory (DeKeyser, 2007) and the family of usage-based theories (N. Ellis, 2015; Tyler, 2012) hold that second language (L2) practice, broadly defined as repeated language usage, is pivotal to the learning of constructions. Intuition would thus suggest that L2 grammar pedagogy must rely on practice activities in the classroom. However, the praxis of practice is less clear. One variable that might moderate the effectiveness of practice is prior knowledge (PK), as it is reasonable to expect that the more learners can rely on PK that is relevant to a new target form, the less intensive or prolonged practice might need to be (Llopis-García, 2010). This chapter investigated the impact of prior knowledge (PK) of a given construction on practice of a new, related construction. It did so by comparing a group of students who, prior to the experiment, could already conjugate the present subjunctive and were familiar with the mood selection in some limited constructional contexts to another group of students who did not have any previous knowledge related to the mood selection in Spanish, and both to a control group. The goal was to ascertain whether PK modulates the benefits that can be obtained from activities that supported extensive practice of Spanish L2 mood selection over 6 weeks totaling 9 hours. Following a pretest/posttest design, results showed that, contrary to expectations, the group with no PK outperformed the group with PK. Results are discussed within the dynamic systems theory paradigm (Verspoor, de Bot, & Lowie, 2011). It is argued that mastery of Spanish L2 mood selection may be subject to processes of cognitive restructuring leading to a variable pathway as evidenced by a U-shaped learning curve.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Practice in theoretical perspective: What is the relationship to L2 development?
  • Practice in L2 instructional perspective: A role for prior knowledge?
  • Research questions
  • Method
    • Target item and prior knowledge of the target item
    • Participants
    • Design
    • Instructional package
    • Presentation and practice of the target form
    • Data collection instruments
  • Results
    • Results from the multiple-choice task
    • Results from the fill-in-the-blank task
    • Results from the GJ and correction task
  • Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 13 February 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.49.07alo
References (50)
References
Alonso Raya, R., Castañeda Castro, A., Martínez Gila, P., Miquel López, L., Ortega Olivares, J., & Ruiz Campillo, J. P. (2005). Gramática básica del estudiante de español. Madrid: Difusión.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. (1998). The atomic components of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2008). Usage-based gramar and second language acquisition. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 216–236). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cheng, P. W. (1985). Restructuring versus automaticity: Alternative accounts of skill acquisition. Psychological Review, 92, 414–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Bot, K., Lowie, W. M., & Verspoor, M. H. (2007). A Dynamic Systems Theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 7–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Bot, K., Lowie, W. M., Thorne, S. L., & Verspoor, M. (2013). Dynamic Systems Theory as a comprehensive theory of second lanaguge development. In M. P. García Mayo, M. J. Gutierrez-Mangado, & M. Martínez Adrián (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 199–220). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Graaff, R., & Housen, A. (2009). Investigating the effects and effectiveness of L2 instruction. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 726–755). Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. J. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2001). Automaticity and automatization. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 125–151). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R., & Criado, R. (2013). Automatization, skill acquisition, and practice in second language acquisition. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle 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, 143–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). The weak interface, consciousness, and form-focused instruction: Mind the doors. In S. Fotos & H. Nassaji (Eds.), Form-focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honour of Rod Ellis (pp. 17–33). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008). Usage-based and form-focused language acquisition: The associative learning of constructions, learned attention, and the limited L2 endstate. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 372–405). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2009). Optimizing the input: Frequency and sampling in usage-based and form-focused learning. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 139–158). Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Implicit and explicit SLA and their interface. In C. Sanz & R. Leow (Eds.), Implicit and explicit language learning: Conditions, processes, and knowledge in SLA & bilingualism (pp. 35–47). Washington, DC: Georgetown University PressGoogle Scholar
(2015). Implicit AND explicit language learning. Their dynamic interface and complexity. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 3–23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Grammar teaching –practice or consciousness-raising? In J. Richards & W. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 167–174). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y., & Novella, M. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning: Norris & Ortega (2000) revisited and updated. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 443–482). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive gramar, Volume 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston, MA: Heinle.Google Scholar
(2009). Teaching and testing grammar. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 518–542). Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). On the roles of repetition in language teaching and learning. Applied Linguistics Review, 3(2): 195–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Complexity Theory/Dynamic Systems Theory. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 103–106). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Sato, M. (2013). Skill acquisition theory and the role of practice in L2 development. In M. P. García Mayo, M. J. Gutierrez-Mangado, & M. Martínez Adrián (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 71–92). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llopis-García, R. (2010). Why cognitive grammar works in the L2 classroom. A case study of mood selection in Spanish. In J. Littlemore & C. Juchem-Grundmann (Eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics in second language learning and teaching. AILA Review, 23, 72–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Madlener, K. (2018). Do findings from artificial language learning generalize to second language classrooms? In A. E. Tyler, L. Ortega, M. Uno, & H. I. Park (Eds.), Usage-inspired L2 instruction: Researched pedagogy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marsden, E. (2006). Exploring input processing in the classroom: An experimental comparison of processing instruction and enriched input. Language Learning, 56(3), 507–566. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 113–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miquel, L., & Sans, N. (2002). Rápido neu. Stuttgart: Difusión-Klett.Google Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roehr-Brackin, K. (2015). Explicit knowledge about language in L2 learning. A usage-based perspective. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 117–138). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz Campillo, J. P. (2008). El valor central del subjuntivo: ¿Informatividad o declaratividad? MarcoELE, 7. Retrieved from <[URL]>
(2012). The subjunctive in a single concept: Teaching an operational approach to mood selection in Spanish. In G. Ruiz Fajardo (Ed.), Methodological developments of teaching of Spanish as a second and foreign language (pp. 273–330). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Rousse-Malpat, A., & Verspoor, M. H. (2018). Exposure and practice in a dynamic usage-based approach to classroom instruction. In A. E. Tyler, L. Ortega, M. Uno, & H. I. Park (Eds.), Usage-inspired L2 instruction: Researched pedagogy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume)Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 165–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spoelman, M. & Verspoor, M. (2010). Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and complexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 532–553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, A. E. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
Verspoor, M. H., de Bot, K., & Lowie, W. M. (2011). A dynamic approach to second language development. Methods and techniques. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M. H., Lowie, W. M., & van Dijk, M. (2008). Variability in L2 development from a dynamic systems perspective. Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 214–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M. H., Schmid, M. S., & Xu, X. (2012). A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 wirting. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 239–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M. H., & Smiskova, H. (2012). Foreign language writing development from a dynamic usage based perspective. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 17–46). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar