To ensure smooth communication and collaboration, here are some troubleshooting tips to address common issues:
Check Internet Connection: Verify that you have a stable and reliable internet connection. Use a wired connection when possible, as it tends to be more stable than Wi-Fi. If using Wi-Fi, make sure you have a strong signal.
Update the Browser or App: Ensure that you are using the latest version of the web browser. Developers frequently release updates to address bugs and improve performance.
Clear Browser Cache: Sometimes, cached data can cause conflicts or issues. Clear the browser cache and cookies before joining the meeting.
Test Audio and Video: Before the meeting, check your microphone and camera to ensure they are working correctly. If you are a speaker, you can click on "Start Practice Session" button test to ensure audio and video devices are functioning.
Close Other Applications: Running multiple applications in the background can consume system resources and lead to performance issues. Close unnecessary apps to free up resources for the Dryfta meeting platform.
Restart Your Device: If you encounter persistent issues, try restarting your computer or mobile device. This can help resolve various software-related problems.
Use Supported Browsers: Ensure you are using a browser supported by the meeting platform. Recommended browsers: Chrome, Firefox, Edge, and Brave.
Allow Necessary Permissions: Make sure the Dryfta meeting platform has the required permissions to access your microphone, camera, and other necessary features.
Disable VPN or Firewall: Sometimes, VPNs or firewalls can interfere with the connection to the meeting platform. Temporarily disable them and see if the issue persists.
Switch Devices: If possible, try joining the meeting from a different device to see if the problem is specific to one device.
Reduce Bandwidth Usage: In cases of slow or unstable internet connections, ask participants to disable video or share video selectively to reduce bandwidth consumption.
Update Drivers and Software: Ensure your operating system, audio drivers, and video drivers are up to date. Outdated drivers can cause compatibility issues with the Dryfta meeting platform.
Contact Support: If none of the above steps resolve the issue, reach out to the platform's support team. They can provide personalized assistance and troubleshoot specific problems.
By following these troubleshooting tips, you can tackle many common problems encountered on Dryfta meeting platform and have a more productive and seamless meeting experience.
Oral Presentation[SYMP30] Dynamic Usage Based Principles in L2 Instruction10:15 AM - 06:00 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/21 08:15:00 UTC - 2024/07/21 16:00:00 UTC
What teachers need to know about a DUB approach to language and language learning so they can let go of their "learning to use" approaches and confidently move to a "using to learn" approach.
"Learning to use" versus "using to learn"
Howatt (1984) concluded that the Communicative Language Teaching movement had two distinct versions: a weak version with a "learning to use" approach and a strong version with a "using to learn" approach. Most applied linguists would agree that a strong version is much more effective in L2 teaching (cf. Lightbown & Spada, 2013). Long (2000) regretted the "learning to use" approach with its heavy emphasis on focus on forms and mentioned that there was not a good linguistic theory to support strong versions of CLT. At the time, the dominant view of language was based on 1960's theories. There was a universal grammar and grammar, and syntax drove the language system.
Much more in line with a "using to learn" approach is a Dynamic Usage Based (DUB) view of language. It is based on theories from the 1980's. Usage Based Linguistics focuses on how humans learn language through embodied experience and general learning mechanisms involving perception, association, categorization, schematization and so on (cf. Schmid, 2020). In the late 1990's, Complex Dynamic Systems Theory found its way into SLA (Larsen-Freeman, 1997) and claimed that there are no separate systems in language, the learner, or the context, but that all sub-systems interact with each other over time, resulting in non-linear development, and Langacker (2009) argues that language is a complex, dynamic system. In L1 acquisition, Tomasello (2001) argues that languages are learned on the basis of using language and Van Geert (1994) shows that language development is a dynamic process. In SLA research, usage-based linguistics is now well-established (cf. Ellis, 2008). Unfortunately, however, DUB has hardly made its way to general linguistics courses, teacher training colleges, teachers, textbooks or classrooms.
In this presentation, I will briefly review the theories but then focus on what teachers need to know about a DUB approach to language and language learning, so that they can let go of their "learning to use" approaches and confidently move to a "using to learn" approach.
Langacker, R. (2009). A dynamic view of usage and language acquisition, Cognitive Linguistics, 20(3) 627-640. Long, M. H. (2000). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. Language policy and pedagogy: Essays in honor of A. Ronald Walton, 179, 192. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied linguistics, 18(2), 141-165. Tomasello, M. (2001) First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition, Cognitive Linguistics. 11, 1-2, 61-82 van Geert, P. (1994). Dynamic systems of development: Change between complexity and chaos. Harvester Wheatsheaf. Howatt, A. P. (1984). The history of English language teaching. Oxford University Press. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How Languages are Learned (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. Schmid H. J. (2020). The dynamics of the linguistic system: usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment (First). Oxford University Press. Ellis, N. C. (2008). The dynamics of second language emergence: Cycles of language use, language change, and language acquisition. The modern language journal, 92(2), 232-249.
The similarities between NLA (Neurolinguistic approach) and DUB (Dynamic Usage based) principles in L2 learning of young beginners
Oral Presentation[SYMP30] Dynamic Usage Based Principles in L2 Instruction10:15 AM - 06:00 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/21 08:15:00 UTC - 2024/07/21 16:00:00 UTC
We aim to present in this symposium the results of an experimental study which took place from 2019 to 2022 in French junior high schools and covered 8 classes of year 7 (11 years old pupils, nearly 200 participants) in three different environments: priority education, semi-urban and semi-rural. Indeed, second language (L2) learning in school often causes at least three recurring problems: irregular pleasure in learning, difficulty in expressing oneself orally, and an insufficient level of proficiency (McAllister & Narcy-Combes, 2011). While French teenagers skills are gradually improving in writing, the ability to express themselves orally remains weak. The questions of how to acquire the L2, and therefore how its oral acquisition works, arise first and foremost in our study. A pedagogical method, called the Neurolinguistic approach (NLA) by its designers (Germain and Netten, 2012) developed in Canada showed benefits in response to these problems relating to motivation and oral production (Germain, 2018). Most of its fundamental principles are based on the same principles as DUB approach: Exposure first, Frequency of exposure through repetition, Associative learning through multimodal real life exemplars (Backus, 2012). The general objective of our work is to measure for the first time in our educational context, if an approach like the NLA which favors implicit oral acquisition, as well as a project-based approach, allows more confidence and more acquisition of oral language skills. The challenge here is twofold: would an implicit oral teaching based on the principles of the DUB approach in the context of extensive learning (4 hours per week) improve the average oral level? And would the pleasure of learning a second language be increased by these principles? Our work is both qualitative and quantitative with 4 experimental classes that teached NLA (after training and one-year follow-up of the teachers) and 4 control classes. We conducted comprehensive semi-structured interviews with a sample of learners participating in the experiment (52 pupils in T1 and T2), and participating teachers. We coupled these interviews with the measurement of the oral interaction skills of their pupils. Indeed, we assessed the ability of each pupil to interact orally using the OPI rating scale (Oral Proficiency Interview) whose objective is to assess the ability to use a language orally in real situation.Finally, we used AEQ-E achievement emotions questionnaires to determine students' feelings about L2. We will see that the DUB and NLA principles facilitate the use of spontaneous oral interaction in 11 years old beginner learners.
References Backus, A. (2012). A usage-based approach to borrowability. Tilburg University: TPCS. Paper 27. Germain, C. (2012). Pour une nouvelle approche de l'enseignement de la grammaire en classe de langues-Grammaire et approche neurolinguistique (ANL). Actes du Congrès de la SJDF. Tokyo : Université de Keio. Germain, C. (2018). The Neurolinguistic Approach (NLA) for Learning and Teaching Foreign Languages: Theory and Practice. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. MCALLISTER, J. & NARCY-COMBES, M-F. (2011). Evaluation of a blended language learning environment in a French university. ASp. Bordeaux : GERAS.
Adapting the Processing Instruction model for elementary school learners of L2 English
Oral Presentation[SYMP30] Dynamic Usage Based Principles in L2 Instruction10:15 AM - 06:00 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/21 08:15:00 UTC - 2024/07/21 16:00:00 UTC
In this presentation we present the design of a serious game for young learners that was inspired by VanPatten (2002)'s Processing Instruction (PI) model, which we believe is compatible with the DUB approach. The role of grammar in foreign language teaching has long been controversial, from the so-called "grammar-translation method" modelled after the teaching of classical languages to current task-based approaches. However, discussions of the place of grammar in teaching usually focus on productive skills. By contrast, input-based theories of L2 acquisition stress the importance of processing grammatical elements for meaning when receiving input in order for acquisition to take place. VanPatten's PI model states that because morphosyntactic elements are redundant and/or not salient, learners do not notice them and must therefore be taught to pay attention to them and process them for meaning. This presentation focuses on the use of the Processing Instruction model in the design of a serious game for 6-year-old beginners in English. Most studies using the PI model have used older learners and studied the acquisition of inflections (eg, Kasprowitz & Marsden 2017). With young beginners, the target feature chosen was the syntax of noun phrases (five shirts, green snake), in which the meaning of at least two lexical elements is integrated into a coherent whole. Previous studies have shown that, when listening, French elementary school students tend to focus on one known lexical item and ignore the others (Audin 2003). Van Patten's model consists of a first phase in which learners receive explicit instruction about the target feature. Because we believe that grammar patterns are essentially form-meaning pairings, just like lexical items, we contend that explicit instruction should mainly be about the provision of meaning rather than abstract rules. Since we are dealing with a simple integration operation that also exists in L1 French, the first phase was replaced with the establishment of form-meaning links for lexical items. The second phase uses referential activities that require processing of the target feature. For this central phase, we used multiple choice questions with oral stimuli associated with graphic representations (requiring learners to integrate the meaning of several lexical items). The last phase consists of activities exposing learners to more instances of the target feature in different contexts. In our game, children were exposed to the target structure in the narrative and dialogues that accompanied the activities. An experiment was conducted with 690 first graders and showed that the experimental group outperformed the control group in the comprehension of individual words as well as word combinations. They were also able to produce a few word combinations. Audin, L. (2003). L'apprentissage d'une langue étrangère à l'école primaire : Quel(s) enseignement(s) en tirer ? Les Langues modernes, 3, 10‑19. Kasprowicz, R., & Marsden, E. (2017). Gaming Grammar : Designing and Evaluating a Digital Game for Learning L2 French Morphosyntax. EuroCALL 2017. VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing Instruction : An Update. Language Learning, 52(4), 755‑803.
Oral proficiency in L2 French: effects of weak CLT versus strong CLT instruction
Oral Presentation[SYMP30] Dynamic Usage Based Principles in L2 Instruction10:15 AM - 06:00 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/21 08:15:00 UTC - 2024/07/21 16:00:00 UTC
This study presents and compares the results of two instructional programs of L2 French in the Netherlands after 6 years of secondary school specifically in speaking skills. The first program, commonly used in the Netherlands can be termed a "weak" version of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and is based on a structure-based (SB) view of language with a great deal of attention to grammatical accuracy, often explained through the medium of the L1. The second program can be considered a "strong" CLT program that is in line with so-called dynamic usage-based (DUB) principles, in which exposure to and active use of the target language is key, and there is no explicit attention to grammar. Previous sub-studies showed no differences in reading skills (authors, submitted) nor in writing skills (authors, submitted), not even in accuracy. The results of the present study show that a strong CLT teaching practice in line with DUB principles is more effective in promoting oral language proficiency in French than the weak CLT approach.
From the mid-1970s onwards, a more cognitive-oriented approach to foreign language teaching became the new standard in language teaching in many parts of the world (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). This Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach addressed the functional and communicative potential of language. It was not only an answer to the growing need of focusing on communicative proficiency rather than on mere mastery of structures, as advocated by British scholars like Christopher Candlin and Henry Widdowson (Richards & Rodgers, 2014), but was also seen as an answer to the need for a necessary tool for communication and intercultural awareness in an emerging European Union, where the Council of Europe placed language teaching high on its agenda. However, in the late 90's, Long (2000) already pointed out that CLT course books still struggled with "the thorny issue of grammar in the communicative classroom" (p. 35). To this day, foreign language teaching practice at secondary level mostly continues to build on course books, which consistently use the label 'communicative' in their approach and claim to follow CLT principles but do contain a strong language focus section in each chapter, explicitly using drills to familiarize learners with grammatical structures (cf., Ellis, 2009; Gómez-Rodriguez, 2010; Burns & Hill, 2013). That is not to say that current foreign language teaching approaches do not also focus on communicative skills and practices, but the question is what their main focus is. Howatt (1984) characterizes CLT practices as broadly falling in one of two categories on a continuum: On one end of this continuum, structural control is necessary to develop communicative competence (the weak version) and on the other end using language is necessary to develop language knowledge (the strong version). This paper presents and compares the results of two instructional programs of L2 French in the Netherlands after 6 years of secondary school and focusses on speaking skills. The first program, commonly used in the Netherlands can be termed a "weak" version of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and is based on a structure-based (SB) view of language with a great deal of attention to grammatical accuracy, often explained through the medium of the L1. The second program can be considered a "strong" CLT program that is in line with so-called dynamic usage-based (DUB) principles, in which exposure to and active use of the target language is key, and no explicit attention is paid to grammar. The current paper will provide empirical evidence that a "strong" CLT program is indeed warranted to promote speaking skills. Before discussing the actual study, we discuss the underlying linguistic theories of the SB and DUB approaches and the dearth of long-term classroom studies that test speaking skills with free response data.
Dynamics of Pragmatic Change in the Teacher’s Instruction in the Initial Phase of an EFL Lesson.
Oral Presentation[SYMP30] Dynamic Usage Based Principles in L2 Instruction10:15 AM - 06:00 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/21 08:15:00 UTC - 2024/07/21 16:00:00 UTC
Pragmalinguistic strategies used by the teacher to instruct learners in the initial phase of an EFL lesson have revealed themselves as significant dynamic indicators of successful instruction. They allow the teacher to gain and maintain dominance, recruit learners and redirect their attention from casual communication to classroom activities.
Oral instruction is one of the most studied areas in classroom discourse research. It mostly focuses on the type of instruction (explicit, implicit, direct, or indirect), methodological aspects, learners' perception, and the impact on the learners. These aspects reveal themselves as salient within the instructional phase of a lesson. Pragmatic aspects of teacher instruction as part of classroom discourse, as well as the functions of teacher instruction in the initial phase of a lesson have a lack of proper attention. During the initial phase, the teacher and learners communicate each other about their agreement to conduct a lesson (Mehan, 1979). The current study focuses on the dynamics of pragmatic change in the teacher's instruction. The initial phase (~ 3 min. long) of two lessons of English reading comprehension in a Dutch public school (HAVO 5 and Atheneum 6) were coded for illocutionary acts and speech acts according to the Speech Act Theory of Austin (1962) and Searle (1965), pragmalinguistic strategies (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989), topic change and power bases (Reid & Kawash, 2017). We aimed to investigate the dynamic aspects of teacher instruction from the pragmatic perspective: discursive strategies the teacher used to redirect the learners' attention from the "phatic communication" (Schneider, 1987:247) to classroom activities. The results have revealed that pragmatic strategies are crucial for successful instruction. Different speech acts and pragmalinguistic strategies indicate the change in the illocutionary force of the teacher's instructional proposition, allow establishing and regulating social power, and redirecting learners' attention from phatic communication to classroom activities. The teacher may allow learners to chatter and use their conversations as a resource to switch language from heritage (NL) to foreign (ENG).
References.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., Kasper, G. (1989a). Investigating Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: An introductory overview. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, G. Kasper, (Eds.). (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 1 – 34). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., Kasper, G. (1989b). The CCSARP coding manual. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, G. Kasper, (Eds.). (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 273 – 294). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Reid, L., Kawash, J. (2017). Let's Talk About Power: How Teacher Use of Power Shapes Relationships and Learning. Papers on Postsecondary Learning and Teaching: Proceedings of the University of Calgary Conference on Learning and Teaching, 2, 34 – 41. Schneider, K. P. (1987). Topic selection in phatic communication. Multilingua, 6(3), 247 – 256. Searle, J. (1965). What is a speech act? In M. Black (Ed.) Philosophy in America (pp. 221 - 239). London: Allen and Unwin.
Presenters Elena Pleshakova Graduate Student, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn
Taking a dynamic usage-based turn at university level: insights from a new language curriculum mixing tasks and films
Oral Presentation[SYMP30] Dynamic Usage Based Principles in L2 Instruction10:15 AM - 06:00 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/21 08:15:00 UTC - 2024/07/21 16:00:00 UTC
This project aims at taking the DUB turn at university level for language students whose learning objectives go beyond second language proficiency and also include sociocultural competences such as analyzing cultural specificities, understanding culture and navigating culture. To do so, we designed and tested a new instructional approach based on three modern approaches to language learning and teaching: Dynamic Usage-Based (Verspoor, 2017), Task Based Language Teaching (Ellis et al, 2019) and Film Language Integrated Learning (Kassenberg et al., 2020). In study 1, a literature review on the three approaches showed that they were highly compatible but that they dealt differently with three topics: focus on form, type of input and feedback. Interviews with teachers (N=3) showed how the three approaches were integrated into one instructional approach and how was dealt with the differences found in the literature review. In study 2, the effects of a two weeks treatment with the instructional approach were investigating, focusing on the development of students' language proficiency and sociocultural competence (N=14). Using a pre-test/ post-test design, results of a survey showed no improvement in their language proficiency but significant improvements in their sociocultural knowledge and skills.
Taking a dynamic usage-based turn at university level: insights from a new language curriculum mixing tasks and films.
Dynamic Usage Based (DUB) approaches see language as a large array of conventionalized constructions that are meaningful units of language including pragmatic sense. Within this approach, language teaching should focus on exposing learners to those constructions in meaningful contexts (Verspoor, 2017) to foster automatisation and routinisation. Recent studies on the effectiveness of DUB in second language development have shown positive effects on general oral and written proficiency, particularly in fluency and complexity (Hong 2013; Irshad 2015; Koster, 2015; Rousse-Malpat et al. 2021). Those studies focused mainly on the development of language proficiency. This project aims at taking the DUB turn at university level for language students whose learning objectives go beyond second language proficiency and also include sociocultural competences such as analyzing cultural specificities, understanding culture and navigating culture. To do so, we designed and tested a new instructional approach based on three modern approaches to language learning and teaching: Dynamic Usage-Based (Verspoor, 2017), Task Based Language Teaching (Ellis et al, 2019) and Film Language Integrated Learning (Kassenberg et al., 2020). In this presentation, we will show the results of two studies. In study 1, a literature review on the three approaches showed that they were highly compatible but that they dealt differently with three topics: focus on form, type of input and feedback. Interviews with teachers (N=3) showed how the three approaches were integrated into one instructional approach and how was dealt with the differences found in the literature review. In study 2, the effects of a two weeks treatment with the instructional approach were investigating, focusing on the development of students' language proficiency and sociocultural competence (N=14). Using a pre-test/ post-test design, results of a survey showed no improvement in their language proficiency but significant improvements in their sociocultural knowledge and skills. Additionally, students mentioned that they generally liked this way of teaching. At the end of the presentation, the next steps into designing, evaluating and improving this type of instruction at university level will be discussed.
References
Hong, N. (2013) Dynamic usage-based approach to second language teaching. Unpublished PhD thesis. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands. Irshad, F. M. (2015) Second language development through the lens of a dynamic usagebased approach. Unpublished PhD thesis. Rijkuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands. Kassenberg, T., Galati, F., de Vries-Zhuravleva, D., & Menke-Bazhutkina, I. (2020). 12. Film Language Integrated Learning: A Usage-Inspired L2 Teaching Approach. In Usage-Based Dynamics in Second Language Development (pp. 271-294). Multilingual Matters. Koster, D. E. S. (2015) A dynamic, usage-based approach to teaching L2 Dutch. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics 4(2): 257–64. Rousse-Malpat, A., Koote, L., Steinkrauss, R., & Verspoor, M. (2021). Parlez-vous francais? Effects of structure-based versus dynamic-usage-based approaches on oral proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 13621688211040298. Verspoor, M. (2017) Complex dynamic systems theory and L2 pedagogy. In L. Ortega and Z. Han (eds) Complexity Theory and Language Development: In Celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman 143–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[SYMP30] Dynamic Usage Based Principles in L2 Instruction10:15 AM - 06:00 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/21 08:15:00 UTC - 2024/07/21 16:00:00 UTC
This paper aims at presenting how the Film Language Integrated Learning (FLIL) usage-inspired L2 teaching approach is being implemented in the first year French language proficiency unit courses as part of a substantial overhaul of the French language program taught at the University of Groningen.
This paper aims at presenting how the Film Language Integrated Learning (FLIL) usage-inspired L2 teaching approach is being implemented in the first year French language proficiency unit courses as part of a substantial overhaul of the French language program taught at the University of Groningen. This paper will also draw on the results of a student survey conducted at the end of the module during the first year and the subsequent year.
While adopting the dynamic usage based (DUB) approach to language development and teaching, the French section of the Department of European Language and Cultures along with other language sections sought to review its offer of language proficiency courses. The redesign of course units initially concerned the B1 and B2 levels then more recently the A2 level as well. Though FLIL isn't the only means of instruction, the French section has now fully integrated the film-based activities into its program. Each module is divided into three two-week cycles and each cycle features a full-length movie which aims to provide the necessary contextualized authentic and meaningful L2 input to students. For each module, students must carry out a task related to the movie. A significant difference exists however regarding the moment at which B1/B2 and A2 students are exposed to the entire movie in that for the latter, the movie is shown at the end of each two-week cycle to entice motivation amongst students.
For the A2 module, each cycle is divided into four 90-minute lessons which consists of a pre-task (lesson 1), an in-class task (lesson 2 and 3) and a post-task (lesson 4).
During the pre-task, students are required to:
Complete Interactive video assignments (H5P) Review a set of selected vocabulary items (Quizlet) Complete topical activities online
In addition, the instructor introduces the final task and answers questions about the final task. Then, students are invited to complete a "Green light" which serves as introducing the final task as well as identifying the linguistics and pragmatic needs of students.
The in-class task is divided into two distinct phases of roughly equal length: The instructor proposes activities aiming at exposing the students to the vocabulary they will need to complete the task. The students work towards completing the final task i.e. work on dividing the task among each of them, look up supplementary vocabulary and linguistic structures needed to complete the task.
The post-task consists in providing and receiving feedback and reviewing one's work based on the feedback received and on an assessment grid also used by the instructor.
The final task is then assessed by the instructor using an assessment grid.
So far, the new A2 course unit has been offered only twice. Despite being offered first online during the implementation of the Covid measures, a majority of students surveyed stated that their language proficiency significantly improved and that the interactive video activities help them gain insights into the cultural aspects of the films. Among the improvements that some students called upon was the need for more explicit grammar teaching especially for those students who haven't been exposed to the target language in a long time.
Do Spanish people really use the subjunctive?! - Introducing a meaningful Focus on Form to facilitate the learning of the Spanish Imperfect Subjunctive
Oral Presentation[SYMP30] Dynamic Usage Based Principles in L2 Instruction10:15 AM - 06:00 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/21 08:15:00 UTC - 2024/07/21 16:00:00 UTC
In usage-based approaches to instructed second language acquisition (ISLA), teachers often find it challenging to find the right balance between developing communicative competence and fostering linguistic accuracy. Especially at advanced levels where learners sometimes pay less attention to increasing their linguistic repertoire as they are able to communicate successfully using more basic structures. One way to facilitate the learning of more advanced structures without sacrificing the development of communicative competence is to work with a "meaningful focus on form" (FonF) (Long, 1991). In addition, it is important to consider the influence of individual differences when assessing the learning of new grammatical structures. The present work has investigated, by means of a pretest-posttest design, the effectiveness of a meaningful FonF intervention to foster the acquisition of the Spanish imperfect subjunctive. In addition, it investigated how grit (Duckworth et al., 2007) and grammatical aptitude (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015) might have mediated this learning process. The participants were divided into two groups, an intervention group that received meaningful FonF instruction and a control group that was taught with the traditional methodology. The participants' grit was measured using an L2-grit scale (Alamer, 2021) and their grammatical aptitude was measured with the LLAMA F test (Maera, 2005). Additionally, in both the pretest and posttest, they had to complete a receptive (Adrada-Rafael, 2017) and a productive (Baralt, 2010) subjunctive task that elicited their knowledge of this structure. Significant learning effects were found for the meaningful FonF methodology at both the receptive (t(9) = 4.91, p
Developing Lexis: A Dynamic Investigation of Sojourners
Oral Presentation[SYMP30] Dynamic Usage Based Principles in L2 Instruction10:15 AM - 06:00 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/21 08:15:00 UTC - 2024/07/21 16:00:00 UTC
Development of different dimensions of L2 performance has been well-documented in the literature (Housen et al., 2012). Among these, L2 learners' performance considering lexical complexity, word choice and formulaicity might hugely differ in terms of the amount and type of exposure in a certain context. Operationalizing formulaicity as conventionalized ways of saying things, this study assumes that learning contexts are a crucial part of the picture as only some could provide a wealth of examples, such as the study abroad context. The current study draws on the tenets of a dynamic usage-based approached to L2 development (Verspoor et al., 2021) in an attempt to understand the interplay between the study abroad context and lexical development. It aims to investigate the learning trajectories of a group of sojourners with regard to written lexical diversity, variation, sophistication, and formulaicity. A subgroup of (n = 26) Catalan/Spanish bilingual participants from the Study Abroad and Language Acquisition (SALA) project (Pérez-Vidal, 2014) volunteered to provide a weekly diary entry about their experiences related to language use, interaction, and host culture over the course of their semester abroad (12-17 weeks). The authors compiled the SALA diary corpus (a total of 383 weekly entries including around ~250K words) and analyzed this dataset in terms of lexical complexity via CLAN (MacWhinney, 2000) and TAALES (Kyle et al., 2018). To determine how formulaic each weekly entry is, the dataset is also analyzed through IdiomSearch (Colson, 2016). In response to the recent discussion around using indices that are not sensitive towards text length (Zenker & Kyle, 2021), the authors also coded and analyzed the written samples using indices sensitive to text length, such as like moving average TTR, hypergeometric distribution diversity index and the measure of textual lexical diversity (Zenker & Kyle, 2021). Following Verspoor et al. (2020), a series of generalized additive mixed modes was developed to examine the relationship between time, formulaicity, and lexical indices. The first results yielded a significant effect for random (participant behavior) and fixed factors (time) confirming the DUB argument for nonlinear and highly variable individual trajectories for lexical development, as well, significantly informing language classroom pedagogy. Colson, J.-P. (2016). IDIOM search. http://idiomsearch.lsti.ucl.ac.be/index.html. Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.). (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (Vol. 32). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Kyle, K., Crossley, S., & Berger, C. (2018). The tool for the automatic analysis of lexical sophistication (TAALES): version 2.0. Behavior research methods, 50(3), 1030-1046. MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pérez-Vidal, C. (2014). Language acquisition in study abroad and formal instruction contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., & Wieling, M. (2021). L2 Developmental Measures from a Dynamic Perspective. In B. Le Bruyn & M. Paquot (Eds.), Learner Corpus Research Meets Second Language Acquisition (Cambridge Applied Linguistics, pp. 172-190). Cambridge: CUP. doi:10.1017/9781108674577.009 Zenker, F., & Kyle, K. (2021). Investigating minimum text lengths for lexical diversity indices. Assessing Writing, 47, 100505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100505
Elena Pleshakova
