Article published In: ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 169:2 (2018) ► pp.293–320
Structural alignment in L2 task-based interaction
Published online: 13 November 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.17021.dao
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.17021.dao
Abstract
This study investigated L2 structural alignment, the tendency for interlocutors to re-use a syntactic structure present in recent discourse, focusing on two information-gap interactive tasks. Thirty-four university students from diverse language backgrounds, recruited from different academic programs at a Canadian English-medium university, carried out the two information-gap interactive tasks in dyads. Interaction data were transcribed and coded for instances of structural alignment and the alignment’s characteristics in terms of structure type and accuracy. Results indicated that structural alignment occurred in L2 task-based interaction generated by both tasks. This structural repetition was linked to an improved accuracy of subsequent language production. Furthermore, the two tasks were associated with different structures that were converged on, and with varying degrees of structural alignment. These findings are discussed in terms of effects of task features on structural alignment, and the role of structural alignment in subsequent language production.
Article outline
- Introduction
- Structural alignment in task-based interaction
- Structural alignment and task features
- The current study
- Method
- Participants
- Materials and procedure
- Coding
- Analysis
- Results
- Structural alignment across tasks
- Structural alignment and production accuracy
- Discussion
- Task differences in structural alignment
- Relationship between structural alignment and production accuracy
- Limitations
- Conclusion
References
References (59)
Anderson, A. H., Bader, M., Bard, E. G., Boyle, E., Doherty, G., Garrod, S., Isard, S., Kowtko, J., McAllister, J., Miller, J., Sotillo, C., Thompson, H. S., & Weinert, R. (1991). The HCRC map task corpus. Language and Speech, 341, 351–366.
Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 181, 355–387.
Bock, J. K., & Griffin, Z. M. (2000). The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1291, 177–192.
Branigan, H., Pickering, M., & Cleland, A. (2000). Syntactic coordination in dialogue. Cognition, 751, 13–25.
Branigan, H., Pickering, M., Person, J., & McLean, J. (2010). Linguistic alignment between people and computers. Journal of Pragmatics, 421, 2355–2368.
Chang, F., Dell, G. S., Bock, J. K., & Griffin, Z. M. (2000). Structural priming as implicit learning: A comparison of models of sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 291, 217–229.
Colina, A. A. & Garcia-Mayo, M. P. (2007). Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low-proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In M. P. Garcia-Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning, (pp. 91–116). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Collentine, J., & Collentine, K. (2013). A corpus approach to studying structural convergence in task-based Spanish L2 interactions. In K. McDonough & A. Mackey (eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts (pp. 167–188). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Costa, A., Pickering, M. J. & Sorace, A. (2008). Alignment in second language dialogue. Language and Cognitive Process, 23(4), 528–556.
Dao, P., & McDonough, K. (2017). The effect of task role on Vietnamese EFL learners’ collaboration in mixed proficiency dyads. System, 651, 15–24.
Dao, P., Iwashita, N., & Gatbonton, E. (2017). Learner attention to form in ACCESS task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research, 21(4), 454–479.
Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18 (3), 299–323.
Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2009). Joint action, interactive alignment, and dialog. Topics in Cognitive Science, 11, 292–304.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
(2006). Construction at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gries, S. (2005). Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 341, 365–399.
Jiang, L., & Huang, K. (2015). The efficacy of structural priming on the acquisition of double object construction by Chinese EFL learners. Higher Education Studies, 51, 38–49.
Kim, M., Horton, W., & Bradlow, A. (2010). Phonetic convergence in spontaneous conversation as a function of interlocutor language distance. Laboratory Phonology, 21, 125–156.
Kim, Y. (2013). Promoting attention to form through task repetition in a Korean EFL context. In: K. McDonough, & A. Mackey (Eds.). Second language interaction in diverse educational context (pp. 3–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12, (2), 211–234.
Lambert, C., Philp, J. & Nakamura, S. (2017). Learner-generated content and engagement in second language task performance. Language Teaching Research, 211, 665–680.
Levkina, M., & Gilabert, R. (2012). The effects of cognitive task complexity on L2 oral production. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA, (pp. 171–198). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Ed.), Handbook of research on language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Mackey, A. (2007). Interaction as practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in second language learning. Perspective from linguistics and psychology (pp. 85–110). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McDonough, K. (2006). Interaction and syntactic priming: English L2 speakers’ production of dative constructions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 281, 179–207.
(2011). Eliciting wh-questions through collaborative syntactic priming activities during peer interaction. In P. Trofimovich & K. McDonough (Eds.), Applying priming methods to L2 learning, teaching, and research: Insights from psycholinguistics (pp. 131–151). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
McDonough, K., & Chaikitmongkol, W. (2010). Collaborative syntactic priming activities and EFL learners’ production of wh-questions. Canadian Modern Language Review, 661, 817–841.
McDonough, K., & Kim, Y. (2009). Syntactic priming, type frequency, and EFL learners’ production of wh-questions. The Modern Language Journal, 931, 386–398.
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2008). Syntactic priming and ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 301, 31–47.
McDonough, K., Neumann, H., & Trofimovich, P. (2015). Eliciting production of L2 target structures through priming activities. Canadian Modern Language Review, 71(1), 75–95.
Michel, M., & Smith, B. (2017). Measuring lexical alignment during L2 chat interaction: An eye-tracking study. In S. M. Gass, P. Spinner, & J. Behney (eds.), Salience in second language acquisition, (pp. 246–266). New Yorkk, NY: Routledge.
Nuevo, A., Adams, R. & Ross-Feldman, R. (2011). Task complexity, modified output, and L2 development in learner-learner interaction. In R. Robinsons (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance, (pp. 175–202). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second Language Acquisition Processes in the Classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Oliver, R. (2002). The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions. Modern Language Journal, 861, 97–111.
Phung, L. (2017). Task preference, affective response, and engagement in L2 use in a US university context. Language Teaching Research, 211, 75–766.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: what does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 441, 493–527.
Piccardo, E. (2013). Plurilingualism and curriculum design: Toward a synergic vision. TESOL Quarterly, 471, 600–614.
Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(4), 633–651.
Pickering, M. & Ferreira. (2008). Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 427–459.
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 271, 169–225.
(2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 361, 329–392.
Reitter, D., & Moore, J. D. (2014). Alignment and task success in spoken dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 761, 29–46.
Savage, C., Lieven, E., Theakston, A., & Tomasello, M. (2003). Testing the abstractness of children’s linguistic representations: Lexical and structural priming of syntactic constructions in young children. Developmental Science, 61, 557–567.
(2006). Structural priming as implicit learning in language acquisition: The persistence of lexical and structural priming in 4-year-olds. Language Learning and Development, 21, 27–49.
Shin, J., & Christianson, K. (2012). Structural priming and second language learning. Language Learning, 63(3), 931–964.
Smith, M., & Wheeldon, L. (2001). Syntactic pirming in spoken sentence production: An online study. Cognition, 78(2), 123–164.
Storch, N. (2001). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 51, 29–53.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Ed.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–484). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Trofimovich, P., McDonough, K., & Neumann, H. (2013). Using collaborative tasks to elicit auditory and structural priming. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 177–186.
Trofimovich, P., & Kennedy, S. (2014). Interactive alignment between bilingual interlocutors: Evidence from two information-exchange tasks. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(4), 822–836.
Van Engen, K., Baese-Berk, M., Baker, R., Kim, M. & Bradlow, A. (2010). The Wildcat corpus of native and foreign-accented English: Communicative efficiency across conversational dyads with varying language alignment profiles. Language & Speech, 531, 510–540.
Cited by (15)
Cited by 15 other publications
Aguinalde, Anna Pauline & Jinnie Shin
Bi, Peng, Xiaofei Lu & Shipian Ji
Miao, Haiyan & Chuming Wang
Wang, Furong, Min Wang & Julie Boland
Zhang, Huan
Kim, YouJin & Marije Michel
Mifka-Profozic, Nadia
Rodriguez-Cuadrado, Sara & Carlos Romero-Rivas
2023. Effects of foreign-accented speech on language comprehension
processes and social cognition. In Bilingualism through the Prism of Psycholinguistics [Bilingual Processing and Acquisition, 17], ► pp. 236 ff.
Michel, Marije, Christine Appel & Saioa Cipitria
Tekin, Oguzhan, Pavel Trofimovich, Tzu-Hua Chen & Kim McDonough
Wang, Min, Qiao Gan & Julie E. Boland
Wang, Chuming & Wei Hong
Wang, Min, Qiao Gan & Julie Boland
Michel, Marije & Marco Cappellini
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 march 2026. 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.
