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. 55–73
Chapter 3Foreign language instruction from a dynamic usage-based (DUB) perspective
Published online: 13 February 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.49.03rou
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.49.03rou
Abstract
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
- DUB approach to second language instruction
- The movie approach
- The accelerative integrated method
- Conclusion
References
References (40)
Achard, M. (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.
(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.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Volume 1: theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
(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.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus-on-form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, G. Ginsberg & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mady, C., Arnott, S., & Lapkin, S. (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.
Rousse-Malpat, A., & Verspoor, M. H. (2012). Measuring effectiveness in focus on form versus focus on meaning. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 263–276.
Rousse-Malpat, A., Verspoor, M. H., & Visser, S. (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.
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.
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Ayhan, Erçin & Asma Altrhoni
Carey, Michael D., Ojars Rugins & Peter R. Grainger
Gerits, Hedwig & Kris Van den Branden
2023. The acquisition of L2 Hungariangrammar rules and the implicit-explicit debate. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 174:2 ► pp. 202 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 november 2025. 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.
