The orientation of learner language use in peer work: teacher role, learner role and individual identity

ABSTRACTIt is assumed from a usage-based perspective that learner language constructions emerge from natural language use in social interaction through exemplar learning. In L1, young learners have been shown to develop their constructions from lexically specific, formulaic expressions into more productive, abstract schemas. A similar developmental path has been shown for L2 development, with some exceptions. The aim of the current study is to explore to what extent the default assumption holds for L2 learning. The development of two constructions was traced in four adults learning L2 Finnish. Free-response data, collected weekly over a period of 9 months, were used to investigate the productivity of the constructions. The results show that, contrary to the traditional assumption, L2 learners do not start off with only lexically specific expressions, but that both lexically specific and more productive constructions are used from the beginning. Our results therefore suggest that, for educated adult L2 learners, the schema formation can happen rather quickly and even without the repetition of a specific lexical sequence.

Download Full-text

Text-linguistic approaches to register variation

Register Studies ◽

10.1075/rs.18007.bib ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 1 (1) ◽

pp. 42-75 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Douglas Biber

Keyword(s):

Large Scale ◽

English Language ◽

Language Use ◽

Language Variation ◽

Register Variation ◽

Patterns Of Use ◽

Comprehensive Framework ◽

Occurrence Patterns ◽

Linguistic Approach ◽

Learner Language

Abstract Douglas Biber, Regents’ Professor of Applied Linguistics at Northern Arizona University, authors this article exploring the connections between register and a text-linguistic approach to language variation. He has spent the last 30 years pursuing a research program that explores the inherent link between register and language use, including at the phraseological, grammatical, and lexico-grammatical levels. His seminal book Variation across Speech and Writing (1988, Cambridge University Press) launched multi-dimensional (MD) analysis, a comprehensive framework and methodology for the large-scale study of register variation. This approach was innovative in taking a text-linguistic approach to characterize language use across situations of use through the quantitative and functional analysis of linguistic co-occurrence patterns and underlying dimensions of language use. MD analysis is now used widely to study register variation over time, in general and specialized registers, in learner language, and across a range of languages. In 1999, the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (Biber et al.) became the first comprehensive descriptive reference book to systematically consider register variation in describing the grammatical and lexico-grammatical patterns of use in English. Douglas Biber’s quantitative linguistic research has consistently demonstrated the importance of register as a predictor of language variation. In his own words, “register always matters” (Gray 2013: 360, Interview with Douglas Biber, English Language & Linguistics).

Download Full-text

Innovative language learning: achieving the vision

ReCALL ◽

10.1017/s0958344001000210 ◽

2001 ◽

Vol 13 (1) ◽

pp. 3-14 ◽

Cited By ~ 15

Author(s):

CAROL A. CHAPPELLE

Keyword(s):

Second Language Acquisition ◽

Language Acquisition ◽

Foreign Language ◽

Language Learning ◽

Speech Synthesis ◽

Language Use ◽

Language Teaching ◽

Voice Quality ◽

Foreign Language Teaching ◽

Learner Language

The technologies demonstrated at the InSTIL and EUROCALL 2000 conferences were very inspiring. They gave participants the sense that the technologies of their wildest imaginations are at last materializing, particularly in long awaited advances in speech technologies. Some challenges, however, remain ahead as attempts are made to put these technologies to use in CALL. Past experience demonstrates for example that software designed for recognition of a proficient speaker’s language is different than that required for learner language. It is also evident that while language use may be critical for language acquisition, language use does not necessarily indicate language acquisition. These points were made by Marty, who was working with speech software for French teaching a few years before the current excitement:...[W]e should keep in mind that the present research and development is aimed only at producing speech easily understandable by natives (e.g., English for native speakers of English) and that the potential markets are industrial (e.g., replacing visual indicators or visual alarms with audio warnings) and in home products (especially toys). Until our needs for improved FL instruction are better understood, it is not likely that those devices will have the voice quality we need. (Marty, 1981:52).If Marty had attended the InSTIL and EUROCALL conferences in 2000, no doubt he would have been very, very impressed. Even though plenty of work remains, we do seem to have very good voice quality in speech synthesis. The question today is how can we best use these emerging technologies, and so Marty’s suggestion that we must better understand our needs in foreign language teaching remains very relevant. What are the needs for foreign language teaching in the 21st century? The papers at EUROCALL 2000 as well as other work in technology, business, and language teaching suggest that we should be prepared for change in the coming years, but what kind of change? The turn of the century seems an appropriate time to examine some of the speculation on the future of language teaching in general, as well as how technology fits into that future. This paper considers these general questions, and then suggests ways in which links might be made between work in second language acquisition (SLA) and CALL in order to put technologies to use for L2 teaching.

Download Full-text

Corpus Linguistics, Learner Corpora, and SLA: Employing Technology to Analyze Language Use

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics ◽

10.1017/s0267190519000096 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 39 ◽

pp. 74-92 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Tony McEnery ◽

Vaclav Brezina ◽

Dana Gablasova ◽

Jayanti Banerjee

Keyword(s):

Second Language ◽

Second Language Acquisition ◽

Language Acquisition ◽

Corpus Linguistics ◽

Language Use ◽

Learner Corpus ◽

Learner Corpora ◽

Corpus Studies ◽

Learner Language ◽

The Relationship

AbstractIn this article we explore the relationship between learner corpus and second language acquisition research. We begin by considering the origins of learner corpus research, noting its roots in smaller scale studies of learner language. This development of learner corpus studies is considered in the broader context of the development of corpus linguistics. We then consider the aspirations that learner corpus researchers have had to engage with second language acquisition research and explore why, to date, the interaction between the two fields has been minimal. By exploring some of the corpus building practices of learner corpus research, and the theoretical goals of second language acquisition studies, we identify reasons for this lack of interaction and make proposals for how this situation could be fruitfully addressed.

Download Full-text

Measuring Syntactic Complexity in Spoken and Written Learner Language: Comparing the Incomparable?

Research in Language ◽

10.1515/rela-2015-0005 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 12 (4) ◽

pp. 377-399 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Pekka Lintunen ◽

Mari Mäkilä

Keyword(s):

Language Learning ◽

Second Language Learning ◽

Language Use ◽

Spoken Language ◽

Written Language ◽

Target Language ◽

Syntactic Complexity ◽

Skill Levels ◽

The Difference ◽

Learner Language

Spoken and written language are two modes of language. When learners aim at higher skill levels, the expected outcome of successful second language learning is usually to become a fluent speaker and writer who can produce accurate and complex language in the target language. There is an axiomatic difference between speech and writing, but together they form the essential parts of learners’ L2 skills. The two modes have their own characteristics, and there are differences between native and nonnative language use. For instance, hesitations and pauses are not visible in the end result of the writing process, but they are characteristic of nonnative spoken language use. The present study is based on the analysis of L2 English spoken and written productions of 18 L1 Finnish learners with focus on syntactic complexity. As earlier spoken language segmentation units mostly come from fluency studies, we conducted an experiment with a new unit, the U-unit, and examined how using this unit as the basis of spoken language segmentation affects the results. According to the analysis, written language was more complex than spoken language. However, the difference in the level of complexity was greatest when the traditional units, T-units and AS-units, were used in segmenting the data. Using the U-unit revealed that spoken language may, in fact, be closer to written language in its syntactic complexity than earlier studies had suggested. Therefore, further research is needed to discover whether the differences in spoken and written learner language are primarily due to the nature of these modes or, rather, to the units and measures used in the analysis.

Download Full-text

Linguistic Competence in Aphasia

Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication ◽

10.1044/aac17.3.87 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 17 (3) ◽

pp. 87-92

Author(s):

Leonard L. LaPointe

Keyword(s):

Language Use ◽

Linguistic Competence ◽

Careful Study ◽

Feral Children ◽

Performance Factors ◽

Performance Loss ◽

Linguistic Rules ◽

Communication Goals ◽

Aphasia Treatment ◽

And Performance

Abstract Loss of implicit linguistic competence assumes a loss of linguistic rules, necessary linguistic computations, or representations. In aphasia, the inherent neurological damage is frequently assumed by some to be a loss of implicit linguistic competence that has damaged or wiped out neural centers or pathways that are necessary for maintenance of the language rules and representations needed to communicate. Not everyone agrees with this view of language use in aphasia. The measurement of implicit language competence, although apparently necessary and satisfying for theoretic linguistics, is complexly interwoven with performance factors. Transience, stimulability, and variability in aphasia language use provide evidence for an access deficit model that supports performance loss. Advances in understanding linguistic competence and performance may be informed by careful study of bilingual language acquisition and loss, the language of savants, the language of feral children, and advances in neuroimaging. Social models of aphasia treatment, coupled with an access deficit view of aphasia, can salve our restless minds and allow pursuit of maximum interactive communication goals even without a comfortable explanation of implicit linguistic competence in aphasia.

Download Full-text