This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Taguchi, N. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Chunk learning and the development of spoken discourse in a Japanese as a foreign language classroom

Carnegie Mellon University, USA, taguchi{at}andrew.cmu.edu

This study examined the development of spoken discourse among L2 learners of Japanese who received extensive practice on grammatical chunks. Participants in this study were 22 college students enrolled in an elementary Japanese course. They received instruction on a set of grammatical chunks in class through communicative drills and the memorization of dialogues that contained the target chunks. The development of the students' spoken discourse was examined through spontaneous conversations and narrative tasks administered twice during the semester at five-week intervals. Results showed that the students produced twice as many grammatical chunks in the second data collection session, with a wider range of chunk types. The frequency and range of the chunks in the narrative task were about half of those recorded in the conversation task. The participants also showed increasing sensitivity to discourse features over time, suggesting that memorized chunks served as a basis for the creative construction of discourse.

References

• Barlow, M. and Kemmer, S. 2000: Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
• Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H. and Demecheleer, M. 2006: Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a Lexical Approach to the test. Language Teaching Research 10: 245—61.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Bogdan, R. and Biklen, S.K. 1992: Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. London: Allyn and Bacon.
• Bybee, J. and Hopper, P. 2001: Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Bygate, M. 2001: Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Bygate, M., Skeahn, P., and Swain, M., editors, Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing, New York: Longman, 23—48.
• Bygate, M., Skehan, P. and Swain, M. 2001: Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing. New York: Longman.
• Chi, M. 1997: Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences 6: 271—315.
• Corder, S. 1973: Introducing applied linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
• Crookes, G. 1989: Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11: 183—99.
• Eggins, S. and Slade, D. 1997: Analyzing casual conversation. London: Cassell.
• Ellis, N. 1996: Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18: 91—126.
• ———— 1998: Emergentism, connectionism, and language learning. Language Learning 48: 631—64.[CrossRef]
• ———— 2001: Memory for language. In Robinson, P., editor, Cognition and second language instruction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 33—68.
• ———— 2002: Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24: 143—88.[CrossRef]
• ———— 2003: Constructions, Chunking, and Connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In Doughty, C. and Long, M, editors, Handbook in SLA, Oxford: Blackwell, 63—103.
• ———— 2005: SLA the associative-cognitive creed. Paper presented at the 14th World Congress of Applied Linguistics. Madison, Wisconsin.
• Ellis, N. and Larsen-Freeman, D. 2006: Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics 27: 558—89.[Free Full Text]
• Ellis, R. 1984: Formulaic speech in early classroom second language development. In Handscome, J., Orem, R. and Taylor, B, editors, On TESOL '83, Washington, DC: TESOL, 55—71.
• ———— 1987: Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting and use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9: 1—20.
• ———— 1994: The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———— 1999: Item versus system learning: Explaining free variation. Applied Linguistics 20: 460—80.[Abstract]
• Foster, P. 2001: Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in task-based language production of native and non-native speakers. In Bygates, M., Skehan, P. and Swain, M., editors, Reseaching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. New York: Longman, 75—93.
• Foster, P. and Skehan, P. 1996: The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18: 299—323.
• Gatbonton, E. and Segalowitz, N. 1988: Creative automatization: Principles for promoting fluency within a communicative framework. TESOL Quarterly 88: 473—92.
• ———— 1983: Creative automatization: Principles for promoting fluency within a communicative framework. TESOL Quarterly 88: 473—92.
• ———— 2005: Rethinking communicative language teaching: A focus on access to fluency. The Canadian Modern Language Journal 61: 325—53.
• Goffman, E. 1976: Replies and responses. Language in Society 5: 254—313.
• Granger, S. 1998: Learner English on computer. London: Longman.
• Hakuta, K. 1974: Prefabricated patterns and the emergence of structure in second language acquisition. Language Learning 24: 287—98.[CrossRef]
• Howarth, P. 1998: Phraseology and second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics 19: 22—44.
• Huang, J. and Hatch, E. 1978: A Chinese child's acquisition of English. In Hatch, E., editor, Second language acquisition: A book of readings. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 118—31.
• Hymes, H.D. 1974: Foundations in sociolinguistics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Kehe, D. and Kehe, P. 1994: Conversation strategies. Brattleboro, VM: Pro Lingua.
• Krashen, S. and Scarcella, R. 1978: On routines and patterns in language acquisition and performance. Language Learning 28: 283—300.[CrossRef]
• Levelt, W.J.M. 1989: Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Lewis, M. 1993: The lexical approach. The state of ELT and a way forward. Hove, UK: Language Teaching Publications.
• Littlewood, W. 1981: Communicative language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• ———— 1984: Foreign and second language learning: Language acquisition research and its implications for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Long, M. and Crookes, G. 1992: Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly 26: 55—98.
• Makino, S. and Tsutsui, M. 2004: A dictionary of basic Japanese grammar. Tokyo: The Japan Times.
• Mehnert, U. 1998: The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20: 83—108.[CrossRef]
• Myles, F., Mitchell, R. and Hooper, J. 1999: Interrogative chunks in French L2: A basis for creative construction? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21: 49—80.[CrossRef]
• Nattinger, J. and DeCarrico, J. 1992: Lexical phrases and language teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Ortega, L. 1999: Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21: 109—48.[CrossRef]
• ———— 2005: Methodology, epistemology, and ethics in instructed SLA research: An introduction. Modern Language Journal 89: 317—27.[CrossRef]
• Paulston, C. 1971: Structural pattern drills: A classification. Foreign Language Annals 4: 187—93.
• Pawley, A. and Syder, H. 1983: Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native-like selection and native-like fluency. In Richards, J. and Schmidt, R., editors, Language and communication, London: Longman, 191—226.
• Richards, J. and Rodgers, T. 2001: Approaches and methods in language teaching, second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Robinson, P. 1995: Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning 45: 99—140.[CrossRef]
• ———— 2001: Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics 22: 27—57.[Abstract]
• Schmitt, N. 2004: Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing, and use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Sinclair, J. 1991: Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Skehan, P. 1996: A framework for the implementation of task based instruction. Applied Linguistics 17: 38—62.[Abstract]
• ———— 1998: A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• ———— 2001: Tasks and language performance assessment. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. and Swain, M., editors, Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing, New York: Longman, 167—85.
• Skehan, P. and Foster, P. 1997: The influence of planning and post-task activities on accuracy and complexity in task based learning. Language Teaching Research 1: 185—211.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• ———— 1999: The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning 49: 93—120.[CrossRef]
• Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. 2001: Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. and Swain, M., editors, Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing, New York: Longman, 99—118.
• Taguchi, N. 2007: Task difficulty in oral speech act production. Applied Linguistics 27: 113—135.
• ———— (in press): Building language blocks: Chunk learning and the development of complexity and fluency. Foreign Language.
• Tannen, D. 1984: Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
• Tode, T. 2003: From unanalyzed chunks to rules: The learning of the English copula be by beginning Japanese learners of English. International Review of Applied Linguistics 41: 23—53.[CrossRef]
• Tomasello, M. 2000: First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics 11: 61—82.[CrossRef]
• Vihman, M. 1982: Formulas in first and second language acquisition. In Obler, L. and Menn, L., editors, Exceptional language and linguistics. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.
• Weinert, R. 1994: Some effects of a foreign language classroom on the development of German negation. Applied Linguistics 16: 180—205.[CrossRef]
• ———— 1995: Formulaic language in SLA: A review. Applied Linguistics 16: 180—205.[Abstract]
• Wigglesworth, G. 1997: An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing 14: 85—106.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Wong-Fillmore, L. 1976: The second time around. Doctoral dissertation. Stanford University.
• Wray, A. 2000: Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied Linguistic 21: 463—89.[CrossRef]
• Yuan, Y. and Ellis, R. 2003: The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics 24: 1—27.[Abstract]

Language Teaching Research, Vol. 11, No. 4, 433-457 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1362168807080962


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Taguchi, N. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?