Book contents
- Practice in Second Language Learning
- Practice in Second Language Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Part I Theoretical Perspectives
- Part II Receptive Practice
- 3 Practice with Formulaic Sequences: Can It Promote the Incidental Learning of Grammar?
- 4 A Text-based Approach to Grammar Practice
- 5 The Teaching and Learning of Lexical Chunks: A Comparison of Receptive and Productive Practice
- Part III Productive Practice
- Index
- References
5 - The Teaching and Learning of Lexical Chunks: A Comparison of Receptive and Productive Practice
from Part II - Receptive Practice
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2018
Edited by
Book contents
- Practice in Second Language Learning
- Practice in Second Language Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Part I Theoretical Perspectives
- Part II Receptive Practice
- 3 Practice with Formulaic Sequences: Can It Promote the Incidental Learning of Grammar?
- 4 A Text-based Approach to Grammar Practice
- 5 The Teaching and Learning of Lexical Chunks: A Comparison of Receptive and Productive Practice
- Part III Productive Practice
- Index
- References
Summary
The focus of this study is the comparison of two teaching frameworks: Presentation Practice Production (PPP) and Observe Hypothesise Experiment (OHE), in the context of teaching twelve lexical chunks to two groups of twenty one EAP students enrolled on a pre-sessional course at a British University. Both groups received a 90 minute instruction and pre-test, post-test and delayed test scores were compared. The analysis of pre- and post-test scores demonstrated that both frameworks were successful in aiding students’ productive knowledge of the target language, even though PPP was focused on productive practice and in OHE the focus was primarily on receptive practice. There was, however, a stronger effect for the OHE group on productive knowledge and a significant gain in the short term receptive test scores for this group only. The question as to whether one framework was more effective than the other in the context studied was answered negatively, since no statistically significant difference between the treatment types was found. The results suggest, contrary to research which shows productive practice benefits output and receptive practice benefits awareness, that both input and output oriented activities can aid the production of chunks to a similar extent.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Practice in Second Language Learning , pp. 109 - 127Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Altenberg, B. 1998. ‘On the phraseology of spoken English: the evidence of recurrent word-combinations’, in Cowie, A. P. (ed.), Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 101–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, B. and Eeg-Olofsson, M. 1990. ‘Phraseology in spoken English: Presentation of a project’, in Aarts, J. and Meijs, W. (eds.), Theory and Practice in Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1–26.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. 1982. ‘Acquisition of cognitive skill’, Psychological Review 89(4): 369–406.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2009. ‘Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource: Recognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics’, Language Learning 59: 755–795.Google Scholar
Boers, F. and Lindstromberg, S. 2012. ‘Experimental and intervention studies on formulaic sequences in a second language’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32: 83–110.Google Scholar
Canale, M. and Swain, M. 1980. ‘Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing’, Applied Linguistics 1: 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1966. Topics in the Theory of Generative Grammar. The Hague and Paris: Mouton and Co.Google Scholar
Clennell, C. 1999. ‘Promoting pragmatic awareness and spoken discourse skills with EAP classes’, ELT Journal 53(2): 83–9l.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Language: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Available online at: www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/cadre_en.asp [Accessed 15 September 2014].Google Scholar
de la Fuente, M. J. 2002. ‘Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary: The roles of input and output in the receptive and productive acquisition of words’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24: 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. 1995. ‘On the teachability of communication strategies’, TESOL Quarterly 29(1): 55–85.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. 2007. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. and Thurrell, S. 1992. Conversation and Dialogues in Action. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. and He, X. 1999. ‘The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21: 285–301.Google Scholar
Erlam, R. 2003. ‘Evaluating the relative effectiveness of structured-input and output-based instruction in foreign language learning’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25: 559–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erman, B. and Warren, B. 2000. ‘The idiom principle and the open-choice principle’, Text 20(1): 29–62.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1979. ‘On fluency’, in Fillmore, C. J., Kempler, D. and Wang, W. S. Y. (eds.), Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behaviour. New York: Academic Press, 85–101.Google Scholar
Firth, J. R. 1935. ‘The technique of semantics’, Transactions of the Philological Society, 3–72; repr. in Firth, J. R (1957) Papers in Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press, 7–33.Google Scholar
Foster, P. 2001. ‘Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in the task-based language production of native and non-native speakers’, in Bygate, M., Skehan, P. and Swain, M. (eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing. Harlow: Longman, 75 –93.Google Scholar
Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., Mcenery, T. and Boyd, E. 2015. ‘Epistemic stance in spoken L2 English: The effect of task and speaker style’, Applied Linguistics, 1-26. OUP Open access.Google Scholar
Granger, S. 2011. ‘From phraseology to pedagogy: Challenges and prospects’, in Uhrig, P. (ed.), Chunks in the Description of Language: A Tribute to John Sinclair. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 123–147.Google Scholar
Griffin, G. F. and Harley, T. A. 1996. ‘List learning of second language vocabulary’, Applied Psycholinguistics 17: 433–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1961. ‘Categories of the theory of grammar’, Word 17(3): 241–292; repr. in Halliday, M. A. K. and Webster, J. J. (2002), Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday, Vol. I: On Grammar. London: Continuum, 37–94.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 1987. ‘The grammarian’s dream: Lexis as most delicate grammar’, in Halliday, M. A. K. and Fawcett, R. P. (eds.), New Developments in Systemic Linguistics, Vol. I: Theory and Description. London: Pinter, 184–211.Google Scholar
Hughes, A. 2003. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. 1962. ‘The ethnography of speaking’, in Gladwin, T. and Sturtevant, W. C. (eds.), Anthropology and Human Behaviour. Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington, 13–53.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. 1972. ‘On communicative competence’, in Pride, J. B. and Holmes, J. (eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 269–293.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. H. 1932. ‘Remark on non-protrusion of the tongue in some cases of aphasia, 1878’, in Taylor, J. (ed.), Selected Writings, Vol. II. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 153–154.Google Scholar
Jarvis, H. and Stakounis, H. 2010. ‘Speaking in social contexts: Issues for pre-sessional EAP students’, The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language 14(3): 1–14.Google Scholar
Jeon, E. H. and Kaya, T. 2006. ‘Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development’, in Norris, J. M. and Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 165–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, C. 2011. ‘Spoken discourse markers and English language teaching: practices and pedagogies’, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. and Dahl, M. 1991. ‘Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(21): 49–69.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. and Rose, K. 2001. Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kjellmer, G. 1994. A Dictionary of English Collocations Based on the Brown Corpus. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. and Terrell, T. 1983. The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. 1993. The Lexical Approach: The State of ELT and a Way Forward. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. 1997. Implementing the Lexical Approach: Putting Theory into Practice. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. 2000. Teaching Collocation: Further Developments in the Lexical Approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.Google Scholar
Maleki, A. 2007. ‘Teachability of communication strategies: An Iranian Experience’, System 35: 583–594.Google Scholar
Nattinger, J. 1980. ‘A lexical phrase-grammar for ESL’, TESOL Quarterly 14(3): 337–344.Google Scholar
Nattinger, J. 1986. ‘Lexical phrases, functions and vocabulary acquisition’, The TESOL Journal 7: 1–14.Google Scholar
Nattinger, J. and DeCarrico, J. 1989. ‘Lexical phrases, speech acts and teaching conversation’, in Nation, P. and Carter, R. (eds.), AILA Review 6: Vocabulary Acquisition. Amsterdam: AILA, 118–139.Google Scholar
Nattinger, J. and DeCarrico, J. 1992. Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Norris, J. and Ortega, L. 2000. ‘Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis’, Language Learning 50: 417–528.Google Scholar
Pawley, A. and Syder, F. H. 1983. ‘Two puzzles for linguistic theory: nativelike selection and nativelike fluency’, in Richards, J. C. and Schmidt, R. W. (eds.), Language and Communication. London: Longman, 191–226.Google Scholar
Prodromou, L. 2008. English as a Lingua Franca: a corpus-based analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Ranta, L. and Lyster, R. 2007. ‘A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence’, in DeKeyser, R. M. (ed.), Practice in a Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 141–160.Google Scholar
Rassaei, E. and Moinzadeh, A. 2011. ‘Investigating the effects of three types of corrective feedback on the acquisition of English wh-question forms by Iranian EFL learners’, English Language Teaching 4: 97–106.Google Scholar
Renouf, A. and Sinclair, J. 1991.’Collocational frameworks in English’, in Aijmer, K. and Altenberg, B. (eds.), English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik. London: Longman, 128–143.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. 1990. ‘The role of consciousness in second language learning’, Applied Linguistics 11: 129–158.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N. 2000. Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. 2011. ‘A comparative study of the effects of input-based and production-based instruction on vocabulary acquisition by young EFL learners’, Language Teaching Research 15(2): 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N., Li, S. and Ellis, R. 2013. ‘Comprehension-based versus production-based grammar instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies’, Language Learning 63(2): 296–329.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation: Describing English Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. 1996. ‘The search for units of meaning’, Textus: English Studies in Italy 9: 75–106.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. M. and Renouf, A. 1988 ‘A lexical syllabus for language learning’, in Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. (eds.), Vocabulary and Language Teaching. Harlow: Longman, 140–158.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. 1996. ‘A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction’, Applied Linguistics 17(1): 38–62.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. 2001. Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. 1995. ‘Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning’, Applied Linguistics 16(3): 371–391.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. 2001. ‘A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/procedural model’, Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2(10): 717–726.Google Scholar
Waring, R. 1997. ‘A comparison of the receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of some second language learners’, Immaculata 1: 53–68.Google Scholar
Webb, S. 2005. ‘Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading and writing on word knowledge’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27(1): 33–52.Google Scholar
Willis, D. 1990. The Lexical Syllabus: A New Approach to Language Learning. London: Collins ELT.Google Scholar
Wood, D. 2001. ‘In search of fluency: What is it and how can we teach it?’, Canadian Modern Language Review 57: 573–589.Google Scholar
Wood, D. 2006. ‘Uses and functions of formulaic sequences in second language speech: An exploration of the foundations of fluency’, Canadian Modern Language Review 63: 13–33.Google Scholar
Wood, D. 2009. ‘Effects of focused instruction of formulaic sequences on fluent expression in second language narratives: A case study’, Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 12(1): 39–57.Google Scholar
Wray, A. 2005. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by